pauls notion of the freedom of god in christ!

8/13/2019 Pauls Notion of the Freedom of God in Christ!

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pauls-notion-of-the-freedom-of-god-in-christ 1/16



For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: He who is righteous will live by faith.

In these verses, Paul describes the gospel as God’s declaration of salvation to theworld; as the epiphany of His eschatological power.13Here, the Jews and Greeksrepresent the whole cosmos and the dikaiosyne theou, “righteousness of God”, is

proclaimed as the righteousness of faith.14 Though Paul’s understanding of the

righteousness of God is viewed differently by various scholars,15Käsemann sees inPaul’s phrase a rich and multifaceted concept, incorporating an indissolubleconnection of both power and gift. To Paul then, the righteousness of God is Hissovereignty over the world revealing itself eschatologically in Jesus.16The universalnature of the righteousness of God is only grasped when the world, before and apartfrom Christ, is seen as under the wrath of God. Firstly, the spotlight falls upon theGentile world, then the religious humanity, specifically represented by Judaism.17Insharp antithesis to the depicted hopelessness of humanity, Romans 3:21-31 speaks ofworldwide salvation for the cosmos under the wrath of God in the context of

Christ’s lordship, for in him, the new aeon has already broken into the old.18Theeschatological end of the world proclaims itself anthropologically £s the end of one’sown way of salvation. Faith, in this context, is the renunciation of humanaccomplishment which Paul illustrates by the example of Abraham.19

In Romans 5-8, Paul spells out the gospel in terms of the righteousness of faith asa reality of eschatological freedom.

2. As Eschatological Freedom (Rom. 5-7)

(a) Freedom from the Power of Death (Rom. 5:1-21)The goal of Paul’s argument in this passage is the doctrine of justification,

especially as it relates to freedom from the power of death.20To facilitate his thought,he sets up the Adam-Christ typology where the reign of Christ confronts the reign ofsin and death initiated by Adam. Both Adam and Christ are viewed as primalfigures who inaugurate different worlds.21

In the world inaugurated by Adam, humankind always finds itself in the power ofsin and death. By his disobedience,22Adam determined this present world in whichwe áre in the grip of forces which seize our existence and determine our will to the

extent that we cannot choose freely. The law proclaims eschatological judgement,23 but even before the law, punishment fell on sin according to the nexus of act andconsequence, in that God “gave up” the world to general corruption.24 Even theworld not determined by the law is involved in general rebellion against God andthus suffers the corresponding retribution of being consigned to the destiny ofdeath.25Paul is speaking of ruling powers of the cosmos which implicate all peopleindividually thus making anthropology a projection of cosmology.26

Paul speaks of Adam and the first aeon in order to present the effect of the act ofsalvation against this background. Christ is the author and representative of the newaeon which confronts the old. In Romans 5:15-17, Paul introduces the motif ofeschatological superiority and shows how Christ, as bearer of the destiny for theend-time is superior to Adam the bearer of the destiny for the fall-determined



effective power, which continues to threaten the believer from outside even though itno longer has any claim on him.43Just as death severs ties in the social sphere, so the

believer is no longer in relation to the law of Moses.44The argument about freedom from sin in the previous chapter is repeated and

transferred to the law here. Just as the dominion of the risen Lord brings freedomfrom sin at baptism, so too he brings freedom from the law.45 Romans 7:4 looksagain to baptism and motifs of the previous chapter are repeated here. “Lusts” ofRomans 6:12 are described here as “passions of sins” (Rom. 7:5) and the “old man”within us (Rom. 6:6) which is crucified, is now specified as en sarki, “in the flesh”, theuniversal dimension of the flesh which was introduced by the first Adam. In

baptism, incorporation into the reign of Christ and total separation from the lawcoincide. It is the Torah itself which is done away with, not just the curse of the law.46

Freedom from the powers of sin and death takes concrete shape in freedom fromthe law. This can only be maintained “in the Spirit”. For Paul, the antithesis of letterand Spirit (Rom. 7:6) is the same as flesh and Spirit. The presence of the risen Lordin the power of the Spirit takes the place of the Torah of Moses. In baptism, the

believer comes under the dominion of the Spirit, thus breaking and vanquishing thedominion of the law. If the Torah is merely internalised, then salvation is restricted tothe pious only, and world order would be proclaimed under the banner of the law.But for Paul, the doctrine of justification is for the ungodly, so wherever this is the

premise, freedom from the law has to be proclaimed.47

III. PAUL’S THEOLOGIA CRUCIS

1. Theologia Crucis — A ScandalPaul refers to the cross and the Crucified (One) almost in a technical manner; anemphasis which is clearly seen in the gloss, “even death on a cross” which Paul addsto the Christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. This gloss signals the unusualdegree of suffering and humiliation connected with this death. The motif of thecurse,48adopted from the Old Testament which judged the man who died this way to be unclean and excluded from the covenant community of God,49 stresses itscriminal nature. Hebrews 13:12-13 carries this notion further with the motif ofGod-forsakenness when it speaks of dying outside the camp of the covenant

community. In antiquity, temples were visual abodes of the divine presence. The populace was also aware of places which were distant from God. Both Paul and theauthor of Hebrews understand that Jesus died, not only as a common criminal, butalso outside the limits of consecrated ground. As a liberal Jewish rabbi, Jesus turnedaway from the religiosity of his time tö publicans and sinners,50and so scandalisedhis contemporaries because he ventured into the domain where it was assumed thatGod was absent.51 For Paul, then, to preach Christ crucified, to honour one whowas cursed, to venerate one who died at a place where God was deemed absent, thiswas a frightful scandal in his day!52

The offense of the cross was not derived solely from the means of execution. Itwas not that anybody όη a cross would do. To Paul, it was important that it was thedeath of Jes s on the cross 53The offense la in the fact that the cross clima ed the



is “Christ died for our sins”, which is found in one of its many forms in the oldestconfessional tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3.55 The traditional usage alreadyemphasised the love and grace of God, the representative work of Christ and the sinswhich alienated us from salvation. It already understood the death of Jesus as thegreat turning point where God no longer abandoned humankind to hopelessness.56

To this, Paul added a new depth.

Paul understood that salvation is directly and unmistakably related to the deathof Jesus. He describes the Jesus who died on the cross as the “obedient man” who isthe eschatological antitype of Adam who surrendered his creatureliness bydisobedience.57Thereby the obedient Jesus is the beginning of a new creation and

the manifestation of freedom.For Paul, the cross showed that God is the Creator who brings existence out of

nothing, calls creation out of chaos and proves to be the one who raises the dead.58Christ’s resurrection is the revelation of that. Resurrection is not an extension ofearthly life, but the reign of God which begins beyond the realm of rebellion and

death.59Paul develops an important nuance in the formula, “Christ died for our sins”,

when he speaks of dying for the ungodly,60 for the brethren61 and for all.62 Thecentral motif, “for us”, can mean both “for our sakes” or “to our advantage” and “inour stead” or “as our representative”.63These meanings confirm the fact that man isincapable of working out his own salvation. The cross shows that true man is alwaysthe sinner and cannot help himself. He is part of a world that is lost and chaotic andawaiting the resurrection of the dead. The cross of Jesus remains a scandal for Jewsand Gentiles in that it exposes humanity’s illusion that it can, by its own capabilities,

exalt itself against God. But God demonstrates, by the cross, that only He, ascreator, saves.

Paul declares that the doctrine of justification is firmly rooted in the death of Jesuson a cross, which he interprets as “Christ for us”. The Christ who died becomes thecreator of a new humanity freeing us from the temptation of trying to achieve ourown salvation.

3. Theologia Crucis — a Sacrificial Death?It has been common for scholars to emphasise the idea of Jesus’ death as a

sacrifice.64His death in Romans 3:25 has been traditionally understood as a meansof atonement, particularly in terms of the liturgical metaphor, “blood of Jesus”. This,and the sacrificial motif of 1Corinthians 10:18-21 where the Eucharist is comparedwith Jewish and pagan sacrificial practices, tend towards an explanation of the “forus” in terms of sacrifice. Paul seems to be familiar with this notion and uses it inRomans 12:1,15:16 and Philippians 2:17. So the possibility that it has Christologicalovertones cannot be excluded.

On the other hand, Paul does not explicitly call Jesus’ death a sacrifice: only pre-Pauline tradition can be cited to support this view;65a notion which Paul tendsto play down when he took over the death-of-Jesus tradition. In 1Corinthians 5:7,where Jesus is described as the passover lamb sacrificed for us, the context suggests



phrase of Galatians 1:4, “delivering us from the present evil age”. Paul develops thisidea more fully in Romans 8:32-39: the death of Jesus means freedom from thecosmic powers and, as the obedient one, he leads those who have renounced Adam’srebellion into the eschatological future. Even though they face earthly trials, theyfind their sufficiency in the grace of the Lord and manifest the power of heavenlyfreedom.68

Though the motif of reconciliation has been interpreted in terms of thesubstitutionary penal suffering of Christ,69to Paul it means the ending of enmity.70Reconciliation, to be proclaimed by the apostles everywhere, is offered to the wholeworld; yet it is only realised where we become disciples of Jesus for, of ourselves, weare unable to end the state of enmity. Paul sharpens the focus of former traditionwhich spoke of reconciliation in terms of forgiveness,71 and emphasises insteadfreedom from the power of sin, death and divine wrath.72

Therefore, though Paul is aware of the motif of sacrifice and the pre-Paulineinterpretation of Jesus’ death as atonement, he criticised the tradition he took over;

preferring to interpret redemption as liberation rather than buying back, andreconciliation as the end of enmity rather than forgiveness.

4. Theologia Cruets — Jesus9Freedom as Paul’s Criterion

Jesus’acts of freedom were primarily seen in his attitude towards the Mosaic Lawand scribal tradition. He broke the purity regulations73and the sabbath command;74he committed sacrilege by placing such importance upon people following him that

it took precedence over burying their father’s corpse;75he reversed rabbinic casuistry by making vows to God secondary to children’s responsibility for needy parents,76and even allowed for the interruption of the offering of a sacrifice;77he proclaimed aGod for sinners and included them in his contacts,78 and even tolerated womenamong his followers;79he spoke with authority, putting aside the Mosaic legislationwith the recorded customary phrase, “But I say unto you80. These are but some ofthe ways in which the Gospel tradition preserves the notion of Jesus’ freedom as he

proclaimed the basileia of God and attacked Jewish law and order.Yet this freedom was sharply contested by the religious authorities whose aim was

to sharpen the Law and intensify its observance. Jesus’freedom caused deep offence.They supposed him to be a rebel who was possessed;81they interpreted his freedomas blasphemy against God which infringed His rights;82they denounced him to theRomans as a threat to political stability.83 The inevitable consequence of Jesus’euangelion was the cross. The cross was caused by the reaction of an evil world withits intolerances and opposition.

Jesus’ freedom was the criterion of Paul’s theologia crucis. It was Paul who sawmost clearly that the God of Jesus was no longer the God of the Jews and thereligious ones only, but also the God of Gentiles.84It was Paul who interpreted Jesus’

freedom theologically as he proclaimed eschatological freedom for recipients of therighteousness of God. But it was also Paul who understood the conflict with theworld that resulted from this freedom Rather than interpreting the cross as part of



Paul found himself unable to adopt the Corinthians’ premise that the Christian participates, not only in the cross of his Lord, but also in his resurrection. In 1Corinthians 15:20-28, the central theme of Paul’s doctrine of resurrection is thatChrist must reign. Yet he adds the qualification that death remains the last enemyand has not, for the present, been overcome.100He does not interpret the exaltation

of Christ as the end of history;101rather his sovereignty has yet to be finalised by theconquest of death. He is not yet the final victor.102For Paul, the exalted Christ still bears the nail-marks of the earthly Jesus. Christ remains the Crucified One; hissovereignty is not understood if the cross is merely made the last station on hisearthly way: or, to put it another way, if Jesus’ death is moved into the shadow of hisexaltation. The cross is not the way to the kingdom; nor the price of it: the cross is thesignature of the one who is risen.103In this manner, Paul shows that, rather than thecross being a chapter of resurrection dogmatics, the correct emphasis is that theresurrection is only one aspect of the message of the cross.104

The apostle not only corrects the enthusiasts’ Christology, but also their doctrineof salvation which proceeds from it.105He agrees that baptism effects participationin the destiny of the second Adam and conveys involvement in the heavenly life bymaking the “new obedience” possible; yet he refuses to follow the enthusiasts whodeclared baptism to be a full participation in the resurrection life of Christ. He erectsan eschatolgoical reservation and speaks of sharing in the resurrection in the futuretense.106 If baptism makes the “new obedience” possible, it is still only ananticipatory hint of what is still in the future. Christ alone is risen: but the gift of theSpirit is the believer’s pledge of being raised in the future.107

He further rectifies their traditions of the sacraments of, and participation in,Jesus’ death.108 To share in Jesus’ death means to bear the cross after him.Philippians 3:10 sheds light on Paul’s thought here. The result of knowing Christand the power of his resurrection is so the believer may share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. Believers can remain under the power of theresurrection and in the hope of being raised again only when the crucified Christrules over them and is glorified through them. In this way, the enthusiasts whofancied themselves already in heaven were brought down to earth as Paul proclaimsthat the completion of salvation is still in the future:109in the meantime, to know

Christ is to share in his suffering.Just as Paul’s attack on the Corinthians’ theology of resurrection did not deny theresurrection but understood it differently, so the theology of the cross does nothamper the freedom of God’s children, but puts it between blind obedience and theenthusiasts’ excesses. Rather than freedom being the logical outcome of aresurrection that had already taken place, it was a freedom within the anticipation ofa resurrection still expected.110The renewed person, rather than being closed up andensnared in himself, stands in the expanse of grace and the Spirit for “where theSpirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”.111

The Corinthians thought that Jesus bore the cross so that believers might partakeof his exaltation. This notion was extended so far that they believed that Christ wasmade human so they might become divine 112Paul contested this viewby presenting



“nobodies”.135On the other hand, the result of the theology of the word of the sophia group who substituted a wisdom of the world for the word of the cross was that theyactually undid the basis of their salvation and emptied the cross of its power.136

Just as Paul used the “word of the cross as the criterion forjudging a theology ofthe word, so too it becomes the standard for measuring true apostleship. The onlyinfallible token he offers in his defence is that the apostolic character bears the stamp

of the cross. “If I must boast,” he says, “I will boast in the things that show myweakness.”137 Because of their different Christology, Paul’s opponents failed tounderstand the eschatological tension in Christian existence and so boast of theirworks by the Spirit. In contrast, Paul places a Christian’s earthly existence under thesign of the cross. He, too, can boast of visions and revelations;138but, rather than

boasting of his accomplishments, he boasts of his vulnerability. The series ofenumerations of his acts and sufferings139is not the account of the life and fortunesof a hero; rather they are the declaration of the power of God who delivers him. His

boast is that in suffering, weakness, persecution and trials, Christ’s power is made

perfect140as he carries in his body the death of Jesus.141In addressing the numerous problems that arose in the Hellenistic enthusiasticmilieu at Corinth, Paul used the theologia crucis as the criterion to judge christology,soteriology, Christian freedom, theology of the word and apostleship.

V. PAUL’S THEOLOGIA CRUCIS AS A CRITERION IN GALATIA

1. Cosmología Crucis — An Implication of Theologia Crucis?What was the cause of Paul’s agitation and concern as he penned the letter to the

Galatians? It would seem that he was deeply troubled about his readers’

vulnerability to “another gospel”142purported by his opponents:143a reconstructionof whose origins and views can only be based on the epistle itself.144

Perhaps a summary phrase of the adversaries’ position is that they “boast or gloryin the flesh”.145 If Paul calls his gospel “a gospel of uncircumcision”,146 then presumably the “other” gospel was one of circumcision.147Regarded as a sign ofGod’s covenant with the nation of Israel, circumcision seemed to be the chiefconcern of those who gloried in the flesh. Paul traces this boast to two specificdesires: the desire to obey the Law and the desire to avoid persecution for the cross ofChrist.148Paul renounces both these desires. He tells his readers that any return to

Judaism makes the cross of Jesus invalid.I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness were through the Law, then Christ

died to no purpose.149

Further, he discredits this “other” gospel by claiming that in avoiding persecution,

the scandal of the cross is removed.150In defending the truth of the gospel of freedom, Paul again calls upon the

theologia crucis as a criterion. Whüe his opponents glory in the flesh, Pauldetermines not to boast in anything save the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.151Apartfrom glorying in the flesh, Paul outlines two more alternatives to glorying in thecross. These are glorying in self or boasting in the cosmos. Yet for him, both thesealternatives have been ruled out in as much that both have been crucified



26. Käsemann, Romans, 150. Käsemann explains that the transition in Rom 5:12d is not implying

the theory of original sin; nor is it a transition from cosmic outlook to individual or mythical curse to responsible decision. Rather it is a transition from the motive of destiny to the scope of the disaster. He also rejects the existentialist interpretation which ascribes the m otif of destiny to

pre-Pauline tradition. See 148-50.

27. K’àsemann, Rom an s, 152-3. Käsemann rejects the view that eschatological superiority is the

loving will of God being stronger than wrath or that the law has broken the analogy between Adam and Christ. See 152.

28. This is in contrast to justification of the ungodly as a change of course or expunging prior guilt. See Käsemann, Rom an s, 155.

29. Käsemann, Romans, 156. 30. Käsemann, Rom an s, 156. 31. Käsemann, Romans, 159.

32. Rom 6:6.

33. For the view that baptism is a sacramental experience of the death of Jesus see W. G. Kümmel, The Theology o f the New Testament, according to its major Witnesses: Jesus — Paul — John

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1973)215. For a criticism of this view, see Oscar Cullman, Baptism in the

New Testament (London: SCM, 1950).

34. Kasemann, Roman s, 162. For the possibility that Hellenistic mystery cults influenced the rite of baptism see R. Bultmann, Theology of the N ew Testament , 1:167-9. For an outline of the

differences between the Hellenistic mysticism and the Pauline tradition see ICC: Roman s, ed. C. E. B. Cranfield (1895; reprinted., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 1.301-2.

35. See Rom 8:29, Phil 3:10,21. 36. Rom 6:4,6,8.

37. Bultmann, Theology o f the New Testament , 1:140. 38. Furnish, 174.

39. Käsemann, Rom ans, 171.

40. For a discussion of the relationship of justification to sanctification in the context o f ethics, see

C. H. Dodd, M NTC: The Epistle o f Paul to the Rom an s (London: Hodder Stoughton, 1932) 96-9. For a discussion of this problem in the context of Pauline eschatology, see Furnish, 262.

41. Käsemann, Rom an s, 163. Bultmann seems to present freedom from sin as the result of the

obedience o f faith, so that believers experience a paradoxical servitude. See his Theology o f the

New Testament , 1:330-40. Graham Shaw also supports this view of a paradoxical servitude. See

his book, The Cost o f Auth ority: Manipulation and Freedom in the New Testament (London: SC M, 1983) 158-61. Shaw regards sin as an offence, rather than a power; as does Roger Trigg

when he asks what the relationship is between the concept of sin and freedom. See his article, “Sin and Freedom”, RelS 20 (1984) 191-202.

42. In the Jes us-Paul debate, a case has been made that their view o f the Law is similar because o f its root in com mon eschatological conviction. For a discussion o f this issue, see S. G. Wilson, 11 &

Í4.

43. Käsemann, Rom an s, 186.44. Rom 7:2-4. Freedom from the Law, to Bultmann, has a dialectic or paradoxical character. See

his Theology o f the New Testament , 1:341-3.

45. Rom 6:4 cf Rom 7:4.

46. Käsemann, Rom an s, 189. For the view that it is only the tyranny o f legality and moral order of retribution which is removed, see C. H. Dodd, The Meaning o f Paul fo r Today (London: Collins, 1958) 71. Bultmann claims that Christ is the end o f the Law in so far as it is a way of salvation by which man establishes his own righteousness. See his Theology o f the New

Testament , 1:341. John W. Drane argues that Paul seems to be implying that, though the

fpnction of the Law has been radically altered ..., it is not altogether abolished. See his book,

Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Stu dv in the Theology o f the M ajor Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975) 133.

47. Kasemann, Rom an s, 191. W. D. Davies warns against interpreting Paul's view of the Law



55. Perhaps the origin o f this formula was the proclamation of the Suffering Servant and its Sitz im

Leben, the message for the Last Supper. See Ernst Käsemann, “The Pauline Theology of the

Cross , Int 24 (1970) 158.

56. Käsemann, Perspec tives , 39-49. 57. See the Adam-Christ typology in Ro m 5:12-1.

58. Ro m 8:19-23. 59. Käsemann, Perspectives , 40 & 42. 60. Ro m 5:6-8. 61. Rom 14:15.

62. 2 Cor 5:14. 63. Käsemann, Pauline Theology, 158.

64. J. Jeremias, The Central Message o f the N T ( New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965) 31-51. Vincent Taylor, “The Teaching o f St Pau l”, The Cross o f Christ: Eight Public Lectures (London: Macmillan, 1956) 24-34. C. K. Barrett speaks of theologia crucis as a doctrine o f atonement in

his article, “Theologia Crucis — in Acts?” Theologia Crucis — Signum Crucis , Festschrift fur

Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag & Herausgegeben von Carl Andresen und Gunter Klein

(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1979) 73.

65. L. E. Keck argues that the interpretation of Jesus’ death as substitutionary in Rom 5:6-7 is a

post-Pauline gloss. See his article, “The Post-Pauline Interpretation of Jesus’ Death in Rom

5:5-7”, Theologia Crucis, 237-48.

66. Käsemann, Pauline Theology, 162. 67. 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23, Gal 3:13, 4:15.

68. Käsemann, Perspectives 45. For the view that Rom 8:32 is based on the Akedah story of Gen 22:17-18, see Alan F. Segal, “ ‘He Who Did Not Spare His Own S o n . . Jesus, Paul and the

Akedah”, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in honour o f Francis Wright Beare, 169-84. For a view

against the Agedah story in preference for 2 Sam 21:1-14 (David & Mephibosheth), see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion”, JB L

102(1983) 257-68.

69. Based upon Gal 3:13 and 2 Cor 5:21. 70. Rom 5:10.

71. See Rom 3:25, 2 Cor 5:19. It is striking that Paul does not use the expression, “forgiveness”, though he must have been aware of it in the Last Supper tradition. See Käsemann, Pauline

Theology, 163.

72. Rom 5:9,8:2. See also Robin S. Barbour, “Wisdom and the Cross in 1 Cor 1 and 2”, Theologia

Crucis — Signum Crucis, 59.

73. Matt 15:2. Mark 7:5. Luke 11:38. 74. Mark 2:23-28. Luke 6:6-11. 75. Matt 8:21-22.

76. Mark 7:8-13. 77. Matt 5:23-24. 78. Matt 9:10-12. 79. Matt 27:55-56.

80. Matt 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34,39,44. 81. Mark 3:22-27. John 8:48-59.

82. Matt 9:3, 26:65. Mark 14:64. 83. Luke 23:2,5. 84. Rom 5:6.

85. Ernst Kasemann, “The Jesus Tradition as Access to Christian Origins”, Colloquium 13 (1981) 9-10.

86. Kasemann, Jesus Means Freedom , 61.

87. This ou tlook in the NT is primarily seen in fragments of hymns and confessions of faith such as

Eph 2:5, 5:14 & Col 2:12. See also 1 Cor 15:20, 2 Cor 1:5, 2:14-16, 4:14, 13:4.88. Kasemann, Jesus Means Freedo m , 61. Contrary to this view, see Birger A. Pearson, “Did the

Gnostics Curse Jesus?” JB L 86 (1967) 301-5.

89. Kasemann, N T Ques, 127. 90. Kasemann, N T (hies, 125-6. 91. Kasemann, N T Ques, 126.

92. 1 Cor 11. 93. 1 Cor 14:26-28. 94. 1 Cor 11. 95. 1 Cor 7. 96. 1 Cor 5. 97. 1 Cor 7:20-24.

98. Cor 8-10. Against Conzelmann, Richard A. Horsley specifies the real ethical problem of 1 Cor

8-10 as “freedom of conscience”. See his article, “Consciousness & Freedom among the

Corinthians: 1 Cor 8-10”, CBQ 40 (1978) 574-89.

99. 1 Cor 2:2. 100. 1 Cor 15:26.

101. Rev C. J. Burdon, “Paul and the Crucified Church”, Exp Tim 95 (1983/4) 141-5.

102. For a discussion on the reign of Christ as the subjection of the cosmic powers and the reign of Christ which still has to conquer the power of death, see Kasemann, N T Ques, 134-6.



109.In discussing Paul’s modification of traditional material in Rom 8:18-25, Gager understands.329,Paul to be speaking o f salvation in terms o f “already” and “not yet”. See his article

.59,110.Kasemann, Jesus Means Freedom , 72. 11 1.2 Cor 3:17. 112. Kasemann, Perspectives

.59-60113.For a summary of the various views re origin of this phenomenon, see Barbour

.71,114.Paul calls these sophia fanatics the teleioi, “the perfect ones” in 1 Cor 2:6. Bornkamm

.75,115.1Cor 6:12, 10:23. 116. 2 Cor 3:1, 10:12. 117. 2 Cor 12:11, 11:23. 118. Bornkamm

.10:1119.2Cor 11:4. 120. 2 Cor 12:18. 121. 2 Cor 11:6. 122. 2 Cor

.2:4,4:20123.1Cor 1:17. 124. 1 Cor

16.For a denial that Paul is untrue to himself in adopting the gnostic opponents body2:6125.1Corof current ideas in 1 Cor 2:6-16, see Bornkamm, 162-4. F or the contrast of language and content

.60,between 1 Cor 1:18-2:5 and 1 Cor 2:6-16 see Barbour

126.Rom 10:14. For a discussion of the origin of the term, euangelion., see J. A. Fitzmyer, The

.350 ,Gospel in the Theology o f Paul

.2:2,1:18,23127.Kasemann, Perspectives , 49. 128. 2 Cor 11:4. 129. 1 Cor 1:22. 130. 1 Cor

.161,131.1Cor 1:18,23. 132. 1 Cor 1:28 cf Rom 4:17 & 2 Cor 4:6. 133. Bornkamm

.86(1976,134.L. E. Keck, The N T Experience o f Faith (Missouri: Bethany Press .11:30135.1Cor 1:26-31. 136. Barbour 60. 1 Cor 1:18. 137. 2 Cor

138.2Cor 12:1-7. Evidently, the itinerant preachers regarded their visionary and charismaticexperiences as proof that their souls had left the body behind and made contact with the Spirit.

.86,See Keck, New Testament Experience

.1:6139.1Cor 4. 2 Cor 4,6. 140. 2 Cor 12:9. 141. 2 Cor 4:8-12. 142. Gal

143.Hans D. Betz views the anti-Pauline opposition as Jewish Christian missionaries. See his book,Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 7. For an overview o f scholarship’s approach to P aul’s

.1-19(1979.,opponents in Galatia, see George Howard, Paul: Crisis in G alatia ( London: C.U.PHoward goes on to argue his thesis that the crisis in Galatia was the widening of the scope of the

gospel to include uncircumcised Gentiles, so that God became the universal god, rather than the

local deity of Israel. This could only be achieved in Christ who ended the divisive power o f the.65Law. For a summary of his view, see

144.For the problem of lack o f primary evidence about the opposition see Betz, 5. For a list o f facts.7 ,re the opposition which the epistle yields, see Betz

145.Gal 6:12-13. On the interpretation o f “boast” as “trust” see R. Bultmann, kauchaomai in TDNT ,

.111:649,eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich

.2:7146.Gal

147.For an explanation of the accusation in Gal 5:11 that Paul “still preached circumcision”, see.37-46,Peder Borgen, “Paul Preaches Circumcision”, Paul & Paulinism

148.Gal 6:12-13. For the theory that Jewish Christians faced persecution from a Zealot movement inthe period AD 48-52, see Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation”, N TS

.198-212(1970)17

.5:11149.Gal 2:21. 150. Gal

151.Gal 6:14. For the importance of the actuality of the crucifixion of Jesus see Paul S. Minear, “The.401,Crucified World: The Enigma of Gal 6:14”, Theologia Crucis — Signum Crucis

.397,152.Gal 2:20. 153. Gal 6:14. 154. Gal 2:19. 155. Minear

156.Minear, 397-8. This antithesis is to be seen earlier in the letter where Paul traces it back to.4:21-31,3:6-14Abraham and the definition of sonship and the two lines of descent. See Gal

157.Gal 6:17. The stigmata of Jesus may have been intended as an ironic antithesis to the good

.400,showing which his opponents wanted to make in the flesh by circumcision. See Minear.3:28158.Gal



Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

pauls notion of the freedom of god in christ!

Documents