PAUL (PERSON) [Greek Paulos (Παυλος)]. An early Christian apostle who was perhaps the most important and creative figure in the history of the early Church, whose formulations of Christian faith as expressed in his epistles to fledgling churches have become part of the foundation for orthodox Christian theology.
A. Sources
B. Life
1. Name
2. Ancestry
3. Education
4. Pre-Christian Career
5. Conversion
6. Apostolic Career
C. Paul’s Image in Later Sources
D. Chronology
1. Problems
2. Datable Events
3. Dating of the Letters
4. Summary
E. Theology
1. Methodological Problems
2. Major Phases in the Development of Paul’s Theology
3. Summary
A. Sources
The primary sources for the study of the Apostle Paul are his authentic letters (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans). Historical information can also be gleaned from the book of Acts (see D.1 below), the deutero-Pauline epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), other NT writings (James, 2 Peter), and later apocryphal literature (apocryphal Acts [McDonald 1983], introductory information in NT manuscripts and canon lists, Pseudo-Clementine literature, Mani Biography [Betz 1986b]). These different groups of documents do not have clear-cut boundaries, though, since scholars still dispute whether or not some of the deutero-Pauline epistles are authentic, and whether the authentic letters contain later interpolations (see the articles on the various Pauline letters). Whether the apocryphal material provides reliable historical evidence independent of the NT presents a further problem, which must be decided on a case by case basis (NTApocr 2: 71–74; Schneemelcher 1987–1989; Betz 1986b: 215–34).
Secondary literature about Paul and his writings is vast; no exhaustive bibliography exists. For informative surveys see Schweitzer 1912; Bultmann 1929–36; Metzger 1960; Rigaux 1968; Merk 1988; ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2649–2840).
B. Life
1. Name. Paul is commonly known by his Greco–Roman cognomen, Paulos, but we know from Acts that he bore the Jewish name Saul as well (Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1, 4, etc.). He himself never mentions his Jewish name in his letters, but always identifies himself as Paul (e.g., 1 Thess 1:1; 2:18; Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 12–13; etc.).
2. Ancestry. While his Jewish name corresponds to his being a Benjaminite (Phil 3:5; Rom 11:1; cf. Acts 13:21), his Greco–Roman name may have been given to him in connection with his citizenship in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia where he was born and raised (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; cf. 9:30; 11:25). While there is some doubt with regard to his Roman citizenship, he certainly was not anti-Roman in his politics (Rom 13:1–7). His Roman citizenship plays an important role in Acts (16:37–38; 22:25–29; 23:27; 25:8–12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19), but there are questions prompted by the flogging (Acts 22:25; cf. 2 Cor 11:25; see Bauer 1988, s.v. mastizō) and the appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:8–12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19; see Conzelmann, Acts Hermeneia, 189–90, 203–4). If the author of Acts did have reliable information about Paul being a Roman citizen by birth (22:28), he certainly made the most of it in explaining how Paul got out of Jerusalem to Rome. At any rate, the family considered itself religiously “orthodox” (Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22; Rom 11:1).
3. Education. What kind of education Paul may have received growing up in Tarsus (Acts 21:39; 22:3) is entirely a matter of speculation, although as Acts 22:3 presents it, he had an ideal Jewish education: “I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, brought up in this city [Jerusalem or Tarsus?], educated at the feet of Gamaliel, according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers.” This claim suggests that Paul’s family moved from Tarsus to Jerusalem, where he received his secondary education (26:4). But this claim must be weighed carefully because it corresponds with the tendencies in Acts to emphasize the apostle’s regard for his Jewish heritage (13:14ff.; 14:1; 15:23–29; 16:1–3, 4, 13; etc.) and to link him with Jerusalem (7:58–8:1a; 8:1b–3; 9:1–2, 26–29; etc.). This latter tendency, together with Luke’s attendant assumption of Paul’s familiarity with Jerusalem, clashes with Paul’s own testimony about his visits to the city (Gal 1:22). Luke’s picture of Gamaliel is unclear as well (Acts 5:34; see Acts Hermeneia, 186). See also GAMALIEL. A further obstacle to reconstructing Paul’s education arises from our ignorance of the specific content of Jewish education at that time, whether in Tarsus or in Jerusalem, whether elementary or secondary (see Safrai 1976; HJP² 2: 332–34, 415–22; Saldarini 1988: 137–39).
The fact that Paul acted as an international envoy, first on behalf of Jewish authorities (Acts 8:3; 9:1–2, 21; 22:4–5, 19; 26:10–11; Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6), then as a Christian missionary, means that he must have received a good Hellenistic education. He gave speeches, taught, wrote long letters, and was involved in highly specialized theological debates. His abilities as a founder of churches, working with many collaborators on an international level, make it impossible to conceive of him as an uneducated and culture-bound Jew from the East. Comparative figures of the time, especially Josephus and Philo show that being well-educated and Jewish did not exclude one other.
Objections to Paul’s education as having been Hellenistic include recourse to his confession of being a layman in rhetoric (2 Cor 11:6; cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5) and his use of a secretary (Tertius, Rom 16:22). Such arguments, however, miss the fact that 2 Cor 11:6 is itself a rhetorical topos (see Betz 1972: 47–69; 1986a) and fail to explain how his letters became literary masterpieces. These letters—with their skillful rhetoric, careful composition, and elaborate theological argumentation—reflect an author who was in every way uniquely equipped to become the “apostle of the gentiles” (Rom 11:13; cf. Gal 2:8, 9; Rom 1:5). This much is clear also from a comparison with his sometime mentor and associate Barnabas, whose abilities fell short of what was needed. Similarly, Luke regards Paul as well-equipped to defend himself in court, while the Jewish priests must have a professional orator (Acts 24:1).
4. Pre-Christian Career. Before his conversion Paul actively preserved and protected the religious traditions of his forefathers. Considering himself an “orthodox” Jew, he was zealously committed to eradicating apostasy. Going further than his peers, he became a member of the Pharisaic sect (see Saldarini 1988: 134–43) and took it upon himself to persecute the Christian church (Gal 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6; 1 Cor 15:9). Exactly why he singled out the Christians for persecution is not clear, though a clue may be found in his particular dislike for the Christians in Damascus (Gal 1:17, 22–23; 2 Cor 11:32; Acts 9:2–25; 22:5–6, 10–11; 26:12, 20) and relative disinterest in those of Jerusalem and Judea (cf. Acts 8:3). The reason for persecuting the Christians of Damascus seems to have been that, though Jews, they had discontinued Torah observance, doing so as a matter of principle rather than casual neglect. But neither Paul nor Acts provides any detailed information.
5. Conversion. While Paul was approaching Damascus he suddenly experienced a vision of Christ. This experience had dramatic consequences, changing his entire life, self-understanding, theological views, and goals. Whether this vision occurred in his mind (Gal 1:12, 16) or externally (Acts 9:3–8; 22:6–11; 26:12–19) remains unclear, but it turned him from a persecutor to a propagator of Christianity. Christ himself commissioned him to proclaim the gospel among the gentiles (see also 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8, 9–11; Rom 1:5). Although we customarily label this experience Paul’s “conversion,” this can be done only in retrospect, for at that time Judaism and Christianity were not yet separate religions. In reality, then, Paul changed brands of Judaism, switching from Pharisaic to Christian Judaism.
6. Apostolic Career. a. The Autobiographical Résumé in Galatians. As Paul reports in Gal 1:17–24, the first part of his autobiographical résumé (see Betz, Galatians Hermeneia, 72–81; also GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE), after seeing Christ he left Damascus at once and went to Arabia, that is, the Kingdom of Nabataea, called “Provincia Arabia.” See NABATEANS. This mission in Arabia, given the nature of Christ’s commission to him, must have been among gentiles, not Jews. We may also infer that Paul did not initiate this mission but joined a venture already begun by the Damascus church, an inference confirmed by the fact that Paul afterward returned to Damascus. How successful his mission to Arabia was we do not know (see also Gal 4:25; Acts 2:11; 1 Clem. 25:1, 3; cf. Rom 15:19).
Paul emphasizes that after Christ’s appearance and commission he chose not to consult with the other apostles in Jerusalem. Why did he avoid this contact with the Christian authorities in Jerusalem? The reason seems to be connected with the Arabian mission. If Paul had persecuted the Damascus Christians because of their disregard for the Torah, and if those Christians had begun the mission in Arabia among the gentiles which Paul joined, then the Arabian converts in turn must not have submitted to Torah and circumcision. The Jerusalem church, however, must have looked at this enterprise with uncertainty or even disapproval, thus rendering plausible Paul’s avoidance of Jerusalem.
Three years after his conversion Paul finally went to Jerusalem, a visit that he describes in Gal 1:18–24. Analysis of this trip to Jerusalem has been complicated since the writing of Acts, whose author assumed that Paul had come to Jerusalem, preached there, and moved freely in and out of the city (9:26–30). If we pay strict attention to Galatians, we realize that Paul had much less visibility during his stay there. What Paul tells us is that at that time he saw Peter for 15 days, an interview which presupposes Peter’s sympathy with Paul’s activity. The church as a whole, however, seems to have been divided, so that when Paul says, “I saw none of the other apostles, but only James the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), he implies that he avoided them because they did not care for him. James, perhaps because he was not a (missionary) apostle, was agreeable to a visit. Did the churches of Jerusalem and Judea, when they praised God for Paul without ever having met him (Gal 1:22–24), know that he preached the Gospel without subjecting the converts to Torah and circumcision? At least we can say that no clear decision had been made and that tensions must have existed with regard to this question. We may conclude from this report that the tensions between Paul and the other apostles issued from their competing policies on foreign missions. Following his visit, Paul set out for another mission campaign in his home territory, Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). It is not clear whether Peter and James approved of this campaign.
When Paul came to Jerusalem the second time “after fourteen years” (Gal 2:1), the mission to Syria and Cilicia had been carried out successfully. Paul names as his main collaborator Barnabas, a Jewish Christian like himself. According to Acts, Barnabas was Paul’s Christian mentor (Acts 4:36–37; 9:27). The Jerusalem church had sent him to Antioch where he became the leading figure among the Jewish Christians from Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syria/Cilicia. He went to Tarsus looking for Saul (Paul) to bring him to Antioch (Acts 11:25–26), where the mission to the Greeks was born (Acts 11:20) and where the name “Christian” (Christianoi) first came into use (11:26). From here Barnabas and Saul/Paul were sent out together on a missionary campaign (13:1–3) which first took them to Cyprus (13:4–12), then to Pamphylia and Pisidia (13:13–14:28). That this campaign is the same as the one mentioned in Gal 1:21 (Syria and Cilicia) is probable, but not provable.
The mission campaigns also brought to the fore a problem which could no longer be left undecided: Must the new gentile converts be circumcised or not? Is the church part of Judaism or a separate Christian religion? After considerable disagreements (Acts 15:1–2) and even a revelation (Gal 2:2), Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem, taking along Titus, an uncircumcised gentile convert, as a test case. The Jerusalem conference (Gal 2:1–10; Acts 15:2–29; see Betz Galatians, 81–103) saw three parties, two of which had opposite answers to the main problem, while a third group stayed in the middle. After heated debates, Paul and his party (Barnabas and Titus) prevailed, gaining recognition of Titus as a Christian without circumcision; however, compromises had to be made. The Christian mission was divided into two thrusts, one to the Jews (under the apostolate of Peter), and the other under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas, without official titles (Gal 2:8–9). The acknowledged link between the two thrusts was the shared belief in the one God (2:8; Rom 3:30; 10:12). The agreement, which also included the pledge to collect money for the poor in Jerusalem (2:10), was approved by the three “pillars” (James, Cephas, and John), and the delegation from Antioch (Paul and Barnabas), but not by an intransigent third group, called by Paul “false brothers” (2:4). This conference had far-reaching consequences not only for the church, but in particular for Paul’s future course of life.
One question which had been left undecided was whether the gentile “Christianoi” constituted a new religion, or whether Jewish and gentile Christians were together still part of Judaism. This indecision laid the seed for future conflict (see, e.g., the case of Timothy, Acts 16:1–4, and in general Cohen 1986; Bryan 1988), seed which came to fruition at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Confrontation arose there after Peter came to Antioch and dined with the gentile Christians, signifying their equal participation in salvation through Christ. This was subsequently contradicted by a delegation of “men from James” when they arrived from Jerusalem. After heated debates, Peter and the other Jewish Christians caved in to their visitors’ censure and cut off table fellowship with the gentile Christians. Thus they reestablished the borders between clean and unclean foods (koinophagia), leaving gentile Christianity outside. Paul, however, did not go along with his fellow Jewish Christians but remained with the gentile Christians. Confronting Peter in an open debate, he accused him of inconsistency (“hypocrisy”) in theology and religious practice. The result was a complete break between Paul and the other Jewish–Christian missionaries, including his former mentor Barnabas (see also Acts 15:36–39). Henceforth Paul and the gentile churches founded by him were on their own, though plagued by contrary Jewish–Christian missionaries. To the end, however, Paul never lost hope that a reconciliation with the Jerusalem church might be accomplished, pinning this hope to the collection for the poor (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9; see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8–9 Hermeneia); and intercession by the church of Rome (Rom 15:30–32).
b. Further Data Concerning the Mission to Galatia. The biographical résumé in Gal 1:12–2:14 ends with the Antioch episode, but further data can be concluded from the letter. Although details are missing, the letter presupposes the founding of the Galatian churches. Later, anti-Pauline agitators appear, the result of which is the letter. If the founding visit can be correlated with Acts 16:6, it can also be coordinated with Gal 4:13, and Paul’s second visit would be the one mentioned in Acts 18:23. It is, however, not clear whether Acts is at all informed about Galatian churches. Paul’s itinerary in Acts appears to be based on good information only in some parts, while on the whole it is the creation of the author of Acts who attempted to fit pieces of tradition into what he envisioned to be a consistent narrative. There may have been journeys that Paul undertook but Acts did not include, just as there are reports about those that seem unlikely to us. The Galatian letter at any rate mentions a foundation visit (Gal 1:9; 4:13). A second visit that would match up with Acts 18:23 would depend on a special interpretation of to proteron (Gal 4:13). Following the founding of these churches, rival Jewish–Christian missionaries found a hearing among them, and in order to prevent their drifting away Paul wrote his letter. The founding of the Galatian churches must have preceded 1 Corinthians, since he mentions the Galatian churches and the collection for Jerusalem in 1 Cor 16:1–4.
c. The Mission to Macedonia and Greece. For information regarding the mission to Macedonia and Greece we must rely on Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians and Corinthians, and on Acts. According to Acts 16:6–10, Paul went through Phrygia, Galatia, and, passing by Mysia, to Troas. From there he decided to go to Macedonia, responding to a vision of a Macedonian asking him to come. Timothy accompanied him on this trip (Acts 16:1–4), as did Silas (Acts 15:40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5; however, according to 15:33 he had already left for Jerusalem). Together, these three men (whose affiliation is verified by Paul’s letters, 1 Thess 1:1 [2 Thess 1:1]; cf. also 1 Thess 3:2, 6; 2 Cor 1:19) sailed from Troas via Samothrace to Neapolis, the harbor of Philippi. They met their first success in Philippi, where they founded the first church in Macedonia (16:11–40). From Philippi they went to Thessalonica, establishing a church there as well (17:1–9). The next stations were Beroea (17:10–15), Athens (17:16–34; 1 Thess 3:1–2), and Corinth (18:1–17; 1 Cor 1:1–2, 14, 16; 3:5–15; 16:15, 17); in all these cities, churches were established. According to Acts, this concluded the second missionary journey. The third journey began with Paul sailing to Ephesus in the company of Priscilla and Aquila (18:18–21). Rather confusing is a strange trip Paul is said to have made from Ephesus “down” to Caesarea, then “down” to Antioch, and through Galatia and Phrygia back to Ephesus (18:22; 19:1).
d. The Journey to Jerusalem. Another revelation caused Paul to plan a second journey to Macedonia and Achaia, and then to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21–22). Sending Timothy and Erastus ahead, Paul followed after the riots in Ephesus stirred up by Demetrius had subsided (20:1). He went through Macedonia to Greece, that is Corinth (20:2). These scarce notes, which are based on some sources known to Luke, can be correlated only roughly with what we know from Paul’s letters, esp. 1 Cor 16:1–11; 2 Cor 1:8–11, 15–18; 2:12–13; 7:5–7, 13–16; Rom 15:22–31. The main differences are (1) that the situation was much more complicated than Acts leads us to believe; (2) that Paul had to change his travel plans several times; and (3) that he almost lost his Corinthian church because of internal strife and opposition. See CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE.
Although Acts 20:1–6 also assumes that Paul changed his travel plans, these changes concern the final trip to Jerusalem, not the second visit in Corinth. While Rom 15:22–31 testifies that Paul was then in Corinth and would soon depart for Jerusalem, Acts 20:1–6 tells us that Jewish opponents prevented his going from Corinth to Syria directly. Instead he was forced to return to Macedonia and Troas. The delegation mentioned in 20:4 eventually assembled in Troas and left from Assos, sailing along the coast to Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus, where Paul said farewell to the Ephesian elders who met him there (20:13–38). The voyage to Palestine is described in detail (21:1–7).
Upon arriving in Palestine, the party stayed in Caesarea and planned to continue to Jerusalem, although people warned Paul that calamity would be awaiting him there (21:8–15, cf. 20:22–24; Rom 15:30–31). At Jerusalem, Paul and his delegation were first greeted in a friendly manner (21:17), but when he visited James (21:18), he was informed about Jewish animosities. Paul’s reports about the success of the mission among the gentiles (21:19–20a) were held against the fact that large numbers of Christian Jews in the Jewish heartland had remained faithful to the Torah and regarded Paul’s mission among the gentiles as apostasy because he would not subject the new converts to the Torah of Moses, to circumcision and the Jewish way of life (21:20b–21). Yet, the elders of the church, including James, had a clever proposal ready for Paul, advising him to become one of four men who would take it upon themselves to complete a Nazirite vow, shave their heads, make the necessary offerings, and thus publicly demonstrate their adherence to the Jewish religion (21:22–26). The ploy almost worked, but failed at the last minute when Jews from Asia Minor recognized Paul in the Temple and incited the crowd to seize him (21:27–30). The Roman military intervened, rescuing him from being assassinated by the mob, but holding him under arrest (21:31–36).
e. The Trials in Jerusalem. As the narrative in Acts proceeds, the descriptions become increasingly dramatic and detailed with a good number of speeches and debates. To what extent these reports are based on reliable information is unknown. There appears to be some basic information worked in, but the total picture is certainly the result of Luke’s imaginative history-telling techniques. From the data available to him, he tried to present a plausible picture of how Paul got himself arrested, extricated from the Jewish authorities and the lynch mobs, transferred to Roman protective custody, and eventually transported to Rome. The total result turns out to be a mixture of local politics, bizarre and fanatical maneuverings by dangerous mobs, and above all Paul’s own strategies to escape certain death. Tragically, his final trump card, the appeal to Caesar, while saving him from death in Jerusalem, made his transfer to Rome inevitable. Thus, in the end, Paul must go before Caesar because his own appeal to Roman law, and the will of God, require it (19:21; 21:14; 25:12; 26:31–32; 28:19).
The chain of events begins with Paul’s defense (in Hebrew) to the Jewish crowds (21:40–22:21), which, however, led to renewed rioting, necessitating Paul’s removal to the Roman barracks for protective custody (22:22–24a). Fearing that he would be flogged, he revealed that he was a Roman citizen, whereupon the Roman officer unfettered Paul and prohibited the soldiers from flogging him (22:24b–29). The next defense occurred before the Jewish high priests and the fully assembled Synhedrium/Sanhedrin, but this attempt also failed and the soldiers had to rescue Paul from another rioting mob (22:30–23:11). Next, Jewish fanatics conspired to murder Paul, but were foiled when his nephew told him of their plan and then informed the tribune as well (23:12–22). Almost 500 soldiers were needed to escort Paul safely from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he was kept under guard in Herod’s praetorium (23:23–35).
Paul’s trial before the procurator Felix is narrated in dramatic detail (24:1–27). When the next procurator, Festus, wanted to move the trial to Jerusalem, Paul sensed the danger and appealed to Caesar (25:1–12). This appeal created a dilemma for the procurator because there were no charges against Paul that could stand up in a Roman court of law. When King Agrippa and Queen Berenice came to town, Festus brought Paul before them hoping that the king might help him dispose of the case (25:13–26:32). Indeed, Paul’s defense before them is so convincing that Agrippa was ready to set him free, were it not for the appeal to Caesar which he could not overrule (26:32).
f. The Journey to Rome. Thus Paul, together with other prisoners, was dispatched to Rome. Under the protection of Julius, a friendly centurion of the Augustan Cohort, they sailed in a ship from Adramyttium via Sidon along the coast of Asia Minor to Myra in Lycia (27:1–5). From Myra they took a ship to Italy (27:6–8). This trip almost ended in disaster when they encountered a violent seastorm, suffer shipwreck, and barely made it ashore in Malta (27:9–44), not realizing where they were (28:1). Paul stayed for three months and was remembered in Malta for his extraordinary miracles (28:2–10). As the winter season drew to a close and the travel lanes reopened, Paul, still accompanied by the officer Julius, now his friend, took another ship to Syracuse in Sicily, continuing to Rhegium and Puteoli in Italy (28:11–14). Thus he arrived in Rome, where Roman Christians met him well outside the city (28:15–16). An attempt by Paul to explain himself before the Jewish leaders in Rome failed (28:17–28). The book of Acts then concludes by saying that Paul lived in Rome for two years at his own expense, “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered” (28:30–31).
g. Death. Strangely, Acts has nothing to say about what happened when the two years were over. Coming to Rome fulfilled Paul’s plan (and God’s will) that he should go to Rome, although the way in which it came to pass differed from what he had imagined (19:21; 23:11; 27:24). Probably Luke, the author of Acts, knew that Paul was executed as a martyr in Rome (cf. 20:22–24; 21:11, 13). The reason Luke chose to end the book in this way (if this is the original end) is unknown, but there are various theories that try to explain it (see Acts Hermeneia, 227–28; Schneider 1980–82, 2:411–13).
Paul’s letters confirm this foregoing narrative only in broad outlines. His plan to lead the delegation going to Jerusalem is affirmed by Rom 15:25–28, but Paul’s earlier hesitation (1 Cor 16:3–4) is not known to Acts, nor does Acts seem to know why the delegation went to Jerusalem in the first place. The entire matter of the collection made by the Pauline churches seems to be unknown to Luke. Even when he found bits of information in his sources, he did not know what to do with them and therefore misplaced and misinterpreted the data (11:27–30; 21:24, 26; 24:17–18). Paul’s self-understanding as the apostle of Christ, so preeminent in the letters, is alluded to only in Acts 14:4, 14. Paul’s mission to Illyricum (Rom 15:19) and his plan to go to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28) were unknown to Luke as well (but cf. the Muratorian Canon, for which see Acts Hermeneia, xxxii). There can hardly be any doubt that Luke did not know Paul’s letters. For him Paul was not a letter-writer but a powerful speaker, the opposite of what his opponents had concluded (cf. 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). The accounts of Acts do not give any hint that Paul’s major struggles were with opponents from Christian Judaism, not simply from Jews. Above all, there is a wide gap between what Acts reports about Paul’s theology and what we learn at this point from Paul’s own letters (see Vielhauer 1966).
C. Paul’s Image in Later Sources
Paul’s death as a martyr is also known to other NT authors, such as the followers of the apostles who wrote the epistles to the Colossians (see esp., 1:24), Ephesians (see esp., 3:13), and the Pastoral Epistles (see, esp., 2 Tim 4:6–8; and Wolter 1988). Still later testimonies are 1 Clem. 5:5–7 and Ignatius of Antioch (Eph 12:2; Rom 4:3), and the apocryphal Acts of Paul (see esp., 11:1–7; and NTApocr 2: 73, 383–87). For further references see Schneider 1980–82, 2: 413; Lüdemann 1988. The historical information contained in these sources is extremely limited and does not significantly increase the data that can be obtained from the NT. Almost nothing is known about Paul’s theology outside the Pauline and deutero-Pauline letters.
D. Chronology
1. Problems. Establishing a chronology for Paul’s life and letters is beset by abundant difficulties. Four basic problems should be distinguished: (1) establishing the most probable sequence of Paul’s letters and letter fragments, and the events to which they allude; (2) evaluating the sequence of events narrated in the book of Acts; (3) connecting the events reported in Acts with those mentioned in the letters; and (4) assigning actual dates to specific events. Two attendant circumstances further complicate matters. First, whereas Acts never refers to Paul’s letters, some events reported in Acts can be correlated with events mentioned in the letters, although a further problem then arises since correlations can be made in several ways. Second, while scholars agree that priority of credibility should be given to Paul’s own letters, without Acts no extended sequence of events can be determined. But all information yielded by Acts rests on the assumption that its author had access to historically reliable sources and that he used them in an historically responsible fashion, an assumption that is open to criticism. As a result, all attempts to determine a chronology for Paul’s life and letters are hypothetical or even “experimental” (Jewett 1979: 95–104), even though several such hypotheses have been advanced in recent years.
Among these, notice should be given to the fact that Jewett (1979) and Lüdemann (1984; building on Knox 1950) have agreed that Paul made only three trips to Jerusalem after his conversion. The significance of this point lies in its deviation from the framework of Acts, which presents five such trips. Jewett and Lüdemann have therefore agreed to a major paradigmatic shift. Still, even this resembles other recent hypotheses in that all are based on older investigations and offer little in the way of new evidence (see RGG 1: 1693–94, and for surveys and bibliographies Rigaux 1968; Vielhauer 1975: 70–81; Suhl 1975; Dockx 1976; Jewett 1979; Lüdemann 1984).
2. Datable Events. The Gallio inscription enables us to date the reign of Iunius Gallio’s proconsulship in Achaea to the years 51/52 or 52/53. These dates agree with Paul’s 18-month visit in Corinth and the reference to Gallio in Acts 18:11–17. This visit would then have occurred in a.d. 51–53.
The conference of church leaders in Jerusalem, the so-called Apostolic Council described in Gal 2:1–10, presupposes that Peter was still in Jerusalem (his departure is reported in Acts 12:17), and that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were still alive (their martyrdom is mentioned without dating in Mark 10:39). The John who attended the conference (Gal 2:9) was most likely one of the sons of Zebedee. If James, the brother of John in that text, was assassinated by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2), and if this was also true of his brother John, then the Jerusalem conference must have occurred before that king’s death in a.d. 44 (see HJP² 1: 442–54); the Jerusalem conference can thus be dated in ca. 43/44, a sequence roughly agreeing with Acts 11:27–12:1. If there is then the question about whether the events reported in Acts 12–17 are sufficient to fill the period from 43 to 51, it should not be assumed that Acts reports everything that happened. If the date of 43/44 for the Jerusalem conference is allowed to stand, Paul’s conversion would have occurred ca. 15 years earlier (Gal 1:18; 2:1, counting 14+3 years, with the two beginning years included), that is, ca. 27–29. If so, Jesus would have been crucified some time earlier under Pilate’s office as procurator (a.d. 26–36), that is, perhaps a.d. 27. Paul’s conversion could then be dated in a.d. 28 (Vielhauer 1975: 78). These dates are all approximations.
Other synchronizations are even less certain. When Paul says he was driven out from Damascus three years after his conversion mission in Arabia and return to Damascus (Gal 1:17–18; 2 Cor 11:32–33), a precise dating within the reign of Aretas IV (ca. 9 b.c.–a.d.40) seems impossible (see HJP² 1: 581–83; 2: 129–30; perhaps under Caligula [37–41]?). The edict of Claudius mentioned in Acts 18:1–2 is attested also by Suetonius, but the exact date cannot be ascertained. The date of a.d. 49 given by Orosius (5th century) would fit with the meeting of Aquila and Priscilla with Paul in Corinth (see HJP² 3: 77–78). Paul’s two-year (Acts 24:27) imprisonment in Caesarea (Acts 23:23–26:32) occurred during the governorship of Felix, whose office lasted from ca. 52–60(?) (see HJP² 1: 460–66). The replacement of Felix by Festus (60–62 [?]), mentioned in Acts 24:27 (see HJP² 1: 467–68), may have taken place in the year 60, or two years earlier (see HJP² 1: 465). According to Acts, Paul was brought before Felix (Acts 23:33–24:26) and then Festus (Acts 25:6–26:32), events which may be dated so as to fall into the years 59/60 (HJP² 1: 467). If we knew precisely how long Paul stayed in Palestine and how long it took to travel from Ephesus to Palestine, his two and one-half years of residence in Ephesus (Acts 20:31) could be dated, but the time spans are a matter of guesswork. It may not be far off to put Paul’s Ephesian residence sometime around a.d. 55. Also uncertain is the year of Paul’s death. If he traveled to Rome in the year 60, stayed there for two years (Acts 28:30), and was martyred immediately afterwards, his death would fall into the years 63 or 64, a date coinciding with the persecution of Christians by Nero after the great fire (a.d. 64).
3. Dating of the Letters. The dating of Paul’s authentic letters is a separate and related problem. While there is some agreement about the sequence of the letters, further complications arise if some of the letters (e.g., 2 Corinthians, Philippians) are actually collections of letter fragments. At a number of points, however, connections can be made between the letters and datable events in Acts.
Scholars agree that 1 Thessalonians is Paul’s oldest extant letter. This letter appears to have been written not long after the founding of the church, which according to Acts 17:1–9 took place during the second missionary journey, perhaps in a.d. 49, when Paul came to Thessalonica from Philippi (1 Thess 2:2). Given that Silvanus and Timothy were with Paul (1 Thess 1:1; cf. Acts 18:5), the letter may have been sent from Corinth ca. 50/51 (Vielhauer 1975: 88–89).
The dating of Galatians is quite uncertain because Acts does not report the founding of any churches in Galatia; nevertheless, the itineraries recorded in Acts do leave open the possibility that Paul founded these churches during his second missionary journey (16:6–8) and visited them again during the third (18:23). It is unclear whether this return visit occurred before or after the Galatian crisis, which goes unnoticed in Acts. At any rate, the letter was written in response to the growing threat by anti-Pauline forces in these churches, perhaps during Paul’s residence in Ephesus (Acts 20:31), ca. 52–54/55.
1 Corinthians may have been written at the same time that Galatians was, which would explain the reference to Galatia in 1 Cor 16:1. The Corinthian letters have a history in themselves, made up of a complex series of letters. If the Corinthian church was founded during the second missionary journey (Acts 18:1–18), ca. 50/51, the possible dates for the letters cover the period between Paul’s first departure from Corinth and his final return to that city. 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8) near the end of his residence there (ca. 54/55). See CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE.
The letter fragments in 2 Corinthians were written after 1 Corinthians and before Paul’s third and final visit to Corinth, perhaps written from Ephesus and various places in Asia and Macedonia, ca. 55–56. See CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE.
The Philippian correspondence seems to have been sent some time after the foundation of that church (Acts 16:12–40), after Jewish Christian opponents had appeared and threatened Paul’s work (Phil 3:2, 17–19), and at a time when Paul was in prison (in Ephesus? [see Vielhauer 1975: 170]). Whether Philemon, also a prison letter (Phlm 9), comes from the same time and place cannot be determined. The Epistle to the Romans was sent from Corinth shortly before Paul’s departure for Palestine, probably a.d. 56.
4. Summary. Although efforts to pin precise dates on events in Paul’s life usually fail to convince, the same cannot be said in regard to the general parameters of Paul’s ministry. Here we find general agreement in assigning the apostolic conference to the 40s and the extant letters to the early and mid-50s. All of these rest within the period of Paul’s Christian ministry, which at most extends from about a.d. 28 to a.d. 64.
E. Theology
As NT scholars have refined their methods, describing Paul’s theology has become more exacting and complex. The following can provide no more than a sketch.
1. Methodological Problems.
a. Sources. By common agreement, the primary source for Paul’s theology should be his recognized authentic letters; the deutero-Pauline and, to a lesser degree, the Pastoral Epistles may receive limited consideration, inasmuch as they reflect Pauline tradition after his death. However, the speeches attributed to him in the book of Acts express the theology of the author of Luke-Acts, not Paul, and should not be used (see Vielhauer 1966).
Having identified the sources, one must decide how to use Paul’s letters to arrive at his theology. Clearly, gathering a mosaic of quotations from the letters and putting them together under doctrinal headings will not add up to a theology of Paul, for it fails to account for the origin of Paul’s ideas and the dialogical nature of his statements through successive letters. On the whole, Paul sets forth his theology not in doxographical abstractions but in contextual letters reflecting ongoing debates.
Paul’s letters provide access to his theology on two levels: that of doctrinal presuppositions and that of applications to specific problems within his churches. These occur in the course of extended arguments in which Paul moves from his theological premises to the resolution of specific issues, both practical and theoretical. In arguments where Paul actually cites his presuppositions, they often have the form of abbreviated principles or formulae, sometimes lifted from another context (e.g., hymns or creeds). Such references occur as they are needed from case to case, so that in one sense none of the letters provides a complete description of his theological “system” (if he ever had a “system”); in another sense, every argument is itself a complete theological statement.
Not only does Paul’s theology lie embedded within extended arguments, but his arguments lie within an epistolary context. This first requires that due consideration be given to the argument of an epistle as a whole. Second, this requires that attention be given to the place of the letter within the entire discussion of which it is a part, for Paul’s arguments take place within an ongoing dialogue. Whatever Paul argues for and against in any given letter represents no more than one “picture” in an entire sequence, which includes a previous history, other discussion partners who often hold differing viewpoints, envoys and couriers who provide further commentary, and a subsequent history of exchanges, until the point when the dialogue breaks off. As in any exchange of letters or dialogue, the same or similar issues may be brought up repeatedly, and Paul may respond differently in each case. Depending on the circumstances, Paul can change his argumentation, present a revised version of it, or even change his position.
b. Character of His Thought. Although differing circumstances effected change and revision within Paul’s thinking, some balance should be maintained in analyzing these variations. It would be as wrong to overlook the differences between Paul’s letters as it would be to treat these differences as substantive self-contradictions, as opportunistic accommodations to what is deemed desirable, or as evidence of emotional instability. Räisänen (1987) certainly advanced criticism when he pointed out contradictions between Paul’s letters; unfortunately, he largely ignored the structure and epistolary nature of Paul’s arguments. Such oversight allows surface-level contradictions to obscure consistency of thought at a deeper, presuppositional level (see Boers 1988; Beker 1988). Admittedly, though, if Paul did pursue a consistent theological position throughout his letters, despite the differences between them, this consistency remains to be demonstrated.
This situation raises further questions with regard to Paul’s thought. Did he work with a fixed theological “system” in the back of his mind? Or did he develop his arguments ad hoc, based only on a limited set of assumptions? Did Paul have a consistent theology throughout his apostolic career, or did his theology gradually evolve in the context of mission and controversy in which he was constantly involved? If he worked from a fixed theological system, was that system pre-Christian (Pharisaic, rabbinic, or apocalyptic) with his Christian convictions simply overlaid or appended? Or was his theology something altogether new that grew out of his vision of Christ and his commission to take the gospel to the gentiles? In short, how creative and dynamic a theologian was the apostle Paul? Such questions form the substance of the present debate in NT scholarship.
c. Understanding His Thought. Paul’s theology is as difficult to grasp as that of any creative thinker. It is more than the sum of his extant letters and letter fragments, and more than a string of surface-level quotations. Rather, it involves analysis of Paul’s arguments as part of an ongoing debate, so as to reveal the methods Paul uses to move from certain principles to the positions he adopts. This approach places us more in step with the apostle himself, because, while he no doubt does hold some non-negotiable assumptions, his theology is primarily the result of processes of thought.
Paul’s thinking also contains development. As a result, positions taken in his last letter, Romans, are considerably more advanced that those in his first (extant) letter, 1 Thessalonians. This does not mean, however, that he would repudiate his earlier letters, for each letter is designed to respond to particular readers and a specific set of theological problems. Each letter must therefore be judged sufficient in itself theologically, though insufficient to the extent that it calls for future follow-up.
Paul’s theology as a whole can be conceived of in different ways. If conceived of as the totality of all his thinking, involving all the letters he ever wrote and all the speeches and activities he ever undertook, this theology is inaccessible to us. As readers of his letters, however, we have access to his theology in another way: these letters allow us to enter into the apostle’s thought processes. By analyzing Paul’s arguments concerning specific issues and the positions he took throughout an ongoing debate, we as readers can learn to think like Paul and in this way gain entrance into the world of Paul’s theological thinking. If this theology always remains incomplete, credit it to the fact that Paul’s thinking was always open-ended. Even Paul’s final and theologically most complete letter, Romans, points beyond itself. Such open-endedness encourages the reader to take Paul’s theology beyond Paul, which is precisely what happens in the deutero-Pauline letters (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals).
2. Major Phases in the Development of Paul’s Theology. If analyzed according to their chronological sequence, Paul’s letters evidence major phases of his theological development. Such developments and their implications for the understanding of the apostle’s thought are the subject of current scholarly discussions (see ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4; 2653–54). Traces of development include direct references by Paul himself to views held in the past but now overcome, citations of pre-Pauline traditions taken over by him, or shifts in his thinking observable by critical investigation.
a. Pre-Christian Pharisaism. Although reliable sources here are extremely scarce, some conclusions can be drawn from Paul’s own references to his pre-Christian past and the theology he affirmed at that time (see Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5–6; perhaps also Gal 5:11; see also ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2658–67; Saldarini 1988: 134–43, with bibliography). According to his own witness, Paul was an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, a “Hebrew from Hebrews” circumcised on the eighth day of his life (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5). He was a member of the Pharisaic sect (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6; 26:5) and devoted to upholding “the traditions of the forefathers” (Gal 1:14).
If this is assumed, he must have been a well-versed member of the Pharisaic party. This much can be said, although a paucity of sources leaves us unable to say anything specific about the education of diaspora Pharisees in Asia Minor (see Saldarini 1988: 137–41). The affirmation that he was “a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6) at the least assures us that his Pharisaism was genuine. That he was authorized to persecute Christians means that his aims received official recognition. Although our sources regarding early Pharisaism are scarce, there is reason to assume that these Pharisees had educational standards and theological consciousness, even if their criteria may have been quite different than later rabbinic orthodoxy. One should not assume that Pharisaic theological education of a serious nature could be obtained only at Jerusalem (against Oepke 1933: 444; see ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2660).
The information given in Acts that Paul came from Tarsus to Jerusalem to study with Rabbi Gamaliel I (22:3; cf. 26:4; see GAMALIEL) flatly contradicts Gal 1:22, a discrepancy which raises questions about the historical reliability of Acts 22:3. Those who nevertheless trust Acts (Oepke 1933: 440–46; van Unnik 1973: 259–320) draw further conclusions from it, mostly by consulting later rabbinic sources. If Paul, as Oepke suggested (1933: 412), was an ordained rabbi and educated in Jerusalem, serious problems arise. Is it conceivable that a pupil of Gamaliel displays no evident knowledge of Hebrew scripture, instead always citing the ? Jeremias (1969) even postulated that Paul was a Hillelite because he shared doctrines and exegetical methods attributed to Rabbi Hillel. Haacker (1972) advanced the opposite hypothesis, labeling Paul a Shammaite. But the historical evidence concerning the teachings of Hillel and Shammai is as shaky as the alleged connections between their teachings and Paul’s theology (see Davies 1955: 1–16). One should, in fact, ask why it is almost impossible to establish any connections between Paul and the rabbinic sources. Whatever the answer may be, the accuracy of the information about Gamaliel (Acts 5:34; 22:3) is dubious. Furthermore, one cannot ignore how perfectly Acts’ information about Gamaliel fits Luke’s ideas (Strecker 1976: 482 n. 10). Still, if what Acts says is accurate, Gamaliel’s theology was remarkably Hellenistic-Jewish and very different from the later rabbinic standards, a possibility not to be dismissed offhand.
At any rate, Paul’s testimony leaves no doubt that his primary concern as a Pharisee was Torah and righteousness. A conscientious Jew, with respect to the Torah Paul stood “blameless” (Phil 3:6; cf. Gal 1:13, 14; Acts 22:4; 26:5). Paul describes in Gal 5:3 what he thought about the law, not without polemic poignancy: “I testify again to every man who has become circumcised, that he is obliged to do the whole Law.” The concept of “the whole Law” is presupposed also in Gal 3:10 (LXX Deut 27:26), where “everything that is written in the book of the Law” defines quantitatively what is meant by “the whole Law”; anything less amounts to being “under the curse.” This view does have an affinity to the rabbinic concept of the Torah as consisting of 613 prescriptions and prohibitions, as well as to the rigoristic position attributed to Shammai (b. Sabb. 31a; see Betz Galatians, 260; ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2665).
If Paul claims to have been “blameless” in terms of the Torah, he went further in his zeal by persecuting the Jewish Christians of Damascus, whom he, in agreement with the authorities at Jerusalem, regarded as “apostates” (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6; Acts 8:3; 9:1–2, 21; 22:4, 19; 26:10–11). The main reason for this persecution seems to have been that these Jewish Christians did not subject gentile proselytes to Torah and circumcision, discontinuing “the traditions of the forefathers” which Paul so zealously enforced (cf. perhaps Gal 5:11). At any rate, it seems to be clear that already the pre-Christian Paul had focused his theological concerns on the Torah, circumcision, and other ancestral traditions. He was, of course, not alone in this, as demonstrated by his later opponents in Jerusalem, Galatia, and elsewhere, who (even as Christian Jews) continued to hold the same views Paul once held and then rejected. See GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.
It is not inconceivable that some of Paul’s earlier concerns emerge in a later Christian context. Paul’s sharp critique of Jewish claims in Rom 2:1–29 includes a discussion of Jewish prerogatives: the possession of the Jewish Torah (2:12–16), the honorific name “Jew” (2:17–24), and the ritual of circumcision (2:25–29). Essentially, the passage involves painful Jewish self-criticism, no doubt informed by Paul’s intimate knowledge of Jewish theology. Does his critique of false Torah observance (2:12), pretentiousness (2:18–20), hypocrisy (2:21–22), and mere external ritual (2:25–29) reflect concerns he had felt already as a Pharisee? (This critique has close parallels in the Sermon on the Mount.) See SERMON ON THE MOUNT/PLAIN. Romans 9–11, a discussion of Judaism’s eschatological destiny, may also draw on material coming from an earlier period of Paul’s life. These possibilities, however, raise two fundamental questions which non-existent sources keep us from answering: Did Paul really believe that his personal “blamelessness” assured his salvation (cf. Sanders 1977: 442–43)? Or did he harbor some doubts, like the would-be disciple of Jesus in Mark 10:20 who, having done all of the Torah from his youth on, was still unsure of the way to eternal life? And did Paul share the view that his individual salvation was all he had to be concerned about, or the other view that his individual salvation was conditional upon the salvation of “all Israel” (Rom 11:25–26)? If these questions could be answered positively, we would begin to understand why he was impressed, first negatively, then positively, by the Christian gospel.
b. Conversion to Jesus Christ. According to his own testimony (Gal 1:1, 11–12, 15–16; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Phil 3:5–6), the greatest change in Paul’s thinking was brought about as a consequence of his vision of Christ on the road to Damascus. Appearing to him in this vision, Christ commissioned him to “preach the gospel to the gentiles.” Paul at once dedicated himself to this task. At this point, the accounts in Acts (9:1–19a; 22:1–16; 26:9–18) differ in that Ananias mediated Paul’s commission to him (9:15–16; 22:10, 14–15; cf. 26:16–18). What were the consequences of this event for Paul’s theology? Four things immediately present themselves.
(1) Paul’s commitment to Pharisaism came to an abrupt end, as he switched from Pharisaic to Christian Judaism.
(2) Paul’s assignment to preach the Gospel to gentiles first meant that he joined the missionary enterprises of the Damascus church, from which he must also have received his first instruction in Christian theology. Unfortunately, our knowledge of this old church is extremely limited, so that we do not precisely know what kind of instruction and tradition Paul received at that time (see also Betz Galatians, 64–66). What did the Christians of Damascus have in mind when they converted non-Jews? How did they, as Jews, justify it? Clearly, the reason for Paul’s persecuting them was that they failed to subject the new converts to circumcision and Torah. What was their theological reason for making converts outside of the Torah covenant? Was it in fact done outside of the Torah covenant? At any rate, they must have had theological reasons, but we do not know what they were. Nor do we know what the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem thought about this: Did they approve or disapprove? Or were they already divided over the question, as they obviously were later on?
(3) The next immediate question to be raised is whether and in what way the new converts from paganism were to become partakers of the (Sinai?) covenant. See COVENANT. If they were not circumcised and did not observe the Mosaic Torah, how could these converts hope to be partakers of salvation? Perhaps some conclusions can be drawn from Acts, provided of course it reflects the actual practices of the Damascus church. Since after his conversion Paul was baptized (Acts 9:18; 22:16), the ritual of baptism must have served as an initiation to the Christian faith. In connection with the gift of the spirit (9:17), the effect of baptism was purification and remission of sins (Acts 22:16: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”). To be sure, this theology agrees with Luke/Acts (see also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 5:31; 7:60; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18), but it may also reflect views held much earlier in the Damascus church. If this ritual of baptism was indeed administered to gentile converts in Damascus as well, taking the place of circumcision, then the new gentile Christians would have thereby joined the community of the sanctified. Christological and soteriological beliefs would have justified this status (cf. 1 Cor 1:13–17; 6:11; 10:2; 12:13), just as Christian ethics amounted to a preservation of sanctity until the Last Judgment (1 Thess 5:23; 1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 11:2). If, broadly speaking, this theology was affirmed by the Damascus church, it came close to Paul’s theology in 1 Thessalonians [see below, E.2.c.(1)]. In fact, some of the pre-Pauline formulae cited in Paul’s letters may go back to traditions taught in Damascus.
(4) One must keep in mind that when Paul spells out the changes in his life and thought, he does so retrospectively, yet this does not necessarily mean that these recollections were completely beside the point. As he affirms, the changes brought about by his conversion involved his entire life and thinking, not only certain aspects. Four of the most important changes are highlighted by Paul himself.
(a) The most immediate change was Paul’s recognition and confession of Jesus Christ as “lord,” kyrios, and “son of God,” hyios tou theou (Gal 1:16; 1 Cor 9:1; Phil 3:8; cf. Acts 9:5, 10; 22:8, 10; 26:15). In contrast, the title “messiah,” christos, does not seem to play an important role in Paul’s conversion (cf. 1 Cor 15:3; see Bauer 1988: 1768–69). To be sure, it is remembered in his christology, but it was not the fulcrum of his conversion (differently Acts 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; see Bauer 1988; s.v. Christos). This role was played by kyrios. This revelation of Jesus as kyrios, “lord,” certainly received reinforcement by the confessions made in the first Christian worship service Paul attended (cf. e.g., Rom 10:9–10; Phil 2:11; 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5). From this point, adopting already-existing christological and soteriological formulae and hymns was a small step, although when Paul cites such material in his letters it may not come only from Damascus (see especially, Gal 1:4; 4:4–6; Phil 2:6–11; 3:7–11; Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:3–5; Phil 3:7–9).
(b) An immediate consequence of Paul’s invocation of Christ was the reevaluation of the fundamental concept of “righteousness,” dikaiosynē (see BTNT 1: 270–85; Conzelmann 1969: 214–20; Galatians, 116–119; 2 Corinthians 8–9, 114–116; ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2694–2709, 2721–29; with further bibliography). In retrospect, Paul described the changes in two texts. The first was Gal 2:15–16: “We who are Jews by birth and not sinners know from [the] gentiles that a person is not justified by works of [the] Law but [only] through faith in Christ Jesus. So we also have come to believe in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, since it is not by works of [the] Law that all flesh will be justified.” Paul’s new Christian view is that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his death and resurrection, has acquired righteousness and that those who believe in him “in obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 6:12, 16, 17; etc.) are already now and will be at the Last Judgment beneficiaries of that righteousness (Gal 5:5–6; see BTNT 1: 274–79). The opposite, as it now appears to his Christian understanding, is a “righteousness based on the works of the Torah” (Gal 2:16; see Betz Galatians, 116, n. 35).
The second text in which Paul described his reevaluation of the concept of righteousness was Phil 3:7–9: “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on [the] Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith . . .” (RSV). This newly found “righteousness” is “in Christ” (Gal 1:22; 2:4, 16, 17; etc. See Conzelmann 1969: 208–12; Betz Galatians, 119, n. 60); indeed, Christ is that righteousness (1 Cor 1:30), which is “the righteousness of God” (Rom 1:17), a gift of grace to those who believe in Christ (Gal 5:5–6; 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 1:16–17; 3:21–22; etc.). The opposite is described as “my own righteousness” (Phil 3:9), i.e., basing one’s hope for eternal salvation entirely on the individual’s sufficient Torah observance. Paul claims that his reevaluation of the notion of righteousness is more than a second track to accommodate the admission of gentile Christians into the church and in salvation. Gal 2:16 states that Paul belongs to those Jews who have become Christians because they have come to recognize the insufficiency of their pre-Christian notions concerning eschatological righteousness. Up to this point there seems to have been broad agreement in Jewish Christianity. Disagreement arose, however, about the consequences.
(c) The most difficult question to solve was, What impact does the Christian Gospel have on the concept and observance of the Law (Torah)? This question is still disputed today. The basic problem is that Paul seems to be vacillating between two concepts of law, a Jewish concept and his own Christian concept. How are the two related to one other? (For discussion and bibliography, see BTNT 1: 259–69; Conzelmann 1969: 220–28; Räisänen 1987; Sanders 1977; 1983; Wilckens 1982; Hübner 1984; ANRW, pt. 2, vol. 25/4: 2668–94; TRE 13: 64–72; Westerholm 1986: 229–37; 1988.) For Paul, reevaluating his position on the Torah meant the rejection of his former Pharisaic concept, which he described in Gal 5:3: “I testify again to every man who has become circumcised, that he is obliged to do the whole law.” As he now sees it, this Torah has come to an end with the coming of Christ (Gal 3:22–25; Rom 10:4). His judgment is therefore rather negative: “What then is the Law?—Because of the transgressions it was given in addition, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, ordained through angels, through a mediator” (Gal 3:19). All Paul is willing to concede at this point is the inferior role the Torah has played in the history of salvation (3:23): “Before the faith came we were kept in custody under [the] Law, confined until the coming faith was to be revealed.” This Torah did not have the capacity to “make alive” and generate “righteousness” (3:21).
This does not mean, however, that Paul was an antinomian who rejected the law in any form, or even the Torah. There could be no question that the demands of the Torah had to be fulfilled, if righteousness as the prerequisite for entering into the kingdom of God was to be obtained. Furthermore, there were not two different Torahs, an older one to be rejected and a new one to be approved. Rather, there were competing definitions of what the Torah was.
According to Paul, the Pharisaic Torah was deficient because it summarized the Torah in the wrong way. In this Pharisaic view, God revealed his will in the form of many laws, all of which must be obeyed. For the Pharisees, then, fulfilling “the whole law” meant keeping the quantitative sum total of all laws (Gal 5:3). This notion is, however, not the only possible one.
Paul called his new concept “the law of Christ” (6:2; cf. 1 Cor 7:19; 9:21). This law summarized the many prescriptions and prohibitions of Scripture in another way by regarding the love command Lev 19:18 as the common denominator (kelal): “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word: ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:14; cf. Rom 13:8–10). This concept of Torah as a single principle was apparently taken over from Jewish Christianity (see Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Jas 2:8), coming probably from the historical Jesus himself, although it was also attributed to R. Hillel (see Betz Galatians, 274–76). The important difference is that this concept of the Torah does not require the specifically Jewish Torah observance, but it can in principle be fulfilled by every human being. If the love command is “fulfilled,” the “whole Torah” is fulfilled, and thus righteousness is assured. This concept, therefore, permits gentiles to access salvation without their having to pass through the religion of Judaism. How Christians, whether Jews or gentiles, might then fulfill this Torah is the next question.
(d) Since gentiles by definition do not partake of the Mosaic covenant, extending salvation to them required a special act of God in order to extricate them “from the present evil aeon” (Gal 1:4). Even before Paul, early Christianity interpreted Jesus’ death on the cross as his voluntary self-sacrifice “for our sins” (Gal 1:4; 1 Cor 15:3; cf. 1 Thess 5:10). His death was in accordance with God’s will, so that it was a manifestation not only of Christ’s love (Gal 2:20) but also of God’s (Rom 8:3–4, 32, 39). As a righteous man “without sin” (2 Cor 5:21), Christ took the curse (Gal 3:13) and the accumulated burden of human sinfulness on himself (2 Cor 5:21). His absolute obedience to his Father, manifest in his willingness to be crucified, though innocent, was meritorious enough (Phil 2:6–11; Rom 1:3–4; 5:19) to provide a ransom from eternal condemnation for those who believe in him (1 Thess 1:10; Gal 3:13; 4:5; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Thus achieving “reconciliation” with God on behalf of sinful humanity (2 Cor 5:18–21; Rom 5:10–11), Christ cleared the way (Rom 5:1) for gentile Christians to become partakers, not of the Mosaic covenant, but of the prior promise God had made to Abraham. As believers in Christ they have become “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:6–18, 29; cf. Rom 4:1–25).
Several christological and soteriological formulae, most probably going back to pre-Pauline Jewish Christianity and still somewhat controversial as to their exact meaning, describe the two acts initiated by God, through Christ, to integrate gentile Christians into the salvation process. (1) The formulae interpret Christ’s death as a voluntary self-sacrifice and atonement (Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:4–6; Phil 2:6–11; 1 Cor 1:23, 24, 30; 15:3–8; 2 Cor 5:17–21; Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:6–11; 8:3, 32). Its meritoriousness means the remission of the sins that have accumulated beforehand (Rom 3:25; 4:25). (2) In formulaic language Paul also wrote about the work of the divine spirit which enables the believer to “fulfill the demands of the Law” (Rom 8:4). The formula in Gal 4:4–6 contains a summary of these doctrines: “When, however, the fullness of time had come, God sent his son, born by [a] woman, put under [the] Law, in order that he might redeem those who are under [the] Law, in order that we might receive the adoption as sons. And, since you are sons, God sent the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying out ‘Abba! Father!’” (for interpretation, Betz Galatians, 205–11).
c. Earlier Phases of Paul’s Theology. (1) The letter of 1 Thessalonians reflects Paul’s theology during his early mission to the Greeks, a phase prior to the great confrontations with his Jewish-Christian opponents. In this epistle, Paul looks back at the turbulence surrounding that church’s foundation (1:5–6; 2:1–2; cf. Acts 17:1–9), turbulence which for the time being (cf. 3:2–5) appears to have subsided, giving way to “peace” (cf. 1:1; 5:3, 13, 23). Paul recalls how the Thessalonians accepted the “gospel” (1:5–6; 2:2, 4, 8, 9; 3:2) and cites a summary of it as a reminder (1:9–10; cf. 4:5). This summary reflects the mission kerygma (i.e., preaching), which includes the turning away from idols to the worship of the living and true God, and the awaiting of the parousia of Christ (cf. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). The kerygma is based on the christology of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1:10; 2:15; 4:14), the “son of God” (1:10) and “Lord” (1:1, 3, 6, 8; 2:15, 19; 3:8, 11, 12, 13; 4:1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 17; 5:2, 9, 12, 23).
The church (1:1; 2:14) consists of those who have been called to the kingdom of God (2:12; 4:7; 5:24). They have been given the holy spirit (1:5, 6; 4:8; 5:19), and have thus been purified (2:3; 4:7). As believers in the gospel (1:7; 2:10, 13; 4:14) they have thereby obtained the status of “holiness” (3:13; 4:3–7; 5:23) without recourse to the Torah. They are addressed as “the holy ones” (3:13; 5:27) and as “the sons of [the] light and the sons of [the] day” (5:5). Preserving this state of holiness “unblemished” until the parousia (3:13; 5:23), when they will greet the coming Christ in mid-air (4:13–18), is the purpose of Christian ethics. Paul described the desired ethics only in general terms as “how you must conduct your lives and please God” (4:1; cf. 2:12, 15; 4:12, 5:12–22), and cited the temptations of the devil as the primary cause for concern (3:5; cf. 4:3–8). However, the faith of the Thessalonians was still young and insecure; deficiencies exist (3:10) and strengthening was needed. For this reason Paul sent the letter, and in keeping with this purpose he included comfort for the unsettling death of some members (4:13–18; 1:10).
(2) While 1 Thessalonians barely mentions “sin” and “righteousness” (2:10, 16), the conspicuous role in Galatians of justification by faith in Jesus Christ and related concepts indicates that Paul wrote this letter in a very different situation. Basically, however, Paul’s theology in this letter is the same as in 1 Thessalonians, and the Galatian letter lends confirmation to it, rather than changing it. See also GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.
Accordingly, Christian salvation is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1:1, 4; 2:19–20; 3:1, 13; 4:4–6; 5:11, 24; 6:12–14), the gift of the spirit (3:2–5, 14; 4:6; 5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:1, 8), the “putting on” of Christ in baptism (3:26-28), and living the new, Christian life as “new creation” (6:15), filled with “the fruit of the spirit” (5:22–23a; cf. 5:16–18, 25). The Christian is “in Christ,” i.e., a member of the “church of God” (1:2, 13, 22; 2:4, 17; 3:26–28; 6:15–16). This church moves forward under the guidance of the spirit and awaits the eschaton (5:5, 10, 21; 6:7–9).
This basic conception has been radically challenged by the Jewish–Christian opponents of Paul who invaded the Galatian churches. See GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.
As Paul presents the matter, these opponents have almost persuaded the Galatians to circumcise themselves and to accept the Jewish Torah (1:6–7; 5:1–12, 13, 15–16). This could only mean the abandonment of the Pauline Gospel and its substitution by another version of the Gospel that included observance of the Torah (1:6–9; cf. 1:11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14). Such a move would reverse Paul’s own “conversion” from Pharisaic Torah observance to the Christian Gospel without the Torah. Speculation about the reasons for the Galatians’ impending switch is difficult, but they must have had serious reasons. The problem they seemed to have had to face was the occurrence of serious moral failure (6:1). With only Gospel and spirit, they probably felt they lacked adequate protection against the temptations by the “flesh” (3:3; 4:13, 14, 23, 29; 5:13–24; 6:1, 8, 12–13). Under the tutelage of the Mosaic Torah, they would be given clear directives about what to do and from what to abstain.
Against his adversaries’ doctrines the apostle spells out his doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ (2:15–21; 3:2–5, 6–18, 19–25, 26–28, 29; 5:5–6; 6:7–10, 14–16). This doctrine originated in Jewish Christianity itself and had in fact legitimated the early mission to the non-Jews (2:1–10, 15–16; see Betz Galatians, 115–19). But Paul presses the revolutionary contrast between justification by faith in Jesus Christ and by “works of the Law” (2:16–21; 3:2–5, 10–13, 18, 19–25; 5:4; 6:13) only when his Jewish-Christian competition threatened his entire mission. In his Galatian letter we see how for the first time this doctrine became the main subject of a theological argument.
The doctrine of justification by faith basically affirms the sufficiency of salvation through Christ, without the Torah, for gentile Christians. In fact, Paul’s strongest counterargument against his opponents contrasts the sufficiency of Christ with the insufficiency of the Jewish Torah. This insufficiency became manifest in Christ’s death (2:21; 4:4–5), in the Jewish-Christians’ belief in Christ (2:15–16), and in the previous history of the church. As a result of these unmistakable factors the Galatian churches had been founded without subjection to the Torah (1:16–2:14; 3:1–5; 5:1–4, 18), nor need it ever be, for, as Paul points out, the Torah was no longer the agent of salvation (2:19; 3:11–13, 19–25; 4:4–6; 5:18). Once this was recognized, those who had been born Jews were free to continue their Jewish life. It is, however, a completely different matter for Gentiles like the Galatians to feel they must accept circumcision and Torah, because they thereby concede that faith in Christ alone is not sufficient for salvation. Such a concession, to be sure, means cutting themselves off from the benefits of Christ (1:6–7, 8–9; 2:21; 3:1–5; 5:2, 4, 6; 6:12–16). Ceasing to be partakers in Christ’s salvation, they would in effect become converts to Judaism.
Therefore, when Paul reaffirms his original message to them (1:8–9; 6:14–16), he advises the Galatians to rely on the spirit, as they have done before (3:1–5; 5:5, 16–18, 25; 6:1, 7–9). Such reliance on the spirit is sufficient as a weapon to deal with the temptations of the “flesh.” On the other hand, abandoning the preciously won “freedom in Christ” (2:4–5; 3:26–28; 4:21–31; 5:1, 13) and taking up the yoke of the Torah (5:2) can only mean voluntarily entering into the confinement and slavery under law, sin, and flesh (2:4–5; 3:22–24; 4:4–5, 21–31; 5:1–12), that is, the “elements of this world” (4:3–11). Therefore, Paul’s letter ends by affirming a “rule”: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is [worth] anything but [a] new creation [is worth everything]” (6:15; cf. 5:6; 1 Cor 7:19). This reflects the sufficiency of the spirit which he summarizes earlier in the letter: “If the spirit is the source of our life, let the spirit also direct our course” (5:25).
(3) Although written after Galatians, Paul’s Philippian correspondence contains a theology in many ways similar to that of Galatians. One feature unique to Philippians—Paul’s rumination on his possible, impending death—comes as little surprise given that he writes this letter while imprisoned, most probably in Ephesus (Phil 1:7, 12–26; cf. 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8–11; Acts 19:32–40). In the short run this reflection on the proper attitude to take when confronted with the threat of one’s own death would prove premature (2 Cor 1:8–11; 11:23); nevertheless, in the long run it was quite realistic (cf. Rom 15:30–32). Although not entirely new (cf. 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; Gal 6:14, 17), another prominent theme in the Philippian letter fragments (see Koester 1961; 1982, 2: 132–34) is Paul’s participation in Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection. This partnership provides the logic for the conspicuous role in Philippians that Christ’s and Paul’s examples play in the apostle’s exhortation. Paul bases such imitation chiefly on the Christ hymn cited in 2:6–11 (see Betz 1967). This hymn also anchors Paul’s main parenetical concern in Philippians, the unity of the church (esp. 1:5–11, 27–30; 2:1–4, 17–18; 4:1, 2, 7). A completely different tone appears in the fragment 3:2–4:3, where Paul sharply attacks his Jewish–Christian adversaries. On the whole, though, Paul’s theology in Philippians again includes the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ (Phil 1:11; 3:5–11) and reliance on the spirit (1:19, 27; 2:1; 3:3).
The letter to Philemon may also have been written during the Ephesian imprisonment. Regardless, its basic theology again resembles the previous letters, although the major subject matter is of course different.
d. The Crisis at Corinth. The great crisis in the church of Corinth (for details, see CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE and CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE) confronted Paul with new, rapidly changing situations and challenges. Although the causes that gave rise to the crisis are to some extent confusing, it appears that, as far as theology is concerned, the problem stemmed neither from disagreement with what Paul taught, nor, in the first stages, from outside interference. Apparently, some of the Corinthians themselves had developed Paul’s own theology in directions unpalatable to the apostle. As a result, charismatic experiences and ecstatic prophecy, though not unfamiliar to Paul (see 1 Thess 1:5; 5:20; Gal 3:5; Phil 3:10; 1 Cor 14:18), played too large a role in this church: the overwhelming abundance of and superior status attributed to their enthusiastic displays went beyond anything Paul had seen. Based on these experiences, members of the church apparently created their own theologies and modes of behavior without taking into account that this new Corinthian diversity posed a threat to the very existence of the church. Feeding into the crisis were other factors of social and religious origin, complicated by outside interference (Apollos? Cephas? [see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 9:5; 16:12; Acts 18:24–19:1]). Interacting with each other, these factors gave the crisis a life of its own that at times drove Paul to the brink of his own demise.
The theological issues Paul confronted are stated succinctly in the prooemium of 1 Corinthians, the thanksgiving prayer (1:4–9). Since much of the language in the passage appears to conform to the Corinthians’ self-understanding, Paul expected the Corinthians to agree when he saw “God’s grace (charis) given in Christ Jesus” being manifest among them: “in everything you have been made rich through him [sc. Christ], in every form of speech and in every form of knowledge” (1:5; see Betz 1986a). The Corinthian church experienced this spiritual wealth in its abundance of spiritual gifts, charismata, which had become a source of pride (1:7; 7:7; 12:4–31). Being Greeks, they especially cherished, “eloquence and knowledge” (1:5; cf. 2 Cor 8:7). These cherished gifts were all derived from the divine spirit which revealed them through prophecy (see, esp. 1 Cor 12:8; 14:1–40). These experiences also satisfied the Greek cultural expectation that they possess “wisdom” (sophia [1:22]). But Paul considered the Corinthians’ pride to be compromised severely by the fact that they seemed unable to cope with cosmopolitan diversity and sophistication in the church and that their pride created strife and factionalism (see 1:10–17; 3:3–4; 11:18–19; 12:25). These deteriorating developments created an intolerable discrepancy between claim and reality. As Paul put it, the Corinthians’ wealth of charismata was still deficient: they lacked mature love among each other and consequently congregational harmony (1:7–9, 10, 13a; 3:1–2; 8:1; 13:1–13; 16:14). This discrepancy not only disrupted their congregational life in a threatening way, but also raised the question whether this church would be able to appear at the Last Judgment, as it would be required to do, “blameless” (1:8; cf. 15:58).
Paul’s theology in 1 and 2 Corinthians differs markedly from his earlier letters because the crisis in Corinth solicited a new response with a new, special kind of theology. Since the Corinthians’ ideas were not simply imported from the outside but were mostly based on assumptions in Paul’s own theology, he could not simply repudiate their ideas, but had to take them up and develop them in a different direction. Thus, Paul agreed with the Corinthians that a wealth of eloquence and knowledge is certainly a laudable blessing; he added, however, that it ought to add up to “wisdom of God” and not “wisdom of this world” (1 Cor 1:18–3:23). This new theology of wisdom is designed to affirm the Corinthian claims on the one hand, but correct them on the other by bringing them in line with Paul’s own theology of the cross.
In order to meet the challenge, Paul proceeded from his established positions on theology and christology (see, esp. 1:1–3, 4–9, 18–24; 8:6; 12:3; 15:3–5). Dealing not with Jewish but Greek claims (1:22), he applied the principles of his theology of justification by faith in Jesus Christ not to “works of the law” (as in Galatians), but to the claim to possess wisdom (1:18–31). The common denominator was the principle of proper and improper “boasting” (1:29–31; 3:21; 4:8; 5:6; 9:15–16; 15:31). In the first part of 1 Corinthians (1:18–3:23) Paul demonstrated what in his eyes really constituted Christian wisdom by critically analyzing the concept. In the second part he brought these clarifications to bear on his own role as church leader (chap. 4) and on the concrete problems which disturbed the church (chaps. 5–15). Since 1 Corinthians evidently did not achieve its goals, the fragments assembled in 2 Corinthians provide further insights into Paul’s monumental struggle to get the church to understand and accept his theological viewpoint. Thus, the entire Corinthians correspondence, at least to the extent we possess it, amounts to an education in the apostle’s theological thinking. Within the parameters of the struggle, he worked out positions on a broad range of issues, from legal and ethical issues to those of religion and worship, including even self-evaluation of his own role and conduct. See CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE; CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE.
On the whole, the Corinthian crisis subjected Paul’s theology to the test of fire (1 Cor 3:13–15). Apparently, he had no time for critical reevaluation of his theological premises, in particular his doctrines of the spirit, sin, and the law. It is, however not surprising that after the struggle was over, Paul took the time to revise his thinking in rather substantial ways, resulting in his magnum opus, Romans.
e. The Later Paul. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he took the occasion to summarize his theology in a more systematic fashion than in his previous letters. This letter does not, however, present a complete and final statement, but rather a résumé of a more mature stage in his theological development. Paul felt the need for this summary for a number of reasons. First, since he did not found the Roman church yet intended to visit it, the letter served as an appropriate way to introduce himself. Second, the apostle also realized that he had to counteract the hostile rumors circulated by his opponents and the caricatured versions of his teaching with which they slandered him (Rom 3:5–8; 6:1). Third, because he knew that dangers awaited him in Jerusalem (15:30–32), Paul sent this letter to Rome, and possibly a copy to Ephesus, as something like a theological “testament” (see Bornkamm 1971a: 88–96; 1971b).
Although presented as a defense argument, the main thesis of which is stated in 1:16–17, Paul’s letter contains more than merely an apology for views he has always held. In comparison with his earlier letters, Paul in Romans writes with much greater circumspection and complexity. This letter includes elaborate discussions of theological topics previously argued, or at least mentioned, topics that are entirely new, and, most importantly, revisions of earlier positions on significant theological doctrines. It is incorrect to think, therefore, that in Romans Paul merely presents a fuller version of what he more briefly sets forth in other letters.
The point of Paul’s argument as a whole is to explain the reasons why he still refuses to be ashamed of the gospel as he has been preaching it, and why his gospel is indeed God’s power achieving salvation for every believer, Jew or Greek (1:16–17). If he can successfully demonstrate this, he can hope the Romans will not be embarrassed by his visit and will support his plans for a mission in Spain (15:22–24).
As the opening thesis (1:16–17) indicates, Paul bases his entire argument on the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. This doctrine had, of course, been argued before in Galatians and Philemon, and with special application in the Corinthian letters, but its full development in terms of a history of salvation reaching from Adam (5:12) to the parousia (2:5, 16; 8:31–39; 13:11–14) occurs only in Romans. The application of this pivotal doctrine to history has abbreviated parallels in 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49 and Gal 3:6–29, but the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the approach in Romans is a new achievement.
As Paul begins citing his proofs, he first offers a radical critique of paganism (1:18–32) and Judaism (2:1–3:8); this approach is new as well, although elements have occurred in earlier letters (cf. Gal 3:19–25; 4:8–10; Phil 3:2–9; 1 Cor 8–10; 2 Cor 10:1–13:10). While all ancient religions are, according to the apostle, corrupt to the core, divine restitution began with Abraham and reaches all the way to Christ (Rom 4:1–25; cf. Gal 3:6–25). Abraham and Christ, therefore, are the two main pillars on whom the doctrine of justification by faith rests (3:9–31). Unlike Galatians, in Romans Paul does not repudiate the Torah (see 7:12, 16, 21–23; 8:2–8), but instead argues in favor of being a “genuine” Jew and against being a Jew by pretense (2:1–29). The prototype of the genuine Jew is Abraham, who was declared righteous by God even though neither Torah nor circumcision existed at that time. His righteousness was his unconditional faith in God, on account of which he received God’s promise. This promise finds fulfilment in Jesus Christ, and is subsequently applied to all who believe in him (4:1–25); therefore, Christ, not Abraham, provides access to God’s grace for all believers (5:1–12). Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, the new and second Adam, has overcome the human corruption endemic in the race since Adam and now makes possible for humanity a means of deliverance from the domination by sin and death that resulted from Adam’s fall (5:12–21; cf. 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49).
Chapters 6–8 set forth the benefits of Christ’s salvation. Initially Paul refers to the doctrine of baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ (6:1–11), writing that through baptism the Christian is sacramentally initiated into and made a partaker of Christ’s death and resurrection as a salvation event (see BTNT 1: 292–314; Conzelmann 1969: 199–212; Wedderburn 1987). Though Paul has mentioned the basic components of this teaching in Gal 3:26–28 (cf. 1 Cor 1:13–17), the comprehensiveness of what he says here goes beyond anything he previously wrote about baptism. He has spelled it out here because baptism links the Christian to Christ’s salvation and thereby provides the basis for the Christian’s participation in the benefits of Christ’s salvation about to be discussed. The first of Christ’s benefits which Paul presents is liberation from the enslaving power of sin (6:12–23), a doctrine which seems to be older and already presupposed in the earlier letters (1 Thessalonians, however, does not mention it). The second benefit, liberation from the law (7:1–25a), expands what Paul had previously said only when referring to his own paradigmatic experience (Gal 2:19–20; Phil 3:7–8). The third benefit is liberation from death (Rom 8:1–30), an idea with antecedents in 1 Thess 4:13–17 and Gal 2:19–20 (also Phil 1:12–26; 1 Cor 15:50–57; 2 Cor 1:3–11; 2:14–17; 4:7–5:15; 13:3–4), but not before stated as a part of an overarching salvation doctrine. These benefits reach their climax with the fourth, viz. the eschatological union with God (Rom 8:31–39; cf. 1 Cor 15:20–28).
The final section on the history of salvation concerns the relationship between Jews and Christians in future history (Romans 9–11), a dimension which Paul had never before addressed. Recognition of this as an issue presupposes Paul’s concession that the parousia will not be imminent (cf. 13:11–14) and that there will be two religions, Judaism and Christianity, existing side by side for some time to come. Paul still argues on the premises of his doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ that Jews and Christians will have to coexist, stimulating and checking one another by peaceful competition (11:13–24). The final “mystery” will be disclosed when “the fullness of the gentiles enter into” the kingdom of God, and “all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).
This entire history of salvation is regarded as a succession of God’s merciful deeds (12:1), beginning with Abraham and ending when no accuser remains for the Last Judgment (8:31–39; 11:33–36). This grandiose historical and eschatological panoply is yet another new development in Paul’s theology.
A further significant shift in Paul’s thinking takes place in his ethics, for which the apostle finds a new foundation (Betz 1988). Instead of grounding Christian ethics simply in the spirit, as he does in his earlier letters, Paul develops a new concept in Rom 12:1–15:13. Paul now conceives of ethics as the human response to God’s merciful deeds in the history of salvation (chaps. 4–11). This response is a matter of obligation and involves the self-dedication, and, indeed, the self-sacrifice of the whole human person, body and mind (12:1).
Paul has also integrated the notion of spirit into the benefits of Christ (5:5; 7:6; 8:2–27). Thereby Paul has prevented the (Corinthian) misunderstanding of spirit in terms of individualistic spirit possession. The spirit cannot be divorced from the body because self-sacrifice includes the whole person. This person also belongs to the corporate body of the church (12:3–8; see also 1 Cor 12:12–27; Gal 3:26–28) and does not exist in isolation. Moreover, Christian existence is inconceivable without the norms set by the notion of love (agapē [12:9–21]). Concretely, Christian ethics is a matter of obligations toward society at large: the state (Rom 13:1–7), the law (13:8–14), and the weaker members of the Church (14:1–15:18).
3. Summary. The extant letters and letter fragments show an author constantly involved in debates and conflicts, trying to explain, defend, and recommend what he sees to be the implications of Christian life and thought. The urgency to engage in this dialogue grew out of Paul’s awareness that he and his assistants were taking part in momentous historical developments. This urgency pressed even harder when doom threatened Paul’s gentile mission, requiring that he provide theological warrant for it. Thus, through the course of his ministry Paul increasingly found that his task was not only to bring the Gospel to the gentiles, but to bring theological clarification to the Gospel.
As Paul attempted to make sense of Christian theology, the Damascus event provided an unexpected answer to an old Jewish question: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also?” Because Christ ordered Paul to preach the gospel to the gentiles, Paul could now answer boldly: “Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom 3:29). Thus the universality of the gospel commission confirmed the unity of God. The Damascus event also demonstrated that the Damascus Christians were correct, righteousness was available apart from Torah. Combining this realization with the unity of God, Paul concluded that the Gospel must provide a single, inclusive means of justification: “Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom 3:30). Thus, the doctrine of justification by faith was implicit in the Gospel message itself as Paul experienced it: coming to grips with it and making it explicit in ever greater clarity and detail is the thread that runs through Paul’s life and letters.
To raise a basic question yet again, does any continuity and consistency of thought underlie the shifts and changes, the theological reformulations and revisions evident in Paul’s letters? From the foregoing, we can say that despite changes of position, such as his realization that the parousia would be delayed and that the historical coexistence of Christian and non-Christian Judaism would persist for some time, Paul steadily held on to justification by faith. Moreover, if there was anything that established the theological identity and legitimacy of Christianity as a new religion, it was Paul’s discovery and exposition of the God who “in Christ” justifies a sinful and godless humanity.
Bibliography
- Barrett, C. K. 1982. Essays on Paul. Philadelphia.
- Bauer, W. 1988. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed., ed. by K. and B. Aland. Berlin.
- Baumgarten, J. 1975. Paulus und die Apokalyptik. WMANT 44. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
- Baur, F. C. 1845. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Stuttgart.
- Beker, J. 1980. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia.
———. 1988. Paul’s Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent? NTS 34: 364–77. - Betz, H. D. 1967. Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament. BHT 37. Tübingen.
———. 1972. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. BHT 45. Tübingen.
———. 1986a. The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology according to the Apostle Paul. Pp. 16–48 of L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye. BETL 73. Leuven.
———. 1986b. Paul in the Mani Biography (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis). Pp. 215–34 in Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, ed. L. Cirillo. Cosenza.
———. 1988. Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12, 1–2). ZTK 85: 199–218. - Boers, H. W. 1988. The Foundation of Paul’s Thought: A Methodological Investigation: The Problem of a Coherent Center of Paul’s Thought. StTh 42: 55–68.
- Bornkamm, G. 1971a. Paul. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. New York and Evanston.
———. 1971b. Der Römerbrief als Testament des Paulus. Vol. 4, pp. 120–39 of his Gesammelte Aufsätze. Munich. - Braun, H. 1967. Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. 2d ed. Tübingen.
- Bryan, C. 1988. A Further Look at Acts 16:1–3. JBL 107: 292–94.
- Bultmann, R. 1929–36. Zur Geschichte der Paulusforschung. TRu N.F. 1: 26–59; 6: 229–46; 8: 1–22.
———. 1967. Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, ed. E. Dinkler. Tübingen.
———. 1984. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 9th ed., ed. O. Merk. Tübingen. - Cohen, S. D. 1986. Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent. JBL 105: 251–68.
- Conzelmann, H. 1969. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Trans. J. Bowden. London.
———. 1974. Theologie als Schriftauslegung: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. BEvT 65. Munich. - Cullmann, O. 1959. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. H. Hall. London.
- Dahl, n. A. 1977. Studies in Paul. Minneapolis.
- Davies, W. D. 1955. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 2d ed. London.
———. 1984. Jewish and Pauline Studies. Philadelphia. - Dietzfelbinger, C. 1985. Die Berufung des Paulus als Ursprung seiner Theologie. WMANT 58. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
- Dinkler, E. 1967. Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie. Tübingen.
- Dockx, S. I. 1976. Chronologies néotestamentaires et vie de l’église primitive. Gembloux.
- Dodd, C. H. 1953. New Testament Studies. Manchester.
———. 1968. More New Testament Studies. Manchester. - Furnish, V. P. 1968. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville.
———. 1986. Development in Paul’s Thought. JAAR 48: 289–303. - Georgi, D. 1986. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Rev. ed. and trans. Philadelphia.
- Güttgemanns, E. 1966. Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr. FRLANT 90. Göttingen.
- Haacker, K. 1972. War Paulus Hillelit? Pp. 106–20 of Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität Tübingen in den Jahren 1971–72. Tübingen.
- Hahn, F. 1969. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. Trans. H. Knight and G. Ogg. New York.
- Hanson, A. T. 1974. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids.
- Hoffmann, P. 1978. Die Toten in Christus. 3d ed. NTA 3. Münster.
- Hübner, H. 1984. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh.
- Jeremias, J. 1969. Paulus als Hillelit. Pp. 88–94 in Neotestamentica et Semitica (M. Blackfestschrift). Ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh.
- Jewett, R. 1979. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia.
Jüngel, E. 1962. Paulus und Jesus. HUTh 2. Tübingen. - Käsemann, E. 1964. Essays on New Testament Themes. Trans. W. J. Montague. London.
———. 1969. New Testament Questions of Today. Trans. W. J. Montague. Philadelphia.
———. 1971. Perspectives on Paul. Trans. M. Kohl. London. - Klein, G. 1988. Ein Sturmzentrum der Paulusforschung. VF 33: 40–56.
- Knox, J. 1950. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Nashville. Rev. ed. Macon, GA, 1987.
- Koch, D.-A. 1986. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tübingen.
- Koester, H. 1961. The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Phil III). NTS 8: 317–32
- .———. 1982. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Berlin.
- Kümmel, W. G. 1975. Introduction to the New Testament. Trans. H. C. Kee. Nashville.
- Lindemann, A. 1979. Paulus im ältesten Christentum. BHT 58. Tübingen.
- ———. 1986. Die biblischen Toragebote und die paulinische Ethik. Pp. 242–65 of Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Berlin.
- Lüdemann, G. 1980–83. Paulus, der Heidenapostel. 2 vols. FRLANT 123, 130. Göttingen.
———. 1983. Paulus und das Judentum. Munich.
———. 1984. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Trans. F. S. Jones. Philadelphia.
———. 1988. Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts. Trans. F. S. Jones. Philadelphia. - McDonald, D. R. 1983. The Legend and the Apostle. Philadelphia.
- Meeks, W. A. 1983. The First Urban Christians. New Haven.
- Meeks, W. A., ed. 1972. The Wriitings of St. Paul. New York.
- Merk, O. 1988. Paulus-Forschung 1936–1985. TRu 53: 1–81.
- Metzger, B. 1960. Index to Periodical Literature on the Apostle Paul. NTTS 1. Leiden.
- Nock, A. D. 1938. St. Paul. London.
- Oepke, A. 1933. Probleme der vorchristlichen Zeit des Paulus. TSK 105: 387–424.
- Ollrog, W. H. 1979. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. WMANT 50. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
- Pedersen, S., ed. 1980. Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Århus.
- Räisänen, H. 1987. Paul and the Law. 2d ed. WUNT 29. Tübingen.
- Rengstorf, K. H., ed. 1964. Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen Forschung. Darmstadt.
- Rigaux, B. 1968. The Letters of St. Paul: Modern Studies. Chicago.
- Safrai, S. 1976. Education and the Study of the Torah. Pp. 945–70 of The Jewish People in the First Century. CRINT 1/2. Philadelphia.
- Saldarini, A. J. 1988. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. Wilmington, DE.
- Sanders, E. P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia.
———. 1983. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia.
Schmeller, T. 1987. Paulus und die “Diatribe.” NTAbh N.F. 19. Münster. - Schneemelcher, W. 1987–89. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen. 2 vols. 5th ed. Tübingen.
- Schneider, G. 1980–82. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. HTKNT 5. Freiburg, Basel, Vienna.
- Schoeps, H. J. 1961. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Trans. H. Knight. Philadelphia.
- Schweitzer, A. 1912. Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History. Trans. W. Montgomery. London.
- Stendahl, K. 1976. Paul among the Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia.
- Strecker, G. 1976. Befreiung und Rechtfertigung. Zur Stellung der Rechtfertigungslehre in der Theologie des Paulus. Pp. 479–508 of Rechtfertigung. FS für E. Käsemann, ed. J. Friedrich et al. Göttingen.
- Suhl, A. 1975. Paulus und seine Briefe. SNT 11. Gütersloh.
- Thüsing, W. 1986. Per Christum in Deum. Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. 2 vols. 3d ed. NTAbh 1. Münster.
- Vanhoye, A., ed. 1986. L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère. BETL 73. Leuven.
- Van Unnik, W. C. 1973. Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth. Vol. 1, pp. 259–320, 321–27 of his Sparsa Collecta. Leiden.
- Vielhauer, P. 1966. On the “Paulinism” of Acts. Pp. 33–50 of Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. Nashville.
———. 1975. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin. - Wedderburn, A. J. M. 1987. Baptism and Resurrection. WUNT 44. Tübingen.
- Westerholm, S. 1986–87. On Fulfilling the Whole Law (Gal. 5:14). SEÅ 51–52: 229–37.
———. 1988. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Grand Rapids. - Wilckens, U. 1982. Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverständnisses. NTS 28: 154–90.
- Wolter, M. 1988. Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition. FRLANT 146. Göttingen.
NTApocr E. Henneke. New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher. Trans. R. McL. Wilson. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1963–65
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Berlin, 1972–
etc. et cetera (and so forth)
cf. confer, compare
Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
HJP² E. Schürer. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., ed. and trans. G. Vermes et al. Edinburgh, 1973–87
1 Clem. 1 Clement
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
esp. especially
RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
a.d. anno domini (year)
ca. circa (about, approximately)
BTNT R. Bultmann. 1955. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Trans. K. Grobel. New York and London
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
NTS New Testament Studies, Cambridge, MA
BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
StTh Studia Theologica
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
TRu Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen
BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie
Theology Theology, London
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
VF Verkündigung und Forschung
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
et al. et alii (and others)
SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament
SEÅ Studia Evangelica I, II, III (= TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], etc.)
