Contents

Preface

Introduction

1. Christ, the Law, and 'Pauline Theology'

i. What is 'Pauline Theology'?
ii. Contradictions, Tensions, Inconsistencies, Antinomies and Other Worrying Things
iii. Proofs, Arguments, Assertions, Rationalizations and Excuses
iv. The Preliminary Questions

Part One: Studies in Paul's Christology

2. Adam, Israel and the Messiah

i. Introduction
ii. Adam and Israel in Jewish Literature
iii. Paul: 1Corinthians 15.20-57
iv. Romans 5.12-21

3. XPILTOC as 'Messiah' in Paul: Philemon 6

i. Introduction
ii. Xptor6q in Paul: a preliminary hypthesis
iii. Philemon 6
iv. Conclusion

4. Jesus Christ is Lord: Philippians 2.5-11

i. Introduction
ii. Adam in Philippians 2
iii. IrpnayC16s and the meaning of Philippians 2.5-11
a. Lightfoot and Martin
b. Other Analyses
c. On Not Taking Advantage
iv. Adam and the Incarnate Lord
v. Conclusion
 The Climax of the Covenant

5. Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20

i. The Poem
ii. The Background of the Poem
iii. Poetry and Theology
iv. Condusion

6. Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1Corinthians 8

i. Introduction
ii. The Setting within Fist-Century Religious History
iii. Monotheism as the Foundation of Paul's Argument
N. Monotheism, Christology and the New Community
v. Conclusion

Part lbo:Paul and the Law

7. Curse and Covenant: Galatians 3.10-14

i. Galatians 3: Introduction
ii. The Starting Point
iii. The Curse: 3.10
iv. Habakkuk and Leviticus: 3.11-U
v. The Cross: 3.U
vi. The Result: Blessing and Spirit (3.14)
vii. Conclusion

8. The Seed and the Mediator: Galatians 3.15-20

i. Introduction
ii. The Single Seed: 3.15-18
iii. One God, One People, No Mediator: 3.19-22
iv. Conclusion

9. Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3

i. Introduction
ii. 2 Corinthians 3.1-11 in Context
iii. The Reason for Boldness: 3.12-17
N. The Glory and the Mirror: 3.18
v. Conclusions

10. The Vindication of the Law:Narrative Analysis and Romans 8.1-11 193
i. Introduction 193
ii. Romans 7: A Tendentious Sketch 1%
iii. Romans 8.1-11: Structure of the Argument UX)
iv. Romans 8.3-4 Narrative Analysis 204
v. Conclusion 214

Appendix: Outline of Romans 7.1-4.1 1 217

 Contents

11. The Meaning of nep'i appriac;in Romans 8.3

i. Introduction
ii. The Background: LXX Usage
iii. Unwilling and/or Ignorant Sin

12. Echoes of Cain in Romans 7

i. Introduction
ii. Cain in Romans 7?

Conclusion: The Climax of the Covenant

13. Christ, the Law and the People of God:the Problem of Romans 9-11
i. Introduction
ii. Romans 9-11 Within Romans and Within Pauline Theology
iii. Romans 9-11 In Itself
iv. Romans 9.1-5
v. Romans 9.6-29
vi. Romans 9.30-10.21
vii. Romans 11
viii. Hermeneutics and Theology

14. The Nature of Pauline Theology

i. Introduction
ii. Paul's Questions and Answers
iii. Paul as a Theologian
iv. Paul as a Biblical Theologian
v. Conclusion

Bibliography

Index of Passages Cited

Index of Modern Authors

Index of Subjects
 The Seed and the Mediator Galatians 3.15-20

sort.8 But there are four serious problems with this. (i) It still seems to be
asking a lot for Paul to jump from collective to singular and then (v.29) back
to collective again; (ii) if this really is his argument, it seems to imply that
the promises meant nothing at all until the coming of Christ; (iii) the point
seems to depend on v.29 for its completion, and is therefore not fully
comprehensible as it stands; (iv) in the apparent parallels between this
passage and Romans 4 and 9 (see below) asri.ppx, though important for the
argument, is never used thus. If an alternative solution were available which
avoided these problems, it would deserve serious consideration.
(b) In v.20 Paul is usually understood to be offering a partial definition of
a 'mediator' (namely, that the existence of such a figure implies a duality of
parties) as part of an argument for the inferiority of the Torah to the
Abrahamic promises. If this is indeed what Paul is doing (for different
opinions, see below), his argument looks very peculiar. Literally hundreds of
different solutions have been proposed to this problem without agreement
being reached.9 The problem concerns the inner logic of v.20, in particular
the relation of 20b (6 61 0edq elq kmiv) to 20a (6 64 peai~sk;4vbq O ~ K
Pmiv). Most scholars offer some variant on the theme that mediation
implies a plurality of parties, which in turn implies inferiority.10 This,
however, fits badly with 20b, since the covenant between God and Abraham,
not to mention the fulfillment of that covenant in Christ, can only be seen as
not involving plurality11 if one engages in a theological balancing act,
claiming that God in fact acts on both sides of the covenant, or that Paul is
here making an implicit claim for the divinity of Christ, or some similar
suggestion. Many writers on Paul now simply skirt round the problem
without addressing it head on.12 Some even suggest that v.20 adds nothing of
real value to the argument.u
Attempts have been made to evade this problem by suggesting that Paul's
point is that a mediator implies a plurality of parties on one or both sides of
the agreement: the agreement is beiween God and all the Israelites, or
8 ~ e Dahl
e 1977, 175: 'in no other place is [Paul's] style of argumentation more similar to
that of the rabbi than in Galatians 3'. We might compare mSanh. 4.5: 'it says not 'the blood
of thy brother",but "thebloods of thy brotherw-& blood and the blood of his posterity.' See
too Davies 1984,177, noting that a serious weakness of Betz's commentary is its failure to take
seriously the Jewish exegetical badrground of Galatians. Dahl notes rightly, however, that the
actual thrust of the argument is totally non-Rabbinic.
Older solutions are listed in Oepke 1971, ad loc.;and see Callan 1976, ch. 1; Mauser 1967,
258-263 Hiibner 1984, W,Gaston 1981, ch. 2; Martin 1989,35-7. On Moses and mediators in
Jewish literature see the survey in Goldin 1%8.
lo So e.g. Guthrie 105: 'secondary revelation'.
"AS is attempted by e.g. Ridderbos 1953,1384:compare his 1975,216.
1 2 ~ . gWesterholm
. 1988, 177 ff.; Thielman 1989, 76; even more, Hahn 1976, 55 f., Dunn
1990 248-51.
l k o Duncan 1934.115.
 The Climax of the Covenant

This solution is, I believe, quite satisfactory as it stands. But it can bc

further improved if the grammatical structure is lined up a little differently.5
This does not alter the suggested o*-erall meaning, but rather makes it eve1
clearer. The ellipse mentioned above is not a real problem, but the though
would be smoother without it. There is also another question-mark over thi
reading of v.20a: why is there no article before 4v&? If the word refers, as
have suggested, to 'the one family' which has been the underlying theme o
the passage so far, it would be natural to expect the article, especially whel
y e u i q has one. If, however, we read peoizqq as complement, not subjccl
leaving the resumptive 6 64 as the complete subject of ioziv, the phras,
peuizqq 4voq is natural, following the regular pattern: the nomen regen
( ~ ~ o i z q loses
q ) its article in conformity with Hebrew idiom, and, as i
required by Greek, the nomen rectunt ( i v k ) follows suit.53 20a would the]
read 'Now he (i.e. the mediator referred to in v.19) is not mediator of one'
i.e. is not (the) mediator of (the) single family. This, I think, is easier an(
clearer than the other way of taking the verse suggested above.54
The problem of v.20b can be solved quite easily once 20a is read in thi
. way. Moses is not the mediator of the 'one family', but God is one, anc
therefore desires o n e family, as he promised to Abraham. T h ,
b'
presupposition of Paul's argument is that, if there is one God-thc
foundation of all Jewish belief-there must be one people of God. Werr
there to be two or more 'peoples', the whole theological scheme would lapsc
back into some sort of paganism, with each tribe or race possessing its owl
national deities. This may be, in fact, the point at which the argument of thc
present passage interlocks with the ozoiyeiu passages in ch.4: the Torah i
seen in the guise of a local or tribal deity. Monotheism demands as it
L/ corollary a single united family; the Torah, unable to produce this, canno
therefore be the final and permanent expression of the will of the One God
Paul has used the first article of the Jewish creed (monotheism) to modify

is the correct interpretation of 3.16 (see above).

5 2 ~ h iiss the point at which my case goes further than that of Davidson 1888; he also
suggests (300 n.1) that his position would work as well even if b p e o i m were after all read as
generic: 'a mediator is only concerned for those he represents'. This, however, would be a far
weaker point in the context of Paul's argument, and is certainly not the natural reading of the
Greek.
5 3 ~ e Blass-Debrunner-Funk
e 259. For a similar construction, involving the article
expressing the subject and the noun being complementary, see Rom. 2.284 06 yZxp b hv tQ
W e p Q 'Io&ibs horw o a k 4 i v rQ k v e @ hv aapwl neptropi), &A' b hv rQ wpunrQ
'Io&k ...wrX. The resumptive b 6i is of itself common enough, e.g. Mk. 6.50.
54hv6s may be read as masculine, referring to Christ (so Mauser 1967, 270 n.1: this would
of course also work if Xplorbs were, as in my view, incorporative), or, with most
commentators, as neuter. Exegetically there is no real difference (rightly, Davidson 1888, 380
n.1).
 Tlte Climax of the Covenant

given to turn dpupzlcl into srapc$&~~y,as in Rom 5.12-14, 2058--or in thc

weaker sense, that Israel as a physical entity could not, because of sin, be thc
'one family', and needed the Torah to keep her from going totally astra
prior to the coming of the Messiah and the creation of the promised 'seed'.5
My case, fortunately, does not depend on making a decision on this issuc
(though I incline to the former due to the thrust of v.22).* The problem, oi
either account, is the all-pervasiveness of sin, which means that no huma~
race, not even Israel can of itself establish a claim on God's grace.
(b) The Torah was given, then, by God, via the angels and the Mediatol
Moses. It is at this point, i.e. v.19, rather than in v.20, that there is perhaps i
hint of the law's indirectness, being given to the people at two removes; thc
mention of angels in v.19 makes its own point, and does not need to spill ove
into v.20, where it has frequently produced havoc. The fact that 20a begins
with the reference to Moses, the mediator, rather than to the angels, provides
extra confirmation of this, as does the awkwardness of 20b on any reading
which continues the implicit reference to the angels.
(c) Paul then explains further, in v.20, how it is that the law cannot be
God's final word: God, being himself one, desires a single family, but the
Mosaic law was given to one race only and therefore cannot put this plan into
operation.61 This does not set the law against the promises; each has it
proper place, and the fact that the law has the effect of shutting up the entir~
human race under sin (compare Romans 11.32) does not mean that it is not ;
good law, but simply that all human beings are sinful and can therefore fmcc
membership in the people of God only through faith in Jesus Christ (21-22).
It is exactly this point that is then expanded in w.23-29: the temporary status
of the Torah has given way to the permanent creation, in Christ, of a
worldwide people characterized by faith. This people is the single family
promised to Abraham. We may compare Romans 8.3 f.: what the law could
not do, being weak because of human sinfulness, God has done in Christ and
by the Spirit.62
%e point here b e i i that napa&us is what happens when miscellaneous sin (&popria)
is confronted by a specific command. So,rightly, Barrett 1985,33. It is remarkable how many
exegetes simply fudge this issue. See, e.g., Hiibner 1984, 78: 'the Law was added because of
sins, (i.e. to provoke sin)' (German original, 71: Um (der Provokation) der Siindentaten willen
wurde das Gesetz hinzugefugt). But n q x $ h c is far more specific than Siindentaten.
59So Wilckens 1981, 171 (summarized in Wilckens 1982, 22): the law was added to
condemn transgressions, not to cause them. Martin 1989,37-9, tries to keep both senses by
distinguishing between the 'ostensible intention' of the law (to restrain sin) and the 'real
intention' (to increase it, so that humans come to realize the impossibility of saving themselves.
I do not think that this quasi-scholastic distinction advances understanding.
60See also Dunn 1990,262.
61Perhaps Paul says 'he' and then repeats 'mediator' ('he, however, is not the mediator of
the one') so as to avoid aligning Moses himself, whose role goes far beyond what is here
discussed (see ch. 9 below) with the temporariness and inadequacy here spoken of.
62Seebelow, ch. 10.
 Chapter Nine

REFLE(;TED GLORY: 2 CORDUXMNS 3.181

(i) Introduction

'There is always the nagging thought... "Yes, but what about 2 Corinthians
3?"'2 Though most of the discussion of Paul and the Torah focusses
inevitably, and rightly, on Romans and Galatians, one can easily be lulled by
this into thinking that the task is more or less complete when those two
letters are dealt with. But Second Corinthians, a noble and remarkable
writing worthy of close consideration in itself and not merely as a footnote to
other letters, raises in its third chapter, though from a different angle, several
of the central issues.
2 Corinthians 3 is all about glory. But what precisely does it say about this
glory? And how does glory, as a theme, fit within the overall argument of the
wider unit (2 Corinthians 2.14-4.6, or indeed 2.14--6.13)? In particular,
what does Paul mean by the verse (18) with which ch.3 reaches its triumphant
conclusion? Has he 'proved too much' at this point?3 Do Christians 'reflect',
or 'behold as in a mirror', the glory of the Lord? If the latter, what is the
mirror? And what is the 'glory' itself? There is no agreement on any of
these point^.^

p his chapter was originally published in the Ihe Glory of Christ in the New Testament:
Shcdies in Christology in Mentory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L.D. Hurst and N.T. Wright,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987, pp. 139-150. I have made some revisions, clarifications and
additions for this version. Caird's own discussion of the passage may be found in Caird 1944,
234 ff.; 1959,391 f.
2 ~ a s t o n1987, 14: cf. Cranfield 1979, 853. The virtual absence of discussion of 2 Cor. 3
from Hubner 1984 inevitably leaves a sense of an important lacuna.
%o Barrett 1973, 126, quoting Lietzmann. The habit of detaching v.18 from the rest of the
argument has even been given a hypothetical history-of-religions rationale by Jervell 1960,
173 f. My solution will render this quite unnecessary.
4 ~ m o n recent
g literature on the subject, see Barrett 1973; Collange 1972,114-125; Furnish
1984, 173-252, with extensive bibliographical listings; van Unnik 1963 ( = 1980, 194-210);
DUM 1970; Moule 1972b; Hickling 1974-5; Hanson 1980; Hooker 1980-1; Richard 1981; Kim
1981, 11-14, 1404,233-9, etc.; Lambrecht 1983; Gaston 1987, ch. 10; Hays 1989, ch. 4. The
history of the early interpretation of this chapter is discussed by E. Prumm in several articles in
Biblica vols. 30-32.
 The Climax of the Covenant

next subsection: we renounce any practice that might look like dressing u~
the unvarnished truth, and simply go ahead and state it clearly.
It then becomes apparent that the main contrast in the passage is not that
between Paul and Moses, nor that between Christians and Moses, but that
between the Christians-even those in Corinth!-and the Israelites, both of
Moses' day and of Pau1's.m Paul can use boldness not because he is different
from Moses but because those who belong to the new covenant are different
from those who belong to the old. Moses is actually, here, in one sense a
precursor of the new covenant people in 3.18, since he, alone among the
Israelites, is able to look at the divine glory with unveiled face. This is the
point of vv.14 f.: Moses had to use the veil, because the hearts of the
Israelites were hardened (unlike those of the new covenant people; this is the
point of the W h , 'but', at the start of ~ . 1 4 ~ lThe
) . Israelites come, that is, ir
the negative category indicated in w.3, 6: they are those who belong to tht
covenant on tables of stone, the covenant of the 'letter'. The argument is no
so much allegorical, or even (as current fashion would have it) 'rnidrashic'
but follows the line of thought in Galatians 3.15-22, or even Mark 10.2-9
Difference in style of ministry is occasioned by difference in the spiritua
condition of the hearers: Paul's overall point is that his boldness correlate!
with the new covenant membership of the Corinthians, according to which
they are themselves his 'letter of recommendation'. The contrast, then, is
between the necessary style of Moses' ministry to Israel and the proper and
appropriate style of Paul's ministry to Christians who, as in w.1-3, are
themselves the 'letter' written by the Spirit. This shows that w.14-15 are not

argues that the Semitic background of the word points of itself to the idea of 'barefacedness'.
Whether or not this will stand, there is clearly a very close link between v.12 and w.17-18.
Lack of emphasis on Paul's defence of his 'boldness' has allowed exegesis to go off course
here: e.g. Gaston 1987, 159, etc., arguing that the idea of 'glory' is something that, since Paul
would not have wanted to talk about it, must have been introduced into the conversation by his
opponents. On another point, Dr. George Johnston suggests to me that ihedapia here may
be another deliberate 'Exodus' motif.
*OSO Bultmann 1976, 93 f., Furnish 1984, 2134, against e.g. Caird 1944, 236 f.; Hickling
1974-5, 393, who thinks that Moses is contrasted with the Christians; Richard 1981, 364 n.82,
who, following Georgi in some ways, advances the extraordinary claim that Paul makes Moses
'a precursor of his Christian rivals and the antithesis of the true Christian minister'; and Kim
1981, 233-9. So, too, J. Jeremias is not strictly accurate when he says (1%7, 869 n.230) that
here 'Moses represents the OT community': rather, he stands over against them. Hays 1989,
142 f., reads the passage as though a submerged parallel between Moses and Paul breaks out
from under the argued contrast. I think this puts it, if anything, the wrong way round, and
helps to explain why Hays does not, in my view, give sufficient weight to Paul's argument about
'boldness', which does not appear (for instance) in his otherwise fine summary of the thrust of
the assage (153).
&It hardly means 'furthermore', as suggested by Kim 1981,238.
 Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthiam 3.18

(iv) The Glory and the Mirror: 3.18

If this exegesis is correct-and it seems to make very good sense of an

otherwise difficult passage-it raises a possibility for the interpretation of
v.18 which has not, to my knowledge, so far been explored. Paul is dealing
not merely with his own ministry but with the state of heart of his hearers.
This is clearly reinforced by the 'all' which emphasizes that the 'we' at the
start of the verse is not merely the 'royal we', or 'Paul and his fellow-workers',
but refers to each Christian.35 This, and not a self-reference, is Paul's main
point.
There is general agreement that linguistic evidence favours the meaning
'behold as in a mirror' for ~ o n o n r p ~ ~ o p But
~ the
v o question,
~~ the lack of
satisfactory answers to which has driven scholars to seek less frequent
meanings, is-what is the mirror? I suggest that the 'mirror' in which
Christians see reflected the glory of the Lord is not, in this passage at any
rate, the gospel itself, nor even Jesus Christ. It is one another. At the climax
of Paul's whole argument, he makes (if I am right) the astonishing claim that
those who belong to the new covenant are, by the Spirit, being changed into
the glory of the Lord: when they come face to face with one another they are
beholding, as in a mirror, the glory itself.37 Though the verb could therefore
have its alternative sense of 'reflect', since the one in whom the glory is seen
as in a mirror could himself be said to be 'reflecting' the glory, that is not the
point Paul is making.38 Unlike the Israelites, those in the new covenant can
look at the glory as it is reflected in each other. If we were to visualize the
point pictorially, we might imagine Paul and the Corinthians each as an
angled mirror, in which the other sees, reflected, the glory of the Lord:
lSThe omission of ndPrrrc in P46 may safely be ignored. My reading of this verse makes it
highly unlikely that Paul intends here a reference to his own conversion, or, by analogy, to that
of anyone else. He is tawing about relations now within the church, not in this verse about
h o w p p l e become members of it @me Kim 1981,71,79,231, etc.).
See e.g. Philo Leg. AZIeg. 3.101-an interesting passage, with echoes of 2 Cor. 4.18as
well, though ones of which Paul would not have approved. For the alternative, 'reflect', see
e.g. Knox 1939,U 1 ff. (See the discussion in Collange l m ,116 ff.) My argument renders this
solution unnecessary.
37~ambrecht1983,250seems to want to include this possibility as an extension of his main
idea, that the gospel is the mirror in question. But hi argument is very vague at this point;
and hi suggestion that this 'seeing' is itself indirect is hardly compatible with the emphasis of
the passage. Gaston 1987, 165, denies any glory to Paul or his hearers-in line with his
constant refusal to admit the possibility that Paul might think of apresent glory. This seems to
me simply to cut clean across the text.
38~onfravan Unnik 1%3, 167.Caird, 1944,1959,argued that 'reflect' makes better sense of
the passage as a whole and in particular its underlying christology. I submit that these
arguments point more to 'behold', not in the sense that Caird rightly rejected (a contrast
between Moses and Jesus), but in a sense consonant with his main emphasis (that Paul and the
Corinthians are being changed into the glory of God).
 The Climax of the Covenant

Paul 4 b Corinthians

This is the final proof that the Corinthians themselves are Paul's 'letter of
recommendation'. And, if this is so, 'the Lord' in the phrase 'the glory of the
Lord', the object of ~ a z m r p i [ o p ~ v o need
i, not be identified as either 'God'
or 'Christ', but may, perfectly consistently within the thought of the chapter
as a whole, refer to the Spirit. It is the peculiar glory of the Spirit that is seen
when one looks at one's fellow-Christians.39
V.18, if this is correct, thus picks up quite precisely the thought of w.1-3.
It does not 'prove too much',m or introduce 'an entirely new idea',41 or leave
behind the purpose of the earlier part of the chapter.42 The new covenant
people are a letter, written by the Spirit, to be known and read by all-'a
letter of Christ, ministered by us' (v.3). The 'turning to the Lord' spoken of
in the allusion to Exodus 34.34 is a turning to, an openness towards, the
Spirit-who is operative in the ministry of Paul and also in the new covenant
community. The phrase need not be taken in the general sense of 'turning to
Christ', i.e. becoming a Christian, though this is no doubt implied. It is more
specific: when one looks at the work of the Spirit, the veil is unnecessary. It
is taken off-this is the point of the passage-not in private communion with
God, but in the boldness with which Paul proclaims the gospel to the
Corinthians.
Two different emphases in ch.3 as a whole come, therefore, to full and
parallel expression in v.18, and can be seen in the participle and verb around
which the sentence is structured:
(a) If we focus on p ~ r a p o p + o G p ~ Bthe
a , emphasis that appears is: the
Christians in Corinth are Paul's 'letter', because the Spirit has written the
new covenant on their hearts through his ministry: 'we are being changed' by
the work of the Spirit.
(b) Focussing on ~azonrpi[op~.voi, we discover the emphasis that Paul's
ministry is 'bold', 'unveiled': 'we all, with unveiled face, behold as in a mirror
the glory of the Lord'.
3?his means that Kim's attempt to read the entire passage as basically about Paul himself,
with the i u ~ e ?isbrec
~ in v.18 as the sole exception, shows that he has missed the point of the
whole chapter, in his eagerness to find material about Paul's conversion (Kim 1981,235, etc.).
40See above, n.3.
41~urnish1984, 238.
4"ickling 1974-5,393.
 The Climax of the Covenant

from 2 Corinthians 3 is that of a deliberately temporary dispensation, muck

as we saw in Galatians 3.63 Third, this dispensation resulted in a decidedlj
ambiguous state of affairs, not because there was anything wrong with Torah
(or with Moses, its mediator) but because of the condition of the hearts of its
recipients. The Torah itself, it seems, is for Paul good, and even glorious, but
in the event can only condemn its recipients, because of their state of heart.64
It is only, finally, when the work of Christ and the Spirit has been
accomplished that the glory which shone in Torah can shine once more, this
time effectively. And if these conclusions mean that 2 Corinthians 3 fits
perfectly into the overall scheme of thought we discovered in Galatians 3,
they also mean that we now have a high road straight into our next passage.
What the law could not do, God has done in Christ and by the Spirit.

--

quite strongly against this. Sanders 1977, 514 argues differently: the new creation transcends
covenantal categories. This is true in a sense, but to transcend a category is not to deny or
exclude it.
63Rightly, Westerholm 1988,130.
&IThis is perceived as a tension by e.g. Sanders 1983, 138 f., but within Paul's overall
account of the divine purpose, as in Gal. 3 or Rom. 9-11, it makes sense, as we have now seen.
 The Vindication of the Law: Romans 8.1-11

boundary-marker is Christ and Spirit and not Torah. This theme is to be

picked up in 8.1 ff.
The inevitably controversial passage 7.7-25 fills out the picture Paul has
expounded thus far." here summarize my own view of the section, which
will be further supported by the subsequent exegesis of 8.1-11. The passage,
I suggest, divides designedly into three quite clear sections:

a. 7.7-12: the law is not sin, but its arrival, in Sinai as in Eden, was sin's opportunity
to kill its recipients

b. 7.13-20: the law was not the ultimate cause of 'my' death: it was sin, working
through the law and in 'me', unwilling though 'I' was, and thus swelling to its full size

c. 7.21-25: the result in terms of Torah: it bifurcatesand so do '1'.

7.7-25 is basically a defence of Torah against the imputations that it is

identified with sin and that it is ultimately responsible for the death which
results from its presence. Paul answers the first objection with reference to
the initial arrival of the Torah in Israel, at which time Israel recapitulated the
sin of Adam: this allows for the echoes both of Gen. 3 and of Israel's plight in
7.7-12. The primary emphasis of the argument is on Israel, not Adam: what
is being asserted about Israel is that when the Torah arrived it had the same
effect on her as God's commandment in the Garden had on Adam? The 'fit'
of 7.7-12, read this way, with 5.20, quoted above, serves as an initial
confirmation.
Paul then faces the harder question, the relation between the Torah and
the death which results from its sentence of condemnation (7.13-20).10 His
basic answer is that it is sin once again, not Torah, which is responsible for
death, and that the fact that sin has made its base of operations in the very
Torah itself, holy and just and good as it is, shows how exceedingly sinful sin
in fact is. The result of this argument is that in fact not only the Torah, but
also the kyh, is exonerated, 7.17-19 (so far removed are we from Bultmann's
view of the passage as the analysis of the problem of the cloven kyw). There
was nothing wrong with wanting to keep Torah; it was merely impossible to
do it, because Israel too (who I take as the principal referent of the kyh, as
in Galatians 2.19-20; Paul's theological, not psychological, autobiography is
included in this picture as a result, but Paul is not seeking to draw attention
$ee further below, the conclusion of ch. 11; and also ch. 12. In addition, see the Appendix
at the end of the present chapter.
4 t is possible that Paul here has the Golden Calf episode in mind, as he evidently does in
9.14 ff.
loon this passage see also ch. 12 below.
 The Vindicationof the Law: Romans 8.1-1 1

Qzepqv b p q , then, is not really an anti-Torah, or a demonic Torah; it is

held within the divine purpose, under the rubric of the Yva-clauses of 5.20,
7.13 and 8.3.
It is significant that at the end of the passage Paul does not ask 'who will
deliver me from this Torah', or even 'from this Pzepoq vbpoq', but rather
'from this body of death'. It is sin, in the humanity which the Jew shares with
everyone else, that is the problem from which he or she needs to be
delivered. Again we can offer here a single strand of support out of many
possible ones. If we take Paul's highly rhetorical statement in 7.20-23, pass it
through the conclusion of 7.24-25, and boil it down to its barest essentials,
we have something almost exactly like Galatians 3.21-2:

I thus have no basic problem with seeing v 6 p q in w.21-%the crucial

passage-as referring throughout to Torah.13 Indeed, this reference seems
to me utterly required by the context, and to suggest otherwise is to accuse
Paul of making a play on words exactly when it is most likely to be confusing.
To be sure there is tension. That is precisely what Paul is writing about. But
to dissolve that tension by saying either that 'the law of God' in v.22 is
something other, perhaps bigger, than the Torah; or that the Z t e p g v b p q
of v.23 is not the Torah at all but something demonic; or that the two uses of
v 6 p q in v.23b are not references to the same bifurcated Torah; or to suggest
that v6poq in v.21, or anywhere else in the passage, means simply
'principle1-to do any of these things is to escape the deep rush of Paul's
argument and paddle off into a shallow and irrelevant backwater. The plight
of 7.2%--a clause which belongs where it is-is that of the ahdq kyh,
significantly the same phrase as in 9.3. Paul has been describing the plight of
the Jew from a Christian viewpoint: now this reaches its climax, as he looks
at his 'flesh' (see 11.14) as the locus of sin and death, agonizing because the
holy Torah itself has been used to bring this about, and yet rejoicing because
God has, in Christ and by the Spirit, provided the exact remedy for this
situation. Romans 7 concludes, then, with an analysis of Torah which does
what Paul's interpreters have found it so hard to do: it holds together (a) the
'*TO insist that this passage cannot be used in support because it is in Galatians would be
taking the assumption of Pauline incoherence-or significant changes of mind-to
unacceptable extremes.
13~orthe details of the debate on this point, see Rilkben, Hiibner (below, n.23), and the
cammentaries ad Ioc.
 The Vindication of the Law: Romans 8.1-11

decisive death-blow.17 This, then, corresponds-at the level of its theological

structure at least-to the revelation of the righteousness of God in the death
of Jesus, apart from Torah, in 3.21-26.
Second, the overtones throughout are covenantal, as they have been since
7.6. The Torah is not a miscellaneous collection of regulations; it is the
covenant document, and its desire to give life is its basic intention when
viewed in that way (in e.g. Deuteronomy 30.15, a passage not far from Paul's
mind as he writes Romans). Though it is unfashionable to use covenantal&
categories in interpreting Paul, I believe, as is already clear in this book, that
they are actually central; and, moreover, they are habitually expressed in
forensic language, i.e. using the root ~ L K - . This point must be simply asserted
here, since there is no room to spell it out as could be done; were I to amplify
it, I would return at once to Galatians 3, and work back to Romans 8 via 2
Corinthians 3, Romans 2 and Romans 4. 8i~atodvq,I suggest, can often be
translated, more or less, as 'covenant membership' (when referring to the
G~atoauvqof humans, of course); and 8iKahpa can perfectly properly bear
the meaning 'the covenant decree', i.e. the decree according to which one
who does these things shall live (e.g. Deuteronomy 30.6-20). This is the 'just
decree' which belongs to the Torah, corresponding to the 'just decree' which
is issued negatively and referred to in 1.32: they know the 8i~a'hpaTOO
8 ~ 0 0 that
, those who do such things deserve to die. This once more places
the emphasis of 8.4 not on ethical behaviour as such, but on that which results
from the work of the Spirit-which is, for the moment, evidenced by (what we
call) ethical behaviour: those who are now made alive by the Spirit will live.
This explains also the (at first surprising) 8lix 8 i ~ a d v q v
of 8.10. The spirit
is life because of covenant membership, which is precisely the assurance of
life. There is a close link between justification and resurrection in Paul,
much closer than the traditional separation of categories (e.g. 'juridical' and
'ontological') would suggest. Both belong in the covenantal context: the idea
of resurrection began as the hope of Israel that God would finally validate his
covenant and rescue her from the death of exile, and the idea of justification
properly belongs not in an individualistic soteriology but in the context of
God's affirmation that this or that person is a member of his covenant family.
Resurrection is therefore, as in much contemporary Jewish thought, the
ultimate 'justification': those whom God raises from death, as in 8.11, are
thereby declared to be his covenant people. This, indeed, is the future
justification spoken of in 2.1-16, of which the present justification discussed
in 3.21 ff. is simply the advance announcement. But to follow this line of
thought would take us too far afield. Sufficient for the present point to note
that the language of justification, far from being out of place in this passage,
171 was helped to this conclusion by an illuminating discussion with Christopher Palmer.
 The Vindication of fhe Law: Romans 8.1-11

Hays describes the three normal sequences in a narrative: the initial

sequence, in which the protagonist is given a task to perform and runs into
problems in performing it, the topical sequence, in which the protagonist is
enabled to overcome the problems which he/she faces, usually by the
intervention of a new person or factor, and the final sequence, in which the
initial sequence, originally aborted because the problems could not be
overcome, is successfully accomplished. Each of these sequences can be
analysed further, particularly in terms of a diagram in which the different
actors or elements in the narrative are set out in their mutual relations:
Sender .Object b Receiver
t
Helper b Subject 4-pponent

Thus the Sender commissions the Subject to accomplish the desired task, of
communicating the Object to the Receiver; the Subject is hindered by the
Opponent, and may or may not receive aid from the Helper. In the initial
sequence the opponent will win, and the helper's aid be ineffective, otherwise
there would scarcely be a story at all, but only a statement. In the topical
sequence, however, the person who was the subject in the initial sequence,
and will again most likely be the subject in the final sequence, becomes the
Receiver, since the aim of the topical sequence is precisely to give him/her
what he/she lacks, in terms of the initial sequence, to accomplish the task.
The final sequence will then feature Sender, Subject, Object and Receiver in
more or less the same places as in the initial sequence, but with the Helper
being the means by which the subject has been able to overcome the
outstanding difficulties.
Clearly, this bald summary does justice neither to Hays' far more carefully
nuanced scheme nor to the great majority of stories. In even a quite simple
novel there will be a great deal more to it than this: more mini-sequences
within the topical sequence, for instance. But the rough shape still fits. We
could give as an example an analysis of the fairy-tale Jack the Giant-Killer:
In the initial sequence, Jack, whose aim is to acquire wealth for himself
and his mother, is frustrated in this desire by their circumstances (where the
desire came from, i.e. who the 'Sender' is, is not specified):
 The Climax of tlie Covenant

problem which underlies the problem of the law is the problem of the
righteousness of God: how can God be true to the covenant, granted the
present (i.e. first-century Jewish) state of things? The cross and resurrection
of the Messiah enabled him to redraw this problem and to offer a solution in
both continuity and discontinuity with the solutions suggested among his
contemporaries. What the Torah, the covenant document, could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh-human flesh, Jewish flesh-with which it
had to work, God has done, thus declaring himself to be in the right in terms
of his covenant. He has sent his Son to die, and given his Spirit to bring life,
so that the righteous covenant decree of the law (and hence his own
righteousness: the Fi~rwmaGvllBeoO stands behind the Gucrwiwpa ooCj vbpow)
might be fulfilled in the creation, and eventual salvation, of a new covenant
community, those who are i v X p m q 'IquoCj.
 The Meaning of nepi &mprkxt=in Romans 8.3

in a judicial setting is common in the New Testament',6 it appears to be

straining the force of the ~ atoi make it emphatic in this context, and by no
means all the early commentators took the phrase in this sense.7 In addition,
it is one of the presuppositions of this view that neither of the regular options
is really open; so if we can find a good reason for either in the context, the
need for this alternative suggestion is greatly reduced. We may therefore
return to the main argument.
The case for the general meaning ('to deal with sin') depends likewise on
the assumption that there is no contextual reason why Paul should have
referred to the sin-offering, and thus falls if such a reason is given. In
addition, as Thornton has pointed out? the general view 'gives the isolated
preposition nepC a burden of meaning to carry in a way which is
unprecedented in the New Testament, and unusual, if not unprecedented,
elsewhere'. The way is therefore open for arguments, both old and new, on
behalf of the sacrificial interpretation.

(ii) The Background: LXX Usage

We must begin with the old (and strong) argument from the Lxx
background. It is well known that flKt#l is taken by the Lxx, rightly, to mean
on some occasions 'sin' and on other occasions 'sin-offering', in such a way
that we could construct a sliding scale of usage, from the meaning 'sin' to the
meaning 'sin-offering', in which nevertheless the meaning 'sin' in the phrase
'for sin' would still have inescapably sacrificial associations. At the 'sin' end
of the scale comes the phrase nepi rijq dcppz'q, which usually translates
flKDIl- SYand sometimes ~ 5and which
, normally means 'for sin', as in
the phrase nept rijq drCLaprfhqah& ljj.u~prev.9Near this end of the scale
(though this is more difficult) comes dylapzh by itself. Though it may well
mean 'sin-offering', it might be argued that the LXX translators here took
IlXDIl to mean 'sin', identifying the sacrifice with the sin.10
6Thornton 516: see Jn. 8.46,15.22,16.8f.; Ac. 23.6,24.21,25.9,20,Jude 15.
'l5.g. Origen, PG 14.1093 ff. This, coupled with the awareness of Gennadius of
Constantinople and Photius of Constantinople that the phrase could be taken both ways (Staab
W3,375,509),rules out any argument on the basis of early or Greek-speakingcommentators.
Perhaps Origen was more sensitive to the LXX background of the NT than Chrysostom and
other Antiochenes.
sL.oc. cit.
e 4.3 (twice); 4.14, 28; 5.6 (twice);5.7, 9; 8.2; 8.14; 9.15; 10.16; 16.6, 11, 15, 27
9 ~ e Lev.
(twice);Num. 15.25.
losee the various forms in Ex. 29.14, 36; Lev. 4.8, 20, 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34: 5.12; 6.17
(LXX/MT 6.10);6.25 (LXX/MT 6.18); Num. 6.14.
 The Climax of the Covenant

r o k o no&. The sin described in these verses is precisely sin of ignorance,

unwilling sin. The person who sins in this way delights in God's law (7.22),
yet finds again and again that he fails to keep it. The remedy which the Old
Testament offers for this very condition is the sin-offering, and when we
meet, in the very passage where Paul is showing how God deals with the
condition of 7.14-25, the phrase which elsewhere in the Greek Bible
regularly means 'as a sin-offering', there can no longer be any suggestion that
the context does not support the sacrificial interpretation. Though Paul can
view Christ's death in various other ways (in, for instance, Romans 3.24 ff.,
1 Corinthians 5.7) he here draws attention to that death seen in one way in
particular, the way relevant for dealing with sin precisely as it is committed in
7.13-20.
This view, I think, holds good whatever decision is made about the
interpretation of 7.13-25. If these verses were taken to refer to the Christian,
they could be held to make good sense of the meaning I have suggested for
8.3: the Christian thus described can see that his or her predicament does not
ultimately matter, since God has dealt with it in the death of Christ. The
Christian would thus be in the position of the man in Leviticus 4, or Numbers
15, that is, a member of the people of God, desiring to live according to
God's law, finding none the less that he or she sins as it were by mistake,
either out of ignorance or despite better judgment.24 If, however, the very
strong arguments against this position are found too weighty-as I now find
them myself-then the sin-offeringwill refer to the death of Christ insofar as
that death rescues the one who is in the plight described specifically in
7.13-20, which as I have suggested in the previous chapter is the plight of the
Jew under Torah, delighting in it yet still finding sin against it inescapable.25
It is part of the astonishing feat of 7.1-8.11 that Paul has woven into his
complex argument this strand too, which prepares the ground for 10.2-3 and
hence for 11.11 ff. The plight of the Jew is not irremediable, as some
Gentiles in the church may well have been suggesting.26 The sin of the Jew is
s the view I held at the time of this chapter's original preparation, though not its
2 4 ~ h i is
publication (Wright 1980b). See also Nygren 1949, 265-303; Packer 1%; C r a d e l d 1975,
330-370;Dunn 1975b,and 1988,374-412.
2 5 ~ m o n gthe strong arguments against the 'Christian' position is 7.14, which scarcely fits
Paul's view of the Christian; but the strongest argument of all is the coherence of the passage
as a whole seen as a discussion of the Jewish Torah. It should be noted that, among the many
mutually exclusive alternative ways of reading the passage as referring to pre-Christian
existence, one which simply will not work is that advocated by Bultmann, Kasemann and
others (e.g. KLemann 1971, 16; 1980,m),seeing 'sin' throughout as referring, not to acts of
sinper se, but to the problem of 'nomism', the attempt to establish a claim on God by good
works. I pointed this out in the original version of this chapter (1980b, 459 n.26); see now also
R&&nen 1986a,111.
2 6 ~ e ebelow, ch. 13.
 The Meaning of rr~pi,dcpuprk in Romans 8.3

one of 'ignorance' (10.3), and as such can be dealt with." The death of
Jesus, precisely as the 'sin-offering', is what is required. Within this
argument, 1 submit, there can no longer be any room for doubt that when
Paul wrote ~ a nepi
l apaprhq he meant the words to carry their regular
biblical overtones, i.e. 'and as a sin-offering'.

2 7 ~ omore
r specific analysis of this in Rom. 7 and P.11, see the next two chapters.
 The Climax ofthe Covenant

Targumic expansions and elaborations.8 In particular, there are ninl

elements of the Cain story, not least as elaborated in later Jewish writing
which suggest that he is the hidden partner of Israel in this passage.9
(a) Cain is seen as the archetypal possessor of the evil inclination, the W
mil. This passage has often been seen as a Pauline expression of the sari
idea.10
(b) Cain is warned by God (Genesis 4.7) that, when he is in a position to
do good, 'sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master
it'. In Romans 7.18 Paul summarizes the description of 7.13-20 as follows:
when I want to do what is right, evil lies close at hand to me.11
(c) Cain is seen in some traditions as the archetypal 'double-minded' man,
the man with two hearts (351 35). This is a not unnatural description of the
person in 7.13-25.*
(d) Cain is portrayed in the Targumim and elsewhere as conducting an
argument with Abel as to whether the world was made by a God of justice
and love. The question of the justice and love of God are precisely the
subjects at issue in the letter to the Romans, and ch. 7 is a closely integral
part of these arguments, facing the problem of God's justice in his dealings
with Israel-the problem which will then, though solved at one level in ch. 8,
re-emerge in chs. 9-11. At the heart of the latter passage we find a
description of Israel which could be an exact description of the Cain of the
Targumim: 'being ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish his
own, they did not submit to God's justice' (Romans 103)U
(e) Cain's response to God's question about Abel (Genesis 4.9 f.) is one of
professed ignorance as to what he has done: I3 61 E'IITEV0 6 yivhmw... KUI
elrev I3 8 e k Ti C-noiquaq; So too the description of the plight in Romans
7.13-20 gets under way with v.15: 6 y@ ~ m ~ p y & < o06p yivhmw.
i 06 y+
6 84A.u r o k o rrp6wuw, &U'6 pwG roiiro 1 ~ 0 6 . 1 4
8See e.g. Aptowitzer 1922, Mellinkoff 1979. The relevant Targums in particular are set out
helpfully in Vermes 1975, 92-126. See also Josephus, Ant. 1.52&, Philo Quuest. Gen.
159-75, and in the NT Heb. 11.4,lJn. 3.12, Jude 11. Among various mentions of Cain in the
Pseudepigrapha we may mention Apoc. Ad. Ev. 40. For Cain in the so-called NT Apocrypha
see the index to He~ecke-Schneemelcher,S.V.
%e story of Cain, as elaborated in various Jewish writings, is conveniently available in
Ginzberg 1937 < 1909>,1.103ff.
%.g. Davies 1980 < 1948>,20-31. On Cain see Vermes 1975,95f.
"The LXX translation of Gen. 4.7 is so peculiar that nothing can be made of the fact that
there are no obvious verbal echoes in the Greek. In Apoc. Abr. 24.5 Cain is said to have been
'led by the adversary to break the law'.
12see Hanson 1978-9. The Symmachus translation of Gen. 4.12 has k a r h a r for ~ 91
(fugitive); the same Greek word in James 1.8 clearly means 'double-minded'. See too Philo
Cher. 67, Post. 42.
"Cf. Targumim on Genesis 4.8: Vermes 1975,%-100.
14contrast the description of Adam and Cain in Philo, Post., 10, according to which Adam
is the one who acts involuntarily while Cain acts voluntarily and thus sins more seriously.
 Christ, the Law a& the People of God:Romans 9-11

robbed the church of the best weapon it could have had for identifying and
combating some of the worst evils of the Third Reich./But when Romans
9-11 has been taken seriously as part of the letter, this has often been
combined with the view (which of these is cause and which effect is perhaps
hard to say) that Paul holds open either a fully-blown universalism in which -
all humans will be saved or at least a Jewish covenant of salvation which is
apart from the Christian gospel. 11.25-7 is the key passage here: 'all Israel
will be saved'.
Upon this passage, too, there have been built numerous theologies of the
future of ethnic Israel; and indeed many treatments of Paul's theology have
used this passage, interpreted as predicting a large-scale, last-minute
salvation of ethnic Jews, as a fixed point around which to build other less
secure material, and often as a key point to be played off against other early
(or indeed contemporary) Christian theologians. This, unusually, has been
something on which mainline critical exegesis and mainline fundamentalism
has been at one. The former usually suggest that this is part of Paul's
avoiding the Scylla of apparent Marcionism at the cost of the Charybdis of
being proved wrong (the world did not end and the Jews did not convert en
masse); the latter sometimes suggest that this last-minute salvation of Jews
will have something to do with the pre-millennia1 fulfillment of prophecy.
Either way, Paul is believed to have predicted a great event which is as yet
unrealized, and which involves salvation, with or without faith in Jesus Christ,
for a large number of ethnic Jews. And this belief is on the one hand held in
a certain amount of tension with other passages in Romans as well as the
other Paulines (e.g. Galatians, 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16)' and on the other
hand a matter of considerable hermeneutical importance for the
appropriation of Paul's message for today. Either Paul is an apocalyptic
dreamer, fantasizing about a future ingathering of the Jews, or he is the New
Testament prophet of the modem state of Israel; or, perhaps, he is something
in between, which justifies the church in abandoning a 'mission to Jews' on
the grounds that ethnic Israel and the church are joint heirs, as they stand, of
the promised salvation, with 'conversion' either way being unnecessary and
inappropriate. No-one who has followed the main movements of modern
theology will need reminding of how important these issues have been in the
post-holocaust re-evaluation of the church's relationship to Judaism.9
These larger issues, however, cannot and must not be addressed at once, if
we want to retain any hope of hearing what Paul himself was talking about.
Instead, 1want to suggest, in a nutshell, my own (no doubt tendentious) view
of what Romans is all about, and the place of 9-11 within it, and then move
in to look at the chapters in more detail.
9 ~ e efor
, instance, the discussions at Vatican 11, and at the 1988 Lambeth conference.
 Christ, the Law and the People of God: Romans 9-11

(iv) Romans 9.1-5

Three features of 9.1-5 are important for our present purposes. First, Paul's
evident grief at the failure of the Jews to believe must always be kept in
mind. This shows on the one hand that their failure is not, in his mind, a
mere accident which only appears to cut them off from salvation, but does
not do so really; and, on the other hand, that his approach to the issue is not
that of the armchair theologian calmly dissecting someone else's fate, but
that of the vitally involved human being, with all his natural sympathies alert
and operative. The hints of parallels with 7.7-25 reinforce this point: Paul
looks at 'his flesh' in rebellion against the gospel, and in himself (airtbq eyh,
9.3) he identifies with them.
Second, the list of Jewish privileges in 9.4 f. is not arbitrary, but echoes
precisely those privileges which, throughout Romans up to this point, Paul
has shown to be transferred to the Jews' representative Messiah, and,
through him, to all those who are 'in him', be they Jewish or Gentile.
Sonship, glory, covenants, law, worship, promises, patriarchs: all has become
the glory of the church in Christ. This intensifies the irony-and, for Paul,
the agony--of the present situation.
Third, the climactic privilege is that from the Jewish race, according to the
flesh, is the Messiah.16 Just as 1.3-4 provides a programmatic christological
statement for the rest of the letter, especially chs. 5-8, so 9.5 stands
programatically a t the head of 9-11. The Jews are the people of the
Messiah, but they are this according to the flesh. And the Messiah to whom
they belong is not merely 'theirs', but is also 'God over all, blessed for ever'.
Attention has naturally focussed on the ascription of Be& to Jesus, which,
following Metzger and Cranfield, I endorse.17 The real emphasis of the
phrase, however, lies elsewhere, and is picked up in (e.g.) 10.12: the Jewish
Messiah is God over all, Jew and Gentile alike. Within the very heart of the
Jewish privilege there lies the vocation which proves the Jews' apparent
undoing: that the Messiah, who encapsulates her destiny in himself, is God's
means of salvation not for her alone but for the whole world. More
specifically, as we have seen in earlier chapters, the Messiah in his death
brought to a head the sorry tale of Israel's own acting out of the sin'of Adam
(see also below). As long as Israel clings to the fact of ancestral privilege,
she cannot but miss out on God's intended universal salvation. She is
denying its premise. And behind this whole picture there stands Israel's own
fundamental doctrine: creational and covenantal monotheism. The God who
made promises to Israel is also the creator of the whole world; but if that is
160n the meaning of Messiahship see chs. 2-3 above.
r 73; Cranfield 1975,464 ff.,pace Moule 1977, 137. The ascription is of course
1 7 ~ e t z g e 19'
filled out with the christological passages studied in chs. 4-6 above.
 Chnkt, the Law and the People of God: Romans 9-1 1

This cryptic initial statement (9.30-3) is spelt out further in 10.1-13, which
explains the divinely appointed covenant way to salvation.3 Israel, already
charged in 7.13-20 with ignorant sin, is now also seen to be ignorant of the
8i~auw6vqroij 8~ou^, 10.2-that is, of God's own covenant faithfulness and
its nature and shape, in other words of what God was righteously, justly and
faithfully doing in her history. She was bent, instead, on pursuing n)v @hv .
~ L K u L O ~ that~ V is,
, a status of covenant membership which would be for
Jews and Jews only.24 In doing so, she did not submit to God's own covenant
plan: because Christ all along was the secret goal of Torah, the r k k vopou,
so that her rejection of Christ and her abuse of Torah, turning it into a
charter of racial privilege, were really one and the same thing. The notorious
crux of 10.425 can, I think, be reduced to these terms: that the Torah is
neither abolished as though it were bad or demonic, nor affirmed in the
sense in which the Jews took it. It was a good thing, given deliberately by
God for a specific task and a particular period of time. When the task is
done and the time is up, the Torah reaches its goal, which is also the
conclusion of its intended reign, not because it was a bad thing to be
abolished but because it was a good thing whose job is done. In terms of the
Luther-Calvin debate which has dominated discussion of this issue, we can
put it like this. The Lutheran wants to maintain the sharp antithesis between
law and gospel; so does Paul, but within the context of a single plan of God,
and with no suggestion that the Torah is itself a bad thing. The Calvinist
wants to ensure that God did not change his plan, or his mind, in the middle
of history; so does Paul (that, indeed, is what Romans 9-11 is all about), but
he insists that tlte single plan always involved a dramatic break, a cross and a
resurrection written into the very fabric of history. The Messiah is the
fulfillment of the long purposes of Israel's God. It was for this that Torah
was given in the first place as a deliberately temporary mode of
administration. In the Messiah are fulfilled the creator's paradoxical
purposes for Israel and hence for the world. He is the climax of the
covenant.26
23The time is more than ripe for a re-assessment of what precisely 'salvation' meant for
Paul. I have a suspicion that his thought was closer to the Jewish idea, which had very tittle to
do with an other-worldly state of bliss and a great deal to do with a renewed space-time
universe, than we usually imagine. But we cannot pursue this here.
2 4 ~ h iview
s has now become quite popular (e.g. Gager 1983,224; Dunn 1988,595; Sanders
1991,121 f.; more cautiously, Ziesler 1989,256 f.). I fust suggested it in 1978 (Wright 1978,83,
and 1980a, 98).
2 5 ~ n10.4 see now Badenas 1985, and the (somewhat shallow) discussion of views in
Martin 1989,129-54.
261t was in conversation with Richard Hays that I fust thought of the title for this book, and
his instant reaction was to ask if I were suggesting this phrase as a translation of re& vbpou.
My only possible reply was that until that moment I had not been conscious of doing so.
 Chrkt, the Law and the People of God: Romans 9-11

and the Messiah was to bring this national destiny to its triumphant
conclusion. H e ~ a s - ~ r e c i s e lin~ the flesh!-to do and be what Israel
according to the flesh was called to do and be. And that calling, Paul now
indicates clearly, drawing on the line of thought from 5.20 onwards, was that
Israel, and her Messiah, should be cast away so that the world might be
saved.% The Torah, therefore, precisely in that it condemns Israel, and, with
her, her Messiah (Galatians 3.13), is vindicated: it had to do this, so that the
sin of the world might be borne. Christ on the cross is thus the goal of Torah.
Second, therefore, the means by which Torah did this i s seen to be
vindicated. The Torah was bound to declare to Israel that she was the
chosen people, the creator's special possession. This was true, and Israel
needed to be constantly reminded of it, and given signs to help her to remain
faithful. But, being at the same time a people in Adam, according to the
flesh, Israel was bound to misuse her high calling, turning her privilege into a
boast and her safeguarding symbols into badges of superiority. What we see
here, in fact, is the outworking, at the level of 'national righteousness', of the
analysis of Torah given in Romans 7 at the level of sin. Here at last is the '
passage where ~ a u comes l to the full analysis of Israel's meta-sin which,
wrongly analysed in the first place by those who saw the problem as 'nomism'
or Pelagian self-righteousness, was then wrongly superimposed on to Romans
7 by the majority view of that pa~sage.~g The 'meta-level' of Israel's problem
with the Torah is 'national righteousness', and it is here, not in ch. 7, that it is
dealt with.% So, just as in ch. 7 the Torah was good, eventually vindicated
(8.4 is the equivalent, there, of 10.4 here), and at the same time deadly
because of Israel's a+€.-and yet even in that respect was doing what God
intended (Galatians 3.21 f).-so here the Torah is good, vindicated by Christ
as its goal, and within its actual good purpose tripping up Israel, enticing her .
into 'national righteousness', becoming the place where Adam's pride found
its full outworking, in order that the long saving purposes of Israel's God, for
the world and also for Israel herself, might thereby be brought to fruition.
Thus the means bv which the Torah condemned Israel at this meta-level are
vindicated as part of the strange purposes of the creator, that he should have
a covenant people who would die and be raised so that the world might be
saved. In this sense also, then, Christ, the dying Messiah, is the goal of
Torah, including the Torah when seen as the necessary means of Israel's
cmdemnation, the Torah which entices her into national righteousness. And
28That this is the correct reading of this passage is indicated by the fact that Paul uses
exactly this idea in Rom. 11.11 ff.; moreover, because the Messiah has taken Israel's destiny
upon himself in Israel's place, Isracl, though she must go through the same death, will also be
able to experience the same resurrection (11.14 f.). For all this, see below.
2 9 ~ e above,
e chs. 10-12.
w e may note, as a tell-tale indication of this, that &papria,sin, is entirely absent from the
discussion in Rom. 9-11-until all the threads are drawn together in 11.27.
 The Climax of the Covenant

the sense of cessation which remains-the Lutheran view is not without its
merit, it simply needs setting in a wider context-is contained within the
sense of climax, of 'goal'. When I reach my goal I stop travelling; not
because my journey was a silly idea but because it was a good idea now fully
worked out.31
There is therefore in this passage, just as in 7.1-8.11, a double Torah
under the argument. Now, however, the two, for all that their functions are
so different, are more obviously integrated. There is, first, the Torah seen as
the vbpoq 6t~atourjvqq(9.31): it really is affirmed as the covenant-
document, and Israel's fault is not that she pursued it but that, pursuing it in
the wrong way, she did not attain to it (9.31-2). In consequence, we have the
Torah as the means whereby God becomes a stumbling-block to Israel.32
9,32b, which (oddly in Paul) has no connecting word to 32a, seems all the
same to be explanatory: to pursue the Torah through works is to stumble
over the stumbling stone. The Torah is therefore, in a sense, the stone over
which Israel has now stumbled, just as in another sense it is the crucified
Messiah over which she has now stumbled. Once more, these are not two but
one. And the 'one' that these two are is actually the covenant plan of the one
God, which, expressed in Torah, was enacted in the Messiah. That is why the
stumbling-stone, and the object of faith, in 9.32 f., are systematically and
properly ambiguous (do they refer to God, Christ, or Torah?). Israel's fault
was her rejection of God's plan; which manifested itself in her 'national
righteousness' (which was invalidated by her Adamic sin); which expressed
itself in her rejection of the crucified Messiah. Even so, 'faith' within this
context is (a) the acceptance of the crucified Messiah as the risen Lord
(10.9); (b) the 'fulfillment' of Torah in faith, and consequent membership in
the worldwide family (10.5-8, 3.27); and (c) the acknowledgement of, and
appropriation of benefits from, the covenant faithfulness of the one God as
expressed in promise, Torah and finally in Christ (10.3, 3.21-31). It is only
after Israel's failure, therefore, that the first Torah can come into its own:
because, with the help of the gospel, a worldwide family can attain to Torah,
the Torah which is now paradoxically fulfilled whenever anyone confesses
that Jesus is Lord and believes in the God who raised him from the dead.
The twin topics of the present volume-Christ and the Law-reach their
richest joint expression in Romans 10.4, which itself states our single theme,
the climax of the covenant.
The next turn of the paradox is immediately apparent in Romans 10.5-8.
This passage is regularly regarded as an arbitrary piece of exegesis on Paul's
3 1 ~ h i means
s that I am close in form, though not in substance, with the view of R. Bring,
summarized in Martin 1989, 65 f.
321sa. 8.14, quoted here, indicates that it is God himself who is to be seen as both the
sanctuary and the stumbling stone for Israel.
 The Climax of the Covenant

out of Adam's sin that the world has been saved.41 Second, if this (rather
than the simple reversal or abandonment of election) is the reason for
Israel's 'fall', there is no reason why she should not herself be subsequently
saved, and indeed every reason why she should. All she has to do is
I
, relinquish her frantic grip on the Torah (cf. Galatians 2.19-21). The
submerged allusions to Romans 5 here are extremely telling: Israel acts out
the sin of Adam (compare 5.12-21 with 11.11-12), but also the pattern of the
Messiah (5.10 with 11.15).
This is the context within which the details of w.12, 14, 15-16 are to be
read. They are not to be interpreted in the light of a reading of w.25-7
which, as I shall shortly suggest, is misguided. The key is found in v.14: Paul's
aim is 'to make my flesh jealous and save some of them'. Paul treats the
entire gentile mission, which is his primary vocation, as a means to a further
end: that Jews should see 'their' privileges (9.4 f.) being taken up by Gentiles
(cp. 9.30 f.), and so should be made 'jealous' (10.19) and decide to come in
themselves. One is inescapably reminded of the Prodigal Son, and the elder
brother looking on jealously at the party which he might claim as his by right
but now could only enter by an act of great humility. (And, to anticipate the
hermeneutical conclusion, one cannot but reflect that the church has as a
rule celebrated the party in such a way that few Jews would be likely to be
jealous of it.) This sets the context for the natural meaning of 11.15: when a
Gentile comes into the family of Christ, it is as it were a creario ex nihilo, but
when a Jew comes in it is like a resurrection (compare 4.17, in context).
The 'olive tree' allegory then makes exactly the same point. Gentile
Christians must not boast of their superiority to Jewish non-Christians (not to
Jewish Christians: Paul is referring to branches that are broken off), because
to do so would be to set up an inverted 'national righteousness', which would
incur the same sentence as the original (Jewish) sort (v.21). And the
possibility that is always held out (continuing the answer to 11.11) is not a
large-scale last-minute restoration of 'all Jews', irrespective of Christian faith,
but the chance that Jews, during the course of the present age, will come to
Christian faith and so be grafted back in. The crucial verse here is 23: 'if they
do not remain in unbelief. Paul clearly sees the salvation of Jews in the
future as dependent on their coming to Christian faith. His major concern is
that the Roman church must not regard Jews as being beyond the reach of
the gospel of Jesus. To do so would be to exhibit gentile arrogance, implying
that the one God, into whose family they, the Gentiles, had now come by
grace, was no longer intending to save any other than Gentiles.
Omitting 11.25-7 for the moment, we may press on to 11.28-32. Here, in
Paul's summary of the divine plan of salvation, he draws together the threads
4111.11,12a, 12b, 15, lornling a climactic sequence.
 The Cli~nauof the Covenant

sequence-first the Gentiles, then the Jews. Rather, it is the interpretation

of a particular process as the salvation of 'all Israel'. And in this context 'all
Israel' cannot possibly mean 'all Jews'. It is impermissible to argue that
'Israel' cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that
'Israel' in v.25 must mean the same as 'Israel' in v.26: Paul actually began the
whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two 'Israels',
and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25-9) as well as elsewhere (e.g. Philippians
3.2-11) he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of
'Israel' to the Messiah and his people. It is therefore greatly preferable to
take 'all Israel' in v.26 as a typically Pauline polemical redefinition, as in
Galatians 6.16 (though that is of course also controversial), and in line also
with Philippians 3.2 ff., where the church is described as 'the circumcision'.
What Paul is saying is this. God's method of saving 'all Israel' is to harden
ethnic Israel (cp. 9.14 ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a
period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during
the course of which it remains God's will that the present 'remnant' of
believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of 'jealousy7,and consequent
faith, described above. This whole process is God's way of saving his whole
people: that is the meaning of ~ ao lh % ni5q 'Iopa@ o w e i l o a a ~ .
What then is predicted in the composite scriptural quotation in 26b-27?
It has been customary to see this as a prediction of the Parousia, the event at
which (so it is supposed) the great ingathering of Jews will suddenly take
place. But the text itself not only does not bear this out. It actually points
explicitly in a very different direction.
The quotations used by Paul here come from Isaiah 2.3, 27.9,59.20 f. and
Jeremiah 31.34. All have to do with God's action the other side of judgment.
Paul has combined Isaiah 59.20 f. with Isaiah 2.3 (and/or Micah 4.2) to
create the new prediction that the redeemer (not the Torah) will come out
from (not 'on behalf of') Zion. These are all passages which speak of the
final great renewal of covenant, the overcoming of exile, and the blessing
which will then flow to the nations as a result of the vindication of Israel.
Within the Old Testament, this blessing could be thought of in terms of
Torah going out to the nations (e.g. Micah 4.2 f.); for Paul, what the Torah
could not do is now done in Christ and the Spirit. Hence the replacement of
Torah's outgoing by that of the Redeemer. We are here very close to
9.30--10.13, and this increases the probability that what Paul is here
referring to is not the Parousia but the gentile mission; v.26b is explaining
v.26a, and is doing so with reference to covenantal promises of gentile

not belong together. Sanders 1991, 123 rightly acknowledges the meaning 'thus', but still
draws (to my mind) the wrong conclusion.

250
 The Nature of Pauline Theology

believed moreover (as a matter of vocation) must be undertaken by himself,

Paul writes in order to call into being, and sustain in being, communities
composed of men, women and children of every race and every class of
society, believing that in so doing he is acting midwife (or even mother, as in
Galatians 4.19) to the renewed covenant people of God, which can know no
boundaries because it is precisely the renewed human race. These
communities must never forget their basic continuity with the people of God -
from Abraham onwards; that way lies neo-paganism, the transformation of a
fulfilled Judaism into a Hellenistic cult. It is astonishing, considering the
exegetical tours de force that are required, how many Christian writers have
claimed (as historians) that this is the way Paul himself went, and have
congratulated him (as theologians or preachers) for doing so. Equally, these
communities must never lapse into thinking of themselves as merely a sub-set
of racial or geographical Judaism. If thejl are to be the renewed, and
renewing, human race they cannot allow this muzzling of the essentially new
message. It is perhaps less astonishing, in view of events this century, how
many Christian writers have claimed Paul as an advocate of continuing
Jewish privilege, and have congratulated him for it. The exegetical tours de
force are required just as much here too.
Paul as theologian, then, is Paul drawing from the well of his thought-out
worldview and belief-structure that which is needed to persuade this or that
church to maintain and further its own vocation, against the pressures from
one side or another. He is no less a theologian for being a tactician, a
pragmatist, a rhetorician malgre'soi ('I am no orator, as Brutus is'). Theology
is what makes him all of these, and what makes all of these serve his
vocation.

(iv) Paul as a Biblical Theologiar~

In particular, Paul is a biblical theologian, self-consciously so. There is no

room at this stage of the present book to examine his use of the Jewish
scriptures as fully as the subject desewes.3 But the subject-matter of the
present volume suggests a set of particular angles on this question, and it will
be worth while at least to suggest ways of proceeding.
I have argued in the second section of this book that Paul's view of the
Torah encompassed a variety of different emphases held together within a -
story-line which enables us to see how they could be thought compatible. But
Torah is not something utterly distinct from the Jewish scriptures which Paul
never tired of quoting, discussing, referring to both directly and indirectly.
3 ~ e Hays
e 1989 for a recent provocative discussion and up-to-date bibliography.
 The Climax of the Covenant

Does Paul then use the Jewish scriptures in a way which coheres with what he
says about them? This is a of some interest, both theoretical and
practical-the latter in that it directly affects exegesis.
The nuanced view of Torah for which I have been arguing indicates that
this question will not be a simple one. I propose to come at it obliquely in
the first instance, by discussing the recent proposal of Richard Hays in his
exciting book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989). Paul,
according to Hays, finds that scripture prefigures, metaphorically, the church
of his own day: by his constant allusions to scripture, Paul creates a picture of
a community in continuity with the Old Testament People of God, fulfilling
God's basic intention for this people. This, Hays argues, is more central to
Paul than the christological or christocentric hermeneutic which has often
been found in the letters.
I find this basically convincing. We have seen time and again in this book
that Paul does indeed draw on scripture to create a picture of the people of
God which he then proceeds to apply to the church of his own day. We need
only think of the single seed promised to Abraham (my argument in ch. 8 is
r- another indication of an ecclesiocentric hermeneutic in Paul where exegetes
have traditionally seen a christocentric one) or the glory on Moses' face
(where Moses, as we saw in ch. 9, prefigures the position of the whole
church). And the whole emphasis on the corporate Messiah points in the
same direction, as well as suggesting a reason why exegetes who did not
-- notice the nature of Paul's incorporative language settled for christological
rather than ecclesiological interpretations.
But I still find Hays' picture incomplete, and leaving Paul looking more
arbitrary in his handling of the Jewish Bible than I think exegesis actually
suggests. On the basis of almost all of the chapters above, I suggest that ~ a u l
saw scripture as story and as prophecy, not i n the abstract sense of mere
typological prefigurement between one event and another, according to
which in principle the two events could stand in any chronological relation to
each other, but in the sense of a very specific story functioning in a very
specific way.4 For Paul, the story was always moving towards a climax; it
contained within it, at specific and non-arbitrary moments, advance warnings
and promises about that climax; it contained within it, again not at arbitrary
moments, prefigurements of that climax (the story of Isaac, of the Exodus,
and so forth); and, most importantly, it was a story whose climax, Paul
believed, had now arrived. The resurrection of Jesus was, for Paul, the sure
" and certain sign, unmistakable if unexpected, that Israel's consolation had
been given to-her, that the Age to come had therefore arrived, and at the
4 ~ a ysuggests
s to me, in conversation, that 'typology' allows for the distance between the
events to remain, whereas allegory in principle collapses them. Tbis may be so; but I still find
his own reading of Paul in danger of such a collapsing of distance. See below.
 The Nature of Pauline Theology

same time the sure and certain sign that Israel-and he, Paul, in
particular!-had up until that point been looking in the wrong direction.
He therefore read the Jewish scriptures as the covenant book whose final
key had now been supplied. From this p i n t of view there is a formal, though
not a substantial, parallel between Paul's exegesis and that of Qumran Both
believed that the Jewish scriptures had been written to p i n t forward, in story
and prophecy, to a great day of Israel's redemption that lay in the future.
Both believed that that day had in principle arrived, secretly and
unexpectedly, unrecognized by the majority of Israel. Both therefore re-read
scripture in the Iight of this belief. But, whereas Qumran worked through
books of prophecies and discovered detailed predictions about individual
events in the life (say) of the Teacher of Righteousness, Paul
characteristically took passages from Israel's story, passages in which the
covenant was inaugurated, enacted, discussed in detail-and argued that the
promises all along, historically considered, envisaged the chain of events that
was now taking place in the death and resurrection of Jesus, the sending of
the Spirit, the welcome of Gentiles into the people of God. His arguments
hinge on the fact of the meanings not being hidden, not being like the book
of Habakkuk sealed up for future generations to discover.5 He goes back to
Genesis 15, or Deuteronomy 30, to argue that what has come to pass actually -.
is what God promised to Abraham, and to appeal to that in the public
domain and not by means of an esoteric secret which other contemporary
Jews could not share. He does not, then, collapse the distance between
Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and himself.6 He claims to offer a historical reading
in which the 'prefigurements' are part of the story that has now come to its
climax.
Is Paul's use of scripture then consistent with his theologically-argued view
of Torah? We would need a book at least as long as the present one to
address this question properly, but a preliminary answer can be given. His
view of Torah, we have seen, is that it was God's law, holy and good; that it
could not give the life it promised; that therefore, if absolutized, it became a
demonic gaoler; that precisely in its negative mode it remained the agent of
the divine saving purpose, drawing sin on to Israel in order to deal with it in
the Messiah; that what it itself could not do God had done by Christ and the -
Spirit, so that Torah itself was both reaffirmed and relativized, and all within
the unifying framework of the covenant story. We can see at once that there
are important parallels between this multi-faceted view of Torah and Paul's
multi-faceted use of scripture. He treats it as authoritative, and yet as
relativized in Christ and the Spirit. He appeals to its promises and warnings
while categorically setting aside the features of it which marked Israel out
SCf. lQpHab 7.1 ff. (Verrnes 1987,286).
6~gainstHays 177.
 Bibliography

a Vallisoleto, X. M. 1932. "'Et Semini Tuo Qui Est Christus' (Gal. 3.16)." Vert,um Domini
12:327-332.
Aletti, J.-N. 1981. Colossiens 1,15-20: Genre et &@se Du Tate; Fonction & lo Thkmatique
Sapientielle. Analecta Biblica. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press.
Alford, H. 1865. 7'ha Greek Testament: With a Critically Revised Text... 4th ed. London/
Oxford/ Cambridge: Rivingtons.
Allegro, J. M., ed. 1968. Discoveries in the Judaem Desert of Jordan. Vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Aptowitzer, V. 1922. Kain und Abel in der Aggada, den Apokyphen, der hellenistischen,
chrisrlichen und moharnmedanischenL i t e m . Wien/Leipzig: Liiwit.
Amdt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 1979. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Litemture. Rev. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker.
2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Attridge, Harold W. 1984. "Josephus and His Works." In Jewish Wribirgs of the Second Temple
Period, ed. Michael E. Stone, 185-232. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum, Section Two: The Literature of the Jewish Pwple in the Period of the
Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress
Press.
Badenas, Robert. 1985. Christ the End of the Law: R o m m 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Journal
for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: J.S.O.T. Press.
Badham, F. P. 1907-8. "Philippiansii.6: ? q f q p b v . *Epositoy Emes 19:331-333.
Balchin, J. F. 1985. "Colossians 1:l5-20: An Early Christian Hymn? The Argument from
Style." Vox Evangelica 1565-94.
Bammel, E. 1961. "Versuch Kol 1 15-20."Zeitschriftfilr die neutestamentliche Wissenschafl
5288-95.
Barclay, John M. G. 1988. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Ga/ananans. Studies of
the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Barclay, W. 1958. "Great Themes of the New Testament, I: Phil. 21-11." Expository Times
70:4@-44.
Barnes, Julian. 1985 < 1984>. Flaubert's Parrot. London: Pan Books.
Barrett, C. K. 1957. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Black's New Testament
Commentaries. London: A. & C. Black.
 INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED
(indexes compiled by Dr Philip Hillyer)

OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
1
1-3
1.1
1.26
1.26-27
1.26ff
1.27-28 Exodus
1.28 1.7
2.7 4.22
2.15-20 29.14
3 29.36
3.5ff 32.13
34.34

Leviticus
4
4.2
4.3
4.8
4.13
4.14
4.20
4.22
4.24
4.25
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.32
4.33
4.34
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.1 1
5.12
5.15
5.18
6.17
 Deuteronomy
1.10-11 23
6.4 128
7.13-14 23
8.1 23
27-28 155
Numbers 27-30 140, 142,146, 148
6.1 1 27.26 139,142
6.14 28.15-29.29 140
6.16 28.63 23
7.16 29 141
7.22 30 146,152,154,245,265,266
7.28 30.1- 14 140
7.34 30.5 23
289
 8.4ff 95
8.7 28,58,114
24.1 134
37 24
Judges 39.7 LXX ( E W 40.6) 222
16.1-17 67.17 LXX 117
68.28-30 23
1 Samuel 72.8 23
12.22 80.15 23
80.17 23
2 Samuel 89.27 113
5.1-3 95.7 108
7.12-14 96.5 107
7.14 100.3 108
19.40-43 110 93
19.4 1-20.2
20.1
1 Kings
3.4-15 Proverbs
3.28 1-9
4.29-34 1.1
12.16 8
8.22
2 Kings 8.22-23
12.17 (EVV 12.16) 8.22-3 1
8.22ff
2 Chronicles 8.23
29.2 1
Isaiah
Ezra 2.2-4
2.59 2.3
8.14
Nehemiah 11.lff
7.16 27.9
40-55
Esther 40.12-31
10.3 42.19
45
Job 45.5
28.23ff 45.6
45.8
Psalms 45.14
2.7 45.18
8 45.21
8.4 45.22-25
8.4-5 45.23
 INDW OF PASSAGES
60 40.39
60 42.13
60 43.2 1
245 44.29
60.61 45.22
222 45.25
25 46.20
43
23 Daniel
266 3.19 LXX
250 7
245 7.14
9.1 1
Jeremiah
3.16 23 Joel
23.3 23 3.5
29.18 146
31 176,191 Micah
31.34 250,251 4
38.9 LXX 113 4.2-3

Ezekiel Habakkuk
36 176 2
36.11 23 2.4
37 28,196
37.9-14 33 Zechariah
10.8

NEW TESTAMENT

Acts
2.33-36
Mark 3.17
6.50 7.53
10.2-9 9.22
14.62 13
13.27
Luke 13.32-37
19.27 15
17.3
John 17.7
1.1-14 18.5
1.14 23.6
8.46 24.21
Romans
1-4
1-8
1-11
1.2-4
1.3-4
1.17
1.18-4.25
1.18-5.1 1
1.18-32
1.18ff
1.32
2
2.1-16
2.13-14
2.14
2.16
2.17-3.20
2.17-24
2.17-25
2.17-29
2.25-29
2.26
2.28-29
2.29
3
3.1-2
3.lff
3.19-20
3.20
3.21-4.25
3.21-26
3.21-31
3.21ff
3.23
3.24-26
3.24ff
3.27
3.28-30
3.30
3.30-3 1
3.3 1
4
 INDEX
OF PASSAGES

1Corinthians 10.26 134

1.9 30 10.28-29 135
1.12 29,44 10.29-30 135
1.13 43,49 10.31-11.1 135
1.17 84 10.32 132,136
1.23 43 12.6 53
1.23ff 61 12.12 43,49
1.24 124 12.26 52
1.30 48,124 13.4 127
2.9 127 13.8 177
3.22-23 118,126 15 20,35,36,39,43,58,59,
3.23 29,44 60,87,93,95
4.6 127 15.8 34
4.18 127 15.17 209
4.19 127 15.20 27,29
5.2 127 15.20-28 27,34,35,38,58
5.7 224 15.20-49 18
7 126 15.20-57 26-35
7.19 266 15.20ff 36
7.32 213 15.22 29
8 17,120,125,126 15.23 27,29,44
8-10 128,133 15.23-28 30
8.1 127 15.25 27,28
8.1-3 120,127 15.25-28 29
8.1-6 133 15.27 28,58,114,149
8.1-13 135 15.28 30,130
8.3 124 15.29-34 30
8.4 127,128 15.35-49 31
8.4-6 120 15.35-57 30
8.5 134 15.36-38 30,31,33
8.56 128 15.36-41 32
8.6 2,91,93, 114, 115, 121, 15.38 32
124,128,129,130,132 15.39-41 30,31
8.7-13 133 15.41 31
8.8 135 15.42 31
8.9 135 15.42-44 31,32
8.10 134,135 15.42-49 30,3 1
8.11-12 133 15.44 33
9-10 120 15.44-45 31
9.1 34 15.44-49 30
9.15 84 15.45 31,32,33,34,35,38,178
9.19-23 135 15.46 31
10 128 15.46-47 32
2 Corinthians
 INDEX OF PASSAGES
12.11 176 3.19 160, 161,167, 169, 170,
13.5 45 172,210
13.5-10 191 3.19-20 157
3.19-22 157, 158, 167,
168-172,210
Galatians 3.19ff 168
1.4 141,223 3.20 158, 159, 160, 161, 162,
2.15-21 174 163,168,169,170,172,173
2.16 145,155 3.20-21 171
2.19 9 3.21 167,168,202,207
2.19-20 151,197 3.21-22 163,172,199,210,243
2.19-21 247,248 3.21-23 169
2.20 45 3.21-29 163
2.2 1 242 3.22 138,144,161,167,
3 47,49, 167, 181, 182,192, 210,211
195,203,213,214,240, 3.22-29 168
245,260 3.23 167
3-4 9,43,44,206,238 3.23-29 154,172
3.1-5 154 3.24 167
3.2 154 3.25 158,167
3.5 53,154 3.26-27 163
36-9 141,149 3.26-29 47,158,167
3.6- 14 169 3.28 54,163
3.6-29 154 3.28-29 163
3.8 166 3.29 29,158,159,163
3.9 141 4 167,170
3.10 141,144-148 4.1-6 209
3.10-11 153 4.1-7 44,154
3.10-12 I66 4.1-11 143,164
3.10-14 137,138,141,146,156 4.4 96,151,161
3.10ff 144 4.4-5 208
3.11 149 4.6-7 154
3.11-12 148-151 4.9 161
3.12 149 4.19 45,263
3.13 139,141,143, 5.24 29
151-153,243 6.2 43,249
3.13-14 138 6.15 115
3.14 45,143,144,153-155 6.16 250
3.15 140,166
3.15-18 157,162-168,169,171
3.15-20 55,157-174 Ephesians
3.15-22 180 1.17
 T m OF PASSAGES
3.20 53 3.1 1 88,97
4.12-13 54 3.20-2 1 58
4.13 49 3.21 97
Philippians Colossians
1 129,130,132
1.9 53 1.9 53
1.20 45 1.10 53
2 20,33,35,39,40,84,95, 1.12-14 109
98,99,129,131,132 1.12-23 109
2.1-2 87 1.13-14 100
2.1-4 87.97 1.15 18,95,111,112,114
2.1-5 52,87,98,133,135 1.15-16 107,131
2.3-5 87 1.15-17 107,115
2.3 87 1.15-20 56,91,99-119, 127,133
2.5-1 1 18,56,57,59,61,88, 1.16 134
89,97,135 1.16-17 114,117
2.6 58,59,62,63,64,69,70, 1.17 107
73,74,75,79,85,89,97 1.17-18 112
2.6-7 83,91,92,94,97 1.18 108,116,117
2.6-8 86,87,90,91,226 1.18-20 107
2.6- 11 115,133,190 1.19 117
2.6ff 88 1.20 20
2.7 63,64,70,75,83,89,96 1.21-23 109
2.7-8 60,83,90 1.22 109
2.8 73.75 1.23 109
2.9 86 1.24 45,51
2.9- 10 58 1.27 45
2.9-1 1 70,86,87,91,94 1.29 53
2.9ff 94 2.9 117
2.10 86 2.14-15 143
2.10-11 58,94 2.18 127
2.11 130 3.10 114,146
2.12 87
2.12-16 87 1 Thessalonians
2.12-18 97 1.9 126
2.12ff 87.88 2 245
2.13 53 2.13 53
3 98,145,245 2.14-16 233,249
3.2-3 88 2.15-16 156
3.2-1 1 9,89,242.250 4.1 213
3.2-21 59
3.2ff 97,250 1 Timothy
3.4ff 88 2.5 160
3.7-1 1 88 6.7 149
3.9 48
3.10 52 Philemon
3.10-11 48 6 41,49-55
 INDEXOF PASSAGES
50 1Peter
53 3.18
52
51 1 John
2.2
Hebrews 3.12
1.13 28 4.10
2.2 161
2.5-9 28,114 Jude
5.3 223 11
10.6 222,223 15
10.8 222,223
10.18 223 Revelation
10.26 223 4-5
11.4 228 20.14
13.11 223 21.4

James
1.8

EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE

Apocalypse of Abraham
24.5 228

Apocalypse of Adam and Eve

40 228

Babylonian Talmud
Kiddushin 70b 164

Baruch 1 Enoch
4.7 128 90.19
90.30
2 Baruch 90.37ff
3.9-4.4
14.17-19
2 Esdras
14.18-19
15.7 6.17
21.24 6.54-59
7.1 1
Ecclesiasticus (Ben-Sira) 107 8.35
I 1.1-10 110
4 Ezra
i 1.10
17.1-4
110,127
24 3.4-36
i
Fragmentary Targum Philo,
De Cherubin 67 228
Josephus, 127 123
Antiquities
1.52-66 De Posteritate
15.134-137 Caini
10
Jewish War 39
5.63 42
5.94
5.97 Quaest. Gen.
1.59-75 228
Jubilees
1.24 Q w d Deterius
2.23 54 123
3.30-31 119 229
4.4-6
4.31-32 Psalms of Solomon
15.27 18.4 113,118
16.26
19.23-31 Pseudo-Jonathan 93
22.11-13 on Gen. 4.3 229
on Ex. 33.1-6 183
2 Maccabees
2.11 Qumran literature
7 CD 1.5-8
7.37-38 CD 3.20
12.43 1Q L i e 2.3-6
1QH 4
Midrash Rabbah 1QH 17.15
Gen 1.1 lQpHab 7.lff
12.9
1QS 2.1 Iff
14.6
15.4 1QS 4.23
1QS 8.4-10
Mishnah 1QS 10-11
mHor. 2.1-6 4 4 Ps37 3.1-2
mKer. 1.2 4QFlorilegium 1.18-19
mKer. 2.6 1lQPS(a)
mKer. 3.2
mSanh. 4.5 223 Sibylline Oracles
mSanh. 7.8 159
223 proem
mShab. 7.1 223 sijire
mShab. 11.6
223 Deut. 11.10
Song of the Three Young Men 108 Wisdom of Solomon
2.23-24
3.8
6-9
Targum Yerushalmi 229 7.22-23
on Gen. 1.1 111 7.26
9
Testaments of the Twelve 9.1-2
Patriarchs 9.1-13
Benj 7.3-5 229 l0ff
Levi 18.10 24 12
15
Tobit
14.6f

EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS Eusebius,

Commentary on Luke 86
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Historia Ecclesiae 3.19-20 42
Romans 8.17 220 5.2.2 84

Athenagoras, lT,,@Pa 26 128

Ignatius
Barnabas Eph. 6.1
12.10 Eph. 18.2
Eph. 20.2
Chrysostorn, Rom. 7.3
Horn. on Rom. 8.lff 220 Trall. 9.1
Horn. on 1Cor. 20.2 128
Origen
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 8.3 221
De Adoratione 1.25 85,86

Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Cornmentaly on Romans 8.3 220

GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS Marcus Aurelius, 4.23 123

Plato, Republic, 402 B 188
Euripides, Media, 1162 188 Xenophon, Mem. ii.3.11 190
Herodom, vii. 6.1 190
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Bomkarnm, G. 67,70,71
Bousset, W. 42
Bouyer, L. 70
Bover, J. M. 165
Briggs, G. A. 164
Bring, R. 158,161,162,169,244
Brown, A. 164
Bruce, F. F. 99, 139, 153, 160,
Badenas, R. 214,24 1 220,246
Badham, F. P. 66 Brunt, J. C. 122
Balchin, J. F. 99, 100, 102, 103, Bultmann, R. 15,42,59, 160,180,
106 197, 212,224,227, 236,240,
Bammel, E. 101 260
Barclay, J. M. G. 158, 160, 164 Burney, C. F. 103, 107, 110, 111,
Barclay, W. 66.73 112,113
Barnes, J. 226 Burton, E. de W. 158, 164, 165,
Barrett, C. K. 37, 68, 120, 122, 166,169,223
126, 128, 134, 135, 165, 172,
175, 176, 188, 189, 190,220, Caird, G. B. xii, 20, 36, 57, 58,
232 61, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 83, 86,
Barth, K. 70,74,81 87, 88.97, 98, 100, 111, 113,
Barton, J. 168 114, 116, 117, 175, 177, 180,
Bassler, J. M. 1 185
Bauckham, R. 75 Callan, T. D. 158,159,161,162
Baugh, S. M. 99,102 Calvin, J. 220
Baur, F. C. 77,232 Campbell, J. Y. 52
Beare, F. W. 66 Carmignac, J. 71, 73, 74, 76, 79,
Beasley-Murray ,G. R. 70 81
Beasley-Murray, P. 100, 105, 117 Cassuto, u. 2 1
Beet, J. A. 66,73,76,89 Cavallin, H. C. C. 149
Beker, J. C. 2,4,160,167,259 Cerfaux, L. 66,67,71,80
Bengel, J. A. 66,220 Chamberlain, J. S. F. 73,77
Benoit, P. 99,106,212 Charlesworth, J. H. 108
Bentzen, A. 23 Cholmondeley, F. G. 66.83
Berger, K. 103 Clements, R. E. 11,23
Betz, H. -D. 139, 141, 143, 144, Collange, J. -F. 52, 54, 80, 175,
150, 152, 158, 159, 163, 167, 185,188
171 Conzelmann, H. 19.28, 120, 127,
Betz, 0.165 128,129,130,131,132,134
Billerbeck, P. 128 Coppens, J. 72
Blass, F. 53,83,170 Craig, W. L. 32
Bligh, J. 158,160 Cranfield, C. E. B. 4, 12, 39, 149,
Bonnard, P. 66,67 162, 175,204,220,224,231,
237
 INDM OF M O DAUTHORS
~
Cullmann, 0 . 7 1,72,8 1,91 Feuillet, A. 60,65,66,69,7 1,73,
76, 80,81, 83, 84, 85, 111,
DaN, N. A. 3,23,36,41,42,159, 123
165,183 Foerster, W. 77,79,80,83,85,89
Dalrner, K. E. F. 164 Ford. D. F. 117,179
Danby ,H. 223 Fox, R. L. 126
Danieli, J. 160 France, R. T. 75
Davidson, W. L. 169,170,171 Frankowski, J. 100,103
Davies, W. D. 43, 110, 111, 153, Freud, S. 10
156, 159, 160, 161, 174, 176, Friedrich, G. 220
179,181,228 Fung, R. Y. K. 160
de Jonge, M. 4 1 Funk, R. W. 53,83,170
Debrunner, A. 53,83,170 Furness, J. M. 61,66,76,80,98
Deichflber, M. 98 Furnish, V. P. 175, 176, 177, 179,
Demarest, B. 70 180,181,184,186,187,188
di Fonzo, L. 165
Dinkler, E. 49 Gabathuler, H. J. 99
Dodd, C. H. 6,143,232,236 Gabris, K. 160
Donaldson, T. L. 139, 143, 144, Gager, J. G. 145,174,241
151 Gaston, L. 139, 146, 147, 156,
Drane, J. W. 4 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 171,
Driver, S. R. 60, 164 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,
Duncan, G. S. 142,144,159 180, 181, 185, 190, 191,231,
Dunn, J. D. G. 19, 20, 32, 33, 34, 232
35.37,39, 59,75,77,88,90, Georgi,
Geny, D.A. 70,177,180
119
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 110,
114, 115, 116, 117, 125, 128, Gewiess, J. 72.84
131, 132, 139, 142, 143, 147, Gibbs, J. G. 67,70,72
150, 153, 159, 168, 172, 175, Giblin, C. H. 158, 160, 161
184, 190, 193, 196,220,224, Gifford, E. H. 66
227,231,241 Gilbert, M. 110
Gingrich, F. W. 33, 49, 78, 190,
249
Ellingworth, P. 101 Ginzberg, L. 228
Ellis, E. E. 43,165 Glasson, T. F. 59,6672, 111
Elsmlie, W. A. L. 128 Gnilka, J. 70, 72, 77, 79, 80,
Emerton, J. A. 23 106,114
Erhardt, A. 126 Goldin, J. 159
Emst, 1. 80 Gordon, T. D. 143
Eshbaugh, H. 171 Graf, K. H. 11
Eskanazi, T. C. 140 Gr&ser, E. 128, 161
Ewald, P. 80 Green, Benedict 99,103
Grelot, P. 72,73,84
Fairweather, E. R. 70 Griemas, A. J. 204
Fee, G. D. 27,28,30,31,57,120, Griffiths, D. R. 66.76
122,124,126,127,133,135 Gundry, R. H. 139,144,227
Fernandez, M. P. 160 Guthrie, D. 158,159
 Hahn, F. 143,159 Jaeger, W. W. 77
Hammerich, L. L. 75,77,81,89 Jeremias, J. 50,61, 180
Hanson,A. T. 175,177,181, 184, Jervell, J. 24,25,70,87, 175
189,190,228 Jewett, R. 156,227
Harper, G. 155 Johnston, G. 57,180
Harvey, A. E. 25,139,143 Jiilicher, A. 220
Harvey,J. 71,76
Hawthorne, G. F. 57,71,76,83
Hays,R. B. xiii,9,28,50,61,138,
142, 152, 158, 166, 167, 175,
176, 177, 180, 181, 188, 189,
204,205,206,215,226,241, Kaylor, R. D. 252
245,247,263,264,265 Keck, L. E. 212
Headlam, A. C. 220,223 Kee, H. C. 19,25
Hengel,M. 26,41,42,93,%, I l l , Keesmaat, S. 154
123 Kehl, N. 99
Hemeeke, E.228,229 Kennedy, H. A. A. 66,76,81,89
Henry, P. 67,70,73,84 Kertelge, K. 138
Hering, J. 129 Kim, S. 19,20,57, 95, 139, 143,
Hick, J. 254 175,176,180,184,185,186
Hickling, C. J. A. 60, 175, 179, Kittel, G. 79,80,220
180,186 Klein, C. 20
Hill, D. 143,144 Knibb, M. A. 141
Hofius, 0.57,60,70 Knox, R. 5
Hooke, S. H. 65,66,76 Knox, W. L. 121,185
Hooker, M. D. 20,23,24,25,29, Kramer, W. G. 29,41,42,45
52,56,57, 54,61,71,72,76, Kreitzer, L. J. 117
81, 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 118, KUmmel, W. G. 227,240
K w , 0.220
139, 152, 156, 175, 181,202,
212,213,226,234 Lacan, M. F. 158, 160
Hoover, R. W. 63,64,68,69,71, Lacocque, A. 23
72,75,77, 78.79, 80,81, 82, Lagrange, M. -J. 142,165,220
85,86,87,89,97 Larnbrecht, J. 175,185
Hopkins, G. M. 257 Langkammer, P. H. 130
Horsley,R. A. 120, 123, 124, 125, Larsson, E. 87
127,128,130 Le Maut, R. 182,183
Houlden, J. L. 67,72,73,103 Lewis, C. S. 10
Howard, G. 75,76,93,139 Liddell, H. G. 190,208,249
Hiibner, H. 4, 145, 147, 158, 159, Lietzmam, H. 128,175
150, 167, 172, 175, 193, 199, Lightfoot, J. B. 62,63,64,66,67,
204,209,214,23 1 69,70,71, 72,74, 76,77, 78,
Hudson, D.F. 76 79,81,$Q, 88,89,114
Hunter, A, M. 76 Lincoln, A. T. 23,27,32
Hurst, L.D.75,175 Livingstone, E. A. 220
Hurtado,L. W.70,84,86,97,117, Lloyd, M. F. 99
129 Loewe, R. 254
 &EX Amom
OF MODERN

Schechter, S. 1,4,108 Urbach, E. E. 108

Schenk, W. 57,80 van Diilmen, A. 160
Schillebeeckx, E. 23,68 van Unnik, W. C. 175,179,185
Schlatter, A. 188 Vanhoye, A. 158,160
Schlier, H. 160 Vaughan, C. J. 220
Schmidt, P. W. 80 Vawter, B. 100
Schneemelcher, W. 228,229 Vermes, G. 24,43,108,228,229,
Schoeps, H. -J. 94,150, 152, 153, 265
160 Vincent, M. R 59,70
Schumacher, H. 73 Vokes, F. E. 76,77,79,80
Schiirer, E. 110
Schwartz, D. L. 153 Wainwright, A. W. 131
Schweitzer, A. 137,160,194,213 Wanamaker, C. A. 71,75,83,90,
Schweizer, E. 99, 100, 103, 106, 92
110,111,117,220 Warren, W. 76
Scott, C. A. A. 66 Watson,F.B. 3,7, 144, 165, 166,
Scott, R. 190,208,249 174,177,198,234
Scroggs, R. 19,20,23,24,25,35, Wedderburn, A. J. M. 32,46,226,
59 232,234
Seesemann, H. 52 Wellhausen, J. 11
Singer, S. 163 Westerholm, S. 15,137,143,144,
Staslb, K. 221 145, 147, 159, 160, 176, 192,
Stanley, C. D. 144, 145, 147, 150, 193
154 Wilckens, U. 15, 35, 138, 145,
Stanton, G. N. 87 155, 160, 172, 176, 193,220,
Stauffer, E. 66 23 1
Stendahl, K. 20,173,232,255 Wilcox, M. 153,165
Stolle, V. 158,162 Willis, W. L. 120, 128
Strack, H. L. 128 Wink, W. 134
Strobel, A. 148 Winter, S. C. 51
Stuhtmacher, P. 57,138,139,247, Wire, A. C. 3
252 Wolff, H. W. 23
Wright, N. T. 1, 14, 18, 21, 35,
Talbert, C. H. 95 36, 51, 57, 99, 118, 129, 139,
Thielman, F. xiii 140, 141, 145, 175,195,224,231,241,258
146,148,150,159,260
Thiselton, A. C. 27 Young, F. 117,179
Thornton, T. C. G. 220,221
Thiising, W. 131 Zeller, D. 193,220,231,232
Tomson, P. J. 120, 124, 125, 126, Ziesler, J. A. 19,24, 35, 193,220,
134 231,232
Tremenheere, G. H. 160 Zimmerli, W. 60
Trudinger, P. 75,76,81
Turner, N. 169
Tyson, J. B. 150
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abel228 Andronicus 48
Abraham 22, 23, 25, 36, 43, 46, angels 85,160,161,162,172
47, 140, 161, 238, 245, 263, Anselm of Canterbury 73
264,265 anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism 195,
and Christ 154, 157,158 232,173-174,252,253
faith of 168 antinomianism 15
family (people) of 14, 23, 44, Antioch, martyrs of 85
47, 59, 140, 142, 143, 144, apocalyptic 2, 25, 28, 109, 124,
150,151,154,194 236,255
see also Israel Apocrypha 20
promises to 142,143,144,146, Apostolic Decree 120, 135
148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, Apostolic Fathers 42,259
156, 157, 158, 159, 163, 166, Aqedah 153
167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, Arianism 84
173,174,234,236,249,251 asceticism 126
seed (offspring) of 157, 158, Athenagoras 128
165,167,169,236,238 atonement 146
Absalom 46 atonement-theology 137,138,151
Adam 18-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, Augustine 73
26,30, 32, 33,36, 37,46,58,
88,198,226,228 baptism 7, 47, 48, 49, 163, 165,
and Christ 27, 29, 38, 47, 65, 195,196
72,73,90-97,195 blessing 142, 144, 146, 149, 151,
see also Adam-christology 202
fall of 227,229,242 of Abraham 148,156
and h e 1 25,39,195, 196,198, for Gentiles 153,154,156,250
227,248
last 19, 21, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, Cain 226-230
35,38,39,40,59,60 Calvin, Jean 137
new 33,195 Calvinistic view of Torah and
restoration of 242 gospel 24 1
second 37,88 Christ 168, 172, 174, 197, 199,
sin of 37, 38, 39, 59, 60, 61, 244
62,91,92,197,227,248,261 and Abraham 157,158
Adam-christology 16, 19, 29, 32, and Adam 27, 29, 38, 47, 65,
33,35,39, 57,58,59,61,87, 72,73,90-97,195
88,91,92,93,95 see atso Adam-christology
and Israel-christology4 1,90 coming of 159
Age to Come 39,60,264 corporate and representative
allegory 264 165,166
almsgiving 52 death of xi, 16, 30, 38, 39, 46,
Arnbrosiaster 220 48, 59, 62, 84, 86, 87, 117,
Ancient of Days 28 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 152,
 153, 155,156, 190, 191,1%, to Gentiles 195,234, 245, 247,
200,203,207,208,209,212, 248,250,253,262,265
213,215,216,224,225,235, to Jews 195,233,234,247,253,
243,254,255,260,261,265 255
exaltation of 38,39,62,86,87, Christians 180
90,114,115 anonymous 254
and Gad 15, 55, 94, 97, 115, Gentile 235,247,249,251
117,159 Jewish 199,247
see also Christ,pre-existence; and Torah 195,259
hmpagmos christology 1,7,21,26,27
imitation of 85,87,97 corporate 151,262
incarnation of 62, 84, 86, 87, 'high' 16, 121, 132
95 incarnational 59
indwelling of 45 incorporative 193
and Israel 59,60,152,208,213 redefines election 119
mutual participation in 51, 52, redefines God 119,256
53,54,55 redefines monotheism 119
new life in 194 redefines people of God 266
obedience unto death of 34,35, subordinationist 30
38, 39,40, 57, 59, 61, 91-92, see also Adam-christology; im-
95 agechristology; Israel-christ-
pre-existence of 70,74, 76, 77, ology; messianic christology;
82,83,87,90,91,92,94,95, Servant-christology;Shekinah-
97,114, 116, 117,131, 189 christology; Temple-christ-
see also preexistence, human ology; wisdom-christology
resurrection of xi, 11, 27, 29, Christosas Messiah 41-55, 165
30,32, 33, 34, 36, 37,39,40, Chrysostom 64,84,128,160,220,
46, 47, 48, 59, 60,112, 113, 221
117, 133, 139, 152, 155, 190, church 161,183,264
191, 196,202,204,215,235, and Gentiles 247,249
254,255,260,261,264,265 glory of 237
as Servant 90 and Israel 15,88,233,237,249
and Spirit 15,16,259,267 mission of 234, 235, 251, 252,
Spirit of 202 255,256,257
suffering of 190 not exclusively gentile 253-254
and Torah 1,138,242-243.244- unity of 54, 135,234,235,251,
245,258 252,255,257
as true Jew 88,154 see also people of God
as true Man 34,72,196,208 circumcision 3, 14, 36, 167, 234,
see also Unnensch 240,242,259
as true mediator 160 of heart 140,146
as Wisdom of God 116, 117, coherence 2,4,259
118 contingency 2,4,259
see also wisdom-christology cosmology 115
work of 192 covenant 142, 144, 163,164, 166,
see also Jesus; Messiah 174,237,241,258
Christian mission, blessings of 149,202
 h E X OF SUBJlXXs

boundaries of 267 dietary laws 240,242

climax of 143, 153, 210, 241, ditheism 94
244,262,267 dualism 3,16, 108, 110, 117, 118,
curse of 149 125,126,135
failure to keep 150
fulfilment of 148,216,259 eating meat offered to idols 124,
new 146, 149, 152, 154, 176, 126,134-135
179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 187, ecclesiology 214
188, 189, 195, 196,214,245, Pauline 55,262
25 1 see also church; people of God
old 177, 178,181, 182, 188 Eden 23
purpose of 242,245,25 1 election 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 24, 108,
question of 194 113,122,235,248,258
renewal of 140, 146, 154, 156, modified by monotheism 170-
204,245,250,259 171
covenant community, redefinition redefined by christology 115,
of 148,149 119, 133, 136
covenant failure 140 see also Israel, and church
covenantjudgment 140 Enlightenment 122
covenant membership 149, 173, Epiphanius 111
203,214,241,246 Esau 238
covenant theology xi, 138, 145, eschatology 24,35,96,190
150, 156, 178, 191, 203,212, ethics, theology and 120,121,133,
213,261 136
covenant verdict 212 Euripides 188
covenantal nomism 156 Eusebius 42,84,85,86
creation 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, Eve 22
117,118,124,131,135 evil 27, 134, 234, 239, 255, 256,
new 114,115 259
see also redemption exile 23, 140, 141, 146, 148, 150,
rejection of 125,126 151, 152, 155, 203, 239,245,
renewal of 36, 107, 133, 195, 250,261
256 Exodus 109,136,238,264
cross 60, 61, 62, 141, 151-153,
242,251,256,261 faith 2, 3,6, 36.47, 52, 139, 141,
theology of 7,151,153 142, 143, 149, 150, 151, 154,
see also Christ, death of 155, 156, 163, 166, 167, 168,
142,144-145,146,147, 148, 171, 172, 194, 214, 234, 240,
149,153,155 244,249,250,254,255,267
of exile 141, 150, 151 Fall, the 227,229,242
Cyril of Alexandria 85,86 fellowship 52
fideism 255
David 23,24,46 flesh 193,199,200,201,202,208,
death 28,199,200,202,209,211, 209,210,211,212,213
215,218,229,249,254 freedom 179,183,184
Deism 114,254,255
demons 128,134,135 generosity 52
Gennadius of Constantinople 161, lordship 133
221 love 59,86,124,132,228
Gentiles 143, 148, 162, 163, 164, righteousness 35, 38, 171,
165, 166, 167, 168, 171,173, 182, 194, 203, 216, 234,
174, 195,204,224,230,232, 235, 238, 239, 249, 251,
237,248,254,252 255
blessing for 153, 154, 156,236, people of see people of God
250 promises of 238,239
Christian mission to 195, 234, see also Abraham, promises
245,247,248,250,253,262, to; Israel, promises to
265 redefined by Christ 133, 266,
enter family of God 139, 154, 267
240,242,245,246,249-250 redefined by the Spirit 266
Hellenistic-Jewish mission to Spirit of 87
123,124 story of 258
and Jews 15,232,234,240,248 vindicated in Christ 242
share in restoration of Israel Wisdom of 110,123, 131
150-151 working of 53
and Torah 204,240 see also monotheism
glory 175, 177,178,179,181, 182, Goklen Calf 197,227,238
183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, gospel 188
190,191,192,195 glory of 182
of church 237 rejected by Israel 235,236,237,
of the Lord 189 244,26 1
gnostic mythology and speculation and Torah 182,241
32,70,95,96,107 grace 15, 167,168, 172,236,240,
gnostics, gnosticism 19, 34, 123, 247,248,249
124,160
God, hardening 236,249,250
and Chtist 15, 55,94, 97, 115, hardness of heart 183,184
117,159 harpagms,
knowledge of 123 and meaning of Philippians 2.5-
nature and character 55,84,86, 11 62-90
235,254 summary chart 81
covenant faithfulness 109, Herodotus 180
194, 234, 236, 238, 239, Hezekiah 24
241, 242, 244, 245, 249, historical scholarship 259
25 1,255 history of religions 42, 107, 115,
creator 108, 109, 110, 112, 116,117,121,135,174
117, 130, 133, 134, 189, holiness 122
237,242,256,259 Holocaust 253
Father 30,130,133 Holy Spirit see Spirit
forbearance 236 hope 24
justice 211, 228, 230, 234, humanity 29-32
239, 242, 249, 251, 255, new 49,254
256
lifegiver 167 idols, idolatq 122, 124, 126, 128,
 133,134,135,183,240,254 rejects gospel 235, 236, 237,
Ignatius 42 244,26 1
image 187-188 represents humankind 2 13,255
image-christology 19 resurrection (restoration) of 23,
in Christ, in the Lord 45,47,54 28,29,60,243,246
incarnational christology 160 salvation of 233,236,249-250
incarnational theology 59,90,95 as Servant of the Lord 60
see also Christ, inwnation and sin of Adam 196, 197,227,
incoherence 7 237,244,248
interchange 51,52,54 sin of 146, 147, 227,238,242,
intertestamental literature 20 26 1
Isaac 22,238,245,264 sonship of 43-44,61
Isaiah 265 and Torah 16, 195, 229, 240,
Ishmael 238 244,256
Israel 1, 7, 14, 21, 29, 37, 152, unbelief of 255
159,160,163,180,194, 266 vindication of 250,25 1
and Adam 25, 39, 195, 198, vocation of 61, 62, 113, 237,
227,248 240,242
and Christ 16,26,36,257 see also Abraham, family
and church 15,88,237 (people) of; Jews; Judaism
and covenant 246 Israel-christology 29,58,59,61
and creation 118 a d Adam-Christology 41,90
critique of 14,15,258,261 and Servant-christology90
death of 243
destiny of 40,47,208,233,246, Jacob 22,238,245
256,259,262 Jeroboam 47
disobedience of 239,240 Jerome 160
double 238,250 Jesus,
as God's true humanity (true as Christ (Messiah) 29, 34, 40,
man) 23, 24, 28, 36, 37, 38, 42, 130, 134, 152, 155, 174,
113,195 190, 191,213,215, 235, 251,
hopes of 25 253,
humiliation of 60 cursing of 139
see ako exle and God 155
ignorance of 230 humanness of 115
jealousy of 245,248,250 and Israel 16,28,40
as last Adam 39 Lordshp of 41,130
and Messiah 29,40, 151, 244, sonship of 30,43,44
246,248,255 and the Spirit 148
national privilege and righteous- Spirit of 179,260
ness of 25,147,240,242,243, see also Christ
244,246,247,248 Jews,
as new Adam 195 fate of 153
obedience of 58,61 and Gentiles 15,232,234,240,
as people of God 20 248
promises to 232,237 problem of 232
rejection of 245,246,249 remnant of 23,25,247,250
 salvation of 246,247,248,249, man and woman,
25 1 creation of 1 12
see also Israel; Judaism vice-gerents over creation 113
Josephus 96,161,228 Marcionism 14,143,161,195,233
Josiah 24 Marcus Aurelius 123
Judaism 1 18,156 marriage 126
Hellenistic, 116, 123,124,130, mediation, gnostic or proto-gnos-
134 tic theology of 160
Palestinian 124, 134 mediator 157, 158, 159, 161, 162,
second-temple 146 169
Hellenistic Judaism 123, 124, 130, Menander 106
134 mercy 146,239.25 1
Judaizing movement 123 Messiah 11, 18, 25, 33, 35, 37,
judgment 37, 146, 149, 150, 156, 41, 43, 47, 49, 88, 93, 118,
183,223,236,239,249,251 131, 133, 139, 141, 150, 154,
Junias 48 158, 166, 172, 196,202,237,
just decree 2 11 239,240,241,245,262,265
justice 256 and Chrisros in Paul 4 1-55
seealsoGod,narmandcharacter death of 59,151,152,155,215,
justification 2, 7 , 15, 16, 36, 37, 216,237,239,243,244
88, 139, 141, 144, 156, 171, incorporative 16,41,43,46,48,
178,194,203,214,255,267 174,258,264
and Israel 29,40,151,244,246,
kenosis, knoticism 70, 72, 74, 77, 248,255
95 people of 36,48,49
knowledge 52,127 pre-existent 96
koinonia 51,52 resurrection of 27,28, 155,215,
kyn'os41,130 216,244
vindication of 243
land 174 messianic christology 146
law see Torah mirror 185,186,187,188,189
legalism 173 monism 3, 16
see also nomism; Torah, works monotheism 1 , 2, 3, 13, 15, 16,
of; works 24,93,94,96, 107, 109, 110,
life 202,212 111, 122, 125, 127, 128, 131,
literary criticism 6-7 254,258
logos 123 christoIogical99,114,116,119,
Lot 85 129,132,136
love, 135, 136 covenantal 108, 113, 114, 115,
for God 133 237,255
of God 59,86,124,132,228 creational 108, 113, 114, 115,
Luther 6 , 137 117,126,136,237,255
Lutheran view of Paul 258-259, modifies election 115, 170-171
261 pantheistic 108
Lutheran view of Torah and gos- redefined 115, 118, 132, 133,
pel 241,244 136
Lyons and Vienne, churches in 85 vindicated by Christ and Spirit
 inc-mies in 2, 4-7, 137-
338*211,236,259
&ve substructure of 6,9
pIaceofstoryin 215
r a t i d t i o n in 8,lO-13,122,
139,158
Nag Hmmadi texts $23,124 peace 202
narrative analysis 204-208,215 P ~ - t h e o 1 0 g y209
natureandgrace15 people of God 13, 14.28.36.41,
neo-paganism 253,255,263 44,55,88,132,156,158,169,
new age 47,2U2
new covenant commmity 183,216
new covenant see covenant, new
new humanity sea humanity, new e m & by Gentiles 139, 154,
nomism 145, 147, 150,156,224, 240,242,245,249-250
227,240,243 Tedef'med by Christ 115, 133,
266,267
old covenant see covenant, old redefmed by the Spirit 267
Origen 187,221 true 47,251
see also church; election
paganism 3, 117, 118, 123, 125, persecution 191
126,127,128,134,135,170 Fhi1a 114,123,179,228,229
pantheism 3, 16, 108, 110, 114, phitctJudaism 195,252
255 PhiIonic speculations 32,95
Parousia 246,250 Photius of Constantinople 221
participation in Christ, mutual 51, PIato 188
52,53,54,55 pneumatology 1,7,16
Paul, anti-Semitism of 173 see also Spirit
boldness of ministry 176, 177, polytheism 3,94, 118
179, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, pre-existence 189
189,191 human %,97,116
conversion of 11,19,34,36,60, see also Christ, pre-existence
139,261 predestination 232,235
interpretation of 122 principalities and powers 134
Jewish background of 13 promise 142, 144, 163, 168, 195,
philosophy of history 235 244
and Qumran 265 and Torah 138,151,166,172
rabbinic background of 134 universal 162
Reformation view of 148 see also Abraham, promises to;
and scripture 252,265-266 Israel, promises to
suffering and persecution of Pseudepigrapha 20
190,191
and Torah 137, 194, 214-215, Qumran 20,24,43,141,148,160
263-266 and Paul 265
worldview of 133-134
Pauline theology 1-17, 174,263- rabbinic background to Col. 1.15-
266 20,110
 INDEX
rabbinic literature 20,158-159
see also Index of Passages
Cited, Early Jewish L i t e m Christian redefinition of 121,
race 254 125,129.132
reconciWon 116 relativizes.~& 171
redemption 107, 109, 113, 116, sin 138, 145, 146, 147, 152, 163,
117,131,138 171, 172, 173, 197, 198, 199,
see also atonement-theology 200,24V, 208,209,211,212,
reductionism 260 213,217,218,219,221,251
Reformation 122 deliberate 223
Reformers 259 ofignorance 223,224,225,226,
remnant 23,25,247,250 230,241
repentance 146,236 salvation from 232
restoration 140, 146, 150, 151, and Torah 196,202, 210, 215,
152,156,239 224,240,243
resurrection 195, 196, 203, 248, universal 26
249,251,254 see also atonement-theology
of believers 27,202 sin-offering 220-225,230
by the Spirit 219 situation ethics 4
of Christ see Christ, reswrec- Solomon 26,113,131
tion of sonship 195,237
general 30,31,32,35 soteriology 39,262
resurrection body, nature of 30 see also salvation
righteousness 214 Spirit 8,34,45,53,154, 172,176,
see also God, nature and char- 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183,
acter 184, 185,186, 187, 189, 195,
197, 199, 201,210,213, 235,
Sabbath 240,242 255,257,260,265
Sachkritik 4,6 and Christ 15,16,259,267
sacrifice 146 and flesh 193
salvation 6, 144, 237, 241, 248, giving of 191, 200, 209,215,
249,252,253-254 216,255,265
see also soteriology indwelling of 202
salvation history 207,215,255 and Jesus 148
scapegoat 153 possession of 202
scripture, pre-existence of 189
Pad's use of 252,265-266 promise of 143,154
as story and prophecy 264 renews covenant 191
seed 163,167 resurrection by 219
self-conWction 5 and Torah 193,204,250
self-righteousness243 workof 191,192,194,203,209,
Sewant of the Lord 59.60 214,256
Servant-chtistology61,62 Stoicism 108
and Israel-christology 90 suffering 190,191
sex 126
sharing 52
Sheba 47
Teacher of Righteousness 262,265 rethinking of 256
temple 25 and S h m 171
judgment on 25 1 and sin 1%, 202,210,215,224,
new 262 240,243
Temple-theology 117 and Spirit 193,204,250
meodoret of Cyrrhus 220 ternpotary nature of 171, 181,
Torah xi, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 25, 192,241
36, 39, 107, 118, 136, 139, vindication of 201, 211, 219,
156, 157, 160, 161, 162,163, 242-243
165, 167, 169, 170, 173, 188, and Wisdom 26,118
198,199,212,237,239,251 works of 142, 154, 155, 240,
abolition of 43,209,259 242
affirmation of 200 see also nomism; works
burden of 195 Trinity, doctrine of 117
and Christ 1,138,242-243,244- true humanity,
245,250,258 Christ as 26
and Christians 195,259 Israel as 23,24,28,36,38,110,
and covenant 149,203,240 113,195
critique of 15,200,261 true Man 93,94
curse of 151,152 Christ as 34,72,196,208
and death 197,210,215,256 see also Urmensch
defence of 195 Israel as 37
delight in 224 Solomon as 26
doing of 245 two-covenant theology 14, 232,
double 244 253,254.255
failure of 147,200,202,223 ~ ~ n d a l~eG, l i a m6
fulfilment of 150,181,242,244, typology 264
245
and Gentiles 204,240 unity 163
giving of 209,227 universalism 233
and gospel 182,24 1 Unnensch (Primal Man) specula-
inability to keep 144-146,227 tions 19,20,70,71,91,95
and Israel 16, 195, 229, 240,
244,256 veiledness 181,182,183,184,189
nature and function of 193,195,
209,214,217-219,240,241 wisdom 25,111,116,130
negative effect of 1%. 2M,2 10, personification of 97
211 and Torah 26.1 18
Paul's view of 137, 194, 214- Wisdom of God 110,123, 131
215,263-266 Christ as 116,117,118
personif~ationof 97 see also wisdom-christology
problem of 215-216 wisdom ideas 188
and promise 138, 151, 166, 172 wisdom literature 125
purpose of 168, 196, 208,210, wisdom-christology 19.20.1 15
211 see also Wisdom of God, Christ
reaffirmation of 143,266 as
relativized 143, 171 wisdom-theology 113,117
wisdom-traditions 99, 107, 108,
109,117
works 6,142,166,169,247
good see nomism
see also Torah, works of
world 116,248,256,259
worldview,
Jewish 108,136
of Paul 133-134
worship 237
wrath 167
vessel of 239

Xenophon 190