TedM

A few points need to be clarified here:

1. Paul says Jesus came at a point in time in Galations--he was Abraham’s offspring, and he came after both Abraham and the Law:

Gal 3:16-19 [quote]16and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;
17and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise,
18for if by law [be] the inheritance, [it is] no more by promise, but to Abraham through promise did God grant [it].
19Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made


Notice that Paul is saying Christ, the seed to which he had made promises of blessings through Him, came after Abraham and after the Law. That’s not my speculation or my 20th century mindset speaking. That’s literally what Paul says in Galations 3.

2. Jesus’ arrival happened after the Law and before Paul. Jesus’ coming, his arrival, his redemptive act, didn’t happen when Paul’s gospel was revealed to him. We know this because Paul speaks of believers of Jesus and the church that preceded him. He speaks in Gal 1:13 of persecuting them before the revelation of his gospel. He quotes the creed in 1 Cor 15 , which refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection but nothing of salvation. And, he says in Gal 1:23 that the faith the Judea churches heard that Paul was preaching the same faith they had had before Paul.

No matter how much you want to portray it differently, I don’t see any way you can do so given Paul’s own writings on the subject.

3. Jesus’ arrival was significant. It enabled redemption. It created Christians prior to Paul. It was necessary for Paul’s gospel to exist.


Given the 3 above points, your conclusion doesn’t make much sense:
There IS room for Jesus, and he had to have come between the promise and Paul’s gospel.


4. Paul’s gospel therefore was not about the arrival of Jesus. It was about the meaning of that arrival. And it was new. Gal 1:11 “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not a man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” His gospel was salvation through faith to all mankind, including the Gentiles.


So, why would Paul stress in his writings his gospel as revelation of the promise, without saying a lot about when and where Jesus came? Because Jesus' sayings and doings, the when and where wasn't critical to Paul's gospel! He stressed the salvation part because that was what he felt called to do and that is what marked him as unique against all the other folks who were going around preaching a different Jesus, saying various other things about his death and resurrection. Paul's was a new, unique revelation that had to do with the salvation of all mankind! And, it was in opposition to some Jewish Christians that preceded him. Just because Paul stresses the arrival of his gospel as the fulfillment of the promise (eternal life) it doesn’t mean the arrival of Jesus prior to Paul, and the redemptive act of Jesus prior to Paul were not significant to Paul. They were integral to his gospel, yet his focus is on what made his gospel unique.


I agree that in Titus 2:3 the time of manifestation Paul is referring to was the time he preached his gospel. However, to require that Paul must be referring to the same time when he says God sent his Son when the time had fully come argues against the literal reading of the passage, and it argues against everything Paul has told us about the timing of Jesus’ arrival in other passages, and it argues against the idea that God sent his Son prior to Paul ever being converted and prior to Paul‘s revelation of the mystery of salvation..

Re: sending in verse 4 and 6
You equate “God sent his Son” to the “revelation of Christ to Paul”? Come on. Taking out the part that is questionable we have “4and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son 5that those under law he may redeem,” God. Sent. His Son. Not his Son’s spirit. Not to Paul in revelation. Rather, in order for God to redeem through the redemptive act of Jesus. After the Law and prior to Paul’s revelation and prior to Paul’s gospel.

Christ’s acts were revealed to others prior to Paul. The revelation to Paul, was the meaning of the acts, pertaining to salvation. There is no evidence that long ages separated the redemptive act of Christ from Paul’s revelation.

Even if that is correct, it isn’t relevant to the interpretation. Paul calls Jesus the Savior many times elsewhere.

You want to conclude upfront that the “time” in verse 4 corresponds with the revelation of Paul’s gospel, and couldn’t correspond with the earlier arrival of Jesus on earth. If Jesus HAD only just arrived and then died a few years prior to the revelation to Paul, then the whole process in comparison with promises made ages ago would have seemed to have all happened much at the same time and could reasonably be seens as being occurring as part of fulfillment of prophecy in the fullness of time.


I don’t know Rick’s work. My review of his few references to the mystery and what his gospel is convinced me that it’s all about the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is obvious that belief in his death and resurrection preceded Paul. Yet, where does Paul indicate that the mystery of Jesus' life, death and resurrection were "revealed" to those before him, since clearly others knew prior to Paul? Nowhere. If the mystery were in Christ's acts, where does he ever say that the mystery actually preceded his own gospel? Nowhere. The mystery was not Jesus' arrival. It was the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection, revealed to Paul.

I suppose that may be correct. It doesn’t really matter though once you remove that requirement that the time of God sending his Son to redeem was at the time Paul’s gospel was revealed to him. Since he sent his Son prior to Paul that time requirement is unnecessary and impossible.


[quote]“God promised eternal life long ages ago.” Does this sound as though it is restricted to the idea of Gentile salvation? [quote]

No. I think it is for all mankind. Paul stressed the Gentiles because that's who he primarily preached to, and that part was pretty new.

Maybe Pauline theologins weren't too fond of interpolations of his work, which seems to have been regarded early on as scripture. However, it’s found in small measure in the gospels. Go to all nations. The world through him might be saved. Etc..

Ted

EarlDoherty

In fact, that is just about when the crucifixion IS identified as taking place in some passages. Look at 2 Timothy 1:9-10, which is actually a passage which illustrates perfectly what I have said in the OP about Galatians. Here is the way the NEB translates it:

9 It is he [God] who brought us salvation … not from any merit of ours but of his own purpose and his own grace, which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity [pro chronōn aiōniōn, lit., before times eternal], 10 but has now at length been brought fully into view by the appearance of our Savior Jesus Christ. [Literally, “has been manifested (using the ‘revelation’ verb phaneroō) by the appearing (using the noun epiphaneia, which can mean “the visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known” [Bauer]) of our Savior…] For he has broken the power of [abrogated] death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. [And verse 11 makes clear that this is the gospel preached by Paul.]

Since the usual definition of epiphaneia does not involve incarnation, but only a one-occasion appearance, in this case of a god, we can take the thought as ‘God’s purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus from before times eternal, has now been manifested through the appearance/revelation of the Savior, in the gospel preached by Paul.’ Christ’s act is pro chronōn aiōniōn, but his “appearance” is now, through revelation by God to Paul. So we have a double ‘revelation’ sentence: ‘God’s purpose and grace have been revealed by the revelation of the Savior.’

Incidentally, I left out the completely gratuitious “on earth” which the NEB supplies after epiphaneia. It ain’t in the Greek. You have to keep your eye on these translators who do their work while wearing Gospel-colored glasses!

Now, is there something different here from the Galatians passage? In the latter, it is God who is doing the main effect (purchasing freedom for subjects of the Law). But here is it actually the Savior doing something? “For he has broken the power of death and brought life and immortality to light…” Does the “he” (katargēsantos, in the genitive) refer back to the immediately preceding Xristou Iēsou in the genitive? (That's generally the way standard translations present it.) Or does it go all the way back to the end of verse 8 (it’s all one big happy sentence, baby, all the way from 8 to 11 inclusive), with its theou in the genitive? Verse 9 is one long genitive clause modifying theou, with the first part of verse 10 an accusative clause modifying God's “purpose and grace” in verse 9, so ‘abrogating death’ could well be yet another plank in the structure going back to God, even though grammatically speaking it ambiguously modifies Jesus Christ as well.

But I prefer it as a reference to God. Why? Well first of all, it says that this abrogating of death and bringing immortality to light is “through the gospel” (Paul’s gospel, as verse 11 makes clear). Would Jesus be thought of as doing these things ‘through Paul’s gospel’? A strange concept, and pretty incompatible with what should have been the idea that he had done these things in his life, and specifically with his death and rising. Whereas we now have the support of Galatians 4:4 which has God doing the purchasing of freedom from the Law through Paul. The same thought would make sense here. God is doing the abrogating of death and bringing to light life and immortality, through the work of Paul, just as he purchased freedom for those subject to Law through the work of Paul in Gal. 4. Once again, Jesus remains in the background, doing his thing pro chronōn aiōniōn, and only getting revealed in the present time and having the effects of his mythical acts now applied.

Thus, I would say that this passage in 2 Timothy fits perfectly with my analysis of Galatians 4. Jesus is once again in the indeterminate background (though here he performs his acts before times eternal), waiting to have himself and the effects of those acts revealed and applied by God in the present through the preaching of Paul.

For a full discussion of what pro chronōn aiōniōn means, see The Jesus Puzzle, p.118-120. I do not make some kind of far out unique interpretation of it, since the scholars are not at all agreed on what it might mean and even lean toward analyses which fit into my own. The phrase is well suited to express the idea that Christ performed his redeeming acts in some timeless dimension, or before time was actually established, although we have to take into account that the ancients did not quite have our modern idea of time and "eternity." Considering that Jesus was pre-existent, Gerard's idea that God had foreknowledge and so formulated his plan and had Jesus do what was required essentially before history began, would certainly fit into the concept of that "before times eternal" phrase.

By the way, Don, you can now say that in my book, I actually have gotten something “wrong”, since I said there (p.118) that “The ‘he’ of (verse 10) refers to the Savior.” I now regard that as the wrong interpretation, and that it refers to God. Gotta change that. But, of course, that’s what the scientific method is all about: you change a theory in light of new evidence or argument. You do not treat the words on a page, or parchment, as true for all time, inerrant and unchangeable. When you suggested that I had blown it in previous statements in view of my new one, you regrettably reminded me of creationists who seize on past views by evolutionists that are now supplanted by more up to date ones in the light of new evidence, and think thereby to discredit evolution entirely. It doesn’t work that way.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Is this a trick question? Actually, it's not all that irrelevant, unless we regard the whole thing, kata sarka and kata pneuma, as an interpolation--which some have suggested. It also follows on verse 2's "the gospel of God as pre-announced in the prophets" so it would stand to reason that Paul would want to supply some brief examples of that prophesied Gospel. The question is, why pick "of the seed of David" and "became Son of God with power"? What was the relevance of those two items for Paul in the context of the opening of Romans? That's not easy to answer.

One possible answer is that it was a self-contained piece of liturgy which Paul, for whatever reason (maybe he was pressed for time), picked out of his mental library and dropped into place here, not too concerned about whether the actual items it included were all that relevant. If he wanted a kata sarka and kata pneuma, there wasn't too much to choose from in scripture to make a specific statement about what Christ was kata sarka. I suppose if he was on his own, he could have appealed to Zechariah 12:10's "piercing" to represent the crucifixion, or Psalm 22:16...anyway, you get the idea.

Whether it's a trick question or not, it's not easy to give a definitive answer. But I'll keep it in mind.

Earl Doherty

Clouseau

Despite the apparent meaning of Job, humans are not ephemeral- they are immortal, one way or another, and this was part of Paul's point, that adoption as sons gave men a glorious immortality rather than an inglorious one. There is neither a contrast as far as living under the law is concerned. Neither was Paul special in any way in these aspects- only as 'the greatest of sinners', and he made no mention of that one.

But, more importantly, how does Paul's state help the Son to redeem those under law? God sent the message of his Son to Paul in order to redeem the saints? It does not make much sense to me, and I don't think it would have made any more to Paul, whose message when he first spoke was that redemption had already been effected.

GakuseiDon

A bit uncharitable compared to what I actually wrote above, but true enough.

So, just to clarify your current view, do you think then that "born of a woman" in Paul's time was an expression "fitting the atmosphere of myth", while in the Second Century, it had become a "gratuitous and redundant" statement of earthliness?

EarlDoherty

While he never says that any specific belief about Jesus preceded himself, Paul implies it, of course, in the existence of the church that he persecuted before his conversion, and in his statement (1 Co 15:11) that "we all preach the same thing." But I thought it would be understood that when Paul speaks of his preaching of Christ, he is not specifically saying (nor does he ever) that he was the very first to receive the revelation about Jesus from God. He almost sounds as though he would like to think of it that way, but he knows and admits that others are preaching the Christ who didn't get their ideas from him, but through their own revelation from the spirit (2 Cor. 11:4). Of course, he thinks his own received revelation is superior, the proper one. But he speaks collectively of all apostles like himself (as in Romans 10). He means that as a group, as a present phenomenon, it is 'we' who have received the revelation of the "mystery". How much earlier than his own conversion this extended he doesn't say, and it is impossible to tell. As I've said before, maybe a decade or two?

As for the "mystery" preceding the apostolic movement? Of course this is said. In Romans 16:25-26, Paul (or pseudo-Paul) proclaims "his gospel about Jesus Christ, according to the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings at the command of God..." The mystery has lain hidden for long ages. Or, if you want to be technical about it, the subject matter of what Paul now refers to as a "mystery" has preceded him, indeed it has preceded a long amount of time, perhaps the whole of history. You are right, "the mystery is not Jesus' arrival." I never said it was. The mystery isn't the revelation itself by God. It is the content of that revelation. And you are also right, "the mystery was the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus," but it also included the very fact of that death and resurrection as well, which was not known by anyone until the present-time revelation by God to people like Paul.

I might deal with a few other points in your posting later, if I can find the time. As I said in connection with the Kata Sarka thread, we could go back and forth indefinitely (with me correcting your misunderstandings), but I don't have the time to do so.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

No, but then I'm talking about a later interpolator, as implied by Earl earlier:

"In fact, since orthodox interpretation of the passage assumes that the sending of verse 4 means the life of Christ and his saving act of death and crucifixion, Paul would have no earthly reason (pun intended) to say that he was “born of woman”, and thus the presence of the phrase provides a justification for suggesting interpolation."

What is your view on the matter? Does "born of woman" "fit the atmosphere of myth" in the First Century, which suggests it is original to Paul? Or did an interpolator use "born of woman" to insert a "gratuitous and redundant" statement of earthliness?

Can we at least rule out the following scenario: "Born of woman" was "fitting the atmosphere of myth", but Paul decided not to use it. By the time of the Second Century (or whenever), even though it had become a "gratuitous and redundant" statement, an interpolator nevertheless decided to insert the phrase into Paul to combat Marcionites.

Toto

My opinion has no particular expertise behind it, but it looks like an anti-Marcionite interpolation to me. And it would only be gratuitous and redundant if everyone knew that Jesus was a historical, real person. It was not redundant because that was still a contentious issue.

Although I have to credit Earl with trying to work with the prevailing academic consensus on the dating of the passage, and I suspect that there is a lot in Paul that is not quite what it seems to be on first reading.

TedM

I don't think he ever says that others, who obviously had some belief that Jesus had lived and died and was resurrected, had revealed the mystery of Christ, or that the "story" of the life, death and resurrection was the mystery. Yes, Paul says that "we all preach the same thing, but that is talking about the "story", not the bigger message of salvation for all.

As far as I see, Paul believed that it was HIS gospel, revealed directly to him from God, that was the mystery.


This could be interpreted as saying Christ was the mystery, or that it was his gospel about Jesus Christ, that is the salvation for all message that was the mystery. I of course favor the latter, which is the more literal reading.


Going by what Paul does say, and not assumptions about what he doesn't say, the bolded parts below are IMO not supported by his writings. Nowhere do I recall Paul saying that the mystery of the ages now revealed was the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The meaning of the death and resurrection was part of the mystery, but I think the fact of the life, death and resurrection is never stated to have been a mystery that was "revealed" through scripture or revelation. Does Paul ever say "Jesus Christ's life was manifested (made known) through the scriptures"? I don't think so.


Ephesians 3:4-6
ted

EarlDoherty

Now let me get this straight. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, comes to earth (born of Mary), conducts a ministry in which he teaches about Himself, who He is, why He is on earth; He undergoes a death and resurrection which are the salvific acts for all mankind. He goes off to Heaven, and almost immediately sends the Holy Spirit to inspire his Apostles, who go off to preach Him across the length and breadth of the eastern empire.

Several years later, Paul comes along. He imagines that he has uncovered a great “mystery” about this Jesus Christ. Something that has been “hidden for long ages” by God. God has now revealed this mystery to him, Paul, through scripture. He tramps off around the gentile world and preaches this, telling his audiences and converts that God has specially revealed this long-hidden mystery to him, that the gentiles are heirs to the promise, God having set aside his Chosen People because they didn’t respond properly. God also revealed to Paul that the Jewish Law was to be set aside, was no longer in force.

Put yourself in the crowd listening to this. Don’t a few little questions come to your mind?

1) Why did God wait to inform the world about this gospel of yours, Paul, that the gentiles are heirs to the promise? Why didn’t Jesus reveal that?

2) If God wanted someone to bring us gentiles onside, Paul, why did he leave that to you, and not have Jesus do it by preaching to gentiles himself?

3) If Jesus taught about his nature and role, Paul, why didn’t he teach about the significance of his death and resurrection? He told his disciples that he was destined to die and rise again after three days according to the scriptures, so why didn’t he explain all this stuff about baptism into his death and us being part of his body and all the things you got from scripture? Didn’t he read the same scriptures? Did you find out more about Jesus from God than Jesus knew?

4) Why don’t you ever tell us about what Jesus taught, Paul? If you don’t know, how can you be sure he didn’t teach this stuff himself?

5) A couple of Jesus’ disciples came through here last month, Paul. They didn’t say anything about the things you’re telling us. Why didn’t Jesus tell his own disciples about this “mystery” of yours? Did God keep it hidden from him, too? Did God’s Holy Spirit hide it from the disciples at Pentecost? If it's essential for salvation, isn't that kind of dirty pool?

6) Those disciples didn’t tell us anything about becoming free from the Law, Paul. If God revealed that to you, why didn’t Jesus reveal it to his disciples? Has God only decided to do that since Jesus returned to Heaven?

7) Why don’t you ever tell us about what Jesus did in his life, Paul? Do you think his life wasn’t important?

8) Didn’t Jesus say anything that would support what you’re telling us, Paul?

9) If God knew ahead of time that the Jews weren’t going to respond to Jesus, and even kill him, why did Jesus bother to preach to them? Why didn’t he go to us gentiles right off?

10) If you’re leaving the door open for Jews to come in and join us, Paul, do they get extra credits for having seen and heard Jesus in the flesh?

And on into the night….

I’m sure there are others who can think of some questions they’d like to ask Paul, too.

Earl Doherty