The works of John H. Elliott and David A. deSilva have demonstrated the value of reading Paul’s positive utterances on the topic of Christian suffering (e.g., Phil 1:29) as embedded in an honor discourse. In his letters, Paul uses the rhetoric of “divine reversal,” in which the shame of Christians—their suffering as victims of discrimination—is transformed into the opposite: honor. Continuing in this direction, this article examines Paul’s honor discourse in Rom 8:12–39, where much of the suffering does not seem to occur “for Christ’s sake.” It argues that experiences of suffering in Romans 8 are linked to notions of mortality and sin and therefore not characterized as honorable. Comparing Romans 8 to Paul’s honor discourse in Philippians leads the author to conclude that Paul’s positive evaluation of the harsh reality of suffering does not apply to all kinds of suffering. Moreover, this article argues that we need to find more nuanced ways to speak about Paul’s positive stance on Christian suffering.
One of the many things that we will surely remember and that we will have learned from the COVID-19 crisis is how quickly situations in life can change. We probably all have memories from several years ago, when there were vague comments on the news or in some other circles regarding a new virus that was being watched and beginning to be of concern. Then we suddenly had this virus in our midst and everything was different. We went into lockdown, isolated ourselves, and had to take new safety measures if we went out in public. Perhaps most troubling of all, we did not appear to have knowledge of how to counter this spreading threat and we had no idea how long it would last. This affected all of society, so there appeared to be very few places untouched by what was soon identified as a global pandemic.Educational institutions are often thought of as isolated worlds in which ideas are debated and discussed that the world outside of academia would find perplexing, if not downright troubling. The COVID-19 crisis affected educational institutions just as much as it did the rest of life. Colleges and universities were not exempt on their campuses. Those of us who teach or learn at various educational institutions—and that is probably most of the readers of this journal—were suddenly forced to reconceptualize the entire teaching and learning process, as many if not most of us moved from face-to-face learning to online learning—in a matter of weeks, if not days. Our educational institutions themselves—as our lives—had to change with the new situation. This meant academic changes, to be sure, but it also meant changes to virtually every way in which we lived our lives in an academic environment.This final introduction to the Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters is not primarily about COVID-19 and not even about the aftermath of COVID-19. This final introduction is about the nature of change, sometimes relatively unexpected, even if it is necessary. This is the last issue of JSPL to be produced, marking the completion of ten years of publication. The idea for this journal was a noble one—a scholarly journal dedicated to studying the wide range of topics that revolve around the Apostle Paul and his letters. It is still a noble idea, even if it is one that, at least for now, must come to an end. As good an idea as it was and is, in some ways it came too late in the cycle of print publication. Of course, many people will wonder why the journal has been forced to bring its publication to a close. I am not aware of all the possible reasons for such a decision. However, we all are aware that the publishing industry itself is faced with the need for change, and this requires that every area of publishing be examined and re-examined. A print journal at a university press, especially a relatively new journal that is trying to compete with many well-established journals in its wider field, has an uphill battle to fight in the current climate of academic publishing. This is especially the case when that journal attempts to maintain the highest standards of academic publishing. All involved with the journal did everything that we thought we could to enable the journal to continue, but we were not able to find a way for it to do so, and so it must come to an end with this issue.As a result, on behalf of the editors of JSPL, I wish to thank a number of people and groups for making the journal what it is and has been—at least for the last ten volume years. The journal began in 2010 and now has completed its tenth volume year in 2022. Those people who deserve thanks include the original editors, Michael Bird and Nijay Gupta, who had the vision for the journal, other editors who quickly took up the challenge of continuing to develop the journal, the editorial board who offered their expertise and willingness to read the wide variety of submissions to the journal, the hopeful authors who successfully entrusted their intellectual offspring to the journal’s care (an admittedly relatively small group whose articles passed our rigorous review), the aspiring authors who likewise sent us their manuscripts even if they were not able to achieve acceptance (we hope that you were at least encouraged by the review process and able to discover areas for development as a result), those who organized or contributed to themed issues, the two publishers and their highly competent staffs, including Julie Lambert and Astrid Meyer, who fully supported the journal from its inception to its termination, the libraries and others who purchased the journal, and, most of all, the many readers who continued to welcome and use the journal over the course of the last ten years. I have been in contact with representatives of these groups, some more than others, over the course of my tenure as senior editor, and I know that there are many people who supported the journal and who will now miss its not being available and contributing to the field of Pauline studies. The productive life of a journal inevitably encompasses many people and groups, and it takes all those mentioned to make such an entity possible. Without one of these groups and its full involvement, there can be no journal, or at least JSPL. Each one has an important role to play upon which all the others are dependent. Again, on behalf of all the editors, and I trust the editorial board, I want to thank everyone who has helped to make JSPL as successful as it has been for as long as it has been, even if that tenure has not been nearly as long as we would have wished or desired.This final fascicle of JSPL, like so many of the others, represents a range of articles on a variety of topics. Such is the nature of Pauline studies today that there are so many topics that merit discussion and re-discussion. We have consciously included several important themed issues throughout the course of publication of JSPL (and wish we had been able to do more), but the foundation of the journal has always been its array of articles on a variety of topics. In that way, the journal has been responsive to the current debates and topics within Pauline studies as established by those who are in the trenches working on contemporary topics and then sharing their research and writing with a wider scholarly audience. This kind of work is reflected in the articles within this issue.This volume has three articles that focus on the book of Romans and three that focus on Galatians, as well as one article on 1 Corinthians. Over the years, discussion of various Pauline letters rises and falls, and this interest is often reflected in the Pauline texts that are represented in journal articles. This issue of JSPL concludes by returning to Paul’s main letters.We begin with the three articles on Romans. Although each of them uses Romans as its primary Pauline focus, each addresses their text and the Pauline issues involved in significantly different ways. The first of these, by Justin Hagerman, brings analytic philosophy and New Testament studies into productive dialogue. He attempts to refine the notion of “agency” as it is used in New Testament studies. Recognizing a resurgence of interest in this topic, Hagerman believes that the concept can be strengthened by drawing upon the work of G. E. M. Anscombe and Donald Davidson, two well-known analytic philosophers. Hagerman demonstrates how his more robust view of agency can affect New Testament studies by engaging with Troels Engberg-Pedersen and J. Louis Martyn’s related notions and then testing it on Rom 7:7–25, a passage that lends itself to such examination. The second paper on Romans also uses Philippians as its foil. In this paper, Myriam Klinker-De Klerck addresses and responds to the work of John H. Elliott and David DeSilva on the relationship of Christian suffering to honor. In their social-scientific conceptualization, Elliott and DeSilva depict Pauline suffering as part of the divine scheme in which it is transformed into honor. Klinker-De Klerck examines Paul’s discourse on honor in Rom 8:12–39 and finds that the suffering mentioned there is not reversed but is seen as reflective of sinful humanity. Klinker-De Klerck then compares her findings on honor discourse in Romans 8 with Philippians, where she finds that Paul does not positively evaluate all Christian suffering. She calls for more diverse ways of discussing Paul’s view of suffering in the Christian life. The third essay on Romans, by Cornelius van der Gugten, addresses the question of supersessionism in light of Rom 9:6b by introducing a little-known interpretation of the verse by the German scholar Klaus Wengst. Wengst argues that this verse, rather than being translated “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,” should be rendered “Are not all out of Israel, even Israel?” Van der Gugten sees his task as introducing Wengst’s arguments to an English-speaking world and bolstering them. He argues that Wengst’s position, which he calls post-supersessionist, is consistent with its larger context in Romans (e.g., 9:6–13) and, by positing Israel being Israel, avoids the issue of finding a smaller group designated Israel within larger Israel. If Wengst is correct, as van der Gugten argues by providing further support, there are implications for understanding Romans and Paul’s theology regarding the Gentiles and Israel.The three articles on Galatians also form a diverse body of work on this still-challenging and widely debated letter. They differ methodologically and in terms of scope. The first article, by Brittain Brewer, addresses the question of Galatians and benefaction. Brewer is responding to a proposal by Bruce Longenecker on Gal 6:9–10 and doing good as reflective of language of benefaction for the poor. Benefaction has been a major topic of discussion in a variety of Paul’s letters, and so Brewer attempts to test Longenecker’s hypothesis against the use of similar language in various decrees. Brewer calls Longenecker’s hypothesis into question by claiming that the evidence is much more diverse. Whereas there are instances when such language may refer to providing financial help, it may also be used for more general forms of service. This article brings to bear extra-biblical inscriptional evidence as a test regarding this important cultural argument. Caleb Friedeman takes a different approach to Galatians in his study of one set of words in Gal 5:17, often translated “whatever you want.” Friedeman examines how scholars have previously interpreted this wording, with reference to desiring the Spirit and/or the flesh or not. In response, Friedeman takes an exegetical approach and examines how similar language choices are used elsewhere in Galatians. As a result, Friedeman posits that this wording refers to desires of the flesh. The third article on Galatians addresses one of the big issues in Galatians study—its use of justification language in the letter and in Pauline theology. James Prothro notes that some of the justification language of Galatians does not seem to indicate the same kind of legal-theological context as is found in other justification passages, such as in the letter to the Romans. The result is that some scholars have moved away from the legal understanding of justification in Galatians and posited an apocalyptic divine-cosmic battle. Prothro attempts to clarify these competing images and sets of language regarding justification by noting that legal views of justification themselves involve conflict in both Jewish and Pauline literature. But Prothro also recognizes that Galatians does depict the redemption of powers antagonistic to God. He concludes that the images of legal language and conflict language complement each other within Galatians, since the former implies the latter.The final article is on 1 Corinthians, a book that has provided much material for thought in recent Pauline studies, including in this journal. Daniel Webster examines Jesus Tradition in 1 Corinthians. Opposing those who do not see Paul as interested in Jesus Tradition, Webster examines the transmissional approaches of James Dunn and Richard Bauckham and then applies their method to three selected passages in 1 Corinthians where Paul purports to cite Jesus Tradition. These passages are 1 Cor 7:10–11, 9:14, and 11:23–25. Webster claims to identify a number of patterns within this material that point to Paul using Jesus Tradition in ways consistent with an interest in and knowledge of such traditions.In reviewing these seven articles in this final issue of JSPL, I cannot help but note that in many ways they are a fitting summary of contemporary Pauline studies and the ten-year history of JSPL. To be sure, each one focuses upon Paul and his letters, although the ways in which the Pauline texts are used varies considerably. Some focus primarily upon the Pauline texts as items for exegesis, while others use them as a test of a theory or hypothesis. Some focus upon larger passages while most tend to concentrate upon a small set of verses. The methods represented also vary across a range of possibilities. There are social-scientific approaches—and responses to social-scientific approaches—while also including traditional exegesis, Pauline theology, and even analytic philosophy. Most of the articles focus almost exclusively upon Paul, but there are a few that range beyond Paul into other areas of the New Testament and even into extra-biblical texts. Taken as a whole, these articles indicate that Pauline studies remains a robust and productive area of New Testament studies, where Pauline texts are discussed and debated, methods are developed and challenged, and wider implications are suggested.On behalf of all the editors, as well as the editorial board, we wish to thank you for your support of this journal, in whatever way you were involved, for the time that it lasted. Despite JSPL leaving the field, we are confident that Pauline studies will continue to flourish in other venues.
The 2006 publication of Human and Divine Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole, has renewed scholarly attention to questions about agency. In connection with these recent developments in Pauline studies, this article argues, first, that the concept of “agency” remains unperfected among biblical scholars. Second, we engage with the action theories of G. E. M. Anscombe and Donald Davidson. Here we propose that their focus on two concepts—intention and reasons for actions—will contribute to critical analyses of agency as expressed in biblical texts. Third, we bring analytic philosophy into conversation with Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s I-X-S model and J. Louis Martyn’s agent-centered perspective. Fourth, we apply our theoretical model of agency to biblical exegesis by interacting with a selected Pauline text, Rom 7:7–25.
In Gal 5:17, Paul teaches that the Spirit and the flesh are diametrically opposed to each other "so that you do not do whatever you want [alpha epsilon alpha nu theta epsilon lambda eta tau epsilon]." Interpreters have understood alpha epsilon alpha nu theta epsilon lambda eta tau epsilon to refer to (1) both the desires of the Spirit and the desires of the flesh, (2) the desires of the Spirit, (3) the desires of the flesh, or (4) neither the desires of the Spirit nor the desires of the flesh. This study examines the exegetical factors that have led scholars to affirm one view over the others and presents fresh evidence in favor of interpreting alpha epsilon alpha nu theta epsilon lambda eta tau epsilon as fleshly desires from Paul's use of theta epsilon lambda omega with respect to the Galatians elsewhere in the letter.
