The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (143 page)
Read The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown Online
Authors: Andreas J. Köstenberger,Charles L Quarles
49
Martin (
Philippians, 76)
rejected the traditional interpretation that Paul used Phil 2:5—11 as a lesson in humility. But see the convincing case of N. T. Wright,
The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 82-90.
50
See Silva,
Philippians
, 64—65; Fee,
Philippians
, 122—23; and Bockmuehl,
Philippians, 77-
78.
51
See
m. Sab.
24:4;
m. Pes.
2:3;
m. Ned.
4:3; and
m. Bek.
5:6.
52
S. K. Stowers,”Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians, “in
Pauline Theology: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon
, vol. 1, ed. J. M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 105—21. He brought out the political nuances in Paul's language in Philippians. The term
savior
was also commonly used for political rulers, and the Roman emperors were especially associated with “savior” language.
53
See especially R. P. Martin,
A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5—11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983).
54
For a good grammatical overview of the articular infinitive construction in 2:6, see D. Burk,
Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament: On the Exegetical Benefit of Grammatical Precision
, New Testament Monographs 14 (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2006), 139-40.
55
Geza Vermes,
The Religion of Jesus the Jew
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 34-35; “öoµα,”
TDNT 4:268-69;
Gordon D. Fee,
Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 396—98.
56
For a thorough scholarly discussion of the worship of Jesus as God in the early church, see L. W. Hurtado,
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
57
I. H. Marshall (“Philippians,” in
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000], 319—22) devoted his entire article on the theology of Philippians to Christology.
58
Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 321.
59
P. Oakes,
Philippians: From People to Letter
, SNTSMS 110 (Cambridge: University Press, 2001), 59—96. Oakes said chat the Philippians suffered economically and physically for their refusal to join in pagan religious rituals.
60
Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 312.
61
A good overview of the role of this passage in the wider justification debate can be found in B. Vickers,
Jesus’Blood and Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Imputation
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 205—11.
62
The phrase “the righteousness of the law” in 3:9 (author's translation) is also found in Rom 10:5. The parallels between the two passages are striking. See J. A. Fitzmyer,
Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
, AB 33 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 582; and P. Stuhlmacher,
Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 154-55.
63
For the debate surrounding the translation
of pistis Christou
, see the chapter on Romans above. Silva (
Philippians
, 161) is probably correct in his argument that ambiguous grammatical forms should be read in the light of unambiguous ones, and while Paul never spoke unambiguously about “the faithfulness of Christ” (subjective genitive), he did speak elsewhere of “faith in Christ” (objective genitive; e.g., Gal 2:16). Cf. id., “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in
Justification and Variegated Nomism
, vol. 2, ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien, and M. A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), 217—48. For the subjective genitive interpretation, see R. B. Hays, “Salvation History: The Theological Structure of Paul's Thought (1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians),” in
Pauline Theology: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon
, vol. 1, ed. J. M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 232-33.
64
F. Thielman (
Philippians
, NIVAC [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 171) called this text a “hornet's nest” in the current debate. On the law/gospel debate in Paul, the best overview is S. Westerholm,
Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). On the New Perspective, see the discussion in the chapter on Romans above.
65
For an excellent survey of accolades ascribed to Ephesians (including the Calvin reference), see H. W. Hoehner,
Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1—2.
66
R. E. Brown,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(New York: Doubleday, 1997), 620. For an extensive look at the influence exercised by Ephesians, see R. Schnackenburg,
Ephesians: A Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 311-42.
67
So also Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 407: “The church plays a critical role, therefore, in God's plan to bring the times to their fulfillment by summing up everything in Christ. They are the new humanity that replaces the old, disintegrated humanity, and they are the evidence that God's plan to sum up everything in Christ is rapidly coming to its end.”
68
Hoehner,
Ephesians
, 50: “There is no hint that the exaltation could come without the death of Christ.”
69
R. Schnackenburg,
The Epistle to the Ephesians
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 28.
70
E. Käsemann, “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ,” in
Perspectives on Paul
, trans. M. Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 102-21; esp. 120-21.
71
J. C. Beker,
Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
72
A. Lindemann (
Die Aufhebung der Zeit: Geschichtsverständnis und Eschatologie im Epheserbrief
, SNT 12 [Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975], 98—99) believed that this “summing up” has already been accomplished. But this understanding does not own up to Paul's own assessment. Paul conceived of his own apostolic ministry as one of bringing this goal to a future fulfillment (3:8—10). All things will not be summed up until the future redemption of humanity (1:14) and the consummation in the coming age (2:7).
73
Hoehner,
Ephesians
, 56.
74
Lincoln,
Ephesians
, lxxxix—xc.
75
See esp. A. T. Lincoln and A. J. M. Wedderburn,
The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters
, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 91—166. W. G. Kümmel (
Introduction to the New Testament
, rev. ed., trans. H. C. Kee [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 360) went so far as to say that the theology of Ephesians “makes the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible.”
76
P. T. O'Brien,
The Epistle to the Ephesians
, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 21-33.
77
C. E. Arnold,
Ephesians: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting
, SNTSMS 63 (Cambridge: University Press, 1989), 124-29.
78
R. F. Collins,
Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha
Good News Studies 28 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 142.
79
P. N. Harrison,
Paulines and Pastorals
(London: Villiers, 1964), 48.
80
Hoehner,
Ephesians
, 24.
81
Pleonasm is the use of more words than necessary to express an idea. See especially A. T. Lincoln,
Ephesians
, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), xlv-xlvi.
82
A. van Roon,
The Authenticity of Ephesians
, trans. S. Prescod-Jokel, NovTSup 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 105-11; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 484.
83
N. Turner,
Style
, vol. 4 of
A Grammar of New Testament Greek
, ed. J. H. Moulton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 84-85.
84
V. P. Furnish, “Ephesians, Epistle to the,” in
ABD
2:536—37; Lincoln,
Ephesians
, xlvii—lviii.
85
van Roon,
The Authenticity of Ephesians
, 413—37. He also theorized that both Colossians and Ephesians borrowed from an
Ur-text
(original text common to both).
86
E. Best,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians
ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 36—40.
87
Lincoln
Ephesians
, lviii. Lincoln claimed that Ephesian dependence on Colossians and its use of Romans is the “most decisive” argument against authenticity (Lincoln and Wedderburn,
Theology
, 84).
88
C. F. Arnold, “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
ed. G. E Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 242-43.
89
O'Brien,
Ephesians
, 5.
90
Hoehner (
Ephesians
, 22) pointed out that the lack of personal greetings in 2 Corinthians is striking because Paul spent 18 months in Corinth. He also observed that the letter is not completely impersonal because Paul prayed for the recipients of the letter (1:16) and asked for their prayers (6:19—20; ibid., 23).
91
D. Trobisch (
Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 53—54) said that Ephesians is “the beginning of an appendix” to Paul's own collection of his letters. F. F. Bruce (
Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 424) and L. T. Johnson (
The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 372) stressed that even if a disciple of Paul wrote Ephesians, it should be regarded as a masterful summary of Paul's theology.
92
The most notable is N. Elliott,
Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle
(Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994), esp. 25—54; id., “Paul and the Politics of Empire: Problems and Prospects,” in
Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation
, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 26—27. Elliott asserted that the Deutero-Paulines arose in order to “hijack” and “distort” Paul's liberating social legacy. He also argued that the “domestic codes” are contaminated at 1 Cor 14:34—35 with regard to women and 1 Thess 2:14—16 with regard to Jews. This fact demonstrates that Elliott approached Paul's letters with a preconceived notion of what Paul was allowed or not allowed to say. This bias, not the undisputed Pauline corpus, functions as the adjudicating factor for authenticity.
93
See the debate between S. Michaelson and A. Q. Morton, “Last Words: A Test of Authorship for Greek Writers,”
NTS
18 (1972): 192—208. They argued that the Pauline letters do not meet the minimum requirement of 10,000 words similar in length and substance that are necessary to make proper comparisons. Cf. the severe critique of this proposal by F. R Johnson, “The Use of Statistics in the Analysis of the Characteristics of Pauline Writing,”
NTS 20
(1973): 92—100.
94
C. L. Mitton (
Ephesians
, NCB [London: Oliphants, 1976], 15—16) wrote, “The external evidence is wholly on the side of those who maintain Pauline authorship. Among all the early writers of the Christian Church there is never the slightest hint that questions it.” Clement of Rome (c. 95) appears to be the first church father to allude to Ephesians (
1 Clem.
46:6). It appears that Ignatius (died c. 110), Irenaeus (c. 180), Polycarp (c. 155), Clement of Alexandria (c. 200), and Tertullian (d. 225) knew Ephesians and confirmed its authenticity. Ephesians can also be found in Marcion's canon and the Muratorian canon. See Hoehner's excellent survey of Ephesians in the early church (
Ephesians
, 2—6).
95
See the excellent discussion on pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy in Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 337-53.
96
R. E. Brown,
The Churches the Apostles Left Behind
(New York: Paulist, 1984), 47; id. (
Introduction
, 620) estimated that “at the present moment about 80 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write Eph.” The extensive chart in Hoehner (
Ephesians
, 9—20) shows that this estimate is overstated at best and irresponsible at worst.
97
T. K. Abbott
(A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians
, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897], xl—xlv) provided a list of the most important readings for certain key manuscripts. Cf. B. M. Metzger,
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
, 2d ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1994), 532—43.
98
O'Brien (
Ephesians
, 57) opted for 61-62.
99
A. T. Lincoln (
Ephesians
, lxxiii) proposed a range of 80—90. Carson and Moo (
Introduction to the New Testament
, 487) noted that the latest possible date appears to be approximately 90 because it appears that Clement of Rome referred to Ephesians in his letter, which is usually dated to the year
96.
But Lincoln (E
phesians
, lxxii—lxxiii) joined J. Gnilka (
Der Epheserbrief
[Freiburg: Herder, 1971], 18) in rejecting this conclusion, arguing that Ignatius (died c. 110) is the first early church father to show an awareness of Ephesians while Tertullian was the first to make the attribution explicit.
