Q. Let’s talk for a moment about metalepsis, which shows up in several places in this commentary (e.g. pp. 172-73). The concept is that Paul has the whole of an OT passage in mind when he cites for example the story of Abraham from Gen. 12 or 15. This view which our good friend Richard Hays has championed, is set in opposition to the proof text view of yanking individual verses out of context and using them. I think however... Read more

Q. In another context, in my Romans commentary, I have stressed that Paul is not an advocate of ‘imputed righteousness’ in the traditional Reformed sense. So we don’t need to go down the rabbit hole of ‘it’s a legal fiction’ or ‘when God looks at me, he simply sees the righteous Jesus’ or even ‘Christ’s obedience to God’s law’ means I am exempt from having to do that, I stand by faith alone. I agree with the idea that Christ’s... Read more

Q. As for the phrase ‘works of the Law’ and 4QMMT the latter says ‘these are some of the works of the Law’ so it does not identify the boundary rituals, circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping, by a delimiting term ‘works of the law’, nor do I think Paul does that. Yes, he is talking about the boundary rituals in Galatians, but for Paul ‘dying to the Mosaic law’ or the Redeemer redeeming Jews out from under the Mosaic covenant... Read more

Q. In some ways your take on dikaiosune as applied to the believer seems very much traditional— it means to be declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s faithfulness even unto death on the cross. In other words, it is about what is traditionally called justification, or ‘right standing with God’. One then wonders why John Piper and others have gone ballistic over your take on this crucial term. Did they just not understand your point? For me personally, I... Read more

Q. While I take your point about Christos being a title, not really just a name for Jesus, in Paul’s writings, when you go on to say not merely that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah or representative, but in some sense Jesus is Israel, and if you are ‘in Him’ you are in Israel, this seems a leap. The problem with Jesus=Israel, is, so far as I can see, Paul uses the term Israel, for example in Rom. 9-11 to mean... Read more

Q. p. 129 is an important page in your commentary where you make clear where Kinzer goes wrong. I think you are right that Paul is talking about the incredible change for JEWS like Peter and Paul, the redefinition of the status of Jews now that Jesus has died on the cross, and some of them have accepted Him as the crucified and risen Davidic messiah. This is why Paul goes on to say that even he, as a former... Read more

  Q. Let’s talk for a minute about the radical Jewish re-reading of Paul fostered by Mark Nanos, Paula Fredricksen etc. that suggests a two-track model of salvation for God’s people— Jews being faithful by keeping the Mosaic covenant, Gentiles by embracing Jesus. This even has been stretched by Nanos to Paul is talking about Gentiles in the context of the synagogue, not as a practicing community in house churches separate from the synagogue. Recently, I have read Mark Kinzer’s... Read more

Q. I was intrigued by your drawing on Teresa Morgan’s work on fides and iustitia. While I think she does a good job of making her case in regard to the Latin usage of those terms and the range of possible meanings, I was less convinced about the Greek terms that parallel those words, especially in the hands of a devout Jew like Paul. It seems to me that Paul is giving us in Greek his Jewish take on such... Read more

Q. I was intrigued to see you draw on the Psalms of Solomon to help explain Paul’s background and how he used to view not only who counted as righteous and sinners, but one could add, what the Messiah’s role would be when he came. So… I kept waiting for you to say something about Ps. Sol. 17-18 where we hear about a militaristic messiah ala David the warrior. If Saul had thought this way, clearly Gal. 2.15-21 makes clear... Read more

Q. One of the major arguments in your Galatians commentary, about which I think you are fundamentally right, is the issue is ecclesiology, though there are sub-themes involving soteriology and eschatology and Christology. The thing that strikes me about this is how ill-prepared post-Enlightenment folk, and especially Protestants are, to think about Galatians as NOT mainly having to do with how the individual gets saved or justified. Sociologists talk about corporate identity in that world, about how group identity is... Read more