Paul's spirituality of the Cross

Today I preached at two services with the good folk of Culloden Baptist Church on 1 Cor. 1.10-17 and 1 Cor. 1.18-2.5. In my latter sermon I touched upon the centre of Paul's spirituality and the word of the cross with a quote from by forthcoming Paul book: "The lesson of Paul is that a spirituality that is rooted in anything other than the cross of Christ will inevitably become novel, then triumphalistic, then wishy-washy, then worldly, then trivial, and finally, dead. For Paul, Christian spirituality is not a private matter that takes place in the mental events of our thought-life but it is manifested in action. A spirituality of the cross means not merely wearing a cross but carrying one as well."

The Antioch Incident: Richard Hays' View

In preparing to write a post on the issue of James and the Antiochean incident in Galatians 2:11-14, I have decided to address the issue by surveying and critically assessing interpretations of Galatians 2:11-14. I will in each case attend to three questions, although another is no less important and certainly interesting but not relevant for my interests here. The three questions are (1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter? (2) What role does James play in the circumstances? And (3) Who are “those of the circumcision” [lit.] or as in the NIV, “the circumcision group” or in the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”? The question that is not relevant for our interest here is the question of when the incident took place. While the consensus remains that it happened after the Jerusalem council in the early 50’s C.E.—so Acts 15=Gal 2:1-11—no argument is without its problems and I remain persuaded by the view that Gal 2:1-11 is a reference to Luke’s famine visit by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 11. The incident in this scheme took place in 48 A.D. and Paul wrote his missive to churches in southern Galatia in 49 C.E. while on his way to the Jerusalem council.[1]

.

I begin with Richard Hays interpretation.[2]

(1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
Peter’s hypocrisy (hypokrisei) according to Hays was not that he disregarded “basic Jewish dietary laws by eating meat with blood in it, or pork and shellfish”, because he reasons, “it seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced in Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were drawn primarily from the ranks of the ‘godfearers’, who presumably would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices”. Instead, Hays suggests that the issue was Peter’s disassociation from the Gentiles at the table. The likelihood of this interpretation is strengthened by Gal 2:12 which speaks not of food per se, but “eating with” the Gentiles. Hays goes on to observe that eating with Gentiles is not forbidden by the Torah, but scrupulous Torah-observant Judeans thought of this as equivalent to eating Gentile food, since their presumption was that all Gentiles were idolaters.

(2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
Hays believes James is the force in the story. This is borne out in various remarks: Hays says that the “men from James” pressured Peter to “stop eating with Gentile believers”; that “James [was] worried that too much fraternization with Gentiles would have bad results”; and that “the response of this fraction at Jerusalem [judean Jewish Christians] was to urge Peter, with the blessing of James, to avoid contact with Gentiles”.

(3) Who are “those of the circumcision”?
Hays while acknowledging the ambiguity of the phrase “those from the circumcision” he appeals to other contexts, namely Rom 4:12, to support the view that this designation denotes Jewish Christians. With no substantial support, Hays hesitantly concludes “it appears that Paul is accusing Peter of fearing other Jewish Christians in Antioch”.

Evaluation
While I find Hays answer to the first question convincing and correct, his answer to the second is lacking textual support. The text says neither that the “men from James” actively pressured Peter “to draw back” from associating with Gentiles, nor that James sent them for this purpose. The text simply states that before the “men from James” arrived Peter associated with Gentiles at the table, but after they arrived he stopped. Thus, the reason for his action could be as much his own fault as that of the guests from Jerusalem. Furthermore, the passage suggests the former (Peter’s own issue) since Paul’s confrontation is solely directed at Peter and those who joined him. One would expect that if Paul’s issue was with those from James his invective would be aimed at not only Peter, but also James and the Jerusalem church who, according to the standard view, were the real cause of the incident. As for his answer to the third question, it seems more reasonable to take ones cue from the immediate context where Paul uses the term to refer to the group that comprises Peter’s missionary scope in 2:7. In this case, clearly the group in view is non-believing Israelites and not Jewish believers in Jesus.

I will address my colleague Scot McKnight’s view in the next post.

.

----------------------
[1] For a similar chronology see Witherington 2004:275.
[2] Hays 2000.

.

Works Cited

Hays, Richard B. 2000. The Letter to the Galatians. In NIB, 11:183-348. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Witherington, Ben. 2004. The New Testament Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Paul and Rhetoric (once more)

I'm currently writing a short piece about the value of applying the categories from rhetorical handbooks to Paul's letters. Those who want of a short and readable introduction to the subject see Steve Walton, ‘Rhetorical Criticism: An Introduction’, Themelios 21 (1996): 4-9. The problem is the legitimacy and benefit of applying the categories of oral discourse to a written medium. As such scholars such as Mark Nanos, Markus Bockmuehl, and Stanley Porter have questioned the applicability of Graeco-Roman rhetoric to Paul's epistles.

There are a whole host of issues, responses, and counter-responses that come up in assessing this subject. The conclusion I am coming to is that Paul’s letters exhibit a functional rhetoric, although evidently not a formal rhetoric. Paul did not write Galatians with Aristotle’s Rhetorica by his side, nor is it likely that he dictated Romans with a view to imitating Quintilian or Cicero. Rhetorical parallels are evident, they affect the structure of his letters and the texture of the argumentation, but they do not control or determine the various facets of his letters. A conscious or unconscious amalgam and adaptation of epistolary structures, Jewish exegetical techniques, traditional Christian material, biographical self-references, Greco-Roman rhetorical forms, sermonic exhortation and explanation, apocalyptic and wisdom motifs, evangelistic zeal, and pastoral concern make Paul’s letters what they are. As such, it is necessary to integrate a study of rhetoric, in its various forms, into a comprehensive and holistic analysis of Paul’s letters.

Crash Test Dummies Wanted!

I have finished writing the first draft of my new book, Paul for the People of God (tentative title for IVP) and I am looking for three readers to read over it and to offer comments on how to make it "sing and sting" and achieve its purpose with greater effect. I am after a pastor/church minister, a lay-person, and a scholar. If you fit one of these categories then I will be happy to email the manuscript to you and we can converse from there. Best way to contact me is via email or leave a comment on the blog. First in first served. It is approx 95 pages or 55,000 words.

Here is an excerpt from the preface:

"This book is meant as an introduction to the Apostle Paul for lay-persons and undergraduate students and as a refresher for Pastors and Ministers. My objective is to get people excited about reading Paul’s letters, preaching Paul’s gospel, and living the Christian life the way that Paul thought it should be lived. My aim is to go deeper into Paul but without losing people in the mire of scholarly debates and complex technicalities. I want to show that what Paul has to say to the church today is both relevant and riveting. In short, this is Paul for the people of God."

Here's the TOC:

1. What is Paul?
2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus
3. The Stories behind the Story
4. Reading Somebody Else’s Mail
5. The Royal Announcement
6. The Crux of the Gospel
7. The Return of the King
8. One God, One Lord: Monotheism and the Messiah
9. Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts

10. Gospelizing 101

Paul and Perseverance

Today in my Pauline Theology class we had a lecture on Paul and Perseverance. I opened the lecture with a discussion about whether or not the bumper-sticker-theology phrase "once saved, always saved" is an appropriate representation of Paul's conception of perseverance. Views were expectedly diverse on the topic but mostly in favour of it. I set out to show that things are a little more complex than that. We then worked through the Pauline materials and had a bit of an intro to the view of Judith Gundry-Volf. After that I then asked the students to come up with a new bumper-sticker-theology phrase that more adequately describes Paul's perspective on perseverance while I went and made myself a drink. When I came back they had come up with this phrase:

Salvation! Work out what God has worked in!

Well done to Paul, Ian, Anne, George, and Dan.

Bywater on VanLandingham

Kevin Bywater (Ph.D cand. at Durham Uni) begins his review/evaluation of Chris VanLandingham's book on judgment and justification in Judaism and Paul. See his blog Living Waters.

Paul and Gender II

William Mounce (Pastoral Epistles, 103) approvingly cites this quotation from David M. Scholer:

"The concept of genuinely objective biblical interpretation is a myth. All interpretation is socially located, individually skewed, and ecclesiastically and theologically conditioned ... All biblical interpreters, regardless of where they now stand on the issue of women in ministry, have been deeply influenced by both the sexism and misogyny of our culture and also the currents of nineteenth-century women's rights and twentieth-century feminist movements."

In other words, the door of biases swings both ways.

Paul and Gender

I'm currently writing a chapter for my new Paul book and the chapter is called: Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts. It is honestly one of the hardest things I've ever written on (Jesus and the Law is # 2) and I am continuing to plow throw it with great caution and care. But I very much liked this quote from Judith Gundry-Volf:

"In sum, Paul seems to affirm both equality of status and roles of women and men in Christ and women’s subordinate or secondary place. He appears to think that sometimes the difference between male and female is to be expressed in patriarchal conventions and that sometimes these conventions should be transcended or laid aside."

Judith Gundry-Volf, ‘Paul on Women and Gender: A Comparison of Early Jewish Views,’ in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on his Life, Thought, and Ministry, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 186.

Paul and Scripture Seminar

The website for the Paul and Scripture Seminar (SBL) is hosted by Bruce Frisk. The papers from the 2006 Washington meeting include the following:

Bruce N. Fisk, Westmont College

Synagogue Influence on Paul's Roman Readers

Stephen Moyise, University of Chichester UK
How does Paul Read Scripture?

Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College CA
Paul and his Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel

Christopher D. Stanley, St. Bonaventure University
The Role of the Audience in the Interpretation of Paul's References to the Jewish Scriptures

Diana M. Swancutt, Yale Divinity School
Scripture 'Reading' and Identity Formation in Paul: Paideia Among Believing Greeks

For those who do not know, Paul and Scripture is a battlefield between guys like Richard Hays one the one hand who think that Paul quotes Scripture with the literary context in mind and on other hand the likes of Chris Stanley who think that the context was not important and not evident to his readers (to put it simply).

Paul and Women - Articles to Read

There's a lot of stuff out there on Paul and women, but works that I have found helpful of late that are both exegetically sound, theologically sensitive, and also irenic in spirit, are:

Blomberg, Craig L. ‘Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul,’ in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Pauline Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 283-326.

Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004). See the interview with Sumner here .

Saldarini on Paul

Here's a good quote from Anthony Saldarini:

(1) His adherence to the Pharisaic mode of interpreting the law led him to attack a group which mounted a major challenge to the Pharisaic way of life. As some of the Pharisees had challenged and plotted against Jesus (according to the gospels), so Paul the Pharisee attacked the followers of Jesus who threatened Pharisaic influence on Jews and who more and more taught a significantly different understanding of Torah and the Jewish way of life. The Pharisees and the followers of Jesus especially clashed on the importance of purity laws, tithes and other ‘boundary mechanisms’ for maintaining the integrity of God’s people. (2) Paul kept the law as one was supposed to and achieved the righteousness from the law that was proper to it, Paul is not referring to a highly complex doctrine of works-righteousness vs. grace-righteousness, but simply saying that he lived a good life according to the rules. Paul’s point is that he was humanly acceptable according to the ordinary Jewish norms for proper behaviour toward God and fellow Jews; he had lived up to the expectation of society’s code of behaviour and could not be rejected as a disgruntled failure.

Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 134-37.

Blogging through Bird

I am glad to say that Brian Brown (no, not the Aussie actor) is doing a rolling blog review of my book: The Saving Righteousness of God. I am grateful for the kind words that Brian has said so far and am most pleased that people are finding the volume helpful.

Caneday on VanLandingham

Ardel Caneday (fresh from Cambridge) gives us his response to Chris VanLandingham's book Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul on his blog Biblia Theologica. As I'm currently reading this book (on weekends) and preparing an article review, I was most interested in his response and I am glad to say that I am in agreement with his critique.

What if Paul went East?

During Paul's Aegean mission, Luke reports that: "When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia , but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them" (Acts 16.7). I wonder what would have happened if Paul went into Bithynia and Pontus then into Armenia and perhaps even Adiabene (where some Jewish missionaries had found a ripe field, see Josephus, Ant. 20.17-96)? And then on to Babylon and after that, where? Parthia? Or even India? We can only speculate. Although I have not read the article yet, I hope to one day get hold of: Richard Bauckham, ‘What if Paul had Travelled East rather than West?’ in Virtual History and the Bible, ed. J. C. Exum (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 171-184.

For those of us in New Testament studies, anything east of Galatia is bit of a mystery. But you only have to read Horace and Revelation to know the seriousness of the threat that Parthia served to Roman clients in the east. The Euphrates was a de facto border between the two empires and it was not until the campaigns of Trajan 116-17 CE that Rome was able to subdue Parthia. For some useful maps of the Parthinian empire see these which include Parthia at the height of its powers. Essentially the Parthinian empire took over from the shrinking Seleucid empire and soon controlled modern Iran, Iraq, Armenia and parts of Turkey and Afghanistan.

For another good map of the Roman empire see this one which is searchable.

Paul for the People of God

Pauline studies is alot like the mafia, every time you think you're out they drag you back in! I'm largely a Historical Jesus specialist and Synoptic Gospels kind-a-guy, though I find myself taking extended vacations in the resort of Pauline studies and even pining for a trek in the scenic mountains of Johannine studies too. But it is back to Paul now and my latest project (this time with IVP) is this:

Paul for the People of God

This volume is designed to be an introduction to Paul for lay-people and first year seminary students. I am hoping that I can take the best insights of Pauline scholarship and show how they illuminate Paul's understanding of the gospel, of Christian community, salvation, ministry, Paul's narrative world, and controversial areas such as women and homosexuality as well. There are a stack of Pauline theologies available, but relatively few volumes that try to put Paul in the hands of the church - and that's what I want to do. Get people in my church and your church excited about Paul, thoughtfully reading over his letters, and see what he has to say to the people of God today. Here's the run down:

1. What is Paul?
2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus
3. Athens and Jerusalem
4. The Stories behind the Story
5. Reading Somebody Else’s Mail
6. The Royal Announcement: The Son of David, Son of God
7. One God, One Lord: Monotheism and the Messiah
8. Putting the World to Right
9. The Return of the King
10. A Peculiar People
11. Women, Slaves and Homosexuals
12. Paul at the Postmodern Areopagus

Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification

One provocative volume on Pauline studies in recent days is by Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006). Available in the UK and Europe through Alban Books for £16.99 and through Hendrickson in the USA for $29.99.

VanLandingham (henceforth VanL.) contests the picture of second-temple Judaism as having a soteriological structured along the lines of E.P. Sanders' "covenantal nomism" and argues that it was more works orientated than is often recognized. At the same time, VanL. advocates that Paul is in many ways equally works orientated in his view of final justification by works. In this sense VanL. argues against the grain of both revisionist and reformed readings of Paul and Judaism. He wants to reevaluate the relationship between divine grace and human rewards as they relate to the destiny of the individual in Judasm and the writings of Paul. He writes:

"My thesis is that in the letters of Paul and in much of the literature of Judaism from the Greek and Early Roman periods, a post-mortem or Last Judgment of God determines an individual's eternal destiny. Moreover, both corpora agree that an individuals' behavior during his or her lifetime provides the criterion for this judgment: good behavior is rewarded with eternal life, bad behavior with damnation . . . This book also examines the notion of divine recompense within the framework of God's grace and mercy as understood in early post-biblical Jewish texts and in Paul's letters. God's grace and mercy may be present throughout a person's life, working on his or her behalf; but one's deeds determine approbation at the final judgment. On this subject, I find no difference between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries" (p. 15).

In chapter 1 VanL. looks at the theme of the election of Israel and he finds that in accounts of Abraham's election that divine grace is remarkably absent - election is a result of Abraham's obedience. In chapter 2 VanL. examines the criteria for eternal life. VanL. maintains that in much literature it is not God's covenant with Israel but one's behaviour that determines one's destiny. VanL. shifts his focus to Paul in chapter 3 and he asserts that at the final assize God could potentially reject believers for moral failure and God's judgment is principally retributive and behaviour forms the "sole" criterion. Then in chapter 4 VanL. offers his solution to the paradox of justification by faith and judgment according to deeds. VanL. contests the forensic meaning of justification and contends that it refers to forgiveness of sins and freedom from sin at the beginning of the Christian life. He writes in his conclusion:

"What happens to the Christian initiate at the time of faith or baptism of course has an effect upon how that person will be judged by God, but he or she is not ultimately approved solely because of the work of Christ, or because of baptism, or because of faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord. The Last Judgment is not a judgment over the work of Christ or even over what the Holy Spirit has done in the believer; it is a judgment over the individual and what he or she has done. The work of Christ has made it possible to receive approbation in a judgment according to deeds, but not because God is merciful toward the Christian based on Christ's merit, nor because in God's perception Christ's death has made it as though the Christian has never sinned. Rather, the process of salvation is worked out as follows: At the time of faith, a person who has been 'made righteous' is forgiven of past sins (which then become a dead issue), cleansed from the guilt and impurity of sin, freed from the human propensity to sin, and then given the ability to obey. The Last Judgment will then determine whether a person, as an act of the will has followed through with these benefits of Christ's death. If so, eternal life will be the reward; if not, damnation"
(p. 335).

I do not have time to enter into a major discussion with VanL.'s book. But if he is right it would have tremendous repercussions for understanding Judaism and Paul. Overall, VanL. offers a very careful analysis of texts from second-temple Judaism and Paul and his case is worth listening to as he questions many assumptions, both modern and ancient, about Judaism and Paul. In the final analysis, however, I am not convinced by much of his exegesis and I hope at a later date to offer a more extensive article review and engage with his treatments of 1QS and Romans 2 in particular - But that's for another day.

The commendations include:

“With Judgment and Justification Chris VanLandingham enters the fray that is the study of the Apostle Paul against his Jewish backdrop. But rather than simply logging another entry into the catalog of oft-repeated and well-worn arguments, VanLandingham proffers a thesis sure to challenge the positions of all parties in the debate. To those who have followed and advanced the “New Perspective” on Paul first put forth by E. P. Sanders, VanLandingham marshals an impressive array of evidence culled from Jewish sources to argue that the mainstream Judaism of Paul’s day was indeed a religion that urged good works as the path to God’s favor. He radically reinterprets the doctrine of “justification by faith” by arguing that Paul himself fits well into the mold of contemporary Judaism by teaching that those who have experienced forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ must themselves produce a life of good deeds to secure a favorable judgment in the end. Not only will the arguments of this book change the landscape of Pauline studies, but they should also be heard as a contributing voice to Christian theology. This book is not just an engaging piece of scholarship; it will prove to be one of those rare scholarly works that challenge the convictions of those who read it.”
—Jeffrey S. Lamp, Associate Professor of New Testament, Oral Roberts University

“Chris VanLandingham’s stunningly provocative and well-argued thesis demands careful engagement. E. P. Sanders was simply wrong as were those who built uncritically on his foundation. Election in Second Temple Judaism was a reward for obedience. Salvation was earned as quid pro quo. The Apostle Paul, for his part, agreed with his Second Temple peers and encouraged his hearers to accrue the good works necessary for the reward of eternal life. Justification (by faith), never employed in forensic contexts, has been almost completely misconstrued. VanLandingham calls for a complete overhaul in our understanding of both Second Temple Judaism and Paul. The theological implications would be breathtaking.”
—A. Andrew Das, Niebuhr Distinguished Chair and Associate Professor of Theology and Religion, Elmhurst College

Chris VanLandingham earned his Ph.D. in Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman World from the University of Iowa under the supervision of Dr. George Nickelsburg. He has served as an Assistant Professor of Ancient History at Oral Roberts University and as an Adjunct Professor of Ancient History at St. Gregory's University, both in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Pauline Myths: Judaisms and Judaizers

In the course of Pauline studies there are two terms that float around with great frequency, and yet they are little more than semantic myths, words with near technical meaning and near universal assent, but they do not match up to the reality which the word puportedly represents. What are these words?

1. Judaisms. It is often touted that second-temple was so diverse that it is more accurate to speak of Judaisms rather than a singular Judaism. What's the problem here? Well, that there was diversity in second-temple Judaism is a no-brainer, one only has to compare Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls to figure that one out. Nonetheless, despite the penchant for diversity in second-temple Judaism, authors of this period (like Paul) who were fully aware of the diversity of belief and practice among their co-religionionists always refer to Judaism (Ioudaismos) in the singular! See e.g. 2 Macc. 2.21; 8.1; 14.38; 4 Macc. 4.26; Gal. 1.13-14 (and at least one inscripton from CIJ which I cannot track down).

2. Judaizers. It is common to refer to Paul's opponents as Judaizers and where this term designates Paul's Jewish Christians opponents it is a misleading designation. Why? Well, to begin with only Gentiles can Judaize. One who judaizes is a Gentile and it means to take on, in whole or in part, Jewish customs. In Galatians 2, Paul reprimands Peter (not for judaizing himself) but for forcing Gentiles to judaize. Similarly, Josephus (Wars 2.463) points out that the Syrians in Antioch sought to attack the Jewish populace but had to be wary of the judaizers and this clearly refers to Gentile adherents/sympathizers to Judaism. Where this term designates Gentiles who follow or propagate a Jewish lifestyle (and it could arguably be used to describe certain Gentiles in Romans) it is indeed appropriate - but not for Paul's Jewish Christian adversaies in Antioch and arguably Galatia. I got this insight while reading Mark Nanos' The Irony of Galatians and wish I had applied it in my recent Paul book where I did use the term judaizers. Oh well, all the more reason for a second edition one day - Lord and Paternoster willing.

The Saving Righteousness of God

Today I received in the post copies of my book, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007). I hope this book comes across as being soundly biblical, compelling in its arguments, gracious and fair in its criticisms of others, and a useful tool for the church in an age of controversy over Paul's theology of righteousness.

For those interested, you can order copies from Paternoster now. I imagine that it will be available from Amazon and Koorong shortly. Here are the endorsements:

"In a debate where the worst of Protestant in-fighting has been revived and the 'spirit of slavery' has been more influential than 'the Spirit of adoption', Michael Bird's treatment is more than welcome. His is a calm, judicious and eirenic voice amid the welter of paranoid accusation and counter-accusation, which ought to be heard widely, and - more important - ought to be heeded. Perhaps then the world will be able to say again, 'See how these Christians love one another' - without sneering!'

- James D. G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, University of Durham.

"For fair treatment and thoroughness of coverage, including that of literature which usually flies under most scholars' radar, this book is probably unmatched."

- Robert H. Gundry, Scholar-in-residence and Professor Emeritus, Westmont College.

"The so-called 'new perspective' continues to exercise a profound effect on studies of both Judaism and Paul. Students may well be confused by the complexities of the debate, but Michael Bird helpfully shows how fruitful insights can be derived from scholars on both sides of it. This fresh and sane approach to a difficult area will clarify the essential issues for students and preachers alike as they wrestle with expounding the thought of Paul for the contemporary church."

- I. Howard Marshall, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, Aberdeen University.

"The study of what Paul means by 'justification' has hopped its railed, and now scholars from opposing perspectives - traditional Reformed theology and the New perspective - have exited the train and are standing on opposite sides of the track tossing stones at one another. Michael Bird has called for a peace plan, and his proposal of an incorporated righteousness not only offers peace but can actually get the train back on its tracks so we can get on with moving the gospel into our world. This study deserves a 'nobel peace prize in Theology'".

- Scot McKnight Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies, North Park University, Chicago.

My deepest thanks to my family, friends, colleagues, students, several editors of journals and at Paternoster (Anthony Cross and Robin Parry), for the generous words of the above-named scholars, and esp. my daughters to whom the book is dedicated.

As Beethoven often wrote at the end of his compositions, SDG!

Philip Towner on 1 Tim 2:11-15

I'm currently reading through Philip Towner, The Letters of Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006) and here is a summary of what Towner has to say on 1 Tim 2:11-15.

Towner does not advocate the restriction of women from ministerial offices nor does he regard the text as a post-Pauline creation by a follower of Paul who did not share his teacher’s egalitarian view of women. He situates himself between “feminist” and “hierarchicalist” interpretations. His approach has the following characteristics and conclusions, first, Towner is highly dependent on Bruce Winter’s study about the “new Roman women” who asserted their independence with great flare even to the point of making their sexual status ambiguous by their dress and apparel. Given that Christian worship in the atrium of a Graeco-Roman house in Ephesus was a “public” space, Paul does not want the well-to-do Christian women to bring Christians into disrepute by exhibiting this new liberated femininity in public worship. Second, Towner also maintains that the heresy circulating in Ephesus does influence Paul’s restriction here, but he carefully notes the study of S.M. Baugh that has debunked the often repeated scenario that the women were influenced by the hyper-feminist Artemis cult in Ephesus, and Towner adds that there is no definite evidence that the women were even teaching the heresy. Nonetheless, Towner thinks that Paul’s need to provide instructions about marriage (2 Tim 4:3), his statement about the value of childbearing (2 Tim 2:15), the misreading of OT stories (2 Tim 1:4; 2:13-15; 4:1-5), coupled with the attraction of some wealthy women and young widows to the “new women” paradigm does connect the women to the Ephesian heresy. Thus: “Paul prohibits a group of wealthy women from teaching men. The factors leading to his prohibition are: (1) public presentation – outer adornment and apparel and arrogant demeanour give their teaching a shameful and disrespectful coloration; (2) association with false teaching – they may actually have been conveying or supporting heretical teaching” (200). Third, Towner is convinced that elsewhere women did play a public role in Paul’s churches and he detects an equality principle within the Pauline gospel (e.g. Gal 3:28). Fourth, regarding the two complementary infinitives of v. 12 (“to teach” and “to exercise/assume authority over”) he concurs with Andreas Köstenberger’s syntactical and grammatical analysis of the passage but disagrees with him that “to teach” has a positive force since the wider context suggests that the content of the women’s teaching contains heresy or the teaching itself is motivated to assert their dominance over men – in both cases “to teach” has negative connotations. Fifth, concerning the “saved through child-birth” remark in v. 15, Towner thinks that Paul “urges these Christian wives to re-engage fully in the respectable role of the mother, in rejection of heretical and secular trends, through which she may ‘work out her salvation’” (235).