• The Theology of Paul the Apostle © 1998
• Eerdmans
• xxxvi+808 pages

James Dunn has spent over four decades with Paul on his mind. He’s produced commentaries on his letters and been one of the pioneers of the New Perspective on Paul. When you read The Theology of Paul the Apostle, his experience and knowledge of the topic comes through on every lucid page.

Theologies of Paul are difficult precisely because all of Paul’s letters were occasional. Even so, Romans was written at a time in his life where he was finishing up a major section of his missionary work and preparing to embark on another journey. This letter is the most systematic of his letters, so Dunn used it as a template to explore his thought. Galatians and Corinthians also make frequent appearances as his major concepts are fleshed out.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ll know that I have spent a lot of time digesting this book. I’ve benefited immensely by summarizing each of the 25 chapters. Here are some of the key areas I’ve benefited from while interacting with this book:

New Perspective. I always had a bit of a fuzzy understanding of what the whole New Perspective on Paul actually meant. Now that I’ve read one of the leaders in the New Perspective discuss Paul’s relationship with Judaism in detail, it’s starting to become clearer.

Salvation. I love how Dunn divides the topic of salvation up into two: the beginning and the process of salvation. Naming it “the process of salvation” instead of sanctification clarifies Paul’s understanding of “being saved.” It also makes more sense of the eschatological tension (more on that later). The other element that struck me was the sheer number of metaphors Paul used to describe salvation. Having been trained up with forensics on the brain, this chapter really expanded my thinking.

Anthropology. Hearing Paul’s use of sōma, sarx, nous, kardia, psyche, and pneuma described so precisely does a lot to combat the Trichotomist sandwich that has been a staple of the Western church.

Paul and Jesus. I had never really considered why Paul quoted Jesus’ life and teaching so rarely until I read Dun’s explanation. Dunn not only presented the problem clearly, he provided logical explanations. Dunn’s exploration of all the areas where Paul’s teaching echoes Jesus was also helpful.

Eschatological Tension. Aside from the New Perspective, the emphasis on the eschatological tension is the biggest important concept in this Theology. The fact that we’re living in the already/not yet has implications in every area of theology—implications that Dunn spells out in detail. This eschatological tension if a very useful framework for understanding many of Paul’s more confusing concepts.

I could go on. These were the five most important areas for my theological growth, but I’m sure it will speak to you in different ways. I couldn’t recommend a serious theology book more enthusiastically to any student, pastor, or thoughtful Christian.

I have been curious about Christian pacifism since the aftermath of 9/11. “Just war theory” had always been my official view, although I had no real idea what that meant.

A few years ago the documentary, God of War, Prince of Peace was produced. (You can grab it for free on TheMovieBlog.com.) In it, Tony Campolo’s story about his inability to drop bombs while asking, “what would Jesus do” really struck me. Lately I’ve been reading Hauerwas, a pacifist theologian. (I didn’t know they made pacifists in Texas!) It turns out Hauerwas was a student of J. H. Yoder, a Mennonite theologian and popular thinker in the 20th century pacifist tradition

I’ll be honest: I want to be a pacifist. I can’t believe Jesus wants us to kill other people created in his image. Still, when I think of the rise of Hitler and the abuse of innocent people, I wonder whether Christian love doesn’t compel us to act violently against oppression. I’ve decided to study The Politics of Jesus and really consider what Yoder had to say on the topic. I’m using the second edition (1994), which is an update of the 1972 classic. Each chapter (12 total) will have its own post as I try my best to respond to Yoder’s logic and, with the help of the Spirit, form my own perspective on Christianity and war. I welcome any constructive—surely I can’t be the only Christian wrestling with this topic!

An now, on to “the simple rebound of a Christian pacifist commitment as it responds to the ways in which mainstream Christian theology has set aside the pacifist implications of the New Testament message” (x).

. . .

Chapter 1: The Possibility of a Messianic Ethic

Summary

1972: We need to bridge the gap between New Testament studies and social ethics. Ethics is currently primarily concerned with power and revolution—but was Jesus? Modern social ethics views Jesus’ ethical teaching as irrelevant due to many reasons (only for a short “interim”, only for a small village, etc.). Therefore, they look for a concept to bridge the gap between Jesus’ teaching and today (love, faith, freedom, etc.). By trying to translate the ethical teaching of Jesus in this way, we end up accepting the current order of things as normative.

We then look to Paul who, in putting a priority on grace, reduced the need for works/ethics. In addition to this, Paul’s acceptance of society’s institutions like slavery and the Roman government make it seem like Jesus had nothing to say.

Despite the modern view sketched above, there is a genuine Christian social ethic. The rest of this book will use Luke’s gospel to discover it.

1994: Since the first edition was written, scholarship has swung to almost unanimously agree that Jesus was a political person. There are even more reasons to ignore his ethical teaching as normative (historical-critical skepticism, move from narrative and prophetic to divine wisdom). In the end, people still try to appeal to something other than the particularities of Jesus’ teaching for “Christian” ethics. Nature, reason, creation, and reality are the four classical approaches. While these four items appear to have logical priority, they in fact push the authority of Jesus aside.

Thoughts

When Yoder wrote the first edition the Jesus movement was exploding. Scores of hippies decided to follow the socially radical Jesus that the church had hidden from them. Yoder’s book validates the hippie view. Jesus is socially radical—very political. Yoder acknowledged scholarly acceptance of Jesus as a political figure in the 1994 material. We take this for granted now.

Scholarship and church life can be two very different things, though. We’re taught as pastors in Canada to be careful not to mix politics into our churches. Our charitable organization status reminds us to disseminate religion, not to give opinions on who to vote for. I agree that we shouldn’t tell our congregations who to vote for (mostly because I’m never 100% sure I made the right decision when leaving the ballot booth). Still, we need to get the politics of Jesus across.

Jesus’ words to the people around him need to inform the political decisions we make today. Thankfully, organizations like the Sojourners and The Simple Way are making it easier for pastors to make the connections.

. . .

I suppose our theological worldview has a lot to say about our view of politics. As many influential Christians have been emphasizing lately (N. T. Wright, Scot McKnight, Brian MacLaren), we pray that God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As long as our goal is merely to escape this wicked world to enjoy heavenly bliss, then there’s no motivation to consider Jesus’ politics, let alone our own world’s.

Ch. 2: The Kingdom Coming >

The end. Phew. In once sense I’m relieved that this epic study of Paul is finished. On the other hand, I suspect I’ll have to pick up another book by Dunn shortly. His formula of scholarship + passion + lucid writing is perfect. Here in the last chapter we’re going to wrap up the study and consider the whole of Paul’s theology one last time.

. . .

Chapter 9: Epilogue

§ 24: Postlegomena to a theology of Paul

As mentioned in chapter one, any study of Paul is a dialogue on three different levels:

1. Paul’s dialogue with his inherited beliefs (Judaism)
2. Paul’s dialogue with Jesus Christ
3. Paul’s dialogue with his churches

The dialogue on every level was personal and passionate. Paul is no stuffy theologian—he interacts on many levels with his dialogue partners. When you add to these stated partners every theologian (including Dunn) throughout history who has put questions to Paul and received answers, the resulting theology can become massive. Dunn has tried his best to offer the fruit of his own dialogue with Paul over four decades. To conclude this theology, we’ll examine each of Paul’s three major dialogue levels in turn.

With Judaism. Paul remained in the faith of his ancestors more than most of his commentators give him credit for. His faith in Jesus was the fulfillment of his ancestral beliefs, not some different thing. We can see this when we look at how he handled the five major pillars of Second Temple Judaism.

1. Monotheism. Paul never traded monotheism for tri-theism. He insisted that there was one God. The tension of how to understand Father, Son, and Spirit can be worked out within a monotheistic framework.
2. Election. While Paul is given credit for breaking Christianity out of its Jewish mold, he still spoke positively about God’s choosing of Israel and her future.
3. Torah. Paul’s interaction with Torah is evident throughout his theology. He revisits and reworks the role of the law but does not write it off wholesale.
4. Temple. Paul used this element of Second Temple Judaism the least. Perhaps he followed what was happening in rabbinic Judaism by replacing Temple with and emphasis on scripture.

With Jesus. Jesus was the pivot point of Paul’s theology. He was the place on which everything—including the religion of his ancestors—swings around into a new direction. Now the God of his ancestors can only be known definitively in reference to Christ. Every element of Judaism is reinterpreted and refocused in Christ. Indeed, Christianity is Christ. If we wish to find a centre of Paul’s thought (such as the often suggested “justification by faith”), we can only find it in Christ. Of the three major ways Paul described the beginning of salvation, “In Christ” is the most prominent. The centre of Paul’s theology was not a static concept, but a living person.

Like any theologian, Paul’s emphases shifted as he matured. We can see four events that shaped his theology:

1. His early preaching of the parousia to the Thessalonians shifted (it was not abandoned).
2. The threat to the Galatian church caused him to emphasize his status as an apostle.
3. The crisis in Ephesus between 1 and 2 Corinthians (esp. 2 Corinthians 1:8) caused him to develop a theology of suffering.
4. The realization that he had completed a major part of his mission to the northeastern Mediterranean led him to pen his theology in a more comprehensive manner in his letter to the Romans.

With the Churches. Paul’s theology did not consist of abstract thought experiments. It was always wrapped in concern for local congregations. Even Romans, his most “systematic” letter, begins and ends with the practicalities of living as a Christian in this world. His interaction with his churches have produced many of the concepts and terms we take for granted now: “gospel,” “grace,” “love,” “body,” “flesh,” “charisma,” etc. He knew all too well the reality of living within the eschatological tension. Salvation is accomplished and awaiting completion. I’ll leave the last sentence of this series of summaries to Dunn:

Paul’s theology . . . was first and last an attempt to make sense of the gospel as the key to everyday life and to make possible a daily living which was Christian through and through. (737)

. . .

If The Theology of Paul the Apostle is the music of James Dunn, then this chapter was his Greatest Hits compilation. He used the rubric of dialogue levels to revisit key elements of the journey we’ve taken through Paul’s theology.

This experiment in summarizing a major work of theology has been challenging and enlightening. The practice has driven Paul’s theology far deeper into me than simply reading the text would have. By the number of visits these summaries have generated, I see it’s helped some of you too. I’d love to hear how you’re using these posts.

Thank you Dr. Dunn for sharing years of devoted reflection in one eminently readable and theologically stimulating package.

< § 24: Ethics in practice

I remember sitting in Pastoral Theology classes back in Bible College. The professor would offer a case study of a situation that was far from black-and-white, and we naive students would offer a solid answer. I learned then that the application of principles is a complex art. Now that we’ve studied Paul’s ethical principles, it’s time to get to the case studies.

. . .

Chapter 8: How Should Believers Live?

§ 24: Ethics in practice

Of the various ethical systems that have been tried, most have failed. For Paul, these systems don’t appreciate the reality of sin’s power or the eschatological tension. Paul’s ethics suggest ways to live in light of a future judgment and in the midst of the eschatological tension. Paul’s ethics are not individualistic. Indeed, they can only function within community, which is what church is. Most often, Paul dealt with small social groups that were drawn together from diverse backgrounds. These backgrounds led to many tensions and struggles. Two of Paul’s letters give us concrete ethical cases to study: Romans and (especially) 1 Corinthians.

The Roman Christians lived in a hostile world, and Paul’s ethical advice in Romans 12:9-13:14 reflects that reality. Rome was suspicious of clubs and social groups. The more a church became theologically independent of Judaism, the more politically tenuous its position became. In response to this, Paul didn’t tell the Christians to fight the system or to disappear in the woodwork. He urged them to maintain good relationships with the current system. Paul appealed to four principles when defining the Christian’s relationship to their hostile world:

1. Love: Everything rests on this fundamental principle.
2. Aglow With the Spirit and Serve the Lord: The excitement of Spirit-led life should meet the reality of concrete service.
3. Traditional Jewish Wisdom: Romans 12:14-21 is a cluster of scriptural allusions where Paul appeals to tried and tested Jewish ethical wisdom.
4. The Standards of the Land: Paul urged the Christians to follow the ethics of society where those ethics were admirable.

The early Roman church worked out these principles in two interesting ways:

1. They made no neat distinction between fellow believer and neighbour. The principle of love overrides such differences.
2. The believers were politically indifferent. They neither challenged nor vanished from the political landscape. In our world of political democracies where Christians can influence government, it’s difficult to conceive of the Roman Christian situation.

We’ve seen how Paul urged the Roman congregation to live in a hostile environment. Now we look at how to live within the Christian community when fundamental disagreements arise (Romans 14:1-15:6). The two related issues troubling the Roman church were the necessity to follow Jewish dietary restrictions and Sabbath laws. A little historical work shows us that a substantial Jewish population in Rome were expelled in 49 CE. The expelled Jews returned likely following the death of Claudius in 54CE. In the meantime, the leadership of the budding Christian movement was held by Gentiles who enjoyed their freedom. Returning Jews would have been appalled by their disregard to traditional Jewish boundary markers.

In discussing church disagreements, Paul sets up some principles. Faith is at issue here. Those with weak faith felt the need to cling to traditional laws. Those with strong faith reveled in their freedom. Paul went on to stress how each person was individually accountable to their Lord. Paul echoed Jesus’ teaching when he stressed that nothing is in itself unclean. Beyond all this, love needs to be the constant controlling principle of the believer’s life.

The conflict between the traditionalists and the free started with an unwillingness to accept or welcome each other in Christian fellowship. This was followed by outright judgment of the other’s position. Paul addressed both parties.

1. To the traditionalists: God has accepted those whose practices you dislike. Worry about your own conscience. It’s natural for you to think that those who enjoy their freedom have actually left the faith—conduct is the litmus test of faith. In sum, the challenge to the weak was on the principle of faith alone.
2. To the free: Don’t beat down the weak, but accept them without trying to settle arguments. Your freedom can seriously damage those with scruples. It’s better for you to willingly curtail your freedom than to destroy a traditionalist. In sum, the challenge to the free was on the principle of love.

As we move from Romans to Corinthians, it’s important to note the difference. Romans was written to a church that viewed itself as isolated from its hostile culture. The church in Corinth was more closely tied to its culture. Boundaries were fuzzy. The first issue Paul took up with the Corinthians is porneia (unlawful sexual intercourse) (1 Corinthians 5-6). Paul held firm to his traditional Jewish upbringing that uncontrolled desire can turn into destructive lust. The specific case was a man who was sleeping with his father’s wife. That person was to be removed from Christian fellowship in order to save him. Other Corinthians apparently defended their former sexual ideals. Paul rejected this as a form of slavery as well as a usurper to the relationship the believer has with Christ through the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 7 has convinced many that Paul was an ascetic at heart with a negative view of marriage. This is not the case. Paul wished that people would be unmarried as he was because the present age is short. He was worried the marriage relationship would take the place of the believer’s relationship with God. On the other hand, it’s good to remember that Paul was responding to specific questions raised by the Corinthians in previous correspondence. He was not setting up a timeless theology of marriage. He spoke with pastoral care into a difficult situation, making sure to emphasize that these were his opinions, not commands. Paul viewed marriage as a genuine partnership where sexual relations were the norm. Whether married or not, the important thing was to keep the commandments of God.

Paul is often criticized for his acceptance of slavery. Three things must be noted:

1. Slavery was not yet thought of as immoral or degrading—it took the slave trade to bring that realization home.
2. Slavery was an established fact of life in the ancient world. The entire economic system depended on it.
3. Although slavery was antithetical to Greek freedom, slaves were often educated and placed in positions of stewardship far greater than many free people.

Paul was not interested in changing the rules of the game here: he encouraged masters to treat slaves with more dignity because of their accountability to Christ. Believers—both slave and free—are enslaved to Christ.

1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with the issue of meat eating. On the surface, it’s the same argument as Romans 14:1-15:6. Look deeper and there are some fundamental differences:

1. Romans was about unclean food, while Corinthians is about idol food.
2. Roman tensions were internal, while Corinthian tensions involved community life.
3. In Romans Paul used “faith”, while in Corinthians he used “conscience”.

Some have suggested that Paul’s attitude toward idol food is an abandonment of Israel’s hostility to idols. This isn’t the case, since Paul elsewhere is openly hostile towards idols. Paul urged the Corinthians not to eat meat sacrificed to idols if they were sure that that was the source. Christian liberty is affirmed, but the consequences of that liberty on others is paramount.

The final ethical case study is the collection Paul took up for the Jerusalem saints. This collection grew in importance through Paul’s ministry and became the closing subject of Romans (15:25-32). In the collection, many of Paul’s themes come together:

1. The collection was an expression of grace.
2. The collection emphasized the importance of Israel, stressing the importance of Jerusalemite saints.
3. The collection was a practical outworking of fellowship.
4. The collection was a way to express the grace you’ve received to others.

When Paul worked out his ethical principles in the local church, he was careful and pastoral. He balanced inward motivation with outward norms, and held a firm grasp on the eschatological tension. He encouraged believers to genuinely respect each other, regardless of their individual place on the spectrum of Christian liberty.

. . .

I was struck most of all by Paul’s unwillingness to battle his culture. Defeating Rome was no priority of his. He urged his people to live like Christians in the midst of whatever situation they were in. This make the application of his ethical principles somewhat flexible. I wonder what Paul’s attitude has to say about Western Christianity’s desire to battle our evil culture. Or, where does this leave Liberation theology?

< § 23: The Lord’s Supper

§ 25: Postlegomena to a theology of Paul >

We’re closing in on the end. There are only two sections left before the epilogue. In these chapters (Motivating principles & Ethics in practice), I suspect we’ll get down to the nitty-gritty about how Paul’s theology should influence our day-to-day lives. As a preacher (not to mention a Christian), I suspect this to be among the most important elements of Paul’s theology. So without further ado …

. . .

Chapter 8: How Should Believers Live?

§ 23: Motivating principles

Many have noted a divide in Paul’s letters between the theological and the practical (e.g. Romans 12:1). This is misleading because all of Paul’s theological material is practical theology. He is able to move frequently between theology and corresponding ethics. The more practical side of Paul’s theology has been troublesome to theologians for various reasons. Some view Jesus as a moral teacher and Paul as the theologizer who transformed Jesus’ ethic into a religion. This mistaken view undercuts Paul’s ability to speak ethically. Others have noted the common threads between Paul’s ethics and his surrounding culture, assuming he just baptized conventional knowledge. This view deeply misunderstands the relationship between the indicative and imperative in Paul. Paul’s indicative had two key moments:

1. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection
2. Believer’s salvation (justification by faith, participation in Christ, and the gift of the Spirit)

So too, the imperative has two corresponding emphases:

1. The sanctification of God in the believer’s life
2. Human responsibility

The eschatological tension makes it difficult to work out theology. Principled compromise is “an unavoidable feature of ethical decisions for those living between the ages” (630). Still, when we view the imperative as an outworking of the indicative in Paul, it’s possible to understand how Paul went about crafting his theological ethic.

As we approach Paul’s ethics we’re again confronted with the problem of Torah. Torah in Judaism is the equivalent of Paul’s paraenesis, so is there a place for law? Reformed theology stressed the law/gospel dialectic so heavily, answers from that perspective are a resounding “no!” We’ve seen with the new perspective on Paul, that Paul’s critique of law is more tightly focused on how the law was abused by sin and the idea that it offered a distinctive favored position to the Jewish people. Are the other functions of the law (defining sin, condemning transgression) still relevant for believers? Paul forces the issue by using three phrases:

1. The law of faith (Romans 3:27)
2. The law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2)
3. The law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)

Some recoil at the though that nomos should even be translated as “law” in these cases. Räisänen went so far as to argue that nomos here is a play on words and should be translated as “order”. It’s likely that these three categories correspond to the three elements of the beginning of salvation:

1. Justification by faith – the law of faith
2. Participation in Christ – the law of Christ
3. Gift of the Spirit – the law of the Spirit

The Law of Faith. Faith for Paul is an ethical concept as well as a soteriological concept, proven by the fact that the first and then the final (threefold) reference to faith in Romans is ethical in nature (Romans 1:5; 14:22-23). In a sense, just as covenant righteousness had a horizontal and vertical dimension, so does faith. It’s important to remember that Paul is not totally rejecting the law, only the law of works. Law of faith, in contrast, actually establishes the law. The law is still a measurement of righteousness, but that measure can only be attained through faith. This point deserves to be wrapped up in Dunn’s own words:

In short, faith in God (in and through Christ) was for Paul as much the basis for and means to right living as it was for and to being “righteoused” (justified). This creaturely trust in and reliance on God could be expressed as “the law of faith” in that it is only living out this trust which produces the quality of living before God and for others which the law was originally intended to promote. To require more than that trust, to insist on a particular outworking of that faith, would repeat the old failure with regard to the law, to transpose the law of faith into the law of works. It is the naked faith of Abraham which both receives the promise and sustains the daily outworking of self-disinterested love.

The Law of the Spirit. One of Paul’s most far-reaching ethical statements is the call to walk by the Spirit. The metaphor of life as a daily “walk” is Jewish, not Greek in origin. We remember that the Old Testament already had a moral concern with truly fulfilling the law (i.e. circumcising the heart). For Paul, the gift of the Spirit is the means by which we can truly fulfill the purpose of the law (Romans 2:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6). Law fulfilled by the Spirit sets us free from the law of sin and death. The Spirit enables us to perceive on-the-go what God’s will is. The Spirit enables obedience.

The Law of Christ. It’s easy to question whether Jesus’ ethical teaching influenced Paul’s. Paul’s ethics seem to stem more from a response to Jesus’ death and resurrection than from his ethical teaching. That being said, there are a few well-documented similarities between Paul and Jesus’ ethics:

1. Bless those who persecute you (Romans 12:14; Luke 6:27-28; Matthew 5:44).
2. Nothing from outside defiles a person (Romans 14:14; Mark 7:15).
3. Faith moves mountains (1 Corinthians 13:2; Matthew 17:20).
4. The day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4; Matthew 24:43).
5. Live at peace (1 Thessalonians 5:13; Mark 9:50).

You might think Paul would have bolstered his authority by directly quoting Jesus. In reality, the force of an allusion comes when it doesn’t have to be explained.

Paul only used the phrase “law of Christ” in two places (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). He is not referring to Torah. Paul’s understanding of the law of Christ is twofold:

1. Jesus’ teaching on the two great commandments (love God, love your neighbour).
2. Jesus own example of living that command.

This means that Paul didn’t think the law should be abandoned—it should be fulfilled through love of God and neighbour. Indeed, this is the summary of the whole law. When we understand this, apparent contradictions (i.e. Galatians 5:3 v. Galatians 5:14) in Paul’s treatment of the law become clear.

The eschatological tension is alive and well in Paul’s paraenesis. This tension becomes evident in the pull between liberty and love. On a spectrum between license and legalism, we find Christian freedom. This freedom is always conditioned by love for neighbour which operates in community. Christian freedom is always threatened by gospel-plus ideology (legalism) and the desire to cut away all good and praiseworthy tradition (license).

We must stress that Paul did not invent a new morality. He relied on traditional Jewish wisdom teaching as well as Greek thought. His virtue and vice lists share a common morality, albeit with distinct emphases. For example, Paul left happiness off his virtue lists, when it was highly prized in his world. Finally, the lists of household rules (e.g. Colossians 3:18-4:1) are standard in Paul’s day.

In the end, Paul’s ethics can be understood as the balance between internal motivation (the leading of the Spirit) and external norms (traditional wisdom). Without internal motivation, the Christian life degenerates into legalism. Without external norms, the Christian life degenerates into guru-led antinomianism.

. . .

Okay, so the nitty-gritty is in next chapter. Dunn provided an excellent theological grounding for Paul’s ethics here. I have to question whether Dunn didn’t give Paul too much credit for being influenced by Jesus’ ethical teaching. You can only read, “popular scholarship believes x, but when you look closer at it, it’s really y,” so many times before a little cynicism encroaches.

< § 22: The Lord’s Supper

§ 24: Ethics in practice >

I’m almost 37 years old. I probably started taking communion around age 13. My tradition celebrates the Eucharist monthly. That means, allowing for the odd skipped first Sunday of the month, I’ve participated in communion about 250 times. And I have to say (not just because I’m a minister) that each time is still meaningful.

I just finished reading Victor Shepherd’s Interpreting Martin Luther which included a solid chapter on the Eucharist. Now that’ I’m primed with ancient Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Zwinglian views, it’s time to hear what (Dunn says) Paul had to say about the matter.

. . .

Chapter 7: The Church

§ 22: The Lord’s Supper

Since Paul referred to the church as Christ’s body, it’s no surprise that the Lord’s Supper is important for Paul. However, since the topic was not a matter of dispute, it’s only treated in one letter over two chapters (1 Corinthians 10-11). This leads us to wonder how central the practice really was. We must be careful in studying Paul’s view of the Lord’s Supper to recognize that most of our data comes from one occasional letter.

It’s traditional (as with baptism), to look to contemporary Greek mystery religions to provide an origin for the Lord’s Supper. There are striking similarities:

• Conquest of death
• Feasting and drinking
• Healing
• Death and rebirth

However, those similarities are common to every religion. Closer evaluation yields no deep parallels. Dunn stresses this point quite pithily: “analogy is not genealogy” (604). The radical aspects of Paul’s Lord’s Supper theology—sharing the table of demons (1 Corinthians 10:18, 21), and sickness and death following unworthy participation (1 Corinthians 11:30) must be explained elsewhere.

Scripture has two different Lord’s Supper liturgies:

1. Mark 14:22-24 / Matthew 26:26-28
2. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 / Luke 22:19-20

Mark and Matthew are almost identical, as are Paul and Luke. They differ from each other due to liturgical shaping. The Pauline/Lukan inclusion of “do this in remembrance of me” and “this cup is the new covenant” likely reflect the original tradition more closely since Paul elsewhere has little use for the “new covenant” tradition. The question now is: can the theology of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (bread and wine unite us as we share in one body) be found in the early Lord’s Supper tradition, or is it a Pauline development?

Sociological studies have tried to shed more light on the situation in Corinth. The Corinthian church was a socially stratified community where those without enough food were being left out of the meal. We can see three elements of Paul’s writing that makes this clear:

1. He notes the schisms among them (1 Corinthians 11:18).
2. He writes of factions among them (1 Corinthians 11:19).
3. He notes that the Corinthians didn’t tell him about the situation—he found out elsewhere (1 Corinthians 11:18).

Paul’s words about those who are sick and dying because of unworthy participation probably evoke the idea of sacred holiness. The Ananias and Sapphira effect (Acts 5:1-16) may be alluded to here.

In 1 Corinthians 10:3-4, Paul makes the point that Israel in the desert drank the same “spiritual” food and drink yet some of them were struck down. Here Paul is likely challenging the mistaken belief that participating in the Lord’s Supper is a source of salvation.

The most important element of Paul’s theology of the Lord’s Supper is his understanding of the church as the body of Christ. Nowhere else in Pauline literature do we see such concentrated unity words (sharing, partners, partake of). His logic is this: the one bread when shared makes us one body. This is why he was so stern with the Corinthians: when they came together in division, they were not even partaking in a real Lord’s Supper, the chief mark being unity. While 1 Corinthians 11 speaks of coming together for the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 12-14 speak of coming together for worship. Both are marked by unity in the body of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul described Christ as the rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness.  The Lord’s Supper feeds and sustains believers (together) in the eschatological tension. The much-debated phrase, “This is my body” is exegetically ambiguous. It can’t be forced to mean what various theologians have tried over the centuries. The words, “do this in remembrance” have also been debated. Surely it must mean more than mere reflecting. The Lord’s Supper is a communal re-presentation of Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice.

. . .

Well, I shouldn’t be surprised that Dunn didn’t weigh in on transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or any of the other views. The text simply can’t bear the weight of theology foisted upon it through two millennia. While there was nothing particularly surprising in this chapter, it has reminded me that the main point of Paul’s writing about the Lord’s Supper is unity. It’s easy to emphasize remembrance over the unity that frames the passage.

< § 21: Ministry and authority

§ 23: Motivating principles >

Now we come to that area of theology that is so abused in the modern church: authority! (Can I hear a, “touch not God’s anointed”?) In all seriousness, I’ve never spent any significant time thinking about issues of apostolic authority. This should be interesting.

. . .

Chapter 7: The Church

§ 21: Ministry and authority

Having just described the body of Christ as a charismatic community, we now need to relate charismatic freedom to more formal church structure. For most of church history the early churches were understood as essentially democratic organizations which supported the functions of apostles, prophets, and teachers—but not the offices. This view was challenged at the beginning of the 20th century by Harnack who saw a tension in the early church between Spirit and office. Käsemann tried to transcend this tension by viewing Spirit and office in dialectical relationship. While this seems like a very Protestant discussion, Küng post Vatican II understood the charismatic structure of the church as fundamental. The Pentecostal and charismatic movements of the 20th century also stress Spirit over office. Sociological studies of the Corinthian church have re-raised this question. It provides us with an opportunity to examine how Paul’s theology worked in real life.

We will start with the category of apostolic authority, specifically, Paul’s own. Upon careful examination of this theme in Galatians, Corinthians, and Philemon, we can see five elements of his apostolic authority:

1. The gospel is primary. Apostles only exercise authority under the authority of the gospel. Paul was able to challenge Peter in scathing terms when he felt that Peter’s authority challenged the truth of the gospel.
2. Authority does not equal authoritarianism. We see in Corinthians Paul’s desire to use his authority to encourage greater responsibility within the congregation. Paul spoke of the commands of the Lord and distinguished them from his own commands. This style of authority is plain in Philemon where Paul allowed Philemon to save face and do the Christian thing with Onesimus.
3. Paul accommodated his apostolic authority to the situation at hand. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is the clearest passage on this. We see this with respect to the offering he wanted to take to Jerusalem. He claimed it was his right as the Corinthian’s apostle to make financial claims, but he chose to allow gospel freedom to reign instead.
4. Apostolic authority is not universal. Paul was careful not to claim apostolic authority over churches founded by other apostles. He would not build on another apostle’s foundation (Romans 15:20).
5. The final mark of apostolic authority is suffering. Apostles are not marked by their power or rhetorical eloquence, but a weakness demonstrated in sharing the sufferings of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).

There were other ministries besides the apostolic. Most frequently mentioned were prophets and teachers. It is safe to assume that there were a group of recognized prophets in Paul’s churches. Their authority came from Spirit-inspiration (not their “office”). It was important that they prophecy only in proportion to their faith (Romans 12:6) and understand that their words would be evaluated by the others (1 Corinthians 14:29). While some people were recognized as regular prophesiers, anyone could prophecy. Teachers are an essential compliment to prophets. They were responsible to pass on the traditions of the church, scripture, and Jesus. The absence of Paul’s writing to other church leaders is surprising, especially in a church with problems like the Corinthian congregation. You would expect Paul to upbraid the leaders for the chaos in the congregation. Instead, he wrote a letter to the whole church. Regular leadership roles like elder and deacon are not addressed substantially until the Pastorals. It is still worth questioning today whether the leadership roles evident in the Pastorals are sufficient to allow the freedom of charismatic authority.

One modern question on the issue of ministry and authority is the role of women. Two things are clear in Paul’s churches. First, women participated and led in many areas: deacon, prophesiers, apostles, etc. Indeed, in Romans 16, four women and no men were listed as “hard working” in the church. The second is the uneasiness Paul had with some aspects of women’s ministry. The major passages about this are 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:33b-36, and the later 1 Timothy 2:12-14. The obvious question raised by these verses is, “How can a woman be silent in church and still pray and prophecy?” Both are attested in Paul. Perhaps this reflects a tension in Paul’s own theology. In the end, while Galatians 3:28 may seem like a sweeping statement, it’s more qualified in Paul’s practice. Social realities do play a role when theology is made practical.

The whole congregation had a role in ministry. Every person was responsible for common life and worship. Indeed, Paul addressed all but one of his letters (Philippians) to the congregation as a whole. The whole community is taught by God and participates in the same Spirit. Any super-spiritual elitism was to be quashed (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). It was the role of the whole church to recognize and encourage manifest charismatic authority. This was the important role of “Amen” which has now become little more than a formal aspect of liturgy (or, I would add, throw-away enthusiastic punctuation).

The whole congregation was also called to “test the Spirits”. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, Paul developed three tests to discern whether a prophecy or teaching was from God:

1. The test of the gospel. If the words lined up with the gospel, they were good. If not, they were to be discarded. The formula of “Jesus is Lord” is a way of describing this test.
2. The test of love. Any charism not motivated by love was worthless.
3. The test of community benefit. This is mentioned seven times in 1 Corinthians 14! The diverse charisms are only meaningful if they contribute to the health of the community.

Paul’s theology of ministry and authority was practical, formed and informed by social realities and hostile environments. There is no uncrossable divide between the Spirit-led Charismatic leadership of Paul’s earlier letters and the growing institutionalization evident in the Pastorals. We must always look to Paul’s Charismatic ideals in any understanding of church leadership today.

. . .

This chapter was immensely helpful. Speaking from a church tradition that wrestles with issues of role v. office, seeing Paul’s understanding of prophets and teachers all drawn into one place is important. It’s also helpful to see how mutually interactive prophecy was. Those who prophecy were not an elite class, but people who brought their inspiration forward for the evaluation and benefit of the congregation.

The whole dialectic between charismatic and official church leadership was also fascinating. I wonder which side of the divide most Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada churches dwell on?

< § 20: The body of Christ

§ 22: The Lord’s Supper >

We now turn the corner from the question of Israel to Paul’s broader understanding of the church. Funny coincidence: I just finished reading the papers from the 2010 Wheaton Theology Conference on the works of N. T. Wright. In a tantalizing foretaste of his big book on Paul, Wright questions why so many Pauline theologians leave ecclesiology to a chapter at the end of the book. It looks like Wright is starting his Paul book with Philemon!

. . .

Chapter 7: The Church

§ 20: The body of Christ

It’s easy to assume that Paul contrasts the particularism of Israel’s relationship with God in Romans 9-11 with the universalism of broader Christianity in Romans 12 and following. That’s a twofold misreading of the text. First, God’s call of Israel was a universal call which was to be extended as a light to the Gentiles. Second, Judaism didn’t corner the market on restrictive entrance requirements: Christianity required converts to believe in Christ and to be baptized in his name. § 20 will proceed by examining four main categories of church imagery in Pauline theology.

Category One: The Church of God. Paul frequently addressed his letters to the church (ekklēsia) of ___. It’s best to find Paul’s understanding of ekklēsia in Jewish rather than Greek background. The LXX used ekklēsia about 100 times in the phrases “assembly of YHWH” and “assembly of Israel”. When Paul spoke of the ekklēsia of God in reference to both Jew and Gentile believers, he understood the church of Jesus to stand in continuity with the Old Testament’s assembly of YHWH/Israel. This undercuts the false idea that Paul used ekklēsia as an antithesis to synagoge. Paul’s understanding of church is rooted in a specific location. While he did, in later letters, move towards a more universal notion of Church (Colossians 1:18, 24), he regularly spoke of the church in a specific location. This location was often a house church of no more than 40 people. Above all, the Church of God is, by its very nature, an assembly of people. Wherever people gather in Christ, there is ekklēsia.

Category Two: The Community Without Cult. After three chapters spent considering the role of Israel (Romans 9-11), Romans 12:1 is a dramatic passage. Paul deliberately rewrote the boundary-markers which the Jewish people used to form their identity. He used the technical language of the cult (sacrifice, worship) to describe day-to-day Christian existence. In one mere sentence, Paul took the holy centre of Israel’s existence and extended it to all life. This rewriting of the significance of Temple and sacrifice is found elsewhere in Paul’s theology. Paul argued that believers are now the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Believers have unhindered access to grace (Romans 5:2), words that evoke the idea of access to grace via the Temple cult. Paul commonized the language of priesthood (Romans 15:16). He also challenged the categories of clean and unclean (Romans 14:14, 20). Dunn sums it up perfectly:

Paul evidently saw the new Christian assemblies as an extension of the assembly of Yahweh, but now without any of the cultic features so characteristic of Israel’s temple cult, and without any category of priest as a function different in kind from the priestly ministry of all who served the gospel. (547)

Category Three: The Body of Christ. Paul’s most frequently used image for the people of God is that of a body. Many backgrounds for Paul’s use of this metaphor have been proposed, but only two are worth considering. Paul’s sacramental imagery in 1 Corinthians 10-11 connects Christ’s broken body with the church as his body. More important is the way this metaphor has been used in contemporary political philosophy. The body politic was only effective when each of its diverse members was recognized. The body of Christ is similar, though united by Christ—not geographic location or ethnicity.

Category Four: The Charismatic Community. It’s important to recognize that every time Paul spoke of the church as Christ’s body he also spoke about the charisma of the Spirit. The charisma are gifts of the spirit which function in the body of Christ in various ways for the common good. Eight things can be said about the Spirit’s charisma:

1. They come in different types: of both speech and action.
2. They include mundane tasks such as organizational roles.
3. They are mutually independent. For example, tongues requires interpretation and prophecy requires discernment.
4. They are neither fixed nor well defined. This suggests that Paul could recognize a variety of other things as the charisma of the Spirit.
5. They all demonstrate the character of an event: function, act of service, activity, manifestation.
6. They embody a divine charis (grace). All charisma are rooted in Christ’s ultimate charisma of the cross.
7. Every body is an active member—the charisma are spread out.
8. Baptism into the Spirit is related to the charisma of the Spirit.

The church of God, the body of Christ, the charismatic community actually grows out of it’s shared experience of the Spirit. The church is no mere human creation!

This vision of the church may sound idealistic. Remember that Paul expounded this view in the face of division amongst his congregations. Then, as the church moved through time, charisma became qualified and subjugated to proper church order. The ideal remains: the body of Christ is a radical unity in diversity which celebrates and experiences the charisma of the Spirit.

. . .

Once again I finish a section of Dunn’s work not only intellectually challenged but inspired. Us evangelicals, especially in the Western world, are known for having a very weak ecclesiology. Our understanding of church seems to get subjugated to individualism and our “personal relationship” with Jesus. I’ll be preaching some of this material very soon!

< § 19: Israel

§ 21: Ministry and authority >

Ah, the moment I’ve been waiting for. The question I’ve never been able to understand: now that the Gentile mission has flourished, what about the Jewish people? This question is exacerbated by the prophetic fervor that has gripped my tradition ever since Israel became a political player on the world scene. I’m excited to how Dunn synthesizes Paul’s view of his own people.

. . .

Chapter 6: The Process of Salvation

§ 19: Israel

It seems odd to read the beautiful climax of Romans 8, only to be thrust into the lengthy anguish-ridden argument of 9-11. A closer look at Romans reveals that this is not just an add-on to his theology, but a necessary question to answer. Back in Romans 3:1, Paul asked a question that he could not answer until this point in his argument: What advantage is there in being a Jew if God’s righteousness is extended to everyone? Let’s pause to look at God’s righteousness and faithfulness here. If God’s work with Israel is through, then his commitment to Israel (his faithfulness / righteousness) has failed! Secondly, if God’s righteousness to Israel has failed, who is to say he will keep faith with the Gentiles?

We can begin to unravel these problems by examining Paul’s point in Romans 9:6: Not all from Israel are Israel. There’s a subtlety here that’s easily missed. Earlier in Romans, Paul spoke of the Jew. Here he continues to use that term, but adds the additional term, Israel. They are not strictly synonymous.

1. Jew: A description of Paul’s people according to their relationship to land.
2. Israel: A description of Paul’s people according to their relationship with God.

Dunn states this clarification perfectly:

It is not possible to include “Greeks” within “Jews”; that is simply a confusion of identifiers. But it might be possible to include “Gentiles” within “Israel.” (506)

Indeed, a church which does not understand its identity as part of Israel has forsaken its claim to the Jewish scriptures. Once again, the eschatological tension rears its head. Just as, on an individual level, Paul could speak of the divided “I” in chapter 7, he can speak, on a corporate level, of the divided “Israel” here.

It’s easy, upon reading Romans 9:6, to jump to the conclusion that Paul is setting the Jews over against the Christians. Another alternative is that Paul is setting historic Israel over against remnant-Israel. Both opinions cut short the intricacy of Paul’s theological argument. For Paul, historic Israel is not defined by physical descent (Ishmael was not chosen), but by God’s call. His call is not made on the basis of works since Jacob was chosen over Esau from the womb. This opens the door to a doctrine of election which entails double predestination. Paul walks (uncomfortably for us) down that road (Romans 9:18), but doesn’t push too far. Despite God’s ability to do with his created vessels as he wills, the strongest note of his will is ultimately mercy. Indeed, Paul calls the elect “vessels of mercy” (Romans 9:24). These vessels, defined only by God’s call, include a remnant of historic Israel as well as chosen Gentiles. Israel itself is living in the eschatological tension between what it was and what it will be.

Paul continued by explaining what true Israel means for historic Israel. He used Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:12-14 to make his case. It’s important to keep the already explored perspective of Paul’s view of the law. We must not read Romans 9:30-10:4 in a way that places law and faith on completely opposite poles. It was the law as Israel’s guardian angel that has come to an end. Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 is keeping in line with other Jewish expositors. Baruch refers to the law as divine Wisdom. Philo refers to it as the good. Paul understands the law in terms of faith. In the end, the historic division between Jew and Gentile amounts to nothing (Romans 10:12). Historic Israel is left caught between the times.

Paul begins Romans 11:1 with a revisited question and a strong answer: Has God rejected his people? No! In fact, the very question evokes themes prevalent in the Jewish Bible. The continuity of the people God foreknew remains unbroken. In a way, the oscillation between apostasy and belief is such a feature of Jewish life, this current time is not a surprise. In the mystery of divine election, God has chosen, at this time, to harden the majority of Israel. This hardening even has some positive features:

1. It’s not permanent.
2. It allows the Gentiles to enter God’s salvation.
3. The Gentiles will provoke Israel to jealousy so they will return.

Paul uses the classic Israelite metaphor of an olive tree to wrap up his thoughts. Because of disobedience, God has broken off some of the branches of Israel to graft in believing Gentiles. It’s still one and the same tree.

Paul brought his argument to climax in Romans 11:25-26. In place of the former trilogy of Israel, the elect, and the rest (Romans 11:7), you have Israel-partially-hardened, the full number of the Gentiles, and all Israel. In the end, the Israel ripped apart by the eschatological tension will be healed. Israel, including Gentiles called by God and grafted into the olive tree, will be saved.

It’s worth noting that Paul returned to his Jew/Gentile discussion in Romans 15:7-13. There we see four features of his theology:

1. Paul moved from the weak/strong discourse to the Jew/Gentile discussion on the theme of “welcoming”.
2. The continuity of Israel is emphasized.
3. The integration of other nations with Israel is emphasized.
4. The radical inclusiveness of Paul’s vision is emphasized.

This section of Romans is personal and passionate, since Paul—apostle to the Gentiles—is talking about his own people, the Jews. It’s a sad commentary on Christianity through the ages that Paul’s redefinition of Israel has been ignored. That we speak in terms of Jews and Christians is proof of this. The modern church would be wise to revisit and deeply understand Paul’s vision of what it means to be part of the people of God.

. . .

This section on Israel is essentially a theological commentary on Romans 9-11 (with an addendum of Romans 15:7-13). Very few other works in Paul’s corpus are mentioned. Dunn essentially applies the already/not yet tension he developed in the last chapter to the state of Israel. Israel is living, divided in the tension. Still, there is ultimate hope for her salvation.

< § 18: The eschatological tension

§ 20: The body of Christ >

This week we turn the corner from five sections on “The Beginning of Salvation” to two sections on “The Process of Salvation”. While I’m most excited to read the next section on Israel, the process begins here, with “The eschatological tension.” Already / Not Yet, here I come …

. . .

Chapter 6: The Process of Salvation

§ 18: The eschatological tension

We can see in an early letter (Galatians 3:3) and a later letter (Philippians 1:6) that Paul conceived of salvation as both an aorist event and a continuous process. While these two elements of salvation cannot be held strictly apart, there are some aspects of the process which require a closer look. In order to take that closer look, we need to understand Paul’s eschatological schema. In Hebrew thought, time had a beginning and an end (it was not a continuous cycle). Often times the end was associated with Messianic intervention. The early Christians saw Jesus, the Messiah, as the end of start of the age-to-come—but the old age still held on. This set up a tension. Between the time of Jesus’ first and second comings, believers live in an overlap of two ages. Paul’s perspective “was eschatological not because of what he still hoped would happen, but because of what he believed had already happened” (465, emphasis his).

This eschatological tension is best described by the words, “already” and “not yet”. The work of salvation has already happened but is not yet complete. We can see this already / not yet tension in many of Paul’s metaphors of salvation: redemption, freedom, inheritance, marriage betrothal, justification by faith, participation in Christ, metamorphosis, gift of the Spirit, adoption, installment, firstfruits, and baptism. Particularly in Romans, you can see how Paul oscillates between rejoicing in the already and anticipating the not yet.

Speaking of Romans, the already / not yet dialectic makes sense of Paul’s divided “I” speech in Romans 7:7-25. It has been the majority opinion of scholars (but not Augustine, Luther, or Calvin) that Paul’s struggle here relates to his pre-Christian life. There are a couple of problems with this:

1. Paul takes too much space to look backwards to his pre-Christian life at this point in his exposition.
2. It sounds and feels like the modern anguish of being saved but still tempted.
3. It is confusing to hear Romans 7:25b after the supposed solution of Romans 7:24-25a.
4. The present tense of 7:25b means it is an ongoing state.

It is better, then, to view the divided “I” passage of Romans as Paul’s expression of the already / not yet tension. To view it as Paul’s past life would unrealistically suggest that post-salvation sin is impossible.

As we move from Romans 7 to chapter 8, we see Paul’s “trump card” (478). Believers are caught between life according to the flesh and life according to the Spirit. The Spirit is the key force in the process of salvation. The Spirit is referred to as the “first installment” and “firstfruits” of what is to come. While it is easy to read a passage like Romans 8:2-9 in isolation, assuming flesh-men and spirit-men are two separate groups of people, it makes more sense to view the believer as both in the eschatological tension. The fullness of Spirit-life will happen at the resurrection of the body. To sum up, Romans 7 and 8 have to be read together as alternate ends of the already / not yet tension. The believer is struggling on both sides.

One final shocking feature of Paul’s eschatological tension: the process of salvation is an experience of both life and death. In the same way that we are raised with Christ, we also (in the perfect tense) are knit together with the likeness of his death (Romans 6:5). In the famous “thorn in the flesh” passage (2 Corinthians 12:-10), Paul argued that God’s grace is found not in supernatural experiences, but in suffering. In a very real sense, the believer’s suffering is a participation in the suffering of Christ. This is why Paul could rejoice in suffering (Colossians 1:24). When believers suffer, they are filling up what is lacking in Jesus’ suffering. Until all suffering is through, the final outworking of Jesus’ passion is incomplete. This theme comes to focus in Philippians 3:10-11 where Paul speaks of knowing Jesus in the fellowship of his sufferings after speaking of the power of his resurrection. Both life and death are necessary elements of the process of salvation.

The process must come to an end. Justification, participation in Christ, the gift of the Spirit, baptism, and all the other metaphors must find their final fulfillment. This end-point of salvation is described by Paul in three main elements:

1. The Resurrection of the Body: This is his description of the end which draws most of the process themes together.
2. The Final Judgment: Although Paul inherited this belief from his Jewish background, it is no less important for Christians. Those who have a foundation of Christ but live according to the flesh will have that burned away and be saved by the skin of their teeth (1 Corinthians 3:10-15).
3. Inheriting the Kingdom: This element is more often used in the negative—some will not inherit the kingdom. Those who will inherit already have the down-payment of the Spirit.

There are seven areas where the already / not yet tension can inform Christian life today:

1. The Spirit is the definition of a Christ, and is given at the beginning of new life.
2. Spiritual maturity is not found in ecstatic experiences, but in faithfulness to the Spirit.
3. The believer lives in an overlap of two ages and is not fully free from the old age.
4. The eschatological tension allows us to understand suffering in the context of Christ’s suffering.
5. The eschatological tension informs our ethics: daily choices must be made.
6. Apostasy remains a possibility for believer living in the overlap of two ages.
7. In the end, all the negativity of the old age is left in the wake of a growing confident trust.

When all clarification and qualification have been run through, the gospel once again can be reduced to its basic components—the love of God, and love for God.

. . .

What a brilliant chapter! Have you ever read something that impacted your worldview so much you could almost feel the foundation of your mind grinding into place? That’s the sort of power a deep understanding of already / not yet entailed for me. Of all the chapters in this volume so far, this is the one I’ll return to the most—especially for its theology of suffering.

I do have to mention one qualm, though. Dunn used the first point in his conclusion (The Spirit is the beginning of new life) to take pot-shots at “second blessing” types. He suggests that they believe the Spirit only arrives at a subsequent baptism event. Here Dunn has fallen to the old straw-man problem. I don’t know of anyone in pentecostal or charismatic circles who would suggest that salvation begins without the Spirit! That said, it’s a very minor point at the end of stunning chapter.

< § 17: Baptism

§ 19: Israel >