January 11: Baptism (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12)

Baptism: Union with Christ and Participation in His Death

The unique contribution made by Paul to the early Christian understanding of baptism was his emphasis on the believer’s participation in the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. Elsewhere, he makes use of the simple symbolism of washing (vb lou/w), i.e., the earlier/original idea of a cleansing of sin, referring to the waters that (symbolically) wash away a person’s sins—1 Cor 6:11; also Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5. However, when it comes to the distinctly Christian development of the dunking/washing ritual (baptism)—(1) being performed “in the name of Jesus”, and (2) the association with the Holy Spirit (cf. the previous two notes)—Paul gave to these elements of the ritual a greater theological depth and significance. He did this primarily through his emphasis on the participatory aspect; that is to say, baptism symbolized the believer’s union with Jesus Christ, and, with it, a participation in Jesus’ own death.

Romans 6:3-4

This was very much a theological emphasis of Paul’s, even when there was no particular reference to baptism—see, most notably, Galatians 2:19-21 (also 5:24; 6:14). The central idea is that, through trust and union with Jesus, we die to sin (and its power). This goes a step beyond the traditional religious requirement of repenting from one’s sins; it means that the believer in Christ is actually dead to the power of sin. For Paul, it is the sacrificial death of Jesus that accomplishes this, freeing humankind from bondage to sin. This is the central tenet of Pauline soteriology, best and most fully expounded in chapters 5-8 of Romans; and it is in Romans 6:1-11 that Paul draws upon the baptism ritual to illustrate how believers have died to sin (and so must think and act accordingly). The ethical, paraenetic thrust of the passage is clear from the rhetorical question posed in verse 1 (“Shall we remain upon sin…?”), and which Paul answers himself in verse 2: “May it not come to be so! We, the (one)s who died away to sin, how shall we yet live in it?”. This leads to the argument based on the significance of Christian baptism:

“Or, are you without knowledge that, we, as (many) as were dunked [e)bapti/sqhmen] into (the) Anointed Yeshua, we were dunked into his death? So we were buried together with him through the dunking [ba/ptisma] into the death, (so) that, just as (the) Anointed (One) was raised out of the dead through the honor/splendor of the Father, so also we should walk about in newness of life.” (vv. 3-4)

The concluding exhortation in v. 4 is part of the ethical instruction Paul is giving in these verses, but it, in turn, is based on a key theological and Christological point: we should “walk in newness of life” because we are united with both Jesus’ death and his resurrection:

“For if we have come to be planted together in the likeness of his death, (it cannot be) other (that that) we will also be (in the likeness) of his standing up (out of the dead)…. And, if we died away with (the) Anointed, we trust that we also will live together with him, having seen [i.e. known] that (the) Anointed (One), (hav)ing been raised out of the dead, does not die away any longer, (and) Death no longer acts as Lord (over) him.” (vv. 5, 8-9)

This idea of baptism symbolizing our participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection does not appear to be part of the earliest Christian understanding of the dunking ritual (based on the evidence in the book of Acts, as discussed in the previous notes). How, then, did Paul come to emphasize and develop this particular aspect? Several factors seem to be involved. First, it is a natural development of the ritual action—i.e., stepping down into the water represents death, while emerging again indicates the beginning of new life. And, even though this symbolic dimension was, it seems, not part of either the Johannine dunkings or the earliest Christian baptisms, it is known from contemporary initiation rituals (in the mystery cults, etc). Tertullian specifically notes the similarities (On Baptism 5.1), and, indeed, it is to be expected that early Christians (and perhaps as early as Paul) would come to interpret baptism in a corresponding way.

Second, the ritual meal (the Lord’s Supper) specifically signified a participation of believers in Jesus’ death, and it would be natural for the baptism ritual to take on a similar significance. Unfortunately, we have precious little detail in the New Testament on how the earliest Christians viewed the Lord’s Supper, but the Gospel tradition, attested in multiple sources (Mark 14:22-25 par; 1 Cor 12:23-26ff; cf. also John 6:51-58), suggests that the ritual would have carried this meaning from the earliest times.

Third, it is a natural development of the fundamental belief that believers are united with Jesus. This union means that we are also joined with him in his death, and all that was accomplished in it. Note how Paul has developed the traditional idea of being baptized “into [ei)$] the name of Jesus” (cf. the earlier note), and the expression which would have signified that a person belonged to Jesus, as his trusting follower. Now, however, in Rom 6:3, Paul speaks simply of being baptized “into [ei)$] the Anointed Yeshua” —that is, into the person of Jesus himself. This is essentially equivalent with idea of being “in [e)n] Christ”, an expression (and theological statement) used repeatedly by Paul (8:1-2; 12:5; 1 Cor 1:30, et al), including here at the close of the passage (v. 11).

Finally, though sometimes overlooked, we have the Gospel tradition of the saying of Jesus whereby he refers to his suffering and death as a “dunking” (i.e. baptism, ba/ptisma); there are two ‘versions’ of this saying:

“Are you able to drink (of) the (same) drinking cup that I drink (from)? or to be dunked [baptisqh=nai] (with) the (same) dunking [ba/ptisma] that I am dunked [bapti/zomai]?…” (Mark 10:38f)
“And I hold a dunking [ba/ptisma] (that I am) to be dunked [baptisqh=nai] (with), and I am held (tight) together until the (time when) it should be completed!” (Luke 12:50)

The Markan version, with its pairing of the cup and the “dunking”, effectively establishes both Christian rituals—Lord’s Supper and Baptism—as being fundamentally tied to the disciple’s participation in Jesus death.

Colossians 2:12

The participatory aspect of baptism is stated again in Colossians 2:12, and in similar ethical, exhortational context—cf. verse 6: “So, as you received the Anointed Yeshua, the Lord, alongside, you must walk about in him [e)n au)tw=|]…”. This is the familiar Pauline idea of being “in Christ”, and is repeated in verses 10-11:

“…and you are in him [e)n au)tw=|] having been made full, (in the one) who is the head of all chief (rule) and authority, in whom [e)n w!|] also you were cut around [i.e. circumcised]—a cutting round [i.e. circumcision] done without hands, in the sinking out (away) from the body of the flesh, in the cutting round of (the) Anointed—”

The statement regarding baptism follows:

“(hav)ing been buried together with him in the dunking [ba/ptisma], in whom [e)n w!|] also you were raised together, through the trust (you have) of the (power) of God working in (it), the (One hav)ing raised him out of the dead” (v. 12)

This is precisely the same dying and rising with Christ theme expressed in Rom 6:3-4, stated more concisely in context of the framing concept of being “in Christ”. What is notable here is the way that Paul (accepting the genuine authorship of Colossians) blends baptism together with the motif of circumcision, suggesting that the ritual dunking holds a similar place for believers (in the New Covenant) as circumcision did for Israel (in the Old Covenant). This is the only place in the New Testament where such a parallel is drawn; however, the comparison here is perhaps better understood in terms of the nature and significance of the ritual action—that is, of cutting away the flesh. It very much fits the Pauline idea of the believer as a new creation, having set aside the old nature of things that had been in bondage under sin; indeed, this is the aspect Paul emphasizes here, when he refers to the ‘putting off’ (lit. sinking out away from, a)pe/kdusi$) the “body of the flesh”, as a snake would shed its skin. The same point is made in verse 13, uniting even more closely the motifs of baptism and circumcision:

“and you, being dead [in] the (moment)s of falling alongside, and in the (outer) edge of enclosure of the flesh, he (has) made you alive together with him, (hav)ing shown favor to you…”

I have translated the noun a)krobusti/a quite literally as “(outer) edge of enclosure”, rendered more commonly (and correctly) as “foreskin” (i.e. of the male genital organ). The paraptw/mata are the failings or sins (lit. “[moment]s of falling alongside”) of the believer, especially those committed while still under bondage to the power of sin. The “foreskin” signifies the outermost part of this old condition, and thus that which is most dead. Through trust in Jesus, and symbolized by the baptism ritual, this ‘old nature’ is cut off and put away—the believer dies to the old and comes alive again to the new.

This symbolic dimension of baptism is more frequently expressed with clothing imagery—i.e., of removing an old garment and “putting on” one that is new. This will be discussed in the next daily note, as we explore Paul’s understanding of the role of the Spirit in the baptism ritual.

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 4:13

1 John 4:13

As I discussed in the previous notes, in chapters 4-5 of 1 John, the theme of trust/faith in Jesus takes on greater prominence, though still interconnected with the theme of love among believers which was emphasized in chapters 2-3. These represent the two aspects of the two-fold command defined and presented by the author in 3:23-24. According to the author, only those who confess the proper belief in Jesus, and who demonstrate proper love, can be considered true believers. The act/behavior indicates the underlying reality (cf. 3:10). Consider how this is expressed here in chapter 4:

    • 4:1-6: Trust in Jesus—confession of proper belief in his identity, indicating that we are of/from God
    • 4:7-12: Love for one another—demonstration that we follow his (and God the Father’s) example
    • 4:13-21: Trust and Love together—we abide in God and God abides in us

The two themes are unified in vv. 13-21, as indicated by the opening words:

“In this we know that we remain in Him and He in us, (in) that He has given us His Spirit.” (v. 13)

Properly speaking, here God (the Father) is the one who gives us the Spirit (“his Spirit”), and yet elsewhere in the Johannine writings it is stated that Jesus (the Son) is the one who gives the Spirit (Jn 3:34; 7:37-39; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22). This is part of the essential theological viewpoint in these writings: the Father gives to the Son (Jesus), and the Son, in turn, gives to believers. Here it is said that the Spirit allows us to know—that is, to recognize and be aware—of God’s abiding presence in us. In this sense, the Spirit both testifies and teaches, according to Jesus’ words in 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-15. The knowledge believers receive is an intimate awareness and understanding of both God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (Jn 17:3). The author essentially repeats here what he stated previously in 3:24 (cf. the earlier note on this verse).

The verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is an important Johannine keyword, occurring 40 times in the Gospel and 27 in the Letters—more than half of all the occurrences (118) in the New Testament. It has tremendous theological significance (and symbolism), even when apparently being used in an ‘ordinary’ sense in the Gospel narrative (e.g., 1:38-39). It is perhaps the single most important word which summarizes the believer’s identity in Christ; it is both (a) reciprocal, and (b) establishes us in the chain of relationship Father–Son–Believers:

    • Jesus (the Son) abides in us, and we in him, and as a result:
    • We abide in the Father and, and the Father in us
    • Father and Son both abide (together) in us through the presence of the Spirit
      This unifying presence (of the Spirit) may be illustrated by the simple diagram:

An important aspect of the verb me/nw is idea of remaining—this relationship between Father, Son and Believer, through the Spirit, remains and continues “into the Age”. The traditional eschatological image of divine/eternal Life, which the righteous are though to receive following the Judgment, is “realized” and experienced by believers now, in the present, and will continue on into eternity. This is a fundamental aspect of Johannine thought, expressed many times by Jesus in the Gospel Discourses.

It is interesting to consider how this Christian identity, marked by the twin themes of trust/faith and love, is presented throughout this section. I offer the following (chiastic) outline:

    • Trust: Confession of Jesus’ identity—the Son of God, sent by the Father (vv. 14-15
      —God’s love for us—sending his Son to us (v. 16a, also v. 14)
      ——His love abides/remains in us, completing/perfecting us (vv. 16b-18)
      —God’s love for us—we follow his (and the Son’s) example (v. 19)
    • Love: Demonstration of love for one another [among believers] (vv. 20-21)

The “command” (e)ntolh/) given to us by God is here defined primarily by the second aspect, love—both God’s love for us and our love for one another. This is a uniquely Johannine expression of the great “Love command” in early Christian and Gospel tradition. In this regard, it is worth emphasizing again the distinctive use (and meaning) of the word e)ntolh/ in the Gospel and Letters of John, which is best understood by the literal (fundamental) meaning as something given to us (i.e. laid on us) to complete. Here this “completion” has a dual meaning—not only our completion of the duty/mission to love one another, but of God’s love being completed in us. This is at the heart of the passage, in vv. 16b-18 (cf. above):

    • “In this our love has been made complete [tetelei/wtai]…” (v. 17)
    • “…complete [telei/a] love casts out fear…the (one) fearing has not been made complete [tetelei/wtai] in love.” (v. 18)

Note the precise parallelism:

    • our love has been made complete
    • we have been made complete in love

This is the truest and deepest sense of the word e)ntolh/.

August 30: 1 Cor 2:16 (continued)

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16]

1 Corinthians 2:16

In yesterday’s note, I looked at the first part of this verse, the citation from Isa 40:13 (LXX); today I will examine the second part, with Paul’s concluding declaration:

“…and (yet) we hold the mind of (the) Anointed {Christ}”

There are four components to this statement, beginning with the (emphatic) pronoun h(mei=$ (“we”), to be discussed below. The remaining three elements are:

    • de/ (“and/but”)—a conjunctive particle with an adversative sense, establishing a contrast with what is stated in the quotation of Isa 40:13. There the rhetorical question (“who knows/knew the mind of God?”) carries the obvious (implied) answer of “no one”. For the relation of the context of Isa 40:12-13 with 1 Cor 2:10ff, cf. my discussion in the previous note. Paul’s declaration may be (re)formulated as: “Of course, no one knows (or can have known) the mind of the Lord (God) Himself, and yet we do hold the mind of the Lord (Christ)!”
    • nou=$ xristou= (“[the] mind of [the] Anointed”)—as I indicated in the prior note, many witnesses read “mind of [the] Lord [kuri/ou]”; if original, then Paul is certainly making use of the wordplay involving ku/rio$, which can be understood as “the Lord (YHWH)” or “the Lord (Jesus Christ)”, interchangeably, by early Christians. The expression “mind of Christ” does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament (nor “mind of Jesus”, or anything similar). Perhaps the closest we come is in Philippians 2:5: “This (work)ing of (the) mind must (be) in you which also (was) in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Jesus Christ}”; though here Paul uses the verb frone/w rather than the noun nou=$. For more on this verse, cf. below. There are a number of points of contact between 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and Romans 7-8, especially 8:26-27, which has the parallel expression “mind [fro/nhma] of the Spirit”.
    • e&xomen (“we hold”)—the verb e&xw is often translated more generally as “have”, i.e. “hold (in one’s possession)”; however, here it seems useful to retain the more concrete and fundamental sense of holding something. This preserves contact with the basic context of Isa 40:12-13, with its concept of measuring—it is impossible to contain the Spirit/Mind of the Lord in a measuring-vessel, etc, and yet we hold the mind of the Lord (Christ) within (and among) us. That this occurs through the presence and work of the Spirit is confirmed both by the overall context of 1 Cor 2:10ff as well as the parallel expressions mentioned above:
      • “the mind [nou=$] of Christ” (v. 16)
      • “the working of (the) mind [frone/w]…which was in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5)
      • “the mind [fro/nhma] of the Spirit” (Rom 8:27)

Paul’s argument in Phil 2:1-5ff is similar to 1 Cor 1:18-2:16, in several important respects:

Finally, something must be said regarding the use of the pronoun “we” (h(mei=$) in v. 16. Often there is a certain ambiguity regarding Paul’s use of the 1st person plural in his letters; it can be understood three ways:

    • As a (rhetorical) reference to Paul himself, essentially = “I”
    • As a (collective) reference to Paul and his fellow ministers
    • Collectively, and generally, of (all) believers

So, when Paul says “we have the mind of Christ”, he could be saying:

    • I have the mind of Christ” (cf. 7:40, etc), in which case it brings us back to the start of his argument and the autobiographical aspect of 1:14-17; 2:1-5
    • “We (the inspired apostles, etc) have the mind of Christ”, which generally fits the context of 2:1-7 and 3:4ff
    • “We (all believers) have the mind of Christ”

The overall emphasis of 1:18-4:21, in my view, decisively favors the latter interpretation. Recall that the initial emphasis in the narratio (1:11-17) was that believers should not be relying on the status and gifts/abilities of prominent ministers (such as Paul and Apollos, etc), but should rather be trusting in (a) Christ and the message of the Gospel, and (b) the presence and work of the Spirit—these two being closely connected. What follows in 3:1 only confirms this view, as Paul laments the fact that is not able to speak to the Corinthians as ones who are “complete” (2:6)—they are not thinking and acting according to their true identity (in Christ), as those who are “spiritual” (i.e. who have the Spirit). However, it is possible that there is a progression or development in 2:1-16, which I would chart as follows:

    • “I came to you” (vv. 1-5)—Paul himself, as the founding apostle, proclaiming the Gospel message (“the secret of God”)
    • “We speak…” (vv. 6-9)—Paul and his fellow ministers, those who first preached the Gospel among the Corinthians and worked to establish congregations, etc
    • “To us…revealed…” (vv. 10-12)—transitional, emphasizing the work of God and the giving of the Spirit to believers
    • “We speak these things…” (vv. 13-15)—Believers as ministers, those gifted to speak and interpret the “deep things of God”, especially apostles, prophets and teachers, etc
    • “We hold the mind of God” (v. 16)—All believers, united with Christ, who have received the Spirit of God (and Christ)

The progression is from the (initial) proclamation of the Gospel of Christ (vv. 1-2) to the unity of believers in Christ (v. 16). This point will be touched on further in the next daily note.

“Gnosis” in the NT: 2 Cor 2:14

2 Corinthians 2:14

In treating the subject of knowledge (gnw=si$, gnœsis) in the New Testament, two related verses in 2 Corinthians are especially important—2 Cor 2:14 and 4:6—expressing Paul’s view of the matter quite succinctly and effectively. These two verses happen to form an inclusio, framing the section 2:14-4:6, being the first and last sentences, respectively. This can be seen clearly by an outline of the section:

    • 2:14-17: Paul and his fellow ministers who proclaim the Gospel—the knowledge of God in Christ
      • 3:1-6: Contrast between the old covenant (on tablets of stone) and new covenant (in the heart)—the letter vs. the Spirit
        —vv. 4-6: Ministers of the New Covenant
      • 3:7-18: Contrast between the veiled face of Moses and the unveiled face of believers in the Spirit
        —vv. 12-18: Ministers of the New Covenant (par. with Moses)
    • 4:1-6: The ministry of proclaiming the Gospel—the knowledge of God in Christ

The chiastic structure of this section becomes even more obvious when comparing 2:14-17 with 4:1-6:

Thus these two verses perfectly enclose the section, and should be studied together. I begin in today’s note with 2:14. Interestingly, this verse itself has a chiastic symmetry. The opening phrase is: “To God be thanks for (his) favor… [tw=| de\ qew=| xa/ri$ tw=|…]”. The second definite article defines (and explains) the favor (xa/ri$) which God has shown. This, in the remainder of the verse, may be presented as a chiasm:

    • every time [pa/ntote, i.e. always]
      • leading us in procession [qriambeu/onti h(ma=$]
        • in Christ [e)n Xristw=|]
        • the smell of the knowledge of Him [th\n o)smh\n th=$ gnw/sew$ au)tou=]
      • shining forth [i.e. making manifest] through us [fanerou=nti di’ h(mw=n]
    • in every place [e)n panti\ to/pw=]

These elements—the words and phrases—require some closer examination. First, the expressions using forms of pa=$ (“all, every”), which occur frequently in Paul’s letters:

(a) pa/ntote, “every [pa=$] (time) when [to/te]”, “always, whenever, etc.”—27 of 41 NT occurrences
(b) e)n panti\ to/pw|, “in every [pa=$] place, in all place(s)”, “everywhere”—cf. also in 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 1:8; and 1 Tim 2:8

These expressions encapsulate the completeness and universal reach of God’s action—temporal and spatial—covering every aspect of human existence. Specifically, here it relates to every aspect of the ministry of Paul and his fellow missionaries. The second pair of phrases are governed by two participles with predicate pronoun (“us”). The two verbs involved are:

    • qriambeu/w (thriambeúœ), which refers primarily to a military triumph (as by the Roman forces), and often in the specific sense of a triumphal procession following victory, in which captives and the spoils of battle would be displayed. There is some uncertainty as to the precise sense of Paul’s image here; it could be (a) that God leads Paul and other ministers in triumph, with the spread of the Gospel, etc. For similar military imagery along these lines, see e.g. 10:4-5. The other possibility is (b) that God leads Paul and the other ministers in procession as captives—i.e. they themselves have been made captive to the Gospel. Paul occasionally uses the term “slave” (dou=lo$) to refer to himself (and others) as ministers of Christ and the Gospel (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1, etc), and it is probably this latter sense that is meant in context here. The only other occurrence in the New Testament is Col 2:15, where a military victory, performed by God through the death (crucifixion) of Jesus, is properly meant.
    • fanero/w (phaneróœ), related to fw=$ (phœ¡s), “light” and the principal verbs fa/w [obs.], fai/nw (“shine [as] light”), meaning “shine forth”, often in the figurative sense of “appear, make apparent, (make) manifest”. It is found frequently in the Pauline letters (22 of 49 occurrences), and also in the Gospel and First letter of John (18 times). This verb will be discussed further in Part 3 of the series “Gnosis and the New Testament”, dealing with the topic of revelation.

Finally the words in the third (inner) pair of expressions:

    • “in Christ” (e)n Xristw=|)—a well known expression, found frequently in Paul’s writings, and almost exclusive to him in the New Testament. Typically it refers to the general status of believers, reflecting (a) our faith/trust in Christ, and (b) our union with him, through the Spirit, and symbolized in the rite of Baptism. However, here there is the specific sense of the status of Paul and his fellow apostles and missionaries as ministers of Christ and the Gospel. God leads them in procession in Christ—which, based on the interpretation given above, could be clarified as in captivity to Christ. For something of this sense, cf. also Rom 16:3, 9; Philem 23, etc. As captives, they are specifically required to speak (i.e. proclaim the Gospel)—cf. further in verse 17, and 12:19.
    • “the smell of the knowledge of Him” (h( o)smh\ th=$ gnw/sew$ au)tou=)—a genitive chain with three terms, each of which are treated below; a parallel genitive chain, even more extended, is used at a similar point in 4:6 (cf. the next study):
      • o)smh/ (osm¢¡), “smell”, either pleasant or foul. Here a pleasing aroma or fragrance is meant, as indicated by the use of eu)wdi/a (“good scent”) in verse 15. The combination of o)smh/ and eu)wdi/a strongly suggests the fragrance of the sacrificial offerings (cf. Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, etc. [LXX]). Here the “sacrifice” as such is the proclamation of the Gospel, and the role of Paul and his fellow ministers in this activity—for the parallel between Christian ministers and Moses (and the Priesthood), cf. the illustration in chapter 3. Paul plays again on the ambiguity of o)smh/ is verse 16—a good smell of life to the ones being saved (through the Gospel), but a stench of death for the ones perishing. The otherwise mixed metaphor of sight and smell indicates that the verb fanero/w is used more or less in the general sense of “appear, make manifest”.
      • gnw=si$ (gnœ¡sis), “knowledge”. For Paul’s use of gnw=si$, cf. Part 1 of the series “Gnosis and the New Testament”. The genitive construct makes clear that the smell is “the smell of knowledge“. If the sacrificial allusion is accepted (cf. above), then the orientation has shifted notably—instead of being directed toward God, the sacrifice is intended for human beings, to bring the knowledge of God to them. This is important when considering possible gnostic elements in the New Testament, and will be discussed further in that series.
      • au)tou=, “of him, his”—I have rendered the genitive relationship literally (“knowledge of him [i.e. God]”), though itself it is ambiguous; it could be subjective (God’s own knowledge) or objective (knowledge about/regarding God). Certainly the latter is meant here, though the two aspects can never be separated entirely, especially with regard to God’s (fore)knowledge of believers.

What is particularly significant about this pair of expressions is the way they must be taken to inform each other: the sacrificial “smell of the knowledge of (God)” comes about entirely “in Christ”.

August 21 (2): 1 Corinthians 1:30

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous note dealt with 1:27-28]

1 Corinthians 1:30

“And you are out of him [i.e. God] in (the) Anointed Yeshua, who was caused to be wisdom for us from God, (as well as) justice and holiness and loosing from (sin)…”

The argument by example running through vv. 26-28 (cf. the prior note) culminates in vv. 29-30; actually it is verse 29 which completes vv. 27-28:

“….how that [i.e. so that] all flesh should not boast in the sight of God.”

In some ways verse 30 is parallel to vv. 26-28, where the reference is to God calling and gathering out of the mass of humankind those who will come to believe in Christ. There the emphasis was on the relatively insignificant and ignoble status of believers (according to the values and ideals of the world); here, it is specifically on believers’ identity in Christ [e)n Xristw=|]:

“And you are out of [e)c, i.e. from] him in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Christ Jesus}…”

Let us consider the general parallel found in vv. 26-31:

    • Believers called out of the world—contrast with worldly position and values (vv. 27-28)
      • Human beings (“all flesh”), i.e. the world, may not boast before God (v. 29)
    • Believers come to be born from (lit. out of) God—in Christ (v. 30)
      • Only the one “in the Lord” may boast (before God) (v. 31)

Verses 29 and 31 use the verb kauxa/omai, which, like the related au)xe/w, fundamentally refers to giving a loud or bold utterance (declaration); it corresponds generally with “(to) boast” in English. This verb, along with the related nouns kau/xhma (“[a] boast”) and kauxh/si$ (“boasting”), was a favorite of Paul’s—35 of the 37 occurrences are found in the (undisputed) Pauline letters (+ Eph 2:9). It is hard, based on a superficial reading of the letters in translation, to appreciate precisely what Paul means by his use of this word-group and why it was so significant for him. Part of the problem lies in the translation “boast(ing)”. While this is perhaps the best English approximation for the kaux- word-group, it is rather misleading. In modern English, boasting almost always has a negative meaning, often referring to a pompous or arrogant and self-serving demeanor. While kauxa/omai sometimes carries this sense as well, it also has a much wider (and more general) range of meaning, as indicated above. Moreover, Paul typically has a very specific context in mind—that of human beings standing before God (at the final Judgment).

This eschatological emphasis is only one part of the Old Testament (LXX) and Jewish background of the term; two other themes had more immediate religious application: (a) the ritual/cultic aspect of humbling oneself before God (in approaching the sanctuary, etc), and (b) the ethical/moral aspect, expressed especially in Wisdom traditions, as a warning against self-glorification. The Scripture Paul cites in v. 31 (also in 2 Cor 10:17) is Jeremiah 9:24, the conclusion of a lament by the prophet in chapters 8-9 anticipating the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Jer 9:23-26 is also transitional to the warning in chapter 10 (“do not learn the way of the nations”, v. 2); verses 23-24 [Heb 22-23] may be rendered as follows:

“Thus says YHWH:
‘The wise (man) should not shout (for) himself [lL@h^t=y]] in his wisdom,
and the strong (man) not shout (for) himself in his strength,
and the wealthy (man) not shout (for) himself in his wealth;
for (only) in this should the (one) shouting (for) himself (so) shout—
(that) he gives attention (to me) and knows me:
that I am YHWH,
doing kindness, judgment [i.e. justice], and righteousness in the earth—
for in these (thing)s I feel delight’
—utterance of YHWH”

The portion in bold represents substantially what Paul cites; we may compare the Greek (LXX) version:

“but (only) in this [e)n tou/tw|] must the (one) shouting/boasting [o( kauxw/meno$] (so) shout/boast [kauxa/sqw]:
to put together [i.e. comprehend] and know that I am (the) Lord [ku/rio$]…”

Paul’s quotation is actually an abridgment, indicated by the words in italics above:

“the (one) shouting/boasting must (only) shout/boast in (the) Lord”
o( kauxw/meno$ e)n kuri/w| kauxa/sqw

The Greek imperative (and Hebrew jussive) form is somewhat difficult to render in English, usually being translated “let…(not) boast” (“the one boasting, let him boast in the Lord”). The Greek verb kauxa/omai (in the middle voice) covers much the same range of meaning as the Hebrew ll^h* (in the Hithpael/reflexive stem)—”shout/declare for oneself”, i.e. “praise oneself, boast”. The context of Jeremiah 9:23-24 is altogether fitting for Paul’s purpose in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16, in several respects:

    • The contrast between worldly values and those of God himself
    • The emphasis on wisdom and understanding (note also the reference to “strength”)
    • The basic setting/background of Judgment

Interestingly, both here and in 2 Cor 10:17, Paul has omitted the portion (in the LXX) “to comprehend and understand that I am (the)…”. The first verb in the original Hebrew (lk^c*) emphasizes not so much a person’s understanding as it does giving attention and consideration to something (i.e. paying attention). In Greek, the corresponding verb (suni/hmi) literally means “set/put (things) together”, i.e. so as to comprehend and understand. Paul easily could have retained this emphasis within a Christian context; however, his condensing (and adaptation) of the verse has a significant effect:

    • It shifts the focus from religious devotion and knowledge of God to God himself (i.e. “the Lord”)
    • It allows a bit of wordplay since, from a Christian standpoint, “in the Lord [e)n kuri/w|]” can be understood as “in Christ [e)n xristw=|]”, a favorite expression of Paul’s

Returning to the eschatological orientation of Paul’s discussion, if we (temporarily) disrupt the syntax and take together verses 29-31, it results in a significant chiasm:

    • Judgment: The world (“all flesh”) unable to boast before God (v. 29)
      —Believers (born) of God (i.e. sons/children of God) in Christ (v. 30)
    • Judgment: Only those “in the Lord” may boast before God (v. 31)

This serves as an excellent, concise summary of Pauline theology and soteriology.

A final point to consider is the structure of verse 30:

    • V. 30a—Relationship of believers to God in Christ (“and you are…in Christ Jesus”)
    • V. 30b—Relationship of Christ to believers (“who was caused to be…for us”)

The passive form (e)genh/qh) of gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) is another example of the “divine passive”—i.e. “God caused him to be”. Four nouns are used to describe what Jesus has become for us; the first of these (sofi/a, “wisdom”) is given emphasis: “who was caused to be wisdom for us from God”. This is another way of saying what Paul already stated in verse 24: that Jesus Christ himself is “the power of God and the wisdom of God“. Just as the wisdom of God was personified in Old Testament and Jewish Wisdom tradition (cf. throughout Proverbs and the book of Wisdom, esp. Prov 8; Wisd 6:12-25; 7:22-8:21; 10:1ff), so now God’s wisdom is manifest and embodied in the person of Christ. It is possible that the three nouns which follow in v. 30 are parallel with the “power of God” in v. 24, perhaps in the sense of the power to effect salvation (Rom 1:16). In any case, they may be included with “wisdom” in the conceptual structure of v. 30b: “who came to be wisdom and…for us from God”. These three nouns may be noted briefly:

  • dikaiosu/nh (dikaiosy¡n¢), “justice/righteousness”—the dikaio- word-group is especially important in Paul’s thought, central to his understanding of how believers relate to God through the person and work of Christ. Through the death and resurrection of Christ, believers are “made right” (or “made/declared just”) before God, apart from any moral/religious act (i.e. observance of the Old Testament Law [Torah]), only through trust in Christ. The noun dikaiosu/nh is virtually a theme word of Romans, occurring more than 30 times in that letter alone (more than a third of all occurrences in the New Testament). Often, as here, the noun connotes (or represents) the action of God (marked by the related verb dikaio/w) as well—God has made us right/just before him in Christ.
  • a(giasmo/$ (hagiasmós), “holiness”—related to the adjective a%gio$ (“holy, sacred”), but more properly to the derived verb a(gia/zw (“make holy, treat as holy”), which sometimes denotes the idea of purification (“make pure, clease”). The noun a(giasmo/$ refers to the resultant state or condition of someone/something which has been “made holy”, but also to the process and action (i.e. by God). Most of the occurrences (8 of 10) are in the Pauline letters (cf. Rom 6:19, 21; 1 Thess 4:3-4, 7; 2 Thess 2:13). It is often translated “sanctification”, but this term has come to have such a specialized technical meaning in many systems of theology that is probably better to avoid using it in translating the NT.
  • a)polu/trwsi$ (apoly¡trœsis), “loosing from (bondage)”—this noun, from the compound verb a)polutro/w, refers to the act of “loosing” (i.e. freeing) someone from bondage, captivity, slavery, etc. The related noun lu/tron usually indicates the payment made to free such a person (i.e. “ransom, redemption [price]”). Again, 8 of the 10 occurrences of a)polu/trwsi$ in the New Testament are from the Pauline letters (Rom 3:24; 8:23; Col 1:14, etc). In Paul’s thought, the specific context is bondage to sin, from which God has freed us through the death and resurrection of Christ. Secondarily, believers are also freed from the (Old Testament) Law, being no longer bound (required) to observe it; however, this point is not emphasized much in 1 Corinthians (compared with Galatians and Romans [cf. also 2 Cor 3]).

July 31: 2 Corinthians 5:21

In today’s note I will be looking at Romans 8:3-4 in comparison with 2 Corinthians 5:21. These two passages connect the incarnation of Christ with God’s work of salvation for humankind. From the beginning, Christians understood the sacrificial and salvific character of Jesus’ death, and that he was God’s unique representative; but here, in these two letters, perhaps for the first time, we find a developed doctrine blending soteriology with Christology. As 2 Corinthians was likely written before Romans, I will begin with 2 Cor 5:21.

2 Corinthians 5:21

“the (one) not knowing sin, He [i.e. God] made (to be) sin over us [i.e. for our sake], (so) that we might come to be (the) justice/righteousness of God in him”

The context of this passage (2 Cor 5:11-21) is similar to that of Phil 2:1-11—an appeal for peace and unity among believers is connected with the example of God’s sacrificial and saving work in Christ. Here in 2 Corinthians, the emphasis is on reconciliationkatallagh/, vb. katalla/ssw, to make things different, mutually, between two parties. In vv. 18-19, Paul makes two statements:

    • God is “the (One) making (things) different [katalla/canto$] (for) us with Himself through [dia/] (the) Anointed” (v. 18)
    • God “was [h@n] in [e)n] (the) Anointed, making (things) different [katalla/sswn] (for the) world with Himself” (v. 19)

In both instances, a participial form of the verb is used: the first in the aorist (indicating a past action), the second in the present. In verse 18, it is “us” (believers) for whom the situation has been changed with God; in verse 19, it is the entire world. This particular work of reconciliation is glossed and interpreted by Paul as “not counting for them (the instances of) their falling alongside [paraptw/mata]”, i.e., not reckoning their sins and failures, understood as violations/transgressions of the Law, especially in its moral/ethical aspect. We also see, in each statement regarding God’s work of reconciliation in/through Christ, a corresponding declaration of the work of reconciliation God intends for believers (focused primarily in the apostolic ministry):

    • “…and (also) giving to us the service [diakoni/a] of making (things) different [i.e. reconciliation, katallagh/]” (v. 18)
    • “…and (also) placing in us the word/account [lo/go$] of making (things) different [i.e. reconciliation]” (v. 19)

It may be helpful to examine each element of verse 21:

to\n mh\ gno/nta (“the [one] not knowing”)—i.e. Jesus Christ; here the verb know (ginw/skw) probably should be understood in the sense of familiarity.

a(marti/an (“sin”)—The expression mh\ gno/nta a(marti/an is sometimes translated as “knowing no sin“; but the negative particle relates primarily to the verb, and thus the emphasis is on “not knowing sin”. Paul doubtless would affirm something corresponding to the later orthodox belief regarding the sinlessness of Christ; however, when referring to specific sins or misdeeds, he typically uses the words para/ptwma (cf. in v. 19), para/basi$, or a(marti/a in the plural. The use of the singular here could indicate the idea of sin in the more general, abstract sense; or, as often in Romans especially, of sin as a power. To describe Jesus as “the one not knowing sin” probably means, for Paul, that he was the only person who was not enslaved under the power of sin, i.e. did not know Sin has his master. The word a(marti/a fundamentally means a failure—in the conventional Israelite/Jewish religious sense, this would be a failure to observe the commands and regulations of the Law (Torah), and, in particular, moral failure. In English, the word is normally rendered as “sin”; it is generally synonymous with the corresponding afj in Hebrew.

u(pe\r u(ma=$ (“over us”)—The preposition u(pe/r literally means “over”, but often in the metaphorical sense of “on behalf of, for the sake of”, etc. What God did through Christ was done “over us”, covering us, and it was done for our sake.

e)poi/hsen (“he made”)—God is the implied subject, with “the one not knowing sin” (Christ) as the object, i.e. God made Christ to be (like/as) sin. How should we understand this “making”? I have previously suggested three possibilities:

    • he was made into the form of (sinful) human “flesh” (Rom 8:3, cf. below); the idea of incarnation, cf. Gal 4:4; Phil 2:7
    • he was made like unto the (enslaving) power of sin, in order to conquer and destroy it (cf. Rom 8:2-3; Gal 3:13-14)
    • he was made into a sin-offering; note the similar double meaning of afj in Hebrew, which can be used both for sin and the offering made on behalf of sin

i%na (“that”)—the particle here introduces a final clause, indicating either purpose or result (or both), i.e. “so that…”

genw/meqa (“we might come to be”)—the common existential verb indicating becoming, i.e. the purpose and result of God’s work is that we (believers) will come to be something new. The aorist subjunctive form could here could also be rendered: “that we should come to be…”

dikaiosu/nh qeou= (“[the] justice/righteousness of God”)—Paul’s use of this expression is familiar from Romans, where it appears numerous times (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21-22; 10:3, also 3:25-26; 6:13, etc). More than half of the instances of the noun dikaiosu/nh come from the undisputed Pauline letters (34 times in Romans). I have discussed dikaiosu/nh (and the dikaio- word-group) extensively in the articles on “Paul’s View of the Law” (note also the article on Justification). Where this particular expression is used in Romans, it should be taken fundamentally as a characteristic or attribute of God Himself, but which is expressed primarily in the person and work of Christ.

e)n au)tw=| (“in him”)—that is, “in Christ”, e)n Xristw=| being a favorite Pauline expression, indicating the union (and unity) of believers with Christ (and with God through Christ). Here it should also be understood as the focus of our becoming the “justice/righteousness of God”—it takes place in Christ. Elsewhere, Paul refers to Jesus as the very embodiment of justice/righteousness. The parallel in 1 Cor 1:30 is especially noteworthy:

1 Cor 1:30: he came to be the justice/righteousness from God for us
2 Cor 5:21: we come to be the justice/righteousness of God in him

The interplay reflected in these two verses is fascinating indeed!

What does it mean precisely, that believers should “become” or “come to be” the justice/righteousness of God? I will leave this question until I have discussed Romans 8:3-4, which I will do in the next daily note.

Notes on Prayer: John 17:20-23

John 17:20-23

As discussed previously in these notes on the Prayer-Discourse of Jesus in John 17, verses 12-26 provide an exposition of the central petition of vv. 9-11. As in the Discourses proper, Jesus explains the true meaning of his words; in this regard, the situation is much like that of the prayer at the tomb of the Lazarus in 11:41-42—it is intended as much or more for the benefit of those around him (the disciples/believers) than it is for God the Father whom he addresses. Verses 12-19, discussed in the prior studies, comprise the first section of the exposition, verse 20-26 the second. The petition in vv. 9ff is for the needs of believers; in vv. 12-19, the focus is on Jesus’ immediate disciples (the Twelve, etc), while in vv. 20-26 the viewpoint widens out to encompass all believers everywhere. This is clear from the way the language in verse 9 is repeated, essentially restating the petition:

“And (yet) I do not ask about these only, but also about the (one)s trusting in me through their word [lo/go$]…”

The wording sharpens an important theme running through the Last Discourse: that of the disciples serving as witnesses of Jesus after he has departed to the Father. Verse 18, with its reference to the disciples as apostles—i.e. ones sent out from Jesus into the world—anticipates the post-resurrection commission in 20:21-23. Yet here, the emphasis is not on the work of the disciples, but on those who come to trust in Jesus through their work. In this regard, verses 20-23 serve as an expository refrain to the Prayer, moving from Jesus’ circle of disciples to the wider sphere of believers the world over. The parallelism in these verses is striking, and must be examined carefully; indeed, we have here two strophes that are nearly identical, following a precise pattern:

    • Initial statement regarding believers
      • i%na clause—that they (all) may be one
      • comparative kaqw/$ clause, relating their unity to that shared by Father and Son
      • i%na clause—that they may share the same (kind of) unity
        • concluding i%na (result) clause—believers’ witness to the world

Let us consider each strophe—first, vv. 20-21:

    • “…(I ask) about the (one)s trusting in me through their word,
      • that [i%na] (they) all would be one [e%n]
      • just as [kaqw/$] you, Father, (are) in me and I in you,
      • that [i%na] they also would be in us,
        • (so) that [i%na] the world would trust that you se(n)t me forth.”

Second, the following vv. 22-23:

    • “And the honor [do/ca] which you have given to me, I have given to them,
      • that [i%na] they would be one [e%n]
      • just as [kaqw/$] we (are) one [e%n]—I in them and you in me—
      • that [i%na] they would be completed into one [e%n]
        • (so) that [i%na] the world would know that you se(n)t me forth
          and (that) you loved them even as you loved me.”

It will be most useful, I think, to take each corresponding pair of lines, from each strophe, and examine them together in turn.

With regard to the initial statement regarding believers, the first (v. 20) identifies believers as those trusting in Jesus through the intermediary work of the disciples (i.e. other believers) proclaiming the Gospel message about him. The second statement (v. 22a), I would suggest, characterizes the essential identity of the believer: one who shares in the honor/glory (do/ca) of God the Father and Jesus Christ (the Son). This divine honor/glory is not realized individually, but collectively, for believers as a whole. This will be discussed further when we come to verse 24. The Prayer-Discourse began with this idea of honor/glory (do/ca), in vv. 1ff, and has continued as a theme throughout (vv. 10, 17-18, 22ff). There can be little doubt that Jesus is here speaking of the same divine/eternal do/ca mentioned in vv. 5 and 10, however shocking that might seem to religious sensibilities. He states unequivocally that he has given this same do/ca to believers; and, it must be understood as the sign and basis of the unity we have with Father and Son (and with each other). This point will be expounded further by Jesus in vv. 24-26.

Now, for each of the i%na/kaqw/$ clause pairs:

  1. “that (they) all would be one” [i%na pa/nte$ e^n w@sin] (v. 21a)
    “that they would be one” [i%na w@sin e^n] (v. 22b)

These two statements are virtually identical, really only differing by the inclusion of “all” (pa/nte$) in the first statement, a distinction which certainly applies to the second as well. It emphasizes that Jesus’ prayer relates to all believers, everywhere. At other points in the Gospel we find a definite awareness of this universal outlook (1:12-13; 3:14-15ff; 6:44-45ff; 10:16; 11:25-26; 12:32, 46ff; 18:37; 20:29, 31, etc). The repeated use of the neuter e%n (“one”) emphasizes that believers should be understood collectively—i.e. as a universal community. It is similar in meaning to the Hebrew word dh^y~, used as an identifying self-designation by the Community of the Qumran texts; the same language was almost certainly applied by early Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Christians as well (cf. Acts 2:42, etc).

  1. “just as you, Father, (are) in me and I in you” [kaqw\$ su/ path/r e)n e)moi\ ka)gw\ e)n soi/] (v. 21b)
    “just as we are one—I in them and you in me” [kaqw\$ h(mei=$ e%n: e)gw\ e)n au)toi=$ kai\ su\ e)n emoi/] (v. 22c-23a)

These are two distinct, but closely related statements; in several important respects the meaning is the same:

    • The unity of believers is patterned after the unity shared by God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son); this is the force of the particle kaqw/$ (“just as, even as”)
    • However, this unity is not just similar to the divine unity, it is fundamentally the same—it is based upon the unity of Father and Son and derives from it
    • The basis of this divine unity, in which believers share, is the joint/reciprocal relationship of being “in” (e)n) one another.

This unity is presented here in two aspects:

    • Horizontal (reciprocal)—equally between Father and Son (and, in turn, with believers): “you in me, and I in you”
    • Vertical (hierarchical)—from Father to Son to believers: “I in them and you in me”

Ultimately, for believers, the first aspect is dependent upon the second; that is to say, we share in the unity between Father and Son through our relationship to the Son. Though it is not stated here, this relationship with the Son is realized through the presence of the Spirit.

  1. “that they also would be in us” [i%na kai\ au)toi\ e)n h(mi=n w@sin] (v. 21c)
    “that they would be completed into one” [i%na w@sin teteleiwme/noi ei)$ e%n] (v. 23b)

Here the point made above—that unity is based on being “in” the Father and Son—is beautifully set in parallel: “in us” and “completed into one” are synonymous. For the sake of simplicity, my translation of the second phrase, though generally literal in rendering, has somewhat obscured the force of the perfect participle teteleiwme/noi. This would more accurately be translated “(one)s having been completed” or “(one)s having been made complete”. In other words, the participle characterizes believers. This verb (teleio/w, “[make] complete”) is closely related to tele/w (“complete”), and both verbs together have a special theological significance in the Johannine writings. In the Gospel, they refer to Jesus (the Son) completing the work, or mission, for which the Father sent him to earth (4:34; 5:36). We saw that Jesus used the verb teleio/w earlier in the Prayer (v. 4); the Passion setting makes clear that this completed work is to culminate with his sacrificial death (19:28), being fulfilled in his final word on the cross: “it is completed” [tete/lestai, vb tele/w] (v. 30).

However, here the verb teleio/w, in the passive, is used of believers. The parallel for this usage is found in the First Letter of John, and these references must be consulted to understand its meaning here:

“but, whoever would keep watch (over) his word [lo/go$], in this (person) the love of God has been made complete [tetelei/wtai], (and) in this we know that we are in him [e)n au)tw=| e)smen]” (2:5)

“No one has ever looked (upon) God. (But) if we love (each) other, (then) God remains [i.e. dwells] in us, and his love is made complete [teteleiwme/nh] in us.” (4:12)
“In this [e)n tou/tw|], love has been completed [tetelei/wtai] with us…that just as [kaqw/$] that (one) [i.e. the Son/Jesus] is [e)stin], (so) also we are [e)smen] in this world. There is no fear in love, but the love (that is) complete [telei/a] throws fear (out)…and the (one) fearing has not been made complete [tetelei/wtai] in love.” (4:17-18)

Even a casual reading, in translation, should make clear how similar the thought and language is to that of the Prayer-Discourse of Jesus. Here the completion/completeness of believers is marked by the presence of God’s love (a)ga/ph) in them. That is certainly an important motif in the Gospel Discourses as well; in fact, it is one of the key themes that opens the Last Discourse (13:34-35), running all the way through it, to the end of the Prayer-Discourse (vv. 24-26, to be discussed in next week’s study). There is, in these passages from 1 John, a close connection between the verb teleio/w and the idea of the unity of believers that is based on the presence of God (and Christ) in us. This is precisely what we find here in vv. 21, 23 of the Prayer. Believers are made complete through their/our union with the Son, the presence of whom is variously defined in terms of (a) Word [lo/go$], (b) Love, but ultimately as (c) the Spirit.

However, this is not the full extent of the meaning of the verb teleio/w in this passage; there is an important aspect yet to be addressed, which requires study of the final (concluding) phrases of each strophe.

  1. “(so) that the world would trust that you se(n)t me forth” [i%na o( ko/smo$ pisteu/h| o%ti su/ me a)pe/steila$] (v. 21d)
    “(so) that the world would know that you se(n)t me forth…” [i%na ginw/skh| o( ko/smo$ o%ti su/ me a)pe/steila$]
    “…(and) that you loved them just as you loved me.” (v. 23c-d)

The references here to the “world” (ko/smo$) are complex and carry a special significance within the theological setting of the Johannine Discourses of Jesus. A proper understanding of it requires an extended discussion, which I will be giving in a supplemental article.

May 19: Matthew 28:18-20 (continued)

Matthew 28:18-20 (continued)

The previous note examined the “Great Commission” by Jesus at the close of the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 28:18-20), especially the command to baptize in vv. 19-20a. Today I will be looking in detail at the specific phrase “into the name of…” [ei)$ to\ o&noma tou=…].

The Name

Ancient Near Eastern cultures treated names and naming in a quite different manner than modern Western society. The name had a dynamic, magical quality, effectively embodying the character and essence of the person. This was all the more true with regard to religious belief—to “call upon” or to invoke the name of a deity was fundamental to ancient religious practice and identity (Gen 4:26b, etc). The invocation and use of a divine name also had to be done with great care—there was considerable power involved, and danger if handled improperly; this is the situation which underlies the famous command regarding the name of YHWH/Yahweh (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). In addition to its use in religious ritual, the divine name would be invoked in oaths, treaties and other agreements—both for the purpose of guaranteeing truthfulness and fidelity, and also to bind the oath or agreement, etc, under the power of the god. There would be divine blessing for the one who fulfills and agreement, but divine curse or punishment for the one who violates it. Indeed, there was believed to be theurgic power and efficacy in the name, which could be invoked over just about any area of daily life.

The Name of Jesus

For early Christians, it was specifically the name of Yeshua (Jesus) which was central to religious belief and practice. Already in the earliest layers of Christian tradition, the belief in Jesus’ deity—as the Son of God who is now seated in glory at the right hand of God the Father (YHWH)—was well-established. All aspects of Christian religious life took place according to the name of Jesus. This is expressed clearly in the book of Acts; note the following examples:

In the Gospels, there are number of sayings and teachings by Jesus where he refers to “my name”—Mark 9:37-39; 13:6 pars; [16:17]; Matthew 18:20; also Luke 24:47. Especially significant is the teaching in the Discourses of John, cf. Jn 14:13-14, 26; 15:16, 21; 16:23-26; also 3:18. The emphasis there is on believers requesting of God the Father in Jesus’ name. Also important is the related idea that Jesus himself has come—i.e. speaks, works and acts—in the name of the Father (Jn 5:43; 10:3, 25; 12:28; 17:6, 11-12, 26; cf. also Mk 9:37; 11:9 pars; Matt 23:39 par). This latter point will be discussed further in the next daily note.

Baptism in Jesus’ Name

The central, intiatory act of baptism, marking one’s conversion and entry into the Community of believers, in the early Christian period was performed specifically “in the name of Jesus”. Given the religious importance and significance of this (divine) name (cf. above), this is hardly surprising. However, it is important to note that is especially prominent in the earlier Christian tradition (as recorded in the book of Acts), and is less commonly attested in later periods. Here are the key passages, where baptism is said to be:

    • Acts 2:38—”upon [e)pi/] the name of Yeshua into/unto a change-of-mind [i.e. repentance]” (Note: some MSS read “in” [e)n] instead of “upon”). This follows precisely the formula in Luke 24:47.
    • Acts 8:16—”into [ei)$] the name of the Lord Yeshua”, after which they receive the Holy Spirit (v. 17)
    • Acts 10:48—”in [e)n] the name of Yeshua (the) Anointed”, after having received the Spirit prior (vv. 44ff)
    • Acts 19:5—”into [ei)$] the name of the Lord Yeshua”, parallel to believers trusting in(to) [ei)$] Jesus (v. 4)
    • Cf. also 1 Cor 1:13, 15—”into the name of…”

Matthew 28:19 uses the same idiom of baptism “into [ei)$] the name of…”. It was also said of John’s baptism that it was “into [ei)$] a change-of mind [i.e. repentance]” (Matt 3:11, cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 2:38), where the preposition ei)$ indicates purpose or result. Elsewhere in Gospel tradition, John’s baptizing is described as being “of [i.e. for, leading to] repentance” and “into [ei)$] release [i.e. forgiveness]” (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4), i.e. for the purpose of (and resulting in) the forgiveness of sins. There are two key aspects of the use of ei)$ (“into”) with regard to baptism:

    1. It reflects trust/faith in(to) JesusMatt 18:6 par; Acts 10:43; 19:4-5; 20:21; 24:24; 26:18. The idiom is especially frequent in the Gospel of John: Jn 2:11; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 40; 7:31, 38-39; 8:30; 9:35-36; 10:42; 11:25-26, 45, 48; 12:36-37, 44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20. The parallel use of e)n (“in”) at Jn 3:15; 8:31 strongly suggests that the expressions “trust in” and “trust into” are virtually equivalent (cf. Mk 1:15; Acts 18:8). Also generally synonymous is the phrase “trust upon [e)pi] (the Lord) Jesus”, cf. Acts 3:16; 9:42; 11:17; 16:31.
    2. It signifies entrance into the Community and spiritual/symbolic union with Jesus. This theme is developed considerably by Paul in several of his letters, where we find the phrase “dunked/baptized into (the) Anointed {Christ}”. The key verse is Galatians 3:27—”as many of you (as) have been dunked into (the) Anointed, you have sunk in(to the) Anointed [i.e. put him on as a garment]”. The emphasis is no longer on the name of Jesus, even though Paul still uses this language (cf. 1 Cor 1:2, 10ff; 5:4; 6:11; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 1:12; 3:6, etc); rather, it is on the person of Christ. In Romans 6:3-4, baptism is interpreted as symbolizing the believer’s participation in the death (and resurrection) of Jesus (cf. Col 2:12). Cf. also 1 Cor 10:2; 12:13—the latter reference specifically emphasizing baptism into one body (the Community as the body of Christ) and in one Spirit (Eph 4:4-5).

This discussion on Matt 28:18-20 will conclude in the next daily note.

Notes on Galatians 3:28, part 1

Galatians 3:28

The next three daily notes serve as a supplement to the recent article on Galatians 3:28 in the series Women in the Church, as well as to the study on the subject as it relates to the Pauline letters as a whole, and to the role of women from the standpoint of early Christianity and Gnosticism. Here I will be looking in more detail at three specific aspects of this verse—particularly, the declaration “there is no male and female”:

    1. The background and significance of the statement
    2. The logical consequences and possible interpretation(s), and
    3. Comparison with the Pauline teaching in 1 Cor 11:3ff; 14:34-35, etc

Today’s note treats the first of these topics.

1. Background and Significance

As previously discussed (cf. Part 3 of this series), the three-fold declaration in Gal 3:28 is clearly connected with the rite of baptism: “For as (many of) you as have been dunked [i.e. baptized] into (the) Anointed (One) {Christ}, you have sunk in(to) (the) Anointed [i.e. put him on as a garment]” (v. 27). There are parallels to Gal 3:27-28 in 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:11, also associated with baptism. Many commentators believe that this reflects an (earlier) baptismal formula; if so, it is probably not a specific formulation original to Paul, but rather something he cites to support his argument (and for dramatic effect), something which would be familiar (and dear) to recent converts. Let us compare these three passages (note the central statement in bold):

Galatians 3:27-281 Corinthians 12:13Colossians 3:9-11
“For as (many of) you as have been dunked [i.e. baptized] in the Anointed {Christ}, have sunk in(to) [i.e. put on] the Anointed;
in (Christ) there is no Yehudean {Jew} and no Greek, there is no slave and no free (person), there is no male and female
for you all are one in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Jesus Christ}.”
“For in one Spirit we all were dunked [i.e. baptized] into one Body—
(even) if Yehudeans {Jews} and if Greeks, if slaves and if free (person)s
and we all were given to drink of (the) one Spirit.”
“…having sunk out from the old man…and sinking in(to) [i.e. putting on] the new…
where in (Christ) there is no Greek and Yehudean {Jew}, circumcision and foreskin…, slave, free (person)
but the Anointed {Christ} is all (thing)s and in all (things).”

The basic setting is baptism as an initiation rite, similar to many other such religious rituals worldwide. The closest parallels would be from the Greco-Roman (pagan) mystery cults, though one can also cite similarities in a Jewish setting (such as the Qumran community of the Dead Sea Scrolls). We actually know relatively little about the specific ceremonies practiced by the mystery religions; however, note the reference in Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11:24, which involves an initiate in the mysteries of Isis, who has put on robes following the sacred ceremony (cf. also Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 352b; Firmicius Maternus, Error of the Profane Religions §§19, 22). For a (Hellenistic) Jewish use of the same kind of symbolism, cf. Philo, On Flight and Finding §§109-12; Joseph and Aseneth §§14-17. It is likely that early Christian tradition made use of (white) robes to symbolize the “putting on” of Christ.

In such religious initiation, the ritual signifies the establishment of a new identity, and all the more so in the case of Christian baptism—the believer enters the water, dying to the old, and being born (again, spiritually) to the new. Paul clearly connected baptism with the believer’s participation in the death (and resurrection) of Christ (Rom 6:3-11; 8:9-11; Col 2:12ff; cf. also Gal 2:19-20), and this must also inform the baptismal formula used in Gal 3:27-28, etc. Note the parallel between “putting on” (lit. “sinking in[to]”, vb. e)ndu/w) in Gal 3:27 and “putting off” (lit. “sinking out [from]”, vb. [a)p]ekdu/w) in Col 3:9—the believer “puts off” the ‘old man’, the old nature (like a snake shedding its skin), and “puts on” the new nature (Christ). It is this fundamental sense of a new religious (spiritual) identity which provides the context for the three-fold declaration in Gal 3:28 with its repeated use of e&ni (“there is in…”). The reference is to the preposition e)n (“in Christ”, e)n Xristw=|) at the end of the verse, but also to the earlier use of the verb e)ndu/w in v. 27. That verb is usually translated “put on”, “clothe [yourself]”, but, in order to preserve the wordplay (among other reasons), it is better to render it literally, “sink in(to)”. Note how this frames the central declaration:

    • “You have sunk in(to) [e)ndu/sasqe] Christ”—i.e., you are now in Christ (v. 27)
      “In (Christ) there is… [e&ni]”
    • “You are all one in Christ [e)n Xristw=|] (v. 28d)

Baptism symbolizes (ritually) the believer’s union in Christ, which is also to be understood as becoming part of a unity—that is, of all believers, as a single body. This is the point emphasized by the formula in 1 Cor 12:13:

    • “For we all were dunked [baptized] in one Spirit
      —”into one Body”
    • “…we all were given to drink of (the) one Spirit

A comparison between 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:27-28 (perhaps written only a few years apart), indicates that the three-fold declaration in Gal 3:28 ought to be understood in terms of believers being part of the one body of Christ. In other words, the declaration is governed by the overriding idea of our union (together) in Christ; here is the formula:

    • V. 28a: “in (Christ) there is no Jew and no Greek”—religious/ethnic distinction
    • V. 28b: “in (Christ) there is no slave and no free (person)”—socio-economic distinction
    • V. 28c: “in (Christ) there is no male and female”—social (and biological) distinction

This makes for a powerful statement and strongly suggests that our new identity in Christ somehow transcends, or renders invalid, the normal distinctions and characteristics of our (previous) way of life. The problem is that Paul, in his letters, really only discusses the first of these—the religious (and ethnic/cultural) distinction between Jews and non-Jews (“Greeks”, i.e. Gentiles). This is a central theme, especially in Galatians and Romans, and Paul argues forcefully that the “new covenant” in Christ effectively abolishes the old. Perhaps the most direct declaration along these lines is in 2 Cor 3:1-18 (esp. verses 6-11, 12-16); while Ephesians 2:11-22 neatly sums up the Pauline teaching, with the idea that Jewish and Gentile believers have become “one new man” in Christ (vv. 15-16). Thus, while Jewish and Gentile believers, respectively, might (voluntarily) continue to observe certain customs, these cannot—and must not—create division or separation within the body of Christ (cf. Gal 2:11-14; Rom 14, etc). In every way that matters, there is no difference whatever between believers, from an ethno-religious or cultural point of view.

The same would certainly apply to socio-economic distinctions, such as slave vs. free, rich vs. poor, etc., though Paul says relatively little about this. According to the narratives in Acts, many of the earliest converts in Paul’s missionary work were from the upper levels of society (16:13-14; 17:4, 12, 34, etc), but certainly from the middle/lower classes as well (cf. 1 Cor 1:26ff, etc). In dealing with the social situation of slavery in the Greco-Roman world, Paul tends to downplay any possible revolutionary aspect to the Christian message (1 Cor 7:21-23; Col 3:22-4:1; cf. also Eph 6:5-9; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10); social change would occur naturally, through conversion to the Gospel, rather than by active efforts to change the laws and structure of society. More commonly, Paul uses slavery/freedom as a motif for the Gospel itself—human beings are in bondage under sin (and the Law), and only through trust in Christ and the work of the Spirit do we find freedom (cf. Rom 6:15-23; 8:1-17; Gal 2:4; 3:21-26; 4:1-7, 8ff, 21-31; 5:1). In the letter to Philemon, there is a moving account of a runaway slave (Onesimus) who has become a believer, and is now returning to his (Christian) master. This illustrates the dual (and somewhat paradoxical nature) of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus—on the one hand (at the social level), they remain master and slave, but on the other (in Christ) they are brothers and equals.

This brings us to the thornier question regarding the social (and biological) distinction of male and female—do these no longer apply to believers in Christ, as the declaration in Gal 3:28c suggests? I have already addressed this in Part 3 of the series (“Women in the Church”), but it will be useful to supplement that discussion with a few points here.

  • The expression “male and female” (a&rsen kai\ qh=lu) refers not only to the conventional, social difference(s) between men and women, but also to the essential physical/biological differences.
  • Almost certainly it alludes to the creation account in Genesis (1:27; 5:2); the significance of this will be dealt with in the next note. It is interesting that in 1 Cor 11:2-16 (also 1 Tim 2:11-15) the creation narrative is used to make virtually the opposite point—that gender distinction is to be preserved in the Church, with women (it would seem) in a subordinate role.
  • The context in Galatians is important—Paul is arguing that believers are the true heirs of Abraham (to the promise of God), which means, according to the cultural background of the illustration, that believers are sons. But clearly, this is not to be taken literally; believers—men and women both—are “sons” in this sense. It is not a question of gender (in spite of the traditional gender-based language).
  • Beyond this, Paul is definitely speaking of a new situation for believers. Again, this is especially clear from the surrounding context:
    —Believers are no longer (ou)ke/ti) bound under the old way of things (3:25; 4:7)
    —This old condition is described as being under (u(po/) the authority (i.e., bound, enslaved) of the old order—the Law, sin, death, etc. (3:10, 22-23, 25; 4:2-5, etc)
    —The old order of things involves “the (arranged) elements [stoixei=a] of the world” (4:3, 9; cf. Col 2:8, 20), which certainly includes the (fallen, corrupt) order of creation
    —But believers are freed from the old order (3:21-26; 4:1-11, 21-31; 5:1ff, 13); this freedom is in relation to the presence and work of the Spirit (3:2ff, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16-18ff), which is not tied to the created order (cf. John 3:3-10)
    —This new condition (and identity) in Christ, and through the Spirit, is defined as a new creation (6:15; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 3:10, also Eph 2:15; 4:24)—which suggests that the old (created order) has passed away or been completely transformed (cf. also Rom 7:6; 8:19ff; 1 Cor 5:7)

All of this sounds impressive, but what does it actually mean for believers? What are the consequences of this new condition or new identity? This must be addressed in two parts: (a) how extensively should Gal 3:28 be applied at the religious (and spiritual) level, and (b) what are the practical implications for Christian life and community? These questions will be dealt with, in turn, in the next two notes.

Women in the Church, Part 3: Galatians 3:28

Galatians 3:28

The next passage to be discussed in this series is Paul’s famous statement in Gal 3:28. There is a definite tension (some would say contradiction) between the idea expressed in this verse, and Paul’s instruction elsewhere regarding the role/position of men and women in the Church. It is therefore necessary to study and explore the matter in some detail.

Historical and Literary Context

Galatians was written (by Paul) sometime in the 50’s; more precise dating has proven difficult, especially since it is not certain whether the churches he addresses are located in southern/south-central Asia Minor (modern Turkey), or in the central region. The former could have been in existence as early as the first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:13-14:20), while the latter presumably would not have been founded until the second journey (Acts 16:6ff; 18:23). Some traditional-conservative commentators prefer an earlier date (late 40s), on the assumption that it was written prior to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and that Galatians 2 records a different meeting in Jerusalem. Most scholars, however, accept that Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10 are separate accounts of the same basic event, and that Galatians was written after the Council. Internal evidence of style and subject matter strongly suggests that Galatians was written relatively close in time to Romans and 2 Corinthians (i.e. early-mid 50’s).

In the letter, Paul is opposing the view of certain Jewish Christians, who had maintained that Gentile (non-Jewish) believers ought to be circumcised and observe the Old Testament Law (Torah). The entire letter is written to persuade the believers in Galatia that such a religious step is not necessary—salvation and being made right (“justification”) in God’s eyes comes entirely through trust in Jesus. Moreover, in Christ, our life and ethical behavior is guided by the Spirit and the teaching/example of Jesus (the ‘love command’), not by observance of the Old Testament Law. We have true freedom in Christ, and are no longer in bondage to (i.e. bound/required to follow) the Law of the old Covenant. Of all the Pauline letters, Galatians has perhaps the clearest rhetorical structure: the main proposition (propositio) is stated in 2:15-16, along with a brief exposition in vv. 17-21. This restates the cause (causa) or purpose of his writing, as indicated in 1:6-7ff, and is prefaced by a narration (narratio) which illustrates the issues involved (1:122:14). The central section of the letter (chapters 34) is the probatio (“proof”), in which Paul produces arguments and illustrations in support of his point, and to convince the Galatians of the truth of it. The arguments Paul uses build upon one another—for example, in 3:6-14, he adduces an argument from Scripture (Gen 15:6, etc) to demonstrate that the covenant God made with Abraham is prior (and superior) to the introduction of the Law at Sinai, and that believers in Christ are the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Now, in Gal 3:264:11, the argument has been refined and developed so that Paul can affirm, on the basis of Christian experience, that believers truly are the heirs of the blessings and promises to Abraham (realized in Christ).

Outline and Exegesis

Galatians 3:26-4:11 may be outlined as follows:

    • Argument: Believers are the sons/heirs of the divine blessing and promise (3:26-29)
      • Basic statement—sons/heirs through trust in Christ (v. 26)
      • Demonstration—symbolism of the Baptism ritual (vv. 27-28)
      • Conclusion—this is a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (v. 29)
    • Illustration (proof): The heir comes of age (in Christ) and is no longer treated like a slave (4:1-11)
      • No longer under the bondage of the Law (vv. 3-7)
      • No longer under bondage to the “elements” of the world (vv. 8-11)

The specific verse (28) under examination is part of the demonstration from Baptism, which must be understood in the context of the two statements in vv. 26 and 29:

V. 26: “For you are all sons of God through the trust [i.e. faith] in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Christ Jesus}”
V. 29: “And if you are of (the) Anointed {Christ}, then you are (the) seed of Abraham, heirs according to (the) promise [e)paggeli/a]”

The symbolism of Baptism in vv. 27-28 is introduced to illustrate/demonstrate that believers are the sons (and heirs) of God. Clearly, Paul’s use of “sons” here applies to all believers—male and female both. We could translate with inclusive language here and say “sons and daughters” or “children”, but that would distort somewhat the image he is using—that of the heir to the household, which typically would be the (eldest) son. The demonstration from Baptism has two parts:

    • V. 27—A fundamental formula indicating the believer’s new identity in Christ:
      “For as (many of) you as have been dunked [i.e. baptized] into (the) Anointed {Christ}, have sunk yourselves in(to the) Anointed {Christ} [i.e. put him on as a garment]”
    • V. 28—A (three-fold) formula expressing the essential character and nature of this identity:
      • “in (Christ) there is no Yehudean {Jew} and no Greek”
      • “in (Christ) there is no slave and no free (person)”
      • “in (Christ) there is no male and female”
    • —along with the concluding formula in 28b:
      “for you all are one in (the) Anointed Yeshua {Christ Jesus}”

The statement in v. 28b is also parallel to that in v. 26:

    • “For you are all sons of God through trust in Christ Jesus”
      “For you are all one in Christ Jesus”

It is certainly not an issue of maleness (“sons”) here—the expression “sons of God” is essentially synonymous with “one”, i.e. the unity of all believers in Christ. This is what the three-fold formula in v. 28 indicates. It is possible that Paul (or an earlier baptismal tradition) is playing on an old Jewish prayer formula, whereby the male Jew gives thanks to God that he was not created as a Gentile, slave (‘brute’) or woman (t. Ber. 7:18; b. Men. 43b; cf. Bruce, p. 187). Each of these elements is significant from the standpoint of the rhetorical context of Galatians:

    • Jew/Greek—this of course is central to the overall argument of Galatians (cf. also throughout Romans): there is no longer any ethnic or religious distinction in Christ between Jew and non-Jew (Gentile)
    • Slave/Free—Paul uses slavery/freedom imagery throughout the letter (2:4; 3:22-25; 4:1-11, 21-31; 5:1, 13), emphasizing the freedom believers have in Christ and through the Spirit; here he uses the terms in their literal/legal sense: the social distinctions of slave and free person have no meaning in Christ
    • Male/Female—as indicated above, Paul has repeatedly been using the image of son/sonship, but this is purely symbolic and illustrative: in a fundamental sense, the social/biological distinction between genders is irrelevant to the identity of believers in Christ.

Interpretation of Verse 28 (Male/Female)

How precisely does Paul intend this last point to be taken? In the case of the Jew/Greek and Slave/Free distinction, it would seem that these no longer apply even within the context of the organized life and worship of the congregation. In other words, there is no apparent restriction in terms of the roles or (religious-cultural) privileges in the Church—i.e., slave and free, Jew and Gentile, could participate in the meeting or hold leadership roles equally. But, as we saw in the earlier studies on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, this does not seem to apply as completely to the distinction of gender. Does this reflect an inconsistency in Paul’s thought and teaching? Many commentators today think so. Perhaps Paul did not fully recognize the (logical) consequences of his statement in Gal 3:28; or, on the assumption that Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians (and, of course, the Pastoral letters), he may have changed or qualified his approach to the matter in the later writings (cf. Betz, p. 200). Traditional-conservative commentators are more sympathetic toward Paul, but there is still some tension between the two viewpoints: (a) there is no distinction between male and female in Christ, and yet (b) there are to remain clear distinctions in how men and women participate in the body of Christ (the Church).

Interestingly, Paul makes use of language similar to that of vv. 27-28 (referring to Baptism) elsewhere in his letters, in 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:11—and in both of these passages there is no mention of the male/female aspect. Since 1 Cor 12:13 is contextually relevant to the discussion of 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, I cite it here for comparison:

“For in one Spirit we were all dunked [i.e. baptized] into one Body—even if Jews (and) even if Greeks, even if slaves (and) even if free (person)s—and we all were made to drink of one Spirit”

This could indicate that Paul was subsequently more guarded in his language, perhaps to avoid the suggestion that gender-distinction was eliminated (i.e. could be ignored/disregarded) for Christians. Indeed, a number of so-called Gnostic traditions in early Christianity seem to have emphasized this very thing. We may note, for example, the saying of Jesus in 2 Clement 12, also the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas log. 22; the Gospel of the Egyptians 2 (in Clem. Alex. Stromateis 3.92.2); the Gospel of Philip 78, etc (cf. Betz, pp. 195-7). While such sayings and teachings were probably meant to be understood in a spiritual/symbolic (or “mystical”) sense, and were not necessarily advocating a radical social transformation, they would be scandalous enough for many believers. While it is possible that Paul wished to avoid certain extreme spiritual/gnostic implications, I believe that he actually held a rather radical view himself regarding the new religious identity which was assumed and realized by believers in Christ. This can be seen if we take seriously, not only his statements in Gal 3:27-28, but also the numerous passages which indicate that those who are in Christ are a “new creation”; cf. especially 2 Cor 5:17:

“And so if any(one) is in (the) Anointed {Christ}, he/she is a new ‘creation’ [kti/si$]: the beginning [i.e. old/earlier] (thing)s have gone along [i.e. passed away] (and) see—they have [all] become new!”

Humankind in the original creation was “male and female” (a&rsen kai\ qh=lu, Gen 1:27 LXX), the same expression Paul uses in Gal 3:28. Note that he does not say “in (Christ) there is no male and no female”, but specifically, “in (Christ) there is no male and female“, likely as a direct allusion to Gen 1:27 (cf. Bruce, p. 189). What then of the new creation? That this new identity in Christ is fundamental and must transform all aspects of human life, including gender and sexuality, seems clear—but how, and to what extent? In the earlier note on 1 Cor 11:10, I raised the possibility that this may be part of Paul’s formulation in 11:7-12; here, I further suggest the following interpretation for consideration:

    • 11:7-9: the original created order—hierarchical/vertical—man the head of woman, woman from/through man, etc
    • 11:11-12: the new (transformed) order (“new creation”)—reciprocal/horizontal—man and woman together, interconnected (and equal)

The complexity of Paul’s position is that he seeks to affirm and preserve both aspects for believers, at least within the organized (social and religious) setting of the Christian Community. Keeping this in mind may help us better understand Paul’s teaching and instruction regarding the role/position of women in the Church as expressed in his letters. I will be returning to this theme (and to Gal 3:28 specifically) in upcoming notes as part of this series. For the moment, in closing, I would state that, with regard to the apparent conflict between Gal 3:28 and the instruction involving women elsewhere in the Pauline letters, I agree wholeheartedly with F. F. Bruce, that the passages which seem to restrict the role of women “…are to be understood in relation to Gal. 3:28, and not vice versa” (Bruce, p. 190).

References marked “Bruce” above are to F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC]), Eerdmans/Paternoster Press: 1982.
Those marked “Betz” are to Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (in the Hermeneia series), ed. by Helmut Koester, Fortress Press: 1979.