https://ebookmass.com/product/analytic-christology-and-thetheological-interpretation-of-the-new-testament-thomas-hmccall/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
A theological introduction to the Old Testament Hamilton
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-theological-introduction-to-the-oldtestament-hamilton/
ebookmass.com
Early Jewish Writings and New Testament Interpretation (ESSENTIALS
OF BIBLICAL STUDIES SERIES) C.D. Elledge
https://ebookmass.com/product/early-jewish-writings-and-new-testamentinterpretation-essentials-of-biblical-studies-series-c-d-elledge/
ebookmass.com
The Good Doctor Thomas H. Lee
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-good-doctor-thomas-h-lee/ ebookmass.com
Counter-Revolution: Liberal Europe in Retreat Jan Zielonka
https://ebookmass.com/product/counter-revolution-liberal-europe-inretreat-jan-zielonka/
ebookmass.com
Whole Body Reset: 2 Books in 1: A Perfect Guide To Losing Weight in Your Midlife and Beyond + The Anti-inflammatory Diet to Detoxify your Body,100+ Delicious Recipes and Many Delicious Smoothies Stephanie Myller
https://ebookmass.com/product/whole-body-reset-2-books-in-1-a-perfectguide-to-losing-weight-in-your-midlife-and-beyond-the-antiinflammatory-diet-to-detoxify-your-body100-delicious-recipes-and-manydelicious-smoothies-steph/ ebookmass.com
Agile Auditing: Fundamentals and Applications (Wiley Corporate F&A) 1st Edition Raven Catlin
https://ebookmass.com/product/agile-auditing-fundamentals-andapplications-wiley-corporate-fa-1st-edition-raven-catlin/
ebookmass.com
Music and Technology Mark Katz
https://ebookmass.com/product/music-and-technology-mark-katz/
ebookmass.com
React and React Native - Fifth Edition Mikhail Sakhniuk
https://ebookmass.com/product/react-and-react-native-fifth-editionmikhail-sakhniuk/
ebookmass.com
Handbook of Robotic and Image-Guided Surgery 1st Edition Mohammad H. Abedin-Nasab
https://ebookmass.com/product/handbook-of-robotic-and-image-guidedsurgery-1st-edition-mohammad-h-abedin-nasab/
ebookmass.com
The Choice: A New Adult Novella Landry Hill https://ebookmass.com/product/the-choice-a-new-adult-novella-landryhill/
ebookmass.com
SeriesEditors MichaelC.ReaOliverD.Crisp
OXFORDSTUDIESINANALYTICTHEOLOGY AnalyticTheologyutilizesthetoolsandmethodsofcontemporaryanalytic philosophyforthepurposesofconstructiveChristiantheology,payingattention totheChristiantraditionanddevelopmentofdoctrine.Thisinnovativeseriesof studiesshowcaseshighquality,cutting-edgeresearchinthisarea,inmonographs andsymposia.
Atonement
EleonoreStump
Humility,Pride,andChristianVirtueTheory
KentDunnington
InDefenseofExtendedConciliarChristology
APhilosophicalEssay
TimothyPawl
LoveDivine
ASystematicAccountofGod’sLoveforHumanity
JordanWessling
VoicesfromtheEdge
CentringMarginalizedPerspectivesinAnalyticTheology
EditedbyMichellePanchukandMichaelC.Rea
ThePrinciplesofJudaism
SamuelLebens
EssaysinAnalyticTheology Volume1&2
MichaelC.Rea
TheContradictoryChrist JcBeall
AnalyticTheologyandtheAcademicStudyofReligion
WilliamWood
DivineHolinessandDivineAction MarkC.Murphy
AnalyticChristology andtheTheological Interpretationofthe NewTestament THOMASH.M C CALL GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©ThomasH.McCall2021
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2021
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020945738
ISBN978–0–19–885749–5 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198857495.001.0001
PrintedandboundintheUKby TJBooksLimited
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ForAlanTorrance Acknowledgments IamconvincedthattheprojectofconstructiveChristologyhasmuchtogain fromdeeperengagementwithanalytictheologyandphilosophyofreligion. IamalsoconvincedthattheprojectofconstructiveChristologyshouldbe properlyattunedto,andinformedby,theinsightsofNewTestament scholarship.Inaddition,Iamconvincedthattherearepointsatwhich bothanalytictheologyandbiblicalscholarshipmightbenefitfrominteractionwithoneanother.Thisbookisbornoutofthoseconvictions. Accordingly,Iemploytheresourcesofbothbiblicalscholarshipandanalytic Christologytomakeprogressonsomeimportantissuesindogmatic Christology.
Variouselementsofsomechaptershavebeenpreviouslypublished.Part ofChapter1canbefoundinthe JournalofAnalyticTheology (2020).Partof Chapter4waspublishedinCalebT.Friedeman,ed., Listen,Understand, Obey:EssaysinHonorofGarethLeeCockerill (Eugene:WipfandStock, 2017).PartofChapter5previouslyappearedas “ProfessorWardand Polytheism,” in PhilosophiaChristi (2016),andpartsofChapter6were publishedinthe JournalofAnalyticTheology (2019).Thesearepublished withthegraciouspermissionoftheeditors.
Iamwellaware infact, keenly aware ofmyownlimitationsinthis effort.Iamneitherananalyticmetaphysiciannora Nuetestamentler;Iam merelyasystematictheologian.Accordingly,Iowemuchtothegreat companyofhistoricalandsystematictheologians,NewTestamentscholars, andanalyticphilosophersofreligionwhohavedonemuchtoguide,inform, correct,andencouragemeduringthisprocess.Whileofcourseallremainingerrorsand flawsaremyown,Iamespeciallyindebtedtothemembersof theDeerfieldDialogueGroup:DougSweeney,KevinJ.Vanhoozer,James Arcadi,DavidLuy,ScottManetsch,DanaHarris,MadisonPierce,Michelle Knight,DickAverbeck,LawsonYounger,EricTully,andSteveGreggo.Iam deeplygratefultomembersoftheLogosInstituteforExegeticalandAnalytic Theology:ViBui,HarveyCawdron,JoshuaCockayne,KimberlyKroll, JonathanRutledge,MitchMallory,TimPawl,FaithPawl,PrestonHill, MikeRea,OliverCrisp,ChandlerWarren,StephanieNordby,Kevin Nordby,KoertVerhagen,JudithWolfe,DavidBennett,StefMcDade,
KatherineScheussler,SarahShin,ChristaMcKirkland,TaylorTelford,and especiallyAndrewTorrance(withsincereapologiestoanyotherswhomade helpfulcommentsandcriticismsbutwhosenamesImayhaveforgotten). The2019–2020ResearchFellowsoftheCarlF.H.HenryCenterfor TheologicalUnderstanding(PaulGould,CraigBartholomew,Jordan Wessling,andBrianMatz,alongwithMatthewWiley,GeoffreyFulkerson, andJoelChopp)readseveralchaptersandgavehelpfulfeedback.Ialsowish toexpressmygratitudetoJcBeallforhisinterestandverygracious encouragement:andtoDouglasCampbellforhiswonderfullyspiritedand invaluableinteraction.ThreeanonymousrefereesforOxfordUniversity Pressofferedextremelyvaluablesuggestionsandcriticisms.
AlanTorrancehasbeenaconstantsourceofinspiration.Ihopethatthis studyisaproper(ifinadequate)expressionofgratitude,andtrulyitisan honortodedicatethisbooktohim.
TableofContents Introduction1 0.1AnalyticTheologyandReflectiononChrist2
0.2TheologicalInterpretationandtheBiblical WitnesstoChrist3
0.2.1TheologicalInterpretation:AnInitialCharacterization4 0.3APreviewofComingAttractions5
1.Cruci fiedwithChrist:The Ego andthe Omega 7
1.1Introduction7
1.2TheApocalypticInterpretationsofPaul8
1.2.1TheApocalypticPaul8
1.2.2RadicalApocalypticOptions12
1.3TowardTheologicalAnalysis16
1.3.1ReplacementTheories17 1.3.2FusionTheories24
1.3.2.1TheTheoryofFinalAssumptions24 1.3.2.2TooManyPersons?25
1.3.2.3TooManyNatures?27 1.3.2.4TooManySinners?28
1.4ATraditionalInterpretationReconsidered30
1.5CrucifiedwithChrist:AModestProposal33 1.6Conclusion38
2.TheFaithoftheSon: PistisChristou Reconsidered39 2.1Introduction39
2.2TheCurrentDebate40
2.2.1Faith in Christ:TheTraditional “Lutheran” Reading40
2.2.2TheFaith of Christ:ARecurringProposal41
2.2.3Faith inandwith Christ:FurtherDevelopments43
2.2.4MovingForward:TheInevitabilityofTheologicalInterpretation44
2.3The ΠίστιςΧριστου DebateandtheHumanityofChrist47
2.4 ΠίστιςΧριστου andtheRighteousnessofGod48
2.4.1HaysontheChristologicalRevelationoftheDivine Attributes48
2.4.2KeepingItSimple: Ressourcing TraditionalDoctrinesofGod51
2.4.3MakingItComplex:ContemporaryEssentialism andtheDoctrineofGod52
2.4.4Summary59
2.5 ΠίστιςΧριστου andSalvation59
2.5.1Hays’sConcerns59
2.5.2ReachingBackwardandMovingForward: Ressourcement andTheologicalInterpretation61 2.6Conclusion68
3.TheIdentityoftheSon:TheIncarnationandTheFreedom ofGod69
3.1Introduction69
3.2McCormack’sGambit69
3.2.1TheBarthWars:TheOpeningSalvo70
3.2.2TheEmpireStrikesBack:Responsestothe “Revisionist” Proposal73
3.2.3McCormack’sConstructiveProposal76
3.2.4McCormack’sTheologicalExegesis79
3.3TheologicalAnalysis83
3.3.1IsIt “Biblical?” ExegesisandTheology83
3.3.2DoesItHoldTogether?ConcernsabouttheCoherence oftheRevisionistProposal91
3.3.3TheIssueofDivineFreedom93
3.3.3.1NecessitarianVersions94
3.3.3.2Non-NecessitarianVersions98
3.3.4TheIdentityoftheDecider103
3.3.4.1TheFather104
3.3.4.2TheSon107
3.3.4.3TheDecider110
3.3.5SomeFinalObservations110
3.4Conclusion113
4.TheSubmissionofChrist114
4.1Introduction114
4.2Hebrews5:7-10:SomeInitialObservations115
4.3KarlBarthandThomasAquinasontheObedience oftheSon118
4.3.1KarlBarthontheEternalSubordinationoftheSon118
4.3.2ThomasAquinasontheSon’sMissionalObedience120
4.4Barth’sGambit:ATheologicalAnalysis122
4.4.1Barth,Consistency,andMonotheism122
4.4.2BarthandtheThreatofOntologicalSubordination: TheAuthorityoftheFather126
4.4.3BarthandHebrews5128
4.5ObedienceandtheBeatificVision:ReconsideringAquinas’sView129
4.6Conclusion134
5.TheCommunionoftheSonwiththeFather137
5.1Introduction137
5.2TheFuroroverSocialTrinitarianism:TowardClarity139
5.2.1SocialTrinitarianismasSocio-PoliticalAdvocacy141
5.2.2 “SocialTrinitarianism” as “Eastern” (vs. “Western”)Theology142
5.2.3SocialTrinitarianismasTheologythatEmploys the “SocialAnalogy” 143
5.2.4SocialTrinitarianismasTheologythatMakesUse ofthe “ModernNotion” ofPerson144
5.2.5SocialTrinitarianismandIntra-TrinitarianLove147
5.2.6SocialTrinitarianismandDistinctAgency148
5.2.7 “Real” SocialTrinitarianism149
5.2.8Conclusion150
5.3AnAnti-SocialProposalAnalyzed150
5.3.1Ward’sTrinitarianDoctrine150
5.3.2TheologicalExegesisandPhilosophicalTheology154
5.3.3AnAnalysisofWard’sChristology158
5.3.3.1SomeConcernsaboutthe “Identity” Claim159
5.3.3.2SomeQuestionsAbouttheDivinityofChrist163
5.3.4Conclusion165
5.4TheCommunionoftheFatherandtheSon:ACloserLook165
5.4.1TheLoveoftheFatherfortheSon165
5.4.2TheFather-SonCommunionandtheIssueofAgency169
5.5Conclusion175
6.TheLogosandHisLogic177
6.1Introduction177
6.2DivineandHuman:TheProposal179
6.2.1Beall’sParaconsistentLogic179
6.2.2LogicandTheology:AnAppreciativeInterlude182
6.2.3TheChristologicalProposal184
6.3TheTrueandtheFalse:IssuesforFurtherConsideration185
6.3.1ChristandHisCreed185
6.3.2ChristandHis(Possible)Worlds189
6.3.3ChristandHisChurch194
6.4TheLord’sLogic198
6.4.1DominicalCounterexamples?199
6.4.2ChristandContradiction202
6.5Conclusion204
Bibliography 207 Index 223
Introduction Recentyearshaveseenthe floweringofsomethingcalledthe “theological interpretationofScripture.” Thisis,veryroughly,whathappenswhen biblicalscholarsandtheologiansalikereadtheBibletoseewhatittellsus aboutGod.Forseveralcenturies,thedisciplineofbiblicalstudieshasbeen notonlydistinguishedbutalsoseparatedfromtheologicaldiscourse.There havebeenmanynotableexceptions,ofcourse,buttheall-too-common resultshavebeenthese:biblicalscholarsofteninterpretthetextswith otheraimsinmind(sometimesreadingwithatheologicallenshasbeen discouragedasunscholarlyandthusimproper),andtheologiansoftendo theirworkofconstructivetheologywithoutseriousengagementwithbiblicalscholarshiporevenwiththeChristianScriptures.Recentyearshave alsoseentherise(orperhapsre-birth)ofsomethingnowcalled “analytic theology.” Analytictheologyis,veryroughly,whathappenswhenphilosopherswhoareinterestedindoctrineandtheologianswhothinkthatthere is(ormightbe)valueintheappropriateuseofphilosophicaltoolsget together.Itisnowaburgeoningmovement,andanalytictheologiansare makingcontributionsonawiderangeofissuesandtopics,andfromavariety ofperspectivesandapproaches.Wehavenot,however,witnessedagreatdeal ofinteractionbetweenthosewhoengageinthetheologicalinterpretationof Scriptureandthosewhopracticeanalytictheology.
Inthiswork,Itakeafewstepstowardbringingthesetwoseemingly disparateapproachestogether.Idosooutoftheconvictionthatsuchan exercisemightbebeneficialforbothdisciplines.Idonotseethemas mutuallyexclusive;tothecontrary,Iamconvincedthatthereismuch roomforconversationandthatbothmightbebetterforit.Idosoasa theologian,andIamkeenlyinterestedinasetofdogmaticquestionsand issuesthathavebeenandremainimportant.Thesearefocusedin Christology,andwithrespecttoeachofthesequestionsorissuesIworkto makeprogressbymarshalingtheresourcesofboththeologicalexegesisand analytictheology.
0.1AnalyticTheologyandReflectiononChrist Beforeproceedingfurther,itmightbehelpfultogainabitmoreclarityon whatismeantbytermssuchas “analytictheology” and “theologicalinterpretationoftheBible” (or “theologicalexegesis”).Letusstartwith “analytic theology.” Wemightsimplyconsideranalytictheologytobeawayofdoing systematictheology.¹Inthiswayofseeingthings,itis,inWilliam J.Abraham’swords, “systematictheologyattunedtotheskills,resources, andvirtuesofanalyticphilosophy.”²Itistheologythatiscommittedto clarityinexpressionandrigorinargument.³Seenthisway,analytictheology issystematictheologydonewithaparticularsetofcommitments,goals,and conceptualtools.Accordingly,analytictheologyissimplytheologydone withacommitmenttoemploytheresourcesofanalyticphilosophywhere thoseconceptualtoolsmightbehelpfulintheworkofconstructiveChristian theology.⁴
Suchadescriptionmaybehelpfulasaninitialcharacterization,butitonly takesussofar.ThesummaryofMichaelC.Reatakesusfurther,andithas becomesomethingofastandardaccountofanalytictheology.Analytic theologyistheologythatsharesmuchincommonwiththestyleand ambitionsofanalyticphilosophy.Assuch,itiscommittedtothefollowing desiderata:
(P1)Writeasifphilosophicalpositionsandconclusionscanbeadequately formulatedinsentencesthatcanbeformalizedandlogicallymanipulated;
(P2)Prioritizeprecision,clarity,andlogicalcoherence;
(P3)Avoidsubstantive(non-decorative)useofmetaphorandothertropes whosesemanticcontentoutstripstheirpropositionalcontent;
(P4)Workasmuchaspossiblewithwell-understoodprimitiveconcepts, andconceptsthatcanbeanalyzedintermsofthose;
¹AsOliverCrisphasrecentlyargued,e.g. “AnalyticTheologyasSystematicTheology,” JournalofOpenTheology (2017),pp.156–166.
²WilliamJ.Abraham, “SystematicTheologyasAnalyticTheology,” inOliverD.Crispand MichaelC.Rea,eds., AnalyticTheology:NewEssaysinthePhilosophyofTheology (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2009),p.54.
³SeeOliverD.Crisp, “OnAnalyticTheology,” inOliverD.CrispandMichaelC.Rea,eds., AnalyticTheology:NewEssaysinthePhilosophyofTheology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2009),pp.35–38.
⁴ AsIputitin AnInvitationtoAnalyticChristianTheology (DownersGrove:InterVarsity Academic,2015),p.16.
(P5)Treatconceptualanalysis(insofaraspossible)asasourceofevidence.⁵
Wemightusefullydrawsomethingofadistinction albeitaratherrough andreadyone betweenwhatmightbecalled “softanalytictheology” and “hardanalytictheology.” Softanalytictheologyissimplyanytheologydone withacommitmenttothegoalsofclarityofexpression,transparencyand rigorofargument,andaccountabilitywithrespecttobroaderintellectual standards.Hardanalytictheology,ontheotherhand,doesnothesitateto employspeci fictheories,arguments,orconclusionsdrawnfrommainstream analyticepistemology,logic,metaphysics,esthetics,ormoraltheory.Hard analytictheologygoesbeyonditssofterversions,forittakesactualwork inanalyticphilosophyandpressesitintoserviceforthesakeofdoctrinal analysisandformulation.Forinstance,inanalytictheologicaltreatmentsofthe doctrineoforiginalsin, “soft” analytictheologystrivesforclarityofexposition andtransparencyandrigorofargument,while “hard” analytictheologymay userecentdevelopmentsinfour-dimensionalistmetaphysicsinaneffortto makesenseof “realist” versionsofthedoctrine.⁶ Thereisasenseinwhichthe “soft” versionshouldnotevenbecontroversialbutshouldcharacterizeall theology(although,sadly,itdoesnot).Butthe “hard” cousinissometimes rathermorecontroversialandabitmoreelusive;itisoftenlessaccessibleto mainstreamtheologiansandsometimeslessinterestingtothem.⁷
0.2TheologicalInterpretationandtheBiblical WitnesstoChrist WhatdoImeanby “theologicalexegesis” andthe “theologicalinterpretation ofScripture?”
⁵ MichaelC.Rea, “Introduction,” inOliverD.CrispandMichaelC.Rea,eds., Analytic Theology:NewEssaysonthePhilosophyofTheology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009), pp.5–6.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeThomasH.McCall, AnIntroductiontoAnalyticChristian Theology (DownersGrove:InterVarsityAcademic,2015),pp.17–21.
⁶ Thusasterlingexampleof “soft” analytictheologyonthedoctrineoforiginalsinwouldbe IanMcFarland, InAdam’sFall:AMeditationontheChristianDoctrineofOriginalSin (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,2010).Toseeexcellentexamplesof “hard” analytictheologyinactiononthis doctrine,see,e.g.,MichaelC.Rea, “TheMetaphysicsofOriginalSin,” inPetervanInwagenand DeanZimmerman,eds., Persons:HumanandDivine (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007), pp.319–356,andHudHudson, “Fission,Freedom,andtheFall,” inJonathanKvanvig,ed., OxfordStudiesinPhilosophyofReligion (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),pp.58–79.
⁷ Althoughperhaps more interestingtoscholarswhoapproachanalytictheologyas philosophers
0.2.1TheologicalInterpretation:AnInitialCharacterization ImeansomethingrathermorethanthecharacterizationofBruce L.McCormackwhenhesaysthat “rightlyunderstood, ‘theologicalexegesis ’ isnothingmorethantheexegesisofpassageswhosecontentistheological.”⁸ Idonotmeanlessthanthis,butIdomeansomethingmore.AsJohn Websterputsit, “theologicalinterpretationreadstheNewTestamentas apostolicScripture,” and “itapproachesthetextsasactsofcommunication whoseprimaryauthorisGodtheHolySpiritactingin,with,andthroughthe apostles.”⁹ ToemployDanielJ.Treier’shelpfulsummary, “theological exegesisdealswiththeBibleasawordaboutGodandfromGod.”¹⁰ Accordingly, “ChristiansreadtheBibleasScripture,authoritativeasGod’ s wordforfaithandlife;thus,tointerpretScripturewastoencounterGod.”¹¹ Beyondthis,thereareseveralpointsthatareimportantforaproperunderstandingoftheologicalinterpretation(asIseeit,atleast).First,while theologicalinterpretationneednotbeopposedtohistorical-criticalstudy oftheBibleandindeedstandstobenefitfromit(andespeciallyfromthe wealthofknowledgeofferedbyexpertsinstudiesoftheancientNearEast, SecondTempleJudaism,andrelevantGreco-Romancontexts),theological interpretationisneitherreducibletosuchstudynoreven finallyaccountable toconformitytotheconclusionsofsuchstudies.¹²Second,theological interpretationviewstraditional(including “pre-critical”)exegesisasa potentialsourceofinsightandsuchexegetesasfellowsojourners,allies,
⁸ BruceL.McCormack, “TheIdentityoftheSon:KarlBarth’sExegesisofHebrews1.1-4 (andSimilarPassages),” inJonC.LaansmaandDanielJ.Treier,eds., Christology,Hermeneutics, andHebrews:ProfilesfromtheHistoryofInterpretation (NewYork:BloomsburyT&TClark, 2012),p.158.
⁹ JohnWebster, “OneWhoisSon:TheologicalReflectionsontheExordiumtotheEpistleto theHebrews,” inRichardBauckham,DanielR.Driver,TrevorA.Hart,andNathanMacDonald, eds., TheEpistletotheHebrewsandChristianTheology (GrandRapids:WilliamB.Eerdmans PublishingCo.,2009),p.69.
¹
⁰ DanielJ.Treier, IntroducingTheologicalInterpretationofScripture:RecoveringaChristian Practice (GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2008),p.36.
¹¹Treier, IntroducingTheologicalInterpretation,p.13.
¹²Fortheresponsibletheologicalexegete,theremaybeoccasionswhenoutrightrejectionof suchconclusionsisentirelywarranted.SeePetervanInwagen, “CriticalStudiesoftheNew TestamentandtheUseroftheNewTestament,” inThomasP.FlintandEleonoreStump,eds., HermesandAthena:BiblicalExegesisandPhilosophicalTheology (NotreDame:Universityof NotreDamePress,1993),pp.159–190;AlvinPlantinga, WarrantedChristianBelief (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2000),pp.374–421;C.StephenEvans, TheHistoricalChristandthe JesusofFaith:TheIncarnationalNarrativeasHistory (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1996).
”¹⁴ andmentors.¹³Thisdoesnot,ofcourse,meanthatsomeinterpretationis bettersimplybyvirtueofbeingolder(exegesisisn’t finewine,norisitlikeit inallrespects),nordoesitmeanthattheresponsibletheologicalexegete mustagreewithallthathasbeensaidinthepast(indeed,itis impossible todo so).Butratherthanassumingthatwhateverismostrecentisobviouslybetter thanwhatcamebefore,theproperapproachisoneofrespectandhumility. Third,whiletheologicalinterpretationshouldnotneglecthistoricalgrammaticalapproaches,itproceedswithaconvictionthatproperinterpretationofanyparticulartextshouldbedonewithinthebroader canonical context.Inamannernotdissimilartothetheoriesof “ emergence ” thatare popularinthephilosophyofphysicsandthephilosophyofbiology,the wholehaspropertiesthatarenotreducibletothesumoftheparts,anditis notpossibletoarriveatafulsomeandadequateunderstandingofthoseparts withoutappreciationbothforthose “emergent” propertiesandforthekind of “top-down ” causaleffectthattheyhave.Fourth,andmorecontroversially, theologicalexegesis(again,asIamdoingithere)isdisposedtoviewcreedal formulationsasaidstoproperexegesisratherthanasbarrierstotheproper understandingofScripture.C.KavinRoweiscorrectwhenhesaysthatthere isan “organicconnectionbetweenthebiblicaltestimonyandtheearly creeds,andthecreedscanserveashermeneuticalguidelinestoreadingthe Biblebecauseitisthebiblicaltextitselfthatnecessitatedthecredal formulations.
0.3APreviewofComingAttractions Theproofis,accordingtotheoldcliché,inthepudding.Soperhapsitwill helptoofferanoverviewofwhatfollows.Ibeginwithchaptersthatoffer analyticengagementwithimportantissuesandrecentproposalsinNew Testamentstudies.InChapter1,ItakeacloselookatPaul’sclaimstobe “crucified” withChristandtonowsharelifewiththeincarnateSon. Engagingespeciallywith “apocalyptic” interpretationsofPaul,Ioffertheologicalanalysisofthecurrentdiscussion,lookathowthecurrentdebatein biblicalscholarshipmightmapontovariousmetaphysicaloptions,and proposeawayforward.InChapter2,Iofferananalysisofthedebateover
¹³The locusclassicus oftherecentrevivalisDavidC.Steinmetz, “TheSuperiorityofPreCriticalExegesis,” TheologyToday (1980),pp.27–38.
¹⁴ C.KavinRowe, “LukeandtheTrinity:AnEssayinEcclesialBiblicalTheology,” Scottish JournalofTheology (2003),p.4.
the “faithofChrist” incontemporaryNewTestamentscholarship.Here Itakestockofthemajorextantproposals,andIsuggestthattheological analysisshowsthatretrievalofolderinterpretationscanhelpusadjudicate thisdebateandmoveforwardconstructively.
InChapter3,IturntoconsiderationofsomeimportantissuesindogmaticChristologyasthesearetreatedby “systematic” theologians,and Ibringbothexegeticalandanalyticresourcestobearuponcontemporary debates.HereIbringattentiontotheidentityoftheSon.Recentdebatesover whetherwecanandshouldthinkofChristasthe logosasarkos arethefocus here.Contemporarydebatesovertheproperinterpretationofthetheology ofKarlBarthhavespawnedadditionalinterestingdebatesaboutChristology andtheologyproper,andthesearethesubjectofthischapter.Accordingly, I firstoutlineBruceL.McCormack’scontroversialinterpretiveproposal abouttherelationofthedoctrineofelectiontoChristologyandthedoctrine oftheTrinityinBarth’smaturedoctrineofGod;followingthisIofferan accountofMcCormack’sownconstructiveproposal.Ithensurveythe theologicalcriticismsthatarebroughtagainstit;hereIlooknotonlyat thecriticismsthatareraisedwithrespecttotheproperinterpretationof Barthbutalsoandprimarilyatthecrucialdoctrinalissues.Thisleadstoa theologicalanalysisoftheproposal.RemaininginconversationwithBarth, Chapter4addressesthenatureoftheSon’sobedienceorsubmission. ProceedingindirectconversationwiththeproposalsofKarlBarthand ThomasAquinas,I firstsummarizetheirpositions,thenraisesomeimportanttheologicalissues,andthenaskwhataproperlytheologicalinterpretationofHebrews5:8contributestothediscussion.
InChapter5,Iturntoexegeticallydriventheologicalanalysisofrecent proposalsmadebyanalytictheologiansandphilosophersofreligion.Iturn attentiontotheimportantissueoftherelationoftheSontotheFather. Iapproachthisissueby firstsurveyingsomeoftherecentdebatesover “social” doctrinesoftheTrinity.Iworktogainsomeclarityonwhatis(or mightbe)meantbytheterm “SocialTrinity” asalabel,Iengagewith theologicalexegesisofsomeimportantNewTestamenttextsthataredirectly relevanttothecontemporarydiscussions,andIapplythisworktoan analysisoftherecentanalyticTrinitariantheologyofKeithWard.Finally, inChapter6,IofferengagementwithJcBeall’sboldandnovelsuggestion thatweacceptthetraditionaldoctrineoftheincarnationasagenuine contradiction.HereIraisesomedistinctlytheologicalconcerns;inaddition toseveralissuesthatarehistoricallygrounded,Iraisesomeconcernsforhis viewthatcomedirectlyfromthetheologicalinterpretationoftheNew TestamentwitnesstoChrist.
1 CrucifiedwithChrist The Ego andthe Omega 1.1Introduction Paul’sdeclarationattheconclusionofthesecondchapterofhislettertothe Galatiansisarresting.Itisalsoratherunsettling,anditraisessomevery interestingexegeticalandimportanttheologicalissues.¹Aftersayingthat thosepersons(andhereheuses ΄Ημεις toincludehimself)whoareofJewish ethnicityknowthattheyare “justified” notthroughtheworksofthelawbut byfaithinChrist,aftertestifyingthat “wetoohaveputourfaithinChrist JesusthatwemaybejustifiedbyfaithinChrist” (Gal2:15–16),andafter adamantlydenyingthatjustificationthroughsuchfaithsomehowlegitimizessin(μήγένοιτο),Paulmakesthisstatement:
ForthroughthelawIdiedtothelawsothatImightliveforGod.Ihave beencrucifiedwithChristandInolongerlive,butChristlivesinme.The lifeIliveinthebody(ἐνσαρχί),IlivebyfaithintheSonofGod,wholoved meandgavehimselfforme(Gal2:19–20).
Strikingly,Paulclaimsthat “IamcrucifiedwithChrist” and “Inolongerlive, butChristlivesinme.” Whatdoeshemean?GrantMacaskillsaysthatthis textis “suggestiveofanabsolutetransformationofidentity.”²Butjustwhois this “I” whonolongerlives?Whoisthe “I” whoissaidtonowlive?Whatis
¹Thispassageischallengingatseverallevels(includingexegesis).AsN.T.Wrightsays,these are “deliberatelyrichanddenseformulations,” PaulandHisRecentInterpreters:Some ContemporaryDebates (Minneapolis:FortressPress,2015),p.105.ItisalsocentraltoPaul’ s theology.ToquoteWrightagain,hesaysthatthisisthe “decisiveclimax” ofPaul’steaching, PaulandHisRecentInterpreters,pp.342–343.MartinusC.deBoerconcurs:thisis “the theologicalhighpointofthe firsttwochapters,” Galatians:ACommentary (Louisville: WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2011),p.159.
²GrantMacaskill, UnionwithChristintheNewTestament (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2013),p.221,cf.,p.225.
AnalyticChristologyandtheTheologicalInterpretationoftheNewTestament .ThomasH.McCall, OxfordUniversityPress(2021).©ThomasH.McCall.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198857495.003.0002
therelationofthese “I”stooneanother?Andhowarethethemesofunion withChrist and,indeed,participationinChrist tobeunderstood? Indeed,istherightaccountoftherelationofthe “I” toChristsomehow evenstrongerthanwhatcanbecapturedbylanguageof “union ” and “participation?” Isitidentity?
InthisessayIofferacloserlookatthistextandsomeoftheissuesraised byit.Idosoasasortofanalyticinterventionintoadebateamongthesocalled “apocalyptic” interpretersofPaul.ApocalypticexegetesofferengagementwithPaul’swritingsthatisrefreshinglyandovertlytheological.Their exegesisisofteninsightfulandtheologicallyfecund,anditholdssignificant promisefortheologydoneindogmaticandanalyticmodes.Gratefully engagingwithapocalypticinterpretations,myaimthroughoutistowork towardabetterunderstandingofPaul’saccountofthesematters.³ Accordingly,Ibeginbycomparingtheinterpretationsofferedbywhat Irefertoasthe “ModestApocalyptic” (MA)and “RadicalApocalyptic” (RA)interpretationsofthetext.Ithenoffersomeanalysisoftheseclaims andtheirentailments,andIraisesometheologicalconcernsabouttheRA proposals.Ithenrevisitatraditionalreadingwithaneyetowardthe possibilitiesof ressourcement andconcludewithamodestproposalthat takesinsightsfrombothtraditionalandapocalypticapproaches.
1.2TheApocalypticInterpretationsofPaul 1.2.1TheApocalypticPaul
So-called “Apocalyptic” interpretationsofPaulhaveseengreatgainsin popularityandinfluence(withinscholarlycircles)overthecourseofthe pastfewdecades.Suchinterpretationsdiffersharplyfromolder “Protestant” or “Lutheran ” readings.Buttheyalsodiffer andinsomecasesthey differverysharply frommorerecent “NewPerspectives” onPaul(NPP). Foralltheirimportantdifferences,boththeolder “Lutheran ” andNPP
³IamawarethatthisapproachisatypicalamongscholarsofPaulinetheology,whichtends tobe,asMacaskillhaspointedout, “largelyconcernedwithdivine action andnotwith categoriesof nature or being ... ” However,asMacaskillalsorecognizesandargues,itisvery difficulttomakeadequatesenseofPaul’stheologywithoutdueattentiontothebroaderissues relatedtometaphysicsandontology.GrantMacaskill, “DynamicReciprocityandOntological AffinityinthePaulineAccountofSolidarity,” InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 22:1(2020),pp.18–28(herep.19).
interpretationsshareabasicandfundamentalunderstandingofstrong continuitybetweenthe “old” thathasbecomesoiledandpoisonedand ruinedbysinandthe “ new ” thatisrevealedandinauguratedinChrist. Thebigstory,astoldbybothtraditionalProtestantinterpretersandthe proponentsoftheNPP,stronglyemphasizestheplaceandprominenceof covenant withinthatstory.TraditionalandNPPinterpreterscommonly insistthatwhatwasmarredandbrokenandruinedbysinisreclaimedand repairedandreconciledbyGod’sdecisiveactionintheworkofJesusChrist. TraditionaltheologiansandtheadvocatesoftheNPPhaveseriousdisagreementsamongthemselvesaboutimportantissueswithinthatbroadunderstanding.Famously,theolder “Lutheran” readingsseeJewish “legalism” and theaccompanyingeffortstosomehowmeritorearnsalvationthroughgood worksastheculprit,whiletheproponentsoftheNPPtypicallyaverthatthe oldertheologiesrestuponmisunderstandingsofSecondTempleJudaism andinsteadinsistthatJewishthoughtwascommittedto “covenantal nomism.” Butdespitesuchdisagreements howeverseriousandsharp theymaybe thereisageneralsenseofsharedagreementthatwhatGod isdoinginChristmaintainsimportantcontinuitywiththecovenantthat GodmadewithIsraelforthesakeoftheworld.
ApocalypticinterpretationsofPaulquestion andoftenreject thisbasic assumptionofcontinuity.Instead,apocalypticreadingsofPaulinsistthatthe gospelisanin-breakingthatdisruptsallthatcamebefore.Apocalyptic theologiansinsistthatthe “fullscope,depth,andradicalityofthegospelof God” demandsthatweaccountforthe “actualandmanifestcontradictionof thatgospel” bytheworld.⁴ Thisworld,theworldasitis indeed, “the world” inPaulineusageoftheterm issomethingthathasbeentakenoverandis nowcontrolledbysin.AsJ.LouisMartynputsit, “wewouldnotbetotally wrongtosay – withthepoeticlanguageoftragedy – thatSinisvirtuallythe creator of this world.”⁵ Thisworld,asitis,issomethingthatis “notunderthe immediateandexclusivehegemonyeitherofGodorofhumanbeings ” ; instead,itisunderthecontrolofevilpowersandisthus “thefrightening, horrifyingsceneofgenuineandprofounddisaster.”⁶ Indirectresponseto thisdisaster,Godhasacteddecisively indeed, apocalyptically inChrist.
⁴ PhilipG.Ziegler, MilitantGrace:TheApocalypticTurnandtheFutureofChristian Theology (GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2018),p.26.
⁵ J.LouisMartyn, “WorldWithoutEndorTwice-InvadedWorld,” inChristineRoyYoder, etal.,eds., ShakingHeavenandEarth:EssaysinHonorofWalterBrueggemannandCharles B.Cousar (Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2005),p.120.
⁶ Martyn, “WorldWithoutEnd,” p.122.
God’sworkinChristisatrulyradicalinvasion.InChrist,God “isnotmerely repairing this world” butinsteadiscreatingacompletelynewonethatis “in fundamentalcontrastto this world.”⁷ Sucharadicalrupturemeansthat God’srevelationinChristisa “breakwiththeultimateauthorityofthe Torah, ” asJohnM.G.Barclayputsit,for “thecrossofChristshattersevery orderedsystemofnorms,howeverembeddedintheseemingly ‘natural’ orderof ‘theworld.’”⁸
AllgenuineknowledgeofGodisdisclosedinChrist.⁹ Indeed,forsome veryinfluentialproponentsofapocalypticPaulinetheology,anyclaimsto knowledgeofGodthatdonotbothbeginandterminateinChristaretobe heldatarm’slength.Theworryhereisthatsuchclaimsarenotonly mistakenbutindeedidolatrous.Inotherwords,anyclaimstoknowledge ofGodvia “naturaltheology” arebothfalseanddangerous.Douglas A.Campbell,forinstance,energeticallypolemicizesagainstwhatherefers toas “JustificationTheory.” Asheseesthings,JustificationTheoryhas exertedmassiveinfluenceinthehistoryofChristiantheology.Theterm “justification” seemstobedoingdoubledutyforCampbellhere,forheuses itinreferencetoepistemologyaswellassoteriology.Epistemologically, JustificationTheoryreliesuponakindoffoundationalismaccordingto whichboththebasic(or “foundational”)factsaboutGodandsinare knownthroughnaturaltheology(alongthelinesofwhatCampbelltakes tobetheall-too-commonmisreadingofRom1:18–32).From “nature” we aretolearnthatGodexistsandthathumansareresponsibleandlegallyor forensicallyguiltybeforeGodfortheirsins;welearnabouttheproblem fromnaturaltheology,andthegospelisthesolutiontothatproblem. Campbellprotestsagainstthisapproach,andheinsistsaswellthatthe legalaccountofsalvation(“justification” inthesoteriologicalsense)is skewedfromtheoutset.Campbellresistssuchanapproachasoverly individualisticand “contractualist” (aswellasfoundationalist).¹⁰ Campbell readstheopeningchaptersofRomans(andsimilarpassagesscattered elsewhereinthePaulinecorpus)as “speech-in-character” thatactually articulatetheviewsofthe opponents ofthegospel,andhemountsan
⁷ Martyn, “WorldWithoutEnd,” p.126.
⁸ JohnM.G.Barclay, PaulandtheGift (GrandRapids:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishing Co.,2015),p.394.Hecontinues: “Allothercriteriaofvaluehavebeendiscountedbytheir superordinateworthofbelongingtoChrist,” p.429.
⁹ SeethediscussioninZiegler, MilitantGrace,p.27.
¹
⁰ Theterms “individualist” and “contractualist” featureprominentlyinJoshuaW.Jipp’ s overviewofCampbell’swork.SeeJoshuaW.Jipp, “DouglasCampbell’sApocalyptic,Rhetorical Paul:ReviewArticle,” HorizonsinBiblicalTheology 32:2(2010),pp.183–197.
extendedandveryvigorousargumentthatthetruegospelisradically opposedtosuchnotions.Wheretheolderreadings(eitherRoman CatholicorProtestant,andwhether “old” or “ new ” perspective)sawthe gospelasthesolutiontoaproblemthatwasrevealedandunderstoodprior tothein-breakingofGod’sgospelinChrist,Campbell’sgenuinelyapocalypticreadingwillhavenoneofthat.Wheretheolderviewstookthegospel tobeaboutthelegalstatusofindividualswhohaddonebadthings, Campbell’saccountproclaimsgoodnewsthatiscommunitarianandparticipatory.AndwheretheolderdoctrinesmaintainthatsomepartofaGodhumancontractmustbefulfilledorcompletedfromthehumanside(either inperfectobediencetothelaworintheexerciseof faith),Campbellinsists thattheauthenticgospelrejectsallsuchcontractualarrangementsinfavor ofgenuinegracethatis covenantal andthusnon-conditional.Theupshotof thisshouldbeclear(or,atleast,clearenoughforpresentpurposes):Paul’ s gospelisradicalandradicallyapocalyptic.Itupendsallpriorconceptionsof whatGod and,indeed,allproperconceptsofeverythingelseinrelationto God isreallylike.Itconfoundsallworldlywisdom.Itabolishesany idolatrousnotionsabouttheadequacyofhumanagency.Anditdemonstratesthe finalityofGod’sauthenticrevelationinChrist.Thegospelis somethingthatis new,anditproclaimsa newcreation,a newlife thatis in Christ.
Ofcourse,notallexegetesandtheologiansassociatedwiththe “ apocalypticschool” wouldagreewithCampbellonallthesepoints,andmanyNew Testamentscholarshavedeepandfundamentaldisagreementswithhis proposal.FrancisWatson,forinstance,resistsbeinglumpedinwiththe proponentsof “JustificationTheory” (atleastasCampbelldepictsit),buthe alsorejectsCampbell’sproposalas “neo-Marcionite.”¹¹Campbell’ sunrelentinginsistenceontheradicalin-breakingandutterlydisruptivenatureof God’srevelationinChristis,however,reflectiveofsomethingthatiswidespreadandimportantwithinapocalyptictheology.
¹¹FrancisWatson, PaulandtheHermeneuticsofFaith,secondedition(NewYork: BloomsburyT&TClark,2016),p.xlv.WatsonsaysthatCampbell’ s Deliverance isaworkof “perversebrilliance.” BarclaysaysthatCampbellsounds “mostlikeMarcion” andis “strongly reminiscentofMarcion,” PaulandtheGift,pp.173,465n41.R.BarryMatlockjudges Campbell’saccountofJustificationTheorytobe “themostelaboratelyconstructedstrawman [he]haseverwitnessed,andtowatchCampbellparryandthrustwithitacrosshundredsof sprawlingpagesisasingularanduncannyspectacle,” andhesaysthatCampbell’saccusations againstit “alternatebetweencalumnyandfarce,” R.BarryMatlock, “ZealforPaulbutNot AccordingtoKnowledge:DouglasCampbell’sWaron ‘JustificationTheory,’” Journalforthe StudyoftheNewTestament 34:2(2011),p.137.
Withthisbriefbackgroundinmind,letusnowturntotheexegesisofGal 2:19–20.Someoftheleadingapocalypticinterpretersseemratherunsureof whattomakeofthestrikingclaimsmadebyPaulinGal2:19–20.Not surprisingly,theygenerallyarenotattractedtotheolderandmoretraditionalinterpretations,butsomearehesitanttoendorseamorethoroughgoingoreven “literal” understandingofPaul’sclaims.ThusMartyntakes Paultobeusingtheverbina “nonliteralmanner. ”¹²Paulis,hesays,not merelyafollowerordiscipleofJesusbutsomeonewhoisco-crucified,but Paul’sclaimistobeunderstoodinsomethinglessthanaliteralsense.The “mainaccent” ofPaul’sstatement “‘tobe ‘crucifiedwithChrist’ lies,therefore,onincorporationintotheChristwhoseownpathdeterminesthe destinyofthosewhoareboundtohim.”¹³MartinusC.deBoerisstruck bytheforceofPaul’ s “extremelanguageofcrucifixionwithChrist.”¹⁴ Buthe saysthatPaul’sclaims “cannotbetakenliterally, ” forwhilethisis “realistic andserious” (cf.5:24;6:14),nonethelessthe “languageismetaphoricaland hyperbolic.”¹⁵ Onhisview, “to ‘dietosomething’ ismetaphoricalandmeans tobeseparatedfromit” (cf.Rom6:2,10,11;7:6).Andinthiscase, “Paul’ s ‘I’ (ego)hasceasedtoexist” inreferencetoitsorientationtothelaw;whatis goneisnotthepersonknownasPaulbutinsteadthe “nomistic ‘I’– the ‘I’ that findsitsidentityanditshopeofjustification(5:5)in(theobservanceof) thelaw – thathasdied.”¹⁶ Itisthe “nomisticallydetermined ‘I’” whoisgone, the “‘I’ thatwasazealotfortheancestraltraditionsandpersecutedGod’ s church ” (1:13–14).¹⁷ Inplaceofthisold “I” isthe “newidentity,anewself” thatisdelightedandenergeticintheapostolicproclamationofthesingularityand finalityofthegospelofJesusChrist.¹⁸
Letusrefertothesereadingsas “Modest-Apocalyptic” interpretations. Butotherapocalypticinterpretersarenotsatisfiedwithsuchreadings.
1.2.2RadicalApocalypticOptions Someoftheclaimsmadebyapocalypticinterpreterssuggestmuchmore radicalreadingsofPaul’sclaim.Wewill,then,callthese “RadicalApocalyptic” readings.DrawinguponaparticularreadingofMartinLuther’ s
¹²JamesLouisMartyn, Galatians:ANewTranslationandCommentary (NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress,1997),p.278.
¹³Martyn, Galatians,p.279.¹⁴ deBoer, Galatians,p.161.
¹⁵ deBoer, Galatians,p.160.¹⁶ deBoer, Galatians,p.159.
¹⁷ deBoer, Galatians,p.161.¹⁸ deBoer, Galatians,p.161.
theology,StephenChestersaysthatfortheReformer,unionwithChrist “does notworkonthebasisofatransformationoftheselfoftheChristian.Itworks ratheronthebasisoftheleavingbehindandabandoningofthatself.”¹⁹ To speakofa “changedorrenewedlifeisthereforepotentiallymisleading,” becausethecentralpointconcernsthe “re-creationoftheperson.”²⁰ Beverly RobertsGaventaforcefullyemphasizesthediscontinuitybetweentheoldand thenew.Sheinsistsuponthe “singularity” ofthegospelofChrist;bythisshe meansnotonlythefactthatthereisonlyonegospel(cf.Gal1:6-9)butalso “its singular,all-encompassingactioninthelivesofhumanbeings.”²¹The gospel theoneandonlytruegospel, the gospelofJesusChrist—“claimsall thatahumanis;thegospelbecomesthelocusofhumanidentity;thegospel replacestheoldcosmos.”²²Whenwecometothe “radicalandradically troubling” messagethatisencapsulatedinPaul’sclaimaboutco-crucifixion, wearetakenintothe “heart” ofPaul’ s “understandingofthegospel.”²³Paul’ s claimisnotmerelythatChrististeacherorexample,norisiteventhatJesusis Lord.²⁴ Rather,itisthatheis crucifiedwith theChristwhoisteacherandLord; hesharesinChrist’sbrutalexecutionasChristbearsthefullweightandforce ofevilandsin.
GaventaprotestsagainstthemovesmadebydeBoer.Forinthiscontext, sheexclaims, “thereisnosignthatthisdeathandlifearethedeathandlifeof thenomisticselfonly(althoughthatisincluded).”²⁵ Noindeed.Itisnothing lessthan “thewholeofthe ἐ γώ thatisgone.”²⁶ GaventafollowsCampbell whenhesaysthatPaulis “speakingoftheexecutionofhisownidentity,and hisimmersioninChrist ’ s. ”²⁷ Gaventaunderstands “thatthereisstilllifeina humanbody,ofcourse.”²⁸ Butshealsoinsiststhat “bymovingtothe
¹⁹ StephenChester, “ApocalypticUnion:MartinLuther’sAccountofFaithinChrist,” in MichaelJ.Thate,KevinJ.Vanhoozer,ConstantineR.Campbell,eds., “InChrist” inPaul: ExplorationsofPaul’sTheologyofUnionandParticipation (GrandRapids:William B.EerdmansPublishingCo.,2018),p.386.
²⁰ Chester, “ApocalypticUnion,” p.386.
²¹BeverlyRobertsGaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” inMarkW.Elliott, ScottJ.Hafemann,N.T.Wright,andJohnFrederick,eds., GalatiansandChristianTheology: Justification,theGospel,andEthicsinPaul’sLetter (GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2014), p.188.
²²Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” p.188.
²³Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” pp.188,193.
²⁴ Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” p.193.
²⁵ Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” p.193.
²⁶ Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” p.193.
²⁷ DouglasCampbell, TheDeliveranceofGod:AnApocalypticRereadingofJustificationin Paul (GrandRapids:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCo.,2009),p.848.Shedoesnotnotethat CampbelladdsthatPaul “isstilldistinguishableasapersonwithinthisprocess.”
²⁸ Gaventa, “TheSingularityoftheGospelRevisited,” p.194.
