Paul's Life, Epistles, and Theology_Book

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PREFACE

 

PROLOGUE

Chapter 1    The Opening Chapter

 

PART I     THE LIFE OF PAUL

Chapter 2    Before the Damascus Event

Chapter 3    The Damascus Event

Chapter 4    After the Damascus Event

 

PART II   PAULINE EPISTLES

Chapter 5    Pauline Epistles

Chapter 6    The Canonization of Pauline Epistles

Chapter 7    The Second Century Debates on Paul and His Epistles

           

PART III  PAULINE THEOLOGY

          Chapter 8    Background of Pauline Theology

          Chapter 9    Coherent Center in Pauline Theology

Chapter 10  Pauline Theology 1: God

Chapter 11  Pauline Theology 2: Humankind

Chapter 12  Pauline Theology 3: Apocalypse

Chapter 13  Pauline Theology 4: Christ

Chapter 14  Pauline Theology 5: Salvation

Chapter 15  Pauline Theology 6: Holy Spirit

Chapter 16  Pauline Theology 7: Church

Chapter 17  Pauline Theology 8: Eschaton

Chapter 18   Paul's View on Ethics

Chapter 19: Paul's View on Economy

 

EPILOGUE               

Chapter 20  The Closing Chapter

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

The life of the Apostle Paul changed 180 degrees after he encountered Jesus Christ, who appeared to him in light on the road to Damascus. Just as Moses’ life changed from that of a fugitive and wanderer to one who led Israel after he encountered the LORD God in the burning bush on Mount Horeb, Paul’s life transformed from being a persecutor of believers in Christ to one who was persecuted for Christ.

It would not be an overstatement to say that one cannot properly understand Paul’s epistles or the New Testament without knowing the life and theological thought of Paul, the author of 13 out of the 27 books in the New Testament. Of course, the Bible was written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), but it is also undeniable that the author’s understanding of God and Christ, as well as his life and thoughts, influenced the letters.

There is disagreement between conservative and critical theologians regarding the authenticity of Paul’s epistles. Most conservative theologians accept the traditional 13 Pauline epistles without question, while critical theologians generally assert that only seven—Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—were actually written by Paul himself. Even so, it cannot be denied that the other six letters reflect Paul’s thought and influence.

There has long been debate among biblical scholars about what constitutes the central theme(s) of Pauline theology. At the heart of Paul’s theology lies Christ, who was crucified and resurrected. However, what Paul proclaims is not merely the Christ who was crucified, risen and exalted, but includes the purpose of his death and resurrection—salvation through Christ and the eschatological hope in the Christ who died and rose again for us. That is, the center of Pauline theology is a harmonious integration of Christology (doctrine concerning Christ), Soteriology (salvation through Christ), Ecclesiology (the Church as the body of Christ, with Christ as the head and believers as members), and Eschatology (hope in the coming of Christ).

If one misunderstands Pauline theology, one might think that the doctrine of justification by faith and Christian freedom are unrelated to an ethical life. However, all of Paul’s epistles not only teach the fundamental truths concerning the Christ event but also exhort believers to live rightly in ethical conduct.

On the one hand, it is true that Christians are justified by faith in Christ Jesus in order to be “under grace, not under the law” (Rom. 6:15; cf. Rom. 3:24–25). On the other hand, those who have been justified before God are no longer people of the flesh, but spiritual people who have received the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 5).

In 2 Corinthians 8:9, Paul states, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich,” thereby showing that his claim is based on the “example of Christ,” who balances all things. In other words, Christ came not only to save people so they might live in the spiritually rich land of God’s kingdom, but also so that they might live materially blessed lives on earth. Paul’s view of economics is that the material salvation of the saints—the secondary goal of God’s plan to save humanity—is made possible through sharing within the faith community.

It is my hope that this book may aid in understanding Paul’s life and letters, the central themes of his preaching and theology, and his ethical and economic views. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is primarily used unless I specify different versions for this book.

 

PROLOGUE

Chapter 1       The Opening Chapter

It is no exaggeration to say that without understanding Paul's life and ministry, one cannot properly grasp the theological themes presented in his epistles. Records concerning Paul’s life and ministry can be found scattered throughout his major epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. While there are many points of agreement between the accounts in his major epistles and those in Acts, there are also significant discrepancies. F. F. Bruce noted that the difference between the portrait Paul draws of himself in his letters and the portrait of Paul described in Acts is like the difference between a self-portrait and a portrait painted by another person—whether that person understood him or not.[1] However, the differences in the records of objective facts go beyond the level of mere "portrait differences." If Paul's epistles are considered primary sources that show fragments of his life, then Acts serves as a secondary source. When discrepancies arise between the two accounts regarding the same event, the records in Paul’s letters are generally regarded as more reliable. Despite Acts being a secondary source, we often must rely on its records to trace Paul's life because his epistles only provide fragmented glimpses, making it difficult to piece together an overall outline using only the epistles.

In his letters—particularly 2 Corinthians and Galatians—Paul appears as a central figure in disputes and as a skilled debater. In contrast, Acts portrays a more tempered version of Paul’s direct and sometimes abrasive personality (though one notable dispute with Barnabas is recorded—see Acts 15:36–39).

The early Church Fathers recognized thirteen epistles as authored by Paul, or fourteen if the Epistle to the Hebrews is included. In the mid-2nd century, Marcion compiled an early Christian canon, choosing only the Gospel of Luke as his "Gospel" and including the following in his "Apostolikon" (excluding the Pastoral Epistles: 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus): Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians (referred to as Laodiceans in Marcion’s canon), Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians—in that order.

In the 19th century, German theologian F. C. Baur (1792–1860) studied the authenticity of Paul’s epistles extensively and argued that only four—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians—were genuinely written by Paul, while the others were written later by his disciples. However, due to strong opposition to his claims, he later conceded that Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon should also be considered authentic. His research on authenticity considered vocabulary, usage, style, and consistency of thought. Inspired by Baur, historical-critical scholars have continued studying the authenticity of Paul’s letters.

Conservative theologians still regard thirteen (and in rare cases, fourteen, including Hebrews) epistles as genuinely Pauline, with only a few expressing doubts about the Pastoral Epistles. On the other hand, critical scholars generally accept only seven of Pauline letters—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—as the undisputed letters of Paul, with about 70–80% agreement. Regarding the Pastoral Epistles, over 90% of the critical scholars reject Pauline authorship. Although a minority, some radical scholars go further and claim that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians are genuinely authored by Paul.

Moreover, under the influence of the German scholar Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), who denied the overall authenticity of the Pauline letters, the Dutch Radical school, including Van Manen, argued that not a single letter was written by Paul. However, this claim lacked persuasive force and failed to gain scholarly support.

As for myself, I believe that there is still no conclusive reason to deny the authenticity of the three Pauline letters—Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians—excluding the Pastoral Epistles. Concerning the Pastoral Epistles, I find certain non-Pauline elements, particularly in their emphasis on tradition and fixed regulations. Furthermore, the ecclesiastical structures reflected in them are difficult to regard as having existed during Paul’s lifetime. In this respect, I remain doubtful about the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles.

In this book’s discussion of Pauline theology, priority is given to the seven undisputed letters. The second tier of focus includes the six disputed letters, with Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Thessalonians treated with value nearly equal to that of the undisputed ones. Giving priority to these seven letters—and nearly equivalent weight to Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Thessalonians—helps minimize disagreement between conservative and critical scholars. However, both scholarly consensus and my own judgment suggest that the theology found in the Pastoral Epistles significantly diverges from that of the other Pauline letters. Therefore, the theological ideas in the Pastoral Epistles will be treated only as supplementary references. While Acts plays an unavoidable role in reconstructing Paul’s life due to the limited biographical material in the epistles, it is appropriate to exclude Acts—written by Luke and reflecting his theology—from a direct discussion of Paul’s theology.

 

 

 

 

PART I

 

THE LIFE OF PAUL

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2       Before the Damascus Event

1. Birthplace and Background
(Scriptures: Gal. 1:13-14; Acts 21:39; 22:3)

The exact year of Paul's birth is unknown. Scholarly estimates vary, ranging from around 5 BCE to around 5 CE. His epistles contain no information about his birthplace or upbringing, so we must rely on secondary sources such as the Acts of the Apostles.[2]

In Acts 22:3, Paul states, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia." Not only was he born in Tarsus, but according to Acts 21:39, he also possessed citizenship of that city: " I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city." The specific circumstances that led Paul's parents to migrate to Tarsus—then under the rule of the Seleucid dynasty—are unknown. Whether it was his parents or more distant ancestors, they were Diaspora Jews who had settled in Tarsus for some time. As was typical of devout Jews, Paul was circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Phil. 3:5).

Tarsus was a Hellenistic cultural and educational hub located in the northeastern Mediterranean, at the foot of the Taurus Mountains. It was a bustling gateway from Syria into Asia Minor. According to Ramsay, Tarsus had a Greek university of such stature that it was called a "second Athens." The renowned Stoic philosopher Athenodorus—friend and advisor to Emperor Augustus (29 BCE–14 CE)—taught and governed in Tarsus. The city consistently supported the Roman side in internal conflicts and was thus granted the status of a civitas libera (free city), enjoying local autonomy and privileges.

In Acts 22:3 (cf. 26:4), Paul mentions that he was brought up in Jerusalem. Many scholars interpret this to mean that he was sent there for education, particularly to study under Gamaliel. Considering that after the Damascus event, Paul returned and stayed in Tarsus for a time (Gal. 1:21; Acts 9:30), it is more plausible that he moved to Jerusalem in his mid-teens to begin formal rabbinic training, rather than having grown up there from early childhood.

Growing up in Tarsus, Paul would have been inevitably exposed to Hellenistic culture. Despite a strict Jewish upbringing, elements of Greek literature and thought likely seeped into his worldview. Traces of this influence may appear in his epistles—for instance, in Titus 1:12, he quotes the Cretan poet Aratus, and in Acts 17:28, his speech at the Areopagus includes a quote from Epimenides. However, the authenticity of Titus is disputed, and it is risky to assert definitively that Paul was influenced by Greek literature solely on the basis of the speeches recorded in Acts.

Whenever Paul had the opportunity to address Jewish audiences, he declared himself to be a Jew. This was not only an ethnic identifier but a matter of religious and national pride. To be born anywhere in the world and still be a “Jewish adherent” (cf. Gal. 1:13–14) reflected a deep-rooted ethnic consciousness and sense of religious superiority. Paul seems to have taken great pride in his Jewish identity. In defending himself against criticism in his letters to the Corinthians, he emphasized his Jewish lineage.

2. Hebrew
(Scriptures: 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5)

Paul also described himself as a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5), suggesting that although he was a Diaspora Jew, he maintained the use of the Hebrew language. However, Paul was also fluent in Greek, and most of his Old Testament quotations come from the Septuagint.

3. Israelite
(Scriptures: Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5)

Being an Israelite implies being a member of God's covenant people. Paul took pride in being an Israelite and held deep affection for his fellow Israelites. In Romans 9–11, he emphasizes that although Israel may appear to be temporarily rejected by God, this is not permanent. Ultimately, Israel will be restored within God's plan of salvation. In Romans 11:25–26a, Paul states, “I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.”

4. Tribe of Benjamin
(Scriptures: Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5)

Paul identifies himself as being from the tribe of Benjamin, the youngest of Jacob’s twelve sons. Along with Judah, Benjamin formed the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Paul's Hebrew name, Saul (שאול), may have been inspired by King Saul, the most prominent figure from the tribe of Benjamin.

5. Seed of Abraham
(Scriptures: Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22)

According to William Barclay, the term “seed of Abraham” (Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22) implies a pure, unbroken lineage and signifies becoming God's eternal children through the fulfillment of the covenant in the Messiah.[3] The "seed of Abraham" begins with Isaac, a type of Christ (cf. Gal. 3:16), and culminates in Christ himself, symbolizing God’s promises and blessings. Genesis 22:15-18 records the LORD's promise that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the stars and a source of blessing for all nations.
In Paul’s letters, especially Romans 4 and Galatians 3-4, Abraham is a central Old Testament figure. Paul highlights that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). He declares, “So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) and “are blessed with Abraham who had faith” (Gal. 3:9). For Paul, who came to believe in Christ and proclaim the gospel of faith, the term "seed of Abraham" held profound significance.

6. Disciple of Gamaliel the Pharisee
(Scriptures: Phil. 3:5; Acts 22:3, 23:6)

Paul stated that he was a Pharisee. In addition, the Book of Acts records that his father was also a Pharisee (see Acts 23:6). There were two main Pharisaic schools: the strict and conservative Shammai school, and the more progressive and open Hillel school (Hillel lived around 60 BCE–20 CE). For example, regarding divorce, Hillel argued that a man could divorce his wife even if she merely displeased him from time to time, whereas Shammai held the view that divorce could only be justified in cases of serious moral transgression. Shammai believed that there was no place for Gentiles in God's purpose, while Hillel welcomed Gentiles and actively evangelized to them.[4] These two schools produced, taught, and enforced an extensive body of law, including not only the Torah—the foundational law of Judaism—but also the oral laws such as the Mishna (the traditions of the ancestors) and the Talmud (a compilation of Jewish writings). 

The Pharisee Paul received strict Jewish education under Gamaliel, a legal scholar of the Hillel school (some suggest he was Hillel’s grandson, though this is uncertain). Due to Paul’s thorough Jewish background (Gal. 1:13–14) and references to his rigorous training (Acts 22:3), some scholars argue that Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel from the Shammai school.[5] However, it is almost certain that Gamaliel was a rabbi of the Hillel tradition. Had Paul not converted to Christianity, it is possible that he would have become a renowned rabbi leading the Hillel school.

7. Roman Citizenship
(Scripture: Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-29; 23:27)

Paul’s epistles contain no direct claim that he was a Roman citizen. According to the secondary source, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was a Roman citizen “by birth” (Acts 22:28). Given that the commander in Jerusalem stated he had paid a large sum of money to acquire his citizenship (Acts 22:28), it is possible that Paul’s ancestors (parents, grandfather, or earlier) also purchased Roman citizenship for a considerable price.

Paul’s family appears to have been wealthy enough to run a leatherworking business. Since Paul was a citizen of Tarsus, “a city, not an obscure town,” he argued that he had the right to defend himself against the Jews who were judging him—indicating a social distinction between Roman and non-Roman citizens.

For Paul, who was called to be the apostle to the Gentiles, there was hardly anything more advantageous than being a Roman citizen. A Roman citizen could not be arbitrarily arrested or subjected to corporal punishment. Paul greatly benefited from the privileges of Roman citizenship, which allowed him to carry out his missionary work freely and effectively within the Roman Empire. In Paul’s time, Roman citizenship was not only a mark of honor but also a kind of passport that allowed one to travel even to the ends of the earth.

8. Raised and Educated in Jerusalem
(Scripture: Acts 22:3, 26:4)

There is no mention in Paul’s epistles that he was educated under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. However, based on Acts (22:3; 26:4) and circumstantial evidence, it is presumed that although Paul was born in Tarsus, he moved to Jerusalem around the age of fifteen to pursue his studies. W. C. Van Unnik, referencing Acts 22:3, suggests that while Paul was born in Tarsus and had acquired Roman citizenship, he may have actually grown up in Jerusalem in relative isolation. On the other hand, the History-of-Religions School (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) scholars such as W. Bousset argue that Paul did not grow up in Jerusalem but rather in Tarsus, and that his theology was significantly influenced by Hellenistic culture and religion.[6]

If Van Unnik’s argument and the record in Acts are accurate, it is likely that Paul stayed in the home of an uncle or another relative. This is supported by the fact that Paul’s nephew helped rescue him from danger in Jerusalem (Acts 23:16). The problem, however, is that the records we rely on for this information are found only in the secondary source of Acts, and as mentioned earlier, the reliability of Acts concerning major events and facts cannot be entirely trusted.

Paul, having received a solid education under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, quickly rose to a position of authority. He was in a position strong enough to interrogate Christians on matters of faith. That Paul later led efforts to persecute Christians in Jerusalem is also evidenced in his epistle to the Galatians (1:13), though no place names are mentioned there. He was in a position within the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council, where he could cast a vote of condemnation against Christians (Acts 26:10).

9. Marriage

As seen in his letters, it is evident that Paul lived alone. However, scholars differ in opinion as to whether he was single from the beginning, whether he had been married but left his wife and children to fulfill his missionary calling (i.e., separation), or whether he had a wife and children but became alone due to their death.

Some scholars believe that, since Paul came from a Pharisaic family that strove to strictly observe the law, and given the divine principle that “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18a), he must have been formally married. Philippians 3:8 suggests that Paul may have abandoned a wife and children who still desired to remain part of a Pharisaic household in order to pursue the ministry of the gospel of Christ.[7] However, this claim may be somewhat excessive. If that were the case, Paul would not have written in 1 Corinthians 7:7, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” or in verse 8, “it is well for them to remain single as I do.”[8]

Some scholars argue that Paul once loved a woman in his youth and proposed to her, but after being rejected, he resolved to live alone for the rest of his life. They believe this experience contributed to what seems to be a strict attitude toward women in his writings.

10. Paul’s Understanding of Jesus

(1) Jesus and Paul

If Paul, as testified in Acts 22:3, grew up and was educated in Jerusalem, then even if he did not meet Jesus face-to-face, he likely was not unaware of him—especially given that Jesus was regarded by Pharisees as someone challenging and threatening the Law of Moses. Paul would have considered Jesus’ death on the cross as “the death of one cursed by God” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

As seen in Paul’s letters, references to the historical Jesus are rare and, when present, mostly remain at the level of common knowledge. Although Paul might have heard about Jesus’ public life, ministry, and miracles from Peter or other apostles and disciples, he preferred to bear witness to the “resurrected and exalted Christ” who appeared to him in light on the road to Damascus.

(2) Stephen and Paul

Paul, with his zeal for the law, likely burned with indignation at disciples like Stephen, who preached that Jesus—already executed under the law's curse on the cross—was in fact the Son of God and the Messiah long awaited by the Jews. Stephen’s claim that Jesus had risen and ascended into heaven would have enraged Paul all the more.
If Stephen was right, then Paul’s confidence in the “righteousness under the law” that he had upheld blamelessly (Philippians 3:6) would be utterly shattered. This sense of crisis likely drove him to even more radical opposition.

The author of Acts, Luke, records that Paul (then Saul) approved of Stephen’s execution (Acts 8:1). As someone deeply committed to the law, Paul was unmoved by Stephen’s martyrdom, his cries, and his prayers. After Stephen’s death, Paul found even more justification to persecute the churches scattered around Jerusalem.
Acts 8:3 states, “Saul (=Paul) was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.” In 9:1-2, “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.”

Paul was a shrewd and influential Pharisee. When Christians attempted to move out of Jerusalem to other regions, he realized that rather than resolving the issue, the persecution of believers—starting with Stephen and others—by the Jews was actually becoming a factor in spreading Christianity to other parts of the Roman Empire. One of the places where such zealots had gathered was Damascus, and Paul obtained official letters of authorization from the high priest to arrest the Christians who had gathered there and bring them back to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

 

Chapter 3       The Damascus Event

1. The City of Damascus

According to the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:1–3), following the martyrdom of Stephen, great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, causing believers to be scattered throughout the land. However, they did not merely scatter and hide; they went about preaching the word of the gospel (Acts 8:4). Some of them even reached Damascus, where they continued their life of faith and bore witness to the gospel.

Damascus was an independent city within the Nabatean Kingdom. Aretas IV (9 BCE–42 CE) was the nominal ruler of the Nabatean Kingdom, but he did not have direct sovereignty over Damascus itself. Thus, Damascus had previously served as a refuge for religious refugees from Judea. According to the Zadokite Fragments (a document from a Jewish sect related to the Dead Sea Scrolls community), there is a record of a mass exodus of Jews to Damascus just before 130 BCE. These refugees were able to live independently without interference from Jerusalem—something the early Christians seem to have emulated.

However, Paul was devising a way to extradite these Jewish Christians who had fled to Damascus. He recalled the precedent in which the Roman government granted the high priest in Jerusalem the authority to extradite Jews from other parts of the Roman Empire (1 Maccabees 15:15–24). According to Acts, Paul approached the high priest and requested authorization to track down the Christians in Damascus, arrest them, and bring them to Jerusalem for interrogation and punishment. He obtained official letters granting this request (Acts 9:1–2).

2. The Event on the Road to Damascus

(Scriptures: Gal. 1:15–17; also Acts 9:3–19, 22:6–16, 26:9–23)

In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, the Damascus event is abstractly described as follows: " But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…" (Gal. 1:15–16). While the specific details of the event are not given, it suggests that Paul received a revelation of Jesus Christ concerning the gospel he was to preach (Gal. 1:11–12).

Compared to Paul's own testimony, which is abstract, the three accounts in Acts are all more concrete, though they each present slight differences. Paul's Damascus experience is the core of his testimony and a living witness to Christ. Acts 9:3–19 contains Luke’s general account of the event; Acts 22:6–16 records Paul’s statement when he was defending himself before a threatening crowd of Jews in Jerusalem; and Acts 26:9–23 presents Paul’s testimony before Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and Festus.

The fact that there are differences in the way the same event is described may be explained by the differing rhetorical purposes in each context, with Paul presenting the event from various perspectives depending on the audience.[9] However, it is also possible that Luke included three distinct traditions that existed separately without harmonizing or modifying them.[10]

When examining the major differences, first, Acts 9:7 states, “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one,” whereas Acts 22:9 says, “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” Second, in Acts 9:6 and 22:10, Christ tells Paul that someone in Damascus will inform him what he must do, but in Acts 26:16–18, Jesus Christ directly appoints Paul as the “apostle to the Gentiles” right on the road to Damascus. However, in Acts 9, Christ's voice calling Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles is directed to Ananias in Damascus and conveyed to Paul. Acts 9:15 states, “The Lord said to him (=Ananias), ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.’”

In Acts 22, Paul records hearing the voice of Jesus sending him to the Gentiles only after he had returned to Jerusalem. This significantly differs from the account in Acts 26:16–18, which claims Jesus called Paul on the road to Damascus. Specifically, Acts 22:17 says, “When I returned to Jerusalem,” which follows the event in verses 12–16 where Paul receives the Lord's instruction through Ananias in Damascus. To reconcile this with Paul's statement in Galatians, one might interpret the phrase “when I returned” as referring to “three years later” (Gal. 1:18). However, there is a significant discrepancy between this interpretation and Paul’s intention in Galatians 1:16–17, where he states: “When God was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and then returned again to Damascus.” In Acts 22, Christ’s calling is said to have come to Paul while he was still in Jerusalem (though it is unclear exactly when—whether it was immediately after the Damascus event or, as in Galatians 1:18, three years later when he went up to Jerusalem). In verse 18, Paul witnesses, “'Make haste' he (=Jesus) said to me, ‘get quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not accept your testimony about me.'”—this likely refers to the confrontation with the Hellenistic Jews in Acts 9:26–29. And in verse 21, Jesus says to Saul (Paul), “Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles,” giving him a commission.

Therefore, the critical differences among the three testimonies in Acts are as follows: Acts 9 places Paul’s calling in Damascus, Acts 22 records it as occurring after his return to Jerusalem, and Acts 26 describes it as happening on the road to Damascus. Which of these is closest to Paul’s own statement in Galatians? Without question, it is the account in Acts 26. In Galatians 1:11–12, Paul strongly emphasizes that the gospel he received “is not something that man made up,” nor was it “received from any man,” nor was he “taught it,” but it came “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (appearing in light).

Of course, after the Damascus experience, Paul may have entered the city and heard the Lord’s words delivered through Ananias (cf. Acts 9:15–16; also 22:14–15). Later, three years afterward, he may have visited Jerusalem, met Peter and James, heard words about Jesus, and, before leaving Jerusalem following a conflict with the Hellenistic Jews, may again have received a word of recommissioning from Jesus, who appeared to him once more.

However, Paul emphasizes that Ananias, Peter, and the other apostles are all secondary. His apostleship to the Gentiles came solely through the revelation of Jesus Christ, who appeared to him in light on the road to Damascus. Let us listen again to Paul's own testimony: "God was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again, I returned to Damascus." (Gal. 1:16–17).

Paul deliberately(?) omits in his statement the episode of entering Damascus and meeting Ananias after the road experience (saying he “did not consult with flesh and blood”), and he makes it clear that his meeting with Peter in Jerusalem three years later had no connection whatsoever to the gospel of revelation he had received directly from Christ (saying, “I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it”).

 

Chapter 4       After the Damascus Event

1. Three Years in Arabia and Damascus (32–35 CE)

(Scriptures: Gal. 1:17; 2 Cor. 11:32–33; Acts 9:19b–25)

After his conversion, Paul writes in Galatians 1:17, “I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again, I returned to Damascus.” Arabia refers to the desert region stretching from southwest of Damascus down to Suez. Scholars disagree on why Paul went there. Some biblical scholars suggest that Paul withdrew to Arabia for a time of quiet reflection and meditation following his Damascus experience. Others propose that he may have gone as far as Mount Horeb to recall the era of Moses.[11] However, as 2 Corinthians 11:32 indicates, the ethnarch under King Aretas IV of the Nabataean Kingdom (9 BCE–42 CE) was guarding the city of Damascus in order to arrest Paul. If Paul had simply been quietly meditating in Arabia, it would be difficult to explain such a strong political reaction. This implies that Paul was likely actively preaching the gospel, proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. Although Galatians does not record what Paul did during his time back in Damascus, 2 Corinthians 11:32 and Acts 9:20–25 suggest that he zealously preached that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah.[12]

Acts 9 does not mention Paul’s journey to Arabia. Instead, it describes him going to Damascus after his conversion, meeting Ananias, and then preaching that “Jesus is the Son of God” and “proving that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 9:20, 22). When the Jews sought to kill him, he escaped the city. Acts 22 omits Paul’s evangelism in Damascus and instead presents his calling as an apostle to the Gentiles as something that occurred later in Jerusalem, while he was praying in the temple and received a vision from the Lord (Acts 22:17–21). In contrast, Acts 26 describes Jesus appearing to Paul in light on the road to Damascus and calling him to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and then states that Paul preached in Damascus and Jerusalem (Acts 26:20)—with no mention at all of Arabia. These differences reflect varying emphases and possibly the existence of multiple early traditions, with the account in Acts omitting or rearranging events compared to Paul’s own testimony.

2. First Visit to Jerusalem (c. 35 CE)

(Scriptures: Gal. 1:18–20; 2:1; Acts 9:26–29; 22:17–21)

According to Paul’s epistles, Paul is said to have visited Jerusalem twice after his conversion. The first was three years after the Damascus event (Gal. 1:18), and the second took place fourteen years later. Also, in Romans 15:25, Paul is planning yet another visit—a third visit—before going to Rome and Spain, and this was for the purpose of materially helping the poor saints in Jerusalem (see also 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. Chapters 8–9).

On the other hand, according to the record of Acts, Paul visited Jerusalem at least five times after his conversion. The first, as seen in Acts 9:26–29, was after Paul escaped from Damascus. The second, as found in Acts 11:29–30, was a visit to deliver aid to the brothers in Judea. Acts 12:25 has been translated, “Barnabas and Saul completed their mission and returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, who was also called Mark,” treating it as a return from Jerusalem after the visit of Acts 11:29–30. However, depending on the manuscript, since the preposition εἰς (eis) is placed before Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ), some English translations (NAB, NRSV)[13] render it as “returned to Jerusalem.” (In such a case, this [12:25] would be the third Jerusalem visit.) The third was, as recorded in Acts 15:1–30, when Paul and Barnabas visited to attend the Jerusalem Council. The fourth was in Acts 18:22, where after the second missionary journey, Paul went up (to Jerusalem), greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch. The fifth was after the third missionary journey, starting in Acts 21:15 and following. During this visit, Paul was arrested.

J. Fitzmyer pointed out that linking the content of Paul’s epistles concerning his visits to Jerusalem after his conversion with Luke’s account in the Book of Acts is one of the most difficult aspects in reconstructing Paul’s life. According to him, Luke may have historicized the references to visits and turned them into multiple separate visits. Therefore, as a solution to harmonize Paul’s letters and the Acts account, Fitzmyer proposed identifying the first visit in Acts (Acts 9:26–29) with Galatians 1:18, and treating the second (Acts 11:29–30, and Acts 12:25 if that is indeed a Jerusalem visit) and the third (Acts 15:1–2) as references to the same event mentioned in Galatians 2:1–10—the Jerusalem Council.[14] However, I think that such attempts to stitch together the discrepancies between Paul’s letters and Acts are inappropriate, viewing them as efforts to forcefully rationalize the historically uncertain accounts found in Acts.

In Galatians 1:18–20, Paul mentions his visit to Jerusalem following the Damascus conversion event. Given his phrase “after three years,” it can be determined that the timing of his first visit to Jerusalem was around the year 35 CE.[15] Regarding the purpose of the visit, Paul says it was to visit Cephas. Why did Paul want to meet Cephas? Paul likely wanted to confirm that the content of his revelation and gospel did not conflict with the teaching Cephas had received (cf. Gal. 2:2). He also probably wished to learn more about Jesus’ teachings and actions through Cephas, who had been with Jesus throughout His three years of public ministry. Paul states that during his fifteen days with Cephas, he “saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:18-19) and makes no mention of encountering any difficulties while preaching in Jerusalem.

In Acts 9:26–30, it is recorded that Paul, with the help of Barnabas, was introduced to the apostles (though specific names are not mentioned in Acts 9:27) and testified about Jesus. In Acts, the purpose of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem appears to be less about fellowship with the apostles and more about bearing witness to Jesus. Eventually, he comes into conflict with the Hellenistic Jews, who attempt to kill him. As a result, some Christian brothers in Jerusalem—whom Paul had come to know through Barnabas’s help—take him to Caesarea and then send him off to Tarsus. In Acts 22:17–21, Paul appears to have done little in terms of activity in Jerusalem. Rather, while he was in the temple, he received a vision from the Lord, who called him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Paul recounts that he then left for the Gentile world in obedience to that vision (cf. Acts 22:21). In Acts 26:20, Jerusalem is simply mentioned as one of the places where Paul preached the gospel (Acts 26:20), with no additional detail.

3. Ministry in Syria and Cilicia (35–43 CE)

(Scriptures: Gal. 1:21–24; Acts 9:30; 11:25–26)

In Galatians 1:21–24, Paul does not mention why he quickly left Jerusalem—after staying for fifteen days—and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. However, it appears that he was actively engaged in evangelism while in those regions. Therefore, it is stated that the churches and believers in Judea glorified God because of Paul’s work in preaching the gospel.[16]

As I already mentioned earlier, Acts 9:30 records that while Paul was testifying about Jesus in Jerusalem, he got into disputes with Hellenistic Jews who sought to kill him. As a result, the brothers sent him to Caesarea (Syria) and then to Tarsus (Cilicia). According to Acts 22:21, it can be inferred that Paul left Jerusalem in obedience to the Lord’s command to depart for the Gentiles. After leaving Jerusalem, Paul appears to have gone first to Syria and then to Cilicia to proclaim the gospel.

Whatever the reason for his departure from Jerusalem, the fact that Paul preached the gospel while traveling through Syria and Cilicia is confirmed in Acts 15:41. When Paul parted ways with Barnabas and traveled by land with Silas to Asia Minor, Acts 15:41 describes, “He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.” Also, Acts 11:25–26 states that while Paul was still in his hometown Tarsus, Barnabas went to look for him and brought him to Antioch, where they taught large numbers of people in the church for a year.

4. Ministry at the Antioch Church (43–45 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 11:25–26; 13:1)

Barnabas brought Paul, who had been staying in Tarsus, to Antioch, and they carried out joint ministry there. Acts 11:26 records: “When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So, for a whole year they (-=Barnabas and Saul) met with the church and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for first time called Christians.”

Paul’s ministry in Antioch likely played an important role in helping him theologically systematize his Damascus experience and lay the foundational framework for his future missionary work in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. In addition to Paul and Barnabas, others present in Antioch included “Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch” (Acts 13:1).

5. Relief Visit to Jerusalem (44–45 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 11:27–30; 12:25)

While Paul was staying in Antioch, a famine occurred in Jerusalem, and he visited Jerusalem with Barnabas to deliver aid. Some biblical scholars claim that Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1 and onward refers to this visit described in Acts 11:27–30. However, this interpretation is considered inaccurate. The reason is that even if their visit to provide aid was a historical fact (Paul does not mention it in his epistles), it would have been impossible for him to meet James, the brother of the Lord, Peter, and John during that time.

During their visit, as recorded in Acts 12:1 and following, King Herod (Herod Agrippa I) persecuted the Jerusalem church, killing James, the brother of John, and imprisoning Peter. Although Peter was released with the help of an angel, he left the Jerusalem brethren and went elsewhere (Acts 12:17), and no one knew what became of him. Therefore, even if Paul visited Jerusalem with Barnabas during this period (Acts 11:27–30, 12:25), he would not have been able to meet Peter, John, or James, the brother of the Lord. Furthermore, at that time, James, the brother of the Lord, was not yet regarded as a pillar (see Gal. 2:9).

6. First Missionary Journey (45–47 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 13:1–14:28)

Paul did not make specific statements about his missionary work among the Gentiles. He mentions briefly in Galatians 2:2, “the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,” and in 2 Corinthians 11:23–27, he lists the hardships and persecutions he suffered: “I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.” However, even this does not provide a detailed itinerary of his travels. Therefore, to examine the details of Paul's missionary work among the Gentiles, we are inevitably dependent on secondary sources, particularly the accounts recorded in the Book of Acts.

According to Acts, Paul and Barnabas undertook their mission to the Gentiles in Asia Minor under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2, 4). Paul, Barnabas, and (John) Mark began their first missionary journey in the region of Asia Minor, primarily southern Galatia. Tracing their route: they went from Antioch down to Seleucia and then sailed to the island of Cyprus. They passed through Salamis and reached Paphos. From Paphos, they sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, where John Mark, for some reason, left Paul and Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas continued from there to Antioch of Pisidia. From there, they went through Iconium to Lystra and Derbe, then retraced their steps back through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch of Pisidia, passed through Perga in Pamphylia, went down to Attalia, and from there sailed back to Antioch.

Although the first mission achieved various successes, several issues also emerged. These included the relationship between the new faith and Judaism, the relationship between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, and the questions regarding the law, circumcision, and dietary regulations for Gentile Christians. As these issues came to the surface, a council was convened in Jerusalem to resolve or make decisions regarding them.

7. Second Jerusalem Visit – The Council (49 CE)

(Scriptures: Gal. 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–31)

Although it is referred to as Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, this distinction is based on Galatians. According to the Book of Acts, however, it would be his third visit, following Acts 9:26–30 and Acts 11:27–30 (assuming Acts 12:25 concludes the account from Acts 11:27–30). Some biblical scholars argue that Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2:1–10 refers to the visit to deliver aid recorded in Acts 11:27–30 and 12:25. However, this interpretation is questionable.[17]

First, the historical validity of the aid visit itself raises doubts. In Acts 12:1 and following, Herod Agrippa I (king of Judea and Galilee from 41–44 CE) persecuted the Jerusalem church, resulting in the death of James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2), and the imprisonment of Peter. Although Peter escaped and briefly met the brethren, he then left for another place (Acts 12:17). Given this situation, it is difficult to believe that Paul and Barnabas visited the Jerusalem church at that time.

Second, interpreting “after fourteen years” in Galatians 2:1 as starting from Paul’s conversion rather than his first visit to Jerusalem seems inappropriate. Furthermore, dating the aid visit to around 46 CE (two years after Herod Agrippa I's death) instead of around 44 CE is problematic. In Acts 11:29–30, Luke records the aid visit by Barnabas and Paul, and then begins Acts 12:1 by saying, “About that time Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church,” suggesting that the aid visit occurred while Herod was still alive.

Third, James, the brother of the Lord, had not yet become one of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9). It likely took several more years for him to attain that status, especially while James, the brother of John, still held considerable authority.

Fourth, during his third missionary journey, Paul conducted a collection for the poor among the Jerusalem saints and made prominent mention of this in his major epistles (especially in 2 Corinthians Chapters 8-9). It would be unthinkable for Paul not to mention the aid visit if the visit in Galatians 2 had been such a visit. Yet in Galatians 2:10, Paul only says, “Only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do,” which suggests that no actual delivery of aid occurred during the visit described in Galatians 2.

So, the question arises: Why did Paul not mention the aid visit of Acts 11:27–30 in his letters, including Galatians? If the aid visit preceded the council visit in Galatians 2, it is difficult to understand why Paul, who placed high importance on helping poor believers (partly for the sake of evangelizing Jews), would omit it. One possibility is that Luke made an error. While Paul vividly emphasizes the purpose of his third Jerusalem visit—delivering the collected relief offering—in his letters (1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25–28), Luke, when describing Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem, only briefly mentions it: “Now after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings.” (Acts 24:17). Based on such considerations, I think that Paul’s actual delivery of aid occurred during his final visit to Jerusalem.

Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem—specifically to attend the Jerusalem Council—took place around 49 CE, about 14 years after his first visit around 35 CE. The purpose of the Jerusalem Council was to address objections from some Jewish Christians regarding whether Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised, observe the Law of Moses, and follow dietary laws. According to Acts 15, Peter argued in defense of the Gentile Christians, saying that imposing the Law of Moses on them would be placing a burden even Jews could not bear (Acts 15:10). Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s work among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12), and James, the brother of the Lord, concluded the meeting by suggesting that Gentile believers should observe just four minimal requirements: abstaining from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25).

From the account in Galatians 2:1–10, it is evident that Paul viewed the reason, purpose, and outcome of his visit to Jerusalem differently than what is presented in Acts. According to Acts 15:1–2, when a dispute and sharp debate arose between Paul, Barnabas, and some Jewish Christians over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, the church in Antioch decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some others to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to settle the matter. However, in Galatians 2:2, Paul explains that he went up “because of a revelation,” presenting the visit as something he undertook voluntarily in response to divine guidance. Furthermore, the purpose of the visit, as Paul frames it, was not so much to resolve a controversy, but to confirm whether the gospel ministry he had independently pursued—based on the Lord’s revelation and instruction—was indeed in alignment with what the apostles in Jerusalem were preaching. As he states, he wanted to ensure that he had not “run—or was not running—in vain” (Gal. 2:2).

Regarding the outcome of the visit, Acts presents Paul in a relatively passive role—delivering the letter containing the Jerusalem Council’s decision, written under the leadership of James, to the church in Antioch. In contrast, Galatians portrays the visit as yielding a different and more equal result: Peter (Cephas), John, and James, acknowledged as apostles to the Jews, recognized Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, affirming a mutual and equal apostolic relationship. Paul records that they extended to him and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship,” confirming their distinct but equally valid missions. This may reflect a Pauline interpretation shaped by his conviction that he was in no way inferior to any of the Jerusalem apostles—a belief he perhaps held deep within. It emphasizes Paul’s desire to assert the independence and legitimacy of his gospel and calling, rooted not in human authority but in divine revelation.

8. Continued Service in Antioch and the Antioch Incident (49–50 CE)

(Scriptures: Gal. 2:11–14; Acts 15:35)

After the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch for some time. Acts 15:35 states, “Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.” Then in verse 36, it says, “And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are,’” which gives the impression that they left for the second missionary journey just days after returning from the Council. In reality, however, they likely stayed in Antioch for a longer period.

The "Antioch Incident," where Paul rebuked Cephas (Peter), appears to have occurred not long after returning from the Jerusalem Council. This raises the question: Why did Peter visit the Antioch church? If we take Paul’s words in Galatians 2:8–9 at face value, Peter’s visit may have been a goodwill gesture following the "right hand of fellowship." However, if we place more weight on the Jerusalem Council's decisions and the letter described in Acts 15:19–20 and 28–29, Peter's visit seems more like an inspection visit from the central authority (the Jerusalem Council) to a local church. It seems to me that Luke’s account in Acts 15 is closer to the historical reality of the time than Paul’s own (perhaps self-serving) claim. This does not mean Paul’s description is incorrect, but rather that his strong sense of self-assurance may not yet have been fully recognized or accepted by the other apostles and Jewish Christians. A supervisory visit was necessary because, although there may have been some concession regarding circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law, the four prohibitions—abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, blood, and meat from strangled animals—still needed to be strictly observed. According to reports, even these were not being properly upheld. Therefore, James, who was the head of the Jerusalem Council at the time, may have suggested to Peter that he go and check on the situation. In response, Peter likely visited Antioch.

What were Paul’s personal views on the four prohibitions recommended by James? Although Galatians does not directly address Paul’s thoughts on this matter, we can infer from his statements in 1 Corinthians that of the four prohibitions, the only one he strongly urged Christians to avoid was sexual immorality (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–2, 9–11; 6:12–18). Regarding food sacrificed to idols, Paul argues that since there is only one God, and idols are nothing in reality, eating such food is not inherently wrong if it does not violate one’s conscience (1 Cor. 8:4–6; Rom. 14:2–3, 17). However, he adds a reservation: if eating food sacrificed to idols would cause a weaker believer to stumble, then it is better to refrain (1 Cor. 8:12–13; Rom. 14:15). Given that Paul did not impose Jewish dietary laws (kosher) on Gentile Christians (see Rom. 14:17), it appears he did not strictly prohibit the consumption of blood or meat from animals strangled to death either. This would be akin to a missionary preaching the gospel in Korea not prohibiting the drinking of deer blood, eating of blood sausage (seonji-guk), or the killing of animals by strangulation—practices that, while offensive to some cultures, are not essential violations of the gospel's core message. Paul likely saw no reason to forbid diverse Gentile dietary customs as long as they did not contradict the essential truth of the gospel.

Peter arrived in Antioch and stayed there for quite a few days. Before the arrival of the Jews from James in Jerusalem, Peter—though he still had some inner reservations—shared meals at the same table with the Gentiles, eating and enjoying food that was not prepared according to Jewish kosher dietary laws. These meals, prepared in the Gentile way, may not have had the blood fully removed; the animals may have been killed by strangling; there might have been pork, which Jews strictly avoided; or dishes made with scaleless fish, like mudfish, may have been served. Peter may have tasted food that would have been considered unclean for a Jew, in order to better understand the Antiochian believers and to befriend them more closely—or perhaps he simply joined their meals while eating only what was permissible for a Jew.

The Greek imperfect verb “synēsthien” (συνήσθιεν “he used to eat with”) in Galatians 2:12 is used to describe Peter’s eating with the Gentiles, which shows that this was not a one-time occurrence but happened repeatedly. Hence, some English translations render it as “he used to eat with the Gentiles” (NAB, NASB, NJB, NRSV).[18] But when Peter heard that the circumcision party from James was arriving, he became fearful and suddenly withdrew, as though he had never associated with or eaten with the Gentiles. This hypocritical behavior deeply upset Paul.

It was Peter, after all, who had defended the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council when it was argued that Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Paul had appreciated Peter for that, and that gratitude still remained in his heart—so it was all the more disappointing to see Peter now back away from the Gentiles, seemingly out of fear of being judged by James. Peter was not the only one caught off guard by the news of the emissaries from James arriving in Antioch. The Jewish Christians living in Antioch, who had also been eating at the table with the Gentiles, were clearly troubled too. They carefully watched Peter’s reaction in order to follow his lead. When Peter quietly stood up and stepped away from the Gentile table, they too withdrew. Paul could hardly tolerate the behavior of Peter and the other Jews, but what made it even harder to bear was the fact that Barnabas—his close partner in the first missionary journey through Asia Minor, with whom he had shared many hardships and even faced death—was also carried away by this hypocrisy and failed to stand by Paul. Barnabas seemed to think that it would be safer to follow Peter’s behavior rather than remain aligned with Paul.

That Peter, along with the other Jews and even Barnabas, withdrew from the table fellowship with Gentile Christians does not mean they acted rightly—in Paul’s eyes of faith, this was absolutely clear. Their behavior was clearly hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις, hypokrisis), and at least in terms of their actions, it was conduct that denied the truth of the gospel. Therefore, Paul publicly rebuked Peter in front of everyone. When Paul said, “You, though a Jew, live like a Gentile,” he meant that Peter, by sharing meals with Gentiles, had already embraced their eating practices and had, for a time, lived as one of them. In doing so, Peter had essentially set aside the traditional Jewish way of life. When he then withdrew from the Gentiles out of fear of those who came from James, it was a retreat—a return to the Jewish lifestyle he had previously put aside. Yet even in doing so, his actions were no longer genuinely consistent with a Jewish way of life. Through this retreat, Peter misrepresented the gospel before the very Gentile believers who had once admired and respected him. By showing them a distorted version of what it meant to be “Jewish,” his conduct became improper and misleading.

To more clearly understand what Paul saw as Peter’s fault, it is helpful to look at how Paul—though a Jew and an apostle to the Gentiles—conducted himself in front of Jews. In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul says, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law.” Though the law did not bind him, Paul was willing to act in accordance with Jewish customs for the sake of reaching the Jews (as seen, for instance, in Acts 21:21–26).

Does this not make Paul’s behavior seem two-faced—becoming like a Jew before Jews (1 Cor. 9:20), and like a Gentile before Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:21)? In one sense, yes—it is dual, but not duplicitous. Paul’s actions were consistently guided by a missional purpose: to win as many as possible to Christ, without compromising the gospel itself. However, in situations involving mixed groups of Jews and Gentiles, Paul remained consistent with his identity as the apostle to the Gentiles. He openly enjoyed table fellowship with Gentiles and did not waver. In Paul’s view, if Peter—as an apostle to the Jews—had simply respected Gentile food customs while choosing to eat separately, that would have been understandable. But Peter, after initially eating with the Gentiles, suddenly changed his behavior and withdrew when others arrived, thereby displaying two conflicting postures in the same context. This, in Paul’s eyes, was the true error. If Peter believed that eating with Gentiles was acceptable, then even in the presence of James’s delegation, he should have remained at the table and defended his actions based on the truth of the gospel. To back away was, for Paul, a betrayal of that truth and a failure to stand firm in the freedom that Christ had given both Jews and Gentiles.

9. Second Missionary Journey (50–52 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 15:36–18:22)

A situation arose that led to the breaking of the relationship between Paul and Barnabas. Acts 15:36–39 records that their separation was due to John, also called Mark, who was Barnabas’s cousin. As seen in Acts 13:13, Mark had returned to Jerusalem from Pamphylia during the first missionary journey for reasons unknown (perhaps due to physical exhaustion?) and Acts 15:38 also mentions this. However, it seems insufficient to say that the disagreement over Mark alone caused such a sharp dispute.

Who was Barnabas? Wasn’t he a great benefactor to Paul? He was the one who introduced Paul to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and later brought him from his hometown Tarsus to Antioch to begin their partnership. During the first missionary journey, they endured many life-threatening trials together. It seems questionable to think that they parted ways simply over whether or not to bring Barnabas’s nephew along. More likely, Barnabas’s behavior during the Antioch incident also contributed to Paul’s disappointment and anger. What began as a dispute about Mark may have brought deeper, long-standing frustrations to the surface. As a result, they had a serious falling out and went their separate ways, as if they would never see each other again.

Barnabas took Mark with him and departed by sea, following the route of their first missionary journey. Meanwhile, Paul took Silas and departed by land, traveling through Syria and Cilicia, and eventually reaching Derbe and Lystra. Syria and Cilicia were mission fields that Paul had visited after his first trip to Jerusalem. The phrase “strengthening the churches” in Acts 15:41 suggests that these were churches Paul had established. In Derbe and Lystra, Paul met a young believer named Timothy, who would later become a devoted coworker.

Paul passed through Iconium and then through the regions of Phrygia and (northern) Galatia, arriving in Mysia. He attempted to enter Bithynia, but “the Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7—the only occurrence of this phrase in the New Testament) did not permit them, so he went down to Troas. There, in a night vision, a man from Macedonia pleaded, “Come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:9). Responding to this vision, Paul sailed from Troas directly to Samothrace, and the next day to Neapolis. From there, he went to Philippi, where he met Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. He baptized her and her household. From Philippi, he traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica, where he preached the gospel. He then went to Berea to continue his ministry and afterward preached in Athens. He finally arrived in Corinth, where he met his future coworkers Priscilla and Aquila. Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching the word of God.

While Paul was still staying in Corinth, the Jews opposed him and brought him to trial. At that time, Gallio was the proconsul of Achaia (52–53 CE). After fulfilling a vow, Paul had his head shaved in Cenchreae and set sail with Priscilla and Aquila. They passed through Ephesus, landed at Caesarea, and finally arrived in Antioch, where Paul stayed for a time.

10. Third Missionary Journey (53–57 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 18:23–21:14)

After staying briefly in Antioch, Paul traveled through Galatia and Phrygia and arrived in Ephesus. He remained in Ephesus for three years, during which he established the School of Tyrannus, taught the Word of God to his disciples, and performed many miracles. After leaving Ephesus, Paul went to Macedonia, where he encouraged the disciples and then traveled to Greece (Achaia), staying there for three months. From there, he returned through Macedonia, and after arriving in Philippi, he boarded a ship to Troas, where he stayed for a week.

Paul traveled by land from Troas to Assos, where he met up with Luke and his companions, who had departed earlier by ship. Together, they sailed to Mitylene, passed by Chios, Samos, and finally arrived at Miletus. From Miletus, Paul sent for the elders of the church in Ephesus and exhorted them, explaining that he was on his way to Jerusalem, fully aware that imprisonment and suffering awaited him there, yet he was ready to give his life for the sake of testifying to the gospel of God. He also gave them instructions and encouragement regarding the Ephesian church.

Leaving Miletus, Paul traveled through Cos, Rhodes, and Patara before arriving at Tyre, where he stayed for a week. He then continued by land, passing through Ptolemais and eventually reaching Caesarea. While staying at the house of Philip the evangelist, a prophet named Agabus came from Judea and foretold that Paul would be bound in Jerusalem and handed over to the Gentiles. Though his companions pleaded with him not to go, Paul declared that he was ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord, and he continued on his journey.

One puzzling aspect of Luke's account in Acts is that, although one of the key purposes of Paul’s third missionary journey was to collect offerings for the poor saints in Jerusalem, Luke makes no mention of this collection effort. Paul treats this as a major issue in the epistles he wrote during this journey—1 Corinthians (16:1–4), 2 Corinthians (Chapters 8–9), and Romans (15:25–28), written after the collection was completed and he was on his way to Jerusalem from Corinth. So why does Luke, who refers to himself as part of the traveling party (“we” passages), remain silent on the matter? It’s unlikely that Paul carried out this collection work without Luke’s knowledge. In Romans 15:25–28, Paul clearly states his purpose in going to Jerusalem, even at the risk of death:
“At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem; they were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. When therefore I have completed this, and have delivered to them what has been raised, I shall go on by way of you to Spain.”

Although Paul’s formal or stated purpose for visiting Jerusalem was to deliver the financial contribution for the poor among the saints there, his deeper, practical purpose seems to have been to bear witness of the gospel to his fellow Jews. Despite being the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul’s heart was always filled with love and evangelistic longing for his own people (cf. Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1; 11:13–14).

If Luke had indeed been Paul’s travel companion, as many scholars suggest, it would be hard to believe that he was unaware of Paul’s passionate fundraising efforts or his heartfelt desire to go to Jerusalem. Yet in Acts, Luke maintains complete silence about both. Paul’s travels through various regions of Macedonia and his three-month stay in Achaia were primarily for the purpose of collecting the offering for the saints in Jerusalem, yet Luke seems entirely unaware of Paul’s intent in doing so. Had Luke known about this collection effort and Paul’s ultimate purpose for visiting Jerusalem, it is unlikely that Acts 21:12 would have recorded, “When we heard this, we and the people there begged him not to go up to Jerusalem.” This plea is reminiscent of the well-meaning but misguided Peter who, when Jesus spoke of his coming suffering and death, said, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Matt. 16:22). What, then, is the conclusion? It is that Luke’s account of Paul’s missionary journeys may not have been based on firsthand experience but rather on reports he had heard—perhaps without full understanding of Paul’s true motives, particularly concerning the third missionary journey and his underlying reasons for going to Jerusalem.

11. Third Jerusalem Visit – Arrest and Imprisonment in Caesarea (58–60 CE)

(Scriptures: Rom. 15:25; Acts 21:15–26:32)

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he met with James and the elders and reported the results of his missionary work among the Gentiles. They glorified God upon hearing it but then directly expressed a concern: due to rumors (possibly false) about Paul (Acts 21:21), they feared unrest among Jewish Christians. To address this, they instructed Paul to undergo a purification rite. They also reminded him of the resolution from the Jerusalem Council ten years earlier (Acts 21:25; compare Acts 15:20, 29), raising the question of whether Paul had properly taught and observed these rules among the Gentiles.

While Paul was in the temple completing the seven days of purification, he was seized by Jews from Asia. The uproar in the entire city over the arrest of one man (Acts 21:30–31) seems exaggerated. In response, the Roman commander arrived with centurions and soldiers (Acts 21:32). Paul, granted permission by the commander, tried to explain to the Jews how he had come to faith. But this could not quell the unrest. When the commander, unsure of the cause of the uproar, ordered Paul to be flogged and interrogated, Paul revealed his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25–29; 23:27). He had done the same previously in Philippi during his second missionary journey (Acts 16:37–38). Interestingly, Paul’s Roman citizenship is mentioned only in Acts, not in his letters.

Paul was then sent from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where the Roman governor Felix resided. Before Felix, Paul defended himself, claiming he had done nothing wrong and was only being accused for proclaiming “the resurrection of the dead” (which Luke presents as Paul’s core message in Acts). Paul made only a brief mention of the collection for the poor—one of the key results of his third missionary journey (see Rom. 15:28)—saying, “Now after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings.” (Acts 24:17). As noted earlier, Luke seems unaware of how important this collection was to Paul. I think that Acts was not written during Paul’s lifetime, and that Luke did not confirm the contents of the book directly with Paul. Instead, it is likely that Acts was compiled after Paul’s death by someone using the name “Luke”—a physician known to have traveled with Paul—as a pseudonym.

One reason Felix did not harshly treat Paul was because “he hoped that money would be given him by Paul.” (Acts 24:26). Though Luke does not elaborate (likely due to his ignorance of Paul’s collection efforts), Felix may have heard rumors that Paul had brought a large sum of money to Jerusalem, distributed some of it to the poor, and still had some left, leading him to expect a bribe.

Paul’s charges were religious in nature—matters of Jewish conviction such as the resurrection of the dead or accusations of spreading a sectarian faith (see Acts 24:5)—which were relatively minor in the eyes of the Roman governor. Yet it remains puzzling why two years passed without a resolution, especially since Paul was a Roman citizen. Luke does not offer a satisfactory explanation. In any case, after two years, Felix was succeeded by Festus, and Paul’s trial entered a new phase. Festus, seeking fairness, invited King Herod Agrippa II (who reigned from 53–70 CE and was familiar with Jewish customs and religion) to hear the case. Paul, before Festus, Agrippa II, and his sister-wife Bernice, once again testified about his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:2–23), just as he had earlier before the Jewish accusers (Acts 22:3–21). But his testimony wasn’t to secure a verdict—it was meant as a preliminary step toward appealing to Caesar (Acts 25:25–27).

Why did Paul want to appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:10–12, 25)? First, he likely feared that being tried in Jerusalem by the high priest and religious leaders would result in an unjust verdict (Acts 25:9). However, the statements in Acts appear contradictory. In Acts 26:32, Agrippa II tells Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar,” implying that Paul could have been released but forfeited that chance by appealing. Yet Paul himself later tells the Jewish leaders in Rome (Acts 28:18–19), “When they (=the Romans) had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation.” This latter statement in Acts 28 is more plausible.

Second, Paul likely remembered the Lord’s words in a revelation: “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.” (Acts 23:11).

Third, Paul had longed to visit Rome and eventually reach Spain to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. In Romans 15:28, he says, “When therefore I have completed this (that is, collection campaign for the poor Jerusalem saints), and have delivered to them what has been raised, I shall go on by way of you to Spain.” Thus, despite the dangers and uncertainty ahead, Paul was determined to go to Rome and stand before the emperor.

Therefore, although the road to Rome was uncertain and fraught with danger, Paul desired to go there and stand before the emperor. It is likely that among Paul’s aspirations was the hope that—just as he had boldly testified to the gospel of Christ before Felix, Festus, Agrippa II, and Bernice—he might also testify before Caesar himself. And if the emperor’s heart could somehow be moved by the gospel, Paul may have hoped that this would lead to the global spread of the message of Christ.

12. Journey to Rome (60 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 27:1–28:16)

Paul and his companions boarded a ship from Adramyttium and departed from Caesarea, passing through Sidon, and arrived at the city of Myra in the region of Lycia in Asia Minor. There, they transferred to an Alexandrian ship (one that traveled between Alexandria and Rome), and continued sailing past Cnidus, then by Salmone, and along the coast of Crete until they anchored at Fair Havens on the island of Crete.

Paul, recognizing that the weather had turned dangerous, and sailing was no longer advisable, warned that they should stay put and wait for better conditions. However, the ship’s captain and owner insisted on continuing the voyage a little farther to Phoenix to spend the winter there. The centurion, who was in charge, sided with the captain and the majority, so they continued sailing. Not long after, they encountered a violent storm—Euroclydon (or Euraquilo, the northeaster)—and the ship was caught in the gale. For many days they were tossed about by wind and waves, enduring a perilous journey. At this time, Paul addressed the people on board and said, “For this very night there stood by me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’” (Acts 27:23–24). His words brought calm and reassurance to those aboard. About ten days after departing from Fair Havens, though the ship suffered some damage, all 276 passengers survived and safely made landfall on the island of Melita (Malta). While on the island, Paul was bitten by a viper on the hand, yet he suffered no harm—fulfilling what is stated in Mark 16:18. As a result, the islanders held him in high regard. Paul went on to heal the father of Publius, the chief of the island, who was suffering from fever and dysentery, by prayer and the laying on of hands. This led others on the island who were sick to come to Paul, and they too were healed.

According to Acts 28:11, three months later, they boarded another Alexandrian ship—different from the earlier one—named "Dioscuri (Διοσκούροις)," meaning "the twin brothers” or “sons of Zeus" (Castor and Pollux). They sailed through Syracuse, Rhegium, and Puteoli, eventually reaching Rome. There, some brothers and sisters in the faith came out as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet Paul, who was being transported as a prisoner.

13. House Arrest in Rome (60–62 CE)

(Scripture: Acts 28:17–31)

The first thing Paul did upon arriving in Rome was to invite the prominent Jews living there and explain that, although he preached the gospel of Christ, he had not rejected the people of Israel or the traditions of the ancestors (Acts 28:17–20). According to the account in Acts, the Jews in Rome seemed to be relatively open-minded. They did not treat Paul with prejudice but were willing to listen and learn about his teachings (Acts 28:21–22).

Paul's method of evangelism to Jews differed from that used with Gentiles. To the Jews, he preached “the kingdom of God” and “the things concerning Jesus” using “the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23). This differentiated approach depending on his audience was consistent with Paul’s conviction. In 1 Corinthians 9:19–21, he writes: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law.” Paul’s evangelistic strategy did not rigidly follow a single method; rather, he adapted to the culture and customs of his audience, conceding non-essential matters to convey the essential core—the gospel.

Luke concludes the Book of Acts with a note that Paul stayed for two years in his own rented house in Rome, teaching about the kingdom of God and about Jesus Christ. The way Acts ends—with the mention of Paul’s two-year stay—suggests an expectation that his ministry continued afterward, possibly in places beyond Rome.

14. Afterward—and Death (62? – 67? CE)

Did Paul actually stand trial before Caesar (i.e., the Roman Emperor) as he had appealed? If he did, what defense did he present? Unfortunately, neither Paul’s epistles nor the Book of Acts provide any information on this matter. Considering that the emperor at the time was Nero (reigned 54–68 CE) and given Nero’s character and growing prejudice against Christians in his later years, it is assumed that even if Paul did appear before Nero, he likely did not receive a fair trial, nor was he able to persuade the emperor.

Many scholars believe that Paul was executed after staying in Rome for two years. If so, Paul would have met ending around 62 CE. Even if his stay in Rome was slightly longer, it is generally thought he did not live beyond 64–65 CE.

Some biblical scholars argue that after two years of house arrest in Rome, Paul was released and continued evangelizing in various places (possibly a fourth missionary journey), only to be arrested again around 66–67 CE and executed during Nero’s final years, around 67 CE. They also believe that Paul wrote 1 Timothy (before his second imprisonment), Titus, and 2 Timothy (after the second imprisonment) during this time. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, this supports the possibility that Paul was released and later re-arrested (see 2 Tim. 1:17; 4:13). However, the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles is debated. Even among scholars who accept their authenticity, some argue they do not necessarily prove Paul’s release and second imprisonment in Rome.

Did Paul ever reach Spain (Hispania, or "the limits of the West"), as he had hoped and planned (cf. Rom. 15:28)? While the New Testament itself is silent on whether Paul made it to Spain, Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthian church (1 Clement 5:7), offers a suggestive testimony: “He (=Paul) taught righteousness to the whole world, having reached the limits of the West, and bore witness before rulers. He thus departed from the world and was taken up into the holy place—having become a model of the greatest endurance.” The phrase “the limits of the West” (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) has traditionally been interpreted by many scholars and church historians as a reference to Spain, which in Roman geography was considered the westernmost edge of the known world. Thus, while the canonical Acts of the Apostles ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28), 1 Clement, written likely in the late first century (around 95 CE), seems to imply that Paul may have been released after his Roman imprisonment, continued his missionary work westward, and perhaps even reached Spain before his final arrest and martyrdom. While not definitive, this early tradition provides a strong indication that Paul may have fulfilled his longing to carry the gospel to Spain, as he had expressed in Romans 15:24, 28.

According to the New Testament apocrypha Acts of Peter, Paul received a revelation from the Lord saying, “Be the physician of the Spaniards,” and went to Spain (chapter 1). After completing his mission there, he returned to Rome and, with Peter, confronted the sorcerer Simon (cf. Acts 8). Although the text records Peter’s crucifixion (upside down), it does not mention Paul’s death. In Acts of Peter and Paul, it is written that Paul and Peter were martyred on the same day (June 29) during Nero’s reign—Peter by crucifixion upside down at his own request, and Paul by beheading on the Ostian Way. Acts of Paul also mentions Paul’s beheading, stating that milk spurted from his neck, soaking the executioner's clothing, which amazed those present and led them to glorify God (Chapter 5).

The Muratorian Fragment states, “Paul, having departed from this city (=Rome), went to Spain” (lines 38–39). The 4th-century historian Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, comments on the conclusion of Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, adding, “After having stood trial, the apostle again set out for the ministry of preaching, and came to the same city (=Rome) a second time, where he suffered martyrdom. During this imprisonment, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he refers to his previous trial and impending death” (EH, 2.22). However, to what extent these already legendary traditions can be trusted remains a matter of ongoing debate.

 

 

PART II

 

PAULINE EPISTLES

 

 

 

Chapter 5       Pauline Epistles

 

1. Authenticity of Paul’s Letters

There is much disagreement among scholars regarding the question of which among the books classified as "Pauline Epistles" are truly letters of Paul. Conservative scholars have generally recognized thirteen or fourteen letters as Pauline, depending on whether or not the Epistle to the Hebrews is included. However, critical biblical scholars generally acknowledge only seven letters as Paul's letters (the seven undisputed Paul's letters). These include Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. Critical biblical scholars regard the remaining Pauline epistles, although they begin with a preface in Paul's name, as having been written by his disciples around the second century.

In the mid-2nd century (circa 140 CE), Marcion compiled a New Testament canon consisting of one Gospel—the Gospel of Luke—and ten Pauline epistles (Apostolikon), excluding the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). It is not certain why he excluded the Pastoral Epistles from his canon, but it is speculated that either he was unaware of their existence, or—if he did know about them—he deliberately left them out because the “Paul of Marcion” could not have authored them. This is because the content of the Pastoral Epistles places too much emphasis on Jewish-Christian traditions, institutional structures, and established customs, which were contrary to Marcion’s theological stance. However, by the end of the 2nd century (170–190 CE), in response to Marcion’s canon, figures such as Irenaeus and Tertullian began forming the Catholic canon, in which the Pastoral Epistles were included.

In the early 19th century, Ferdinand C. Baur (founder of the Tübingen School) argued that only four letters—Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians—were genuinely from Paul. Later, he conceded that 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon might also be authentic. His views were considered radical even among German critical scholars of his time.

However, to Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), who belonged to the Hegelian school, the position of F. C. Baur was still insufficient. Bruno Bauer questioned the authenticity of the Pauline epistles altogether and argued that most of them were products of the second century, written by various authors, and were the outcome of what he called “Christian self-confidence.” Due to the extremity of his claims, Bruno Bauer's work was soon forgotten in Germany. Nevertheless, his ideas—already beginning to take shape during his lifetime—exerted significant influence, either positively or negatively, on the emerging movement of “Dutch Radical Criticism.”[19] These Dutch radical scholars eventually went so far as to deny the authenticity of all Pauline epistles.

Today, the view that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is entirely rejected among critical scholars. Even among conservative scholars, the majority also reject the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The reason Hebrews was able to be included in the New Testament canon is that the early Church Fathers believed it was written by Paul. However, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews has been more easily dismissed than that of other disputed letters because Paul’s name does not appear anywhere in the epistle. As for the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus), critical scholars generally deny Pauline authorship. Regarding Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, there is considerable suspicion among critical scholars, and the Pauline authorship of these letters is widely questioned.

What distinctions do critical biblical scholars see between Paul's genuine letters and the secondary letters written by his disciples? They interpret these differences as reflecting significant variations in vocabulary, phrasing, and theological content. Generally, they observe a distinct difference in tone and character between the two groups of letters. The seven letters identified as genuine Pauline epistles are said to reflect more immediate, real-life circumstances. That is, Paul's actual relationships and situations with the churches are more frequently and clearly evident in these letters.

By contrast, while the six secondary letters (often attributed to later followers of Paul) do contain some references to real-life contexts, such references are noticeably less frequent. Instead, these letters tend to display a more didactic and doctrinal character, emphasizing teaching over practical engagement with specific church situations.

2. Characteristics of Pauline Epistles

Paul’s epistles can be divided into four categories according to their theological character: the epistles concerning salvation (Soteriology) are Romans and Galatians; the epistles concerning Christ (Christology) are Philippians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Colossians; the epistles concerning the church (Ecclesiology) are 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus; and the epistles concerning the end times (Eschatology) are 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians.

3. Dates and Background of Paul’s Letters

(1) Romans

Romans is a letter addressed to a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome (Rom. 1:7, 13; 2:17). Gentiles likely formed the majority. These Christians were immigrants from various Mediterranean coastal cities and Asia Minor. At the time of writing, Paul had not yet visited Rome.

Paul is believed to have written this letter around 57 CE, near the end of his Third Missionary Journey, while in Corinth. In this letter, he announces his future intention to visit the Roman Christians and seeks their support for his planned journey to Spain (Rom. 15:23–25). Before visiting Rome, he wanted to teach the foundational truths of the gospel regarding salvation and Christian living. This aim—to establish the content of the gospel, which had been interpreted in many diverse ways—is the fundamental purpose behind writing Romans.

Romans comprises sixteen chapters. Chapters 1–8 present doctrinal exposition, where Paul explains the great truths of the gospel. Chapters 9–11 form a parenthetical section on Israel. Chapters 12–16 are practical, where Paul explains how the doctrines described earlier can be lived out. The central theme of Romans is that “the righteousness of God is revealed to sinners who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.”
(The logical progression is as follows: All people are sinners → Sin leads to eternal death → There is only one way to salvation → Salvation is the gift of God → And the power of God is the driving force in the life of every Christian.)

(2) 1 Corinthians

Corinth, a Roman colony with a population of about 500,000, was inhabited by Romans, Greeks, and people from the East. It was a major commercial hub of the empire, drawing sailors, merchants, and artisans. The city hosted many temples of Aphrodite (Venus), where priestesses also functioned as prostitutes. The Greek verb “Κορινθιάζομαι” (to act like a Corinthian) became slang for “practicing sexual immorality,” illustrating the city’s reputation for moral laxity. The Corinthian church was torn between “Christian teaching” and the “immorality” they had renounced.

The Corinthian church was founded when Paul visited around 50 CE (Acts 18). From the beginning it consisted of relatively few believers—mostly Gentiles with some Jews. Most were poor or lower-income individuals (1 Cor. 1:26). Their moral and spiritual growth was slow (1 Cor. 3:1ff). After Paul left, Apollos took over leadership of the church (Acts 18:24–19:1; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 16:12).

1 Corinthians is a letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth around 55 CE, during his third missionary journey, while he was in Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 16:8). Through this letter, Paul addresses the core issues within the Corinthian church, which he had come to know either through reports or direct inquiries. He seeks to resolve these problems through doctrinal instruction and practical examples. Beyond addressing immediate concerns, Paul also aims to teach the Corinthians theological truths, to clearly defend his apostolic authority (which he does even more fully in 2 Corinthians), and to exhort them toward a mature Christian life.

(3) 2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians appears to be a letter that Paul sent during his third missionary journey, several months or about a year after sending 1 Corinthians (around 55–56 CE). The place of writing is presumed to be Philippi in the region of Macedonia.

The purposes of the writing of 2 Corinthians are: first, to remove misunderstandings that still existed (or had deepened) after the writing of 1 Corinthians, and to instruct concerning doctrine and practice; second, to give a more detailed explanation regarding the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor.16:1–4; elaborated in chapters 8–9); third, to defend against slander and accusations within the Corinthian church concerning Paul’s apostleship.

If 1 Corinthians is objective and practical, with careful instruction and warnings about the influence of heresies, 2 Corinthians is subjective and personal, with intense testimony and warnings about the influence of Judaizers.

(4) Galatians

The term “Galatia” includes both the southern (South Galatia) and northern (North Galatia) parts of the interior of Asia Minor. According to the record in Acts, Paul’s first missionary journey took him primarily through the South Galatian region—Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–14). During his second missionary journey, the “Galatia” he visited (Acts 16:6) refers to North Galatia. Therefore, if Galatians was written in connection with the issue of circumcision, the Mosaic Law, and salvation—which was brought before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1–2)—and was written around the time just before or after that council (around 50 CE), the intended recipients would have been the churches in South Galatia, visited during Paul’s first missionary journey.

Scholars who believe Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council (49 CE.) identify the second visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2:1ff. with the visit for relief aid recorded in Acts 11:29–30 and 12:25 (around 45–46 CE). According to that view, the “fourteen years” in Galatians 2:1 is calculated not from Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, but from his conversion on the road to Damascus—a reading that feels contextually awkward. Thus, even if Galatians was written shortly after Paul’s first missionary journey, it is more plausible to understand it as reflecting the discussions and resolutions of the Jerusalem Council. If so, the likely date of the writing of Galatians would be 49 or 50 CE.

Among biblical scholars, some argue that Galatians was written either during Paul’s second missionary journey (around 50–51 CE) or during his third missionary journey (around 55–56 CE). In such cases, the intended recipients are generally understood to be the churches in “North Galatia”, or possibly throughout both South and North Galatia. In this view, it is natural to interpret the Jerusalem visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1 as referring to Paul’s participation in the Jerusalem Council in 49 CE. Even if the letter was written during the third missionary journey, it is almost certain that Galatians was the earliest written among Paul’s four major epistles—Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.

Jewish-Christian agitators visited the churches in the Gentile region of Galatia and incited them by claiming that salvation was not by faith alone, but that, like the Jews, they must also be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. The believers in the Galatian churches, having received from Paul the doctrine of justification and salvation by faith, began to waver and were being misled by the words of these Judaizing Christians. In response, Paul emphasizes that the gospel he preaches, which teaches righteousness by faith, comes entirely by revelation from Christ. He warns them how foolish they are if they turn away from this and follow the law. Paul then explains the relationship between the law and the gospel, stating that the role of the law has come to an end with the coming of Christ. Therefore, those who belong to the gospel are to live as free people, led by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and are exhorted to live a life bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

(5) Ephesians

If the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul himself, it would be one of the prison epistles written around 61–62 CE while he was under house arrest in Rome. However, critical biblical scholars raise doubts about Pauline authorship and consider that it was likely written by one of his disciples after Paul's death (around 70–80 CE). As a reason, they point out the absence in the epistle of specific contextual issues (contingency) that are usually found in Paul's seven undisputed letters, which reflect the particular situations of local churches.

Ephesians, rather than addressing specific issues within a particular church, is a letter about Christ (Christology) that broadly describes the redemptive-historical significance of Christ. It reveals that God, by His power, raised Christ from the dead, seated Him at His right hand, and made Him the head of the Church (1:20–23). Furthermore, it states that believers also will be made alive by God and seated in the heavenly realms (2:5–6). With the coming of Christ, Jews and Gentiles become one new humanity (2:15), and it proclaims that these two are reconciled to God as one body (2:16).

(6) Philippians

Philippians was written by Paul around the time he was under house arrest in Rome (61–62 CE; cf. Acts 28:16–31). In this letter, he gives thanks for the gift from the Philippian believers, informs them of his current situation, exhorts them to serve God with a humble heart by following the example of Christ, and encourages them to always rejoice and give thanks. However, among critical scholars, there are some who argue that Philippians and Philemon—these two prison epistles (they deny Pauline authorship of Ephesians and Colossians)—were written not in Rome, but while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea before being transferred to Rome.[20]

The church in Philippi, located in Philippi of central Macedonia in Greece, was the first church established in the European region by Paul (Acts 16:11–15). In contrast to the later conflicts Paul experienced with some members of the Corinthian church, his relationship with the Philippian believers was consistently close and joyful. Paul, through Epaphroditus, who had brought a gift from the Philippian church to him (4:18) and was now returning (2:25–29), informed the brothers in Philippi of his recent circumstances, expressed his gratitude for the gift, and gave them instruction on matters necessary for Christian life. The overall tone of the letter expresses Paul’s boundless joy and deep contentment in Christ, even while he was in prison and facing the threat of execution, through the fellowship he shared with them.

Philippians was written during Paul’s Roman house arrest (61–62 CE). It expresses gratitude for the Philippians’ gift, updates them on Paul’s situation, encourages humility in Christ’s example, and urges continual joy and thanksgiving. Critical scholars sometimes date Philippians and Philemon to Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea rather than Rome.

The church at Philippi, located in the region of Philippi in central Macedonia, Greece, was the first church established in Europe by Paul (Acts 16:11–15). Unlike the difficulties Paul later had with some members of the Corinthian church, his relationship with the Philippians was consistently close and joyful. Paul sent this letter with Epaphroditus, who had brought a gift from the Philippian church (Philippians 4:18) and was now returning to them (2:25–29). Through Epaphroditus, Paul informed the Philippians of his recent circumstances, expressed his gratitude, and offered spiritual instruction relevant to their Christian lives. The overall tone of the letter reflects Paul’s overflowing joy and spiritual contentment in Christ, even while facing the threat of execution in prison, and highlights the deep fellowship he shared with the Philippian believers.

(7) Colossians

If Colossians is a letter personally written by Paul, then it would be a letter sent to the believers in Colossae around 61–62 CE, during the time Paul was under house arrest in Rome, delivered through Tychicus and Onesimus (4:7–9). However, critical biblical scholars do not regard this epistle as authored by Paul himself, but rather as written by one of his disciples after Paul’s death.

The church in Colossae was not a church that Paul personally founded or ministered in, but since it was located not far from the church in Ephesus, where Paul had ministered, and because Epaphras, who had received instruction from Paul and assisted him during his ministry in Ephesus, was serving there, Paul took great interest in it. When Epaphras, who visited Paul in Rome, brought news from the church in Colossae about false teachings and heresies (1:7–8), Paul wrote this letter to correct those issues. While he does not specify exactly what the heresy was, he explicitly points it out and warns against it in 2:8–23. From that section, we can observe elements such as Jewish legalism (2:11, 2:14, 2:16, 3:11), strict asceticism (2:16, 2:20–23), worship of angels (2:18), and veneration of worldly knowledge (philosophy) (2:8). In refuting and warning against these heretical ideas, Paul presents the character and work of Jesus Christ as superior counter-truths.

In Colossians, both the divinity and humanity of Christ are emphasized. Christ is the Creator, in whom the fullness of divinity dwells; He is also the head of the Church, the reconciler between humanity and God, and the one who, in His person, fulfills the role of mediator. In this letter, Paul is not engaging in philosophical discourse but rather proclaiming the person of Jesus Christ. The denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the effectiveness of His death on the cross, His absolute sovereignty, and His ongoing mediation—as promoted by the heretical teachings—are addressed and refuted. These are the central themes of Paul’s doctrinal message (1:15–22, 2:9, 3:11). Furthermore, Colossians describes the Cosmic Christ, who encompasses all things within Himself, and this can be regarded as a fully developed form of Christology.

(8) 1 Thessalonians

The church at Thessalonica was founded during Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (Acts 17:1–9). Following opposition, Paul traveled onward to Berea and Athens before reaching Corinth. Timothy and Silas subsequently delivered news of the Thessalonian church, prompting Paul’s first letter.

Among Paul’s epistles, some scholars argue that Galatians was the earliest to be written, around 48–49 CE, shortly after Paul’s first missionary journey. Others argue that 1 Thessalonians was the first to be written, around 51–52 CE during Paul’s second missionary journey. The latter group supports the late dating of Galatians, claiming it was written around 55–56 CE.

The reason for writing the letter was that, while Paul was evangelizing in Thessalonica, a disturbance broke out, forcing him to leave. Though he later desired to return, he was unable to do so (1 Thess. 2:17–18), so he sent Timothy to learn about their condition (1 Thess. 3:1–5). When Timothy later brought back news from there, Paul wrote this letter to encourage the faith of the Thessalonian believers (1 Thess. 3:6–13). Through this letter, Paul urges the Thessalonian believers in their faith (3:6, 10), reveals what sins are present among them (sexual immorality [4:3], laziness [4:11]), corrects misunderstandings about the second coming of Jesus Christ (4:13–17), encourages the spiritual lives of the newly converted believers (4:1–12), and defends himself against slander—that he preached the gospel to make money (2:3, 9–10); that he flatters people (2:4–6); or that he is a coward (2:17–20).

The main themes of 1 Thessalonians include the affliction and persecution of Christians, the second coming (Parousia) of Jesus Christ (4:13–17), thanksgiving for the faith and endurance of the Thessalonian believers (3:6–13), encouragement to the church facing tribulation, and an exhortation to live a holy life (4:1–12). Due to the eschatological phenomenon and understanding that Christ’s return was imminent, the Thessalonian believers were living idle lives amid the affliction and persecution that had come upon them, and were living in fear under the mistaken belief that deceased believers would not take part in the resurrection. Paul explains what a holy life of faithful believers looks like and, at Christ’s return, how the dead in Christ and all living believers will be caught up (raptured). By doing so, he urges them to have a correct understanding of the second coming of Christ and to live a sound spiritual life.

(9) 2 Thessalonians

If 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul, then this epistle would have been written around 52 CE, a few months after 1 Thessalonians, with the intent of correcting the Thessalonian believers’ misunderstandings about the end times. However, critical scholars argue that 2 Thessalonians, while seemingly imitating the style of 1 Thessalonians, presents a somewhat different eschatology, and therefore, they claim it was not written by Paul but rather by a disciple of Paul who responded to circumstances after Paul’s death.

After 1 Thessalonians was sent, confusion arose among the Thessalonian believers due to a mistaken understanding of the end times. Paul warns them not to misinterpret his words in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–3, and not to neglect daily life or act fanatically under the pretense that the end had already arrived. He emphasizes that the church and believers should live with hope and expectation for the coming of the end, but at the same time, must be faithful in their practical lives and callings.

(10) 1 Timothy

Marcion, who compiled the earliest New Testament canon, did not include the three Pastoral Epistles—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus—in the Apostolikon (Pauline Epistles) section. If 1 Timothy were a letter personally written by Paul, it would have been composed around 62–63 CE, during the brief period when Paul was released from house arrest in Rome. However, there is no definite evidence regarding Paul's activities following his house arrest in Rome. Neither Acts nor Paul’s letters record whether he was released from house arrest, what further activities he engaged in if he was, where he went, or how he was captured again and what kind of imprisonment he underwent. There are only uncertain traditions and conjectures.

Not only critical biblical scholars, but also many moderate scholars, have raised doubts about the authenticity of the three Pastoral Epistles, including 1 Timothy. This is because not only the style and vocabulary, but also the theology, differ significantly from Paul’s other letters. Furthermore, the church governance system involving bishops (overseers) seems premature to be considered from Paul’s time. According to these scholars, 1 Timothy was written toward the end of the 1st century by a disciple who inherited Paul’s spirit (some progressive theologians even place its date of composition as late as the mid-2nd century).

1 Timothy takes the form of a personal letter from Paul to Timothy, who is ministering in Ephesus, but like his other epistles, it was written for circulation within the church. The letter addresses church issues, the qualifications of various leaders within the church, and the duties they are to fulfill. Through this epistle, Paul exhorts Timothy as a pastor and explains the qualifications for overseers (bishops) and deacons.

(11) 2 Timothy

f this letter was personally written by Paul, it would be considered his final epistle, like a last testament, written with his death imminent. It would have been composed around 67 CE, during his second imprisonment, after receiving a death sentence. However, many biblical scholars, including critical theologians, deny Pauline authorship. As explained in the case of 1 Timothy, there are many inconsistencies in terms of style, vocabulary, and theological thought compared to Paul’s other epistles.

2 Timothy is written in the form of a final exhortation from Paul, who is facing imminent death, to Timothy, his spiritual son, as a spiritual father. Sensing that the time was near when he would soon lay aside the heavy burden of the flesh (4:6), Paul exhorts Timothy, who is faithfully ministering in Ephesus despite persecution, not to be swayed by the teachings and arguments of false teachers, but to stand firm on the word of truth and teach that truth to others.

(12) Titus

If this letter was personally written by Paul, it would have been composed around 62–63 CE, when Paul had been released from house arrest in Rome and was a free man, around the same time as 1 Timothy, in the form of a letter addressed to Titus, who was ministering on the island of Crete. However, many theologians, including critical scholars, deny Pauline authorship. As explained in the case of 1 Timothy, there are many inconsistencies in style, vocabulary, and theological thought compared to Paul’s other epistles.

Titus emphasizes sound doctrine while also warning against those who distort the truth. It stresses good works and provides appropriate behavioral guidelines for various groups within the church. The letter also mentions the qualifications for those who are to hold office, and it emphasizes that all believers, including officeholders, must demonstrate conduct in daily life that is worthy of salvation.

(13) Philemon

Philemon was written in the form of a personal letter from Paul to a man named Philemon around 62 CE, during the time Paul was under house arrest in Rome. Through this letter, we can see how tender and caring Paul was even on a personal level. He refers to Onesimus, who was a slave of Philemon, as his “son,” and appeals for him to Philemon as if for his own child. Paul shows us that, as a Christian, he made no distinction between slave and master in his dealings with people, and he helps us understand the kind of love that Christians ought to practice and share.

 

Chapter 6       The Canonization of Pauline Epistles

 

1. Introduction

What happened to Paul's letters after his death, which occurred around 62 or 67 CE? Why is there no mention or hint of Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, or the other Gospels, which were undoubtedly written after Paul’s death? Among the books of the New Testament included in the canon, aside from Paul’s letters themselves, the only mention of the existence of his letters is found in 2 Peter 3:15–16 (“Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters...”), and even this passage has continuously been questioned regarding its authenticity by the early Church Fathers. Through what process and by whom Paul’s letters were collected, and how did they come to be included in the canon?

2. Collection of Paul’s Letters

How were the letters Paul had sent to regions like Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia gathered after his death? There are four main theories:

(1) “Pauline Testament” Theories

These theories assert that there was no gap between the Apostle Paul and the collection of his letters. According to scholars who hold this view, Paul himself was the collector of his letters. R. L. Archer (1951–52) argued that Paul kept copies of the letters he had sent, and that someone who inherited these letters after Paul's death later published them.

David Trobisch (1989, 1993) claimed that the author (in this case, Paul), with publication in mind, selectively organized and compiled a collection of his writings during his lifetime, which was then published after his death. When adding other works by the same author posthumously, only those of the same theme were to be added after the ones the author originally selected and arranged. Trobisch called the collection of writings selected and arranged by the original author the “authorized recension,” and referred to the version published with posthumous additions as the “expanded edition.”

The order of arrangement, in principle, follows the length of the writings, from longer to shorter. In the case of Paul's letters, Trobisch pointed out that although Ephesians is longer than Galatians, it is placed after Galatians, which is an exception to this principle. Of course, the principle of decreasing length restarts with the Pastoral Epistles, because these are in a different category—letters sent to individuals. That is, after the letters addressed to churches, the letters to individuals are placed, and within those, they are arranged again in order of length from longer to shorter.

Regarding the placement of Ephesians after Galatians, despite its greater length, Trobisch suggested that Ephesians may have been added posthumously as part of the “expanded edition.” He believes that not only Ephesians but also eight other letters were not included in Paul’s original “authorized recension,” but were later added to the “expanded edition.” In other words, Trobisch argues that only four letters—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians—were originally selected by Paul himself, and the remaining nine letters, including Ephesians, were added after his death, with Ephesians possibly serving as an introduction to the expanded edition. E. J. Goodspeed suggests that for this very purpose, Onesimus, a freedman from the Colossian region, may have recorded the Epistle to the Ephesians.[21]

(2) “Immediate Post-Pauline Collection” Theory ("Paper Apostle")

Adolf von Harnack (1926) suggested that an enthusiastic reader may have carefully preserved Paul’s letters as they were delivered. He proposed that this person not only kept the letters they read but also began collecting copies of letters sent to other nearby churches, and that by the time of Paul’s death, they may have already collected all of Paul’s letters. First, Harnack assumed that, just as Paul’s letters are received today with rhetorical and theological force, so too would they have been by readers in Paul’s own time. Second, he cited 2 Corinthians 10:10, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account,” to argue that even Paul’s opponents had to acknowledge the power of his letters. Third, Harnack pointed to 1 Corinthians 7:17, “This is my rule in all the churches,” to suggest that Paul likely sent similar letters to his other churches—thus, one might not have needed to travel far to collect Paul’s letters. Fourth, Harnack noted 2 Thessalonians 2:2, “either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us,” and 3:17, “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write,” to argue that even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already numerous and authoritative enough to be imitated.

Donald Guthrie also held the view that there was not a large time gap between Paul’s life and the collection of his letters. Guthrie speculated that immediately after Paul’s death, one of his coworkers—most likely Timothy—discovered and collected Paul’s letters, eventually publishing them.

According to C. F. D. Moule, Luke, after writing his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, wrote the Pastoral Epistles (not during Paul’s lifetime, but posthumously as his amanuensis), and also collected Paul’s authentic letters. Scholars who believe in the same authorship for Luke–Acts and the Pastoral Epistles include Stephen G. Wilson and Jerome D. Quinn.

Hans-Martin Schenke proposed that the collection of Paul’s letters and the authorship of the Deutero-Pauline Epistles may have been carried out by Paul’s disciples—the Pauline school. These “true sons” of Paul took up the mantle of Paul’s ongoing mission and his authoritative role in order to respond to new challenges and questions, so that Paul’s voice would continue to be heard—just as Elisha took Elijah’s mantle in 2 Kings 2. Harry Gamble also favored Schenke’s theory over the idea of a single dubious individual (such as Onesimus, Luke, or Timothy) collecting Paul’s letters.

(3) “Snowball” Theory

The "snowball" theory is a term coined by C. F. D. Moule, and it refers to the idea that recipients of Paul’s letters initially possessed only the letter addressed to their own church, but through the exchange of copies with other recipients, they eventually collected all of Paul’s letters. Kirsopp Lake (1911) made a similar suggestion, proposing that a few recipients had partial collections at first, which were later replaced by the complete corpus. G. Zuntz (1953) suggested that such partial collections may have begun around Ephesus.

P. N. Harrison (1936) speculated that the letters to Corinth were the earliest fragments of a Pauline collection, to which Romans was later added, followed by the Macedonian collection consisting of Philippians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. These formed what he called the "European collection." On the other hand, Galatians, Colossians, the letter for Phoebe (Romans 16), and Philemon were collected in Asia Minor. This Asia Minor collection was later added to the European collection, and a Christian in Asia Minor composed Ephesians based on the other letters.

Lucetta Mowry (1944) held a similar view. She divided the collection process into three geographical regions: 1. The hinterlands of Asia Minor, including Galatians, Colossians, and Philemon; 2. The Macedonian region, including 1 Thessalonians and Philippians; and 3. The Achaian region, including 1 Corinthians and Romans.

What is the difference between the “immediate post-Pauline collection” theory and the “snowball” theory? Simply put, it is a difference in the passage of time. Proponents of the snowball theory do not believe that the collection of Paul’s letters happened as quickly as Harnack claimed. They suggest that the complete collection of Paul’s letters took a considerable amount of time, though partial collections were formed continually during that period.

(4) “Second Coming” Theory

E. J. Goodspeed, Walter Bauer, and Hans von Campenhausen pointed out that there was a “remarkable silence” concerning the Pauline epistles for a significant portion of the second century. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-second century, does not mention Paul at all in his extensive works. Even in writings where Paul is mentioned, he is not the focus of any special attention but rather regarded as a secondary figure—a kind of follower or associate of the twelve apostles.

W. Bauer noted that although Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome refer to Paul’s letters in their writings, they appear like ill-prepared students pretending to understand what they actually do not. For instance, Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (47:2), speaks as if Paul wrote only one letter to the Corinthian church. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Ephesians (12:2), seems to mistakenly believe that Paul praised the Ephesian believers in all his letters. Polycarp, in his Letter to the Philippians, assumes that Paul wrote multiple letters to the Philippians (3:2) and that Paul mentioned the excellent Philippians in all his letters (11:2).

Goodspeed also recognized a period of silence concerning Paul’s letters, but suggested this silence lasted from Paul’s death until around 90 CE. Knox remarked that Paul was not a central figure in the church during his lifetime, but the publication of his letters after his death brought him to a central position. W. Bauer, Goodspeed, John Knox, and C. L. Mitton all agreed that it took a long time after the publication of Paul’s letters for him to become a central figure in the church. A. E. Barnett, a student of Goodspeed, pointed out that it was through the personal effort of the first collector of Paul’s letters that Paul had such a significant literary impact on the church.

W. Bauer (1934), in agreement with Goodspeed, Knox, and Mitton, acknowledged that Paul and his letters were ignored for a time, but he thought the period of silence continued well beyond A.D. 90. He identified the person who brought about the “Second Coming” of the Pauline epistles as none other than Marcion of Pontus. Bauer wrote, “I would regard him(=Marcion) as the first systematic collector of the Pauline Heritage.”[22]

F. C. Burkitt (1906) had a similar view even earlier. He stated, “Marcion believed that Paul alone was the apostle who understood the teachings of Jesus, who came to bring salvation to mankind, and therefore took a special interest in him. As we know, Marcion, being a shipowner, traveled more than any other Christians of the second century, and thus likely had more opportunities than his contemporaries to collect Paul’s letters. Taking these facts into account, it seems reasonable to consider Marcion the first systematic collector of Paul’s letters.”

J. Knox, a student of Goodspeed, disagreed with Bauer and Burkitt’s claim that Marcion was the first systematic collector of Paul’s letters, offering the following reasons: First, Knox believed that the Catholic collection of Paul’s letters reflects a different text from that of Marcion’s. That is, it was based on an earlier (but unknown) collection of Paul’s letters that predated Marcion’s version; Second. unlike Bauer, Knox thought that the early Church Fathers (such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) were well acquainted with various Pauline letters; and third, he rejected the idea that the collection of Paul’s letters was delayed until Marcion’s time, arguing that Ephesians already presupposes the existence of the other nine letters, making such a delay inconceivable.

3. Canonization of Pauline Letters

The above examined four different theories regarding the collection of Paul’s letters. However, the collection and canonization of Paul’s letters do not necessarily have to coincide chronologically. Even if, as in the “Pauline Testament” theories, Paul had copies of all his letters during his lifetime, at that time he might have been satisfied simply with having his letters circulated among his churches. Even if by the end of the first century all of Paul’s letters had been well prepared, if the churches and believers did not yet feel the need for a “canon” (Canon; criterion, standard), the canonization process could have occurred much later.

Many scholars generally agree that Marcion was the first to undertake the work of canonization. Although he was condemned as a heretic and thus has not received particularly active or favorable evaluations for his contributions, it must be acknowledged — even if somewhat reluctantly — that Marcion deserves credit for the canonization of the Gospel of Luke and the ten Pauline epistles (Apostolikon).

However, the question of “Was Marcion the first to canonize the Pauline corpus?” and the question “Was Marcion’s ten-letter Pauline corpus the first collection of Paul’s letters?” are separate matters. The answer to the first question will likely be affirmative with more than a 90% probability, while the answer to the second question is likely to be split 50-50 between agreement and disagreement.

(1) Pauline Corpus

As examined above, W. Bauer and F. C. Burkitt asserted that Marcion was likely the first person to collect a complete Pauline corpus. The opposing view held by J. Knox and his reasons were also presented. Marcion's collection of ten Pauline epistles occurred around 140 CE, which was about 80 years after Paul had written his last letters—Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians. One may ask, “Did Paul really have copies of all his letters?”—a question that, considering the absence of modern copiers at the time, would seem nearly impossible. Writing even one lengthy letter back then required considerable effort, so it is hardly plausible that Paul would have written the same letter twice through an amanuensis. Furthermore, Paul likely would not have felt the necessity to preserve copies of his own letters. If he had preserved all his letters, then Luke, the author of Luke–Acts, would have certainly gone to great lengths, by direct or indirect means, to obtain at least copies of those copies.

Especially given that Paul’s activities occupy more than half of Acts, Paul’s letters would have been indispensable reference material, yet Acts shows no trace of contact with the Pauline epistles. Considering the lack of New Testament internal testimony about Paul’s letters (except for the disputed 2 Peter), it is highly probable that Paul’s letters were left dormant in the archives of the churches that had received them for some 30 to 40 years after his death. About ten years after Paul’s death, even his name may have been fading from memory, even among the Gentile churches. But then, as the first century drew to a close or the second century began, Paul’s name and his letters began to be remembered again. Most likely, Goodspeed’s testimony is correct.

Although scholars disagree when Luke wrote Acts (ranging from the mid-60s to the mid-2nd century), if we follow Goodspeed’s view that it was written around 90 CE, then Luke’s account of Paul would have helped spark interest in Paul’s letters. Even if Luke had never seen Paul’s letters and instead compiled oral traditions about Paul and wrote from those accounts—which would explain the notable differences in the three accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience (Acts 9, 22, and 26)—this would still have been enough to rekindle interest in Paul. The references to Paul in the writings of Clement of Rome (ca. 95), Ignatius (ca. 115), and Polycarp (ca. 135–155 CE) show that while they had heard Paul’s name and knew of his letters and perhaps had some vague or general awareness of their contents, they were certainly not firsthand readers of Paul’s epistles. It is believed that around 90–100 CE, interest in Paul’s letters began to rise, and with it, the process of collecting them likely began. As a result, from around 120 CE onward, Paul’s letters may have been in partial circulation among those with interest.

For a time, the claim that Marcion was the first collector of the Pauline corpus gained wide support among scholars. However, in more recent times, this claim has been largely refuted and has nearly disappeared from scholarly discussion. J. Knox pointed out that the textual differences between Marcion’s collection and the Catholic (orthodox) text suggest that Marcion merely selected one from among several existing versions of the Pauline corpus. This, Knox argued, serves as evidence that Marcion’s Pauline corpus was not the first.

However, Nils Dahl (1978) and J. J. Clabeaux (1989) each claimed to have discovered a widely circulated textual tradition to which Marcion’s text likely belonged. In other words, the similarity between Marcion’s text and non-Marcionite texts undermines the idea that Marcion was the first to collect the Pauline corpus. That is, the fact that Marcion’s and the Catholic texts both belonged to an earlier shared textual tradition serves as evidence that Marcion’s corpus was not the original collection.

(2) Canonization of Pauline Epistles

It now seems to be an established fact that Marcion’s Apostolikon was not the first collection of Paul’s letters. On the other hand, the claim that Marcion’s canon was the first Christian canon remains unshaken, even in light of new evidence. It is clear that before Marcion, the churches did not feel a strong need for a canon.

Marcion believed that Peter, John, James, and the others were not true apostles of Jesus and that only Paul was the “true” apostle. He criticized and attacked the Twelve Apostles, claiming they had failed to understand Jesus’ teachings and the gospel. Marcion believed that the Twelve had introduced a tradition of false teachings into the church, and that to correct this, Paul’s gospel needed to be carefully restored. He also believed that Paul’s letters had been altered and edited according to the understanding of Judaizing Christians. In Marcion’s view, the Jewish elements found in Paul’s letters were secondary and should be removed. Thus, even within Paul’s letters, deletions and additions were necessary, according to Marcion.

To distinguish himself from the existing Catholic Church, Marcion felt the need to form a canon composed of the letters of Paul—whom he claimed to be the true apostle—and the Gospel of Luke, which he considered to be Paul’s gospel. He believed that without such a canon, it would be difficult to preserve and teach the true gospel and sound doctrine. Marcion’s canon is often called the first clearly Christian closed canon due to its distinctive character. His canon consisted of two parts: the Gospel and the Apostolikon. His Gospel was a shortened and edited version of the Gospel of Luke, tailored to his purposes, and the Apostolikon consisted of ten letters of Paul (excluding the Pastoral Epistles). In this collection, Ephesians was replaced by a letter to the Laodiceans.[23] R. J. Hoffmann noted that the failure of Paul’s missionary work was the prerequisite for Marcion’s reform movement.[24]

Marcion rejected Jesus’ original Twelve Apostles as Judaizers and believed that only Paul was the true guardian of the gospel. The letters that comprised Marcion’s Apostolikon were arranged in the following order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (presumably Ephesians), Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. According to Nils Dahl, the placement of Galatians, the Corinthian letters, and Romans at the beginning of the Pauline corpus was not unique to Marcion’s canon.[25]

The Old Syriac version also followed the same order. Whether or not Marcion was aware of the Old Syriac version, he had a clear reason for placing Galatians at the beginning of his Apostolikon. For the sake of defending his dualism between law and gospel and his belief in only one gospel, he considered Galatians the most important of Paul’s letters. Marcion derived his dualistic concept of two gods from the radical distinction between law and gospel. Furthermore, he believed that Galatians provided the strongest anti-Judaistic basis.

According to J. Knox, the Pauline letters in Marcion’s Apostolikon did not exist as ten distinct letters. 1 and 2 Corinthians appeared as a single “Corinthians,” and 1 and 2 Thessalonians as a single “Thessalonians.” He also suggested that Colossians and Philemon were likely grouped under a single title. Thus, Knox proposed that Marcion’s Apostolikon may have contained seven letters (addressed to seven churches), similar to the seven churches in Revelation Chapters 2–3. At most, it may have included eight letters—if Colossians and Philemon were not grouped under one title.[26]

 

 

Chapter 7       The Second-Century Debates on Paul and His Epistles

 

1. Introduction
I believe the second century holds truly significant meaning in the history of the Christian Church. From the end of the first century to the early part of the second, the history of the Church flowed without much turmoil. From Clement of Rome at the end of the first century, to Ignatius in the early second century, and then to Polycarp in the early to mid-second century, although signs of heretical sects began to appear, the Church internally had not yet faced severe challenges. It was during this period that a few Gnostics, following in the footsteps of Simon Magus (Acts 8:9–24), were actively developing Christian Gnosticism in their own way. Irenaeus called Simon Magus the “father of all heresies,” and his followers greatly influenced Gnosticism. Among the notable Gnostics who began to show signs of activity within Christianity from the early second century were Menander (active mainly between 100–120 CE), Saturnilus (117–138), and Basilides (117–138) along with his son Isidore. However, those who belonged to their group were few and had not yet gained enough power to threaten the established churches.

However, after around 140 CE, the situation began to change rapidly. Marcion compiled the first Christian canon, and the churches he established expanded not only throughout Asia Minor but even into Rome. In his work The First Apology (written around 150 CE), Justin records his astonishment by stating, “Marcion’s teachings have spread throughout the world,” and “the notorious heretic (i.e., Marcion) still lives and teaches his disciples to believe in a God greater than the Creator.”[27] Furthermore, Valentinus and his followers, who were active mainly around Alexandria, Egypt, had also reached Rome. Unlike earlier Gnostics, he gained a strong following and solidified his influence in Rome. According to tradition, he did not distinguish between the “orthodox” church and his own sect, and thus gained trust even within the established Church, becoming a candidate for the bishopric of the Roman Church—although he ultimately did not succeed. The expansion of the Marcionite movement and the infiltration and deception of church members by the Valentinian Gnostics emerged as the most troubling issues within the Church by the mid-second century.

2. Paul, the “Apostle of Heretics”?
Before the Roman “orthodox” Church actively studied Paul or attributed "scriptural" value to his epistles, Marcion referred to Paul as his only apostle and systematically taught Paul’s epistles within the church. His interpretation of Paul’s epistles was thoroughly shaped by a dualistic theology. Therefore, if he encountered content within the epistles that conflicted with his basic position, he did not hesitate to modify or edit it. Indeed, he saw this as something he had to do. Marcion believed that Judaizing Christians had planted false teachings throughout Paul’s letters and thus saw it as his mission to identify and purge those false elements in order to defend the true gospel of Jesus Christ—the Son of the as yet unknown, foreign God (the Father of Jesus).

Not only Marcionites but also the Valentinian Gnostics referred to Paul as their apostle and used his epistles to teach their form of Gnosticism. As has always been the case, Scripture can, depending on the interpreter, be made into a book of legalism, a libertine moralist’s guide, or even a Gnostic text (especially the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John). The risks of such interpretation can be clearly seen in Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Paul, in which she attempts a Gnostic reading of Paul’s letters. The Valentinians interpreted both the Gospels and Paul’s epistles through a Gnostic lens and even published books promoting their Gnostic teachings.

From the mid to late second century, the Roman “orthodox” Church had to decide: would they claim Paul as “their apostle” or reject him as the “apostle of the heretics”? (See Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem.) Until that time, Paul’s epistles were regarded as useful for faith and church life, but their “scriptural” value had not been considered (after all, none of the Gospels or apostolic letters had yet been evaluated for their canonical value). However, when the “heretics” began to claim Paul as “their apostle,” the Church was forced to make a difficult decision.[28]

Despite the growing influence of Paul’s letters within the Church after the early second century, references to Paul and his letters were strangely rare. As noted earlier, Justin Martyr, who was active in mid-second-century Rome, made no citations of Paul or his letters. J. Knox interpreted this (apparently intentional) silence as a sign that Paul's theology was viewed with suspicion in various churches. Nevertheless, because Paul’s letters were already widely circulated among churches in the mid-second century, the “orthodox” Church came to claim Paul as “their apostle.” At that time, even within the faith community in Rome, Paul was remembered as one of the key leaders of the early Church alongside Peter. To relinquish Paul to the heretics was an unacceptable loss. To treat Paul’s letters as “heretical” would have been equivalent to treating over half of Christendom as heretical.

3. The Canonization Effort of the “Orthodox” Church
Would the “orthodox” Church have developed a canon if not for Marcion’s canon? Some may answer, “Of course.” Perhaps, over time, the Church would still have recognized the need for a canon. However, many scholars—even if some disagree—believe that Marcion indirectly compelled the compilation of a Christian canon. Furthermore, it is thought that Marcion’s basic two-part structure of “Gospel” and “Apostle” influenced the structure of the Christian New Testament canon into “Gospels” (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and “Apostolic Writings” (Acts, Paul’s epistles, and other letters). Although the early second-century Church Fathers responded lukewarmly or silently to Paul’s epistles, in the end, the “orthodox” Church followed Marcion’s idea of “apostolic authority” (in his case, the apostolic authority of Paul) in shaping their canonization process.

While Marcion included ten Pauline letters in his canon, the “orthodox” Church added three more—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus—which Marcion may have excluded because he did not know of them or did not consider them Pauline. Additionally, the Church incorporated Matthew, Mark, and John into the Gospel portion and added Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1–3 John, Revelation, and Jude.[29] Together with the Old Testament, this gave the “orthodox” Christian canon its complete form.

Having completed the canonization process, the “orthodox” Church could now say to the “heretics”: “Not only do we possess all the Scriptures you have, but we have more. We have both the Old and New Testaments.” J. Knox noted that by not rejecting the heretics’ Scriptures but instead incorporating them into a larger whole, the “orthodox” Church demonstrated its acceptance of New Testament principles and clarified the “particular contents” of the “catholic canon.”

 

 

 

PART III

 

PAULINE THEOLOGY

 

 

 

Chapter 8       Background of Pauline Theology

 

1. Introduction

As a Jew who grew up in the Hellenistic cultural sphere, Paul lived within two coexisting worlds: one was the Jewish world, and the other was the Greek world. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that he may have heard about and acquired knowledge of surrounding Gentile mystical religions. Of course, whether or not these influences shaped Paul's theology is a matter for separate discussion.

However, was the basic framework of Paul’s theology formed by these backgrounds—Judaism, Hellenistic cultural influences, and Gentile mystical religions? What seems more convincing than these backgrounds is his Damascus experience. Upon that experience, the struggles he later faced during his missionary work—clashes with opponents and the difficult questions posed by them—likely shaped the framework of his theology.

2. Judaistic Background

Paul was well-versed in the Old Testament. However, when he quoted the Old Testament, he did not quote directly from the Hebrew Scriptures but mostly from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by Jews living throughout the world.

Having received rigorous education in Judaism, Paul seems to have maintained his teachers’ good teachings. His frequent Midrashic interpretations of Old Testament texts in his epistles reflect his rabbinic education. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, the “spiritual rock that followed them” stems from rabbinic tradition, which Paul interpreted as “Christ.” In Galatians 3:16, noting that God’s promise was made to Abraham and his “seed” (singular), Paul interprets “seed” to mean Christ. The associations made between Mount Sinai and Hagar, Jerusalem and Sarah in Galatians 4:21–26 also reflect rabbinic influences.

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in resurrection, angels, and spirits (Acts 23:8). As a Pharisee, Paul had no difficulty accepting the resurrection and the afterlife. This background likely made it easier for him to proclaim the “resurrected Christ” after encountering Christ in light on the road to Damascus.

3. Hellenistic Background

Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, a city of Hellenistic civilization. Tarsus was especially famous for its Stoic philosophers. The historian Strabo listed five prominent Stoic philosophers from Tarsus: Antipater, Archedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus Cordylion, and Athenodorus, son of Sandon.[30] It is possible that Paul was subtly influenced by the teachings of these Stoic philosophers from an early age.

Rudolf Bultmann noted that Paul’s logical development sometimes resembles the style of Stoicism. Both Paul and the Stoics use rhetorical questions, fragmented arguments, hypothetical opponents for the sake of discussion, and examples drawn from athletics, architecture, and daily life. In fact, some of the terminology found in Paul’s teachings could be interpreted as supporting Stoic doctrines. It is likely that Paul was familiar with Stoic ideas and even agreed with parts of them.

However, scholars who dispute Stoic influence in Paul’s letters point to fundamental differences between Pauline theology and Stoic philosophy. First, Stoicism depends on philosophical contemplation regarding the nature of the world and humanity. The “god” of this philosophy is essentially an abstract human reason (logos). In contrast, Paul’s Christianity stands firmly on historical events—namely, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–11). Second, the Stoic god is so abstract as to be vague. Sometimes god is associated with the entire universe, and at other times with reason or even fire. In contrast, Paul’s God is a personal being revealed in Christ. God the Father caused all fullness to dwell in Jesus (Col. 1:19). Third, Stoicism finds “salvation” in self-sufficiency. It teaches that through complete self-control, one can live in harmony with nature. On the other hand, Paul finds salvation not through self-dependence but through submission to Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:20).[31]

I also think that the influence of Stoic philosophy on Paul was merely superficial and did not shape his theology or core ideas. In other words, Paul did not use Stoic philosophy to modify or supplement the theology he acquired through the revelation of Christ and developed through his missionary and faith experiences. For Paul, the influence of Stoicism was limited to the structure of his logic, his method of argumentation, and the use of certain terms and expressions; it was not what illuminated his theology.

Whiteley acknowledged that Paul’s thought system shares many features with the Hellenistic culture of his time, but he asserted that very little of Paul’s thought is purely of Hellenistic origin. He argued that most of what Paul shared with the Gentile world was not originally pagan but belonged to the realm of faith and language shared in common by both Jews and Gentiles. On the other hand, Whiteley maintained that there are numerous elements in Paul’s thought that could only have come from a Judaistic foundation and could not have arisen elsewhere.[32]

3. Other Gentile Mystical Religions

The Roman Empire in the 1st century was home to many mystery religions, which blended elements from Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions. One popular religion during Paul’s time was Mithraism, whose followers believed Mithra would save the faithful and guide them to heaven.

There are several superficial similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity. Both originated from the East and claimed to offer “salvation” to their followers. Both practiced initiation rites (baptism in Christianity) and sacred meals (the Eucharist in Christianity), and they referred to their redemptive deity as “Lord.” As converts from the mystery religions entered the church, the beliefs of those religions also entered along with them. Because of these similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions, scholars belonging to the History-of-Religions School (Religionsgeschichte) argued that Paul attempted to transform Jesus’ simple moral teachings into a kind of mystery religion. However, there is no clear historical evidence to support such a claim. Whiteley points out that most of the remaining evidence concerning the mystery religions, which are claimed to have influenced Paul, actually dates from after Paul’s time.[33] For example, Apuleius refers to his Golden Ass as a source of material about the mystery religions, but this is certainly a record from the latter half of the 2nd century. Magical papyri and Hermetic writings are also too late to have influenced Paul.

The difference between the mystery religions and Christianity is that the mystery religions were always ready to cooperate with other religions, whereas Christianity believed that all truth had been revealed solely through Christ and consistently rejected any compromise with other religions. The term “Lord” that Paul used for Christ did not come from the mystery religions, but from the Old Testament. It is certain that Paul was aware of the similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity. However, Paul never demonstrated any deep knowledge of the mystery religions, nor did he clearly mention any of their rituals. A significant number of modern scholars generally hold that it was not so much the mystery religions, but rather early Gnosticism, that had a considerable influence on the early church.

In Paul's background, there are elements of Judaism, Hellenistic culture, and mystical thought. These can help shed light on Paul's character and theology. However, whatever Paul may have acquired from the environment in which he lived, he acknowledged that the Christ he newly encountered was greater than the power of any other source, and he regarded all other things as rubbish (Phil. 3:8).

4. The Damascus Road Experience

Many scholars, including J. Fitzmyer and Seyoon Kim, believe Paul’s theology was fundamentally shaped by his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Seyoon Kim, in The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, argues that the major framework of Paul’s gospel stems from this experience. He claims that that Paul's gospel and apostleship are rooted in the manifestation of Christ on the Damascus road and that this event is the foundation of both his theology and apostleship.[34]

In Galatians, Paul especially emphasizes that the commissioning of his gospel and apostleship came through the revelation of Christ on the road to Damascus. In Galatians 1:11–12, Paul writes, “I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not 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.” And in verse 16, he states, “(God) was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood.”

Paul confessed and accepted the Christ whom he encountered on the road to Damascus as the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:8). His experience of the risen Lord occurred at least a year after the other apostles and disciples encountered the resurrected Christ. Therefore, Paul's perception of Christ was not primarily of the one who had lived a life on earth, died, and rose again three days later, but rather of the preexistent Christ who existed in heaven from the beginning—the heavenly Christ and the cosmic Christ. This is not to say that Paul denied Christ’s earthly ministry, but rather, the Christ who came to Paul had fulfilled his atoning death and, beyond all of this, was the exalted Christ. His exaltation was based on his self-emptying life and his obedience unto death on the cross, by which he fulfilled God’s plan for the salvation of humanity (cf. Phil. 2:6–11; also, Eph. 1:20–22).

Through the revelation of Christ who appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, Paul came to know the mystery of God—that is, God’s plan for human salvation (Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26–27). This mystery was revealed to Paul when the time of God’s administration had come. First, Paul came to understand that God had a plan to save humankind. Second, he realized that this salvation would not be accomplished through the Law, but through Christ. When Paul grasped this truth, it is no surprise that he was transformed, even though he had been on his way to Damascus to arrest those who believed in Christ. Like other Jews, he had pursued righteousness through the Law, but he was one of those who stumbled over the stumbling stone (Rom. 9:31–32). Now, however, he came to understand the true way of being justified before God (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; cf. Gen. 15:6).

Paul also came to realize that the one who allowed Christ to be revealed to him was none other than the God of Israel—the very God in whom he had fervently believed, more zealously than many of his peers (Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:5–6). Yet it had been his misguided zeal that had blinded him. When he encountered Christ, who appeared to him as a light, his physical eyes were damaged (cf. Gal. 4:15), but his spiritual eyes were opened. He now clearly understood that God had a plan to save the world through Jesus Christ and resolved to proclaim the gospel of salvation through Christ. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 2:2, he declares, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” And in Galatians 6:14, he confesses, “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The content of his gospel proclamation was not worldly philosophy or ethics, but Christ and his cross alone, and through him, justification and salvation.

Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus altered the priorities of his life. From that point on, “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” became the most precious thing to him (Phil. 3:8). All the things he once took pride in, he now resolved to count as loss—as rubbish. He who had once persecuted and destroyed those who believed in Jesus, now considered suffering for Christ to be his greatest joy and glory.

5. Other Apostles, Disciples, and Traditions

If Paul's testimony of the gospel and the formation of sound theology were based solely on his experience of Christ on the road to Damascus, then what need would there have been for encounters with other apostles and disciples or for receiving various traditions? Yet while Paul states that his meeting with the other apostles “added nothing” to him (Gal. 2:6), he also acknowledges that through meeting with them, he sought to confirm that his efforts in proclaiming the gospel were “not in vain” (Gal. 2:2).

After his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul spent some time in Arabia and also engaged in evangelistic work in Damascus for a period. Then, about three years after his Damascus experience, he went up to Jerusalem “to visit Cephas” (Gal. 1:18). There, he states that he “saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19). Why did Paul want to meet with Cephas? He likely desired to hear from Peter, the chief disciple of Jesus, about all aspects of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Although he may have heard bits and pieces indirectly from the Christians he once persecuted and interrogated before his conversion, in order to grasp the full context of Christ’s ministry, he would have needed more detailed and experiential accounts. He would have wanted to know what Jesus’ life looked like, the content of His preaching, how He suffered, how He died on the cross, and how He rose again three days later and appeared to women and disciples. For Paul—who had never seen Jesus' earthly ministry firsthand—this information was essential. How could he powerfully proclaim the core of redemptive gospel, namely the death of Christ, without being able to envision the crucifixion in his heart? While the Christ who appeared on the road to Damascus was already overwhelming, Paul likely needed a vivid, heartfelt sense of the crucified Christ.

Even if the testimonies of Peter and the other disciples did not directly shape Paul’s theology, they certainly helped to concretize his image of Christ and brought closer to him the significance of Christ’s ministry, suffering, and death—things that may have previously felt distant.

Paul’s participation—whether voluntary or not—in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1–29) also likely gave him much to reflect on theologically. There, his encounters with Peter and James, as well as with Jewish Christian opponents, helped further solidify and clarify his position and theology as an apostle to the Gentiles.

It can be observed in various places that Paul, in addition to receiving revelation through Christ, also relied on the apostolic traditions of the early church. Fitzmyer points out that Paul incorporated elements of early church traditions in many areas—for instance, the words of institution for the Lord’s Supper recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23 and following; the “Amen” prayers (Gal. 6:18; 1 Cor. 14:16; 2 Cor. 1:20); “Maranatha” (1 Cor. 16:22); “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6); and doxologies (Rom. 11:36; Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20). These all indicate traces of Paul adopting traditions from the early Christian communities.[35]

6. Paul’s Experiences as an Apostle and Debates with Opponents

If the framework of Paul’s gospel and theology was formed through his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, then his theology would have been further developed in detail through his missionary journeys to the Gentiles and through his debates with the opponents he had to confront.

Some scholars pose the question: would Paul’s epistles have become so important to the modern church if it had not been for the many controversies and difficulties he faced, both within and outside the church? If there had been no issue with Judaizing Christians (cf. Galatians), would he have written so persuasively about justification, or about the relationship between the gospel and the Law, faith and the Law? Had he not been attacked by various heretical opponents, his letters might have been comforting messages of peace and blessing, but they would not have become the kind of writings that point out problems—many of which still exist today—and propose responses and solutions.

 

 

Chapter 9       Coherent Centers of Pauline Theology

 

1. Introduction

Identifying the consistent content of Paul’s theology and determining its central theme is indeed a difficult task. To examine Paul’s theology is essentially to attempt to systematize his thought into a coherent theological framework. However, Paul himself does not present his thought in a systematic form. The reason for this is that Paul’s writings are not the product of a systematic theologian developing a logical structure. Rather than being organized, Paul’s letters are unstructured, and at times even non-logical. This is because most of his letters were written with specific purposes to address particular situations and issues faced by individual churches.

In exploring Paul’s theology, the seven undisputed letters—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—must be considered as the primary sources. Next in line for examination are Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. The authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline writings is even more debated than the previous three, and thus it is difficult to include them in serious discussions of Paul’s theology. This is because, as many critical scholars have pointed out, it is difficult to find the central theological themes consistent with the major Pauline letters within the Pastoral Epistles.

The sermons and missionary messages of Paul found in the Acts of the Apostles may serve as secondary sources—or sometimes the only sources—for studying Paul’s life. However, they are not suitable as sources for examining Paul’s theology. Some scholars focus intensively on Paul’s actions as recorded in Acts and present them as a reflection of Paul’s thought and theology. However, I believe this approach is inappropriate. Even if Luke, the author of Acts, did express some of Paul’s teachings and theological ideas, those expressions should more properly be regarded as Luke’s theology rather than Paul’s. For example, although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record the deeds and words of Jesus, each of those Gospels represents the theology of its respective author—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—rather than Jesus’ own theology. The same reasoning applies here.

2. The Development of the Discussion on the Central Theme of Pauline Theology

The question, "Does a coherent center exist in Pauline theology? If so, what is that central theme?" has long been a subject of debate among scholars studying Paul's theology. During the generation that led the Protestant Reformation, centered on Martin Luther (1483–1546), the doctrine of justification by faith—that is, being declared righteous through faith—was widely accepted as the core theme of Paul's theology. However, as time went on, different central themes of Paul began to be proposed, shaped by varying historical contexts and theological backgrounds. The following will trace the development of the debate over Paul’s central theological theme from the Reformation era up to the present. This approach may help present Paul's non-systematic, non-organized thoughts and teachings in a more systematic and structured theological form.

(1) The Reformation Era

During the Reformation period, the center of Paul’s theology was found in his anti-Judaistic argument, namely the doctrine of justification by faith, which continues to be supported by many scholars today (e.g., Ernst Käsemann, W.G. Kümmel). In the context of serious conflict with Roman Catholic legalism and mysticism, the judicial statements about justification found in Galatians and Romans took on significant importance. As a result, the Reformers, especially Martin Luther (1483-1546)—interpreted Paul’s letters primarily through the lens of the doctrine of justification.

Later Lutheran theology has continued to reflect this interpretive starting point in its understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification. For John Calvin (1509–1564), the doctrine of justification by faith did not serve as the principal criterion for the canonicity of Paul’s letters. Nevertheless, due to the struggle against Roman Catholicism, Paul’s doctrine of justification became critically important in the Calvinist tradition as a key to understanding the entire gospel.[36]

(2) The Tübingen School

F. C. Baur (1792–1860), known as the father of the Tübingen School, attempted to interpret Christian history through the philosophical framework of G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831). Accordingly, Baur sought to explain the core of Paul’s theology in light of the antithesis between “flesh” (the human) and “Spirit” (the divine). According to him, humans participate in the Spirit of God through their own spirit. Through this, humans are liberated from what is finite and relative and attain absolute freedom.

Through such an idealistic schema, Christianity became, for Baur, the absolute religion, and Paul, through his doctrine of freedom and reconciliation, became the only person who achieved absolute union between God and humanity in the Holy Spirit. According to Baur, this consciousness of Paul was in conflict with the early Christianity of that time, which was still bound to the Law and to exclusive Judaism. This conflict later came to be resolved under the growing pressure of Gnosticism through a synthetic Catholicism, and in this process, Paul became the defender of a universal Christian faith separated from the Law.

F. C. Baur did not interpret Paul as a follower of the historical Jesus—pointing out that Paul, in none of his letters, speaks of the historical Jesus. Instead, he interpreted Paul based on the fact that God revealed His Son to him, on Paul's miraculous personal conversion, and on the moment in which God confronted Paul with the shocking fact of Jesus’ death. Through this experience, a concept of absolute truth and freedom, detached from all nationalistic and legalistic ties, took root in Paul’s heart, and he developed particular theological ideas from it.

According to Baur, Paul’s own experience ultimately determined all of his views concerning the person of Christ. For this reason, Paul excluded any historical proof for his doctrines. For Baur, this reconstruction of Christian origins also served as a criterion for evaluating the authenticity of Paul’s letters and for determining the chronology of New Testament documents. Baur considered only four of Paul’s major letters—Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians—to be genuinely authored by Paul. This was because the sharp contrast of opposing themes could only be clearly seen in these letters. As for the other letters, Baur regarded them as later works, given their strong tendency toward unified theology.

Herman Ridderbos criticized Baur’s ideas, pointing out that they were entirely dominated by Hegel’s view of history and the “idea of Spirit,” which he argued was not Pauline. Ridderbos also noted that Baur’s exclusivist and contrast-based interpretation of Paul’s teachings not only prevented him from seeing the true path of early Christianity as portrayed in Acts but also kept him from fully grasping Paul’s significance within the history of New Testament revelation. Moreover, Ridderbos argued that Baur’s approach led to a severe reduction of the Pauline corpus (Corpus Paulinum).[37]

Nonetheless, Ridderbos acknowledged that Baur’s critical, idealistic, and universalist conception of early Christianity continued to exert enormous influence. He recognized that Baur’s idea of separating Paul’s teachings from those of Jesus—a view that contrasted Paul with the rest of early Christianity—remained one of the central themes in later Pauline studies.

(3) Liberal Theology

Liberal theology, like Baur, also begins with Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit, but it seeks to interpret it not through the framework of Hegelian philosophy but rather through Greek anthropology. Representative scholars include Holsten, Lüdemann, Pfleiderer, and H. J. Holtzmann.

Reformation theology regarded “justification by faith” as the core of Pauline doctrine and closely linked concepts such as sanctification and the conflict between flesh and spirit to it. In contrast, liberal theologians moved away from the judicial “lineage” explained from Judaism and began to distinguish an “ethical” (or mystical-ethical) lineage that they claimed originated not from Judaism but from Greek-Hellenistic thought, and which found expression in the contrast between flesh and spirit.

Thus, “spirit” was no longer considered in terms of an antithesis with the finite and the human but rather was viewed as the opposite of the sensory. “Spirit” (Spirit) and “flesh” (flesh) are oppositions that exist within the human being himself. That is, as a fundamental rational principle inherent in the human being, the spirit must be able to struggle against and overcome the lower, sensory nature (σάρξ, sarx), and subject it to itself. According to them, this Greek philosophy came to assume a Christian form through Paul and in many ways became a prominent and central element of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel.

As a result, on the one hand, the emphasis was placed on the “ethical,” and on the other hand, on the “mystical” meaning of the opposition between “spirit and flesh.” Therefore, all of Paul’s descriptions of believers as being “with Christ” or “in Christ” must be understood in this sense. This union is a kind of mysticism with an ethical tendency. It is not an objective union between the believer and Christ, but a spiritual and mystical connection. From this, the life of love and spiritual freedom—understood in a religious sense—can overflow.

It is true that other concepts can be found in Paul—such as his eschatology, demonology, and angelology—but these were regarded as the temporal framework of Paul’s actual teachings.[38] In the development of liberal thought, Paul’s conversion was considered extremely important. Through his conversion, Paul completely departed from the framework of Jewish thought, and instead, under the immense influence of Greek philosophy, a wholly new attitude toward life became possible for him.

The liberal theologian H. J. Holtzmann believed that the Damascus event held decisive significance for understanding Paul’s theological position. He interpreted the Damascus experience as Paul’s first subjective encounter that would soon lead him to proclaim his objective doctrine of salvation. Holtzmann suggested that prior to this event, Paul had already reached an “ethical bankruptcy” (cf. Romans 7), but through the vision of the risen Christ, he gained a correct insight into his condition. Afterward, Paul discovered a new path to salvation apart from the Law. The proud Pharisee within him was conquered, his arrogant sense of privilege shattered, and instead, he came to grasp the meaning of “dying and rising with Christ,” overflowing with new power and mission.

However, Holtzmann could not deny that many Jewish thoughts and influences continued to operate within Paul. He regarded the remarkable fusion of Greek and Jewish ideas—often resulting in paradoxes—as a distinctive characteristic of Paul’s theology. That is, the judicial coexists with the ethical; the realistic concept of man coexists with the ideal; and the actual Jewish eschatology coexists with the Greek notion of the “soul” separated from the “body.”

The liberal concepts that followed Holtzmann, such as those of Holsten and Lüdemann, did not endure for long. Through continued research, scholars gradually recognized that it was impossible to spiritualize the metaphysical Christology, the meaning of redemptive events, the doctrine of forensic satisfaction, and eschatology in the way Holtzmann had attempted, or to dismiss them as merely foreign “mythical” elements within Paul’s genuine religion. Holtzmann’s dualistic interpretation of the contrast between spirit and flesh from the perspective of Greek thought faced strong opposition from scholars like H. Gunkel, who argued that Paul’s concept of pneuma (spirit) was not Greek but rooted in Judaism. Accordingly, they denied the rational-ethical character of the antithesis between flesh and spirit.

R. Kabisch, as early as 1893, identified eschatology as the dominant element in Paul’s theology, thereby tracing Paul’s doctrinal framework to Jewish theology, especially late Jewish apocalyptic literature. Increasing emphasis was also placed on Paul’s sacramental teachings, in contrast to Holtzmann’s spiritualizing tendencies. Some scholars began interpreting Paul’s sacraments in connection with the mystery religions of the East. In this way, the History-of-Religions School gained broader acceptance, and as a result, scholars came to reject the ethical-idealistic interpretation of liberal theology as wholly inadequate. Instead, they emphasized the “alien” nature of Paul’s theology, which modern people cannot easily understand. Scholars came to view Paul’s Christology not as a theological construction separable from his religion, but as the very heart of both his theology and his religion. This recognition brought Paul’s Christology to the center of modern theological debate.

W. Wrede strongly rejected any division between Paul’s “religion” and his “theology.” Paul’s theology is simply the appropriate expression of his religion. At its core, Paul’s theology is fundamentally Christological. This is the essence of Pauline theology. What is unique and new in Paul is that he made the redemptive events—Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection—the foundation of religion itself. Redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) is the very framework of Pauline Christianity. Wrede’s critique became influential because he offered a much more persuasive interpretation of Paul’s preaching than what liberal theology had provided.

By choosing Paul’s Christology as centered on the reality of redemptive history, Wrede broke the linkage between Paul’s preaching and the liberal theology’s portrayal of Jesus. His critique gained wide recognition because he, from a historical-exegetical perspective, offered a far more just evaluation of Paul’s theology than those scholars who viewed it as a timeless religious-ethical truth. Yet, this also made the gap between Paul’s preaching and modern theology’s conception of Jesus and his proclamation of ‘the Kingdom of God’ all the more apparent.

(4) The Religionsgeschichtliche Interpretation

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the History-of-Religions (Religionsgeschichtliche) interpretation of Paul’s epistles and the Christian kerygma they contain began to receive increasing attention. In contrast to earlier approaches that sought the origins of the major themes in Paul’s theology in Greek literature and philosophical worldviews, scholars now began focusing on popular religious concepts and phenomena of the Hellenistic era—especially on the syncretism that emerged under the influence of Eastern cultures within Western religions, notably manifest through mystery religions and cultic rituals.

Knowledge of these syncretistic religious phenomena significantly increased through the work of philologists and historians such as Franz Cumont, Erwin Rohde, Albrecht Dieterich, and Richard Reitzenstein. For a time, the “religious Paul” replaced the “doctrinal Paul.” Reitzenstein described Paul as “the greatest Gnostic,” while W. Heitmüller and W. Bousset introduced the concept of the “cultic Paul,” and scholars like H. Weinel and G. A. Deissmann focused on the “mystical Paul.” However, doctrinal core issues resurfaced in a new form, and attention began centering on whether Paul’s thought was best understood as mystical, doctrinal, or a combination of both.

Scholars of the History-of-Religions School regarded the phenomena prominently evident in Paul's theology and “religion”—such as the connection with mystery religions, sacramental acts, and particularly the mystical approach to a divine figure that held significant importance for people in early Christian communities—as related to these elements and sought to interpret Paul partially from that perspective. For a time, scholars primarily sought the correlation between the two in the former—in other words, on one hand in the sacramental acts of the mystery religions, and on the other hand in Paul's participation in baptism and the Lord's Supper, which he connected to the death and resurrection of Christ.

Some scholars thought that since Paul related baptism to the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:11ff.), at least in baptism, one might find a fixed point of convergence. Furthermore, they claimed that this “baptismal death” could not be seen as something that had developed from Jewish ritual symbolism, and therefore it must be regarded as a “Hellenistic product.” However, Ridderbos objected, pointing out clearly that (a) in no mystery religion does a baptismal rite contain a symbol of death like this, and (b) in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, Paul does not depict baptism itself as a symbolic death and resurrection or as a sacramental reenactment.

Thus, according to him, seeking a deep connection between Paul and the ritual acts found in the mystery religions in the area of sacraments is nothing but an illusion. The high point of the History of Religions School’s evaluation of Pauline theology through the lens of mystery religions is not found in Paul’s sacramental doctrine, but rather in their appeal to Paul’s Christology. In particular, the attempt by Wilhelm Bousset to explain Paul’s preaching about Christ as a kind of mystical reinterpretation of the early church’s “eschatological” Christ is noteworthy. Bousset believed that by examining the cultic communion of the Hellenistic church, one could trace the influence of the mystery religions.

The scholars of the History of Religions School, with their vast knowledge of Hellenistic religions and their meticulous reasoning, sought to clarify the characteristics of the pneumatic Kyrios (spiritual Lord) of the Hellenistic church—especially the characteristics of Paul’s spiritual Lord. In both the actual Hellenistic church and in Paul’s thought, it was indeed considered a fact that the Kyrios—with whom one could enjoy mystical communion through worship—had taken the place of the Son-of-Man Christology of the Palestinian church, which presented Christ primarily as the coming judge of the world.

Therefore, the Christology of the History of Religions School became spiritual and mystical rather than eschatological. However, for Paul, this Christ-mysticism developed into a powerful sense of personal belonging and union with the exalted Kyrios. For Paul, this exalted Lord forms the fundamental basis of Christian life and ethics.

The scholars of the History-of-Religions School continued their efforts to find the background of Paul’s theology in the religious experiences of the Hellenistic era (Hellenistic religiosity), maintaining particularly that this Hellenistic religiosity found its most striking expression in the mystery religions. However, rather than focusing on any particular ritual religion, they sought to identify the connection between Paul and Hellenism in the general characteristics and attitudes toward life inherent in the religions of the Hellenistic age. Thus, they increasingly began to view Gnosticism as having constituted the mainstream of Hellenistic thought for centuries.

The person especially responsible for bringing about this shift in the interpretation of Paul’s theology was the classical scholar R. Reitzenstein. Reitzenstein primarily appealed to the Hermetic literature, that is, the so-called Hermes Trismegistus—a body of syncretistic, speculative, non-Christian religious texts from the 2nd to 3rd centuries, attributed to the Egyptian god Thoth. These writings represent a fusion of Hellenistic, Egyptian, Eastern, and Jewish elements. Hermes, often called Poimandres or Asklepios, delivers secret revelations that deal not only with religious themes but also with astrological and magical subjects. The soul, which is bound to matter, returns to God through gnosis (γνῶσις, knowledge).

According to Reitzenstein, one can find in Paul clear and strong traces of direct influence from this Hellenistic Gnosticism. He claimed to find evidence for this influence in various types of Gnostic terminology and concepts appearing in Paul’s epistles. Reitzenstein believed that Paul was inseparably connected not only linguistically but also in conceptual and structural terms with Hellenistic mysticism and Gnosticism. He regarded Paul not as the founder of Gnostic thought, but as its greatest representative. His primary evidence for this claim was 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul appeals to the Spirit of God, who searches even the deep things of God, for his knowledge.

Reitzenstein states that Paul did not think historically but spiritually. The source of Paul’s Christology was not the tradition about Jesus of Nazareth that reached him, but rather what he saw and experienced internally as a Gnostic. Although Reitzenstein’s radical conclusions were rejected, his proposal that Paul’s system of thought was influenced by pre-Christian Gnosticism became the practical foundation for the History of Religions School’s interpretation of Paul’s theology and doctrine, and that influence still remains to this day. The more closely this influence became associated with the view that Paul’s Christology was decisively shaped by pre-Christian Gnosticism—especially by the myth of the “redeemed Redeemer”—the more extreme the interpretations became.

(5) The Eschatological Interpretation

Following the work of H. Holtzmann, O. Pfleiderer, and W. Wrede, Albert Schweitzer took a directly oppositional stance and vigorously challenged the efforts of the history-of-religions school. In his book, Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung (The History of Pauline Research, 1912), Schweitzer critically evaluated the History of Religions School’s interpretation of Paul. In another work, The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul (1998, Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, German, 1931), he sought to establish a unified view between his thoroughly eschatological understanding of Jesus’ life and preaching and Pauline theology. Schweitzer presented eschatological mysticism as the core of Pauline theology.

Schweitzer denied that the doctrine of justification—regarded since the Reformation as the central theme of Paul’s theology—was actually its core. Instead, he argued for a two-crater scheme, in which the framework of eschatological mysticism stood in opposition to the rabbinic-juridical thought forms Paul had used merely as polemical tools against Judaism.[39] Therefore, for Schweitzer, “righteousness by faith” was relegated to a “survival”—a leftover from this secondary framework. In this direction, the search for the doctrinal center of Paul’s theology continued, but this selective method meant that Paul’s “entire” gospel could not be considered as a whole. Some parts of the Pauline epistles had to be set aside or at least treated as secondary. Schweitzer considered Romans Chapters 1–5 and much of Galatians to be peripheral rather than central to Paul’s theological substance. Thus, debate continued between “rabbinic (Jewish)” and “Hellenistic” elements regarding the ‘core’ of Paul’s theology.

Schweitzer claimed that the core of Paul’s theology was Christ-mysticism—that is, the means by which the Church, being “with Christ” and “in Christ,” participates in Christ’s death and resurrection. This union must be understood not in the context of Hellenistic dualism, but in the context of Jewish eschatology. Paul’s doctrine, Schweitzer argued, is entirely rooted in Jesus’ eschatological preaching about the imminent Kingdom of God.

For Jesus, the Kingdom of God was still a future (imminent) reality. But Paul faced an entirely new situation: a radical shift occurred in the eschatological framework. The eschaton (ἔσχατον), the end-time, had become present in the resurrection of Christ. Paul had to address how this inbreaking of the eschaton now related to clear end-time expectations—like the resurrection of the dead or the final judgment—which had not yet occurred. According to Schweitzer, in order to resolve the tension between the “already” (Christ’s resurrection) and the “not yet” (the final consummation), Paul aligned himself with the apocalyptic schemes of texts like the Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Ezra, envisioning the Messianic Kingdom as preceding the full revelation of the Kingdom of God—contrary to Jesus’ expectations.

The elect have already been raised with Christ. They are participants in a “mode of being of the resurrection”. This mysticism, Schweitzer insisted, must be treated as realistic as possible. His “mysticism” was not emotional, internal, or spiritual in the conventional sense but rather an objective mysticism of facts. The union with Christ, in which believers participate in Christ’s new reality, occurs through baptism. The elect form a joint-personality with Christ, whose source is the Holy Spirit. Thus, everything they do, think, experience, or intend can be said to happen “in Christ.” Yet, Schweitzer emphasized the phrase “with Christ” as central.

Paul’s mysticism, in Schweitzer’s view, was neither Hellenistic in nature nor a symbolic representation of spiritual experience. It was real and ontological. In actual operation, this results in a new pneumatic corporeality—not a subtle or internal resurrection with Christ, but a real participation made possible through the sacramental event.

Schweitzer excluded certain epistles from his theological framework because he judged them inauthentic. He based his argument solely on Paul’s seven undisputed letters. He rejected 2 Thessalonians because it contains teachings that oppose the expectation of an imminent return of Jesus and presents a different eschatology inconsistent with his system. He also excluded Colossians and Ephesians, which include unique Christological declarations.

However, Schweitzer’s realistic or natural (naturhaft) understanding of “being in Christ” and the sacraments faced major criticisms. His use of Jewish eschatological schemes was seen as overly artificial, and the antithesis he drew between Jesus and Paul was ultimately unsustainable. Moreover, Schweitzer failed to properly handle Paul’s Christological affirmations—especially those related to the divine personhood and cosmic significance of Christ. His transcendent-Christological mysticism, derived from Jesus’ death and resurrection, could not escape being reduced to a speculative mystical system, particularly because Schweitzer rejected the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection and regarded Jesus’ and Paul’s eschatological hopes as mere illusion. Regardless of his efforts to preserve their essential spiritual content, this flaw left his system fundamentally unstable.[40] I think that this is the fatal weakness of Schweitzer’s theology: by denying the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection, his mystical eschatology becomes nothing more than a house built on sand.

(6) New Developments or Perspectives

According to Ridderbos, who holds a conservative position, the liberal interpretation had the least influence on the study of Pauline theology. The criticism of liberal theology by Wrede—particularly his claim that Christology centered on redemptive historical events forms the core of Pauline theology—has generally been accepted. Ridderbos assesses that the eschatological approach to the entire New Testament kerygma has had a decisive influence on current Pauline scholarship. Paul proclaimed only the eschatological redemptive event, which began with the coming of Christ and reached a provisional climax in His death and resurrection. Regardless of the diversity of views regarding the form and expression of Paul's preaching, the origin and motivation of Pauline theology must be found in this eschatological foundation.

In relation to the eschatological approach, the interpretation of the History of Religions School continues to exert dominant influence only within one branch of New Testament studies. This influence is most clearly seen in Rudolf Bultmann and his followers. Bultmann, in opposition to the idealistic interpretation of Paul by F. C. Baur and the ethical interpretation of the liberal school, maintained that Paul’s preaching and Christology retain a historical-eschatological character. At the same time, however, he held the position that Paul’s world of thought is inseparably connected with Gnostic ideas. In this respect, one finds a connection between Bultmann and the History-of-Religions School (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule), particularly with Reitzenstein. Bultmann believed that Gnostic thought did not merely influence certain origins of Paul’s ideas but also had a distinctive impact on the understanding of human existence—a view shared by both Paul and Gnosticism.

For Bultmann, the flesh is that which is visible and accessible to human control, and is contrasted with the Spirit, which is invisible and intangible. In interpreting the antithesis between flesh and Spirit, which he regarded as central to Pauline theology, Bultmann aligns closely with Baur—except where Baur is grounded in Hegelian idealism, Bultmann is rooted in Heideggerian existentialism. Thus, for Bultmann, the decisive issue is always the actual existential decision between flesh and Spirit.

According to Bultmann, the religio-historical background of Paul’s Christology is no longer the cultic myth of a dying and rising divine figure. Instead, it is found in the Gnostic myth of a Redeemer, who descends from the world of light to convey true knowledge (γνῶσις, gnosis) as the preexistent Son of the Most High, igniting the flame of life in the dead and leading them out of death back to himself. To fulfill this purpose, the heavenly Redeemer must descend under the power of the enemy and take on the form of a human, descending to a place of humiliation. Yet, he must first be redeemed himself from the poverty and misery of his earthly existence.

Bultmann believed that this “redeemed Redeemer” myth, also identified by Reitzenstein as the Iranian mystery of redemption, served as the background for Paul’s Christology. He saw evidence of this in texts such as Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 2:6–11, Ephesians 4:8–10, and the Christ hymn quoted by Paul, along with verses like 1 Corinthians 2:8.

J. Christiaan Beker evaluated that Bultmann provided a new perspective amid the confusion over the various “cores” of Paul’s thought. Bultmann highlighted the contingency of Paul’s theology by connecting it to his anthropology, thus emphasizing the historical and situational nature of Paul’s thought. Bultmann’s distinction between kerygma and theological expression led him to deny that the kerygma had specific content. He argued that Pauline theology was an attempt to articulate the knowledge implicit in faith, not a structured theoretical system. However, Beker criticized Bultmann’s view, stating that his emphasis on the kerygma as a preaching act that evokes a new self-understanding ignores its content and creates an unwarranted split between preaching and content—something Paul never intended.[41]

Following Bultmann, scholars such as E. Haenchen, E. Käsemann, W. Schmithals, E. Fuchs, G. Bornkamm, P. Vielhauer, and E. Brandenburger argued for Gnostic influences in the Pauline epistles.

According to C. H. Dodd, Christ’s death and resurrection must also be understood within an eschatological structure, and from that structure, these events gain their particular meaning in Paul’s preaching. Although Dodd acknowledged that Paul made many references to the future, he argued that, in Paul’s spiritual development, the present experience of salvation in Christ increasingly dominated his eschatological preaching. Dodd saw Paul’s eschatology as realized eschatology.

Bultmann, even more clearly than Dodd, acknowledged the essential future-oriented dimension of Paul’s eschatology.[42] He believed Paul interpreted eschatology through his anthropology, so that the present and future eschatological moments reflect a particular understanding of human existence. According to Bultmann, while Paul retained apocalyptic notions of resurrection, judgment, and glory, true salvation is found in righteousness, freedom, and joy in the Spirit. Thus, salvation becomes focused on the individual, and it is already present, but also still future, since it can only be obtained through existential decisions rooted in the historicity of human life.

For Bultmann, the true essence of Pauline theology lies not in its eschatological concepts, but in the anthropological insights those concepts express. Paul’s eschatology is not about the end of the world, but about the human being’s existential encounter with the divine action and word revealed in Jesus Christ. This, for Bultmann, is the “demythologized substance” of Paul’s eschatology.

In Bultmann’s interpretation, there is no room for an eschatological redemptive history in the sense that a series of events already accomplished in Christ and expected to take place in the future through Christ are moving toward their fulfillment. He criticizes such a view as being based on a historical perspective that has long been outdated—a perspective that assumes the imminent end of the world (Naherwartung), which, according to him, was already proven obsolete by the course of historical events. Bultmann pointed out that Paul’s greatness lies in the fact that, by interpreting eschatology from the standpoint of anthropology, he had already provided a practical solution to the problem of history and eschatology brought about by the failure of the expected Parousia (Second Coming) to occur.

However, critics argue that Bultmann’s demythologized interpretation deals with the content of Paul’s theology inadequately. Bultmann places all of God’s redemptive work revealed in Christ under the category of humanity (sub specie hominis). Fitzmyer points out that Bultmann's reduction of Paul’s theology to a form of anthropology essentially amounts to diminishing the role of Christ. That is, Bultmann demythologized the Christ-events—such as Jesus’ suffering and resurrection—to the point that one could say they are regarded as non-historical. Furthermore, Bultmann reduced the role of Christ even within the life of the individual, which demands an existential decision of faith, to the point of neglecting Christ’s role within the collective and cosmological dimensions of redemptive history. Fitzmyer criticizes Bultmann for this reduction, arguing that it stems from his refusal to acknowledge the “satisfactory meaning” of Paul’s theology—the historical and “objective dimension” of human redemption—and his attempt to recast Paul’s teachings in phenomenological terms.[43]

Ridderbos, despite offering various criticisms of Bultmann, recognizes the ongoing influence of Bultmann’s interpretation by stating that “he seeks the heart of Pau’s preaching, not in timeless notions concerning God or in a new experience of religious feeling, but in the decisive significance of the divine redemptive work of Christ.”[44] For this reason, although Bultmann reduces the content of the gospel through his existentialist interpretation, he nonetheless makes a significant contribution to the understanding of Paul—even for those who cannot follow his philosophical path.

Having surveyed the arguments of various schools, one may now ask: Is there a consistent thread or central theme running through these interpretations of Pauline theology? If so, what is it? One noteworthy observation in the history of Pauline scholarship is that most scholars have tried to identify the theme of Paul’s theology in its redemptive-historical eschatological character. Ridderbos points out that the central theme of Paul’s theology is God’s saving work accomplished in the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ—and I generally agree with this view.

What, then, is the correct and appropriate interpretation of Paul’s eschatology? The redemptive-historical interpretation, well known through Oscar Cullmann’s work Christ and Time, offers a strong counterpoint to the one-sided, future-oriented interpretation grounded in the consistent eschatology of the New Testament’s imminent future expectation (Naherwartung). This interpretation repeatedly points out that the early Church maintained clarity despite the delay of the Lord’s return, because it was already conscious of the fulfillment that had taken place. In this sense, the truth of realized eschatology is sufficiently acknowledged within this framework. On the other hand, this interpretation also captures the essential meaning of the ongoing future expectation present in Paul’s preaching and appropriately emphasizes the interdependence of the “already” and the “not yet,” which constitutes a core component of Pauline eschatology.

It is now widely recognized that Paul’s thought cannot be grasped through a fixed set of doctrinal core terms. Recent scholars have opposed defining Paul’s thought using narrow “concepts” and have instead moved toward a broader and more inclusive framework, which seeks to overcome misleading dichotomies. However, this recognition has often fostered ambiguity and has seldom produced new or creative insights. The use of various diverse and confusing terms to define and clarify Paul’s thought makes this clear.

Paul’s thought has been described in terms such as “kerygma,” “core,” “essence,” “Paulinism,” “mysticism,” “eschatological participation,” “doctrine of faith (Glaubenslehre),” “teaching plan (Lehrplan),” “motifs and perspective” (L. Keck), “pattern of religion” (E. P. Sanders), “co-inherent patterns and fundamental doctrines” (Whitley), and “coherent thought” (E. P. Sanders). Some claim the center (Mitte) of Paul’s thought is “justification by faith” (H. D. Wendland, W. G. Kümmel, E. Käsemann); others suggest it is “sacramental participation” (A. Schweitzer, W. D. Davies); and some, like E. P. Sanders, claim it is both. Others propose the “quintessence in Ephesians” (F. F. Bruce) or “the identity of the risen Lord with the crucified Messiah, Jesus” (N. A. Dahl) as central. Still others deny that Paul was a systematic thinker at all. G. A. Deissmann viewed Paul not as a scholarly exegete or meticulous thinker but as “a man of prayer.”

J. Christiaan Beker acknowledged that there is an undeniable coherent center in Pauline theology, but he emphasized the need for a clearer method to define and understand it. Our modern habit of thinking in terms of systematic conceptual structures often leads scholars to reject Paul as a rational thinker and to offer false alternatives, such as rejecting “doctrine” in favor of “mysticism.” Beker recognized that both contingency and a coherent center exist in Paul’s preaching. He identified Paul’s coherent center as a symbolic structure—language shaped by Paul’s primal experience (his calling) and expressed through apocalyptic Jewish idioms that articulated the Christ-event. According to Beker, Paul’s contextual exegesis—almost always an interpretation of the gospel for specific circumstances—is shaped by his apocalyptic core, which implicitly or explicitly points to God’s imminent cosmic triumph.

According to Beker, following the Christ-event, this imminent triumph of God is already manifest in history to the eyes of faith through the power of the Holy Spirit, and it foreshadows the time when “God may be everything to everyone” (1 Cor. 15:28).[45] I accept, to a degree, Beker’s assertion that most of Paul’s letters address consistent themes within specific church contexts. I also agree that defining a single center for all of Paul’s letters may be overly restrictive. However, while Beker’s view that “God’s victory through the Christ-event” is central to both Paul’s letters and the message of the Bible is valuable, I believe that calling “God’s victory” or its “symbolic structure” the center of Paul’s theology seems somewhat removed from the expressions Paul himself preferred. In that respect, I find myself broadly in agreement with Fitzmyer, though not necessarily embracing all of his criticisms. Fitzmyer argued that the key to Pauline theology must be constructed in light of what the Apostle repeatedly affirms in various ways, which seems to be a valid insight. He asserted that Paul’s constant proclamation was Christ—specifically the crucified Christ represented by the ‘message of the cross’—and that Christ stands at the center of God’s new way of salvation. All of Paul’s other teachings must be understood in reference to this Christ-centered soteriology.[46]

Although many perspectives on the central theme of Paul’s theology have been explored, no consensus has yet been reached among scholars. I believe that the doctrine of justification by faith, though affirmed by many since the Reformation, is too narrow to serve as the overarching theme of even the seven undisputed letters, let alone all of Paul’s epistles. Likewise, the flesh-Spirit antithesis proposed by Baur and his followers is too one-sided to define Paul’s theology. Schweitzer’s Christ-mysticism or eschatological mysticism—despite offering insights—is also inadequate, given his disbelief in the resurrection and second coming of Christ.

At the center of Paul’s theology is undeniably Christ crucified and risen. However, what Paul proclaimed was not merely a Christ who died, rose, and was exalted—but the salvation brought through Christ, and the eschatological hope in the Christ who died and rose for us. Thus, the center of Paul’s theology is best understood as a harmonious combination of Christology (the doctrine of Christ), Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation through Christ), and Eschatology (the expectation of Christ). A proper examination of this theological center is necessary, for it greatly aids in understanding the content and message of Paul’s epistles.

Chapter 10     Pauline Theology 1: God

 

1. Introduction

God the Father is not the central theme of Paul’s epistles, but it is necessary to begin the consideration of the themes found in Pauline theology with God, because it is God who planned human salvation and sent His Son, Christ, into the world.

In Paul's understanding of God, a particular emphasis lies in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus Christ and of all who believe. The Marcionites and Gnostics, in excessively emphasizing that God is the Father of Christ while denying that He is the Creator, ended up concluding that the God of the New Testament, who is the Father of Christ, is different from the God of the Old Testament, who is the Creator and the God of Israel (the Demiurge).

2. Who Is God?

(1) The One and Only God
(Scriptures: 1 Cor. 8:4–6; also, Eph. 4:6)

1 Corinthians 8:4, 6 — "...We know that there is no God but one... Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

Ephesians 4:6 — "There is one God and Father of us all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Paul’s concept of monotheism is evidence that he was influenced by Judaism. It shows that he was not shaped by the polytheistic worldview of the Greco-Roman culture. Moreover, contrary to the claims of some scholars, it demonstrates that Paul was not a Gnostic thinker. Paul’s one and only God is also the Creator God, who made all things.

(2) God the Father
(Scriptures: Rom. 1:7, 8:15; 1 Cor. 1:3, 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:2–3; Gal. 1:1, 3–4; Phi. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1, 3; Philem. 1:3; also, Eph. 1:2–3, 2:18, 4:6; Col. 1:2–3, 19; 2 Thess. 1:1–2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4)

Romans 1:7 — “To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Romans 8:15 — “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’”

Calling God “our Father” is found without exception in the greetings of all of Paul’s letters (both the 7 undisputed and the 6 disputed epistles). Through this, Paul emphasizes that the relationship between God and believers is not that of master and servant, but of a close relationship between a father and his children. Therefore, believers can call God “Abba, Father” (αββα ὁ πατήρ, Rom. 8:15).

Romans 1:3–4 — “… the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 8:29 — “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”

Ephesians 1:3 — “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” (cf. Col. 1:3).

God was first the Father of Jesus Christ before He became the Father of the saints. Believers become sons of God through Christ (Rom. 8:29).

(3) God the Creator

(Scriptures: Rom. 9:20; 1 Co. 8:6; also, Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:15–16)

Romans 9:20 — “But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me thus?’”

Ephesians 3:9 — “To make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things.”

In Romans 9:20, the Creator God is compared to a potter, and the person formed by Him is compared to a vessel. This imagery is borrowed from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, as well as Jeremiah 18:6. Here, God is portrayed as the Molder or Maker who formed humanity from the dust, which aligns more closely with the tradition of Genesis 2 (“formed from the dust,” see Gen. 2:7) rather than Genesis 1 (“created by the word,” ex nihilo creatio, see Gen. 1:26–27).

By referencing the creative work of God, the Father of Jesus (cf. Col. 1:14–15), Paul distinguishes himself from the Gnostics, who rejected the idea of God as the Creator.

(4) God the Savior
(Scriptures: 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; 2:13)

1 Timothy 1:1 — “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope.”

Titus 1:3 — “And at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior.”

Titus 2:13 — “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

First, the expression “God our Savior” appears in the New Testament only in 1 Timothy and Titus, with the sole exception being Luke 1:47, where Mary, in a song of praise because of the child in her womb, refers to “God my Savior”—which still carries an Old Testament meaning. In the Old Testament, there are many places where God is referred to as Savior (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 106:21; Isa. 43:3, 45:15, 45:21; Hos.13:4—and even more if we include expressions like “God is salvation”). These references typically emphasize that God delivers people in this life from distress, enemies, or poverty.

The phrase “God our Savior”, which appears only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy and Titus), is generally considered not to be authentically Pauline. In Titus 2:13, the phrase “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (which can also be translated as “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”) identifies “Savior Jesus Christ” as “the great God.” However, this seems inconsistent with Paul's usual theology, where Jesus is consistently described as the Son of God, rather than as God himself.

This portrayal is closer to the Christology of the Johannine writings, such as John 20:28, where Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” and Revelation 1:8, where the Lord God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega... who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Paul, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, rarely uses the term “Savior” or “one who saves” in direct reference to Christ. Among the undisputed letters, the only place Paul refers to Christ as “Savior” is Philippians 3:20. The only other use of such a term outside the Pastorals is in Ephesians 5:23. Within the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Timothy 1:10 and Titus 3:6 refer to Jesus Christ as Savior.

Outside of Paul’s letters, the term “Savior” for Jesus appears in 2 Peter (1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) and 1 John 4:14.

3. The Plan of God

(1) Human Salvation

(Scripture: Eph. 1:7-10)

The first aspect of God’s plan revealed in Paul’s letters is that, in the fullness of time, God sent Jesus to humanity.

Ephesians 1:7–10 — “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us. For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

Why did God plan to send Jesus Christ to humanity?
It was in order to forgive human sin through Jesus Christ and to fulfill His plan of human salvation.

(2) The Exaltation of Jesus Christ and the Elevation of Humanity
(Scripture: Eph. 1:20–23; 2:3–7)

Ephesians 2:5–6 — “Even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

God raised Jesus, who bore the burden of humanity’s sins and died, from the dead, seated Him at His right hand, and subjected all things under His feet (Eph 1:20–23). Furthermore, He also plans to raise humanity—who have been saved through Christ—from among the spiritually dead and to seat them with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph.1 2:6).

(3) The Plan for Christ’s Second Coming
(Scriptures: 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Col. 3:3–4; 1 Cor. 15:51–52)

1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 — “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so, we shall always be with the Lord.”

Colossians 3:3–4 — “For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”

God has promised and planned that by sending Christ again, human beings will be with Christ eternally—not only in spirit but also in body.

1 Corinthians 15:51–52 — “Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

In Paul’s theology, the resurrection of humanity is not merely spiritual, but a complete resurrection into an imperishable, glorious, and spiritual body.

(4) The Plan of Judgment
(Scripture: 2 Thess. 1:5-10)

2 Thessalonians 1:7b–9 — “… When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

In God’s plan, the second coming of Jesus Christ means complete salvation and eternal life—body and soul—for those who believe. But for those who do not believe, it means the punishment of eternal destruction, or eternal dying.

 

 

Chapter 11     Pauline Theology 2: Humankind

 

1.    Humankind Before Christ

(1) The Components of the Human Being

One of Paul’s descriptions of humanity before the coming of Christ concerns the composition of the human being. Humanity’s inability to fulfill the Mosaic Law is partly due to the fleshly condition of human existence.

1) Body (σῶμα – sōma)
The primary meaning of sōma (body) is the visible and tangible biological component that constitutes the human limbs (cf. Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14–26). It sometimes refers to flesh, blood, and bones (Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 13:3; 2 Cor. 4:10; 10:10; Rom. 1:24), but it can also refer to the self, the person as a whole (cf. Phil. 1:20; Rom. 6:12–13; 1 Cor. 6:15; 12:27). This term refers to the human being as a whole, complex, living organism, especially when that person is either the subject or object of a particular action or event (1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 6:12–13; 8:13; 12:1).

When Paul uses sōma in a negative or derogatory sense—such as “the body of sin” (Rom 6:6), “the body of death” (Rom. 7:24), “the body of flesh” (Rom. 8:13), or “the lowly body” (Phil. 3:21)—he is describing the human being under the dominion of sin (Rom. 7:14, 18, 23; 8:13). In this case, “body” represents the self under the power of sin (Rom. 7:23), and this describes the state of humanity before Christ. Even after Christ’s coming, those not in Christ remain in this condition.

2) Flesh (σάρξ – sarx)
Sarx (flesh) refers to the physical body. The expression “flesh and blood” denotes humanity (Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:50) and implies natural weakness. However, sarx alone can also represent the whole human being or human nature (Rom. 6:19). Paul often uses sarx to signify natural, material, visible human existence, bound to earth and marked by weakness—a creature left to itself (1 Cor. 1:29; Rom. 8:5, 8).[47]

He equates the self with the flesh and finds nothing good in it (Rom. 7:18). This concept of “flesh” becomes especially significant in contrast with the Spirit. Paul contrasts the person enslaved to earthly tendencies with the person influenced by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:4–9, 13; Gal. 3:3; 4:29).

3) Soul (ψυχή – psychē)
Psychē (soul) is not only the principle essential for biological life but also refers to a living being or living person (cf. the Hebrew נֶ֫פֶשׁ, nephesh; 1 Cor. 15:45). The soul expresses vitality, consciousness, intellect, and will (1 Thess. 2:8; Phil. 2:30; 2 Cor. 12:15; Rom. 11:3; 16:4). Even when “soul” seems to mean nothing more than “self” (Rom. 2:9; 13:1; 2 Cor. 1:23), it implies a conscious and intentional vitality of the self. Paul does not use psychē in a negative or contemptuous sense, but it is the life of the flesh, not life governed by the Spirit. Thus, Paul calls the person who lives without the Spirit of God a person of the flesh (psychikos; 1 Cor. 2:14).

4) Spirit (πνεῦμα – pneuma)
Pneuma (spirit) combines with body (sōma) and soul (psychē) to represent the whole human being (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). Pneuma refers to the faculty of perception and volition, and specifically the human capacity that is most suited to receive the Spirit of God. Sometimes, however, pneuma is used simply as a substitute for the personal pronoun (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:13; Gal. 6:18; Philem. 25).

5) Mind/Heart (νοῦς – nous and καρδία – kardia)
For Paul, nous (νούς), or “mind/spirit,” describes the human being as the subject who perceives and judges. This term (nous) refers to the ability to understand intellectually, to plan, and to make decisions (Rom. 14:5; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2:16). It is also the capacity to recognize what is known about God through creation (Rom. 1:20). Paul uses nous (νούς) and kardia (καρδία) interchangeably, without a strict distinction.

However, if one examines the subtle differences between the two, nous (νούς) refers more to the intellectual and planning self, including its emotional responses. On the other hand, kardia (καρδία) is used in connection with feelings such as “loving” (2 Cor. 7:3; 8:16), “grieving” (Rom. 9:2), “planning” (1 Cor. 4:5), “indulging” (Rom 1:24), and “being distressed” (2 Cor. 2:4). Kardia (καρδία) is also used to indicate life in the sense of “doubting” and “believing” (Rom. 10:6–10), “becoming hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14), and “failing to repent” (Rom. 2:5).

(2) What is Sin?

(Scripture: Rom. 3:9, 23)

Paul uses the Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) for sin 62 times, of which 48 occurrences are in Romans, and the remaining 14 in other epistles (it does not appear at all in Philippians).[48]

Romans 3:23 — “Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Paul speaks about the universality of sin. Sin is not just a problem for certain individuals; rather, all people are associated with sin. In Romans 3:9, Paul declares that both Greeks and Jews are all under sin, and in verse 23, he points out that everyone has failed to attain the glory of God due to sin.

(3) The Sin of the First Man, Adam

(Scripture: Rom. 5:12–21)

Romans 5:12 — “Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”

When the first man, Adam, sinned by disobeying God, sin entered the world, and as God had warned (cf. Gen. 2:17), Adam and all his descendants came under sin. Paul emphasizes that sin existed even before the law, which makes sin known as sin (Rom. 3:20; 5:13).

William Barclay, in his interpretation of Romans 5:12, argues that all sinned not because Adam’s sinful tendency was passed down, but because, in the Jewish notion of corporate responsibility, all humanity actually sinned in Adam.[49] However, I do not agree with Barclay. The reason is found in Romans 5:17–18, where Paul writes: “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” If Barclay’s view were correct, that all sinned corporately in Adam’s transgression, then by the same logic, all would also be considered righteous through corporate participation in Christ’s righteousness—but this is not what Paul teaches. According to Paul, all sinned through the one man’s sin (Rom. 5:12), but only many are justified through the righteousness of one man, Christ, by faith (Rom. 8:18).

The difference in expression between “all have sinned” (5:12) and “many were made sinners” (5:19) shows that while everyone sinned through Adam, not everyone remains classified as a sinner, because those who believe in the righteousness of Christ are excluded from that category. Therefore, while “all” sinned, the number of those counted as sinners is referred to as “many.”

(4) Sin and the Law

(Scriptures: Rom. 3:20; 5:13, 20; 7:7–17; Gal. 3:22)

Romans 3:20 — “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

Romans 7:8 — “But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.”

For Paul, the positive aspect of the Law is that it makes one aware of sin (Rom 3:20). However, there is also a negative aspect, which stands in contrast to the positive: the Law actually gives sin an opportunity and brings about covetousness. The Law, which was meant to reveal God's good will and lead to life (Rom 7:10), instead becomes something that brings about death. The Law, which was intended to restrain and prohibit sin, ends up provoking it—because what is forbidden becomes a fatal temptation. Barclay referred to this as a “cosmic dilemma.”[50] It is an experiential truth that the human heart desires to try what is forbidden. And by prohibiting something, the Law stirs up the desire to try it. Thus, in a dual sense, sin and the Law are entangled and intricately connected.

2. The Humankind in Christ

(1) The New Person

(Scriptures: Rom. 6:4, 11; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; also, Eph. 2:15, 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10)

2 Corinthians 5:17 — “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.”

Ephesians 4:22–24 — “Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, ²³ and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

Christ’s saving work reestablished union between humanity and God. A person who lives outside of Christ remains in the state of the “old self,” living according to human nature. But once a person enters into Christ, they become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Through the Spirit of Christ—the Holy Spirit—they take off the old self shaped by former habits and put on the new self (Eph. 4:22–24).

(2) The Sacrament

1) Baptism

(Scriptures: Rom. 6:3–11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:1–2; 12:3; Gal. 3:26–27; also, Eph. 4:5; Col 2:11–12)

Romans 6:3–4 — “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Galatians 3:26–27 — “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Colossians 2:12 — “And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

For Paul, the meaning of baptism is this: one who is united with Christ dies to sin and lives to God’s righteousness (Rom. 6:11). In baptism, we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection. We die to our former life apart from God and rise to a new life in Christ. According to Galatians 3:27, to be baptized into Christ is to be clothed with Christ, to become Christ’s own—that is, a new person. The baptism meant here is not so much water baptism but baptism by the Holy Spirit, which is given through faith (Gal. 3:2, 5). While ritual water baptism may emphasize the human vow in a formal act, Spirit baptism stresses the internal union between Christ and the believer—a substantial rather than symbolic union.

Baptism signifies true mystical participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12). However, even so, the mystical union through baptism and the Eucharist is not the central theme of Paul’s theology, contrary to what some of the History-of-Religions School (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) claimed. Paul states clearly in 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,” showing that his mission was to proclaim the gospel, not to perform baptisms (referring here specifically to water baptism). The baptized person receives the seal of salvation (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph 4:30) and becomes a member of the body of Christ, the Church (1 Cor. 12:26–27).

Baptism, as union with Christ, is sufficient once for all (Eph. 4:5). While human faithfulness toward God may be inconsistent and in need of renewal, God’s faithfulness, which is confirmed in baptism, is unchanging and trustworthy, and therefore baptism is only needed once. Human fidelity must be continually renewed, but God's faithfulness never needs renewal.

2) Eucharist (Holy Communion)

(Scripture: 1 Cor. 10:3–4, 10:16–17, 20–21; 11:23–29)

1 Corinthians 10:3–4 — “[They] all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

1 Corinthians 10:16–17 — “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

1 Corinthians 11:23–26 — “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Paul compares the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and Israel (1 Cor. 10:2) to water baptism, and in 1 Corinthians 10:3–4 he describes the wilderness events—eating manna and drinking water from the rock—as a prototype of the Eucharist. Even then, the “spiritual food” (manna) and “spiritual drink” (water from the rock) were derived from Christ. Paul uses the term “body of Christ” with Eucharistic significance (1 Cor. 10:16). The Lord’s Supper is the ritual in which believers, as members of Christ’s body, participate in Christ and confirm their unity as one body.

Paul states that he “received this from the Lord”, though it is unclear whether he received this directly from Christ or indirectly—possibly through a Christian community such as the church in Antioch. Paul discusses the Eucharist in the context of idolatrous food practices (1 Cor. 10:16–22), and again in 1 Corinthians 11, as part of his critique of abuses arising during community meals among the Corinthian believers.

The Lord’s Supper is a ritual of tangible union between Christians and Christ through His body and blood (1 Cor. 11:24–25). It is both a remembrance (1 Cor. 11:24–25) and a proclamation (1 Cor. 11:26) of Christ’s death. It renews the believer's spiritual vitality and reminds them of their calling. The Eucharist is not a one-time event, but a repeated act, which is to be continued “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup” until the Lord returns. Thus, it has an eschatological (end-time) character, oriented toward the Second-Coming of Christ (Parousia).

 

 

 

Chapter 12     Pauline Theology 3: Apocalypse

 

1. Introduction

The term “revelation” (apokalypsis) used by Paul in his epistles refers to God's disclosure of His plan of salvation for humanity through Christ. The expressions “revelation of the mystery” and “mystery,” which Paul frequently uses, refer to truths that were hidden before the coming of Christ but are now made known as the fullness of God’s divine plan unfolds (Gal. 4:4; also, Eph. 1:9). For Paul, revelation is both soteriological (concerning salvation) and eschatological (related to end-times fulfillment).

2. God’s Self-Revelation

(Scripture: Rom. 1:19–20)

Romans 1:19 — “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”

Paul believed that God made His presence known through creation so that humanity could come to know Him by observing the created world. He considered creation an act of divine self-revelation and believed that anyone with the eyes to see and the mind to comprehend could discover God in anything He has made.[51]

3. Salvation: Revelation of the Mystery

(Scriptures: Rom. 16:25–26; 1 Cor. 2:7; also, Eph. 1:9, 3:2–4; Col. 1:26, 2:2–3; Titus 1:2–3; 2 Tim. 1:9–10)

Romans 16:25–26 — “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith.”

1 Corinthians 2:7 — “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.”

Ephesians 1:9 — “For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ.”

In Paul’s epistles, the term “mystery” (μυστήριον, mustérion) is distinct from the concept found in the ancient mystery religions, where it referred to secret teachings known only to a select few at the core of the cult. Paul uses the term “mystery” in connection with God’s redemptive plan (salvific work) revealed within history. It was something that had not been disclosed until the appointed time of God’s dispensation and thus had belonged to the category of “mystery” (Col. 1:26). But now, with the arrival of the fullness of time (Eph. 1:9), it has been revealed to all.

For those outside of Christ, it still remains a (publicly declared) “mystery,” but for all who are in Christ, it is no longer a “mystery” but a “revelation.” This “mystery” was prepared before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4) and is now made known to those who belong to God. It is the plan of salvation by which God chose us in Christ and made us His children. The corresponding term “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις) does not merely mean the disclosure of a truth or the provision of information about a fact. Rather, it refers to the unveiling of God’s redemptive plan—which had been hidden by God (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Col. 1:26)—or the very act of “appearance” itself.

The proclamation of this “revelation of the mystery” (Rom. 16:26; Greek Bible 16:25)—that is, the unveiling of God’s plan of salvation—is precisely Paul’s gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25–26), and it is the very purpose of the ministry entrusted to him (Eph. 3:2–4; Col. 1:25–26). For Paul, preaching the “revelation of the mystery” is thus an eschatological proclamation of God's redemptive work, which will be completed with Christ’s Second-Coming (Parousia).

4. Revelation of the Gospel

(Scriptures: Rom. 16:25–26; Gal. 1:1, 1:11–12; also, Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26, 2:2–3)

Romans 16:25–26 — “…the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations…”

Galatians 1:11–12 — “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not 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.”

Paul came to know the gospel through the revelation of Jesus Christ. It was because of the call of Christ who appeared to him in the light that Paul was able to dedicate his life as an apostle and witness to the gospel. Moreover, the very content of the gospel that he proclaimed was something he received through Christ’s revelation, not from human sources.

 

 

Chapter 13     Pauline Theology 4: Christ

 

1. Introduction

Paul’s discussion of Jesus Christ is premised upon soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). For Paul, Jesus is the preexistent Son, the Lord, and the Christ (=Messiah) who came and will come again to fulfill God's plan of salvation.

2. Paul’s Christ

Fitzmyer argues that “the role of Christ” is central to Pauline theology. Compared to the rich array of titles Paul uses for Jesus, it is relatively rare that he refers to him solely by the proper name “Jesus.” This suggests that Paul’s focus lies in the meaning of “Christ Jesus”—that is, in Christology.[52] However, I believe that Paul’s emphasis on Christ is not only rooted in Christology but also integrally connected to soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

(1) The Preexistent Son

(Scriptures: Rom. 8:3, 29, 32; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6–8; 1 Thess. 1:10; also, Eph. 4:13; Col. 1:15–17)

Galatians 4:4 — “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.”

Philippians 2:6–8 — “Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

Colossians 1:17 — “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Paul refers to Jesus as “the Son of God,” “his (the Father’s) Son,” or “his own Son.” What did Paul mean by calling Jesus “the Son of God”? In the Old Testament, the phrase “Son of God” is used as a mythological title for angels (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; Dan. 3:25). It is also used collectively for the people of Israel as God's beloved (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 2:1; 11:1; Isa. 1:2; 30:1; Jer. 3:22), for judges (Ps. 82:6), or for righteous individuals (Sirach 4:10; Wisdom 2:18).

In the New Testament, the Messiah and the Son of God are equated (Mark 14:61; Matt. 16:16). In Jewish thought, the dominant idea underlying the title “Son of God” is that one has been chosen by God for a divine task and is obedient to that calling. This Hebrew concept of sonship serves as the basis for applying the title to Christ in the New Testament.

Even when Paul uses the phrase “Son of God” in his letters without explicitly discussing Christ’s preexistence, he presupposes it (Rom. 8:3, 32; Gal. 4:4–5). While the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence is often associated with John, it is clearly evident in Paul’s epistles as well. The phrase “God sent forth his Son when the time had fully come” (Gal. 4:4; cf. Rom. 8:3, 32) aligns with Philippians 2:6, which describes Christ as “being in very nature God” (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). This Son, Jesus Christ, is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), “before all things” (Col. 1:17), and “in him all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9).

William Barclay explained that the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence means: “God was always like Jesus.” That is, the God seen in Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In other words, Christ’s preexistence means that God’s redemptive power and sacrificial love have always been at work throughout all generations. The love seen at Calvary is the eternal movement of God's heart toward humanity.[53]

(2) The Incarnated Christ

(Scriptures: Rom. 1:3; 8:3; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:8)

Romans 8:3 — “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.”

Philippians 2:8 — “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

For Paul, the incarnation was a concrete act of God. God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3)—clothed in the same human nature we all share. Paul understood the incarnation also from Christ’s side: Christ voluntarily emptied himself. For Paul, the sacrifice of Christ was not merely something that happened during his earthly life—it began before the world was created. Philippians 2:5–11 beautifully expresses Christ’s kenosis (self-emptying). Though Christ was equal with God and possessed unchallengeable authority, he chose not to cling to it, taking instead the form of a servant and becoming human.

(3) The Death of Christ

(Scriptures: Rom. 4:25; 5:6–10; 6:10; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 15:3; Gal. 1:4; 6:14; also, Eph. 2:3; 5:2; Col. 1:20)

1 Corinthians 2:2 — “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Galatians 6:14 — “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

For Paul, the cross and death of Jesus Christ were not only the center of his Christology but also the core of his soteriology. Paul consistently emphasized the essential centrality of Christ’s cross. W. Barclay pointed out that, for Paul, the cross of Christ stood at the center of the universe.[54]

Romans 5:8 — “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

The death of Christ drew people’s attention to the love of God. It revealed that God is not only the God of justice and wrath but also the God of love and compassion.

Romans 6:10 — “The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.”

1 Corinthians 15:3 — “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.”

Christ’s death was a once-for-all death for sin (Rom. 6:10)—for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul openly declared that Christ died for our sins (Rom. 4:25; 5:8; Gal. 1:4). Barclay notes that although it is true that Christ died because of human sin, we must not reduce his death to a mere consequence of sin. Rather, Christ’s death accomplished something necessary for the redemption of sin.

1 Corinthians 5:7b — “For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.”

Paul also viewed Christ’s death as a sacrifice. Christ, the Son of God, “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). In Ephesians 5:2, Paul writes, “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

Romans 5:9 — “Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

Christ’s death, when believed and embraced, justifies the believer before God, saves them from wrath, and leads to salvation.

Romans 5:10 — “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

Christ’s death brings reconciliation between God and humanity in the context of salvation (Rom. 5:10). Ephesians 2:13 also explains that through the cross, people are reconciled to God (cf. Col. 1:20). Christ’s death accomplished reconciliation and restored the once-lost intimate and loving relationship between God and humankind.

(4) The Resurrection of Christ

(Scriptures: Rom. 4:25; 6:4–11; 1 Cor. 15:1–8, 12–20; 2 Cor. 13:4)

Romans 4:25 — “He (=Jesus) was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

1 Corinthians 15:14 — “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

1 Corinthians 15:17 — “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”

Barclay states that while Paul’s emphasis had certainly been on the cross of Christ—on his atonement and sacrificial death—by the end of his life, the resurrection of Christ had become the central theme of his Christology, as it had for the early church as a whole. According to Barclay, Paul mentions the resurrection in all of his letters except for Philemon and 2 Thessalonians, which shows how central resurrection theology was to Paul's thought. Even in those two letters, though the resurrection is not explicitly stated, the idea of the risen Christ is subtly present throughout.[55] I think that Christ’s resurrection, along with his death, stands at the heart of Paul’s soteriology and also instills in people an eschatological expectation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20–24).

1 Corinthians 15:8 — “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

For Paul, the resurrection of Christ was not a truth he came to believe based on secondhand reports from others. It was a reality he personally encountered—a direct experience that qualified him to bear witness as an eyewitness. His testimony, therefore, was both independent and immediate.

(5) The Exalted Christ

(Scripture: Eph. 1:20–23)

Ephesians 1:20–21 — “He (=God) accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.”

The ministry of Jesus Christ did not end with his resurrection and being seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is continuously exalted, placed far above all things, and with the Father he rules over all creation, subjecting all things under his feet.

(6) The Cosmic Christ

(Scripture: Col. 1:15–17)

Colossians 1:16–17 — “For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Jesus Christ has existed eternally before the world and, together with God the Father, created all things—everything was created through him and for him. Jesus Christ is above all things and governs all creation as the Cosmic Christ.

 

Chapter 14     Pauline Theology 5: Salvation

 

1. Introduction
Paul’s soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is a Christ-centered, Christological soteriology. In other words, it cannot be explained apart from Christ. The Christ-event—namely, Christ’s suffering, shedding of blood on the cross, death, and resurrection—is the core of Paul’s doctrine of salvation. Furthermore, Paul’s Christ-centered soteriology provides an eschatological expectation and hope (cf. Rom. 8:18–30).

2. Results of the Christ-Event

(1) Justification by Faith
(Scriptures: Rom. 1:17; 3:28; 4:1–25; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:1–14; Phil. 3:9)

Paul’s soteriology is famously expressed by the phrase “justification by faith.” Since the Reformation, and even today, some scholars have maintained that “justification by faith” is the central and coherent theme of Pauline theology. Paul finds the basis of this justification in Genesis 15:6 (cf. Rom. 4:3, 9; Gal. 3:6; also, James 2:23) and Habakkuk 2:4 (cf. Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; also Heb. 10:38).

Romans 3:28 — “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

Galatians 2:16 — “...a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ... because by works of the law shall no one be justified.”

Philippians 3:9 — “...not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

Although Abraham obeyed God’s command and left Ur of the Chaldeans, he was not justified by his works before God. Abraham lived before the Law was given, and God considered him righteous before he was circumcised at age ninety-nine. For Abraham, faith in God was credited as righteousness; after Christ was given, righteousness is credited through faith in Christ. This righteousness is not limited to Jews but also belongs to the uncircumcised (Rom. 4:9).

Why can't anyone be justified by works of the law? Because no one is completely righteous and capable of keeping the law perfectly, no one can be righteous before God. As Paul states in Romans 3:10, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (cf. Ps. 14:3, 53:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20).

Philippians 3:9 again affirms that righteousness does not come from the law but is from God and is given to those who believe in Christ.

(2) Salvation
(Scriptures: Rom. 1:16; 5:9–10; 8:24; 9:27; 10:1–13; 11:11–14, 26; 13:11; 1 Cor. 1:18, 21; 3:15; 5:5; 7:16; 10:33; 15:2; 2 Cor. 1:6; 2:15; 6:2; Phil. 1:28; 2:12; 1 Thess. 2:16; 5:8–9; 2 Thess. 2:10, 13; also Eph. 1:13; 2:5, 8; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4, 15; 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:15; 4:18; Titus 3:5; 2:11)

Romans 5:9 — “Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

1 Corinthians 15:2 — “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.”

Philippians 2:12 — “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Ephesians 2:8 — “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God.”

Paul describes in Romans 1:16 that the “gospel” is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.” The author of salvation is God, and Christ is the means of salvation (“through him,” Rom. 5:9). In rare instances, as in Philippians 3:20— “a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”—Christ is also referred to as the subject of salvation (cf. Eph. 5:23).

Paul states in “many instances” that the final result of the Christ-event remains in the future and thus contains an eschatological aspect (Rom. 5:9–10; 8:24; 10:9–10, 13; 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; 15:2; 1 Thess. 2:16). In Romans 8:24, Paul says, “For in this hope we were saved.” This does not mean that salvation has already been fully attained, but rather that the promise (or guarantee) of salvation has been received through the heart of hope (or faith) (cf. Phil. 2:13). In Philippians 2:12, by saying “work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” Paul presents salvation as a process.

(3) Reconciliation
(Scriptures: Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18–20; also, Eph. 2:15–16)

Romans 5:10–11 — “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.”

2 Corinthians 5:18 — “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.”

The one who initiates reconciliation is not human, but God. God reconciles with humanity through Christ as the mediator (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18; also, Col. 1:22). Moreover, He enables human beings to move from a state of hatred and conflict to one of love and reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18–19; Eph. 2:15–16).

Paul expands the effect of reconciliation brought by the Christ-event from between God and humanity to the entire universe. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, he says, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,” and in Colossians 1:22 he explains that God the Father “was pleased... to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through [Christ].”

(4) Expiation (ἱλαστήριον, hilastérion)
(Scripture: Rom. 3:25)

Romans 3:25 — “God put forward [Christ] as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”

Paul testifies in Romans 3:25 that Jesus became the “sacrifice of atonement” (ἱλαστήριον, hilastérion, also rendered as “expiation”). In biblical thought, blood is equated with life itself. The offering of Christ’s blood—representing his life—cleansed sinners before the Lord and restored their union with Him. The blood of Christ, shed to atone for human sin, removed the barrier of sin that had separated humanity from God. By shedding his blood on the cross, Jesus once and for all cleansed and covered humanity’s sin.

(5) Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις, apolutrósis)
(Scriptures: Rom. 3:24; 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 4:5; also, Eph. 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col. 1:14)

Romans 3:24 — “They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

1 Corinthians 6:20 — “You were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.”

Ephesians 1:7 — “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.”

Originally, God was the rightful owner of humanity. However, after the fall of Adam and Eve, Satan claimed ownership. God, by paying the price of Christ’s atoning blood (i.e., the ransom), purchased humanity. Through this act, ownership over human beings was transferred back to God.

The Greek term Paul uses, exagorazō (ἐξαγοράζω), means “to buy” or “redeem.” This corresponds to the Old Testament term ga’al (גאל), meaning “to redeem” or “buy back property or inheritance.” The Hebrew concept is seen in Ruth 4:1 (and vv. 3–6), where the “kinsman-redeemer” (גואל, go’el) buys back Naomi’s land. In this sense, Boaz becomes a type or foreshadowing of Christ, the Redeemer, who redeems humanity with the price of his blood.

Paul says that Christ became our “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις, apolytrōsis, meaning deliverance or liberation). Through the “redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24), people are “set free” and justified. Though this event has already been accomplished through Christ, for the believer it still contains a future, eschatological dimension. In “this present age,” believers still experience an “incomplete” freedom. In Romans 8:23, Paul says, “We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship—the redemption of our bodies.”

In Ephesians and Colossians, redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις, apolytrōsis) is used synonymously with “forgiveness of sins.” Ephesians 1:7 states, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,” and Colossians 1:14 similarly says, “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

(6) Freedom
(Scriptures: Rom. 7:3; 8:21; 1 Cor. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 2:4; 4:21–31; 5:1, 13; Phil. 3:20)

Romans 8:21 — “…because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

2 Corinthians 3:17 — “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

Galatians 5:1 — “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

Believers who are justified by faith have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them (Gal. 3:2, 5) and therefore possess freedom (2 Cor. 3:17). This freedom refers to liberation from the bondage of sin (Rom 6:16–23; 8:2), death (Rom. 5:17; 6:23; 8:2), the Law (Rom. 7:3; Gal. 3:10–13, 23; 4:5), and elemental spiritual forces (Gal. 4:8–11; cf. Gal 5:1).

However, Paul’s concept of freedom is not libertinism (unrestrained indulgence). In Galatians 5:13, he warns, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.” In 1 Corinthians 6:12, he defines the boundaries of freedom: first, it must not be harmful to others; second, it must not place oneself under the control of anything (cf. also 1 Cor. 10:23). In 1 Corinthians 8:9, Paul advises that one’s freedom must not become a stumbling block to those who are weak in faith.

(7) New Creation
(Scriptures: Rom. 6:4, 11; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; also, Eph. 2:15; 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10)

Romans 6:4 — “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

2 Corinthians 5:17 — “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: The old has passed away, behold, the new has come.”

Colossians 3:9–10 — “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”

The Christ-event brought about a new union between humanity and God. Paul affirms that God has recreated human nature in Christ, granting “newness of life.” A person who lives outside of Christ lives as the old self, according to natural human nature. However, when that person enters into Christ, he or she becomes a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Through the Spirit of Christ—the Holy Spirit—one is enabled to discard the old self that followed former ways and instead put on the new self (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10).

(8) Sanctification
(Scriptures: Rom. 6:22; 12:1; 15:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1:30; 6:11; 1 Thess. 4:7)

Romans 6:22 — “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”

1 Corinthians 6:11 — “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Jesus, who came from God, has become for believers “wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). Believers are sanctified “in the name of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. Rom. 15:16). Those who are made holy in Christ Jesus are called “saints” (οἱ ἅγιοι, hoi hagioi, holy ones) (1 Cor 1:2; cf. Rom. 1:7).

(9) Transformation (μεταμόρφωσις)
(Scriptures: Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6; Phil. 3:21)

Romans 12:2 — “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Philippians 3:21 — “…who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.”

Through the Christ-event, God shines a new light into the hearts of those who have entered into Christ, bringing about a work of transformation (2 Cor .4:6; Phil. 3:21). The transformation of believers comes through the “Spirit of the Lord” working within them. They are transformed into the image of Christ and thereby come to share in his glory (2 Cor. 3:18; cf. Rom. 8:29). Those who have been illuminated by “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:6) also begin to manifest transformation in their lives. Thus, instead of conforming to the patterns of this age ruled by the powers of the world, they are transformed by the help of the Spirit and begin to live lives that discern and reflect God’s “good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom. 12:2).

(10) Glorification
(Scriptures: Rom. 8:18, 21, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:12; cf. Eph. 2:6; Col. 1:13; 2:12; 3:1)

Romans 8:30 — “And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

1 Thessalonians 2:12 — “…to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.”

God is the one who calls, justifies, and also glorifies believers. The glorification of the saints is their inheritance as citizens of God’s kingdom and the enjoyment of eternal life. Ephesians 2:6 describes this glorification as, “[God] raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Similarly, Colossians 1:13 says, “He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

 

Chapter 15     Pauline Theology 6: Holy Spirit

 

1. Understanding the Holy Spirit

(Scriptures: Rom. 8:1–17, 26–27; 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–11; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Gal 3:2–5; 5:22–23; also, Eph. 3:3–5)

In his early letter to the Galatians, Paul simply refers to “the Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα)—though the Korean Bible translates this as “Holy Spirit”—but in other epistles, he uses a variety of titles. These include “the Holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9), “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal 4:6; also “the Spirit of adoption,” Rom 8:15), and “the Spirit of God” (also, “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead,” “the Spirit from God,” Rom. 8:11, 14; 1 Cor. 2:11, 12, 14).

For Paul, the Holy Spirit is a gift (χάρισμα, charisma) given by God through grace (χάρις, charis). Paul lists these gracious gifts in well-known passages like 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and 28–30, and also in Romans 12:6–8 and Ephesians 4:11. In Galatians 3:2, 5, Paul says that God gives the Spirit when people hear and believe.

2. The Holy Spirit as Pledge (ἀρραβών, arrabón)

(Scriptures: Rom. 8:16; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; also, Eph. 1:13–14)

Romans 8:16 — “It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

2 Corinthians 1:22 — “He has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.”

The Holy Spirit testifies that we are God’s children and serves as the pledge (guarantee) of our salvation. Even before the full realization of salvation, the Spirit working within believers assures them that they are “already” God’s children and citizens of heaven (cf. Rom 8:16; Phil 3:20). In Ephesians 1:13, the Spirit is described as the “promised Holy Spirit,” whose seal is the guarantee of God’s ownership and our inheritance (“who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance,” Eph. 1:14).

3. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit

(Scriptures: Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11)

Romans 12:6–8 — “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.”

1 Corinthians 12:4–11 — “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”

God grants the gifts of the Spirit to believers so that, by using them, the church may be edified, and God may be glorified.

4. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit

(Scriptures: Gal. 5:22–23; 6:8; Rom. 8:5–7)

Galatians 5:22–23 — “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.”

Paul contrasts walking by the Spirit with gratifying the desires of the flesh in Galatians 5:16–17, then contrasts the works of the flesh (5:19–21) with the fruit of the Spirit (5:22–23). In Galatians 6:8, he states that those who sow to please the flesh will reap corruption, but those who sow to please the Spirit will reap eternal life. Likewise, in Romans 8:6, Paul says that the mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.

5. The Work of the Holy Spirit

(Scriptures: Rom. 8:9–10, 15, 26; 15:13, 16, 18–19; 1 Cor. 2:10–16; also, 2 Thess. 2:13)

Romans 8:11 — “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.”

1 Corinthians 2:10–11 — “God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

In Romans 8:9b, Paul declares, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” Thus, the Holy Spirit is the decisive factor that makes someone a Christian. In light of Galatians 3:2 and 3:5, a person becomes righteous by hearing and believing the gospel of Christ, and simultaneously receives the Holy Spirit, thereby becoming Christ’s own.

Through the indwelling of the Spirit, the person—once dead in sin and transgression—receives life (Rom. 8:11). The Holy Spirit enables the believer to cry out to God, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), and testifies that they are God’s children (Rom. 8:16). Furthermore, when believers do not know what they ought to pray for, the Spirit intercedes for them “with groans that words cannot express” (Rom 8:26). Because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, he knows the deep things of God and makes them known to believers (1 Cor. 2:10–11).

The Spirit, who comes in power, causes believers to abound in hope (Rom 15:13). He leads them to live sanctified lives (Rom. 15:16; 2 Thess. 2:13). As the Spirit continually empowered Paul, he was enabled to carry out his missionary work fully (Rom. 15:18–19). In addition, the Holy Spirit fills believers with joy (1 Thess. 1:6), moves them to serve (Phil. 3:3), helps them pray (Eph. 6:18), and enables them to love one another (Col. 1:8).

 

Chapter 16     Pauline Theology 7: Church

 

1. What Is the Church?

Paul uses the term church (ecclesia, ἐκκλησία) to refer to a specific place for worship and religious instruction, to gatherings of local Christians in those places, and also to the entire body of Christians who belong to Christ. He likely adopted the term ecclesia, originally meaning "assembly" or "congregation," and developed it further to express the organic relationship between Christ and believers. Calling the church “the body of Christ” and the believers “members” of that body (as in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) and referring to Christ as the “head” of the church (as in Ephesians and Colossians), are characteristic expressions found in Paul’s epistles.

2. The Church as the People of God

(Scriptures: 1 Cor. 1:2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; Phi. 3:6; 1 Thess. 2:14; also, 1 Tim. 3:15)

1 Corinthians 1:2 — “To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.”

1 Thessalonians 2:14 — “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews.”

1 Timothy 3:15 — “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

The term ekklesia (ἐκκλησία)—especially in the form “the church of God” (ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ, hē ekklēsia tou Theou)—carries a soteriological meaning in the New Testament as referring to the people of God, with the sense of “being called out” (evoking the image of Israel’s exodus from Egypt). It is generally believed that the word derives from the Hebrew term qahal (קָהָל), meaning “congregation” (the congregation of God).[56]

For Paul, ekklesia refers to the gathered community of those who believe in Christ and are united with Him through baptism. In this sense, just as the people of Israel in the Old Testament were “the congregation of God” (Acts 7:38, “the church in the wilderness” [ἐκκλησία ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ]), the term “church” in the New Testament can be understood as the continuation and fulfillment of the identity of God's people in its collective meaning.

L. Cerfaux points out that the term “church of God” originally referred to the church in Jerusalem. When Paul speaks of persecuting the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6), Cerfaux argues that Paul had the Jerusalem church in mind, not the universal church.[57] In contrast, Ridderbos argues that although “the church of God” may have initially been applied to the Jerusalem church and later to the churches established in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14), this name was not limited to them as a mere technical term (terminus technicus), but would have been applied in an extended sense (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). For Paul, ekklesia refers to the local church (in a city or household), the church meeting, and also the church in its totality. In Ephesians and Colossians, it is used mainly with the meaning of the total church, whereas in Paul’s other letters, it is used mainly in the sense of the local (or house) church or church gatherings.[58]

Paul’s emphasis on the church does not only refer to the union or association of individual churches but also includes the church in its total sense as “the gathering of God’s people (children),” which refers to all the saints within God’s redemptive plan. From a redemptive-historical perspective, this indicates the entire body of believers who are part of God's plan of salvation. Ridderbos points out that even when Paul writes to a church (or churches) in a specific region, he has in mind that they (the church and the believers) are part of the totality of God’s people.[59]

3. The Church as the Body of Christ

(Scriptures: Rom. 12:3–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; also, Eph. 1:22–23; 4:15–16; 5:29–32; Col. 1:18, 24)

Romans 12:4–5 — “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”

1 Corinthians 12:27 — “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”

Ephesians 5:29–30 — “For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.”

Colossians 1:24b — “…in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

Christ is said to be the head of the church, and the church is His body. The phrase “body of Christ” (σῶμα Χριστοῦ, sōma Christou) as a description of the church is a unique and characteristic expression of Paul. Referring to the church as the body of Christ signifies the intimate relationship and union between Christ and the church. For Paul, the distinctive term “sōma” (body) implies that many individuals are partakers in Christ and thus form a new unified entity. They are not individuals in isolation but a collective unity in Christ. This is emphasized particularly in Ephesians 5:31–32, where the union between husband and wife— “The two shall become one flesh”—is said to be a great mystery, and Paul refers this mystery to Christ and the church.

1 Corinthians 12:13 — “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

Baptism is the rite through which a person becomes united with Christ and His body. As 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates, believers are baptized by one Spirit into one body. This baptism into Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2) brings about a mystical union with Him, making believers members of His body. Galatians 3:27 expresses this similarly: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” emphasizing a personal union with Christ, through which the attributes of Christ are manifest.

1 Corinthians 10:16–17 — “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

Through the Lord’s Supper, believers partake in the body of Christ and confirm that they are members joined to that body. The term body here refers, first, to Christ’s body given unto death along with His blood, and second, to the church depicted as one unified body.

Ephesians 1:22–23 — “And he (=God) has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.”

Colossians 1:18a — “He (=Christ) is the head of the body, the church.”

The expression of Christ as “the head of the church” (ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας, hē kephalē tou sōmatos tēs ekklēsias) is a distinctive feature of Ephesians and Colossians. In this, the spiritual aspect of the body of Christ is seen very prominently alongside the redemptive-historical dimension. Ridderbos points out that the description of Christ as “head” in Ephesians and Colossians particularly emphasizes the authority of the ascended Lord—and this is a well-founded observation.[60] God raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms (Eph. 1:20), exalted Him above every name (Eph. 1:21), and appointed Him as “head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22).

4. The Local Church or House Church

(Scriptures: Rom. 1:7; 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1–2; Gal. 1:1–3; Philem. 1:1–2; also, Col. 4:15–16)

Romans 1:7 — “To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 16:19 — “The churches of Asia send greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.”

Colossians 4:15–16 — “Give my greetings to the brethren at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.”

The congregations of the first-century churches were likely small in size. Church buildings did not begin to appear until the third century.[61] The early church did not construct separate buildings for worship but instead met in the homes of prominent local individuals, in the form of house churches (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Philem. 1:2; Col. 4:15).  In his letters to local churches, Paul sometimes uses the term “saints” (ἁγίοι, hagioi) instead of “church” (Rom. 1:7; Phil 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col 1:2), because the meaning of “church” refers more significantly to the gathering or fellowship of believers than to a physical building. The community of faith—composed of those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord—is the people of God (the “spiritual Israel”) and is the key subject in redemptive history.

5. The Church and Ethics

(Scripture: 1 Cor. 1:10–13; 11:17–22; 14:3–5, 12, 26)

1 Corinthians 14:26 — “What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”

Being a community of those who have received freedom through faith in Christ does not mean that the church is free from all order or ethics. As a community of faith, there are appropriate codes of conduct within the church—what can be called “church ethics.” Paul emphasized that during public worship, the Lord’s Supper, fellowship gatherings, and the use of spiritual gifts, all conduct must benefit the church and contribute to its edification.

The actions and speech of the saints should build up the community (1 Cor. 11:17). He rebukes those who arrive early at the Lord’s Supper and overindulge in the bread and wine, leaving nothing for those who come later—thus shaming the poorer members (1 Cor. 11:20–22). Even the exercise of tongues or other gifts during public worship should not be for self-display but for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:3–5, 12, 26).

Paul did not provide each believer with a detailed ethical manual. However, he did stress that the church, as a place of shared faith, must reflect order, benefit, and edification, which requires a communal ethic. Divisions and disputes are harmful because they do not strengthen but rather destroy the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:11–13). Even personal sins like sexual immorality are not merely individual ethical issues; they affect the church community because such “leaven” corrupts and infects the “body of Christ,” leading to its deterioration. Thus, Paul exhorts the saints to uphold a Christological ethic within the church to edify and preserve the body of Christ together.

Chapter 17     Pauline Theology 8: Eschaton

 

1. What is the Eschaton (End Time)?

(Scriptures: 1 Thess. 4:13–18; also 2 Thess. 1:3–12, 2:1–12; also, Col. 3:1–4)

1 Thessalonians 4:16 — “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7–9 — “When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

Colossians 3:3–4 — “For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”

Paul’s eschatology is a prophecy about actual events that will occur in the future. It will reach its conclusion when everything becomes a realized fact on the day of Christ’s return. For believing saints, the end has already been accomplished through the death of Jesus Christ—this is realized eschatology. If a believer has died united with Christ, then their end has been fulfilled through Christ’s death. For the saints who have died and been raised with Christ (Rom. 6:4–5; also, Col. 3:1), the eschaton is “already” realized, whereas for unbelievers it remains a “not yet” futuristic eschatology. The saints will greet Christ’s Second Coming (Parousia) with joy, but for unbelievers, the return of Christ will be a day of wrath and destruction.

2. The Resurrection of the Dead

(Scriptures: Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:12–34; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:14–17)

1 Corinthians 15:12–13 — “Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised.”

2 Corinthians 4:14 — “Knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.”

1 Thessalonians 4:16 — “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”

Rudolf Bultmann claimed that the event of the resurrection cannot be objectively verified and thus treated the resurrection as a mythologized form of the kerygma, though he acknowledged the proclamation and faith surrounding the resurrection as legitimate.[62] His theology of resurrection, rooted in Heidegger’s existentialist philosophy, was less concerned with a past historical event and more focused on the existential meaning found in the believer’s present faith and decision. Bultmann insisted that rather than trying to believe the early church's resurrection kerygma as historical fact, one should discover the meaning of the resurrection.

However, for Paul, the resurrection was not simply for meditating on its spiritual meaning or making a faith decision—it was a historically witnessed event (1 Cor. 15:3–8), and its importance lies in the fact that just as Christ was raised, believers will also be raised. According to Jaehong Kim, the resurrection is not “an anthropological decision that becomes valid only when one believes, as Bultmann asserted,” but “an eschatological fulfillment of God’s creative work—a creative eschatology whereby imperfect humans are re-created into perfect ones.”[63] This is a sound interpretation.

Paul adamantly affirms that “if there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:13, 15, 16)—though this is unthinkable—then “Christ has not been raised, either” (v. 13), “God did not raise Christ” (v. 15), and “Christ has not been raised” (v. 16). In doing so, Paul asserts that the resurrection of Christ presupposes the resurrection of believers. Anyone who believes in the resurrection of Christ must also believe in the resurrection of the dead.

To those who cannot believe in Christ’s resurrection, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17—again, hypothetically—that “if Christ has not been raised” (which is absolutely not the case), then “our preaching is useless,” “we are found to be false witnesses about God,” “your faith is futile,” “you are still in your sins,” and “those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.” In short, if Christ was not raised, preaching, faith, and salvation are all in vain, and all are still condemned. Therefore, any faith or evangelism that does not presuppose or believe in the resurrection is meaningless.

The resurrection of the saints is an eschatological event that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (Parousia). The dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:16). If Christ’s return is the chronological element, then the Holy Spirit is the dynamic element that empowers resurrection. The Spirit, who dwells in the believers, will manifest the power of resurrection to its fullness at the moment of Christ’s Parousia.

3. The Body of Resurrection

(Scripture: 1 Cor. 15:35–58)

1 Corinthians 15:42–44 — “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.”

From the time of the early Church Fathers, terms like “resurrection of the flesh” and “resurrection of the body” have often been used interchangeably. However, Paul clearly distinguishes between “flesh” (σάρξ, sarx) and “body” (σῶμα, sōma) in his writings. For Paul, “flesh” presupposes perishability in this world and thus cannot be resurrected. In 1 Corinthians 15:50, he plainly declares, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”

Does this then imply only the soul is resurrected? Not at all. Paul affirms the resurrection of the body along with the soul. While “flesh” (σάρξ) assumes perishability, “body” (σῶμα) includes both the “natural body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) and the “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν) (1 Cor. 15:44). The resurrected body of the believer is the “spiritual body.” Of course, this “spiritual body” has form, but it is different from the current “natural body.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:40 that “there are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies,” and in verse 44, “if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”

Paul explains that just as God gave different bodies at creation—bodies of humans, birds, fish, and animals—so there are also heavenly and earthly bodies. Just as the glory of the sun differs from that of the moon and each star differs in glory, so too will be the glory of each person and the difference between earthly and resurrected glory (1 Cor. 15:38–41). Just as various living creatures on earth live in different bodily forms (σῶμα), so it will be in heaven. Some receive glory on earth, others in heaven. Earthly glory is given by earthly standards; heavenly glory is given by heavenly standards. Paul characterizes the resurrected body as an “imperishable body” (v. 42), a “glorious body” (v. 43), a “powerful body” (v. 43), and a “spiritual body” (v. 44).

4. The Second Coming of Christ

(Scriptures: Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:25–31; 1 Thess. 1:10, 4:13–17, 5:1–6, 23; also, 2 Thess. 2:1–8)

1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 – “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so, we shall always be with the Lord.”

1 Thessalonians 5:1–3 – “But as to the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When people say, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape.”

2 Thessalonians 2:3 – “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition.”

One of the pressing concerns of the Thessalonian believers was about those Christians who had died before Christ’s Second Coming—would they miss out on the glory to come? Paul’s answer is emphatic: “Those who are alive will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep.”

Did Paul expect Christ’s return during his own lifetime? Scholars debate this, but this writer believes that Paul did anticipate the Second Coming in his own lifetime. Paul refers to himself and the Thessalonians as “we who are still alive” (1 Thess. 4:17). Hence, he prays that their whole spirit, soul, and body would be kept blameless at the coming of Christ (1 Thess. 5:23). In Romans 13:11–12, Paul writes, “The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber,” and “the night is nearly over; the day is almost here,” expressing the imminence of the Second Coming. In 1 Corinthians 7:29, he says, “the time is short,” indicating a sense of urgency about the Lord’s return. Therefore, even if Paul may not have been certain that Christ would return during his lifetime, it is clear he waited for it in hope (cf. 1 Thess. 5:6).

The description of Christ’s Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and following clearly steps back from the sense of urgency and unpredictability found in 1 Thessalonians, Romans 13:11–12, and 1 Corinthians 7:29 (where it is said that He will come “like a thief”). That is, another sign must take place before the coming of Christ. Specifically, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 states that “the rebellion must come first, and the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, must be revealed” before Christ’s return. Therefore, until these events occur, Christ’s return will not come ‘like a thief’—that is the claim. Because of this apparent difference in teaching about the Second Coming, many critical scholars argue that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul himself but by one of his disciples after Paul’s death, in an attempt to reformulate the doctrine of the Parousia (Second Coming) under Paul’s name, after it became clear that Christ had not returned during Paul’s lifetime.

5. Judgment
(Scriptures: Rom. 2:1–16; 1 Thess. 5:1–3; also 2 Thess. 1:5–10, 2:8; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8)

Romans 2:5 — “But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

1 Thessalonians 5:3 — “When people say, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape.”

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 — “Inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

Paul states that God will judge the world “according to truth” (Rom. 2:2), “according to what each has done” (Rom. 2:6), and “according to impartiality” (Rom. 2:11). God’s wrath is not immediately poured out upon human unbelief and disobedience. But for those who sin and do not repent, wrath continues to accumulate and will be poured out “on the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5), when God’s righteous judgment is revealed. This “day of wrath” is the day when God’s final judgment becomes a concrete reality.

The eschatological judgment Paul speaks of is not theoretical or merely spiritual, but real and specific. Those who have not believed in God and Jesus Christ—those not justified by faith—will face eternal punishment from God (2 Thess. 1:9).

In 1 Thessalonians 5:1–8, Paul discusses the time and season of judgment, stating that “the day of the Lord” will come like a thief in the night. Verse 3 describes this coming as “destruction,” meaning eternal ruin and everlasting separation from God. This signifies the removal of the grace and life-giving environment once given by the Creator.

6. The Kingdom of God
(Scriptures: Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20, 6:9–10, 15:50; 2 Cor. 12:1–4; Gal. 5:19–21; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 2:12; also, Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 2 Thess. 1:4–5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18)

Romans 14:17 — “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 15:50 — “I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

2 Thessalonians 1:5 — “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.”

What does “the kingdom of God” mean to Paul? It refers to every realm in which God’s rule is manifested (1 Thess. 2:12). While Paul’s view of the kingdom is certainly eschatological (1 Cor. 15:50; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18), it is also a present reality for the believer living under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20). When a believer subjects themselves to God’s reign, they live as a citizen of the kingdom. It is also a realm where true freedom (citizenship) is granted (Phil. 3:20). Believers are not slaves but free citizens in the kingdom of God.

Paul defines the kingdom of God as “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17) and says it “does not consist in talk but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). In contrast, matters like “eating and drinking” or “mere talk” are not essential criteria for entering the kingdom.

Paul also identifies those who are unfit to inherit the kingdom. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, these include the unrighteous, sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Galatians 5:19–21 includes those who commit acts of the flesh—sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. Ephesians 5:5 lists the sexually immoral, the impure, and the greedy (which is idolatry). These people will not inherit the kingdom of God. In contrast, Paul comforts those who endure suffering, persecution, and tribulation in this world with the assurance that they will be “counted worthy of the kingdom of God” (2 Thess. 1:4–5).

While Paul clearly lists the attributes of the kingdom and the qualifications (or disqualifications) for entry, he does not describe the Kingdom concretely. Revelation provides a more detailed picture of the kingdom (as “the new heaven and the new earth” in chapters 21–22). Paul hints at the reason in 2 Corinthians 12:4, saying that he “was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.” It may be because the kingdom (i.e., Paradise) cannot be expressed in human language or is not permitted to be revealed. Another reason could be that the “Paradise” Paul experienced in a vision is significantly different from the future eschatological kingdom of God. What Paul saw in the “third heaven” was merely a foretaste, a model, of the kingdom that will come at the end of time.

 

Chapter 18     Paul’s View on Ethics

 

1. Introduction
If one misunderstands Paul’s theology and thought, it is possible to wrongly assume that the doctrine of justification by faith and Christian freedom have nothing to do with an ethical life. However, all of Paul’s epistles not only teach fundamental truths about the Christ event but also exhort believers to live ethically. On one hand, Christians are justified solely by faith in Christ Jesus in order that they may no longer be “under law, but under grace” (Rom 6:15; cf. Rom 3:24–25). On the other hand, those who are justified before God are no longer of the flesh but are spiritual persons through receiving the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2, 5).

2. Christian Freedom and Its Boundary in Paul
(Scriptures: Rom. 7:3, 8:21; 1 Cor. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 2:4, 4:21–31, 5:1, 13; Phil. 3:20)

Romans 8:21 — “Because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

2 Corinthians 3:17 — “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

In Paul’s letters, freedom is a crucial term for Christians. By Paul’s standard, the Christian lifestyle is one freed from Judaistic bondage to the law. Those who are justified by faith have received the Holy Spirit and thus live in freedom (Gal. 3:2, 5; 2 Cor. 3:17). This freedom means liberation from the bondage to sin (Rom. 6:16–23; 8:2), death (Rom. 5:17; 6:23; 8:2), the law (Rom. 7:3; Gal. 3:10–13, 23; 4:5), and the elemental principles of the world (Gal. 4:8–11). However, this freedom is not a license for unrestrained or unethical living.

Paul’s concept of freedom is not libertinism. He warns that Christian freedom should not become an opportunity for the flesh—governed by passions and desires (Gal. 5:13, 24). In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul defines the boundaries of freedom: first, that it must not harm others, and second, that it must not bring oneself under the control of anything (see also 1 Cor. 10:23). In 1 Corinthians 8:9, he exhorts believers not to let their freedom become a stumbling block to the weak.

In Galatians 5:1, Paul exhorts, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Christ came so that those who confess Him as Lord may live no longer under the law but as free people whose lives manifest God’s holiness.

3. Ethics in Paul

(1) Personal Ethics

1) Not Immorality, but Holiness
(Scriptures: Rom. 12:1–2, 14:15–16; 1 Cor. 5–6; 8:12–13; Gal. 5:19–26; also, Eph. 5:3–9, 18; Col. 3:5–10)

Romans 12:2 — “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Romans 14:16 — “So do not let your good be spoken of as evil.”

1 Corinthians 5:11 — “But rather I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.”

1 Corinthians 6:7 — “To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?”

Galatians 5:25–26 — “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.”

When living in this world, believers must not live in association with immorality, injustice, greed, slander, or idolatry, but must live holy and sincere lives. Those who practice such things cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; also, Eph. 5:5), nor can they please God. Paul exhorts believers not to live like unbelievers. While worldly people bring their disputes before secular judges, when believers take each other to court, it reveals their faults (1 Cor. 6:7). What should be done instead? Paul suggests that it is better to suffer wrongly or to be cheated than to do wrong or cheat a fellow believer. Despite Paul's clear teaching, it is disheartening that lawsuits between churches or among believers still occur. According to Paul, each believer’s code of conduct must be measured by whether their actions benefit others and avoid causing others to restrict them or stumble (1 Cor. 6:12).

In Romans 12:2, Paul clearly and concisely presents how a person of faith ought to live. First, “Do not be conformed to this world”—meaning, do not imitate the sinful patterns of this age. Second, “Be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Third, “Prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” However, our weak flesh often prevents us from living this kind of life (Rom. 7:18–20; 8:3). In such cases, believers must seek and rely on the Holy Spirit. Through the renewal of the mind and the Spirit’s help, they are transformed and able to discern and live according to the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:25).

2) Marriage and Divorce

(Scripture: 1 Cor. 7)

1 Corinthians 7:1–2 — “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband..”

1 Corinthians 7:8–9 — “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11 — “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”

1 Corinthians 7:26 — “I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.”

Paul’s view of marriage is presented within a specific context—his eschatological belief in the imminent return of Christ (Parousia; 1 Cor. 7:26–31; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–3). While Paul affirms that not marrying is preferable, he also states that if one is unable to control their desires, it is better to marry than to fall into immorality. Although 1 Corinthians 7 seems to suggest that celibacy is superior to marriage, under normal circumstances, marriage is indeed God’s will.

In Genesis 2:18, God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him,” and verse 24 adds, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus himself quoted this passage (Matt. 19:4–5; Mark 10:8), thereby affirming the sacredness and suitability of marriage.

Paul cites this passage twice in his epistles for slightly different purposes. First, in 1 Corinthians 6:16–17, he contrasts sexual immorality with holiness: “Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him.” Second, in Ephesians 5:31–32, he uses it to compare the husband–wife relationship to that between Christ and the Church: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Nevertheless, Paul maintains that remaining unmarried is preferable to marrying.

For “married couples who are both believers,” separation or divorce should be avoided as much as possible (1 Cor. 7:10–11). Paul explicitly states that this is not his personal instruction, but a command from the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10). This implies that Paul was aware of Jesus’ teachings on divorce (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18). In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says, “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery.” Thus, divorce is only permissible in the case of ongoing sexual immorality. In Mark 10:11, Jesus adds, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,” thereby prohibiting remarriage without a valid reason for divorce. Since Paul does not say explicitly that this command came by direct revelation, it may have been passed on to him through Peter or another disciple. Still, Paul’s statements on divorce seem less forceful. He simply says: “The wife should not separate from her husband... the husband should not divorce his wife,” without strong emphasis.

In the case of a “mixed marriage”—where one spouse is a believer, and the other is not—Paul takes a more lenient stance on divorce than he does for couples who are both believers. He says, “If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us” (1 Cor. 7:15), implying that divorce in this situation does not bring guilt before God. However, if the unbelieving spouse is willing to live together, the believing spouse is encouraged not to separate (1 Cor. 7:12–13). This is because the continued relationship may lead to the unbelieving spouse’s salvation (1 Cor. 7:16).

(2) Household Ethics

1) Parents and Children

(Scriptures: Eph. 6:1–4; Col. 3:20–21)

Ephesians 6:1, 4 — “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. …
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

Colossians 3:20–21 — “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”

In Paul’s seven undisputed letters, the parent–child relationship is not discussed. However, both Ephesians and Colossians—texts that many scholars consider Deutero-Pauline—present nearly identical teachings on this topic. In these letters, the relationships between parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and slaves are portrayed analogously to the relationship between God and the saints or between Christ and the Church. Ephesians expands upon the teaching in Colossians by adding the blessing associated with obedience (Eph. 6:2–3).

Interestingly, despite Paul's usual reluctance (as seen in Galatians or Romans) to cite the Mosaic Law, especially for Gentile Christians, in Ephesians and Colossians—written to Gentile believers in Asia Minor—he refers directly to the Fifth Commandment of the Jewish Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20:12 (cf. Deut. 5:16), God commands, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” Thus, the moral obligation of children to parents found in Ephesians and Colossians is more a reiteration of the Fifth Commandment than a distinctively Pauline ethic. However, Paul adds a nuance by combining the concept of “honor” (τιμάω, timáō) with “obedience” (ὑπακούω, hupakoúō).

Ephesians 6:3 mentions, “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” The phrase “that it may go well with you” points to God's qualitative blessing, while “that you may live long in the land” refers to quantitative blessing. The “land” here symbolically refers to both the promised land—the coming Kingdom of God—and the present life on earth where God dwells with His people.

Paul also extends beyond the Fifth Commandment’s focus on the duties of children by introducing the ethical obligations of parents toward their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21). In Ephesians 6:4, he instructs, “Do not provoke your children to anger,” and Colossians 3:21 explains the reason: “lest they become discouraged.” This could be understood as a caution against treating children as possessions or taking out anger on them, which may lead to deep resentment or emotional wounding.

Ephesians adds the directive, “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4). What provokes children to anger is not necessarily parental discipline itself, but irrational or unexplained outbursts of anger from their parents. Therefore, training and correction in the Lord—i.e., with love, wisdom, and spiritual maturity—is necessary. Parents must raise their children in the love of Christ, teaching, training, and admonishing them according to the Lord’s standards.

2) Husbands and Wives

(Scriptures: 1 Cor. 7:3–5; Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; also, Titus 2:3–5)

1 Corinthians 7:3–4 – “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.”

Ephesians 5:22–23, 25 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. … Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

Colossians 3:18–19 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:3–4, Paul offers a comprehensive exhortation for husbands and wives to fulfill their mutual obligations to each other. He teaches that each person’s body belongs to the other. If either spouse neglects their own responsibilities while demanding those of the other, the marital relationship will not be harmonious.

In both Ephesians and Colossians, Paul instructs wives to submit to their husbands. The Greek word used for "submit" (ὑποτάσσω, hupotassō) means “to place oneself under the authority or command of.” Submitting to one's husband means coming under his authority and following his lead. However, this is not the fearful obedience of a slave to a master, but a voluntary and joyful submission out of love. Just as the Church, as Christ’s body, obeys its Head, so should the wife obey the will and guidance of her husband, the head of the family (Eph. 5:23–24). Colossians reinforces that this is right “in the Lord” (Col. 3:18).

Just as a wife submits in love, the husband must love his wife through sacrificial service. Just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it to make it holy and blameless, so husbands are called to love their wives. When a wife becomes beautiful and holy, it is the result of the husband’s love, for she is united with him as one body—therefore, to love her is to love oneself. From this sacred union between husband and wife, we learn the mystery of union with Christ. Through this, we are drawn closer to God.

(3) Church Ethics

(Scriptures: Rom. 12:3–13; 1 Cor. 1:10–13, 11:17–22, 12:12–27)

Romans 12:10, 13 — “Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. … Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality.”

1 Corinthians 12:25–27 — “… that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”

Church ethics were addressed previously in Chapter 16: Ecclesiology in Paul’s Theology. Here, we will focus specifically on ethical principles that govern relationships among believers within the Church, as grounded in the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Paul teaches that each believer is a member of Christ’s body—the Church. Within the life of the Church, believers may sometimes criticize or judge one another, but this is improper. Just as the human body reacts sensitively and wholly to an illness in even the smallest part, believers must empathize with and care for the pain and suffering of even the seemingly weakest among them (1 Cor. 12:26).

In Romans 12:10, Paul exhorts believers to “love one another with brotherly affection” and to “outdo one another in showing honor.” When members of the Church love one another as siblings and show honor and respect, the Church becomes a beautiful and harmonious community. Verse 13 encourages believers to supply the needs of the saints and to be devoted to hospitality. Knowing about a fellow believer’s hardship yet being slow to help implies that such concern remains only a topic of conversation rather than an act of compassion. A church that excels in hospitality will not only be transformed within but will begin to transform a wider society.

(4) Social Ethics

1) Neighbor

(Scripture: Rom. 12:14–21, 13:8–10)

Romans 12:17–18 — “Repay no one evil for evil but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. ¹⁸ If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.”

Romans 13:9 — “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

In Romans 12:14–21, Paul outlines ten principles of social ethics for believers.
First, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (v.14). This implies Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teaching: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (cf. Matt. 5:44).

Second, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (v.15). These refer to those outside the Church. Believers are called to share in the joys and sorrows of those outside the faith.

Third, “Live in harmony with one another” (v.16). Since believers live among unbelievers, it is wise to live in harmony and not in isolation.

Fourth, “Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly” (v.16). This reflects the example Christ set in Philippians 2:5–8.

Fifth, “Never be conceited” (v.16). Neither human wisdom nor spiritual insight should lead to pride.

Sixth, “Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all” (v.17). There is a saying: “To repay good with evil is demonic; to repay evil with evil is worldly; but to repay evil with good is divine.” Evil defaces the image of God, while good conforms us to that image.

Seventh, “If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (v.18). Believers should not only be at peace with others but also act as agents of healing.

Eighth, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God” (v.19). As Deuteronomy 32:35 says, “Vengeance is mine,” which is also cited in Hebrews 10:30. Injustice should be entrusted to God, lest vengeance perpetuate itself.

Ninth, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head” (v.20). This is a quotation from Proverbs 25:21–22, and it is an ethic of love that embraces even one’s enemies. It means that the good actions of a person of faith can put the wicked to shame and later open their hearts.

Tenth, Paul exhorts, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (v. 21). What God desires from those who believe is the building of a society in which God’s goodness is manifested. When evil is overcome with good, through such people of faith, the kingdom of God can be established and expanded on this earth.

Paul teaches that love—practiced by believers in society—fulfills the requirements of God’s law (Rom. 8:4). The second half of the Ten Commandments (Commandments 6–10)— “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet” (cf. Rom. 13:9)—are all summed up in the command, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; cf. Matt. 5:43, 22:39). One who truly loves his neighbor fulfills the law without needing to try to keep each commandment individually. This is the ethic of love that believers must embody as members of a shared society with unbelievers.

2) Men and Women

(Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, 14:34–35; Galatians 3:28; also 1 Timothy 2:8–15)

1 Corinthians 14:34–35 — “The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church..”

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:11–14 — “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

In Galatians 3:28, Paul asserts that “in Christ Jesus,” distinctions between male and female do not exist. However, the same Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 instructs that “women should keep silent in the churches.” Whether this statement—like the one in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 regarding women covering their heads in public worship—is a context-specific directive reflecting the culture and customs of 2,000 years ago in Corinth, or a universally binding command that transcends time and culture, is a matter of ongoing debate among biblical scholars.

While the societal position and legal recognition of women were not as prominent 2,000 years ago as they are today, it seems that in the Corinthian church at that time, women were becoming increasingly vocal, sometimes causing division or difficulty within the congregation. Even today, churches occasionally face internal challenges due to disputes or speech among female members, which makes Paul’s call for silence from women in worship more understandable—not as a misogynistic statement, but as one aimed at preserving peace and order within the church.

However, Paul's perspective on women in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 seems to go beyond peace and order and may even appear antagonistic. Paul instructs that “a woman must learn in quietness with all submission” and forbids her from teaching or exercising authority over a man. He gives two reasons for this, which I think, are uncharacteristic of Paul: First, “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v.13); Second, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (v.14).

Taken literally, the second point gives the impression that Adam bears no responsibility for original sin, placing the full blame on Eve. This assertion appears arbitrary and open to significant criticism. It recalls Adam’s defense in Genesis 3:12: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” One might imagine Adam silently adding, “Therefore, I am not guilty.” While such a rationale is problematic, if 1 Timothy is indeed a genuine Pauline letter, then his intent might be interpreted as a pastoral exhortation for women to live in accordance with God’s created order, for the sake of maintaining harmony and order in both the home and the church.

3) Masters and Slaves

(Scriptures: Gal. 3:28; also, Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:11, 3:22–4:1; Titus 2:9–10)

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 6:5, 9 — “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ. … Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

Colossians 3:22; 4:1 — “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.. ... Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”

In Galatians 3:28, Paul emphasizes that in Christ Jesus “all are one” (cf. Col. 3:11). In Him, there is no distinction of ethnicity, social class, or gender. Believers are simply one new humanity in Christ (see Eph. 2:15).

However, in the real world, we encounter differences in race, status, and gender. In Ephesians and Colossians, Paul recognizes these not as permanent divisions, but as temporary conditions permitted while living in this world. He exhorts believers to do their best within the positions they find themselves in. In these passages (Eph. 6:5–9 / Col. 3:22–4:1), Paul is not endorsing slavery or taking the master-slave relationship as self-evident; rather, he is giving practical ethical guidance to believers on how to conduct themselves as Christians within their societal roles. Ultimately, he aims to emphasize a life of obedience to God that manifests through earthly relationships.

When a servant obeys their earthly master with fear and trembling—that is, with extreme reverence—and sincerity of heart, such obedience mirrors the way they should relate to God. A person who treats their earthly master with integrity, without hypocrisy, is likewise capable of honoring God in that same way. A similar principle applies to masters. A believing master should treat their servants with justice and fairness (Col 4:1), knowing that they too are subject to the judgment of their heavenly Master. The call is for mutual respect rooted in reverence for God and accountability to Him.

(5) National Ethics

(Scripture: Rom. 13:1–7)

Romans 13:1 — “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

The Greek word for “authority” is exousia (ἐξουσία), a compound of ex (ἐξ, meaning “from”) and ousia (οὐσία, meaning “essence,” “being,” or “substance”). Thus, exousia can be interpreted as “from the essence,” “from the being,” or “from the ownership.” In other words, authority—whatever form it takes—is derived from or granted by some essence or original being. Paul asserts that even state authority originates from God and is established by Him (Rom. 13:1). Hence, there are obligations for those in government office: rulers must exercise their power in accordance with God's will, practicing good governance. When rulers administer justice aligned with God’s righteousness, the citizens are expected to obey the laws because obedience, in this case, aligns with God’s own will.

Anyone who opposes the authority that God has instituted is not simply resisting a human institution but resisting God Himself, and such opposition will bring judgment through God’s appointed agents (Rom. 13:2). Paul describes secular rulers as God’s servants, entrusted with divine authority to execute wrath on wrongdoers. Therefore, believers should submit to civil authority and live righteous lives for two main reasons: first, to avoid becoming subjects of divine wrath; and second, to maintain a clear conscience.

Paul instructs believers to give everyone what they are due: pay taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, and honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7). It is the believer’s duty to pay taxes and public levies as part of honoring the government which has been given authority by God. Just as obedience to visible laws made by civil authorities forms a habit of respect, it also enables the believer to obey the invisible commands of God more faithfully. Ignoring human law—which carries tangible earthly consequences—can easily lead to disregarding the will of God, which may appear to lack immediate earthly repercussions.

(6) Economic Ethics

(Scriptures: Rom. 15:25–27; 2 Cor. 8:1–15, 9:6; Phil. 4:11–12)

Romans 15:27 — “They were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.”

2 Corinthians 8:14 — “but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.”

Philippians 4:11–12 — “Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. ¹² I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want.”

Christians, like everyone else, live and engage in economic activities in this world. They work hard, using their abilities and time to earn a living. However, Christians should not live solely for their own comfort and material wealth. Jesus told the rich young ruler, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor... then come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). Paul, however, does not demand the selling of all possessions. Rather, he advocates for the economic principle of equity, encouraging believers to share their surplus with the needy (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 8:14).

Paul’s economic thinking draws from God’s provision to Israel in the wilderness. In Exodus 16:17–18, those who gathered much manna had no surplus, and those who gathered little had no lack—each collected according to their need. Paul believes that God meets the needs of His children through mutual sharing and support within the faith community. Living according to this divine principle of “equity” is the foundation of Christian economic ethics.

Paul highlights the example of the Macedonian churches to emphasize the “beauty of giving” (2 Cor. 8:1–5).[64] This principle resonates with Proverbs 11:24: “One gives freely yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give and only suffers want.” Therefore, in 2 Corinthians 9:6, Paul states, “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.” As Christian economic agents, believers are called to live generously—within and beyond the church—giving abundantly whenever possible.

Paul also teaches that a believer’s financial circumstances—whether rich or poor—should not control their faith or spiritual contentment. What matters is a heart of contentment in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11–12). Paul’s self-sufficiency in preaching the gospel reflects the same mindset Jesus taught His disciples: not to be anxious about food, drink, or clothing, but to trust in God's daily provision. Christians should focus not on anxious striving over economic security but on fulfilling the mission God has entrusted to them, trusting in His faithful provision.

 

 

Chapter 19     Paul’s View on Economy

 

1. The Meaning of Economy (οἰκονομία) in the Bible

(Scriptures: 1 Cor. 9:16–17; also, Eph. 1:9, 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4; cf. Luke 16:2–4)

1 Corinthians 9:16–17 — “For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission/stewardship (οἰκονομία, oikonomia).”

Ephesians 3:2 — “assuring that you have heard of the stewardship (οἰκονομία, oikonomia) of God’s grace that was given to me for you.”

Colossians 1:25 — “I became a minister of the church according to the divine office/stewardship (οἰκονομία, oikonomia) which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known.”

In economics textbooks, economics is often defined as “the study of human economic behavior.” Assuming the principle of scarcity, economics can be defined as “the study of the choices and actions undertaken to optimally utilize scarce resources according to human needs and uses.” Microeconomics is the field that deals with consumption behavior of consumers, production behavior of producers, and their interactions in the market. Macroeconomics, by contrast, examines fiscal and monetary policies at the national level, regulating prices, wages, employment, interest rates, etc. Today, international trade—an area of great interest to many—is also part of macroeconomics.

However, economic activity is not limited to material exchanges as described in micro or macroeconomics. In a broader sense, economic activity refers to what is traditionally called “gyeongsejemin” (經世濟民), meaning the comprehensive task of governing the nation and saving the people. Confucius' teaching—self-cultivation (修身), ordering the family (齊家), governing the state (治國), and bringing peace to the world (平天下)—may be understood as a model for comprehensive economic activity. Here, self-cultivation corresponds to individual economic principles, family-ordering to domestic economic principles, governing the state to national economic principles, and world peace to global economic principles.[65]

The word “economy” derives from the Greek word oikonomia (οἰκονομία). In the Bible, the primary meaning of oikonomia—especially in the Gospels (notably in Luke)—refers to “household management,” “management of another’s property,” “oversight,” or the “role of a steward or manager.” In Luke 16:2–4, it says, “Give an account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.” The steward then said to himself, “What shall I do now that my master is taking away my management?” and decides how to be welcomed into others’ homes once his stewardship ends. The words “management” (v. 4) and “stewardship” (vv. 3–4) here correspond to oikonomia, i.e., economy. A steward (oikonomos) is essentially an economic agent or manager in modern terms.

Secondly, oikonomia refers to the “mission of gospel proclamation” entrusted by God, or the “office of stewardship” for that gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9:17, Paul says, “If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it unwillingly, I am still entrusted with a stewardship (oikonomia).” Here, “stewardship” refers to the calling of a biblical economist—i.e., one who proclaims the gospel (cf. also, 1 Cor. 4:1, “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God”).

Thirdly, oikonomia implies the “divine plan for human salvation”—what might be called God’s economic governance over the world and His redemptive plan for humanity. Ephesians 1:9–10 says God has “made known to us the mystery of his will… as a plan (οἰκονομία) for the fullness of time.” Ephesians 3:2 refers to “the stewardship (οἰκονομία) of God's grace,” and verse 9 speaks of “the plan (οἰκονομία) of the mystery hidden for ages in God.” In Colossians 1:25, Paul writes that his ministry was given “according to the stewardship (οἰκονομία) from God,” and in 1 Timothy 1:4, he refers to “God’s plan (οἰκονομία) which is by faith.” All of these instances use oikonomia to mean God’s redemptive plan—His economic policy, so to speak, for saving humanity.

As examined above, in Paul’s epistles, the term “economy” (oikonomia, οἰκονομία) is used in two principal ways: first, as the mission of proclaiming the gospel (the second meaning above), and second, as God’s plan of salvation (the third meaning above). Although these two meanings may appear unrelated, in reality, they are deeply connected. The very content of the gospel that Paul proclaims is nothing less than “God’s plan of salvation for humanity through Jesus Christ,” which, in other words, is “God’s economic plan.” Thus, Paul’s calling as a missionary is precisely to declare God’s economic plan—His divine economy.

2. Paul’s Economic View: The Principle of Economic Equality (Averaging)
(Scriptures: Rom. 15:25–27; 2 Cor. 8:9–15, 9:6)

Romans 15:27 — “They (=Gentile believers) were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.”

2 Corinthians 8:13–14 — “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.”

God’s “economic plan” or “economic principle” is human salvation, not only in a spiritual sense but also in a material sense. That is, God desires for us to live abundant lives even in this world. For Paul, Christian abundance (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) does not refer to a life of luxury resulting from wealth concentration, but to an economically improved life through sharing surplus among Christian communities, leading to a balanced standard of living.

In capitalist society, the economic principle followed by human beings—whether consumers or producers—is maximization or optimization. Individuals live to maximize utility or satisfaction, and money is often the yardstick of satisfaction for modern people. When choosing jobs, for instance, people tend to prioritize high salaries over other conditions. Companies also pursue maximum profit, sometimes engaging in unethical marketing or sales practices. However, the biblical economic principle revealed by God is not maximization but averaging—a principle of balance. When God sent manna to Israel in the wilderness, He commanded them to gather what they needed. According to Exodus 16:18 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:15), “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered just as much as they needed.”

When Paul asked the Corinthian believers to contribute to the needs of the poor saints in Jerusalem, he explained God’s economic principle of equality in 2 Corinthians 8:12–14. Although Paul had not personally met the historical Jesus, it is known that Jesus Christ, during His public ministry, taught and lived out this principle of economic equality. First, this is evident in the miracle of the five loaves and two fish. The five loaves and two fish were the portion of a single person’s lunch, but when broken and shared, they fed 5,000 people and even resulted in twelve baskets of leftovers. Second, the very life of Jesus was aimed at making things equal. All His riches were shared with the poor, the sick, the despised, and the imprisoned. He shared so fully that He gave up all He had—even His life—on the cross. Therefore, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.” By saying this, Paul clarifies that his appeal is grounded in the example of Christ, who came to bring equality. In other words, the coming of Christ was not only to lead people to the spiritually rich life of the heavenly Canaan—the Kingdom of God—but also to enable believers to live materially redeemed lives while on this earth. Paul’s economic perspective teaches that the material salvation of the saints—the second goal of God’s plan of human salvation—is made possible through mutual sharing within the faith community.

John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism, also supported the principle of economic equality. He states that the rich are called to share their material wealth with the poor, and the poor are called to share their spiritual wealth with the rich. Hence, the rich are ministers (διάκονος, diakonos – servants) who distribute material blessings, and the poor are vicars of Christ who distribute spiritual blessings. This mutual exchange leads to a society where both material and spiritual wealth are balanced, and where everyone becomes better off.

The communal life (commonism) of the early church also aligns with Paul’s economic view of equality. Acts 2:44ff records: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God.” They lived not as isolated individuals but as members of one body in Christ, caring for each other. This early Christian commonism was based on the principle of economic equality. In capitalism, individuals earn according to their ability and consume according to their desire, which often results in a growing gap between rich and poor. In communism, everyone earns and uses resources equally regardless of ability, which—while idealistic—may demotivate productivity and result in widespread poverty. In contrast, Paul’s economic equality principle does not deny capitalism. Instead, it seeks to complement and correct its weaknesses through a church-centered approach. This principle is not to be enforced through government or coercive measures but should be voluntary and rooted in love for one’s neighbor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:1–5: the example of the Macedonian church). Christian commonism means working according to one’s ability, earning accordingly, and then sharing and distributing resources based on need. This is the life based on God’s principle of economic equality.

3. Christian Economic Ethics

God’s economic plan (οἰκονομία)—that is, His divine economy—is the salvation of humanity. Likewise, the economic plan of the Church that exists within today’s historical context must also be focused on human salvation. As seen in Paul’s epistles, although the salvation of the soul is the primary mission of the gospel messenger who fulfills God's economy, believers and churches must not ignore their neighbors who suffer from economic poverty to the point of groaning under its burden or even contemplating suicide.

According to Paul, to materially rescue one's neighbor is also part of the mission of the gospel witness—though it may be considered secondary. This principle is also taught by Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus will say to those on His right (the sheep), “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matt. 25:35–36).

Christian economic ethics means that, as those who have received justification and live in Christian freedom, we are not to abuse our freedom to seek dishonest gain or live lives of excessive waste, but rather to lead diligent, temperate, and measured lives. It is not a life of showiness lived for appearances, but a life lived together with neighbors to build a healthy and equitable society where everyone’s condition improves.

The Bible calls for a wise and faithful steward—that is, a faithful economic agent or manager. Since the wealth entrusted to us is not ours but the Lord’s, we must use it as the Lord wills—for the good of others. Likewise, since our time is not ours but His, we must diligently manage the talents entrusted to us, not for ourselves, but for the Lord and our neighbors. The Church must take the lead in teaching believers to live this kind of life.

 

EPILOGUE

Chapter 20     The Closing Chapter

 

It is by no means an easy task to derive Paul’s theology from his epistles and to identify its central theme. This is because Paul was not a systematic theologian, and his epistles were not written as systematically developed treatises on specific doctrines. Rather, Paul’s letters are personal communications written to churches or individuals. In them, he greets, comforts, and exhorts his recipients, addressing matters of faith that arise in their particular contingent situations. As a result, the logical flow of his writings is sometimes uneven, and he moves from one topic to another without fully concluding the former. This is especially true in 2 Corinthians, which has led some biblical scholars to argue that it is not a single unified letter but rather a compilation of at least two to five separate letters later edited and combined.

Another reason why it is difficult to identify a unifying core theme in Paul’s letters is that understanding Paul himself is an unusually complex task. Chronologically, he lived 2,000 years ago and was shaped by cultural and religious conditions entirely different from our own. Though a Jew by lineage, he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, a city culturally influenced by Hellenism and politically under the Roman Empire. He was a man formed by a highly complex environment—culturally, politically, linguistically, religiously, and philosophically. Accordingly, his thinking and expressions are far from simple. At times, we observe Jewish elements, while at others, Hellenistic characteristics, or even hints of pagan mystery religions appear. However, one cannot conclude that Paul subscribed to those religions simply because his language reflects the culture and environment of his time; such elements are products of his surroundings, not definitive of his theology.

Another major challenge in studying Paul’s theology is that it was shaped by powerful influences such as his Damascus experience, his missionary journeys, and his disputes with opponents. But from the letters alone, it is often difficult to pinpoint who exactly these opponents were or what their key arguments involved. While it is common to refer to Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as Judaizers or Jewish Christians, it becomes clear that these opponents are not a uniform group. Some scholars believe that in 1 Corinthians, Paul is confronting multiple groups, some even connected to Gnosticism. When we cannot be certain who the opponents were, we also find it difficult to fully grasp the core of Paul’s responses.

The study of Paul’s theology is further complicated by the limited and fragmentary nature of the available sources about his life experiences—especially the primary data found in his own letters. While the Acts of the Apostles, a secondary source, does provide relatively detailed accounts of Paul’s travel itinerary, there are instances where the events recorded in Acts conflict with Paul’s own accounts. Many scholars, rather than rigorously investigating the cause of such discrepancies, have tended to gloss over them or seek compromises, which sometimes results in historically weak conclusions. Moreover, some scholars dismiss or ignore extrabiblical traditions and apocryphal records when it suits their purpose, while in other cases they adopt such material selectively and treat it as established fact—leading to distorted reconstructions of Paul’s life and misrepresentations of his theology.

All these difficulties suggest that the very attempt to extract a unified theology or central theme from Paul’s letters may be unreasonable. As noted earlier, his letters were occasional, non-systematic writings addressed to specific churches or individuals. Nevertheless, scholars continue to seek a core theme in Paul’s theology. What does this effort tell us? At its best, such scholarly pursuit can help us gain a clearer and deeper understanding of Paul’s teachings as presented in his epistles.

Does Paul’s theology have a single central theme? The Reformers championed justification by faith (sola fide) as an overarching theme. This view is quite plausible and persuasive when applied to Romans and Galatians. However, what about 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, or Philemon? Do these letters promote the doctrine of salvation by faith? There is no clear or definitive answer. If so, could Albert Schweitzer’s view of mystical union with Christ (Christ-Mysticism) serve as the common theme across all Pauline epistles? Again, while this may be valid for parts of some letters, it is difficult to affirm it as a consistent theme throughout all of Paul’s writings.

Then, is there no central theme in Paul’s theology? If one selects a theme related to Christ but considers only one aspect, whatever one proposes may be the central theme of one or two or three letters, but it cannot be the central theme of Paul’s theology that covers the entirety of Paul’s epistles. It has been mentioned that Paul was not a man of such simple thought. Because the opposition and debates of his opponents were also not so simple, Paul’s arguments, though seemingly simple, were in fact complex. However, at the center of Paul’s argument stands the simple Christ. Christ, who is the Son of God and the very essence and image of God, who does not require any other external addition—this Christ is located at the center of Paul’s theology. The Christ whom Paul met on the road to Damascus— “the crucified and resurrected Christ”—is thought to be the central theme of Paul’s theology (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 6:14). This Christ of Paul, “through His death and resurrection,” became the subject of soteriology (Romans and Galatians), Christology (Philippians and Philemon; also, Ephesians and Colossians), eschatology (1 Thessalonians; also, 2 Thessalonians), and ecclesiology (1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; also, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). The doctrine that emphasizes the salvation through this (crucified and resurrected) Christ is “justification by faith”; what emphasizes the “mystical union with Christ” is “Christ-Mysticism”; what emphasizes the return (Parousia) of this Christ is “Christological eschatology”—but none of these speaks of more than just a part. The doctrine of justification by faith is an emphasis on salvation through this crucified and risen Christ; the Christ-mysticism stresses union with this Christ; and Christ-centered eschatology highlights the Parousia (Second Coming) of this Christ. However, none of these themes alone captures the whole—each highlights only one facet of Paul’s richly complex theological framework.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

English Bible Versions Used

RSV                Revised Standard Version (Primary)

KJV                 King James Version

NAB                New American Bible

NASB             New American Standard Bible

NIV                 New International Version

NJB                New Jerusalem Bible

NRSV             New Revised Standard Version

TLB                 The Living Bible

 

Books

Apuleius, The Golden Ass, translated by P. G. Walsh, New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc., 1994.

Ashton, J. The Religion of the Apostle Paul, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.

Barclay, W. The Mind of St. Paul, Windham Press, 2013.

Bassler, J. M.(ed.) Pauline Theology Vol. 1, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994 (1991).

Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971 (German, 1934).

Becker, Jürgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, trans. by O. C. Dean, Jr., Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993 (German, 1989).

Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984 (1980).

    _       . The Triumph of God, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.

    _       . Heirs of Paul, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991.

Bornkamm, Günther. Paul, trans. by D. M. G, Stalker, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995 (1st English, 1971; German, 1969).

Boyd, R. T. Paul the Apostle, Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Co., 2000 (1977).

Cerfaux, L. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul, Herder and Herder, 1959.

Charles, R. H. (trans.), Fragments of A Zadokite Work (also known as The Damascus Document), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Vol 2: Pseudepigrapha, Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press, 1913.

Choi, K. P. Economics in the Bible, Cleveland, TN: Parson’s Porch Books, 2025.

Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, edited by A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Coolman, O. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1964.

Cousar, C. B. A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.

Donfried, K. P. and Marshall, I. H. The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999 (1993).

Drain, J. Paul, Seoul, Korea: Duranno, 2011.

Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Eisenman, R. James the Brother of Jesus, New York, NY: Viking, 1996.

Eusebius Pamphilus. The Ecclesiastical History, translated by C. F. Cruse, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993.

Fitzmyer, J. A. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1993.

Goodspeed, E. J. Paul. Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston Co, 1947.

Goodwin, F. J. A Harmony of the Life of St. Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Hahneman, G. M. The Muratorian Fragment and Development of the Canon, Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press, 1992.  

Hasel, G. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1978.

Hengel, M and Schwemer, A. M. Paul: Between Damascus and Antioch, trans. by John Bowden, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997.

Hoffman, R. J. Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, AAR Academy Series, 46, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984.

Irenaeus. Against the Heresies, translated and annotated by D. J. Unger, revised by J. J. Dillon, New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992.

James, M. R. (trans.). The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford UK: The Clarendon Press, 1950 (1^st ed. 1924).

Justin Martyr. The First and Second Apology, translated and introduced by L. W. Barnard, New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1997.

Käsemann, E.  Perspectives on Paul, trans. by Margaret Kohl, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971 (German, 1969).

       ___ .  New Testament Questions Today, trans. by W. J. Montague, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969 (German, 1965).

Kim, Jaehong. Pauline Theology. Seoul, Korea: General Assembly Theology Press, 2000.

Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007.

Knox, J. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of Canon, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Lincoln A. T. and Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000 (1993).

Lovering E. H. and Sumney, J. L. Theology & Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Munck, J.  Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, London, UK: SCM Press Ltd., 1959.

Murphy-O'Connor, J. Paul: A Critical Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Pagels, E. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992 (1975).

Pollock, J. The Apostle: A Life of Paul, Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1985.

Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, BiblioLife, 2009.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. by J. R. de Witt, Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Co., 1997 (1st English, 1975; Dutch, 1966).

Sanders, E. P. Paul and the Palestinian Judaism, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1977.

    _        .  Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1985 (1983).

Schreiner, T. R. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998 (1993).

Schweitzer, A.  The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. by William Montgomery, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1998 (1931).

Soards, M. L. The Apostle Paul, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987. 

Stendahl, K.  Paul among Jews and Gentiles, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem (=Against Marcion), edited and translated by E. Evans, Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press, 1972.

Whitley, D. E. H. The Theology of St. Paul, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1971. 

Wilson, A. N. Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, Warwickshire, GB: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1997. 

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993 (1991).

Articles

Bultman, R. “New Testament and Mythology (Neues Testament und Mythologie),” in Kerygma and Myth (edited by Hans Werner Bartsch, translated by Reginald H. Fuller), S.P.C.K., 1953 (German, 1941).

Dahl, N. A. “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters,” in Semeia 12 (1978): 233-277.

Detering H. “The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles,” in The Journal of Higher Criticism 3 (1996): 163-193.

Doughty, D. “Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity,” in The Journal of Higher Criticism 1 (Fall 1994): 95-128.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] F.F. Bruce. Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 2000 (1977).

[2] The record of Paul’s life as found in the Book of Acts should be understood not so much as Paul’s direct testimony, but rather as material based on traditions or sources that were accessible to the author, Luke.

[3] W. Barclay. The Mind of St. Paul, 2013.

[4] J. Drain, Paul (Korean ed.). 2011.

[5] Most theologians assert that Gamaliel was a rabbi belonging to the Hillel school. However, there are a few theologians, including Seyoon Kim in his book The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (2007), claim that Gamaliel was a rabbi associated with the Shammai school.

[6] Jaehong, Kim. Pauline Theology, 2000.

[7] Jaehong, Kim. Pauline Theology, 2000.

[8] R. Eisenman. James the Brother of Jesus, 1996.

[9] J. Drain, Paul (Korean ed.), Duranno, 2011.

[10] An example of the existence of multiple traditions can be seen in the differing accounts of the number of angels at Jesus’ tomb: Matthew 28:5 and Mark 16:5 mention one angel, while Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 mention two. Another example is the words of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus: in Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32, both criminals are described as mocking Jesus, while in Luke 23:39–42, one mocks Him, but the other pleads, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” These differences demonstrate that, in the early Church, multiple and varied traditions existed concerning many events. Readers often make the mistake of interpreting these accounts by selectively choosing one, forming a compromise between them, or trying to synthesize them all together.

 

[11] Jaehong, Kim. Pauline Theology, 2000.

[12] This account is better understood not as referring to Paul's initial evangelism upon first entering Damascus, but rather as describing his evangelistic activity after returning to Damascus following his time in Arabia—an episode omitted in Acts. This interpretation does not conflict with the records in 2 Corinthians 11:32 and Galatians 1:17.

[13] NAB (=New American Bible) and NRSV (+New Revised Standard Version).

[14] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, 1993.

[15] Depending on the scholar, Paul’s conversion is estimated to have occurred as early as 30 or as late as 36 CE, and his visit to Jerusalem is estimated between 33 and 39 CE. G. Lüdemann dates the conversion to 30 or 33 CE, and the Jerusalem visit to 33 or 36 CE; R. Jewett places the conversion in 34 CE and the Jerusalem visit in 37 CE; J. Fitzmyer considers the conversion to have occurred in 36 CE, and Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in 39 CE.

 

[16] Acts 26:20 records that Paul also preached in the region of Judea: "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all the region of Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." This statement suggests that Paul’s evangelistic activity extended beyond Damascus and Jerusalem to include the whole region of Judea, as well as to the Gentiles.

 

[17] Fitzmyer states that it is correct not to view this relief visit (the visit to deliver aid) as a separate event, but rather as identical with the visit recorded in Acts 15:1 and following (According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, 1993).

[18] NAB (New American Bible), NASB (New American Standard Bible), NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), and NRSV (New American Standard Version).

[19] Among Dutch Radicals, well-known scholars include Allard Pierson (1831-1896), Samuel Adrianus Naber (1828-1913), Abraham Dirk Loman (1823-1897), William Christiaan van Manen (1842-1905), G. J. P. J. Bolland (1854-1922), and Gustaaf Adolf can den Eysinga (1874-1957).

[20] Marion L. Soards. The Apostle Paul, 1987.

[21] E. J. Goodspeed. Paul. 1947.

[22] W. Bauer. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity, 1971 (German 1934). p. 221.

[23] Evidence that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Laodicea can be found in Colossians 4:16, where he says, “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” Therefore, Marcion’s “Letter to the Laodiceans” may be a distinct letter separate from Ephesians.

[24] R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity. 1984. P. 101.

[25] Nils Dahl. “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters.” Semeia 12 (1978): pp. 253-254.

[26] J. Knox. Marcion and the New Testament. 1942. P. 42.

[27] Justin Martyr. The First Apology: p. 26.

[28] At that time, there was not yet a distinction between "orthodoxy" and "heresy," but the church in Rome began to take the issue of heresy seriously.

[29] Among these, books such as 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John and 3 John, and Revelation went through many ups and downs in the canonization process—being included and then excluded—due to suspicions regarding their authenticity. In the end, they survived as canon by being included in the list compiled by Athanasius (of Alexandria) in 367 CE.

[30] W. Barclay. The Mind of St. Paul. 2013: p. 22.

[31] J. Drain. Paul. 2011.

[32] D. Whitely. The Theology of St. Paul. 1971. pp. 19-20.

[33] Ibid., pp. 17-18.

[34] Seyoon Kim. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. 2007.

[35] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. 1993. Pp. 78-79.

[36] H. Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. 1997 (1^st English, 1975; Dutch, 1966). p. 14.

[37] Ibid., p. 18.

[38] Ibid., p. 18.

[39] J. C. Beker. Paul the Apostle. 1984. pp. 15-18.

[40] H. Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. pp.36-37.

[41] J. C. Beker. Paul the Apostle. p. 14.

[42] Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. 1995. p. 41.

[43] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle.

[44] Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. 1995. p. 42.

[45] J. C. Beker. The Triumph of God. 1990. pp. 15-19.

[46] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. 1993.

[47] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle.

[48] W. Barclay. The Mind of St. Paul. 2013.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] W. Barclay. The Mind of St. Paul. 2013.

[52] J. Fitzmyer. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. 1993.

[53] W. Barclay. The Mind of St. Paul. 2013.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid.

[56] H. Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. 1997.

[57] L. Cerfaux. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. 1959.

[58] H. Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. 1997.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid.

[62] R. Bultman. “New Testament and Mythology (Neues Testament und Mythologie),” in Kerygma and Myth. 1953.

[63] Jaehong Kim. Pauline Theology. p.318.

[64] K. P. Choi. Economics in the Bible. 2025.

[65] K. P. Choi. Economics in the Bible. 2025.