2022-01-28T09:45:31-05:00

Q. One of the more recent trends in the rhetorical analysis of the Pastoral is the point out that in all three documents we have incomplete syllogisms—i.e. enthymemes, and that one needs to fill in the missing premise to understand the flow of the argument. Otherwise, it appears to be a grab bag of ethical enjoinders that are unconnected, according to some. Are you familiar with this argument, and if so, what do you think?   A. Yes, I have... Read more

2022-01-28T09:45:15-05:00

Q. I am a bit surprised, since you do devote a good lengthy chapter to Colossians and Ephesians that you don’t mention or deal with the arguments of Jeal, Lincoln and others that we are dealing with Asiatic style rhetoric here, which is not in evidence in the earlier Paulines. Have you an opinion about the difference in rhetorical style in those letters? A. I cited Jeal in several instances in my chapter on Ephesians. For my purposes, it was... Read more

2022-01-28T09:44:58-05:00

 Read more

2022-01-28T09:34:57-05:00

Q. I was very pleased to see your exegesis of Rom. 7.7-25, a Christian description of a pre-Christian condition. Luther’s mistaken interpretation of that passage has done a lot of damage to Christians since the Reformation. At one point I was the cantor in a Lutheran church in Ashland Ohio, and I had to lead the saying of the Lutheran creed. For the life of me, I couldn’t say the words in the Lutheran confession, ‘we are still in the... Read more

2022-01-28T09:32:27-05:00

Q. Let’s talk about Rom. 6 for a minute. It seems clear Paul is talking about water baptism there, which he says is an image of being immersed or plunged into Christ’s death and being buried with Christ. In short it is an image of the death of the old person. After that one rises to newness of life, set free from the bondage to sin. But what was Paul’s actual theology of baptism? I ask this question because I... Read more

2022-01-28T09:29:10-05:00

Q. Reading through your treatment of Romans I note your point about ‘the righteousness of God’ referring to an attribute of God (p. 191). Exactly right. And certainly one of the points of Romans is that God doesn’t want his people to simply have right-standing with him, he wants them to be actually like him in character. In other words, Romans is not just about justification, it’s also about moral transformation through ‘the obedience of faith’. I think you would... Read more

2022-01-28T09:26:29-05:00

Q. It is interesting to me that you seem to agree with Wright’s attempt to use the term Israel to refer to the church of Jew and Gentile united in Christ, but disagree with him in regard to pistis Christou. You follow the argument of a German scholar that pistis Christou is both an objective and a subjective genitive all rolled into one. I must confess I disagree with Wright about the use of Israel by Paul, especially in Rom.... Read more

2022-01-28T09:22:08-05:00

Q. Throughout the book you regularly use the phrase prophetic rhetoric. I have assumed you mean that the content of Paul’s rhetorical expression is Jewish and OT prophetic in character, especially indebted to 2 Isaiah. And this is as opposed to the common content of rhetorical arguments in the Greco-Roman world. Am I tracking with you? And yet it is interesting that Paul is well aware of how to follow the proper form for artificial and inartificial proofs, and when... Read more

2022-01-28T09:20:27-05:00

Q. In reading through the chapter on 1 Corinthians and the cross, I am reminded of the old scholarly dictum that there are basically two kinds of Pauline letters— problem solving letters and progress-oriented letters with 1 Cor. being an example of the former and Philippians the latter. What occurred to me in reading that chapter is that ‘cross talk’ seems to come up more in a problem-solving letter like 1 Corinthians than in a progress-oriented letter like Philippians. Have... Read more

2022-01-28T09:16:35-05:00

Q. Let’s talk for a moment about 1 Cor. 11 and the argument there. I don’t think this is really an argument about hierarchy, it is an argument about source, and of course kephale can mean source (as in the head of a river) just as it can mean head. Here Paul plays on the two meanings. Paul is thinking about the fact that Christ is the only begotten of God, so the Father is the source of the Son,... Read more

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives