(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 420) Trevor J. Burke-Paul As Missionary - Identity, Activity

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
420
formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James
D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J.
Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve
Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams
This page intentionally left blank
PAUL AS MISSIONARY
Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice
EDITED BY
Trevor J. Burke
Brian S. Rosner
Published by T&T Clark International
A Continuum Imprint
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Copyright © Trevor J. Burke, Brian S. Rosner, with contributors 2011
Trevor J. Burke, Brian S. Rosner, and contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: HB: 978-0-567-60475-0
Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand

Printed and bound in Great Britain
CONTENTS
Abbreviations vii
List of Contributors x
INTRODUCTION 1
Part One — Paul’s Identity 7

1. PAUL AS AN ESCHATOLOGICAL HERALD 9
Seyoon Kim
2. PAUL AS MISSIONARY P ASTOR 25

James W. Thompson
3. PAUL AND HIS ETHNICITY: REFRAMING THE CATEGORIES 37

James C. Miller
4. PAUL THE M ISSIONARY, IN PRIESTLY S ERVICE OF THE SERVANT-CHRIST

(ROMANS 15.16) 51
Richard J. Gibson
Part Two — Paul’s Activity 63

5. THE MISSION OF GOD IN PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS 65
Beverly Roberts Gaventa
6. PAUL AND THE MULTI-ETHNIC FIRST-C ENTURY WORLD: ETHNICITY

AND CHRISTIAN I DENTITY 76
J. Daniel Hays
7. THE SACRIFICIAL-M ISSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF PAUL’S S UFFERINGS

IN THE CONTEXT OF 2 CORINTHIANS 88
J. Ayodeji Adewuya
8. WAS P AUL’S GRACE-B ASED GOSPEL TRUE TO J ESUS? 99

Paul W. Barnett
Part Three — Paul’s Missionary Theology 113

9. PAUL’S CHRISTOLOGY AND HIS M ISSION TO THE GENTILES 115
Arland J. Hultgren
vi Contents
10. A MISSIONARY S TRATEGY IN 1 C ORINTHIANS 9.19-23? 128

Karl Olav Sandnes
11. THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE CONTROLLING DYNAMIC IN PAUL’S ROLE AS

MISSIONARY TO THE THESSALONIANS 142
Trevor J. Burke
12. THE GLORY OF GOD IN PAUL’S MISSIONARY THEOLOGY AND P RACTICE 158
Brian S. Rosner
13. RECONCILIATION AS THE HEART OF PAUL’S M ISSIONARY THEOLOGY 169

Stanley E. Porter
14. PAUL’S THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL 180

Roy E. Ciampa
Part Four — Paul’s Missionary Practice 193

15. UNIVERSALITY AND P ARTICULARITY IN PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING AND
STRATEGY OF MISSION 195
William S. Campbell
16. “ THE WORD OF LIFE”: RESURRECTION AND M ISSION IN PHILIPPIANS 209

James Ware
17. PAUL, PATRONAGE AND PAY: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE

APOSTLE’S FINANCIAL SUPPORT? 220
Steve Walton
18. PAULINE MISSION AS SALVIFIC INTENTIONALITY: FOSTERING A

MISSIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 9.19-23 AND 10.31–11.1 234
Michael Barram
19. (MIS)READING PAUL THROUGH WESTERN EYES 247

E. Randolph Richards
Index of Biblical and Ancient Text 264

Index of Extrabiblical Literature 272
Index of Authors 274
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
AFCS Acts in its First Century Setting
ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentary
ATR Anglican Theological Review
ASMS American Society of Missiological Series
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 2000)
BDF F. Blaus, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961)
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephermeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie
BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
BI Biblical Illustrator
Bib Biblica
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary
BR Biblical Research
BST Bible Speaks Today
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CBR Currents in Biblical Review
DPL Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid
(eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1993)
DQR Dutch Quarterly Review
EDNT Evangelical Dictionary of the New Testament
EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
viii Abbreviations
ET English Translation
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
Hist Historia
HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentary
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen Zur Theologie
ICC International Critical Commentary
Int Interpretation
ISBE International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia
IVP InterVarsity Press
IVPNTC InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
KEKNT Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament
KJV King James Version
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LEC Library of Early Christianity
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies
NEB New English Bible
NET New English Translation
NIB New Interpreter’s Bible
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NIVAC New International Version Application Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement Series
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
NTL New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
PAST Pauline Studies
PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series
Abbreviations ix
ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses
RSV Revised Standard Version
SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge
SBG Studies in Biblical Greek
SBL Studies in Biblical Literature
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical
Studies
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint Commentary Series
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SCM Student Christian Mission
SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SNTS Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and its World
SP Sacra Pagina
SPCK Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge
STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans.
G. W. Bromiley)
THNTC Two Horizon New Testament Commentary
TJ Trinity Journal
TNIV Today’s New International Version
TQ Theological Quarterly
TS Theological Studies
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Thelogische Zeitschrift
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT Wissenschafliche untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
J. Ayodeji Adewuya is Professor of New Testament at the Pentecostal Theological

Seminary, Tennessee, and author of Holiness and Community in 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 — A
Study of Paul’s View of Communal Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (Peter
Lang, 2001).
Paul W. Barnett is a part-time lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney, a

teaching fellow at Regent College, Vancouver, and author of Paul, Missionary of
Jesus (Eerdmans, 2008).
Michael Barram is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Saint Mary’s College,

California, and author of Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul (Peter Lang, 2006).
Trevor J. Burke is Professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and author
of Family Matters: A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians
(T&T Clark, 2003).
William S. Campbell is Reader in Biblical Studies at the University of Wales,

Lampeter, and author of Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (T&T Clark,
2006).
Roy E. Ciampa is Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological

Seminary, Massachusetts, and author of The Presence and Function of Scripture in
Galatians 1 and 2 (Mohr Siebeck, 1998).
Beverly Roberts Gaventa is Helen H.P. Manson Professor of New Testament

Literature and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, and author of
Our Mother Saint Paul (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007)
Richard Gibson is Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Moore Theological

College, Sydney, and author of “Paul and the Evangelization of the Stoics,” in The
Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. Essays in Honour of Peter
Thomas O’Brien (Apollos, 2000).
J. Daniel Hays is Professor of Biblical Studies at Ouachita Baptist University,

Arkansas, and author of From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race
(Apollos, 2003).
Arland J. Hultgren is Asher O. and Carrie Nasby Professor of New Testament at

List of Contributors xi
Luther Seminary, Minnesota, and author of Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook
from His Letter to the Romans (Fortress, 1985).
Seyoon Kim is Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,

California, and author of Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Empire in the
Writings of Paul and Luke (Eerdmans, 2008).
James C. Miller is Associate Professor of New Testament at Asbury Seminary,

Florida, and author of The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God
and the Purpose of Romans (SBL, 2000).
Stanley E. Porter is President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament at McMaster

Divinity College, Hamilton, and contributory co-editor of Christian Mission: Old
Testament Foundations and New Testament Developments (Wipf and Stock, 2010).
E. Randolph Richards is Professor of Biblical Studies at Palm Beach Atlantic

University, Florida, and author of The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Mohr Siebeck,
1991).
Brian S. Rosner is Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Ethics at Moore Theological
College and Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Ancient History at Macquarie
University, Sydney, and co-author of the Pillar commentary on 1 Corinthians
(Eerdmans, 2010).
Karl O. Sandnes is Professor of New Testament at Lutheran School of Theology,

Oslo, and author of The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early
Christianity (T&T Clark, 2009).
James W. Thompson is Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University,

Texas, and author of Hebrews (Baker Academic, 2008).
Steve Walton is Senior Lecturer in Greek and New Testament Studies at London
School of Theology, and author of Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in
the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians (Cambridge, 2000).
James Ware is Associate Professor of Religion, University of Evansville, Indiana,

and author of The Mission of the Church: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the
Context of Ancient Judaism (Brill, 2005).
I NTRODUCTION
How should we conceptualize the variegated ministry which the apostle Paul exer-
cised? Traditionally, this question has been addressed by viewing Paul as preacher,
letter-writer, and theologian to name a few dimensions to his ministry. But before
he was anything else Paul was first and foremost a pioneer missionary.1 This basic
premise is the starting-point for each of the essays in this volume, which is fitting,
not least for the fact that within the last few years there has been a steady flow of
monographs addressing this overlooked aspect of Pauline studies. In the past, Paul’s
mission and his role as missionary have usually been understood against the backcloth
of the Acts of the Apostles, an important historical source to be sure, but a second-
ary one nonetheless. This collection of essays written by an international team of
Pauline specialists (some of whom have first-hand experience of teaching Paul in
cross-cultural contexts), however, seeks to fill the lacuna in this area by primarily
focusing on the writings of the apostle — Paul’s letters have not been sufficiently
mined in regard to his understanding of his mission and role as missionary. So though
Paul’s letters are not missiological literature per se, each letter was crafted within
the cut and thrust of his missionary activity and travels, and it is important that we
keep this in view.
As a means of approaching and exploring this subject, the volume comprises four
main sections: Paul’s identity, activity, theology and practice as missionary. In the
opening essay of Part I of the volume, Seyoon Kim argues that the Apostle Paul is
an eschatological herald of the gospel of God’s saving reign through his Son, Jesus
Christ the Lord, which brings to an end the reign of “the god of this age” in sin and
death. As such, he works to bring the fullness of the Gentiles into God’s Kingdom,
and thereby also to make a contribution toward the salvation of all Israel. He develops
such an understanding of his apostolic ministry as well as of God’s saving plan by
interpreting the revelation of the gospel and his apostolic call at Damascus in the
light chiefly of the Servant passages and other related passages in Isaiah 40–66. So,
with his collection journey to Jerusalem, Paul sought to conclude his mission in the
East by offering the Gentiles of that region as a sacrifice to God in fulfillment of the
prophecies in Isaiah about the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion, before
embarking on his mission in the West.
James Thompson begins his essay by noting how Paul is portrayed both in Acts and
the epistles as missionary and church planter who preaches “where Christ has not been
named.” The epistles indicate more clearly, however, that Paul is a missionary pastor
1. Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology: The
Missionary Reality of the Early Church and the Theology of the First Theologians,” unpub. paper, SNTS,
Halle, August, 2005, p. 1–27(24).
2 Paul as Missionary
whose concern is not only to make converts, but to ensure that the communities he
founded will be “transformed from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3.18). His pastoral ambition
is that his converts will be “blameless” at the coming of Christ (1 Cor. 1.8; 1 Thess.
3.13; 5.23) and to this end Paul assumes the responsibilities of father (1 Thess. 2.12),
father of the bride (2 Cor. 11.3), and expectant mother (Gal. 4.19) in order to bring
his work to completion. Thus, Paul writes letters, sends messengers, and establishes
local ministries to ensure the successful outcome of his mission.
James Miller looks at the categories for framing Paul’s Jewish identity and heritage
in order to understand his gospel and mission. Typically, scholars posit that Paul either
left Judaism for something else altogether (i.e. Christianity) or that he stood firmly
within those traditions, now reconfigured around God’s resurrection of Jesus. On the
basis of modern studies of ethnicity, Miller argues that these oppositional categories
of continuity and discontinuity falsely frame the issue. Ethnicity is always maintained
both in continuity and in discontinuity with what has come before. On this basis, it
locates Paul fully within Second Temple Judaism, but negotiating that identity in the
face of the new circumstances of the dawning age to come.
Paul’s self-presentation in Rom. 15.16, with its profusion of cultic language,
seems to offer rich insight into Paul’s sense of identity and perception of his mission.
Yet the quest for the “cultic Paul” is frustrated by the text’s ambiguities. When read
within the literary context of 15.8-21, argues Richard Gibson, the extent to which
Paul understands his mission in light of the mission of Isaiah’s Servant emerges more
clearly. Affinities with the portrait of the Servant-Christ of Isaiah 61 suggest the pos-
sibility that Paul draws his image of “priestly service” from that context. Paul presents
himself as one of the Levitical priests of Isa. 61.6, invoking the context to clarify his
relationship to the Servant-Christ, humbly subordinating himself to the one whose
mission he extends and fulfils among Gentiles, through the power of the same Spirit.
The second section of the volume considers Paul’s activities, where Beverly
Roberts Gaventa notes how scholarly preoccupation with the “Romans debate” has
caused some features of Romans to be neglected. In this regard, she particularly
addresses Paul’s self-identification in Romans as an agent of God’s own mission and
argues that Paul understands the letter itself as a proclamation of the gospel. Paul is
not alone in God’s mission, as he is joined by those with him in Corinth as he writes
and those in Rome who are hearing the letter read. Most importantly, in Romans God
not only sends Paul and his co-workers on a mission, but God’s own mission must
also be accounted for, that of rescuing the world from the powers of Sin and Death so
that a newly created humanity comprising Jew and Gentile is released for the praise
of God in community.
Daniel Hays considers the question of ethnicity and begins with a brief overview
of the first-century ethnic map of Paul’s world in order to map out the concept of
ethnic identity. In so doing, he proposes that many of Paul’s metaphors and themes
(especially in regard to unity in the Church) are addressing those precise parameters
that defined ethnic identity among his audiences. Paul, Hays argues, takes the very
same terms and concepts that defined ethnic identity in the first-century world and
uses them to advocate a new ethnic identity (ethn!) of those “in Christ.” In particu-
lar, the apostle calls upon the communities to whom he writes to embrace this new
Introduction 3
self-identity (ethnicity) “in Christ” which replaces their old ethnic identity (Phrygian,
Galatian, Lycaonian, Judean/Jew), thus uniting them together as one church body.
Ayodeji Adewuya discusses Paul’s self-understanding of the role of suffering in
his ministry which he asserts is an integral part of his missionary calling and practice.
Paul’s sufferings are evident in 2 Corinthians and our suffering is united with Christ’s
suffering and is part and parcel of our redemptive privilege. Although Paul employs
various formulae for referring to his sufferings and hardships, they all amount to the
one conclusion that his hardships were for the cause of Christ and, particularly for
the communities he had founded as missionary and among whom he labored. Thus
understood, missionaries do not only avoid developing a “victim mentality” but are
also able to bear sufferings with hope and joy just as Paul did.
The question of whether Paul was the founder of Christianity or a follower of
Jesus is a much debated one. Responding to this issue, Paul Barnett considers two
parts of Paul’s missionary travels: within the Levant (Syria mainly) and westward
in the Anatolian and Greek provinces where in both it is evident Paul faced opposi-
tion from the Jews. In the Levantine (Syrian) phase the opposition came from the
synagogues as indicated by the five beatings “at the hands of the Jews” where Paul
had declared Christ crucified as an “alternative soteriology” to the Law as the means
to “life.” During the westward missions Jewish opposition additionally arose from
Jews who “believed,” that is, who were Pharisees or Pharisee sympathizers, and
who insisted that Gentile believers fulfill the “works of the Law.” Paul developed
his “righteousness of God” vocabulary in response to various counter-missions from
Jerusalem-based Jewish “believers.” Barnett concludes that Paul’s offensive empha-
ses in both phases of his missions derived from the teaching of Jesus.
Today, there is a general consensus that Paul’s theology is not tangential but rather
integral to his mission, what we might call “missionary theology.” The third and larg-
est section of the volume grapples with the question of Paul’s missionary theology.
Arland Hultgren contends that Paul’s urgency to carry on a mission to the Gentiles
was based primarily on his understanding of Jesus as a Messiah who, having been
crucified, is Messiah for the world, beyond the boundaries established by the law of
Moses. The risen Christ who appeared to him was none other than Jesus of Nazareth,
and Paul would have had sufficient knowledge, from the era prior to his call, that Jesus
had ministered to persons who were not Torah-observant and even to some who were
outside the law. In addition, from his pre-apostolic past Paul knew that the Scriptures
of Israel anticipate the in-gathering of the Gentile nations into the people of God in
the messianic age. Such streams of first-hand knowledge and tradition, combined
with the experience of Christ’s appearance to him, resulted in his specific vocation
as apostle to the Gentiles.
Karl Sandnes focuses on 1 Cor. 9.19-23, where Paul’s mission strategy is deline-
ated by his “becoming all things to all people.” He discusses Paul’s motivation
for this and the practical impact which his accommodation might have had. Paul’s
strategy mirrors Christ’s self-giving love which is how Paul wanted his mission to
be. However, the rhetoric is hyperbolic because Paul’s mission was hardly as flexible
as 1 Corinthians 9 indicates because he adapted himself more easily to Jews than to
Gentiles. The flexibility, moreover, probably worked for an initial period, but proved
impossible when Jews and Christians together made up his congregations. Sandnes
concludes that Paul succeeded only partly in “becoming all things to all people” — his
adaptability did not include the primary in-Christ identity and sub-identities, such as
ethnicity, gender, culture, etc. which were more decisive than 1 Cor. 9.19-23 admits.
The importance of the proclaimed word (e.g. 1 Thess. 1.5a; 1 Cor. 2.4a) has rightly
been viewed as central in Paul’s role as missionary and his mission. But in those same
texts where the proclamation of the gospel is in view the Holy Spirit is also powerfully
at work (e.g. 1 Thess. 1.5b, 6b; 1 Cor. 2.4b). Using 1 Thessalonians as a template,
Trevor Burke addresses this lacuna in recent mission studies on Paul by arguing that
the apostle stands firmly within the Old Testament tradition where the Spirit is none
other than the “Spirit of Prophecy.” The Holy Spirit is at work in a number of strategic
ways in Paul’s mission to the Thessalonians: empowering his proclamation (1.5b),
saving his converts (1.6), working through the Word (2.13), sanctifying and enabling
witness to outsiders (4.3-8), instructing (now Paul is not present, 4.9), and in worship
as the Thessalonians respond to a word of prophecy (5.19-21). In short, the Holy
Spirit is the controlling dynamic in Paul’s role as missionary to the Thessalonians.
The theme of the glory of God appears frequently in Paul’s letters and yet most
studies of Paul’s thought give it short shrift at best. This essay considers the place of
divine glory in Paul’s missionary theology and practice. Is it central and formative, or
merely a pious formality? Brian Rosner argues that the aim of God’s glory is constitu-
tive of, rather than incidental to, Paul’s thinking and activity as a missionary. It sets
in motion his mission to the Gentiles, directs his missionary movements, interprets
his experience of missionary suffering and gives focus to his determination to see
believers morally transformed. Both the universalistic, eschatological visions of the
Old Testament Prophets and Romans 15, Paul’s most revealing reflection on his mis-
sionary aims and agenda, offer strong support for these conclusions.
Stanley Porter presents the case for the concept of reconciliation as not only the
basis but also comprising the major components of Paul’s missionary theology.
After briefly laying out the context of his missionary theology, he focuses primarily
upon the two major Pauline reconciliation passages in the undisputed letters. Second
Corinthians 5.18-21, with its call in v. 20 for the Corinthians to act as ambassadors
for Christ and to proclaim a message of reconciliation to those who are not Christ-
followers, provides the basis of Paul’s missionary proclamation as a “ministry of
reconciliation.” This passage is followed by examination of Rom. 5.9-11, the other
major Pauline reconciliation passage. This results in seeing a missionary theology
that is based upon the work of God in reconciliation, effected through the sacrificial
death of Christ, to overcome God’s enmity toward humanity, and to establish peace
with humanity and between Jews and Gentiles.
The gospel is at the heart of Paul’s self-concept as the missionary apostle of the
eschatological and apocalyptic gospel to the Gentiles. Thus, argues Roy Ciampa,
God has acted through Christ’s life, death, resurrection/exaltation and present reign
as Lord to set all things right, and he continues to act through Paul’s missionary
work. Through the preaching of the gospel, Christ brings deliverance from sin (and
of death), reflected in the justification, sanctification and glorification of believers
and in the ultimate liberation of creation from its oppression under the reign of sin.
Introduction 5
Paul’s missionary work among Gentiles is reflected in his contextualization of the

gospel message to the issues he faced in his ministry as he led Gentiles to turn from
idolatry to the worship of the one true God through faith in and obedience to Christ.
The last section of the volume focuses on the practice, the outworking of Paul’s
theology and mission. William S. Campbell makes the case for considering Paul’s
gospel as universal in outreach even though his letters anchor it firmly as “words on
target” in a local context. Paul did, however, have some common patterns that applied
in “all the churches of the gentiles.” And yet the foundational element in Paul cannot
be regarded as being “in Christ” in such a way as to make this into a fixed or recurring
entity, thus producing a recurring pattern of culture “above the local context.” By
considering three passages in Paul’s letters, 1 Cor. 7.17-24, 2 Cor. 10.13 and Rom.
12.3-8, Campbell seeks to show that in all three of these Paul acknowledges a given
element which is to be taken as determined by God. For Paul as for Philo, there is no
real conflict between the universal and the particular; being linked to Christ means
conformity to Christ, but this need not produce cultural sameness in his followers.
Although commonly given little attention, Paul’s studied characterization of the
gospel in Phil. 2.16 as the “word of life” is of great theological significance within the
letter. Throughout Philippians, Jim Ware contends, Paul identifies the life bestowed
by the gospel as the resurrection of the physical bodies of the faithful at the coming of
the Lord Jesus, an event which Paul understands as the outworking and consummation
of the life-giving resurrection of Christ. Paul’s explicit teaching on the resurrection
at nodal points of the epistle is enriched through a web of allusions throughout the
letter to key scriptural texts which highlight the resurrection from the dead. Contrary
to conventional scholarly wisdom, the resurrection of the body is a pervasive theme
within the letter, and central to the powerful theology of mission which emerges in
Philippians. Philippians reveals that Paul’s gospel was, far more than commonly
supposed, the gospel of the resurrection.
Steve Walton addresses the question of the seemingly ambivalent stance by Paul
on how his mission is to be supported. Paul’s policy on his financial support as a mis-
sionary appears inconsistent. On one hand, Philippians is his “thankless thanks” for
the gifts the Philippian believers have sent to him; but on the other hand, he rejects
the Corinthians’ offer of financial help with apparent vehemence (1 Cor. 9.12, 15-18).
Walton explores these two features of the Pauline letters against the background of
Greco-Roman patronage, and argues that a deeper consistency can be found in Paul’s
commitment to making the gospel freely available to all, and in his theocentric and
Christocentric worldview.
Although 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 do not contain an explicit command
requiring the Corinthian church to engage in active evangelistic outreach among
non-Christians, Michael Barram reasons that the apostle makes it clear that the
Corinthian believers are to develop what may be called a “missional consciousness”
in every aspect of their individual and corporate lives. That is, they are to cultivate
a purposive, missional posture — a “salvific intentionality” — towards any others
they may encounter. The Corinthian believers are to be a people constantly engaged
in mission — whether they are dealing with those outside of the community of
faith, or even with other Christians. It is this salvific intentionality that links Paul’s
comprehensive mission to that of the Corinthian church. The essay concludes by

reflecting briefly on three hermeneutical implications of mission understood in terms
of salvific intentionality.
In the last essay, Randolph Richards’ underlying thesis is that the person of Paul
cannot be separated from his missionary endeavors. When Paul ministers more cross-
culturally, the Corinthians misread his first letter to them (1 Cor. 5.9-13). Paul’s letters
face the constant threat of being read through the reader’s worldview. Our Western
worldview may lead us toward certain interpretations, such as favoring efficiency (all
supernatural creatures are angels), and to make us blind to other interpretive options,
such as “women should dress (economically) modestly.” Our Western preference for
certain viewpoints or our dislike for others may have caused us to see or not to see
certain elements in Paul, just as the Corinthians misread Paul’s admonition. Richards
concludes that we might be misreading Paul through our Western worldview.
The theme of this volume and the essays therein seek to build on and move forward
the study of this important area of Pauline studies. Certainly there are other areas
that we have not been able to give attention to in this volume. For instance, much
more could be said on Paul’s ethics, and how Paul, on the one hand, could refer to
the religious conventions of the Greco-Roman world in giving moral teaching, and
how on the other how he sees himself responsible for the teaching and training his
Gentile converts into a new and distinctively way of living, for example, with regard
to prostitutes (1 Cor. 6.12-19). Moreover, a collection of essays like this raises the
related and important matter of the paucity of discussion concerning the missionary
reality of Paul and his mission in most of the current New Testament and Pauline
theologies. The subject is rarely if ever broached primarily because the subject of
“mission” and Paul’s mission are often deemed to be of secondary importance, rather
than being central to what Paul was about as he cooperated with the greater missional
purposes of the God whom he served.
Additionally, the essays in this volume also clearly show the importance of giving
due consideration to the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism as fertile soil
in which the seeds for Paul’s mission were sown. Indeed, it is immediately apparent
from this collection of essays of the necessity for greater cooperation in the fields of
biblical — in this case Pauline — theological, and missiological research if we are to
arrive at a more nuanced appreciation of Paul’s role as missionary and his mission, a
mission which continues to bear fruit in the ongoing global mission of the church at
the beginning of the twenty-first century.
PART ONE
Paul’s Identity
1
PAUL AS AN ESCHATOLOGICAL H ERALD
Seyoon Kim
Romans is one of Paul’s last epistles (AD 56/57). One of his purposes in writing it is to
win the support of the church in Rome for his mission to Spain (Rom. 1.10-13; 15.22-
32). But he writes it also with a view to the consultation that he would soon have with
the leaders of the church in Jerusalem upon his arrival in the city with the gifts that
he has collected for the mother church from his Gentile churches in Macedonia and
Achaia (Rom. 15.25-32). For these reasons and perhaps for some other reasons, in
Romans he unfolds his controversial gospel of justification most fully and systemati-
cally, as well as providing more fully than in any other epistle what we may see as
his own understanding of the nature of his apostolic mission. Those characteristics
of the epistle are already intimated in its unusually long superscription (1.1-6). In it,
Paul identifies himself as an “apostle” commissioned to proclaim “the gospel of God,”
which is an eschatological message about God’s reign through the Davidic Messiah,
his Son. Thus Paul shows himself as an eschatological herald. So it appears best for
us to be guided by this superscription in dealing with our topic.
I. The Gospel: The Message that Paul the Eschatological

Herald Is to Proclaim
In unpacking the compact superscription of Romans in order to portray fully Paul
as an eschatological herald, it is convenient to start with the gospel that he has been
commissioned to proclaim. After defining the gospel fundamentally as originating
from God and then revelation/salvation-historically as the fulfillment of what God had
promised through the prophets in OT Scriptures, Paul defines it in terms of its content,
namely God’s Son. Then, he explains God’s Son with what is generally regarded
as a confession originally formulated by the Jerusalem church, which focuses on
Jesus having been the Davidic Messiah during the time of his flesh and his having
been raised from the dead and installed as “the Son of God in power” (1.3-4). Paul
elaborates the reference to “the Son of God in power” in terms of Jesus Christ being
our “Lord,” thus making explicit the reference to Ps. 110.1 that is implicit in the
second element of the Jerusalem church’s confession (cf. Rom. 8.32-34). By exalt-
ing Christ through his resurrection to his right hand and so making him exercise his
lordship (“Lord”) on his behalf in fulfillment of Ps. 110.1, God has installed Christ
(the “seed of David”) as his Son (“heir”) in fulfillment of 2 Sam. 7.12-14 and Ps. 2.7,
so that he is now “the Son of God in power,” i.e. the Son of God who exercises
God’s power.
In his epistles Paul refers to Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship rarely, but it is presup-
posed and fundamental in his Christology. His reference to it again in Rom. 15.12,
building an inclusio with the reference to Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship here in 1.3,
leads us to understand the saving work of Jesus Christ that is explained in the whole
epistle as something that he has done as the Davidic Messiah.1 However, in the main
body of the epistle, Paul has nothing to say about replacement of the Roman Empire
with the Davidic kingdom restored in Zion. He only stresses Christ Jesus saving us by
overcoming the powers of sin, the flesh, the law, and death through his atoning death
and resurrection. Nor does he say anything about the Jews’ sharing in the political rule
of Jesus the Messiah over the Gentiles. Instead, he concentrates on explaining that the
Gentiles as well as the Jews obtain justification and salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus. So he reaches the climax of the epistle with a catena of OT citations (Ps. 17.50;
Deut. 32.43; Ps. 117.1; Isa. 11.10) in order to celebrate how Jesus’ ministry for Israel
as the Davidic Messiah in fulfillment of God’s promises to their patriarchs results in
bringing the Gentiles to glorify God and share in the hope and joy with Israel in the
messianic kingdom (15.7-13).
While throughout his epistles Paul refers to the Kingdom of God only eight times
(Rom. 14.17; 1 Cor. 4.20; 6.9-10; 15.50; Gal. 5.21; Col. 4.10-11; 1 Thess. 2.11-12; 2
Thess. 1.5; cf. 1 Cor. 15.24; Col. 1.13), he thereby indicates that he knows of Jesus’
gospel of God’s Kingdom. Yet Paul speaks of the “Lord” Jesus Christ far more often.
From the confession cited in Rom. 1.3-4 and other passages (e.g. Phil. 2.6-11) that
reflect Ps. 110.1, we can easily surmise why he does so. Jesus Christ, God’s Son,
exalted at the right hand of God, has inherited the kingship or lordship from his
Father, so that the Kingdom of God is now expressed in terms of “the Kingdom of
[God’s] beloved Son” (Col. 1.13). In 1 Cor. 15.23-28 Paul elaborates on this thought
by indicating the purpose for God’s delegation of his kingship to Christ, his Son, for
the present. God’s kingship is delegated to Christ, so that Christ may subdue “all his
enemies,” the anti-God forces that operate as Unheilsmächte to us. When Christ,
God’s Son, completes that task, he is to return the kingship to God the Father, so that
the whole creation may be pacified under the sole reign of God the creator. Hence,
in Col. 1.13-14, expressing this truth from the perspective of God the Father who
has initiated this saving work by delegating his kingship to his Son, Paul speaks of
God as having “delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to
the Kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness
of sins.”
In Col. 1.13-14, the kingdom of God’s Son that overcomes “the dominion of
darkness” is explained in terms of “redemption, the forgiveness of sins,” while in
1 Cor. 15.23-28, death is designated as “the last enemy,” the last of the evil rules,
authorities, and powers that the Son of God would destroy with his divine kingship. In
1 Cor. 15.51-57 Paul further specifies death in alliance with sin and the law as the last
1. Cf. N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 44.

1. Paul as an Eschatological Herald 11
enemy that the Lord Jesus Christ at his parousia would destroy. Thus these passages
suggest that for Paul the category of deliverance from the Satanic kingdom and the
category of the resolution of the problems of sin and death are the two sides of one
and the same coin. Our deliverance through God’s Son from the Satanic kingdom and
transference into the Kingdom of God in which Christ, God’s Son reigns on God’s
behalf is both an act of forgiveness of our sins of having served Satan and his idol
representatives and an act of restoring us to the right relationship to the true God, our
creator. Thus the work of Christ God’s Son of delivering us from the Satanic forces
with God’s kingly power is the same as his work of atonement that brings about our
justification or our restoration to the right relationship to God. Hence, in Gal. 1.4
Paul speaks of Christ as having given himself to a death of atonement “for our sins in
order to deliver us from the present evil age,” the age ruled by “the god of this age”
(2 Cor. 4.4).
Now both 1 Cor. 15.23-28 (NB v. 26) and Col. 1.13-14, from which we have drawn
to explicate the gospel defined in Rom. 1.3-4, make it clear that God is the initiator of
the saving work wrought through his Son Jesus Christ. This is suggested also in Rom.
1.3-4 through the passivum divinum of the participial phrase tou= o(risqe/ntoj, as well
as through the reference to the confession as “the gospel of God” (Rom. 1.1). Note
also how by making “his Son” the antecedent of the participial phrase tou= genome/
nou in Rom. 1.3, Paul produces a close parallelism between Rom. 1.3 and Gal. 4.4:
(peri tou= ui9ou= au0tou=)

tou= genome/nou e0k spe/rmatoj Dauid kata\ sa/rka . . . (Rom. 1.3)
e0cape/steilen o9 qeo\j to\n ui9o\n au0tou=

geno/menon e0k gunaiko/j . . . (Gal. 4.4)
This parallelism leads us to understand the confession in analogy to the “sending

formula” in Gal. 4.4-5 and Rom. 1.3-4 (God sent his Son in order that . . .). Then, we
can see that in Rom. 1.3-4, with his own introductory preface peri\ tou= ui9ou= au0tou=,
Paul makes the confession take on the ideas of the Son’s preexistence and God’s
having sent him to be incarnate. Further, we may assume that between the two lines
of the confession in Rom. 1.3-4, Paul is conscious of the redemptive work of God’s
Son in his death (and resurrection) that he would affirm later in the epistle through
the “sending formula” of Rom. 8.3-4 as well as through his exposition of God’s love
in terms of the death of God’s Son in Rom. 5.8-10; 8.32-34.
If so, Paul would be citing the confession of Rom. 1.3-4 with at least the follow-
ing ideas in mind: “the gospel of God” concerns God’s Son whom God sent to be
born as the Messiah of Israel, gave up to a death of vicarious atonement for sins,
and raised up to his right hand to exercise his power on his behalf and intercede for
the believers at the last judgment. The gospel is an announcement of those acts of
God with or through his Son. So, in Rom. 1.17, Paul says that “in [the gospel] God’s
righteousness is revealed,” as in the proclamation of the gospel the Christ-event is
made manifest as the eschatological saving work that God has wrought in faithful
fulfillment of his covenant with Israel and his whole creation.2 In Rom. 1.2 Paul has
already underlined this nature of the gospel (i.e. the Christ-event as an embodiment of
God’s covenant faithfulness or “righteousness”) by saying that the gospel represents
the fulfillment of what God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy
scriptures.” Whoever believes in the gospel or accepts it by faith appropriates God’s
righteousness (i.e. his saving acts that he has wrought through his Son in faithful
fulfillment of his covenant promises), so that he/she is justified (i.e. forgiven of his/
her sins and restored to the right relationship with God; Rom. 3.21-26; 4.25; 5.1-11;
etc.). Thus, he/she is delivered from God’s wrath (cf. Rom. 1.18; 8.34) and made a
child of God who by participating in Christ’s divine sonship will be conformed to
his image and obtain divine glory (8.14-17, 29-30; cf. also Gal. 4.4-6). Hence Paul
defines the gospel also as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith,
to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1.16).
In the main body of Romans, Paul expounds this gospel that he has summarized
in thesis form in 1.16-17, chiefly in the category of God’s justifying righteousness,
emphasizing that the Gentiles as well as the Jews appropriate God’s righteousness
through faith without works of the law. Yet from Romans 7–8 as well as 1.18-32 and
16.20 we can see in the background the category of destruction of the Satanic forces
or redemption from them as the larger cosmic framework for the anthropological
focus of justification. This is also suggested by Rom. 12.1-2, where Paul exhorts the
justified people of God to devote their whole being to doing God’s will (i.e. obeying
the kingship/lordship of God), instead of conforming to “this age” (cf. also 1 Cor.
1.20; 2.6-8; 3.18) — the age ruled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4.4; cf. also 1 Cor.
2.6-8), which is coming to an end (1 Cor. 7.29-31; 10.11).
Thus, being conscious of standing at the eschatological turning point, Paul heralds
the gospel or the good news of the kingship/lordship of Jesus Christ, God’s Son,
which redeems humankind from the Satanic forces and ushers in the new age in which
God the creator reigns. And as an apostle or fully empowered agent of the Lord Jesus
Christ, Paul demands all the Gentiles to come out of “the dominion of darkness” or
the kingdom of Satan by repentance (cf. Rom. 2.4-6) and enter into the Kingdom of
God or his Son by faith (Col. 1.13; cf. Rom. 11.15; 1 Thess. 2.12), something that
takes place with their explicit confession of Jesus as Lord at baptism (Rom. 10.9; cf.
1 Cor. 8.6; 12.3; Phil. 2.9-11). Thus, Paul is “to bring about the obedience of faith
among all the Gentiles for the sake of the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son
(Rom. 1.5). The Thessalonian Christians have responded to Paul’s such preaching of
the gospel and “turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait
for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from
the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1.5, 8, 9-10). Those who make such conversion from
the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God’s Son receive “redemption, forgiveness
2. Then, in Rom. 3.21-26, Paul recounts God’s redemptive work as the manifestation of his righteous-
ness, sharply focusing on the center of the Christ-event, namely, his setting Christ forth as an eschatological
sacrifice of atonement. There again Paul emphasizes the theme of God’s faithful fulfillment of the OT. Cf.
also 1 Cor. 1.9 and 2 Cor. 1.18-20 for Paul’s affirmation of God’s faithfulness in reference to his Son.
of sins” (Col. 1.13-14), or are “justified” and “reconciled” to God (Romans 3–8;
2 Cor. 5.18-21). They can look forward to receiving deliverance from God’s wrath
or condemnation (Rom. 5.9; 8.1, 32-34; 1 Thess. 1.9-10; also 1 Cor. 1.7-9; 1 Thess.
3.12-13; etc.), or the ultimate redemption from death into which sin, the flesh, and
the law have driven us, which is to take place at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ
when the Satanic rule is completely destroyed (1 Cor. 15.26, 53-57; Romans 7–8).
By preaching such a gospel, Paul seeks to bring all the Gentiles into the Kingdom
of God’s Son, so that they may be restored to God the creator and receive his glory
and his life (= eternal life).
II. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the

Gospel to the Gentiles
In Rom. 1.1-5, Paul sets forth his qualifications as an eschatological herald of
such a gospel: “a slave of Jesus Christ, called [klhto\j] to be an apostle, set apart
[a0fwrisme/noj] for the gospel [eu0agge/lion] of God, . . . concerning his Son . . . to
bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles. . . .” This is another ver-
sion of his self-description given in Gal. 1.15-16: “When he who had set me apart
[a0fori/saj] from my mother’s womb and had called [kale/saj] me through his
grace was pleased [eu0do/khsen] to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach
[eu\aggeli/zwmai) him [as the gospel] among the Gentiles. . . .” In this Galatians
passage Paul is referring to the revelation of Christ Jesus as the Son of God and his
call to apostleship for the Gentiles on the road to Damascus. Seeing here echoes of
Isa. 49.1, 6 and Jer. 1.5: kalei=n (= Isa. 49.1, 6; cf. ti/qhui in Jer. 1.5; 1 Cor. 12.28); e0k
koili/aj mhtro/j mou (= Isa. 49.1; cf. Jer. 1.5); e0n toi=j e1qnesin (= Isa. 49.6; Jer. 1.5),
commentators generally agree that Paul is interpreting his apostolic call in terms of
the call of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 49 as well as that of the prophet Jeremiah.
However, I have sought to supplement this view by observing also echoes of the
first Servant song of Isaiah 42 in the Galatians passage and elsewhere in Pauline
epistles.3 First of all, the eu0do/khsen in Gal. 1.15 is seen as reflecting y#$ip;nA htfc;rf of
Isa. 42.1, which is rendered (o9 e0klekto/j mou0) o3n eu0do/khsen h9 yuxh/ mou in Codex
Marchalianus (Q) and Syro-Hexapla, etc. (cf. also Mt. 12.18-21; 3.17pars). The first
Servant song of Isaiah 42 and the second Servant song of Isaiah 49 being closely
related to each other, they share the reference to God’s “call” of the Servant to be
“a light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42.6-7; 49.1, 6). That in Gal. 1.15-16 Paul echoes not
just Isa. 49.1, 6, but also Isa. 42.6-7, is suggested by the fact that in 2 Cor. 4.4-6,
alluding to his experience of the Damascus Christophany, he reflects both the
ei0j fw~j e0qnw~n of Isa. 42.6; 49.6 and the a0noi=cai o0fqalmou\j of Isa. 42.7 (cf. also
Acts 26.16-18). Paul appears to have chosen “Arabia” as his missionary destination
immediately after his apostolic commission near Damascus (Gal. 1.17), because he
3. S. Kim, “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call,” in Paul and the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 101–27. The following three paragraphs here summarize the relevant
sections of that essay.
saw rdfq' (a North-Arabic tribe) and (lase (LXX: Pe/tra) in Isa. 42.11 as referring
to “Arabia,” the Nabatean kingdom, whose leading city was Petra (cf. Tg Isa., which
has simply “the wilderness of Arabia” for both). Further, the concept of “setting
apart” (a0fori/oaj) in Gal. 1.15 appears to combine the ideas of election (e0klekto/j)
of Isa. 42.1 (cf. also e0celeca/mhn, Isa. 41.8-9) and consecration (h9gi/aka/) of Jer. 1.5.
Having made several further observations in Paul’s teaching and ministry that
appear to reflect Isaiah 42, I have argued that the most significant reflection of Isaiah 42
in the Pauline epistles outside of Gal. 1.15-17 is found in 2 Cor. 1.21-22. There, in
the context of defending his decision not to come to Corinth as he had promised
(2 Cor. 1.12–2.4), Paul says “Now the one who makes us firm [or secure; bebaiw~n]
together with you unto Christ, and anointed [xri/saj] us is God, who indeed sealed
[sfragisa/menoj] us and gave [dou\j] us the down-payment [a0rrabw~na] of the
Spirit in our hearts.” The interpretation of this statement has been bedeviled by the
attempt to see it in terms of a baptismal confession, which applies to all believers. But
that attempt, which has to take the thrice repeated “us” in vv. 21b-22 as including the
readers as well as Paul and his colleagues, cannot satisfactorily explain the remarkable
aorist participle xri/saj in v. 21b, nor the question how in the context of defending
his apostolic behavior Paul suddenly turns to make a general affirmation about the
baptismal experience of himself and the Corinthian Christians. It would be strange
if, having specifically separated “you” from “us” in v. 21a, Paul would include “you”
in the immediately following “us” in v. 21b. Since the “us” in v. 21a clearly refers to
Paul and his colleagues, so the “us” in v. 21b must also refer to them only. Likewise,
the “us” and “our” in v. 22 must do the same. The emphatic “I” (e0gw_) in v. 23 makes
it clear that throughout the apologetic section of 1.12–2.4 Paul is thinking mainly of
himself since the cancellation of the planned visit was the decision he made as the
leader of his team. This is made crystal clear in 2.1-4. Thus, in 1.21-22, in order to
affirm that his cancellation of the planned visit was born of holiness and sincerity from
God (1.12), Paul appeals not only to the faithful God’s present upholding (bebaiw~n)
of him in Christ, but also to his past anointment (xri/saj), sealing (sfragisa~menoj),
and endowment (dou\j) with the Spirit. With the three aorist participles, Paul seems
to be referring to his apostolic commission on the Damascus road. Then, it is most
significant that he understands it as God’s anointment with the Spirit. Along with
all the points that have been listed above, this point also suggests that he interprets
his apostolic commission on the Damascus road in terms of Isa. 42.1, in which God
promises to endow his chosen Servant with his Spirit.
Then, it is natural to think that Paul would have seen his apostolic commission
prefigured also in Isa. 61.1-3, a text closely related to the Servant songs of Isa. 42
and 49. For in it Yahweh “anoints” (x#$amf/e0xrise/n) his servant with the Spirit and
“sends” (xla#$f/a)pe/stalken) him “to preach the gospel” (r#&%'bal;/eu0aggeli/sasqai).
The latter two concepts alone could be cited as enough evidence for the view that Paul
saw his apostolic commission in the light of this text. But the text also contains the
important word xri/saj and the idea of endowment with the Spirit, which we have
found as decisive in Paul’s allusion to his apostolic commission in 2 Cor. 1.21-22.
This view that Paul saw his apostolic commission also in terms of Isa. 61.1-3 is further
supported by his echoes of the text in his description of his apostolic commission
as a)pe/steile/n me Xristo\j . . . eu0aggeli/zesqai (1 Cor. 1.17) and his subsequent

reference to his preaching of the gospel “in demonstration of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2.4).
By explaining Paul’s apostolic commission through a combined allusion to Isa. 42.7,
16, and 61.1, the Pauline tradition in Acts 26.16-18, which is close to 2 Cor. 4.4-6,
adds its support to this view.
Thus in Gal. 1.15-16 Paul describes his apostolic commission especially echoing
the language of the call of the Servant of Yahweh passages in Isaiah 42, 49, and 61. So
we may conclude that Paul saw his apostleship as prefigured in the call and ministry of
the Servant of Yahweh in those Isaianic passages. These findings should be integrated
with the findings that J. Ross Wagner has made from Paul’s citation of Isa. 52.7; 53.1;
and 52.15, respectively, in Rom. 10.15; 10.16; 15.21. Wagner’s overall thesis is that
the way Paul uses those Isaianic texts reveals that Isaiah 51–55 exercised a formative
influence on Paul’s conception of his apostolic ministry, as he saw in those chapters
“a prefiguration or pre-announcement of his own proclamation of the gospel of Christ
to Jew and Gentile alike, wherever Christ is not yet known,”4 or “a prefiguration of
the part he now plays in the drama of redemption,”5 as well as the prophecies about
the Gentile inclusion, Israel’s hardening and eventual redemption.6
No doubt, there are more OT texts that also helped Paul understand his apostleship
for the Gentiles and God’s redemptive plans in that way. In this limited essay it is not
possible to consider all those texts. However, having seen what great influences the
Servant passages and chs. 51–55 of Isaiah had exerted on Paul’s understanding of
those, we may highlight at least such texts within the same book of Isaiah as 2.2-4;
11.10; 25.6-10; 55.3-5; 56.6-8; 60.1-5; 66.18-21 that prophesy about the Gentiles’
streaming to Zion in the last days to worship Yahweh and participate in his salvation
(these texts are conveniently referred to in terms of “the Gentiles’ eschatological pil-
grimage to Zion”; cf. also Mic. 4.1-3; Jer. 3.17; Zeph. 3.8-10; Zech. 2.8-12; 8.20-237),
as well as the texts such as Isaiah 6, which speak about the hardening and eventual
restoration of Israel. When Paul, as a Pharisee extremely zealous for Judaism (Gal.
1.13-14; Phil. 3.4-6), received a call on the Damascus road from the risen Lord Jesus
Christ to be his apostle for the Gentiles, it must have been a total shock, which could
only be resolved by a fresh look at his Scriptures for its logic and meaning. If he
obtained from the Servant passages and chs. 51–55 of Isaiah his convictions about his
call for Gentile apostleship and its role in God’s redemptive history of ingathering of
the Gentiles and hardening and yet eventually redeeming of Israel, he would surely
4. J. R. Wagner, “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of
Isaiah 51–55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. W. H.
Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer; Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1998), p. 194; cf. also J. P. Dickson,
Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and
Background of Early Christian Mission (WUNT 2/159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 165–77.
5. Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” p. 222.
6. Ibid., pp. 201, 222.
7. For the continuation of this tradition in the Second Temple Jewish literature, cf. e.g. Tob. 13.11;
14.5-7; 1 Enoch 48.4-5; 90.33; T. Sim. 7.2; T. Levi 18.2-9; T. Jud. 24.6; 25.5; T. Naph. 8.3-4; 2 Bar. 68.5;
Sib. Or. 3.710-30; etc.
have consulted also those texts of “the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion”
in the same book and seen them further strengthening his new convictions.
However, what of the Damascus Christophany — would this encounter, in the first
instance, have led Paul to those texts of Isaiah? Or what light would the Damascus
revelation have thrown upon those texts, so that Paul the zealous Pharisee could read
out of them God’s plans about the ingathering of the Gentiles and the present harden-
ing and future salvation of Israel as well as his role in those plans? First of all, in view
of the form- and tradition-history of prophetic call visions in the OT and Judaism,8
it is not difficult to imagine that the nature or form of the Damascus Christophany
led Paul to turn to the prophetic call visions such as Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1 for an
interpretation of its meaning for him, and that from a combined reading of Isaiah 6
and the call/commission narratives of the Servant passages he obtained his convic-
tion about the Lord’s call and sending as an apostle for the Gentiles, as well as the
idea of Israel’s present hardening, something that he could confirm from the Jewish
resistance to the gospel in the present.9
We also need to consider the main content of the Damascus Christophany: what
would a vision of the crucified messianic pretender Jesus appearing exalted by God
have meant to Paul? It could only have confirmed the kergyma of Jesus’ believers
whom Paul was persecuting, namely, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that he
was exalted to the right hand of God as his Son, the Lord. He could not help but see
confirmed their confession that he would later cite in Rom. 1.3-4. That means that
Paul realized that the long-awaited Davidic Messiah had come in the person of Jesus
and that Yahweh had come to Zion through him, the seed of David, his Son, who had
represented his kingly reign while on earth and was now exercising it on his behalf
at his right hand since his exaltation. This realization would naturally have led Paul
to Isa. 52.7-10, the passage whose v. 7 he actually cites in Rom. 10.15, suggesting its
great importance for his understanding of his apostolic mission. There he would have
confirmed that what was revealed to him through the Damascus Christophany was
none other than the “gospel” (eu0agge/lion) that had been prophesied in that prophetic
passage: Yahweh has come to Zion, and he reigns, or he “has bared his holy arm” of
salvation for all the nations.10 There he would also have realized that the gospel had
to be preached to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, since it is said there that “all the
8. Cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969), pp. 16–21; H. Wildberger, Jesaja
1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1972), pp. 234–38; W. Stenger, “Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in
Gal 1,11–12, 14,” in Kontinuität und Einheit, F. Mussner FS (ed. P.-G. Müller and W. Stenger; Freiburg:
Herder, 1981), pp. 132–40.
9. Cf. S. Kim, “The ‘Mystery’ of Romans 11.25-26 Once More,” in Paul and the New Perspective
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 247–50.
10. Cf. Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” p. 207, who stresses that Paul’s use of Isa. 52.7 in Rom. 10.15
reveals not only his understanding of himself as one of those who are prophesied in Isa. 52.7 as “the heralds
of the good news” (bwO+ r#&%'bam;/tw~n eu0aggelizome/nwn [ta\] a)gaqa~), but also his understanding of his
“gospel” (eu0agge/lion, Rom. 10.16) “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9-13) as corresponding to the message of
salvation that the heralds of Isa. 52.7 are prophesied to proclaim, namely “Your God reigns.” It goes without
saying that our discussion here strengthens the view that the main background of Paul’s term “gospel”
(eu0agge/lion) is Isa. 52.7; 61.1 and their related texts in Isaiah 40–65 (cf. Dickson, Mission-Commitment,
pp. 153–77, who confirms the works of earlier scholars such as P. Stuhlmacher).
ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52.10). Further, he would
also have realized that the meaning of God’s granting him the Christophany vision
in the traditional form of prophetic call visions was to call him as one of “the heralds
of the good news” (tw~n eu0aggelizome/nwn {ta_] a)gaqa~) prophesied in the Isaianic
text, in fact, as a herald of the gospel especially for the Gentiles.
Then Paul would have had his sense of God’s apostolic calling for the Gentiles
further confirmed through his consultation of especially the Servant passages of Isaiah
42, 49, and 61. But the revelation of the Davidic Messiah, God’s Son, through whom
God reigns and saves all the nations, so that “all the ends of the earth shall see the
salvation of our God” (Isa. 52.10), would naturally have led Paul to those many pas-
sages first in the same book of Isaiah and then later in other books that all similarly
prophesied “the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion” (henceforth abbreviated
GEP). In those texts he would have further come to see that what he had realized in
the Damascus revelation actually formed the main elements of the prophecies of those
texts: the coming of the Davidic messiah (Isa. 11.10; 55.3), God’s coming to reign
(52.7-8; 60.1), the revelation of God’s glory (Isa. 11.10; 40.5; 60.1; 66.19) and his
glorification of the Davidic messiah (Isa. 55.5), and even the restoration of Israel (e.g.,
Isa. 11.11-12; 25.8-9; 52.1-10; 60.1-5). Paul found the majority of Israel “hardened”
against the gospel at present and so expected the restoration of “all Israel” only at
the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 11.25-26). Yet he apparently saw in the
small number of Jewish believers (the “remnant”) centered at the Jerusalem church
(h9 e0kklhsi/a tou= qeou=/lhq hwhy/l), Gal. 1.13) at least the prolepsis of that eventual
restoration of the whole Israel (Rom. 11), in a similar way as James, according to Luke
(Acts 15.16-18), saw in the presence of the Jerusalem church with the “pillars” (cf.
Gal. 2.9) made up of the “twelve” whom Jesus chose, “the rebuilding of the fallen tent
of David,” i.e. the restoration of the Davidic kingdom (of Israel), in eschatological
fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos 9.11-12.11
Having thus seen all the other main elements of the texts of the GEP realized, Paul
would have been convinced that the remaining primary element in the prophecies of
those texts, namely the Gentiles streaming to Zion, was now to be realized: all the
conditions were ripe for the Gentiles to turn to the Lord or “come into” his Kingdom
(cf. Rom. 11.25) and receive his salvation.12 His reasoning would have been similar
to the implicit reasoning of the Lukan James who defends the Gentile mission by
citing Amos 9.11-12 (LXX; with an echo of Jer. 1.15), which declares God’s promise
to return and restore the Davidic kingdom, “so that the rest of humankind may seek
the Lord, all the Gentiles who are called by my name” (Acts 15.16-17).
Then, having understood God’s call to be a herald of the gospel to the Gentiles
from Isa. 52.6-10 and confirming it through the Servant passages of Isaiah 42, 49, 61,
11. Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28.16-20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Postapostolic
Age,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; ed. J. Adna and H. Kvalbein;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 40.
12. Some GEP texts also contain the ideas of vengeance upon the Gentiles and the Gentiles’ serving
Israel. Apparently Paul turned blind eyes to them, as Jesus did in citing such texts as Isa. 61.1-2 (Lk.
4.18-19) and Isa. 35.5-6 (Mt. 11.4-6/Lk. 7.22-23).
as well as through Isaiah 6, Paul would have understood himself as an (if not the)13
eschatological herald of the gospel who was to effect fulfillment of the GEP prophecy.
As the Servant of the Lord who was called, consecrated, and anointed with the Spirit,
he was sent as an apostle to the Gentiles to proclaim the gospel of the saving lordship
of the Messiah Jesus, God’s Son, or God’s saving righteousness, or to bring the light
and salvation of God, so that they might turn to the Lord, and worship and serve him.
So he was an (or the) eschatological herald who was to proclaim the gospel to the
Gentiles and call them to make the eschatological pilgrimage to Zion. Thus he was
an (or the) agent for the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion!
Therefore, Paul brought “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” or “the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” to those who had been blinded
by “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4.4-6),14 calling them to “turn to the Lord” (2 Cor.
3.16), or to confess Jesus as Lord or call on his name (Rom. 10.9-13; 1 Cor. 1.2) for
salvation. So he preached the gospel of the Lord Jesus, the Son of David/the Son of
God, through whom God had manifested his saving reign or justifying righteousness,
and called the Gentiles therefore to praise God as well as rejoicing and hoping in him,
as we can see from the relatively more complete sample of his gospel preaching in
Romans (NB: the inclusio of 1.2-5 and 15.7-8, 12, and the concluding call for the
Gentiles in 15.9-12). The Thessalonian Christians responded to Paul’s gospel and
“turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God,”15 so that they might be
delivered from God’s wrath and enter into his “kingdom and glory” at the parousia of
his Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord (1 Thess. 1.5-10; 2.12). In this way, Paul sought to bring
all the Gentiles to “the obedience of faith for the sake of the name” of the Lord Jesus
Christ (Rom. 1.5; 15.18; 16.26) and make them an offering to God (Rom. 15.15-16;
cf. Isa. 66.20), with a view to the day when “the full number of the Gentiles come
into” the Kingdom of God with the completion of the whole process of the GEP.16
III. An Agent of the Eschaton: Paul’s Collection Journey

to Jerusalem as a Fulfillment of the Prophecy of the
Gentiles’ Eschatological Pilgrimage to Zion
As some of the GEP texts also contain the prophecy of the Gentiles bringing their
gifts to Zion (e.g. Isa. 56.6-8; 60.1-10; 66.19-21; Zeph. 3.8-10; Tob. 13.11), it is
13. This cumbersome expression is an attempt to do justice both to Paul’s recognition of other preach-
ers of the gospel to the Gentiles (e.g. Rom. 15.20; 16.7; 1 Cor. 3.5-9) and to his consciousness of his unique
apostleship for all the Gentiles (e.g. Rom. 1.5-6, 13-15; 11.13; 15.15-16).
14. Cf. Isa. 60.2-3; 66.18-19; T. Levi 18.4-5 as examples of some GEP texts that emphasize the light
of the glory of God borne to the Gentiles and their coming out of darkness into the light.
15. Some GEP texts make it explicit that the Gentiles abandon their idols to turn to the Lord: e.g. Tob.
14.5-7; Sib. Or. 3.715-24.
16. Cf. W. Keller, Gottes Treue, Israels Heil: Röm 11,25-27 — Die These vom “Sonderweg” in der
Diskussion (SBB 40; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), p. 174, for the view that “the full number
of the Gentiles” is a term that Paul uses with the prophecy of the GEP in mind (cited from E. J. Schnabel,
Early Christian Mission, vol. 2: Paul and the Early Church [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004],
p. 1295).
widely recognized that Paul reflects that prophecy in his collection of money from his
Gentile churches for the Jerusalem church and in his collection journey with a Gentile
delegation to Jerusalem (Rom. 15.25-32; 1 Cor. 16.3-4; 2 Cor. 8.16-24). However,
lately this view has been strongly disputed by D. J. Downs.17
Criticizing J. Jeremias’s method of collecting texts from diverse Scriptural sources
in order to define the “tradition” of the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage,18 Downs
questions the existence of such an established tradition within the OT and early
Jewish literature (p. 3 n.9). However, even while questioning that, Downs should
have appreciated the significance of Paul’s citing Isa. 11.10, one of the GEP texts, at
the climax of his presentation of the gospel in Rom. 15.12, forming an inclusio with
his introduction of the gospel and his Gentile apostleship in Rom. 1.2-5. It is also
regrettable that Downs does not consider, as we have done here, how much Paul’s
understanding of his Gentile mission would have been influenced at least by the
passages within Isaiah, namely, Isa. 2.2-5; 11.10; 25.6-9; 56.6-8; 60.1-22; 66.19-21,
which are in the neighborhood of the texts that he actually cites (Isa. 11.10; 52.7, 15;
53.1) or alludes to (Isaiah 42, 49, 61) and/or contain prophecies that are similar to or
can or need to be coordinated with those that are in the latter texts. Thus, failing to
see the implication of his own teacher’s study,19 Downs exercises in a rather atomistic
and positivistic exegesis: no explicit citation, hence no influence!
So Downs’s first argument against the popular view is that in the collection pas-
sages of 1 Cor. 16.1-4; 2 Corinthians 8–9; and Rom. 15.25-32, Paul does not cite any
GEP text (p. 6). But he fails to appreciate the connection between the catena of the
OT Scriptures that are cited in Rom. 15.9-12 in order to affirm the Gentiles’ inclu-
sion in the eschatological kingdom of the Davidic Messiah, and Paul’s account of
his apostolic ministry among the Gentiles in the following section of Rom. 15.14-32.
So even while acknowledging the citation of Isa. 11.10 at the climax of the catena
(Rom. 15.12) as a possible allusion to the GEP, Downs insists that “the absence of
any reference to pilgrimage texts in Paul’s explicit comments about the collection
in Rom 12.25-32” shows that Paul did not attach to the collection the significance
of the GEP (p. 7). But then by the same token Downs’s own view that the collection
had an ecumenical purpose of promoting fellowship and unity between Paul’s Gentile
churches and the Jewish church in Judea (pp. 15–19) will have to be denied. There
is no denying that Paul attached such significance to the collection (cf. Gal. 2.1-10).
Here it is only observed that Paul does not refer to it in Rom. 15.25-32, just as he
does not refer to the GEP. Downs’s efforts to hang the ecumenical purpose on the
17. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and
Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 3–9. I regret that I have to disagree
with Downs, a former student and present colleague of mine!
18. J. Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (London: SCM, 1958).
19. One of the conclusions of J. Ross Wagner in his study of Paul’s citations of Isa. 52.7, 15; 53.1 in
Rom. 10.15-16 and 15.21 is that “Paul’s citations are not plunder from random raids on Isaiah, but the fruit
of careful reading of the text [of Isaiah 51–55] in light of his own situation as an apostle to the Gentiles”
(“Heralds of Isaiah,” p. 221).
phrase koinwni/an tina\ toih/sasqai in Rom. 12.26, rendering it as “to make a certain
partnership-forming contribution” (pp. 16–17), do not appear successful.
Downs’s second argument is based on the fact that Paul does not mention his
Gentile delegation in Rom. 15.14-32 (pp. 7–8). In the passage Paul refers only to
himself, and asks his readers to pray for God’s rescue only of himself from the unbe-
lievers in Judea as well as for his ministry to be accepted by the saints in Jerusalem.
But he does not refer to his Gentile companions, let alone comment on their delivery
of their gifts to Jerusalem. For Downs, this “places the eschatological pilgrimage read-
ing of the collection in doubt” (p. 8). But then again by the same token, Downs’s own
view that the collection had an ecumenical purpose will also have to be denied. For,
according to his logic, Paul’s failure in Rom. 15.25-32 to refer to his Gentile delega-
tion and to ask the readers to pray for the Jerusalem church’s favorable acceptance
of them should also be taken as suggesting that Paul had no thought of promoting an
ecumenical fellowship between them.
Downs takes the prosfora\ tw~n e0qnw~n of Rom. 15.16 in the sense of “the offer-
ing given by the Gentiles” (p. 149), “an offering of obedience and cultic worship made
by the Gentiles” (p. 151), and as specifically referring to the collection (pp. 149–56),
and bases this view partly on the parallelism between the cultic language of Rom.
15.16 (leitourgo/j, i0erourge/w, prosfora~, eu0pro/sdektoj, and a(gia~zw) and that
of Rom. 15.25-32 (leitourge/w, eu0pro/sdektoj, cf. also e0pitele/w, sfragi/zw)
(pp. 154–55). But it is strange that he does not see this interpretation of Rom. 15.16
actually supporting the view that in his collection scheme Paul reflects the GEP
prophecy, more strongly than does the usual interpretation.20 In appreciating the cultic
language of Romans 15, Downs points out the metaphorical usage of those terms and
Paul’s application of them to his Gentile mission and to the Gentile churches’ service
for the Jerusalem church. He also notes that Pauline Christianity includes no thought
of a literal temple and the cultic activities such as animal sacrifices, festivals, etc. So
it is difficult to understand how Downs can then argue that since Paul brought the
collection not to the Jerusalem temple but to the Jerusalem church, we cannot see
the GEP meaning reflected in his collection scheme (pp. 8–9). In fact, Paul refers to
the church as the temple of God (1 Cor. 3.16-17), and he does so obviously because
he understands the church as the eschatological people of God in which God dwells
through his Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6.19; Deut. 12.5, 11, 21; Ps. 114.2; Zech. 2.10-11; 1QS
5.5-6; 8.4-10; 9.3-6; etc.). So we can well imagine that he regarded the Jerusalem
church (h9 e0kklhsi/a tou= qeou=/lhq hwhy/l), Gal. 1.13) as the temple of God in Zion
that had been built upon the foundation of Christ, i.e. his eschatological sacrifice of
atonement and covenant (cf. 1 Cor. 3.11; 11.24-25; Rom. 3.24-26). Then, in bringing
20. The majority of the commentators take the genitive of the phrase prosfora\ tw~n e0qnw~n as
appositional or epexegetic (the Gentiles are the offering). But the phrase needs to be seen as including also
a reference to their gifts, the offering of which is the subject matter of the subsequent section (vv. 25-32).
Cf. P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), p. 51: “The offering is the Gentiles themselves, epitomized by the material
gifts brought by their representatives.”
the collection of the Gentiles to the Jerusalem church, Paul could well have thought
of fulfilling one of the hopes of the GEP prophesies.
In his references to the collection, Paul makes explicit only the purpose of provid-
ing relief for the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15.25-27; 2 Cor. 8.4; 9.1, 12).
No doubt that was the primary purpose. However, it is difficult to believe that for
that purpose alone he made such great efforts for such a long period in the face of so
much misunderstanding and conflict, especially with the Corinthian church, some of
which was apparently caused or aggravated by the Jewish Christian opponents of Paul
who came into the Corinthian church from outside with some sort of connection with
the Jerusalem church (cf. esp. 2 Corinthians 10–13). So there must have been some
more serious purposes for the collection, such as the GEP and the ecumenical mean-
ings. The reasons Paul does not make those meanings explicit could be explained
by the fact that in all three passages — Rom. 15.25-32; 1 Cor. 16.1-4; 2 Corinthians
8–9 — Paul is concerned about something else than explaining the meanings of the
collection, as well as the fact that he is aware of the possible controversy that the
two meanings could provoke in the minds of some Jewish Christian opponents of his
Gentile mission, whereas an explicit reference to its relief purpose would not be con-
troversial insofar as it was something for which there was not only a genuine need in
the Jerusalem church, but also a specific request of her leaders themselves (Gal. 2.10).
However, Paul does not keep the two other purposes of the collection totally secret.
Note what he says about the collection in 2 Cor. 9.13-14: “Through the proof [dokimh/]
provided by this act of service, they [the Jerusalem church] will be glorifying God
for the obedience consisting in your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the
genuineness of your sense of fellowship with them and with all. And in their prayer
for you they will be longing for you because of the abundant grace of God bestowed
on you.”21 Here Paul clearly suggests that the Jerusalem church would take the
Corinthians’ collection to cover their wants (2 Cor. 9.12) as a “proof” of the genuine-
ness of the Corinthians’ fellowship with them and that the Jerusalem church would
long for them as well as pray for them. Thus he lays bare the ecumenical purpose
of the collection. However, what is even more striking for us in Paul’s statement is
that the Jerusalem church would take the collection as a “proof” of the Corinthians’
conversion to the gospel of Christ as well as of their having received the saving grace
of God abundantly. It is surely reasonable to see Paul here reflecting the prophecy of
some GEP texts that the Gentiles who turn to the Lord and experience his salvation
in the last days would come to Zion with their gifts.22
Thus 2 Cor. 9.13-14 confirms that with the collection that he organized among
his Gentile churches for the Jerusalem church Paul sought to realize the vision of the
GEP. Thereby it also confirms our conclusion above that Paul understood himself as
an agent of the GEP. Then, it is plausible to see his collection journey to Jerusalem
(Rom. 15.25-32) as an enactment of the GEP. In view of Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor.
21. This translation is taken from M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 2000), p. 563.
22. Cf. D. Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1992), p. 106.
16.3-4; 2 Cor. 8.17-23; 9.3-5, we need to assume that in that journey he took as
companions not only some of his Gentile Christian co-workers like Titus but also a
delegation of the representatives of the churches that participated in the collection
scheme. But we do not know who or how many they were (in spite of the list in Acts
20.4-5 of Paul’s Gentile Christian companions from different cities and provinces).
However, for Paul the size of the delegation would not have been so important, as he
was enacting the GEP not in the literal sense of making all Gentile Christians stream
to Zion but in the symbolic sense through their representatives, perhaps applying the
first fruits principle that he derived from Num. 17.17-21 (Rom. 11.16).
In Rom. 15.30-32 Paul expresses his apprehension about the threat that he foresees
coming from the unbelieving Jews in Judea, as well as about the possible rejection by
the Jerusalem church of the gifts from the Gentile churches. But he does not give up
the risky journey. He is determined to make it, even postponing his so long-desired
trip to Rome (Rom. 1.10-13; 15.22-25). Apparently this man of dauntless faith and
unflagging hope (cf. Rom. 4.18-21; 5.5; 2 Cor. 4.8-12) makes the dangerous journey,
overcoming his apprehension by assuring himself with the hope that he expresses in
2 Cor. 9.13-14: the Jerusalem church will welcome the Gentile churches’ delegation
and gifts, seeing in their gifts the “proof” that they have genuinely turned to the Lord
and received God’s saving grace in fulfillment of the GEP prophecy. Paul hopes that
with the Jerusalem church thus recognizing the Scriptural prophecy of the GEP being
fulfilled through his Gentile mission, he would then expound his gospel to them in the
form that he has drafted in Romans,23 and thus turn them away from the increasing
Judaizing tendency toward endorsing his Gentile mission wholeheartedly. In view
of the troubles that he has so far had with the Judaizers disputing his gospel and
Gentile mission, he would find that such a hope makes his risky journey to Jerusalem
worthwhile. If that hope is realized, it would mark a very successful completion of his
mission in the Eastern hemisphere of the oikoumene (Rom. 15.18-19), and he would
indeed be able to “come with joy” to Rome in order to embark on his mission in the
Western hemisphere (Rom. 15.22-24, 32).
However, it is quite likely that by going up to Jerusalem with the Gentile delegation
bearing their gifts Paul also reckons with making an impression on the unbelieving
Jews as well. In Rom. 11.13-14 he says: “. . . Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the
Gentiles, I glorify my ministry, if somehow I might provoke my kinsfolk to jealousy
and save some of them.” It was J. Munck who, linking Paul’s collection journey with
this passage, first suggested that one of the purposes of Paul’s collection journey was
to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealousy for the Gentiles’ obtaining salvation,
and thus to move some of them to obtain salvation themselves.24 In spite of some
questionable elements in Munck’s argument, his basic thesis is sound. We must not
23. For the view that this is one of the purposes for Paul’s writing Romans, cf. the essays of T. W.
Manson, G. Bornkamm, G. Klein, and J. Jervell in The Romans Debate (ed. K. P. Donfried; revised ed.;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 3–64.
24. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Knox, 1959), pp. 301–05; so also
Georgi, Remembering the Poor, 118-19; K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (London:
SCM, 1966), pp. 129–43.
forget that Paul writes those sentences of Rom. 11.13-14 on the eve of his collection
journey to Jerusalem. Nor should we ignore the fact that the collection journey clearly
is an example of the ways Paul “glorifies” his apostolic ministry for the Gentiles
(cf. Rom. 15.15-29). Thus, it is natural to think that he writes Rom. 11.13-14 in full
consciousness of the probable effects of his impending collection journey on the
unbelieving Jews as well as on the Jerusalem church. So, Paul hopes that through
the demonstration of the Gentiles’ obtaining salvation and making the eschatologi-
cal pilgrimage to Zion as prophesied in the Scriptures he would provoke the Jews
to jealousy according to God’s way of working that he has apprehended from Deut.
32.21 (cf. Rom. 10.19; 11.11), and thus would prompt interest in the gospel and lead
some of them eventually to come to salvation.25
Thus it is clear that Paul sees his apostolic ministry for the Gentiles as an instru-
ment for the salvation of Israel as well as the Gentiles. This fact agrees well with his
self-understanding as an (or the) eschatological herald of the gospel of Christ, as well
as an (or the) agent of the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion, which we have
observed above. Now, since Paul says that he “has fully preached [peplhrwke/nai]
the gospel” in the Eastern hemisphere of the oikumene (Rom. 15.19), and he says
this while preparing for his collection journey to Jerusalem in which he would offer
to God his Gentile converts, the fruits of that mission, as a sacrifice, through their
representatives (Rom. 15.16, 25-32), we may ask the questions of whether he consid-
ers the task of bringing the portion of the Eastern hemisphere in the “full number
[plh/rwma] of the Gentiles” into the Kingdom of God (Rom. 11.25) as completed
and whether he would consider the whole task of bringing in the “full number of the
Gentiles” as accomplished when he successfully completes his planned mission in
the Western hemisphere. Answering these questions affirmatively would mean that
Paul regards himself as the Gentiles’ apostle charged to bring the “full number of
the Gentiles” into God’s kingdom. This then would mean that his apostleship for the
Gentiles is the decisive instrument for the salvation of “all Israel” as well, indeed
for the whole saving plan of God that he calls “the mystery” (to\ musth/rion, Rom.
11.25-26). Paul may be expressing this understanding of the salvation-historical role
of his apostleship when in Col. 1.24-29 he speaks of his having become “a minister
in accordance with God’s oi0konomi/a . . . to fulfill [plhrw~sai] the word of God, the
mystery [to\ musth/rion] . . .” (cf. Eph. 3.1-13). This line of inquiry would eventually
lead us to the question whether by “that which restrains” (to\ kate/xon) the revelation
of “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2.6-7) that is to take place before the parousia
of Christ, Paul refers to his mission of bringing the “full number of the Gentiles” into
God’s Kingdom, and therefore whether by “the one who restrains” (o9 kate/xwn) he
refers to himself. Our treatment of the topic “Paul as an eschatological herald” would
be complete only when all these difficult questions are properly discussed. However,
there is no more space for it here.
25. Pace M. Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and
Israel’s Yes,” CBQ 67 (2005): pp. 474–77.
Conclusion
We conclude this study with the following four affirmations:
1. As an apostle, Paul understands himself as an eschatological herald of the gospel
for the Gentiles and the Jews.
2. His message is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the good news of
God’s saving reign through the Davidic Messiah, his Son, or of his justifying
righteousness, that inaugurates the new age of salvation, bringing to an end the
age of the evil forces.
3. As an apostle and eschatological herald, Paul understands himself as a decisive
agent or instrument for God’s plan of salvation, and while working to realize
God’s plan of salvation for the Gentiles through his gospel heralding, he also
seeks to realize God’s plan of salvation for the Jews through his Gentile mission.
4. Paul develops such understanding of his gospel, his apostleship, and God’s plan
of salvation by interpreting the Damascus revelation through the Scriptures,
especially Isaiah.
2
PAUL AS MISSIONARY PASTOR
James W. Thompson
In his influential book, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, C. H. Dodd
drew a sharp distinction between preaching and teaching, maintaining that the former
addresses a non-Christian audience while the latter is intended for the pastoral needs
of established churches.1 Consistent with this distinction, the Paul of the popular
imagination is a missionary rather than a pastor. In Acts he makes converts and plants
churches before moving on to new cities to repeat the same activity. Luke mentions an
extended stay in only two cities (Acts 18.11; 19.10; 20.31). In the epistles, Paul insists
that God has called him to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1.16; 2.2). His claim
in Romans that he has fulfilled the gospel by preaching from Jerusalem to Illyricum
and plans to go to Spain (15.24) indicates that he is a missionary and church planter
who preaches “where Christ has not been named” (Rom. 15.20). Thus the portraits of
Paul in both Acts and the letters indicate that missionary activity to ever-expanding
regions was the heart of Paul’s task.
In view of this missionary focus, one may ask if the term “missionary pastor” is
an oxymoron when applied to Paul. How could the itinerant ministry of Paul include
continuing pastoral activity? The answer to the question may be discovered, not only
by observing Paul’s practices, but also by recognizing the place of his ministry within
the context of his theology. The letters provide a window into both his theology of
ministry and his practices.
Paul’s Missionary and Pastoral Theology

Pauline studies in the past generation have revolutionized our understanding of the
nexus between Paul’s theology and his missionary task. Earlier interpreters identified
justification by faith as the center of Paul’s theology with a focus on “getting in.” This
focus provided a foundation for evangelism and missionary activity, suggesting that
Paul’s central focus was to engage in missionary preaching and challenge the hearers
to “turn to God from idols” (1 Thess. 1.9). Interpreters in the past generation have
challenged the traditional view of Paul’s message, maintaining that Paul envisions
1. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper and Row, 1964),
pp. 7–9.
salvation as a process of transformation into the image of Christ that begins with
conversion and ends at the last day.2 In his letters he regularly recalls the community’s
origins (Rom. 6.1-11; 1 Cor. 1.18-2.5; Gal. 3.1-6; Phil. 1.6, 11; 1 Thess. 1.5-10) and
points toward its ultimate goal when the people will be “conformed to the image of
his son” (Rom. 8.29; cf. Phil. 3.21). He writes in the middle of the narrative to ensure
that the communities he founded will ultimately reach the goal. In the meantime they
“are being transformed from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3.18; cf. Rom. 12.2).
Morna Hooker has described this transformation under the image of the “inter-
change,” according to which Christ “became what we are that we might become
what he is.” Although the language is derived from Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 5,
praefatio), it accurately describes Paul’s theology of transformation. The ultimate goal
is that humanity be transformed into the image of Christ. This theme is expressed in
the following passages:
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5.21 NRSV)
For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your
sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. (2 Cor. 8.9 NRSV)
God redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us . . . in order that in
Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles. (Gal. 3.13-14 NRSV)
God sent his son, born of woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. (Gal. 4.4-5 NRSV)
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do by sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in
us. (Rom. 8.3-4 NRSV)
These passages have a common structure. Christ gave up his privileges to participate
in the weakness of human existence. As the purpose statements in each passage
indicate, because of what Christ did, believers may become “the righteousness of
God” (2 Cor. 5.21), “become rich” (2 Cor. 8.9), or receive a new existence.3 Believers
will be transformed into the image of the exalted one as they follow the path of the
sacrifice of Christ for others and abandon their own self-seeking behavior and adopt
a new way of life.4
2. See N. T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 119.
3. Morna D. Hooker, “A Partner in the Gospel: Paul’s Understanding of his Ministry,” in Eugene
H. Lovering Jr. and Jerry Sumney (eds.), Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1996), p. 90.
4. James W. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006), p. 26.
2. Paul as Missionary Pastor 27
Paul consistently elaborates on the nature of transformation, shaping the imagi-

nation of his converts by appealing to the incarnation and cross, not only as saving
events of the past, but also as continuing realities in the lives of believers. For
example, in Philippians Paul appeals to his readers to be of “one mind” (2.2) and
avoid self-seeking behavior (2.3) before reminding them of the one who abandoned
privileges, took on the form of a slave (2.7), and humbled himself at the cross (2.8).
He presents examples of others who avoid self-seeking behavior (Phil. 2.25-29), and
even presents himself as one who abandoned all selfish ambitions to be “conformed
to his death” (3.10). To be transformed, therefore, is to participate in the story of
Christ, avoiding all selfish ambition and caring for the welfare of others. Those who
are “conformed to his death” in the present will be “conformed to the body of his
glory” in the future (3.21). Those who participate in the story of Christ can live in
harmony with each other.
The images of the church as a building (1 Cor. 3.10-17; 14.1-5), temple (1 Cor.
3.16), body (12.13-31), and family all indicate the corporate nature of the experi-
ence of the converts, for individual identity is subordinated to the maturation of the
whole community. Paul addresses his letters only to the churches, expecting that the
letters will be heard in the assembly (1 Thess. 5.27). Even private correspondence
to Philemon addresses the house church. Because the English language does not
distinguish between the second-person singular and plural, translations do not com-
municate that Paul’s letters are a dialogue between him and the entire community.
The most pervasive image for the community is that of the family; they are the
household of God (Gal. 6.10) and siblings to each other. These images not only sug-
gest corporate identity; they also assume the process of transformation. The farm is
under cultivation, and the building is under construction. Individuals are in the process
of learning to live as members of the body and the family.
The transformation of the community is the frequent topic of Paul’s prayers.
Despite the multiple problems at Corinth, he expresses the confidence in the opening
thanksgiving that God will “establish [the readers] blameless at the day of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.8). He expresses thanks for the Thessalonians’ “work of faith,
labor of love, and steadfastness of hope (1 Thess. 1.3) and prays that God will sanctify
the believers before the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 3.13 NRSV). He envisions
this corporate narrative when he writes to the Philippians that “the one who began a
good work” among them “will bring it to completion at the day of Christ” (Phil. 1.6).
In praying for communities to be “blameless” at the day of Christ, Paul expresses a
vision for his churches that is both corporate and eschatological.
Transformation and Paul’s Theology of Ministry

This theology of transformation shapes Paul’s understanding of his ministry. His task
is not only to make converts and plant churches, but to ensure the ultimate transforma-
tion of believers. Indeed, a common thread throughout his letters is a declaration of his
pastoral ambition that his churches will be his “boast” at the day of Christ. Near the
conclusion of Romans, he indicates that his “boast” will be the offering of Gentiles
who have been sanctified (Rom. 15.17). He writes so that the Corinthians will know
that “on the day of the Lord Jesus we are your boast even as you are our boast” (2 Cor.
1.14). When the Philippians hold fast to the word of Christ, Paul will be able to “boast
on the day of Christ” (Phil. 2.16). The Thessalonians will be his “crown of boasting
before our Lord at his coming” (1 Thess. 2.19). If his churches are not “blameless
at the day of Christ,” he will have run in vain (Gal. 2.2; cf. 4.11). Consequently, he
lives with constant “anxiety for the churches” (2 Cor. 11.28). Thus he understands
ministry as participation in God’s work of transforming the community of faith until
it is “blameless” at the coming of Christ.5
Although Paul never describes himself as a pastor, he uses a variety of images to
describe his role in the community’s transformation. He is a priest who will ultimately
offer the Gentiles as a sanctified community to God (Rom. 15.16). Consistent with his
images of the church, he has a vital role in their transformation. As a master builder
(!"#$%&'%()), he laid the foundation for the building under construction (1 Cor. 3.10).
As the father of the bride (2 Cor. 11.3), his goal is to present a pure virgin to Christ
at the end. He is also the mother in the pangs of childbirth until Christ is “formed”
in the community (Gal. 4.19), the nurse who gently cared for the infant converts
(1 Thess. 2.7), and the father to whom they not only owe their existence, but the one
who continues to assume the responsibility for their behavior (1 Thess. 2.12).6 All of
these images indicate that the church is continually in the process of maturation and
that Paul’s work is not finished when his recipients accept the gospel. Thus, although
he is a missionary who continues to extend his work into new regions, he remains
involved in the transformation of his communities.
Paul’s Pastoral Activities

Paul’s letters offer a window into the threats to communal transformation and the
need for continual pastoral care, both in his presence and in his absence. Conversion
to Paul’s gospel was a rebellion against parents, family and teachers.7 It resulted
in the loss of familial ties and the hostility of the populace, leaving the converts
marginalized and distressed (cf. Phil. 1.28-29; 1 Thess. 2.14-16; 3.2-3).8 Conversion
involved such a radical reorientation of symbolic world and moral values that converts
often did not grasp the full implications of Paul’s teachings.9 In some instances they
rejected his instruction, while in other cases they wrote for clarification (cf. 1 Cor.
7.1). Continuing pastoral care was also necessary because of the inevitable tensions
that emerged among people from different ethnic groups and social classes (cf. 1 Cor.
5. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry, p. 20.

6. Stephen C. Barton, “Paul as Missionary and Pastor,” in James D. G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 38.
7. Karl Olav Sandnes, A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-
Cultural Comparisons (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), p. 43.
8. Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 43–52. According to Malherbe, disorientation was a common phenom-
enon of converts to philosophical schools and proselytes to Judaism.
9. See Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 1–2.
12.13). These challenges were exacerbated by rival missionaries who disturbed Paul’s
work, offering “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11.5, 13; Gal. 1.6-9) and creating confusion
among the converts. A major concern of the Pauline correspondence and visits was
to overcome these challenges to communal transformation.
Both the construction and parental images were important for Paul in depicting his
continuing relationship with the churches. He lays the foundation (cf. Rom. 15.20),
and everything that he does for the community was for their edification (*+'*,*-.,
2 Cor. 12.19). The parental image communicated the ancient view of the parent as
example, teacher, authority, and loving caregiver. One may observe Paul’s parental
role in every stage of his relationship with the churches. Inasmuch as Paul writes the
congregations in the middle of a corporate narrative, the letters offer insights into
the past, present, and future of his relationship with his children in the faith. While
allusions to Paul’s continuing role is evident in all of the letters, they are especially
evident in 1 Thessalonians, a parenetic letter that continued Paul’s pastoral work.
Paul’s Pastoral Work with New Converts

Paul frequently recalls his first missionary preaching and the establishment of the
church, which came into existence when the gospel arrived in the city (1 Thess. 1.5)
and Paul preached “Christ crucified” (cf. 1 Cor. 2.2; 15.3; 2 Cor. 4.5; cf. 1 Thess.
4.14). Conversion involved not only the acceptance of the message, but an affec-
tionate relationship with Paul. His description of his time with the Galatians as so
“blessed” that they would have plucked out their eyes for him (Gal. 4.15) probably
reflected his relationship with all of the churches. Indeed, 1 Thessalonians recalls
Paul’s paternal role with his new converts. He was both “like a nurse with her own
children” (1 Thess. 2.7) and “like a father with his own children” (1 Thess. 2.11).
The image of the nurse,10 which was commonly used in philosophical discussions
to distinguish the ideal philosopher from the harsh Cynic preacher,11 suggests the
tenderness expected of the nurse or mother who cherishes (/0123$) her children and
soothes them with comforting words when they fall down.12 Paul’s affective language
indicates the tender love that he displayed for his converts, for he desired not only
to share the gospel with them, but to give himself (1 Thess. 2.8) to them. Because of
this relationship, he did not accept financial support from them because he did not
want to be a burden. As both nurse and father, he developed an intimate relationship
10 4"56*7 is also used as the equivalent of mother in antiquity. See BDAG, p. 1017; EDNT 3 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 371.
11 A. J. Malherbe, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thessalonians 2,” in idem,
Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), pp. 42–44. First published in NovT 12
(1970): pp. 203–17.
12 /812( (1 Thess. 2.7) means literally “to give warmth” (cf. Abishag the Shunamite woman in
1 Kgs 1.2, 4). It then became a metaphor for tender attachment or the giving of comfort. C. Spicq, /812(,
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 184. Malherbe, Paul
and the Popular Philosophers, p. 53, cites Plutarch’s description of the nurse as one who takes children
and washes them and straightens their clothes when they fall down (Plutarch, Consolation to His Wife
609E).
with his converts. This tender care was especially important for those who suffered
the stresses that conversion inevitably involved.13
Paul emphasizes not only his paternal relationship to new converts, but also pro-
vides them a corporate identity as siblings. This identity was especially important
as a replacement for the natural families from whom the converts were estranged. It
was also a major challenge, furthermore, inasmuch as Paul’s attempt to bring people
together from different social classes and ethnic groups was without parallel for com-
munities in antiquity. Paul challenged them to transcend the ancient badges of identity
and unite with others. Here Jews and Greeks, slaves and free were all baptized into
one body (1 Cor. 12.13). In the new people of God, there is no longer Jew or Greek,
slave or free, male and female (Gal. 3.28). Paul envisions a community composed
of rich and poor (cf. 1 Cor. 1.26-28) in which all can sit down at the same table (cf.
1 Cor. 11.17-34).
Paul’s most pervasive image in establishing corporate identity and overcoming
barriers is that of the family. He is the anxious parent, and they are siblings. He
employs the image to establish family solidarity among diverse people who had no
natural solidarity and whose relationships with their natural families were strained
or broken. Their task was to assume the roles naturally associated with family life.
They provided a place to belong and a loving environment (1 Thess. 4.9; Rom.
12.9-12) as well as the social safety net normally found in families. The brotherly
love (6$19,316:9) that Paul inculcates (Rom. 12.9; 1 Thess. 4.9) was a virtue that
others reserved for physical siblings. He appeals to the sibling relationship to resolve
the dispute between Philemon and Onesimus (Phlm. 16). Familial love demands
that members take responsibility for the weaker brother (1 Cor. 8.11). The task of
the siblings was to maintain the family honor, “walking appropriately among the
outsiders” (1 Thess. 4.12). Many of the prohibitions assume the familial context. A
brother should not take a brother to court (1 Cor. 6.1-9), defraud him (1 Thess. 4.5),
or cause him to stumble (Rom. 14.13; 1 Cor. 8.13). Siblings should not be guilty
of strife, jealousy, envy or quarreling (cf. Gal. 5.20).14 Thus Paul’s instructions are
largely about the treatment of siblings, the avoidance of familiar sibling quarrels, and
the exercise of family responsibilities. Indeed, Paul’s frequent use of “one another”
reflects the family relationship and the solidarity of the community.15 Thus one of
Paul’s first tasks was to teach new members to assume the roles of families, to “love
one another” (1 Thess. 4.9), and to provide the warmth and social safety net that
ancient families provided.
In addition to providing parental love, Paul assumed the parental role as example
for the children. He recalls that the new converts had been his imitators (1 Thess. 1.6)
13. For Paul’s relationship to the Greco-Roman psychagogic traditions, see Abraham J. Malherbe,
“New Testament, Traditions and Theology of Care,” in Rodney J. Hunter (ed.), Dictionary of Pastoral
Care and Counseling (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), p. 790.
14. On these vices as common hindrances to family life, see H. Moxnes, “Family Imagery and
Christian Identity in Gal 5.13 to 6.10,” in H. Moxnes (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families: Family
as Social Reality and Metaphor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, p. 140.
15. Ibid., p. 27.
before becoming examples to other churches (1 Thess. 1.7). In his autobiographical

reflections (1 Thess. 2.1-12) he presents himself as a model for the conduct that he
urges the church to adopt (chs. 4–5), indicating that his conduct had been “pure,
upright, and blameless” among the believers (1 Thess. 2.10). Just as he conducted
himself without uncleanness (!'9/9";:9, 2.3) and greed (213*)3<:9, 2.5) and worked
with his hands (4.9), he challenges them to avoid these vices (4.3, 5, 7) and to work
with their hands (4.11). As the frequent autobiographical sections in his other let-
ters suggest, Paul commonly presented himself as an example to others (cf. 1 Cor.
4.6-13; Phil. 1.12-26; 3.1-21), and invited the readers to imitate him (cf. 1 Cor. 4.16;
11.1; Phil. 3.17; 4.9). Paul is an example to those who suffer from the hostility of
the populace, and he regularly recalls his sufferings (cf. 1 Cor. 4.9-12; 2 Cor. 6.4-10;
11.23-30; Phil. 3.10). He reminds the Thessalonians that he had been treated shame-
fully before coming to them and preached to them “in spite of great opposition”
(2.1-12). In the other letters he presents himself as a model of participation in the
cross and reminds the readers that the cross shapes their own existence. He has been
“crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2.19). When opponents question his apostolic creden-
tials in Corinth, he points to his suffering in a series of peristasis catalogues (2 Cor.
4.7-12; 6.4-6; 11.23-30; 12.10), using a literary form that was probably introduced by
his opponents,16 as evidence that he is a minister of Christ. He holds the treasure of
the gospel in an earthenware jar (2 Cor. 4.7) as he carries around the dying of Jesus
(2 Cor. 4.10), in order that he may live by God’s power (2 Cor. 4.10-12). Just as Jesus
was “crucified in weakness, but lives by God’s power,” he is “weak in him,” but also
lives by God’s power (2 Cor. 13.4). Thus he is a model for the Thessalonians who
have suffered much from their own fellow countrymen (1 Thess. 2.14).
Paul’s paternal role is especially evident in his role as teacher. As long as he was
in Thessalonica he continued to declare the word of God (1 Thess. 2.2) while also
making an appeal (29"0'1=;$7, 2.3) as he worked night and day while preaching
the gospel (2.9). His alternation of terms for proclamation indicates that he did not
distinguish his missionary preaching from his pastoral duties. He continued to reiter-
ate the gospel and make an appeal for a response to both nonbelievers and the new
converts.17 He expands on this 29"0'1=;$7 to the community, connecting it with his
paternal role: “Like a father with his own children, encouraging (29"9'91o>)%37) and
consoling (29"9-?/*@-3)*$) and charging (-9"%?"*@-3)*$) you to walk worthily of
the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (2.12). The three participles are
not synonymous, but represent the different nuances of Paul’s paternal role as teach-
er.18 A9"9'91o>)%37 is the most comprehensive term for the ministry of the word.
16. A peristasis catalogue is a “catalogue of circumstances,” which can be either good or bad. Paul
lists adversities that he has overcome by divine power. See John Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel:
An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS, 99; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 45–46.
17. James W. Thompson, Preaching Like Paul: Homiletical Wisdom for Today (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2001).
18. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 151.
It includes evangelistic preaching (cf. 2.2; 2 Cor. 5.19-6.2), the giving of comfort
(cf. 1 Thess. 4.18), and the appeal for appropriate moral conduct.19 A9"9-?/*@-3)*$
is commonly used for the consolation of those who are bereaved, and it may refer
to Paul’s care of those who were disoriented by the hostility they had received.20
B9"%?"*@-3)*$ is used for a declaration, including the charge to maintain moral
conduct, as the compound ,$9-9"%?"*@-3)*$ indicates in 4.6. These terms indicate
the range of instruction that Paul gave to new converts.
One dimension of Paul’s 29"0'1=;$7 is the reiteration of his original preaching
to the new converts (1 Thess. 2.9). Paul introduces the disoriented converts to a new
symbolic world that includes their place within Israel’s story. The election, calling,
and challenge to be holy that God once gave to ancient Israel (cf. Deut. 7.7-11) also
extends to them (1 Thess. 1.4; 3.13; 4.3, 7; 5.23). Thus Paul provides a new corporate
identity for those whose conversion has resulted in the loss of identity within their
families and surrounding culture. Indeed, a consistent theme of all of the letters is
that Gentile converts enter into Israel’s symbolic world, consider the ancient Israelites
their ancestors (Rom. 4.11, 18; 1 Cor. 10.1; Gal. 3.6-29), and distinguish themselves
from the Gentiles (cf. 1 Thess. 4.5). Moreover, they are united by their allegiance to
the shared memory of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15.3), the
shared rituals of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and their common expectation that
God will bring the story to a close at the end (1 Thess. 4.13-5.11).
A second dimension of Paul’s instruction is the consolation of the community in
the context of the hostility it is facing from neighbors and family. While he was with
the Thessalonians, he taught them that suffering is the destiny (1 Thess. 3.3-4) of the
faithful people of God. Having both proclaimed the suffering of Jesus and modeled
the role of the suffering of the faithful, he indicates that believers share in the same
destiny, which was first the destiny of Jesus.
Communal identity requires not only the establishment of a shared memory, but
also common behavioral norms, for communities express their identity in concrete
actions.21 Consequently, Paul’s role as father included a third dimension of his pater-
nal care. He initiated the community into family traditions that were consistent with
their symbolic world (cf. 1 Cor. 11.2). Although we do not have access to Paul’s oral
instruction to new converts, the repetition of his earlier teaching in the letters indicates
that the traditions included the shared beliefs, liturgical traditions, and code of conduct
of the community. For example, he indicates that his teaching on the Lord’s Supper is
already known to the Corinthians, for he introduces the instruction with the phrase, “I
delivered to you what I also received” (1 Cor. 11.23). Similarly, he employed the same
introduction to his reminder of what the community had believed from the beginning:
“That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that
he was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3).
When he writes, “If we believe that Jesus died and arose” (1 Thess. 4.14), he appeals
19. Thompson, Preaching Like Paul, p. 54.

20. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, pp. 152–53.
21. Michael Wolter, “Identität und Ethos bei Paulus,” in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum
(WUNT, 236; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), p. 128.
to the tradition as a premise for his argument. These passages indicate the catechesis
for new converts. Inasmuch as we have only a fraction of Paul’s catechesis, we may
assume that a period of extensive instruction accompanied the making of converts.
Catechetical work also included the inculcation of behavioral norms that were
appropriate for life in the new family. His instructions included matters of sexual
conduct (1 Thess. 4.3-8) and brotherly love (1 Thess. 4.9-12) in addition to matters
about the future hope (3.2; 5.1-2).The other letters offer an additional window into
the catechetical instruction of new converts. Paul apparently employed ethical lists
in order to resocialize his converts into the new family. After giving the lists of vices
to avoid, he reminds the Galatians of his earlier catechesis: “I told you that those
who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5.21). The similarity
of this list with the list of vices in 1 Cor. 6.9-11 suggests that Paul regularly initiated
his converts with lists of behavioral norms, adapting them to fit the needs of the
local community. These vice lists included rules on sexual conduct and norms for
maintaining communal solidarity.
Pastoral Work in Paul’s Absence

Paul’s pastoral work with his churches does not end when he leaves his converts
and continues his travels, for he continues to play the role of father and builder. He
continues his ministry through letters, visits and the participation of co-workers.
When he is separated from them, he is “orphaned” (1 Thess. 2.17), longing to see
their face (cf. 1 Thess. 3.10). As he indicates to the Corinthians, he has a special
relationship with his children, who have many instructors (29$,9C(C*:),22 but only
one father (1 Cor. 4.15).
As the substitute for Paul’s presence, the letters continue the task of participating
with God in the transformation of the communities. They maintain the intimacy with
the readers that Paul had established at the founding of the community.23 The impact
of the letters was also to maintain a solidarity among the members while demarcat-
ing them from the surrounding society (cf. 1 Thess. 4.13; 5.6). Writing to churches
that he had established, he continues the task of shaping their conduct. Indeed, the
common thread in all of the letters is Paul’s concern for the behavior of the converts.
In 1 Thessalonians, for example, Paul writes to repeat the instructions that he had
given previously. In the Corinthian letters and Galatians, he writes in response to a
crisis, hoping to ensure that his work has not been in vain (cf. Gal. 4.11). As James
Dunn has indicated, Paul speaks as a pastor in everything that he says.24 The shape
of his letters suggests Paul’s pastoral concern, for theological analysis always serves
the practical needs of the readers.
The letters continue and clarify Paul’s catechesis. In 1 Thessalonians, for example,
Paul writes not to correct false teaching, but to repeat the earlier catechesis. Just as he
had earlier been the father encouraging the children to live worthily of God (1 Thess.
22. The 29$,9C(C57 was normally a household slave, whose duty was to conduct a youth to and from
school and to superintend his conduct (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 439-40; BDAG, p. 743.
23. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, p. 69.
24. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 626.
2.12), he now urges readers to continue their exemplary conduct (1 Thess. 4.1-2). The
frequent references to what the readers already know (cf. 1 Thess. 3.2; 4.1-2, 9; 5.2)
and what Paul has told them previously (Gal. 5.21) indicate that the letters confirm the
original pastoral instruction. The original letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5.9) was
undoubtedly a repetition of earlier instruction on sexual morality. In 1 Corinthians he
writes to clarify earlier instruction (1 Cor. 5.9-13; 7.1) and to admonish his children
for their failure to heed his teachings (1 Cor. 4.14). He exercises the authority to
demand that they restore community cohesion by expelling one who violated the
behavioral norms that he had established (1 Cor. 5.1-7) and even threatens them with
a rod when they do not behave (1 Cor. 4.21).
Paul continues his pastoral work through visits with his churches. Most of his
letters express his affection for them and the desire to visit them (Rom. 15.22; 1 Cor.
4.18-19; 16.5-9; 2 Cor. 12.14-15; 13.1; Phil. 2.24; 1 Thess. 2.17-18; Phlm. 22). He
anticipates a third visit to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 13.1), in which he will demonstrate
an authority that is inseparable from his love for his children (cf. 1 Cor. 4.14). He
will continue to refuse financial support of the Corinthians because “children ought
not to lay up for their parents, but parents for the children” (2 Cor. 12.14). Because
of his love for the children, he will “spend and be spent” for them (2 Cor. 12.15).
However, he also warns his children that he will not spare them from punishment
(2 Cor. 13.1-2), as he did previously (2 Cor. 1.23).
Paul’s concern for the churches is also evident in the role of co-workers who act as
his emissaries. As Paul indicates in his description of himself as a builder and planter,
he depends on others to continue his work. Where he plants, others water; where he
lays a foundation, others build on (1 Cor. 3.6-9). Paul mentions several co-workers
who extend his ministry by serving as spokespersons and participating in his way of
life.25 He describes them with the terms “partner” ('*$)()57, 2 Cor. 8.23), “fellow
soldier” (;?;%"9%$D%=7, Phil. 2.25), “fellow prisoner” (;?)9$#-01(%*7, Phlm. 23;
Rom. 16.7), and “fellow worker” (;?)3"C57, Rom. 16.3; 1 Cor. 3.9; Phlm. 24), indi-
cating their role in his ministry. The most prominent co-worker is Timothy, to whom
Paul entrusts the task of explaining his ways (1 Cor. 4.17) because he does the same
work that Paul does.26 Paul sends him to Thessalonica to continue Paul’s own work of
strengthening the churches (1 Thess. 3.2), and he writes in response to Timothy’s good
report (1 Thess. 3.6). As Paul’s partner (2 Cor. 8.23), Titus shares the anguish and joy
of the apostle over the condition of the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 7.13-16). Apollos
is a servant (,$0'*)*7) who joins Paul in his work and participates in his ministry
(1 Cor. 16.12). Paul also describes Luke, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas as fellow
workers (Rom. 16.21; Phlm. 24). Epaphroditus is the emissary of the Philippians
sent to minister to Paul’s needs, but he is also Paul’s “brother and fellow worker and
fellow soldier” (Phil. 2.25) in the ministry.
The imagery of the building is especially useful for Paul’s description of co-
workers (1 Cor. 3.10-17). He responds to the Corinthian partisanship by indicating
25. James W. Thompson, “Ministry, Christian,” NIDB 4 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), p. 95.
26. Ibid.
the role of those who join him in the construction project. He and Apollos, to whom
rival groups give their allegiance, are only servants of God (1 Cor. 3.5). The church is
God’s building, and they are only co-workers with God (1 Cor. 3.5). Paul then extends
the imagery by describing the role of the builders. Paul laid the foundation, and others
built on it (1 Cor. 3.10). The quality of the work of each one will become evident
when the church is tested by fire (1 Cor. 3.13). Paul does not clarify the imagery of
the fiery test because his focus is on the quality of the work of those who build on
to the foundation. He has begun the construction project, and he assumes that others
will follow. The task of the minister is to use durable materials in order to ensure the
permanence of the building.
Pastoral Ministry in Local Churches

Paul envisions the continuation of pastoral ministry in the churches he founded. First
Thessalonians depicts a dialectical form of pastoral ministry, according to which
leaders emerge (1 Thess. 5.12) to guide the church while at the same time the entire
community is engaged in the same tasks. He instructs his listeners, “Know those who
labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess. 5.12),
referring to a group that had taken the roles of evangelism and guidance of the group.27
Within the same context, Paul encourages the entire community to be involved in
the same tasks. While there are those in particular who admonish the church (5.12),
Paul encourages the whole community, “Admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-
hearted, bear with the weak, be patient with all” (5.14). Paul thus instructs the church
to join their leaders in assuming responsibility for the church, but to continue the work
that he had originally done. This dialectical form of leadership is characteristic not
only of the Thessalonian church, but also of the other churches, for Paul regularly
refers to those who have special tasks (cf. Rom. 12.3-8; 1 Cor. 12.12-31; Gal. 6.6;
Phil. 1.1), while also encouraging the whole church to minister to one another.
Paul employs the construction metaphor not only for himself and his co-workers,
but also for the entire community. Their task is to “encourage and build up one
another” (1 Thess. 5.11) — the same tasks in which Paul had been involved from
the beginning (cf. 1 Thess. 5.2; 2 Cor. 10.8; 12.19). In 1 Corinthians Paul applies
the construction metaphor to matters of ethical decisions and to corporate worship.
Having described the church as a building under construction (3.10-17), he argues
that those who insist on their own freedom recognize that the building (*+'*,*-.) of
the community takes precedence over individual rights (10.23). He applies the same
principle to corporate worship, reminding the readers that the memory of the cross
should nullify all self-seeking behavior at the Lord’s Supper (11.17-34) and that the
construction (*+'*,*-.) of the community should take precedence over the display
of spiritual gifts (14.1-5).
27. That Paul is speaking of one group rather than three is indicated by the use of only one definite
article to describe three functions. E*2$0( was commonly used for evangelistic work (cf. 1 Cor. 4.12;
15.10; Gal. 4.11; Phil. 1.26).
Conclusion
As a missionary pastor, Paul’s task is not only to make converts, but to ensure that they
complete the journey toward transformation into the image of Christ. He articulates
an eschatological vision, according to which the test of his work is the complete
maturation of his communities. As a father and builder, Paul works to ensure the
formation of the community through post-baptismal instruction, letters, visits, and
emissaries. He also provides for ongoing transformation of the churches through the
guidance of local leaders and the participation of the whole church in the building
of the community.
3
PAUL AND HIS ETHNICITY: REFRAMING THE CATEGORIES
James C. Miller
Introduction
What was the “gospel” Paul, apostle to the gentiles, preached during his varied
travels from Jerusalem around to Rome? Answers to that question tend to be deeply
influenced by how one understands Paul’s relationship to his ancestral traditions.
Traditional Protestant portraits of Paul, on the one hand, depict him as one who left his
particularistic Jewish religion for the new, universal religion of Christianity. Within
this basic framework, Paul’s “gospel” and therefore his mission will in some way be
defined over against Judaism and Jewish Law-observance.1 On the other hand, more
recent post-Holocaust and post-Sanders interpretations of Paul portray him as one
who understood himself as a fully faithful Jew who, precisely as such, undertook a
mission to the gentiles rooted in a particular reading of Jewish traditions about the
role of the gentiles in the eschaton.2 Within this approach, Paul’s missionary work
will center upon calling gentiles to reject idolatry and follow the one true God, the
God of Israel, through Jesus Christ the Lord.
Exegetical ammunition for the first approach is not difficult to locate. In
Philippians 3, Paul catalogs seven personal markers of Jewish identity (3.5-6), then
states that he regards these as “garbage” (sku/bala) for the sake of knowing Christ
(3.8). In Galatians, Paul speaks of his “former life in Judaism” (1.13). Of course, Paul
also talks of Christ being the “end of the Law” (Rom. 10.4) and himself as having
“died to the Law” (Gal. 2.19). All these references, along with others, seem to indicate
1. So Thomas R. Schreiner writes that Paul’s statement in Gal. 1.13 that he was “formerly” in Judaism
“surely implies that he [Paul] is no longer part of Judaism.” Schreiner concludes, “It is quite clear that
Paul has abandoned these [Jewish] traditions” (Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: a Pauline Theology
[Downers Grove: InterVarsity/Leicester: Apollos, 2001], p. 45). Schreiner speaks here of Paul seeing his
gospel as the “fulfillment” of the Jewish scriptures and in that sense standing in continuity with Paul’s
heritage. But it is clear that, for Schreiner, Paul left Judaism behind for something else altogether.
2. On Paul’s reading of the Jewish Scriptures on this point, see for example, Richard B. Hays, “‘Who
Has Believed Our Message?’ Paul’s Reading of Isaiah,” in SBL Seminar Papers 1998 (2 vols.; SBLSP 37;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 205–25, and J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and
Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 307–40.
a clear-cut breach between Paul and his ethnic heritage, a fissure that would produce
a gospel message fundamentally opposed to that heritage in one way or another.
Yet, in Romans 4 and Galatians 3–4, Paul speaks of the gentiles being “adopted”
as children of Abraham. Furthermore, in Rom. 11.17, he speaks metaphorically of
the gentiles as wild branches being “grafted on” to the olive tree of Israel. In each of
these cases, Paul casts his gentile converts not over against Israel but as part of it.
This problem of locating Paul in relation to his ethnic roots has been defined as one
of continuity or discontinuity. Has Paul broken with his ethnic heritage and therefore
he and his message must both be defined in contrast to his Jewish roots (disconti-
nuity)? Or does Paul stand fully within his ancestral traditions, meaning we must
interpret Paul and his gospel within the streams of Israel’s traditions (continuity)?
The thesis of this essay is that the categories of continuity and discontinuity that
so shape our understanding of Paul falsely frame the issue. Viewed from the perspec-
tive of modern studies of ethnicity and collective identity, Paul can be seen as fully
continuous with his ancestral self-understanding, yet in some way discontinuous with
it at the same time. Within studies of ethnic identity, such an understanding is not only
not contradictory but is actually quite normal. An ethnic identity perspective offers,
I believe, a more accurate framework for understanding Paul than the traditional
dichotomy of options. In turn, this framework therefore provides a more reliable
approach for interpreting Paul’s gospel and mission as well.
This essay examines several passages where Paul speaks directly of his ethnic
heritage, approaching these texts from a perspective informed by modern studies of
ethnicity and collective identity.3 I first lay the groundwork for the textual investiga-
tion by briefly summarizing widely agreed upon tenets of collective identity and
ethnicity. On this basis, I then analyze four statements by Paul about his heritage.
The study concludes with a section developing the implications of this perspective
for understanding “Paul the missionary.”
Collective Identity and Ethnicity 4

Given the extent of the subject and the limitations of space, I make no pretense of
completeness for the following synthesis. My goal is to highlight several widely
agreed upon dynamics of ethnicity and collective identity that can serve as a basis for
investigating Paul’s statement about his own ethnicity. I will first define the concept
of ethnicity before describing the wider phenomenon of collective identity.
Although no definitive understanding of an ethnic group exists, a broadly
3. Ethnicity is one manifestation of collective identity. As such, what is true of the manner in which
collective identity is formed and maintained in general will be true of the way ethnic identity is formed
and maintained in particular.
4. Portions of what follows are taken or adapted from James C. Miller, “Ethnicity and the Hebrew
Bible,” CBR 6.2 (2008), pp. 170–213; idem., “The Sociological Category of ‘Collective Identity’ and Its
Implications for Understanding Second Peter,” in Duane Watson and Robert Webb (eds.), Reading Second
Peter with New Eyes (LNTS 382; New York: Continuum, 2010), pp. 149–56; and idem, “Communal
Identity in Philippians,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 27.1 (2010). Used by the kind permission of
Continuum International Publishing Group and the editors of Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi.
3. Paul and His Ethnicity 39
agreed-upon set of descriptors can be used to distinguish such a collective. John

Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, drawing upon the work of Richard Schermerhorn,
propose the following widely-cited list of ethnic identifiers:
1. a common proper name, to identify and express the “essence” of its community;
2. myth of common ancestry, a myth rather than a fact, a myth that includes the idea of a
common origin in time and place and that gives an ethnie [ethnic group] a sense of fictive
kinship;
3. shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past or pasts, includ-
ing heroes, events, and their commemoration;
4. one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but normally include
religion, customs, or language;
5. a link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnie, only its
symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples;
6. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnie’s population.5
What is noteworthy about this list is that most of the characteristics can be applied
to collectivities other than ethnic groups. I argue that the one crucial factor in the list
that distinguishes ethnic identity from other group affiliations is a myth of common
ancestry. This conclusion remains debated by sociologists and anthropologists. But
in light of recent and ongoing research on the subject, simply to equate ethnicity with
group identity of any undefined sort will not suffice. I therefore define the distinctive
of ethnic identity as “perceived common ancestry.”6
From this perspective, ethnic discourse plays an important role in several of
Paul’s letters. For example, Paul engages in ethnic discourse about himself, as each
of the focal passages under study below demonstrates. Furthermore, as noted above,
Paul conducts his discussion about God’s dealing with gentiles, the focal point of
his mission, in ethnic terms in Romans 4 and Galatians 3–4. Gentiles are “adopted”
into Abraham’s family. Finally, in what most scholars now regard as the heart of the
argument in the central letter of Romans, Paul offers an extended argument regarding
God’s faithfulness to Paul’s own people in Romans 9–11.
Collective Identity
The many-layered, contextual nature of social groupings makes collective iden-
tity a difficult matter to study and define. They may form for any number of
5. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.), Ethnicity (Oxford Readers; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996), pp. 6–7 (emphasis in original), citing Schermerhorn, Comparative Ethnic
Relations (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 12.
6. Kenton D. Sparks, “Ethnicity,” in Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), p. 270. Questions remain about the
appropriateness of employing the modern notion of ethnicity to ancient societies. Most scholars, however,
regard the organization of human groupings around perceived ties of common ancestry to be a universal
human phenomenon. This was likely to be even more true in pre-industrial societies than in modern, urban
settings. Therefore, the search for a specific ethnic component to Paul’s identity is not without warrant.
reasons, be made up of people whose adherence to the group varies depending

on an additional host of factors, and are shaped by the particulars of time and
place. Nevertheless, basic elements of collective identity are widely recognized.
I organize my analysis of collective identity into three key components. First, col-
lective identity is the perception of similarities and differences. Second, collective
identity is perceived as persisting through time. Finally, collective identity is a social
process.
Collective Identity as the Perception of Similarity and Difference

Fundamentally, collective identity involves a perception of similarity and difference
between one group of people and another. In simple terms, it entails a sense of “we are
us, they are not us, and we are not them.” Without a sense of commonality, collective
identity could not exist. On the other hand, similarity cannot occur apart from differ-
ence; to say “we are alike” necessarily entails the idea that others are unlike us.
This sense of similarity and difference arises out of social relations. In the midst
of social interaction, similarities and differences become apparent and generate
group identities. A critical component in this identity-forming process is variously
referred to as ascription, categorization, labeling, or stereotyping. These terms may
be given highly specific definitions within particular theoretical traditions. As used
here, however, they merely involve attributing to a group characteristics shared by
all members of that group.7
In the terms in which we have defined collective identity above, we can identify
three basic pathways by which this attribution takes place. All contribute to the shap-
ing of group identity. The first two we have identified above. First, we self-ascribe
characteristics to our own group, a process often referred to as “group identification”
(“we are children of Abraham”; Jn 8.33). Second, we categorize or label others as
unlike ourselves (“Cretans are always liars”; Tit. 1.12). A third type of categorization
occurs when a group itself is categorized by outsiders (“you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s possession”; 1 Pet. 2.9).
Categorizations such as these can exert a potent influence on identity formation.
How they do so depends on the dynamics of the social situation. For example, groups
whose identity, or even their existence, is under threat will respond differently to
categorization by an out-group than will groups in a non-threatening situations.
If a sense of similarity and difference between groups emerges through social
interaction, one critical strategy for understanding collective identity involves focus-
ing on the boundaries between the groups. A “boundary” in this sense refers not to
some sort of permanent barrier, but to the identified differences between groups that
emerge in the midst of interaction. Boundaries are defined as interaction takes place
7. Rupert Brown, quoted by Philip F. Esler (Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of
Paul’s Letter [Minneapolis: Fortress Press], p. 21), describes stereotyping as attributing to a group “certain
characteristics that are seen to be shared by all or most of their fellow group members” (Group Processes:
Dynamics within and between Groups [Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd ed., 2000], p. 290).
across them. The identification of boundaries that differentiate between groups thus
becomes an important factor in understanding collective identity.8
Collective Identity through Time

To describe communal identity in terms of its emergence out of social interaction does
not mean that identity is spontaneous, as if it exists only in the moment, a creation
ex nihilo. A critical component of collective identity is the perception that it persists
through time, giving a group’s identity a sense of substance and permanence. We can
identify two factors that contribute to this sense of continuity: communal narratives
and routinization or institutionalization of identity.
Communal Narratives
Collective identity involves a sense of place within an ongoing story of a group.9
“We” are “us” because people and events in the past have made us what we are. This
past not only informs our self-understanding in the present, but also carries narrative
momentum that creates expectations of future continuity.
Furthermore, a communal narrative defines a group within a certain kind of
world. A narrative, after all, consists of particular sorts of characters involved in
meaningful events that take place within specific settings. Woven together, these
characters, events, and settings form a plot. But descriptions of characters, whether
individual or collective, carry with them evaluative overtones that tell us more about
the characters than mere facts; they tell us what kind of people inhabit this world. In
addition, events become imbued with significance through their relationship to one
another. Such events also contribute to our interpretation not only of the characters
(individual and collective) in this narrative, but for understanding the world within
which these events take place.
In effect, a communal narrative provides a “point of view” on the world.10 Rooted
in a particular recounting of events, characters, and settings, such a narrative cannot
be anything but an evaluative recounting of the story of what brought us to where
we are in the present.
So communal narratives tell the group the way the world is and their rightful
place in that world. That sense of a located self for the group lends substance to their
8. The focus on boundaries emerged from the work of Frederik Barth. See especially his introduc-
tion to Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference (Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1998 [1969]), pp. 9–38. On my depiction of the subject here, see also Jenkins,
Social Identity, pp. 102–03.
9. Stephen Cornell writes, “When people take on, create, or assign an ethnic identity, part of what
they do — intentionally or not — is to take on, create, or assign a story, a narrative of some sort that
captures central understandings about what it means to be a member of the group.” “That’s the Story of
Our Life,” in Paul Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs (eds.), We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity
in Constructing Ethnic Identity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), p. 42.
10. R. Jenkins, Social Identity, p. 136. Jenkins at this point refers specifically to the “symbolic uni-
verse” depicted by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (London:
Allen Lane, 1967).
self-understanding. To paraphrase the thought process, “We are who we are because
this is the way the world really is.”11
Finally, a collective narrative shapes behavior in profound ways. Through pro-
viding a sense of the way things are (who we are in what kind of world), powerful
expectations of appropriate and inappropriate behavior become created. In David F.
Ford’s words, people “take part in carrying it [their history] further” through acting
in ways befitting their place within that narrative.12 Such behavior both reflects the
standards appropriate to a communal narrative and reinforces them. Once again, this
sense of right and wrong behaviors, derived from an understanding of the world, lends
a sense of substance to the group’s identity.
Routinization/Institutionalization
Characteristic expressions of identity — from particular language usage, to styles of
clothing, to eating habits, and so on — become routine. Such patterns of behavior
turn into “the way things are done.” Once recognized as such, we can say they are
“routinized” or “institutionalized” within a group.13
Philip F. Esler speaks of such behaviors as “norms” or “identity descriptors.”
These are “the values that define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors by mem-
bers of the group. They tell members what they should think and feel and how they
should behave if they are to belong to the group and share its identity.”14 They play a
particularly useful role when group members face new and unfamiliar circumstances,
helping them to discern what is appropriate in these situations. Thus, from another
perspective, we see that expected behaviors and attitudes both maintain and reinforce
collective identity.15
Collective Identity as a Social Process

Although communal narratives and the institutionalization of behavior provide a
sense of continuity that lends substantive character to group identity, collective identi-
ties are not reified entities. Rather identities are constantly negotiated. As people bring
perceptions of group identity with them into social interaction, this “identity” must
be produced and reproduced in each new situation.16 In the process, identity becomes
redefined, if only slightly, for every set of fresh circumstances. Identities, therefore,
are enacted or embodied perceptions of similarities and differences within a given
social situation. In effect, group members must ask themselves at every turn, “What
does it look like to be one of ‘us’ within this situation?”
11. Although space does not allow me to develop this point, what I am describing here resembles
Charles Taylor’s “social imaginaries.” See his Modern Social Imaginaries (Public Planet Books; Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 2004).
12. “System, Story, Performance: A Proposal about the Role of Narrative in Christian Systematic
Theology,” in Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory Jones (eds.), Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 202.
13. Jenkins, Social Identity, p. 133–34.
14. Conflict and Identity, p. 20.
15. Ibid., p. 21.
16. Jenkins, Social Identity, p. 94.
The experience of a former faculty colleague from a seminary in East Africa

illustrates this phenomenon well. He explains that when in his home area in Ghana,
he thought of himself and others regarded him as his father’s son and his grandfather’s
grandson. When he left for university in the capital city of Accra, he was identified as
a member of the Ga people and that facet of his identity took on greater significance.
When he left Ghana to go to seminary in Kenya, he was labeled as a “Ghanaian.” That
ascription called on a new and different aspect of his identity. When he came to the
United States to work on his Ph.D., he was regarded as an African, except of course
when he attended the gatherings of African students. In that setting he became a
Ghanaian unless, of course, he was with the other Ghanaian students in which case he
was identified as a member of the Ga community. And so on. In each of these settings,
he perceived himself and was perceived by others in particular ways. The question
for him was, “How do I explain myself to this person in this situation?” Furthermore,
each perception of identity carried with it specific sets of behavioral and attitudinal
expectations that were appropriate for his enacted identity. It was one thing to be his
father’s son, but quite another to be an “African.” Identity is not disembodied thing
“out there” somewhere. Identity is embodied, or enacted, and situational.
The variables that enter into answering the “what it looks like to be one of us” are
many. They include which aspects of identity come into question in the specific situ-
ation, how negotiable these aspects of identity are, the social positions of the various
parties involved, the number and degree of differences between groups, and so on.
What features of identity are called upon in a particular situation can determine how
vigorously and in what manner that aspect of identity is enacted.
Thus, social interaction leads to organization of that interaction in the form of
defined categories (“us” and “them”) that enable us to make sense of our social
world. These classifications take on a customary feel over time. Yet, in fact, they
develop as the categories are renegotiated in the ongoing process of ever-changing
social situations.
Summary
We can think of collective identity as perceptions of who we are as a group, in contrast
to other groups, that become refined and enacted within social situations. Communal
narratives and customary practices give a sense of substance and continuity to this
identity. Yet, an identity is always reformed as it is embodied in new circumstances.
This understanding of collective identity is as true of groups in general as it is of
ethnic groups in particular. As we will see, it offers a fruitful framework for under-
standing Paul’s seemingly contradictory statements regarding his own ethnicity.
Paul and His Ethnic Identity

In what follows, I examine Paul’s explicit statements concerning his ethnicity: Rom.
11.1, 2 Cor. 11.22, Phil. 3.5-6, and Gal. 1.13. My purpose is not to examine each and
every issue that arises in the interpretation of these texts. Rather, I attend to the issues
that give rise to these utterances, before highlighting perspectives on the text available
when viewed as performances of Paul’s identity within particular social circumstances.
Romans 11.1
In Rom. 11.1, Paul emphatically asserts that he is an Israelite, e2k spe\rmatov Abraa/m
(“from the seed of Abraham”) from the fulh=v (“tribe”) of Benjamin. This statement
stands at the culmination of a line of reasoning that has been building since Romans 1.
In response to his argument in Romans 1–2, Paul anticipates the question: has God
been unjust in God’s dealings with Israel (3.1-8, esp. 3.3)? Paul returns to this ques-
tion in chs. 9–11.17 Paul begins his response by lamenting that, from his perspective,
many of his fellow kin find themselves outside the covenant, apparently for rejecting
the message of Paul and his colleagues (9.1-5). He then makes the claim that drives
the argument of the next three chapters: God has not been unable or unwilling to keep
covenant with Israel (9.6a).18 The bulk of Romans 9 consists of Paul’s argument that
God has always made distinctions within physical Israel. The end of ch. 9 and the
entirety of ch. 10 contain Paul’s claim that Israel herself is at fault for her current
predicament. In ch. 11, Paul asks (v. 2) whether or not God has therefore “rejected”
(a2pw/sato) God’s own people.19
In other words, events in Paul’s time have called into question Israel’s (or at least
some of the members of Israel’s) communal narrative. Have God’s present actions
been inconsistent with God’s past dealings with Israel? The links between Rom.
3.1-8 and the content of Romans 9–11 make it evident that this issue drives Paul’s
argument in these chapters.20
In 11.1, Paul’s well-known response to so many questions in Romans, mh\ ge/noito
(“certainly not!”), resounds again.21 Paul’s first justification for that answer consists
of his own example. He offers his ethnic credentials as an Israelite, confirmed by the
fact that he is a descendant of Abraham, more specifically from the tribe of Benjamin,
as proof that God has not rejected Israel. Each biographical descriptor serves as an
ethnic boundary marker, setting apart those so identified from non-Israelites and non-
descendants of Abraham. Given Paul’s Mosaic plea on behalf of his people (9.1-3),
his statement of his commitment to a Jewish mission in what follows (11.14), and the
fact that this statement prefaces warnings to gentile Christ-followers against regarding
themselves as in some sense superior to Jews (11.13-21), I think it is not inappropriate
to detect passion and even pride in Paul’s statement of his own ethnicity.
On the basis of modern theories of ethnicity, we must read this emphatic assertion
17. See the issue that arises at Rom. 3.3, a point to which Paul returns at 9.6.
18. This is my paraphrase of this text which reads, Ou0x oi[on de\ o#ti e0kpe/ptwken o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~.
Literally translated, it reads, “It is not as though the word of God had failed.”
19. What becomes apparent when taking in the extensive attention devoted to God’s dealings with
Israel in Romans is the narrative character not only of Paul’s argument (esp. in Romans 9–11) but of the
reason Paul has to deal with the question of God’s faithfulness to Israel in the first place. Events in Paul’s
time have called into question the consistency of God’s past dealings with Israel and God’s present actions
as the questions of Rom. 3.1-8 and the introduction (9.1-6) to chs. 9–11 make clear.
20. Although this would take us far beyond the scope of this essay, I believe an argument can be made
that this is the issue driving the bulk of Paul’s argument throughout the letter. On Romans as a theodicy,
see most recently, J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
21. See Rom. 3.4, 6, 31; 6.2, 15; 7.7, 13; 9.14; and 11.11.
of Paul’s proper standing within the descendants of Abraham as a situationally

formulated expression of Paul’s ethnic self-understanding. In other words, it is a “per-
formance” of his ethnicity. From this perspective, in Romans we see Paul maintaining
“inherited” boundaries for the sake of his argument at this point in the letter: “I myself,
as one in Christ, am a part of the physical people descended from Abraham.” Paul’s
assertion of this ethnic boundary (physical descent) and the “us and them” dichotomy
it creates over those who lack such physical descent serve as a foundation for his
ability to warn gentile (non-Israelite, non-descendants of Abraham) Christ-followers
in Rome against holding any sense of superiority over Jews simply because they, as
non-Jews, are now recipients of divine benefaction and mercy. Without the existence
of the boundary Paul posits between Jew and non-Jew, he simply cannot accomplish
this argumentative task. Paul’s rhetoric thus serves to highlight and reinforce that
boundary.22 It is worth noting that this is no mere rhetorical move, as if Paul were
simply creating a hypothetical situation to make his point. This is a genuine affirma-
tion of Paul’s self-understanding.
2 Corinthians 11.22-23a
In the highly contentious context of 2 Corinthians 10–13, Paul asks and responds to
three rhetorical questions that build toward a fourth climactic question and answer.
The first three questions make assertions about Paul’s ethnicity; the fourth question
claims surpassing credentials as a servant of Christ:
“Are they Hebrews ('Ebrai=oi/)? So am I!

Are they Israelites ('Israhli=tai/)? So am I!
Are they seed (spe/rma) of Abram? So am I!
Are they servants of Christ? I am even more so! (even if I am out of my mind in speaking
like this).” (2 Cor. 11.22-23a)23
Once again, these are not generic statements about Paul’s ethnic bona fides. Paul
is responding to specific claims and charges made by opponents whom Paul labels
“super apostles” (11.5) and “pseudoapostles” (11.13). These people apparently claim
distinctives of Jewish identity in order to boost their apostolic stature and hence the
authority of their message.24 Paul’s assertions must be interpreted in the context of
such claims made by his opponents.
22. Although this point plays no significant role in my argument here, we can understand the emphatic
nature of Paul’s positive, emotive affirmation of his ethnicity here as a response to an identity under threat.
23. My translation rearranges the order of the clauses in the final statement in order to preserve the
pattern of rhetorical question and answer among the clauses. See also the translation by Ralph P. Martin,
2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Dallas: Word, 1986), p. 367.
24. Obviously, my assertion that Paul counters claims of opponents entails mirror-reading the text.
For a defense of my conclusion regarding this passage, a common one among interpreters, see Margaret
E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), p. 729. Barrett tries
to link these ethnic boasts to the Jerusalem apostles who presumably (at least according to the “super
apostles”) stand behind the false apostles’ claims. In light of the connections between this passage and
10.13-18, Barrett’s interpretation pushes beyond what the immediate context makes plausible. See C. K.
Unfortunately, detecting any significant differences between these three ethnic

terms/phrases25 with much confidence is nearly impossible. The senses of all three
factors are too closely related to meaningfully set them apart.26 Therefore, isolating
the specifics of the “super apostles” regarding their status as “Hebrews,” “Israelites,”
and the “seed of Abram” becomes even more difficult. We can, however, infer that
the “super apostles” were of Jewish descent with likely Judean connections, and that
these features were used to bolster their authority versus that of Paul. Furthermore,
these characteristics were regarded by the “false apostles” not only as something that
set them apart from non-Hebrews, non-Israelites, and those who were not from the
“seed of Abram,” but they were also characteristics that somehow enhanced the status
and authority of their apostleship.
Paul’s response, in the form of these assertions, affirms the nature of his ethnic
pedigree.27 The false apostles hold no advantage over Paul in terms credibility derived
from ethnicity. Paul’s claim that he and his opponents stand on the same ground in this
regard sets the stage for Paul’s fourth statement, that he differs from them in terms of
his superior standing as a servant of Christ.
Thus, although details of the rhetorical situation are more difficult to discern than
in Romans 11, in 2 Corinthians as in Romans, Paul affirms his place within the people
of Israel in resounding terms. In the next two passages under consideration, Paul
makes claims that appear to set him at odds with that heritage.
Philippians 3.5-6
In Phil. 3.5-6, as part of a response to outsiders who are apparently telling the gentile
Philippians that male Christ-followers need to circumcised, Paul lists what he labels
as his grounds for having “confidence in the flesh” (3.4; pepoi/qhsin en sarki\).
These reasons include: “circumcised on the eighth day, from the ge/nouv (‘people’)28
of Israel, from the fulh=v (‘tribe’) of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, according to
the Law a Pharisee, according to zeal a persecutor of the ekklhsi/an (‘assembly’ or
‘church’) according to righteousness which is in the law blameless.” As almost all
commentators note, the first four characteristics are Paul’s by birth. The final three
depict Paul’s high degree of adherence to his ancestral traditions. Together they form
a catalog of boundary markers for Jewish ethnicity.
Once again, we must remind ourselves that these characteristics are not Paul’s
general summary of his own self-understanding as if on a résumé. These statements
Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973),
p. 294 and Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 513,
533.
25. See Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 723–30 for a full discussion of options.
26. Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 729.
27. Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
2003), 262–63; Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 723. Martin summarizes Paul’s three ethnic
statements in v. 22 as a claim of “a pure descent as a true Jew” (2 Corinthians, p. 387).
28. BDAG, p. 195, renders the term as “nation” here (their subcategory 3). In this context, I wonder
if their subcategory 1, “ancestral stock” or “descendants” may be more apropos.
occur in an argumentative context. Three factors regarding this context shape their
presentation.
First, they are part of a warning against those whom Paul labels “evil workers”
(3.2) who “mutilate the flesh.” Paul counters the influence of fellow Jewish Christ-
followers who would pressure gentile converts (3.3) to embrace markers of Jewish
identity. This accounts for Paul’s description of these opponents as those who “muti-
late the flesh” (th\n katatomh/n), a play on words with “circumcision” (peritomh/).
Furthermore, Paul’s placement of “circumcision on the eighth day” first in the list of
his traits lends additional credence to the claim that circumcision for gentile Christ-
followers was central to Paul’s disagreement with these people.
Secondly, these traits serve as a foil against which he develops his positive claims
regarding the defining feature of faith in Christ (3.7-11). These central features of his
ethnic heritage, counted as gain in the past (h]n), he now regards as “loss because of
Christ” (dia\ to\n Xristo\n zhmi/an). But these attributes are also part of “all things”
that he regards as loss for the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus his Lord
(3.8). In other words, these identifying ethnic features are part of a larger whole (“all
things”), not the sole target of Paul’s rhetoric.
Finally, Paul’s list of what he once regarded as for his gain forms part of his own
embodying of a mindset modeled after that of Christ Jesus as depicted 2.6-11. Like
Christ Jesus, who did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited
for his own advantage (2.6), Paul counts as loss any gain that might accrue to him by
virtue of his ethnic status and achievement.
Traditionally, this passage has been employed as evidence that Paul had left his
ancestral traditions and practices behind, that Paul counted all things Jewish as loss in
order to gain something non-Jewish, namely something Christian. I find it intriguing,
therefore, that Paul lumps himself with these gentile Christ-followers by saying that
in contrast to the “mutilators,” “we ourselves are the circumcision” (3.3; h3mei=v ga/r
e2smen h3 peritomh/). If Paul wanted to denigrate his supposedly past Jewishness and its
distinguishing customs, and wanted to distance himself and the Philippians from both,
selecting circumcision as the distinctive identity marker of such people is a strange
means of self-description to do so. In fact, this appellation actually makes a powerful
statement about who constitutes the true children of Abraham. “Who really bears the
distinctive marks of Abraham’s descendants? Those of the true circumcision.”
Furthermore, apart from a genuinely high estimation of these ethnic distinctives on
Paul’s part, his argument carries no weight. In other words, if these markers of Jewish
ethnicity carry no value, what was given up for the sake of Christ? Paul’s argument
rests on giving up something valuable for something of still greater value. He can
regard his ancestral heritage as “garbage” only in light of the “surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (3.8). In fact, for the sake of knowing Christ, Paul
now counts “all things” (ta/ pa/nta) as loss that he might gain Christ (3.8).
As with the texts from Romans and 2 Corinthians, this passage also bespeaks
Paul’s answer to the question, “How do I explain myself to these people in this situ-
ation?” In the Philippians’ context and from Paul’s perspective, it is not Paul and his
fellow Jews who are under threat. The problem stems from some of Paul’s fellow Jews
who have threatened the self-understanding of his gentile converts. In this context,
Paul had to define his identity over against his fellows Jews who, from Paul’s perspec-
tive, misuse their ethnicity to create distinctions that Paul cannot tolerate. Therefore,
Paul patterns himself after Christ, who set aside what was rightfully his in order to
embrace God’s calling. Paul is not denying his ethnicity, but refusing to exploit it for
his own gain. His ethnic performance in this case is once again, therefore, shaped by
circumstances and rhetorical goals.
Galatians 1.13
Beginning at Gal. 1.11, Paul embarks on a lengthy biographical narrative designed
to counter charges made against his apostleship by Jewish Christ-followers from
Jerusalem. These “troublemakers” (oi( tara/ssontej; 1.7) are apparently character-
izing Paul’s apostleship as having human rather than divine origin. Their charges are
part of their opposition to Paul’s practice of not having gentiles converts submit to the
Mosaic Law. If Paul’s apostolic roots are of human origin, then his Law-free gospel
for gentiles can be questioned as well.
In 1.13-14, Paul launches into the first phase of his biographical defense by
recounting his life before his encounter with the risen Christ with his life after that
experience. The critical statement regarding his ethnicity occurs at 1.13 where Paul
writes, 0Hkou&sate ga_r th_n e0mh_n a)nastrofh&n pote e0n tw|~ 'Ioudai+smw|~ (NIV; “For
you have heard of my previous way life in Judaism”). Functionally, this description
of his past life serves as one component of the contrast between past and present.
His life before was one of exceeding “zeal” expressed in persecuting the “church
of God” (1.13-14). Paul’s description of his life afterwards (1.15-24) focuses on his
travels. He did not immediately go to Jerusalem where, supposedly, he would have
been designated “apostle” by those named (1.16-17). Rather, Paul’s call came directly
from God (1.16).
The difficulty with Paul’s statement about his life in the past lies in understanding
the critical phrase e0n tw|~ 'Ioudai+smw in 1.13a. Scholars interpret the clause in which
this occurs in one of two ways, reflecting the divergent paths for understanding Paul’s
relationship with Judaism. In the first, Paul refers to a past manner of life in Judaism
that has now ceased because Paul has ceased to be a Jew (NEB “what my manner of
life was when I was still a practicing Jew”).29 In the second, Paul speaks of a break
with a previous manner of life within the Jewish realm, but not with Judaism itself
(NRSV “my earlier life in Judaism”).30 In other words, Paul regards himself as still
within Judaism. He is just not living in the same manner as a Jew that he once did.
Evidence from the immediate context supports the latter reading. Paul specifies
29. See also Thomas R. Schreiner cited in Note 1. Schreiner translates the phrase “formerly in
Judaism” with an accompanying explanation that Paul no longer regarded himself “in Judaism.” Heinrich
Schlier seems to after same idea when he translates the phrase, “meinen einstigen jüdischen Leben” (“my
former Jewish life”). Der Brief an die Galater, 15 aufl. (KEKNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1989), p. 48.
30. See, for example, the explanations of Richard B. Hays, The Letter to the Galatians (NIB 11;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), pp. 214–15, and Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 58.
that the referent for his former manner of life involved his persecuting the “church
of God” (1.13b). Such activity expressed “zeal” that placed him beyond many of
his contemporaries (1.14). This was his “former life in Judaism” that was brought
to an end by the appearance to him of the resurrected Christ (1.16). If Paul regarded
himself as having ceased to be a Jew in toto, he does not say so. What Paul speaks
of, rather, is the cessation of one manner of life within Judaism (where other modes
of life are possible).
Viewed from the perspective of ethnic studies, Paul’s statement in 1.13a is meant
to distance himself from one interpretation the implications of his ancestral heritage.
What it once meant to Paul to be faithful (expressed in “zeal”) to his traditions was to
persecute the th\n e0kklhsi/an tou= qeou= (“the church of God”; 1.13b). That expression
of his self-understanding has been left behind to be replaced by another. The change
agent for Paul was God through the risen Jesus Christ (1.15-16). Paul’s heritage was
not left behind. Rather, his understanding of it became transformed.
Summary
In each of these texts, we find Paul enacting situationally shaped performances of his
ethnic identity. Keeping in mind the manner in which ethnicity and collective identi-
ties are formed and maintained, Paul’s expressions of his ethnicity are not wooden
reproductions of an unchanging ethnic essence. Rather, by these statements, Paul is
actually defining and maintaining boundaries in the midst of actual social interaction.
We could say, “Paul is doing ethnicity” by responding to his own internal question,
“How do I explain myself to these people in this situation?”
Paul, His Ethnicity, and His Mission: A Way Forward

At the outset of this essay, I noted that the question about Paul’s relationship with
his Jewish ancestry is typically framed in terms of continuity or discontinuity. Paul
either ceased being a Jew altogether when he encountered Christ or he continued to
understand himself fully within Judaism. In either case, how we understand Paul
shapes how we understand his mission and gospel. From the perspective of ethnic
identity formation, however, two factors call this either/or framework into question.
First, all claims about identity are situational embodiments or enactments of
that identity. We can see the situational nature of ethnic identity in Paul. When his
Jewish traditions were threatened, Paul resolutely affirmed his standing within those
traditions (Rom 11.1). When necessary, Paul simply restated his Jewishness (2 Cor.
11.22-23a). When Paul encountered what he regarded as false interpretations of those
traditions, Paul distanced himself from those embodiments (Phil. 3.5-6; Gal. 1.13).
This situational nature of identity forces us to reexamine statements by Paul that have
been traditionally used to understand Paul as one who left his ancestral traditions.
Second, collective identities are not static “things” that exist independently. What it
means to be “one of us” must be regularly renegotiated in the context of new circum-
stances. In Paul’s statements examined above, we witness the normal struggles over
identity, the very process of the old confronting the new in action. Paul’s convictions
concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection were the new circumstances that triggered
his reassessment God’s dealings with Israel. As a result, Paul’s existing understanding
of Israel and the symbols that embodied that collective identity came under scrutiny
and reformulation, though not abandonment. Some of Paul’s kinspeople, however,
found Paul’s teaching objectionable, opposing Paul sometimes violently.31 In Paul’s
letters we overhear one voice in the ongoing process of identity formation as Paul
casts his thoughts in context-specific ways in light of his understanding of Jesus’
resurrection, his apostolic calling, and his developing conceptions of God, Israel,
and the nations.32 From the perspective of modern analysis of collective identity,
therefore, Paul’s letters are highly contextual utterances forged in the heat of ongoing
negotiations over self-identity.
We must, therefore, reframe the question of Paul’s relationship to his ancestral
traditions from one of either/or to one of both/and. Ethnic identity itself necessarily
involves both continuity and discontinuity, as ongoing traditions become renegoti-
ated in the face of new circumstances. To posit the question in an either/or fashion
falsely frames the matter, producing misleading results that distort our investigation
of Paul.
My own proposal for a way forward lies with investigating Paul’s self-understanding
as “apostle to the gentiles” within a fully Jewish framework, but one that understands
what we call “early Christianity” as a particular manifestation of first-century
Jewishness.33 We are well aware of the varieties of Judaism that existed at this time,
as the recent propensity to speak of “Judaisms” in the plural attests. Reading Paul and
his mission as one interpretation of faithfulness to Jewish traditions offers, I believe,
a more reliable historical framework within which to conduct our investigation.
31. Thus, to speak of Paul as an “apostate” from Israel (e.g. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The
Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990]) would likely
represent an accurate characterization of him from the perspective of Jews who administered 39 lashes
to him (2 Cor. 11.24). Yet, it would be utterly inaccurate from Paul’s perspective. As James D. G. Dunn
writes, “Paul could never have accepted that his apostleship to the Gentiles constituted apostasy from
Israel. Quite the contrary, he was apostle to the Gentiles precisely as apostle for Israel, apostle of Israel”
(Romans, vol. 2 [WBC; Waco, TX.; Dallas: Word, 1998], p. 269). I owe this reference to Brian Rosner
and Trevor Burke.
32. So, perhaps, better terms are needed for describing what we typically label “Pauline Christianity.”
Mark D. Nanos, for example, speaks of “apostolic Judaism” (Early Jewish-Christian Relations Section of
the Society of Biblical Literature; November 21, 2009, New Orleans).
33. Scholars who understand Paul as a Jew operating within his ancestral traditions vary considerably
regarding details of their interpretation. In claiming that we must understand Paul, his gospel, and his
mission in Jewish terms, I am not identifying my reading with any one strand of this discussion, whether
it be Lloyd Gaston, Mark Nanos, N. T. Wright, or whomever.
4
PAUL THE MISSIONARY, IN PRIESTLY SERVICE OF
THE S ERVANT- CHRIST (ROMANS 15.16)
Richard J. Gibson
Students of Paul recognize Rom. 15.16 as a precious nugget of insight into the
apostle’s self-understanding: “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly
service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable,
sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” There is also agreement that the verse represents a
concentration of cultic language unparalleled in his writings.1 There substantial agree-
ment ends, and the promise of a rich seam of insight into the apostle’s own perception
of his identity and of his mission proves elusive.
I. The Persistent Difficulty of Romans 15.16

Grammatical and lexical difficulties yield a range of approaches and a spectrum of
interpretation of Rom. 15.16-17. At the maximalist end of this spectrum, Schlier
mines the Hellenistic and Septuagintal background of usage for leitourgo&j and cog-
nates to yield fourfold significance. Paul conceives of his mission in terms of priestly,
public, eschatological and universal service, through his “liturgy,” the gospel.2 At the
minimalist end stand most commentators, who “simply see a general, priestly image
in Paul’s language,” before listing the difficulties in digging further.3 Does the verse
describe Paul’s “egomania” or his humble dependence?4 Does the verse betray Paul’s
pretensions to sacerdotal priesthood as he presides over the sacraments of baptism and
1. P. T. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion: Paul and the Dynamic of the Gospel (Homebush West:
Anzea, 1993), p. 30, “a remarkable utterance, which finds no exact parallel elsewhere in the NT . . . a
concentration OT cultic terminology . . . that is quite exceptional.”
2. H. Schlier, “Die ‘Liturgie’ des apostolischen Evangeliums (Röm 15, 14-21),” in H. Schlier, Das
Ende der Zeit: Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge (Freiburg: Herder, 1971), pp. 169–83 (171).
3. S. Strauss, “Missions Theology in Romans 15.14-33,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003), pp. 457–74,
n. 12.
4. J. Knox, “Romans 15.14-33 and Paul’s Conception of His Apostolic Mission,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 83 (1964), pp. 1–11 (5), cites Morton Smith for Paul’s “egomania.” Knox admits: “Over and
over again, one is impressed, and sometimes repelled, by signs of what may appear to be an almost morbid
sense of his own importance.”
Eucharist, or is it wholly consistent with a “community without cult.”5 Does it relate

to his missionary endeavours at all? Is Paul really talking about intercessory prayer?6
This diversity of opinion owes much to a range of ambiguities in the verse. To
what extent is Paul invoking the secular associations of leitourgo&j, in order to
desacralize the term, with notions of personal assistance (Phil. 2.25) or civil service
(cf. Rom. 13.6)?7 The force of i9erourge/w seems clear enough, though as a bibli-
cal hapax it offers little to clarify the background to Paul’s thought. Extra-biblical
references abound, but offer little to decide the issues.8 Most notorious of all is the
obscurity of h( prosfora_ tw~n e0qnw~n.9 For many, the confusion is resolved by the
eschatological vision of the nations pouring into Jerusalem in Isa. 66.20. Yet this is
not without its problems. “It is quite a jump,” as Donaldson points out, “to think that
Paul grounded his ministry as a Jewish apostle bringing Gentiles as an offering, on a
text which speaks of Gentiles bringing Jews.”10
II. The Literary Context of Romans 15.16

One source of fresh light on the meaning of Rom. 15.16 is reconsideration of the limits
of its literary context. A vast majority of commentators regard Rom. 15.13 as the
conclusion of the body of the letter, with 15.14-21 as the beginning of the epistolary
frame or peroratio.11 In justification, commentators point to the aptness of 15.7-13 as
a “concluding summary” of Paul’s argument, an impression reinforced by the finality
of the wish prayer of 15.13.
However, a case can be made for 15.8-21 as a distinct literary unit. Paul is quite
capable of including a prayer or doxology without signalling the end of a section, as in
5. J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1998), pp. 543, 546.
6. R. M. Cooper, “Leitourgos Christou Iesou: Toward a Theology of Christian Prayer,” ATR 47
(1965), pp. 263–75.
7. BDAG: “1. one engaged in administrative or cultic service; 2. one engaged in personal service.”
8. e.g. 4 Macc. 7.8; Philo, Mos. 1, 87; Josephus, Ant. 6, 102; 7, 333. C. Wiéner, “‘9Ierourgei=n
(Rom.15.16),” Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus (Analecta Biblica 17–18;
2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), Vol. 2, pp. 399–404 (404), surveys the extra-biblical
usages of the verb but admits to arriving at inconclusive results, finding Paul’s worship in Rom. 1.9 more
instructive than the extra-biblical texts.
9. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion, p. 51, offers four interpretations of the phrase; A. J. Köstenberger
and P. T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (NSBT 11; Downers
Grove: Apollos, 2001), pp. 172–73.
10. T. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1997), p. 363, n. 38; D. W. B. Robinson, “The Priesthood of Paul in the Gospel of Hope,”
Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (ed. Robert Banks;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 231–45 (231), n. 2, “the idea is not in itself inappropriate, but seems
unnecessary here.”
11. See D. Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans (Dallas: SIL International 2009), p. 326, for
confirmation of the prevalence of the view that 15.14 signals a new discourse unit. This is the consensus
of the major recent English language commentaries: R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis, Fortress, 2007) p. ix; Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p. ix; T. R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT 6; Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 1998), p. viii; D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
p. 32; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 1988), p. x.
4. Paul the Missionary, in Priestly Service 53
11.36. The “amen’s of 1.25 and 9.5 do not function with this force. While the plea to
‘welcome one another’ (proslamba&nesqe a)llh&louj) in 15.7 makes for a plausible
introduction to what follows, it also constitutes an inclusio with the call in 14.1 to
‘welcome (proslamba&nesqe) those who are weak in faith.”12 The strongest ground
for regarding 15.8-21 as a unit is the evidence of a recursive structure uniting these
verses. A striking range of vocabulary or phrases are repeated in inverse order: kaqw_j
ge/graptai (vv. 9, 21); cognates of o!noma (vv. 9, 20); e0n duna&mei pneu&matoj and
perfect-tense forms of plhro&w (vv. 13-14, 19); and cognates of tolma&w (15.15, 18).
These parallels suggest the following structure:
Proposed Chiastic Structure for Romans 15.8-21

A 8 Christ became a servant
B 9a As it is written . . .
C 9b-12 the nations praise God’s name
D 13-14 Romans filled in the power of the Spirit
E 15 Paul’s boldness as he writes
F 16-17 Paul’s priestly service
E1 18 Paul’s boldness in Christ as he speaks
D1 19 fully preaching the gospel by the power of the Spirit
C1 20 evangelising where Christ is not named
B1 21a As it is written . . .
A1 21b Isaiah 52.15
The symmetry and alignment of this analysis proves illuminating. First, it suggests
that 15.8-21 is a discrete and coherent literary unit. Second, it highlights the central
significance of 15.16-17, verses saturated with cultic references. Paul’s reference to
the offering of the Gentiles (v. 16b) is framed by first-person description of Paul’s
ministry and boast, which are both attributed to “Christ Jesus” (vv. 16a, 17). This
raises the possibility of the phrase, ta_ pro_j to_n qeo&n, also constituting a cultic allu-
sion. While most English versions and commentators take this to refer to Paul’s “work
for God” (NRSV), “service to God” (TNIV) or “what pertains to God” (HCSB), in
a more general, non-cultic sense, the only other references in the New Testament
employ it for the sacrificing activity of the high-priest: “Every high-priest chosen
from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God (ta_ pro_j to_n qeo&n)
on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Heb. 5.1). In Heb. 2.17, Jesus
is the “merciful and faithful high-priest in the service of God” (ta_ pro_j to_n qeo&n),
“who makes propitiation for the sins of the people.”13
Third, references to Paul’s boldness (vv. 15, 18) produce an interesting dialectic.
Having acknowledged his apostolic boldness (tolmhro&j) in writing (v. 15), Paul cla-
rifies that he “will not dare” (ou0 tolmh&sw) to promote himself, but only what Christ
12. This appears to inform the analysis (14.1-15.7) by T. H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts:
The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), pp. 404–16.
13. The LXX uses the phrase three times: Exod. 4.16; 18.19 and Deut. 31.27. The first relates to
Aaron’s mediation of God’s presence; the last two to Moses’ ministry.
achieves through him (v. 18).14 Fourth, in 15.13 Paul utters a wish-prayer asking
God “to fill” (plhrw&sai) the Romans with all grace, faith, and hope “in the power
of the Holy Spirit” (e0n duna&mei pneu&matoj a(gi/ou). In the next verse he hastens
to add his conviction that already the Romans “have been filled” (peplhrwme/noi)
with all knowledge. In the parallel (v. 19), Paul characterizes his ministry around the
Mediterranean in comparable terms. He, too, has been enabled “by the power of the
Spirit” (e0n duna&mei pneu&matoj) “to fulfill” (peplhrwke/nai) or “fully proclaim”
(NRSV) the gospel of Christ. What is achieved by this alignment? Paul is eager to
share “some spiritual gift” with the Romans (1.11), but avoids any implication of the
defectiveness of their faith. The same power of the Spirit has been active among them
in Paul’s absence, as has been active in his apostolic preaching.
Fifth, a simple parallel between 15.9-12 and 15.20 draws attention to the way
Paul regards his mission as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. Paul uses the noun
o!noma on five occasions in Romans. Four of these are embedded in Old Testament
quotes (2.24 [Isa. 52.5]; 9.17 [Exod. 9.16]; 10.13 [Joel 3.5]; 15.9 [LXX Ps. 17.50]).15
Romans 15.20 features the only other cognate of o!noma, the verb o)noma&zw. The
parallel between the hope expressed in Ps. 18.49 (15.9) and Paul’s description of his
own eagerness to preach “where Christ has not been named” (15.20) underlines the
fulfillment of Old Testament expectations of Gentiles joining with Israel to praise God
in the ministry of Paul. His “priestly activity” is in service of this “world mission.”16
The sixth and most significant parallel in this concentric structure is suggested by
the outer elements, which frame the whole section. That Paul closes with a citation
from Isaiah 52 in 15.21 strengthens the suggestion that Paul intended a conscious
reference, in v. 8, to Isaiah’s Servant, by the assertion, “Christ has become a servant
(dia&konoj).” This is a disputed claim among commentators. Cranfield follows Michel
in finding that a reference here to Yahweh’s Servant of Isaiah 49 and 53, “though
not certain, would seem to be likely.” He counters Hooker’s objection that Isaiah’s
Servant is only ever Yahweh’s and not Israel’s, by arguing, “while it is true that the
word ‘ebed is used to indicate the Servant’s relation to God, it is clear that the actual
content of the Servant’s service of God is a service of men (see, e.g., Isa. 49.5f;
53.4-6, 11f).”17
A second factor regarded by Hooker and others as fatal for construing dia&konoj
as an invocation of Isaianic Servant traditions is the term itself. Schreiner speaks for
most when he concludes: “It is probably reading too much into dia&konoj to see a
14. The interplay between “boldness in writing” and “humility of speech” recalls the contrast in 2 Cor.
10.2, 9-10, 12.
15. The other mention is 1.5, where Paul speaks of bringing “the obedience of faith (ei0j u(pakoh_n
pi/stewj) among all the Gentiles (e0n pa~sin toi=j e1qnesin) for the sake of his name” (u(pe\r tou~ o)no&matoj
au0tou~).
16. Jewett, Romans, p. 887, discusses these Scripture quotations under the heading, “The theological
recapitulation of the relation between mutual welcome and world mission.” Understanding the context as
15.8-21 brings these quotations into relationship with Paul’s cultic terminology, rather than to v. 7.
17. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:
Introduction and Commentary on Romans IX-XVI (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), p. 741, n. 3.
reference to the Servant of Isa. 53.”18 The LXX of the Servant songs never uses this
term, preferring pai=j (Isa. 41.8-9; 42.1; 43.10; 44.1-2, 21, 26; 45.4; 49.6; 50.10;
52.13) and dou~loj (Isa. 49.3, 5). Cranfield argues, “while it is true that no word of
the diakonei=n group is ever used in the LXX of the Servant Songs, the Greek language
contains no single word more appropriate for the purpose of summing up all that is
said in them of the service to men which the Servant of the Lord is to render than a
word of this group.”19
Jesus never speaks of himself as pai=j. As a Christological designation it is con-
fined in the New Testament to Mt. 12.18 (citing Isa. 42.1) and Acts 3.13, 26; 4.27. Nor
does Jesus refer to himself as dou~loj in anything like a titular sense (cf. Phil 2.7).
That Jesus thinks of himself in these terms is implied by his insistence that “whoever
wishes to be first among you must be slave (dou~loj) of all” (Mk 10.44; Mt. 20.27).
However, this context highlight’s Jesus’ preference for the dia&konoj word-group.
Verse 44 is parallel to v. 43 “but whoever wishes to become great among you must
be your servant (dia&konoj),” a principle embodied in Jesus: “For the Son of Man
came not to be served (diakonhqh~nai) but to serve (diakonh~sai), and to give his life
a ransom for many” (Mk 10.45; Mt. 20.28). Lane is not alone in finding a reference
to Isaiah’s Servant in Jesus’ words;
The sacrifice of the one is contrasted with those for whom it was made, in allusion to Isa.
53.11f. . . . The majestic figure of the Son of Man is linked here with the community which
will be vindicated and saved in the eschatological judgment because Jesus goes to his death
innocently, voluntarily and in accordance with the will of God. This corresponds perfectly
with the main thought of Isa. 53.20
If Lane is correct, Jesus provides a precedent for using dia&konoj to refer to Isaiah’s
Servant and himself.
III. Paul’s Mission and the Isaianic Servant

That Paul understood his own mission in light of Isaiah’s Servant in Rom. 15.21 and
elsewhere is not disputed.21 In Acts, as part of his apologia before King Agrippa,
Paul recounts his commission by Jesus on the road to Damascus to be a “servant and
witness” (u(phre/thj kai\ ma&rtuj) of what he had seen and would see (Acts 26.16).
Before Agrippa, Paul continues to bear witness (26.22) to Jesus as Isaiah’s Servant:
“that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he
would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26.23; cf. Lk. 2.32;
18. Schreiner, Romans, p. 754; Jewett, Romans, p. 891, n. 40, rules this “tempting” suggestion out
preferring to entertain the influence of the synoptic tradition witnessed to by Mk. 10.45 as the basis for
this unusual lexical choice for Paul. Cf. Moo, Romans, p. 877, n. 26.
19. Cranfield, Romans IX–XVI, p. 741, n. 3.
20. W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 384.
21. Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation, p. 170.
Isa. 49.6). Yahweh’s Servant, Jesus himself, had commissioned and sent Paul to be
his witness.
Yet even within this account, Paul mentions words of Jesus, which imply a direct
application of the Servant’s mission to Paul’s. The risen Lord assured Paul of his pro-
tection from the Gentiles to whom he was being sent “to open their eyes so that they
may turn from darkness to light” (Acts 26.18). The text is widely recognized as an
allusion to Isa. 42.6-7, 16. “This Isaiah text which speaks of the commission Yahweh
gave to the Servant to restore exiled Israel is,” according to Beale, “now applied by
the risen Christ to Paul’s apostolic commission.”22 The conviction is reflected in Paul’s
justification for turning from preaching to Jews to mission to Gentiles in Acts 13.47,
again drawing on Isa. 49.6: “For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set
you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the
earth.’” To this explicit claim could be added phrases like, called “from my mother’s
womb” (Gal. 1.15; Isa. 49.1) and “labored in vain” (Phil. 2.16; Isa. 49.4), more
incidental evidence of Paul’s identification with the Servant’s mission.
Beale’s exploration of the background to Paul’s language of reconciliation in
2 Corinthians exposes even more impressive indications of this theme in Paul’s self-
understanding. In general, Beale detects “a complex of ideas in 2 Corinthians that
can be traced to Isaiah 40-66.”23 It is in 6.2 that “Paul’s self-identification with the
Isaianic Servant” erupts to the surface:24 “At an acceptable time I have listened to
you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you” (Isa. 49.8).
In radical fashion Paul applies to himself a prophecy of the Isaianic Servant, probably in order
to identify himself with that figure. He is in some way the fulfillment of the righteous “Servant,
Israel” (Isa. 49.3) who was to proclaim restoration to sinful Israel . . . Hence, although Paul’s
ministry appears to be on the verge of being received “in vain” (ei0j keno&n; cf. Isa. 49.4),
he appeals to Isa. 49.8 in order to authenticate his legitimacy as an apostolic “servant” of
restoration and to demonstrate that his ministry will bear fruit.25
In seeking to explain this “unusual,” “dual identification” of the fulfillment of the

Servant prophecies with both Christ and Paul, Beale points to the precedents of Lk.
2.32 and Acts 26.23, and Acts 13.47 and 26.18a, along with “the conception of cor-
porate representation” which he detects elsewhere in the Old Testament.26 This allows
Paul to apply prophecies of the Isaianic Servant to his own ministry, without distorting
the text’s original intention. According to Beale, “in that he was continuing the mis-
sion of Jesus, the Servant, he could easily apply this Servant prophecy to himself.”27
22. G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and its
Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1,” NTS 35 (1989), p. 550–81 (580).
23. Beale, “Old Testament Background,” pp. 556, 553, 559.
24. Beale, “Old Testament Background,” p. 580.
25. Beale, “Old Testament Background,” p. 562.
26. Beale, “Old Testament Background,” p. 564, n. 1, cites for support the work of H. W. Robinson,
A. R. Johnson, and E. E. Ellis, but is careful to distance the idea of corporate “representation” from
Robinson’s and Johnson’s corporate “personality.”
27. Beale, “Old Testament Background,” pp. 563–64.
This constellation of ideas is consistent with Paul’s use of a quote from the fourth
Servant song in Rom. 15.21. As Scriptural support (kaqw_j ge/graptai) of his “pio-
neer policy,” Paul cites Isa. 52.15 (LXX): “Those who have never been told of him
shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.” Köstenberger
and O’Brien explain the significance:
Paul believed that he was carrying on the work of the Servant of Yahweh, even if he did not
explicitly identify himself with this figure. Wagner appropriately remarks: “Paul’s mission,
then, is nothing less than the outworking of Christ’s own mission.” We have already seen that
he interpreted his missionary calling in terms of the Servant’s commission (Gal. 1.15-16; cf.
Rom. 1.1) and understood his role to be that of continuing the Servant’s mission by taking the
light of the gospel “to the nations” (Is. 49.6). Here Paul’s pioneer policy has Old Testament
endorsement in relation to the work of that same salvation-historical figure.28
Unlike Beale, Köstenberger and O’Brien remain unconvinced that Paul finally identi-
fies himself with the Servant, reserving that designation for Christ and eliminating
the need for any notion of “corporate representation.”29
For Dunn, Paul’s use of Isa. 52.15 is even more significant than simply validat-
ing a missionary policy or rounding off a section of his argument with a Scripture
quotation. The theme of the Servant in Paul’s perception of his mission exposes an
underlying unity to the letter:
the passage cited (Isa. 52.15) effectively ties together Paul’s conviction of his call to fulfil the
Servant’s commission to the Gentiles (1.1, 5 [Isa. 49.6]) with his theological argument about
the universal gospel (10.15 [Isa. 52.7]; 10.16 [Isa. 53.1]). Thus Paul manages to maintain the
strong implication that his missionary strategy and plans dovetail into his theology of the gos-
pel in a way which shows the structure of the letter to be ever more compact and integrated.30
IV. Romans 15.8-21 and the Isaianic Servant

The concentric structure proposed above for Rom. 15.8-21 also suggests the Servant
figure of Isaiah exercises more influence over Paul’s understanding of his mission than
a passing reference in 15.21 to validate one of his policies. If “Christ has become a
servant” (15.8) does invoke these same traditions, these parallels in the outer element
of the concentric pattern would serve to frame the whole unit.
The material that follows in 15.8b-9a draws more comments on its difficult gram-
mar than its background. Cranfield’s verdict, of a “syntactical horror,” does seem
28. Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation, p. 170.

29. O’Brien, Consumed, p. 7, is explicit in ruling out any sense “dual identification”: “In drawing on
this Isaianic language Paul is not suggesting that he was the new servant of the Lord. Rather, his ministry
is modeled on and a continuance of that of the Servant who had been set apart by the Lord from birth
with a specific ministry to Gentiles in view”; Moo, Romans, p. 898, n. 86, regards it as unlikely that Paul
identifies himself as the Servant in Rom. 15.21, but admits that he does so elsewhere.
30. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 869.
overstated, given that Moo can resolve the complexities to “two basic options.” He
discerns either “two parallel assertions dependent on ‘I say’” or “two parallel purpose
expressions dependent on v. 8a.”31 He prefers the latter, explaining its awkwardness as
a product of Paul’s attempt to maintain the equality of Jew (peritomh&) and Gentiles
(ta_ e1qnh) and the covenant priority of the Jew (u(pe\r a)lhqei/aj qeou~), relative to
the merciful inclusion of the Gentile (u(pe\r e0le/ouj). Little interest is shown by com-
mentators in seeking any Old Testament antecedent for this sentiment or its structure,
with understandably more attention given to the solid ground of the explicit quotations
that follow.
Yet Isaiah 49 would seem to offer a plausible possibility as background to Paul’s
thinking. These awkward verses in Romans 15 would offer a faithful summary of
Isa. 49.6, where the Servant’s twofold mission is outlined by Yahweh:
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to
restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
This text has the same binary structure, which co-ordinates Yahweh’s saving inten-
tions for Israel and, unexpectedly, for the nations. Raising up the tribes of Jacob
and restoring Israel’s survivors would serve to “confirm the promises given to the
patriarchs” (Rom. 15.8), while light and salvation cause the Gentiles “to glorify
(doca&sai) God” (Rom. 15.9). Significantly, doca&zw is used in Isa. 49 vv.3 and 5.
Yahweh addresses the one he called, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be
glorified.” In turn, the Servant “will be glorified” in the sight of the LORD.
V. The Servant-Christ of Isaiah 61 and Romans 15.8-21

A second Isaianic text that can make some claim to influencing Paul’s thought in Rom.
15.8-21 is Isaiah 61. The programmatic nature of this text for Jesus’ mission is evident
from his citation of the first two verses of the prophecy in Lk. 4.18-19, and subsequent
declaration, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk. 4.21). It
would be understandable, given the affinities of this text with the Servant songs, and
Paul’s identification with the Servant figure, if this also proved significant for Paul.
Certainly, Isaiah 61 constitutes a tantalizing precursor to Paul’s striking expression,
Xristo_n dia&konon gegenh~sqai (Rom. 15.8). If dia&konoj is a reference to Isaiah’s
Servant, then this assertion, and the whole passage, represents a rare juxtaposition of
“Christ” (15.8, 16, 17, 18, 19) and “Servant.” Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a
more remarkable fusion of messianic and Servant traditions than in Isaiah 61, despite
the absence of these designations. The figure of Isaiah 61 was anointed (e1xrise/n)
by the LORD, like Saul (1 Sam. 9.16; 10.1; 11.15; 15.1, 7), David (1 Sam. 16.3, 12;
2 Sam. 2.4, 7; 5.3, 17), and Solomon (1 Kgs 1.34, 39, 45; 5.1). His Spirit-endowment
(pneu~ma kuri/ou e0p0 e0me/) recalls the shoot from the stump of Jesse in Isa. 11.2 (cf.
31. Moo, Romans, p. 876.

Rom. 15.12). Yet, at the same time, his Spirit-empowered mission to the blind and
prisoners evokes the Servant of Isa. 42.1, 7, 16. The “year of the Lord’s favor” echoes
the “time of favor” (dekto&j) promised in Isa. 49.8. Motyer finds in this vision, the
“double-faceted ministry”32 of Servant and Anointed Conqueror. As Webb observes,
He is both the Servant of chapters 40–55 and the Messiah of chapters 1–35, for — this is
what we must notice — these are one and the same person. Here is the great theological
breakthrough of Isaiah’s vision and the heart of his gospel. The Messiah must suffer and rise
again. Only thus can the year of the LORD’s favour be ushered in.33
Romans 15.8-21 offers some other parallels to Isaiah 61. Paul’s overriding goal
is framed in the same way as the Servant-Christ’s mission. The apostle makes it
his ambition “to proclaim the good news” (eu0aggeli/zesqai, 15.20), while the
Servant-Christ is sent for the same purpose (eu0aggeli/sasqai, 61.1). Just as the
Servant-Christ’s evangelistic mission is enabled by the endowment of the Spirit
of the Lord (Isa. 61.1), so Paul too emphasizes that he has only been able to “fully
proclaim” the gospel “by the power of the Spirit of God” (15.19). Isaiah 61.11 closes
with the promise that God will cause “righteousness and praise (a)galli/ama) to
spring up before all the nations (pa&ntwn tw~n e0qnw~n).” The praise given to God by
“all the Gentiles” (pa&nta ta_ e1qnh, 15.11) is the unifying theme of the string of Old
Testament quotations in Rom. 15.9-11.
VI. Paul’s Priestly Service and the Servant-Christ

The focus of our interest in the possibility of Isaiah 61 as background to Romans 15
lies in the first half of Isa. 61.6. There Isaiah records Yahweh’s promise, “but you shall
be called priests of the LORD (i9erei=j kuri/ou), ministers of God (leitourgoi\ qeou~).”
It is remarkable that this verse features so little in attempts to understand Paul’s claim
in Rom. 15.16, “to be a minister (leitourgo&j) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the
priestly service (i9erourge/w) of the gospel of God.”
Most commentaries do include Isa. 61.6 in their surveys of the LXX usage of
leitourgo&j but none go on to note the presence in the same verse of i9erei=j as
possible background to i9erourge/w. This is largely because the verb is a hapax in
biblical literature, but it is relatively frequent in Philo (Leg. All. 3.130; Plant. 164;
Ebr. 138; Conf. 124; Migr. 67, etc.) and Josephus (Ant. 5.263; 6.102; 7.333; 9.43;
14.65; 17.166).34 The most appealing antecedent is the textual variant found in some
manuscripts of 4 Macc. 7.8: tou_j i9erourgou&ntaj to_n no&mon. Dunn draws attention
to the contrast to Paul’s formulation; instead of offering priestly service to “the law,”
Paul offers his to to_ eu0agge/lion.
What if Paul has in mind Isa. 61.6, and understands his mission as fulfillment of
32. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Leicester: IVP, 1993), p. 500.

33. B. G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings (BST; Leicester: IVP, 1996), p. 234.
34. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 860, adds “it ought to be noted that for both Philo and Josephus i9erourgei=n
is something the whole people can do (Philo, Mos. 2.229; Spec. Leg. 2.145; Josephus, War 5.14, 16).”
the role that only comes into effect in the wake of the Christ of Isaiah 1–35 taking on
the role of the Servant of Isaiah 40–55? According to Motyer, the promise that ‘you
will be called priests of the LORD’,
refers to the hitherto unrealized ideal of Exodus 19.6 (cf. the further extension to Gentiles
in 66.21; both passages are anticipatory of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ in the New
Testament). The parallel thought of recognition among the nations (9ab) requires that those
who speak . . . are the aliens and ‘sons of the stranger’. The existing people of God have
ministered his truth to these foreigners, introduced them to the Lord and brought them
into the community of faith. They in turn recognize the special privileged position of those
through whom they have been blessed and regard them as priests mediating divine blessings
and ministers . . . acting on their behalf in the things of God as true Levites. (Nu. 8.5ff.)35
Motyer notes that the Hebrew verb behind “ministers” is the typical verb for Levitical
service.
There are two main difficulties with the suggestion that Paul invokes Isa. 61.6
in Rom. 15.6. First, the original speaks of two distinct classes, corresponding to the
more common priest and Levite distinction (1 Chron. 15.11, 14; 24.6, 31; 28.13;
Isa. 66.21, etc.). Yet, the expression in 61.6 can be read as describing one class, with
leitourgoi/ in apposition to i9erei=j to qualify the type of priest intended: “you shall
be called priests of the LORD, ministers of our God.” This corresponds more closely
to the phrase rendered “Levitical priests” in the LXX (Deut. 17.9, 18; 18.1; 21.5; 24.8;
27.9; Ezek. 43.19; 44.15, etc.). If Paul wanted to identify himself with Isa. 61.6 and
this class of cultic functionary, then ei0j to_ ei]nai/ me leitourgo_n, i9erourgou~nta
would be apt for the purpose. This in turn raises the possibility that “the offering
of the Gentiles” corresponds to Isaiah’s “you shall enjoy the wealth of the nations
(i0sxu_j e0qnw~n).”36
A second objection is that the plurality of the original reference does not seem
consistent with the sense of self-importance suggested by Paul’s self-identification
in Rom. 15.6: “I am one of those servants spoken of in Isaiah 61” does not match
Paul’s assertive tone. However, this may owe more to perceptions of the reader than
to Paul. It is just as possible that Paul uses the designation with a sense of collegiality.
There is no article before leitourgo&j. In Paul’s only other application of the term
outside of Romans, Paul calls Epaphroditus “a minister to my need.” The context is
remarkable for its emphasis on equality, unity and collegiality: “Epaphroditus — my
brother and co-worker (sunergo&j) and fellow soldier (sustratiw&thj), your mes-
senger (a)po&stoloj) and minister to my need” (Phil. 2.25). Paul does not claim to
be “the Levitical priest” referred to in Isaiah, but one of them.
On other grounds, Karl Barth, followed by Cranfield, concluded that Paul
35. Motyer, Isaiah, p. 502 (italics original).

36. It is possible that Paul’s concern for oi9 ptwxoi/ among the saints in Jerusalem (15.26) is an
expression of the Servant-Christ’s commission to the same group (Isa. 61.1). Similarly, as Motyer suggests,
15.27 may imply that Paul regards his collection as some kind of fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise to Zion
that “you shall enjoy the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory” (Isa. 61.6b; cf. 60.16).
presents himself in Rom. 15.16 as a Levitical priest. LXX usage of leitourge/w and
leitourgi/a points towards Paul “thinking of himself as fulfilling the function not of
a priest but of a Levite.”37 The subsequent genitive phrase, Xristou~ 'Ihsou~, according
to Cranfield, “is surely a very strong argument in favour of this interpretation” (cf.
LXX Num 3.6; 18.2). Consequently, “the idea conveyed is that Paul fulfils a ministry
subordinate and auxiliary to that of Christ the Priest.”38
This suggestion has attracted little support. Dunn dismisses the interpretation as
“too strained,” in light of the Philonic evidence, the absence in Paul’s writings of
“a Christology of Christ as priest,” and the surrounding priestly imagery of 16b.39
Similarly, Schreiner finds Cranfield “unconvincing,” adding to Dunn’s objections the
fact that h( prosfora& “signals that Paul has something to offer as a priest,” preferring
the conclusion that “Paul fulfills the call of Israel to be a ‘royal priesthood’ . . . by
whom the knowledge of God is conveyed.”40
Even if the exegesis of Barth and Cranfield is questioned, their instinct to find
in Paul’s self-presentation a desire to subordinate his ministry to Christ’s would be
confirmed by his use of Isa. 61.6 in Rom. 15.16. However, rather than portraying
his own role as auxiliary to Christ as Priest, Paul subordinates himself to Christ as
Servant. This is achieved by the structure of 15.8-21, which places his priestly service
within a unit framed by references to Christ as dia&konoj and Isa. 52.15. It is further
reinforced by echoes of the Isaiah 49, 52 and 61, discernible in the section.
This awareness of the derivative and dependent nature of his status is consistent
with the self-effacement that frames Paul’s self-presentation. He only functions in this
role as a gift of God’s grace (15.15). “In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of
my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has
accomplished through me” (15.17-18a). Paul is not the Servant, but extends and fulfils
the Servant-Christ’s mission to the Gentiles. The significance of Paul’s apostolic role
is wholly derived from the Servant-Christ’s mission, empowered by the same Spirit
of God, and fulfilled as Paul “preaches the gospel” of the Servant-Christ. Isaiah 61.6,
then, provides Paul with a means of defining further his relationship to the Servant-
Christ who dominates Isaiah 61 and Rom. 15.8-21.
VII. Paul the Missionary, in Priestly Service of the Servant-Christ

What insight does Rom. 15.16 offer into Paul’s identity and self-presentation? How
does this cultic language enrich our understanding of Paul the missionary? Much the
37. Cranfield, Romans IX-XVI, p. 755.

38. Cranfield, Romans IX-XVI, p. 755; cf. Wiéner, “ 9Ierourgei=n (Rom.15.6),” p. 404, on the basis of
parallels with the letter to the Hebrews.
39. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 859, notes “the traditional formulation” of Rom. 8.34 as a possible priestly
allusion. J. Ponthot, “L’expression cultuelle du ministere paulinien selon Rom 15.16,” L’Apotre Paul:
Personanalite, Style et Conception du Ministere (ed. A Vanhoye; BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1986), pp. 254–62 (256–57), concedes that it is possible Paul thinks of himself as some kind of
Levite, but points to the absence of the idea of Christ’s priesthood in Paul’s writings as a significant
objection.
40. Schreiner, Romans, p. 766.
same as 1 Cor. 3.5: he is a humble servant (dia&konoj), along with others, through
whom Gentiles came to believe, “as the Lord assigns to each.” Paul’s role is purely of
grace, derivative of and subordinate to the glory of another, the great Servant-Christ
of Isaiah, Jesus Christ. Paul’s identity is of relatively little account; it is the name of
Jesus that ought to be sung and named everywhere. Paul’s mission is to extend and
fulfill the Servant’s mission to be “a light to the nations” (Isa. 49.6) and “bring good
news to the oppressed” (Isa. 61.1). The language of Isa. 61.6 and the suitably auxiliary
role of the Levitical priesthood, which enables him to boast that the model mission-
ary, the great Servant-Christ, is inexplicably willing to employ Paul in his mission.
PART TWO
Paul’s Activity
5
THE MISSION OF GOD IN PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS
Beverly Roberts Gaventa
Paul’s letter to the Romans stands at a critical juncture in his labor, as is clear from his
comments in 15.14-33. He is writing from Corinth,1 a community where the mission
has turned into a considerable challenge, as the “overconverted”2 seem to think that
they have surpassed their teacher. As he writes, he is preparing to go to Jerusalem
with money for believers there from Gentile churches in Macedonia and Achaia, but
he is far from confident that this fund will be received as the symbol he intends (as is
clear in 15.30-33), a symbol of the unity of Jew and Gentile in shared obedience to
the Christian gospel.3 From Jerusalem, he plans to travel for the first time to Rome,
the center of the Empire, a cosmopolis of immense complexity.4 And from Rome,
he intends to venture to Spain, an undertaking that will be challenging culturally,
physically, and financially.5 In any of the many proposed solutions to the “Romans
debate,” the intense on-going scholarly discussion of the occasion and purpose of
Romans, the question of the character of the mission looms large.
In this essay, I largely set aside these questions about Paul’s itinerary and its
significance in favor of what I find to be some neglected features in the discussion of
Paul’s understanding of mission. First, I take up Paul’s self-identification in Romans
as an agent of God’s own mission. Second, I explore the role others play in God’s
mission, both those who are in Corinth with Paul as he writes and those in Rome
who are hearing the letter read. Finally, I argue that in Romans God not only sends
Paul and his co-workers on a mission, but God has God’s own mission of rescuing
1. Phoebe is identified in 16.1 as a deacon of the congregation at Cenchreae, the eastern port of
Corinth.
2. The apt description comes from Henry Joel Cadbury, “Overconversion in Paul’s Churches,” in
S. E. Johnson (ed.), The Joy of Study: Papers in Honour of F.C. Grant (New York: Macmillan, 1951),
pp. 43–50.
3. See especially David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in
its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2.248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
4. An excellent overview is provided in the studies gathered in Catharine Edwards and Greg Woolf
(eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
5. In my judgment, Robert Jewett almost certainly overstates the influence on Romans of Paul’s
planning for the Spanish mission, but he does make clear the challenges that would have attended that
undertaking (Romans [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], pp. 74–79).
the world from the powers of Sin and Death so that a newly created humanity — Jew
and Gentile — is released for the praise of God in community.
I. Paul and God’s Mission

A. Paul, Slave of Christ
With the opening line of the letter, Paul identifies himself as dou~loj Xristou~
klhto\j a)po/stoloj a)fwrisme/noj ei0j eu0agge/lion qeou~. He begins other letters
with similar self-designations, as when 1 Corinthians opens with “Paul, called as an
apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God” (and similarly 2 Cor. 1.1; Gal 1.1),
or when Philippians opens with “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus”6 (and
cf. Phlm. 1). No other Pauline letter combines three such phrases, however, each
of which draws attention to Paul as one who has been chosen, even compelled, into
his apostolic role.7 This piling up of self-designations prompts Joseph Fitzmyer to
remark that Paul feels he has “the right” “to address the Roman Christians,”8 but it is
hard to locate other evidence in the letter to corroborate such a claim. It seems that,
instead of using these “titles” to advance his own authority with the Romans, Paul
is asserting that he is on the receiving end of the action of God in Jesus Christ. The
authority is God’s rather than Paul’s.
Paul makes remarkably few references in this letter to his own standing or voca-
tion, but all of them point in this same direction. In 11.13, he directly addresses
Gentiles with the assertion, “insofar as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my
ministry.” Taken out of context, the emphatic “I am” (ei0mi e0gw&), together with the
notion of “glorifying” his own ministry (diakoni/a), strikes a rather self-aggrandizing
tone in our hearing. Yet the context has to do with God’s stunningly unanticipated
rescue of God’s “people” (the lao&j of 11.1) through the unlikely vehicle of the
Gentiles. If Paul exults in his role, his exultation is in what God is doing rather than
in his own achievement.
As Paul brings the body of the letter to a close, he again comments on his labor
among Gentiles, this time with cultic language. He is a “servant [leitourgo/j] of
Jesus Christ among the Gentiles, acting as a priest [i(erourge/w] on behalf of the
gospel of God” (15.6). Although the term leitourgo/j can be used of what we would
call “public” servants (as in Rom. 13.6),9 the coupling of it with the verb i(erourge/w
suggests a liturgical connotation. This conclusion is enhanced by the fact that the
discussion immediately preceding this comment is heavily doxological (15.1-13). An
important and neglected motif of Romans is the acknowledgment of God in worship
6. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.

7. This statement also obtains for Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals, although
I regard them as coming from later Pauline circles rather than from Paul himself.
8. Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 227. Note the claim also of Pelagius that Paul
takes the self-designation “slave” as an act of humility and thus, “he merited the office of apostle by faithful
and matchless service” (Theodore De Bruyn [trans.], Pelagius’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans [Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], p. 59.
9. BDAG s.v. leitourgo/j.
5. The Mission of God in Paul’s Letter to the Romans 67
(see 1.21-25; 3.10-12, 18; 15.6),10 so it is not surprising that Paul understands himself
to be the facilitator of the rightful worship of God. This role is another placed upon
him by God (see 15.15). Paul’s self-reference in Romans is entirely consistent with
his other letters, especially in Gal. 1.11-17 and Phil. 3.2-11, where he writes of God
having chosen him before his birth and God overtaking him (as in Acts 9.1-9; 22.3-21;
26.2-23). And on this point, Luke’s narrative regarding Paul yields the same conclu-
sion. Although readers of Acts have frequently spoken of the “Pauline mission” in
Luke’s narrative, there is in Acts only the mission of God in which Paul plays the
role he has been assigned.11
B. Proclaimer of the Good News

In Romans 15 Paul makes several other comments about his work, especially about
his travel plans. Yet perhaps the most important comment he makes is that he is
under obligation to “preach the gospel” in Rome (1.15).12 This statement is rather
peculiar because Paul is clearly addressing people who are already among those
“called as holy” (1.7), and especially since later on he writes that his practice is to
preach (eu0aggeli/zesqai) in places where Christ is not already named, so that he is
not building on the work of another (15.20). Oddly enough, this seeming anomaly
does not attract a great deal of scholarly attention, but two resolutions are typical:
(1) the term eu0aggeli/zesqai is said to include all of Paul’s work, both with those
“outside” the gospel and those who are already believers, and (2) when Paul speaks
of “preaching the gospel in Rome,” he has in mind an earlier desire to take the gospel
to Rome rather than the journey he hopes to undertake soon.
A number of scholars assume that Paul’s comment about “preaching” at Rome
means simply that he will continue his usual activities of preaching and teaching.13
Although Douglas Moo is among that number, he also concedes that Paul usually
employs eu0 aggeli/zesqai for initial preaching of the gospel.14 That concession
10. See Gaventa, “‘For the Glory of God’: Theology and Experience in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”
in Mary F. Foskett and O. Wesley Allen Jr. (eds.), Between Experience and Interpretation: Engaging the
Writings of the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008), pp. 53–65; idem, “From Toxic Speech
to the Redemption of Doxology in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and
A. Katherine Grieb (eds.), The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard
B. Hays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 392–408.
11. See Gaventa, Acts (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), esp. pp. 42–43; and idem, “Initiatives
Divine and Human in the Lukan Story World,” in Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen
C. Barton (eds.), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D.G. Dunn (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 79–89.
12. This discussion of Rom. 1.15 draws on my article, “‘To Preach the Gospel’: Romans 1,15 and
the Purposes of Romans,” in Udo Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226; Leuven: Peeters,
2009), pp. 179–94, which offers more extensive argumentation about the verse and its role in the letter.
13. The TDNT article on eu0aggeli/zesqai is influential in this discussion, as Gerhard Friedrich con-
tends that “the same Gospel is proclaimed in both missionary and congregational preaching. Paul makes
no distinction” (2.720). See also C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. I: Introduction and
Commentary on Romans I-VIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1.86; J.D.G. Dunn, Romans (2 vols.;
Word 38; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 1.34; P.T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An
Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, 1995), p. 63.
14. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 63.
needs to be taken seriously. To be sure, Paul’s apostolic ministry is not limited to

his initial preaching of good news (as evidenced by his continuing contact with the
congregations he initiated), but that does not mean that eu0aggeli/zesqai itself is
simply a general way of speaking of apostolic labor. In fact, Paul regularly employs
eu0aggeli/zesqai for initial proclamation of the gospel (Rom. 15.20; 1 Cor. 15.1-2;
2 Cor. 11.7; Gal. 1.8,9,11,16; 4.13), but nowhere does he clearly use it for it on-going
labor with his congregations, unless Rom. 1.15 is the lone exception.
John Dickson has argued persuasively that Rom. 1.15 is not an exception, that
eu0aggeli/zesqai consistently refers to delivering news, not to teaching or persuasion,
both in Paul’s letters and elsewhere.15 Given this pattern, Dickson concludes that
Paul must be referring to an initial delivery of the news in Rom. 1.15, and therefore
he takes the second position mentioned above, namely, that Paul is referring to his
earlier desire to have preached in Rome.16 In his view, vv. 11-12 have to do with Paul’s
present undertaking and vv. 13-15 refer to an earlier period, when he had hoped to
be the one to initiate Christian preaching at Rome. Also, Dickson interprets 15.20 to
mean that Paul would not now engage in evangelism in Rome, reinforcing his reading
of 1.15 as “Paul’s desire already to have engaged in missionary proclamation within
the city.”17
Dickson’s study of the word group eu0aggel– is instructive, but his argument
regarding 1.13-15 is less persuasive. On his view, v. 15, which ushers in Paul’s central
claim about the power of the gospel in vv. 16-17, becomes an entirely superfluous
report that he earlier wanted to come to Rome. And the difficulty of 15.20 disappears
if 1.15 refers to initial preaching of the gospel; that is, if 1.15 means that Paul intends
to preach the gospel in Rome, where for some reason he thinks it has not yet been
preached (at least not in full), then there is no conflict with 15.20.
Paul does give thanks for the Romans in 1.8-12, of course, and there he com-
ments that their faith is reported throughout the world (1.8), but the thanksgiving of
this letter is notable for its brevity and lack of specificity. That brevity could simply
indicate that Paul does not know a great deal about the Roman congregations, yet
the greetings of ch. 16 suggest that he does have information regarding at least some
members of the Roman congregations. In addition, the thanksgiving of 1 Corinthians
should caution us against assuming that Paul’s praise is to be read straightforwardly.
Even as he praises the Corinthians for their wisdom and their spiritual gifts (1.4-7),
15. John P. Dickson, “Gospel as News: eu0aggel– from Aristophanes to the Apostle Paul,” NTS 51
(2005) pp. 212–30. Dickson starts from the well-known use of the eu0aggel– word group in ancient Greek
as a “media term,” a term for news, whether the news was of military victory (e.g. Pausanias, Description
of Greece 4.19.5; Plutarch, Pompey 41.3; 66.3; Chariton, Callirhoe 8.2.5) or the price of anchovies in
the marketplace (Aristophanes, Knights 644-47). The usage in Philo (e.g. Joseph 245) and Josephus (B.J.
4.618, 656) follows this same pattern.
16. Ibid., 224–30. This position was earlier taken by Peter Stuhlmacher, who argued that Paul’s
desire was to be the one who introduced the gospel at Rome (Paul’s Letter to the Romans [Louisville,
KY; Westminster John Knox, 1994], p. 27); idem, “The Purpose of Romans,” in K. P. Donfried, ed., The
Romans Debate (2nd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 236–37). See the similar comment by
Brendan Byrne in Romans (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), pp. 50–51.
17. Dickson, “Gospel as News,” pp. 226–28, quotation on p. 228.
he is simultaneously hinting at their greatest weakness. In addition, the delicate chal-

lenge of writing to congregations who do not know him at first-hand suggests that
Paul would praise the Romans more extravagantly if he could do so. The restraint is
meaningful.
If 1.15 suggests that Paul wants to proclaim the gospel “to you” at Rome, we are
faced with the disconcerting notion that Paul intends at Rome to declare the good
news to people who are already believers. Despite the assertions of 15.14 that the
Romans are full of goodness and knowledge, there are also indications in ch. 15 that
corroborate my reading of 1.15. Immediately following the flattering comments of
15.14, Paul concedes that he has written “boldly” by way of reminder. This may
well be a euphemistic way of indicating that his letter conveys not just reminder but
news. Paul is not merely reminding but enlarging, extending their understanding of
the gospel.18
A number of students of Paul have made suggestions in the same vein. Nils Dahl,
for example, writes that “what Paul does in this letter is what he had for a long time
hoped to do in person: he preached the gospel to those in Rome.”19 Commenting
on 1.15, Brendan Byrne observes that “Gentile Christians in Rome will in effect be
‘re-evangelized’ through the letter.”20 I would press these observations a step further,
asking in what way do the Romans need to be “re-evangelized.” What is it that they
have not yet heard or have not heard in full? Before turning to that question, however,
some observations are in order about other laborers in God’s mission at Rome.
II. Other Laborers in God’s Mission

A. Laborers at Corinth
In addition to its lengthy identification of Paul, the salutation to Romans is striking
because it makes no reference to co-workers. First Corinthians is written from Paul
and Sosthenes, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon from Paul and Timothy, and
1 Thessalonians from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.21 This may not be as significant as
first glance suggests, however, since, as Hans-Josef Klauck observes, the co-workers
who are identified in other letters are all people whom the addressees already know.22
18. Cf. 1 Thess. 4.2 and 5.2, where Paul writes that the Thessalonians know the instructions that were
given them.
19. Nils Dahl, “Missionary Theology in Romans,” in Studies in Paul (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1977), p. 77.
20. Brendan Byrne, Romans, 51. It will be instructive to recall J. Louis Martyn’s characterization of
Galatians as “a reproclamation of the gospel in the form of an evangelistic argument” (Galatians [AB33A;
New York: Doubleday; 1997], p. 22).
21. According to E. Randolph Richards, however, the practice of crediting co-senders is rare in the
context of ancient letter-writing (Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and
Collection [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], p. 33. Richards opines, rightly in my judgment,
that Paul’s reference to co-senders of his letters means that he did not see the letters as “examples of the
author’s skills” (ibid.).
22. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2006), p. 301. Galatians also does not identify co-senders by name, but 1.2 refers to “all
the brothers and sisters” who are with Paul.
Yet it would be mistaken to assume that the absence of another name or names in
the salutation means that Paul presents himself as the only agent of God’s mission.
Regrettably, the customary way of referring to “Paul’s mission” can fuel such notions.
The closing lines of the letter identify several individuals at Corinth who likely play
a role in the mission:23
Timothy my fellow-worker greets you as do my kinfolk Lucius and Jason and Sosipater.
(I, Tertius greet you as I am writing this letter in the Lord.) Gaius my host greets you along
with the entire church. Erastos the city treasurer and Quartus his brother greet you. (16.21-23)24
Certainly Timothy is part of the mission, as is clear from numerous references to his
work in the letters (1 Cor. 4.17; 16.10; 2 Cor. 1.19; Phil. 2.19-24; 1 Thess. 3.1-5) as
well as in Acts (16.1-5). Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater could be as well, especially
if Jewett is right in his suggestion that these three Jews (“my kinfolk” as in 9.3) are
with Paul in Corinth because they are the ones who will join Paul as he delivers the
collection to Jerusalem.25 Gaius as host plays an important role in support of the
mission, since Paul and others required not only meals and sleeping quarters, but a
location for instruction and worship.
Yet the most significant of Paul’s co-workers identified in Romans 16 — at least
based on the extent and character of Paul’s comments — appears to be Phoebe. Paul
identifies Phoebe not only as “sister” (consistent with his use elsewhere of “brother/
sister” to refer to believers, as in, e.g. Rom. 8.29; 1 Cor. 5.11; Phlm. 2) but also as
a dia/konoj of the church of Cenchreae and as a prosta/tij of Paul and of many
others. The exact nuance of both terms has been the subject of considerable debate,
ranging from arguments that interpret her role via 1 Tim. 3.11 to Robert Jewett’s
energetic argument that Phoebe is Paul’s advance team for the Spanish mission.26 In
my judgment, Jewett’s proposal is far too speculative, but the terms employed here
as well as Paul’s singling out of her for comment warrants the conclusion that she not
only has resources at her disposal for the support of the mission but that she herself
is a person of active leadership in the mission.
Quite apart from the discussion about the exact nature of these specific terms,
it seems clear to many commentators that the reason Paul singles Phoebe out for
this commendation and request for assistance to her is that she is the bearer of the
letter.27And if she is entrusted with this letter, she also becomes its first interpreter. She
23. Just as Paul greets more individuals in Romans 16 than he does in other letters, so also he sends
greetings from more individuals here than he does in other letters. No other individuals send greetings
in 2 Corinthians or Galatians; the greetings in Phil. 4.22 and in 1 Cor. 16.19 are general (except for the
reference to Aquila and Prisca). Only Phlm. 23-24 approaches the greetings of Romans 16.
24. The parentheses around Tertius’ greeting serve to distinguish the first-person comment by Tertius
from the first-person comments of Paul in the surrounding greetings.
25. Jewett, Romans, pp. 977–78.
26. Ibid., pp. 89–91; “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in Jacob Neusner, et al. (eds.), The
Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), pp. 142–62.
27. Ibid., p. 943; Byrne, Romans, p. 447; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 720; Moo, Romans, p. 913. Leander
may well have read the letter aloud to the gathered believers in Rome, which inher-
ently makes her its interpreter since reading something aloud invariably constitutes
an interpretation.28 Even if she did not read the letter herself, she would have been
responsible for seeing that it circulated among the congregations at Rome, where her
comments about it and her conversation with others after their hearing of the letter
must have played a role in its reception.
Romans 16.1-2 and 21-23 then give us the names of several individuals at Corinth
who are involved in God’s mission alongside the Apostle Paul. One more point
draws them together, and that is the role they may have played in actually shaping
the argument of the letter. Writing was not done in a private study or in the carrel
of a library. Especially as a guest in Gaius’ home, Paul would likely have dictated
his letter in the midst of the busy comings and goings that made the “private” realm
far more public than most contemporary Westerners can imagine.29 Even if Paul
somehow “composed” in private, it is quite likely that some or all of this letter was
read aloud to Gaius’ household and guests, whose responses shaped the letter in the
form in which it arrived in Rome.30 Phoebe in particular, as the carrier of the letter,
could have been involved in responding to early drafts and shaping the direction of
the final letter; at the very least, Paul would have discussed the letter with her prior
to her departure for Rome.
B. Laborers at Rome
The heart of Romans 16, of course, consists of the greetings in vv. 3-16 to people
at Rome. As a result of the important work of Peter Lampe, these greetings have
yielded a great deal of information about the addressees of the letter and their social
circumstances.31 And the prominence of women’s names, together with comments
made about their contributions, has played a role in recovering the roles of women in
leadership.32 For our purposes at present, the question is what these greetings suggest
about mission. There is general agreement that the greetings are addressed to a series
Keck (Romans [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005], p. 369) also identifies her as the one who read the
letter at Rome (see the following note).
28. Jewett argues that Tertius is the reader of the letter (Romans, p. 979) but that seems highly unlikely,
since Tertius himself greets the Romans in v. 22. Why would Tertius send a greeting if he is going to be
with the Romans when they receive the letter? It might be assumed that Phoebe would not be capable of
reading the letter, and, to be sure, the literacy rate of women was even lower than that of men. Nevertheless,
some women did read, and those who did were located precisely among the women of resources such
as Phoebe. See the remarks of William Harris throughout Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1989), especially on pp. 48, 67, 96, 103, 108, 140, 173, 252–63, 271, 328.
29. See Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and
House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), pp. 5–35; Richards, Paul and First-Century
Letter Writing, 42; Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in
Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006).
30. Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 83–84; Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 45.
31. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2003), especially pp. 153–83.
32. For an overview, see Margaret MacDonald, “Reading Real Women through the Undisputed Letters
of Paul,” in Ross Shephard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins (New
of house churches. In many of these individual greetings, there are references to the
work done by those who are greeted:
v. 3 Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus

v. 6 Mary, who labored much among you
v. 7 Andronicus and Junia,33 who are outstanding among the apostles
v. 9 Urbanus, our fellow-worker in Christ
v. 12 Tryphaena and Tryphosa, laborers in the Lord
Persis, who labored much in the Lord
At the very least, these comments demonstrate that Paul sees many of these people
as involved in mission. In Corinth, Paul has companions and co-workers in God’s
mission; similarly, he knows that at Rome God already has workers. It may be that
Paul also thinks these workers still need to hear the full size and scope of the gospel,
but they are nevertheless part of God’s mission.
C. Paul as Mission Recipient

Two comments in the letter hint that Paul at least hopes he also will receive acts of
mission while he is in Rome. In ch. 1, even as he is commenting on his longed-for
journey to Rome and what he expects to do there, he hints that he hopes not only to
give but to receive:
I long to see you, so that I might share some spiritual gift with you for your strengthening,
that is, to be mutually comforted through the shared faith, both yours and mine. (1.11-12)
Commentaries frequently discuss the move from v. 11 to v. 12 as something of a

mid-course correction. Having written in v. 11 that he has something to offer, Paul
fears that he might give offense to these folks and therefore he backtracks to suggest
mutuality in order to be more diplomatic.34 That supposition would make sense if this
were a set of off-the-cuff remarks or if Paul were sending an e-mail message. What
we know about letter-writing makes this standard interpretation of the shift highly
unlikely, however; the letter was almost certainly revised before Phoebe departed
for Rome, and probably more than once.35 When Paul writes that he expects to be
“mutually encouraged,” he at least opens the possibility that the Romans in some
way will contribute to his own faith (or faithfulness); they have a mission to him
and are not simply recipients of his mission. This should not be surprising, since in
1 Thessalonians 1 he recalls the mutuality of mission at Thessalonica. Paul recalls
York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 199–220. On Junia in particular, see Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The
First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).
33. On the Junia versus Junias controversy, see Epp, Junia.
34. As in Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 19; Dunn, Romans 1.35; Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 248–49; Byrne, Romans,
pp. 49–50. Cranfield’s discussion is more nuanced (Romans, 1.73).
35. Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, pp. 24–25, 31, 45, 152–54, 161–70.
how the Thessalonians received the gospel, but he also recalls that he and his co-
workers were changed by the Thessalonians (“what sort of people we became,” 1.5)
and how the Thessalonians’ reception of the gospel itself became a proclamation
(1.7-10). This does not mean that the Romans evangelize Paul, yet it does mean that
he anticipates being strengthened by them, presumably strengthened for mission.
In a different way, the closing of the letter also raises the possibility that Paul is on
the receiving end of mission. At 15.30-33 as he writes about going to Jerusalem, Paul
uses quite strong language to ask for prayer on behalf of his delivery of the collection.
He urges the Romans to “to battle alongside” him in prayer that he will be rescued at
Rome and that his ministry will be accepted. The anxiety here is palpable, not simply
anxiety about personal harm but also anxiety about the unity of Jew and Gentile in the
praise of God. Paul’s concern is for the realization of God’s own mission.
Such attention to the involvement of others in God’s mission is not intended to
diminish Paul’s role but to situate it rightly. Paul does have a specific role to play
here, yet he is not the only one involved in God’s mission at Rome.
III. The Mission of God

Paul hopes to receive from the Romans, and he plans also to evangelize (or to
“re-evangelize” them).36 He needs to evangelize them because, judging from the argu-
ment of the letter, it seems that the Romans have not heard or understood the cosmic
scope of the gospel,37 which concerns nothing less than God’s own work in Jesus
Christ of delivering all of humanity from its captivity to powers of Sin and Death. The
underlying mission that comes to expression in Romans, then, is God’s own mission.
Beginning in 1.18 and extending at least until 8.3, Paul relentlessly depicts the
enslavement of humanity by the powers of Sin and Death.38 Because humanity rebel-
liously refused to acknowledge God as God, God “handed them over” to their own
desires, that is, to Sin itself (1.18-32).39 Paul draws initially on Jewish stereotypes
about Gentiles, creating the impression that only Gentiles are captive to Sin, but
the distinction between Gentiles and Jews yields no substantive difference by the
time he reaches ch. 3. As he concludes in 3.9, all (Jew and Gentile alike) are under
the power of Sin. The catena in 3.10-18 reinforces this conclusion with its repeated
refrain, “There is no one. . . .”40 In 5.12-21, Paul doubles back to this same point,
36. These two statements stand in conflict with one another only if we imagine evangelism as a
unilateral act in which one person or group takes the gospel to another person or group. Biblical texts such
as 1 Thessalonians 1 and Acts 10.1–11.17 suggest a far more fluid and reciprocal model.
37. Space does not permit unpacking my reasons for thinking that the Romans themselves have an
inadequate understanding of the gospel. I have offered some comments on this point in “To Preach the
Gospel.” Similarly, the paragraphs that follow are necessarily a truncated sketch of a larger argument I am
developing in a commentary on Romans.
38. See Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), pp. 113–36,
194–200.
39. In Our Mother Saint Paul, I have argued that the things to which “they” are handed over in 1.24,
26, 28 (desires, dishonorable passions, an unthinking mind) are metonyms for Sin (pp. 118–20, 196).
40. The phrase ou0k e!stin appears in v. 10, v. 11 (twice), v. 12 (twice, although there is a text critical
although now he makes it even more forcefully. As a result of Adam’s single act, Sin
and Death established a joint reign that extended over all of humanity. Indeed, Sin
and Death had power even over Jesus, power broken only by his resurrection from
the dead (6.9-10). The power of Sin was such that it could make use even of God’s
holy Law in its program of enslaving humanity (7.7-25, esp. 7.14).41
Despite Paul’s numerous references to human pi/stij (faith, trust, or faithfulness,
as in 1.16-17; 3.22-26, 27-31), humanity does not escape from the grasp of Sin and
Death by its own action, not even by the action of faith. Romans is consistent with
Paul’s other letters in its virtual silence concerning repentance and forgiveness.42 The
repeated language about humanity’s enslavement to Sin and Death (5.12-21; 6.12-23;
7.14) suggests an explanation for that silence. Even the most sincere repentance can-
not achieve what is needed; slaves cannot repent their way out of slavery.
The only remedy to humanity’s plight comes from the outside, through God’s
apocalyptic act in the death and resurrection of Jesus, which establishes an alternate
power, the reign of grace (6.21). God puts Jesus forward as the “mercy seat,” the
very center of the Holy of Holies, in order to establish God’s own rectification
(dikaiosu/nh) and to make men and women right in Jesus Christ (3.21-25). Paul
unpacks this central claim in 5.12-21, showing how Jesus’ obedience brings about a
new reign of Grace that signals the defeat of Sin and Death.
To be sure, God’s triumph is not yet complete. Even as Paul’s language soars in
the middle of ch. 8, anticipating the eschatological glorification of God’s children
and God’s redemption of all of creation, he recognizes that there still are powers that
are opposed to God and to God’s people, powers determined to “separate” humanity
from the love of God in Christ Jesus (8.39). That undertaking by the anti-God powers
will fail, and ultimately God’s mercy extends to all (11.32), and all will join in praise
in thanksgiving (15.7-13; cf. Phil. 2.6-11).
IV. Conclusion
This way of discussing Romans will seem odd in the current scholarly landscape,
which largely assumes that mission refers to Paul’s work on behalf of the gospel rather
than to God’s own labor. Recent treatments of mission in Paul address his notions of
territory,43 his understanding of Roman oppression,44 his biography and missionary
problem regarding the second occurrence), and v. 18.

41. See Paul W. Meyer, “The Worm at the Core of the Apple: Exegetical Reflections on Romans 7,”
in The Word in This World: Essays in New Testament Exegesis and Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 2004), pp. 57–77.
42. The noun metanoi&a occurs only at Rom. 2.4, and the verb metanoe&w at 2 Cor. 12.21. a!fesij never
appears in Paul’s letters, and a0fi&hmi only in 1 Cor. 7, where it refers to divorce rather than forgiveness.
43. Ksenija Magda, Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy (WUNT 2.266; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009).
44. Davina C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2008).
itinerary,45 the relationship of his mission to Jewish missionary endeavors,46 and his
plans for work in Spain.47 These are all significant questions about the developing
of early Christianity, yet they are incomplete without an understanding of the role
of God.
Speaking of “the mission of God,” then, is more than saying that Paul and his
co-workers understand themselves to be sent by God to carry out their labors. Talk
of “mission” in Romans is not simply talk about what human beings do to deliver
God’s gospel to other human beings or what they do by way of encouraging one
another. Mission is nothing less than God’s own action of rescuing the world from
Sin and Death.
45. Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
46. John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities
(WUNT 2.159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).
47. Jewett, Romans, pp. 923–926.
6
PAUL AND THE MULTI-ETHNIC FIRST-CENTURY
WORLD: ETHNICITY AND CHRISTIAN IDENTITY
J. Daniel Hays
I. Introduction: Hellenism, Paul, and Ethnic Differences

Missionaries who plant churches in multi-cultural settings often face the daunting
challenge of bringing diverse groups of Christians together into a unified Church.
Likewise, even in areas of established Christianity, the Church is often fractured
along ethnic lines. This was a major challenge facing Paul as well, and he tackled
this problem frequently and vigorously in his epistles.
A common understanding within New Testament studies, however, is that follow-
ing the conquest of Alexander the Great, cultural Hellenism spread throughout the
Mediterranean world and became the dominant and prevailing culture (with some
influence from the later arrival of the Romans). The subtle implication of this view is
that Hellenism swallowed up the many indigenous cultures, as people throughout the
Mediterranean world, particularly in the cities, abandoned their ethnic identity and
became Hellene (Greek). The famous quote from Isocrates is often cited: “The name
Hellene no longer suggests a race but an intelligence, and the title Hellene is applied
rather to those who share our culture than to those who share our blood.”1 There
is plenty of surface evidence to back up this claim, particularly in Anatolia (Asia
Minor). Practically all epigraphic material in this region from the New Testament era
is in Greek (with some Latin inscriptions). Likewise, the spectacular archeological
remains of stereotypical “Hellene” cities are scattered across the landscapes of the
Mediterranean world, especially in Anatolia, with temples dedicated to Greek and
Roman gods (and even the Caesars). Biblical scholars frequently note that throughout
the book of Acts, the Apostle Paul moves freely throughout the region both culturally
and linguistically.2
The epistles of Paul are generally translated and interpreted in this context. Thus
the general impression conveyed by most biblical scholarship, both at the academic
1. This quote, for example, is displayed prominently on the first inside page (flyleaf) of Harry
Brewster, Classical Anatolia: The Glory of Hellenism (London: I. B. Tauris, 1993).
2. For example, see Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods
(Downers Grove/Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 2008), pp. 329–31.
6. Paul and the Multi-Ethnic First-Century World 77
level and the popular level, is that Paul is primarily dealing with two major groups:
the Jews and the Gentiles. In many cases throughout the New Testament, and espe-
cially in the epistles of Paul, the Greek word ethn! is translated as “Gentiles” (with a
capital “G”), implying that this was some kind of monolithic religious or ethnic group.
The culturally unifying forces of Hellenism throughout the Greco-Roman world are
implied to undergird this implication.
However, from the context of having done cursory studies in cultural anthropol-
ogy and having worked cross-culturally in a complex multi-ethnic country (Ethiopia)
for a number of years, I have come to suspect that the claims for Hellenism as an
all-absorbing ethnic identity are grossly exaggerated.3 Likewise, I suspect that in
many cases within the Pauline literature the translation of the Greek word ethn! as
“Gentiles” is misleading and causes readers to miss or at least undervalue the power-
ful way in which Paul addresses the multi-ethnic situation he encounters.
Clearly the Jews (the Ioudaioi)4 saw the world as comprised of two major groups
— themselves and the others (the ethn!).5 In a Jewish context the term ethn! fre-
quently referred to a “whole conglomerate of those who are not Ioudaioi.”6 But
ethn! does not carry this nuance outside of Jewish usage. In general this term means
“people, group, ethnicity.” Even the Jews considered themselves to be an ethnos.7
Although in some contexts Paul is clearly using ethn! with an “other than Jew”
meaning, it is probably misleading to translate ethn! as Gentile (with a capital “G”)
in most other contexts as if there was a real ethnic group called Gentiles. Certainly the
multi-ethnic peoples in the churches to whom Paul wrote did not identify themselves
as “Gentiles,” as defined by the minority group of Ioudaioi. In recent years numerous
scholars have pointed this out, calling for a more accurate translation for ethn! as
“peoples,” “nations,” or even “gentiles” (with a small “g”).8
3. Ball argues that temples and religion in the Roman East might be overlaid with Roman frills or
façade, but that in reality the region stayed quite Eastern. He writes, “Scratch a Temple of Zeus and we find
a Baal or Hadad, scratch a ‘Roman city’ and we find something that is Near Eastern.” Warwick Ball, Rome
in the East: The Transformation of an Empire (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 394–96, 449. Fergus Millar
espouses the same view in The Roman Near East: 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1993), pp. 228–35.
4. Many have suggested that the term Ioudaioi contains nuances of both “Jew” and “Judean.”
Some scholars even suggest that that the term would be better translated as “Judean.” The connection
to homeland and/or location of origin was very important and this term probably carries numerous con-
notations — religious practice, geographical homeland, history, ethics, etc. See Cynthia M. Baker, “From
Every Nation Under Heaven,” in Laura Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (eds.), Prejudice and
Christian Beginnings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), pp. 83–84; Caroline Johnson Hodge, If Sons,
Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007), pp. 11–15; and Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1999), pp. 135–38.
5. For discussions on the terms Greek, Jew, Barbarian, and Roman, see J. Daniel Hays, From Every
People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (NSBT, 14; Downers Grove, Inter-Varsity Press, 2003),
pp. 141–46; and Martin Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), pp. 65–66.
6. Hodge, If Sons, p. 47.
7. Schnabel, Missionary, p. 326.
8. Charles H. Cosgrove, “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” CBQ 68 (2006): pp. 268–90; William S.
Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 12–13; Davina
In recent years New Testament scholarship has begun to appropriate the tools of
sociology and anthropology to provide additional background material from which
to understand the New Testament, and early forays into this field have uncovered
some glaring holes in the standard approaches to interpreting Paul. Barclay, for
example, wrote in 1996 that “Interpreting Paul as a cultural critic and exploring his
vision of community in which there is “neither Jew nor Gentile” is an agenda still
largely unaddressed by Pauline scholars.”9 Likewise in delineating a list of needed
background information and “unfinished tasks” in scholarship that would greatly
assist in understanding Acts and the Pauline epistles, Hemer includes “The linguistic
map of Asia Minor and the identities of Anatolian ethnic divisions and their effect
on the pattern of Paul’s work.”10
This essay attempts a very surface exploration into this area, followed by a brief
analysis of how a more accurate view of the cultural (ethnic) background setting
illuminates and “fleshes out” Paul’s basic doctrine of unity in the Church. First, I will
offer a brief overview of the first-century ethnic map of Paul’s world. Next, drawing
from sociological/anthropological studies, I will discuss the concept of ethnic identity
in the first-century world, attempting to delineate the primary parameters that people
in Paul’s world were normally using to establish self-identity. Finally I will propose
the thesis that many of Paul’s metaphors and themes (especially in regard to unity
in the Church) are addressing those precise parameters that defined ethnic identity
among his audiences. Within the ethnically fluid world of first-century Hellenism, and
using the terms of ethnic identity in that world, I suggest that Paul is advocating a new
ethnic identity (ethn!; laos) of those “in Christ” and that he is calling for the saints to
embrace the reality that their new self-identity (ethnicity) “in Christ” replaces their
old ethnic identity (Phrygian, Galatian, Lycaonian, Judean/Jew, etc.) as their primary
group identification, thus uniting them together.
II. Ethnic Diversity in Paul’s World

A. Historical Overview
The history of Asia Minor (Anatolia) in the centuries leading up to the Christian
era is extremely complex, especially in regard to peoples and ethnicities. Little is
known about the origins of the earliest inhabitants. The Hittites, an Indo-European
group, apparently migrated into Asia Minor in the early second millennium BCE and
C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimaging Paul’s Mission, Paul in Critical Contexts (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2008), pp. 1–7; Dean Philip Bechard, Paul Outside the Walls (AnBib, 143; Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), pp. 157–64; Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew Nor
Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society,” JSNT 64 (1996): pp. 101–24 (105–6); Schnabel,
Missionary, pp. 323–26; Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s
Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 12, 111–15; Hodge, If Sons, p. 47.
9. John M. G. Barclay, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective on
Paul,” in Mark G. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), pp. 197–214 (206).
10. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 217.
dominated much of the region for centuries.11 During the early first millennium BCE
the Phrygians (probably an Indo-European ethnic group from Thrace and Macedonia)
emerged as the dominant power, with their capital at Gordion. Phrygian power was
broken by the Cimmerian invasion in the early seventh century BCE, and then the
Lydian Kingdom, with its capital at Sardis, gained control of much of Asia Minor.12
When the Persians conquered the area in the late sixth century BCE there were
numerous other ethnic groups — Mysians, Bithynians, Lycaonians, Cappadocians,
Cilicians, Pontians, among others — in the region. Many of these peoples were
descendants from various Hittite groups, but they generally developed their own
distinctive ethnic identity, including their own linguistic dialect.13 The culture and
ethnicities in the coastal regions in particular had also been significantly influenced
by Phoenician and Greek colonization.14
In the early third century BCE the Celts (also called Gauls or Galatians) invaded the
region, migrating from central Europe down through the Balkans, across Macedonia
and Thrace, and into central Asia Minor. For most of the third century and into the
early years of the second century BCE the Celts were involved in numerous alliances,
wars and conflicts with the other regional powers — Pergamum, Pontus, Bithynia,
the Ptolemys, the Seleucids, and then Rome, who finally subdued them.15 The Celts
(Galatians) in Asia Minor, however, maintained a strong ethnic identity well into the
fourth century C.E.16
So while it is true that Alexander sweeps across Asia Minor in the fourth century
BCE followed by the wave of cultural Hellenism (building on the earlier Greek colo-
nies in the area), and the Romans likewise conquer the area a few centuries later,
establishing Roman rule and adding Roman immigrants and retired soldiers to the
region, it is sociologically naïve to think that Asia Minor was ethnically monolithic.17
Furthermore, due to factors such as widespread slavery in the Roman Empire,
11. For a history of the Hittites, see Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittites,” in Alfred J. Hoerth, et al. (eds.),
Peoples of the Old Testament World (Cambridge: Lutterworth; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pp. 127–31;
Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); and Billie Jean
Collins, The Hittites and Their World (SBLABS, 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007).
12. F. F. Bruce, “Phrygia,” ABD V:365–68; Barbara Kelley McLauchlin, “Lydia,” ABD IV:423–25.
13. A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1071),
pp. 28–95, 124–215; Scott T. Carroll, “Mysia,” ABD IV:940–41; Anthony Sheppard, “Bithynia,” ABD
I:750–753; Richard D. Sullivan, “Cappadocia,” ABD I:870–72; idem, “Pontus,” ABD V:401–402; J. Daniel
Bing, “Cilicia,” ABD I:1022–24.
14. On Greek colonization of Asia Minor, see John Freely, Children of Achilles: The Greeks in Asia
Minor since the Days of Troy (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), pp. 1–41; and Brewster, Classical Anatolia,
pp. 9–170.
15. Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1, The Celts and the Impact
of Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 13–26; J. M. De Navarro, “The Coming of the Celts,”
in The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome, CAH, vol. 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), pp. 41–74.
16. Mitchell, Anatolia, pp. 50–51.
17. This was particularly true for central, northern and western Anatolia. Mitchell, Anatolia, 86,
chronicles the numerous ethnic groups in these regions as the Romans arrive, including the “bewildering
diversity of local languages, mostly completely unknown to us,” and concludes, “To all this, Hellenism
was a late and superficial addition.”
many “Roman” cities and “Greek” cities were likewise multi-ethnic. In the early
first century C.E. Italy had approximately 7.5 million inhabitants of which 2–3 million
were slaves, most of them of foreign origin. Throughout the rest of the Roman Empire
slaves probably comprised approximately 10 percent of the population.18 Slaves were
acquired from numerous sources, but the vast majority of them were captured during
Rome’s many wars across its frontiers. During his campaigns in Gaul (58–51 BCE),
Julius Caesar, for example, is reported to have captured over 1 million slaves and
then transported them back to Rome.19 Without doubt slaves made up a significant
percentage of the early church. Thus even in Rome (or Corinth), the church was far
from ethnically monolithic; indeed, many of the slaves in the early churches would
have originated from the outreaches of the Roman Empire — Britain, Gaul, Ethiopia,
Parthia, Scythia, Spain, Asia Minor, etc. In fact, one of the greatest sources of slaves
was Asia Minor, and the literary records of the Roman era frequently mention slaves
from Galatia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia.20 Walters provides a revealing quote from
the Deipnosophistae (c. 200 C.E.) regarding the multiplicity of ethnic peoples living
in Rome: “Even entire nations are settled there en masse, like the Cappadocians,
the Scythians, the Pontians, and more besides.”21 Esler likewise underscores the
importance of recognizing the ethnic diversity in Rome for understanding the letter
of Romans, concluding that Paul is primarily addressing the multi-ethnic, Greek-
speaking immigrants.22
18. James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era (Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1999), pp. 220–21. Koester estimates that slaves comprised one-third of the inhabitants of
Rome; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 1, History, Culture, and Religion of the
Hellenistic Age, Hermeneia: Foundations and Facets (Philadelphia: Fortress; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1982), p. 61. See also Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 51–53; Keith
R. Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Thomas E. J.
Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1981).
19. J. Albert Harrill, “Slavery,” NIDB, vol. 5, pp. 299–308 (304).
20. Richard A. Horsley, “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Reluctant Recognition
by Modern Scholars,” Semeia 83–84 (1998), pp. 19–66 (36).
21. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.20. Cited by James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to
the Romans: Changing Self-Definition in Earliest Roman Christianity (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1993), pp. 10–11.
22. Esler, Conflict, pp. 84–86. Also noting that the early congregations in Rome were comprised
primarily of Greek-speaking slaves and immigrants is Jewett, Romans, p. 47. In addition, Jewett, Romans,
p. 953, argues that the names in Romans 16 can be placed into three categories: Greek names (the major-
ity), Jewish names, and Latin names. Jewett argues that those with Greek names would have been slaves,
former slaves, or immigrants. He notes that for Paul “respect for original cultural origins and identity was
a matter of importance.” Porter, on the other hand, disagrees, and argues that even the citizens of Rome
spoke Greek as their first language. As evidence he cites a quote from Juvenal (Satire 3.61), who complains
that Rome had become a “Greek city” due to the amount of Greek spoken there. Stanley E. Porter, “The
Languages that Paul Did Not Speak,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul’s World (PAST, 4; Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2008), pp. 131–150 (133). Yet, as mentioned above, it was probably the huge influx of foreigners,
especially slaves, who made Greek so common in Rome, and not necessarily the Roman inhabitants.
B. Indications from the New Testament of Ethnic Diversity in

Paul’s World
In Acts 14.6 Luke refers to the cities of Lystra and Derbe as “cities of Lycaonia.”
Acts 14.11 notes that the residents (crowd) of Lystra shout out, not in Greek, but in
the Lycaonian language. The Lycaonians were an ancient group, mentioned in Hittite
texts. Bruce suggests that the Lycaonian language was descended from Luwian, a
language associated with the Hittites. Thus it was quite different from Phrygian
(spoken in Iconium), which was related to Thracian. Although the boundaries of the
Roman provinces in central Anatolia changed several times, portions of Lycaonia
were associated with the province of Galatia. Acts 18.23 states that as Paul travels
from Antioch to Ephesus he journeys “through the region of Galatia and Phrygia,
strengthening all the disciples.” Lycaonia, including Lystra and Derbe, are probably
included in the phrase “region of Galatia.”23 These ethn! in Lycaonia hardly fit the
profile of the typical Hellene. Many of them probably knew Greek, but Lycaonian
was their first language, and, descended from the Hittites or similar ancient peoples,
they probably had little affinity or ethnic connection to the Thracian related Phrygians
in Iconium.
Another very interesting episode occurs in Acts 2.5-11 during the miracle of
Pentecost. Luke records that “there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven
living in Jerusalem” (2.5). When this crowd gathers, drawn to the sound of those
filled with the Spirit, they are “bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in
the native language of each” (2.6). These Jews from the Diaspora then ask, “How is
it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappodocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia
and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from
Rome, both Jewish and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs — in our own languages we
hear them speaking about God’s great deeds of power?” (2.7-11).
The implications of this passage in regard to languages and ethnic identity in the
Greco-Roman world are immense.24 The prevailing and dominant view is that the
Greco-Roman world was dominated by Hellenistic culture; this meant that most of
23. F. F. Bruce, “Lycaonia,” ABD IV:420–22. For a discussion of this region during the Roman era,
see Jones, Cities, pp. 124–47.
24. Obviously, the significance of the passage rests on the view one has of the historicity of the event.
Some scholars maintain that Luke’s list of nations in this text is only rhetorical, and not a reflection of
the actual situation. However, there is no consensus on what Luke’s rhetorical strategy is or where he
obtained the enigmatic list of nations. One thesis put forward is that Luke is using a zodiac table in which
12 countries are associated with each sign of the zodiac. See the discussion of this in Ernst Haenchen, The
Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), pp. 169–71 (in several footnotes),
and arguments against this view in Bruce M. Metzger, “Ancient Astrological Geography and Acts 2.9-11,”
in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 123–33. Wedderburn discusses the merits of the zodiac option but
rejects it as unlikely. A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Traditions and Redactions in Acts 2.1-13,” JSNT 55 (1994),
pp. 27–54 (39–48, 53). More recently Gilbert has proposed that the list in this passage reflects “how Rome
employed geographical catalogues to articulate its ideology of dominance in the world . . . Acts has adapted
the well-known form of Roman propaganda in order to create a map of contested terrain and reinforce the
claim that all the nations of the earth now rest under the dominion not of Caesar but of God and his son,
the people, especially in the cities, spoke Greek. Thus it is quite the norm for scholars
who are describing Jews in the Diaspora to point out that the Jewish communities
in the Diaspora spoke Greek. Likewise while numerous scholars present extensive
discussions as to the extent of Jewish Hellenization, few of them, if any, discuss the
possibility that the diaspora Jews also learned the vernacular language of the local
people, as implied in this passage.25 Yet this makes perfect sense. If a Jew was liv-
ing in Iconium, for example, where much of the population was probably bilingual
(Greek and Phrygian), but where some of the population spoke only Phrygian, it
would be quite beneficial for him/her to learn Phrygian in addition to Greek.26 The
significance of Acts 2.5-11 for this study is that it provides strong evidence that across
the Greco-Roman world of the first century, even in the cities, numerous vernacular
languages were spoken to the extent that foreigners in the region (like the Jews)
learned the vernacular languages.27 Harris concurs with this assessment of the preva-
lence of vernacular languages, challenging the universality of Greek. He points out
that “many of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire spoke neither Greek nor Latin.”
Harris also refers to the eastern regions of the empire, especially large portions of
Asia Minor, as “semi-Hellenized,” and he notes that a wide range of languages was
spoken throughout that region.28
Jesus.” Gary Gilbert, “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL
121/3 (2002), pp. 497–529 (529).
25. Jeffers, Greco-Roman World, p. 216, for example, writes, “The Jews of the diaspora had already
left behind Aramaic for the language of the Greeks.” Cohen writes, ‘In the diaspora the triumph of the Greek
language was complete.” Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (LEC, 7; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1987), p. 39. See also Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 404; and Koester, Introduction, p. 251. Barclay is more nuanced,
suggesting that Jewish reaction to the pressures from Hellenism varied and should be viewed as a spectrum
of acculturation; that is, some aspects of Hellenism were adapted by the diaspora Jews and some aspects
were rejected, all to varying degrees at different times and places and by different people. John M. G.
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 BCE) (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1996), pp. 82–380. Collins concurs, but notes
that studying and speaking the Greek language was on the acculturation end of the spectrum, embraced
by the diaspora Jews. John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic
Diaspora, 2nd ed. (The Biblical Resource Series, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 24.
26. Porter, “Languages,” pp. 133–34, approaches Acts 2 with the over-riding presupposition that the
Jews did not speak local vernacular languages. He writes, “The use of local vernaculars by Jews from the
Roman Empire was highly unlikely, especially in the rural areas of Anatolia (Asia Minor, now Turkey),
as these languages tended to be used in rural areas, whereas the Jews lived in the cities.” Porter assumes
that the diaspora Jews spoke only Greek; therefore he concludes (reasoning backwards against the text)
that Acts 2 is not about vernacular languages, but only Greek — a rather puzzling conclusion.
27. Those commentators who either state that the Jews in Acts 2 knew the vernacular languages
or who strongly imply this understanding include: Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), p. 14; Haenchen, Acts, p. 169; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of
the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
1998), pp. 133–35; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1992), pp. 43–44; F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988), p. 54; and Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in NIB, vol. X (Nashville, Abingdon, 2002),
pp. 55–56.
28. William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 175–88.
C. Ethnicity and Identity in the First Century C.E.

Over the last 30 years numerous significant sociological and anthropological studies
have addressed the concept of “ethnicity,” providing helpful tools for addressing
the issue in Pauline studies.29 Something near to a consensus has emerged, whereby
scholars are commonly recognizing that ethnic identity is “socially constructed and
subjectively perceived.”30 Although there is no hard and fast set of objective criteria
that establishes in every case which sociological “boundaries” people use to define
their ethnic identity, there is fairly widespread agreement that varying combinations
of the following aspects are the primary categories used by groups to form their ethnic
identity and to separate them from other groups: (1) a collective name; (2) common
descent (often from an ancient ancestor, real or mythical; this frequently also involves
concepts of kinship) and a shared history; (3) territory; i.e. a common location such
as a region, “country” or city; this could be where they live now, or where they immi-
grated from; (4) religion and related values and practices; (5) language; (6) physical
appearance, including hair styles and clothing; and (7) diet (which is sometimes
related to religious practices).31 Hall proposes that for the ancient Greeks, the two
most important elements of ethnic identity were territory (often the city) and “the
common myth of descent.”32 Buell, on the other hand, argues that in the first-century
Greco-Roman world the most influential parameter of ethnic identity was religious
practice. She goes on to point out, however, that religious practice was inseparably
intertwined with civic (city) identity, so religious identity and city identity were often
one and the same.33 Barclay notes that ethnic identity for diaspora Jews was formed
Regarding bilingualism, see J. N. Adams, et al. (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact
and the Written Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
29. A. Royce, Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982);
Henri Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); see
also the earlier and foundational work of F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization
of Culture Difference (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1969).
30. This oft-cited quote is from Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 19, who draws it from G. A. De Vos and L. Romanucci-Ross,
“Ethnic Identity: a Psychocultural Perspective,” in L. Romanucci-Ross and G. A. De Vos (eds.), Ethnic
Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accommodation, 3rd ed. (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira, 1995), pp. 349–79.
31. This list has been developed from Paula McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel,
Library of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), p. 33; Hall, Ethnic
Identity, p. 25; and Hays, From Every People, pp. 28–29. Drawing from J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith
(Ethnicity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], pp. 6–7), Campbell, Christian Identity, p. 5, presents
a similar list. On the connection between kinship and ancestry, see Hodge, If Sons, pp. 19–42.
32. Hall, Ethnic Identity, pp. 19–26. Schnabel, Missionary, p. 324, maintains that the city was the
central element of ethnic identity for the Greeks, although the evidence he cites seems to contradict rather
than support his argument. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’,” pp. 113–14, acknowledges that the term
Hellene (Greek) generally referred to one who spoke flawless Greek and who embraced Greek culture
and institutions, but he also notes that most of the families in the eastern part of the Roman Empire that
called themselves Greek could still trace their family trees back to Hellas, underscoring the importance of
ancestry.
33. Denise Kimber Buell, “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Identification,”
HTR 94.4 (2001), pp. 449–76 (458–60). Note the intersection of religious practice and civic pride in the
riot at Ephesus in Acts 19.23-41.
by a combination of ancestry plus “cultural practice,” along with a connection back

to Judea/Jerusalem (territory).34
It is also important to note that in the Greco-Roman world, ethnicity was often
fluid. While there were boundaries, the boundaries were often not fixed or immutable,
but rather ones that could be crossed.35
III. Reading Paul in the Context of Ethnic Identity

Obviously one of the major ethnic divides that Paul encounters is that between Jews/
Judeans and “gentiles” (i.e. everybody else). Sometimes Paul focuses on this dif-
ference in more narrowly defined terms, as he contrasts Jews (Judeans) and Greeks
(those who thoroughly embraced Hellenism). But as the study above illustrates, the
regions that Paul visited (including the “Hellenistic” cities) were comprised of a
multitude of ethnicities, and frequently, no doubt, there was animosity and tension
between the groups. So it is quite interesting and rather significant to observe that
several of the central themes in Paul touch directly on many of those very parameters
listed above that typically define ethnicity.36 Paul is not just breaking down social
barriers between Jews and gentiles; he is telling the new followers of Christ that they
are a new ethnicity/people/group (ethn!; laos). He is not just declaring unity in Christ
and the creation of a community that accepts all people. He is declaring that the fol-
lowers of Christ are a new and different ethnicity and that their primary identity and
group association must change from their old self-identity to this new one. Just as a
gentile might become a Jewish proselyte or a Phrygian might become a “Greek,” so
the new believers in Christ are to take on an entirely new ethnic identity (baptized
into Christ, they are now “in Christ,” “citizens” of heaven; members of the Kingdom
of God, with Abraham as their common ancestor, adopted into the family of God as
sons and daughters, prohibited from practicing their old religious practices, given
new moral guidelines and values, told to “put off” their old self (old ethnicity?) and
to “put on” Christ, and so forth.37 To explore all of these themes is well beyond the
scope of this essay, but a few suggestive highlights can be noted.
As discussed above, the claim to a common ancestry was one of the most central
34. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 402–403, 418, 426–27.
35. Schnabel, Missionary, p. 324. Buell, “Rethinking,” pp. 466–72, cites several examples. See also
idem, “God’s Own People: Specters of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in Early Christian Studies,” in Laura
Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (eds.), Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race,
Gender, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), pp. 159–190 (178–79).
36. Obviously, one cannot subsume all of Paul’s theology into this category of ethnic identity. This
essay merely seeks to demonstrate that this is an important (and largely ignored) component of Paul’s
mission.
37. In recent years several scholars, approaching this issue from various angles, have come to similar
conclusions. See Buell, “Rethinking the Relevance of Race”; Hodge, If Sons; Esler, Conflict; Denise
Kimber Buell, and Caroline Johnson Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and
Ethnicity in Paul,” JBL 123/2 (2004), pp. 235–51; and Hays, From Every People, pp. 181–206. Arguing
against this view of ethnic identity and unity are Richard E. Oster, “‘Congregations of the Gentiles’ (Rom
16.4): A Culture-Based Ecclesiology in the Letters of Paul,” ResQ 40/1 (1998), pp. 39–52; and Cosgrove,
Ethnicity, pp. 268–90.
elements in determining ethnicity and group identity in the first-century world. Thus
it is quite suggestive to note the highly significant role that Abraham plays in Paul’s
theology. In Romans 4 and in Galatians 3 Paul tells the new believers that they are
the descendants of Abraham, of whom it was written, “I have made you the father of
many nations (ethn!)” (Rom. 4.17). Likewise in Galatians 3.29 Paul writes, “If you
belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”
Not only is Abraham the ancestor of the many diverse peoples in the new church,
uniting them together into one new ethnos, but Paul pulls them together even closer
through kinship terms, another related and important ethnic parameter. By being
“in Christ” they are all children (“sons”) of God (Gal. 3.26). The concept of kinship
(being adopted into God’s family) is a prevalent theme running throughout the Pauline
literature.38 This unites the new believers together in “ethnic” terms — they are
members of the same family, united by kinship, with a common ancestor, and with a
common inheritance (which holds connotations of “territory” at least metaphorically).
Paul’s frequent use of the phrases “in Christ” (83 times in the wider Pauline corpus;
61 if Ephesians and the Pastorals are excluded) or “with Christ” also implies connota-
tions relating to the ethnic identity indicators above. Obviously “in Christ” is a very
rich and complex phrase and Paul uses it in a wide range of settings.39 In one of the
central usages, “in Christ” becomes the new identity that Paul claims both for himself
and for his readers. For example, following his stress on Abraham in Galatians 3, and
as the introduction to the strong declaration of ethnic and social unity in Gal. 3.28,40
Paul tells the Galatians that they have been “baptized into Christ” and “clothed with
Christ” (Gal. 3.27). Baptism for Paul is the initiation marker for inclusion in this new
community/ethnos. Note also that Paul uses the “clothing” metaphor frequently. The
manner of one’s dress was a significant ethnic and social marker in Paul’s world, a
very visible indication to all observers of which group one was in. In the new ethnos of
Christ-followers, their clothing would likewise be their identity and boundary marker
— but this clothing is that of “in Christ.” In Ephesians the clothing metaphor (“put
off, put on”) is used slightly differently, this time to exhort the audience to change
moral/values behavior (Eph. 4.17-28), likewise another ethnos marker.
Closely related to the phrase “in Christ” is Paul’s use of the phrase “body of
Christ.” One of Paul’s major metaphors stressing unity among the diverse members
of the new church is the image that all of them are part of one body with Christ as
the head. Sometimes Paul uses the phrase “body of Christ” and related phrases (“his
body,” “one body,” etc.) in Eucharistic contexts or simply to refer to the physical
body of Christ. Of interest to this study, however, are the times when Paul uses this
38. Note the instructive title of Hodge’s work, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Survey of Kinship and Ethnicity
in the Letters of Paul.
39. See the discussions on “in Christ” by James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 396–412; and M. A. Seifrid, “In Christ,” in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters, Gerald F. Hawthorne, et al. (eds.) (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 433–36.
40. Martyn writes that Gal. 3.26-29 is describing the “community of the new creation in which unity
in God’s Christ has replaced religious-ethnic differences.” J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New
York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 383.
phrase as a designation for the Church. The Greco-Roman literature from this period
provides a helpful background for understanding the nuances of Paul’s usage of this
term in regard to the Church. Interestingly, s"ma (“body”) was used frequently by
writers during this period as a metaphor for the state or polis. In this context Caesar
would be described as the head and the republic would be his body.41 Thus the “body”
(s"ma) served as a metaphor for civic and political unifying identity, with strong
nuances of allegiance. Paul is pointing out that the new Church is part of the body
of Christ and not part of the body of Caesar (or other political entities such as the
polis), thus dramatically revising the new Christians’ sense of identity (and subtly
subverting their allegiance to Caesar).42 Yet note that it is not just their membership/
identity/allegiance in the Roman Empire that Paul is replacing. He calls on the new
believers to make their membership in the “body of Christ” their primary “ethnic”
identity (which also included civic and political aspects).
Another example of how Paul employs terms and concepts that would have been
associated with defining ethnic identity is his use of politeuma (“citizenship,” NRSV)
in Phil 3.20: “but our citizenship is in heaven.” Oakes argues that this is a highly
political passage, informing the Philippian Christians that they belong to another state
(heaven) and that this is the only state to which they belong. He also notes that mem-
bership in a state (or city) brings with it a certain ethical behavior and now that the
Philippians are in this new state their ethnical behavior must change appropriately.43
Also in this context Paul exhorts the Philippians to imitate him (3.17). Just as he has
cast off his old identity as a Hebrew and Pharisee as “rubbish” (3.4-8) in order to be
part of Christ, so they, too, should cast off their old identity and be part of Christ.44
The scope of this essay does not allow us to explore all the other themes within the
Pauline literature that touch on these boundaries of ethnic identification, but they are
numerous and significant, including the following: the people of God (Rom. 9.25),
the kingdom of God, the necessary shift in religious practices, and the call to change
moral behavior (including their manner of speech).
41. Numerous citations of this usage from the works of Seneca, Philo, Josephus and others are pro-
vided by R. Y. K. Fung, “Body of Christ,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp. 76–82 (see especially
p. 77); and Eduard Schweitzer, “s"ma,” TDNT, vol. VII, pp. 1024–44 (1032, 1037–39, 1041).
42. In recent years many scholars have noted the anti-Roman subversive rhetoric of Paul. See for
example, Richard Horsley, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg,
PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); idem, (ed.), Paul and Politics (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International, 2000); and Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire
(Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008). In reaction to this view, see the critique
by Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke
43. Peter Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter (SNTSMS, 110; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001), p. 138. Likewise noting the highly political, even “subversive-to-Rome” tone, is
G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (PNTC; Grand Rapids/Nottingham: Eerdmans; Apollos,
2009), pp. 268–70; and N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), pp. 59–79.
Reumann, on the other hand, discusses the wide range of possibilities for understanding politeuma, but
favors understanding it as referring to “civic associations”; that is “voluntary associations for cultic, social
purposes and mutual support among ethnic aliens.” John Reumann, Philippians (AB 33B; New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 575–77.
44. Wright, Perspective, pp. 71–72.
IV. Conclusions
The first-century world in which Paul ministered was a very ethnically diverse world.
Sociological studies have isolated several primary aspects or modes of ethnic iden-
tification that people have used throughout history to define who they are ethnically,
i.e. social, cultural, religious, mythical, historical, and territorial aspects that define
which group they are part of (and which groups that are not part of). These are the ele-
ments that comprise one’s self-identity. When we read Paul against this background
(of ethnic diversity and ethnic identity markers) we see that when Paul calls for unity
in the Church he employs arguments and images that operate along these very lines
of ethnic identification. Paul tells the new believers that their primary identity, i.e.
their major group association (their ethnos), is no longer one of the many ethn! that
they used to belong to (Phrygian, Galatian, Roman, Greek, Judean/Jew, Lycaonian,
Cappadocian, etc.), but rather to be found in their incorporation into Christ and his
Church. This now defines who they are, which family they are in and who their kin
are, where their citizenship and loyalty lies, how they are to carry out religious prac-
tices, how they are to live and speak, who their true ancestors are, and where their
future hope lies. It is a radical restructuring of their primary identity.
This has profound implications for the Church today, especially in multi-ethnic
societies. From Paul we learn that one of the major unifying concepts for Christians
today is their membership in “the body of Christ,” i.e. the Church. This is where their
primary identity must lie. As long as believers see themselves first of all as belong-
ing to some ethnic group (Korean, Chinese, African American, Caucasian, Hutu,
Tutsi, Kachin, Kayin, etc.), thus relegating their identity in Christ to a secondary
and subservient identity, there will be disunity and ethnic division in the Church. If,
however, believers can embrace the teaching of Paul and grasp that the most impor-
tant identifying parameters in their life are those that define and result from their
membership in the “body of Christ,” likewise recognizing that others in the “body”
are their own kinfolk, then ethnic differences in the Church will become secondary
issues. This was true in Iconium, Ephesus, and Rome, and it is equally true today in
Houston, Kigali, and Yangon.
7
THE SACRIFICIAL-MISSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF PAUL’S
SUFFERINGS IN THE C ONTEXT OF 2 CORINTHIANS
J. Ayodeji Adewuya
Introduction
That Paul suffered in the course of his apostolic ministry is not a matter of debate. In
the course of describing his life in Christ, Paul enumerates afflictions and sufferings
that he underwent and endured — often referred to as the catalogue of hardships.1
His sufferings were diverse in nature — they included beatings, imprisonments,
and physical deprivation. He encountered the unpredictable perils of life in a cruel,
selfish, disrupted and disruptive world that made every city, wilderness, and human
a threat and peril. Besides, the concern and care for the churches constantly weighed
him down. If the frequency with which Paul refers to his apostolic suffering in his
letters — particularly in 2 Corinthians — is any indication, these experiences become
for him both a subject of much theological reflection on his identity and mission as
an apostle as well as a rhetorical tool for encouraging and building up his converts.
On the one hand, concerning theological reflection, it is important to note that Paul’s
theology and mission are inseparably connected.2 O’Brien correctly and succinctly
states that
1. This type of list is part of what is generally known in modern secondary literature as peristasis
catalogues, so designated because of their similarity to the lists of “circumstances that were present in
many ancient documents.” See John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the
Catalogue of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press,
1988), p. 1. The catalogue of hardships is present in both 1 and 2 Corinthians (1 Cor. 4.9-13; 2 Cor. 4.7-12;
6.4-10; 11.23-28; 12.10).
2. Although Fitzgerald’s conclusion with regard to the background of the catalogue of hardships is
debatable, his comments on the use of the lists highlights one of the purposes of such lists. He writes: “Just
as the sage’s suffering plays a role in the divine plan, so does Paul’s. The suffering of both is inseparable
from the mission to which they have been called, and, in the case of both these suffering diakonoi the
divine is said to exhibit them as a model. The sage accepts the hardships of his life because they are part
of the divine will . . .” Cf. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 204. It must also be stated that Fitzgerald fails to see any
missiological significance of Paul’s sufferings. Such omission is rather unfortunate. For a more detailed
critique of Fitzgerald, see Kar Yong Lim, The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us: A Narrative
Dynamics investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians (LNTS 399; London: T&T Clark, 2009),
pp. 7–8.
7. The Sacrificial-Missiological Function of Paul’s Sufferings 89
the notion that Paul was both a missionary and theologian has gained ground among biblical
scholars . . . Yet Paul’s theology and mission do not simply relate to each other as “theory” and
“practice.” It is not enough as though his mission is the practical outworking of his theology.
Rather his mission is “integrally related to his identity and thought,” and his theology is a
missionary theology.3
On the other hand, it is a rhetorical tool for encouraging and building up his converts.
Furthermore, it serves both an apologetic and polemical purpose as Paul fends off
various accusations leveled against him by his adversaries. This is particularly true in
2 Corinthians. As such the significance of Paul’s sufferings does not derive from their
nature or names but in his rhetorical strategy of mentioning them in various contexts,
and, most significantly, Paul’s understanding of his own sufferings as vicarious sacri-
fice in the context of his missionary labors. A major question that remains unresolved
is how one is to understand Paul’s sufferings. Scholars have proposed various concep-
tual frameworks within which one may not only interpret Paul’s sufferings but also
those that, it is suggested, may provide a clear and correct understanding of the role
of sufferings in the believer’s life.4 Paul’s references to his afflictions are designed to
identify him with Christ’s sufferings and crucifixion. Paul understands and portrays
his sufferings as part of his discipleship and apostolic vocation — they were a part
of his missionary activities and intrinsic to his calling.5 For Paul, living a self-giving
life in participatory suffering with Christ is the model for ministry.6 Paul’s suffer-
ings were a personification and a living witness of Christ’s sufferings as he “carried
around in his body the death of Jesus” in order that the life-giving quality of Christ
might be revealed through Paul (2 Cor. 4.10-11). He understood that believers are to
be “conduits rather than containers,”7 dispensing what they have received in Christ
by imparting his divine grace revealed in the gospel of the New Covenant to others.
Bosch, writing about Paul’s concern for lost humanity rightly states of the apostle:
He sees humanity outside Christ as utterly lost, en route to perdition (cf. 1 Cor. 1.18; 2 Cor.
2.15), and in dire need of salvation. The idea of imminent judgment on those who “do not
obey the truth” (Rom. 2.8) is a recurring theme in Paul. Precisely for this reason he gives
3. Peter T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1995), pp. xi–xii.
4. C. Marvin Pate, The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous: Pauline Suffering in
Context (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Biblical Press, 1993), has examined the various models that are used
to understand the sufferings of Paul. For recent discussions, see Barry. D. Smith, Paul’s Seven Explanations
of the Suffering of the Righteous (Studies in Biblical Literature 47; New York: Peter Lang, 2002), and Kar
Yong Lim, The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us, passim.
5. Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus (Sheffield:
Academic Press, 1997), p. 132.
6. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1997), p. 44.
7. Michael Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His
Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 294.
himself no relaxation. He has to proclaim to as many as possible, deliverance “from the wrath
to come.” (1 Thess. 1.10)8
Paul was not suffering for the sake of suffering. Rather, Paul saw functionality, a
divine communication of the redemptive life and death of Jesus, in his suffering. He
was now a participant in the love of God and that love compelled him to take up the
sufferings of the Messiah and live those afflictions out in his missiological work. He
weighed out his sufferings against the eternal lives of others and against his responsi-
bility as an obedient love-slave of God. For Paul, it was worth the cost. Therefore, he
does not presume too much in designating his afflictions as the “sufferings of Christ”
(2 Cor. 5.5), and as “dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. 4.10). Paul was subject to per-
sonal weakness and the shame sometimes associated with it, and he was maligned
on such accusations. We shall now examine crucial passages in 2 Corinthians that
clearly illustrate the missional function of Paul’s sufferings.
2 Corinthians 1.3-12
Immediately after the opening greetings in 2 Cor. 1.1-2, Paul moves on to describe his
sufferings. It is evident in the passage that Paul portrays his sufferings as a form of
sacrifice. Paul’s sufferings are of such intense degree that the apostle “despaired even
of life” (2 Cor. 1.8; cf. 1 Cor. 15.32). The first thing to note here is that Paul unequivo-
cally states that his sufferings were for the sake or for the benefit of the Corinthians
(F2G" %H7 F-I)). Paul’s sufferings, and consequently his comfort,9 were not just for
the sake of his message. Rather, they are for the sake of the Corinthians’ comfort and
salvation.10 Verse 5 is particularly significant. It provides the basis for Paul’s argument
in v. 4 because Paul says, “just as the sufferings of Christ overflow toward us, so also
our comfort through Christ overflows.” Christ’s sufferings in this context probably
refer to the sufferings Paul experienced in the context of his apostolic ministry, that
is, his suffering for Christ. There is an eschatological element in the sufferings as
8. David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 1991), pp.133–39. Here Bosch applies Michael Green’s categories of the three main
missionary motives operative in the early Church — Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church
(London: Hodder &Stoughton, 1970), pp. 236–55.
9. The word 29"9'913J) can take on either the notion of asking for help or of encouragement,
offering exhortation, or comfort, as it often does in the Fourth Gospel. Most scholars are of the view that
the latter is to the fore in Paul’s usage here. A comprehensive discussion on the possible background of
Paul’s language of consolation is outside the purview of this essay. However the position taken here is
that although the Jewish usage of eschatological consolation may be present in the usage of the word, the
combination of 29"9'1K;3(7 '9L ;(%="M97 in this passage suggests that Paul’s focus is on the present
state of the Corinthians.
10. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1961), p. 823: “Salvation is here not to be taken in the restricted sense
of deliverance from afflictions but in the regular sense of being saved from sin, death, and damnation.”
Perhaps this statement needs clarification. There should be no implication of redemption in Paul’s suffering,
but the application may be made that Paul through his suffering ministered the redemptive message to his
hearers. Paul not only understood but also portrayed his ministry to be redemptive.
they are destined by God in order to fill up the full measure of Christ’s suffering (Col.
1.24). The difficulties are described as “the sufferings of Christ” (2 Cor. 1.5) and are
said to be for the comfort and salvation of his Corinthian readers (2 Cor. 1.6). They
are Christ’s sufferings since they come as a result of his life in believers. In v. 6 Paul
further stresses that his afflictions in the course of his apostolic ministry result in the
salvation of those who hear the message. This, of course, included the Corinthians.
Thus they owe their salvation, which brought them comfort and the experience of
God’s presence as it were, to the suffering of the apostle. Everything God did through
Paul was for both his benefit and that of the Corinthians. Paul says, twice, that his
sufferings are for their sakes. Haffemann correctly notes,
Neither Christ nor Paul . . . are suffering for their own sins, but for the sake of others. For
Christ, this suffering was the center of his calling as the messianic Son of God who was sent to
atone for the sins of God’s people (Gal. 1.4; 2.21; cf. Rom. 3.21-26). For Paul it was the center
of his calling as an apostle, through which Paul mediated the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles.11
As Stanley rightly observes, “the two most important relationships in Paul’s apostolic
career were that to Christ and that to his communities.”12 That seems entirely consist-
ent with Paul’s theology, especially in this verse. Paul’s sufferings are not just for the
sake of his message, at least here. Instead, they are for the sake of his people, God’s
people. His pain is for Christians and for God. This is the sense of F2G" %H7 F-I).
Paul’s suffering is for the benefit of the Corinthians. “With these words Paul poses
himself as an endangered benefactor.”13 Both the suffering and comfort of Paul are
ministerial. On the one hand, Paul through his suffering ministered the redemptive
message of the cross to his hearers. On the other hand, his comfort was on behalf of
their comfort which is being worked out through Paul’s patient endurance of the same
sufferings which we ourselves also suffer.
The important point here, then, is that of vicariousness, an idea that not only
derives from Paul’s Jewish heritage, and consequently the Old Testament Scriptures,
but also is seen to be present in extra-canonical literature. In 4 Maccabees we find
a description of Judean martyrs who overcame the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes
by refusing to abandon the Torah. In so doing “they became the cause of the down-
fall of the tyranny over their nation; by their endurance they conquered the tyrant”
(1.11). The martyr Eleazer enjoins the people of Israel to follow his own example:
“Therefore, O children of Abraham, die nobly for your religion” (6.20-21). The
martyrs inspire adherence to Torah which in turn defeats oppressors: “By reviving
11. Scott Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Mission of the Early
Church to Jews and Gentiles, ed. Jostein Ådna and Han Kvalbein (WUNT 127; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 2000), p. 172.
12. David M. Stanley, “Imitations in Paul’s Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus and
to His Own Christian Foundations,” in From Jesus to Paul, ed. F. W. Beare, P. Richardson, J. C. Hurd
(Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), p. 130.
13. Frederick W. Danker, 2 Corinthians (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989),
p. 35.
observance of the law in the homeland they ravaged the enemy” (18.4). So the death
of the Maccabean martyrs is vicarious because it benefits Israelites who in turn fol-
low their example. Greco-Roman philosophers such as Seneca, Epictetus, Silius and
Plutarch provide various examples that suggest the presence of vicarious suffering
and death. Seneca describes Socrates as dying in prison “in order to free mankind
from fear of death and imprisonment,”14 an example followed by Cato who kills
himself rather than be taken by his rival Caesar. As such, the death of Greco-Roman
philosophers is vicarious because it benefits people who in turn follow the example
of dying/committing suicide with noble courage.15 Thus, the “suffering texts” take on
added significance because in most cases they evoke the image of sacrificial living
and suffering that is for the benefit of others. It is fair to say that from the time of his
Damascus Road experience, Paul may have been aware that his role in God’s plan
would involve his own suffering. The apostle certainly discovered quite early that
opposition and suffering frequently followed his obedience to the heavenly vision
(2 Cor. 11.32-33; Acts 9.23-25). Paul associates his experience of suffering with his
role as one called by God. To be called as an apostle is to be called to suffer more
intensely than other believers (1 Cor. 4.9-13; 2 Cor. 4.7-12).
This passage is of great importance both for its sacrificial language as well as its
placement in the epistle. Most attention has been focused on the background of the
triumphal procession. Strange, however, is the insufficient exploration of Paul’s use of
the sacrificial language of N;-O) 3P(,M97. In the LXX, the words first occur together
in Gen. 8.21. Noah had built an altar unto God upon which he offered sacrifices
unto God. The Lord smelt the “soothing aroma” (LXX, N;-O) 3P(,M97), of Noah’s
sacrifice. The implication of the phrase is that God’s wrath is appeased by Noah’s
sacrifice. Thus, Noah stands in the gap between God and humanity. Commenting on
8.20-22, Skinner notes that: “Noah’s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not of thanksgiving
but as v. 21 shows of propitiation: its effect is to move the Deity to gracious thoughts
towards the new humanity.”16 This is partly correct. Wenham rightly cautions that it
is inappropriate to see propitiation and thanksgiving as mutually exclusive interpreta-
tions of Noah’s burnt offering.17 The phrase appears often in Leviticus and Numbers
in the context of priestly instructions provided for various categories of sacrifice.
First, it is to be observed that in the discussion about burnt offerings in Lev. 1.1-17,
the words appear together in vv. 9, 13 and 17. In each case the offering, which is an
offering by fire, is described as a “soothing aroma pleasing to the Lord” (LXX, N;-O
14. Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (LCL; trans. R. M. Gummere; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1947), 24.4.
15. For more discussion on noble death in the Greco-Roman world, see David Seeley, The Noble
Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation (JSNTS 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1990).
16. J. Skinner, Genesis. 2nd ed. (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), p. 157.
17. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. (WBC, Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 188.
3P(,M97 %Q '?"MR). Second, the same is true of the cereal offering in Lev. 2 vv. 9 and
12. Third, in Lev. 3.5 the peace offering which is to be burned on top of the burnt
offering is also described as “pleasing unto the Lord.” Lack of savor is a sign of rejec-
tion by Yahweh (Lev. 26.31). One finds the same line of thought with respect to the
use of N;-O) 3P(,M97 continued in Ezekiel. In Ezek. 20.41, N;-O) 3P(,M97 is applied
positively to Yahweh. That a sacrificial meaning is intended here can be argued further
when one looks at Paul’s usage of the word in Phil. 4.18, where Paul used it along with
other sacrificial expressions in describing the gifts of the Philippians. Paul’s goal was
to please the Lord. Regarding himself as a sacrifice, Paul counted himself as having
fulfilled that goal. There is probably an apologetic undertone here. Paul might have
meant, however, that whatever he did, including the change in his travel plans, was
pleasing to the Lord. As such, the Corinthians need to understand and bear with him.
Paul portrays himself as the one who attests to God the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice.
It is striking that here the fragrance is emitted.18 He is the one in a triumphal proces-
sion who is responsible for the incense. In other words, he spreads the knowledge of
Christ everywhere. As a priest, then, Paul offers up a sacrifice that is pleasing unto
the Lord. Renwick is right in arguing that the two terms function to express “Paul’s
belief that he proclaims the Gospel not only by his word, but more especially by his
life, as it carries, participates in, results from, and resembles Christ’s sacrificial death,
offered, as it were, like the sacrifices of the cult, on the altar in God’s presence.”19
Once again, in 2 Cor. 4.7-12, in the midst of a discussion concerning his apostolic
ministry, Paul describes his conquest of sufferings and concludes, “So death works in
us, but life in you” (2 Cor. 4.12). Paul expects his own experience of suffering to be
vindicated by resurrection, just as was that of Jesus (2 Cor. 4.14, 16-18). He assures
his readers that all that happened was for their sakes, “%S CS" 28)%9 ,+ F-T7 (2 Cor.
4.15a).” Paul’s language of sacrifice comes out vividly in 2 Cor. 4.7-12. Perhaps,
Paul speaks of himself as a clay jar since his bodily weaknesses leave him physically
unimpressive. Still, he contends, there is a treasure within, that is, his mind and his
ability to communicate his gospel, as well as something even greater. Death works in
Paul so that God can spread life through him. It is the paradox of the “dying of Jesus”
and the manifestation of the life of Jesus in the same body that is dying. In order to
accentuate what he has just said, Paul makes a contrast between (1) the nature of the
treasure and the value of its vessel and (2) the endurance of the vessel in itself and its
endurance and the power of God. These two contrasts are the basis of the antithesis
which follow in vv. 8-10. Although Paul has been afflicted in every way, he has
not been crushed. The importance of the use of 29"9,M,(-$ in v. 10 has been noted
and various interpretations proffered.20 What is significant here is its missiological
18. Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1987), p. 140.

19. David A. Renwick, Paul, The Temple and The Presence of God (BJS 24; Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1991), p. 86.
20. Discussions on the use of 29"9,M,(-$ in the context of 2 Cor. 4.10 are available in standard
implication. In that regard, Lambrecht’s observation that Paul’s use of the “nekrUsis
of Jesus” is “intrinsically related to his vocation”21 is right on target. A further mis-
siological application of vv. 8-10 follows in vv. 12-15. Paul stood in the vanguard of
the church; hence he was also one of the most threatened of the Christians. This he
calls the “working of death” (1 Cor. 15.31); its result is that life works in you. This
spirit of faith becomes the incentive of witness. One may describe Paul as a “living”
martyr for the sake of the church since he does not die in his letters but lives. His
sacrifice is ongoing. A sacrificial life is needed to enable his hearers to share in the
“life abundant,” which Jesus came to bring. Straw writes about Christian martyrdom,
which applies to Paul in only a qualified way. She posits that “the martyr’s heroic
death recapitulated Christ’s paradoxical victory on the Cross,” and something very
similar can be said of Paul.22 His heroic life recapitulates “Christ’s paradoxical vic-
tory on the Cross.” Paul frequently speaks of life and death in paradox, particularly
in reference to himself. It is the death of Christ that he carries with him so that others
might experience the life of Christ. His own understanding of his life and pain is in
paradox, the type that Straw is talking about in relation to Jesus’ death. In relation
to Paul, it is notable that it is his weakness that makes him the sacrifice. Those who
pretentiously are without defect are the “super-apostles” whom he opposes and who
are, in the context Paul sets up, totally ill-suited for the sacrifice. The church needs
a willing sacrifice, not a hero. Effectively, Paul’s defects make him without defects.
The apostolic service and suffering in vv. 7-12 are all for the benefit of the church.
This again supports Paul’s earlier assertion that he is a servant of the church for
Jesus’ sake.
2 Corinthians 5.11–6.2
Paul’s appeal for reconciliation with the disaffected Corinthians continues in
5.11–7.16, the first subsection of which is 5.11–6.2. It opens with “commend our-
selves” (5.12). The thought unit is held together by an inclusio (“we persuade men,”
5.11; the two appeals of 5.20b and 6.1). It is built around two components: 5.11-12
and 5.13–6.2. Once again, Paul’s defense of his ministry and character come into
focus. Paul’s intent is to give the Corinthians the basis for answering those who make
their boast on what is seen rather than what is in the heart. This is what he does in
5.13–6.2. First, Paul is motivated by the love of Christ, a love which he defines in
terms of his death for us. Jesus Christ is here presented as the endangered benefactor
who went to the outer limits of beneficence on behalf of humanity. Such love compels
commentaries on the book but see especially Margaret Thrall, 2 Corinthians, Vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994), pp. 331–35 and Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 345–47.
21. J. Lambrecht, “The nekrUsis of Jesus. Ministry and Suffering in 2 Cor 4, 7-15,” in L’Apôtre Paul:
Personalité, style, et conception du ministère (BETL 73, ed. A. Vanhoye, Leuven, 1986), p. 139.
22. Carole Straw, “A Very Special Death: Christian Martyrdom in its Classical Context,” in Sacrificing
the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion. ed. Margaret Cormack (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2001), p. 39.
Paul to see things differently. Paul, unlike his opponents, can no longer judge by
externals, that is, according to the flesh — the conventional honor/shame values of
his socio-cultural milieu.
Second, Paul goes further to define his ministry in terms of reconciliation, based
on the Christ-event. The climax of Paul’s argument comes in v. 21. Here the sacrificial
language comes to the fore. Although the precise meaning of the phrase “he made him
to be sin” remains a subject of debate, its sacrificial tone is beyond dispute. Christ’s
sacrifice, whichever way it is conceived, either in times of guilt or reparation, is for
the benefit of sinful humanity. While on the one hand Paul appeals to the Corinthians
to be reconciled with him, on the other hand he appeals to the non-Christian world
to be reconciled with God, because God, in the death of Christ, has already borne the
cost of any debt owed him. Paul, in a clear manner, clarifies his role and that of his co-
workers in relation to Christ’s work of reconciliation. Paul and his fellow workers are
ambassadors for Christ. Paul’s ambassadorial task is related to his missionary work.
Paul has not finished with his apostolic defense as God’s servant. In this section,
he continues to defend his call (6.4). He does so by returning to his paradoxical
understanding of ministry (cf. 4.7-12). Again, he gives the Corinthians another cata-
logue of his qualifications, somewhat in a more detailed fashion. Momentarily, Paul
continues to appeal to the Corinthians for reconciliation. He says, “V?)3"C*>)%37 ,G
'9L 29"9'91*>-3) . . .” Paul perceives his apostolic work as being an integral part
of God’s mission. Hence, he urges them not to receive the grace of God in vain. Paul
cites Isa. 49.8 to make his plea. Just as the servant in Isaiah calls Israel to himself,
Paul calls the Corinthians to reconciliation with himself as a proof of their salvation.
He then returns to his defense in v. 3. He presents his ministry in terms of vicarious
suffering again in 2 Cor. 6.3-10. Paul wishes the W ,$9'*)M9 (ministry) not to be
discredited (6.3) and so commends himself as a “servant of God” (6.4). His eloquent
description of apostolic suffering that follows concludes with a possible allusion to
Isaiah 53. As the servant of God, Paul affirms that although he is poor, he has made
many rich (6.10). These words are similar to those he will use in 2 Cor. 8.9 to describe
the vicarious nature of Jesus’ life: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that, though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His
poverty might become rich” (cf. Phil. 2.5-11). Neither of these statements is far from
the description of the Servant of the Lord in Isa. 53.4-5, 11-12.
When Paul speaks of himself as a servant (2 Cor. 6.4; 11.23), it is often in the
same context as his descriptions of his suffering (2 Cor. 6.4-10; 11.23-33). Paul’s
suffering actually commends him as a genuine servant of Christ (2 Cor. 6.4; 11.23).
A clear parallel exists in Paul’s thoughts on his own suffering and that of Christ. The
“foolish” message of the crucified Messiah, “the weakness of God,” is actually God’s
wisdom and power (1 Cor. 1.18-25). In the same way, Paul’s suffering is a means for
the manifestation of God’s power, so he can conclude:
Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ
may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses,
with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
(2 Cor. 12.9b-10)
The most unusual aspect of Paul’s understanding of his suffering is the claim of the
apostle that his distresses are in some sense vicarious. Although the language contains
ironic overtones, Paul’s description of the apostolic role in 1 Cor. 4.9-13 implies
that he understands his call as apostle to entail a special degree of suffering not
experienced by all believers. In describing the extent of the apostolic suffering, Paul
employs language that echoes references to the Isaianic Servant. Like the Servant,
Paul has become “a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men” (1 Cor. 4.9; cf.
Isa. 52.13-15). Like the Servant, Paul does not retaliate or seek vengeance against his
persecutors (1 Cor. 4.12-13; cf. Isa. 53.7). Unless one understands the passage only
as irony, the apostle is implying that his own suffering has spared the Corinthians the
indignities of which he speaks. But the vicarious nature of his suffering is even more
clearly indicated in other passages.
This is the longest single listing of events of suffering and persecution in Paul’s
writings. This list goes far beyond the information given about Paul in Acts. Paul’s
immediate purpose in this section is polemical — to relate his sufferings to the foolish
credentials that his detractors claimed. He does not strongly emphasize the “ministe-
rial” applications of 1.4-10. Paul again appeals to his sufferings. He immediately
proposes a series of tests for the “servants of Christ.” After warning that he was
speaking foolishly, Paul claims he has far greater evidence of his being a servant of
Christ, evidence that “he surpasses the pseudo-apostles altogether, he is beyond their
range.”23 Instead of using the comparative degree, Paul is using the superlative in
order to rise above the silly credentials of his detractors. He protests that in such things
as labors, imprisonments, beatings, and deaths (2 Cor. 11.23) there is no comparison
between him and the false apostles.
Paul follows this summarization with a recalling of some of his afflictions: by the
Jews five times beaten with “forty save one” (thirty-nine stripes),24 three times beaten
with rods, once stoned, three times shipwrecked, and a night and a day in the deep
(probably as a result of his shipwreck). There follows a more general list of perils
to which Paul had been subjected. He lists the dangers of his frequent travels, the
perils of rivers, of robbers, of kinsmen (apparently threats from Jewry), Gentiles, of
the city, of the wilderness, of the sea, of the false brethren, in labors and travails, in
frequent watchings, in hunger and thirst, in many fastings, the cold and nakedeness
(the epitome of destitution). It seems that Paul sought to climax this list of oppressions
before he moves to the next and different kind of afflictions which has its own climax.
23. Hughes, 2 Corinthians, p. 406 n. 71.

24. Deut. 25.3.
X("L7 %I) 29"3'%Y7 begins the list of a new series of hardships that Paul endured.
Grammatically this might conceivably refer to “those people that are without” or
“those things that are without,” or as Plummer suggests, “Besides the things which I
do no mention.”25 As Thrall argues, one wonders what could be added to the hardships
Paul has just enumerated. With this general expression, Paul means to move on to
those afflictions which come to him concomitantly with his calling as an apostle. The
things that Paul has not yet mentioned are the things that follow here, concerning the
nature of the afflictions of his calling. The first burden that Paul mentions is the daily
pressure which comes upon him because of his offices. Although there are several
grammatical possibilities here,26 this seems best in the light of the context.
The next burden is Paul’s anxiety for all the churches. It is possible that this is
simply an extension of the first half of the verse, given by way of example. The chief
interest is the burden expressed by the word W -Z"$-)9. The word expresses anxiety
and it is anxiety for all the churches. Paul does not claim apostolic authority over all
churches but he does take them into his emotions and care. This anxiety is demon-
strated by the question in v. 29: “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” Paul asks, His
word !;/3)Z( is used of infirmity and is applied to those Christians who are offended
by the liberties in Christ that stronger Christians take (1 Cor. 9.22). Paul uses this
word here of personal spiritual weakness of any sort. His question is rhetorical, and
answers itself. He has a concern for the weakness of all his brothers and sisters; he
feels the limitation of their own infirmities.
This same sense of union is expressed in the next question: “Who is offended and I
do not burn?” The word ;'9),91M[( is generally used of the idea of making someone
fall by placing an offense or stumbling stone in his way. Here Paul identifies himself
not only with the weak, but also with those who have themselves stumbled. The
predominant meaning of 2?"\*-9$ is to burn with anger, though doubtless shame is
also involved. The placing of a stumbling stone before anyone in the church incensed
him. In concluding the discussion of this passage, it must be said that its relevance for
understanding Paul’s missionary work has not be sufficiently addressed. Holzner’s
summary of the importance of 2 Cor. 10–13 is helpful. He writes:
The chief weapon employed by his enemies was the argument that his sufferings, persecu-
tions, and even his scars deprived him of apostolic dignity. Paul snatched this weapon from
their hands and used his sufferings as the great proof and glorification of his apostolic work.27
Conclusion
Suffering was not an academic subject with Paul. It was an experience he tasted ending
with his death. Paul understood suffering as an integral part of his missionary calling
25. Plummer, 2 Corinthians, p. 329; Victor Furnish, 2 Corinthians, pp. 512–13; Hughes, 2 Corinthians,
pp. 414–15. For the other possibilities of interpretation, see Thrall, 2 Corinthians, pp. 748–49.
26. Cf. Hughes, 2 Corinthians, p. 415 n. 79.
27. Joseph Holzner, St. Paul the Apostle: His Life and Times. Translated and revised by William
Doheny (Vatican City: Private distribution, 1978), p. 334.
and practice. Hence, Paul never asked, “Why me?” Similarly, he never attempted to
explain to suffering Christians, “Why you?” Rather he focused on the inner meaning
of suffering, which explains how he and his fellow workers could endure so many
struggles and maintain their positiveness and inner peace. Paul understood that when
our suffering is united with Christ’s suffering it is a redemptive privilege. Paul does
not separate his own personal afflictions from the cause which he represented and its
ministry. The one basis for all his difficulties that Paul assigns in his several refer-
ences to persecution, opposition, weakness, and death is his identification with Jesus
Christ. He has various formulae for referring to this but they all amount to the one
conclusion that his hardships were for the cause of Christ. Only from this perspective
would Paul attach any significance to them. Much of what he says about suffering
is personal, but it was his hope that his experiences and identification with Christ’s
sufferings would become normative for believers in general. It is Paul’s conclusion
that all the members of Christ’s body share his sufferings with him. Therefore, it was
not strange for him to say that his sufferings are “for your comfort” (2 Cor. 1.6) or
that he filled up the things deficient in his own body of the sufferings of Christ “for
the sake of His body, which is the church” (Col. 1.24).
Paul’s ministry, like that of several missionaries in the past two centuries, placed
in him a position of special vulnerability before the antagonists. As a herald of the
gospel, he took the brunt of the clash with the world; so he became the special object
of manhunts, mobs, trials, and other clashes with the enemies of the cross. For Paul,
the basic reason for his sufferings did not stem from the fact that he antagonized the
people of a local synagogue, or that he offended some members of a particular local
congregation. It stands as a matter of course that a preacher of the gospel will be the
object of the ridicule, rejection, and ultimately persecution of this world order.
8
WAS PAUL’S GRACE-BASED GOSPEL TRUE TO JESUS?
Paul W. Barnett
Few issues in the study of Christian Origins are of greater importance than the ques-
tion whether or not Paul’s teachings were consistent with and in continuity of those
of Jesus. The judgment of William Wrede that Paul was the “Second Founder of
Christianity” who exercised “the stronger not for the better influence” is well known
and followed by many inside and outside the world of technical scholarship.1
In this brief study I will examine the issue of Paul’s continuity with Jesus in the
setting of consecutive periods of Paul’s missionary service of Jesus.
I. Chronology: Paul’s Two-stage Mission

In his global review of his ministry “from Jerusalem kukl" mechri Illyricum” (Rom.
15.19) Paul sees no internal sub-division within this period. For Paul this quarter of
a century of ministry is an undivided whole. Luke, however, does subdivide these
years, distinguishing between Paul’s years in the Levant (AD 34–47), where his brief
references to Paul are interspersed within his wider narrative (Acts 9–12.25 passim),
and his westward mission years (AD 47–57), where his sole focus is on Paul (Acts
13.1–21.16).
The turning point from the “unknown” Levantine years, apparently, occurred
during Paul’s sojourn in Antioch-on-the Orontes (c. 45/46) where several new reali-
ties confronted him. One was the entirely new phenomenon of a mixed Gentile and
Jewish association, made possible by the members’ common engagement with the
Messiah, Jesus. So unprecedented was this that the local authorities called the con-
gregants “messiah-men,” Christianoi.2 At the same time, it appears Paul had finally
come to understand that a “hardening” had fallen upon Israel that blinded her people
to the Messiah who had recently been among them (Rom. 10.14-21; 11.2a, 25-32).
The likely issues for Jews were Jesus’ obscure Galilean origins and, above all, his
crucifixion (1 Cor. 1.23). How could this man be the Christos?
Accordingly, Paul (and others in Antioch) decided that the time had come for a new
1. See P. W. Barnett, Paul, Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 11–22.
2. D. G. Horrell, “The Label Christianos: 1 Peter 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity,” JBL
126/2 (2007), pp. 361–381.
and intentional missionary thrust westward into the Gentile world, with the ultimate
goal of reaching Rome. In this they may have been encouraged by the new stability
in the eastern Mediterranean under the reign of Claudius (AD 41–54), following the
chaotic years under Gaius that had destabilized Antioch as well as Alexandria and
within Judea and Galilee. Barnabas and Paul seized the opportunity provided by their
visit to Jerusalem with financial relief from Antioch to press the claims of a new mis-
sionary initiative to “go” to the Gentiles (Acts 11.29-30; Gal. 2.1-10).
This Antioch-based complex of events divided Paul’s years from the Damascus
event to the writing of Romans into two (unequal) parts. From the beginning and
throughout the entire quarter century Paul faced opposition within the synagogues, to
whom he “first” went. In the second period, the westward-mission decade, however,
Paul also faced opposition from an unexpected quarter, from numbers of Jews who
believed. In both periods Paul articulated theological beliefs that stemmed (ulti-
mately) from the historical Jesus.
II. Paul’s Struggles during the Levantine Years (AD 34–45)

Luke’s account of the Levantine years, though brief and interspersed within his
broader narrative, broadly coincides with Paul’s own account of his movements (set
out in Galatians).
AD Acts Galatians
34–36 Damascus 9.8 Damascus 1.17
Arabia 1.17
Damascus 1.17;
2 Cor. 11.32
37 Jerusalem 9.26 Jerusalem 1.18
37–45 Tarsus 9.30 Syria-Cilicia 1.21
45–46 Antioch 11.25 Antioch 2.1
While this chronology may be questioned in detail it is true enough overall. What
emerges is that Paul spent a considerable period in the Province of Syria and Cilicia
(which the Romans combined c. 25 BC and which was governed from Antioch). While
the major cities of Syria-Cilicia — Damascus, Tarsus and Antioch — were significant
for Paul, we reasonably assume that he was active in other centers as well.3
It is helpful to understand that from c. 34–47 Paul was located in the one juris-
diction of Syria-Cilicia, apart from his forays into Damascus, “Arabia” and Judea.
Josephus observed that Jews were “particularly numerous” in Syria, especially in
Antioch where “the Jewish colony grew in numbers” and where their “religious
ceremonies” attracted “multitudes of Greeks” (i.e. God-fearers).4
3. See Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (2 vols.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2004), pp. 1059–1069, for detailed description of the settlements Paul may have visited.
4. Josephus, Jewish War 7.42-45.
8. Was Paul’s Grace-Based Gospel True to Jesus? 101
A. Synagogue Beatings and Gentile churches

There are several pieces of evidence that help us understand Paul’s ministry during
these “unknown years.”
i. Synagogue beatings
Writing in c. AD 56 Paul informs the Corinthians of his missionary sufferings, includ-
ing punishment within the synagogues. “Five times I received at the hands of the Jews
the forty lashes less one” (2 Cor. 11.24).
Many authorities locate these synagogue beatings to Paul’s early period, following
the Damascus event,5 which the book of Acts narrates in sparse detail. Since Luke
describes Paul’s later, westward missions in detail we would have expected him to
mention these scourgings had they occurred then.
According to Deut. 25.1-3 this punishment was for the wrongdoer in a dispute, on
the verdict of a judge. Writing during the New Testament era Josephus observed that
this public punishment, which was most disgraceful to the offender, was for someone
who had acted “contrary to the law.”6
The Mishnah tractate Makkot (“Stripes”), though compiled later, most likely
reflects rules and procedures that would have applied to Paul. The 40 lashes less one
were applied to various breaches of the Law, including the bearing of false witness
(Makk. 1.1-10), sexual misdemeanors (Makk. 3.1), ritual impurity (Makk. 3.2, 8),
abuse of sacrificial offerings (Makk. 3.3) and misuse of a Nazarite vow (Makk. 3.7).
It is unlikely, however, that Paul was guilty of these transgressions. He was a leading
younger Pharisaic scholar (Gal. 1.13-14) who (later) when in the presence of fellow
Jews behaved as if “under the law” (1 Cor. 9.20).
It is more likely that Paul was deemed to have committed one or more of the
39 grievous transgressions done with a “high hand” that warranted being “cut off from
among his people” (Lev. 18.29; Num. 15.30-31), as set out in the tractate Kerithoth
(“Extirpation”). Among the sins that would have applied to Paul were blasphemy and
transgression of the law of circumcision (Ker. 1.1). To anticipate our argument below,
(a) Paul’s blasphemy was to deny the saving power of the Law, and (b) his breach of
the law of circumcision was to deny its necessity to Gentile proselytes.
Fundamental to Paul’s post-Damascus understanding was his denial that Law is
the source of “life” and his positive assertion that this salvation (“life”) was only to be
found in the crucified Messiah, Jesus. Such teaching was antithetical to Jewish theol-
ogy. Mishnah Aboth 6.7 asserts “Great is the Law, for it gives life to them that practice
it both in this world and in the world to come . . .” and within this very Makkot tractate
5. See e.g. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: A&C
Black, 1973), “the floggings will probably go back to the earliest period of his apostolic work” (p. 297). M.
Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul Towards the Law in the Unknown Years Between Damascus and
Antioch,” in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Siefrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism 2,
The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), pp. 75–103, suggests that these beatings began in
Syria (i.e. Damascus). See also M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch.
The Unknown Years (Louisville: Westminster John Knox: ET 1997), p. 464 n. 1261.
6. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 4.238.
R. Hananiah b. Akasya says, “The Holy One, blessed is he, was minded to grant merit
to Israel; therefore hath he multiplied for them the Law and commandments, as it is
written, It pleased the Lord for his righteousness’ sake to magnify the Law and make
it honourable” (Makk. 3.16; Isa. 42.21).7
Paul, however, was dismissive of Law-keeping as a basis for “life,” commenting
that “cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the
Law, and do them” (Gal. 3.10 citing Deut. 27.26; cf. Lev. 18.5). It is not a problem
that Paul wrote these words from Galatians later, during the westward mission phase;
his views on the Law were most likely constant throughout his ministry, from the
time of the Damascus event.8
For Paul “Christ crucified’ was the “soteriological alternative” to the Torah.9 This
message was a skandalon for Jews (1 Cor. 1.23) for two related reasons. If (a) it was
blasphemous to dismiss the Law as the source of “life,” it was no less so to assert (b)
that the messianic son of David, who was the victim of the Gentiles he was expected
to conquer, was the source of that “life.”10 According to Paul salvation was not found
“under” or “in” the Torah but only “in Christ crucified.” Again, it scarcely matters
that these views were written some years later (Rom. 7.6; 8.2; 1 Cor. 9.21; 2 Cor.
3.3; Gal. 6.2).
My contention, then, is that Paul argued from the Scriptures in the synagogues of
Syria-Cilicia that Christ crucified, not Law, was the means to “life.” For that he was
accused and found guilty of blasphemy, warranting his “extirpation.” Nonetheless,
remarkably Mishnah Makkot provided relief from “extirpation” if one submitted to
the scourging of the 40 lashes less one. The tractate decrees, “when he is scourged
then he is thy brother,” adding, “and his soul shall be restored to him” (Makk. 3.15).
In other words, the Mishnah mandated this beating in order to enable the violator of
the Law to be accepted back within Judaism.11 The scourging effectively absolved
the perpetrator from “extirpation.”12
This prompts the question why Paul repeatedly submitted himself to such violent
treatment in the synagogues “at the hands of the Jews”? The short answer is that Paul
7. Quoted in H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), pp. 460 and 408. For general
discussion see D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Siefrid, Justification and Variegated Nomism 1, The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).
8. Gal. 3.1-14 reflects Paul’s standard argument in the synagogues against those who claimed that the
keeping of the Law was effective in securing “life.” In fact, argued Paul, the failure to “abide by everything
written in the book of the Law, and do them” attracts only the curse of God. That curse, said Paul, Christ
endured vicariously. Although written later than the early, Levantine period, Gal. 3.1-14 doubtless reflects
Paul’s exegesis in the earlier period. The point is even sharper if, as I hold, Galatians is an early letter, to
be dated c. 48.
9. So Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul,” p. 84.
10. See P. W. Barnett, “Paul Preaching Christ Crucified to Jews,” Reformed Theological Review
(forthcoming).
11. Ironically, in effect the scourging was a “work” that the tractate claimed was meritorious and that
restored the transgressor to life!
12. See D. Steinmetz, Punishment and Freedom. The Rabbinic Construction of Criminal Law
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), pp. 70–77.
was determined to remain a Jew. But why did he resolve to continue a Jew when many
of his fellow-Jews would have preferred that he de-convert from the covenantal faith?
There is one reason for Paul’s determination. It was his sense that God had
elected Israel as his people and had not rejected them, notwithstanding the current
(temporary) “hardening” toward the Christ who had come (Rom. 10.14-21; 11.2a,
25-32). Paul was passionately concerned for their eventual salvation, to the point of
being prepared, as he said, to be “accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of
my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9.3). His submission to the
five scourgings showed that Paul, on the one hand, was not willing to be cut off from
Israel, such was his commitment to his people and their salvation, yet on the other he
was even prepared for their sake to be cut off from the very Christ he was proclaiming.
In short, as A. E. Harvey observed, Paul allowed the synagogue to administer this
punishment, “in order to maintain his Jewish connections.”13
Paul expressed his passion for Israel by a principled preaching to “the Jew first”
(Rom. 1.16; 2.9; 1 Cor. 9.20). Luke’s narrative confirms Paul’s own stated policy in
his narrative of Paul’s travels where Paul chose cities that had a Jewish presence and
where he routinely began his ministry in the synagogue (Acts 13.14 — Antioch in
Pisidia; 14.1 — Iconium; 16.12 — Philippi; 17.1 — Thessalonica; 17.13 — Beroea;
17.17 — Athens; 18.4 — Corinth; 19.8 — Ephesus). Paul’s practical priority in
ministry to Jews must be regarded as historically secure. Furthermore, this priority
should not be regarded as merely pragmatically strategic, but based on deep theologi-
cal reflection on the divine promises to Abraham.
ii. Gentile Churches in Syria and Cilicia

Luke records the letter of the Jerusalem Conference to “the brothers of the Gentiles
in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” and narrates Paul’s subsequent visit “through Syria
and Cilicia strengthening the churches” (Acts 15.23, 41). It appears, then, that Paul
had evangelized Gentiles in Syria and Cilicia, as well as arguing in the synagogues
that Christ crucified spelt the end of Law as a way to “life” with God. But very
likely there was a connection between Paul’s activities in the synagogues, for which
he sustained serious punishment, and the creation of faith communities among the
Gentiles.
The Gentiles referred to during this Levantine period were most likely God-fearers,
those sympathizers of the Jews who had joined synagogue congregations.14 The
Syrian cities Damascus and Antioch had significant numbers of God-fearers who had
become attached to the synagogues.15 It does not appear that Paul intentionally sought
to win practicing idolaters during this earlier period, although this would become a
feature of the later, decade-long westward missions.
Many Jews placed high value on these Gentile sympathizers who attended the
Sabbath gatherings. They were often from socially superior classes who added to
13. A. E. Harvey, “‘Forty Strokes Save One’: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy,” in A. E.
Harvey (ed.), Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study (London: SPCK, 1985), p. 93.
14. Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul,” pp. 80–82.
15. Josephus, Jewish War 2.259-261; 7.368 (Damascus); Jewish War 2.463; 7.45 (Antioch).
the prestige and political security of the synagogues. Paul’s interest in them and his
invitation to covenant membership without circumcision, based on the Law-free
gospel of faith in Christ, from every viewpoint was entirely unacceptable to Jews.
We can readily imagine that Paul’s engagement with these God-fearers was a further
reason for the punishment he sustained from the synagogues.
B. Justification by Faith: The Letter of James

Of the several men in the New Testament named James the most likely author of
the Letter of James is either James Zebedee or James, brother of the Lord.16 James
Zebedee is eliminated due to the earliness of his death (by execution) in the early
40s (Acts 12.2), whereas from that time, James, brother of Jesus, became the leader
of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12.17), whose authority extended beyond the Land of
Israel (Gal. 2.7-9, 12).17
The opening of the letter, addressed to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion,”
demands a sender of the considerable and extensive authority that James enjoyed
(Gal. 2.12; Acts 15.19-21). While the terminus ad quem is AD 62, the year of his death,
it is entirely possible that James sent the letter as early as the middle 40s. Rural, non-
urban settings of the letter are suggested at a number of points (e.g. 5.1-6).
It is clear that Jas 2.14-26 is addressing complaints about Paul’s teachings in the
Diaspora that have come to James’ attention in Jerusalem. That passage uses typical
Pauline vocabulary like “faith,” “works,” “save” and “justified” and appeals to a key
text in the Pauline apologetic, Gen. 15.6 (Gal. 3.6; Rom. 4.3). The coincidence of
language is considerable, despite the disparity between the respective understandings
of Gen. 15.6 by Paul and James. The point is that James is attempting to correct Paul’s
doctrines (or a distorted and misunderstood form of Paul’s doctrines).
If the Letter of James is as early as I am suggesting it represents interesting
commentary on the activities and doctrines of Paul that had come to the attention of
Jewish believers in the Diaspora, whether as members of synagogues or as members
of now separated Jewish churches. On this basis it would mean that within this early
period — and not just later — Paul was using the vocabulary like “faith,” “works,”
“save[d],” and “justified” and was appealing to the example of Abraham’s “justifica-
tion by faith” in Gen. 15.6. In short, an early polemic by James against Paul would
confirm our observation about Paul noted above, that his painful engagement with
the Jews in the synagogues arose from his scriptural argument that Christ crucified
had replaced Law as a means of “life” with God (i.e. justification/salvation by faith).
C. Paul in Damascus
The young Pharisee who inflicted beatings on the disciples of the Lord in Jerusalem
(Acts 22.19; 26.11) was himself repeatedly scourged “at the hands of the Jews.” This
astonishing reversal of circumstances graphically portrays the radical conversion of
16. Had the letter been pseudonymous, as many hold, we would have expected the writer overtly to
claim to be the brother of Jesus.
17. See M. Bockmuehl, “Antioch and James the Just,” in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), James the
Just and Christian Origins (NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 155–198.
Paul. If Paul instigated the beating of the disciples of the Lord for blasphemy it was
for blasphemy that he too was beaten, no less than five times.
From the Torah and the Prophets he argued for his outrageous “soteriological
alternative,” that the crucified Messiah not Law was the divinely mandated way to
“life.” Equally blasphemous was his assertion that the (Gentile) God-fearers attached
to the synagogue could therefore find this “life” independently of circumcision and
Law-keeping. For these teachings Paul was fit only to be “extirpated,” “cut off” from
Israel. That he accepted “the forty stripes less one” pointed to his dogged determina-
tion to remain a Jew, part of God’s chosen and special people, so as to bring them
the “word of life.”
It is inconceivable that this eminent younger scribe would, unprompted, change his
beliefs so quickly and radically. The question must be addressed: why did he change
his views? Paul’s own letters and the narratives of his companion Luke give us the
answer, at least in its most striking form. The exalted Lord, whose disciples Paul had
attacked in Jerusalem and was also traveling to Damascus to attack, intercepted Paul
outside that city. Although inaccessible to analysis it was this supernatural apocalypsis
that reversed the direction of Paul’s life.
No doubt, there were prior influences. The young Jerusalemite must have heard
of Jesus of Nazareth and heard of his crucifixion and quite possibly witnessed his
crucifixion. He could not have avoided hearing about the outburst of preaching in the
Holy City, nor of the new patterns of meeting that were now occurring. Furthermore,
he had heard the defence of the Hellenist Stephen and cooperated in his stoning. He
had witnessed the pain and heard the cries of the disciples in the pogrom against them
that he led. As he traveled to Damascus his mind was no tabula rasa.
The Lord’s apocalypsis to Paul near Damascus was essentially personal and
private. We are unable to penetrate the emotional and intellectual turmoil within the
young Pharisee. Based on the evidence from his letters, however, we can say that he
left Jerusalem as a persecutor but that in Damascus he became a preacher of the faith
he come to destroy (Gal. 1.13, 23; Acts 9.13-22). His personal values and attitudes
underwent radical change as summed up in his own words, “if anyone is in Christ he
is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5.17). Dozens of texts in Paul’s letters reflect the impact
on Paul of the Damascus event.18
Subsequent events in Damascus doubtless influenced Paul. According to Luke,
Ananias directed him, “Rise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his
name” (Acts 22.16; cf. 9.18). Paul himself indirectly confirms this, telling the Romans
that along with other believers he had been “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6.3).
Luke also narrates that Ananias laid hands on Paul so that he was “filled with the Holy
Spirit” (Acts 9.17), which Paul also obliquely confirms (“God’s love has been poured
into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” — Rom. 5.5).
Furthermore, Luke reports that having spent some time with the disciples in
Damascus the former persecutor went to the synagogues, astonishingly proclaiming
that “Jesus is the Son of God,” “the Christ” (Acts 9.20, 22; Gal. 1.23). This Paul
18. Barnett, Paul, Missionary of Jesus, pp. 57–70.

confirms when he writes that God revealed his Son to him so that he might “preach
him among the Gentiles” (Gal. 1.16).
The circumstances of Paul’s baptism in Damascus and his synagogue preaching
there imply a degree of instruction to Paul from the disciples in Damascus relating to
forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, Jesus as Son of God, and the Christ. Indeed, it is
probable that Paul “received” in Damascus the Jerusalem “tradition” that “Christ died
for our sins . . . was raised the third day . . . appeared to Cephas,” etc., the tradition
he subsequently “handed over” to his churches (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-7).
D. The Influence of Jesus

My understanding is that at least three forces combined to change Paul: (a) earlier
events in Jerusalem, (b) the apocalypsis outside Damascus, and (c) instructions he
received from disciples in Damascus, as noted above. Numbers of those Damascene
disciples who influenced Paul were themselves fugitives from his assaults in
Jerusalem. They were Hellenists who had been members of the apostolic community
in the Holy City. As members of that community who were subject to the apostles’
teaching (Acts 2.42; 5.38) they would have been instructed in the teachings of the
Lord, though they seem to have had a greater receptivity to the teachings of Jesus
than the “Hebrew” apostles.
These would have included (a) Jesus’ well-known criticism of the Law (as in his
disputes with the Pharisees — e.g. Mk 2.13-3.6; 7.1-23), (b) the vicarious nature
of his death “for” (hyper) them (as in his instruction at the Last Supper — e.g.
Lk. 22.19-20), and (c) his commission to take the gospel from Israel to the nations (as
in his own initial concentration on “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” as a prelude
to the mission to the nations — Mt. 10.5-6; 15.24).
In other words, the trajectory of the radical actions and teaching of Jesus were
handed on to Paul in Damascus by these displaced Hellenists. These teachings the
young Pharisee Paul continued, beginning in the synagogues in Damascus and then
continued in the synagogues of Arabia and Syria-Cilicia. For these teachings he was
repeatedly beaten but they nevertheless established a number of Gentile (God-fearer)
congregations in those provinces (as noted above). It is likely that the Hellenist
fugitive disciples in Damascus played no small part in shaping and directing Paul’s
understanding, though he quickly developed his own distinctive approach.
III. Paul’s struggles during the westward mission years (AD 34–45)
It was during Paul’s westward missions in Pisidia and Lycaonia, Macedonia, Achaia,
and Asia (AD 47–57) that Paul began to win Gentile idolaters for the crucified and risen
Messiah. This development did not pass unnoticed within the community of Jewish
believers in Jerusalem. It was one thing for Paul to baptize Gentile God-fearers, but
it was another to welcome idolaters to the messianic faith.
We notice Luke’s distinctive way of describing those in Jerusalem who were criti-
cal of Paul’s policies in the Diaspora:
Some from the sect of the Pharisees who believed . . . (Acts 15.5)
Many thousands . . . among the Jews who have believed,

who are all zealous for the Law. (Acts 21.20)
We rightly ask: believed what? Most likely these Jerusalem Jews believed that Jesus
was the Messiah, according to the promises of God in the Scriptures. But they did not
believe that he had provided the way to “life” with God apart from Law. Accordingly,
they may have baulked at the doctrine of his atoning death, as the “soteriological
alternative” to the keeping of the Law as the way to “life.” The Jerusalem Pharisees
who “believed” insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses
(Acts 15.5). The thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who “believed” were “all zealous
for the Law” and objected to their perception of Paul’s laxity (Acts 21.20). Since they
held to the Law as the way to “life” I conclude that they rejected Paul’s unambiguous
assertion that such “life” was to be found only in Christ crucified.
It appears that Paul’s westward missions among idolaters provoked strong reaction
from this quarter and that various groups from Jerusalem visited Paul’s congregations
to impose Law-keeping, specifically circumcision, on Gentile believers. It is likely
that the rise of religious nationalism in Judea in the late 40s and throughout the 50s
in the face of deteriorating relationships with the Roman occupying forces created a
strong anti-Paul feeling in Jerusalem, including among “Jews who believed.”
Initially, in the late 40s they traveled to Antioch in Syria (Gal. 2.11-13; Acts 15.1-2)
and (possibly) onwards to the Galatian churches (Gal. 1.8; 3.1-6; 5.10, 12; 6.12-13).
Subsequently, in the mid-50s they or another group traveled as far as Corinth (2 Cor.
2.17-3.3; 11.4, 12-15, 22-23). Later still this doctrine was current in both Rome and
Philippi (Phil. 1.15-17; 3.2-19; cf. Rom. 16.17-20), though its propagators may have
been local people and not from distant Jerusalem.
It is important to repeat that these counter-missionaries were Jews who believed;
they were not Jewish “unbelievers” (cf. Rom. 15.31). In 2 Corinthians Paul describes
those who came to Corinth as ‘ministers of Christ’ (diakonoi Christou — 11.23),
“false-apostles” who “preach another Jesus” and an alternative “righteousness” in a
“different gospel” (11.4, 13-14). Paul’s ministry, as opposed to theirs, was a means to
“life” (2 Cor. 2.16; 4.12). To Paul they were “false brothers” and a source of danger
(2 Cor. 11.26; cf. Gal. 2.4).
A. Paul’s keyword: righteousness

Romans is Paul’s comprehensive response to the counter theology of “Jews who
believed” who required Gentiles to submit to the Mosaic Law, in particular for (males)
to be circumcised. Paul countered this by his appeal to the “righteousness of God,”
which both Gentiles and Jews lacked (through participation in Adam’s sin — Rom.
5.12-21) but which was theirs through the propitiatory death of the Christ (see Rom.
3.21-26). Paul employs six Greek words belonging to the “righteousness” group and
these appear more than a hundred times in Paul’s letters and more than 50 times in
Romans. It appears that the “righteousness of God” was the theological battleground
contested by Paul and the Jerusalem-based Jewish Christian counter-mission.
“Righteousness of God” for Paul meant being acquitted by God of wrongdoing
(negatively) but being declared to be “in the right” with God (positively).19 This
“righteousness” is God’s gift to the unworthy made possible by Christ’s death and
“revealed” in the message of the gospel (Rom. 1.16-17). Critical to Paul’s argument
was the case of Abraham, the forefather of Israel (Rom. 4.1-3), whose faith was
“reckoned to him as righteousness . . . before he was circumcised” (Rom. 4.9-10).
“Righteousness of God,” then, is only possessed by those who “believe” God’s
promises, not by those who attempt to fulfill the Law (including by circumcision).
To be “righteoused20 by faith” is only possible through faith in Christ the faithful
One who is the God-given means of “access” to a “right” standing with God and to
“peace with God” (Rom. 5.1-2).
Paul’s viewpoint on “righteousness” was historically evident ten years earlier than
expressed in Romans (i.e. in c. 47), as revealed in Paul’s opposition to the circumci-
sion of Gentile believers in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Galatia (Gal. 2.1-21; 5.2-12).
Paul the Jew believed that he was “righteoused by faith” at the time of the Damascus
event (Gal. 3.24). In short, from the beginning of his life “in Christ” Paul believed
that the “righteousness of God” was his possession and that he fought for that “truth
of the gospel” for Jews and Gentiles throughout the entire period of his mission, from
Damascus to Corinth (where he wrote Romans).
B. Jesus and Paul: “righteousness of God” and the “kingdom of God”21

This, however, raises a major question. That is to say, was this doctrine so passion-
ately held by Paul, the “sent one,” also the doctrine of Christ the Sender? Put another
way, we ask: had Christ been in Paul’s shoes would he have preached that men and
women are “righteoused by faith” and not by “works of the Law”?
There are several reasons why Paul’s passionate advocacy that the “righteousness
of God” was accessed by faith and not by works of the Law was consistent with and
a valid extension of Jesus’ actions and teaching. Here the principal point of continuity
between Jesus and Paul is their common use of the term “kingdom of God,” which
occurs many times on Jesus’ lips in the Gospels and eight times in Paul’s undisputed
letters.22
19. Several of Paul’s “incidental” uses of the “righteousness” vocabulary help us understand its mean-
ing in the more intensely argued passages: (i) Rom. 2.13 — “For it is not the hearers of the law who are
righteous before God (dikaios t" the"), but the doers of the law who will be justified (dikai"th!sontai),”
where the parallelism shows that to be “justified” means to be “righteous before God”; (ii) 1 Cor. 4.4 —
“I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (dedikai"mai). It is the Lord
who judges me.” Here to be “righteoused” means to be “acquitted.”
20. Whereas the Greek word group dikai"- has the consistent idea of “right-,” English is not able to
reproduce the same verbal consistency when the verb appears in the passive voice. That consistency is
lost when dikai"thentes (Rom. 5.1) is translated, as it must be, “[we] being justified,” hence to make the
point I have expressed it as “[we] being righteoused.”
21. See A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity,” SJT 38/2 (1985), 189–203;
D. Wenham, Paul Follower of Jesus of Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
pp. 73–80.
22. Rom. 14.17; 1 Cor. 4.20; 6.9, 10; 15.24, 50; Gal. 5.21; 1 Thess. 2.12. On one occasion Paul refers
to “his [God’s] kingdom” (1 Thess. 2.12). And a further five times also in the disputed letters (Eph. 5.5;
Col. 1.13; 4.11; 2 Tim. 4.1, 18).
The one “kingdom of God” reference in Romans is relevant to this question.
For the kingdom of God is not food and drink

but righteousness
and peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit;
he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. (Rom. 14.17-18)
Paul had just obliquely referred to a saying of the Lord Jesus that “nothing is unclean
(koinon) of itself” (Rom. 14.14; cf. Mk 7.15 — “there is nothing outside a man
which by going into him can defile [koin"sai23] him”). This “good” truth, however,
was capable of being used unhelpfully by the “strong” in the Roman house churches
to the injury of those who were “weak in faith” (Rom. 14.1). It was a “good” that
was being “spoken of as evil” because it strained relationships between them; the
“strong” wanted freedom to eat and drink what they chose although this was break-
ing fellowship with the “weak,” who did not feel the same freedom (Rom. 14.16).
To overcome this pastoral obstacle to unity Paul calls on the “strong” to refrain from
such eating and drinking that would offend the weak (presumably when they met
together). Accordingly he enjoins,
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean (kathara;
cf. Mk 7.19 — “thus making all foods clean [kathariz"n]”), but it is wrong for any one to
make others fall by what he eats; it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that
makes your brother stumble. (Rom. 14.20-21)
It appears that the “strong” were relying on a teaching of Jesus (Mk 7.19 — via oral
tradition?) to justify their freedom in eating and drinking whatever they chose (in the
company of the “weak”), regardless of the social impact of that freedom.
Paul, however, defines the “kingdom of God” (Jesus’ key referent for his gospel
— e.g. Mk 1.14) as “not food and drink but righteousness . . . in the Holy Spirit”
(Paul’s key referent for his gospel — Rom. 1.16-17). It is not difficult to demonstrate
that “peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” are adjunct blessings to the “righteousness of
God” as declared in Paul’s gospel.24
Furthermore, it can hardly be a coincidence that Jesus used both terms together,
as in “seek first [God’s] kingdom and [God’s] righteousness and all these things
(food, clothing) will be added to you as well” (Mt. 6.33). Both God’s kingdom and
his righteousness are his “gifts.”25 In short, Paul displays awareness of the centrality
of Jesus’ preaching of “the kingdom of God” (a term rarely used in Second Temple
Judaism), which he expounded in his own terms as the “righteousness of God.”
23. The koinos, koino" language dominates the pericope about the dispute over “defiled” hands (Mk
7.2, 5, 15, 18, 20, 23).
24. See e.g. “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power
of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope” (Rom. 15.13).
25. See R. A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco: Word, 1982), p. 86.
This, however, prompts two further questions. For Paul the “righteousness of
God” was entirely dependent on the mercy of God; it was decidedly independent of
“works of the Law,” in particular circumcision. So: can it be demonstrated, first, that
Jesus’ “kingdom of God” message was based on mercy (alone) and, secondly, did
Paul know that it was?
The answer to the first question is straightforward. The Gospels demonstrate the
mercy-based nature of the “kingdom of God” in Jesus’ table-fellowship with “sinners”
independent of the ritual demands of the Pharisees (Sabbath-keeping, fasting, wash-
ings). We must regard as indisputable the texts that articulate the Pharisees’ attitude
to Jesus when they complained, “this man welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Lk.
15.2) and that he was reputed to be “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Mt. 11.19).
B. F. Meyer’s observation is apposite: “Jesus central proclamation [of] the reign
of God was God’s supreme and climactic gift to Israel and the world, not just good-
ness but boundless goodness.”26 Commenting on Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners
Meyer observed that “the Pauline account of God as the one who ‘justifies (dikaiounta
= acquits, makes righteous) the ungodly’ (Rom. 4.5) . . . has its concrete presupposi-
tion in Jesus’ revolutionary contact and communion with sinners.”27
The connected question as to whether Paul displays knowledge of Jesus’ dispute
with the Pharisees over the grace-based nature of the “kingdom of God” is less
straightforward. The answer may be found in the Corinthians’ slogan “All things
are lawful” (exestin — 1 Cor. 6.10; 10.23). This appears to reflect the Corinthians’
knowledge of the Pharisees’ repeated objection “it is not lawful” (ouk exestin) to
Jesus’ refusal to observe various ritual and ethical requirements.28 If, as it appears,
the Corinthians knew of Jesus’ free attitude to ritual matters we must assume that
Paul himself was their source for this information, even though the Corinthians
twisted freedom into license. Paul’s employment of the “lawful” language suggests
that he knew about the currency of that word in the disputes between Jesus and the
Pharisees.29
We conclude from the above discussion (i) that Jesus’ proclamation of the “king-
dom of God” was mercy-based toward sinners, and (ii) that Paul’s use of the word
“lawful” likely means that he was aware of the strife between Jesus and the Pharisees
over the mercy of God for sinners, independent of ritual requirements.
As we have observed, the opponents of Paul in the Jerusalem-based Jewish Christian
counter-mission were “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees” (Acts
15.5) and that when Paul visited Jerusalem in the late 50s the elders of the church
26. B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), p. 144.

27. Meyer, Aims, p. 160.
28. Mk 2.24, 26; 3.4; 10.2; cf. 12.14.
29. It is true that ouk exestin also appears in Hellenistic moral philosophy (e.g. Philo, Jos 43.4;
Epictetus, Diatr 1.1.21-22), raising the possibility that the Corinthians derived their slogans from that
quarter. Against this possibility we note that Philo’s reference declares Gentile sexual practices were “not
lawful” to Jews (the opposite drift to the Corinthians’ slogan) and that Epictetus post-dates the Corinthian
correspondence. Furthermore, it is less likely that the Corinthians would quote an outright pagan source
than that they would twist a Christian source. It is more likely that the Corinthians were claiming a
Dominical mandate for their “freedom” than one drawn from Gentile authorities.
pointed to “many thousands . . . are among the Jews of those who have believed . . .
all zealous for the law” (Acts 21.20). Believing Jews who are “zealous for the law”
can mean believers who are either Pharisees or those who are sympathetic with the
Pharisees. In other words, the ritual requirements of the Pharisees toward sinners (that
Jesus opposed) were replicated in the ritual demands of Pharisaic believers toward
Gentiles (that Paul opposed).
We conclude, therefore, that Paul’s employment of his key concept, “righteous-
ness of God,” was consistent with and in genuine extension of Jesus’ key concept
“kingdom of God” and that both were grace-based and ritual-free.
IV. Conclusion
Our observation is that both unbelieving Jews and Jews who believed made common
cause in their opposition to Paul’s message about the Messiah crucified, insisting on
circumcision and Law-keeping as the necessary means to “life” with God. While in
the “unknown” Levantine years the opposition to Paul arose chiefly from the unbe-
lieving Jews in the synagogues, during the westward mission years opposition also
came from the Jews who believed.
Was Paul’s attitude idiosyncratic, as many think? Doubtless Paul placed his
own stamp on his rhetoric, developing in particular the network of “righteousness”
vocabulary. Nonetheless, there were at least three connected ideas that appear to have
stemmed originally from Jesus: (a) a principled approach of ministry to “the Jews
first”; (b) a determination also to reach the Gentiles; (c) an emphatic and unswerving
insistence that the mercy of God, not circumcision and the Law, was the only means
of finding “life” with God. Jesus’ teaching anticipated that his kingdom would be
inaugurated and established by his sacrificial death, and Paul preached that, indeed,
it was.
PART THREE
Paul’s Missionary Theology

9
PAUL’S CHRISTOLOGY AND HIS MISSION TO THE GENTILES
Arland J. Hultgren
The apostle Paul claimed to have been called to proclaim the gospel among the
Gentiles (Gal. 1.16) and, moreover, that he had been entrusted with the gospel for
them (Gal. 2.7-9). In fact, within his letter to the Romans he refers to himself forth-
rightly as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13).1
According to Paul’s statements in his letters, God called him to his apostleship to
the Gentiles at the time of the appearance of Christ to him. Nevertheless, interpreters
have often not been content with that. They have suggested that something else must
have affected Paul’s thinking. Among the various suggestions, the following have
been made: (1) Paul came to a sense of his vocation over a period of time, a conse-
quence of his reflecting upon the implications of the gospel.2 (2) Paul perceived that
the risen Christ was Lord of all the world, and therefore everyone in the world should
1. The Greek phrase e0qnw~n a0po/stoloj (Rom. 11.13) has been rendered both as “an apostle to the
Gentiles” (RSV, NRSV and NET) and “the apostle to the Gentiles” (KJV and NIV). The former rendering
is to be preferred. The lack of a definite article in Greek is somewhat significant, but the context even more
so. Paul makes a concession, not a statement concerning his office. He says that, although he is an apostle
of the Gentiles, he hopes to make some Jews jealous and thus save them. He has not written Israel off. He
hopes for the salvation of some, and his own ministry is evidence that he had sought to win some (1 Cor.
9.20). On the syntax, cf. BDF 250 (§474, 4). The reading “an apostle” is favored by William Sanday and
Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 5th ed., 1902), p. 324; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC, Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, rev. ed., 1991), p. 199; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), p. 2.553; Brendan Byrne, Romans (SPS, 6;
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 345; James D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC, 38A–38B; 2 vols.; Dallas:
Word Books, 1988), pp. 2.655–56; and Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia Commentary; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2006), pp. 678–79. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), p. 691 (n. 40), favors the same but suggests caution; the term “may be something
of a title.” C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Long & Smith, 1932), p. 177; Johannes
Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p. 122;
and Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), p. 409,
favor “the apostle.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 612, considers
“the apostle of the Gentiles” to be a common epithet concerning Paul.
2. Arthur D. Nock, St. Paul (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938), pp. 72–81; Anton Fridrichsen,
The Apostle and His Message (Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1947), pp. 13, 23 (n. 26);
Edward P. Blair, “Paul’s Call to the Gentile Mission,” BR 10 (1965), pp. 19–33; W. D. Davies, Paul and
Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Paul’s Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 4th ed.,
1965), pp. 67–68.
come under his reign.3 (3) Jesus, rejected by the highest authorities of law-observant
Israel, was vindicated by God; therefore another way into the people of God had been
opened to humanity, namely, the way of faith in the rejected and vindicated Christ —
apart from Torah observance.4 (4) Paul understood that the end of the ages had come,
when Gentiles would have a place in the final, renewed humanity.5
It is surely possible that any or all of these were factors over time and in diverse
circumstances. But it seems that there is still another possibility to consider. That is
that from the moment of his call as an apostle,6 Paul’s view of the crucified and risen
Christ who appeared to him (the Christophany) affected his Christology and his mis-
sion profoundly and irrevocably. That Paul recognized Jesus as the Messiah of Israel
in that event is one thing; that the Messiah commissioned him as an apostle to the
Gentiles is another matter, and that is the primary interest in this essay.
In trying to understand Paul, there are two irreducible facts about him, both of
which he mentions in his letters. One is that he persecuted the church in his early
years. He refers to that activity three times (1 Cor. 15.9; Gal. 1.13; Phil. 3.6). The other
is that he turned from being a persecutor to being an apostle. Like the prophets before
him, who were called to their prophetic tasks (cf. especially Isa. 46.1-6; Jer. 1.5), Paul
claimed that he had been called by God for a particular vocation. In Gal. 1.15-16 he
declares that God had set him apart before he was born, revealed his Son to him, and
called him to proclaim the Son of God beyond the confines of Israel. His language
recalls that of Jeremiah, who claimed that God consecrated him before he was born
and appointed him to be a prophet to the nations (Jer. 1.5). The parallel is obvious.
Paul, like Jeremiah, claimed to have a vocation — pre-natal in origin, but given by
divine revelation when he was an adult — to be God’s envoy “among the nations”
(e0n toi~j e3qnesin) of the world. Paul understood himself to be a child of Israel’s
heritage, standing in a succession of persons called and commissioned by God for
special roles, a succession that reached far back into the history of the people of God.
It is appropriate to understand Paul’s self-designation to signify that he had been
3. Günther Bornkamm, “Christ and the World in the Early Christian Message,” in his Early Christian
Experience (trans. Paul L. Hammer; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 15–28 (15); Ferdinand
Hahn, Mission in the New Testament (trans. Frank Clarke; SBT, 47; Naperville: Alec R. Allenson,
1965), pp. 99–100; Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission
(Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983), pp. 171–72; Johannes Nissen, New Testament and Mission: Historical and
Hermeneutical Perspectives (New York: Peter Lang, 2nd ed., 2002), pp. 100–01; Richard N. Longenecker,
“A Realized Hope, a New Commitment, and a Developed Proclamation,” in The Road from Damascus:
The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 18–42; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation
to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (NSBT, 11; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2001), pp. 161–63.
4. C. K. Barrett, “Paul: Missionary and Theologian,” in his Jesus and the Word and Other Essays
(PTMS, 41; Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1995), pp. 149–62 (154–55).
5. E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 171;
cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 80.
6. In this essay the term “call” is used rather than “conversion.” Whether Paul experienced a conver-
sion or not (which is debated) need not enter the discussion here. It is sufficient to follow Paul’s own usage;
he speaks of himself as being called (Gal. 1.15).
9. Paul’s Christology and His Mission to the Gentiles 117
called to be an “apostle to” or “among the nations,” rather than simply an apostle “to
the Gentiles.” The Greek term e!qnh can be translated either as “Gentiles” or “nations.”
Paul was indeed an apostle to the Gentiles, but not simply an apostle to individuals of
non-Jewish birth. If that were so, there were plenty of Gentiles in Roman Palestine
and Syria to occupy him for a lifetime. But he proclaimed the gospel to various eth-
nicities, the nations of the world in which he lived, including Syria, Cilicia, central
and western Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, perhaps even Arabia while residing
there, and he hoped to get to Rome, go on to Spain — and perhaps beyond. The
significance of the Christophany for his mission will be taken up subsequently, but
first some features of Paul’s call should be noted.
I. Paul’s Call as an Apostle

It has been agreed widely among interpreters that Paul was aware of being commis-
sioned to his apostleship from the very beginning,7 the moment of the Christophany
of which he speaks in his letters on three occasions:
Gal. 1.15-16: “But when God . . . was pleased to reveal his Son (a0pokalu/yai to_n ui9o_n
au0tou~) to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any
human being.”
1 Cor. 9.1: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord (ou0xi_ 'Ihsou=n
to_n ku/rion h(mw~n e(o/raka)?”
1 Cor. 15.8: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” The antecedent of
“he” is “Christ” (Xristo_j . . . w!fqh) in 15.3.
In these passages Paul uses his three major Christological titles for the one who
appeared to him: Christ, Lord, and Son of God. Further, in each case he uses verbs
associated with apocalyptic.8 Moreover, it is implied from what Paul writes within
these passages or their contexts that a Christophany is a prerequisite to one’s being
designated an apostle (Gal. 1.11-17; 1 Cor. 9.1; 15.7-9). Yet it has to be recognized
that the appearance of the risen Christ to human beings does not in itself qualify them
to be apostles, for there is no indication that all (or even any) of the 500 to whom
Christ appeared (1 Cor. 15.6) became apostles. An added ingredient, a commission-
ing, is necessary for the making of an apostle.
7. Martin Dibelius, Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press Press, 1953), p. 53; F. Hahn, Mission in
the New Testament, p. 97; Heinrich Kasting, Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission: Eine historische
Untersuchung (BEvT, 55; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1969), pp. 56–60; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s
Gospel (WUNT, 2/4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981), pp. 56–66; J. Murphy-O’Connor,
Paul, p. 80; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 159; and Rainer
Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1998), pp. 235–37.
8. This is self-evident in the use of the verb a0pokalu/ptw; concerning the use of the verb “to see”
in apocalyptic literature, cf. Wilhelm Michaelis, “o9ra/w,” TDNT 5.328–40.
The content of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Christ remains elusive. Luke, in
his three accounts of the Damascus Road event, has a dialogue in each case between
Paul and the risen Christ (Acts 9.3-6; 22.7-10; 26.14-18). In two of them the risen
Christ commissions him explicitly to a mission among the Gentiles (22.21; 26.17-18).
In that regard, it is typical of theophanies in the Old Testament and Christophanies
in the New to be occasions not only for visual experiences but also for verbal com-
munication from God or the risen Christ to those to whom the appearance is made.9
Paul himself does not provide a transcript of the commissioning in his letters.
Nevertheless, it was the crucified and risen Christ who appeared and commissioned
him. Whatever else might have transpired in that event, the Christophany was itself
foundational for his commission to be an apostle to the Gentiles.
II. The Christophany at the Commissioning:

The Crucified and Risen Christ
Prior to his call as an apostle, Paul had persecuted those Jews who had become believ-
ers in Christ. He did so as a means of putting a stop to the movement that was gaining
adherents among them (Gal. 1.13).10 It is doubtful whether he persecuted Gentile
believers, for in the areas of his activities — and they were early in the 30s of the
first century — there were few Gentile believers to be found, and it is not likely that
he would have cared if the Christian movement would have become a Gentile one.
For Paul the persecutor, the fact that Jesus had been crucified would have disquali-
fied him from being the Messiah of Israel. The message of the earliest Christians,
claiming a crucified Messiah, was a stumbling block to Jews (1 Cor. 1.23), for it was
completely foreign and antithetical to Jewish expectations. Moreover, the circum-
stances of Jesus’ crucifixion would have added to the offense, for although Paul would
have known that Jesus had been crucified under Roman authority, he must also have
known that the crucifixion had been sanctioned by leading officers of the Sanhedrin.11
The appearance of Jesus to Paul as resurrected (or having come back in some
form from the dead) would not necessarily have convinced him that Jesus was the
Messiah of Israel; it would only signify that Jesus, though killed, had been exalted
to heaven and was capable of appearing again on earth. Old Testament and Jewish
9. For theophanies with verbal communication, cf. Exod. 19.21-25; 1 Kgs 19.9-18; Isa. 6.8-13; for
Christophanies with verbal communication, cf. Mk 1.11; 9.7//Mt. 17.5//Lk. 9.35; Mt. 28.16-20; Acts 1.4-8).
10. For a study of Paul the persecutor, cf. Arland J. Hultgren, “Paul’s Pre-Christian Persecutions of
the Church: Their Purpose, Locale, and Nature,” JBL 95 (1976), pp. 97–111.
11. Cf. 1 Thess. 2.14-16. That these verses are a post-Pauline interpolation has been proposed by
Birger Pearson, “I Thessalonians 2.13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971), pp. 79–94;
and Hendrikus Boers, “The Form-Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: I Thessalonians as a Test Case,” NTS
22 (1976), pp. 140–58. That they are Pauline and integral to the letter is held by W. D. Davies, “Paul
and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977), pp. 4–39; Karl P. Donfried, “1 Thessalonians 2.13-16 as a
Test Case,” Int 38 (1984), pp. 242–53; and Frank D. Gilliard, “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma
between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15,” NTS 35 (1989), pp. 481–502. The major case for Pauline composi-
tion and integrity has been made by Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in
1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 (JSNTSup, 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 25–38.
texts and traditions existing at the time tell of how major figures of Jewish history
and legend made post-mortem appearances.12 That Jesus appeared to Paul as Messiah
must therefore be a matter of private disclosure, inaccessible to the historian and the
interpreter. Nevertheless, in this instance Jesus’ appearance would have meant that
he had been vindicated by God.
But there must have been something more. If Paul had heard that Jesus had
made messianic claims for himself during his earthly ministry, he would now be
constrained to some degree at least to give his assent, since God had vindicated
Jesus. Even Pontius Pilate had claimed at the time of the crucifixion that Jesus was
“King of the Jews” (Mk 15.26//Mt. 27.37//Lk. 23.38; Jn 19.19). Moreover, it is most
likely that Paul had heard that some of Jesus’ followers, even before the crucifixion,
had considered Jesus the Messiah. Their hopes were dashed with the end of Jesus’
earthly ministry. But after his crucifixion and burial, they testified anew that Jesus
had been raised from the dead and was indeed the Messiah. While persecuting the
earliest communities of Christians, Paul would have heard their testimony. It is not
sufficient, however, to conclude with Günther Bornkamm that
as a result of arguments with the Hellenistic Christians in Damascus and elsewhere, whom he
originally hated and persecuted, it suddenly dawned on him who this Jesus really was whom
hitherto he had regarded as a destroyer of the most sacred foundations of the Jewish faith and
whom it had been right to crucify.13
There had to be more, for Paul did not simply undergo a change of mind. Rather, he
claims to have experienced a Christophany that disclosed that (1) Jesus of Nazareth,
crucified, had been raised from the dead; (2) that the crucified and resurrected Jesus
of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel; (3) that Paul himself was now to be an apostle;
and (4) that his apostleship was to the Gentile nations of the world that he knew.
Apart from whatever verbal communication there may have been, a plausible basis
in the Christophany for Paul’s understanding of his particular vocation as an apostle to
the Gentiles would have been that the resurrected Jesus bore the marks of crucifixion.
That would have been highly significant for Paul’s understanding that the mission of
Jesus Christ is to be extended to the Gentiles.
In order to establish that point, one can focus on what Paul says in ch. 3 of his
Letter to the Galatians. There Paul writes (Gal. 3.13):
12. Some of the major figures who make post-mortal appearances are Samuel (1 Sam. 23.8-19),
Moses (Mk 9.4 par.), and Elijah (Mk 9.4). Elijah is expected to appear in the last days (Mal. 4.5-6). There
are three resuscitation accounts in the Old Testament (1 Kgs 17.17-24; 2 Kgs 4.18-21, 32-37; 13.20-21).
In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the rich man wants Lazarus to appear to his five brothers and
warn them (Lk. 16.27-31). On resurrection in Judaism,” cf. Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A
Jewish Perspective (trans. Wilhelm C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983), pp. 44–65
(esp. pp. 46–51).
13. Günther Bornkamm, Paul (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1971; repr.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), p. 23.
X"$;%Y7 W-T7 ]<=C5"9;3) ]' %H7 '9%0"97 %*> )5-*? C3)5-3)*7 F2G" W-I) '9%0"9, ^%$
C&C"92%9$· ]2$'9%0"9%*7 2T7 _ '"3-0-3)*7 ]2L <@1*?.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written,
“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”
Paul’s quotation is from a passage in Deuteronomy where it is prefaced by additional

material (Deut. 21.22-23):
When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang
him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that
same day, for cursed by God is everyone who hangs upon a tree (^%$ '3'9%="9-&)*7 F2Y
/3*> 2T7 '"3-0-3)*7 ]2L <@1*?). You must not defile the land that the LORD your God is
giving you for possession.
Paul’s text differs from that of the LXX in two major ways.14 Whether the differences
are to be attributed to Paul’s use of a text that differs from the LXX,15 or whether
they are due to Paul’s revision,16 or whether they can be accounted for because of
pre-Pauline alteration in early Christian proclamation, we cannot know. In any case,
they are significant theologically.
First, Paul uses the adjective ]2$'9%0"9%*7 (“cursed”), whereas the LXX has the
perfect passive participle '3'9%="9-&)*7 (literally, “having been cursed”). According
to the passage in Deuteronomy, the person hanged has already been executed by
some other means (perhaps by stoning) prior to the hanging. The hanging was not the
means of death, but a means of exposing the body of the executed person for public
display as a deterrent to crime on the part of others (cf. Josh. 10.26).17 That means too
that the person who was crucified had been considered accursed prior to the hanging
itself. In other words, the act of hanging was not itself a (symbolic) means of cursing
by God; the corpse was hanged because it was already accursed by God.18 But Paul
uses the familiar adjective ]2$'9%0"9%*7 (used several times in the list of curses in
Deut. 27.15-26); in fact at Gal. 3.10 he had quoted from that portion of Deuteronomy
(27.26). But the adjectival form is necessary in any case, from the historical point of
view, for in the case of Jesus there had not been an execution prior to the hanging.
The crucifixion was the means of execution itself, and it was the act by which the
crucified Jesus was considered accursed. Moreover, there is evidence that the passage
14. One minor alteration is that he inserts the definite article o9 (“who”) prior to '"3-0-3)*7.
15. Max Wilcox, “‘Upon a Tree’ — Deut 21.23 in the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977), pp. 85–99
(86–90); Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
pp. 245–48.
16. J. Martyn, Galatians, pp. 320–21.
17. Daniel L. Christensen, Deuteronomy (WBC, 6B; 2 vols.; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001–02),
p. 2.489.
18. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976),
p. 285; D. Christensen, Deuteronomy, p. 2.489.
from Deuteronomy was being used already in the first century at Qumran to refer to
crucifixion itself.19
Second, Paul omits F2Y /3*> (“by God”) from the quotation. It would have been
impossible for Paul to think that the crucified Jesus was accursed by God. But if he
was not accursed by God, that raises the question: Accursed by whom? Within the
context of these verses, there is only one possibility. Paul had written a few verses
earlier that “all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written,
‘Cursed (]2$'9%0"9%*7) is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things
written in the book of the law’” (Gal. 3.10, quoting from Deut. 27.26). Furthermore,
he quotes from Lev. 18.5, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them”
(Gal. 3.12), which Paul considers impossible (Rom. 3.20; 7.10). But, he says, “Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written,
‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’” (Gal. 3.13). In other words, it is the law
of Moses, not God, that pronounced a curse upon the crucified Jesus.20
Paul does not in this instance attribute the crucifixion of Jesus to Roman or any
other authorities. He is more interested here in conveying what the crucifixion means
in this case. The pronouncement of the curse upon the crucified Messiah transforms
how he is to be understood. In the Old Testament being cursed means being excluded
from the people of Israel (Ps. 37.22; Jer. 44.8; Zech. 5.3); likewise, execution means
exclusion from the people (Deut. 13.5; 17.7, 12; 21.21). For Paul, then, although Jesus
was indeed Israel’s Messiah (Rom. 9.5), he had been cast out beyond the boundaries
established by the law of Moses for Israel. That does not mean that Jesus had become
a Gentile, or should be regarded as if he were,21 but it does mean that his identity
was no longer tied up exclusively with the people of Israel. By virtue of his cruci-
fixion, Jesus had become Messiah for the entire world. The Christophany that Paul
experienced disclosed to him a Messiah upon whom the curse of the law had been pro-
nounced, and who through his death was therefore no longer under the law himself.
All this happened, says Paul, “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham
might come to the Gentiles” (Gal. 3.14). The restriction of the blessing to those under
the law is over. Gentiles who hear and believe the gospel are the true descendants of
Abraham, and they are justified by faith apart from the law (Gal. 3.6-9).
19. The relevant texts are 4QpNah 1.7-8 and 11QTemple 64.6-13, which are discussed in detail by
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” in
his To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2nd ed., 1998),
pp. 125–46 (129–35).
20. Cf. Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians
(ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), pp. 168–75; Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commenatary
(trans. O. C. Dean, Jr.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 61; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, pp. 320–21.
21. James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: A&C Black,
1993), p. 178, however, says that “the curse denoted a status outside the covenant, ‘expelled from the
people of God.’”
III. Attendant Support

In addition to the Christophany of the crucified Messiah, there would have been
additional factors that gave support to the idea that a mission to the Gentiles was
admissible and even necessary. These would not have been experiential in the way
that the Christophany of the crucified Messiah would have been. But there must
have been some conceptual factors that would have come to the fore soon after the
Christophany itself. To put the matter as a question: What did Paul bring with him
from his days as a persecutor of the church to the moment of his call that would
have given additional support to his certainty that a mission to the Gentiles was to
proceed? There would have been at least two conceptual factors, one of which was
Christological, and one of which was scriptural.
A. The Jesus Tradition as Confirmation of a Mission to the Gentiles

The first is that the apostle Paul would have known some basic facts about Jesus and
his earthly ministry. How much Paul knew is debatable. But the fact that he persecuted
believers prior to his call as an apostle means that he saw in the Jesus movement, and
therefore in Jesus himself, a threat to Jewish covenant solidarity, which the law of
Moses prescribed and protected.
Only a few passages in the letters of Paul incorporate traditions about Jesus. It
is difficult to know whether any of them reflect what Paul would have known about
Jesus prior to his call as an apostle. Two of the most important can be ruled out. They
are the early tradition of the crucifixion, resurrection, and appearances to persons
that he names, Peter and James (1 Cor. 15.1-8), and the Eucharistic tradition (1 Cor.
11.23-26). These can be considered traditions that Paul received either from Peter
and James during his first meeting with them in Jerusalem (Gal. 1.18-24) or from
other persons at some early time. Likewise, those traditions that Paul attributes to
“the Lord” concerning divorce (1 Cor. 7.10-11) and financial support for those who
proclaim the gospel (1 Cor. 9.14) can be considered not to have come to him prior
to his call; they would have little importance to him as a persecutor. There are addi-
tional echoes of the Jesus tradition in the letters of Paul,22 but once again the question
whether he knew any of these prior to his call as an apostle is doubtful.
Yet Paul would have known enough about the earthly Jesus to be fully aware
that he consorted with persons who did not observe the law according to Pharisaic
standards. As one who was loyal to and zealous for the traditions of his ancestors,
and as a Pharisee himself (Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5-6), Paul the persecutor would have
been appalled at Jesus’ behavior in his earthly ministry. The Q saying concerning
Jesus and his conduct, describing him as “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and sinners” (Mt. 11.19//Lk 7.34), can be explained best as having arisen as
a Pharisaic criticism of Jesus, for it is from Pharisees that comparable criticisms came
(Mk 2.17//Mt. 9.11//Lk. 5.30; Lk. 15.2). The saying could hardly have originated
22. Cf. Rom. 12.17, 21 with Mt. 5.38-48//Lk. 6.27-36; Rom. 13.8-10 with Mk 12.28-34//Mt. 22.34-40//
Lk. 10.25-28; Rom. 14.14 with Mk 7.15//Mt. 15.11; and 1 Thess. 5.6 with Mk 13.35; Mt. 24.42;
Lk. 21.34-36.
within early Christian proclamation, for it is more embarrassing than edifying for
believers. Once again, whether the epithet was known to Paul himself cannot be
known, but the attitude expressed most certainly would have been typical among
Pharisaic circles and known to Paul.
There is no clear evidence that Jesus himself embarked on a mission to the
Gentiles.23 In fact, based on the sources we have, it appears that the ministry of the
earthly Jesus was directed primarily, if not exclusively, toward the people of Israel.24
Nevertheless, there are traditions concerning Jesus that suggest an openness to min-
istry among non-Jews. While any one of those traditions by itself may be insufficient
as evidence, cumulatively they demonstrate and illustrate the kind of ministry that
Jesus conducted. His ministry among persons who would not or could not observe
the law, commonly known as the am ha-aretz (“people of the land”), demonstrates a
remarkable openness. Although it has been said that the pejorative term am ha-aretz
“differs little in meaning from Gentiles and Samaritans,”25 such persons were still
considered Jews, not Gentiles.26 Nevertheless, they would not have been considered
worthy of Jesus’ attention, if he were seeking to gather around himself a pure com-
munity. More to the point, Jesus responded to Gentiles who came to him, as illustrated
in stories of healings. These include the healing of the Centurion’s son (Lk. 7.1-9//Mt.
8.5-10, 13; cf. Jn 4.46-53) and the healing of the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman’s
daughter (Mk 7.24-30//Mt. 15.21-28). Notable and fixed in the traditions too was
Jesus’ ministry to Samaritans (Lk. 17.11-19; Jn 4.1-42) and his teachings which broke
down prejudices concerning them (Lk. 10.30-37; 17.11-19). Finally, the slogan about
Jesus that he was “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Q, Lk. 7.34//Mt. 11.19)
gains credible support from narratives and sayings that illustrate Jesus’ association
with, and even welcoming of, them (Mk 2.15-17//Mt. 9.9-11//Lk. 5.30-32; Mt. 10.3;
Lk. 15.1-2; 19.1-10). These accounts and sayings concerning the openness of Jesus to
ministry among non-observant Jews and non-Jews together come from all streams of
tradition concerning him (Q, Mark, special Matthean, special Lukan, and Johannine
traditions) and therefore confirm that Jesus would have been widely known to have
associated with persons who could ordinarily be despised. Surely Paul the persecutor
would have known as much. That would mean, in turn, that by the time of his call as
23. A survey of “Jesus and the Gentiles in Research” is provided by Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the
Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS, 331; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), pp. 11–23.
24. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (trans. S. H. Hooke; SBT, 24; London: SCM
Press, 1958), pp. 25–39; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, p. 29; Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and
Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983), p. 62; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 68; Donald Senior
and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983), p. 142.
That Jesus’ mission was limited to Israel, but that he envisioned a Gentile mission is affirmed by Eckhard
J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (2 vols.; Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 1.327, 384;
and Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), p. 103.
25. A’haron Oppenheimer, “Am Ha-Arez: Second Temple and Mishnah,” Encyclopedia Judaica (ed.
Cecil Roth; 16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1971–71), p. 2.834.
26. Although the am ha-aretz are regarded as foreigners at Ezra 9.1-2; 10.2, references to them in the
Mishnah take for granted that they are Jews, and sometimes they are distinguished explicitly from Gentiles.
Cf. Dem. 3.4; Shebi. 5.9; Git. 5.9.
an apostle, Paul would have possessed an understanding of Jesus in which the latter
was predisposed to a mission among the Gentiles. Those passages in which Jesus
speaks of a mission solely to Israel appear only in the Gospel of Matthew (10.5-6;
15.24). They do not have parallels elsewhere in the New Testament and would not
likely have been known by Paul.27
At the time of the Christophany, Paul would have understood immediately that the
earthly ministry of Jesus had been confirmed as being in accord with the will of God.
Jesus had associated with persons who would not or could not live up to Pharisaic
standards, proclaiming to them the gospel of the kingdom of God, and exercising
the forgiveness of sins in the name of God. Since that same Jesus was now the risen
Christ, and since the risen Christ had commissioned him as an apostle to the Gentiles,
Paul could understand that this mission to the Gentiles was in fact an extension of the
ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
B. Scriptural Foundations as Confirmation of a Mission to the Gentiles

The second factor in support of a mission to the Gentiles would have been Paul’s own
recollection, from the era prior to his call, that the Scriptures of Israel anticipated the
gathering in of the Gentiles or nations (LXX: e!qnh) with the coming of the Messiah
or in the messianic age.28
Already in Gen. 12.3 the promise is given to Abraham, “in you shall all the families
of the earth (LXX, pa=sai ai9 fulai_ th~j gh~j) be blessed.”29 Paul quotes that pas-
sage in Gal. 3.8 but has “nations” instead of “families”: “in you shall all the nations
(pa/nta ta_ e!qnh) be blessed.” Then too at Gen. 17.5 Abraham is designated “father
of many nations (LXX, pate/ra pollw~n e0qnw~n).” Paul quotes that passage at Rom.
4.17 (exactly as in the LXX). When Paul quotes those two passages, he does so in
contexts where he is making the case for the inclusion of Gentiles within the new
humanity apart from circumcision.
But it is above all in the prophetic writings that the eschatological vision of Israel’s
witnesses is projected. The prophets envision the conversion of the Gentile “nations”
to serving the God of Israel. Many passages can be cited, especially from Isaiah.30
Among them are the following (LXX texts in each case):
Isa. 2.2-4: “all the nations (pa/nta ta_ e!qnh)” will come to Zion “in the latter days” to learn
the ways of the Lord.
27. The passages are countered by other passages in the same gospel that envision a universal mis-
sion (13.38; 22.9; 24.14; 28.19). The evangelist thinks in terms of two moments: (1) during Jesus’ earthly
ministry, he confined his mission to the “lost sheep” of Israel; but (2) during his post-resurrection ministry
his mission is to the entire world.
28. For more on this, cf. Arland J. Hultgren, “The Scriptural Foundations for Paul’s Mission to the
Gentiles,” in Paul and His Theology (ed. Stanley E. Porter; PAST, 3; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2006), pp. 21–44.
29. Cf. also Gen. 22.18 where the promise is given to Abraham: “by your offspring shall all the nations
of the earth (LXX, pa/nta ta\ e1qnh th~j gh~j) gain blessing for themselves.”
30. There is a tendency to place greater stress on “the nations” in the LXX of Deutero-Isaiah than
in the MT, according to John W. Olley, ‘Righteousness’ in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study
(SBLSCS, 8; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 147–51.
Isa. 12.4: the Lord’s saving deeds are to be made known “among the nations (e0n toi~j
e!qnesin).”
Isa. 25.6-8: the Lord will make a feast in Zion “for all the nations (pa~si toi~j e!qnesin),” and
on that mountain his will for “all the nations (pa/nta ta_ e!qnh)” will be established.
Isa. 51.4-5: God’s law will go forth, his justice as a “light to the nations (fw~j e0qnw~n)” and
in his “arm” will “the nations ( e!qnh)” hope.
Isa. 56.6-8: “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord . . . these I will bring to my
holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . .; for my house shall be called
a house of prayer for all nations (pa~sin toi~j e!qnesin).”
Isa. 60.3: “nations ( e1qnh) shall come to your light.”
Isa. 66.18: the Lord says that he will come “to gather all the nations (pa/nta ta_ e!qnh) and
tongues, and they shall come and see [his] glory.”
Additional eschatological passages concerning “the nations” appear in other prophetic

writings (LXX):
Jer. 3.17: “At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations (pa/nta
ta_ e!qnh) shall gather to it.”
Jer. 16.19: the prophet prays, “to thee shall the nations ( e!qnh) come from the end of the earth.”
Mic. 4.1-3: in the latter days “many nations (e1qnh polla)” will come to Zion to learn the
ways of the Lord (cf. Isa. 2.2-4).
Zech. 8.20-23: “many peoples (laoi\ polloi)” and “many nations ( e1qnh polla)” will come
to seek the Lord.
Such eschatological expectations of the “nations” as turning to the Lord in the last
days are found also in the Psalms (e.g. 22.27; 86.9) and in passages within the apoc-
ryphal (or deutero-canonical) books of the Old Testament. Among them are Tob.
13.11 (LXX, 13.13, “Many nations [e1qnh polla,] will come from afar to the name
of the Lord God”); 14.6 (“all the nations [pa/nta ta_ e!qnh] will turn to fear the Lord
God in truth and will bury their idols”); Wis. 8.14 (“nations [ e!qnh]” will be subject to
wisdom); and Sir. 39.10 (“nations [e!qnh]” will declare God’s “wisdom”). Still other
passages can be found in the pseudepigraphal literature (Pss. Sol. 17.30-35; T. Zeb.
9.8; T. Benj. 9.2; T. Judah 24) and in rabbinic literatures.31
31. Many texts of the rabbinic literature are cited by Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK,
6/1; 3 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–80), p. 2.255 (n. 1145).
In addition to these more general expectations, there are passages, particularly in

Isaiah, that speak not of the nations as coming to Zion, but of the Servant of the Lord
as going to the nations to bring them justice and to be a light unto them:
Isa. 42.1, 6: the Lord’s Servant will bring “justice to the nations (kri/sin toi~j e1qnesin)” and
be a “light to the nations (fw~j e0qnw~n).”
Isa. 49.6: the Lord will send forth his Servant to be a “light to the nations (fw~j e0qnw~n)” in
order that his salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.
Given the eschatological expectations of his own Jewish heritage, it should not be
surprising that Paul would think in terms of the “nations” (or “Gentiles”) as the field of
his apostolic mission. Furthermore, in keeping with those eschatological expectations
that the Lord himself (through his Servant32) would reach out to the nations, Paul — as
the Lord’s apostle — could envision a mission that reaches out to the ends of the earth.
Insofar as Acts can be used as a source on Paul, the apostle’s call is interpreted as a call
to the “nations.” He is commissioned to be a “chosen instrument” to carry the Lord’s
name “before the nations (e0nw/pion e0qnw~n) and kings and the sons of Israel” (9.15).
The same is affirmed in two other passages: 22.21 (“I will send you far away to the
nations [ei0j e1qnh]”); and 26.20 (Paul preached at Damascus, Jerusalem, throughout
Judea, and “to the nations [toi~j e1qnesin]”). This picture of Paul as one appointed to
carry on a mission among the “nations” is confirmed by what the apostle says of his
work also in Rom. 15.18-21. There he says that he had been seeking to win obedience
from the Gentiles (or nations), proclaiming the gospel in places where Christ had not
yet been named within the arc extending from Jerusalem to Illyricum. And he hoped
to go on at least as far as Spain (15.24, 28).
IV. Conclusion: Christology and Mission

No one can fully measure the impact that the appearance of the crucified and risen
Christ could have had on Paul the persecutor, a man who was zealous for his ances-
tral traditions and determined to do whatever he could to curb the early Christian
mission. The appearance took place when he was least likely or ready to receive it.
Nevertheless, God revealed his Son to him and called him to be an apostle to the
nations of the world.
We cannot probe the depths of what Paul himself experienced, and we cannot know
32. There seems to be no explicit connection between the Servant motif of Isaiah and the Christology
of Paul. The implicit connections, however, may well be many and thoroughgoing. Contra Paul Dinter,
“Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” BTB 13 (1983), pp. 48–52, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have thought
of himself as the Servant. Instead, he would have thought of himself as a “herald” announcing good news,
as maintained by J. Ross Wagner, “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of
Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51-55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins
(ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998),
pp. 193–222.
from Paul himself (Luke’s accounts in Acts notwithstanding) what, if anything, he

experienced in terms of verbal communication concerning his commissioning as an
apostle. But it is possible to explore certain non-verbal factors that would have led
him to sense the urgency of a mission to the Gentiles. Central to that would have been
his understanding of Jesus as a Messiah who, having been crucified, is a Messiah for
the world, beyond the boundaries established by the law of Moses. In addition, giv-
ing further support, he would have known that the risen Christ who appeared to him
was none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and he would have had sufficient knowledge,
from the era prior to his call (probably even before his persecuting activity), that
Jesus had ministered to persons who were not Torah-observant and even to some who
were outside the law. These were basic Christological orientations for the apostle. In
addition, from his pre-apostolic past Paul would have known that the Scriptures of
Israel anticipate the ingathering of the Gentile nations into the people of God in the
messianic age. Such streams of first-hand knowledge and tradition could attend what-
ever Paul experienced, resulting in his specific vocation as apostle to the Gentiles.
10
A MISSIONARY STRATEGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS 9.19-23?
Karl Olav Sandnes
“Apart from Paul’s herculean efforts, it is difficult to imagine how the gospel of Christ
would have taken root so comprehensively in the Greco-Roman world.”1 Glimpses
of a missionary strategy can be extracted from Paul’s letters. His ministry was not a
lonely one; it has rightly been called a “co-worker mission.”2 This allowed Paul to
concentrate on urban centers. Acts gives examples of Paul adjusting his preaching
to the audience; it made a difference if the addressees were Jews in a synagogue
(Acts 13) or Gentiles at Athens (Acts 17; cf. 14). First Corinthians 9.19-23, which is
about Paul becoming as a Jew to Jews and as a Gentile to Gentiles, in short “becoming
all things to all people,” is the closest we get to a stated strategy. This passage has been
called “der missionarische Kanon des Paulus.”3 This chapter unfolds this key text by
looking into the motivation behind Paul’s missionary work. What kind of practices
did the principle of accommodation involve? Could Paul simultaneously be a Jew
to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles? Did he ever succeed in putting this into practice?
I. A Missionary Maxim?
But is 1. Cor. 9.19-23 really a text about Paul as a missionary? This can only be
answered by looking into the literary and rhetorical setting. In spite of the descrip-
tion as a0pologi/a mentioned in 1 Cor. 9.3, the passage is found in a deliberative
rhetorical context. The fact that ch. 9 makes Paul an example to be imitated by his
converts leaves any attempt to read this chapter forensically devoid of meaning.4
Paul addresses the question of eating food offered to idols. Local believers met
this challenge in different ways, and their opposing views threatened the unity and
concord among them. From 1 Corinthians 8 we see that Paul’s concern is with “the
1. P. Barnett, Paul, Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans 2008), p. 6.
2. J. D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans 2009),
pp. 566–72.
3. G. Eichholz, Tradition und Interpretation. Studien zum neuen Testament und zur Hermeneutik
(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag 1965), pp. 114–20.
4. See W. Willis, “An Apostolic Apologia? The form and Function of 1 Cor. 9,” JSNT 24 (1985)
pp. 33–48 and M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the
Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1991), pp. 224–27.
10. A Missionary Strategy in 1 Corinthians 9.19-23? 129
weak” who found eating sacrificial meat damaging to their faith. In this situation,
Paul’s persuasive efforts are addressed to the “strong.” Paul basically concurs with
their theological rationale, but they have failed to consider their attitude in the light
of Christ’s example. In 1 Cor. 8.5-6, Paul defines theology Christologically, thus
anticipating the role of Christ throughout his argument (see 8.11-12 and 10.33-11.1).
Taking Christ as a paradigm cuts through the arguments and puts the well-being of
the weak brother at the center. In the words of David G. Horrell, Paul argues for “a
relational, other-regarding ethic with a specifically christological shape.”5 This calls
into question the individual’s freedom and right, and instead focuses upon unity; a
unity won only if the “strong” willingly renounce their rights. First Corinthians 9 is
part of this argument, giving Paul’s mission as an exemplum to be imitated (11.1).
Essential to Paul’s argument is unity and concord among the believers. This is
where the building metaphor enters his argument (8.10-11), although it is used ironi-
cally. This is a favorite term in Paul’s argument for unity. Margaret M. Mitchell has
demonstrated that Paul’s argument is permeated by political rhetoric, characterized by
terms urging peace, unity, concord, and the common good at the expense of individu-
ality.6 This political discourse resounds strongly in Paul’s use of terms like sumfe&rein,
w)felei=n, oi0kodomei=n and cognates, and reflects the conviction of the supremacy of
the common good. According to 1 Cor. 9.12b, 15, Paul abandoned his right for the
sake of the gospel. This implies that “chapter 9 functions in relation to chapters 8
and 10 in a similar way to the function of chapter 13, the famous ‘digression’ on the
‘more excellent way’ of agapê, in relation to chapters 12 and 14.”7
Mitchell’s study makes unity and concord the center of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor.
8-10. On this ground, the relevance of 1 Cor. 9.19-23 for mission may be questioned.
Stephen C. Barton says that Paul in this text appears as an apostle or “master builder”
of God’s people at Corinth: “What Paul is in fact talking about is how Jews and
Greeks, law-observant and law-free, strong and weak, slave and free can together be
one, united body of Christ — something he makes explicit in 12.12-13.” This does
not exclude mission, however.8
Paul negotiates the philosophical idea of supreme good;9 he takes the rhetoric of
common benefit and advantage beyond the political level by stating that the supreme
good is, in fact, salvation. The perspective of building up the fellowship permeating
ch. 14 reaches its climax in the hoped-for salvation of the outsiders (14.20-25). This
echoes the i3na-statement in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31-33: i3na swqw=sin. The outsid-
ers are, therefore, not out of the picture, even when Paul speaks about internal affairs.
Paul recalls Aristotelian rhetoric, claiming that “things which produce a greater
good are greater” (Rhet. 1.6.7) and “things that last longer are preferable to those that
5. D. G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference. A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Ethics (London, New
York: T&T Clark 2005), p. 172.
6. Mitchell, Paul, pp. 130–38, 243–50.
7. S. C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People.’ Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23”
in J. D. G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1996), pp. 271–85 (273).
8 Barton, "All things to All People," p. 284.
9. K. O. Sandnes, “Prophecy — A Sign for Believers (1 Cor. 14.20-25),” Bib 77 (1996), pp. 1–15.
are of shorter duration” (Rhet. 1.7.26). The supreme good at Corinth involves more
than present unity and concord. This explains Paul’s concern in ch. 8 about not becom-
ing an obstacle or causing the weak to fall (pro&skomma v.9; skandali&zei v. 13),
which corresponds to 9.12 about becoming an “obstacle” to the gospel, and finally
not giving any “offense” to Jews, Greeks or the church of God (10.32). This implies
a perspective beyond unity; there is a missionary perspective here, whether it refers to
preserving the weak in their faith or to the recruitment of new believers. Paul’s vision
of unity among the believers, which is of most significance in 1 Corinthians, includes
mission, simply because to Paul unity implies bringing together Jews and Gentiles.
David G. Horrell is on the right track when he says that kerdai&nein should not
be limited to its possible evangelistic meaning,10 but has a broader reference both
to “evangelism/conversion and to restoring right community relationships.”11 This
implies that a rhetoric aiming at unity is not exclusive to a missionary aspect. Paul’s
commission to preach the gospel looms large in the argument of ch. 9.12
II. Mission as Imitatio Christi

First Corinthians 9 is embedded in ancient political discourse, including a missionary
aspect as well. The subtext of Paul’s mission is Christ’s example; it is now time to
substantiate this. Scholars have mentioned several analogies to Paul’s principle of
accommodation in the contemporary milieu:
` Odysseus, who willingly suffered ill-treatment and sneaked into the camp of the
Trojans disguised as a beggar, was interpreted philosophically (Od. 4.244-46).
His wearing of a cloak inspired parallels to be drawn with the philosophers. The
sophist Antisthenes depicted Odysseus as a figure of adaptability, who, in order to
benefit others, willingly stood on the border between adaptability and hypocrisy;
indeed a “polytropic” man; this term describes Odysseus in the very first line of
the Odyssey: “Tell me, Muse, of the man of many devices (polu&tropon).”13
` Cynic-Stoic arguments about the nature of true freedom.14
` The sea-god Proteus who changed his shape at will. Od. 4.417 describes this as
pa&nta gigno&menoj.15 Lucian of Samosata’s presentation of Peregrinus makes a
laughing-stock of this figure by comparing him to Proteus. The point of comparison
10. Thus D. Daube, “Kerdainô as a Missionary Term,” HTR 40 (1947), pp. 109–20.
11. Horrell, Solidarity, p. 220 n. 56.
12. B. Fjärsted, Synoptic Tradition in 1 Corinthians. Themes and Clusters of Theme Words in
1 Corinthians 1-4 and 9 (Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University 1974), pp. 65–99, demonstrates that Paul in
1 Corinthians 9 draws heavily on the whole block of instructions about Jesus sending his emissaries, not
only the proverb cited in v. 14.
13. A. J. Malherbe, “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War,” HTR 76 (1983), pp. 143–73. Cf.
Dio Chrysostom’s Or. 33.15.
14. S. Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in
seiner Umwelt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1989), pp. 199–232; A. J. Malherbe, “Determinism
and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9” in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His
Hellenistic Context, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1994), pp. 231–55.
15. Vollenweider, Freiheit, pp. 216–17. W. A. Meeks, “The Christian Proteus” in idem (ed.), The
Writings of St. Paul (New York, London: W.W. Norton 1972), pp. 435–44. With reference to 1 Cor. 9.19-23,
is that Peregrinus, as did Proteus, turned himself into everything (a3panta . . .

geno&menoj) (Peregr. 1); “he always did and said everything” for the sake of glory
(Peregr. 42).
` Paul’s principle has much in common with familiar traditions about being a good
educator who recognizes the need to adapt to students’ diverse abilities.16
` Traditions about “the friend of all,” i.e. the flatterer whose servile flattery
(kolakei&a) aims at personal benefits. This figure is well presented in Plutarch’s
How to Tell a Friend from a Flatterer (Mor. 48E-74E).17
` The demagogue whose populist model was to identify with the lower class.18
` Of special interest to the present contribution is Margaret M. Mitchell’s investiga-
tion of early Christian interpretation of “all things to all people.”19 For the Church
fathers, such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and John Chrysostom,
Paul here fuses together Hellenistic and Jewish concepts of a divine pedagogy,
namely condescension (sugkataba=sij). In order to meet the people, and espe-
cially the needs of the weak, the divine “comes down” and appears multi-formly.20
God acts like a father to his children, a doctor to his patients, and a teacher to his
students. Instruction is given according to the level of the addressees. The concept
of condescension becomes important for early incarnational Christology. Divine
variability helps the early Church to interpret a potentially embarrassing state-
ment like 1 Cor. 9.19-23, namely to see it as an instance of Paul imitating Christ’s
condescension in incarnation. “Chrysostom was sure that Christ’s example was
foremost in Paul’s mind as he wrote these words [i.e. 1 Cor. 9.19-23]. Could he
have been right?”21
The strategy stated in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 echoes various traditions of adaptability. These
traditions depict accommodation as standing on the verge between good and bad,
adaptability and hypocrisy. This might indicate that Paul here somehow responds to
invectives.22 Be this as it may, the Pauline text as it is and the implications thereof are
Meeks says: “The real Paul is to be found precisely in the dialectic of his apparent inconsistencies. Paul
is the Christian Proteus” (p. 438).
16. C. Glad, Paul and Philodemus. Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy
(Leiden: E.J. Brill 1995).
17. P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians
(WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1987), pp. 70–90, 281–317.
18. D. B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation. The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press 1990), pp. 86–116.
19. M. M. Mitchell, “Pauline Accommodation and ‘Condescension’ (sugkataba=sij): 1 Cor. 9.19-23
and the History of Influence” in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2001), pp. 197–214.
20. See Acts 14.11 where the Lycaonians say “the gods have come down (kate&bhsan) to us in human
form.” The descent of the gods is described in terms of gods becoming like human beings (o&moiwqe&ntej
a)nqrw&poij) (cf. Phil 2.7).
21. Mitchell, “Accommodation,” p. 212.
22. Thus Marshall, Enmity, pp. 281–317. Paul has been criticized for seeking his own advantage with
the help of flattery. If this is the case, it remains to be seen what Paul makes out of the invectives. It is not
unlikely that invectives became building-blocks in Paul’s description of his apostolic ministry.
in themselves sufficiently difficult. The diachronic question of analogies or models

is thus of less significance. It suffices to point out that all these models were “in the
air,” and thus can be assumed as backgrounds against which some of Paul’s readers
might have heard this text. In the following I will argue that Paul wanted his readers
to consider his adaptability from a Christological point of view.
The question raised in 1 Cor. 8.1 — and for which ch. 9 serves as a deliberative
illustration — is resolved in 11.1: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” This
connects immediately with 10.31-32 about giving no offense to Jews, Greeks or
Christians: “just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own
advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.” Thus Paul abbreviates the
dictum of 9.19-23. He speaks of practicing altruism for the sake of bringing salvation.
This is echoed in 10.23-24 as well: sumfe&rein, oi0kodomei=n, summarizing the delib-
erative rhetoric permeating the argument of this epistle, is defined as not seeking one’s
own advantage — mhdei\j to\ e9autou= zhtei&tw a)lla\ to\ tou= e9te&rou. Paul works with
a set of terms taken from traditional deliberative rhetoric, but this language has been
“baptized”; that is, it brings to mind the other regard, visible in Christ’s self-giving
love.23 Obvious references are 1 Cor. 13.5,24 Phil. 2.5-8, Rom. 15.1-7, 2 Cor. 8.9, and
Gal. 2.20; together these texts depict Christ as seeking not his own benefit but that
of others. Paul’s mission practice, hinted at in 1 Cor. 9.19-23, is presented according
to this paradigm. This is precisely what “the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9.21) is about:
Christ’s paradigmatic self-giving love.25
Paul has “enslaved himself,”26 according to 9.19; he is “Christ’s slave/servant.”
As pointed out by Vollenweider, it is surprising, against a Greek philosophical
background, to speak of freedom in terms of servanthood.27 From what has been said
above, it follows that Paul’s primary model is Christ, and Paul presents himself not
only as his servant but also as a servant who has Christ as his paradigm. To the strong
at Corinth, Paul depicts Christ as an example to follow; right action depends not on
their knowledge but on their putting into practice Christ’s paradigmatic love. His
mission strategy is described according to this paradigm. But what was this practice
more precisely?
III. “All things to all people”: Really?

In the words of Peter Stuhlmacher, “Man kann die Verse in der Tat ganz praktisch
nachvollziehen,”28 with special reference to the narrative in Acts describing how Paul
starts his ministry in the synagogues. Paul’s dictum seems to me, however, to be more
23. Thus also Horrell, Solidarity, pp. 168–82; Barnett, Paul, pp. 177–79.
24. This chapter on love puts together threads observable in 8.1 and 9.12. Agapê is thus the Pauline
way to formulate the traditional deliberative rhetoric.
25. Thus also Horrell, Solidarity, pp. 222–31.
26. Thus echoing Phil. 2.7 (dou=loj) and 8 (e0tapei&nwsen).
27. Vollenweider, Freiheit, p. 245.
28. P. Stuhlmacher, “Weg, Stil und Konzequenzen urchristlicher Mission” in Theologische Beiträge
12 (1981), pp. 107–35 (124).
complicated; it is indeed “better remembered than understood.”29 It is time to examine

this concept. How did Paul put it into practice?
A. Asymmetry in a Symmetrical-Sounding Rhetoric

Verse 19 encapsulates the passage in toto, clearly visible in the i3na-clause. The pattern
of vv. 20, 22a is repeated: (e0geno&mhn)+ dativus commodi + w(j introducing nomina-
tive + i3na-clause in which the nominative now becomes accusative and kerdh&sw/
kerda&nw. Verse 22b summarizes and works as an enclosure of v. 19, emphasizing
“all” (3×). In the i3na-clause it now says sw&sw. Verse 23 turns to Paul himself, thus
preparing us for 9.24–10.13 which follow.
From v. 23 the deliberative nature of the text is clear. Since Paul’s perspective
on his admonitions is eschatological, the question of “holding fast until the end” is
included. Furthermore, the autobiographical tone of 1 Corinthians 9 cannot be over-
heard. The text is, therefore, in principle valuable for information on Paul’s mission
practice; how remains to be seen.
The Greek w(j holds a key in 1 Cor. 9.19-23; this applies to structure, rhetoric,
and the interpretation of the text: w(j'Ioudai=oj, w9j u9po\ no&mon, w&j a1nomoj, w&j30
a)sqenhj. At first sight, Paul’s dictum appears symmetrical; all w&j cases introduce a
comparison: as a Jew (stated twice), as a Gentile, as weak. Hence most commentaries
consider these as functional equivalents. This is crucial for the interpretation of the
text, and I question it. Moving backwards in the text will demonstrate this. Paul closes
his statement by saying that he has “become all things to all people.” This cannot
be achieved without some kind of pretense; Paul is certainly speaking about imitat-
ing identities beyond what he actually is. This applies to his imitating the weak. In
1 Cor. 8.7, Paul does not consider himself weak; some reservation with regard to the
likeness is, therefore, implied. Certainly, this is the case with a1nomoj, to be rendered
“Gentiles.” This is the comparison in which the attitude to be imitated is most remote
from Paul himself. In v. 20 Paul says that he is “as under the law,” which describes
a Jew’s devoutness regarding the Law. Here Paul explicitly distances himself from
being such a one; w9j here implies likening. The final w9j, or, in fact, the introduc-
tion, is of a different nature. According to Paul W. Gooch, Paul “no longer regards
himself as a Jew” here;31 in other words, w9j marks a fundamental reservation, as in
the other cases.
Here I admit to a disagreement. I have pointed out that w9j introduces different
levels of likeness in this dictum. In w(j'Ioudai=oj there is even less of comparison; w(j
is rather suggesting that Paul considers himself a Jew, albeit that some would question
this: it is “a marker introducing the perspective from which a person . . . is viewed or
understood.”32 The Greek w(j is used likewise: e.g. 1 Cor. 3.10; 2 Cor. 6.4; 1 Thess.
2.7a. Here w(j is not primarily introducing a comparison, but giving the perspective
29. Thus P. W. Gooch, Partial Knowledge. Philosophical Studies in Paul (Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press 1987), p. 124.
30. The older MSS omit w(j here; it is clearly implied, however.
31. Gooch, Knowledge, p. 138.
32. BDAG s.v. §3.
from which a point is made. First Corinthians 7.25 is of special importance since it
demonstrates such use: Paul claims to be w&j h)lehme&noj u9po\ kuri&ou in a situation
where what he says is disputed. This applies to Paul being w(j'Ioudai=oj; he does not
distance himself from this, although some might question it. Paul affirms his Jewish
identity, but implicitly he acknowledges that his Jewish identity is under discussion.
From this it follows that the dictum is not a symmetrical statement where w(j has
kept the same meaning throughout. One might put it like this: when Paul says that
he became a Gentile to Gentiles, this may be described as an example of e9llhni&zein,
but when he says that he has become a Jew to Jews, that is not adequately described
as i0oudai5zein.33 Both these terms describe an outsider pretending to be something
he is not;34 but Paul claims to be a Jew. This is the fundamental asymmetry within a
symmetric-sounding principle. The dictum is more complicated than appears from
its rhetorical surface. In some senses, therefore, it is correct to say that the text is a
rhetorical hyperbole. I think this impression finds further support when we see how
Paul puts this principle into practice.
IV. From Rhetoric to Mission Practice?

In the attempt to understand Paul’s accommodatory mission stance, it is natural to
focus upon his claim to be a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles. The questions to
be answered are the following: how did Paul, a Jew himself, become a Jew to Jews,
and how a Gentile to Gentiles?
Acting as a Hellenized Jew involved issues such as Greek language, temples and
cults, theater, festivals and Greek paideia. Religion was interwoven into the fabric
of social life. Diaspora Jews took different attitudes to these challenges, from strict
rejection to various degrees of participation, and some were lenient even to the point
of jeopardizing their Jewish belief.35 Philo writes how Diaspora Jews coped with the
challenges of pagan cults, gymnasia and Greek paideia,36 the purpose being to survive
as a minority or to climb the social ladder.37 Paul’s mission of becoming a Gentile
to Gentiles is part of this complex dispute among Diaspora Jews about participation
in the Greek culture surrounding them. Paul’s involvement was missional, and was
concerned with how to make them participants in the higher good of salvation.
Becoming a Jew to Jews raised issues of an inner-Jewish discourse on what it
33. Pace Dunn, Jerusalem, p. 526.

34. S. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Judaism. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press 1999), pp. 175–97.
35. See P. Borgen, “‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults”
in idem, Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996), pp. 15–43.
36. K. O. Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer. School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (London:
T&T Clark 2009), pp. 68–78.
37. Philo’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander is a prominent example of a member of the social
elite who climbed by compromising his Jewish practice; see J. M.G. Barclay, “Deviance and Apostasy.
Some Applications of Deviance Theory to First-Century Judaism and Christianity” in Philip Esler (ed.),
Modelling Early Christianity. Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context (London and
New York: Routledge 1995), pp. 114–27.
meant to be a Jew. The complexity of contemporary Judaism implies that defining

Jewish identity was a constant issue of debate. This debate revolved around issues
such as halakhic regulations, dietary rules, fasting, Sabbath, and circumcision.38
Paul’s theology can be seen as an example of the debate witnessed in Philo’s De
Migratione Abrahami 89-93,39 Josephus’ Ant. 20.34-4840; and the Ep.Arist. 12941
about circumcision, and clean and unclean food. All these texts bear witness to the
fact that these issues were negotiated, but they also attest that Paul took a radical view
on these issues: physical circumcision was not decisive, and the idea of a Creator
God, by implication, made the distinction between clean and unclean obsolete (Ps.
24.1 quoted in 1 Cor. 10.26).
Paul’s accommodation is therefore not without analogies in contemporary Judaism.
Paul’s motivation, however, differs. It is a matter of imitating Christ’s self-giving love
with the aim of winning Jews as well as Gentiles. The aim of “winning” might give
the impression that Paul approaches the Jews as an outsider. This is misleading since
Paul clearly uses “winning” also with reference to fellow Christians (“the weak”). The
use of kerdai&nein primarily serves the purpose of making a symmetrical rhetorical
statement.
Mapping how Paul did accommodate in his mission is by no means simple. The
letters give only indirect and incidental access to Paul’s mission in practice. The
agenda of the epistles is set by challenges and questions arising after his initial mis-
sion, when his converts were trying to cope with the newly embraced faith. Pauline
missionary preaching and practice must therefore be reconstructed, partly with the
help of the book of Acts.42 Certainly, Acts is a source of secondary importance for
the reconstruction of Paul’s theology; as regards his mission, however, it cannot be
ignored, although it does render a simplified and harmonious picture. When Acts
does not contradict Paul’s letters, it deserves attention. The dictum of 1 Cor. 9.19-23
becomes almost without reference if Acts is not taken into account.
What can be gleaned from the immediate context of the missionary maxim in
1 Corinthians 9? As pointed out above, this dictum appears in a context addressing
issues related to food within the Christian fellowship. Paul urges adoption of the
perspective of “the other,” especially that of “the weak.” Paul thus urges what Michael
38. See Cohen, Beginnings, pp. 25–68.

39. Philo mentions some Jews paying attention to the symbolic meaning of the rituals, such as Sabbath
and circumcision, but neglecting the literal implications thereof. Physical and symbolic meanings are not
to be separated, says Philo.
40. Josephus tells how the royal family of Adiabene came to favor Judaism. Izates, the king, wanted
to become a genuine Jew through circumcision. This caused debate within the royal family and among
their Jewish sponsors. The Jewish merchant Ananias said that the king could worship God without being
circumcised; devoutness counted more than the physical act. This position was criticized by Eleazar from
Galilee; he urged the king to undergo the rite, which did eventually take place.
41. Egyptian envoys ask Eleazar, a Jewish elder, a question which finds an interesting analogy in Paul’s
theology, namely why distinctions between different kinds of food, and the difference between clean and
unclean animals, are to be upheld when all are created equally by God.
42. Jervell’s notion of “the unknown Paul,” found partly in the book of Acts, is helpful; see J. Jervell,
The Unknown Paul. Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg 1984),
pp. 52–76.
Theobald has called a “Standortwechsel,”43 but the inculturation of the gospel is not
an issue as such in the immediate context. It is more relevant to speak of the believer
herself and her willingness to accommodate. In short, Paul’s dictum implies other-
regard, as relevant for life within the church, i.e. tolerance.44 In 1 Corinthians 9, this
is applied implicitly to mission.
A. Synagogue — Agora — Homes: Spatial Vacillation or Alteration

Paul’s mission maxim about flexibility finds corroboration in his vacillation with
regard to the places in which he was active. These confirm the asymmetry in Paul’s
mission practice. Paul’s “gospelling” work moves between synagogues, private
homes and the market-place. These places involved different discourses, rhetoric,
and different kinds of people. In the picture of Paul’s mission rendered in Acts, it is
a stereotype that he began his preaching in the synagogues (Acts 13.14; 14.1; 17.1;
etc.). This picture finds confirmation in his own letters, where his being subject to
synagogue discipline (2 Cor. 11.24) is of relevance.45 The fact that this happened five
times demonstrates regularity in his relationship with the synagogue. Some inferences
can be drawn from this. The synagogues were, of course, the places where Jewish
traditions were eminent, as were scriptural interpretations and halakhic practices.
Here Paul was a Jew among Jews. The testimony of 2 Cor. 11.24 implies that Paul was
considered “at home” when in the synagogues — he is punished as an insider — but
also that he held controversial views. This corresponds to passages in Acts where he
was ejected from synagogues and moved his teaching into a rented public hall or into
a private house (Acts 18.7; 19.9).
Acts also pictures Paul conversing with philosophers at the market-place, and
giving an eloquent speech to the Council (Acts 17). Paul’s discoursing in the market-
place is narrated in a Socratic way. Paul acts, speaks, and is accused like Socrates,
the great philosopher of the past.46 The speech differs markedly from the synagogue
speeches rendered in Acts. God, creator of everything, is emphasized (cf. Acts 14.15),
and Paul cites pagan poets, thus embracing a stereotypical element in Greek persua-
sive style.47 At the Athenian agora, Paul appears as a Greek philosopher to Gentiles.
Did Paul preach in Athens, and did he imitate Socrates? These are questions of
minor significance to this essay. Of primary importance is whether Paul spoke pub-
43. M. Theobald, “‘Allen bin ich alles geworden . . .’ (1 Kor 9,22b). Paulus und das Problem der
Inkulturation des Glaubens,” TQ 176 (1996), pp. 1–6.
44. Nonetheless, Paul hardly regulated life within his churches with reference to general adaptability;
see P. Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14,” NTS 26 (1980),
pp. 347–62.
45. R. Hvalvik, “Paul as a Jewish Believer — According to the Book of Acts” in O. Skarsaune and
R. Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Believers in Jesus, The Early Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2007),
pp. 128–33, mentions 1 Cor. 1.21-23 as well. R. Hvalvik, “Named Jewish Believers Connected with the
Pauline Mission” (idem), draws attention to the presence of Jewish believers in Paul’s mission.
46. K. O. Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul’s Areopagus Speech,” JSNT 50 (1993),
pp. 13–26.
47. Jerome’s Comm. Ad Titum testifies to accusations of idolatry against Paul; for his use of pagan
poets in e.g. Acts 17, see Sandnes, Homer, pp. 205–08.
licly in a way which makes it meaningful to compare him with Greek philosophers,
and whether he therefore somehow acted as a Greek speaker in a Greek setting.
Neither Acts nor Paul’s letters give the impression that this was a scene frequently
enacted by Paul; it appears randomly. If, however, we take seriously the impact of
recent research on Paul and his Hellenistic context, this suggests that Paul on some
occasions went public with his preaching, and probably also occasionally found the
market-place an appropriate place for it.48
Making his way through the Roman Empire, Paul left house-churches in his
wake.49 Acts pictures Paul’s mission as having the synagogues as its point of depar-
ture, and only later — often owing to conflicts — private homes. Paul did not cease
being a missionary — even in terms of reaching out to non-believers — when his
mission became domestic. For instance, 1 Cor. 14.23-25 assumes the presence of
non-believers within Christian worship.50 We have no information on how Paul
acted in a domestic setting with unbelievers from the neighborhood present. How
the dictum of 1 Corinthians 9 guided his performance we simply do not know. We
do know, however, that precisely the situation described in 1 Cor. 14.23-25 forms the
climax of his argument in 1 Corinthians (see p. 129): building-up, common benefit,
supreme good; all lead to the aim of incorporating new believers. There is thus a close
connection between the dictum of 1 Corinthians 9 and the domestic and missional
setting assumed in ch. 14.
The complexity of the spaces within which Paul’s “gospelling” work took place
corresponds to the flexibility announced in 1 Corinthians 9. The sources on his
activity in these spaces also underline the asymmetry pointed out above. There is
certainly less agora than synagogue, and the latter is also a place of conflict, lead-
ing Paul to continue his mission in private houses. This picture discloses a mixed
identity in which the Jewish roots are strong, but where, owing to conflicts, there is
a primary domestic setting in which the in-Christ identity was more fully expressed.
Considerable spatial asymmetry in Paul’s accommodatory practice is therefore to
be noted.
B. Adaptability — for Paul and not for Peter? Galatians 2.11-14 and
Acts 16.3
The role of the Antiochian incident (Galatians 2) in the history of interpretation is
immense; I here restrict myself to commenting upon its relevance to the question of
Paul’s accommodatory mission practice. At first sight this is a halakhic dispute about
suitable dining companions. At Antioch Paul abandoned dietary rules and enjoyed a
48. For a presentation of Paul and place, see S. K. Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private
Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26 (1984), pp. 59–82.
49. See K. O. Sandnes, A New Family. Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with
Cross-Cultural Comparisons (Bern: Peter Lang 1994), pp. 93–111, and R. W. Gehring, House Church
and Mission. The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
2004).
50. See J. P. Dickson, Mission Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities
(WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003), pp. 293–302. Stowers, “Status,” pp. 65–70, demonstrates that
private homes were used for public teaching in the ancient world.
common table with Gentile Christians, thus living like a Gentile among them (v. 14).51
Peter followed Paul’s example until “some from James” appeared, demanding that
dietary rules should be upheld. By necessity this means withdrawal from commensal-
ity with Gentile believers; and accordingly Peter and other Jews present withdrew.
Paul calls this action hypocrisy.
But did not Peter here live up to the standards of 1 Cor. 9.19-23, “becoming all
things to all people”? Elsewhere Paul argues that circumcision (Gal. 5.6; 6.15; 1 Cor.
7.18-9; Rom. 2.25-9) and dietary rules (1 Cor. 8.8; Rom. 14.6, 20) were matters of
indifference. This allows Paul to vacillate in his mission practice in these questions.
Why cannot Peter also vacillate? The text fully demonstrates the difficulty of making
Paul’s dictum a regulation for life within the same church of mixed participants.52 In
such a situation this principle is either reduced to working only for an initial period,
until Paul’s vision of a church of Jews and Gentile alike takes root (Gal. 3.28),53 or it
is reduced to a situation of mutual acceptance and tolerance.
The key to Paul’s reaction is, I think, to be found in his blaming Peter for forcing
the Galatian Christians to i0oudai5zein (v. 14b). This evokes attempts to make Jewish
proselytes out of Paul’s converts. By “being compelled” to circumcision, Paul aligns
his vocabulary with that of Jewish proselytism forced upon Gentiles.54 The mention
of fear for the Jews adds to this impression. We do not know, of course, if this is an
adequate description of Paul’s opponents in Galatia, but Paul makes use of language
taken from militant proselytism to describe them polemically.
By giving in to the demand that Gentiles must live according to strict halakhic
rules, Peter thereby betrays the principle of accommodation. Strict halakhic practices
now become a necessary identity marker; faith in Christ is no longer sufficient.55 Paul
speaks from the conviction of “subidentities in a nested hierarchy of identity of which
being in Christ is the primary.”56 The distinction made by William S. Campbell is
helpful for understanding this crucial text in Paul’s theology. Accommodation applies
to the sub-identities only. Accommodation will by necessity be asymmetrical, simply
because it cannot abandon the sub-identities involved. When a Jewish sub-identity is
forced upon his Gentile believers, the distinction between primary and sub-identity
contributes to an adequate understanding of what Paul saw as jeopardized, and why
51. Indeed, a matter of dispute; see e.g. Acts 11.3.

52. Rightly pointed out by E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (London: SCM Press
1983), pp. 179–90.
53. This is no extinguishing of sub-identities, as 1 Cor. 7.17-24 makes clear. The situation in which
one is called is still in force, albeit relativized; see W. S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian
Identity (London, New York: T&T Clark 2008), pp. 91–92.
54. Cf. Gal. 2.3; 6.12; Est. 8.17LXX; Bell. 2.454, 63; cf. Juvenal Sat. 14.96-106. See P. Borgen,
“Militant and Peaceful Proselytism and Christian Mission,” in idem, Early Christianity and Hellenistic
Judaism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996), pp. 45–69.
55. Paul probably reasons according to a territorial demand as well. The agreement reached according
to Gal. 2.7 gives Paul the power of definition in this area.
56. Campbell, Paul, p. 157. Campbell’s distinction is, in my view, more adequate than D. A. Hagner,
“Paul as a Jewish Believer — According to His Letters” in Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in
Jesus, pp. 96–120, who says that Paul reduced his Jewish identity to a matter of mere convenience and
habit.
he employed his strongest theological polemics. Furthermore, this distinction helps us

understand why, in other instances, Paul reacts differently, and why he accommodated
more according to Jews than Gentiles in his ministry.
This is why Paul opens the letter (Gal. 1.6-10) in a way that echoes biblical
traditions of false prophecy. Making Jewish proselytes of the Gentile believers is to
Paul tantamount to mixing Jewish identity with in-Christ identity, and this triggers
traditional polemics against false prophets.57 Clearly, accommodation had certain
limits for Paul, in terms of both doctrine and morality. This is seen also in 1 Cor.
10.14-22, the immediate context of the missionary maxim.58 Food, sex, and idolatry
are the recurring questions addressed when Paul discusses limits of accommodation.
In matters of food, he practiced a flexibility not found in the two other issues.59
With regard to Paul’s mission practice, Gal. 2.11-14 informs us, albeit indirectly,
that Paul when among Gentiles did not follow strict halakhic rules; he fitted in with
circumstances. Paul appears flexible in terms of sub-identities, but firm on the ques-
tion of the primary Christ-identity. Read in the light of Gal. 4.12 (gi&nesqe w9j e0gw&,
o3ti ka)gw\ w9j u9mei=j), clearly echoing 1 Cor. 9.19-23, this is the principle of accom-
modation in practice. It implies that — in spite of asymmetry and rhetoric hyberbole
— 1 Corinthians 9 is relevant to fleshing out Paul’s missionary stance.
According to Acts 16.3, Paul took care that Timothy was circumcised before he
embarked upon their joint mission. The authenticity of this text has been seriously
questioned. Some Galatian texts make that perfectly understandable. Reading Acts
16.1-4 in the light of Paul’s conviction that circumcision is nothing and in the light of
1 Cor. 9.19-23 throws serious doubt, however, on the old critical consensus.60 These
texts provide a more relevant background against which to interpret Acts 16.3 than
do Gal. 2.11-14 and 5.2, since Paul in Galatians is fiercely fighting those who tried to
make the Galatians become Jewish proselytes. There is no such attempt in Acts 16,
nor any mention of fear for the Jews. The difference between Gal. 5.2 and Acts 16.3
is that the first text is concerned with primary identity, whereas the latter is about
57. See K. O. Sandnes, Paul — One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1991), pp. 70–73.
58. Cf. 2 Cor. 6.14-7.2, albeit the authenticity is disputed.
59. S. C. Barton, “Food Rules, Sex Rules and the Prohibition of Idolatry. What’s the Connection?”
in idem (ed.), Idolatry. False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (New York, London:
T&T Clark 2007), pp. 141–62.
60. For the critical stance see Ph. Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts” in L. E. Keck and J. L.
Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts. Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (London: SPCK 1968),
pp. 33–50. Vielhauer’s view depends on a certain “Lutheran” perspective emphasizing Paul’s abandonment
of his Jewish faith. Once Paul’s Jewish identity is recognized, as it is after the Damascus event as well,
the critical view on Acts 16.3 appears in a new light. G. Bornkamm, “The Missionary Stance of Paul in
1 Corinthians 9 and in Acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 194–207, argues that Paul could not possibly have
circumcised Timothy since this act meant so much to the Jews. Bornkamm assumes that Paul stood against
Jewish Christianity in every way. This is to deny the fact that a majority embraced the Apostolic Decree,
according to both Galatians 2 and Acts 15. Bornkamm’s view owes more to theology than to history. Paul
certainly made himself vulnerable to accusations of hypocritical vacillation, but this is precisely where
1 Cor. 9.19-23 leads us if taken seriously. It is a dictum on the edge of self-giving love and “man-pleasing.”
a sub-group identity. Timothy’s in-Christ identity is affirmed in his being called a

disciple (v. 1) and in his position among the believers (v. 2).
The circumcision of Timothy is noted in passing by Luke; not much information
can therefore be gleaned from it. The text, however, implies accommodation of hala-
khic practices which Paul did not always observe. It is, therefore, not surprising that
to many Church Fathers Acts 16.3 is a much-cited example of Paul’s inconsistency
as announced in 1 Corinthians 9.61 The text gives three reasons for Paul’s action.
He wants to have Timothy as a co-worker; he does it to avoid putting obstacles in
the way of the Jews (cf. Acts 21.17-26);62 and everyone knew that Timothy’s father
was63 a Greek. Without compulsion, Paul takes a step not even suggested by the
Apostolic Decree, namely to circumcise. The text is not explicit on whether Timothy
is viewed as a Gentile or a Jew; his mother was Jewish, however. It appears obvious,
nonetheless, that some would have considered him a Jew not yet circumcised. Paul
adapts himself to their view by having Timothy circumcised. Once again, Paul’s
asymmetrical accommodation appears. Clearly, there were many Gentiles in the area.
Why did Paul not accommodate them, rather than choose the perspective of Jews
living there instead? The answer is that Paul throughout accommodated his Jewish
roots and heritage more easily than Gentile and Greek circumstances.64
V. Conclusion
First Corinthians 9.19-23 is certainly a key text for any discussion of Paul as a mis-
sionary. The strategy announced here is more complex than often assumed.65 The
symmetrical-sounding rhetoric of being as a Jew to Jews and as a Gentile to Gentiles
is from a historical point of view exaggerated; it is to be judged as hyperbolic rhetoric.
It is not “mere rhetoric,” however. The text is a strong reminder of the Christological
motivation of Paul’s mission. His missionary effort mirrored the self-giving love of
Christ, and therefore manifested itself as altruism. This was how Paul wanted it to be.
Paul’s mission, however, was hardly as flexible and accommodatory as
1 Corinthians 9 might indicate, if taken in isolation. His practice was clearly asym-
metrical, adapting himself and his preaching more easily to Jews and the synagogue
than to the Gentiles. Judging from his claim to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal.
1.15-16a) we have only glimpses of his becoming a Gentile to Gentiles.
First Corinthians 9.19-23 urges flexibility for the sake of the gospel. When put
into practice, however, it seems to me that this flexibility primarily worked for an
initial period before Paul’s vision of a church uniting Jews and Gentiles took shape
61. See Mitchell, “Accommodation.”

62. It seems to me that Luke underestimates Paul’s distinction between a primary in-Christ identity
and a Jewish sub-identity.
63. The imperfect tense (u9ph=rxen) suggests that the father was now dead.
64. Similarly, J. Jervell, Die Apostelgechichte (KEKNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998),
pp. 413–15.
65. E. J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission Vol. 2 (Downers Grove, IL. and Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press and Apollos 2004), pp. 953–60, gives a lengthy discussion of this text, but the complexity
of this mission principle is not sufficiently addressed.
(1 Cor. 12.13; Gal. 3.28). Once that vision gradually materialized, his strategy proved
impossible. In the context of mixed churches, Jewish culture and traditions were
given priority.
To put it plainly, there is more accommodation according to Jewish tradition than
Gentile, although Paul occasionally spoke in public, maybe even in the market-place.
His Jewish heritage provided him with numerous examples of Jews adapting to
life among Gentiles (e.g. Joseph and Daniel). These examples primarily served the
purpose of survival or career advancement. Paul’s aim was to win Gentiles; hence
it is likely that he pushed accommodation and flexibility significantly further. The
examples given in relevant sources are, on the one hand, that he circumcised Timothy,
and, on the other, that he cited pagan poets with approval.
The book of Acts pictures Paul in a way which adds significance to the dic-
tum of 1 Corinthians 9. The more Acts is ignored, the more “mere rhetoric”
1 Corinthians 9 becomes. The more Acts is taken into account, the more “real”
1 Corinthians 9 becomes. In three fundamental ways Acts corroborates the implica-
tions of 1 Corinthians 9. First, Paul speaks regularly in the synagogues. He travels to
Jerusalem to celebrate Jewish Pentecost (Acts 20.16), and he circumcises Timothy.
Second, he converses in the agora. He gives a speech where pagan poets are cited,
thus aligning himself with persuasive Greek style. Third, Acts witnesses to the dif-
ficulties inherent in living according to the dictum. Paul constantly ran into difficulties
with the synagogues; he is ridiculed in Athens. His performance there even earned
him accusations of being an idolater.
Did Paul become “all things to all people”? It was his aim to do so; in an asym-
metrical way he did succeed in making it a relevant description of Paul the missionary.
His adaptability applied to the level of sub-identities, not to the primary in-Christ
identity. The levels of sub-identities are, according to Paul, negotiable, and therefore
owed to accommodatory practice, but sub-identities such as gender, ethnicity, culture,
social background, etc. were probably more decisive for his mission than Paul was
ready to admit.
11
THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE CONTROLLING DYNAMIC IN PAUL’S
R OLE AS MISSIONARY TO THE THESSALONIANS
Trevor J. Burke
To what did Paul attribute the progress and expansion of his missionary enterprise?
This question has been most recently answered by calling attention to the primacy of
Paul’s preaching and the vital role this has to play in the founding of his communities.
L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, for example, in his important monograph Paul the Missionary
states: “As a result of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, new communities developed
consisting of Jews and pagans alike. He was called and urged by God to proclaim
Christ.”1 Peerbolte goes on to conclude: “Throughout his ministry Paul considered
the proclamation of the gospel, the Christ event, to be his prime task.”2 There is little
doubt about the importance of Paul’s preaching as missionary — the apostle is careful
to emphasize this in his founding of the church at Thessalonica: “our gospel came to
you . . . with words” (1 Thess. 1.5a). Indeed, a little later in the same letter the apostle
reminds his converts how “you received the word of God, which you heard from
us” (2.13). Paul also explains the significance of the preached word to the church at
Corinth, another community he had founded, as follows: “I proclaimed to you the
testimony about God . . . for I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except
Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2.4a).
While it is clear the preached word played a primary role in Paul’s missionary
endeavor, what has been overlooked in current research in this area is the role of
the Holy Spirit — the Spirit has seemingly little or no part to play.3 This oversight,
1. L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary (CBET 34; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), p. 255.
2. Peerbolte, Paul, p. 254.
3. Two other recent monographs which do well in addressing Paul’s role as missionary but where
the Holy Spirit is also overlooked are Paul Barnett, Paul, Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008); Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Apollos: InterVarsity
Press, 2008). Similar neglect is also evident in other works where there is a chapter or chapters treating this
dimension of Paul’s ministry a see Andreas J. Köstenberger and Peter O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of
the Earth (NSBT, 11; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s
Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001). One important exception
to this is the insightful essay by Don N. Howell to which I am indebted and which was a springboard for
this essay, “Mission in Paul’s Epistles: Genesis, Pattern, and Dynamics,” in W. J. Larkin and J. F. Williams
(eds.), Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, 6th ed. (ASMS, 27; New York: Orbis,
2003), pp. 63–91.
11. The Holy Spirit as the Controlling Dynamic 143
what one scholar has described as “a major lacuna in Pauline missions studies,”4 is
surprising first for the fact that in the above mentioned texts Paul also writes: “Our
gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit
and deep conviction” (e.g. 1 Thess. 1.5b). Similarly, in 1 Cor. 2.4b Paul asserts: “My
message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a dem-
onstration of the Spirit’s power” (cf. Gal. 3.3). This neglect, moreover, is remarkable
for a second reason, namely, that at the beginning of the twentieth century and in a
ground-breaking work, Roland Allen, the British missionary, argued that Paul’s entire
missionary enterprise was driven and governed by the Holy Spirit.5 Allen’s work,
to be sure, was mostly based on a reading of the Acts of the Apostles, a secondary
source to the Pauline corpus, and more focused on missionary praxis than theology;
nevertheless his thesis was a healthy corrective and, according to Eckhard Schnabel,
“still needs to be read in the twenty-first century.”6 Unfortunately, Allen’s insights
have largely gone unheeded in recent Pauline mission studies.
The aim of this essay is to address this neglect and in so doing we shall consider
1 Thessalonians, the earliest extant letter of Paul, where the word pneu/ma occurs on
five occasions (1.5, 6; 4.8; 5.19, 23), four of which refer to the “Holy Spirit” and
one to the human spirit (5.23). Though these incidences are not numerous what is
more significant to note is that the Spirit, or rather the role and work of the Spirit,
functions as an inclusio or as “book-ends” to the whole epistle — Spirit-matters are
discussed by Paul at the beginning (1.5-6) and conclusion of the letter (5.19-21). We
will consider both these texts as well as the important reference to the Spirit at the
mid-point of the letter (4.3-8), and two other less obvious allusions (i.e. 2.13 and
4.9) where the Holy Spirit, I believe, is also in view and which merit discussion.
The cumulative weight of all these usages demonstrates that the apostle presents a
“coherent understanding of the role of the Spirit in 1 Thessalonians.”7
4. Howell, “Mission in Paul’s Epistles,” p. 83.

5. Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? A Study on the Church in the Four
Provinces (London: Robert Scott Roxburgh House, 1912).
6. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, p. 13. Oddly enough, Schnabel after providing a eulogy of Allen’s
work spends almost 500 pages neglecting the importance of the work of the Spirit! On the other hand, he
devotes over 50 pages addressing “The Missionary Message of the Apostle Paul.”
7. Victor Paul Furnish, “The Sprit in 2 Thessalonians,” in Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker,
and Stephen C. Barton (eds.), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honour of James D. G.
Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 229–41 (230).
I. Paul’s Spirit-Empowered Proclamation as Missionary

and the Work of the “Soteriological Spirit”8 in the
Conversion of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 1.5-6)
Karl Donfried has rightly observed that Paul writes his first letter to the “Thessalonians
. . . first and foremost . . . as a missionary,”9 where the earliest references to the Spirit
are in 1.5, 6, the opening thanksgiving10 section of the epistle (1.2-10). Here Paul
repeatedly reminds the Thessalonians of the evidence of their conversion, the triad
of graces of faith, hope, and love (1.3) in their lives. In v. 4 Paul provides the first of
two reasons for giving thanks, namely that the Thessalonians have been elected by
God. The second reason11 is “because our gospel did not come to you in word only but
with power and with the Holy Spirit and with much conviction” (v. 5). The emphasis
in the early part of this verse is on Paul’s proclamation of the gospel rather than the
Thessalonians’ reception of it,12 where he states “our gospel did not come to you in
word only” (to. eu0agge,lion h`mw/n ou0k e0genh,qh ei0j u`ma/j e0n lo,gw| mo,non, v. 5). Paul
here introduces the first part of a correlative construction (ou0k . . . e0n lo,gw| mo,non
which serves the purpose of underscoring that the messsage did come via the apostle’s
mouth, that is, “by word”13 or through his proclaiming it to them. Paul was the human
conduit or mouthpiece whom God used to preach the good news to the Thessalonians.
In v. 5, however, and in the latter half of the above correlative construction,
Paul also goes on to say how his proclamation came not in word only avlla. kai. evn
duna,mei kai. evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. (evn) plhrofori,a| pollh/| (“but also with power,
with the Holy Spirit, and with much conviction,” 1.5b). Both the proclaimed word
and the dynamic Spirit play indispensable roles in Paul’s message as missionary, a
matter about which he would have been well aware given that the Old Testament —
the apostle’s Scriptures — provides ample evidence of the Spirit at work through
the prophetic word. For example, the Spirit is the dynamic power in creating (e.g.
Ps. 104.30), leading (e.g. Num. 11.17), revealing (e.g. Isa. 11.2), and as a presence
(e.g. Ps. 139.7). However, by far “the largest category for the Spirit in the Old
Testament relates especially [to] speaking forth of the word of God” (e.g. 1 Sam.
8. I owe the expression “soteriological Spirit” to Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The
Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 846. Although I use this expres-
sion in relation to the initial conversion experience of the Thessalonians, salvation is a holistic term and
need not be restricted to this alone but is the entire saving process (e.g. sanctification etc.) until the Day
of Jesus Christ.
9. Karl P. Donfried and I. Howard Marshall, The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 79. All Paul’s letters were written in the context of him working
as an itinerant missionary; see Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary
Theology: The Missionary Reality of the Early Church and the Theology of the First Theologians,” SNTS
unpub. paper, 2005, pp. 1–27, esp. p. 24.
10. First Thessalonians is unique among the Pauline letters for the number of thanksgivings — in
addition to this one there are two others in 2.13 and 3.9 respectively.
11. Others understand the o[ti functioning epexegetically.
12. Furnish, “The Spirit,” p. 230 n. 6. In v. 6 the emphasis is on the Thessalonians reception of the
good news.
13. I take this as an instrumental dative.
10.6, 10; Ezek. 2.2).14 These two, moreover, the Spirit and the spoken or prophetic
word, are working in tandem in Micah whom, we are told was “filled with power, with
the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgres-
sion, to Israel his sin” (Mic. 3.8). Paul clearly stands in line with this Old Testament
tradition, for the Spirit is none other than the “Spirit of Prophecy” at work in Paul’s
ministry in a number of important ways in this letter. As we proceed, I hope to show
that the work of the Spirit is variegated and many-sided and in evidence in Paul’s
initial proclamation/revelation (1.5) and conversion/salvation of the Thessalonians
(1.6), and continues to be at work through the word (2.13) as well as in the ongoing
sanctification (4.3-8), instruction (4.9-12), and worship (5.19-21) of the community.15
A. Paul’s Spirit-Empowered Proclamation

As noted, the Spirit is active through Paul’s proclamation, a point made clear in the
second part of the correlative statement in v. 5b a “but also with power, with the
Holy Spirit, and with much conviction (avlla. kai . evn duna,mei kai. evn pneu,mati a`gi,w|
kai. (evn) plhrofori,a| pollh/|).” This construction, moreover, suggests that Paul is
not playing his proclamation of the word over against the work of the Holy Spirit.
Rather, he seems to lay a greater stress on the latter half of the construction for while
the particle avlla. is usually understood as a strong adversative, this is “weakened,”
especially when it is preceded by ouv mo,non.16 So, rather than there being a simple
contrast, the latter half of this construction is actually accentuated and emphasizes
the role and empowering work of the Spirit by bringing the whole verse to a climax.17
A similar point is in evidence in the next chapter of the letter where Paul employs
another correlative construction (ouv movnon . . . avlla. kai. 2.8; cf. 1.8) with equal
effect and where once again he is not so much contrasting the proclamation of the
gospel over against the sharing of his own life with the Thessalonians (ouv mo,non to.
14. Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008), p. 432 (emphasis added).
15. Archie Hui, “The Spirit of Prophecy and Pauline Pneumatology,” TynB 50.1 (1999), pp. 93–115
(110). Here I am working with Hui’s broad definition of the phrase “Spirit of Prophecy” (p. 105). T. Paige,
“Holy Spirit,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his
Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 404–13 (409), rightly makes the connection when
he states that “the Spirit accompanies his initial missionary preaching.” P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission
in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical Theological Analysis, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), p. 41,
writes: “The gospel is fulfilled not simply when it is preached in the world but when it is dynamically and
effectively proclaimed in the power of the Spirit.” Unfortunately, neither Paige nor O’Brien elaborate any
further on the importance of the Spirit in Paul’s missionary preaching or how the Spirit continues to be at
work in other ways in Paul’s communities.
16. J. Moulton, W. F. Howard, N. Turner, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, vol. 3 (Edinburgh,
1908–63), p. 329.
17. E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, auf der Grundlage von K. Brugmann’s Griechischer
Grammatik, 3 vols. (München, 1960), p. 633. Schwyzer states regarding the formula ouv mono,n . . . avlla.
kai, that there is “nicht . . . ein Gegensatz anzunehmen,” p. 633. BDF, 448, 6 also comment in relation to
the latter half of the correlative construction that it is “used to introduce an additional point in an emphatic
way.” A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (New York,
1947), p. 1185, also contends that the construction draws attention to “something new, but not essentially
in contrast.” BDAG, “avlla,,” regard the construction being used “with ascensive force,” p. 44.
euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/ avlla. kai. ta.j e`autw/n yuca,j, “not only the gospel but our lives
as well,” 2.8). Rather, the emphasis lies with the latter half of the verse and espe-
cially focuses on Paul’s heavy personal investment and sacrificial living while he was
among the Thessalonians. There is good reason for Paul stressing his close personal
involvement with the Thessalonians, given the fact that he had been so suddenly and
forcibly removed from them. In brief, the latter half of the correlative construction
in 2.8 is intensified.18
Likewise, in 1.5 “Paul cannot mean to express a contrast with the formula ouv
mo,non . . . avlla. kai. but only an intensification”19 (cf. 2 Cor. 8.10-11, 21-22; 9.12-13;
Phil. 1.29-30; 2.27). Thus, Abraham J. Malherbe rightly concludes in this regard that
the correlative construction “expresses a difference between the two members of the
expression, with the stress . . . on the second, positive manner.”20 That is to say, there
is a focus in v. 5 and on the preaching of Paul but there appears to be an even greater
emphasis on the effectiveness of that proclamation brought about by the empowering
the Spirit which adds “an extra dimension to his preaching.”21 In sum, the work of
the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul’s proclamation is where the real center of
gravity lies in v. 5.
This is further supported by the way that Paul builds on this Spirit-empowered
proclamation with the three prepositional phrases that follow: evn duna,mei kai. evn
pneu,mati a`givw| kai. (evn) plhrofori,a. It is best to see these phrases in parallel:22
“in/with power and in/with the Holy Spirit and in/with deep conviction.” Taking
them serially, the first may be referring to the power or “miracle” at work in causing
the pagan Thessalonians to believe the gospel,23 but this is unlikely for in v. 5 Paul is
mostly describing his role in bringing the good news to the church and it is not until
v. 6 that he goes on to describe the effect this had on his converts. The “power” Paul
is referring to is most likely the “signs and wonders” (cf. Rom. 15.19) or miracles
which accompanied his preaching and authenticates his ministry. In other words,
“word” (v. 5a) and “deed” (v. 5b) go hand in hand.24 By specifically emphasizing the
“power” at work as the evidence of a work of God, Paul is also distancing himself
from those itinerant, silver-tongued rhetoricians who earned their living by showing
up in town and using their fine gifts of oratory only to quickly disappear without
trace. Such sophists left with nothing to show but money in their own pocket; Paul’s
18. D. W. Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated
by 1-2 Thessalonians and Acts 17: 2-4 (NovTSup 40; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), p. 159.
19. Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason, p. 159; Michael W. Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NIVAC;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 49 n. 7, also writes in regard to the correlative construction: “The ‘not
simply . . . but also’ here indicates intensification rather than contrast” (emphasis in original).
20. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB, 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 111 (emphasis added).
21. Malherbe, Thessalonians, p. 112.
22. The Greek supports this: kai evn . . . kai evn . . . kai evn.
23. D. E. H. Whiteley, Thessalonians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 36. Whiteley makes
this point based on the last prepositional phrase (“with full conviction”) which he takes as referring to the
Thessalonians.
24. See the discussion in Graham Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among the Early
Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), p. 70.
proclamation as missionary, however, came with lasting effects and with the Spirit’s
power to change lives.25
The second prepositional phrase evn pneu,mati a`gi,w adds to the first and makes clear
that the power at work through Paul’s preaching was none other than the dynamic,
life-changing and personal presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul’s proclamation was no
mere speech act; it was that, to be sure, but it was much more than that — it was also
a pneumatological event. Paul never puts his confidence in the power or persuasion
of his own words (cf. 1 Cor. 2.4) and this is evident by the means of the powerful
work of the Holy Spirit.
The final prepositional phrase “in/with full conviction” could either refer to the
full confidence or the conviction Paul had in the gospel message to effect its intended
results,26 or the effect which Paul’s preaching had on his hearers.27 Even though the
focus in v. 5 is for the most part on Paul which in v. 6 shifts to the Thessalonians, it
is possible both are in view in the latter half of v. 5: Paul’s assurance of the message
he delivered was none other than the convicting and powerful work of the Spirit that
resulted in the Thessalonians’ conversion, a point fleshed out more fully in v. 6, to
which we now turn.
B. The “Soteriological Spirit” and the Conversion of the Thessalonians

The vital role of the Spirit in Paul’s proclamation is further developed in v. 6 where
he moves on to explicitly discuss the conversion of the Thessalonians and by so
doing provides the second explanation regarding how he knows the Thessalonians
have been chosen: dexa,menoi to.n lo,gon evn qli,yei pollh/| meta. cara/j pneu,matoj
a`gi,ou (“when you received the word with much affliction you received it with joy
given by the Holy Spirit”). The adverbial (aorist) participial (dexa,menoi) is best taken
temporally,28 indicating the moment of the Thessalonians’ conversion. It is no surprise
given that Paul is no longer present with the church that he should devote consider-
able space in the letter where he gives thanks for the work of grace in the lives of the
Thessalonians (e.g. 1.3-4). This is none other than the outworking or the reality of
their conversion experience. Paul in v. 6 states that they had responded positively by
receiving the word which takes us back to v. 5, but more negatively they have also
experienced their fair share of opposition at their conversion just as Paul had himself
in his mission to them.29 Suffering for the Thessalonians is one side of the coin of con-
version, adversity which should not be merely construed as emotional disturbance;30
25. See F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco, TX: Word, 1982), p. 27.
26. e.g. E. Best, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A&C Black,
1986), p. 75.
27. e.g. Bruce, Thessalonians, p. 15.
28. Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Exeter: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1990), p. 81. The participle could also be under-
stood concessively, instrumentally, or as a participle of manner.
29. Wanamaker, Epistles, p. 81: “The Thessalonians’ imitation of Paul and the Lord consisted in their
experience of great distress . . . at the time of their conversion.”
30. See BDAG, p. 457; contra Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophical
Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 48
rather, the afflictions his converts experienced were more multivalent and included
social, familial, and religious dislocation which would have been their lot when they
first turned from their idolatrous past to trust the living and true God (1.9).31 But while
suffering was part and parcel of the Thessalonians when they first believed, the other
side of the coin was joy, with which suffering is mingled (qli,yei pollh/| meta. cara/j),
a joy which is divine in origin32 since it is derived from the same Holy Spirit who was
at work in their conversion in the first place. The significance of this for this infant
community is that in a letter generally regarded by most scholars to have been the first
penned by Paul to a community, from whom he has been forcibly separated, he not
only describes his empowered proclamation of the gospel but especially emphasizes
the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation. This is so because the pneuma of whom Paul
speaks here is none other than “the soteriological Spirit.”33 As Fee rightly points out
when commenting on 1.6: “the actualization or appropriation of the saving work in
the lives of believers results from the effective working of the Spirit.”34
Certainly, salvation is in Christ and comes about as a result of his death and
resurrection a which are the objective realities of the Christian faith. There are also
occasions where Paul more explicitly describes salvation in terms of the Spirit and
where he equates conversion or salvation with the Spirit. In Galatians, for example,
Paul launches a scathing attack on his converts with a number of rhetorically sting-
ing questions by reminding them of their good start to the Christian faith (3.1-5).
Significantly, the evidence of their conversion is not put in terms of his asking “were
you saved, or justified?” but by inquiring: “did you receive the Spirit by observing
the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with
the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?” And in Romans Paul puts
it starkly in these terms: “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not
belong to Christ” (Rom. 8.9). The saving significance of the Spirit is put even more
explicitly elsewhere by Paul in Tit. 3.5, where he writes of how “God saved us
through the washing of rebirth and renewal, by the Holy Spirit.”35 Here the apostle
is not thinking of two events, the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy
Spirit, but of a single experience: dia. loutrou/ paliggenesi,aj kai. avnakainw,sewj
pneu,matoj a`gi,ou (“washing of rebirth and renewal, by the Holy Spirit,” Tit. 3.5).
The prepositional phrase is the key in this verse where the cleansing Paul describes
31. See Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTS, 183;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 230; Trevor J. Burke, Family Matters: A Socio-Historical
Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians (JSNTS 247; London: T&T Clark, 2003), pp. 170–75.
32. This is my understanding of the genitive pneu,matoj a`gi,ou.
33. This is the title of chapter 14 of Fee’s magnum opus, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 846. See
also Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996),
p. 108. For a discussion of another neglected soteriological term, namely, “adoption,” see Trevor J. Burke,
“Adopted as Sons: The Missing Piece in Pauline Soteriology,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek
and Roman (PAST, 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 259–87; Trevor J. Burke, Adopted into God’s Family:
Exploring a Pauline Metaphor (NSBT, 22; Apollos: Downers Grove, 2006), pp. 32–45.
34. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 47.
35. Space does not permit me to discuss the nest of grammatical issues involved; see the clear discus-
sion by Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006),
p. 783. Also Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pp. 880–82, comes to the same conclusion.
is through or by the Holy Spirit, leading Philip Towner to rightly conclude that the
apostle is underscoring “the present reality of the salvation event by describing it in
terms of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”36
In addition and by way complementing these texts the Spirit also plays an import-
ant salvific role in making the realities of conversion known subjectively to believers.
As we have seen, the Thessalonian Christians had experienced suffering and joy when
they first received the word which Paul had proclaimed to them, which are evidence
of their conversion and, as regards the latter, that the soteriological Spirit is at work
in their lives, a point Gordon Fee rightly notes in regard to 1 Thess.1.6: “the Holy
Spirit is the one who effects salvation experientially, effectively appropriating the
benefits of Christ’s saving work to their lives.”37 We do not often think of the Spirit
in soterological categories, but for Paul “getting saved” means receiving the Holy
Spirit and while the Spirit’s role in salvation in 1 Thess. 1.6 may not be as objective
or as explicit as the texts in Galatians or Titus, this does not negate the subjective,
experiential reality and salvific function that the pneuma has to play.
II. The Ongoing Work of the Spirit through the

Word among the Thessalonians (2.13)
If the empowering Spirit is at work in Paul’s initial proclamation and the conversion
of the Thessalonians to Christ, the pneuma continues to be at work through the word in
these nascent converts. Paul thus provides another reason for giving thanks: “because
when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as
the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who
believe” (2.13). Though there is no mention of the Spirit in this text this does not
exclude any pneumatological reference as there is an overlap between what Paul says
here and the text we considered earlier (1.5-6). Here Paul again in 2.13a mentions his
converts’ response to the gospel where the emphasis is on the two-fold fact that the
Thessalonians were not only aware of the human proclamation by Paul but also of
its divine derivation and received it as God’s word. More importantly, it is this divine
word (lo,gon qeou/,38) that was actively at work among the believers after they had first
believed. How this took place Paul stops short of actually saying, nevertheless there
are clues from his other letters as to how this occurred. For instance, there are times
when Paul states that God is at work among believers (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.6; Phil. 2.13) but
there are other occasions when he employs the verb evnerge,w to speak of God working
in Christians through the Spirit (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.11; Eph. 3.16, 20).39 So while Paul
36. Towner, Letters, p. 783.

37. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 48 (emphasis added). Fee goes on to say in regard to the work
of the Spirit in salvation that “this reality also involves a clearly subjective, experiential appropriation
that results in some radical changes in the believer; and the Spirit is the absolutely crucial element for this
dimension of conversion” (p. 849, emphasis in original). Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission:
Paul and the Early Church, vol. 2 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1004), p. 1366, commentating on
this text also states: “Paul interprets conversion . . . as ‘a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.’”
38. It is better to take this as a subjective genitive, i.e. preceding from God, having God as is author.
39. G. K. Beale, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (IVPNTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 80.
may not elaborate on how this occurred, what he says here presupposes and builds
on his earlier comments about the Spirit empowering his proclaimed word and the
Thessalonians’ reception of it (1.5-6). In this respect, Karl Donfried makes clear in
his discussion of 2.13 that the word to which Paul is referring is nothing other than
the “Spirit-Filled Word,”40 where the gospel which Paul had earlier preached — the
human word — was also a divine word with a divine origin proclaimed in the power
of the Holy Spirit (1.5). As noted, this was also the word that the Thessalonians
received at their conversion in the face of adversity and suffering and with joy given
by the Holy Spirit (1.6). In 2.13b, however, there is a shift from the past for Paul is no
longer thinking of the Thessalonians’ initial response to his proclamation; rather, the
present tense of the verb (evnergei/tai) employed here characterizes God, who contin-
ues to work through his word by the Spirit in these young believers. Victor Furnish
and others are therefore right to conclude in regard to 2.13b that what Paul says here
“pre-supposes what he said about the Holy Spirit empowering the proclamation and
reception of the gospel. Moreover, his characterization of God’s word ‘working’
presumes that the Spirit’s activity among them is current and continuing.”41 The
ongoing work of the Spirit through the word in the Thessalonians leads logically to
our next text, 4.8.
III. The Empowering Spirit, the New Ethic for Missional Holiness
and Maturity — Paul’s Missionary Goals for His Converts (4.3-8)
First Thessalonians 4.1 begins the parenetic42 section of the epistle where Paul moves
on to exhort the Thessalonians of the necessity to live morally upright lives, where
in 4.8 he describes the first of two (cf. 4.9-12, see p. 154) ways by which the Holy
Spirit is at work in his converts (4.3-8). To grasp the significance of this, we need to
briefly consider the moral and ecclesial contexts.
In 4.3-8, Paul addresses the first of two issues (4.3-8 and 4.9-12) that have to do
with real moral deficiencies43 in the church. The former centers on sexual immorality
(4.3-8) and is surrounded by holiness terminology that not only pervades this pericope
but also the second half of the letter. Holiness language is used in the immediately
preceding transitus (3.11-13), which functions as a bridge between the first and
second parts of the letter. Here Paul’s prayer-wish for the Thessalonians is that God
“may . . . strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless (avme,mptouj) and holy
40. Donfried, Paul, p. 188.

41. Furnish, “The Spirit,” p. 231 (emphasis added). Holmes, Thessalonians, p. 82, also correctly
concludes on 2.13: “Paul is also confident that God’s word is currently ‘at work’ in the Thessalonians . . .
In light of 1.5 the work of the ‘word’ is . . . related to the ministry of the Holy Spirit.”
42. The phrase Loipo.n ou=n (4.1) should not be taken temporally (i.e. “Finally”) but rather inferentially:
“Now then” or “Therefore” brings out the sense. In other words, like Rom. 12.1, for example, Paul here
applies the theology he has already delineated in the earlier part of the letter.
43. See Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 51; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “How You Must Walk to
Please God: Holiness and Discipleship in 1 Thessalonians,” in Richard N. Longenecker (ed.), Patterns of
Discipleship in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 98–119; Burke, Family Matters,
pp. 177–79.
(a`giwsu,nh|) in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with
all his holy ones” (a`gi,wn, 3.13).
Paul continues this moral note in ch. 4 by exhorting his converts “to live” (lit. “to
walk” peripatei/n) “in order to please God” (cf. 2.12), which also has ethical impli-
cations for living a holy life.44 In 4.3-8, Paul’s strong opening assertion in v. 3 sits
like a banner over the pericope: “This is the will of God, your holiness (a`giasmo.j),”
which is immediately followed by a number of infinitival statements45 (vv. 3c, 4,
and 6) that further unpack what the divine will, in part,46 looks like. First, it means
to avoid sexual immorality (avpe,cesqai u`ma/j avpo. th/j pornei,aj, v. 3c). Second, holi-
ness means eivde,nai e[kaston u`mw/n to. e`autou/ skeu/oj kta/sqai evn a`giasmw/| kai. timh/|
(v. 4) where the term skeu/oj (v. 4) could be a reference to the “body,” the “male sex
organ,” or a “wife,” interpretations47 which also turn on whether the infinitive kta/sqai
is functioning ingressively (“to take or acquire”) or duratively (“to possess or con-
trol”). A discussion of this matter is beyond the scope of this essay, but what is clear
is that Paul is addressing a matter of moral urgency, which impacts those within and
without the community. It is “in this matter” (evn tw/| pra,gmati, v. 6),48 the matter of
sexual behavior, that the Thessalonians ought to conduct themselves “in holiness and
honor” (evn a`giasmw/| kai. timh//| v. 4). Moreover, living circumspectly is not a haphazard
affair but a divinely intentional one, for it is, says Paul, in keeping with the fact that
“God has not called you to uncleanness but to holiness” (ouv ga.r evka,lesen h`ma/j o`
qeo.j evpi.49 avkaqarsi,a| avll’ evn a`giasmw|). Failure to live right is also a rejection of the
revelatory instruction through the apostle (v. 8b)50 — Paul also took very seriously his
moral responsibilities as missionary to guide and teach his mainly Gentile converts,
which is nothing less than “the resocialization of conversion.”51 Verse 8 brings the
pericope to a conclusion with a strong inferential conjunction that serves the purpose
44. In v. 2 the Greek is stronger and contains the verb dei/ better known as the verb of “divine neces-
sity”: to. pw/j dei/ u`maj peripatei/n (lit. “how it is necessary for you to walk”).
45. The clutch of infinitives in vv. 3ff., avpe,cesqai (v. 3c), eivde,nai (v. 4), u/perbai,nein . . . pleonektei/n
(v. 6), could either be functioning appositionally or epexegetically to the independent statement in v. 3a:
“This is the will of God, your sanctification.”
46. The predicate use of qe,lhma should not be understood to mean the entire will of God (in toto) in
4.3-8, but merely one aspect of it; see Bruce, Thessalonians, pp. 81–82. In 5.16, Paul provides another
dimension of the divine will: “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstance; for this
is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”
47. See B. Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids/
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 112–18 for an informed discussion of the various views.
48. It is unlikely Paul is moving on to a different topic, one of business, in v. 6. First, it disrupts the
unity of the passage; second, Paul had earlier used the noun form pleonexi,a, 2.5) of the verb pleonekte,w to
mean “covetousness”; third, the two verbs in v. 6 are used in close association elsewhere in Paul to denote
fornication or impurity (e.g. 1 Cor. 5.10, 11).
49. The prepositions evpi. and evn are in opposition to the adversative conjunction avll’ and are a “marker
of object or purpose,” BDAG, p. 366. That is, God has not called the Thessalonians for the purpose of
uncleanness but for the purpose of holiness.
50. Beale, Thessalonians, p. 172.
51. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1983), p. 88. For more on the ethical importance of Paul as missionary see Schnabel,
Early, pp. 1372–74.
of summarizing the whole passage (4.3-8) and where the Holy Spirit has a vital role to
play: “Therefore”52 whoever rejects this (instruction), is not rejecting a human being
but “God who gives his Holy Spirit into us” (to.n qeo.n to.n (kai.) dido,nta to. pneu/ma
auvtou/ to. a[gion eivj u`ma/j, v. 8).
A second point in 4.3-8 is worthy of note before commenting specifically on the
significance of the Spirit in v. 8, which is that Paul here addresses a matter of profound
communal53 significance, evidenced by his use of the term “brother” (v. 6, to.n avdelfo.n
auvtou/) which sits at the heart of the passage. More specifically, the term “brother/s”
is the most important familial expression in 1 Thessalonians for it occurs no less than
five (out of a total of 19 in the letter54) occasions in ch. 4 (4.1, 6, 10 [×2] and 13). Paul
here is addressing a Christian brother who is part of God’s new household and who
is to conduct himself in such a way so as not to besmirch or tarnish the community’s
reputation in the eyes of outsiders, a normal social expectation of siblings in antiquity.
The word “brother,” moreover, is part and parcel of what Wayne Meeks calls the
“language of belonging” and sits in immediate juxtaposition to other terminology,
the “language of separation”55 in the letter. The latter is reflected more generally
in ch. 4 where Paul employs a variety of expressions to describe those who do not
belong to the community: he portrays them as “the outsiders” (tou.j e[xw) in v. 12 and
as “the rest who do not have hope” (oi` loipoi. oi` mh. e[contej evlpi,da) in v. 13. A third
description of such language is found in our passage where the apostle describes them
as “the Gentiles who do not know God” (ta. e[qnh ta. mh. eivdo,ta to.n qeo,n, v. 5). Paul
is stressing that the moral behavior of the Thessalonian brothers should be such that
it clearly distinguishes those who belong to God’s new household over against those
who are on the periphery of the community.
With these moral and communal contexts in view, Paul’s holiness language in
4.3-8 climaxes in v. 8 where he reminds his mostly gentile converts of what he expects
them to do in order to rise to these new behavioral standards as Christians. Having
instructed the Thessalonians to steer clear of sexual immorality, Paul proceeds to
inform them of how and why they are to do this, namely, because “God is the one
who gives his Holy Spirit into us” (to.n qeo.n to.n (kai.) dido,nta to. pneu/ma auvtou/ to.
a[gion eivj u/ma/j, v. 8). The durative, continuous force of the present participle (dido,nta)
is an aide-memoire for the Thessalonians that the same salvific Spirit who was so
powerfully active at the time of their conversion and in the establishing of the com-
munity continues to be available and at work in their midst. Paul again is no longer
thinking of the Thessalonians’ conversion, for as we noted in 1.5-6 he has addressed
52. BDAG, “toigarou/n,” p. 1009.

53. The communal emphasis is evident by the repeated use of the second-person plural pronoun: u`mw/n
in vv. 3-4, u`ma/j in vv. 3, and 8, and u`mi/n in v. 6.
54. Paul uses the term “brother/s” 19 times in total in the letter which is the highest incidence of any
Pauline epistle: 1.4; 2.1, 9, 14, 17; 3.2, 7; 4.1, 6, 10 (x2), 13; 5.1, 4, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27. From beginning
to end 1 Thessalonians breathes brotherly language; see Burke, Family Matters, pp. 163–75, for its usage
and function in the letter.
55. Meeks, First Urban Christians, pp. 85 and 94. If Paul were describing the conversion of the
Thessalonians we would have expected him to employ an aorist tense as he does in the previous verse
(v. 7, evka,lesen), but he does not; see Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 53.
this matter at the beginning of the letter.56 That the apostle is describing the present
situation is important particularly in light of the historical circumstances surround-
ing Paul’s establishing this church. For while Paul during his mission campaign in
Thessalonica may have been abruptly and painfully forced to leave his fledgling
community and as a consequence was desperate to return (cf. 2.17–3.5) to complete
the task he had begun, he writes to reassure the Thessalonians that no such thing has
happened with the Spirit — the Holy Spirit has not left them. Quite the contrary, the
Holy Spirit who was so at work when Paul was missioning among the Thessalonians
is the same Spirit whom God continues to give (dido,nta) them so that they might live
out the reality of their conversion experience. The present participle together with
the unusual and intensive expression — to. pneu/ma auvtou/ to. a[gion (lit. “his Spirit,
the Holy One”) — especially spells out to the Thessalonians that it is the Holy Spirit
who continues to enable them to overcome in the area of sexual morality and to
live circumspectly as members of God’s new family. Paul, moreover, states that the
Holy Spirit is “in you” (eivj u`ma/j) as a continuing transforming, life-changing power,
which not only brings to mind the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises in Ezek.
36.26, 27; 37.6, 14, but also represents an important advance on the old covenant: the
Spirit who was active intermittently during the old era is the same Spirit who now
resides within these neonate Christians in the last days. John Levison spells out the
significance of the Spirit in this text: “There may have been a radical conversion in
the past, and there may be the hope of resurrection in the future; but at the moment
the struggle for sexual purity is grounded in the ongoing gift of God’s holy spirit into
the inner being of believers.”57
The importance of the Holy Spirit for these Christian brothers and sisters as they
continue to live circumspectly is also important for the way in which their behavior
impacts those on the margins of the church. This latter aspect is crucial because in
keeping with the normal expectations of siblings in antiquity brothers (e.g. Plutarch,
Frat. Amor., 2/479A), the Thessalonian brothers and sisters were expected not to
behave in a manner that would besmirch the family name or bring it into disrepute.
As these siblings in Christ live sexually moral lives their conduct should distinguish
them from those who do not belong, namely, ta. e[qnh ta. mh. eivdo,ta to.n qeovn (“the
gentiles who do not know God,” v. 5). Such a distinct lifestyle would undoubtedly
impact those outside the community and it is precisely this counter-cultural or alter-
native lifestyle that would produce a missionary effect which is nothing less than
missional holiness.58
Paul’s emphasis on the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in this nascent Christian
community of siblings is profound and thoroughgoing and is all of a piece of his
56. Furnish, “The Spirit,” p. 231.

57. John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 266
(emphasis in original).
58. This manner of living before others is also I believe a in addition to “working with your own
hands” (4.11) a part and parcel of what John Dickson calls “adorning the gospel” and sets Paul’s converts
apart from “the outsiders” (tou.j e[xw, 4.12). See John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism
and in the Pauline Communities (WUNT, 159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 262–69.
strategy as missionary. That is to say, Paul not only sought individual conversions as
part of his calling but his “larger missionary objective [was] to form communities of
believers region by region throughout his part of the world.”59 More than that, Paul
was committed to “nurturing Christian communities [which] was the central goal of
his missionary endeavours.”60 Indeed, it was only because of the continued presence
and power of the Holy Spirit at work in the Thessalonians that Paul’s missionary
objective of the establishing and nurturing of mature communities in Christ would
ever be realized.
IV. God-Taught # Spirit-Taught (4.9)

Paul in 4.9 moves on to a new61 but related topic where he commends the Thessalonians
for their demonstration of sibling love. They do so precisely because they are
qeodi,daktoi, (“God-taught”). This hapax raises the question of exactly how God
taught the Thessalonians to love one another as brothers and sisters. Various sugges-
tions have been advanced, ranging from Hellenistic-Jewish (i.e. Philo) to Epicurean
notions of being “self-taught” to the “divine love” displayed by the Dioscuri twin
siblings Castor and Pollux. There are good reasons to think otherwise. First, though
Paul begins a new section here, 4.9-12 and 4.3-8 are nevertheless closely linked
together in a number of ways: the latter passage clearly describes the ongoing work
of the Spirit in the area of sexual morality and the use of the hapax qeodi,daktoi,
would suggest that Paul in his absence expects the Thessalonians to be instructed
by the Holy Spirit; second, both pericopes (4.3-8, 9-12) are similar in that they are
presented as fulfillments of Old Testament promises (Ezekiel 36–37 and Isa. 54.13,
respectively); and third, Paul elsewhere uses the related term of didakto,j (e.g. 1 Cor.
2.13) where he specifically identifies the Holy Spirit as having a didactic role. To be
sure, there are differences in that in Corinthians it is the apostles who are taught and
not the community as here, and the content of the instruction is wisdom and not love.
Nevertheless, both texts are clearly eschatological in outlook and Paul elsewhere also
states that the Spirit is the means whereby love is produced in the lives of Christians
(e.g. Rom. 5.5; 15.30; Gal. 5.5-6). The cumulative weight of these points “increases
the probability that in 1 Thess. 4.9, Paul has the Spirit in view.”62
Paul, in this instance, is addressing the topic of sibling love and given that God
continues to give his Spirit to the Thessalonians (4.8), it is reasonable to assume that
same Spirit is the means of their ongoing instruction vis-à-vis how they are to love
one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. The Thessalonians are Spirit-taught.
Certainly, this does not preclude the fact that Paul also played a didactic role in
their instruction (cf. 4.2), for as “father” (2.11) to his Thessalonian “children” (2.11)
59. W. P. Bowers, “Mission,” in Dictionary of Paul, pp. 608–19 (609–10) (emphasis added).
60. Bowers, “Mission,” p. 609.
61. Paul uses the formula peri. de. here and in 4.13 and 5.1, indicating a movement to new subjects
he wishes to address.
62. Stephen E. Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), p. 157.
this was one of his parental obligations, which needs to be properly accounted for
here. Moreover, there is no discrepancy between this and God’s instruction, “for what
he [Paul] taught earlier was God’s own teaching and word (see 1 Thess. 2.2-9).”63
And, Paul also states later in 2 Thess. 2.15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold
to the teachings we passed on to you (evdida,cqhte) whether by word of mouth or by
letter.”64 But now that Paul is no longer present with his converts and the Holy Spirit
is, the Spirit is one important means by which the Thessalonians continue (lit. “are”
evste, v. 9) to be taught to practice filadelfi,a.
V. Spirit-Induced Prophecies in the Worshiping Community (5.19-21)

Paul’s final reference to the Holy Spirit is in 5.19 where he continues to address the
ongoing needs of the community, in particular the church at worship via the giving
of a word of prophecy. The matter which Paul addresses here is more centered on
the nature of prophecies rather than on individuals65 as such, and vv. 19-21 should
be seen as belonging together. Thus, the initial command “Do not put out the Spirit’s
fire” (v. 19) stands in close proximity with vv. 20-21, which provide the context for
the imperative namely, “not to treat prophecies with contempt (v. 20), but to test
everything” (v. 21).
Contextually, much is unclear in this passage, including whether these prophecies
were despised within the community or whether they were held in contempt — the
verb is employed in both senses in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor. 16.11 and Acts
4.11) — but given the fact that the oral speech of certain itinerant preachers was held
in suspicion, the latter is a reasonable assumption. But abuse of prophetic utterances
is no excuse for disuse and the present imperative66 “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire”
(v. 19) is a reminder to the community not to quench the movement of the Spirit in
their midst but to allow the pneuma to continue to be at work.
The attempt to quench the Spirit is particularized in what follows: if some were
treating prophecies with contempt they needed to know that what was happening in
the community was in fulfillment of Old Testament scripture where prophecy given
under inspiration of the Spirit’s prompting (e.g. Mal. 3.8) was available to all now
that a new era has been ushered in (e.g. Joel 2.28-30). Indeed, the giving of a word
of prophecy within the community was nothing short of what the apostle himself had
been engaged in, for we should not overlook what G. K. Beale observes: “one of the
three occurrences of the Spirit up to this point refers to prophetic revelation through
63. Witherington, Thessalonians, p. 120.

64. See Burke, Family Matters, pp. 142–45; Witmer, Divine Instruction, pp. 163–64.
65. This is clear from the neuter plural use of the adjective pa,nta (v. 21). Also, as this is Paul’s earliest
letter, it is too early to definitively say he is referring to a prophetic “office” or any other “office” for that
matter (e.g. “elder,” 1 Thess. 5.12-15); contra Beale, Thessalonians, p. 160.
66. It is often assumed that the present imperative denotes a cessation from an activity that has already
begun. This is a general principle assumed by many introductory Greek grammar texts but needs to be
determined and tested by the context. In this context, it is correct to regard this as a command to “Stop
putting out the Spirit’s fire.”
Paul (1.5).”67 In other words, “[r]eal prophecy does what Paul himself had been doing
in 1 Thessalonians”68 and from what he states elsewhere we know that the apostle has
high regard for prophecies (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.28; 14.1).
Prophecies were not primarily for the benefit of the individual but rather for the
strengthening of the whole community, as Paul writes to the church at Corinth: “the
one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the
church” (1 Cor. 14.3). This communal focus is evident in 1 Thess. 5.19-21, moreover,
since these verses are situated in the parenetic section of the letter where Paul himself
had twice earlier exhorted the Thessalonians “to encourage one another (avllh,louj,
4.18)” and “build one another up” (avllh,louj, 5.11). By keeping this important horta-
tory context in mind the Thessalonians will be following the many examples that Paul
had already set as their father, including the instruction, edification and strengthening
of his convert “children” (e.g. 2.12). Now they are to strengthen each other via a word
of prophecy, just as Paul had been doing for them.
But if Paul expected prophecies to be part of the worship of his communities, it
was not to be a free-for-all, for the plural form of the verb dokima,zete (v. 21) makes
clear that if the entire community was to benefit then the whole community was to
“test all things.” This is especially pertinent if 2 Thess. 2.1-2 provides some context
to what Paul is saying, where it appears that some within the community had become
unsettled as a result of a word of prophecy concerning the Day of the Lord. Paul’s
response is two-fold: first, such prophecies are to be tested against the word (Paul’s
original proclamation and instruction after coming to faith) and letter (what we now
know as Thessalonians). In all this they are to remember that God is not a God of
disorder but of peace (1 Cor. 14.33), which accords well with the way that the three-
fold commands in 5.19-21 are framed by a double reference to peace (vv. 13, 23).
VI. Conclusion
Recent studies of Paul’s mission and his role as missionary have given us a deeper
understanding of this dimension of his ministry. Much has been made of the pro-
claimed word by Paul, but little attention has been given to the indispensable role of
the Spirit. Paul could not have sustained such a long and arduous missionary cam-
paign over many years on his own strength, unless he was empowered by something
greater, the Holy Spirit who was at work in all that he did. Moreover, if Paul’s letters
to the Thessalonians are the earliest to have been written they provide unique and
important insights regarding the Spirit in the apostle’s mission. Paul regarded himself
as standing in line with Old Testament tradition where the Spirit is primarily at work
as the Spirit of prophecy. Paul’s entire mission to the Thessalonians was soaked in the
Spirit. The Spirit functions in a number of strategic ways, namely, in the empowering
of Paul’s prophetic revelation (1.5); the conversion/salvation of his converts (1.6);
the ongoing energizing of the word among the Thessalonians (2.13); the sanctifying
67. Beale, Thessalonians, p. 172; Witherington, Thessalonians, p. 170.

68. Witherington, Thessalonians, p. 169.
power for missional holiness and enabling witness to outsiders (4.3-8); the instructing
of his converts to sibling love (4.9); and in the life of the worshipping community via
prophetic utterances for the encouragement of the whole community (4.19-21). If we
are to truly grasp how Paul conceived of his mission not only to the Thessalonians
but also for his entire missionary enterprise, proper cognizance needs to be taken of
the Spirit as the controlling dynamic in not only the bringing of these communities
into being but also as the continuing power for maturity, worship, and witness — their
mission — until the day of Jesus Christ.
12
THE GLORY OF GOD IN PAUL’S MISSIONARY THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE
Brian S. Rosner
I. Introduction
Appearing in every Pauline letter save Philemon, the glory of God is a regular theme
in Paul’s thought. Leaving aside synonyms, such as the language of praise, boasting,
light, fire and blessing, the noun alone, do,xa, occurs no less than 77 times, and the
verb, doxa,zw, 12 times. Nonetheless, with few exceptions, modern studies of Paul’s
theology make little of the subject. Many seem to regard Paul’s references to the
glory of God as merely conventional, a kind of residual Jewish reverential humility,
and therefore relatively insignificant.1 Some even lament their presence. Does Paul’s
stress on divine glory betray a “boastful triumphalism”?2 Are we to right to “regret
some of Paul’s vain gloriousness”?3
This essay considers the place of the glory of God in Paul’s missionary theology.
Is it central and formative, or merely a pious formality? Four areas will be considered.
These include: (1) the mission to the Gentiles; (2) Paul’s missionary movements; and
his perspectives on (3) suffering and (4) moral transformation. A good case can be
made that the glory of God is constitutive of, rather than incidental to, Paul’s thinking
and activity as a missionary, especially in light of the universalistic, eschatological
visions of the Old Testament that place such an emphasis on divine glory as the
ultimate goal.4 In this connection, Romans 15, Paul’s most revealing reflection on his
missionary aims and agenda, is a critical witness.
1. Robert W. Yarborough, “Paul and Salvation History,” in D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien,
and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul (WUNT 2.181;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 297–342, notes the following treatments of Paul as paying little attention
to the glory of God: E. P. Sanders, Charles Homer Giblin, James D. G. Dunn, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor,
Brad H. Young, Calvin Roetzel. Exceptions include Yarborough’s own essay and Thomas R. Schreiner,
Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001).
2. Charles Homer Giblin, In Hope of God’s Glory: Paul’s Theological Perspectives (New York:
Herder and Herder, 1979), p. 398.
3. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977), p. 552.
4. Much of what follows builds on parts of the Introduction to Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner,
The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
12. The Glory of God 159
II. Glory and the Gentiles

What drives Paul’s missionary endeavors? As with anyone’s motives, the picture is
mixed. Relevant factors according to his own testimony include obedience to his
call and commission, the constraining love of Christ, the prospect of judgment, his
zealous, or to use modern terminology, driven personality, and his love for the lost,
both his own people and the nations. One way or another, in his own words, Paul felt
“compelled to preach” the gospel (1 Cor. 9.16). Of interest for our purposes, Paul also
consistently describes the aim of glorifying God as a major goal of his labors. This
motif appears often in relation to his evangelism among the Gentiles.
Paul ascribes glory to God for his gracious election and blessing of certain people
and family groups in the history of Israel, for his bestowal upon the covenant people
of Israel of certain key redemptive advantages (Rom. 3.2, 9.3-5; cf. Eph. 2.12), for
his revelation of truth through Israel’s Scriptures (2 Cor. 1.20; Rom. 11.33-36), and
for his grace extended even to Paul and to Gentile Christians (Rom. 15.7; Gal. 1.3-5,
24). The glory of God is of fundamental importance for Paul’s mission in relation
to the Gentiles.
The notion that God is glorified through Christ and his church, which includes
people of all nations, is evident across the traditional Pauline corpus.5 Paul’s mission
purpose is summarized in Rom. 1.5: “to bring about the obedience of faith for the
sake of his name among all the nations.” His aim, according to 2 Cor. 4.15, is that “the
grace [of the gospel] that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to
overflow to the glory of God.” The doxology of Gal. 1.5 (“to whom be glory forever
and ever”) indicates that God’s role in providing redemption in Christ should result
in eternal glory for him. He prays for the Thessalonian Christians that “the name of
our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him” (2 Thess. 1.12), and for the
Philippians, that they might be loving, knowledgeable, discerning, pure, blameless
and fruitful “to the glory and praise of God” (Phil. 1.9-11). Likewise, the doxology
in Eph. 3.20-21 accords God “glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all
generations, for ever and ever.” And in 1 Tim. 1.11 “sound doctrine . . . conforms to
the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God.”
A sketch of the place of the glory of God in salvation history will help set Paul’s
reflections on glory and his missionary enterprise in context. Steven C. Hawthorne
points out that the concepts of glory, God’s name and worship are closely tied together
throughout the Bible.6 Hawthorne explains that “[t]o glorify someone is to recognize
their intrinsic worth and beauty, and to speak of that feature in a public way. To glorify
God is to praise or to speak of Him openly and truthfully.”7 God is glorified as his
name, or worthy reputation based on his great deeds, is proclaimed throughout the
world (e.g. Ps. 96.2-4), and consequently recognized by all people (Ps. 96.7-9). This
recognition of the greatness of God’s name in both word and deed is true worship.
5. Most of the references in this paragraph use the noun do,xa.

6. Steven C. Hawthorne, “The Story of His Glory,” in Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne
(eds.), Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), pp. 34–48.
7. Hawthorne, “The Story of His Glory,” pp. 34–35.
Such worship is in fact the goal of salvation (Exod. 8.1, 20, 9.1, 13, 10.3). It is not only
a recognition of God’s supremacy, but a heartfelt response of love to the God who has
acted in love to save a people for himself (cf. Rev. 5.1-14). As people worship God,
proclaiming the glory of his name, so they are brought into the highest honor by God
and glorified, for worship is the fulfillment of God’s love: “God reveals his glory to
all peoples so that he may receive glory from all creation.”8 This is a key theme in
the Scriptural account of God’s dealings with humanity, from Abraham through to
Christ (e.g. Num. 14.17-21).
The establishment of God’s glory necessarily involves the removal of all false
worship. The salvation of the Exodus required judgment against the false gods
of Egypt (Exod. 12.12). The taking of the Promised Land required demolition of
the false idolatrous worship taking place in Canaan (Deut. 4.15-24; Josh. 23.7). A
specially chosen place set apart for the worship of God’s glory and name is required
because of the existence of other shrines dedicated to the worship of false deities by
the nations (Deut. 12.2-14). The temple, therefore, stands as the place where all the
nations are beckoned to come and worship God alongside Israel (1 Chron. 16.23-33;
cf. Psalm 96) — abandoning their own idolatrous practices. Yet paradoxically, the
history of Israel herself is “a prolonged up-and-down struggle with idolatry.”9 The
exile, along with the destruction of the temple, was the appalling conclusion to this
struggle. Yet it was not simply a blow for the nation of Israel; more significantly, it
was a terrible indictment of God’s name and glory (Dan. 9.15-19; Ezek. 36.22-23).
Nevertheless, the prophets and psalmists continued to speak of “the history and the
destiny of Israel in terms of the nations being drawn to God by name, and worship-
ing Him with diverse, lavish glory” (Pss. 66.1-4; 138.4-5; Hab. 2.14; Zeph. 3.9-10;
Mal. 1.11).10
In connection with Paul’s appropriation of this theme, Richard B. Hays observes
that “Isaiah offers the clearest expression in the Old Testament of a universalistic,
eschatological vision in which the restoration of Israel in Zion is accompanied by an
ingathering of Gentiles to worship the Lord; that is why the book is both statistically
and substantively the most important scriptural source for Paul.”11 The extensive use
of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians is widely recognized. A striking and significant vision of
the eschatological glory of God appears in Isa. 66.18-24:
18
“And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come and gather the people
of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory. 19I will set a sign among
them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations — to Tarshish, to the Libyans
and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not
8. Hawthorne, “The Story of His Glory,” p. 37.

11. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989), p. 162, cited in James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of
Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (WUNT 84; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1995), pp. 146–47.
heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. 20And
they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an
offering to the LORD — on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says
the LORD. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple
of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21And I will select some of them also to be priests
and Levites,” says the LORD.
22
“As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the
LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23From one New Moon to another and
from one Sabbath to another, all people will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD.
24
“And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me;
their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the
whole human race.”
Here, God’s ultimate glory is described in terms of the involvement of the Gentiles
in temple worship. There is both an “outward” and an “inward” dynamic to God’s
glorification: God’s glory will be declared to the nations by missionaries (v. 19), and
the nations will come and glorify God in temple worship (vv. 18, 23). The eschatologi-
cal remnant will act as priests in God’s temple in Jerusalem (v. 20), bringing those
scattered among the nations as an offering to the Lord.
III. Glory and Geography

For Paul, the nature of the eschatological temple and the glory that God is to receive
through worldwide worship are understood in the light of the kingdom God has
established through his Son, the universal Lord. The expectation that universal glory
and worship would be given to God is at the heart of the significance of the lordship
of Jesus Christ, whose crucifixion and consequent exaltation is understood by Paul
and other New Testament authors to inaugurate the long-awaited time of the universal
and eternal kingdom of God. The consummation of that kingdom will result in every
knee bowing and every tongue confessing that “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father” (Phil. 2.11; cf. Rev. 15.3-4). In a general sense the glory of God
informs the ambitious itinerary of Paul’s missionary journeys.
The geographical references to the nations in Isa. 66.19 (see immediately above)
are of particular interest in this connection. James M. Scott has argued that the Table
of Nations of Genesis 10 (cf. 1 Chron. 1.1–2.2) represents an ethnographic and geo-
graphic tradition that pervades the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.12 It is a verbal
“map”; a detailed geographical world-view that effectively places Israel in the center
of the world (cf. Ezek. 5.5; 38–39).13 This “map” is also applicable to Old Testament
eschatology. Isaiah 66.18-20, in many of its details, reflects the Table of Nations
tradition as it announces a positive eschatological expectation for the nations.14 In
12. Scott, Paul and the Nations, pp. 5–56.

Isa. 66.19, each of the three sons of Noah is represented: Shem (Lud), Ham (Put), and
Japheth (Tarshish, Tubal, Meshech, Javan). The focus of the eschatological expecta-
tion is, of course, Jerusalem, situated in the center of the world.
According to Scott, the Table of Nations is at the forefront of Paul’s mind when
he describes his own eschatological mission to the nations in geographical terms.15
Paul asserts in Rom. 15.19 that he has “fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ . . . from
Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum.” That is, Paul’s mission to the nations is
viewed from the perspective of Jerusalem as the center of a circle embracing the
whole inhabited world (cf. Ezek. 5.5).
Rainer Riesner makes the connection with Isa. 66.18-21 even more explicit.16
For Riesner, “Paul read this text as being fulfilled in his own activity, and traces of
this exegesis stand behind Rom 15.16-24.”17 The striking use of cultic terminology
in Rom. 15.15-16 to describe Gentile evangelization suggests an Old Testament
background: “I have written to you . . . because of the grace given me by God to be
a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God,
so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit”
(NRSV).
When reflecting on his special call to the Gentiles in Romans 15, Isa. 66.18-21,
with its unique juxtaposition of Gentile mission and temple-related descriptions of
Gentile worship, has left its mark. Riesner presents an impressive array of further
parallels between these two passages. For example, the emissaries of Isa. 66.19 are
sent to those “who have not yet heard my name” and Paul in Rom. 15.20 evangelizes
“where the name Christ has not yet been named.”18
IV. Glory and Suffering

Paul’s role as a preacher of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1.17) is tightly bound up with the
message of a crucified Messiah that he proclaims and his own experience of suffer-
ing: “For this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher, and for
this reason I suffer as I do” (2 Tim. 1.11-12a). In this connection, once again, divine
glory plays a key role.
Scott Hafemann has drawn attention to the role of Paul’s suffering in his mission.19
Hafemann argues compellingly that Paul’s weakness was the ground and cause of

16. Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. Doug Stott
from the German Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, Tübingen, Mohr, 1994; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), pp. 245–53. Scott, Paul and the Nations, pp. 145–47, criticizes Riesner for relying overly on this
one text. Scott claims that Paul has in mind the whole Table of Nations tradition, which in turn informs
the Isaiah text. But Riesner has found numerous parallels with Isa. 66.18-21 in Rom. 15.16-28, beyond
the geographical references of v. 19.
17. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 246.
18. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, pp. 248–49.
19. Scott Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in Jostein Ådna and Hans
Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr,
2000), pp. 165–84.
his preaching (Gal. 4.13), not merely the circumstances.20 Paul’s personal appeal in
Gal. 4.12-20 ties his suffering and his message together — Paul, in his suffering, was
accepted as Christ Jesus and so should continue to be accepted (Gal. 4.14-16).21 Both
Christ and Paul suffer for the sake of others — Christ as an atoning sacrifice (Gal.
3.10-13), Paul as the messenger of God (Gal. 4.14; cf. v. 19). The “thesis-like affir-
mations” of 1 Cor. 4.9, 2 Cor. 4.11, and 2 Cor. 2.14 clearly express Paul’s portrayal
of “his apostolic suffering as the revelatory vehicle through which the knowledge of
God as made manifest in the cross of Christ and in the power of the Spirit is being
disclosed.”22 Paul’s suffering is no accident: it is the appropriate vehicle for proclaim-
ing the message of Christ crucified (1 Cor. 4.9). This, of course, only makes sense
when one realizes that suffering is the very means by which God has brought about his
eschatological glory, primarily for Christ (Phil. 2.6-11) and consequently for Christ’s
apostle (2 Cor. 2.14-16) and his people (e.g. Gal. 4.12).23 This pattern is reflected in
various ways throughout Paul’s letters, as in the following three examples:
I pray therefore that you may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory.
(NRSV; Eph. 3.13)
I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is
lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. I became its serv-
ant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God
fully known, the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has
now been revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the
Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
(NRSV; Col. 1.24-28)
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David — that is my gospel, for
which I suffer hardship, even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But the word of
God is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they may
also obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. (2 Tim. 2.8-10)
This same pattern is evident in the description of Paul’s suffering in the book of Acts.
In Acts, the Lord himself announces that Paul is “a chosen instrument of mine to carry
my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” by way of great
suffering (Acts 9.15-16; cf. Isa. 49.7); proclaiming that “I have made you a light for
the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Acts 13.47; cf.
Isa. 49.6). The role of Paul as the eschatological herald of God’s apocalyptic power
overcoming the powers of this present evil age may explain the presence of “kings” in
the list of the three groups who will be presented with God’s glorious name, alongside
the Gentiles and the children of Israel (Acts 9.15).
20. Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” pp. 169–74.
21. Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” p. 174.
22. Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” p. 174.
23. Hafemann, “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” pp. 177–78.
Furthermore, it may explain the disproportionately large amount of space in Acts

given over to descriptions of Paul’s preaching on trial before human authorities. In
Acts 19–28, Paul appears to be reliving the Lukan account of Jesus’ passion. Both
set out resolutely for Jerusalem (Lk. 9.51, Acts 19.21), send disciples ahead (Lk.
9.52, Acts 19.22), predict their suffering (Lk. 9.22, Acts 20.22-24), prepare their
followers for their “departure” (Lk. 21.5-36, Acts 20.13-38), come in front of the
crowds in Jerusalem (Lk. 22.47–23.25, Acts 21.27–22.29), are accused of leading a
rebellion (Lk. 22.52, Acts 21.38), are seized by the crowd (Lk. 22.54, Acts 21.30),
are flogged (Lk. 22.63, Acts 22.24) and are falsely accused (Lk. 23.2, Acts 21.28). In
both cases, Jews stir the crowds (Lk. 23.5, Acts 21.28), there is mob rule (Lk. 23.18,
Acts 22.22), they shout for the accused to die (Lk. 23.20, Acts 22.22) and the secular
ruler is powerless (Lk. 23.24, Acts 22.29). There are trials before the Sanhedrin (Lk.
22.66-71, Acts 22.30–23.11), the Governor (Lk. 23.1-7, Acts 24.1–25.12) and the
King (Lk. 23.8-12, Acts 25.13–26.32). However, there are also important differences
between the two accounts. Jesus, when face to face with earthly rulers, says nothing to
defend himself and so goes to his sacrificial death (Lk. 22.66-71; 23.3). Paul, however,
takes the opportunity afforded by his arrest and trial to defend himself at great length
against charges of Jewish apostasy and Roman insurrection (e.g. Acts 25.8; 28.17-18).
The real issue, however, is the glorious resurrection of Christ (23.6; 24.15; 24.21)
and in his trials Paul soundly proclaims Jesus’ resurrection and its corollaries to the
worldly rulers — the Roman governors (24.24), the king (Acts 26.27) and indeed all
the leaders of the city (25.23). Furthermore, in line with God’s promise in Acts 23.11,
Paul goes to Rome and has the opportunity to testify before Caesar himself. In this
way, Acts paints Paul from the palette of the Lord’s Isaianic Servant, who through
suffering, trials and rejection by his own people, testifies to the name of the Lord and
his Christ before “kings” (Isa. 49.7). According to Acts, Paul in his own person takes
on the prophetic role of Israel — he is the light to the nations, the bringer of salvation.
V. Glory and Ethics

Paul’s desire to teach “how one ought to walk and please God” (1 Thess. 4.1) was
central to all of his activities and plays a major role in each of his letters. If Paul is a
missionary, his goal is not only to save the lost (1 Cor. 9.22) but to present every per-
son mature in Christ (Col. 2.28). His constant concern was to exhort the churches to
conduct their common life “in a manner worthy of the gospel” (Phil. 1.27). He spoke
of “the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11.28). In
relation to those faith communities that he founded Paul compares himself to a father
(1 Cor. 4.15; 1 Thess. 2.11; Phil. 2.22; cf. Phlm. 10; Tit. 1.4) and a mother (1 Cor.
3.1-3; Gal. 4.19; 1 Thess. 2.7), caring for the welfare of his converts in the fullest
sense. Noteworthy here is the goal of the glory of God in the moral transformation
of Paul’s converts — they are being “transformed from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3.18).
Paul’s stated missionary aim was to bring about true worship and obedience
among the Gentiles, to the glory of God (cf. Rom. 12.1-2; Acts 18.13). How did Paul
envisage this happening?
As already noted, Romans 15 is a key text for our understanding of Paul’s
missionary agenda. As O’Brien observes, “[a]t this important turning point, the
conclusion of his missionary endeavors in the east, Paul provides significant insights
into what he had been doing and what were his hopes for the future. He thus throws
light on essential features of his ministry, including its goals and motivating power,
its content and extraordinary results.”24 Particularly significant is v. 16, which contains
an uncommon concentration of Old Testament cultic terminology.25 Consistent with
the eschatological vision of Isa. 66.18-21,26 Paul’s raison d’être is explained using
temple imagery: as “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles,” Paul is to discharge
his “priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become
an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (15.16; cf. Isa. 66.20).27
In this way, Paul demonstrates his continuity with Israel’s salvation-history, while
at the same time presenting a radical eschatological vision where cultic language is
transformed into the non-cultic activity of gospel preaching.28 “Paul’s purpose seems
to be to underline the eschatologically new fact that within God’s redefined people
(‘set apart by the Holy Spirit’) all ministry on behalf of others is priestly ministry (as
in Phil. 2.25), and that cultic sacrifice has been replaced by the sacrifice of committed
day-to-day living in personal relationships (12.1).”29
In other words (but with the same cluster of Old Testament ideas in mind), Paul
states that his purpose is for the Gentiles to glorify God (15.6, 7, 9; cf. Isa. 66.18, 23).
Romans 15.7 makes it clear that this will be achieved, not by cultic activity on the part
of the Gentiles, but by ethical behavior: “Accept one another, as Christ has accepted
you, in order to bring glory to God.” This verse, along with the verses immediately
preceding this section (15.1-4), indicates that the solution to these ethical problems
is grounded in the vicarious servant-hearted suffering of Jesus Christ for his people.30
Four Old Testament quotations reiterate the goal of the Gentiles praising God along
“with his people” (Rom. 15.9-12). The final quotation returns to the notion of hope
introduced in 15.4, which Paul expands in a prayer in 15.13. Hence Rom. 15.5-13 may
be seen as a fuller description of “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1.5; 16.26; cf. 15.18)
24. P. T. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion: Paul and the Dynamic of the Gospel (Homebush West,
Australia: Lancer, 1993), p. 27.
25. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion, pp. 30–32.
26. See the discussion of Riesner’s analysis.
27. J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC Vol. 38B; Dallas: Word, 2002), pp. 860–61, observes that
Paul’s eschatological vision is even more radical than that of Isaiah. In Isa. 66.20 it is the Diaspora Jews
who form the “offering” in the temple. In Rom. 15.16 it is the Gentiles themselves who either form or
perform (or both) the offering. “The (eschatological) transformation of traditional Jewish categories and
cultic distinctives is striking. Not only is the priestly ministry of Paul ‘out in the world,’ but the offering
breaches the fundamental cultic distinction between Jew and Gentile which prevented Gentiles from even
getting near the great altar of sacrifice in the Temple (the law which forbad Gentiles to go beyond the
Court of the Gentiles was firmly established and unyielding; cf. . . . Acts 21.28); the point is the same if
the reference is to Gentiles as the sacrifice, since only ritually pure/clean sacrifices were acceptable.”
29. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 868.
30. This is confirmed by the quotation of Isa. 52.15 in Rom. 15.21: Paul’s whole international mission-
ary agenda has been shaped by the Suffering Servant song of Isa. 52.13–53.12. The servant who suffers
vicariously for the sins of his people must be proclaimed to nations and kings.
— that is, the constancy of Christian conduct arising from the Gentiles’ believing
reception of the message of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.31
Paul’s aims and agenda for his Gentile converts, then, can be summarized as fol-
lows. The Gentiles fail to glorify God, chiefly through idolatry and sexual immorality
(which reflect their lack of true wisdom; see Rom. 1.18-32). The proclamation of the
death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is a call to enter the new eschatological
age established in and by him. It demands that all people submit in unity to Christ,
living out the true wisdom of the other-person-centered lifestyle of the cross. They
must abandon sexual immorality and idolatry and instead worship the one true God.
The goal of all of this is the glory of God. The Gentiles’ lives will be characterized
by expectant hope for the final consummation of God’s glory (and so their own
glorification) in the future bodily resurrection.
To take an example, when we come to 1 Corinthians, much is gained by reading
Paul’s letter with this schema in mind.32 In large measure 1 Corinthians is Paul’s
response to a congregation plagued by the residual Gentile vices of sexual immoral-
ity and idolatry. Paul tells the church to “flee,” both in 6.18 and 10.14 respectively,
and instead to “glorify God” in sexual purity and proper worship, in 6.20 (doxa,zw)
and 10.31 (do,xa). The theme of bringing glory to God actually pervades the whole
letter, using a range of synonyms. Along with these two pivotal commands, the
Corinthians are: to boast (or glory) in the Lord (1.31; kauca,omai), not human leaders
(3.21; kauca,omai); worship in a fashion that brings glory and not dishonor to God in
11.2-16; and, in ch. 15, to await their resurrection and glorification, which leads to
“the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to
this corruptible incorruption.”33 Rather than the glory of God serving other doctrines
(whether the purity of believers, church leadership, worship or the resurrection of the
dead), such subjects serve to explicate the ultimate aim of all of creation rendering
an appropriate response to the God of glory. As the goal of Christian existence both
now and in the age to come, the glory of God, “that God may be all in all” (15.28),
is essentially an eschatological and missiological theme. It is the end to which the
mission of God is leading.
To put the pattern in point form, with the overall goal of the glory of God, we
find:
1. The proclamation of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is a call
to enter the new eschatological age established in and by him. It demands that
all people submit in unity to Christ, living out the wisdom of the other-person-
centered lifestyle of the cross.
2. They must abandon the Gentile vice of sexual immorality, to the glory of God.
3. They must abandon the Gentile vice of idolatry, and give proper worship to the
one true God, to the glory of God.
4. The Gentiles’ lives will be characterized by expectant hope for the final

32. See further Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians:
A Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52.2 (2006), pp. 205–18.
33. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.2.
consummation of God’s glory (and so their own glorification) in the future bod-
ily resurrection.
This basic shape to Paul’s moral teaching is evident at other points of his corpus.
The same pattern, with some flexibility, is evident in Ephesians (twice), Colossians
and Titus.
In Eph. 4.1-30, after a doxology ascribing glory to God in the church and in Christ
(Eph. 3.21):
1. Paul, the suffering apostle (Eph. 4.1), calls his readers to live in humility, gentle-
ness, patience and love (Eph. 4.2), maintaining the unity to which they have been
called in Christ by the Spirit (Eph. 4.4-16).
3. They must not live in the foolishness of the idolatrous Gentiles (Eph. 4.17-18),
2. who are sexually immoral (Eph. 4.19).
4. Instead, they should live now in expectation of the day of redemption to come
(Eph. 4.20-30).
The pattern is then repeated in Eph. 4.30–5.17:

1. As God in Christ forgave them, so they are to live lives of kind, tender-hearted
forgiveness (Eph. 4.30-31), which is the lifestyle of the cross (Eph. 5.1-2).
2. Sexual immorality and
3. greed (which is idolatry) are singled out as sins that must be put to death (Eph.
5.3-5) because of the coming wrath of God (Eph. 5.6).
4. This is true eschatological wisdom (Eph. 5.7-17, esp. 15-17; cf. 6.12).
Colossians 3.1-17 presents the same logic, but in reverse order:

4. The eschatological age of salvation has come in Christ; but it is still hidden,
awaiting the final appearance of Christ and his people in glory (Col. 3.1-4).
3. Therefore the Colossians must put to death Gentile vices, beginning with sexual
immorality and
2. greed, which is idolatry (Col. 3.5-10). They should worship in word and deed for
the sake of Christ’s name and the praise of God (Col. 3.16-17).
1. This is because of the unity in Christ (Col. 3.11), which shows itself in the cross-
centered lifestyle of compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience and
forgiveness (Col. 3.12-15).
Three of the four elements of the pattern are prominent in Titus 1–2:
1. The new age manifested by God’s word through Paul’s preaching (Tit. 1.1-3; cf.
2.11)
2. calls believers to be the husband of one wife, self-controlled and pure (Tit. 1.6;
2.2, 5-6), renouncing ungodliness and worldly passions (Tit. 2.12)
4. as they wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of Jesus Christ (Tit. 2.13).
Making a full case for the presence of these patterns in Paul’s letters is beyond the
scope of this chapter. Suffice it to say, when Paul the missionary does ethics, the glory
of God is never far from view.
VI. Conclusion
The subject of Paul the missionary, as this volume demonstrates, has many facets.
One that has received little attention is his consistent appeal to the glory of God as the
ultimate goal of his activities. There is good evidence to conclude that divine glory
is woven into the fabric of Paul’s missionary theology and practice. It sets in motion
his mission to the Gentiles, directs his missionary movements, interprets his experi-
ence of missionary suffering and gives focus to his aim to see believers transformed
“from glory to glory.”
The critical place of divine glory in Paul’s life and thought is anticipated in the
vision of Isaiah 66 and confirmed in Paul’s benediction in Romans 15:
I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory . . .
From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship
before me, says the Lord. (NRSV; Isa. 66.18, 23)
May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one
another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has
welcomed you, for the glory of God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the
circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given
to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. (NRSV;
Rom. 15.5-9a)
13
RECONCILIATION AS THE HEART OF PAUL’S MISSIONARY THEOLOGY
Stanley E. Porter
Introduction
We have two major sources of evidence regarding Paul as missionary, his own letters
and the Acts of the Apostles, both necessary for a full-orbed view of Paul as mis-
sionary. I realize that some believe that there are inherent incompatibilities between
the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts.1 I will merely say that I believe that the
notion of Paulinism as a later and potentially antithetical characterization of Paul,
especially as found in Acts, is highly problematic. Even those who tend to wish to
draw lines of distinction between the two purported conceptualizations of Paul seem
to rely upon the framework found in the book of Acts to reconstruct their portrait of
Paul the missionary. The author as a traveling companion but not necessarily disciple
makes it appropriate to recognize some differences in perspective between the Paul
of the letters and the Paul depicted within Acts, while also finding a wide range of
common ground in their characterization. In this essay, I will focus upon the mis-
sionary theology of Paul. After briefly noting features of the context that lies behind
Paul’s missionary venture, I will examine the essential content and characteristics
of this missionary theology. I am not attempting to articulate Paul’s entire theology,
but his basic theological perspective that motivated the content of his missionary
proclamation.
I. The Context of Paul’s Missionary Theology

Before turning to the content of Paul’s missionary theology, I wish to examine the
four major literary and non-literary contexts of Paul’s missionary venture.
1. These include Stanley E. Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and
Theology (WUNT, 115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), pp. 187–206; “Was Paulinism a Thing when
Luke-Acts was Written?” in Reception of Paulinism in Acts: Réception du paulinisme dans les Actes des
Apôtres (ed. Daniel Marguerat; BETL, 229; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), pp. 1–13; “The Portrait of Paul in
the Acts of the Apostles,” in Blackwell Companion to Paul (ed. Stephen Westerholm; Oxford: Blackwell,
forthcoming).
1. Calling or Conversion. 2 Seyoon Kim has rightly drawn attention to the

importance of Paul’s Damascus Road experience as essential to his missionary
motivation and function — even if he goes too far in claiming that “his gospel and
apostleship are grounded solely in the Christophany on the Damascus road and
that he understands himself solely in the light of it” (my italics).3 Even if Paul’s
encounter on the road did not provide everything, it certainly was a necessary
condition for his turning from persecutor of the Church to its great exponent. The
conversion passages in Acts or the letters, however, do not make Paul’s mission-
ary theology explicit.
2 The Jews. Paul’s missionary outreach from the outset was meant to include his
own people, the Jews. This is made clear in both Acts and the letters. There are a
number of reasons for the importance of the Jews in Paul’s thinking. He himself
was a Jew (see Phil. 3.5; Gal. 1.13-14), but more importantly, Paul envisioned
a continuing and future role for the Jewish people in God’s and hence his own
theological scheme (see Romans 9–11, esp. 11.25).4 As J. Ross Wagner states,
“the completion of the Gentile mission is the salvation of ‘all Israel’ without
remainder.”5 Thus, “in Romans 11 Paul anticipates a massive turning of Jews to
Christ as a result of and subsequent to the entrance of the full number of Gentiles.”6
3. The Gentiles. One of the major emphases of the book of Acts, in some ways
a continuation of what is hinted at in Luke’s Gospel (e.g. 4.18-21, 24-27, esp.
v. 27), is the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles, that is, non-Jews. This was a part
of Paul’s initial calling/conversion and instruction (Acts 9.15; 26.17), is reflected
in various letters (e.g. Rom. 11.13; 1 Cor. 12.2; Galatians 2–3; Eph. 2.11; Col.
1.27; besides references above where “Greeks” are paired with Jews), is noted
explicitly in several letters (e.g. Rom. 11.13; 15.16; Gal. 1.16; 2.2, 7; Eph. 3.1;
1 Thess. 2.16; 1 Tim. 2.7), and is depicted in Paul’s missionary strategy in Acts.
4. Adaptable Strategy. We do not have an outline of Paul’s strategy presented
in his letters, but we have a compatible one depicted in the book of Acts.7 This
2. For the issues, see Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
3. Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), p. 31. The
foundation of his argument is based upon a linguistic mistake: the past punctiliar view of the aorist indica-
tive tense-form (Origin, pp. 7, 11, 13, 22, 25, 26), so not all examples are pertinent. See Stanley E. Porter,
Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG, 1; New York:
Lang, 1989), pp. 163–240; cf. “Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation, Twice More,” in Paul and His Theology
(ed. Stanley E. Porter; PAST, 3; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 131–52, esp. 134–44.
4. Most scholars discuss this verse with reference to the “future” dimension of Israel’s salvation.
The Greek tense-form indicates expectation, in this instance an event not yet realized and hence in some
sense future in orientation (in whole or in part, whether begun already or not). On the semantics of the
future form, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 403–39.
5. J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans
(NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 276–98, esp. p. 279 n. 194, responding directly to N.T. Wright,
The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990),
pp. 246–51.
6. Wagner, Heralds, p. 279 n. 194; cf. p. 298.
7. See, for example, John C. Hurd, Jr., “Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology,” in Christian
13. Reconciliation as the Heart of Paul’s Missionary Theology 171
missionary strategy is characterized by adaptability. Although Paul evangelized in

many major cities (e.g. Corinth and Athens), his missionary endeavors took him
to a number of smaller cities (e.g. Salamis, the small cities of Provincial Galatia
such as Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and further north-west to Philippi), as
well as probably some villages (e.g. Acts 14.6, with reference to the surrounding
region).8 The reasons for this probably vary, but include his desire to reach his
fellow Jews; the exigencies of circumstance, such as his own situation and the
situation of the individual location; and other unknown considerations designed
to spread the gospel.
As we shall see, it is impossible to separate Paul’s missionary context from its mes-
sage. These four elements provide a necessary backdrop for further discussion of the
major elements of Paul’s missionary theology. Paul’s missionary theology must be
able to provide a functional theology that responds adequately to all of the elements
of this context.
II. The Ministry of Reconciliation as the Heart

of Paul’s Missionary Theology
There are several recently written works that examine, at least in part, Paul’s mission-
ary program, including his missionary theology or message.9 Eckhard Schnabel offers
a description of Paul’s missionary message by differentiating a number of audience
situations in which Paul addresses various issues.10 This proposal does not seem to
address the issue of formulating Paul’s missionary theology so much as capturing
his theologically motivated response to particular missiological situations. Andreas
Köstenberger and Peter O’Brien rely upon Romans alone to outline what they call
“the gospel Paul preached,” drawing upon Romans 1 and 3.11 This constitutes a fine
summary of the content of Paul’s gospel, especially as it is described in these two
History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W.R. Farmer, C.F.D. Moule, and
R. Reinhold Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 225–48 (244).
8. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), pp. 281–86.
9. Besides Schnabel, Paul, see the longer form of his study: Early Christian Mission. II. Paul and
the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller,
The Biblical Foundations for Mission (London: SCM Press, 1983); Andreas Köstenberger and Peter T.
O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (NSBT,11; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pp. 161–201; Robert L. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s
Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? (PBM; Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2006); and Stanley E. Porter, “The Content and Message of Paul’s Missionary Teaching,” in
Christian Mission: Old Testament Foundations and New Testament Developments (ed. Stanley E. Porter
and Cynthia Long Westfall (MNTS; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, forthcoming), pp. 135–54 (which I draw
upon freely in this study).
10. Schnabel, Paul, pp. 155–208.
11. Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation, pp. 173–79. Cf. Senior and Stuhlmueller, Biblical
Foundations, pp. 171–73, who also emphasize Romans, esp. ch. 3.
early chapters of Romans, but these are at best a selective characterization of the
gospel, and one confined only to Romans.
Paul actually says relatively little explicitly about his missiological theology.
I am not concerned here to outline all of Paul’s theology, but only that part of the
theology that motivates his missionary actions and stands at the heart of his mission-
ary outreach. In some ways, the closest that Paul actually comes to addressing his
missionary theology is to state that he wishes to preach the gospel or evangelize, and
wishes others to do the same.12 But what is that gospel as it pertains to his mission? I
believe that Paul formulates his missionary theology around the notion of a “ministry
of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18). This ministry of reconciliation provides the heart
of Paul’s missionary theology, and constitutes the basic message that motivated his
thought and provided the impetus for his continuing theological development in his
missiological endeavors. There are two major passages in Paul’s undisputed letters
where he defines the ministry of reconciliation.13 Their composite view offers an
appropriate conspectus of his missionary theology.14
A. 2 Corinthians 5.18-21
Second Corinthians 5.18-21 was the first written and is arguably the most important
of Paul’s reconciliation passages. It addresses most of the major ideas that he sees as
constituting the ministry of reconciliation, including encapsulating the missionary
message. With the prospect of death lying before him (2 Cor. 5.1-10), and knowing
the fear of the Lord (2 Cor. 5.11), Paul says that “we” are in the process of persuading
people (2 Cor. 5.11). The “we” probably includes Paul himself and his fellow mis-
sionary companions who are addressing these words to the Corinthians.15 Opposition
between Paul and his companions and the Corinthians continues throughout this
passage, until it is resolved in 2 Cor. 5.18. Paul here clarifies his motives as aris-
ing out of the love of God, who died for all people so that they might live for him
(2 Cor. 5.14-15). Paul describes such a person as a “new creation,” whose old ways
and existence have passed away (2 Cor. 5.17) and whose ways are now made new
(2 Cor. 5.17). In 2 Cor. 5.18, Paul describes in inclusive language the reconciliation
that comes from God to all of humanity “in Christ” (see 2 Cor. 5.19).
In this passage, Paul makes a number of important statements about God’s act of
12. Romans 1.15; 10.15; 15.20; 1 Cor. 1.17; 9.16, 18; 15.1, 2; 2 Cor. 10.16; 11.7; Gal. 1.8-9, 11, 16,
23; 4.13; Eph. 2.17; 3.8.
13. This does not mean that I do not take Colossians or Ephesians as authentic, or the passages in Col.
1.20-22 or Eph. 2.14-16, as fully Pauline. I limit this essay to the undisputed letters because of matters
of space allowed. The reconciliation passages in Colossians and Ephesians add important elements to the
Pauline perspective that need to be incorporated in a full-orbed view.
14. What follows is directly dependent upon — and even quotes — not only Porter, “Content and
Message,” but also E9%9118;;( in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings
(Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria, 5; Ediciones El Almendro, 1994), pp. 125–89.
15. On “we” in Paul’s letters, see C.E.B. Cranfield, “Changes of Person and Number in Paul’s
Epistles,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett (ed. Morna D. Hooker and Stephen
G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1980), pp. 280–89, esp. 286–87; cf. W.P. Bowers, “Church and Mission in
Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991), pp. 89–111 (n. 1), for bibliography.
reconciliation. The first is that all elements of this reconciling work come from God,
and it is God who reconciles “us” all to himself through Christ. Secondly, reconcili-
ation best describes this action toward humanity initiated by God (see pp. 173–74).
Thirdly, this action has occurred “through Christ” (2 Cor. 5.18), performed through
his death and resurrection. The fourth and final element is that, to those who are recon-
ciled, God has given the ministry of reconciliation. In 2 Cor. 5.19, Paul clarifies what
this reconciliation by God entails by using three parallel participial constructions —
God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, he was not counting human
(“their”) trespasses against them, and he has committed or entrusted to those who are
reconciled the “word of reconciliation.” The first participle in the construction, “God
was reconciling (b) . . . '9%9118;;()) the world to himself through Christ,” is the
participial verbal element (in italics) in a periphrastic construction,16 modified with
the instrumental preposition ,$8 (“through” Christ). This is followed by two other
dependent participles that further elucidate reconciliation — it involves not counting
trespasses (-O 1*C$[\-3)*7) and putting forward (/Z-3)*7) a “word” or message
regarding reconciliation.17 Therefore, Paul says, we all are ambassadors for or on
behalf of Christ (2 Cor. 5.20), including Paul, his companions, and the Corinthian
believers. As God’s ambassadors, we perform the ambassadorial function, that is, it is
as though God himself were making his appeal through us. This message is encapsu-
lated in the message with which we have been entrusted to announce to others: “We
beg on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5.20). The foundation of this
reconciliation and its resultant ministry is God’s making the sinless Christ to become
sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5.21).
Important for Paul’s missionary theology as a “ministry of reconciliation” are the
following three elements, made clear in this passage.
1. Reconciliation. Paul’s reconciliation language comprises '9%9118;;( and its
derived cognate forms. This word-group describes the exchange of goods or
things. The sense of the word for exchange is metaphorically extended to include
the exchange of relations. This includes the exchange of enmity or hostility for
friendship, whether involving persons or larger political entities. There are a
variety of uses of this word and its cognates in Greek literature, related to voice.
The four most important for Paul’s use are instances where (1) the subject effects
reconciliation between mutually antagonistic parties (any voice verb), (2) the sub-
ject effects reconciliation by persuading a hostile party to give up its anger against
the subject (active voice), (3) the subject is reconciled or effects reconciliation by
persuading a hostile part to give up its anger, usually against the subject (middle
16. See Porter, E9%9118;;(, pp. 132–36.

17. Contra J.-F. Collange, Énigmes de la deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude exegetique
de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (SNTSMS, 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 271; Christian
Wolff, “True Apostolic Knowledge of Christ: Exegetical Reflections on 2 Cor 5.12ff.,” in Paul and Jesus:
Collected Essays (ed. A.J.M. Wedderburn; JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989),
pp. 92–97; and Kim, “2 Cor. 5.11-12,” esp. p. 366, who divide up the construction on the basis of the two
further dependent participles being a present and an aorist. This reflects a misconception of the Greek
tense-forms, which are aspectual and not temporal (certainly not temporal in participial use). See Porter,
Verbal Aspect; and “Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” pp. 134–44, esp. 136–37.
or passive voice form), or (4) the subject effects reconciliation by giving up its
own anger against another party (active voice form).18 Even though there are a
few previous uses of '9%9118;;( for the theological notion of reconciliation,19
Paul’s use in 2 Cor. 5.18 and 19 appears to be the first use of the active voice form
of the verb in such a context (usage 4 noted above). Second Corinthians 5.18-20
states that God is the instigator or agent of reconciliation. This usage with the
active voice form of the verb was apparently first formulated by, and perhaps
even conceptualized by, Paul as reflected in this passage. He saw God, as the
offended party in the reconciliation process, as the initiator of reconciliation. As
Paul says, God reconciled us to himself and God was reconciling the world to
himself through Christ. Thus, God is both the initiator of reconciliation and the
one toward whom reconciliation is directed (2 Cor. 5.18 and 19).
2. Ambassadors for Christ to Non-Christians. Paul labels those who are mak-
ing God’s appeal for him as “ambassadors on behalf of Christ” (2 Cor. 5.20).
The language is similar to that in the inscriptions regarding ambassadors in the
ancient world, who were sent on behalf of another to promote the interests of that
other party.20 Commentators often interpret 2 Cor. 5.20 as Paul’s appeal to the
Corinthians to be reconciled.21 I believe that this is not the best understanding of
the meaning in light of the Corinthians’ salvific situation. A better understand-
ing — of both the Greek grammar and the structure of the discourse — is that
this is not an appeal to the Corinthians to be reconciled, but an appeal to those
who are unreconciled, and captures the spirit of Paul’s missionary theology in his
“language of evangelism.”22 This language “sounds much more like a description
of the gospel message proclaimed to the non-Christian”23 than it does language
addressed to those who are already Christians. Reconciliation is, indeed, the
call of the apostle to the still unconverted world.24 Paul’s logical progression in
2 Cor. 5.18-19 indicates this. He states that God is the reconciler of us to himself
18. For brief treatment, see Porter, “Content and Message,” pp. 147–48; for a more extensive treat-
ment, see Porter, E9%9118;;(, pp. 16–17, and the examples in the rest of the volume.
19. These include possibly Sophocles, Ajax 743-744, and certainly 2 Macc. 1.5; 7.33; 8.29.
20. On ambassadors and language used of them, see Anthony Bash, Ambassadors for Christ: An
Exploration of Ambassadorial Language in the New Testament (WUNT, 2.92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997), esp. pp. 87–115. Three major differences he notes are the use of the middle voice, the preposition
23"M, and aorist tense-form.
21. These commentators include Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (AB, 32A; New York: Doubleday,
1984), pp. 349–50; Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC, 40; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), p. 140; Christian
Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THNT, 8; Berlin: Evangelische, 1989); Margaret
Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; 2 vols.;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994–2000), I, pp. 437–38; and Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the
Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 309; as well as Bash, Ambassadors for Christ,
p. 104.
22. I. Howard Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation’,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament
Theology (FS George Eldon Ladd; ed. Robert A. Guelich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 117–32
(129).
23. Marshall, “Meaning,” p. 129.
24. Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th ed., 1924),
p. 126. Earlier interpreters held to this position, including H.A.W. Meyer (Critical an Exegetical Hand-
and God has given us the ministry of reconciliation (specified further in 2 Cor.
5.19). In other words, God initiates reconciliation, which results in an appeal to
a ministry or even service of reconciliation that consists of a message (or word)
of reconciliation.25 Paul’s use of the first-person plural verb in 2 Cor. 5.20 enfolds
his readers in Corinth with himself so that they are all ambassadors on behalf
of Christ.26
3. Scope. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that we are all ambassadors on behalf of
Christ, and God appeals through us on behalf of Christ that unbelievers would be
reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5.20). In contrast to the two verbal forms for reconcile
used previously in the passage, this verb for reconcile in 2 Cor. 5.20 is in the
aorist passive imperative form. The aorist tense-form conveying perfective verbal
aspect grammaticalizes an event as complete,27 and here is used to make an appeal
to the events encompassed in God’s work by means of Christ’s death on the cross
(what it means that God was working “through Christ”). The encapsulization
of the life and death of Christ as one not knowing sin being made sin on behalf
of humans is specified in 2 Cor. 5.21. The idea is that sinners do not have their
transgressions counted against them, because Christ, who did not know sin, was
appointed or designated as sin, that is, their transgressions are counted against
him and his righteousness (the righteousness of God found in him) becomes
ours.28 In 2 Cor. 5.18 and 19, Paul states that the object of God’s reconciliation
was “us” (v. 18) and “the world” (v. 19). Some have taken reference to the world
to suggest that the entirety of humankind is within the active scope of reconcili-
ation.29 The use of “world” in a similar context to “us” indicates that whereas the
potential of “world” may be broad, what “world” cotextually means is those of
“us” who are reconciled to God, whose sins are not counted against them. There
is therefore no limit to the scope of God’s reconciling action — implying both
Jews and Gentiles, without one privileged over the other30 — but the effective
Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884], p. 539) and Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes (Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962], pp. 210–11).
25. The genitive “of reconciliation” indicates what the ministry consists of (content). It is a ministry
that is constituted by reconciliation.
26. Some commentators interpret the plural references as Paul and his fellow apostles (e.g. Furnish,
II Corinthians, p. 339; Barnett, 2 Corinthians, p. 304), but the references to “us” in 2 Cor. 5.18, 19
and the parallelism with 2 Cor. 5.20 indicate more inclusive reference. See M. Carrez, “Le ‘Nous’ en
2 Corinthiens,” NTS 26 (1980), pp. 474–86 (478).
27. The unfortunate tendency remains to see the aorist, even in the imperative mood, as past-referring,
and even punctiliar (e.g. Wolff, “True Apostolic Knowledge,” p. 95; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, I, p. 438). See
Porter, Verbal Aspect, ch. 4.
28. See Porter, E9%9118;;(, pp. 142–43; D.A. Carson, “The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields
of Discourse and Semantic Fields,” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (ed. Mark
Husbands and Daniel J. Treier; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 46–79, esp. 69–71.
29. e.g. D. von Allmen, “Réconciliation du monde et christologie cosmique de II Cor 5.14-21 à
Col 1.15-23,” RHPR 1 (1968), pp. 36–38.
30. The idea of reconciling Jew and Gentile is hinted at further in Col. 1.20 and 22, and made graphi-
cally explicit in Eph. 2.16. See James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 105–106, with R.McL. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (ICC;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005), p. 160; Markus Barth, Ephesians (AB, 34; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
limitation is to those who are reconciled, who respond to the missionary ministry
of reconciliation and its message of reconciliation.
Second Corinthians 5.18-21 provides the foundation of Paul’s missionary theology

by pronouncing reconciliation as the basis of Christian proclamation to those who
are not Christ-followers. Paul instructs the Corinthians to be ambassadors for Christ,
making God’s appeal for him, that non-Christians are to be reconciled to God. This
reconciliation is defined as an act by which God, even though the offended party in the
relationship, initiates and effects reconciliation of humanity to himself. Reconciliation
has the world as its scope even though it is realized only in those who are reconciled
and do not have their sins counted against them.
B. Romans 5.8-11
One of the major areas of contention regarding Romans 5, and especially Rom. 5.1-
11, is the placement of the section within the wider argument of Romans. Some wish
to link it with Romans 1–4 on the basis of lexical and conceptual similarities, and
others with Romans 6–8 for similar reasons. Those who wish to differentiate justi-
fication and sanctification along traditional Reformed lines tend to place Romans 5
with chs. 1–4, while more recent commentators tend to place it with chs. 6–8.31 I
prefer to see it as a point of thematic and theological convergence within Romans, in
which the notion of reconciliation comes to encapsulate many of the most important
elements of justification and sanctification, and is in many ways to be equated with
salvation.32 If reconciliation is the heart of Paul’s gospel, then reconciliation becomes
an encompassing term that describes what we usually think of as how humans enter
into right relationship with God through faith (justification) and live lives that are
devoted to him (sanctification), which eventuates in what is termed salvation, made
available both to the Jews first and also to Greeks.
Romans 5.1 begins with the assumption “therefore, being justified by faith.”
Justification then moves quickly to reconciliation, “let us have peace with God.”33 The
means is “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” There is then an interruption in the argu-
1974), I, pp. 283–87; Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2002), pp. 369–71; and Porter, E9%9118;;(, p. 185.
31. See Porter, E9%9118;;(, pp. 145–52; and more recently Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), pp. 245–49; Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2007), p. 346.
32. See Stanley E. Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul: Romans 1-8 through the Eyes of Literary
Analysis,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. M. Daniel Carroll
R., David J.A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup, 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), pp. 366–92; and now Jae Hyun Lee, Paul’s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom
1:16–8:39 (Linguistic Biblical Studies, 3; Leiden: Brill, 2010); cf. Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans:
Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (JSNTSup, 45; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 226–27.
33. Verbs for making peace and reconciliation words are in the same semantic domain, even if the
phrase c#(-3) 3+"K)=) is not listed. See Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies,
1988), dom. 40A. I accept the subjunctive c#(-3). See Stanley E. Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5:
ment, before Paul resumes his discussion of reconciliation. A similar set of parallels
resumes the argument in Rom. 5.9-10. In Rom. 5.9, Paul begins with “having been
justified by his blood,” then moves to “we can expect to be saved.” Paul states in
Rom. 5.10 that, “if we are reconciled ('9%=118C=-3)) to God” and “being reconciled
('9%9119CZ)%37),” then “we can expect to be saved through his life.”34 Justification
and reconciliation (or enjoying peace) constitute overlapping though not synonymous
theological concepts, each offering a perspective on God’s work in human life, and
both converging on salvation as outcome and eschatological result.35 The juridical
category of justification and the personal category of reconciliation are linked together
in Paul’s argument. The progression of the argument is that both justification and
reconciliation move toward salvation, and that justification and reconciliation have
significant overlap as conditions for salvation. The difference is that justification leads
to salvation from the wrath of God (Rom. 5.9), while reconciliation leads to salvation
by Christ’s life (Rom. 5.10). These two strands are merged in Rom. 5.10-11, when,
continuing the complex grammatical structure, Paul states that, “being reconciled
('9%9119CZ)%37), we shall be saved,” and not only that but our salvation allows for
boasting in Jesus Christ, “through whom we now have reconciliation ('9%9119CK))”
(using the noun form).36 All of this is accomplished “through our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Rom. 5.1, 11) or “through the death of his son” (Rom. 5.10),37 with a heavy emphasis
in this passage on the means by which God acts to justify, reconcile, or save (Rom. 5.1
[twice], 2, 9 [twice], 10 [twice], 11 [twice]).
Several further points regarding Paul’s “ministry of reconciliation” can be made
on the basis of Rom. 5.8-11.
1. Reconciliation. The two uses of the verb '9%9118;;( in this passage are both
in Rom. 5.10 and both in the passive voice. The first states that, though we were
enemies we were reconciled to God, and the second that being reconciled we shall
be saved. Two possible interpretations of reconciliation in this context have been
suggested. The first is that “humans persuade God to give up his anger against
them.”38 This solution both fails to take seriously the passive voice of the verb,39
which voice is consistently used in this passage with other verbs (Rom. 5.9,
10, 11), and introduces an inappropriate sense in which there is an implied or
unstated cause or agent of the action. Further, the other passive verbs focus upon
Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?,” JBL 110 (1991), pp. 655–77 (662–65). See now also
Jewett, Romans, p. 344.
34. On the parallelism in this passage, see Porter, E9%9118;;(, pp. 152–54.
35. On the sense of expectation of the future form, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, ch. 7.
36. This perspective represents a change in viewpoint from my earlier work. See Porter, E9%9118;;(,
pp. 161–62.
37. Instrumental phrases are widely used in this section, as pointed out. Others include: “by his blood,”
“through him,” and “by his life.”
38. Porter, E9%9118;;(, p. 160. This is the so-called deponent or middle use of the passive voice
form.
39. Voice or causality in Greek is a morphologically grammaticalized semantic category. See Stanley
E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG, 2; London: Continuum, 2nd ed., 1994), pp. 62–73,
esp. 72, modifying Porter, E9%9118;;(, p. 17.
God working through Christ to initiate the action, which notion is undermined
by interpreting reconciliation as brought about by humans. Instead, the better
proposal40 is a usage in which “humanity persuades God to give up his anger”
(usage 3 with the passive voice form), but in which the means — the work of
Christ — is specified (in differing ways) as coming from something other than
human action, and in which God is the implied or unstated cause. Thus, in the
two passages discussed so far, 2 Cor. 5.9-11 and Rom. 5.8-11, Paul maintains a
distinction in which the passive voice verb (as in Rom. 5.10) is used with human-
ity as the grammatical subject (we are reconciled) and in which the active voice
verb (as in 2 Cor. 5.9-11) is used with God as the grammatical subject (God is
reconciling), but with God as the causal force behind each of the reconciling acts
as its agent or instigator.
2. Enemies of God. In Rom. 5.8-11, Paul defines the human condition in several
ways. One of these is as a sinner. Paul says that “while we were sinners” Christ
died for us (Rom. 5.8). He also says that we were enemies of God and that,
“being enemies,” we were reconciled to God (Rom. 5.10). The parallelism of the
participial phrases indicates that Paul equates being a sinner with being an enemy
of God. We were sinners and this constitutes us as God’s enemies, and hence
in need of Christ’s redemptive death and God’s reconciling action. Paul places
this action within the context of saving humans from divine wrath. In Romans,
divine wrath is God’s personal indignation and response to sin, displayed either
in the present age (Rom. 1.18-32) or at the final judgment, against evil and those
who have precipitated it.41 The logic of Rom. 5.8-11 endorses that sinful and
antagonistic (constituted enemies) humanity awaits the wrathful response of God.
This is the first use in Romans of the language of humanity being an enemy of
God. If being a sinner is tantamount to constituting oneself as God’s enemy, then
humans do so through their disdain for godly things and their pitting themselves
against God in severed relationship.
3. Reconciliation and Salvation. Paul envisions an expected final salvation as the
result of justification (avoidance of divine wrath) and/or reconciliation, that is,
this common though differentiated action that God takes toward humanity. As
noted above, salvation is the expected and eschatological act of God in response
to the forensic or legal situation of humanity caused by sin and solved by justifica-
tion; but salvation is also the expected and eschatological act of God in response
to the personal or relational situation of humanity caused by sin and solved by
reconciliation. It is in the context of human enmity toward God that reconciliation
40. See Porter, E9%9118;;(, p. 161, where I dismiss that there might be a case in which humankind
as God’s enemy gives up its own anger against God. A further proposal sees two different senses of the
verb in this passage (see Marshall, “Meaning,” p. 125), but the parallelism argues against this. See Porter,
E9%9118;;(, pp. 160–61.
41. So commentators such as C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975–1977), I, pp. 108–10; James D.G. Dunn,
Romans (WBC, 38; 2 vols.; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), I, pp. 54–55; many following Leon Morris, The
Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1965), pp. 147–54.
occurs. Salvation is an eschatological outcome that removes humans from suf-

fering the consequences of God’s wrath, and allows them to enjoy the justified
and reconciled condition of not being legally or personally estranged from God.
In Rom. 5.8-11, Paul further specifies his missionary theology of reconciliation by

placing it in relationship to other major theological concepts, especially justification
and salvation. Reconciliation is the process by which God as the agent of reconcili-
ation and through the death of Christ overcomes enmity between God and humanity
caused by human sinfulness, in expectation of salvation, which is eschatologically
realized.
III. Conclusion
There are many ways to conceptualize and then execute an analysis of Paul’s mission-
ary theology. I have not tried to present a complete theology of Paul but to find what
it is that distinguishes his theology of mission. I believe that the concept of reconcili-
ation provides the basis and the major essential components of that missiological
theology. However, in the course of examining the contribution that this theology
makes, I cannot help but notice that this message of reconciliation encompasses
a number of major theological ideas in Paul’s thinking. These include: the role of
God as the instigator of reconciliation of humanity to himself; the function of Jesus
Christ as the means by which reconciliation is accomplished; the relationship of rec-
onciliation to other important Pauline theological concepts, such as justification and
salvation; the personal or relational element of reconciliation that spoke importantly
to the missiological context in which Paul found himself; the characterization of
humanity as sinful and at enmity with God; the idea that reconciliation was a means of
speaking about how severed relations with God could be overcome and peace between
God and humanity created; and the scope of reconciliation that was concerned with
the entire world — including Jews and Gentiles — as its potential sphere of opera-
tion even though fewer than that became reconciled. Finally, Paul’s reconciliation
missionary theology addresses the major components of his mission identified above.
Reconciliation addresses the personal relationship between God and humanity that
Paul himself experienced in his conversion or calling, so that all humanity has a place
within God’s soteriological scheme, reconciled to God and, by implication, to each
other.42 Though the language of reconciliation is thoroughly Hellenistic in its use of
language of exchange, in his application of it to the exchange of enmity for peace with
God, and in the context of Christ providing the means of reconciliation through his
sacrificial death, Paul found a missionary theology that he could proclaim throughout
his various missionary endeavors, to both Jews and Gentiles.
42. Though this idea is more fully developed in Eph. 2.14-16, where the two are made into one new
person, fellow citizens, and part of the household of God (Eph. 2.19-20).
14
PAUL’S THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL
Roy E. Ciampa
While the missionary preaching found in the book of Acts has received much
scholarly attention, Paul’s letters provide an equally revealing view of the earliest
missionary preaching and of how the very essence of the gospel message naturally
demands that it serve as the foundation for missionary preaching. To understand
Paul’s theology of the gospel we need to consider potential Old Testament, Jewish
and Greco-Roman backgrounds, as well as Paul’s own relevant statements about the
gospel. We will pay particular attention to how Paul’s theology of “the gospel” sits
at the heart of his missionary calling, self-understanding and view of God’s purposes
for the church.
Backgrounds to Paul’s Theology of the Gospel

Many have observed that Paul’s concept of “preaching the gospel” reflects the influ-
ence of the book of Isaiah,1 where it refers to the good news of the establishment of
God’s reign in the promised time of eschatological salvation and restoration. Studies
have tended to focus on the background of the terms eu0agge/lion and eu0aggeli/zw,
especially the use of the latter term in the book of Isaiah. Peter Stuhlmacher has
shown that in early Jewish literature (especially the targumim and Rabbinic literature)
the root r#&b (eu0aggel in the LXX) came to serve more or less as a technical term
for divine and prophetic speech (and angelic messages).2 In the Jewish interpretive
traditions relating to these texts and concepts the noun hr#&b denotes a liberating
message of salvation.3
Paul’s references to the gospel make it clear that our understanding of his theol-
ogy of the gospel must give significant attention to the scriptural associations that
he suggests. It is remarkable, in fact, how often Paul explains the gospel through
1. See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 81–82;
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 45;
G. Friedrich, “eu0aggeli/zomai” in TDNT 2.707–10; Ralph Martin, “Gospel” in ISBE 2.529–30.
2. See also 11QMelch (passim) and 1QH 18.14–15.
3. See Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium: I. Vorgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1968), pp. 22–25, 122–64, 177–79, 243–44, 286–89; idem, “The Pauline Gospel” in The
Gospel and the Gospels (ed. Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 149–72 (150–69).
14. Paul’s Theology of the Gospel 181
references or allusions to particular scriptural passages or to Scripture as an organic

whole. For example, in Rom. 1 we are told in vv. 2-3 that the gospel is the message “he
promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures . . . concerning his
Son who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh . . .” Then he explains
his comments regarding the gospel in Rom. 1.15-16 by reference to Hab. 2.4 in the
following verse. Again Paul’s use of eu0agge/lion in Rom. 10.16 is informed by his
use of several texts of Scripture in 10.6-21 including Deut. 30.14, 21; Joel 2.32; Isa.
52.7; 53.1; Ps. 19.4; Deut. 32.21; and Isa. 65.1-2. In Rom. 15.16 the ministry of the
gospel is (untypically) described in priestly terms drawing on the cultic imagery of the
Old Testament. In Rom. 15.19-21 Paul’s approach to preaching the gospel is explained
by reference to Isa. 52.15. In Rom. 16.25-26 Paul’s gospel is described as the “revela-
tion of the mystery which was kept hidden for long ages but which is now revealed
through the prophetic writings.” In 1 Cor. 1.17 the nature of the gospel is explained
by reference to Isa. 29.14. In 1 Cor. 15.1-5 Paul describes his gospel in terms of the
“scriptural message” concerning Christ’s death for our sins and his resurrection on
the third day. In Gal. 3.8 we are told that Abraham had the gospel preached to him
(ahead of its appropriate time) in the words of Gen. 12.3/18.18/22.18.
It seems that for Paul the content of the gospel was filled by his understanding
of the whole of the prophetic message concerning the coming eschatological age of
salvation that had been inaugurated by Christ. The term “gospel,” then, serves as a
sort of shorthand for the eschatological message of salvation which is at the core of
the prophetic Scriptures.4 It is clear that as apostle and missionary to the Gentiles
Paul was particularly interested in what the Scriptures had to say about the place
of Gentiles in God’s prophetic plan of redemption. Since Gentiles were especially
known to Jews for their idolatry and sexual immorality, it is not surprising that Paul’s
message gives special emphasis to the need to turn from those two vices to worship
the one true living God and wait for his Son from heaven (cf. 1 Thess. 1.9-10).5 His
was not a disinterested reading of Scripture but one governed by his own calling and
the need to apply the gospel to his own missionary context and the lives of those he
engaged as he followed his missionary itinerary from Jerusalem around to Illyricum
and beyond (Rom. 15.19).
When Paul describes his calling in the language of Isaiah 49 (Gal. 1.15-16) and
takes “the preaching of the good news” (1.8, 11, 16) as the principal description of
his ministry, he has situated his theology and ministry in the center of Jewish hopes
for divine intervention in redeeming Israel and bringing about national restoration
and blessing that would extend beyond the Jews to the rest of the world as well.6 The
implications for Gentiles — for all nations — of the gospel message were of particular
concern to Paul. His preaching of the gospel was all about proclaiming what God had
done and was doing through Jesus the Messiah and how it applied to and mattered
4. Cf. Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung
und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986).
5. See Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A
Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52 (2006), pp. 205–218.
6. See James M. Scott, “Restoration of Israel” in DPL, pp. 796–805 (799).
to Gentiles as well as Jews. His letter reveals his special interest in how the Jewish
messianic hope went beyond the hope for national restoration to include blessing
for Gentiles — “for all the nations” (Gal. 3.8). It was the Messiah who would bring
about the end of Israel’s woes and restore not only the nation but also justice and
righteousness to the world.7
Of course, in the Roman world as well there was a theology associated with a
world ruler establishing an ideal kingdom and a new cosmic order, and according
to the propaganda of the Roman Empire Caesar Augustus has inaugurated just such
a reign and all the nations were to be its beneficiaries. The imperial ideology was
reflected in coins, architecture, sculpture, and official pronouncements, among other
ways.8 Recently, NT scholarship has engaged in a lively debate over the extent
to which Paul’s theology of the gospel might contain anti-imperial rhetoric.9 For
instance, Neil Elliott argues that Paul’s declaration “that he was charged by God with
securing ‘faithful obedience among the nations’” must be understood in light of the
fact that the “‘obedience of nations’ was also the prerogative claimed by the Roman
emperor.”10 It seems many of Paul’s statements could easily provoke reflection on
relationships with pagan imperial ideology, but Paul’s lack of interest in making
any such rhetoric explicit is remarkable (although perhaps not surprising, given the
tendency of oppressed peoples to express their resistance to the dominant ideology in
ways that are less likely to leave themselves fully exposed).11 Paul’s theology of the
gospel certainly has critical implications for Roman imperial ideology and preten-
sions, even if they are indirectly expressed and he gives greater explicit attention to
the problems of the reign of sin and death (cf. Rom. 5.14-21; 6.12).
One of the places where engagement with Roman imperial ideology may be
reflected in Paul’s theology of the gospel is in Philippians 1–2, especially if we under-
stand the letter to be written from Rome itself. In Phil. 1.12-18 Paul indicates that his
imprisonment has served to advance “the gospel” (v. 12). Paul naturally switches from
talking about preaching the gospel to preaching Christ, making it clear again that for
7. Cf. William Scott Green and Jed Silverstein, “The Doctrine of the Messiah” in The Blackwell
Companion to Judaism (edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan Avery-Peck; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003),
pp. 247–67.
8. See e.g. Craige B. Champion, ed., Roman Imperialism: Readings and Sources (Interpreting
Ancient History, 3; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), p. 266; A. C. Johnson, P. R. Coleman-Norton and
F. C. Bourne, eds., Ancient Roman Statutes (Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 2003), 119; S. R. F. Price,
Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1984), p. 55.
9. Cf. e.g. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville,
TN: Abingdon, 2006); N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), pp. 59–79;
Richard A. Horsley, ed., Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1997); and the Fortress Press monograph series, “Paul in Critical Contexts.”
10. Neil Elliott, “‘Blasphemed among the Nations’: Pursuing an Anti-imperial ‘Intertextuality’ in
Romans” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBL Symposium Series, 50; edited by
Stanley N. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp. 213–33
(214).
11. On “public” and “hidden transcripts,” see James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance:
Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Cf. Elliott, “‘Blasphemed among the
Nations’,” pp. 215–19.
him the proclamation of the gospel is about preaching Christ. Some are “preaching
Christ” out of envy or rivalry, but others out of good will (v. 15; cf. v. 17). Paul is
happy as long as the gospel/Christ is being preached. While it may be that those stir-
ring up trouble for Paul are stressing the law-free nature of his message, it is at least
as likely that the key issue is the part of the message Paul stresses in Phil. 2.9-11:
God’s resurrection and exaltation of Christ so that every knee shall bow and every
tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This, of
course, is another expression of the theme of the obedience of the nations found in
Rom. 1.5 and 16.26, and is at the heart of the Christian confession that “Jesus Christ
is Lord.” To be forthrightly expressing such a theology of the gospel in the midst of
“Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4.22) would provide opponents the perfect opportunity
to stir up trouble for him.
The Gospel and Paul’s Self-Concept

As he indicates in several different passages, Paul’s own self-concept is tied to his
understanding of the gospel message. Paul understands himself to be one of God’s
two main leaders of the missionary movement based on the preaching of the life,
death, and resurrection of Jesus as the decisive event in the history of Israel and even
the world,12 having been entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter was
entrusted with the gospel to the Jews (Gal. 2.7).13 God is bringing to pass, through
Paul, the eschatological fulfillment of salvation history through his missionary work
among the Gentiles. Just as the new eschatological age has already dawned with the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so it is currently breaking in to the old age
through his preaching of the gospel which is bringing about the obedience of faith
for the sake of Jesus Christ among the nations (Rom. 1.5; 16.26).
As Paul explains his calling to preach the gospel among the Gentiles in his letter
to the Galatians (Gal. 1.11-17), he echoes well-known texts of Old Testament pro-
phetic callings, suggesting a parallel between his status as an apostle and the status
of important prophets of the Old Testament.14 In Gal. 1.15, the phrase “who set me
apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace” reflects elements of both
Jer. 1.5LXX and Isa. 49.1.15 The point is that Paul’s calling is according to the pattern
of the prophets of Scripture (perhaps especially the servant-prophet of Isaiah 49).16
A key part of what the two texts share, of course, is the extension of the message to
the Gentiles — the basis for Paul’s own missionary work.
Paul’s application of the language of prophetic calling to his own calling to preach
12. Roy E. Ciampa, “Galatians” in NDBT, 311.

13. See Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, pp. 145–47,
for the suggestion that Paul may have understood his and Peter’s roles in light of Isa. 49.6.
14. See, e.g. K. O. Sandnes, Paul — One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-
Understanding (WUNT, 2.43; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991); Ciampa, The Presence and
Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, pp. 111–23; C. A. Evans, “Prophet, Paul as” in DPL 763.
15. Cf. Sandnes, Paul — One of the Prophets?, p. 64.
16. Cf. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel. Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer
Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT, 62; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), p. 76.
the gospel reflects his understanding not only of his own status and identity but also
of the nature of the gospel message itself. It is no ordinary message or teaching,
but one that was given to him by divine revelation (Gal. 1.12), and to oversee its
proclamation God provides Paul with a prophet-like calling. In v. 11 Paul uses both
the noun and the verb from the same root when he refers to “the gospel preached by
me” (to\ eu0agge/lion to\ eu0aggelisqe\n u(p’ e0mou~), but in v. 16, when he uses the
verb again, he indicates that he was called “to preach him (namely, Christ) among the
Gentiles” (eu0aggeli/zwmai au0to\n), demonstrating once again that Paul may speak
interchangeably of preaching the gospel or preaching Christ.17
That the gospel message was one that needed to be preached to both Jews and
Gentiles was central to Paul’s understanding of the message and of his own calling
and identity. In Gal. 3.8 Paul can even summarize the gospel as something proclaimed
to Abraham ahead of its appropriate time in the words of Gen. 12.3/18.18/22.18: “All
the nations/Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” The assertion that this was an advance
notice of the gospel message to Abraham based on the Scripture’s (personified)
prophetic insight that God would justify the Gentiles by faith is consistent with the
emphasis elsewhere in Paul’s letters on the radical importance of the inclusion of the
Gentiles in the blessings of the gospel. It is also consistent with Paul’s emphasis in
Romans and Galatians on the importance of Abraham in any theology of justification
and therefore for any theology of the gospel (one of the blessings of which is justifica-
tion). In Paul’s theology of the gospel, Abraham is especially important as the pioneer
of faith — the father of both Jews and Gentiles as the pre-circumcised man of faith
who stands as the archetypal model for all of his children of faith.
Paul’s Summaries of the Gospel Message

Paul (like other NT writers) never summarizes the gospel the same way twice. The
most common themes Paul associates with the gospel, besides its identification with
Christ in general, are the cross of Christ18 and his resurrection.19 Some passages focus
on one or the other, while others mention both (even if one or the other is stressed).
It is clear that the gospel message speaks to humanity’s problem with sin (and death)
through the death and resurrection of Christ on our behalf (see 1 Cor. 15.3; Romans
1–3 [esp. 3.22-26], etc.). Paul’s various articulations of the message reflect his con-
textualization of the gospel to speak to the issues he faced in his missionary work.20
Paul’s opening words in the letter to the Romans confirm the points made above
17. The tie between vv. 11-12 and 16 is strengthened by the parallel references to the revelation of
Christ since in v. 12 Paul says he received his gospel “by revelation of Jesus Christ” (di’ a)pokalu&yewj
'Ihsou~ Xristou~) and in v. 16 he indicates God was pleased “to reveal his Son” in/to him (a)pokalu&yai
to_n ui9o_n au0tou~ e0n e0moi/).
18. See 1 Cor. 1.17-18; Gal. 5.11; 6.12,14; Eph. 2.16; Phil. 2.8; 3.18; Col. 1.20; 2.14.
19. See Rom. 1.4; 4.24-25; 6.4-5, 9; 7.4; 8.11, 34; 10.9; 1 Cor. 6.14; 15.4, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor. 4.14; 5.15;
Gal. 1.1; Eph. 1.20; 2.6; Col. 2.12; 3.1; 1 Thess. 1.10.
20. In Rom. 2.13-16, a particularly difficult passage, Paul indicates that his preaching of the gospel
included reference to the day when doers rather than mere hearers of the Law would be justified when
God judges people’s secrets by Christ Jesus. How such a scenario might fit into Paul’s theology is debated
about the relationship between the gospel message and Paul’s understanding of his
own identity and about Christ being the key to the contents of the gospel message.
In the first six verses of Romans Paul is ostensibly identifying himself to the readers,
and he does so by identifying himself as a slave (dou~loj) of Christ, called to be an
apostle and set apart for the gospel of God (v. 1). The following verses elaborate on
the nature of the gospel. It was promised in advance through the prophets (confirm-
ing the prophetic nature of the gospel message suggested in Galatians) in the holy
Scriptures (v. 2) and it concerns God’s Son, descended from David (v. 3) and declared/
established as the Son of God in power (and thus Christ our Lord) by the resurrection
from the dead (v. 4). As Son of God in power he has extended grace and apostleship
to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations/Gentiles (v. 5). The scrip-
tural roots of this theology are not difficult to trace. The promise of a royal, Davidic,
Son of God, whose kingdom would be eternally established by God, goes back, of
course, to 2 Sam. 7.12-16 and is developed in Psalms 2, 72, 89; Isa. 9.6-7; Jer. 23.3-6;
30.1-11; 33.15-18; Ezek. 34.2-28; 37.24-25; Mic. 5.2-5; Amos 9.11; Daniel 7, etc. The
expectation that one day the Davidic king would have a universal dominion and would
receive the obedience of the nations is suggested by several of those same texts.21
Romans 1.1-6 reinforces the point already made in Galatians that Paul has been
called to play a crucial role in spreading the obedience of faith through the proc-
lamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. Paul’s understanding of the gospel is
expounded further in Rom. 1.14-17. In vv. 16-17 where Paul says the gospel “is the
power of God for (or leading to) the salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed, from faith
to faith, just as it is written, ‘the righteous by faith shall live.’” Paul’s quotation of
Hab. 2.4, may also be translated, “the righteous shall live by faith,” but, as Cranfield
points out, in the rest of the letter (as well as in his other letters) Paul has much to
say about being “righteous/just[ified] by faith” and little about “living by faith” (Gal.
2.20 is an exception). Francis Watson has argued that the first part of Rom. 1.17 (“in
it the righteousness of God is revealed, from faith to faith”) consists of his gloss on
Hab. 2.4 and that in Rom. 3.21-22 we find his slightly more expanded interpretation
of the same.22 If Watson is correct, the key to interpreting Rom. 1.17 (and Paul’s
understanding of Hab. 2.4) is found in 3.22: the righteousness of God comes to people
through faith in Jesus Christ; that is, it is given to everyone who believes.23 This is
the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel message.24
Cranfield has argued, based (among other things) on the relative frequency and
(see the commentaries). For early Protestant interpretations see Luther’s comments on the passage in his
lecture on Galatians (LW 26.252–56, 262–66) and Calvin’s discussion in his Institutes 2.7.4; 3.17.5–10.
21. Cf. Roy E. Ciampa, “The History of Redemption” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology:
Mapping Unity in Diversity (eds. Scott Hafemann and Paul House; Grand Rapids/Leicester: InterVarsity,
2007), pp. 271–73.
22. Cf. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 43–77.
23. On the pistis Christou debate, see Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of
Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010). Space
limitations do not allow discussion of it here.
24. Of course, Rom. 3.26 suggests the gospel reveals God’s righteousness not only in the sense that
infrequency of the terms faith,25 life/living,26 and righteousness27 in different sections

of Romans, that chs. 1–8 of Romans, at least, are structured on the basis of Hab.
2.4, with chs. 1–4 expounding on “righteous by faith” (o( di/kaioj e0k pi/stewj), and
chs. 5–8 expounding on the life experienced by those who are righteous by faith
(that is, expounding on zh&setai).28 All of this unpacks Paul’s meaning in Rom. 1.16
when he says that the gospel is the power of God for (or leading to) salvation to all
who believe.
Paul’s argument makes it clear that although the gospel is not the same as the mes-
sage of justification by faith, the latter played a significant role in his thinking about
the gospel.29 It also suggests however, that the good news goes beyond the blessing
of justification by faith (chs. 1–4 of Romans) to include the good news of the other
transformations in the lives of those who are justified by faith (chs. 5–8, at least, of
Romans). The gospel that Paul introduces in 1.1-5 leads not just to forgiveness and
justification but to obedience among the nations (1.5) and the salvation Paul mentions
in Rom. 1.16 is unpacked not merely in the first four chapters of that letter, but in
the letter as a whole In fact, the precise language of salvation does not appear again
after 1.16 until ch. 5.30 In 5.9-10 salvation is described as something that goes beyond
justification (“having been justified by his blood, how much more then shall we be
saved through him”; we will “be saved by his [resurrection] life”). It includes the
newly empowered life that comes to those who have been raised from spiritual death.
In 1 Cor. 15.1-2 Paul elaborates on his reference to the gospel in v. 1 through a
series of four relative clauses: The gospel (1) was preached to them by Paul; (2) they
received it; (3) they stand on it; and (4) they are being saved through it. The four
points seem to progress in chronological order starting from their first experience
with the gospel and moving to the process of salvation which they are presently
experiencing and which God would bring to completion at the end. At the end of v.
2 Paul gives a warning not to walk away from the gospel, suggesting it is possible to
have believed in vain if one does not hold fast to the gospel.
In 1 Cor. 15.3-5 Paul uses four key verbs to summarize the gospel: He died, was
buried, was raised, was seen (or appeared). The most prominent verbs are the first and
his justification of believers is revealed in it, but also in that Christ’s death and resurrection reveal how
God can justify sinners and yet remain the righteous God that he is.
25. After the transitional references in 5.1-2 the references to faith (and thus explicit references to
justification by faith) do not appear again in chs. 5–8 except in 6.8.
26. After 1.17, the only reference to life or living in the first four chapters is found in 2.7. But that
language is found often in chs. 5–8 (5.10, 17-18, 21; 6.2, 4, 10-11, 13, 22-23; 7.1-3, 9-10; 8.2, 6, 10, 12-13,
38).
27. The language of righteousness shows up throughout the letter, although it may be argued that in
chs. 1–4 it mainly has to do with justification and in chs. 5-8 the focus broadens to include more emphasis
on the righteous behavior of God’s people.
28. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC;
London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), p. 102.
29. So also in Galatians: Paul gives so much attention to the issue of justification in 2.16–5.11 because
his gospel can hardly be separated from his teaching on justification.
30. See 1.16; 5.9-10; 8.24; 9.27; 10.1, 9-10, 13; 11.11, 14, 26; 13.11.
third (died and was raised): the two modified by “in accordance with the Scriptures.”31
Here the gospel is summarized in terms of realized elements of eschatology ostens-
ibly found in the Scriptures’ references to death and resurrection. The Messiah has
already died and the resurrection of the dead has already begun with him (v. 4). As
Paul develops the place of Christ’s resurrection in his thinking about the gospel
message it becomes clear that the promise of the future resurrection of the dead is
firmly established by the reality of the resurrection already realized in the person of
Jesus Christ and proclaimed in the gospel. For Paul, the doctrine of the resurrection
makes it clear that God’s purpose has never been simply that of “saving souls” for a
disembodied existence in heaven, as though creation itself was of merely temporal
usefulness and significance. Oliver O’Donovan has helpfully articulated some of
the implications of the role of Christ’s resurrection in Paul’s theology of the gospel:
In proclaiming the resurrection of Christ, the apostles proclaimed also the resurrection of
mankind in Christ; and in proclaiming the resurrection of mankind, they proclaimed the
renewal of all creation with him. The resurrection of Christ in isolation from mankind would
not be a gospel message. The resurrection of mankind apart from creation would be a gospel
of a sort, but of a purely Gnostic and world-denying sort which is far from the gospel that
the apostles actually preached.32
The proclamation of the resurrection of Christ “directs us forward to the end of his-
tory which that particular and representative fate is universalized in the resurrection
of mankind from the dead . . . (15.23). The sign that God has stood by his created
order implies that his order, with mankind in its proper place within it, is to be totally
restored at the last.”33
Of course, in 1 Corinthians 15, as elsewhere in Paul and the rest of the New
Testament, Christ’s resurrection is associated or identified with his exaltation as Lord
over all creation (cf. Rom. 1.4-5; Phil. 2.9-11; Eph. 1.19-22). In 1 Cor. 15.20-25
Christ’s resurrection is tied to Psalms 8 and 110 and (based on the latter passage) his
need to reign until all his enemies have been placed under his feet. This part of the
extended explanation of the role of Christ’s resurrection in the wider theology of the
gospel reminds us again that the gospel message may often focus on forgiveness of
sins but it ultimately has a much wider angle of vision, including the total conquest
of all of God’s enemies and of all those powers that oppress and destroy God’s peo-
ple and creation. The gospel or good news is that in and through Jesus Christ God
is making all things right, conquering sin and death and all other opposing powers.
31. The second and fourth verbs (was buried and was seen) each seem to serve to reinforce and confirm
the verb that precedes Christ’s burial reinforces the fact that he had truly died. The fact that Christ was
seen by witnesses after his resurrection confirms the fact that he had truly been raised from the dead.
32. Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Leicester,
England: InterVarsity, 1986), p. 31.
33. O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, p. 15.
The Gospel and the Law

Given his missionary work among Gentiles, Paul clearly needed to differentiate his
understanding of the gospel from other Jewish missionary approaches. The gospel
message requires and calls forth a response of faith and obedience (or the obedience
of faith), and this is set by Paul in contrast with the usual Jewish requirement to adopt
or perform the works of the Law. Faith in (and obedience to) Christ, and not adher-
ence to the Law, is the proper response to the gospel and a distortion of this matter is
a distortion of the gospel itself.
In many ways it seems that Paul views the gospel as playing the role in the church
that the Law played in Jewish thinking. In Galatians Paul seems to present the gospel
as the restoration/eschatological/apocalyptic equivalent of the Mosaic covenant and
Law that serves as a root metaphor at the base of several others in his argument.34
Paul’s prophetic stature is based on his commission to proclaim the gospel (as Moses’
was tied to his revealing of the Law). His opponents are cast as false prophets because
of their attempt to distort or overthrow the gospel message (as the OT described those
leading God’s people away from him and his Law). The Galatians are like the apos-
tatizing Israelites at Sinai because they are turning to a different message etc. In Gal.
2.14 Paul addresses the problem of conduct of people who are not walking in line with
the truth of the gospel (ou0k o)rqopodou~sin pro_j th\n a)lh&qeian tou~ eu0aggeli/ou),
reminding us that the gospel is not about walking in line with the Law. Here the gospel
has taken over the place of the Law as the ultimate guide for community conduct.
Brian Rosner points out that elsewhere as well Paul attributes to the gospel what
Jews would normally have attributed to the Law.35 “The will of God which believers
test and approve in response to the gospel (Rom. 12.2b) recalls and surpasses the
experience of the Jews who know God’s will and approve what is superior because
they are instructed by the law (Rom. 2.18).”36 Furthermore, “Nowhere does Paul say
that Christians are ‘instructed by the law’; instead, throughout his letters they are
instructed by the gospel.”37 Again, “Romans . . . does not connect knowledge to the
law, but rather intimates that Christians find knowledge in connection with the mercy
of God revealed in the gospel (11.33).”38 In summary, “According to Paul, if Jews
have light, knowledge and truth because of the law, Christians possess these in even
greater measure because of the gospel.”39
In various texts Paul makes it clear that faith or believing (or obedience)40 is the
desired — the only appropriate — response to the preaching of the gospel (cf. e.g.
34. See Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, p. 229.
35. Brian S. Rosner, “Paul and the Law: What He Does Not Say,” JSNT 32 (2010), pp. 405–419.
36. Rosner, “Paul and the Law,” p. 409.
40. On the relationship between faith and obedience in Paul, see especially Rom. 1.5; 10.16; 15.18;
16.26; 2 Thess. 1.8 (cf. Rom. 2.8; 2 Cor. 10.5; Gal. 5.7).
Rom. 1.16; 10.16; 3.22; 4.11; 10.4, 10; 13.11; 15.13; 1 Cor. 1.21; 3.5; 14.22; 15.241;
2 Cor. 4.13; Gal. 3.22; Eph. 1.13, 19; 1 Thess. 1.7; 2.10, 13; 2 Thess. 1.10a).
Truncated Versions of the Gospel

The history of interpretation of Paul’s gospel reflects a variety of ways in which it
has been truncated. Since the church became a primarily Gentile institution so many
centuries ago and Gentile inclusion has been a non-issue, its place in Paul’s own
missionary context (and the key place of Abraham in his discussions of the gospel in
Romans and Galatians) has often been neglected.
The gospel has also often been reduced to the message of the forgiveness of sins or
the doctrine of justification by faith (themes which are certainly fundamental elements
in Paul’s theology of the gospel). Such presentations tend to understand the problem
of sin purely in terms of culpability and not in terms of an oppressive and destructive
power from which people need not merely forgiveness but also deliverance. They
miss the point that the gospel is the good news that all that is wrong is being set right
by Christ, and that that includes the justification, sanctification, and glorification of
believers and the liberation of creation from its oppression under the reign of sin.
Christ is bringing the reign of sin and death to an end and establishing his reign of
grace, life, and righteousness.
The gospel is being addressed in the whole of Romans and Galatians (not to men-
tion key sections of other letters), not only those parts that address justification by
faith (and how it can apply to Gentiles as well as Jews), but also those that address
the freedom from sin’s domination in our lives and the ultimate transformation of our
whole being in the resurrection from the dead, so that it includes the totality of the
implications of our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection life. It is not that
such truncated views of the gospel are completely wrong but as incomplete versions
they tend to lead people to warped or reductionistic understandings of our problems
and God’s agenda and intentions for us.
N. T. Wright has argued for an understanding of the gospel that stands over and
against reductionistic versions for the most part.42 However, his presentation tends
to eliminate from the gospel message all content that is not purely Christological.
For Wright it is a mistake to make the gospel about (or even to include in the gospel
message, it seems) the terms by which men and women come to experience the bless-
ings of the reign of this wonderful Lord. While it is true that the gospel is primarily
about Christ and leads to the fundamental Christian confession that “Jesus [Christ] is
Lord,” it seems that this understanding of the gospel leaves out something that must
be included. And Paul’s letter to the Galatians is very concerned about precisely the
part that this formulation leaves out.
There is no real evidence that the false teachers Paul is concerned about in Galatia
41. In this case the message believed is clarified in the following verses, as is stressed in 15.11.
42. N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 60.
were teaching a different message about who Christ is or what he had done than what
Paul himself affirms. It was not their message about Jesus himself that was different,
but their message about the required response. In their view it was not sufficient to
turn to Christ in faith (a faith that would be manifest in obedience as well, of course),
but it was also necessary to become Jews through circumcision and obey the Law
of Moses. And Paul describes such a message as “another gospel” — a false gospel
(Gal. 1.8-9). This suggests that any limitation of the gospel message to statements
about Jesus to the exclusion of those elements that address how — on what terms —
it becomes good news for us also results in a truncated version of the gospel. Paul
anathematizes the false teachers in Galatia for preaching a false gospel when the
primary difference seems to have been regarding the necessary response to Christ’s
death, resurrection, and lordship, not Christ’s nature or role as Lord or the narrative
of his death and resurrection.43
Conclusion
The gospel is at the heart of Paul’s self-concept as the God-appointed apostle and
herald of the eschatological and apocalyptic gospel to the Gentiles. According to
Paul’s theology of the gospel, God has acted and is acting through Christ’s life, death,
resurrection/exaltation and present reign as Lord over all creation to set all things right
to the glory of his name. The good news is that, for all those who respond in faith
(and the message is for all peoples — Jews and Gentiles), Christ brings deliverance
from the guilt and power of sin (and of death), reflected in the justification, sanctifica-
tion, and glorification of believers and in the ultimate liberation of creation from its
oppression under the reign of sin. God’s saving power is made manifest through the
preaching of the gospel, graciously redeeming sinners through their participation in
Christ’s redeeming death and in the power of his resurrection. Paul’s arguments often
stress the relationship of the gospel to justification and forgiveness of sins based on
the cross and/or the resurrection of Christ, but they also reflect the wider hope of good
news of cosmic transformation and renewal that was part of some Jewish messianic
hope from the beginning.
The gospel message requires a response of faith and obedience and has crucial
implications for how individuals and communities are to express their relationship
with God. In general terms it fills the role that the Law played in much Jewish theol-
ogy, serving as the eschatological/apocalyptic equivalent of the Mosaic Law and
covenant.
The gospel is the gospel of the glory of God and of Christ, leading to our
43. Douglas Campbell has offered another truncated understanding of the gospel by rejecting all of
the material on justification by faith in the first four chapters of Romans as material Paul is quoting from
another teacher whose views he rejects. For him, “Paul’s account of sanctification is the gospel. His descrip-
tion of deliverance and cleansing ‘in Christ,’ through the work of the Spirit, at the behest of the Father, the
entire process being symbolized by baptism, is the good news” (Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance
of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], p. 934
[emphasis in original]).
participation in Christ’s glory (2 Thess. 2.14; 2 Cor. 4.4) and results in the glory of
God (2 Cor. 9.13; Gal. 1.5; Rom. 11.36; 16.25-27). From the variety of ways in which
Paul summarized or theologized on the gospel message in his missionary contexts we
may also learn the importance of knowing how to contextualize the gospel message so
that it may be allowed to speak clearly and directly to the diverse issues and problems
faced in the advance of the gospel in our own generation.
PART FOUR
Paul’s Missionary Practice

15
UNIVERSALITY AND PARTICULARITY IN PAUL’S
UNDERSTANDING AND STRATEGY OF MISSION
William S. Campbell
Introduction
The theme we are investigating in this essay is the extent to which Paul’s molding of
his missionary communities in Christ should be viewed as a culture-transforming or a
culture-transcending activity. The fact that Paul’s gospel is both universal in outreach
(he sees himself as apostle to the gentiles) and yet always directed to a particular
context is potentially one of the most confusing aspects of Paul’s missionary policy/
practice. Thus it has been of great advantage in the more recent study of Paul’s letters
that there has been a growing recognition of the fact that his words are “words on
target,” not merely generalities with universal application.
Yet there are, on the other hand, elements that indicate that Paul himself did
have certain general patterns of communication and teaching that applied in all the
churches of the gentiles, as is found in e.g. 1 Cor. 4.17 where he speaks of “my ways
in Christ which I teach in every church” (cf. also Phil. 4.9). This might suggest that the
foundational element in Paul is the claim to be “in Christ” which is then to be regarded
as a fixed or recurring entity that does not vary wherever a Pauline congregation is
founded. Yet there are strong arguments against holding that being in Christ represents
a conformist element in his followers.1 While it is clear that human beings ought to
be moulded by the constraints of the gospel, rather than adjusting the gospel to fit
within their culture, it is also true that following Christ has been as much a cause of
diversity as of uniformity. Historically, it has not been particularly evident that being
in Christ necessarily leads to a distinct form of cultural expression. But perhaps it is
simplistic to argue from what is, as distinct from what ought to be, the case. Should
diversity be recognized and celebrated or simply condoned or tolerated? Was there
originally a uniformity in Christianity which later broke down due to human weak-
ness? Ought not the one Christ to be regarded as the common element in the faith
1. Cf. Y.S. Kim’s criticism that “a traditional theological approach to Paul’s ‘in Christ’ language
fossilizes Christian identity, fixes it as exclusive, and removes any possibility of a genuine, open-ended
engagement with others or of seeing community in multiple context and through the lens of diversity”
(Christ’s Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008], p. 37).
and thus necessarily the predominant source of uniformity? This is an important issue
as we reflect on Paul as a planter of communities of faith around the Mediterranean.
Did he, despite the contextual focus of his letters, intend these communities to have
a common pattern irrespective of their cultural context, or did he promote freedom
to develop diversely but in Christ? We need first of all to look at the evidence that
would indicate Paul’s own pattern of activity.
I. Commonality in Paul’s Teaching

The immediate context of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 7.17 regarding ordaining
something similar in all the churches2 relates to the state in which the call of God
was experienced. The claim seems to be that God has assigned (e0me/risen)3 a form of
life to each individually within the Christ movement. A parallel use of this verb can
be found in 2 Cor. 10.13 where the emphasis appears to lie on geographical limits
which God has measured out for differing apostles/evangelists. The verb e0me/risen
also occurs in Rom. 12.3 where what God has assigned is denoted as the “measuring
rod of faith” (me/tron pi/stewv).4 Christ-followers are not to be “super-minded” but
are told “to set your mind on being sober minded” even as God has distributed grace
within the body of Christ (12.4-8). According to R. Jewett’s exegesis, the primary
meaning of me/tron is that by which anything is measured, and thus it indicates “the
norm that each person is provided in the appropriation of the grace God apportions.”5
Despite 1 Cor. 7.17-24 appearing somewhat of a digression within its wider
context,6 this compact passage is basic to the understanding of Paul, in that it indicates
that a recognition of the status7 at the point of call is a determining factor in the living
out of the divine calling.
The immediate theme in this passage concerns being called as circumcised, as
2. We note, but cannot discuss in detail, that although the verb here is diata/ssomai, in 4.17 it is
dida/skw (as also in some manuscripts of 7.17). We take both to be a reference to authoritative teaching
by Paul.
3. The verb meri/zw means to divide into parts prior to the distribution of these, cf. Note 5. Here as
elsewhere the sovereignty of God as the giver of all gifts via the Spirit is being stressed.
4. On this see C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), pp. 613–18. Cf.
R. Jewett’s claim that “There are political, ideological, racial and temperamental components that are
legitimately connected with faith, comprising the peculiar ‘measuring rod’ that each person in the church
has been given” (Romans [HS; Augsburg Fortress: Minneapolis, 2007], p. 742).
5. Ibid. Jewett’s emphasis is upon individuation in the distribution of grace, which need not neces-
sarily demand an individualistic interpretation of Paul if construed in the context of Paul’s understanding
of charismata as God’s gifts experienced and exercised within the body of Christ.
6. But it only appears to be a digression since it concerns calling, a central theme of the letter (see
the article by C. Roetzel, “The Grammar of Election in four Pauline Letters,” and my response, “The
Contribution of Traditions in Paul’s Theology,” in D.M. Hay (ed.), Pauline Theology, 2 vols., (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1993), pp. 211–54. It is also taken up again in 9.19-23, which P.J. Tomson regards as
being the example in the Apostle’s person of the same “rule for all the churches” (Paul and the Jewish
Law [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990], pp. 270 and 281).
7. State or status is not a misleading translation of klh~siv here. The proposal that this means only to
remain in one’s call as a Christ-follower is not sufficient since the advice Paul gives is about being Jewish
or gentile — debates about vocation are secondary to this primary call.
15. Universality and Particularity 197
uncircumcised, or as a slave, and the clear indication is that each is expected to remain
as they were when called, only with the caveat that slaves should avail themselves
of freedom if the opportunity arises. What is common in the three passages, 1 Cor.
7.17-24, 2 Cor. 10.13, and Rom. 12.3-8, connected by the recurrence of e0me/risen, is
that in all three there is a given element which is to be taken as determined by God.
Thus it appears that everything in these new communities is not as undetermined and
open as is sometimes assumed. It is not acceptable to give up being a Jew or a gentile
for personal preference and certainly not as a means to social mobility. But slaves
who have an opportunity of manumission should take advantage of it,8 probably as a
sign of God’s will for them. In the first instance, in 1 Corinthians 7, the given element
appears to be more to do with social status; in the second with a designated sphere
of work; and in the third it is with spiritual gifts, which of course would include
leadership qualities.
What is apparent from this brief glance at this aspect of given-ness in important
areas of Pauline thought is that within the Pauline mission, the calling, gifts, and
spheres of mission were regarded as being ultimately under the direct determination
and control of God. A new way of life was opened up for gentiles who followed
Christ in the movement, but they were subject to the free distribution of divine gifts
to them via the Spirit; they were to remain in the state of calling in which they were
when called, and they were to work in the sphere of mission to which God would
apportion them. To put it briefly, they were free in Christ, but this freedom was for
specific service as determined by God and his gifts through the Spirit. It can be bet-
ter represented as freedom to do the will of God in Christ rather than just freedom
in Christ. Seen in this light, Paul himself as apostle to the gentiles is not free to say
“yes” and “no” as he feels appropriate, but “yes” can be his only response to the call
of God and the commitments that entails (cf. 2 Cor. 1.17-19).
Common Content across Paul’s Letters

We can argue from such references as 1 Cor. 7.17 that Paul did consciously teach
similar things throughout his churches and actually used this fact, as he does in
Corinthians, as a reason for conformity with his practices. But should such per-
ceived commonality signify that in view of it the letters of one writer, i.e. Paul, can
be interpreted as a group rather than only individually, on the presumption that the
commonality is greater than the difference? While we would not wish to deny that we
can discover from each letter elements that can reinforce or give more probability to a
8. The transition from slavery to freedom, or vice versa, was normal practice in ancient society. It
is just possible that Paul left the issue of seeking release from slavery entirely open; it is certainly not
forbidden; see Thiselton’s translation, “If, when God called you, you were a slave, do not let it worry
you. Even if there is a possibility that you might come to be free, rather, start to make positive use of the
present” (A.C. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006 ], p. 110). Thiselton stresses that freedom is not necessary for acceptable Christian service
(p. 112). But see also S. Bartchy, Mallon Chresai: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Cor.
7:21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973); J. Byron, Recent Research on Slavery (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2008); and my review of this, “‘Remain as you were when called’ and Paul’s Stance on Slavery,”
Journal of Beliefs and Values, vol. 30, no. 2 (2009), pp. 205–07.
particular understanding of another letter, we need to be very careful in how we relate

the contents of individual Pauline letters to each other. A good example is discernible
in the attempts to identify Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians. The information gleaned
from 1 Cor.11.12-29 that these people boast in their Hebrew background and their
Jewish heritage generally can be combined with other information from Galatians
and Philippians to create a picture of a mobile opposition group who, with or without
official backing from Jerusalem, dogged Paul’s footsteps in a concerted attempt to
force gentile Christ-followers to Judaize and thus to thwart the Pauline mission.
This pattern of grouping the evidence of several letters to presuppose an organized
and active anti-Pauline movement contemporary with Paul’s mission, starting from
F.C. Baur and followed by modern scholars such as W. Schmithals, in relation to his
conception of Gnostic opponents,9 and G. Lüdemann,10 has been, whether implicitly
or explicitly, highly influential in the formation of what can broadly be termed
Paulinism. In this construction, Paul becomes the self-styled champion of the gentile
mission over against a tribalistic Petrine mission to the circumcision. The division into
two opposing or competing missions11 with powerful leaders and differing ideologies
can now only be regarded as over-simplistic and somewhat institutionalized, entirely
unrepresentative of the great diversity normally accompanying a vital and transitional
religious movement. Such criticism does not rule out the possibility of similar devel-
opments emerging in differing regions and churches, but it does negate the view that
opponents of Paul could equal his tenacity and commitment to travel very long dis-
tances in dangerous and difficult circumstances and at great expense. We will return
to consider the identity of these opponents at a later point, but now we wish simply
to affirm that the individual letters, prior to their being correlated with the contents
of others and thus the importing of what might be considered an overload of meaning
from elsewhere, must first be allowed to reveal their own information, particularly in
relation to a specific context. To fail to do this is to create a decontextualized body of
disparate items of information which can then be reused (and thus probably misused)
in the service of the construction of a desired uniformity.12
Imitation in Paul
In a passage very similar to 1 Cor. 7.17-24 Paul states that he sent Timothy to remind
the Corinthians “of my ways in Christ Jesus as I teach them everywhere in every
church” (1 Cor. 4.17). This obviously refers to a pattern of teaching promulgated
by Paul. Here it is based on Paul’s status as church planter as — “your father in
9. Paul and the Gnostics, ET by J. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972).

10. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
11. Cf. M.D. Goulder, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2001),
esp. pp. 211–21.
12. ‘Paul’s reflections . . . become building stones for an abstract system that constitutes the essence
of his thought’, J.C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press 1980), p. 40. Beker goes on to criticize the theologies of Bultmann and others for following ‘a
topical-dogmatic method’ that ‘moves away from the contextual meaning of Paul’s themes and language’,
cf. pp. 34–35 and 351.
Christ” (4.15) (though not as the Roman “paterfamilias”).13 Because of this he urges
them to “be imitators of me” (4.16). Paul as the one who laid the foundation of the
Corinthian church ought to be imitated by the Christ-followers there. This is an
element in Pauline teaching which is very obvious once we become conscious of it.
He encourages imitation of himself to provide a living model for his converts. Thus
there is an expectation within the Pauline communities that all the members, together
with Paul and other co-workers, will adopt a common pattern for their lives. It can be
concluded from this that a common practice of the faith would soon develop across
the Christ movement, or at least the Pauline section of it. It is a way of life that is to
be imitated, not simply an adherence to a form of teaching. Paul does commend the
Corinthians for maintaining the traditions even as they had been delivered by him to
them (1 Cor. 11.2b). But this is immediately preceded by the comment, “I commend
you because you remember me . . .” So it is Paul and his practice of the faith that is
primary, rather than the content of the traditions, however significant. Yet this is also
not quite correct, since Paul qualifies the call to imitate him by the words, “inasmuch
as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11.1). Thus it has been cogently argued that imitating
Christ or Paul must not be viewed as simply copying but rather embodying the gos-
pel anew in each particular context.14 Hence, despite commonality in the pattern of
living, the possibility of diversity within the Christ movement is not therefore ruled
out by the practice of imitation, whether of Christ or of Paul. The application of this
common basis in daily life actually necessarily involves diversity.15 Both Jesus and
Paul are of Jewish birth, not gentile, and if we are correct in following Paul’s own
advice to the Corinthians to stay as they were at the point of call, then it can only be
imitation, not copying, that is intended, since gentiles would then be copying Jews
and thus Judaizing. Also the freedom of charismatic leadership within communities
such as Corinth disposes us to the view that Paul could not force just anything on
these communities — they too, or at least their leaders, had also to be convinced that
what they were urged to do was the will of God for them. Hence Paul’s forceful and
persuasive forms of argument — the rhetoric of persuasion was really necessary in
his attempt to win the churches to his point of view.16
Common Destiny — Conformity with the Image of Christ

It can rightly be asserted that, more than any other argument, being in Christ consti-
tutes commonality among Christ-followers, in that it contributes to a common identity
for Christ-followers. Yet recent research into the understanding of identity has raised
interesting questions in relation to how being in Christ determines or affects identity.
13. Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the
Early Christ-Movement (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2009), pp. 117–19.
14. Cf. Ehrensperger, Power, pp. 137–46. Even though the content of Phil. 4.9 includes a reference to
being taught (e0ma/qete), and to receiving tradition (parela/bete) as well as to seeing and hearing, the focus
is what has been learnt from Paul (e0n e0moi/), and the stress is not merely on knowledge but on practicing
(pra/ssete) these things. Thus this verse is very similar to what we are arguing from 1 Cor. 4.17 in that
both are experientially and personally focused on Paul and, via him, on Christ.
15. Cf. 9.19-23 and Note 5.
16. Cf. Ehrensperger, Power, pp. 174–78.
Some scholars stress the creative aspect of identity formation and see individu-
als and groups as potentially having several sub-group or nested identities. Taken
alongside this view, being in Christ can potentially be regarded as an over-arching
identity that holds together a diversity of human identities. Thus P. Esler sees the
Roman Christ-followers as a mixed group of Jewish and gentile origin with ongoing
differing identity, but joined together by an over-arching “in Christ” identity.17 This
scenario might be taken to suggest that being in Christ will eventually diminish the
significance of sub-group identities and the growing significance of commonality with
corresponding decrease in diversity. But it can also be argued that being “in Christ”
is more like a trans-national identity such as “European,” which need not necessarily
diminish local or national identity, but is intertwined with them. It is open to ques-
tion, however, whether “being in Christ” can thus be regarded as somehow creating
a status or station “above” the particularity of context. Most probably the concept of
a new entity,18 a new “people of God” that is neither Jewish nor gentile, has its origin
in some such supra-contextual vision.
In a somewhat different vein, E.W. Stegemann, influenced by A. Schweitzer,19 sees
identity in this world as being hybrid through Christ, but leading to a new transcend-
ent identity that overcomes difference finally in the world to come.20 This implies
a transformation of humans into the form of the heavenly Son of God. It should be
noted however that this transformation, though it may begin in this world, is not
complete until the eschaton. But how is identity to be defined in the interim? If this
transformation has only begun, then we would be left with Christ-followers already
in process of being partially transformed, but still retaining an identity as Jews or
gentiles in Christ. Does it make sense then to think in terms of Christ-followers as
having a hybrid Christ/Jewish or gentile identity? I am not sure that being in Christ
functions in the same way in terms of identity as other geographical and/or cultural
identities. It would seem to diminish the significance of Christ identity somewhat if
it is regarded as functioning only in the same way as human identity-creating factors.
Should “in Christ” identity be regarded as the invasion of the coming age into this
one, and as such something above and beyond contextuality, or ought it to be consid-
ered, like Paul’s gospel, to be fully contextualized and thus as contributing identity
creating forces in a similar way to other human contexts? If we think, for example,
of Christ as being the image to which gentile followers are destined to be conformed
(Rom. 8.29) then it could be contended that this means all Christ-followers will be
17. P. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2003), pp. 49–50, 152–53, and 190.
18. Although emerging only in the post-Pauline period, the patristic idea of Christianity as a “third
race” re-appeared in Harnack. Cf. A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
ersten drei Jahrhunderten (4th ed., Lepizig 1924), pp. 259–81. E.P. Sanders, however, views the church
as a “third entity” already in Paul (Paul the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983],
p. 29 and pp. 178–79).
19. Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1981, Neudruck der 1.Auflage von 1930),
pp. 178–99.
20. E.W. Stegemann, “Reconciliation and Pauline Eschatology in Romans,” paper read at the “Romans
Through History and Cultures Group,” SBL Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 2009.
transformed into one Jewish identity in keeping with that of the (earthly) Christ.21
But though we are emphasizing that Paul introduced his converts into a Jewish sym-
bolic universe, this need not mean that these acquire a corresponding Jewish identity
also. Paul certainly did not share this perception.22 The terms in which Paul speaks
of being conformed to Christ do not offer much information on the effect of such
transformation in this present life. We learn only that “the creation waits with eager
expectation for the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom. 8.19). It is a hope that is not
yet seen but in which we wait with patience. Even the full adoption as sons is not a
present reality a the redemption of our bodies is still awaited (Rom. 8.23-25). If it
is claimed that believers do share already this future identity in Christ, it is still not
yet visible, and present only in hope. It seems that too much weight is given if we
maintain as an already realized state what, at best, is a hidden identity which thus
differs radically from other visible and tangible identities.
We conclude therefore on this issue that while the concept of hybrid identity may
offer some insights, there are still unresolved problems with it in addition to the
incompleteness of the hybrid/Christ identity in this life. The basic problem is that
the categories Paul uses are not normally Jew and Roman/Greek, etc. but Jew and
gentile. Gentile thus represents the sum of humanity outside of Israel. To be catego-
rized as a hybrid gentile becomes somewhat meaningless in identity terms. The only
solution to this would be to insist that for most purposes, “gentile” operates for Paul
as equivalent to “Greek” and thus it could be argued that to be in Christ as a gentile
is to have a hybrid Greek/Christ identity. I remain convinced however that it makes
best sense to speak not so much in terms of hybrid identity between human identity
and “in Christ” identity, but to regard Jewish and gentile identities as continuing to
be maintained in this life, yet within a vision of a common destiny to be conformed
to Christ’s image in the world to come.
Being Linked with Christ for Paul Means Being Inducted into a Jewish
Symbolic Universe
While, as I have argued, Paul advocated the retention of identity in Christ, whether
Jewish or gentile, he nevertheless consciously sought to integrate gentile Christ-
followers into a Jewish symbolic universe. Thus it is the God of Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and of the prophets who is the father of us all, both Jews and gentiles in Christ
(Rom 4.16). The scriptures of Israel become the scriptures of the Pauline communi-
ties for their instruction also. It can, in addition also legitimately be argued that some
Noachide laws applied in Paul’s communities to enable good social relations between
21. Contra Johnson Hodge, who sees being in Christ as not “involving shifting or mixing for Jews
(since) it is already a Jewish identity,” but “being in Christ requires a more radical blending for gentiles,”
If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), p. 150. I find this very unclear. If Jews remain Jews, then it seems only gentiles
have to have hybrid identity through being in Christ. I consider it more apt to regard both Jews and gentiles
as remaining Jew or gentile, as they were when called, but both sharing a Jewish symbolic universe.
22. See my forthcoming article, “Gentile Identity and Transformation According to Paul,” in
M. Zetterholm and S. Byrskog (eds.), The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010).
Jew and gentile in Christ.23 Another major challenge posed to gentile Christ-followers
was that for them, as for Jews, idol worship in any form must be anathema. In view
of these factors then it is small wonder that some of Paul’s converts were surprised
that he did not advocate that they become also proselytes to Judaism.24 Indeed the
framework of Paul’s own mission is centered around a particular understanding of
the destiny of Israel and the interplay within this of the mission to gentiles led by
the apostle. It would seem then that his universal mission is to be finally located
within the purposes of the God of Israel in which the people Israel play a specific
and inalienable role. Gentiles have their particular place in this pattern, but it is in an
intertwined relationship with Israel, rather than as an integral part of it.25 This reflects
aspects of Paul’s Jewish particularity which we anticipate were shared with many
other contemporary Jews.
II. Universality and Particularity in First-Century Judaism

Philo
Scholars tend to diverge on the extent and nature of Paul’s Jewish identity.26 In my
view, identity is a better vehicle to discuss his relation to Judaism and Hellenism,
rather than trying to estimate the extent of the precise cultural influence in either
direction.27 In this respect a comparison with Philo has often been used to portray Paul
as deeply immersed in Hellenistic values. Alongside this there emerges a tendency to
view both Paul’s and Philo’s universalism as “a spirituality which transcends national
specifics at the cost of particular traditions.”28 However, recent research on Philo has
not demonstrated conclusively that this previous claim can be substantiated. In fact,
23. Cf. M.D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 198.
24. On Paul’s role in the creation of gentile identity see my Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity
(London: T&T Clark, 2006 [hbk], 2008 [pbk]), pp. 54–67. Cf. also T.L. Donaldson who proposes that
Paul’s gentile converts should be regarded as proselytes in a reconfigured Israel (Paul and the Gentiles:
Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997], pp. 236–48).
25. My view is that gentiles do not become part of the covenant but receive God’s blessings through
their status “in Christ” in whom God’s covenantal purposes are actualized — they have thus no independent
existence apart from the covenant of God with Israel. “Covenantal Theology and Participation in Christ:
Pauline Perspectives on Transformation,” in R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt (eds.), New Perspectives on
Paul and the Jews (Leuven: Peeters, 2010).
26. For a similar discussion in Historical Jesus research see K. Ehrensperger, “Current Trends in
Historical Jesus Research,” in P. Badham (ed.), Verdict on Jesus (London: SPCK, 2010).
27. Cf. J. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship and Universal Identity in Philo of Alexandria,” in
J. Frey, D.R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog (eds.), Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden: Brill,
2007), pp. 29–54.
28. On Philo cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship,” p. 34. This same tendency, also apparent in
many interpretations of Paul, R.F. Hock rightly traces back to F.C. Baur who held that “the reason for
Paul’s importance is that he was responsible for the doctrine of universalism, the offering of salvation to
Jew and Gentile alike that allowed Christianity to break loose from the particularism of Judaism and to
become a new and independent religion” (The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry [Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1980], p. 12).
Philo himself would probably have rejected such an interpretation.29 John Barclay
concluded that Philo represents an example of “medium assimilation,” someone
who was thoroughly integrated into the surrounding culture without sacrificing his
link with the Jewish community, a good example of cultural convergence.30 While it
cannot be demonstrated that Philo practiced negative self-definition in relation to the
other who is different, it can be claimed, at least in respect of Jewish worship, that
although he did not draw boundary lines nor separate from the dominant culture of
Greco-Roman Hellenism, he did use positive self-definition in terms of excelling the
surrounding culture. Thus, in his attempt to explain Judaism against the background
of Greek philosophy, Philo viewed Jewish traditions as relevant for the entire world
and Jewish ethics as of particular excellence.31 Indeed, Israel is presented by Philo as
the destiny of the whole of mankind in the service of the one God, offering a priestly
service in the place of the nations who do not know this God. By virtue of Moses’
unique prophetic insight into the working of the divine Logos, the Jewish Torah
corresponds to the universal cosmic order, it is the legislation for the whole world.32
“For Philo, the question of identity is not so much a matter of distinguishing between
“them” and “us,” but one of integrating the whole intellectual and cultural universe
within the Jewish traditions and conversely of giving Judaism its proper place — at
the top — in the Hellenistic culture of his time.”33
Philo and Paul: Commonality and Difference

From the above, several conclusions can be drawn: for Paul as for Philo, universality
and particularity need not imply absolute opposition since these are not mutually
exclusive to them. It is also to be noted that although Paul is very similar to Philo
in some of the respects given above, the extent to which he sees God as God both
of Jews and gentiles, and himself as apostle to the gentiles, raises the question as
to whether Paul’s understanding of God is truly representative of Judaism after his
call by Christ. Does not his subsequent conviction, now substantially refashioned,
represent an entirely fresh understanding of the God of Israel? This may not neces-
sarily be the case. We must distinguish what was already implicit or known by Jews
prior to the Christ event, and what only became clear in and through the action of
God in Christ. From Paul’s perspective as a Christ-follower, he can argue that the
activity of the gentile mission is part of the purposes of God already discernible in
the scriptures. Like Luke, he can see the hand of God in the birth and expansion of
the church (cf. Acts 3.17-26.)
29. Cf. Migr 89f.; Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship,” p. 40; and J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the
Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996),
pp. 89–93.
30. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 113–17, 173, and 176–180.
31. Cf. P.J. Tomson’s claim that “Halakha organizes and structures life into Jewish life. Structuring
Philo’s life, it stamped his Hellenistic philosophy as being Jewish” (Paul and the Jewish Law, p. 43; cf. also
p. 45). Similarly D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1992), p. 74.
32. Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship,” pp. 33–35 and 39.
33. Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship,” p. 53.
But in my view what distinguishes Philo from Paul is that in Philo’s conception
of Israel there is still a destiny to be realized, whereas in Paul something of God’s
purpose has already been actualized or set in motion in the work of God in Christ. This
had specific relevance for the status and hope of gentiles, so that instead of finding a
destiny as Jewish proselytes or as gentiles receiving a supplementary status deriva-
tive from Israel, they now can become co-heirs with Jewish Christ-followers without
the requirement of the law. Through the commission of Paul and other apostles they
have a mission and a destiny of their own. But it is questionable whether even this
fully represents Paul’s perspective. He fought continuously for the rights of gentiles,
for their unique status as sons and heirs, but this is always in conjunction with their
association with Christ-following Jews. Thus even after the Christ event and the
changes it brought into play, gentiles do not in Paul’s view enjoy an independent
salvation in which a mission to Jews may or may not have relevance. Freedom for
gentiles from Israel’s law does not for Paul mean freedom from association with Israel
and the divine purpose, because the latter involves both Jews and gentiles, not one
without the other.34 Thus Paul is at loggerheads with those Christ-believing Jews who
do not acknowledge that gentiles in Christ are sons of God without becoming Jews.
But he likewise also opposes, and this has not been sufficiently realized, those gentile
Christ-followers who no longer see any reason to relate in any fashion to Jews, as
Rom. 11.13-25 demonstrates. Thus Paul, in the end, though differing from Philo in
respect of gentiles, nevertheless shares the perspective that Israel is the hope for the
whole of humankind,35 and this entity as a whole benefits from the destiny of Israel,
and (in my view) only in association with Israel.
Similarly, a parallel with Paul can be found in the recognition that Philo’s concept
of universal spirituality does not mean a transcending of national specifics such as e.g.
the significance of the Temple and Jewish worship in accordance with the Torah. The
apostle is able to contemplate a “spiritual circumcision” but this need not imply that
he opposes circumcision for the sons of Jews. Nor does the recognition of believers as
shrines of the Spirit necessarily imply that for Paul they represent a replacement of the
Jerusalem Temple just as a law written on the heart does not require a termination of
the Torah and its requirements.Having considered Paul’s perspective on the universal
and the particular alongside that of Philo, it is clear that despite their distinctiveness,
these do have some significant views in common. Most of all, the particularity that
results from Israel’s special role in the divine economy is not seen as causing contra-
diction or anomaly in their vision for the gentiles. Nor does commonality in teaching
across the churches, inspired by Paul’s universal vision, actually result in a decontex-
tualizing of his thought. He can be both universal in perspective and contextualized
in detail in relation to any one of his gentile communities. This of itself should help
34. Cf. S. Fowl, “Learning to Be a Gentile: Christ’s Transformation and Redemption of our Past,” in
A.T. Lincoln and A. Paddison (eds.), Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (London/
New York: T&T Clark, 2007), pp. 41–57, contra K. Magda, Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy
(Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2009), pp. 187–92.
35. Cf. J.R. Wagner, Herald of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 381.
to convince us that the perceived dichotomy between the universal and the particular
is, as J. Munck stressed, a modern invention. “The opposition between particularism
and universalism is the product of a modern cosmopolitan outlook, and has nothing
to do with the biblical conception of the mission [to the gentiles].”36 Munck is clear
that both the primitive church and Paul were universalistic as was Jesus, but the later
Catholic Church lost that universalism because it no longer divided the human race
into Israel and the gentiles, but turned instead to the gentiles.
III. The Contextuality of Paul’s Universal

Mission — Recognizing the Limits
It is clear from 2 Corinthians 10 that Paul is aware of and fully acknowledges that
there are limits to one’s missionary activity. Plummer translates v. 14b as “we are not
straining to exceed the limits of our province” (kano/nov).37 Paul has claimed earlier
that we will not exceed our legitimate limits, “but will keep within the limits of that
sphere which God has assigned to us as a limit, and which certainly meant that we
should extend our labors so as to include you” (v. 13). The sphere or length (kanw~n)
which God apportioned Paul extends to and includes the area of Corinth.38 Paul is
clear that he has been commissioned to come as far west as Corinth; indeed he was
the first to proclaim the gospel in Corinth (v. 14). He is not invading nor would he
ever trespass on the (geographical) territory of another,39 taking glory for what others
have done, since it is his policy not to build on another’s foundation (vv. 13-15, cf.
Romans 15).
In the instance of Romans 15, where Paul acknowledges that he did not found the
Christian movement there, it may be surmised that the early date of Christianity’s
arrival in Rome may indicate a Jewish and most likely a Jerusalem connection. This
would explain Paul’s hesitancy and concern about being seen as interfering in the
foundation of others (15.13-16), especially if Rome were known to be associated with
the Petrine mission.40 Paul’s rationale or explanation is that the Romans are within
the sphere of his gentile mission and also that he needs them for a planned mission
36. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 71. Munck is citing
B. Sundkler.
37. Cf. A. Plummer, 2 Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), p. 287. Plummer refers to
Lightfoot on Gal. 6.16, the only other place in the NT where this word occurs. Interestingly there also
the meaning has reference to committing oneself (and thus limiting oneself) to a particular pattern or rule
of life. Cf. diata/ssomai as used by Paul to describe how he rules about certain things in every church
(1 Cor. 7.17). Cf. also Gal. 6.15 in relation to this — is this another way of saying in differing words that
Paul has specific universal rules that apply for all the churches? Interestingly, V. Furnish uses the English
term “jurisdiction” to translate kanw~n since it carries both the idea of legitimate authority as well as the
area over which authority is exercised (2 Corinthians [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1984], pp. 471–72).
38. Cf. Plummer, 2 Corinthians, pp. 285–87.
39. I was unable to deal with the issue of ethnic as opposed to geographical limits; cf. my Paul’s
Gospel in an Intercultural Context (Frankfurt: Peter Lang 1992), pp. 104–06.
40. See my article, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House
Churches and Synagogues?” in J. Ross Wagner and Florian Wilk (eds.), Between Gospel and Election:
Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 171–95.
to Spain, in order to complete a circle to the West and return again to Jerusalem (cf.
kuklw, Rom. 15.19). But in the case of Corinth, it is not Paul who is interfering, but
his opponents. There is, however, a parallel with Rome in that Paul wishes to use
Corinth also as a base for expansion westwards to Rome.41 Here we pause to ask
whether Paul is claiming that his opponents at Corinth are interfering since they were
not the first to preach here, or because they have no right at all to preach in the gentile
mission where he is the commissioned leader. Is it a dispute concerning the allocation
of territory within the sphere of the gentile mission, or is it rather a dispute concerning
interference from outsiders from the Petrine mission? The answer to this depends on
whether to\ me/tron tou~ kano/nov ou{ e0me/risen h9mi~n o( qeo\v me/trou is taken to refer
only to Paul’s territorial area within the gentile mission, or to the larger domain of the
mission to the gentiles as a whole (as distinct from that to the circumcision).42 Sumney
rightly stresses that though these people claim to be, and are, of Jewish descent, there
is no indication that they are Judaizers, advocating law-keeping for gentile Christ-
followers, or that the letters they carry are evidence of a connection with Jerusalem.43
On this basis, it appears that they have arrived in Corinth and caused trouble for Paul
by their emphasis on pneumatic status, their particularly strong personalities, their
powerful speech, and other characteristics likely to appeal to gentiles influenced by
certain Greco-Roman images of important teachers. Paul’s refusal to accept pay is
viewed as unacceptable for a real apostle and likewise his weak appearance. Paul
does debate the qualifications of a legitimate apostle,44 but his basic stance is that as
founder of the church at Corinth he occupies an indisputable status and jurisdiction
and that these newcomers, despite their grand airs, are interfering in his God-given
apostolate and mission field.
It is interesting to compare Paul’s response to these opponents with his previous
reaction to Apollos, which by comparison was quite gentle. Does the difference
originate in the fact that Apollos did not attack Paul personally or seek deliberately to
undermine his apostolic status? Apollos is referred to as “our brother Apollos” (1 Cor.
16.12) and thus in an inclusive reference, which implies that despite whatever factions
may have developed around him, he was still perceived as a fellow-worker alongside
of Paul. Apollos also is of Jewish origin like the interlopers of 2 Corinthians 10–13,
but there must be a substantial difference between him and these which can only be
accounted for by the behaviors of Paul’s opponents and their deliberate intentions to
attack Paul in every way possible, not by the Jewish origin, which is shared. What we
need to clarify is whether they are also attacked by Paul for interference in his mis-
sion field without acknowledging his priority as apostle to the gentiles and as founder
of the church there. Or is the issue that as Jewish “apostles” they have no right to
interfere in Paul’s churches of the gentiles? It is virtually impossible to determine this
41. See R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), p. 322.
42. See J.L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents (Sheffield: JSOT Press 1990), p. 151; Barrett,
2 Corinthians, p. 262; Furnish, 2 Corinthians, p. 481.
43. Cf. Sumney, Identifying, pp. 177 and 184. Cf. also his ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and
Other Opponents of Paul (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 78–133.
44. Cf. Ehrensperger, Power, pp. 102–04 and 114–16.
with any degree of certainty. Thus all we are left with here is the fact that Paul claims
that Corinth is part of his gentile mission area, and that he has priority there since
he is the founder. It is possible that Paul implies that even as apostle to the gentiles
he has agreed certain areas in which he will work, leaving the rest to others (cf. Acts
15.36-41). Is this covered by his claim to go only where the gospel has until now not
been preached, or was the territory of the gentile mission sub-divided into certain
portions where differing apostles would continue to operate and exercise jurisdiction?
My conclusion on this issue is determined mainly by Paul’s reference to God’s
apportioning to him and his associates a certain sphere of mission. As we have noted,
the divine apportioning, whether of status at the point of call to thus determine where
one would remain as a Christ-follower, or the charismata one is apportioned by divine
determination, or, as here, the sphere of mission whether to circumcision or uncircum-
cision apportioned by God, are all items of great import — life-determining in a grand
sense. Such appear to carry more significance than a sub-division of work within the
gentile mission would merit. Thus although this dispute does not warrant a claim of
competition between Peter and Paul, it does give evidence of the possible conflict
arising from unwarranted interference from zealous workers.45 The sovereignty of
the divine call and commissioning in the end overrules human preference and plans.
IV. Conclusion
The commonality and the universal scope to which we have drawn attention above
are not lost in the particularity of daily life in the Pauline communities. In fact the
universal scope of Paul’s gospel and mission imply both particularity and diversity
in application, though not sameness. No dimension of life remains untouched by
Paul’s gospel but this does not mean that all are touched in the same way. Since
Jews can remain Jews and gentiles continue as gentiles, the gospel affects both but
not necessarily in identical fashion. This is because Paul revalues both the states of
circumcision and uncircumcision equally in that he regards neither as ultimately
significant in comparison with being in Christ.46 What is common is that both states
of existence, whether as Jew or as gentile, are revalued. Yet continuing diversity is
not thereby ruled out because Paul in this re-evaluation does not give preference to
either state. This common treatment does not result in uniformity of lifestyle as would
be the case if Paul had valued the state of uncircumcision above that of circumcision
(still a tendency in much NT scholarship). In Christ both Jews and gentiles are trans-
formed, yet their particularity and hence difference remains even after the process of
transformation is in process. Thus “in Christ” does not represent an abstract universal
designator (designation) but is a deeply contextualized description of one’s present
earthly identity. It functions as an identity trigger mechanism that interpenetrates
45. Cf. Ehrensperger as in Note 44.

46. See my essay, “‘I Rate All Things as Loss’: Paul’s Puzzling Accounting System, Judaism as Loss
or the Re-evaluation of All Things in Christ?,” address given at University of Villanova as the Opening
Lecture of the Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Apostle Paul, Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor
of J.A. Fitzmyer and J. Murphy O’Connor (CBQMS; Washington, 2010).
existing identities and transforms aspects of those identities, though in differing ways
for Jews as compared to gentiles.47 This transformation takes place when apostles like
Paul are imitated to the extent that they imitate Christ in their pattern of life. What
Jews and gentiles share is being in Christ, even though they continue to be different in
their practice of discipleship. Thus Paul, while he did have a concern that his gentile
communities would learn Christ (cf. Eph. 4.15), did not present to them such a blue-
print for their development that he was actually trying to force them to copy him in
everything. To some extent, even after he had done everything he could to ensure that
they were imitating Christ after his example, he had to wait in hope to see how Christ
would be formed in them and how this would be expressed in their daily life together.
The context in which Paul had been called to work, the gifts that God through the
Spirit apportioned to Christ-followers individually, and their starting point when they
were first called whether as Jews or as gentiles, would together combine to produce
a work of God peculiar to Corinth or wherever else the gospel was proclaimed,48 and
in keeping with how God Himself had determined.
Our discussion has sought to clarify that the universal scope of Paul’s mission
and his particular contextualization of the gospel throughout his mission field do not
represent two contradictory tendencies in view of the fact that these were successfully
coordinated in Paul’s own vision and activity.
47. See J. Brian Tucker, ‘You Belong to Christ’: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in
1 Corinthians 1-4 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010) and my “Gentile Identity and Transformation in
Christ According to Paul” (Note 24).
48. As W. Meeks notes, “Whenever and wherever followers of Christ have spoken of incarnation,
that has necessarily entailed an incarnation in culture-the culture of a particular time and place and set of
social forms. How could it be otherwise?” Christ is the Question (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox,
2006), pp. 4–5.
16
“T HE W ORD OF L IFE”: RESURRECTION AND MISSION IN PHILIPPIANS
James Ware
The letter to the Philippians, I have sought to show elsewhere, is a document of

foundational importance for our understanding of the mission of the church in Paul’s
thought.1 Although largely unrecognized in prior scholarship, Paul in Philippians
reveals a quite extraordinary interest in the active spread of the gospel through the
Christian community at Philippi. The epistolary thanksgiving (1.3-11) identifies the
central theme of the letter as the Philippians’ partnership with Paul for the proclama-
tion of the gospel (1.5-6).2 In 1.12-26, Paul depicts his own mission activity (1.12-13;
1.19-20) and the fearless speech of the Christians at Rome (1.14) as models for the
Philippians.3 In 1.27–2.18, the epistle’s practical application of the paradigms set
forth in 1.12-26, Paul draws richly on Jewish texts and traditions, regularly associated
in ancient Judaism with the eschatological conversion of the gentiles, to shape the
missional self-understanding of the Philippians.4
Within the missional context of Phil. 1.12–2.18 sketched above, Paul’s exhortation
in Phil. 2.16, 1\C*) [(H7 ]2Z#*)%37, has a climactic force.5 As I believe I have shown
convincingly in the first comprehensive study of the word, the verb ]2Z#( can never
mean (as often claimed) “hold fast” but rather in Phil. 2.16 must mean “hold forth.”6
Paul in Phil. 2.16 thus exhorts the Philippians to “hold forth the word of life.” This is
1. See James Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of
Ancient Judaism (NovTSup 120; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005).
2. Ware, Mission of the Church, pp. 165–71.
4. Ware, Mission of the Church, pp. 215–84. Part One of this study documents a widespread interest
in conversion of gentiles in the Second Temple period. However, the context of this interest was not a
Jewish consciousness of mission, but rather the expectation of an eschatological pilgrimage of the nations
to Zion, linked with an interest in present day conversions as an anticipation of this future ingathering of the
gentiles. This Jewish understanding, I argue, explains both the eagerness of some Jews to embrace gentile
converts, and the lack of a Jewish mission to gentiles (pp. 21–159). Underlying the intense consciousness
of mission evident in Philippians, I argue in Part Two of the study, is the conviction that the eschatological
reign of Israel’s God, and thus the eschatological time of the conversion of the nations, had now come in
Jesus Christ (pp. 161–292). The results of my study thus set in bold relief both the strongly Jewish character
of Paul’s theology of mission in Philippians, and the uniqueness of the early Christian mission.
5. This modal participial clause, in describing how the Philippians are to function as lights in the
world, functions contextually as a command or exhortation to the Christians at Philippi.
of extraordinary importance, for the presence of a command to active mission in Phil.

2.16, together with Paul’s demonstrable interest in the spread of the gospel through
the Philippians elsewhere in the letter, reveals that the mission of his churches held a
crucial place in his missionary thinking. Paul did not understand his apostolic mission
as fulfilled in his own preaching activity and the founding of established churches, as
frequently asserted, but in the independent spread of the gospel from the churches he
founded. Moreover, his radical call to the persecuted church at Philippi to hold forth
the word of life, despite personal risk and suffering, reveals that Paul understood a
mission to spread the gospel as at the core of their identity as followers of Christ.
The “Word of Life” in Philippians 2.16

The missionizing character of Paul’s exhortation in Phil. 2.16 is, I am convinced,
integral to the message of the letter, and will be assumed in what follows. In this essay,
however, I wish to examine more closely the “word of life” which Paul exhorts the
Philippians to hold forth. The expression, which is unique within Paul’s letters, is one
of Paul’s varied designations for the gospel message.7 The formulation contributes to
the missionary accent of Phil. 2.15-16 in two ways. First, the phrase “word of life”
(1\C*) [(H7) recalls the fearless proclamation of “the word of God” (%Y) 1\C*) %*>
/3*>) by the believers at Rome, which functions parenetically within the letter as an
example for the Philippians (1.14). Second, as Gordon Fee has noted, the emphatic
position of the phrase, prior to the verb “holding forth” (]2Z#*)%37) and immediately
following the phrase “lights in the world” (6(;%H"37 ]) '\;-R), adds to the missional
tenor of the passage.8
Within the phrase 1\C*) [(H7, the genitive [(H7 appears to be a genitive of
description, the most basic meaning of the genitive.9 Within this descriptive force of
the genitive, most interpreters have rightly recognized two concepts at play. On the
one hand, the genitive appears to describe the content of the message, that is, the life
announced by the good news of Christ.10 On the other hand, the analogy of similar
genitive constructions with the noun [(K suggests that the formulation refers not
7. Although almost all expositors are agreed that 1\C*) in Phil. 2.16 refers to the word of the gos-
pel, Peter Oakes has questioned this consensus, arguing that 1\C*) is used here with the verb ]2Z#( in a
specialized sense, the clause 1\C*) [(H7 ]2Z#*)%37 thus meaning to “be” or “serve” as life for the world
(“Quelle devrait être l’influence des échos intertextuels sur la traduction? Lecas de l’épître aux Philippiens
(2,15-16),” Intertextualités: La Bible en échos [Paris: Labor et Fides, 2000], pp. 266–85). For an analysis
of this aspect of the verb’s semantic range, together with a refutation of the possibility of this technical
meaning within Phil. 2.16, see Ware, Mission of the Church, pp. 265–66, 269–70.
8. Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 247.
9. The commentators often reflect a confusion of nomenclature, but are generally united in under-
standing the genitive in what is described here as a descriptive sense. See, for example, John Reumann,
Philippians (AB, 33B; New Haven: Yale University, 2008), p. 395; Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the
Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 297–98; Fee, Philippians, pp. 247–48.
10. Cf. 1 Cor. 1.18, _ 1\C*7 %*> ;%9?"*> (“the message about the cross”); Acts 15.7, %Y) 1\C*) %*>
3P9CC31M*? (“the word of the gospel”); Rev. 12.11, %Y) 1\C*) %H7 -9"%?"M97 9P%I) (“the message of their
testimony”).
16. “The Word of Life” 211
only to the life of which the word tells, but also to the life which it bestows.11 In the
mission theology encapsulated by this formulation, the gospel both proclaims life,
and bestows the life it proclaims.12
Connections within the wider letter suggest that the life bestowed by “the word of
life” is central to the theology of mission in Philippians in yet another way. Strikingly,
Paul both exhorts the Philippians to hold forth the word of life (1\C*) [(H7, 2.16), and
encourages the Philippians by describing the fellow workers who struggled together
with him on behalf of the gospel (]) %Q 3P9CC31MR), as having their names written
in the book of life (dMd1R [(H7, 4.3). The strong connections between 2.16 and 4.3
would suggest that, in Philippians, the hope of life which is proclaimed is also the
hope which empowers mission in the midst of suffering and hardship.
In light of the above, it would appear that Paul’s characterization of the gospel in
Phil. 2.16 as the word of life is carefully chosen, and of theological significance within
the letter. But what is Paul’s specific understanding of this life from God, which is in
Philippians not only the gospel’s content and goal, but also the hope which empow-
ers the missionizing proclamation? Here the commentators are generally unhelpful.
Gerald Hawthorne describes this life as “the life of God.”13 Fee adds that it is “the
life that Christ has provided through his death and resurrection.”14 John Reumann
is a bit more full but no less vague: “life, from God, for believers, effected by the
preaching of the gospel, now and future blessedness.”15 I will attempt in what follows
to gain more precision, by giving close attention to the way in which Paul’s studied
description in Phil. 2.16 of the word as bestowing life functions within the context of
the letter. Throughout Philippians, I will argue, the life which the Philippians await
from God is the physical resurrection of their bodies at the parousia, as the outwork-
ing and consummation of Christ Jesus’ life-giving resurrection from the dead. And
more controversially, I will argue that the resurrection of the dead is a major focus of
Philippians, and a key component of Paul’s missionary thinking in the letter.
The claim that the resurrection is a crucial theme within Philippians might seem
surprising. While acknowledging that the topic surfaces in the letter (3.10-11;
3.20-21), interpreters have not generally regarded the resurrection of the dead as a
major focus of the epistle. Indeed, those scholars who posit a development in Paul’s
eschatology, from the expectation of physical resurrection at the parousia to the
hope of a new, spiritual body in heaven immediately upon death, usually point to
11. Cf. _ e"%*7 %H7 [(H7, Jn 6.35; [%Y] <f1*) %H7 [(H7, Rev. 2.7; 22.2; 22.14; and 22.19; g,(" [(H7,
Rev. 22.1 and 22.17; %S g,9%9 %H7 [(H7, Rev. 21.6; ,$'9M(;$7 [(H7, Rom. 5.18; and also _ 1\C*7 %H7 [(H7,
1 Jn 1.1. Scholars who recognize the concept of the gospel’s bestowal of life as implicit in the phrase
include Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), p. 103; Markus Bockmuehl,
A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1997), p. 158; Reumann,
Philippians, p. 395; Fee, Philippians, pp. 247–48; and O’Brien, Philippians, pp. 297–98.
12. Cf. hK-9%9 [(H7 9+()M*?, Jn 6.68; %S hK-9%9 %H7 [(H7 %9f%=7, Acts 5.20; _ 1\C*7 %H7 ;(%="M97
%9f%=7, Acts 13.26; %Y 3P9CCZ1$*) %H7 ;(%="M97 F-I), Eph. 1.13. For the thought expressed more fully,
see 2 Cor. 2.16.
13. Hawthorne, Philippians, p. 103.
14. Fee, Philippians, p. 298.
15. Reumann, Philippians, p. 395.
Philippians as the key piece of evidence for this latter perspective.16 In reality, as we
will see, the life bestowed upon believers by the gospel through Christ’s resurrection,
and its consummation in the transformation of their bodies and of the entire cosmos at
the parousia of Christ, is a specific focus of the exhortation and teaching which Paul
provides the Christians at Philippi. Moreover, Philippians reveals that resurrection
is at the heart of Paul’s understanding of his own mission and that of his churches.
What follows must be necessarily brief, and little more than an invitation to further
study. We begin with Paul’s most explicit statements regarding resurrection in the
letter, before moving to passages where the theme of resurrection is present but has
been largely ignored by scholars.
Philippians 3.10-11
The setting of these verses is Phil. 3.7-11, Paul’s paradigmatic story of his loss of all
things in exchange for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus. The purpose
clause “that I may know him” (%*> C)I)9$ 9P%*)) in 3.10 takes up and develops the
theme of the knowledge of Christ Jesus expressed earlier in the passage (3.8).17 The
following clause expands on Paul’s purpose of knowing Christ (the first '9M in v. 10 is
most likely epexegetical) by identifying this as knowledge of “the power of his resur-
rection” (%O) ,f)9-$) %H7 !)9;%8;3(7 9P%*>, 3.10). As Joseph Fitzmyer has shown,
by “the power of his resurrection” Paul most likely understands not merely a power
at work in believers by means of Jesus’ resurrection, but rather that the very same
power of God which raised Jesus to new bodily life is now at work in those united
to Christ by faith.18 Paul’s knowledge of Christ thus depends upon “knowing him as
the risen Lord and experiencing through this relationship the transformative power
of God which was at work in the resurrection event.”19 The omission of the article,
according to our best manuscript witnesses, in the following clause “and fellowship
of his sufferings” ('9L '*$)()M9) %I) 29/=-8%() 9P%*>), ties this clause closely to
the one which precedes, identifying the power of Jesus’ resurrection as the means
whereby Paul is empowered to share in Christ’s sufferings. Two things are especially
noteworthy in v. 10: the evident centrality for Paul (although not given previous
16. For the crucial role played by Philippians in such reconstructions, see Ben F. Meyer, “Did Paul’s
View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Development?” TS 47 (1986), pp. 363–87; and Thomas F.
Dailey, “To Live or Die: Paul’s Eschatological Dilemma in Philippians 1.19-26,” Int 44 (1990), pp. 18–28
(23–25). For a recent version of this thesis, see Nikolaus Walter, Der Brief an die Philipper (Das Neue
Testament Deutsch 8/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 43–44.
17. Moisés Silva, Philippians (BECNT; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), p. 163; Fee, Philippians,
p. 313; O’Brien, Philippians, p. 400.
18. Joseph A. Fitzmyer,“‘To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection’ (Phil 3.20),” Mélanges
Bibliques (FS Béda Rigaux; Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), pp. 411–25. Cf. Rom. 1.4; 2 Cor. 13.4; Eph.
1.19-20; 3.20.
19. Michael Byrnes, Conformation to the Death of Christ and the Hope of Resurrection: An Exegetico-
Theological Study of 2 Corinthians 4,7-15 and Philippians 3,7-11 (Rome: Gregorian University Press,
2003), p. 218.
explicit mention in the letter!) of Jesus’ resurrection; and the way in which Paul
understands the resurrection event as the source of a power now at work in believers.
Paul’s sharing in Christ’s sufferings has as its goal “that somehow I may attain to
the resurrection from the dead” (3.11). Few scholars would deny that Paul has in view
here the resurrection of the body at the parousia of Christ.20 As Joachim Gnilka has
observed, the unusual, emphatic construction (%O) ]<9)8;%9;$) %O) ]' )3'"I), 3.11)
seems “intended clearly to express the realism of the resurrection from among the
physically dead.”21 As many scholars have pointed out, Phil. 3.10-11 forms a chiastic
structure (a, Christ’s resurrection; b, sharing in Christ’s sufferings; b, conformation
to his death; a, resurrection from the dead). In this way Paul stresses that “the power
inherent in Christ’s resurrection guarantees our own resurrection.”22 In Phil. 3.10-11,
Jesus’ resurrection is understood as his vanquishing of physical death, a victory to be
consummated by the bodily resurrection of those who belong to Christ at his coming
(cf. Rom. 8.9-11; 1 Cor. 15.20-23; 1 Thess. 4.14-17).
Philippians 3.20-21
In Phil. 3.20-21, Paul expands and deepens his earlier discussion of the resurrection
in 3.10-11.23 Unusually in Paul’s epistles, the resurrection to life is here attributed to
the direct agency of Christ, thus further developing the emphasis we saw in 3.10-11
on the resurrection of the faithful as the outworking of the life-giving resurrection
of Jesus. The physical, flesh-and-bones nature of the resurrection event is strikingly
evident — it is the present, mortal “body of lowliness” which is the object of Christ’s
all-powerful action — as is also the divinely wrought transformation whereby this
body is made to participate in the glory proper to the exalted state of Christ’s body.24
20. That a special resurrection of martyrs is contemplated here is a red herring rightly rejected by the
great majority of interpreters, contra Randall E. Otto, “‘If Possible I May Attain the Resurrection from the
Dead’ (Philippians 3.11),” CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 324–40; cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper,
an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953), pp. 138–42. Phil. 3.11
is also not, as sometimes supposed, in tension with Phil. 1.21-26, which involves an intermediate state
prior to the resurrection of the body at the parousia (cf. 2 Cor. 5.6-10); see Dailey, “Dilemma”; Meyer,
“Development,” pp. 379–81.
21. Joachim Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (2nd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), p. 197, as cited in O’Brien,
Philippians, p. 415. However, as Veronica Koperski points out, there is also no evidence that 3.11 is a
polemical thrust against some who would deny or downplay the resurrection (The Knowledge of Christ
Jesus My Lord: The High Christology of Philippians 3:7-11 [Kampen: Kok, 1996], pp. 278–79, 283–84).
For striking similarities to Phil. 3.11 in thought and syntax, cf. Lk. 20.35, *i ,G '9%9<$(/Z)%37 %*> 9+()M*?
]'3M)*? %?#3J) '9L %H7 !)9;%8;3(7 %H7 ]' )3'"I).
23. Cf. Peter Doble, “‘Vile Bodies’ or Transformed Persons? Philippians 3.21 in Context,” JSNT 86
(2002), pp. 3–27 (21); Koperski, Knowledge, pp. 282–85. The thought of 3.20-21 includes the transforma-
tion of the bodies of the living at the parousia (cf. 1 Cor. 15.51-57; 1 Thess. 4.15-17), but in light of 3.11
the emphasis is on the resurrection of those who have died.
24. Cf. Rom. 8.11; 1 Cor. 6.13-14; 15.12-58. Paul’s reference to the body’s “lowliness” does not
indicate disparagement of the body, but underlines the body’s present enslavement to “physical decay,
weakness, indignity, and finally death” (O’Brien, Philippians, p. 464), which serves in turn to underscore
the transformation which will occur through the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15.51-55).
Resurrection is here described as involving not only the incomprehensible revivifica-

tion of bodies long decayed in the earth, but also a glorious transformation of these
bodies to share the indestructible life of Christ.25
As in Rom. 8.18-25, Paul here places the resurrection within the context of the
larger hope of the renewal and transformation of all creation ('9%S %O) ])Z"C3$9) %*>
,f)9;/9$ 9P%Y) '9L F2*%8<9$ 9P%Q %S 28)%9, 3.21). Misunderstanding the heavenly
commonwealth of 3.20 as the future homeland of the faithful (rather than, as Paul
appears to intend, the constitutive government which actively determines their con-
duct in the present), interpreters occasionally assume that Paul in 3.20-21 envisions
the removal of his resurrected people from earth to heaven.26 Rather, Paul awaits the
Lord Jesus’ return as savior from heaven (]< *j, 3.20), with the purpose of bringing the
entire creation (%S 28)%9, 3.21) in subjection to himself.27 As Andrew Lincoln notes,
in Paul’s thought “[Jesus’] coming from heaven inaugurates not withdrawal from
this world into some other but the fullness of the age to come with its transformed
heaven and earth.”28 Paul’s language of Christ bringing all into subjection recalls Ps.
8.6, and thus depicts this cosmic renewal as the restoration, through Jesus, creation’s
Lord and the second Adam (cf. Rom. 5.12-21; 1 Cor. 8.6; 15.21-28; 15.42-49; Gal.
4.4-6), of the creation dominion given to humanity in Genesis 1–2.29 In Phil. 3.20-
21, Paul thus sets the resurrection of the dead within the context of the larger divine
narrative, as the culmination of the creator God’s redemptive liberation of humanity
and all creation from evil, suffering, and death itself.
Philippians 3.10-11 and 3.20-21 in the Structure of the Letter

Paul’s statements regarding the resurrection of the dead in 3.10-11 and 3.20-21
receive their full weight within the mission theology of Philippians only when one
considers the strategic place of these passages within the structure of the larger letter.
In a theme carefully developed within the letter’s first two chapters, Paul exhorts the
Philippians to stand firm in the faith despite the threat of suffering, that they might
share in the gospel’s promise of eschatological salvation (1.19-20; 1.27-28; 2.12-13).
What makes this parenetic pattern within Philippians relevant for mission is that this
summons to devotion to Christ, as I have shown elsewhere, includes the exhortation,
25. Dale Martin’s influential thesis that resurrection in Paul’s thought does not involve the physical
body collapses in light of the evidence of Philippians (The Corinthian Body [New Haven: Yale, 1995],
pp. 104–36). Unfortunately, Martin fails to consider Philippians in his discussion of resurrection in Paul.
Following Martin in essentials (and similarly ignoring the evidence of Philippians 3) is Jerry L. Sumney,
“Post-Mortem Existence and Resurrection of the Body in Paul,” HBT 31 (2009), pp. 12–26 (14–19).
26. Cf. Walter, Philipper, pp. 86–87.
27. As Stephen E. Fowl points out, %S 28)%9 “is a common Pauline formulation to refer to the whole
of the created order” (Philippians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], p. 174).
28. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Heavenly Dimension of Paul’s
Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS 43; London: Cambridge, 1981), p. 189. Cf.
John A.T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: SCM, 1952), p. 78: “The scene of
the Messianic kingdom and therefore of the body of glory, is a renovated earth.”
29. O’Brien, Philippians, p. 466; Lincoln, Paradise, p. 103; Gary Nebeker, “Christ as somatic trans-
former (Phil 3.20-21): Christology in an eschatological perspective,” TJ 21 (2000), pp. 165–87 (182).
given by both precept and example, fearlessly and courageously to spread the gospel
despite the threat of suffering (1.12-13; 1.14; 1.16; 1.19-20; 1.27-30; 2.15-16).30
This pattern of parenesis leading to an eschatological finale is repeated in Paul’s
paradigmatic account in 3.7-11, but significantly expanded — whereas in the previous
passages Paul had described this hope in broad terms as “salvation” (;(%="M9, 1.19;
1.28; 2.12), in 3.10-11 this salvation is more fully described as the resurrection of
the dead (%O) ]<9)8;%9;$) %O) ]' )3'"I), 3.11). This same pattern, in which Paul’s
exhortation of the Philippians leads to an eschatological climax focused on the hope
of salvation, reaches its culmination in 3.17–4.1, a passage widely recognized as a
nodal point of the epistle. Strikingly, the focus of this passage is Paul’s most full and
extended treatment within the letter of the hope of resurrection (3.20-21)! Philippians
3.10-11 and 3.20-21, when viewed within the structure of the epistle as a whole, reveal
that, for Paul, the hope of salvation which empowers mission is the bodily resurrection
of the faithful from among the physically dead.
Philippians 2.6-11
Having considered the pivotal role, within the mission theology of Philippians, of
Paul’s two explicit treatments of the resurrection within the letter, we now turn to
passages which contribute to the theme of resurrection within Philippians but have
been left largely unexplored in this regard. We begin with the “Christ hymn” in Phil.
2.6-11, which, as recent scholarship has shown, is the fulcrum upon which the entire
letter pivots. Although the resurrection of Jesus is not explicitly mentioned in the
hymn, interpreters have generally agreed, as Ralph P. Martin notes, in taking the verb
F23"fk(;3) (“highly exalted”) in 2.9 “as covering both the Resurrection (which is
tacitly assumed), and the ascension.”31 Given the crucial place of Jesus’ resurrection
in Paul’s theology elsewhere (Rom. 1.3-4; 4.24-25; 10.8-10; 1 Cor. 15.3-8; 15.12-19;
1 Thess. 1.9-10), including Phil. 3.10-11 and 3.20-21, its assumption here can hardly
be denied. But the case, not only for the presence, but even for the central impor-
tance, of Jesus’ resurrection within Paul’s understanding of the hymn is in fact much
stronger. Two kinds of evidence point strongly in this direction: the scriptural reso-
nances within the hymn, and the reverberations of the hymn elsewhere in Philippians.
Although debate continues regarding the literary background of the hymn, recent
study strongly suggests that Phil. 2.6-9 reflects conscious interpretation of the Isaianic
portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isa. 52.13–53.12.32 This is suggested not only
by the shared storyline, but also the striking number of verbal correspondences to the
fourth Song within the short space of Phil. 2.6-9:
30. Ware, Mission of the Church, pp. 202–08, 216–23, 231–33, 242–47.
31. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting
of Early Christian Worship (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 239.
32. For fuller discussion and literature, see Ware, Mission of the Church, pp. 224–29.
Philippians 2.6-9 MT Isa. 52.13-53.12 and Greek versions

2.7 l9?%Y) ]'Z)(;3) (“he emptied Cf. Isa. 53.12, mnopqrm sturvnw xtyz{v “he emptied
himself”) out his soul unto death”
2.7 -*"6O) ,*f1*? (“form of a servant”) Cf. Isa. 53.2a, s|} w}~q sv “no form to him”;
Aquila, *P -*"6O 9P%Q
2.7 -*"6O) ,*f1*? (“form of a servant”) Cf. Isa. 52.13, 53.11, ot•z€•‚ “my servant ”;
Aquila, ,*>1*7 -*?
2.8 ]%923M)(;3) l9?%\) (“he abased Cf. Isa. 53.4, uzoƒxnm “abased”; Aquila,
himself”) Symmachus and Theodotion,
%3%923$)(-Z)*); LXX Isa. 53.8 ]) %„
%923$)…;3$ 9P%*>
2.8 -Z#"$ /9)8%*? (“unto death”) Cf. Isa. 53.12, sturvnw “unto death”
2.9 9P%Y) F23"fk(;3) (“he highly exalted Cf. Isa. 52.13, ‚rq†‡ vzx•ˆr| vz‰r•tŠ uz|}€ “he will be
him”) exalted and lifted up and highly exalted ”
If Phil. 2.6-9 offers an exegetical reflection on the fourth Servant Song, this is of great
importance for the place of Jesus’ resurrection within the thought of the hymn. Within
Second Temple Judaism the Servant’s exaltation, although interpreted in a variety of
ways, was widely regarded as involving resurrection from the dead, and the fourth
Song thus became an important focus point of theological reflection on the resur-
rection in the Second Temple period (e.g. Wis. 2.12–5.13; Dan. 12.2-3). In harmony
with this particular line of ancient Jewish interpretation and in combination with a
messianic reading of the passage, Paul in his allusions to the fourth Servant Song
elsewhere in his letters explicitly correlates Jesus’ resurrection with the exaltation
of the Servant (Rom. 4.24-5; 8.34; 1 Cor. 15.3-5).33 That Phil. 2.9-11 is an exception
seems highly unlikely.
But it is Paul’s application of Phil. 2.6-11 elsewhere in the letter which shows most
clearly the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection within the hymn. In 3.7-11, a series of
striking echoes of the Christ hymn portray Paul’s paradigmatic story as exemplifying
the pattern of Christ in 2.6-11.34 In 3.20-21, by means of the most concentrated cluster
of allusions to 2.6-11 within the entire letter, Paul exhorts the Philippians to join him
in following the pattern of Christ within the hymn.35 In both passages, the element
within the pattern corresponding to the glorious exaltation of Christ within the hymn
(2.9-11) is the resurrection from the dead (3.11, 21). These reverberations of the
Christ hymn in Phil. 3.10-11 and 3.20-21 confirm that, in the hymn’s description of
33. Cf. Meyer, “Development.” p. 376.

34. See the classic treatment of William S. Kurz, “Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in
Philippians 2 and 3,” in Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Fernando F. Segovia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985), pp. 103–26; for further discussion, see Peter Wick, Der Philipperbrief: Der formale Aufbau des
Briefs als Schlüssel zum Verständnis seines Inhalts (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlhammer, 1994), pp. 71–73;
Byrnes, Conformation, pp. 229–30.
35. Cf. Neal Flanagan, “A Note on Philippians 3,20-21,” CBQ 18 (1956), pp. 8–9; Wick, Philipperbrief,
pp. 74, 104–06; Lincoln, Paradise, pp. 88–89, 107–08; O’Brien, Philippians, pp. 467, 471–72; Bockmuehl,
Philippians, pp. 235–36.
Jesus’ glory and exaltation, the resurrection was very present to Paul’s mind. Within
Phil. 3.10-11 and 3.20-21, these echoes serve to deepen and enrich the emphasis of
these passages on the resurrection of believers as the outworking of the life-bestowing
resurrection of Christ.
Philippians 2.15
As they hold forth the word of life, Paul assures the Philippians, “you appear as lights
in the world” (69M)3;/3 ‹7 6(;%H"37 ]) '\;-R, 2.15). As recognized by most inter-
preters, Paul’s imagery here echoes another Old Testament passage, LXX Dan. 12.3,
69)*>;$) ‹7 6(;%H"37 %*> *P"9)*>.36 Strikingly, Dan. 12.2-3 is perhaps the most
influential among a select group of Jewish texts in antiquity which focus on the resur-
rection of the dead. Moreover, Dan. 12.3 alludes intertextually to Isa. 52.13–53.12,
in a collective application of the fourth Song associating the “wise” (mtŒt•zŽ•s•‚‡ cf. Isa.
52.13, ‚t•zŽ•‚s ot•z••‚) and “those who make the many righteous,” i.e. lead the many to
righteousness (ut•z••‚‘’‚ mrqt“•‚‡; cf. Isa. 53.11, ‚t•z••‚‘ •t••‚‘ ot•z••‚ srqt“•‚‡) with the figure of the
Servant. In Dan. 12.3, the sufferings of the Servant are applied to the sufferings of
faithful Jews for the sake of their God, and the exaltation of the Servant is associated
with their bodily resurrection and glorification in the eschatological time of renewal.37
Through this allusion to Dan. 12.3, Paul includes the Philippians in the suffering rem-
nant of Daniel 12 whom God will raise to life in the time of new creation. Philippians
2.15 thus functions, in a similar way to Phil. 3.10-11 and 3.20-21, to encourage the
Philippians in their sufferings for the gospel, through the hope of the resurrection.
What is also striking about the allusion is the way Paul applies the imagery of Dan.
12.2-3 to the Philippians in the present: Phil. 2.15 specifically identifies the resur-
rection life of Dan. 12.2-3 with the Philippians’ missionary identity as lights in the
world. This appears to embody the same understanding we saw in Phil. 3.10-11,
according to which the power of Jesus’ resurrection is already operative in believers.
The theology of mission which emerges here is extraordinary: the power of Jesus’
resurrection, which will one day raise their bodies to life and renew all of creation,
is the same power now at work in the Philippians as they hold forth the word of life.
Philippians 1.28; 4.5

In the midst of the depiction in Wis. 2.12–5.13 of the righteous child of God, perse-
cuted and put to death by the godless but raised to life by God, the wicked express
their intention to persecute God’s child “that we may know his gentleness” (”)9
C)I-3) %O) ]2$3M'3$9) 9P%*>, Wis. 2.19). In Phil. 4.5, Paul’s command %Y ]2$3$'G7
F-I) C)(;/K%( 2T;$) !)/"…2*$7 (“let your gentleness be known to all people”)
introduces a clear intertextual allusion to this persecuted righteous figure of Wisdom.
36. For a helpful summary of the evidence, see Oakes, “échos intertextuels,” pp. 263–64.
37. The intertextual adaptation of Isa. 52.13–53.12 in Dan. 12.2-3 is widely recognized; see, conven-
iently, John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp. 385, 393; Meyer, “Development,” p. 376.
The obvious nature of the allusion in Phil. 4.5 renders it highly likely that also in Phil.
1.28, where the Philippians’ fearless testimony to the gospel is a proof to the oppo-
nents of their destruction (!2(13M97), but of the Philippians’ salvation (;(%="M97),
Paul’s language again recalls the righteous one of Wis. 2.12–5.13, whose persecution
and death (Wis. 2.12-20) results in the destruction of his persecutors (!2(13M97, 5.7),
but his salvation (;(%="M97, 5.2).
Remarkably, Wis. 2.12–5.13 also alludes to and draws upon the Isaian Suffering
Servant Song. As is now universally recognized by scholars of Wisdom, LXX Isa.
52.13–53.12 is a focus of sustained exegetical reflection in Wis. 2.12–5.13. The author
of Wisdom appears to have taken the Servant of the fourth Song as a collective figure,
representative of all righteous Jews, and to have understood Isaiah 53 as a scene of
eschatological resurrection and vindication, in which the wicked, raised to judgment,
confess their former contempt for a persecuted and martyred righteous one, who now
stands before them raised gloriously to life.
Wisdom 2.12–5.13 is thus, like Dan. 12.2-3, a key Second Temple text focusing
on the resurrection from the dead. In both Daniel 12 and Wisdom 2–5, it is through
the resurrection from the dead that God delivers his people from the oppression of
the godless. In applying the imagery of these texts to the Philippians, Paul encour-
ages them in the midst of their sufferings for the gospel, by including them within the
righteous remnant of Israel, who will be raised to life in the coming time of renewal.
Furthermore, Paul’s skillful application of the fourth Servant Song to Jesus (2.6-11),
and the collective interpretations of the fourth Song in Daniel 12 and Wisdom 2–5 to
the Philippians (1.28; 2.15; 4.5), appears to reflect an integrated messianic-collective
interpretation of Isa. 52.13–53.12, according to which the resurrection of God’s
Servant is the source of life and resurrection of all those united to God’s people
through union with him.
Conclusion: Paul’s Gospel of the Resurrection

Surprisingly, the significance within Philippians of Paul’s characterization of the gos-
pel in Phil, 2.16 as the “word of life” has received little detailed attention. However,
this formulation’s association of the missionizing message with life is of the greatest
theological importance within the letter. Throughout Philippians, I have argued, Paul
identifies the life bestowed by the gospel as the physical resurrection of the bodies
of the faithful at the parousia, as the outworking and consummation of Christ Jesus’
life-giving resurrection from the dead. In Phil. 3.10-11 and 3.20-21, nodal points of
the epistle, the resurrection from the dead is a specific focus of Paul’s exhortation
and teaching of the Philippians. Moreover, Paul enriches and deepens his explicit
teaching on resurrection within the letter through a web of allusions to key Second
Temple texts which highlight the resurrection of the dead (1.28; 2.6-11; 2.15; 4.5).
It is striking that, within the space of this short letter, this web of allusions includes
Isaiah 52–53, Daniel 12, and Wisdom 2–5, all major focus points of ancient Jewish
theological reflection on the resurrection. When taken together with Paul’s overt
teaching on the resurrection in the letter, these intertextual allusions reveal that the
theme of the resurrection of the body is far more central and pervasive in the letter
than previously recognized.
The resurrection is of central importance to the theology of mission within
Philippians. In themes carefully developed within the letter, Paul identifies the power
of Jesus’ resurrection, which will one day raise the dead to life and renew all of crea-
tion, as the same power now at work in the Philippians as they hold forth the word of
life, and he describes the future bodily resurrection of the faithful as the hope which
empowers mission in the present. And as Paul’s characterization of the missionary
message as the “word of life” in Phil. 2.16 emphasizes, the hope of resurrection which
empowers the proclamation is also the hope which is proclaimed. To a degree perhaps
not sufficiently appreciated, Paul’s gospel was the gospel of the resurrection.
17
PAUL, PATRONAGE AND PAY: WHAT DO WE KNOW
ABOUT THE A POSTLE’S F INANCIAL S UPPORT?
Steve Walton
I. Setting the Scene

The financial support (or otherwise!) of Christian missionaries and itinerant preachers
and teachers is an issue which has been present in the churches from the beginning,
and continues to be a matter of contention — at least in some Christian circles —
today. Around the end of the first century, the Didache presents two apparently
incompatible views: on one hand, that a prophet who stays more than three days is a
false prophet (11.5) and that an apostle who leaves a church is not to take anything
except bread with him and is a false prophet if he asks for money (11.6); and on the
other hand, that there are genuine (a)lhqino&j) prophets who settle in a particular place
and they are “worthy of . . . their food” (a!cio&j . . . th~j trofh~j au0tou~, 13.1, echoing
Mt. 10.10) as are genuine (a)lhqino&j) teachers (13.2).
Paul — our prime example of a first-generation traveling missionary — seems
equally at odds with himself in this regard: sometimes he accepts financial support,
so that Philippians is partly a “thank you” letter for the financial help he received
from that church in his mission to Achaia; but at other times he vehemently rejects
financial support, notably while planting a church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 9, esp.
vv. 12, 15-18).
So is there any consistency to Paul’s missionary policy on receipt of financial
support? In what way(s) did Paul think of financial support in relation to his mission?
To answer these questions, we shall investigate these two features of the Pauline
texts: Paul’s assertion of financial independence in his gospel proclamation, and his
willingness on occasion to accept financial help while engaging in evangelism and
ministry. We shall consider the basis for his actions in each case against the back-
cloth of Greco-Roman patterns of patronage and the concerns which drove him as a
missionary. Finally, we shall examine the overall picture which emerges — is Paul
making his decisions purely subjectively or are his actions principled and consistent?
As we noted, a key element of social context here is the pervasive system of
17. Paul, Patronage and Pay 221
patronage in the Greco-Roman world.1 The Roman empire was a massive web of pat-
ronage, emanating outward from the emperor himself, so that just about everyone was
someone’s client and many were also someone’s patron. These relationships required
reciprocal responsibilities: the patron provided for the client, often materially, and the
client supported the patron, generally by rendering services and support for the patron
in his (and it was normally his) political and social ambitions. To be the greater giver
placed a person in a position of social superiority. Even to speak of “friends” (Greek
fi/loi, Latin amici) was to use a term which brought such a relationship of mutual
obligation into play.2 In places, Paul’s language echoes that used in such relationships.
For example, “the matter of giving and receiving” (lo&gon do&sewj kai\ lh&myewj,
Phil. 4.15) evoked the whole apparatus of mutual obligation, not only the language
of business in the ancient world.3
So a key question for our study is how Paul engages with this set of pervasive
social conventions: is he simply reflecting the dominant culture or is the culture and
its terminology being transformed through a theological and Christological lens? We
propose that the latter suggestion provides the key clue to integrating the various texts.
II. Thanks, but No Thanks: Paul’s Financial Independence

Paul’s general missionary policy was that he maintained financial independence. He
states in a number of places that he worked to support himself while proclaiming the
gospel (notably 1 Thess. 2.9; 1 Cor. 4.12; 2 Cor. 11.27; 12.14; cf. Acts 20.34), prob-
ably covering his time in Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and perhaps Rome.4 Hock
has argued cogently that Paul’s tentmaking trade was central to his life and vocation,
a means for his mission and ministry, rather than a hindrance to them.5 Such work
1. See G. W. Peterman, Paul's Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift-exchange and Christian
Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), ch. 3; P. Lampe, “Paul, Patrons
and Clients,” in J. P. Sampley (ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International, 2003), pp. 488–523; L. H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians:
Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), pp. 285–91; and more fully
R. P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982);
A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society,
vol. 1; London/New York: Routledge, 1989).
2. Saller, Patronage, pp. 11–17.
3. G. D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 443, citing
Plutarch, Lib. ed. 14 (11B); Herm. Mand. 5.2.2 (= Herm. 34.2).
4. Acts 28.30 records that Paul lived in a rented house in Rome at his own expense, which may imply
he worked to pay the rent (M. L. Skinner, Locating Paul: Places of Custody as Narrative Settings in Acts
21-28 [AcBib 13; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003], p. 165 with further references in n. 44), although Rapske
argues that Paul would not be able to work while chained to a guard (28.20), preferring to suggest that
Paul received financial help from his fellow believers (B. M. Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman
Custody (AFCS 3; Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 236–39; cf. pp. 177–82).
However, Rapske’s idea seems at variance with v. 30, which suggests that Paul himself paid the rent. The
question hinges on the kind of custody implied in Acts 28.16, 20, 30: the presence of only one guarding
soldier, rather than the usual two, implies greater liberty and so may imply some liberty to work.
5. R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980).
was strenuous: Paul speaks of working “night and day” (1 Thess. 2.9), and the word
order may suggest that he rose before sunrise to begin work and then also worked
during the day.6 Not only that, but Paul uses language portraying physical effort: to_n
ko&pon h(mw~n kai\ to_n mo&xqon “our labor and toil” is a combination found rarely (here;
2 Cor. 11.27; 2 Thess. 3.8 in the NT) — this collocation highlights that the work was
physically tiring.7 However, Hock also stresses that the workshop environment was a
place where philosophical discussion could and did take place: for example, Philiscus
the shoemaker had someone reading aloud from Aristotle in his workshop.8 So as a
place for Paul to conduct evangelism, the workshop was ideal, for it was relatively
quiet and a place where philosophical conversation could take place.
However, for Paul to work would not impress everyone. While it is commonly
noted that Jewish rabbis had a trade,9 Cicero is typical of Greco-Roman sources in
regarding work as appropriate for slaves, but not free men:
Now in regard to trades and other means of livelihood, which ones are to be considered
becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar, we have been taught, in general, as fol-
lows . . . Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired
workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very
wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery. Vulgar we must consider those also who buy
from wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without a great
deal of downright lying; and verily, there is no action that is meaner than misrepresentation.
And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal
about it. (Off. 1.42 [= 1.150], LCL translation, italics mine)
Thus Paul would have caused himself, at least in some people’s eyes, to be seen as
“slavish,” and he hints at this in his letters: “For though I am free with respect to all,
I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them” (1 Cor. 9.19)10
6. Nukto_j kai\ h(me/raj is a genitive of time, expressing the kind(s) of time during which he worked
(A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 148; D. B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp. 122–24, esp. 124). Apprentices’ contracts from the period suggest that such
hours of work were unusually long (Hock, Context, pp. 31–32 with p. 81 n. 55).
7. G. Milligan, St Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Macmillan, 1908), p. 23 suggests
that ko&poj denotes the weariness resulting from the work and mo&xqoj the struggle or hardship involved
in the work, but it may be simpler to take the collocation as being used for rhetorical effect (with BDAG
pp. 558–59 ko&poj §2). Hock, Context, p. 60 plausibly suggests that the physical effort of working con-
tributed to his converts’ view of him as weak in appearance.
8. Hock, Context, p. 33; cf. pp. 39–40, 56–57.
9. CRINT I/2, pp. 964–65, citing examples of disciples gathering for teaching in an evening, on the
sabbath and on festivals as evidence that they could not meet in the daytime because the rabbi would be
working: T. Yom Tob (= t. Bes[ah) 3.8; T. B. Betzah (= b. Bes[ah) 15b; Sifre Num. 148.
10. D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 428; R. F.
Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class,” JBL 97 (1978), pp. 555–64 (558–61);
D. B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1990), pp. 125, 139.
and “Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I
proclaimed the gospel of God to you as a gift?” (dwrea&n, 2 Cor. 11.7).11
When Paul faced the offer of financial support while planting a church in Corinth,
those offering it probably thought they were offering a favor to Paul and following
social convention — Marshall argues persuasively that they would perceive it as an
offer of friendship.12 In their eyes, Paul would be similar to traveling orators. Winter
has shown that such figures would arrive in a city and seek opportunities to lecture
and thereby to acquire paying students or customers for whom they would act as legal
advocate. The orator’s first speech, the dia&lecij, would be expected to demonstrate
and speak about their own prowess, and would be followed by an encomium praising
the audience and their city, and then a request for topics on which the audience wished
the orator to speak.13 The field was highly competitive and thus encouraged self-
promotion.14 By contrast, Paul came to Corinth having pre-determined his evangelistic
approach — neither boasting about himself (1 Cor. 3.21) nor using the weapons of
rhetoric and wisdom (1 Cor. 2.1, 4) — and with a pre-determined theme — Christ
crucified (1 Cor. 2.1).15
Most notably for our purpose, Paul declined to accept financial support from the
wealthier members of the community where he was proclaiming the gospel — he
pungently describes himself as not marketing God’s word for profit ('92=13@*)%37,
2 Cor. 2.17), using a term whose atmosphere is of trickery or sharp business practice.
Paul twice asserts that he was not a burden to them (2 Cor. 11.9; 12.13-14). This
refusal clearly caused some resentment, especially when it became clear that Paul
was at the same time accepting support from the Philippian believers (2 Cor. 11.8-9).
Hock helpfully identifies four main options a traveling orator had for financial
support: charging fees, becoming the client of a rich and powerful person and joining
that patron’s household, begging, or working.16 Each had their advocates and their
critics; Paul makes a deliberate choice to adopt the fourth.
Paul’s major discussion of this issue comes in 1 Cor. 9.4-18, a passage which
comes in the wider context of a section (1 Corinthians 8–10) in which Paul is seeking
to encourage the powerful and wealthy among the Corinthian believers to be ready to
give up their supposed “rights” for the benefit of others.17 Paul thus first establishes
his “right” as a Christian missionary to financial support, posing a question expecting
the answer “No” in v. 4: mh_ ou0k e1xomen e0cousi/an fagei=n kai\ pei=n; which might be
11. R. Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), pp. 205.
12. P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians
(WUNT 2/23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), pp. 165–258.
13. B. W. Winter, “Entries and Ethics of the Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2.1-12),” TynBul 44
(1993), pp. 55–74 (58–60); cf. S. M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), pp. 52–54.
14. B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
(Cambridge/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 36–38.
15. Winter, “Entries,” pp. 68–70.
16. Hock, Context, pp. 52–59.
17. A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/
Paternoster, 2000), pp. 661–62; Hock, Context, pp. 60–61.
rendered, “Surely we have the right to eat and drink, don’t we?” The point here is the
right to have meals provided by the believing community.18 He continues to press the
point, using analogies with military service, viticulture and shepherding (v. 7), before
appealing to Scripture (vv. 8-11, citing Deut. 25.419).
The hinge of the argument comes at v. 12b, where Paul clarifies that he did not
make use of this “right,” and he underlines the point in v. 15. His reasoning seems
to be twofold.
First (v. 12b), had Paul exercised his “right” to financial support, he would have
been adopting the posture of a client to a patron, and thereby placing himself in a
relation of dependence on that person. He would thus have been in hock (if I may
use this term!) to the wealthy and powerful in Corinth, and would have obligations
to them which would preclude — or at least seriously compromise — his ability to
share the gospel with all.20 This freedom (e0leu&qeroj, v. 19) would be curtailed by
accepting patronage.21
There is also the further concern on Paul’s behalf that he was constrained by God
himself to proclaim the gospel and therefore he felt unable to accept payment for
something which was a divine compulsion (v. 16). Thus Paul’s “boasting” (kau&xhma,
v. 15, perhaps better translated “glorying”22) is in his offering the gospel without
fee, as Fee observes: “In offering the ‘free’ gospel ‘free of charge’ his own ministry
becomes a living paradigm of the gospel itself.”23 In order to demonstrate that the
gospel is free, Paul feels compelled to give up his “right” to financial support — and
this is a powerful lever in arguing, in the wider cotext of 1 Corinthians 8–10, that
the “strong” in Corinth should give up their “rights” for the sake of the “weak.”24
Hock observes that this commitment on Paul’s behalf meant that “he formulated his
self-understanding as an apostle in such a way that his tentmaking was a constitutive
part of it.”25
To draw together material from more widely in the Pauline letters, there seem to
be three major reasons for Paul’s general policy of financial independence.
First, he sought to avoid association with disreputable traveling orators, with whom
he contrasts himself and his gospel proclamation (1 Cor. 9.12; 1 Thess. 1.5; 2.3-6; cf.
Acts 20.33-35). He avoids receipt of improper payment — he does not “peddle” the
18. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, p. 679.

19. For helpful discussion of the use of Scripture here, see Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, pp. 685–88; R. B.
Hays, First Corinthians (Int; Louisville: John Knox, 1997), p. 151; R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the
Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 165–68.
20. See especially Marshall, Enmity, pp. 1–34, who maps this issue carefully from the Greco-Roman
sources, and Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, pp. 662–63.
21. Marshall, Enmity, p. 232; Hock, Context, pp. 61–62; J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study
of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), pp. 173–75.
23. G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 421;
cf. Hays, First Corinthians, p. 153; E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM,
1969), pp. 217–35, esp. 228–35.
24. M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the
Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), p. 133.
25. Hock, Context, p. 62.
word of God (2 Cor. 2.17). He does not trim his message to the audience — he does
not distort (dolou~ntej) God’s word (2 Cor. 4.2), but preaches an unpopular message
of Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1.22-23). He does not exploit his hearers by enslaving them,
taking advantage of them, flattering them or even slapping them in the face (2 Cor.
11.20). Paul thus contrasts his mission and ministry with the traveling orators.
Secondly, Paul saw idleness as inappropriate for believers, and so he modeled
this himself, especially since this allowed him to support others (1 Thess. 5.14;
2 Thess. 3.6-13; cf. Acts 20.34-35). In particular, he can offer to pay Onesimus’ debts
(Phlm. 18-19). Paul thus modeled, for believers who were clients, that to work would
enable them to be independent like Paul, not merely concerned with what their patron
wanted (1 Thess. 4.11-12).26
Thirdly, Paul wanted to make the gospel freely available to the Gentiles, in obedi-
ence to God’s call on his life to be a missionary — as we have seen, this is a major
thrust of 1 Cor. 9.16-18. Similarly, his concern in Thessalonica was not to be a burden
to his converts (1 Thess. 2.7, 9); because he had a trade, he could contribute to the
household expenses of his hosts — so he asserts that he did not eat without payment
(2 Thess. 3.8-9). This implies that Paul did not generally accept offers of free hospitality
among those to whom he proclaimed the gospel, but paid his way, illuminating Paul’s
practice in both letters (e.g. Phlm. 22) and Acts (e.g. Lydia’s household, Acts 16.15).
III. No Thanks, but Thanks: Paul’s Acceptance of Financial Help

Alongside the above, we have several pieces of evidence that Paul did, on occasion,
accept financial help from others. The most substantial evidence is Philippians, which
has been dubbed “Paul’s thankless thanks.”27 In addition, there are signs elsewhere
in the Pauline corpus that Paul accepted help from Phoebe as his patron (Rom. 16.2),
and Philemon, in whose guest room Paul planned to stay (Phlm. 22).28
A. Philippians
Philippians surprises moderns, for while there is clear evidence that Paul received
gifts from the Philippian believers (notably in 4.15-16, 18) the words “thank you”
directed to the Philippians do not appear in the letter — the eu0xariste/w word group
is only found in this letter with reference to thanks to God (1.3; 4.6).29 For ancients,
this would also be surprising, but for a different reason, for to express thanks places
the thanker in a subordinate relation of client to the one being thanked as patron.30
26. B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Carlisle/Grand
Rapids: Paternoster/Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 42–60.
27. G. W. Peterman, “‘Thankless Thanks.’ The Social-Epistolary Convention in Philipppians 4.10-20,”
TynB 42 (1991), pp. 261–70; the phrase “thankless thanks” goes back at least to 1876 (J. H. P. Reumann,
Philippians [AB 33B; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2008], p. 685).
28. Among the disputed Paulines, we might add Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1.16-18).
29. Although note that Neyrey argues that eu0xariste/w ought to be understood as denoting an
inner sense of duty to the patron by the client within a patron-client relationship (J. H. Neyrey, “Lost in
Translation: Did It Matter if Christians ‘Thanked’ God or ‘Gave God Glory’?” CBQ 71 [2009], pp. 1–23).
30. Seneca, Ben. 2.13.2; Fee, Philippians, p. 446 (with n. 31).
Seneca observes, “Not to return gratitude for benefits is a disgrace and the whole
world counts it as such” (Ben. 3.1.1). More than that, thanks could function as a form
of request, as Seneca notes:
Listen to the words of petitioners. No one of them fails to say that the memory of the benefit
will live for ever in his heart; no one of them fails to declare himself your submissive and
devoted slave, and, if he can find any more abject language in which to express his obligation,
he uses it. (Ben. 3.5.2)
However, Peterman cites a striking letter by Chairas, a physician, dated August 29,
AD 58.31 The key sentence for our purpose is:
Gra/fein de\ soi mega/laj eu0xaristi/aj pareste/o(n0: dei= ga\r toi=j mh\ fi/loij ou]si dia\ lo/
gwn eu0xaristei=n.
I may dispense with writing to you with a great show of thanks; for it is to those who are not
friends that we must give thanks in words.
The seemingly deliberate lack of thanks to the Philippians thus suggests that Paul
is adopting terminology which paints his relationship with them in different terms.
This will be our focus in examining 4.10-20, but it is worth noting the beginning of
the letter first.
In 1.5 Paul speaks of the Philippians’ “fellowship (koinwni/a) in the gospel from
the first day until now”: what is the referent of the term koinwni/a here? Koinwni/a
is a favorite Pauline word,32 and refers to participation in a common feature.33 Here
it could refer to the believers’ participation in the gospel — i.e. their reception of the
gospel message — along with Paul,34 but it seems more likely that some reference
to the converts’ financial participation in Paul’s gospel missionary work is present,35
because: (i) Paul uses koinwni/a + ei0j only in discussing the collection (Rom. 15.26;
2 Cor. 8.4; 9.13), and uses the verb koinwne/w referring to financial help (Rom. 12.13;
Gal. 6.6; Phil. 4.15);36 (ii) when Paul uses the noun eu0agge/lion with a verb of speech
it is normally as a noun of agency specifying “the act of proclamation or the work
31. P. Mert. 12, lines 6-9; text and translation from H. I. Bell and C. H. Roberts, A Descriptive
Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of Wilfred Merton (London: Emery Walker, 1948),
pp. 50–52 (lines 5-9), cited in Peterman, Gift, pp. 74–75 with discussion on pp. 75–77.
32. 12/19 NT uses are in the undisputed Paulines (none are in the disputed Paulines). In Philippians
it also appears at 2.1; 3.10.
33. BDAG p. 552 s.v.
34. So H. Seesemann, Der Begriff KOINWNIA im Neuen Testament (BZNW 14; Giessen: Töpelmann,
1933), pp. 73–74, 79, citing Rom. 1.8; Col. 1.4; 1 Thess. 1.3; 2 Thess. 1.3; Phlm. 5-6. This involves taking
the ei0j clause as functioning like a genitive. For critique, see P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians:
A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 61–62.
35. M. Silva, Philippians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 46; J. B. Lightfoot, St Paul’s
Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 12th ed., 1889 repr. 1993), p. 83.
36. Silva, Philippians, p. 47.
of evangelism,”37 and the wider usage of eu0agge/lion in Philippians, particularly the

immediate cotext in ch. 1 (1.7, 12, 16, 27; with 2.22; 4.3, 15) reflects this usage; and
(iii) there is a strong parallelism of language and ideas between 1.5-11 and 4.10-20,
set out below, suggesting that at least part of the reference of koinwni/a in 1.5 is to
their financial participation in Paul’s gospel proclamation.38
Philippians 1 Philippians 4
v. 3 Eu0xaristw~ tw|~ qew|~ v. 10a 'Exa&rhn de\ e0n kuri/w|
“I give thanks to God” “I rejoiced in the Lord”
v. 3 mnei/a| u(mw~n v. 10a a)neqa&lete
“remembrance of you” “you renewed”
v. 4 xara~j v. 10a 'Exa&rhn
“joy” “I rejoiced”
v. 4 deh&sei mou u(pe\r pa&ntwn u(mw~n v. 10c e0f0 w|{ kai\ e0fronei=te
(understood of past habits)
“request for you all” “because you were concerned”
v. 5 koinwni/a| v. 15 e0koinw&nhsen
“fellowship, participation” “[the church] participated”
v. 5 eu0agge/lion v. 15 eu0aggeli/ou
“gospel” “[of the] gospel”
v. 5b a)po_ . . . a!xri tou~ nu~n v. 15 e0n a)rxh|~
“from . . . until now” “in the beginning”
v. 6 o( e0narca&menoj e0n u(mi=n e1rgon v. 13 e0n tw|~ e0ndunamou~nti/ me
“the one who began a work in you” “in the one who strengthens me”
v. 7a fronei=n u(pe\r pa&ntwn u(mw~n v. 10b to_ u(pe\r e0mou~ fronei=n
“to be concerned concerning you all” “to be concerned about me”
v. 7b sugkoinwnou&j v. 14 sugkoinwnh&santej
“fellow-participants” “being fellow-participants”
v. 7b desmoi=j v. 14 qli/yei
“chains” “suffering”
v. 9 perisseu&h| vv. 12, 18 perisseu&ein, perisseu&w
“overflow” “[to] overflow”
v. 11 peplhrwme/noi vv. 18, 19 peplh&rwmai, plhrw&sei
“having been filled” “I have been filled”
(continued )
37. O’Brien, Philippians, p. 62.

38. Peterman, Gift, pp. 91–92; English translations are mine; Fee, Philippians, p. 423, notes that this
produces an inclusio by which Paul returns to his key theme, partnership in the gospel, at the end of the
letter.
Philippians 1 Philippians 4
v. 11a karpo&j v. 17 karpo&j
“fruit” “fruit”
v. 11b 'Ihsou~ v. 19 'Ihsou~
“Jesus” “Jesus”
v. 11c do&can . . . qeou~ v. 20 tw|~ . . . qew|~ . . . h( do&ca
“glory . . . of God” “the glory to God”
Paul’s diplomacy in not mentioning money explicitly to a church which was likely
of very varied economic status is notable.39
To come, then, to 4.10-20, we should notice several pertinent features of this
section.40 First, this is no “thankless thanks” for, as Fee highlights,41 three times in
this section he expresses his delight in their gifts: Paul acknowledges their renewed
concern (v. 10a), their partnership in his suffering (v. 14), and that he “overflows”
because of their gifts (v. 18). Fee goes on to notice that qualifications follow each
of these acknowledgments, concerning the Philippians and concerning Paul — the
latter twice introduced by “not that” (ou0x o#ti, vv. 11, 17).42 These qualifications are
significant for understanding how Paul, in the light of Christ, subverts his culture’s
understanding of human relationships.
Secondly, as we noted earlier, the language here evokes patron/client relationships,
although some have seen it as accountancy or business language.43 Marshall and
Peterman have shown that such language was commonly used in the context of friend-
ship, and was not merely about money, but also — and significantly — about social
relations.44 As we have seen, “friendship” language was commonly used in patron/
client relationships and need not imply that the two “friends” were social equals.
However, Paul uses this language in a way that undermines the normal under-
standing of patron/client relationships, and here is the striking twist. Paul’s first
qualification, following his opening statement of gratitude that the Philippians have
renewed their concern for him, is to underline that he is not in need — indeed, he has
learned contentment in all circumstances (vv. 11-13). Thus he offers a correction to a
possible misunderstanding that possessions and money are what life is all about. This
39. See P. Oakes, “Jason and Penelope Hear Philippians 1.1-11,” in C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-
Louis (eds.), Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton
(JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), pp. 155–64, with P. Oakes, Philippians: From People
to Letter (SNTSMS 110; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 55–76.
40. What follows draws on the helpful discussions of Peterman, Gift, pp. 121–61; Peterman, “Thanks”;
S. E. Fowl, “Know Your Context: Giving and Receiving Money in Philippians,” Int 56 (2002), pp. 45–58;
S. E. Fowl, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 189–201.
42. Ibid., p. 425.
43. Documented by O’Brien, Philippians, pp. 533–34, 538–40.
44. Marshall, Enmity, pp. 157–64; Peterman, Gift, pp. 53–65, 125, 147, discussing Sir. 41.19; Arrian,
Epict. diss. 2.9.12; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 4.1; Plato, Resp. 332A-B; Plato, Ep. 309; Xenophon, Oec. 7.26;
Acts 20.35; Plutarch, Mor. 830A; Seneca, Ira 3.31.3; Philo, Cherubim 122-23.
correction would be of importance to poorer members of the Philippian community,

especially if as a result of their poverty (mentioned specifically in 2 Cor. 8.2) they
had not been able to send money to support Paul’s missionary work as often as they
would have wished.45
Paul’s second qualification to his opening statement of gratitude is to highlight the
gospel partnership the Philippians have with him, using koinwne/w (v. 15) and thus
echoing 1.5. Rather than their gifts placing Paul in their debt as client to their patron-
age, Paul elevates the Philippians to partnership in his mission: they stand on level
ground.46 From such a place, Paul sees their gifts as God’s provision for him — it is
through their gifts that God enables Paul to “do all things,” that is, to face all kinds
of circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable (v. 13).
Following Paul’s second statement of gratitude (vv. 14-16), he provides a further
qualification. He rules out the idea that he is hinting that he needs more help by his
gratitude (v. 17) — recall that expressing gratitude could be seen as veiled request
for help. Instead, Paul’s desire is that they may gain more (karpo&j here connotes
“profit”),47 and that means more from God, as vv. 18-20 make clear.
Paul’s third statement of gratitude (v. 18), underlining that he has enough and
overflows, leads into his theocentric interpretation of their gifts (vv. 19-20). Their
gifts are understood as sacrifice to God (v. 18b) and in response Paul is not in their
debt, but God will fulfill all their need (v. 19). Hence the glory (do&ca, v. 20) goes to
God, who is placed in the position of patron to both Paul and the Philippian believers.
Behind vv. 18-20 stand two key counter-cultural ideas. First, Paul and the
Philippians are portrayed as fellow-clients of God who provides as patron — perhaps
it is no coincidence that here Paul chooses to name God as “father” (path&r), for the
paterfamilias was the patron of his own household.48 The “riches” of God available
to the Philippians come “in Christ Jesus” (v. 19). This construal of the relationship
between Paul, the Philippians and God/Christ is Jewish, by contrast with the classic
Greco-Roman system of patronage.49 It is thus striking that the letter ends with Paul
invoking the grace of Christ toward the Philippians (v. 23), here surely connoting
Christ’s generous giving to believers of which Paul has written in 2.5-11.
Secondly, the biblical theme that giving to the needy pleases God (esp. Prov. 19.17,
but also Sir. 35.2-3; 3.14-15, 30; cf. Heb. 13.16) presents compassion and honoring
God as the motivation for financial help to the poor (in this case, Paul). Again, this
45. Peterman, Gift, pp. 133–34 (with pp. 123–27) rightly criticizes the proposal that the Philippian
believers saw Paul’s imprisonment as breaking a “contract” with them and therefore justified their with-
drawing support — thus B. J. Capper, “Paul’s Dispute with Philippi: Understanding Paul’s Argument
in Phil. 1–2 from his Thanks in 4.10-20,” TZ 49 (1993), pp. 193–214, building on the work of J. P.
Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
46. Peterman, Gift, p. 159.
47. BDAG p. 510 s.v. §2.
48. L. M. White, “Paul and Pater Familias,” in J. P. Sampley (ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World:
A Handbook (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp. 457–87, esp. 457–64.
49. E.g. Prov. 19.17; for discussion and fuller references, see Peterman, Gift, pp. 149, 152, 155–56;
Lampe, “Patrons,” pp. 505–07.
contrasts with the Greco-Roman world view which sees honor accruing to one who
gives — for Paul, the honor goes to God the giver, not God’s human agents.
Thiselton suggests, en passant, that the Philippians’ support was acceptable to
Paul because it came from a church rather than an individual, and thus (he implies)
avoided the dangers of obligation arising from accepting their gift.50 Lampe draws
attention to the fact that Paul regarded himself as the “father” of his communities in
the gospel (1 Cor. 4.14-16; cf. Phil. 2.22),51 which identifies an important ambiguity
in the relationship of Paul and the Philippians — Paul appears to be both patron and
client of the congregation. We shall return to this point in concluding.
B. Other Evidence for Paul’s Acceptance of Financial Support

Two other passages are suggestive for our study: Phoebe as Paul’s “patron” (Rom.
16.2), and Paul’s relationship with Philemon.
Phoebe has caused considerable discussion in recent times.52 Paul describes
her using a feminine form, prosta&tij, which is the equivalent of the masculine
prosta&thj “patron.” Paul says that she has functioned as prosta&tij towards
him and many others, which may suggest that he accepted hospitality at her home
in Cenchreae. This term occurs elsewhere, notably in a papyrus from 142 BC, which
speaks of a women appointed as prosta&tij to her fatherless son,53 and in an inscrip-
tion from Aphrodisias dating from the third century AD concerning Jael, a Jewish
woman, who was prosta&tij of the synagogue.54 MacMullen demonstrates that a
significant proportion (he estimates one-fifth) of rescript addresses from the Roman
period honor women, and that about a tenth of those invited by collegia to act as
“protectors” (an alternative rendering of “patrons”) or benefactors were female.55
Kearsley has also shown that Phoebe’s Corinthian contemporary, Iulia Theodora, is
praised for her prostasi/a, “patronage”56 of travelers from Lycia, her native area, in
five inscriptions on one stele.57 There is thus good reason to translate this key term as
“patron” or “benefactor,”58 rather than a more general “helper” (with NRSV, TNIV,

51. Lampe, “Patrons,” pp. 501, 503.
52. See the helpful discussions of J. C. Campbell, Phoebe: Patron and Emissary (Collegeville:
Liturgical, 2009), esp. pp. 78–92; Cohick, Women, pp. 285–320, esp. 301–307; R. Jewett, Romans
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 941–48, esp. 946–47; R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public
Life in the Roman East: Iulia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynB 50
(1999), pp. 189–211.
53. E. A. Judge, “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary
Documents,” TynBul 35 (1984), pp. 3–24 (20–21); see further references in Jewett, Romans, p. 946 n. 47.
54. Text and translation: J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and God-fearers at Aphrodisias:
Greek Inscriptions with Commentary (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 12; Cambridge:
Cambridge Philological Society, 1987), p. 41.
55. R. MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Hist 29 (1980), pp. 208–18 (211). For
other examples of women exercising patronage or benefaction, see Cohick, Women, pp. 291–303.
56. LSJ s.v. §III.
57. Kearsley, “Women,” pp. 204–209 (texts and translation), 191–98 (discussion).
58. With Jewett, Romans, p. 947 (who provides further supporting references); J. A. Fitzmyer,
Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; London: Geoffrey Chapman,
1993), p. 731.
contra NIV, RSV), and to regard Phoebe as a woman of means59 who had contributed
to Paul’s ministry significantly, perhaps by hospitality at her home in Cenchreae or
perhaps by assisting Paul in tricky relationships with the city authorities, if his experi-
ence in Corinth is anything to go by (Acts 18.12-17).60
However, there is a similar ambiguity about this apparent patron/client relation-
ship to that which we saw with the Philippians and Paul, for Rom. 16.1-2 is precisely
a recommendation of Phoebe by Paul to the letter’s recipients. By this action Paul
seems to be functioning as Phoebe’s patron. Thus Cohick acutely comments, “Paul
commends Phoebe’s actions so that the Roman church might act similarly towards
her. She is not to be their benefactor, even as Paul is not their benefactor. Rather the
goal is reciprocity.”61
Paul’s relationship with Philemon may also shed some light on our discussion.
Paul writes to him expecting hospitality when he is able to visit, as he hopes to do
shortly (v. 22), which would be understood within a patronage system as placing Paul
in debt to Philemon. Paul also speaks of Philemon in friendship terms, calling him
“our beloved and co-worker” (tw|~ a)gaphtw|~ kai\ sunergw|~ h(mw~n, v. 1), and these
would be consistent with seeing the relationship as patron to client, with Paul as client.
However, Paul also addresses Philemon rather boldly over the runaway slave
Onesimus, asserting that he could command Philemon, but chooses not to do so
(vv. 8-9). Paul writes of Philemon giving him “benefit” (using o)ni/nhmi, a patronage
term, v. 20) and speaks of Philemon’s “obedience” (u(pakoh&, v. 21) over this matter.
Paul also claims that Philemon is in debt to him for his very life, again using patronage
terminology (seauto&n moi prosofei/leij, v. 19). These statements do not sound like
Paul as client addressing his patron, but rather the reverse.
Clarity here comes through noticing that Paul bases his appeal on “love” (v. 9),
and invites Philemon to see him as his “partner” (koinwno&j, v. 17). Once again, Paul
places God in Christ at the center of his concerns62 and sees himself and Philemon
(and, we might add, Onesimus) as having equal standing with God — and hence
Paul appeals to Philemon rather than overtly commanding him. We may grant that
Paul uses some powerful rhetorical artillery in seeking to persuade Philemon, but it
is significant that he goes down the persuasion route, for he is addressing a brother
in Christ.
IV. Is Paul Consistent?

Can we find a larger framework which holds together our two sets of evidence,
one suggesting that Paul refused financial support, and the other portraying him as
59. G. Theissen argues that Phoebe is a member of the social elite (The Social Setting of Pauline
Christianity [SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982], pp. 73–96, esp. 94–95).
60. Cf. Cohick, Women, p. 305.
61. Cohick, Women, p. 307; cf. Lampe, “Patrons,” pp. 498–99.
62. Note the number of references to Jesus or Christ throughout the letter, in vv. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 20, 23,
25 — it is notable that references to Christ’s benefits to Philemon (and Paul) are located at the rhetorically
significant beginning and end of the letter.
accepting such support? I suggest that we can, and that a twofold consistency lies
in, first, Paul’s passionate missionary concern that the gospel message be available
freely to all, so that he sought to put no hindrance in anyone’s way to hearing and
responding to the gospel, and secondly, in Paul’s Christocentric and theocentric world
view, which reframed human relationships in that light.
The first is the basis for Paul’s thinking in refusing financial support in Corinth, for
there Paul was concerned that the conventions of traveling orators and philosophers
could so shape his hearers’ understanding that they would fail to grasp Paul’s gospel
message, that God in Christ was generously offering a relationship with himself freely.
As a result, Paul continued the policy he had adopted in Thessalonica, of working for
his living, and the portrait of Paul’s Corinthian visit in Acts 18.1-4 is consistent with
this view. Even when Silas arrived — most probably with a gift from Philippi (Acts
17.14-15) — Paul seems to have continued to work, partly because the Philippians’
gift may have been insufficient for Paul to evangelize full-time, and partly because
Paul found the workshop a congenial place to evangelize.63 As a general policy, Paul
did not wish to be under any human individual’s patronage, for that might limit
his gospel ministry. The message (the gospel itself) controlled the medium (Paul’s
missionary conduct and proclamation), for the medium communicated the message.
However, and significantly, Paul also re-drew the map of human relationships
offered by the patronage system by placing God in Christ at the center, rather than the
emperor — the gospel reshaped his understanding of the way the world is meant to
be. Galatians 3.27-28 illustrates how Christian baptism established a new community
where Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female belonged together without the
kind of social hierarchy which the patronage system necessitated. This radical under-
standing of equality implied mutuality of concern for one another64 in submission to
God. Therefore partnership (koinwni/a) was the watchword of the new community,
and believers regarded each other as sisters and brothers in Christ.65 It was such a
relationship with the Philippian congregation, whom he understood to be partners
in gospel ministry (Phil. 1.5) — and not his patrons — that meant Paul was free to
accept their gifts as coming from God himself (the meaning of Phil. 4.13 in its cotext).
Paul’s reason for thinking this way was that this was the way God in Christ had
made himself known — Christ was not only their “Lord,” but also their “brother”
(Rom. 8.29). Philippians is, of course, one place this theme is developed most
strongly, for Christ’s humility in emptying himself and taking on the nature of a slave
(lower than a client!) had led to his exaltation, and was the model for the Christian
community to follow in their relationships (Phil. 2.5-11).66 Paul’s pen-portraits of
63. The imperfect sunei/xeto “he was occupied” suggests an ongoing action, and the collocation with
9Wj de\ kath~lqon a)po_ th~j Makedoni/aj o# te Sila~j kai\ o( Timo&qeoj “When both Silas and Timothy
arrived from Macedonia” implies that Paul’s activities may not have changed much.
64. Note the number of “one another” commands (using a)llh&lwn with an imperative or hortatory
subjunctive) in the undisputed Pauline letters: Rom. 12.16; 13.8; 14.13; 15.7; 16.16; 1 Cor. 7.5; 11.33;
16.20; 2 Cor. 13.12; Gal. 5.13, 15; 6.2; 1 Thess. 4.18; 5.11, 15.
65. See the helpful discussion of Phoebe as “sister” (Rom. 16.1) in Campbell, Phoebe, pp. 19–32.
66. cf. Lampe, “Patrons,” p. 506.
Timothy and Ephaphroditus are drawn utilizing this model with clear echoes of
vocabulary from the Christ-hymn (Phil. 2.19-30).67
Paul offered such a radical revision of the pervasive patronage system in order
to shape his own missionary practice and the culture of his communities around the
gospel message which he proclaimed — and the constant temptation of the church
ever since has been to fall back into a patron/client hierarchical way of thinking.
67. O’Brien, Philippians, pp. 325, 336, 342–43, 344; M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians
(BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1997), pp. 164, 167, 175.
18
PAULINE MISSION AS SALVIFIC INTENTIONALITY: FOSTERING A
MISSIONAL C ONSCIOUSNESS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 9.19-23 AND 10.31–11.1
Michael Barram
Introduction
It is challenging to discern the precise relationship between Paul’s apostolic mission
and that of his churches, especially since he does not instruct his congregations —
at least not as explicitly as we might expect — to engage in the kind of proactive
evangelism among non-Christians that he undertakes as apostle to the Gentiles.1
Robert L. Plummer has traced two basic lines of thought that have developed in
view of the evidence: “Some scholars argue that Paul’s writings reflect only a passive
or supportive missionary vision for his churches in distinct discontinuity with his
own centrifugal evangelism. Others see evidence for greater continuity between the
apostle’s own outward-directed missionary labors and his evangelistic expectations
of his churches.”2
First Corinthians 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 are pivotal in scholarly assessments of
the question. Those who see “continuity” between Paul’s evangelistic task and that
of his congregations discern in these texts a call for active congregational evangelism
among non-Christians; those who deny continuity do not find such an exhortation
in these passages.
1. See e.g. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, ASMS
16 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), pp. 137–38; W. Paul Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44
(1991), pp. 89–111 (esp. p. 108); John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the
Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent, and Background of Early Christian Mission (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 131–32; P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical
and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995), pp. 53–54; Robert L.
Plummer, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Expect the Early Christian
Communities to Evangelize? (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2006), pp. 1, 71; cf. 143; Eckhard J.
Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, Volume Two: Paul and the Early Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity;
Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004), pp. 1452, 1455; James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s
Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, NovTSup 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 6, 8.
2. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding, pp. 41–42. For a summary of scholarship, see pp. 1–42.
18. Pauline Mission as Salvific Intentionality 235
Review of Scholarship
P. T. O’Brien, Eckhard J. Schnabel, and Robert L. Plummer are noteworthy among
those who find a fundamental “continuity” between Paul’s mission and that of his
churches. For O’Brien, the telic clause in 1 Cor. 10.33 is especially significant: “Like
[Paul] the readers are to seek ‘the advantage of the many’ and so be committed to
their salvation as he was.”3 First Corinthians 10.33 is “the critical link between
Paul’s missionary task and that of his fellow-Christians . . .”4 Ultimately, the apostle
“expected them . . . to be committed to evangelism just as he was. Paul’s ambitions
were to be theirs.”5 In short, believers “were fellow-participants in [the gospel’s]
dynamic progress.”6
Eckhard J. Schnabel understands Paul’s “example” in 1 Cor. 11.1 as bearing “a
missionary intention.” In short, “Paul works so that Jews and Gentiles will be saved,
and the believers in Corinth should work in the same manner.”7
The same verses figure prominently in Robert L. Plummer’s argument. He claims
that the “explicit parallel [in 10.33] between Paul’s salvifically oriented activity and
the ‘blamelessness’ of his addressees implies that the term a0pro/skopoi connotes an
active missionary role for the congregation.”8 Thus, 11.1 should be read as a call to
congregational evangelism.9
By contrast, W. Paul Bowers and John P. Dickson do not find continuity between
Paul’s evangelistic mission and that of his churches.10 Bowers argues that Paul’s
comments in 1 Cor. 10.31–11.1 are directed toward the behavioral issues occurring
within the Corinthian community itself — and although Paul expands the discussion
to include non-Christians in 10.32, the passage does “not” represent “an incentive to
active witness, to an evangelistic campaign . . . A particular aspect of the conduct of
the Pauline mission is to be imitated, but imitation of the mission itself is not here
expressly urged.”11
John P. Dickson acknowledges that “Paul invests the Corinthians’ behaviour
with a surprisingly high degree of missionary significance” in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and
3. O’Brien, Gospel, p. 104 (emphasis in original).

4. Ibid., p. 106.
5. Ibid., p. 107.
6. Ibid., 106.
7. Early Christian Mission, p. 1462.
8. Paul’s Understanding, p. 90.
9. Ibid., 90.
10. Bowers concludes that “a concept of the church as mission apparently failed to take any distinct
shape in Paul’s thinking insofar as it is available to us” (“Church,” pp. 109–10). Dickson argues that Paul
understands himself (and some of his co-workers) as “authorized heralds” of the gospel; by contrast, the
“apostle’s converts” are to be understood as “partners” in the work of the gospel (Mission-Commitment,
pp. 176–77). The apostle’s congregations are called to embody a “mission-commitment” in their corporate
life through a range of concrete activities (i.e. financial assistance, prayer, social integration, ethical apolo-
getic, public worship, and verbal apologetic) that will foster the spread of the gospel (see pp. 178–313).
Dickson (p. 177) understands his argument as a mediating option between “the broad denial of congre-
gational mission-commitment” (e.g. Bowers), “and the overstated affirmation of the same” (e.g. O’Brien
and Plummer).
11. Bowers, “Church,” 94.
10.31–11.1,12 but he disagrees with O’Brien “that the exhortations of 10.31–11.1 be

given their full missionary force.”13 He concludes, “It is true that Paul here calls on the
Corinthians to modify their social existence for the salvation of others, but whether
this existence was thought by Paul to entail the telling of the gospel cannot be settled
on the basis of this text.”14
Preliminary Observations
Three brief comments are in order. First, O’Brien, Schnabel, and Plummer are cor-
rect to emphasize the evangelistic character of 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 — and
the extent to which the concern for salvation connects Paul’s mission and that of his
congregations.15
Second, Bowers and Dickson are right to be cautious about reading these pas-
sages as enjoining active congregational outreach among non-believers in complete
continuity with Paul’s evangelistic calling and activity. First Corinthians 9.19-23 and
10.31–11.1 (and the rest of Paul’s letters) do not appear to contain an indisputable
exhortation to active congregational evangelism.16
Third, although these studies have rightly sought to discern the connection
between Paul’s mission and that of his churches — and have thus contributed to fuller
assessment of Pauline evangelism — it is worth considering whether the mission/ary
terminology should be equated with evangelism as they do.17 In fact, 1 Corinthians
9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 suggest that mission terminology should be understood more
comprehensively — as a word field incorporating all aspects of Paul’s vocation (and
the Corinthians’ as well).18
Although 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 do not contain an explicit command
requiring the same kind of evangelistic outreach in which Paul engages, the apostle
makes it clear that the Corinthian Christians are to develop what we may call a “mis-
sional consciousness” in every aspect of their individual and corporate lives.19 That
is, they are to cultivate a purposive, missional posture — a “salvific intentionality”
— toward any others they may encounter (whether or not they cross national, ethnic,
12. Mission-Commitment, p. 253.

13. Ibid., p. 257 (emphasis in original).
14. Ibid., p. 257 (emphasis in original).
15. O’Brien’s most fundamental critique of Bowers is that he “has failed to treat adequately the final
purpose clause of 1 Corinthians 10.33, ‘so that they may be saved’” (Gospel, p. 106).
16. On 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1, see Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul, Studies in
Biblical Literature 75 (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), esp. pp. 35–77.
17. See e.g. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding, pp. 1–2; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, p. 10.
18. Plummer (Paul’s Understanding, p. 1) and Dickson (Mission-Commitment, pp. 7–8) acknowledge
that some definitions of mission are more comprehensive.
19. The notion of a “missional consciousness” is inclusive of, but much more comprehensive than,
Dickson’s “mission-commitment”; the adjective “missional” is intended to refer to everything Paul thinks
and does in service of his comprehensive apostolic vocation, and not merely to evangelism among non-
Christians. See Barram, Mission, pp. 177–19, and the discussion in this chapter. On the term “missional,”
see Barram, “The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic,” Interpretation
61 (2007), pp. 42–58 (45–47).
cultural, or religious boundaries). They are to be a people constantly engaged in mis-

sion — whether they are dealing with those outside of the community of faith, or even
with other Christians. It is this salvific intentionality that links Paul’s comprehensive
mission to that of the Corinthian church.
Salvific Intentionality in 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1

In these two passages, Paul focuses on four factors that he considers critical for
appropriate Christian conduct, and which contribute to a comprehensive salvific
intentionality. First, Paul highlights the need for flexibility when dealing with others.
Second, he stresses the wide scope of contexts in which behavioral choices must be
made. Third, Paul emphasizes the inextricable relationship between purpose — that is,
motivation or intention — and appropriate Christian conduct. And fourth, Paul roots
his behavior in Christ’s example — even as he instructs the Corinthians to follow his
own. Each these four factors is a crucial component of the missional consciousness
Paul seeks to instill in the Corinthian believers.
Flexible Behavior
Appropriate Christian conduct requires flexibility. Paul makes striking claims about
his willingness to adapt his conduct in different contexts, depending on whom he
is trying to attract to the gospel (see, esp. 9.20-22). Scholarship on 1 Cor. 9.19-23
and 10.31–11.1 has therefore emphasized Paul’s behavioral flexibility in service
of evangelistic or “missionary” outreach, and 1 Cor. 9.19-23 has been described
in terms of Paul’s “missionary accommodation.”20 In short, the apostle “has” been
able to “become all things” as necessary (v. 22). This point becomes especially clear
within the larger context of 1 Cor. 8.1–11.1 — and particularly in 10.23-30 — as Paul
encourages flexibility, when possible, for the good of others.
Still, Paul’s argument is not about flexibility per se. As important as flexibility is,
it does not lie at the deepest core of appropriate Christian behavior. Rather, flexibil-
ity is an outgrowth of appropriate moral discernment — discernment that requires
reflection on the three other factors inherent in mission understood as salvific
intentionality.
The Scope of Appropriate Christian Conduct

The second facet of mission as salvific intentionality in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1
is the radically inclusive scope of Paul’s missional vision. As scholars have explored
the apostle’s behavioral adaptability, they have often focused on his claims to adapt
his behavior in order to “win” (9.19-22), “please” (10.33), and “save” (9.22; 10.33)
those whom he encounters. Given that Paul seems to be referring to non-Christians
in at least most of these cases, studies of these texts — and 9.19-23, in particular
— regularly emphasize the evangelistic function of Paul’s adaptability. That is, the
20. See Barram, Mission, pp. 47–48.

apostle’s flexibility is traditionally understood as a strategic approach intended to

attract — and ultimately convert — outsiders to the Christian faith.
Strikingly, however, when the issue of behavioral flexibility arises, Paul makes
no significant distinction between Christians and non-Christians. Whereas 1 Cor.
9.20-21 clearly invokes those outside of the Christian community, “the weak” in 9.22,
by contrast, are most likely Christians. Thus Paul apparently seeks to “win” both
Christians and non-Christians via his behavioral adaptability.21 For Paul, “winning”
Christians is no more odd than seeking their salvation — which he explicitly claims
to do in 1 Cor. 10.32-33 (see “the church of God” [v. 32]; cf. “all people” [v. 33]; so
also, apparently, in 9.22).
The important point is that Paul’s “missionary” efforts in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and
10.31–11.1 are not restricted to those outside the community of faith, as if evangelism
aimed at religious conversion were his narrow concern. Paul’s comments in these
passages cannot be described merely in terms of evangelistic outreach among non-
Christians without fundamentally truncating what he actually says and does.
Despite both popular and scholarly tendencies to equate “mission/ary” terminol-
ogy with evangelistic activities among those outside of the Christian community, the
apostle conceives of his mission in holistic terms. Paul’s understanding of his calling
requires not only evangelistic outreach among non-Christians and the formation of
faith communities, but also ongoing efforts to nurture those communities in their faith
and life — even to the “day of the Lord” (see e.g. 2 Cor. 1.14). Although evangelism
and church planting are especially characteristic aspects of Paul’s apostolic vocation,
the ongoing pastoral nurture he provides for established communities is a constitutive
component of his apostolic mission.22 Ultimately, Paul’s vocation leads him to seek
salvation for “all people” — potential and previous converts alike; his apostolic com-
mission thus cannot be understood restrictively in terms of “evangelism.”
Purpose and Intentionality

Paul’s explicit statements of purpose and intention in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1
represent the third crucial factor in his argument concerning appropriate Christian
behavior. The importance of these claims is especially clear in 9.19-23, a passage in
which the most dominant structural component is a series of telic or “purpose” clauses
introduced by i3/na (“in order that . . .”). Whereas Paul uses the word “all” (pa=j) in
various forms six times in vv. 19-23 — emphasizing wide-ranging flexibility and
missional scope — there are actually seven purpose clauses in the passage. Moreover,
the apostle’s references to “all” appear only in the first and last two verses (vv. 19,
22-23); purpose clauses appear in each verse (vv. 19, 20 [twice], 21, 22 [twice],
21. Ibid., pp. 53–55.

22. See Bowers, “Fulfilling the Gospel: The Scope of the Pauline Mission,” JETS 30 [1987], 185–198.
For an extended assessment of Bowers’s basic point, see Barram, Mission. Although each of the studies
surveyed above define mission in terms of evangelism, there is broad agreement on the comprehensive
nature of Paul’s apostolic commission. O’Brien (Gospel, pp. 42–43; 48–49; see also pp. 62–63 and 95–96),
Schnabel (Early Christian Mission, pp. 978, 1370, 1418, 1549), and Plummer (Paul’s Understanding,
pp. 117, 143) follow Bowers in this regard.
23). The carefully designed structure of Paul’s argument23 demonstrates that why he
behaves as he does is even more important than his adaptability per se.
Paul’s motivation in the first five purpose clauses is to “win” others — to gain them
for the gospel, whether initially (in the case of non-Christians), or more deeply (if they
are Christians); he then shifts to “salvation” in the sixth: “in order that by all means I
may save some” (9.22). “Most likely, sw/|zein (‘to save’) in this context summarizes
and expands the implications of ‘winning’ (kerdai/nein). Paul’s motivation ‘to win’
specific groups of people has as its ultimate goal — its express purpose — their very
salvation.”24 Finally, Paul notes that all of his behavior is done “for the sake of the
gospel,” with the motivation (i/3na) that he hopes to share in it as well — referring
either to his own salvation or, perhaps, to his work in helping to make the gospel
known.25 For the apostle, appropriate Christian conduct in Corinth must be rooted in
a purposive, gospel-oriented intentionality.
The telic clauses in 9.19-23 highlight the motivation and intention (purpose) behind
any action Paul may take (flexibility) with regard to anyone (scope). Behavioral
adaptability and the comprehensive scope of the apostle’s vocational vision cannot
be adequately understood apart from the reasons he chooses to act as he does. His
purpose in any particular action is to “win” those he encounters to the gospel. Paul’s
point is that no action he may take — as adaptable as he is — will ever be taken
without the gospel in mind. His behavior is therefore inherently and consistently
purposive — intentional — in every instance. In that sense, the statements of purpose
in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 are crucial for understanding the apostle’s mission on his own terms.
Even though 1 Cor. 10.31–11.1 contains only one i/3na clause (10.33), appropri-
ate behavioral motivation remains at the forefront of Paul’s concern. He provides
two distinct but intimately related reasons for faithful Christian conduct. First, Paul
points to God, who makes all activity — human and otherwise — possible in the first
place. He invokes the highest behavioral guideline possible for Christian believers:
to behave in such a way that gives honor and praise to God (10.31). Obviously, the
self-referential behavior occurring in Corinth (e.g. with respect to “idol food”) fails
miserably with respect to that standard.
Second, Paul tells the Corinthians to “give no offense to Jews, Greeks, or to the
church of God” (10.32) — functionally a reference to “everyone” (cf. “all people”
in 9.22; 10.33). Paul does not expect something from the Corinthians believers that
he does not do himself; his instruction mirrors his own behavior: “just as I intend/
try to be pleasing to all people with regard to all things . . .” (10.33).26 As elsewhere,
the point is not merely that Paul aims to behave well. Rather, the key is that he acts
intentionally, with others’ best interests in mind — “not seeking my own advantage
but that of the many” — and ultimately, for the sake of their salvation (v. 33).27
23. Barram, Mission, ch. 2 (esp. pp. 50–61).

24. Ibid., pp. 59–60. See also O’Brien, Gospel, 95.
25. See Plummer, “Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians,” JETS 44
(2001), pp. 219–35 (226–30).
26. On a0re/skw as a conative present, see Barram, Mission, pp. 71–72.
27. O’Brien’s disagreement with Bowers in the evangelistic continuity debate (Gospel, pp. 104–7)
Behavior of this sort will meet the lofty criterion established in the first command:
God will be glorified in Corinth if believers live intentionally for the benefit and
salvation of others. The apostle’s sweeping summary to the ei0dwlo/quta discussion
(1 Cor. 8.1–11.1) in 1 Cor. 10.31–11.1 thus confirms that a major key to appropriate
Christian conduct is not flexibility per se but the reasoning behind any behavior at all.
Paul states that he makes behavioral choices with the salvation of others in view.
More precisely, he claims to act as flexibly as possible toward “all people,” with
a specific purpose in mind: “in order that they may be saved” (10.33; cf. 9.22).
Salvation, which drives Paul, is the goal toward which all of his conduct points. His
primary fixation is not on his own “advantage” but on others’ salvation (10.33). Thus
the apostle orients his behavior toward others’ well-being, first and foremost — a
point he tries to get the Corinthian Christians to understand in numerous places in
his correspondence (e.g. 1 Cor. 8.1: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up”; 1 Cor.
10.23b-24: “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up. Do not seek your
own advantage, but that of the other.” [NRSV]). The key to the apostle’s missional
consciousness, then, is his purposive orientation toward the salvation of others,
Christians and non-Christians alike. To the extent that Paul’s behavior is purposeful
toward “all people,” with their salvation as its goal, everything he does is rooted in
a comprehensive salvific intentionality.
Imitating Christ
The fourth and most fundamental factor in Paul’s argument regarding appropriate
Christian conduct in Corinth pertains to the imitation of Christ. The apostle’s salvific
intentionality toward others is most deeply rooted in his desire to act as Christ him-
self acted. For Paul, Christ’s conduct was entirely directed toward the well-being
and salvation of others. In fact, his death was inherently functional: Christ died “for
us” (e.g. Rom. 5.8; 1 Thess. 5.9-10).28 Christ is the paragon of salvific intentionality
because he gave his life for the sake of the benefit of all people — for their salvation:
Christ demonstrated unrelenting commitment to the criterion of salvation with regard to

behavior. His behavior was appropriate: He gave his life in order that others might be saved.
Moreover, Christ’s intentions with respect to his behavior were also directly on target: He
gave his life in order that others might be saved. The action and its intention were unas-
sailable — and, ultimately, Paul affirms — inseparable. The apostle imitates Christ. If the
Corinthian Christians imitate him, their behavior will be based on the appropriate criterion:
the salvation of others.29
The apostle’s point is not simply that Christ gave his life, but why he did so: again,
he died in order that others might be saved. This is precisely the salvific intentionality
the apostle imitates: the key point is not simply that Paul “enslaved” himself “to all
comes down, in large part, to the lack of attention Bowers (“Church,” pp. 93–94) pays to the purpose clause
in 10.33.
28. Barram, Mission, p. 75.
29. Ibid., 76.
people” (1 Cor. 9.19) and conducts himself with flexibility; again, the most important
issue is why he does anything at all. With regard to salvific intentionality, the apostle
shares and imitates Christ’s own mission. And the Corinthian Christians are explicitly
called to share and imitate Paul’s (1 Cor. 11.1).
The missional consciousness Paul seeks to foster in the Corinthian believers does
not necessarily require that they travel far and wide to “win” new converts to faith
in Christ — as Paul must do in order to fulfill the full terms of his apostolic commis-
sion. Nevertheless, to imitate Paul imitating Christ necessitates that the Christians
in Corinth take a consistently purposive posture toward others. When the Corinthian
believers consistently act with a view toward others’ salvation, their behavior will
undoubtedly have much in common with the apostle’s own flexible conduct. In short,
Paul and the Corinthians share a missional calling to embody the salvific intentional-
ity demonstrated by Christ, their shared Lord.
Summary
As part of Paul’s larger discussion of “idol food” in 1 Cor. 8.1–11.1, he articulates
in 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 four interrelated factors crucial for appropriate Christian
conduct in Corinth. Each of these is fundamental in Paul’s ei0dwlo/quta discussion,
though the significance of the individual four factors is best understood in the reverse
order from which they have been discussed. Again, behavioral flexibility per se is not
Paul’s most fundamental concern. Rather, appropriate Christian behavior is rooted,
above all, in Christ’s own selfless, salvific example (factor 4). Paul imitates Christ’s
purposive posture (factor 3), conducting himself toward “all people” — Christians
and non-Christians alike (factor 2) — with regard to their salvation. Ultimately, a
principled flexibility (factor 1) manifests itself in behavior faithfully rooted in the
first three factors. Taken together, these four components illustrate clearly how Paul
thinks not only about Christian conduct in a narrow sense, but also about mission
more broadly — both his own and that of the Corinthian believers. Whatever else it
may entail, mission involves behavioral flexibility and adaptability as the Christian
community purposively and intentionally embodies Christ’s salvific example for the
sake of all people, Christian and non-Christian alike. In short, mission, for Paul, is
best understood not in terms of evangelism, but rather as a comprehensive salvific
intentionality. And the Corinthian believers are to engage in that mission no less
than does the apostle himself, by manifesting a thoroughgoing and comprehensive
missional consciousness in every aspect of their lives — in order that their corporate
behavior will reflect Christ’s, and Paul’s: flexible, as necessary; holistic in scope;
purposive in posture; and salvific in intent.
Mission as Salvific Intentionality in Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence

As I have argued elsewhere, 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1 bear something of a
paradigmatic function for interpreting other sections of Paul’s letters.30 In particular,
30. See Barram, Mission, pp. 46–47 and 143–47; similarly, Plummer (Paul’s Understanding,
even though Paul’s comments are contextually rooted within his larger discussion
of ei0dwlo/quta (1 Cor. 8.1–11.1), these two passages articulate specific and wide-
ranging principles that characterize and illuminate Paul’s moral reflection generally.
The situation in Corinth may have brought Paul to make the claims he makes in
1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1, but there is no indication that he would renounce in
different circumstances the fundamental arguments concerning appropriate Christian
behavior that he makes here.
The import of salvific intentionality for Paul’s discussion of ei0dwlo/quta should
be clear. To illustrate briefly, the apostle’s statements in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1
demonstrate why those who would claim that “we all have knowledge” (8.1) clearly
do “not yet know as it is necessary to know” (8.2). To conduct oneself on the basis
of “knowledge” alone — even objectively correct knowledge — represents a self-
centered ethic that fails to act as Christ conducted himself, purposively and for the
salvation of others. Similarly, “‘all things [may be] lawful,’ but not all things are
beneficial” and “not all things build up” (10.23). “Liberty” inappropriately exercised
can easily “become a stumbling block” for others (8.9, NRSV). Thus it is better not
to exploit one’s knowledge than to allow someone “for whom Christ died [to be]
destroyed” (8.11). As Paul says, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (8.2). In
short, whatever the situation, salvific intentionality represents enacted love.
A few brief examples beyond the question of “idol food” should suffice to illustrate
the relevance of salvific intentionality as an interpretive rubric. In some cases, the
Corinthian Christians should exhibit salvific intentionality in the form of evangelistic
concern for non-Christians — perhaps simply by attentiveness to how Christians’
behavior can attract or repel outsiders. This is certainly the case in 1 Cor. 5.1-13,
when Paul castigates the community for its response to an ethical problem that would
not even be tolerated by Gentile outsiders. Paul can scarcely believe that “a man is
living with his father’s wife” (v. 1, NRSV), but “his focus is on the Corinthian body as
a whole. He cannot fathom how the community fails to recognize the damage caused
by countenancing behavior even Gentiles abhor.”31 Because they are not conducting
themselves with salvific intentionality toward outsiders, the Corinthian believers have
completely failed to grasp the ways in which their collective behavior is bringing the
gospel message into disrepute among non-Christians. By contrast, Paul — writing
from a posture of salvific intentionality — sees a problem immediately: “A Christian
community whose conduct is indistinguishable from the basest human behavior
cannot possibly hope to attract others. By invoking Gentile sensibilities Paul indicates
that, for him, the evangelistic function of Christian behavior is a significant con-
pp. 88–90) and O’Brien (Gospel, pp. 97, 103). Dickson (Mission-Commitment, 258–59), and Bowers
(“Church,” p. 94) believe that 1 Cor. 10.31–11.1 should be interpreted narrowly in terms of the ei0dwlo/quta
discussion, but they do not seem to account fully for the comprehensive nature of the salvific intentionality
Paul claims to embody and calls the Corinthians to imitate in these verses (see esp. 10.33–11.1: pa/nta
pa=sin . . . i3na swqw=sin. mimhtai/ mou gi/nesqe kaqw\j ka)gw\ Xristou=).
31. Barram, Mission, pp. 152–53.
sideration in this situation”32 — and (in light of 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1) this
is readily evident elsewhere as well (e.g. 1 Cor. 6.1-11; 7.12-16; 14.16-17, 22-25).33
In other situations, salvific intentionality serves as a form of ongoing Christian
nurture — for example, when believers choose to place other Christians’ well-
being above their own. Paul, of course, indicates that he operates this way with the
Corinthians all the time. The apostle emphasizes this posture of salvific intentionality,
for example, when he refuses to accept financial support from the Corinthians (1 Cor.
9), when he discusses glossolalia (see esp. 1 Cor. 14.18-19), when he describes the
difficulties he faces for their sake (e.g. 2 Cor. 4.7-12; 6.1-13), and when he highlights
the fact that he is working for their greater benefit (e.g., 2 Cor. 4.15; 12.19). In
fact, Paul’s entire career — including the letters he works so diligently to write —
demonstrates a salvific intentionality toward the Christians in Corinth. Ultimately,
everything he does among them (and writes to them), to the extent that it furthers his
comprehensive mission among the Gentiles, exhibits a consistent salvific intentional-
ity toward those who are already members of the Corinthian faith community.34 Just
as he does in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1, Paul’s desire throughout his letters is to
see the Corinthian believers adopt the same kind of salvific intentionality in their own
behavior with each other (e.g. in the context of the Lord’s Supper [1 Cor. 11.17-31])
that he exhibits in all of his dealings with them. Indeed, if the Corinthians will imitate
Paul’s — and Christ’s — salvific intentionality, their deep problems of disunity (see
esp. 1 Cor. 1–4) will be effectively resolved. Mission, understood as salvific inten-
tionality, is a relevant rubric for interpreting the entirety of Paul’s letters and career.
Hermeneutical Reflections on “Mission as Salvific Intentionality”

The three reflections that follow highlight briefly a few hermeneutical implications
of mission understood in terms of salvific intentionality.
Distinguishing between Mission and Evangelism

Paul never calls himself a “missionary.” His favored term, of course, is “apostle.”
In view of the title of the present volume, this is a point worthy of thoughtful con-
sideration. When we refer to Paul as a “missionary,” we do so from a decidedly
contemporary vantage point — and thus from a contextual framework quite different
from the apostle’s own.
In popular Christian parlance today, the semantic cognates “mission” and “mis-
sionary” refer most often to outreach beyond an individual’s or group’s local faith
community. In this sense, mission involves crossing boundaries — that is, being sent
(Latin, missio) somewhere outside of the community’s (or an individual’s) normal
context.
Churches regularly presuppose the imagery of boundary-crossing mission
32. Ibid., pp. 153–54.

33. On these and other texts, see Barram, Mission, pp. 149–73.
34. Ibid., pp. 147–49.
whenever they provide financial support for “missionaries” laboring in foreign (or
other) “mission fields,” coordinate voluntary “short-term mission trips,” or sponsor
various forms of congregational outreach and service. Many parishes and congrega-
tions have special programs, personnel, committees, and budget lines dedicated to
such “missions work,” underscoring the widespread sense that boundary-crossing
mission is a key component of Christian life and witness.
Clearly, Paul’s ministry manifested this same boundary-crossing rubric. Committed
to evangelistic outreach among the Gentiles, the apostle traveled widely throughout
the northeastern Mediterranean, and his term of service in the “mission field” was
lengthy. In that sense, it seems entirely appropriate to describe Paul as a “mission-
ary.” The trouble comes when we attempt to use our contemporary “mission/ary”
terminology to describe Paul’s holistic enterprise.
Although we may certainly describe Paul as an early — if not the quintessential
“missionary” — he understands his apostleship much more holistically than typical
“mission” terminology implies. Whereas Paul conceives of his apostolic calling in
comprehensive terms — incorporating all of his work, from initial evangelism through
ongoing communal nurture — “mission” language today is normally employed in a
relatively narrow sense to refer to evangelistic outreach and congregational formation.
This becomes especially true when we use “mission” terminology in its adjectival
forms (e.g. “mission” work; “missionary” efforts). Again, with few exceptions,
when scholars refer to Paul’s “missionary” work, they have his “evangelistic” efforts
(among non-Christians) in view.35 Paul’s work with established congregations is
rarely described in terms of mission. The distinction made between initial evangelism,
on the one hand, and ongoing nurture, on the other, owes more to our contemporary
sensibilities than to Paul’s own perspectives — and we risk describing Paul’s apos-
tolic vocation in our terms rather than his own.
Contemporary understandings of and references to Paul’s “mission” have yet to
come to terms with his comprehensive apostolic vocation, which is manifested most
fundamentally through a posture of salvific intentionality toward Christians and
non-Christians alike. Mission cannot be understood narrowly in terms of initializing
activities such as evangelism and community formation without truncating what the
apostle understood himself to be doing. Despite their traditionally shared connotations
and popular pedigree, “mission” and “evangelism” are not synonymous word fields.
“Evangelism,” as a subset of Paul’s comprehensive vocation, is a necessary but insuf-
ficient rubric for describing his apostolic mission; the scope of the apostle’s mission
— and the terminology we use to describe it — must be defined holistically. Paul need
not lose his place as our prime example of a “missionary,” but our understanding of
the term should accurately reflect what the apostle claims he is called to be and do.
Defining Mission in Purposive Terms

Describing Paul’s understanding of his mission accurately requires close attention to
what he intends to accomplish, and why he aims to do so — that is, to his purpose as
35. Ibid., Mission, pp. 2–3; idem, “Bible,” pp. 45–47.

an apostle. Paul’s posture of salvific intentionality suggests that an adequate definition

of “mission” needs to reflect both “sent-ness” and “purpose.”
As the Latin missio suggests, mission involves being sent. Paul understands
himself as having been “sent” by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Even if the
Corinthian believers are not all sent to travel widely for the sake of the gospel, they
are sent — at least in a metaphorical sense — to be a community of witness to the
gospel in Corinth.
Also, mission should be understood in terms of purpose. Contemporary organi-
zations and businesses commonly have mission statements explicitly articulating
their reasons for existing and for doing what they do. Mission statements consist of
principled and comprehensive — if not exhaustive — claims regarding the purpose
behind all that observers see in an organization’s conduct. Such a deceptively simple
but comprehensive understanding of mission in terms of purpose should prove fruitful
with respect to Paul as well, particularly because the apostle is so forthcoming about
his own purpose — especially in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.31–11.1. Paul’s vocational
purpose — his mission — is to act for the salvation of all. Since mission understood
in terms of purpose — as salvific intentionality — is semantically adequate to encom-
pass all that Paul does and claims to do as part of his apostolic vocation, it is preferable
to traditional and popular usage that associates mission narrowly with evangelism.
“Mission as Salvific Intentionality” Today

Contemporary Christian communities often read traditional and popular understand-
ings of mission — particularly those related to evangelistic outreach — back into the
Bible, and especially into Paul’s letters, concluding (1) that mission is something done
only by special individuals (such as the apostle) and groups; and (2) that mission is but
one component of the church’s calling. Doing so results in a bifurcated ecclesiology.
Because much (and often the majority) of what congregations do does not, strictly
speaking, involve outreach among non-Christians — most of the church’s activity
(i.e. that which is related to the internal life of the faith community, e.g. worship,
“pastoral” work, and ongoing Christian education) is not reckoned in terms of mis-
sion. When the church today understands mission in terms of evangelistic tasks — and
thus as something different and separable from other ecclesial activities — it runs the
risk of conceiving itself in static, centripetal, and Constantinian terms.
Paul’s holistic apostolic vocation calls such ecclesiological and missiological
distinctions into question. His comprehensive and purposive mission suggests that
the church today should revisit its understandings of mission in order to be faithful
to God and the divinely appointed vocation into which it has been called.
Ultimately, the salvific intentionality that Paul articulates in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and
10.31–11.1 originates with God as the one who sent Christ into the world. In fact,
mission is fundamentally rooted in the character and purposes of God — in the missio
Dei. A Christian community faithful to God would thus understand itself as missional
by nature to the extent that it has been drawn into the larger purposes of a missional
God. Located in mission in a particular context, such a community would read the
Bible — which testifies, in whole and in part, to the salvific intentionality of God —
as both a reflection of God’s mission and as guidance for the holistic mission into
which it has been called.36 In short, the faithful Christian community would seek to
act in every context and in every situation with the same salvific intentionality that
Paul and Christ exhibited.
The Christian community today has much to gain by reflecting carefully on the
salvific intentionality that Paul sought to foster in Corinth. Defining mission holisti-
cally and in purposive terms may help the contemporary church to avoid a pernicious
form of ecclesiological and missiological reductionism — and begin to recover a more
faithful posture of salvific intentionality toward “all people.”
36. See Barram, “Bible,” pp. 57–58.

19
( M IS) READING PAUL THROUGH WESTERN EYES
E. Randolph Richards
Paul cannot be separated from his missionary endeavors. When working regions
close to his home, he was well understood. The Galatian problem arose because they
understood Paul was preaching a law-free gospel. Yet when Paul ministers more
cross-culturally, into regions of Macedonia, the Thessalonians misunderstood what
Paul was teaching about the eschaton. The Corinthians misread his first letter to them
(1 Cor. 5.9-13). In the centuries after his death, Paul’s gospel continued to be applied
to contemporary situations, facing the constant threat of reading Paul’s letters through
the contemporary worldview. After two millennia, the question arises, how much
have we Westernized the way we read Paul? This essay will examine how we might
be misreading Paul through our Western worldview.
I. Background
About 15 years ago, I was sitting in a hut with a group of church elders from a remote
village on an island off the coast of Borneo. They asked my opinion over a thorny
church issue. A young couple had relocated to their village many years before because
they had committed a grievous sin in their home village. Since moving, they had lived
exemplary lives of godliness and had been faithful attendees. Now, a decade later,
they wanted to join the church.
“Should we let them?” asked the obviously troubled elders.
Attempting to avoid the question, I replied, “Well, what grievous sin had they
done?”
The elders were reluctant to air dirty village laundry before a guest but finally
replied, “They married on the run.”
In America, we call that an elopement. “That’s it?” I blurted. “What was the sin?”
Quite shocked, they stared at this young (and foolish) missionary and asked,
“Have you never read Paul?” (I certainly thought I had. My Ph.D. was on Paul.) They
reminded me Paul told believers to obey their parents (Eph. 6.1). Although they con-
ceded that we didn’t always obey, surely one should obey in what was likely the most
important decision of one’s life: marriage. Suddenly, I found myself wondering if I
had ever really read Paul. My “American Paul” clearly did not expect his command
to encompass adult children picking a spouse. What did “Paul the Missionary” mean?
Thus I began a journey of questioning how I was reading Paul. This essay is a
tentative and preliminary attempt to articulate some of my suspicions.1 It is with

trepidation I venture outside my usual fields of research, immediately aware of
surrounding rocks that threaten to shipwreck this essay. For example, by “Western”
I am referring to a worldview most commonly found among twentieth-century
Euro-Americans. Yet the very term “Western” is fraught with ambiguity, as will be
discussed below.
A. Krister Stendahl and the Rise of Western Exegetical Introspection

Stendahl’s seminal 1963 essay2 has yet to lose its relevance. Among contemporary
Paulinists, we still “struggle” to avoid characterizing Paul’s Damascus experience
as an inner struggle. More influential perhaps than his critique of how we have mis-
read Paul’s conversion, Stendahl opened the door for Pauline scholars to examine
ourselves (ironically) to see how we have superimposed our Western values on other
aspects of Paul. Have we been filtering the missionary Paul through a Western,
modernist grid? Evangelical scholars have been slower to ask this question, perhaps
because recent interest in the impact of worldview has been explored most commonly
by scholars more interested in reader-centered hermeneutics.3 Yet, this question is
also fruitfully raised by those more interested in author-centered hermeneutics, for
the original author and readers were not writing in a cultural vacuum, nor was the
resulting text culturally neutral.
B. Sociological Exegesis
Worldview differences are not merely contemporary issues. The insightful work of
Malherbe, Malina, Neyrey, Rohrbaugh, and other sociological exegetes has provided
multiple examples of how the first-century Mediterranean worldview differed from
the modern, Western worldview.4 When David deSilva sought to characterize the
New Testament world, the values he chose (honor, patronage, kinship, and purity)
immediately strike the Western reader as “not like us.”5 Kenneth Bailey has been
reminding us the New Testament culture is Middle Eastern.6 This affects the way we
understand even familiar accounts in the New Testament. For example, the party in
1. Some will accuse me of bashing “the West,” as in a recent review of David Capes, Rodney Reeves,
and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Paul (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007): “. . . the same
tired critiques of ‘the West’ that have recently been offered up by those in the Emergent Movement”
(Andrew Nicewander, http://www.biblicalreformation.com/blog [May 17, 2009]). Others will see this as
merely another argument for the “New Perspective,” which argues Luther misunderstood Paul.
2. Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963),
pp. 199–215. This essay was the invited address at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological
Association, September 3, 1961.
3. See e.g. H. Räisänen, E. S. Fiorenza, R. S. Sugirtharajah, K. Stendahl, and James Barr (eds.),
Reading the Bible in the Global Village (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), essays from the International SBL (1999)
in Helsinki.
4. Worldview assumptions creep in even among scholars sensitized to it. See Zeba Crook, “Honor,
Shame, and Social Status Revisited,” JBL 128/3 (2009), pp. 591–611.
5. David Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000).
6. e.g. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic, 2008).
19. (Mis)Reading Paul through Western Eyes 249
the parable of the prodigal son was not to celebrate the son’s absolution of guilt but
to reconcile the son to the village.7
C. De-Westernizing Pauline Exegesis

It is not possible to “de-Westernize” Paul or our understanding of him. Moreover, any
aspects of Westernization that go back as far as Aristotle could be authentic elements
of any New Testament writing. I am not advocating some wholesale rereading of Paul
but rather suggesting that there may be an underlying common cause to some of the
old misreadings. I shall look at some common differences between “East” and “West.”
If an “Eastern” difference can be traced back historically to the OT or Gospels, then
I will look for it in Paul.
II. Western Eyes

A. Worldview Generalizations are Useful Challenges
The immediate challenge to a topic like this is to question the very existence of a
“Western” worldview. Aside from theoretical dismissals of the concept of world-
view (as opposed merely to socio-linguistic differences), a Western worldview
cannot be defined (any longer) geographically or ethnically.8 One may encounter
a Western worldview among Australians in the eastern hemisphere, for example.
Even in the West, no one would argue for homogeneity between North, Central, and
South Americans, nor among Europeans. Even within the United States, Korean
Americans certainly differ from Irish Americans. “Western” is difficult to quantify.
Furthermore, the phenomenon now termed “globalization” may be the continuation
of the Hellenization begun by Alexander.
If the “West” is difficult to define, identifying the East is equally fraught with peril.
None would maintain the Far East is like Southeast Asia or the Near East (nor like
the Ancient Near East). Moreover, the more easily discernible differences between
East and West appear to be diminishing as the “world becomes flat.”9 Nonetheless,
we can speak of a Western worldview.10
We may also ask if a “Westerner” can discuss meaningfully an “Eastern” view-
point. Such an objection was raised against a similar project: “The authors have a
7. Kenneth E. Bailey, The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern
Peasants, 2nd rev. and expanded ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), pp. 71–72; note esp., “The
father very carefully reestablishes the boy’s broken relationships with each group in turn,” p. 71.
8. Zeba Crook notes how a culture like North America can have both honor and non-honor subcul-
tures and that geography is a poor definer (“Honor,” esp. p. 593); yet, “That honor and shame were and
(for the most part) remain pivotal cultural values in the Mediterranean is really beyond question” (p. 591).
9. As Thomas L. Friedman so cleverly noted in The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).
10. See e.g. Glenn S. Sunshine, Why You Think the Way You Do: the Story of Western Worldviews
from Rome to Home (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). In fact, some writers are suggesting the ones
most likely to deny the existence of a Euro-American Western worldview are those within it; see e.g. the
pointed response essay “Defending the Center, Trivializing the Margins” by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
to Heikki Räisänen’s presidential address, “Biblical Critics in the Global Village,” in Reading the Bible in
the Global Village, pp. 29–48 and 9–28, respectively.
right to speak from their own cultural perspective but have no business writing about
Paul from the vantage of cultures in which they are not members.”11 Having listed just
some of the obstacles to attempting a discussion of the differences between “East”
and “West,” nearly making a case that it cannot be done, one is tempted to dismiss it
as meaningless; yet, most of us who grew up in Caucasian America and have lived
in the East are very aware of the deep differences in worldview.
B. Exploratory, Preliminary, and not Systematic

This essay is not a systematic study of either worldview. It is not intended to be a
comprehensive study of Pauline theology or even the history of the Western interpre-
tation of Paul. Instead I will attempt to explore the possibility that Western readers of
the missionary Paul have a discernible pattern by which we (mis)read Paul.
C. East and West: Culture as a Procrustean Bed

Since the pioneering work of Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941) in linguistic relativity,12
it is generally conceded that our culture (via our language) shapes our worldview,
which in turn filters how we perceive reality. Thus like Procrustes of Greek mythol-
ogy, who shortened or stretched guests to fit his bed, our cultural grid shapes how we
read the biblical narrative. To introduce our discussion, I will select a few cultural
differences between “the East” and “the West” — a somewhat arbitrary selection,
divided into blatant, flagrant, and latent differences — and examine how these could
impact our reading of Paul.
i. Blatant13 Differences
When we notice these differences, they surprise, even delight, us. For tourists, this is
often where the “fun” occurs. Perhaps because one of the chief markers of a blatant
difference is that it is quickly noticed, biblical scholars have done well identifying
these differences. Often these are the very examples we use in a classroom to surprise
our Western students with how the biblical world differs from their own.
a. Race
Obviously, we must begin by noting the inaccuracies of European (and American)
paintings of Jesus through history.14 Most informed readers today will note the blatant
racism of Miriam and Aaron in Num. 12.1. In fact the author repeats the reference
for emphasis: “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite
11. Like an imaginary interlocutor, Charles Cosgrove, Herold Weiss, and Khiok-Khng Yeo raise and
then respond to this very relevant objection to their similar attempt to address how Paul is read; Cross-
Cultural Paul: Journey to Others, Journey to Ourselves (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
12. See e.g. John B. Carroll (ed.), Language Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf (Boston: MIT Press, 1956).
13. “Blatant” and “flagrant” both have the basic meaning of “obvious.” I am using blatant to mean
“glaring” and flagrant to mean “shocking.”
14. This was done recently (and rather well) by Mike Fillon, “Real Face of Jesus: Advances in Forensic
Science Reveal the Most Famous Face in History,” Popular Mechanics (December 2002), pp. 68–71.
wife, for he had married a Cushite.”15 We might catch the irony when God responds
by making Miriam’s skin “like snow” (Num. 12.10).16 However, our racism may still
show when we assume that the complaint against Moses was that he was “marrying
beneath himself,” when in reality it was more likely, contextually — “has the LORD
spoken only through Moses” — and historically — given the prestige of the Cushites
in the Ancient Near East — that the resentment was the opposite: Moses was consider-
ing himself too good to marry a Hebrew (possibly Miriam).17
Even the most casual reader of the New Testament notes the tension between Jew
and Gentile. Many scholars have recently argued that 'Ioudai~oj is better translated
“Judean” than “Jew.”18 The ensuing uproar has been surprising.19 I suggest ancients
distinguished religion and ethnicity less, since they were commonly synonymous.20
Thus, to the question, “Did the New Testament writers mean ‘Jew’ or ‘Judean’?” the
answer might be “Yes.” When Paul entered Thessalonica, was his race or religion
the problem? Clearly both.
b. Language
Several Eastern languages have no word for “privacy” or “sense of guilt.” For
example, in Indonesian, does “a place where one feels lonely” really translate “pri-
vacy,” or does “feeling one has infracted” capture the essence of “sense of guilt”?21
Anthropologists note that the presence or absence of a word indicates the relative
appreciation or deprecation of the concept among a people. Thus socio-linguists might
suggest the lack in English of an acceptable translation for maka/rioi (Mt. 5.3-11)
could explain not merely our translational challenge, but also why Euro-Americans
struggle to find maka/r ioj in their personal lives. More seriously, the Western
preference for the “active voice” in story-telling emphasizes cause/effect, often
turning correlation into causation, while Eastern stories often leave “cause” out of
the picture.22
15. Emphasis added. My thanks to J. Daniel Hays for first pointing this out to me. For an excellent
discussion of “race” in the Bible, see his From Every People and Nation: a Biblical Theology of Race
(NSBT, 14; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003).
16. So Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1973), p. 204.
17. Suggested in conversations by J. Daniel Hays; see also his “Moses: the Private Man Behind the
Public Leader,” BR 16/4 (2000), pp. 16–26, 60–63.
18. As Frederick Danker explained in his foreword; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2000), p. viii, and more pointedly in
an interview, “The word Jew is an inadequate translation, there . . . The word Judean is the accurate word”
(Patricia Rice, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 16, 2001). For objections see Vern S. Poythress, “How have
Inclusiveness and Tolerance Affected the Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG)?”
JETS 46 (2003), pp. 577–88, esp. pp. 583–87. See Poythress for bibliography.
19. See, very recently, C. Bennema, “Oi( 'Ioudai~oi in John,” TynB 60 (2009), pp. 239–63.
20. I would further suggest the term was in transition from an ethnic to a religious meaning in the late
first century.
21. “Rasa bersendirian” or “rasa bersalah.” An American missionary colleague reminded me of the
challenge of using Rom. 3.23, where “sin” means a “criminal activity” in Cantonese.
22. I was once told, “His tricycle is broken”; the normal way to state this in Indonesian. I confused my
son’s playmates when I asked, “Who broke the tricycle?” English language custom would encourage the
c. Mores
A simple listing of common cultural mores (food, sexuality, etc.) reveals obvious dif-
ferences. Biologically edible is much broader than culturally edible. The phrase “that
is a good dog” can mean to: “it doesn’t chew my shoes” to an American suburbanite;
to an Australian rancher the same phrase can mean: “it herds sheep well”; and to a
Minahasan it can mean: “delicious.” Similarly, many Western Christians will dress
immodestly and shrug off Christian objections abroad as prudish. Yet, would they
object to the (lack of) dress among Christian Dani tribesmen?
ii. Flagrant Differences

When we notice these differences, they shock us. For tourists, this is often where the
“frustration” occurs.23
a. Time
Most cultures start and end events at the “correct” time. In the West, the correct
time is often connected to a clock. In the East, “the right time” is often connected
to a condition or situation. For example, Americans will begin a worship service at
11 a.m., whether or not people are in the building and ready to begin. Many Easterners
begin only when the worshippers are present.24 One may argue that the role of time
in narrative varies from culture to culture. Many Eastern languages25 have little or
no verb tense — an almost unimaginable concept to many Westerners. Moreover,
when a Westerner recounts a major event, stories tend to move in chronological
sequence leading to a crescendo; therefore, sequence (time) is important. In the East,
stories often circulate around the event until it coalesces; therefore, orderliness (but
not chronological sequence) is important.26 I was often struck that storytelling for
speaker to state the agent of the action, even if it was a vague: “Someone broke his tricycle,” also implying
cause. The passive would be read as intentionally vague, when in Indonesian, it was not intentional. The
matter of who did it had not even been contemplated by my son or his friends.
23. Space is always valued, but we often disagree on how that value is expressed. In the West, valuable
space is to be “protected,” while in the East, valuable space is to be “used.” This is often seen in traffic
and housing. American tourists in Indonesia often complain about Indonesians using the “shoulder” of the
road as a lane of traffic. Indonesian tourists in America often complain about the broad, paved, and striped
shoulders that are forbidden for use. I visited the beach home of an Indonesian church member. He owned
about 3 miles of beach front on an isolated island. His neighbor owned about 5 miles of adjacent beach
front. Their two homes were built on the edges of the properties with about 4 feet between the sides of the
two houses. I could not help but ask why. He replied, “Otherwise, we would be lonely.”
24. Easterners are not oblivious to clocks, as I discovered missing a train. Culturally, ancient
Mediterranean people distinguished between “clock time” and “condition time” and often used different
terms. For “clock time,” Koine Greek often used xro/noj (or h(me/ra or w#ra), while using kairo/j for
“condition time.” Yet, the distinction is hard to maintain. Sometimes it is unclear (at least to me) which
kind of “time” the Evangelist meant. So, are we misreading Matt. 24-25 as “clock time,” especially when
24.43-45 seems to be discouraging it? Which kind of time is Lk. 21.24?
25. e.g. Indonesian (bahasa Indonesia) and related languages (Melayu, Manadonese).
26. Ruby Payne has suggested some of these same characteristics are found among the “poverty class”
in America; A Framework for Understanding Poverty, 5th ed. (Highlands, TX: Aha Press, 2005). This
opens a cross-cultural question. Are these traits “Eastern” or merely particular to certain economic classes
regardless of the culture?
Indonesians was often more like a soup: some ingredients had a specific timing, but
the other elements just needed to be added sometime. I often interrupted a story to
ask, “Now, did that happen before or after what you just said?”27 They tolerated my
irrelevant questions. Culture via our language impacts the way the story is told. So
should we be troubled over Luke’s sequence of Acts 11–13?
b. Dyadic and Individualistic

In the West, the concept of family continues to constrict, often now referring only
to one’s parents and/or children and select other near kinsmen. Yet terms for near
kinsmen, such as “uncle” or “aunt” are also used for non-kinsmen of close friend-
ship, indicating a growing (Caucasian-)American understanding of family as not
merely the determination of bloodlines. In the East, “family” is often solely based on
bloodlines. Once the relationship is determined, culture then outlines the expectations
and obligations of each member. An American aphorism states, “You can’t choose
your relatives.” African and Asian Christians would likely respond, “God chose your
relatives.” One’s identity is defined by one’s family: “Isn’t this Mary’s son and the
brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?” (Mk 6.3), and by one’s hometown: “We
have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also
wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (Jn 1.45).
The rise of James to head the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter) likely was
the result of the ancient preference for family.28 Western refusal to hire a relative (a
practice pejoratively labeled “nepotism”) confuses many Easterners: “Whom else
would you better trust? Who else would be more motivated to please a supervisor?”
Most Americans would prefer to borrow money from a bank than a relative to the
complete confusion and dismay of most Africans.
Related to family is the false Western distinction between private and public. The
concept of “private” is probably anachronistic for the Ancient Near East. It is even a
poor match in the modern Middle East or Far East. “Shame” will pressure a couple in
Indonesia to go to marriage counseling once the entire village knows they are having
problems. That is, “conviction” is through “shame” and not through “guilt.” Indeed
the Holy Spirit convicts, but in NT times, it was likely through public shame and not
through a quiet voice in the stillness of a private room.
That property is communally rather than individually owned has long been noted.
Ownership extends beyond items. In an Asian classroom, I faced tough challenges
denouncing plagiarism and sharing exam answers, particularly in light of biblical
admonitions (a) not to seek glory for oneself and (b) to share with those in need. When
I asked, “Who was the author?” They responded (with no dishonesty), “We are.”29
They would see this as a more Christian response than “I am.”
27. We ask similar questions of the prophets, particularly Isaiah.

28. The proverbial exceptions prove the rule: Prov. 18.24; 27.10.
29. Scholars in the field of literary theory have argued that ancient texts were collaborative (so Stephen
Donovan, Danuta Fjellestad, and Rolf Lundén, “Introduction: Author, Authorship, Authority, and Other
Matters,” in idem [eds.], Authority Matters: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Authorship [DQR
Studies in Literature 43; Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008], p. 13) until the seventeenth century (so also Stephen
c. Honor/Shame versus Right/Wrong

Reputation matters. When counseling an Indonesian couple that had just been caught
in adultery, I was surprised the wife’s greatest pain seemed not the personal betrayal
but “Where can I put my face?” He had wronged her — to use my terms — by
shaming her — their terms. Sin was clearly involved, but my terms seemed a poor
fit. His sin had impacted the entire community. In what way was “private” counseling
appropriate?
iii. Latent
When we notice these differences, they mystify or confuse us. For tourists, this is
often where the deep misunderstandings occur.
a. “Me” versus “Us”

The tension between individual and collective (dyadic) cultures continues to be the
subject of renewed scrutiny.30 A consensus may be appearing: “It is clear that the
cultures of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were much closer to a dyadic
culture (embedded and interrelated culture) than to the present-day dominant Western
cultural view in both theory and practice.”31
What determines the appropriate interpretive viewpoint? As Eugene Peterson
argued, the original process of God working with his people was speaking-writing-
reading (aloud)-listening. With the (double-edged) gift of Gutenberg, the process is
often reduced merely to writing-reading. This allows a communal process to become
individualized. Worse, one can “own” the Word of God (meaning a book), rather than
“hear” the Word of God, which is usually a communal act. The act of carrying around
a book gives the individual the perception: I have the Word of God.32 Thus, God
speaks to me rather than to us. The shift to individual reader-centered interpretation
was natural, post-Gutenberg.33 Even ardent supporters (like me) of an author-centered,
historical-critical method often still concede the final result is an individual reader-
centered application. Thus, when “I know the plans I have for you” (Jer. 29.11)
typically is read “for me,” we correct our students that God was speaking to those in
Judea facing exile. Yet, in the end, the application is often, “As God loved and cared
for his people then, so God will also love and take care of me.” Even when we insist
it is “. . . love and take care of us,” the reader is confident the “us” includes taking
care of me specifically.
Dobranski, “The Birth of the Author: the Origins of Early Modern Printed Authority,” in Authority Matters,
pp. 23–45, esp. p. 37).
30. See the table in K. C. Hanson, “Sin, Purification, and Group Process,” in H. T. C. Sun, K. L. Eades,
J. M. Robinson, and G. I. Moller (eds.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim
31. Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Between “I” and “We”: the Anthropology of the Hebrew Bible and its
Importance for a 21st century Ecclesiology,” BBR 19 (2009), pp. 319–40 (338).
32. See Eugene Peterson, Working the Angles: the Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 92–99.
33. See the detailed arguments of Dobranski, “The Birth of the Author.”
b. “Rules” versus “Relationships”

Westerners usually interpret the cosmos as stable and predictable. This orderly view
of reality shows up in at least two ways. First, ancient relationships are commonly
described today by rules. Patronage — a key element in Paul’s society — is often
defined by modern Western exegetes using forensic language. The relationship
between a patron and client is described more contractually like a business than
like a family.34 Second, rules and relationships are often viewed today as contracts.
Unspoken assumptions are that rules (laws) apply 100 percent of the time; otherwise,
the rule is “broken.” Rules (promises) apply to 100 percent of the people involved
and apply equally;35 otherwise, the rule is “unfair.” Since God is both reliable and
fair, his “rules” must apply equally to all people, or the rule is deemed “cultural” and
thus alterable in application.
c. Virtues and Vices

On Pauline virtue and vice lists,36 Western readers tend in two directions. First, we
rank them, placing vices like “sexual immorality” above greed (Col. 3.5-9), reflecting
our Puritan influences. Moreover, we seem to consider avoiding vices as more critical
than pursuing virtues (3.12-13). Yet, there seems no “ranking” in Paul37; rather, he
lists five vices (or virtues) with a final vice (or virtue) that summarizes the list. Thus,
the first vice list is summarized as idolatry; the second as lying; and the virtue list
as forgiveness.38
In addition to ranking virtues and vices, we also supplement the lists with virtues
and vices from our own culture. Thus, self-sufficiency, likely a biblical vice, is con-
sidered a Western virtue, as are independence, emotional restraint, and efficiency.
We similarly supplement our vice lists, e.g. procrastination, failure to plan, and
plagiarism.39
III. Are We Misreading Paul? Western Culture as a Procrustean Bed

A. Blatant Differences
We seem to be doing pretty well with these in Pauline studies.
34. See Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on
the Logic of God’s Charis and its Human Response,” HTR 101 (2008), pp. 15–44, esp. p. 20.
35. Many Western exegetes are uncomfortable with passages that seem to indicate some humans are
born “better”: e.g. Isa. 24.2; 1 Cor. 1.26.
36. Such lists were part of ancient rhetoric; see Arr. Epict. Diss. 2.16.4.
37. Granted there is a tense change. The first list comprised what they had already put off. It is often
assumed but not demonstrated this indicates descending degrees of severity.
38. Vice lists were somewhat formulaic, often having five elements; see E. Randolph Richards, “Stop
Lying,” Biblical Illustrator (Spring 1999), pp. 77–80.
39. Modern academic standards label plagiarism dishonesty. To make a biblical case against plagia-
rism, we must connect it in some way to dishonesty (clearly a biblical vice).
i. Race
Could some of the divisions among the churches in Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12) be along
ethno- linguistic lines: Aramaic- speaking Jews (khfa~ ) , Greek- speaking Jews
(Paulou), and those from Alexandria (Apollw~)?40 Was the tension between Paul
and James only theological? Other differences, such as James’s being Galilean or the
question of whether authority is conferred by family lines,41 are rarely noted as pos-
sible causes of tension.42 Yet, Luke sprinkles ethno-linguistic markers throughout Acts
21: “Jerusalem . . . Gentiles,” 21.11; “Cyprus,” 21.16; “Trophimus, the Ephesian,”
21.29; “Do you speak Greek?” 21.37; “Aren’t you the Egyptian?” 21.38; “I am a Jew,
from Tarsus in Cilicia,” 21.39; “in Aramaic,” 21.40 and 22.1; “a Jew born in Tarsus
of Cilicia,” repeated again in 22.2; “Jerusalem . . . Gentiles,” 22.17-21, perhaps in a
chiastic format.43
ii. Mores
Paul argues women should “dress modestly” (1 Tim. 2.9). Bruce Winter, in his excel-
lent discussion of the veil in 1 Corinthians, has convinced many of us that Paul is not
discussing “hair” in connection to the immoral activities of the wives in Corinth.44
Thus, the immorality issues of 1 Corinthians (and the “new Roman wives”) should
not be read automatically into 1 Timothy. “Braided hair” is not “a veil.” Nonetheless,
we read 1 Tim. 2.9 as, “Women should dress sexually modestly.” Contextually, a case
40. T. W. Manson and Kingsley Barrett suggest Khfa indicates those converted by Peter. Yet, neither
makes much of any ethno-linguistic reasons, seemingly arguing more coincidence: Peter passed through
Corinth (citing Jerome). See T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester: University
Press, 1962), pp. 190–209; and C. K. Barrett, “Cephas and Corinth,” in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK,
1982), pp. 28–39, esp. pp. 28–29.
41. James does not claim this status (Jas. 1.1), although Jude does. Interestingly, Paul does claim it
for James (Gal. 1.19), but perhaps against James. This passage is somewhat pejorative of the Jerusalem
leadership (2.6, 9). Is nepotism why Paul adds the argument, “God shows no favoritism between people”
(2.6, NET), since God chooses one’s family?
42. See the excellent commentary on Acts by Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: a Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
43. Possibly:
A Jerusalem . . . Gentiles (21.11)
B Temple (21.26)
C Trophimus (21.29)
D Confusion with questions (21.37-38)
E Jew . . . Tarsus in Cilicia (21.39)
F In Aramaic (21.40)
G Brothers and fathers (22.1)
F’ In Aramaic (22.1)
E’ Jew . . . Tarsus in Cilicia (22.2)
D’ Confusion with questions (22.8-10)
C’ Ananias (22.12)
B’ Temple (22.17)
A’ Jerusalem . . . Gentiles (22.21) The smaller chiasm E-F-G-F’-E’ seems clearer.
44. Winter connects “new wives” and adulteresses under one heading; see Winter, After Paul Left
Corinth: the Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), esp.
pp. 127–30. The “problem” Paul addresses in 1 Timothy should not be connected with 1 Corinthians.
may be made that Paul meant, “Women should dress economically modestly,” not
flaunting their wealth: “not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes”
(2.9). Paul may be connecting anger, quarreling (disputes), and economics here in
2.8-9, as he does clearly in the following pericope: “not violent but gentle, not quarrel-
some, not a lover of money” (1 Tim. 3.3). This reading could easily apply in Western
churches where everyone keeps their shirts on, but clearly some are dressing in ways
that say, “We have more money than you.”
B. Flagrant Differences
i. Time
In some passages, Paul seems to take pains to lay out a sequence of events, e.g.
Galatians 1–2. Yet, even when he is careful, we find some references unclear. Since
Paul uses specific language and tone in this passage to indicate he is carefully
delineating sequence,45 in passages without such markers we should not neces-
sarily presume he is outlining sequence, such as the eschatological events in the
Thessalonian correspondence.
ii. Dyadic and Individualistic

a. Family and Individuals
Scholars debate Paul’s view of ecclesial leadership,46 often between pneumatic and
institutional leadership, yet always as individual attainments. Family lines are not
usually discussed. However, could the “of Peter” or “of Paul” or “of Apollos” be a
family connection and not a theological one? It is a common use of the genitive case.
At the least, I suspect the reference is to ethnic groups.47
b. Public and Private

First, “family” was the interpretive grid. While some exegetes interpret Acts 2–4
to be communism, it is more likely the image of a family who “shares with each
other.” Thus, the “failure” in Acts 2–4 is not economic but relational. Second, a
major challenge for Paul may have been the patron/client relationship. How does he
accept gifts without becoming someone’s client?48 This may explain why his letter
45. Gal. 1.18; 2.1: )/Epeita meta\ . . . )/Epeita dia\ . . .

46. So e.g. Earle Ellis, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), esp.
pp. 87–121.
47. I remain convinced by Margaret Mitchell these genitives indicate relationship; see Mitchell, Paul
and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: an Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of
1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1992), pp. 84–86. See the excellent discussion by Anthony
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 121–34. Yet,
the discussion seems between “socio-ethical-political” or theological, such as the “ultraspiritual pneumat-
ics” (Thiselton, pp. 128–31), but never ethnic.
48. Paul did not want to accept the Corinthian gift because of the massive influence a patron could
exert. Yet to refuse the gift (and thus the offer of friendship) was rude; see Peter Marshall, Enmity in
Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2/23; Tübingen: Mohr,
1987), pp. 1–34, 165–258. For a good explanation of the power of a patron, see John K. Chow, Patronage
and Power: a Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTS 75; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992),
esp. p. 129.
to the Philippians appears (to us) to be a thankless thank-you letter. The gift may not
have come as a gift from the church but rather from an individual, such as Lydia or
the jailor. Paul reinterprets the gift as a sacrifice to God (Phil. 4.18) from which Paul
benefited, as was the custom of priests in temples. Thus God remains Paul’s only
patron (4.13). Paul’s profits and losses are connected to his sole benefactor (3.7-8).
c. Authorship Discussions
Evangelical scholars are often criticized for over-emphasizing authorship.49 Most
complaints about my suggestion of co-authorship in some of Paul’s letters revolve
around issues that seem strikingly Western, such as “Which sections are Paul’s?” or
“Who is the authority?”
iii. Honor/Shame and Right/Wrong

a. Honor is Worth Living For
Reputation matters. When discussing the immoral man in Corinth (1 Cor. 5.1-8),
Paul seems most upset over the church’s reputation: the leaven will contaminate the
entire lump of dough. Pauline interaction with other apostolic authorities is often
heavily laced with honor/shame language: “acknowledged leaders,” “had not run in
vain,” “secretly . . . slipped in to spy,” and “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2.2-9).
So also, the Lukan-Paul’s interaction with James: “certain persons [unnamed]” and
“our beloved Barnabas and Paul” (Acts 15.24-25).
b. Honor is Worth Dying For

Israel’s loss of honor grieved Paul. He himself was willing to die to restore it: “For
I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my
own people” (Rom. 9.3). Honor was worth dying for; it was also worth killing for.
“Zeal” often carried a connotation of violence: “as for zeal, persecuting the church”
(Phil. 3.6). Was Paul’s role model for zeal Phinehas, who killed to restore God’s
honor (Num. 25.11)?
c. Righteousness as Individual Piety

Although “righteousness” is commonly noted as relationship language, applica-
tion is often about doing right (or making right personal choices) rather than about
membership in a community and living like it.50 Thus, when we read dikaiosu/nh, our
exegesis often defaults to a Western mindset, filtered through Puritanism. Hauerwas
argues holiness is not the result of the individual will but of membership in the body.51
“Sinner” may be just as poor a translation as “criminal” for a(martwlo/j since the
communal dimension is lost in “sinner” but present in “criminal.”
49. See the discussion of how authorship was more co-authorship until post-seventeenth century in
Dobranski, “The Birth of the Author,” esp. p. 37.
50. Stanley Hauerwas, “The Sanctified Body: Why Perfection Does Not Require a ‘Self,”” in Samuel
Powell and Michael Lodahl (eds.), Embodied Holiness: Toward a Corporate Theology of Spiritual Growth
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), pp. 19–38, esp. pp. 24–28.
51. Ibid.
C. Latent Differences
i. “Us” Preempts “Me”
a. Passages Where a “We” May Be Misread to Mean “I”
Romans 8.28 may well refer to “us” and not to “me.” All things work together for the
good of God’s people, even though individuals may endure all manner of senseless
suffering and death. Otherwise, must we assume that, like Job, the suffering of every
individual Christian is the direct plan of God and not merely the result of living in
a world where rain falls on the just and the unjust (Mt. 5.45)? As a college Bible
teacher, I must teach every new student that the “plans to prosper you” (Jer. 29.11)
involved the killing and enslavement of thousands (2 Kings 24–25). Those individuals
might dispute the promise “not to harm you.” We are assured God does not forsake
his people (Ps. 94.14) and yet he has for specific generations (e.g. Hos. 1.9; 9.17;52
Pss. 44; 74.1). Does Mt. 18.20 apply to 100 percent of Jesus’ followers? Perhaps we
have individualized communal promises. How is a promise to the “people of God,”
such as Rom. 8.28, applied to an individual or even a specific group or generation?
Should it be?
b. Passages Where an “I” Probably Meant “We”

Paul’s image of the “Body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12.12-31) is often applied to individual
members functioning within a local church or perhaps the universal church.53 Could
Paul be addressing local congregations in Corinth who are feeling disenfranchised?
First Corinthians begins by addressing that very issue (1 Cor. 1.10-11). Paul’s use
of “I” is caused by the single referent of “a foot” and not necessarily by the referent
of an individualized Paul. Thus, we may be misreading Paul as meaning individual
believers. Could Paul mean a congregation (or denomination) is a “hand” who cannot
say to a “foot” (another church or denomination), “I don’t need you” (2 Cor. 12.21)?
This is particularly poignant if the groups were ethnically divided. The question we
are raising here is, “Are we predisposed to dismiss such an interpretation?” Is 1 Tim.
2.12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach”) or 1 Cor. 8.13 (“I will never eat meat”)
merely Paul’s personal practice or is he meaning “we”? Is Paul the only one adapting
in 1 Cor. 9.21-23?54
ii. “Relationships” preempt “Rules”

Relationships (not rules) define reality.55 Relationships are rarely as neat and tidy as
rules. Worldviews are like icebergs. The dangerous part of the iceberg is under the
52. Some may quibble that “reject” is not the same as “forsake.” I question what motivation is behind
such differentiation. Is it not a desire to insure God’s promises apply to every individual at every point in
history?
53. Hauerwas argues this reading is inaccurate culturally; “Sanctified Body,” pp. 26–27.
54. If Paul means “method of argumentation,” as he likely does, then it is possible that only Paul was
adapting. Paul’s switch from “I” to “we” (e.g. Col. 1.24-29) has long been noted and remains difficult
to explain. See Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 24–31, and my The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT
2/92; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991).
55. Thus, the cosmos is only as stable or predictable as the relationship between cosmos and creator.
water. In Paul’s world, relationships were the underwater part. “Rules” were the part
above the waterline (and not the part that sinks ships). “What goes without saying”
is usually the most important part. Thus, rules don’t usually describe the bulk of the
matter; they merely describe the visible outworking of an underlying relationship,
which is the defining element.
For example, the patron/client relationship is commonly described in modern lit-
erature by rules, yet it is more familial. While living in Indonesia, we had a household
helper. I kept trying to define job expectations and rules: what time to arrive/leave,
wages, etc. In Indonesia, it was a relationship. “She came when needed.” I paid her
medical bills, not because we had agreed on a contract, but because I was her “father”
(patron). Who else should pay? Even though I left 15 years ago, I pay the school
bills for her children. I’m “Opa” and of course I’ll pay for school. How could I be
such a lousy “grandfather” as not to take care of my “grandchildren”? I’ll pay for
the weddings. Yet, relationships are always two-sided. After the tsunami in 2004, I
brought a relief team who needed household help. It had been 10 years, but there was
no question if she would come. “She came when needed,” even if it took 9 days by
boat. Neither she nor I discussed whether she would come or what I would pay. Thus,
the entanglements of patronage were constantly threatening to divide Paul’s loyalty.
b. Rules were to be Applied through a Relationship Grid

Recently, Troels Engberg-Pedersen made a fine argument for understanding xa/rij
as a relationship word. He notes that “premodern societies” (his words) view gift-
giving differently.56 No ancient gifts were completely gratuitous; all gifts had strings
attached. He notes Kant insisted gift-giving requires a pure lack of self-concern;
ancients did not. Nonetheless, it remains a challenge for him not to describe the
ancient process with forensic language: “Moreover, there is quite clearly built into
the system an expectation on both sides that this is how the system will work.”57 I
suggest a better conceptual framework than “system” and “expectation” is the term
“relationship.”
This relationship is the premier and determinative aspect of xa/rij and not just
“the other feature,” as Engberg-Pedersen writes. “Grace” and “faith” are relationship
markers and not forensic decrees. Thus, a concept like “forensic justification” may
be a superimposition. While it may be correct, it will not fit well because we are
stretching an Eastern concept onto a Western framework. Holiness is a relational not
a forensic term.
Similarly, exegetes may discuss which party in Corinth was “right.”58 Paul doesn’t
seem to address their theology. Does “relationship” ever trump “theology”? Such a
question could convene a heresy trial in many denominations. Jesus prayed his fol-
lowers would “be one” (Jn 17.11). To us, does this mean we must somehow “correct”
56. Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-giving,” p. 15.

57. Engberg-Pedersen notes correctly that disinterest was not a required aspect of beneficium dare,
beneficium accipere, or beneficium reddere in Seneca’s De Beneficiis; see ibid., pp. 17–21.
58. See Jerome Neyrey, “Body Language in 1 Corinthians: the Use of Anthropological Models for
Understanding Paul and His Opponents,” Semeia 35 (1986), pp. 129–70, esp. p. 137.
the theology of all other believers so that as a result we can be one? The Lukan-Paul in
Acts 21 does not take the opportunity to correct James’ theology.59 Is this an applica-
tion of the Epistolary-Paul’s emphasis on prioritizing relationship (Rom. 12.18)?
c. Rules Had Exceptions (for the Relationship)

In fact, we should expect exceptions. Rules were not expected to apply 100 percent of
the time. This doesn’t make the rule “broken.” Israel did not keep the rules, and God
complained about it for centuries; yet, the covenant was broken only when it became
clear the relationship was over (“not my people”; Hos. 1.9) and not when the rules
were broken. Paul asserts, “if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of
no value to you at all” (Gal. 5.2); yet, Luke says, Paul “circumcised him [Timothy]”
(Acts 16.3). We either question Luke’s accuracy or allow “Pauline expediency.” Yet,
Luke tells us the reason was relationships, not rules: “because of the Jews who lived
in that area.” Relationships trumped rules.
Rules also did not seem to require 100 percent compliance. God announces about
Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no
longer love them” (Hos. 9.15), but then says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?”
(Hos. 11.8). Judgment was influenced by the relationship (Hos. 11.9-10). In Exod.
12.40-49, all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet, in Josh. 5.5, obviously
they had not been. Likewise, we are told “the lamp of the wicked is snuffed out”
(Prov. 13.9; 24.20), but Job (21.17) and Asaph (Psalm 73) experienced individual
examples to the contrary.
Likewise, rules did not seem to apply to 100 percent of the people.60 Allow me
another story. In Indonesia I was once invited to speak at a “pastors only” meeting.
In the audience of over 100 pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws
of the Convention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: “Pastors must be
male.” When I remarked on the women’s presence to the convention president, I was
assured they were pastors with all titles and authorities. I should have left it alone. I
exclaimed, “But your laws say pastors must be male!” to which he calmly replied,
“Yes, and most of them are.”
His answer represents a fundamentally different view of “law.” It seems a “law”
is more a “guideline.” For Americans, we would have to change the Indonesian law
to read: “Most pastors must be male” and then we would argue over the percentage.
Their view of law always had room for exceptions. Paul states, “I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Tim. 2.12).
Since there seem to be Pauline exceptions (Priscilla, Junia61), we either question the
rule or explain away the exception.
59. At the least, it appears Paul would disagree with James’ assertion that all Gentiles must abstain
from meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8).
60. The Deuteronomist’s purpose was clear in telling the Rahab and Achan stories immediately. God’s
command to drive out all inhabitants and possess the land was to have exceptions.
61. There is no evidence of the common male name Junianus being contracted in any ancient literature,
while the female name Junia is well attested. The reading 'Iouli/an (Rom. 16.7) is too weakly attested
(only P46 and minuscule 6). Doug Moo indicates scholarly consensus is that Junia is a woman and likely
iii. Whose Virtues and Vices?

a. “Efficiency” as a Virtue
It is well recognized that efficiency is a primary “good” in at least the American
worldview. If you can demonstrate a process or policy is more efficient, you do not
have to make any other arguments of support. Since God is virtuous, do we superim-
pose this value upon God? For example, it is popular in Western theology to reduce
all spiritual beings (outside of God) to one kind: angels — very efficient. Thus, when
we read of demons, evil spirits, unclean spirits, cherubs and seraphs, it is commonly
presumed these are all angels,62 just good or bad (fallen) ones. Exegetical statements
that note cherubs are ridden (Ps. 18.10), seraphs have wings (Isa. 6.2), and fallen
angels are locked away (2 Pet. 2.4), while evil spirits wander about (Lk. 11.24), are
largely ignored. I don’t think a biblical case can be made for evil spirits, demons,
and unclean spirits as mere synonyms.63 My contention is that it was not exegesis
that led us to conclude seraphs are angels (and thus, angels have wings), but rather
that our Western value of “efficiency” led us to assume this. Do Western exegetes
prefer a non-supernatural identification, since it is difficult to equate stoixei~a (Gal.
4.9) or “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities” (Col. 1.16) with fallen angels?64
b. “Failing to Plan” as a Vice

Westerners consider a lack of planning to be a vice, perhaps even a serious moral
failure.65 Thus, Paul’s missionary travels must have been the result of a careful plan,
even if not stated in the text. Stating Paul’s church-planting efforts were “flying by
the seat of his pants” or merely the practical outworking of seasons and routes would
be considered a pejorative. How much of our impassioned rejection of open theism
is rooted emotionally in the implication that God wasn’t planning, as we think a
virtuous God should?
the wife of Andronicus; see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
pp. 922–23.
62. e.g. Jan G. van der Watt, Angels and Orthodoxy: a Study in their Development in Syria and
Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian (STAC, 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), esp.
§ 1.3, groups all heavenly beings (holy ones, gods, spirits, watchers, and standing ones) under the generic
rubric of “angels” despite the clear terminological distinctions. Have we redefined angel to mean “heavenly
being” instead of “messenger”?
63. I am unaware of clear textual connections. (The verbal form demonize is used for spirits but this
is hardly determinative. Luke 8.26-30 mentions a singular unclean spirit and multiple demons.) Rather,
some sort of cosmic efficiency seems presumed. Yet simple observation suggests God’s nature is otherwise.
The physical creation is filled with variety.
64. Ben Witherington argues “they are not beings”; see Witherington, Grace in Galatia (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1998), p. 301. Contra H. D. Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 214.
Note Paul refers to “gods” (Gal. 4.8) and “in heaven” (Col. 1.15).
65. A freshman recently objected, “But shouldn’t we as ministers teach our parishioners the impor-
tance of savings?” My reminder of a dominical saying about considering the lilies of the field (Mt. 6.28)
seemed to him irrelevant. What is more striking was the class’s assumption that God is interested in us
making plans. I’m not suggesting Jesus opposed planning (Lke. 14.28-32, although these verses really
address sacrifice and not planning); I marvel how the position was presumed and defended with great
passion, with dismay at me for seeming to dismiss the self-evident virtue of frugality, again Mary (Jn 12.3)
notwithstanding.
If failing to plan is a vice, then “good planning” is a virtue.66 Thus, Paul’s plan to
visit Jerusalem (the last time) must have been a good plan since it worked out well.
Yet, Luke describes the visit as ill-advised (Acts 21.4). Lukan commentators have
been slow to see Luke as criticizing Paul’s planning.67
IV. Concluding Thoughts

Has our preference for certain viewpoints or our dislike for others caused us to see or
not to see certain elements in Paul? When reading Paul, our Western worldview may
lead us to jump toward certain interpretations and make us blind to other options.
For example, has an “economic” interpretation of 1 Tim. 2.9 (“dress modestly”) been
rejected exegetically or just not considered? Is there really a lexical challenge in Rom.
16.7 (“Junia”), or are we misreading Paul through Western eyes?
66. In Jn 5.19 Jesus probably meant that since God worked on the Sabbath (as evidenced by births,
deaths, etc.), then Jesus also was so entitled. However, Henry Blackaby’s (mis)reading of this verse, “Jesus
looked around to see where God was at work and then joined the work,” resonated with many American
readers, for surely Jesus had a daily plan or ministry strategy.
67. Clearly Luke is drawing parallels between Paul’s journey to Jerusalem and that of Jesus. Tim
Johnson correctly notes the parallel language between Luke’s Gospel and Acts: “handed over” and “into
the power of the Gentiles”; Acts (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), pp. 371–72. Yet, I still argue
Acts also has a theme to show Paul is not a divine figure by highlighting two Pauline decisions his readers
would specifically know were poor: the dismissal of John-Mark (Acts 15.36-38) and the trip to deliver the
Jerusalem offering (Acts 21).
I NDEX OF BIBLICAL AND ANCIENT TEXT
Old Testament 7.7-11 32 1 Kings 96 160

Genesis 12.2-14 160 1.2 29 94.14 259
8.20-22 92 12.5 20 1.4 29 96.2-4 159
8.21 LXX 92 12.11 20 1.34 58 96.7-9 159
10 161 12.21 20 1.39 58 104.30 144
12.3 181, 184 13.5 121 1.45 58 110 187
12.3 LXX 124 17.7 121 5.1 58 110.1 9, 10
15.6 104 17.9 LXX 60 17.17-24 119 114.2 20
17.5 LXX 124 17.12 121 19.9-18 118 117.1 10
18.18 181, 184 17.18 LXX 60 138.4-5 160
22.18 LXX 124, 181, 18.1 LXX 60 2 Kings 139.7 144
184 21.5 LXX 60 4.18-21 119
21.21 121 4.32-37 119 Proverbs
Exodus 21.22-23 LXX 13.20-21 119 13.9 261
4.16 LXX 53 120 24–25 259 18.24 253
8.1 160 24.8 LXX 60 19.17 229
8.20 160 25.1-3 101 1 Chronicles 24.20 261
9.1 160 25.3 96 1.1–2.2 161 27.10 253
9.13 160 25.4 224 15.11 60
9.16 54 27.9 LXX 60 15.14 60 Isaiah
10.3 160 27.15-26 LXX 120 16.23-33 160 1–35 59, 60
12.12 160 27.26 102 24.6 60 2.2-4 15, 19
12.40-49 261 27.26 LXX 120–1 24.31 60 2.2-4 LXX 124, 125
18.19 LXX 53 30.12 181 28.13 60 6 15, 16, 18
19.6 60 30.14 181 6.2 262
19.9ab 60 31.27 LXX 53 Ezra 6.8-13 118
19.21-25 118 32.21 23, 181 9.1-2 123 9.6-7 185
32.43 10 10.2 123 11.2 58, 144
Leviticus 11.10 10, 15, 17,
1.1-17 92 Joshua Esther 17, 19
1.9 LXX 92 5.5 261 8.17 LXX 138 11.11-12 17
1.13 LXX 92 10.26 120 12.4 LXX 125
1.17 LXX 92 23.7 160 Job 24.2 255
2.9 LXX 93 21.17 261 25.6-10 15
2.12 LXX 93 25.6-9 19
3.5 LXX 93 1 Samuel Psalms 25.6-8 LXX 125
18.5 102, 121 9.16 58 2 185 25.8-9 17
18.29 101 10.1 58 2.7 9 29.14 181
26.31 LXX 93 10.6 144–5 8 187 35.5-6 17
10.10 144–5 17.50 10 40–66 1, 56
Numbers 11.15 58 17.50 LXX 54 40–65 16
3.6 LXX 61 15.1 58 18.10 262 40–55 59, 60
8.5ff 60 15.7 58 18.49 54 40.5 17
18.2 LXX 61 16.3 58 19.4 181 41.8-9 14
11.17 144 16.12 58 22.27 125 41.8-9 LXX 55
12.1 250 23.8-19 119 24.1 135 42 13, 14, 15, 17, 19
12.10 251 37.22 121 42.1 13, 14, 59, 126
14.17-21 160 2 Samuel 44 259 42.1 LXX 55
15.30-31 101 2.4 58 66.1-4 160 42.6-7 13, 56
17.17-21 22 2.7 58 72 185 42.6 13, 126
25.11 258 5.3 58 73 261 42.7 13, 15, 59
5.17 58 74.1 259 42.11 14
Deuteronomy 7.12-16 185 86.9 125 42.16 15, 56, 59
4.15-24 160 7.12-14 9 89 185 42.21 102
43.10 LXX 55 60.1-5 15, 17 12.2-3 216, 217, 218 12.18 55

44.1-2 LXX 55 60.1 17 12.3 LXX 217 13.38 124
44.21 LXX 55 60.2-3 18 15.11 122
44.26 LXX 55 60.3 LXX 125 Hosea 15.21-28 123
45.4 LXX 55 60.16 60 1.9 259, 261 15.24 106, 124
46.1-6 116 61 2, 15, 17, 19, 9.15 261 17.5 118
49 13, 14, 15, 17, 58–9, 60, 61 9.17 259 18.20 259
19, 54, 58, 61, 181, 61.1-3 14 11.8 261 20.27 55
183 61.1-2 17 11.9-10 261 20.28 55
49.1 13, 56, 183 61.1 15, 16, 59, 22.9 124
49.3 56, 58 60, 62 Joel 22.34-40 122
49.3 LXX 55 61.6 2 2.28-30 155 24–25 252
49.4 56 61.6 LXX 59–62 2.32 181 24.14 124
49.5 58 61.6b 60 3.5 54 24.42 122
49.5 LXX 55 61.11 59 24.43-45 252
49.6 13, 56, 57, 58, 65.1-2 181 Amos 27.37 119
62, 126, 163 66.18-24 160–1 9.11-12 LXX 17 28.16-20 118
49.6 LXX 55 66.18-21 15, 162, 9.11 185 28.19 124
49.7 163, 164 165
49.8 56, 59, 95 66.18-20 161 Micah Mark
50.10 LXX 55 66.18-19 18 3.8 145 1.11 118
51–55 15, 19 66.18 165, 168 4.1-3 15 1.14 109
51.4-5 LXX 125 66.18 LXX 125 4.1-3 LXX 125 2.13–3.6 106
52–53 218 66.19-21 18, 19 5.2-5 185 2.15-17 123
52 54, 61 66.19 17, 161, 162 2.17 122
52.1-10 17 66.20 18, 52, 165 Habakkuk 2.24 110
52.5 54 66.21 60 2.4 181, 185, 186 2.26 110
52.6-10 17 66.23 165, 168 2.14 160 3.4 110
52.7-10 16 6.3 253
52.7-8 17 Jeremiah Zephaniah 7.1-23 106
52.7 15, 16, 19, 57, 1.5 13, 14, 116 3.8-10 15, 18 7.2 109
181 1.5 LXX 183 3.9-10 160 7.5 109
52.10 17 1.15 17 7.15 109, 122
52.13–53.12 165, 3.17 15 Zechariah 7.18 109
215, 216, 217, 218 3.17 LXX 125 2.8-12 15 7.19 109
52.13–53.12 16.19 LXX 125 2.10-11 20 7.20 109
LXX 218 23.3-6 185 5.3 121 7.23 109
52.13-15 96 29.11 254, 259 8.20-23 15 7.24-30 123
52.13 216, 217 30.1-11 185 8.20-23 LXX 125 9.4 119
52.13 LXX 55 33.15-18 185 9.7 118
52.15 15, 19, 61, 44.8 121 Malachi 10.2 110
165, 181 1.11 160 10.43 55
52.15 LXX 57 Ezekiel 3.8 155 10.44 55
53 54, 55, 55, 95, 1 16 4.5-6 119 10.45 55
218 2.2 145 12.14 110
53.1 15, 19, 57, 181 5.5 161, 162 New Testament 12.28-34 122
53.2a 216 20.41 LXX 93 Matthew 13.35 122
53.4-5 95 34.2-28 185 3.17 13 15.26 119
53.4 216 36–37 154 5.3-11 251
53.7 96 36.22-23 160 5.38-48 122 Luke
53.8 LXX 216 36.26 153 5.45 259 2.32 55, 56
53.11-12 95 36.27 153 6.28 262 4.18-21 170
53.11f 55 37.6 153 6.33 109 4.18-19 17, 58
53.11 216, 217 37.14 153 8.5-10 123 4.21 58
53.12 216 37.24-25 185 8.13 123 4.24-27 170
54.13 154 38–39 161 9.9-11 123 4.27 170
55.3-5 15 43.19 LXX 60 9.11 122 5.30-32 123
55.3 17 44.15 LXX 60 10.3 123 5.30 122
55.5 17 10.5-6 106, 124 6.27-36 122
56.6-8 15, 18, 19 Daniel 10.10 220 7.1-9 123
56.6-8 LXX 125 7 185 11.4-6 17 7.22-23 17
60.1-22 19 9.15-19 160 11.19 110, 122, 123 7.34 122, 123
60.1-10 18 12 217, 218 12.18-21 13 8.26-30 262
266 Index of Biblical and Ancient Text
9.22 164 9.8 100 19.21 164 26.27 164

9.35 118 9.13-22 105 19.22 164 28.16 221
9.51 164 9.15-16 163 19.23-41 83 28.17-18 164
9.52 164 9.15 126, 164, 170 20.4-5 22 28.20 221
10.25-28 122 9.17 105 20.13-38 164 28.30 221
10.30-37 123 9.18 105 20.16 141
11.24 262 9.20 105 20.22-24 164 Romans
14.28-32 262 9.22 105 20.31 25 1–8 186
15.1-2 123 9.23-25 92 20.33-35 224 1–4 176, 186
15.2 110, 122 9.26 100 20.34-35 225 1–3 184
16.27-31 119 9.30 100 20.34 221 1–2 44
17.11-19 123 10.1–11.17 73 20.35 228 1 44, 171
19.1-10 123 11–13 253 21 256, 261, 263 1.1-6 9, 185
20.35 213 11.3 138 21.4 263 1.1-5 13, 186
21.5-36 164 11.25 100 21.11 256 1.1 11, 57, 185
21.24 252 11.29-30 100 21.16 256 1.2-5 18, 19
21.34-36 122 12.2 104 21.17-26 140 1.2-3 181
22.19-20 106 12.17 104 21.20 107, 111 1.2 12, 185
22.47–23.25 164 13 128 21.26 256 1.3-4 9, 10, 11, 16,
22.52 164 13.1–21.16 99 21.27–22.29 164 215
22.54 164 13.14 103, 136 21.28 164, 165 1.3 10, 11, 185
22.63 164 13.26 211 21.29 256 1.4-7 68
22.66-71 164 13.47 56, 163 21.30 164 1.4-5 187
23.1-7 164 14 128 21.37 256 1.4 184, 185, 212
23.2 164 14.1 103, 136 21.38 164, 256 1.5-6 18
23.3 164 14.6 81, 171 21.39 256 1.5 12, 18, 54, 57,
23.5 164 14.11 81, 131 21.40 256 159, 166, 183, 185,
23.8-12 164 14.15 136 22.1 256 186, 188
23.18 164 15 139 22.2 256 1.7 67
23.20 164 15.1-2 107 22.3-21 67 1.8-12 68
23.24 164 15.5 106, 107, 110 22.7-10 118 1.8 68, 226
23.38 119 15.16-18 17 22.8-10 256 1.9 52
15.16-17 17 22.12 256 1.10-13 9, 22
John 15.19-21 104 22.16 105 1.11-12 68, 72
1.45 253 15.23 103 22.17-21 256 1.11 54, 72
4.1-42 123 15.24-25 258 22.17 256 1.12 72
4.46-53 123 15.36-41 207 22.19 104 1.13-15 18, 68
5.19 263 15.36-38 263 22.21 118, 126, 256 1.14-17 185
6.35 211 15.41 103 22.22 164 1.15-16 181
6.68 211 16 139 22.24 164 1.15 67, 68, 69, 172
8.33 40 16.1-5 70 22.29 164 1.16-17 12, 68, 74,
12.3 262 16.1-4 139 22.30–23.11 164 108, 109, 185
17.11 260 16.1 140 23.6 164 1.16 12, 103, 186,
19.19 119 16.2 140 23.11 164 189
16.3 137–40, 261 24.1–25.12 164 1.17 11, 185, 186
Acts 16.12 103 24.15 164 1.18-32 12, 73, 166,
1.4-8 118 16.15 225 24.21 164 178
2–4 257 17 128, 136 24.24 164 1.18 12, 73
2 82 17.1 103, 136 25.8 164 1.21-25 67
2.5-11 81, 82 17.13 103 25.13–26.32 164 1.24 73
2.5 81 17.14-15 232 25.23 164 1.25 53
2.6 81 17.17 103 26.2-23 67 1.26 73
2.7-11 81 18.1-4 232 26.11 104 1.28 73
2.42 106 18.4 103 26.14-18 118 2.4-6 12
3.13 55 18.7 136 26.16-18 13, 15 2.4 74
3.17-26 203 18.11 25 26.16 55 2.7 186
3.26 55 18.12-17 231 26.17-18 118 2.8 89, 188
4.27 55 18.13 165 26.17 170 2.9 103
5.20 211 18.23 81 26.18 56 2.13-16 184
5.38 106 19–28 164 26.18a 56 2.13 108
9.1–12.25 99 19.8 103 26.20 126 2.18 188
9.1-9 67 19.9 136 26.22 55 2.24 54
9.3-6 118 19.10 25 26.23 55, 56 2.25-9 138
3–8 13 6.3 105 10.9-13 16, 18 14.20 138

3 73, 171 6.4-5 184 10.9-10 186 15 4, 20, 59, 67, 69,
3.1-8 44 6.4 186 10.9 12, 184 162, 165, 205
3.2 159 6.9-10 74 10.10 189 15.1-13 66
3.3 44 6.9 184 10.13 54, 186 15.1-7 132
3.4 44 6.10-11 186 10.14-21 99, 103 15.1-4 165
3.6 44 6.12-23 74 10.15-16 19 15.4 166
3.9 73 6.12 182 10.15 15, 16, 57, 172 15.5-13 166
3.10-18 73 6.13 186 10.16 15, 16, 57, 15.5-9a 168
3.10-12 67 6.15 44 181, 188, 189 15.6 60, 66, 67, 165
3.10 73 6.21 74 10.19 23 15.7-13 10, 52, 74
3.11 73 6.22-23 186 11 17, 44, 46, 170 15.7-8 18
3.12 73 7–8 12, 13 11.1 43, 44–5, 49, 15.7 53, 159, 165,
3.18 67 7.1-3 186 66 165, 232
3.20 121 7.4 184 11.2 44 15.8-21 2, 52, 53,
3.21-26 12, 91, 107 7.6 102 11.2a 99, 103 57–9, 61
3.21-25 74 7.7-25 74 11.11 23, 44, 186 15.8 54, 57, 58
3.21-22 185 7.7 44 11.13-25 204 15.8a 58
3.22-26 74, 184 7.9-10 186 11.13-21 44 15.8b-9a 57
3.22 185, 189 7.10 121 11.13-14 22, 23 15.9-12 18, 19, 54,
3.23 251 7.13 44 11.13 18, 66, 115, 166
3.24-26 20 7.14 74 170 15.9-11 59
3.26 185 8.1 13 11.14 44, 186 15.9 53, 54, 58, 165
3.27-31 74 8.2 102, 186 11.15 12 15.11 59
3.31 44 8.3-4 11, 26 11.16 22 15.12 10, 18, 19, 59
4 38, 39, 85 8.3 73 11.17 38 15.13-16 205
4.1-3 108 8.6 186 11.25-32 99, 103 15.13-14 53
4.3 104 8.9-11 213 11.25-26 17, 23 15.13 52, 54, 109,
4.5 110 8.9 148 11.25 17, 23, 170 166, 189
4.9-10 108 8.10 186 11.26 186 15.14-33 65
4.11 32, 189 8.11 184, 213 11.32 74 15.14-32 19, 20
4.16 201 8.12-13 186 11.33-36 159 15.14-21 52
4.17 85, 124 8.14-17 12 11.33 188 15.14 52, 69
4.18-21 22 8.18-25 214 11.36 53, 191 15.15-29 23
4.18 32 8.19 201 12.1-2 12, 165 15.15-16 18, 162
4.24-25 184, 215, 8.23-25 201 12.1 150, 165 15.15 53, 61, 67
216 8.24 186 12.2 26 15.16-24 162
4.25 12 8.28 259 12.2b 188 15.16-17 51, 53
5–8 186 8.29-30 12 12.3-8 5, 35, 197 15.16 2, 20, 23, 28,
5 176, 186 8.29 26, 70, 200, 232 12.3 196 51-62, 58, 59, 61,
5.1-11 12 8.32-34 9, 11, 13 12.4-8 196 165, 170, 181
5.1-2 108 8.34 12, 61, 184, 216 12.9-12 30 15.16a 53
5.1 108, 176, 177 8.38 186 12.9 30 15.16b 53, 61
5.2 177 8.39 74 12.13 226 15.17-18a 61
5.5 22, 105, 154 9–11 39, 44, 170 12.16 232 15.17 27, 53, 58
5.8-11 176–9 9 44 12.17 122 15.18-21 126
5.8-10 11 9.1-6 44 12.18 261 15.18-19 22
5.8 178, 240 9.1-5 44 12.21 122 15.18 18, 53, 54, 58,
5.9-11 4 9.1-3 44 12.25-32 19 166, 188
5.9-10 177, 186 9.3-5 159 12.26 20 15.19-21 181
5.9 13, 177 9.3 70, 103, 258 13.6 52, 66 15.19 23, 53, 54,
5.10-11 177 9.5 53, 121 13.8-10 122 58, 59, 99, 146, 162,
5.10 177, 178, 186 9.6 44 13.8 232 181, 206
5.11 177 9.6a 44 13.11 186, 189 15.20 18, 25, 29, 53,
5.12-21 73, 74, 107, 9.14 44 14.1–15.7 53 54, 59, 67, 68, 162,
214 9.17 54 14.1 53, 109 172
5.14-21 182 9.25 86 14.6 138 15.21 15, 19, 53, 54,
5.17-18 186 9.27 186 14.13 30, 232 55, 57, 165
5.18 211 10 44 14.14 109, 122 15.22-32 9
5.21 186 10.1 186 14.16 109 15.22-25 22
6–8 176 10.4 37, 189 14.17-18 109 15.22-24 22
6.1-11 26 10.6-21 181 14.17 10, 108 15.22 34
6.2 44, 186 10.8-10 215 14.20-21 109 15.24 25, 126
15.25-32 19, 20, 3.5-9 18 8 128, 129, 130, 261 10.31–11 242
21, 23 3.5 35, 35, 62, 189 8.1 132, 240, 242 10.31–11.1 5,
15.25-27 21 3.6-9 34 8.2 242 234-246
15.26 60, 226 3.9 34 8.5-6 129 10.32-33 238
15.27 60 3.10-17 27, 34, 35 8.6 12, 214 10.32 130, 235, 238,
15.28 126 3.10 28, 35, 133 8.7 133 239
15.30-33 65, 73 3.11 20 8.8 138 10.33–11.1 129
15.30-32 22 3.13 35 8.9 130, 242 10.33 235, 237, 238,
15.30 154 3.16-17 20 8.10-11 129 239, 240
15.31 107 3.16 27 8.11-12 129 11.1 31, 129, 132,
15.32 22 3.18 12 8.11 30, 242 199, 235, 241
16 68, 70, 71 3.21 166, 223 8.13 30, 130, 259 11.2-16 166
16.1-2 71, 231 4.4 108 9 3, 128, 129, 130, 11.2 32
16.1 65, 232 4.6-13 31 132, 133, 135, 136, 11.2b 199
16.2 225, 230 4.9-13 88, 92, 96 137, 139, 140, 141, 11.12-29 198
16.3-16 71 4.9-12 31 220, 243 11.17-34 30, 35
16.3 34, 72 4.9 96, 163 9.1 117 11.17-31 243
16.6 72 4.12-13 96 9.3 128 11.23-26 122
16.7 18, 34, 72, 261, 4.12 35, 221 9.4-18 223 11.23 32
263 4.14-16 230 9.4 223 11.24-25 20
16.9 72 4.14 34 9.7 224 11.33 232
16.12 72 4.15 33, 164, 199 9.8-11 224 12 129
16.16 232 4.16 31, 199 9.12 5, 130, 132, 12.2 170
16.17-20 107 4.17 34, 70, 195, 220, 224 12.3 12
16.20 12 196, 198, 199 9.12b 129, 224 12.6 149
16.21-23 70, 71 4.18-19 34 9.14 122, 130 12.11 149
16.21 34 4.20 10, 108 9.15-18 5, 220 12.12-31 27, 35, 129,
16.25-27 191 4.21 34 9.15 129, 224 259
16.25-26 181 5.1-13 242 9.16-18 225 12.13 28–9, 30, 141
16.26 18, 166, 183, 5.1-8 258 9.16 159, 172, 224 12.28 13, 156
188 5.1-7 34 9.18 172 13 129
5.1 242 9.19-23 3, 4, 5, 13.5 132
1 Corinthians 5.9-13 5, 34, 247 128–41, 196, 199, 14 129, 137
1–4 243 5.9 34 234–6 14.1-5 27, 35
1.1 66 5.10 151 9.19-22 237 14.1 156
1.2 18 5.11 70, 151 9.19 132, 133, 222, 14.3 156
1.7-9 13 5.15 184 224, 238, 241 14.16-17 243
1.8 2, 27 6.1-11 243 9.20-22 237 14.18-19 243
1.9 12 6.1-9 30 9.20-21 238 14.20-25 129
1.10-11 259 6.9-11 33 9.20 101, 103, 115, 14.22-25 243
1.12 256 6.9-10 10 133, 238 14.22 189
1.17-18 184 6.9 108 9.21-23 259 14.23-25 137
1.17 15, 162, 172, 6.10 108, 110 9.21 102, 132, 238 14.33 156
181 6.12-19 5 9.22-23 238 15 166, 187
1.18–2.5 26 6.13-14 213 9.22 97, 164, 237, 15.1-8 122
1.18-25 95 6.14 184 238, 239, 240 15.1-5 181
1.18 89, 210 6.18 166 9.22a 133 15.1-2 68, 186
1.20 12 6.19 20 9.22b 133 15.1 172, 186
1.21 189 6.20 166 9.23 133, 239 15.2 172, 186, 189
1.22-23 225 7 74, 197 9.24–10.13 133 15.3-8 215
1.23 99, 102, 118 7.1 28, 34 10 129 15.3-7 106
1.26-28 30 7.5 232 10.1 32 15.3-5 186, 216
1.26 255 7.10-11 122 10.11 12 15.3 29, 32, 117, 184
1.31 166 7.12-16 243 10.14-22 139 15.4 184, 187
2.1 223 7.17-24 5, 196, 197, 10.14 166 15.6 117
2.2 29 198 10.23-30 237 15.7-9 117
2.4 15, 147, 223 7.17 196, 197, 205 10.23-24 132 15.8 117
2.4a 4, 142 7.18-19 138 10.23 35, 110, 242 15.9 116
2.4b 4, 143 7.25 134 10.23b-24 240 15.10 35
2.6-8 12 7.29-31 12 10.26 135 15.11 189
2.6 11 8.1–11.1 237, 240, 10.31-33 129 15.12-58 213
2.13 154 241, 242 10.31-32 132 15.12-19 215
3.1-3 164 8–10 129, 223, 224 10.31 166, 239 15.12-17 184
15.20-25 187 93–4, 95, 243 9.13 191, 226 1.7 48

15.20-23 213 4.7 31 10–13 21, 45, 97, 1.8-9 172, 190
15.20 184 4.8-12 22 206 1.8 68, 107, 181
15.21-28 214 4.8-10 93, 94 10 205 1.9 68
15.23-28 10, 11 4.10-12 31 10.2 54 1.11-17 67, 117,
15.23 187 4.10-11 89 10.5 188 183
15.24 10, 108 4.10 31, 90, 93 10.8 35 1.11-12 184
15.26 13 4.11 163 10.9-10 54 1.11 48, 68, 172,
15.28 166 4.12-15 94 10.12 54 181, 184
15.31 94 4.12 93, 107 10.13-15 205 1.12 184
15.32 90 4.13 189 10.13 5, 196, 197, 1.13-14 15, 48, 101,
15.42-49 214 4.14 93, 184 205 122, 170
15.50 10, 108 4.15 159, 243 10.14 205 1.13 48–9, 17, 20,
15.51-57 10 4.15a 93 10.14b 205 37, 43, 49, 105, 116,
15.51-55 213 4.16-18 93 10.16 172 118
15.53-57 13 5.1-10 172 11.3 2, 28 1.13a 48, 49
16.1-4 19, 21 5.5 90 11.4 107 1.13b 49
16.3-4 19, 21–2 5.6-10 213 11.5 29, 45 1.14 49
16.5-9 34 5.9-11 178 11.7 68, 172, 223 1.15-24 48
16.10 70 5.11–7.16 94 11.8-9 223 1.15-17 14
16.11 155 5.11–6.2 94–5 11.9 223 1.15-16 13, 15, 49,
16.12 34, 206 5.11-12 94 11.12-15 107 57, 116, 117, 181
16.19 70 5.11 94, 172 11.13-14 107 1.15-16a 140
16.20 232 5.12 94 11.13 29, 45 1.15 13, 14, 56, 116,
5.13–6.2 94 11.20 225 183
2 Corinthians 5.14-15 172 11.22-23 107 1.16-17 48
1.1-2 90 5.17 105, 172 11.22-23a 45–6, 49 1.16 25, 48, 49, 68,
1.1 66 5.18-21 4, 13, 172–6 11.22 43 106, 115, 170, 172,
1.3-12 90–2 5.18-20 174 11.23-30 31 181, 184
1.4-10 96 5.18 172, 173, 174, 11.23-33 95 1.17 13, 100
1.4 90 175 11.23-29 96–7 1.18-24 122
1.5 90, 91 5.19–6.2 32 11.23-28 88 1.18 100, 257
1.6 91, 98 5.19 172, 173, 174, 11.23 95, 96, 107 1.19 256
1.8 90 175 11.24 50, 101, 136, 1.21 100
1.12–2.4 14 5.20 4, 173, 174, 175 136 1.23 105, 172
1.12 14 5.20b 94 11.26 107 1.24 159
1.14 28, 238 5.21 26, 95, 173, 175 11.27 221, 222 2–3 170
1.17-19 197 6.1-13 243 11.28 28, 164 2 137, 139
1.18-20 12 6.1-10 95–6 11.29 97 2.1-21 108
1.19 70 6.1 94 11.32-33 92 2.1-10 19, 100
1.20 159 6.2 56 11.32 100 2.1 100, 257
1.21-22 14 6.3-10 95 12.9b-10 95–6 2.2-9 258
1.21a 14 6.3 95 12.10 31, 88 2.2 25, 28, 170
1.21b-22 14 6.4-10 31, 88, 95 12.13-14 223 2.3 138
1.21b 14 6.4-6 31 12.14-15 34 2.4 107
1.22 14 6.4 95, 133 12.14 34, 221 2.6 256
1.23 14, 34 6.10 95 12.15 34 2.7-9 104, 115
2.1-4 14 6.14-7.2 139 12.19 29, 35, 243 2.7 138, 170, 183
2.14-17 92–3 7.13-16 34 12.21 74, 259 2.9 17, 256
2.14-16 163 8–9 19, 21 13.1-2 34 2.10 21
2.14 163 8.2 229 13.1 34 2.11-14 137-40
2.15 89 8.4 21, 226 13.4 31, 212 2.11-13 107
2.16 107, 211 8.9 26, 95, 132 13.12 232 2.12 104
2.17-3.3 107 8.10-11 146 2.14 138, 188
2.17 223, 225 8.16-24 19 Galatians 2.14b 138
3.3 102 8.17-23 22 1–2 257 2.16–5.11 186
3.16 18 8.21-22 146 1.1 66, 184 2.19 31, 37
3.18 2, 26, 164 8.23 34 1.2 69 2.20 132, 185
4.2 225 9.1 21 1.3-5 159 2.21 91
4.4-6 13, 15, 18 9.3-5 22 1.4 11, 91 3–4 38, 39
4.4 11, 12, 191 9.12-13 146 1.5 159, 191 3 85
4.5 29 9.12 21 1.6-9 29 3.1-14 102
4.7-12 31, 88, 92, 9.13-14 21, 22 1.6-10 139 3.1-6 26, 107
3.3 143 2.16 175, 184 1.19 215 3.18 184

3.6-29 32 2.17 172 1.21-26 213 3.20 86
3.6-9 121 2.19-20 179 1.26 35 3.20-21 211, 213-15,
3.6 104 3.1-13 23 1.27–2.18 209 216, 217, 218
3.8 124, 181, 182, 3.1 170 1.27-30 215 3.20 214
184 3.8 172 1.27-28 214 3.21 26, 27, 214, 216
3.10-13 163 3.13 163 1.27 164, 227 4.3 211, 227
3.10 102, 120, 121 3.16 149 1.28-29 28 4.5 217–18
3.12 121 3.20-21 159 1.28 215, 217–18 4.6 225
3.13-14 26 3.20 149, 212 1.29-30 146 4.9 31, 195, 199
3.13 119-20, 121 3.21 167 2.1 226 4.10-20 226, 227,
3.14 121 4.1-30 167 2.2 27 228
3.22 189 4.1 167 2.3 27 4.10a 227, 228
3.24 108 4.2 167 2.5-11 95, 229, 232 4.10b 227
3.26 85 4.4-16 167 2.5-8 132 4.10c 227
3.27-28 232 4.15 208 2.6-11 10, 47, 74, 4.11-13 228
3.27 85 4.17-28 85 163, 215–17, 218 4.11 228
3.28 30, 85, 138, 141 4.17-18 167 2.6-9 215, 216 4.12 227
3.29 85 4.19 167 2.6 47 4.13 227, 229, 232,
4.4-6 214 4.20-30 167 2.7 27, 55, 131, 132, 258
4.4-5 11, 12, 26 4.30–5.17 167 216 4.14-16 229
4.4 11 4.30-31 167 2.8 27, 184, 216 4.14 227, 228
4.8 262 5.1-2 167 2.9-11 12, 183, 187, 4.15-16 225
4.9 262 5.3-5 167 216 4.15 221, 226, 227,
4.11 28, 33, 35 5.5 108 2.9 215, 216 229
4.12-20 163 5.6 167 2.11 161 4.17 228, 229
4.12 139, 163 5.7-17 167 2.12-13 214 4.18-20 229
4.13 68, 163, 172 5.15-17 167 2.12 215 4.18 93, 225, 227,
4.14-16 163 6.1 247 2.13 149 228, 229, 258
4.14 163 6.12 167 2.15-16 210, 215 4.18b 229
4.15 29 2.15 217, 218 4.19-20 229
4.19 2, 28, 163, 164 Philippians 2.16 5, 28, 56, 209, 4.19 227, 228, 229
5.2-12 108 1–2 182 210–12, 218, 219 4.20 228, 229
5.2 139, 261 1.1 35, 66 2.19-30 233 4.22 70, 183
5.5-6 154 1.3-11 209 2.19-24 70 4.23 229
5.6 138 1.3 225, 227 2.22 164, 227, 230
5.7 188 1.4 227 2.24 34 Colossians
5.10 107 1.5-11 227 2.25-29 27 1.4 226
5.11 184 1.5-6 209 2.25 34, 52, 60, 165 1.13-14 10, 11, 13
5.12 107 1.5 226, 227, 229, 2.27 146 1.13 10, 12, 108
5.13 232 232 3.1-21 31 1.15 262
5.15 232 1.6 26, 27, 227 3.2-19 107 1.16 262
5.20 30 1.7 227 3.2-11 67 1.20-22 172
5.21 10, 33, 34, 108 1.7a 227 3.2 47 1.20 175, 184
6.2 102, 232 1.7b 227 3.3 47 1.22 175
6.4 184 1.9-11 159 3.4-8 86 1.24-29 23, 259
6.6 35, 226 1.9 227 3.4-6 15 1.24-28 163
6.10 27 1.11 26, 227 3.4 46 1.24 91, 98
6.12-13 107 1.11a 228 3.5-6 37, 43, 46–8, 1.27 170
6.12 138, 184 1.11b 228 49, 122 2.12 184
6.15 138, 205 1.11c 228 3.5 170 2.14 184
6.16 205 1.12–2.18 209 3.6 116, 258 2.28 164
1.12-26 31, 209 3.7-11 47, 212, 215, 3.1-17 167
Ephesians 1.12-18 182 216 3.1-4 167
1.13 189, 211 1.12-13 209, 215 3.7-8 258 3.1 184
1.19-22 187 1.12 182, 227 3.8 37, 47, 212 3.5-10 167
1.19-20 212 1.14 209, 210, 215 3.10-11 211, 212–13, 3.5-9 255
1.19 189 1.15-17 107 214–15, 216, 217, 3.11 167
1.20 184 1.15 183 218 3.12-15 167
2.6 184 1.16 215, 227 3.10 27, 31, 212, 226 3.12-13 255
2.11 170 1.17 183 3.11 31, 86, 213, 3.16-17 167
2.12 159 1.19-20 209, 214, 215, 216 4.10-11 10
2.14-16 172, 179 215 3.17–4.1 215 4.11 108
1 Thessalonians 2.17 33, 152 5.15 232 Philemon

1 72, 73 2.19 28 5.16 151 Phlm. 27, 231
1.2-10 144 3.1-5 70, 148 5.19-21 4, 143, 145, 1 66, 231
1.3-4 147 3.2-3 28 155–6 2 70
1.3 27, 144, 226 3.2 33, 34, 34, 152 5.19 143, 155 3 231
1.4 32, 144, 152 3.3-4 32 5.20-21 155 5-6 226
1.5-10 18, 26 3.6 34 5.20 155 5 231
1.5-6 144–9, 143, 3.7 152 5.21 155, 156 6 231
149, 150, 152 3.9 144 5.23 2, 32, 143, 8-9 231
1.5 12, 29, 73, 143, 3.10 33 156 8 231
144, 145, 146, 147, 3.11-13 150 5.25 152 9 231
150, 156, 224 3.12-13 13 5.26 152 10 164
1.5a 4, 142, 146 3.13 2, 27, 32, 151 5.27 27, 152 16 30
1.5b 4, 143, 144, 4–5 31 17 231
145, 146 4 152 2 Thessalonians 18-19 225
1.6 4, 30, 143, 144, 4.1-2 34 1.3 226 19 231
145, 147, 148, 149, 4.1 150, 152, 164 1.5 10 20 231
150, 156 4.2 151, 154 1.8 188 21 231
1.6b 4 4.3-8 4, 33, 143, 145, 1.10a 189 22 34, 225, 231
1.7-10 73 150–4, 156 1.12 159 23-24 70
1.7 31, 189 4.3-4 152 2.1-2 156 23 34, 231
1.8 12, 145 4.3 31, 32, 151 2.6-7 23 24 34
1.9-10 12, 13, 181, 4.3c 151 2.14 191 25 231
215 4.4 151 2.15 155
1.9 25, 148 4.5 30, 31, 32, 152, 3.6-13 225 Hebrews
1.10 90, 184 153 3.8-9 225 2.17 53
2.1-12 31 4.6 32, 151, 152 3.8 222 5.1 53
2.1 152 4.7 31, 32 13.16 229
2.2-9 155 4.8 143, 150, 151, 1 Timothy
2.2 31, 32 152, 154 1.11 159
2.3-6 224 4.8b 151 2.7 170 James
2.3 31 4.9 154–5 2.8-9 257 1.1 256
2.5 31, 151 4.9-12 33, 145, 150, 2.9 256, 257, 263 2.14-26 104
2.7 28, 29, 164, 154 2.12 259, 261 5.1-6 104
225 4.9 4, 31, 34, 143, 3.3 257
2.7a 133 155, 156 3.11 70 1 Peter
2.8 29, 145–6 4.10 152 2.9 40
2.9 31, 32, 152, 221, 4.11-12 225 2 Timothy
222, 225 4.11 31, 153, 155 1.11-12a 162 2 Peter
2.10 31, 189 4.12 30, 152 1.16-18 225 2.4 262
2.11-12 10 4.13–5.11 32 2.8-10 163
2.11 29, 154, 155, 4.13 33, 152, 154 4.1 108
164 4.14-17 213 4.18 108 1 John
2.12 2, 12, 18, 28, 4.14 29, 32 1.1 211
31, 33–4, 108, 151, 4.18 32, 156, 232 Titus
156 4.19-21 157 1–2 167 Revelation
2.13 4, 142, 143, 5.1-2 33 1.1-3 167 2.7 211
144, 145, 149-50, 5.1 152, 154 1.4 164 5.1-14 160
156, 189 5.2 34, 35 1.6 167 12.11 210
2.13a 149 5.4 152 1.12 40 15.3-4 161
2.13b 150 5.6 33, 122 2.2 167 21.6 211
2.14-16 28, 118 5.9-10 240 2.5-6 167 22.1 211
2.14 31, 152 5.11 35, 156, 232 2.11 167 22.2 211
2.16 170 5.12 35, 152 2.12 167 22.14 211
2.17–3.5 153 5.13 156 2.13 167 22.17 211
2.17-18 34 5.14 35, 152, 225 3.5 148 22.19 211
INDEX OF EXTRABIBLICAL LITERATURE
(1) Apocrypha Testament of Judah 4.618 68 Makkot

2 Maccabees 24 125 4.656 68 1.1-10 101
1.5 174 24.6 15 3.1 101
7.33 174 25.5 15 Jewish War 3.2 101
8.29 174 2.259-261 103 3.3 101
Testament of Levi 2.463 103 3.7 101
4 Maccabees 18.2-9 15 5.14 59 3.8 101
18.4 92 18.4-5 18 5.16 59 3.15 102
6.20-21 91 7.42-45 100 3.16 102
7.8 52, 59 Testament of Naphtali 7.45 103
1.11 91 8.3-4 15 7.368 103 Other Rabbinic
Writings
Sirach Testament of Simeon (6) Philo Shebi. 5.9 123
3.14-15 229 7.2 15 De Allegoriis Legum Sifre Numbers
3.30 229 3.130 59 148 222
35.2-3 229 Testament of Zebulun T. Yom Tob
39.10 125 9.8 125 De Cherubim 3.8 222
41.19 228 122-3 228 T. B. Betzah
(3) Qumran 15b 222
Tobit Literature De Confusione
13.11 15, 18, 1QH Linguarum (8) Græco-Roman
125 18.14-15 180 124 59 Literature
14.5-7 15, 18 Antisthenes
14.6 125 4QpNah De Ebrietate Odyssey
1.7-8 121 138 59 4.244-46 130
Wisdom of Solomon 4.417 130
2–5 218 1QS De Josepho
2.12–5.13 216, 5.5-6 20 43.4 110 Aristotle
217, 218 8.4-10 20 245 68 Rhetoric
2.12-20 218 9.3-6 20 1.6.7 129
2.19 217 De Migratione 1.7.26 129-30
5.2 218 11QMelch 180 Abrahami Nicomachean
5.7 218 67 59 Ethics
8.14 125 11QTemple 89f 203 4.1 228
64.6-13 121 89-93 135
(2) Pseudepigrapha Arrian
2 Baruch (4) Papyrus De Plantatione Discourses of
68.5 15 Chairas 164 59 Epictetus
P. Mert. 2.9.12 228
1 Enoch 12.6-9 226 De Specialibus 2.16.4 255
48.4-5 15 Legibus
90.33 15 (5) Josephus 2.145 59 Athenaeus
Jewish Antiquities Deipnosophistae
Letter of Aristeas 4.238 101 De Vita Mosis 1.20 80
129 135 5.263 59 1 52
6.102 52, 59 2.229 59 Chariton
Psalms of Solomon 7.333 52, 59 87 52 Callirhoe
17.30-35 125 9.43 59 8.2.5 68
14.65 59 (7) Rabbinic Writings
Sibylline Oracles 17.166 59 Mishnah Cicero
3.710-30 15 20.34-48 135 Aboth 6.7 101 De Officiis 1.42
3.715-24 18 Dema’i 3.4 123 [= 1.150] 222
Bellum Judaicum Gittin 5.9 123
Testament of Benjamin 2.454 138 Kerithoth 1.1 Dio Chrysostom
9.2 125 2.463 138 101 Or. 33.15 130
Index of Extrabiblical Literature 273
Epictetus Plato 830A 228 (9) Early Christian

Diatr. Epinomis Pompey Literature
1.1.21-22 309 228 41.3 68 Didache
110 Respublica 66.3 68 11.5 220
332A-B 228 11.6 220
Juvenal Seneca 13.1 220
Satires Plutarch Ben. 2.13.2 225 13.2 220
14.96-106 Consol. 609E Ben. 3.1.1 226
138 29 Ben. 3.5.2 226 (10) Patristic
Frat. Amor. Ira 3.31.3 228 Literature
Lucian of Samosata 2/479A 153 Ad Luc. Epist. Irenaeus
Peregrinus Herm. Mand. Mor. 24.4 92 Adversus haereses
1 131 5.2.2[= Herm. 5, praefatio 26
42 131 34.2] 221 Sophocles 5.2 166
Lib. ed. 14 Ajax 743-744 174
Pausanias (11B) 221 Jerome
Description of Moralia Xenophon Comm. Ad
Greece 48E-74E 131 Oeconomicus Titum 136
4.19.5 68 439-40 33 7.26 228
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abernathy, D. 52 Bruce, F. F. 79, 81, 82, 147, Dickson, John P. 15, 16, 68, 75,
Adams, J. N. 83 151, 180 137, 153, 234, 235–6, 242
Adewuya, Ayodeji 3 Bryce, Trevor 79 Dinter, Paul 126
Allen, Roland 143 Buell, Denise Kimber 83, 84 Doble, Peter 213
von Allmen, D. 175 Bultmann, R. 223 Dobranski, Stephen 253–4, 258
Burke, Trevor J. 4, 50, 148, Dodd, C. H. 25, 115
Baker, Cynthia M. 77 150, 152, 155 Donaldson, T.L. 52, 202
Baker, M. 23 Burton, Ernest De Witt 121 Donfried, Karl P. 118, 150
Bailey, Kenneth E. 248, 249 Byrne, Brendan 68, 69, 70, Donovan, Stephen 253
Balch, David L. 71 72, 115 Downs, David J. 19, 20, 65,
Ball, Warwick 77 Byrnes, Michael 212, 216 144
Barclay, John M. G. 78, 82, Byron, J. 197 Dunn, James D. G. 33, 50, 52,
83–4, 134, 203 57, 59, 61, 67, 72, 85, 115,
Barnett, Paul W. 3, 75, 89, 99, Cadbury, Henry Joel 65 121, 128, 134, 165, 175, 178,
102, 105, 123, 128, 132, 142, Calvin, J. 185 180
174, 175 Campbell, Douglas 190
Barram, Michael 5, 236, 237, Campbell, J. C. 230, 232 Ehrensperger, K. 199, 202,
238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, Campbell, William S. 5, 77, 206, 207
244, 246 83, 138, 201, 202, 205, 207, Eichholz, G. 128
Barrett, C. Kingsley 45–6, 101, 208 Elliott, Neil 86, 176, 182
115, 116, 256 Capper B. J. 229 Ellis, Earle E. 56, 257
Bartchy, S. 197 Carrez, M. 175 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 255,
Barth, Frederik 41, 83 Carroll, John B. 250 260
Barth, Karl 60–1 Carroll, Scott T. 79 Epp, Eldon Jay 72
Barth, Markus 175–6 Carson, D. A. 102, 175 Esler, Philip F. 40, 42, 80, 84,
Barton, Stephen C. 28, 129, Carter, Warren 182 200
139 Champion, Craige B. 182
Bash, Anthony 174 Christensen, Daniel L. 120 Fee, Gordon D. 144, 148, 149,
Baur, F.C. 198 Ciampa, Roy E. 4, 158–9, 166, 150, 152, 210, 211, 212, 213,
Beale, G. K. 56, 57, 149, 157, 181, 183, 185, 188 221, 224, 225, 227, 228
151, 155 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 77, 82, Ferguson, Everett 82
Bechard, Dean Philip 78 134, 135 Fitzgerald, John T. 31, 88
Beker, J.C. 198 Cohick, L. H. 221, 230, 231 Fiorenza, Elisabeth
Bennema, C. 251 Coleman-Norton, P. R. 182 Schüssler 249
Berger, Peter L. 41 Collange, J.-F. 173 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 70, 72,
Best, E. 147 Collins, Billy Jean 79 115, 121, 212, 230
Betz, H. D. 262 Collins, John J. 82, 217 Fjärsted, B. 130
Bing, J. Daniel 79 Cooper, R. M. 52 Fjellestad, Danuta 253
Bird, Michael F. 123, 185 Cornell, Stephen 41 Flanagan, Neal 216
Blackaby, Henry 263 Cosgrove, Charles H. 77, 84, Ford, David F. 42
Blair, Edward P. 115 250 Fowl, Stephen E. 204, 214, 228
Bockmuehl, Markus 104, 211, Craigie, Peter C. 120 Freely, John 79
216, 233 Cranfield, C. E. B. 54, 55, 57, Fridrichsen, Anton 115
Boers, Hendrikus 118 61, 67, 72, 115, 173, 178, Friedman, Thomas L. 249
Borgen, P. 134, 138 185, 196 Friedrich, Gerhard 67, 180
Bornkamm, Günther 22, 116, Crook, Zeba 248, 249 Fung, R. Y. K. 86
119, 139 Cross, Frank Moore 251 Furnish, Victor Paul 46, 97,
Bosch, David J. 89–90, 234 143, 144, 150, 153, 174, 175,
Bourne, F. C. 182 Dahl, Nils 69 205
Bowers, W. Paul 154, 173, Dailey, Thomas F. 212, 213
234, 235, 236, 238, 239–40, Danby, H. 102 Gamble, Harry 71
242 Danker, Frederick W. 91, 251 Garland, D. E. 222
Bradley, Keith R. 80 Daube, D. 130 Gaston, Lloyd 50
Brewster, Harry 79 Davies, W. D. 115, 118 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts 2,
Brown, Rupert 40 Dibelius, Martin 117 67, 73
Index of Scripture 275
Gehring, R. W. 137 Johnson, A. C. 182 Martin, Ralph P. 45, 46, 174,

Georgi, D. 21, 22 Johnson, A. R. 56 180, 206, 215
Giblin, Charles Homer 158 Johnson, Luke Timothy 82, 263 Martyn, J. Louis 85, 120, 121
Gibson, Richard 2 Johnson Hodge, Caroline 77, Matera, Frank J. 46, 48
Gilbert, Gary 81–2 83, 84, 85, 201 Meeks, Wayne A. 130–1, 151,
Gilliard, Frank D. 118 Jones, A. H. M. 79, 81 152, 208
Glad, C. 131 Judge, E. A. 230 Metzger, Bruce M. 81
Gnilka, Joachim 213 Meyer, Ben F. 110, 212, 213,
Gooch, P. W. 133 Käsemann, Ernst 72, 224 216, 217
Gorman, Michael 89 Kasting, Heinrich 117 Meyer, H. A. W. 174–5
Goulder, M.D. 198 Kearsley, R. A. 230 Meyer, Paul W. 74
Green, Michael 90 Keck, Leander 70–1 Michaelis, Wilhelm 117
Green, William Scott 182 Keller, W. 18 Millar, Fergus 77
Guelich, R. A. 109 Kemmler, D. W. 146 Miller, James C. 2, 38
Kim, Seyoon 1, 13, 16, 86, 117, Milligan, G. 222
Haenchen, Ernst 81, 82 170, 173 Mitchell, Margaret M. 128,
Hafemann, Scott 91, 162, 163 Kim, Y.S. 195 129, 131, 140, 224, 257
Hagner, D. A. 138 Klauck, Hans-Josef 69 Mitchell, Stephen 79
Hahn, Ferdinand 116, 117, 123 Klein, G. 22 Moo, Douglas J. 52, 55, 57, 58,
Hall, Jonathan M. 83 Klingbeil, Gerald A. 254 67, 70, 115, 261–2
Hansen, G. Walter 86 Knox, J. 51 Morris, Leon 115, 178
Hanson, K. C. 254 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 181 Motyer, A. 59, 60
von Harnack, A. 200 Koester, Helmut 80, 82 Moulton, J. 145
Harrill, J. Albert 80 Koperski, Veronica 213 Moxnes, H. 30
Harris, Murray J. 94 Köstenberger, Andreas J. 55, Munck, Johannes 22, 82, 115,
Harris, William V. 71, 82 57, 116, 142, 171 205
Harvey, A. E. 103 Kurz, William S. 216 Murphy-O’Connor,
Hauerwas, Stanley 258, 259 Jerome 117, 259
Hawthorne, Gerald 211 Lambrecht, J. 94
Hawthorne, Steven C. 159 Lampe, Peter 71, 221, 229, Nanos, Mark D. 50, 202
Hays, J. Daniel 2, 77, 83, 84, 230, 230, 231, 232 De Navarro, J. M. 79
251 Lane, W. L. 55 Nebeker, Gary 214
Hays, Richard B. 37, 48, 160, Lapide, Pinchas 119 Neyrey, Jerome H. 225, 260
224 Lee, Jae Hyun 176 Nicewander, Andrew 248
Headlam, Arthur C. 115 Lenski, R. C. H. 90 Nickle, K. F. 22
Hemer, Colin J. 78 Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 202, 203 Nida, Eugene A. 176
Hengel, M. 101, 102, 103, 123 Levison, John R. 153 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 183
Hock, R. F. 221, 222, 223, 224 Lightfoot, J. B. 226 Nissen, Johannes 116
Hoehner, Harold 176 Lim, Kar Yong 88 Nock, Arthur D. 115
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. 79 Lincoln, Andrew T. 214, 216
Holmes, Michael W. 146, 150 Lohmeyer, Ernst 213 Oakes, Peter 86, 210, 217, 228
Holzner, Joseph 97 Longenecker, Richard N. 116 O’Brien, P. T. 20, 51, 52, 55,
Hooker, Morna D. 26, 54 Lopez, Davina C. 74, 77–8 57, 67, 88–9, 102, 116, 142,
Horrell, D. G. 99, 129, 130, Louw, Johannes P. 176 145, 165, 166, 171, 210, 211,
132 Luckmann, Thomas 41 212, 213, 214, 216, 226, 227,
Horsley, Richard A. 80, 86, 182 Lüdemann, G. 198 228, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238,
Howard, W. F. 145 Lührmann, Dieter 121 239–40, 242
Howell, Don N. 142, 143 Lundén, Rolf 253 O’Donovan, Oliver 187
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe 96, Luther, M. 185 Olley, John W. 124
97, 175 Oppenheimer, A’haron 123
Hui, Archie 145 MacDonald, Margaret Y. 71 Osiek, Carolyn 71
Hultgren, Arland J. 3, 118, 124 MacMullen, R. 230 Oster, Richard E. 84
Hurd, John C. Jr. 170–1 McNutt, Paula 83 Otto, Randall E. 213
Hutchinson, John 39 Magda, Ksenija 74
Hvalvik, R. 136 Malherbe, Abraham J. 28, 29, Paige, T. 145
30, 31, 32, 33, 130, 146, 147, Pate, C. Marvin 89
Jeffers, James S. 80 222 Payne, Ruby 252
Jenkins, Richard 41, 42 Manson, T. W. 22, 256 Pearson, Birger 118
Jeremias, J. 19, 123 Marshall, I. Howard 144, 174, Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert 142
Jervell, J. 22, 135, 140 178 Peterman, G. W. 221, 225, 227,
Jewett, Robert 52, 54, 55, 65, Marshall, Peter 131, 223, 224, 228, 229
70, 71, 75, 80, 115, 177, 196, 228, 257 Peterson, Eugene 254
230 Martin, Dale B. 131, 214, 222 Pickett, Raymond 89
276 Index of Scripture
Plummer, A. 205 Scott, James M. 161, 162, 181, Turner, N. 145

Plummer, Robert L. 97, 171, 182 Twelftree, Graham 146
234, 235, 236, 238, 239, Seeley, David 92
241–2 Seesemann, H. 226 Vielhauer, Ph. 139
Pogoloff, S. M. 223 Segal, Alan F. 50, 170 Vollenweider, S. 130, 132
Ponthot, J. 61 Seifrid, M. A. 85, 102
Porter, Stanley E. 4, 80, 82, Senior, Donald 116, 123, 171 Wagner, J. Ross 15, 16, 19, 37,
169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, deSilva, David Arthur 248 57, 126, 170, 204
175, 176, 177, 178 Silverstein, Jed 182 Wall, Robert W. 82
Poythress, Vern S. 251 Skinner, J. 92 Wallace, D. B. 222
Price, S. R. F. 182 Skinner, M. L. 221 Wallace-Hadrill, A. 221
Smith, Anthony D. 39 Walter, Nikolaus 212, 214
Räisänen, Heikki 249 Smith, Barry. D. 89 Walton, Steve 5
Rapske, B. M. 221 Sparks, Kenton D. 39 Wanamaker, Charles A. 147
Renwick, David A. 93 Spicq, C. 29 Ware, James P. 5, 209, 210,
Reumann, John H. P. 86, 210, Sprinkle, Preston M. 185 215, 234
211, 225 Stanley, Christopher D. 78, Watson, Francis 185
Reynolds, J. 230 83, 120 van der Watt, Jan G. 262
Richards, E. Randolph 5, 69, Stanley, David M. 91 Webb, B. G. 59
71, 72, 255 Stegemann, E.W. 200 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 81, 108
Richardson, P. 136 Steinmetz, D. 102 Weima, Jeffrey A. D. 150
Riesner, Rainer 117, 162 Stendahl, Krister 248 Weiss, Herold 250
Robinson, D. W. B. 52 Stenger, W. 16 Wenham, D. 108
Robinson, John A.T. 145, 214 Still, Todd D. 148 Wenham, Gordon J. 92
Robinson, H. W. 56 Stowers, S. K. 137 White, L. M. 229
Roetzel, C. 196 Strauss, S. 51 Whiteley, D. E. H. 146
Rosner, Brian S. 4, 158–9, 166, Straw, Carole 94 Whorf, Benjamin Lee 250
181, 188 Stuhlmacher, Peter 16, 17, 68, Wick, Peter 216
Royce, A. 83 132, 180 Wiedemann, Thomas E. J. 80
Stuhlmueller, Carroll 116, 123, Wiéner, C. 52
Saller, R. P. 221 171 Wilckens, Ulrich 125
Sampley, J. P. 229 Sullivan, Richard D. 79 Wilcox, Max 120
Sanday, William 115 Sumney, Jerry L. 206 Wildberger, H. 16
Sanders, E. P. 116, 123, 129, Sunshine, Glenn S. 249 Willis, W. 128
138, 158, 200 Wilson, R.McL. 175
Sandnes, Karl Olav 3, 28, 134, Talbert, Charles H. 93 Windisch, Hans 174
136, 137, 139, 183 Tannenbaum, R. 230 Winter, Bruce W. 28, 223, 225,
Schermerhorn, Richard 39 Taylor, Charles 42 256
Schlier, Heinrich 48, 51 Theissen, G. 231 Witherington, Ben 52, 82, 151,
Schlueter, Carol J. 118 Theobald, Michael 135–6 155, 157, 256, 262
Schmithals, W. 198 Thiselton, A.C. 197, 223, 224, Witmer, Stephen E. 154, 155
Schnabel, Eckhard J. 1, 76, 77, 230, 257 Wolff, Christian 173, 174,
78, 83, 84, 100, 123, 140, 142, Thompson, James W. 1, 26, 31, 175
143, 144, 149, 171, 234, 235, 28, 32, 34 Wolter, Michael 32
236, 238 Thrall, Margaret E. 21, 45, 46, Wright, N. T. 10, 26, 50, 86,
Schreiner, Thomas R. 37, 48, 94, 97, 174, 175 182, 189
52, 54, 55, 61, 142, 145, 158 Tobin, T. H. 53
Schweitzer, A. 200 Tomson, P.J. 196, 203 Yarborough, Robert W. 158
Schweitzer, Eduard 86 Towner, Philip H. 148, 149 Yeo, Khiok-Khng 250
Schwemer, A. M. 101 Tucker, J. Brian 208
Schwyzer, E. 145 Turner, Max 148 Zimmerli, W. 16

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 420) Trevor J. Burke-Paul As Missionary - Identity, Activity

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 420) Trevor J. Burke-Paul As Missionary - Identity, Activity

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

Copyright © Trevor J. Burke, Brian S. Rosner, with contributors 2011

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN: HB: 978-0-567-60475-0

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand

Part One — Paul’s Identity 7

2. PAUL AS MISSIONARY P ASTOR 25

3. PAUL AND HIS ETHNICITY: REFRAMING THE CATEGORIES 37

4. PAUL THE M ISSIONARY, IN PRIESTLY S ERVICE OF THE SERVANT-CHRIST

Part Two — Paul’s Activity 63

6. PAUL AND THE MULTI-ETHNIC FIRST-C ENTURY WORLD: ETHNICITY

7. THE SACRIFICIAL-M ISSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF PAUL’S S UFFERINGS

8. WAS P AUL’S GRACE-B ASED GOSPEL TRUE TO J ESUS? 99

Part Three — Paul’s Missionary Theology 113

10. A MISSIONARY S TRATEGY IN 1 C ORINTHIANS 9.19-23? 128

11. THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE CONTROLLING DYNAMIC IN PAUL’S ROLE AS

13. RECONCILIATION AS THE HEART OF PAUL’S M ISSIONARY THEOLOGY 169

14. PAUL’S THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL 180

Part Four — Paul’s Missionary Practice 193

16. “ THE WORD OF LIFE”: RESURRECTION AND M ISSION IN PHILIPPIANS 209

17. PAUL, PATRONAGE AND PAY: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE

18. PAULINE MISSION AS SALVIFIC INTENTIONALITY: FOSTERING A

19. (MIS)READING PAUL THROUGH WESTERN EYES 247

Index of Biblical and Ancient Text 264

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

J. Ayodeji Adewuya is Professor of New Testament at the Pentecostal Theological

Paul W. Barnett is a part-time lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney, a

Michael Barram is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Saint Mary’s College,

William S. Campbell is Reader in Biblical Studies at the University of Wales,

Roy E. Ciampa is Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological

Beverly Roberts Gaventa is Helen H.P. Manson Professor of New Testament

Richard Gibson is Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Moore Theological

J. Daniel Hays is Professor of Biblical Studies at Ouachita Baptist University,

Arland J. Hultgren is Asher O. and Carrie Nasby Professor of New Testament at

Seyoon Kim is Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,

James C. Miller is Associate Professor of New Testament at Asbury Seminary,

Stanley E. Porter is President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament at McMaster

E. Randolph Richards is Professor of Biblical Studies at Palm Beach Atlantic

Karl O. Sandnes is Professor of New Testament at Lutheran School of Theology,

James W. Thompson is Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University,

James Ware is Associate Professor of Religion, University of Evansville, Indiana,

Paul’s missionary work among Gentiles is reflected in his contextualization of the

comprehensive mission to that of the Corinthian church. The essay concludes by

I. The Gospel: The Message that Paul the Eschatological

1. Cf. N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 44.

(peri tou= ui9ou= au0tou=)

e0cape/steilen o9 qeo\j to\n ui9o\n au0tou=

This parallelism leads us to understand the confession in analogy to the “sending

II. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the

as a)pe/steile/n me Xristo\j . . . eu0aggeli/zesqai (1 Cor. 1.17) and his subsequent

III. An Agent of the Eschaton: Paul’s Collection Journey

Paul’s Missionary and Pastoral Theology

Paul consistently elaborates on the nature of transformation, shaping the imagi-

Transformation and Paul’s Theology of Ministry

Paul’s Pastoral Activities

5. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry, p. 20.

Paul’s Pastoral Work with New Converts

before becoming examples to other churches (1 Thess. 1.7). In his autobiographical

19. Thompson, Preaching Like Paul, p. 54.

Pastoral Work in Paul’s Absence

Pastoral Ministry in Local Churches

Collective Identity and Ethnicity 4

agreed-upon set of descriptors can be used to distinguish such a collective. John