The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (117 page)

⁴²
D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 420—25. Some use a different scheme borrowed from Paul's own descriptions. Letter 1 is the “previous letter“; Letter 2 is 1 Corinthians; Letter 3 is the “sorrowful letter”; and Letter 4 is 2 Corinthians. See D. Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction
, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 437.

⁴³
See
1 Clement
, otherwise known as the “Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians.” The Greek text with an updated English translation and a helpful introduction is available in M. W. Holmes,
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations
, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 44-131.

⁴⁴
C. Machalet listed 11 different theories of identification of Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians that scholars affirmed in various works between 1908 and 1940 (“Paulus und seine Gegner. Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen,” in
Theokratia. Jahrbuch des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, II. Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 70. Geburtstag
, ed.
W.
Dietrich et al. [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973], 183-203).

⁴⁵
See the summary of various theories regarding the identification of Paul's opponents in S. J. Hafemann, “Corinthians, Letters to the,”
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
, 164—79, esp. 177—78.

⁴⁶
Furnish,
II Corinthians
, 52—53.

⁴⁷
Belleville,
2 Corinthians
, 274.

⁴⁸
Hafemann, “Corinthians,” 178. Compare S. J. Hafemann,
Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul's Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). A cautious and helpful summary description of the opponents appears in Furnish,
II Corinthians
, 48—54.

⁴⁹
See D. A. Carson, D. J. Moo, and L. Morris,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 271-72; T. D. Lea,
The New Testament: Its Background and Message
(Nashville: B&H, 1996), 426-27; Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction
, 456—57 (influenced by W. Ramsey); and Harris,
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
, 50—51. Bruce
(1 and 2 Corinthians
, 170) even suggested that chaps. 10—13 were a separate letter that was dispatched slightly later than chaps. 1—9. Alternatively, R. Gundry,
A Survey of the New Testament
, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 371, proposed that chaps. 1—9 are addressed to the repentant majority and chaps. 10—13 to a reactionary minority, but few have adopted his view.

⁵⁰
Belleville,
2 Corinthians
, 33.

⁵¹
Harris (
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
, 110), who also presented a brief summary of the analyses by B. Witherington, G. A. Kennedy, H. D. Betz, B. K. Peterson, and H. G. Sundermann (pp. 105—10).

⁵²
E.g., H. Segalla (“Struttura letteraria e unità della 2 Corinzi,”
Teologia
13 [1988]: 189—218) saw 2 Corinthians 8—9 as the center and climax of the letter.

⁵³
See Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 1:3.

⁵⁴
For a defense of the historicity of this passage, see K. R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3 b—6a, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,”
JETS
49 (2006): 225-34.

⁵⁵
Translations such as the NIV render 2 Cor 5:20 as follows: “We implore
you
on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.” But there is no equivalent for the word rendered “you” in the Greek original. Nor would it make sense for Paul to implore
the Corinthians
to be reconciled to God since, for all their failings, Paul addressed the Corinthians generally as believers (see 2 Cor 1:1). For this reason it is preferable to understand 2 Cor 5:20 as a description of Paul's message of reconciliation in his evangelistic preaching in general: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, ‘Be reconciled to God’“ (HCSB). See A. J. Kötenberger, “‘We Plead on Christ's Behalf:” Be Reconciled to God”’: Correcting the Common Mistranslation of 2 Corinthians 5:20, “
BT 48
(1997): 328—31, followed by J. Piper,
The Future of Justification: A Critique of N. T. Wright
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 178, n. 32.

⁵⁶
See especially the treatment of overrealized eschatology in Corinth in Fee,
First Epistle to the Corinthians.

⁵⁷
See below for the argument that Paul had earlier challenged the sacramental theology that led to the practice of proxy baptism for the dead. Due to this early challenge, Paul saw no need to critique the practice here.

⁵⁸
See also Garland,
1 Corinthians, 729.

⁵⁹
Although many translations punctuate the text so that the Corinthian motto ends after the word “foods,” thus making the threat of divine destruction part of Paul's response, the context strongly suggests that the Corinthian motto included the words “God will do away with both of them.” See A. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,”
NTS
24 (1978): 517; J. Murphy-O'Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor. 6:12—20,”
CBQ
40 (1978): 391—96; and Collins,
First Corinthians
, 239.

⁶⁰
So correctly the HCSB. See especially R. Omanson, “Acknowledging Paul's Quotation,”
TBT 43
(1992): 201—13. For an introduction to the major views, see A.C. Thiselton,
1 Corinthians
, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1985), 471—73.

⁶¹
For an incisive treatment of this passage against the backdrop of pagan views of sexuality, see P. Jones, “Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of First Corinthians 15:45, “
JETS
49 (2006): 713-37.

⁶²
Romans 9:4; 11:27; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6,14; Gal 3:15,17; 4:24; Eph 2:12.

⁶³
The new covenant definitely includes forgiveness of sins, as Matt 26:28; Jer 31:34; and Ezek 36:33 make clear.

⁶⁴
This interpretation conflicts with the one suggested by many English translations. For an extensive defense of the interpretation, see Hafemann,
2 Corinthians
, 147—49; Hughes,
2 Corinthians
, 108. For the interpretation suggested by the translations, see Belleville,
2 Corinthians, 99.

⁶⁵
2 Corinthians 3:13 is a notoriously difficult verse. For the various views, compare Harris,
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
, 296—300; Hafemann,
2 Corinthians
, 142—56; and Furnish,
2 Corinthians
, 207, 232. Harris neatly distinguished the major interpretive options. After much wrestling, we independently arrived at a view identical to the interpretation he defended on p. 299.

⁶⁶
E.g., L. Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
, ed. J. Bastible, trans. P. Lynch, 4th ed. (Rockford: Tan Books, 1960), 350—54. He (pp. 328—30) further explained that baptism may incorporate into the mystical body of Christ even those who do not believe or repent since the faith of the church can substitute for the faith of the individual and since baptism has an efficacy that is independent of the state of the recipient or of the minister.

⁶⁷
E.g., the London Confession of 1644; the Second London Confession of 1677; the Philadelphia Confession of 1742; the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833; and the Baptist Faith and Message 1925, 1963, and 2000.

⁶⁸
Sacramentalism is the belief that sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation. Older theologians distinguish sacramentalism from sacramentarianism, which is the belief that sacraments are mere visible symbols. Although modern theologians use the terms
sacramental
and
sacramentarian
interchangeably, historically one term was the opposite of the other. For a good introduction to sacramental theology with further bibliographic references, see S. Ferguson and D. Wright, eds.,
New Dictionary of Theology
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 606—8. Cf. W. Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 966—87.

⁶⁹
Note that Paul did not refer to “baptism for the dead” approvingly. Instead, he was using a series of rhetorical questions to show that the Corinthians’ theology was inconsistent with their practice, that is, baptism for the dead was inconsistent with the Corinthians’ denial of a bodily resurrection. If the dead are not raised bodily, why baptize the dead? Paul did not wish to support the practice of baptism for the dead. After having attacked Corinthian sacramentalism in chapter 10, Paul deemed an explicit refutation of baptism for the dead unnecessary in chapter 15 where the focus was resurrection.

⁷⁰
Some scholars have counted more than 200 different interpretations of the “baptism for the dead” throughout Christian history. See K. C. Thompson, “1 Corinthians 15,29 and Baptism for the Dead,”
Studia Evangelica
, vol. II, part I, ed. F. L. Cross, TU 87 (Berlin: Akadamie, 1964), 647.

⁷¹
See T. R. Schreiner,
Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 376; H. Conzelmann, ed.,
1 Corinthians
, G. W. Macrae, trans. J. W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 275. Allusions to such practices in heretical movements within the early church appear in Tertullian,
Against Marcion
5,10; Chrysostom,
Homily on 1 Corinthians
40,1; Epiphanius,
Against Heresies
28; and Philaster,
Heresies
49.

⁷²
D. Garland (
1 Corinthians
, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 452—54) objected that the context here is Christian idolatry. But Paul was clearly concerned with more than idolatry. The immediately preceding context rebuts the Corinthians’ assurance that entering the Christian race guarantees receiving the prize. Paul was concerned with the Corinthians’ impunity of engaging in idolatry, sexual immorality, and rejection of spiritual authority, all of which were related to sacramentalism. The interpretation affirmed here is supported by a large number of commentators, including C. K. Barrett, G. Fee, B. Witherington, and C. Blomberg.

⁷³
See Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians
, 166.

⁷⁴
E.g., Schreiner,
Paul
, 376. In all likelihood, the Corinthians carried this concept into the church from their pagan background. In some pagan religions, initiation into the cult through ceremonial washings or baptisms and communion with the god through food and drink guaranteed salvation through that pagan god. See Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians
, 167. This has been disputed by D. Newton,
Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth
, JSNTSup 169 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 217.

⁷⁵
The grammar of vv. 7,10 (
mē
+ present imperative) suggests that the Corinthians were already involved in idolatry and grumbling (see D. B. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 724—25). Cf. 1 Corinthians 4; 10:14-22.

⁷⁶
So Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians
, 167; Fee,
First Epistle to the Corinthians
, 443.

CHAPTER 13

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of Paul's letter to the Romans. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the book's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify the major theological themes in the book of Romans.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Paul's authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss the major theological themes in the book of Romans and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to interact critically with alternative proposals concerning the New Perspective on Paul as it relates to Romans and with scholars who suggest that Paul's original letter to the Romans concluded at the end of chap. 14 or 15. In addition, students should be able to assess the genre classification of Romans.

KEY FACTS

INTRODUCTION

P
AUL WROTE THE letter to the Romans subsequent to the letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians. It is the product of Paul's mature theological thought and a thorough presentation of his gospel. In fact, the book of Romans may be the most important letter ever penned in human history. Countless multitudes in modern times have confessed faith in Jesus as the risen Savior after being led through a series of texts known as the “Roman Road” taken from this letter (3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9). Although some of the truths of this letter still baffle learned scholars, its basic assertions are clear enough to guide children as well as adults to faith in Christ. Thus it is no surprise that this letter is a favorite NT book for many.