"A Milestone in Contemporary Hebrews Research"

In his recent book from the Topical Line Drives series, The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul, David Alan Black makes a reference to fellow Bring the Books blogger Josh Walker's work with Andrew Pitts regarding Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Here is what Black has to say from the book's introduction:

[A] recent study by Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker has challenged the consensus opinio by reexamining the raw data, drawing heavily from my previously published work on the subject. Their essay is entitled "The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship." In it they conclude that Hebrews is "Pauline" in a very real sense, in that Luke took a discourse given by Paul in a diaspora synagogue and subsequently published it as a written text. They write, "Although Hebrews has been handed down to us without an author, we have argued that both external and internal considerations suggest that Hebrews constitutes Pauline speech material, recorded and later published by Luke, Paul's traveling companion." In my view, this essay marks a milestone in contemporary Hebrews research. Few have attempted this kind of close scrutiny of the text because it necessitates a highly critical stance toward recent tradition, in this case at least a century of tradition that has rejected the Paulinity of Hebrews. I am grateful for essays like this one. They ask us to "revision" the text in ways that are perhaps more faithful to the evidence, both external and internal. Revisioning is a difficult process. It is difficult because it is hard for us to look past our own traditional blinders in the light of serious exegesis. It can create dissonance between ourselves and our theological heritage. It is fraught with problems and challenges. Yet the rewards can be remarkably satisfying.

I thought this would be a good opportunity to brag on the work of my friend Josh Walker, as well to draw attention to Black's book. You can find Black's book The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul by clicking here (it is quite affordable!). You can also find the book containing Walker and Pitts' chapter on Amazon by clicking here (it is quite unaffordable - but still worth it).

Forthcoming from Brill

We have exciting news about a forthcoming volume that is edited by Stanley Porter from McMaster Divinity School.  The book in question is Paul and His Social Relations, published by Brill.  The expected publication date is December of this year.  So instead of going to see the Hobbit or celebrating Christmas, you should plan on spending the winter season holed up and reading this cozy volume.

Our own Joshua Walker has contributed one of the chapters with Andrew Pitts, "The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship."  Some time back, Pitts and Walker did an interview (very interesting and worth reading if an argument for Paul's impact on Hebrews is of interest to you, as it should be to everyone) where they gave the basic thesis of their chapter:

The evidence we examine suggests that Hebrews likely represents a Pauline speech, probably originally delivered in a Diaspora synagogue, that Luke documented in some way during their travels together and which Luke later published as an independent speech to be circulated among house churches in the Jewish-Christian Diaspora. From Acts, there already exists a historical context for Luke’s recording or in some way attaining and publishing Paul’s speeches in a narrative context. Luke remains the only person in the early Church whom we know to have published Paul’s teaching (beyond supposed Paulinists) and particularly his speeches. And certainly by the first century we have a well established tradition within Greco-Roman rhetorical and historiographic stenography (speech recording through the use of a system of shorthand) of narrative (speeches incorporated into a running narrative), compilation (multiple speeches collected and edited in a single publication) and independent (the publication of a single speech) speech circulation by stenographers. Since it can be shown (1) that early Christians pursued parallel practices, particularly Luke and Mark, (2) that Hebrews and Luke-Acts share substantial linguistic affinities and (3) that significant theological-literary affinities exist between Hebrews and Paul, we argue that a solid case for Luke’s independent publication of Hebrews as a Pauline speech can be sustained. We don’t claim to have “solved” the problem of authorship in terms of absolutes or certainties, but we do think that this is the direction that the evidence points most clearly.

Think!

Union with Christ and Justification

Last year, during the Gospel Coalition, Phil Ryken gave a wonderful talk on union with Christ and justification. The audio from this talk can be found here. He has, in this article, summarized union with Christ in these words.

To summarize, the great doctrinal realities of justification and union with Christ are closely inter-connected. Justification is one of the leading benefits of being united to Christ. The faith that justifies does so only and precisely because it also joins us to Christ. The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation. The declaration of our righteousness has a proper juridical basis in our true and covenantal connection to Jesus Christ. Indeed, union with Christ is the matrix in which imputation occurs. It is on the basis of our spiritual and covenantal union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us.

Entrusted with the Gospel

In this volume, Andreas Kostenberger, edits many essays that examines and explores historical scholarship on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. In their work, much clarification and insight is brought to Paul's controversial theology in these epistles, and several important hermeneutical and exegetical challenges are also highlighted and discussed, including authorship, genre, historical background, and issues surrounding church leadership. See Table of Content for a list of contributors.

This book will serve well any exegesis course on the Pastorals, familiarizing students with the major issues involved, without overwhelming them or while developing their thinking along evangelical lines. The book will also make an excellent supplementary volume for NT Theology courses, or a great read for small groups and/or church study.

Contributors include several scholars who have done previous advanced work on these letters: I. Howard Marshall , Andreas Köstenberger, Terry L. Wilder, F. Alan Tomlinson, Greg Couser, Daniel L. Akin, Ray van Neste, B. Paul Wolfe, Ben Merkle, George Wieland, Thor Madsen, and Chiao Ek Ho.

Pulling Punches

This week, a friend of mine on Facebook, who is a member of the Church of Christ Disciples, requested some arguments in favor of women pastors. I, of course, did the opposite and began soliciting my own arguments. Here is what I said:

1 Tim. 2:12-14, man. Paul doesn't say that the women in ministry issue is cultural. He anchors his reasoning in the order of creation and in the Fall. If you want to be a hip modernist, then go ahead and tell yourself that God wants women to be preachers over men, but if you want to do justice to Paul's reasoning, then there's nothing wrong with... Read More changing your mind on this issue. Come over to the mean old-fogie side of the aisle. We're all grumpy sexist misogynists over here! ... "Come overrrrr to the daarrrrk siiiide...!"

One woman responded that even though she's the pastor, she doesn't teach "over" a man because she doesn't think of herself as being better than the men in her church. Another person, in discussing these verses, replied that this was just Paul's opinion and it holds no weight for the church. Another said, "Paul also has absolutely no problem with slavery. Does that mean I have Biblical clearance to travel to Sudan and purchase slaves?" One of the most troubling arguments set forth was this:

Paul argues that woman was "deceived" and ate of the fruit. But the man was not deceived, he knew what was right and blatantly rebelled. But his argument is flawed. Would you really rather have a woman teacher who can be deceived but willing to be given more info and corrected? Or, a man who will defy reality and God's Word and blatantly sin.

So not only is Paul expressing merely his opinion, but when he does express his opinion, his arguments are illogical. One of the responders said, "maybe Paul was just wrong on this issue."

The general tenor of the arguments being offered were emotional in nature. Everyone had some kind of great experience with a female pastor, everyone said they'd learned something good in that context, and therefore it must be okay. Pragmatism was the rule of the day. Many people argued that if these women felt the call to ministry that the Spirit wouldn't call them to something that was wrong.

It was at this point that I pulled my punches. Instead of speaking my mind, I let it go. Here is what I was going to say:

The Bible tells us how to know if something is from God or not. Let me give an example. A man feels an undeniable urge to have sex with his neighbor's wife. His poor sense of morality tells him that perhaps this is from God. Perhaps God wants him to do this thing. Now, how do we know whether this is from God? Well, I submit that it's easy. The Bible says that it is wrong to lust after a woman, the Bible says not to commit adultery, and the Bible is clear that we are not to covet our neighbor's wife. Easy; despite our strong personal inclinations, we submit to the written word because our emotions can be easily fooled without an objective standard to submit to.

Similarly, if there is a woman who feels an overwhelming desire to be the pastor of a church, there is a very easy way to tell if this desire is from God or whether she is being deceived to one degree or another. Look in the Bible. If the thing you desire is forbidden by God Himself, then He would be contradicting Himself to give you the desire to do said forbidden thing. Also, considering that the Bible does authorize women to teach children and other women, there is an outlet for the woman who feels she is gifted by God to teach others. This is not a desire that cannot be fulfilled.

Now, one might ask why I pulled back here. Why didn't I say these things to Disciples of Christ people? Well, there's a simple reason. These are pretty inflammatory things to say, given that I was comparing committing adultery with a woman being pastor. I think it's true, given that both things are against God's will and therefore sinful, but sometimes throwing gasoline on the fire just doesn't help much.

Also, for the record, when it comes to the idea of God "leading" or "calling" someone, I submit more to the thinking of Garry Friesen in his book Decision Making & the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View. I say this just in case someone reads what I'm saying here and thinks that I'm advocating the idea of God telling me to go to the store, telling me that I should eat oatmeal, or telling people that they should do this or that. It's a good book. You should all check it out.

The Best Chapter in the Bible...Perhaps

I wanted to point out this great sermon series that Dr. Derek Thomas has been preaching at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, MS on, what he calls, "The Best Chapter in the Bible"--Romans 8. Now it is arguable that Romans 8 is in fact the best chapter in the entire Bible (Ephesians 1 and 2 come to mind as an example of other great chapters), but nevertheless, the sermon on Romans 8:28-30 is outstanding, possible the best sermon I have ever heard.

New Orleans Here I Come

Back in February I posted a blog about a paper proposal I submitted to the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). I received an email this evening from Eugene H. Merrill, Program Chair of ETS, with the 2009 annual meeting schedule. I opened the schedule and found out that my paper proposal was accepted. I am very excited and nervous about this. I am excited about the great opportunity that God has give me, while at the same time I am nervous because I know the view I will be arguing for in my paper is in the minority, very small minority (as in three other guys and myself). I would like to thank my good friend Andrew Pitts who first gave me the idea for this paper. Thanks Andrew, you have always been a good friend. Well, now I need to stop blogging and start to work on this paper. I have less than 6 months to get it done and ready to present. Here is the papers abstract.

In this paper I will argue that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally a sermon (or sermons) that was preached by the Apostle Paul and that Luke subsequently transcribed or collated. Since, as Acts informs us, Paul traveled with Luke for many years, there was ample time and opportunity for Luke to hear and transcribe or collate Paul’s preaching. This hypothesis would best explain such early manuscript evidence as P46, which includes Hebrews within the Pauline corpus and such early church fathers as Clement, who holds to Pauline authorship of Hebrews. In addition, this hypothesis would explain the Epistle’s difference in style and vocabulary from the rest of the Pauline corpus. Since Luke’s Greek style is sophisticated, he is a prime candidate for the person who penned Hebrews, whose Greek style is also sophisticated. Further, the fact that Hebrews was originally a sermon would explain the notable absence of any salutation, which is customary for Paul’s other letters. The method for proving this position will be to examine the sermonic material recorded by Luke in Acts and comparing it to Hebrews. Further, the unique Greek style and vocabulary that is found in Hebrews will be compared with Luke’s other material, Luke/Acts.

SBTS on N.T. Wright

Denny Burke brought some of the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary together to discuss N.T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. The discussion panel includes: Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, and Brian Vickers. You can find the audio and more about this here. Enjoy!

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: a Pauline/Lukan Perspective

I just submitted the following paper proposal titled "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: a Pauline/Lukan Perspective" to the Evangelical Theological Society. I will keep our readers posted if I will be able to present this paper at this years annual ETS meeting in New Orleans, LA. Let me know what you think about my thesis. I would greatly appreciate any comments/criticisms to help make the paper as good as possible.

In this paper I will argue that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally a sermon (or sermons) that was preached by the Apostle Paul and that Luke subsequently transcribed or collated. Since, as Acts informs us, Paul traveled with Luke for many years, there was ample time and opportunity for Luke to hear and transcribe or collate Paul’s preaching. This hypothesis would best explain such early manuscript evidence as P46, which includes Hebrews within the Pauline corpus and such early church fathers as Clement, who holds to Pauline authorship of Hebrews. In addition, this hypothesis would explain the Epistle’s difference in style and vocabulary from the rest of the Pauline corpus. Since Luke’s Greek style is sophisticated, he is a prime candidate for the person who penned Hebrews, whose Greek style is also sophisticated. Further, the fact that Hebrews was originally a sermon would explain the notable absence of any salutation, which is customary for Paul’s other letters. The method for proving this position will be to examine the sermonic material recorded by Luke in Acts and comparing it to Hebrews. Further, the unique Greek style and vocabulary that is found in Hebrews will be compared with Luke’s other material, Luke/Acts.

Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

I received in the mail today from the U.K. a copy of N.T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. This new book by Wright is mainly a response to John Piper's book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. As of yet I have not read the book, but there are two thing that struck me from the start. First, the name on the book is not N.T. Wright but Tom Wright. I have no idea why this is, but it seemed strange to me that it was not published under the name N.T. The second thing that struck me was a "blurb" on the back by Scot McKight which reads:

Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Reformed--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.

This is ironic to me. Apparently, McKight has not read any of Wright's critics. For example, Dr. Guy Waters' book is full of exegesis. Piper's book, which Wright is responding to, is mostly explanations of the biblical text. McKight has either not read these works or he is deliberately misrepresenting them because these books clearly do not show that they are "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." Anyway, I look forward to read what Wright has to say on this important doctrine of justification. 

Josh Walker Reviews Fee's Pauline Christology

Our own Josh Walker has written a review of Gordon Fee's Pauline Christology for the esteemed website Reformation 21. You can check it out at Reformation 21 right now!

Go read it, guys; Josh read this 700 page book so that you wouldn't have to!

Two Kingdoms: Natural Law

If you have been following the blog, you are aware that we are having a discussion on natural law. In this post I have two very meager, yet needed, aims. First, I want to set forth a good working definition of natural law and second, I want to look at a passage, from Scripture, that teaches natural law.

Natural law can be easily defined as a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person. Notice that this law is impressed "in" every person and not "on" every person. This distinction is important because it illustrates how people gain access to this law--it is in them. This definition will work for almost all forms of an ethical natural law theory. However, since God is the creator, this definition needs to be a bit more specific. It needs to include the origin or source of this ethical code. Thus, the definition we will be using for natural law is a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person by their Creator. So there is no ambiguity, by the term "their Creator" I mean the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. This is the only Creator that exists. However, natural law does not reveal specifics about God. Nature (creation) itself reveals that God exists, but this is not the same thing as natural law. Natural law has to do specifically with the ethical sphere of man, and it is not intended to prove or show that God exists. Though Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 1 to demonstrate that all people know God exists, he does not use natural law as his reasoning; rather he uses nature (the created world) to prove that all men know God exists.

With this working definition of natural law, it is important to set forth a biblical case for this view. It is one thing to define a view, it is quite another to demonstrate that a view is taught in the Scripture. The locus classicus for proving that man has a ethical law within him is Romans 2:14-15.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

In commenting on verse 15 Calvin argues for natural law.

Who show the work of the law written, etc.; that is, they prove that there is imprinted on their hearts a discrimination and judgment by which they distinguish between what is just and unjust, between what is honest and dishonest. He means not that it was so engraven on their will, that they sought and diligently pursued it, but that they were so mastered by the power of truth, that they could not disapprove of it. For why did they institute religious rites, except that they were convinced that God ought to be worshipped? Why were they ashamed of adultery and theft, except that they deemed them evils?

Without reason then is the power of the will deduced from this passage, as though Paul had said, that the keeping of the law is within our power; for he speaks not of the power to fulfill the law, but of the knowledge of it. Nor is the word heart to be taken for the seat of the affections, but only for the understanding, as it is found in Deuteronomy 29:4, “The Lord hath not given thee a heart to understand;” and in Luke 24:25,“O foolish men, and slow in heart to believe.”

Nor can we conclude from this passage, that there is in men a full knowledge of the law, but that there are only some seeds of what is right implanted in their nature, evidenced by such acts as these — All the Gentiles alike instituted religious rites, they made laws to punish adultery, and theft, and murder, they commended good faith in bargains and contracts. They have thus indeed proved, that God ought to be worshipped, that adultery, and theft, and murder are evils, that honesty is commendable. It is not to our purpose to inquire what sort of God they imagined him to be, or how many gods they devised; it is enough to know, that they thought that there is a God, and that honor and worship are due to him. It matters not whether they permitted the coveting of another man’s wife, or of his possessions, or of any thing which was his, — whether they connived at wrath and hatred; inasmuch as it was not right for them to covet what they knew to be evil when done.

Further, as to leave no ambiguity as to what natural law does and does not do, Calvin remarks about natural law in the Institutes 2.8.1.

Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tablets. For our conscience does not allow us to sleep a perpetual insensible sleep without being an inner witness and monitor of what we owe God, without holding before us the difference between good and evil and thus accusing us when we fail in our duty. But man is so shrouded in the darkness of errors that he hardly begins to grasp through this natural law what worship is acceptable to God. Surely he is very far removed from a true estimate of it. Besides this, he is so puffed up with haughtiness and ambition and is blinded by self-love, that he is as yet unable to look upon himself and, as it were, to descend within himself, that he may humble and abase himself and confess his own miserable condition. Accordingly (because it is necessary both for our dullness and for our arrogance), the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law, shake off our listlessness, and strike more vigorously our mind and memory.

Calvin is here, as well as in his commentary, expounding what Paul stated in Romans 2, namely, that man does indeed have a moral/ethical law written on his heart. He also argues that men know this law and are held accountable to it. However, Calvin does find a weakness in natural law. He thinks it cannot give us a clear picture or way to worship God. But as Gregory Johnson points out in his article Natural Law and Positive Law in Calvin's Thought, "while the Fall has left man unable to clearly discern the natural law in all of its fullness, the Fall has not left man blinded with respect to horizontal, earthly matters...Thus, Calvin distinguished between inability in 'heavenly things' and substantial ability in 'earthly things.'"

Further, it needs to be pointed out that this moral law that is in every person is given by creation. In other words, it is created in them; they are made that way. This is in contrast to the idea that they gain a sense of right and wrong strictly from the Bible. Paul makes this point when he says, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires." This is not to say that we do not need the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible explains and expands on the law God gave us at our creation. It also informs us what duty we are to give God--how we are to worship him and glorify him.

Natural law, as defined as a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person by their Creator, is taught in Romans 2 and attested as a teaching within Reformed Orthodoxy. This view of natural law should not be seen as sub-Reformed or pseudo-Roman Catholic. On the contrary, since the Reformers held to Sola Scriptura they taught, along with Paul, that every human has a sense of right and wrong written on their heart and they can be held accountable to following this law because they know it.

A Few Thoughts on Philippians 2:7

I am working on a paper for my Pauline class taught by Dr. Guy Waters here at RST. Here are a few exegetical thoughts I have for Philippians 2:7, "but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a slave, becoming the form of a man and being found as human likeness."

1) There is a whole theory of the incarnation, the ‘kenotic’ theory, that is built on this passage, in fact on one phrase, avlla. e`auto.n evke,nwsen,, “but emptied himself,” or literally, “but himself emptied.” This theory teaches that at the incarnation Christ emptied himself of the form of God. That is, at the incarnation Christ divested himself of all the distinctive of deity; he set aside is infinitude. To this theory we can make the following objections. First, it is illegitimate to translate evke,nwsen as ‘emptied.’ All of the other uses of evke,nwsen in the New Testament have a metaphorical uses, such as 1 Corinthians 1:17, “the cross of Christ should be of no effect.” Second, and more formidably, this passage says nothing as to what was ‘emptied.” Thus, even if we grant the translation of ‘emptied,’ the theory still cannot find support in this text because this text is silent as to what was ‘emptied’ in the incarnation. However we understand evke,nwsen it cannot mean that Christ ceased to be what he was, God. Now, given the context of Paul’s exhortation, it seems best to take evke,nwsen to mean the humiliation or the ‘lowering’ Christ did at the incarnation (Macleod, 19-26)

2) e`auto.n is a reflexive pronoun. This is frequently done to denote that the subject is also the object of the action of the verb. In this case it indicates that Christ is the one who did the action and the one who received the action (Wallace, 350).

3) At least one thing Paul has in mind by morfh.n dou,lou labw,n is the fact that Christ became under the law. That is, in the incarnation Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the Law of God (Macloed, 27). Paul spells this out more clearly in Galatians 4:4-5, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

4) The two participial phrases here (1. taking the nature of a slave and 2. becoming the form of a man) should be seen as model. That is, they explain the mode or way in which Christ “made himself nothing” (Fee, 211).

5) Further, these two participial phrases (from #4) are in such close relationship (both are model participles and as such they complete the main verb) that their meaning should be seen as parallel. In other words, Paul is saying the same thing in two different ways (Melick, 104).

6) There is a textual variant in this text. P46, with support by some versional and patristic evidence, read avnqrw,pon instead of avnqrw,pwn. The reason for this should not be seen in theological motivation, but rather as a simple assimilation to the singular dou,lon. This is a common scribal error in the P46 manuscript.

Calvin and Lent

ST. PAUL hath shown us that we must be ruled by the Word of God, and hold the commandments of men as vain and foolish; for holiness and perfection of life belongeth not to them. He condemneth some of their commandments, as when they forbid certain meats, and will not suffer us to use that liberty which God giveth the faithful. Those who troubled the church in St. Paul’s time, by setting forth such traditions, used the commandments of the law as a shield. These were but men’s inventions: because the temple was to be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those in the church of Christ, who hold this superstition, to have certain meats forbidden, have not the authority of God, for it was against His mind and purpose that the Christian should be subject to such ceremonies.

Then he goes on to say this:

Shall it then be lawful to observe what men have framed in their own wisdom? Do we not see that it is a matter which goeth directly against God? St. Paul setteth himself against such deceivers: against such as would bind Christians to abstain from meats as God had commanded in His law. If a man say, it is but a small matter to abstain from flesh on Friday, or in Lent, let us consider whether it be a small matter to corrupt and bastardize the service of God! For surely those that go about to set forth and establish the tradition of men, set themselves against that which God hath appointed in His Word, and thus commit sacrilege.

John Calvin
The Word Our Only Rule

Gaffin on Union with Christ

At the same time, however, various considerations already adduced point to the conclusion that Paul does not view the justification of the sinner (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness) as an act having a discrete structure of its own. Rather, as with Christ’s resurrection, the act of being raised with Christ in its constitutive, transforming character is at the same time judicially declarative; that is, the act of being joined to Christ is conceived of imputatively. In this sense the enlivening action of resurrection (incorporation) is itself a forensically constitutive declaration. This does not at all mean that Paul qualifies the synthetic character of the justification of the ungodly. The justifying aspect of being raised with Christ does not rest on the believer’s subjective enlivening and transformation (also involved, to be sure, in the experience of being joined to Christ), but on the resurrection-approved righteousness of Christ which is his (and is thus reckoned his) by virtue of the vital union established. If anything, this outlook which makes justification exponential of existential union with the resurrected Christ serves to keep clear what preoccupation with the idea of imputation can easily obscure, namely, that the justification of the ungodly is not arbitrary but according to truth: it is synthetic with respect to the believer only because it is analytic with respect to Christ (as resurrected). Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps the most prominently) is the central motif of Paul’s applied soteriology.

Richard Gaffin
Resurrection and Redemption, p. 132

Ecumenical Discussions

There are many, as of late, who think that unity in the Church should be found in the first four ecumenical councils. Besides the fact that this is arbitrary (why not the first five? Or the first three? Why only the first four?), it misses the point that the person and work of Christ can never be separated.

Allow me to explain. The first four ecumenical councils deal primarily with the person of Christ. That is, they develop who Christ is. Is he divine or human or both? What is his relation to the father? How many wills does the person of Jesus have? These are but a few of the questions that these ecumenical councils sought to answer.

Whereas, questions about his work (what he did) were given a cursory treatment in relation to the depths these councils went with the person of Christ. They did not develop the significance of the cross, for example. What was the death of Jesus for? Why did he have to die on a cross? Why all the blood? What is justification? What is propitiation? Most of these questions were not dealt with at these councils and if they are the answers are hardly as deep as the Christian Church needs them to be.

This raises the question, why are we to be united on the person of Christ and not on his work? Or even more fundamental, how can Jesus be separated into these parts? Sure we can make the distinction between the person (who he is) of Christ and the work (what he did), but we cannot separated them—they are two sides of the same coin. Those, I would submit, who try to find unity in the ecumenical councils are in fact separating Christ’s person from his work. Since we are to have unity (which I am a huge advocate for), I suggest that we have unity around the whole Jesus, his person and his work.

Gordon Fee in his new book, Pauline Christology, discusses this very point that Jesus cannot be broken into parts.

The attempt to extract Christology from Paul’s letters apart from soteriology is like asking a devout Jew of Paul’s era to talk about God in the abstract, without mentioning his mighty deeds of creation and redemption. Although one theoretically may theologize on the character and “person” of God on the basis of the revelation to Moses on Sinai, a Jewish person of Paul’s’ era would hardly imagine doing so. What can be know and said about God is embedded in the story in such a way that God’s person can never be abstracted out of the story. Whatever else, God is always “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.”

Paul's Authority

I am currently reading An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson and Moo. This introduction is great and I could not recomend a book more highly. Their writing style is great. Here is a section from their chapter on Paul: Apostle and Theologian:

Paul's apostolic stance enables him to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures with sovereign freedom and to make demands on his people that he considered to be as binding as anything in Scripture.