THESIS ABSTRACT The Old Man and the New Man A Study in Pauline Theology

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the meaning and function of the "old man / new man" metaphor in the theology of the Apostle Paul. The method chosen for this investigation is an exegetical study of the four passages in the corpus Paulinum of the New Testament where one or both of these designations occur. Chapter one sets the context for this study by addressing five issues: 1) the authenticity of Colossians and Ephesians as primary sources; 2) relevant facets of Pauline theology as the setting for the study; 3) the origin and background of this dual metaphor; 4) various views of the meaning of this metaphor; and 5) the key questions that need to be resolved in the interpretation of this metaphor. Chapter two investigates the crucifixion of "our old man" with Christ in Romans 6:1-14. Chapter three discusses the creation of the "one new man" in Ephesians 2:14-18. Chapters four and five deal with the formulations "put off the old man" and "put on the new man" in Colossians 3:5-11 and Ephesians 4:17-24 respectively. Chapter six draws conclusions on the meaning and function of this dual metaphor in Paul's theology and relates it to his use of the "outer / inner man," the "natural / spiritual man," the "flesh," and the role of the indicative and imperative in his ethics. We conclude that Paul himself formulated the "old man / new man" terminology by drawing on the Adam / Christ typology within his own redemptive-historical, eschatological perspective. This metaphor fits his "once / now" motif and functions at two levels. On the corporate level, the "old man" is the world of unredeemed humanity in solidarity with Adam, the prototypical "old man," and the "new man" is the Church, the world-wide community of redeemed humanity in solidarity with Christ, the prototypical "new man." At this level the "old man / new man" coexist in redemptive history. On the individual level, the "old man" is the person who is identified with Adam and belongs to "the present age," and the "new man" is the Christian who is identified with Christ and belongs to "the age to come" that, "in Christ," has now begun. At conversionrinitiation, the Christian "put off the old man" and "put on the new man" and n6w as'a^new man" he / she is being progressively renewed in the knowledge of God and his ways.

CONTENTS

ABBREVTATIONS vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION: THE CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY1 1.1 Authenticity of New Testament Sources5 1.2 Relevant Aspects of Pauline Theology 22 1.3 Background of the "Old Man / New Man"42 1.4 Views on the Meaning of the "Old Man / New Man" 52 1.5 Key Questions and Method of Approach 60 2. ROMANS 6:6OUR OLD MAN CRUCIFIED 64 2.1 Historical Setting of Romans64 2.2 Literary Context of Romans 6 65 2.3 Structural Form of Romans 6:1-14 73 2.4 Exegesis of Romans 6:1-14 76 2.5 Concluding Observations on "Our Old Man" 140

3. EPHESIANS 2:15ONE NEW MAN CREATED 145

3.1 Historical Setting of Ephesians 3.2 Literary Context of Ephesians 2 3.3 Structural Form of Ephesians 2:11-22 3.4 Background and Form of Ephesians 2:14-18 3.5 Exegesis of Ephesians 2:14-18 3.6 Concluding Observations on the "One New Man"

4. COLOSSIANS 3:9-11 THE OLD MAN PUT OFF THE NEW MAN PUT ON
4.1 Historical Setting of Colossians 4.2 Literary Context of Colossians 3 4.3 Structural Form of Colossians 3:1-11 4.4 Exegesis of Colossians 3:5-11 4.5 Concluding Observations on the "Old Man / New Man" 5. EPHESIANS 4:22-24 THE OLD MAN PUT OFF THE NEW MAN PUT ON 5.1 Literary Context of Ephesians 4 5.2 Structural Form of Ephesians 4:17-24 5.3 Exegesis of Ephesians 4:20-24 5.4 Concluding Observations on the "Old Man / New Man" 6. CONCLUSION: THE OLD MAN/NEW MAN IN PAUL 6.1 Setting in Paul's Theology 6.2 The "Old Man / New Man" in Paul's Theology 6.3 Relationship to Other Pauline "Apdponros Themes 6.4 Indicative and Imperative in Paul's Theology 6.5 Summary of the Argument BEBLIOGRAPHY 325 289 289 293 301 316 324 247 247 248 256 286

193
193 196 198 200 243

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY The Apostle Paul is one of the most fascinating and influential figures in the history of Christian thought. Anyone who attempts a historical-critical understanding of his writings in the New Testament, whether sympathetic to Christianity or not, soon realizes there are no easy approaches. There are several reasons for this, one of which is the fact that nowhere in his extant letters did Paul write an explanatory preface or arrange his theological thinking in systematic categories with topical headings.1 This is mainly because of the "occasion-specific" character of his letters.2 In them, Paul brought the Christian gospel to bear on particular situations and events in each Christian community he addressed and drew out applications for specific problems in the life of the church there.3 In a nutshell, one could argue that Paul's letters brought the "constant elements of the Christian gospel" into dynamic interaction with the "variable elements of the particular Christian communities" he addressed.4

Morna Hooker discusses seven reasons why it is difficult to understand Paul's thought in chapter one of her book, A Preface to Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). The fact that Paul has been understood in a variety of ways is a patent indication of the difficulties involved. See W. W. Gasque, "Images of Paul in the History of Biblical Interpretation," Crux 16 (1980) 7-16. 2 R. W. Funk, "The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance," in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, eds. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: The University Press, 1967) 249-68, has shown that Paul's letters served as a substitute for his personal presence, represented his apostolic authority, and conveyed his gospel message and pastoral concerns. See also R. N. Longenecker, "On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters," in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 101-14. 3 It is debated whether or not Romans and Ephesians (if accepted as Pauline) are exceptions to this general statement. For arguments on both sides of the issue for Romans, see the essays in K. P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); for Ephesians, see M. Barth, Ephesians, AB 34 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 37-59; and E. Best, Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998) 1-6, 63-75.

J. C. Beker formulates the hermeneutical issue in this manner in his article, "Contingency and Coherence in the Letters of Paul," USQR 33 (1978) 141-51; and in his book, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 11-36. One may not agree with Beker's apocalyptic interpretation of Paul or the interpretive fluidity that he assigns to the Pauline "core," nevertheless, in the above article he makes the point that Paul's
4

Just what constitutes the "constant elements of the gospel" and the "variable elements of the particular situations" as well as the relationship between the two (i.e., the coherent core and the contingent circumstances) raises many inter-related literary, historical, hermeneutical, and theological questions in the critical study of the corpus Paulinum. The issues involved are familiar to Pauline scholars, and a variety of proposals and positions on these wide-ranging questions can be found in the history of Pauline investigation.5 Within the broad scope of Paul's theology, his anthropology is one of the most difficult aspects of his thought to understand. There are several reasons for this. First, his views on what it means to be human are based on presuppositions or inherited convictions that he did not mention or explain in his letters. Second, his anthropology is relational and practical rather than philosophical and systemic. He is mostly concerned about human beings in terms of their relationship to God, evil, the world, and each other. Consequently, his anthropology is intertwined with various other elements of his theology as a whole.6 Third, we encounter Paul's anthropology through a variety of anthropological terms, some with antecedents in Jewish tradition and others in Hellenistic tradition. However, he presents no systematic treatment letters are "occasional, but not casual... they are not private, but personal; authoritative and not simply products of the moment" (141, emphasis his). More recently, J. D. G. Dunn, in his full-scale study of Paul's thought, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), acknowledges both the flexibility and the salutary influence of Beker's coherence within contingency hermeneutical model (23). Dunn himself prefers a dialogue modelto hear Paul's own dialogue with himself and with those to whom and for whom he wrote and, at the same time, to engage in mutually critical dialogue with him (7-9, 23-25).
5A.

Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. W. Montgomery

(London: Adam and Charles Black, 1912; reprint, New York: Schocken Books, 1964), provides a masterful historical survey of critical studies in Germany following the Reformation. More recently, see W. G. Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McL. Gilmour and H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972); O.

Merk, "Paulus-Forschung 1936-1985," Theol Rund 53 (1988) 1-81; V. P. Furnish, "Pauline Studies," in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 321-50; S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith. Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); and J. K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993) 125-49.
6Dunn,

Theology of Paul, 52-53, calls attention to this point.

that classifies a human being's nature, qualities, or constituent parts. As a result, there is little definition of terms and sometimes puzzling diversity in their usage. He can use different anthropological terms to mean the same thing and the same term to designate different things. 7 Many of the key terms appear with varied frequency and in variable settings throughout Paul's letters. This lack of terminological and conceptual systematization contributes to the complexity of his anthropology.8 Nevertheless, in light of these factors, scholars must still deal with Paul's anthropological language as he used it in order to understand his anthropology and related facets of his theology. This opens the way into our present study. The chief concern of this thesis is to investigate two anthropological formulations found in the Pauline corpus, namely, (the "old man") and 6 Kaiuos-I uios- auOpiortog (the "new man"). These designations occur in the following four passages of this literature: 1) "Our old man" in Romans 6:6: tovto yiv&QKovres, on 6 iraXaids f\\iQv duBpconos'

ovv(JTavpd)&ri, lua KarapyqOfj rd acopa Tr)? apaprlag, rod prjKin SovXeveiu fjfias- rfi dpaprlq2) "One new man" in Ephesians 2:14-15: Auto? ydp icrnv fj elprjvq fjpcou, 6 TTOLijcras'

rd dp<p6repa 'iu ml t6 peadroixou tou <f>paypov Xxxjag, ri)u ixdpau, iu 777 vapid avrov, t6u udpou t&u iuroX&u iu Sdypaaiu Karapyfjaas', Iva tovs1 SOo ktIgxi iu avm els' fuci Kaiudu dudpomov ttolcou elprjuqu,... 3) Both the "old man" and the "new man" in Colossians 3:9-10: pi) tpetfkode el<r

dXXrjXovs', direKduadpeuoL rdu traXaidu duOpconou uvu ra?r irpd^eaiu airrov, ml

7For

example, acSfia (body) and adp{ (flesh) occasionally overlap in meaning, cf. 2

Cor. 4:10 with 4:11 and 1 Cor. 7:34 with 2 Cor. 7:1; yet both terms have a rather broad spectrum of meaning, cf. for awpa: Gal. 6:17; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 15:44; Col. 1:22; 2:17; and for adp{: Rom. 3:20; 6:19; 7:5; 8:7; 11:14.
8R.

Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms. A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings,

AGJU 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 1-4. Jewett provides the most recent and best history of research into each of Paul's anthropological terms. For a current discussion of the way Paul used these terms, see Dunn, Theology of Paul, 51-78.

euSvadfieuoL rdu viov rbv duaKmuovfieuoy els enlyvaxjiu mr' elKbva rod ktIuclvtos avrbu,... 4) Both the "old man" and the "new man" in Ephesians 4:22-24: amoQioQai {fids' Kara rt\v irporipau duaarpocpfjv rbv TiaXaibu dvBpomov rbv <pdeip6p.evov Kara rds emOvpiLas Tfjs drrdrrjs, dvaveovoQai Se rq) wevfian rod uobs vp.6ov, kclI ivSvcraodai rbv Kaivbv du6pa)nou rbv /card Qebv KTiudevra eu StKatoavi^j Kal 6<ji6tt]TL rfjs dXr]6das-9 These designations are part of a larger dudpcjnos category in the Pauline writings involving four additional antitheses: 1) 6 tpvxiKbsl wevfiariKbs dudpunosthe natural / spiritual man (1 Cor. 2:14-15; note also aapiavoil vapKiKotvs. wev/j-artKot in 1 Cor. 3:1-3); 2) b ifaliaco drtpcoTrop-the outer / inner man (2 Cor. 4:16; Rom. 7:22; Eph. 3:16); 3) b npcoTOs I Seurepos or faxaros d^6pcoTros^-the first / second or last man (1 Cor. 15:45-47; cf. 15:2022; Rom. 5:12-19); and 4) 6 xo'dcfcI' enovpdvios [dvdpcoTTOs)the earthly /heavenly man (1 Cor. 15:47-48).10 The modifying words Trakaibs and veosl mivbs also occur together elsewhere in Paul in the antitheses "old leaven / new lump" (1 Cor. 5:7-9) and "old/new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6-14). The presence of the "old man / new man" formulation in the above passages raises several issues that we wish to address in this chapter. These, in turn, set the stage for the content and contribution of this study. First, all of the passages except oneRomans 6:6appear in what many scholars consider to be the deutero-Pauline letters. This requires a brief discussion of the authorship of Colossians and Ephesians since these two documents are primary sources for our topic. We will present a case for their authenticity as a working hypothesis for our study (1.1). The
9The

text of these verses is cited from The Greek New Testament, ed. B. Aland,

K. Aland et al., 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / New York: United Bible Societies, 1993).
10In

addition, the following single designations occur in the Pauline corpus: 1)

(pBaprb? disOpmno?corruptible or mortal man (Rom. 1:23); 2) TaAadrcopo? dirtpuiro?

wretched man (Rom. 7:24); 3) riXeios- dvdpunos-l dvf\pmature man (Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:13); 4) 6 dvQpumos- to? dvoiitas the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3); and 5) alpeTacds" dvdpuno? divisive man (Tit. 3:10).

authenticity of Romans is not disputed. Second, the terms appear relatively infrequently in the Pauline corpus raising a question about their place and importance in the wider scope of Pauline anthropology and related facets of Pauline theology. The word dvdpxoTTOs' relates the discussion to anthropology, but the modifiers rra\ai6sr and miv6s I viog put it in a wider theological frame of reference. In order to position these terms within this framework, we will sketch the main contours of Pauline anthropology and related features in recent study (1.2). Third, the designations appear rather abruptly with little explanatory comment. One wonders whether or not they were in use prior to these Pauline writings so we will briefly discuss matters related to their origin and background (1.3). Fourth, the contextual modifiers cited above along with several striking verbal ascriptions {avuecrravpojOrj, Rom. 6:6; ktLgxi, Eph. 2:15; dneKSixydfieuoi, Col. 3:9 / dnoeiadai, Eph. 4:22; and ivSvadfievoi, Col. 3:10 / euSixjaaQai, Eph. 4:24) indicate that the author intended the "old man / new man" designations to be understood as metaphors. What is not as clear are their referents and thematic function. We will survey current views of these metaphors in terms of these items (1.4). This will lead to listing several programmatic questions that need to be resolved in the interpretation of this dual metaphor and to stating the methodological approach we will take in the remainder of this study (1.5). 1.1 Authenticity of New Testament Sources Two of the three uses of the designation "old man" and all three uses of the "new man" in the Pauline corpus appear in Colossians and Ephesians. As is well known, the authorship of these documents is disputed. With regard to our topic, if Paul is not the author, then references to the "new man" and the "old man / new man" combination as ideas coming directly from Paul could be called into question even though one could argue that they accurately reflect his theological thinking. If, on the other hand, sufficient evidence can be presented supporting Pauline authorship, then

one can more confidently claim that the "new man" is a Pauline term and the "old man / new man" motif has a place in Paul's theology. We turn our attention to a consideration of this issue. 1.1.1 Authenticity of Colossians The author of the New Testament letter bearing the title "To the Colossians" claims to be the Apostle Paul (1:1, 23, "I, Paul"; 4:18). He describes himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God (1:1) and makes it known that he is in prison for declaring "the mystery of Christ" (4:3; cf. 1:24; 4:10,18).11 He closes the letter with the words: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand" (4:18, NTV; cf. Gal. 6:11; 1 Cor. 16:21; Phlm. 19, also 2 Thess. 3:17). This suggests that up to this point he may have been dictating to an amanuensis and so adds a concluding note in his own handwriting as a guarantee of genuineness.12 A significant number of scholars think Colossians is authentic;13 but a growing number, probably the majority (ca. 60 percent of critical scholarship),
11The

verb in the clause Si'dical SiSepai (Col. 4:3), if taken literally as most do,

would refer to the author being bound with chains and put in prison. This has linked Colossians with Philemon (w. 9-10, 13), Ephesians (3:1; 6:19-20), and Philippians (1:12-30). Traditionally, these four letters have been ascribed to Paul and grouped together as the "captivity epistles." All four may well have been written from the same prison at about the same time. However, this is disputed and the place of imprisonment has been strongly contested. Several views have been proposedEphesus, Caesarea, Rome. Each one has its own peculiar problems, but the balance of probability lies with Rome, a view that still holds scholarly support. See P. T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982) xlix-liv, who surveys the various views and states his own preference for a Roman imprisonment. If Pauline authorship and the Rome hypothesis are accepted, most likely Paul wrote these letters while he was under house arrest in Rome ca. AD 61-62. Those who reject Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians usually date them between AD 70-90.
12R.

Longenecker, "Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles," in New

Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 281-97, esp. 288-92. We know that Luke was with Paul in Rome (Acts 28:14; cf. Col. 4:14) as was Aristarchus (Acts 27:2; cf. Col. 4:10) and presumably Timothy also (cf. Col. 1:1).
13W.

G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. H. C. Kee

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975) 340-46, esp. 340 nl2, lists a number of scholars, including himself, who favor the Pauline authorship of Colossians. To this can be added the following: O'Brien, Colossians, xli-xlix; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 28-33; and N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 31-34.

consider it inauthentic on literary and theological grounds.14 Some who doubt its authenticity, but acknowledge that the theology of the letter is essentially Pauline, think that the language and style is the strongest indicator that someone other than Paul wrote it. 15 Others build their case on theology, claiming that the language and style of the letter do not provide adequate grounds on which to question Pauline authorship.16 1.1.1.1 Literary Arguments. Most interpreters acknowledge that Colossians has some distinctive features in vocabulary and style.17 Eduard Lohse calls attention to numerous similarities to the undisputed Pauline epistles, but he also lists differences in vocabulary and peculiarities of style.18 After a detailed discussion, he concludes that a final decision on the question of authenticity cannot be based on these matters.19 He acknowledges that differences of vocabulary with other Pauline letters are balanced by many similarities and that divergences have parallels in other letters. Hapax legomena and unusual expressions also appear in significant numbers in the undisputed Paulines.20 Thus, statistics alone cannot determine if the language
14Kummel,

Introduction, 340 nl3, lists a number of those who dispute Pauline

authorship. To this can be added the following: E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, trans. W. R. Poehbnann and R. J. Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 84-91,178-81; E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary, trans. A. Chester (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1982) 15-24; and R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 610-19.
15E.g.,

Schweizer, Colossians, 18-19, suggests that the author was Timothy. Dunn,

Theology of Paul, 13 n39, also believes that Colossians was "probably written by Timothy before Paul's death ...." For most, the identity of the author is unknown.
16E.g.,

Lohse, Colossians, 89-91.

17E.

Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser-und Epheserbriefe, ARSHLL 39 (Lund:

Gleerup, 1946) 16-66; Kummel, Introduction, 341-42; Lohse, Colossians, 84-91.

18Lohse,

Colossians, 84-89.

19Ibid.,

91. Kummel, Introduction, 342, concludes: "On the basis of language and

style, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the Pauline authorship of the letter."
20Percy,

Probleme, 16-66, provides a thorough discussion of the linguistic and

stylistic relationships between Colossians and the undisputed Pauline epistles. He strongly defends Pauline

of Colossians is authentic or not.21 In fact, consideration must be given to the subject matter of the letter and the needs of the audience. In matters of style, similar features, though less frequent, can also be found in the undisputed Pauline letters.22 The liturgical-poetic cadence of Colossians incorporating traditional material (cf. 1:12-20; 2:9-15), and its confrontation with a christological heresy have influenced its language and style (see ch. 4,194-96). In light of 4:18, it could also be argued that an amanuensis had a hand in formulating this letter under Paul's direction.23 1.1.1.2 Theological Arguments. A more formidable line of argument has been put forward on theological grounds. After examining the theological content of the letter, Lohse concludes that Paul's theology has undergone a profound change in Colossians producing "new formulations in christology, ecclesiology, the concept of the apostle, eschatology, and the understanding of baptism. Therefore, Paul cannot be considered to be the direct or indirect author of Col. Rather a theologian schooled in Pauline thought composed the letter with the intention of bringing the Apostle's word to bear on the situation that had arisen in the Asia Minor communities because of the 'philosophers.'"24 In this connection, Lohse makes reference to several distinctive authorship, arguing that the language and style of Colossians are entirely conditioned by its particular content and the specific situation necessitating the letter (43). On the other hand, W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), uses stylistic arguments to establish differences between Colossians and the undisputed Paulines and concludes that this letter could not have been written by Paul.
21P.

N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University

Press, 1921) 20-22, demonstrates that, with respect to hapax legomena, Colossians falls within the normal range of Pauline usage.
22For

example, the undisputed Pauline letters link synonyms together (cf. e.g., Rom.

1:18, 21,25, 29), pile up dependent genitives (cf. e.g., Rom. 2:5; 4:11; 1 Cor. 2:6), and contain

long, complex sentences (cf. e.g., Gal. 2:3-5, 6-9; Rom. 1:1-7; 2:5-10,14-16; 3:23-26).
23See

Percy, Probleme, 10-14, for a critique of the "secretary" hypothesis. Also,

Lohse, Colossians, 91.

24Lohse,

Colossians, 180-81. According to Lohse, the deutero-Pauline writings

presuppose a Pauline school tradition based in Ephesus, the center of the Pauline mission in Asia Minor. Colossians was written before Ephesians with a composition date ca. AD 80 (182 nl7).

theological features in Colossians: 1) it lacks many characteristic terms of Paul's theology; 2) its cosmic christology is based on the Christ-hymn of 1:15-20; 3) its ecclesiology designates the Church as the universal "body" of Christ, which is subordinate to Christ, the "head of the body" (1:18); 4) its eschatology has receded into the background so that the expectation that the Lord Jesus would come again soon has disappeared; and 5) the understanding of baptism is not only that believers have died with Christ and been buried with Him, but also that they have been raised with Christ already (2:11-13, 20; 3:13).25 In response, however, we may note the following. First, the absence of characteristic Pauline terms is not a strong argument because a similar observation can be made about some of the undisputed Paulines.26 Second, what is said in Colossians about cosmic christology and Christ's headship over the church is indeed an advance on what we find in the undisputed Pauline letters. However, these advances are not separated from nor contradictory to their antecedents in those writings (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8; 8:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Gal. 4:3; Phil. 2:9-11 for christology; and Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 1:13; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:12-14, 27 for ecclesiology).27 Third, the eschatological emphasis of Colossians is clearly more "realized" than "futuristic" (see ch. 4,197 n6). But both elements are present reflecting the genuine "already / not yet" eschatological tension present in the undisputed Paulines. Although there is no direct mention of the expectation that the Lord would soon come, there are traces of "futuristic" eschatology (1:22, 28; 3:4, 6,24; 4:11). The now revealed mystery (1:26) and the exaltation of Christ, which has already occurred
25Ibid.,

178-180.

26D.

A. Carson, D. J. Moo, L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 333. For example, the noun Sucaiovvvq and the verb Sucaidu are missing in 1 Thessalonians, and the verb is absent from 2 Corinthians and Philippians also.
27Even

Lohse, Colossians, 178-79, acknowledges this although he sees Colossians

going far beyond the undisputed Paulines. If 1:15-20 is the adaptation of a preformed hymn, it could just as easily have been done by Paul as by a later disciple.

(2:12; 3:1; cf. 1 Cor. 2:7,10; Phil. 3:20), are balanced by the expectation of Christ at the parousia (3:4; cf. 1 Thess. 4:16; Phil. 3:20). Similarly, the fact that in some sense believers have already been raised with Christ (2:12; 3:1) is congruent with Paul elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 6:4,11). Fourth, in light of the statements in Colossians 1:21-2:5, which lend validity to ministry in the Pauline era, there seems to be no compelling reason to assign the letter to the post-apostolic age. No attempt is made to give Epaphras (cf. 1:7-8; 4:12) apostolic authorization through teaching that represents Paul's mind in order to combat heresy. Also, to put the letter in the post-Pauline period makes the personal allusions, especially those of chapter four, difficult to explain.28 To make it contemporary with Paul and yet assign it to a different person, such as Timothy, creates a new problem since we know nothing of Timothy's literary capabilities. Two additional points that lend support to authenticity are the close connection of Colossians with Philemon, whose genuineness is not challenged,29 and the strong external evidence in favor of Pauline authorship.30 It seems, then, that the arguments against Pauline authorship, while worth careful consideration, are not decisive. They do not give sufficient weight to the concrete polemical situation of the letter and to the ability of Paul himself to address a new situation and adopt new language and concepts to meet new needs. On the
2^On

the matter of pseudonymity, see the literature cited in footnote 51 and the

comments in footnote 56 below. For a critique of pseudonymity, especially in epistolary literature, see D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990) 1011-28.
2^See

footnote 11 above. Colossians and Philemon have several specific features in

common (cf. Col. 1:1 with Phlm. 1; Col. 4:3,10,18 with Phlm. 9-10,13; Col. 4:17 with Phlm. 2; Col. 4:9 with Phlm. 12; and Col. 4:10-14 with Phlm. 23-24). If Paul authored Philemon, then it seems most likely he also wrote Colossians (pace Lohse, Colossians, 175-76, who claims that a later disciple of Paul used Philemon and expanded it to write the personal remarks in

Colossians).
30Guthrie,

Introduction, 576, states that Colossians was a part of the Pauline corpus

as far back as can be traced and there is no evidence that Pauline authorship was ever disputed until the nineteenth century. Colossians is first attested with certainty in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.14.1 (ca. AD 175-195) and is listed among the Pauline epistles in the Muratorian Canon (ca. AD 200).

other hand, arguments for Pauline authorship are credible in light of these factors. 1.1.2 Authenticity of Ephesians The author of the New Testament letter bearing the title "To the Ephesians" also claims to be the Apostle Paul (1:1; 3:1 "I, Paul"). He describes himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God (1:1) and a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of the Gentiles, specifically his Gentile Christian readers (3:1,13; 4:1; 6:20). He closes the letter with a request for their prayers (6:19-20) and the promise to send Tychicus (cf. Col. 4:7-8) so that they might know "how I am and what I am doing" (6:21-22). There is widespread agreement that Ephesians was written to Christian communities in western Asia Minor, including Ephesus. Various elements of internal evidence and the textual uncertainty for the reading iu "Efieacp in 1:131 make it likely that the letter was intended for more than the Christian readers in Ephesus. If it was intended as a general "circular letter," as is likely, it may well have been sent first to Ephesus and then copied and circulated from there to a wider group of churches (1:15-16; 6:21-22). Some scholars still argue for the authenticity ofEphesians.32 Nevertheless,
31For

a discussion of various hypotheses regarding the original reading of 1:1, see E.

Best, "Ephesians i.l," in Text and Interpretation, ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 29-41; and id., "Ephesians 1.1 Again," in Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982) 273-79. See footnote 58 below for further comment.
32Kiimmel,

Introduction, 357 n25, lists several scholars who defend authenticity,

including Percy, Probleme, 179-488, esp. 448, and the later H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser: Ein Kommentar, 7th ed. (Dtisseldorf: Patmos, 1971) 22-28. More recently, see Barth, Ephesians, 1:36-50,2:207-09; G. B. Caird, Paul's Letters From Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) in the Revised Standard Version, NCB (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976) 11-29; Bruce, Epistles, 229-40; and Guthrie, Introduction, 496-528. The last major

work devoted to this subject is by A. van Roon, The Authenticity ofEphesians, NovTSup 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), who concludes that Paul, along with the influence of another person from his circle, was the author (cf. 438-39). Some scholars believe that Paul appointed one of his associates (e.g., Timothy or Luke) to do the writing and gave him a free hand. See Kummel, Introduction, 357 n28 for a listing of those who advocate the use of an amanuensis; see also E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, WUNT 2.42 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991) 190-92. For arguments against the "secretary" hypothesis, see Percy, Probleme, 10-14,421-22; C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its

Pauline authorship has been strongly and widely contested in scholarly discussion on literary, historical, and theological grounds.33 The majority view at present (ca. 75-80 percent of critical scholarship) is that the letter is pseudonymous, written in Paul's name by an unknown author at a later time.34 1.1.2.1 Literary Arguments. Most interpreters acknowledge that Ephesians has significant differences in language and style from the undisputed Pauline letters. 35 Andrew Lincoln notes several statistics, but admits that they are not that significant in comparison with similar figures for other New Testament writings. More important for him are the words that are unique to Ephesians that also appear in post-apostolic literature as well as the unique word combinations that reflect its distinctive language.36 He also calls attention to the heavy, pleonastic style of Ephesians instead of the more direct, incisive argumentation of the earlier undisputed letters.37 These features prompt Lincoln and others to conclude that the Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951) 249-50; Barth, Ephesians, 1:40-41; and Best, Ephesians, 30-31.
33For

a brief history of the discussion and a chart arranged in chronological order

listing scholars who have endorsed or rejected Pauline authorship of Ephesians in print during the last two centuries, see W. H. Harris III, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery, AGJU 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 198-204.
34Kummel,

Introduction, 357-63, especially 357 n26, lists a number of scholars,

including himself, who reject authenticity; more recently, F. Mussner, Der Brief an die Epheser, OTKNT 10 (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982); R. Schnackenburg, Ephesians. A Commentary, trans. H. Heron, EKKNT 10 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 24-29; A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990) lix-lxxiii; Brown, Introduction, 626-33; and Best, Ephesians, 6-36, who states, "Many of the objections to Pauline authorship are not individually capable of disproving it but it is their cumulative effect which suggests another author" (36). See Kiimmel, Introduction, 357 n27, for a listing of those who leave the question undecided.
35Percy,

Probleme, 179-229; Kiimmel, Introduction, 358; Lincoln, Ephesians, lxv-

lxvi; Best, Ephesians, 27-32.

36Lincoln,

Ephesians, lxv. He cites 9 words unique to Ephesians that are found

in post-apostolic literature and 16 unique word combinations, including the phrase tv tois" iirovpavlois (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12); also see Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 25-26.
37Ibid.,

lxv-lxvi; also Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 26; and Best, Ephesians, 29-

30. Lincoln states: "The frequent piling up of synonyms, the genitival combinations, the long sentences, the repetition of certain phrases, and the lack of conjunctions and particles are striking, even in comparison to Colossians ..." (lxvi).

author was more heavily influenced than Paul by a writing style more characteristic of the Qumran hymns.38 Though these literary distinctives make it very difficult for many to hold that Paul wrote Ephesians in its extant form, they do not render Pauline authorship impossible. Similarities in letter structure and language with other Pauline letters must also be considered as well as the fact that the differences have parallels in the undisputed letters. 39 As with Colossians, word statistics cannot determine if the language of Ephesians is authentic or not. 40 Other significant factors such as the general nature of the letter, its subject matter, and its liturgicalsermonic style in places also play an influential role. 1.1.2.2 Historical Arguments. Lincoln argues that the point of view of Ephesians is much later than that of the undisputed Paulines. In particular, the use of Paul's name and various personal allusions to the apostle appear to be a later writer's reflections on Paul and his apostleship rather than Paul talking about himself. He views Paul as a revered figure of the past. This suggests the writer is seeking to pass on genuine apostolic tradition and, according to Lincoln, these personal allusions are "best explained as the device of someone who wishes to boost claims for the authority of the apostle's teachings for a later time."41 It is in this
3^Ibid.,

lxvi; also, see Kummel, Introduction, 358; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 26;

and Best, Ephesians, 8-9. K. G. Kuhn, "The Epistle to the Ephesians in the Light of the Qumran Texts," in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis, ed. J. Murphy-O'Connor (Chicago: Priory Press, 1968) 115-31, claims that "Semitic syntactical occurrences appear four times more frequently in the Epistle to the Ephesians than in all the remaining letters of the corpus Paulinum" (116).
39The

structure of Ephesians is like that of the undisputed Paulines and the letter

contains much Pauline language, including words unique to Ephesians and the undisputed letters of Paul, but nowhere else in the NT (e.g., vloBeota, 1:5; Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; dppaptiv, 1:14; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; TrpoaayuyTJ, 2:18; 3:12; Rom. 5:2). See also footnote 22 above.
40Harrison,

Pastoral Epistles, 20-22, demonstrates that, with respect to hapax

legomena, Ephesians falls well within the normal range of Pauline usage. In addition, some of the Church Fathers (e.g., Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius) knew and used Ephesians so its vocabulary probably influenced them. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxiii.

post-apostolic setting that Lincoln reads the apostolic self-portrait of 3:1-13, the humility statement of 3:8, the settled Jew-Gentile situation portrayed in 2:11-22, the Church's apostolic foundation in 2:20, and the emphasis on the universal Church, including the key role assigned to its ministers in 4:11-16. On the other hand, one should note that none of the above items is out of place during the later part of Paul's lifetime (i.e., early to mid 60s). Paul could and did speak for himself, recommending his own insights without provocation from opponents (3:4). In fact, the "mystery" concept (3:3-4) is a traditional idea that was not unique to Paul. He attributes to other apostles the reception of special revelation concerning it (3:5-6). It is difficult to see how the humility statement of 3:8 is more exaggerated and less spontaneous than Paul's reference to himself as "the least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:9). Paul's reputation as the apostle to the Gentiles proclaiming a law-free gospel emerged early in his confrontation with Peter in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2). The largely Gentile Christian audience in Asia Minor (cf. Acts 19:17-41) likely alters the emphases portrayed in Ephesians and gives Paul the opportunity not only to set forth aspects of the Christian gospel he has already defended but also to present needed instruction on some matters in a form he had not articulated previously. In light of this and a natural, complementary development of thought, the portrait of Jew-Gentile unity and the Church with its gifted leaders is not incompatible with Paul's earlier letters. No suggested post-apostolic pseudepigraphical setting seems to fit these matters any better. Furthermore, there is strong external evidence in favor of Pauline authorship.42 1.1.2.3 Theological Arguments. As with Colossians, a more formidable line of argument has been put forward on theological grounds. Lincoln contends that the theological differences between Ephesians and the undisputed Paulines cannot be
42Kummel,

Introduction, 357, concedes that "Eph is extraordinarily well attested in

the early church." See the external data given in Guthrie, Introduction, 497.

explained by the circumstances surrounding the letter because "the number of differences that have to be accounted for are too many for this to be a convincing explanation for the whole phenomenon."43 In this regard, Lincoln makes reference to several distinctive features in Ephesians. The christology of the letter focuses attention on Christ's resurrection, exaltation, and cosmic lordship with little stress on the cross (only 2:16) and the death of Christ (only 1:7; 5:2, 25) compared to the undisputed letters. Its soteriology makes no mention of justification as in Galatians and Romans, and there is a different perspective on works (2:8-10) and the law (2:15). Realized eschatology pervades the whole letter with no explicit reference to the Parousia as in the undisputed Paulines.44 Finally, its ecclesiology is more advanced and comprehensive than in the earlier Pauline letters.45 These theological differences make it virtually impossible for many to accept Pauline authorship. However, though significant, they need not be pressed into contradictions or conflicts with earlier Paulines. Neither is it necessary to view them as evidence of an entirely changed perspective at a later stage of composition beyond Paul's lifetime. It seems more likely that these distinctives constitute the logical extension of Paul's thought in new directions by Paul himself closer to the end of his life. Four references to the cross and the death of Christ (1:7; 2:16; 5:2, 25) in a
43Ibid.,

Ixiii-lxv. Also, see Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 26-28; and Best, Ephesians,

32-35.
44Salvation

language appears in the past tense, depicting it as already completed for

believers (2:5-8, esp. tare ueaucrjiivoi in w. 5, 8). The emphasis is more on believers' present relationship to the exalted Christ in the heavenly realm (e.g., 1:3, 20-23; 2:6) and on growing up in maturity as a "body" toward its "head" (4:15).
45Ephesians

uses eKK\T\ala exclusively of the universal Church (cf. 1:22; 3:10, 21;

5:23-25, 27, 29, 32) rather than local assemblies of believers, which is how it appears most

frequently in the undisputed Paulines (although see 1 Cor. 12:28; 15:9 and Gal. 1:13). Thus, Lincoln, Ephesians, lxiv, concludes that this view of the universal Church "as one (4:4), holy (5:26-27), catholic (1:22-23), and apostolic (2:20) in all probability reflects a stage beyond that of the ministry of Paul."

relatively brief, general letter are not insignificant, especially the central role of the cross in 2:11-22 as the ground for Jew-Gentile unity (cf. 2:15-16). The emphasis on Christ's exaltation fits with the traditional views of the Church as shown in Acts (cf. Acts 2,3,13) and in Paul's defense speeches regarding the hope of the resurrection (cf. Acts 23:6; 24:14-16; 26:1723; see also 1 Cor. 15:20-28). The fact that justification is not mentioned, the law is said to be abolished (2:1415), and "good works" are included as the product of saving grace (2:10) probably reflects the large Gentile makeup of the author's audience (cf. 2:1-3,11-13; 4:17-24) and his more general reference to salvation by grace through faith unto good works (2:8-10). One could argue that Paul has a functional view of the law that is nuanced contextually thereby accommodating both negative (e.g., Gal. 3:13,19-25) and positive (e.g., Rom. 3:31; 7:7-12; 13:8-10) statements about it, a phenomenon also reflected in Ephesians (cf. 2:15 with 5:31 and 6:2-3).46 The emphasis on realized eschatology is clearly evident, but it is not in conflict with the undisputed Paulines (cf. e.g., Rom. 5:l-2a, 9a, 10a; 6:4; 8:1,24a) nor maintained at the expense of futuristic eschatology in Ephesians itself (cf. 1:10,14; 4:30; 5:5; 6:13). In line with the author's exaltation christology, the emphasis on the believer's relationship to Christ shifts from dying with Him (Rom. 6:8a) and rising with Him in the future (Rom. 6:8b) to that of already being raised and seated with Him in the heavenly places far above all authority and power (1:20-21; 2:5-6). With different issues at stake, Paul can hold both emphases without conflict. The advanced ecclesiology of Ephesians is also clearly evident, but this need not be viewed as inconsistent with the undisputed Paulines nor reflect a later setting. If the letter was intended to circulate among several churches, as is likely, then it would be appropriate to use KK\r\aia in a universal sense. The reference to Christ as
46C.

G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leicester: Apollos, 1996) 261-65,

discusses the texts in Ephesians and argues convincingly that they are compatible with each other and with Pauline usage in his earlier letters.

Head of the Church appears to be the logical development of the "body of Christ" metaphor. Regarding the role of the apostles and prophets, the new feature in Ephesians is how the Church is pictured as a building, where Jesus Christ is the cornerstone and the apostles and prophets through their witness to Him form its foundation.47 All this is a natural extension of an earlier idea (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-11). As noted above, the mainly Gentile audience also accounts for no mention of the continuity between Israel and the Church (as in Rom. 3:1-8; 9-11) without denying it. The point for Gentile Christians to grasp is that they are part of God's people on equal footing with Jewish Christians through Jesus Christ who has made peace (2:11-22). All this suggests that Paul himself could bring further development to his own ideas as warranted by his and his readers' circumstances. 1.1.2.4 Relationship to Colossians. All interpreters recognize that Colossians and Ephesians share close similarities in language and argument. Those who defend the authenticity of Ephesians invariably argue for the authenticity of Colossians also. Accordingly, the relationship between the two letters is accounted for by the view that Paul wrote both of them. 48 However, Lincoln and many others argue that such a hypothesis is highly unlikely because the nature of the differences indicates a changed perspective that requires a lapse of time. Consequently, the letters "could not have been written at the same time, which is what must be supposed if Pauline authorship of Ephesians is claimed."49 Instead, the author was "a later follower of Paul who used Colossians as
47The

apostles and prophets are viewed as foundational in a logical sense, not in a

past, temporal sense because they have passed off the scene. The description of them as "holy" (3:5) reflects Paul's typical designation of anyone "set apart for a sacred purpose" rather than an indication of later veneration by others.
48So

Percy, Probleme, 360-433, who argues that the similarities and differences

between the letters are best explained in this way. See also footnote 11 above.
49Lincoln,

Ephesians, lxvii. Also, see Mitton, Ephesians, 254-55; and

Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 29.

the basis for his own reinterpretation of the Pauline gospel."50 To make this claim is to maintain the view that this author used the literary device of pseudonymity.51 Many who view Ephesians as pseudonymous contend that it depends on Colossians as its primary source.52 However, the evidence for direct literary dependence is minimal,53 so most scholars put more emphasis on overall structure and content involving the same thematic material, on certain key terms and on theological concepts. It is argued that the author of Ephesians rearranged and gave fresh expression to his source material to suit his own distinctive interests and
50Ibid.,

lxviii. Also, see Kummel, Introduction, 358-61; Mitton, Ephesians, 254-

61; and Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 29. On the other hand, Best, Ephesians, 20-25, argues that, while there is a relationship with Colossians, "it cannot be proved that AE [the author of Ephesians] used that letter" (35).
51Pseudonymity

within the NT canon is a complex issue and continues to

be debated, especially as it relates to Colossians and Ephesians. Lincoln, Ephesians, Ixviiilxxiii, gives a concise but spirited defense of canonical pseudonymity drawing on the work of R. J. Bauckham, "Pseudo-Apostolic Letters," JBL 107 (1988) 469-94; L. R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. H. D. Betz, G. Ebeling, and M. Mezger, HUTh 22 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986) esp. 7-66; and D. G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) esp. 103-57. Meade shows how pseudonymity may have functioned had it been accepted in early Christianity, but he does not adequately demonstrate the plausibility of that premise. See also Best, Ephesians, 10-13, and the literature cited there. Vigorous counter-arguments have been put forward by Percy, Probleme, 443; Guthrie, Introduction, 1011-28; id., "The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament Criticism," in The Authorship and Integrity of the New Testament, ThCol 4 (London: SPCK, 1965) 14-39; T. D. Lea, "The Early Christian View of Pseudepigraphic Writings," JETS 27 (1984) 65-75; and Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 367-71. For a discussion of motives for the writers of pseudepigraphy, see B. M. Metzger, "Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha," JBL 91 (1972) 5-12.

52E.

Best, "Who Used Whom? The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians," NTS

43 (1997) 72-96, states:"... it has become an accepted tenet of scholarship that Colossians was written prior to Ephesians and the latter composed in its light" (73). Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 32, holds that Ephesians is based on the author's memory of Colossians. There have been a few attempts to argue for the priority of Ephesians; see J. Coutts, "The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians," NTS 4 (1957-58) 201-07.
53The

most extensive point of contact is the commendation of Tychicus in Col.

4:7-8 and Eph. 6:21-22. After a detailed study of possible literary parallels, Best, "Who Used Whom?", concludes that "in almost every case it is impossible to say with any certainty that A/ Eph [the author of Ephesians] used Colossians or that A/Col [the author of Colossians] used Ephesians" (92). In light of his study, he states that three possible solutions to the question of authorship remain open: "Paul wrote both letters, they had a common author who was not Paul, they did not have a common author and Paul wrote neither of them" (96). Best favors the last option: "The similarities and dissimilarities of the two letters can be explained most easily on the assumption of distinct authors who were members of the same Pauline school and had discussed together the Pauline theology they had inherited" (96). See further id., Ephesians, 20-25, 35-40.

theological purposes.54 Even if Colossians is authentic, many find it highly doubtful that Paul could have written Ephesians because of differences in theology at certain points. The author must have been a later disciple of Paul. While considerable weight is given to this argument, much of the troublesome evidence can be viewed differently without resorting to pseudonymity. Several observations are worthy of consideration. First, Paul's ability and versatility as a writer and theologian should not be underestimated. He is quite capable of rephrasing, developing, and qualifying his own thoughts for a different audience facing different circumstances within a relatively short time (cf. e.g., 1 Thess. 45; 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5). It is likely that themes he had thought about for a long time received fresh expression. An expansion of the horizons of Paul's literary capability in this way would accommodate both the similarities and the differences between Ephesians and Colossians and show how both letters fit comfortably with the theology of the undisputed Paulines.55 Second, a change of audience, subject matter, or authorial purpose should not be downplayed. The change of emphasis from Christ in Colossians to the Church in Ephesians and the occasion of each letter does much to account for the different nuances of the terms shared by the two letters. For example, describing Christ as head of His body, the Church, is an extension of Paul's metaphor in both letters, but in Colossians (1:18-20; 2:18-19) it is used christologically to combat heresy while in Ephesians (1:22-23; 4:15-16) it is used ecclesiologically to foster the unity of believers.
54For

example, Lincoln, Ephesians, 170, claims that Eph. 3:1-13 is a distinctive

reworking of Col. 1:23-29. Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 30-32, summarizes the uniqueness of the relationship between Colossians and Ephesians but concludes that differences in style, theology, and literary objectives between them "are so great that we can only with difficulty conceive of the same author"(32). He believes the author of Ephesians was very familiar with Colossians, though probably not as a written document.
55Wright,

Colossians, 38, makes this point. See also C. E. Arnold, "Ephesians," in

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. G. F. Hawthorne et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) 243 thereafter DPL).

Third, personal allusions, expressions of intent, and requests for things ring true as coming from Paul himself in both Colossians (more extensive) and Ephesians (cf. 1:1; 3:1-13; 4:1; 6:19-20).56 In addition, a plausible life-setting for the letters in Asia Minor during Paul's lifetime in the early 60s should not be ignored.57 Again, it seems that the arguments against Pauline authorship, while formidable, are not decisive. They do not give sufficient weight to the general pastoral character of Ephesians and to Paul's creative ability to reflect on God's purposes in Christ to meet the needs of a broader Christian readership. With these considerations in view, the arguments supporting Pauline authorship are plausible. 1.1.3 Conclusion In light of the above discussion, it can be argued persuasively that the differences between Colossians and Ephesians and the undisputed Pauline letters do not constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting Pauline authorship. With due consideration of the difficulties, we hold the view that in all probability Paul wrote Colossians to a local congregation in Colossae to combat, in part, a christological heresy. With the Colossian letter still fresh on his mind, he used similar language and concepts, with modifications and expansions, to write Ephesians as a general, circular or "open" letter to several churches of western Asia Minor, with Ephesus as either
5^Those

who favor pseudonymity explain the autobiographical material in various

ways. For example, Meade, Pseudonymity, 139-61, argues that such material in a pseudonymous writing is primarily "an assertion of authoritative tradition, not of literary origins" (161), but this dichotomy lacks convincing support. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxvii, claims that the later author of Ephesians makes the letter "more personal, direct, and forceful by adopting the device of Paul himself appealing to the churches." But surely this would be unnecessary and even suspect within 30 years of Paul's death (most who reject Pauline authorship date Ephesians ca. AD 8090), and it is not easy to reconcile the content of Ephesians (cf. 4:15, 25) with the idea that the first-person details are simply well-meaning attempts to show respectful affinity with Paul.
57Best,

Ephesians, 63-75, discusses a variety of proposals for the occasion and

purpose of Ephesians. In light of the letter as a whole and its general nature, he suggests it was written for Gentile Christians who formerly were members of one or more groups in the community (i.e., a trade guild, a cult group). Now as Christians who have come into the Church from paganism, "they have entered a new group and it is important that they should realise its nature and the conduct required of them in it" (75). Though Best links this life-setting and purpose with a later author, they are equally applicable in Paul's lifetime.

the first or most important destination.58 Since Paul was a prisoner at the time of writing both letters, it is reasonable to suppose that they originated from the same imprisonment, which was most likely the one he experienced at Rome in the early AD 60s.59 While in prison he may have had secretarial assistance from Timothy (cf. Col. 1:1; 4:18) or someone else (see footnote 12 above). The repetition of Colossians 4:7-8 in Ephesians 6:21-22 reads naturally if both letters were dispatched at the same time and were taken to their intended destinations in the province of Asia by Tychicus. It should be noted that even if Paul did not write Colossians and Ephesians, most scholars acknowledge that they stand in the Pauline tradition and reflect terms and patterns of thought used by Paul. Consequently, with due regard for possible adaptation and development, these letters can be consulted without fear of misrepresenting Paul's own ideas. In fact, in some cases they enhance our understanding of certain ideas that are mentioned but not explained in the undisputed Paulines, such as Paul's one reference to "our old man" in Romans 6:6. In subsequent discussion we will refer to Paul as the author of Colossians and Ephesians as well as Romans. We will consider both the "old man" and the "new man" to be Pauline terms and the "old man / new man" motif to be an integral part of
58G,

Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles; A Disquisition upon the Corpus

Paulinum, SL (London: Oxford University Press, 1953) 228n, cites some evidence for circular letters in the ancient world. Objections to the circular letter theory can be found in D. E. Nineham, "The Case Against Pauline Authorship," in Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1956) 25. However, the objections raised by Nineham and others do not dispose of the circular letter theory in general, although they do go against the "blank address" form of it. In our view the inclusion of iv 'Eipicrq) in 1:1 as attested in A D 33 81 et al. is preferred. The phrase is omitted in P46 K and B. Apparently iv E^iau was deliberately omitted in these early manuscripts to show that the letter was of general rather than simply local reference. In later manuscripts the phrase was reinstated in order to identify the letter and verify the title given to it in the second century. The second half of v.l could be translated: "to the saints who are in Ephesus, that is (icaO, believers in Christ Jesus." In this view, the participial clause

(toIs~ ovqiv ...) functions substantially in apposition to dyloisr and provides a brief definition of this term. See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934) 1106-08 for the articular substantival participle. The word Kal is understood in an explanatory or ascensive sense rather than an adjunctive or connective sense (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1181, and ch. 3,167 n55).
59See

the discussion in footnote 11 above.

Paul's theological thought. In order to position the study of this theme within recent discussion of his thought, we turn to a survey of key interpretations offered for aspects of Paul's theology relevant to our topic. 1.2 Relevant Aspects of Pauline Theology The presence of avOpionos' in the "old man / new man" formulation links this motif with facets of Paul's anthropology. At the same time, the modifiers iralaids and mivdsl vo$ relate it to facets of his eschatology. Thus it is necessary to give some attention to both areas. 1.2.1 Perspectives on Pauline Anthropology Many interpreters from the days of the Church Fathers (2nd-3rd century) through the time of the Reformation (16th century) into the Enlightenment period (18th century) viewed Paul as a systematic theologian whose teaching could be understood as a compendium of theological statements. During this extended period of time the dichotomy / trichotomy question was the main focus of attention in discussions of Paul's anthropology. Does the human person consist of two parts (body and soul) or three (body, soul, and spirit)? Through the influence of Augustine and the Protestant Reformers, dichotomy (material and immaterial) became the dominant view in Western theology.60 But the complexity of Paul's anthropology spawned additional issues and debates. 1.2.1.1 Background Influence Debate. With the Enlightenment of the 18th century came the rise of historical-critical exegesis and the investigation of Paul's thought in its sociohistorical setting. On one hand, there emerged a growing awareness that Paul was not, after all, a systematic theologian and that his theology, including his anthropology, needed to be interpreted in light of his own historical and
60G.

C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 194-

233.

cultural milieu. On the other hand, the critical study of his thought became susceptible to the religious and philosophical thinking of the day. With respect to Paul's anthropology, F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the Tubingen school, heavily influenced by the idealism of G. W. F. Hegel, taught, for example, that the conflict between the odp (flesh) and the twevyia. (spirit) represented the conflict between "anything merely outward, sensuous and material" and the "principle of consciousness" that forms the link between man and God. 61 In scholarly circles, this idealist tradition was largely dismantled by the "history of religions" school near the end of the 19th century. In 1872, Hermann Ludemann set the agenda for succeeding decades of discussion by his sharply defined antithesis between Paul's "Jewish" notion of udpE as man in his weakness, and his later, more dominant "Hellenistic" conception in which odp as material substance was greatly devalued.62 In light of this, many subsequent studies assumed a fundamental distinction between Hellenistic (partitive and dualistic) and Hebraic (aspective and holistic) views of the human person and sought to determine whether Paul was influenced more by one or the other.63 Some scholars contended that Paul's anthropology was strongly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy and popular religion.64 By the mid-20th century an additional phase of the discussion
61F.

C. Baur, Paul. The Apostle of Jesus Christ, trans. A. Menzies, 2 vols. (London:

Williams and Norgate, 1876) 2:126-28.

62H.

Ludemann, Die Anthropologic desApostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb

seiner Heilslehre (Kiel: Universitats-Buchhandlung [P. Toeche], 1872). He divided Pauline anthropology under the two headings of "outer man" and "inner man," with soul, flesh, and body belonging to the former, and spirit, mind, and heart to the latter.
63For

a review of the debate see W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man in Relation

to its Judaic and Hellenistic Background (London: Macmillan & Co., 1956) 40-55; for individual terms see Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms, passim. ^E.g., 0. Pfieiderer, Paulinism. A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian

Theology, trans. E. Peters, 2 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1877); W. Wrede, Paul, trans. E. Lummis (Lexington: American Library Association, 1962 [1904]); W. Bousset, Kyrios Christas: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. J. E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970 [1913]); and R. Reitzenstein, The Hellenistic Mystery-Religions:

involved the possibility of Gnostic influence on Paul.65 Others contended that the decisive influences on Paul, apart from Jesus and early Christianity, were the Hebrew Scriptures and Palestinian Judaism.66 They argued that Paul antedated or opposed much of the non-Jewish teaching on which he was supposedly dependent. In recent decades scholars have generally agreed that one should not erect rigid distinctions between "Hellenistic" and "Jewish" influences or between "Hellenistic" and "Palestinian" Judaism. Differences must be acknowledged but not exaggerated because of the extent to which Hellenistic ideas had penetrated Palestine and Judaism in the first century. 67 Paul lived in both worlds so his anthropological language owed something to both Hellenistic and Jewish thought and scholars have continued to look for parallels from other writers of his day.68 In the end, however, we are left with Paul himself and the need to find some explanation for the distinctive uses of various terms in his anthropology. The key factor in determining his meaning is the way he used these terms in context augmented by relevant parallels, if any, in Their Basic Ideas and Significance, trans. J. E. Steely from the 3rd German ed., PTMS 15 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978 [1910]). See the discussion and critique by Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 66-77.
65E.g.,

R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (London:

SCM, 1956) 1:199, 204. Bultmann acknowledged that Paul opposed some Gnostic notions, but he claimed that Paul's portrayal of a deep division in man and his use of some terms in a derogatory sense betrayed Gnostic influence.
66E.g.,

H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. and

T. Clark, 1926) 8, passim; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology, SBT 5 (London: SCM, 1952) passim; and Stacey, Pauline View of Man, passim. Stacey's more general thesis is that Paul's anthropology was fundamentally Christian and that he normally used Jewish language, though occasionally Hellenism offered a more adequate term (39).
67M.

Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during

the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974); also

I. H. Marshall, "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments," NTS 19 (1972-73) 271-87. ^For example: E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968) 114-221, makes an extensive comparison of Paul and Philo as a representative of Hellenistic Judaism. Substantive comparisons between the Dead Sea Scrolls and elements of Pauline anthropology, especially m>evpa and adp( in connection with sin, can be found in several places such as A. Sand, Der Begriff 'Fleisch' in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Regensburg: Pustet, 1967) 253-73.

Greek or Hebrew thought.69 Many terms exhibit a range of meaning with some overlap for certain pairs.70 Based on this approach, many acknowledge that Jewish thought provides the greater background influence for most Pauline terms and ideas. Related to the preceding discussion is the question about whether Paul's anthropology is monistic or dualistic. Most scholars today view it as some form of monism, or basically so, such that any evidence of dualism is minimal and extraneous, a vestige of Greek influence. 71 But this understanding has been challenged.72 According to Robert Gundry, "anthropological duality," not "monatic unity," best describes Paul's anthropology. The whole person (audpomo? ) consists of a corporeal side for which Paul uses the term aaifxa (sometimes a&pg), and an incorporeal side whose various functions he describes by using m>evjxa, ipvxtf, KapSta, vov?, ecra) avdpbmos et al.; thus there is "an ontological duality, a functional pluralism, and an overarching unity."73 Paul's emphasis lies on unity, viewing a human being as a fully integrated whole person. Along with the monism / dualism issue, scholars have sought to understand
69See

J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth. A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians, ed.

J. Riches (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 185-92, for a perceptive discussion and evaluation of parallels from Philo and Qumran in relation to wevfia and crdp leading to this conclusion. Also, see Dunn, Theology of Paul, 54-55.
70Dunn,

Theology of Paul, 55-78, summarizes the spectrum of meaning for aufia I

odp^, vow I KapSta, and ipvxrjl m>evp.a, and points out where each pair overlaps in meaning.
71See

the discussion in Bultmann, Theology, 1:209, who concludes: "Man does not

consist of two parts much less of three; nor are psyche and pneuma special faculties or principles (within the soma) of a mental life higher than his animal life. Rather, man is a living unity." See also Stacey, Pauline View of Man, 126; Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms, passim; and H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 29-32.

72See

R. H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline

Anthropology, SNTSMS 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), and J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), passim. See ch. 6, 302-03.
73Gundry,

Soma, 79, 83-84,156, and 117-83 for supporting arguments. Similarly,

Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, 50,179, demonstrates that "functional holism" rather than "ontological holism" and "holistic dualism" rather than "holistic monism" best describe Pauhne anthropology; see 36-103 and 147-95 for supporting arguments. Contra Bultmann, Theology, 1:192-96 et al.

Paul's anthropology in relationship to other facets of his theology. Since the mid20th century the theological analysis of his anthropology has been dominated by Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Kasemann. We turn to a brief sketch of their contributions to the subject. 1.2.1.2 Contribution of Rudolf Bultmann. For Bultmann, Pauline theology is not a theoretical, speculative system. It deals with God only as He is significant for man, and, correspondingly, it deals with the world and man not as they are in themselves but in their relationship to God. On this premise Bultmann states: "Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa. For this reason and in this sense Paul's theology is at the same time anthropology."74 Therefore, he links anthropology with soteriologyGod's deed for man and his demand of himand treats Paul's theology as his doctrine of man: first, man prior to faith, and second, man under faith. The way in which Bultmann interprets the movement from unbelief to faith is reflected in his discussion of Paul's anthropological terms. He states that acojjia is the most comprehensive and most complex term that Paul uses. In Pauline usage it may mean the physical body, but more characteristically it denotes the human person as a whole, such that we can say "man does not have a aajfia; he is crai/za... ."75 Consequently, man is able to experience himself as the subject to whom something happens or as the object of his own action. In this way Paul denotes man in relationship to himself; and because of this, a double possibility exists: he can be at one with himself or he can be estranged from himself. Man as acdfia, therefore, is responsible for his own existence. He can nave himself under control or lose this control and come under the domination of outside powers.
74Bultmann,

Theology, 1:191. Unfortunately, he overstates the importance

of anthropology in Paul leading to his own existentialist individualism and to further anthropological reductionism in some of his followers.
75Ibid.,

1:193-94; 195-96, 203.

According to Bultmann, Paul uses the terms iwevfia and odp to denote man at one with himself or estranged from himself respectively. Zdptj, in addition to denoting the concrete, fleshly body, refers to man estranged from himself as "fleshly," lost in the world, and existing in inauthenticity. Thus, the meaning of adp is extended to include not only human nature at work in man himself, but also the environment within which man lives, "the whole sphere of that which is earthly or 'natural.'" To take adptjas one's norm for living is what Bultmann defines as sin for it means to turn from the creator to the creation, to trust in one's self as being able to obtain life through one's own strength and accomplishment. But man has fallen victim to his own attempt to secure life and thus has lost to the flesh and sin as personified powers his capacity to determine his own actions. Bultmann goes on to show how this can apply to both Gentile lawlessness and Jewish religious piety.76 On the other hand, rwev^ia is descriptive of the kind of existence in which a person is oriented to God and thus able to live authentically. Paul then uses the terms vovs; awel8T]ois, mpSia, and ipvxn t oscillate between iwefyia and adp and describe different aspects of human existence with respect to its authenticity or inauthenticity. They describe what belongs to human nature, which in itself is neither good nor evil, but which offers the possibility of deciding for good or evil. In describing the Spirit, Bultmann stresses the freedom the Spirit brings, namely, "release from the compulsion of sin" and a newly opened possibility of obtaining "life." At the same time he limits the sense in which the Spirit is viewed as "power" because to be "led by the Spirit" presupposes a decision between two alternatives: "flesh" or "spirit."77 This reflects Bultmann's characteristic emphasis on human "decision" and on faith as obedience. As John Barclay points out, it indicates that he sees the Spirit
76Ibid

1:234, 239-45. Bultmann discusses cdpl; along with sin and death as

personified powers to which man has fallen victim.

77Ibid.,

1:330-40.

in Paul primarily "as the possibility of authentic obedience, a possibility previously unavailable to man trapped in his own self-seeking (the flesh)."78 Bultmann's existential interpretation of Pauline anthropology has been very influential. According to Robert Jewett, "the existential interpretation of the adp^wevfia categories has now become common property for almost all exegetes in contact with presentday discussion of the matter."79 Prior to Bultmann, Pauline anthropology was often discussed in "partitive terms" where each anthropological term referred to a different part of the human constitution, and it was only a question of whether such an analysis had a Greek or Jewish antecedent. One of Bultmann's primary insights was to take Paul's anthropological terms as representing different ways of looking at the whole human person in relationship to himself and the control of opposing powers. As we shall see, this perspective has a bearing on how one views the "old man" and the "new man." Despite the compelling nature of much in Bultmann's interpretation, some problems remain. Two issues are important for our consideration. First, as Barclay notes, Bultmann's schematic presentation of Paul's use of terms can be misleading. To avoid this, one must observe carefully the particular context in which an anthropological term or expression occurs. 80 Second, and more formidable, Bultmann's analysis is grounded in existentialist philosophy. A major effect of this is the almost exclusive attention he gives to the individual; but the range of Paul's anthropological terminology cannot be restricted so narrowly. Another result of this approach is Bultmann's "tendency to demythologize Paul's remarks about historical
78Barclay,

Obeying the Truth, 195.

79Jewett,

Paul's Anthropological Terms, 67,103. It must be noted, however, that

a unitary view of Pauline anthropology is held by many who reject Bultmann's existential interpretation. See Barclay's assessment, Obeying the Truth, 195, along with additional references.
80Barclay,

Obeying the Truth, 196, states that in this respect "Jewett's analysis of

Paul's terms letter by letter is an important complement to the schematic presentations of the

evidence by Bultmann, Sand and others" (196 n45). See also our approach on pp. 60-63 below. events and their influence on 'the world.'"81 He interprets the cross as a revelatory event that discloses God's grace and "frees man
82Bultmann,

Theology 1:335-36;

also id., "Christ the End of the Law," in Essays Philosophical and Theological, trans. J. C. G.

from himself." Similarly, the eschatological gift of Greig (London: SCM, 1955) 36-66, esp. 59-60. the Spirit becomes "the power of futurity... the new possibility of genuine, human life which opens up Christi: Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen to him who has surrendered his old understanding Begrifflichkeit, BHT 9 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr of himself."82 However, one cannot eliminate the [Paul Siebeck], 1933). historical and eschatological dimensions of Paul's thought so completely. This becomes one of the
84Many 83E.

Kasemann, Leib und Leib

of Kasemann's essays have

main reactions of Ernst Kasemann who challenged been translated and published in New Testament Bultmann's views on the role of anthropology in Paul's thought as well as his interpretation of key anthropological terms. 1.2.1.3 Contribution of Ernst Bromiley from the 4th German edition, HNT 8a Kasemann. In his earliest work on anthropological (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). themes, Kasemann emphasized the cosmic scope of Paul's thought and compared it with Gnostic thought.83 In his later essays and his commentary on Romans,84 he dropped the comparison with
85See,

Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1969) and in Perspectives on Paul, trans. M. Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); id., Commentary on Romans, trans, and ed. G. W.

e.g., "The Beginnings of

Christian Theology" and "On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic" in New.

Gnosticism in favor of an emphasis on apocalyptic Testament Questions of Today, 82-107 and 108themes as determining factors in Pauline theology.85 He repeatedly criticizes Bultmann for making anthropology the focal point of Paul's 37 respectively. For a discussion of the change in Kasemann's view of the background against which he interpreted Paul's theology as reflected

theology leading to an exaggerated individualism.86 in his pre-1950 and post-1960 publications and his understanding of apocalyptic, see D. V.
81Ibid.,

198. Way, The Lordship of Christ. Ernst Kasemann's

Interpretation of Paul's Theology, OTM (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) 122-32.

86Kasemann,

"On Paul's Anthropology,"

in Perspectives on Paul, 1-31, esp. 1-14.

resurrection shows that for him "discontinuity Instead of focusing on the is the mark of both existence and history."

anthropological terms themselves, as Bultmann Discontinuity exists between the worlds of [original] creation and the fall, and between did, Kasemann puts the subject in a wider Pauline context of christology, cosmology, the lordships of sin, Christ, and the
88 and eschatology. He argues that Paul does not resurrection. One important distinction see a human being simply as an individual

in relationship with him or herself, but in relationship with others and with his or her

from Bultmann emerges in Kasemann's interpretation ofatSfia. Bultmann minimized

Lord. A human being is "a challengable and a the importance of corporeality. Kasemann continually challenged being," something that argues that this concept is fundamental to is a constitutive element of one's existence. Paul's theology because all of God's ways with

The challenge of the gospel does not end with His creation begin and end in corporeality. conversion because salvation is an "endless path" that embodies "the challenge of being As such, man in his corporeality is never neutral in himself but is always "in the mode of

called to be a new creation and a new man."87 belongingness Kasemann agrees with Bultmann's insight that Paul's anthropological terms do not refer exclusively to the component parts of a human being but rather to existence as a whole. However, he argues that Paul did not share the idealist notion of an inherent continuity of existence. Such a notion, he claims, is alien to Paul's thinking. One way he makes this point is by arguing that Christian baptism marks "the death of the old man and the miraculous beginning of a new life under the banner of the resurrection." Further, Paul regards salvation history as divided into epochs, and his understanding of the
5 6
8 7

I b i d . ,

30

8 8

I b i d . ,

8 9 .

and participation." This means that a man or woman as a whole person is always part of a particular world and always belongs to a structure of solidarity.89 According to Kasemann, Paul sees human beings as standing in solidarity with and thus in the powersphere of either Adam or Christ. As such, a human being is the object or at most the exponent of the power that rules him or her. Since the Genesis fall, humanity is not free but enslaved to the power of evil forces from which it can only be rescued by an eschatological intervention. Thus Paul's hope was directed toward the time when Christ would rule and place all His enemies under His feet, and God would be all in all (cf. 1 Cor. 15:25-28). In this context the resurrection of believers means participation in a world set free by the rule of God. Within this framework of thought, Kasemann discusses selected anthropological terms. He insists that these terms "do not signify... the individuation of the individual human being, but primarily that reality which, as the power either of the heavenly or the earthly, determines him from outside, takes possession of him and thereby decides into which of the two dualistically opposed spheres he is to be integrated."90 This means the whole person is involved in the cosmic conflict between God and the forces of evil. Anthropology, then, is bound up with cosmology even in the sphere of faith. As a result, Kasemann expresses his interpretation of Paul's anthropology in terms of lordship and connects it to his idea that a human being is a participant in a particular "world" (power-sphere). This understanding of human existence not only stresses the idea of "belonging to a lord" but also the notion that human beings are able to respond to realities (worlds or lordships) that are already present. Because of this, the change of existence spoken of by an existentialist interpretation is in reality
89Ibid.,

18-22.

90Kasemann, "Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," iniVeu; Testament Questions of Today, 131-37, specifically 136; also "On Paul's Anthropology," 26, where he states that human existence is "always fundamentally conceived from the angle of the world to which one belongs."

32 a "change (or exchange) of lordship."91 Human beings are always under a lord. They cannot escape from the power of sin to an autonomous state. But as a Christian, a human being exchanges this lordship for the lordship of Christ. Kasemann's interpretation of Paul's anthropology has also been influential. As Barclay points out, "[his] emphasis on apocalyptic, on the physicality of acofxa, and on the Spirit and flesh as powers which determine human existence 'from outside' have all won increasing recognition in recent years. Many scholars now concur with his point of view on the importance of apocalyptic in Paulnot just in isolated motifs but in the whole framework of his theology."92 Kasemann's achievement in scholarly discussion was to put Pauline anthropology into a broader cosmological and apocalyptic context that others have developed in various ways.93 Two of his insights are useful for our consideration of the "old man / new man": 1) a person is part of a particular world (power-sphere), set in a structure of solidarity; and 2) discontinuity between the lordships of sin and grace, Adam and Christ, and the "old" and the "new" is characteristic of human existence and requires divine intervention to bridge the gap between them. This renewed emphasis on apocalyptic features leads us to consider the eschatological structure of Paul's theology. 1.2.2 Eschatological Structure of Paul's Theology In light of renewed emphasis on Jewish backgrounds there is growing agreement that what lies at the "core" of Paul's theological thinking is the eschatologically-understood saving activity of God through Jesus Christ. Yet there are divergent views regarding this perspective.
91Kasemann,
92BarcIay, 93Jewett,

"On Paul's Anthropology," 27-28, and Romans, 179, 282, 363.

Obeying the Truth, 201.

Paul's Anthropological Terms, 93-95; Beker, Paul the Apostle, passim; J. L. Martyn, "Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians," NTS 31 (1985) 410-24; M. C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death. Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, JSNTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).

33
1.2.2.1 Divergent Views. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a key figure among others who examined the comparative religions approach to Paul at the beginning of the 20th century. In an analysis of Pauline research in Germany at the time, he criticized the religionsgeschichtliche Schule for interpreting Paul in Hellenistic rather than Jewish categories, especially those of apocalyptic Judaism.94 Later, he set forth his own view in which he argued that Paul shared Jesus' eschatology and drew on apocalyptic Judaism to explain that there is an "already" realized kingdom begun at Christ's resurrection and a "not yet" full revelation of God's kingdom at the end of history.95 The presently realized aspect of the eschaton comes to expression in Paul's prominent evXpiurio motif. According to Schweitzer, this Christ-mysticism, the Christian's mystical union with Christ as a "pneumatic corporeality" realized through the sacraments, became the central core of Paul's theology, relegating justification by faith to a subsidiary role.96 Though Schweitzer's reconstruction can be criticized at several points,97 his interpretation of Paul helped recapture both the redemptive-historical and eschatological character of Paul's overall theology. Paul and His Interpreters (1911), 59-60. He praised R. Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhangen mit dem Gesamtbegriffdes Paulinismus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1893), as the first to understand fully "the great paradoxes of Paulinism" and to describe clearly "their real eschatological essence." For others opposed to the religionsgeschichtliche interpretation of Paul, see H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1913); more recently, G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, ATANT 39 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967 [1962]; and C. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Darstettung undKritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erldsermythus, PRLANT 78 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).
95A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Seabury Press, 1968 [1930]) 52-55,110-15. Schweitzer did not use the term "apocalyptic," even though he argued that Paul was to be understood in light of Jewish eschatology. He maintained a consistent futuristic eschatological (apocalyptic) approach to Paul, even though, in his view, it proved to be an illusion in the end since the kingdom of God failed to arrive at Christ's death and resurrection (115). 96Ibid., 970f 94Schweitzer,

3, 117, 225.

the many evaluations of Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology," the following are helpful: T. F. Glasson, "Schweitzer's Influence-Blessing or Bane?" JTS 28 (1977) 289-302; A. C. Thiselton, "Schweitzer's Interpretation of Paul," ExpTim 90 (1978-79) 132-37; and W. Willis, "The Discovery of the Eschatological Kingdom: Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer," in The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation, ed. W. Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987) 1-14.

34

C. H. Dodd also recognized the eschatological framework for Paul's theological thinking, but he interpreted it as an expression of Paul's belief that history had reached its fulfillment in Christ's death and resurrection.98 In his view, Paul shifted from "futuristic" to "realized" eschatology. Then, Paul brought this to full development in his emphasis on "Christ-mysticism" (one's consciousness of spiritual union with Christ) and on the Church as the sphere of divine grace and spiritual life. Rudolf Bultmann also saw the significance of eschatology for Paul, but he considered Jewish apocalyptic ideas to be a stumbling block because they had not been empirically confirmed. According to him, Paul moved the interpretation of the earliest kerygma beyond mythology to an anthropologically construed doctrine of justification by faith. The present reality of the believer's status before God replaced any thought of future redemption. For Paul, the eschatological moment of salvation is neither a spacetime event in the past nor an event yet to occur in the future but an existential happening that takes place in each individual's confrontation with the claims of the gospel and consequent decision for faith." Thus, the core of Paul's theology is not eschatology but the anthropological concepts found in it. During the mid-20th century, however, the discovery and publication of the Qumran documents and the apocalyptic force of their sectarian theology began to return interpreters to Schweitzer's appreciation of the apocalyptic character of early Christianity. While Greeks typically viewed time as cyclical,100 Hebraic thought typically viewed time as a succession of ages and looked for the age to come (the

98C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1951 [1936]) 44, 63-65.

Bultmann, The Presence of Eternity: History and Eschatology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957) 33-50; id., "History and Eschatology in the New Testament," NTS 1 (1954) 5-16; id., Theology, 191. See also pp. 26-29 above.
100See A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 1:308-13.

99R.

"messianic age" in some circles) to deliver them from the evils of the present age. 101 Paul shared the latter view modified by the coming of Jesus Christ and the split between the "already" past and present, and the "not yet" future.102 Apocalyptic as an interpretive approach to Pauline theology came into full discussion with the later work of Ernst Kasemann who asserted that "apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology."103 He argued against Bultmann's anthro-pocentricism and defended Schweitzer's claim that Paul's apocalyptic world view was determinative for his thought. 104 He and others contributed to the development of a fresh look at the nature of apocalyptic and its place in early Christianity.105 J. Christiaan Beker has made a spirited plea for this perspective by arguing that apocalyptic in the sense of the imminent, cosmic triumph of God over the created order is the heart of Paul's thought. He contends that Paul locates the center of the gospel in the apocalyptic interpretation of the Christ-event.106 Beker focuses e.g., Dan. 2 and 7; CD 6.10,14; 12.23; 15.7; lQpHab 5.7; and the later Jewish apocalypses 4 Ezra (e.g., 6:7; 11:44) and 2 Baruch. Rom. 1:2-4; 8:15-18, 23-25; 1 Cor. 2:6-8; 10:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Gal. 1:3-5; 4:4-6; Phil. 3:20-21; Col. 1:26-27; Eph. l:19b-21. Kasemann, "The Beginnings of Christian Theology" in New Testament Questions of Today, 102. For a summary and analysis of Kasemann's work, see W. G. Rollins, "The New Testament and Apocalyptic," NTS 17 (1970-71) 454-76. See also Beker, Paul the Apostle, 13-19, 360-62. l4See footnotes 84 and 85 above and "An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology" in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964) 169-95. Kasemann took issue with Schweitzer's claim that Paul's apocalyptic hopes relegated the doctrine of justification by faith to a subsidiary role as simply a polemical device against Judaizers. In his essay, "Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans" in Perspectives on Paul, 60-78, he insisted that it is God's justification of the ungodly by faith in Christ that is the distinctive mark of the new age.
105E.g., O. Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, rev. ed. (London: SCM / Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 88,145-55; id., Salvation in History (London: SCM / New York: Harper and Row, 1967) 170-75, 202; P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 175, 203; and W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus, Paul, John, trans. J. E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973 [1969]) 144. 106Beker, Paul the Apostle, 18-19, also 205, "The cross ... is the apocalyptic turning point of history;" and 207, "The death and resurrection of Christ in their apocalyptic setting 103E. 102Cf. 101See,

on Paul's distinctive use of Jewish apocalyptic but acknowledges that it undergoes "a profound modification" in light of God's decisive act in Christ. Because of the Christ-event, believers can already claim "the new creation" and live in the power of the Spirit. At the same time, the Christ-event is a proleptic anticipation of God's final glory and the consummation of history. Since it inaugurates the end times and points to God's cosmic triumph, the Christ-event itself is eschatologically oriented.107 Despite an ongoing debate over the meaning and the appropriate use of the term "apocalyptic,"108 Beker's work has prompted further studies109 that have added support to his conviction that affirms Schweitzer's basic insight: Paul's interpretation of the Christ-event reflects the use of Jewish apocalyptic language and ideas. Nevertheless, as Beker acknowledges, Paul's use of traditional apocalyptic is "modified," a modification that fits with his understanding of God's activity in redemptive history. In line with Schweitzer's insight but with less emphasis on apocalyptic is the highly influential work of E. P. Sanders that spawned a "new perspective on Paul"

constitute the coherent core of Paul's thought." See also pp. 13-17, 40-41, 277-78, 355-58, 36267. 145-52. This modification calls in question Beker's very broad view of traditional apocalyptic, which is primarily concerned with future events. The word "eschatological" seems to be a more appropriate descriptive term for Pauline thought since "eschatology" encompasses the entire present-future polarity. R. E. Sturm, "Denning the Word 'Apocalyptic': A Problem in Biblical Criticism," in J. Marcus and M. L. Soards, eds., Apocalyptic and the New Testament, JSNTS 24 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 17-48; and R. B. Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism, JSNTS 127 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
109For example: Martyn, "Apocalyptic Antinomies," 410-24, focuses on the cross rather than the parousia (pace Beker); M. A. Getty, "An Apocalyptic Perspective on Rom. 10:4," HBT 4-5 (1982-83) 79-131; L. E. Keck, "Paul and Apocalyptic Theology," Interp 38 (1984) 229-41; and H. Moore, "Paul and Apocalyptic," IBSt 9 (1987) 35-46. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 461-72, following Cullmann, calls the distinctive "already fulfilled" but "not yet completed" framework the "eschatological tension" in Paul's theology. Although many Pauline studies define the role of Jewish apocalyptic in Paul's theology differently, they allalong with a growing number of contemporary scholarsbelieve that one cannot do justice to Paul's theology without accounting for his widespread use of apocalyptic language and ideas. The diversity of views is due in large measure to a lack of consensus regarding the nature and extent of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought. 108See 107Ibid.,

in the final two decades of the twentieth century.110 Using a holistic approach, Sanders presents a descriptive account of two patterns of religion, namely, Second Temple Judaism and Paul, and compares them.111 After a detailed discussion of Jewish texts, he concludes that first-century Judaism was not a legalistic religion of "works-righteousness," the prevailing view in Pauline scholarship and popular preaching.112 Instead, Judaism was a religion of gracethe covenant had been given by divine initiativewith human obedience to the law understood as the proper response to God's grace. Observing the law along with atonement for transgressions was the means of "staying in" not of "getting into" the covenant. Sanders calls this pattern of religion underlying various forms of Judaism "covenantal nomism."113 In his treatment of Paul, Sanders concludes, among other things, that justification by faith cannot be the center of Paul's theology, the traditional view held by many scholars.114 Instead, following Schweitzer, he argues that the language and imagery of participation in Christ is the dominant (soteriological) theme in Paul. Union with Christ effects a transfer from one sphere of lordship (sin, law, death) to P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); id., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); id., Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); and id., Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992). The "new perspective" designation comes from J. D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," BJRL 65 (1983) 95-122. Dunn has been a leading voice in adopting Sanders' view (with modifications) and working out its implications in understanding both first-century Judaism and Paul. See Dunn's Romans 1-8, 9-16. 2 vols. WBC 38A, 38B (Dallas: Word Books, 1988); his collection of essays, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990); and his Theology of Paul, 335-40. lllgy "pattern of religion," Sanders means the description of how a religion functions in terms of how its adherents / members understand "getting in" and "staying in" the group of the saved (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 17).
112Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1-12, 33-59, 552. See also Bultmann, Theology, 1:243 and Dunn, Romans, 1:185. 113Ibid., 75 (definition), 420, 422 (summary), and 544. See also Dunn, Theology of Paul, 338-39. 110E.

438-41. At the same time, Sanders notes that "there is no neat division in Paul's thought between 'mystical' [participationist] and 'juridical' [language / categories]" (441) and he discusses the relationship between the two (502-08, 520).

114Ibid.,

another (righteousness, gospel, life) and the ensuing transformation will not be completed until the Lord returns. This pattern of religion, which is fundamentally different from Judaism, Sanders calls "participationist eschatology."115 Sanders' work has generated considerable discussion on the relationship of Paul's theology to his Jewish heritage (esp. his view of the law), and his "new perspective" views have been criticized at several points.116 Nevertheless, his reexamination of first-century Judaism has countered caricatures and misrepresentations of it, and his treatment of Paul has refocused attention on Paul's participationist language and reaffirmed the redemptive-historical, eschatological character of his theology. 1.2.2.2 Redemptive History and Eschatology. We noted above that a governing principle of Paul's theological thinking is the eschatologically-understood saving activity of God through Jesus Christ. On one hand, this saving activity is the fulfillment of God's work in the history of Israel and thus also the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture. On the other hand, it reaches out to the parousia of Christ and the ultimate consummation of all things in the future kingdom of God. In light of this broad conception of Paul's theological thinking, the most adequate interpretive approach appears to be one that does justice both to the present and the future significance of this "eschatology" without dissolving the historical backbone of Paul's preaching concerning what has already taken place, nor dismissing the future

441-42, 523, 547-49 (descriptive summary), 552. "In Christ" not "in Judaism" Paul found life, thus, according to Sanders, his theological thinking moved from the solution (Jesus Christ) to the problem (human enslavement to sin) and what he found wrong in Judaism was that it was not Christianity (552). Since Sanders makes no sustained attempt to explain what Paul meant by "participation in Christ," see Dunn, Theology of Paul, 390-412, for further development of this imagery. the many summaries and evaluations of Sanders' "new perspective," the following are helpful: J. Neusner, "Comparing Judaisms," HRel 18 (1978-79) 177-91; R. H. Gundry, "Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,"5i6 66 (1985) 1-38; S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); F. Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994) esp. ch. 1; and Riches, A Century of New Testament Study, 136-42. For further bibliography, see ch. 3,173 n81.
116Of

115Ibid.,

dimension concerning what must yet take place. This could he summarized as the heilsgeschichtliche-eschatological character of Paul's theology.117 This approach emphasizes the element of fulfillment in Paul's preaching (realized eschatology), and the importance of a continual future expectation (futuristic, apocalyptic eschatology). Within this framework, the various strands of Paul's theology can be integrated in terms of their unity and diversity as well as their continuity and discontinuity. The christological character of Paul's eschatology emerges plainly in the tension between fulfillment and expectation. On one hand, he speaks of "the fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4), "the acceptable time" and "the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2) that have already taken effect. This is also apparent when he speaks of the great change that occurred with the death and resurrection of Christ as the arrival of a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17). This is meant not only in an individual, spiritual sense, but also in a redemptive-historical, eschatological sense with a corporate dimension. The person who is "in Christ," therefore, is in the "new creation." He or she with others belong to this new order that has dawned with Christ's resurrection. On the other hand, Paul was clearly aware that the person "in Christ" still lives in the present world ("this age") and the time corresponding with it ("the now time;" cf. Rom. 8:18; 11:5; 12:2 et al.). He speaks of the present world time as "the ends of the ages" (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11), the overlap of "this age" that is passing away and the "new age" begun with Christ. He can speak of "the present evil age" as a situation from which Christ has delivered His people (Gal. 1:4), while elsewhere he speaks of the present age as the place where believers must live godly lives and "shine like stars in the universe" (Phil. 2:15).

Paul, 42. Another compatible approach arguing that Paul's dynamic, multifaceted theology emerges from its narrative substructure (i.e., the story of God and creation, Israel, Christ, the Church and consummation) has been set forth by R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture m the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992); and H. Withenngton, Paul's Narrative Thought World (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1994).

117Ridderbos,

Thus in certain contexts Paul describes existence prior to the redemptive time of Christ as nori ("once," Rom. 6:20-23; 11:30; Gal. 4:29; cf. Col. 1:21-22; 3:7-8; Eph. 2:2,12). This stands in contrast with the present viiv ("now") of the new creation, the time of redemption and fulfillment (Rom. 3:21, 26; 5:9-11; 8:1,18; 2 Cor. 5:16; Col. 1:26; Eph. 2:13; 3:5,10). In other contexts, however, the present *w("now" / "already") refers to the continuation of earthly existence defined by the world over against the rdre ("then") of the consummation still to come (1 Thess. 5:2-3; 4:5; 1 Cor. 13:10,12; 15:28, 54; Col. 3:4). These two motifs, "once / now" and "already / not yet," relate the past of redemptive time to the present and the present to the future. This dynamic is also found in passages in which Christ is set over against Adam. Paul speaks of Adam as "the first man" and of Christ as "the last Adam," the "second man" (1 Cor. 15:45-47). Adam is a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14). In this regard, he represents the whole of humanity and the present age (5:12) while Christ represents the age to come and redeemed humanity (5:15b, 17b). By His resurrection the new life of the new creation has already come to light and become a reality in this age. In Paul's statement,"... for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22), the words "in Christ" are parallel with "in Adam." Adam and Christ stand in contrast to each other as two archetypal figures at the outset of two "creations," the old and the new, and two "realms," death and life. In their actions and destiny lie the course of life and destiny for all who belong to them because they are included in them and thus are reckoned either to death or to life. This relationship between Adam and Christ and those who belong to them reflects an ancient Hebraic (Josh. 7:16-26) and Greek (Sophocles, Oedipus, 314) idea of "all in (or, connected to) one," a concept at one time denoted by the unfortunate expression "corporate personality."118 A more appropriate designation is "corporate solidarity,"
118The concept of "corporate personality" had its origin in the work of H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 8; id., Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, rev.

ed. (Philadelphia: Portress Press, 1980 [1935]). See also J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford

which points to an archetypal figure who represents a whole group of people and is the one with whom the individual members of the group are identified because of a particular relationship they have with the archetypal figure. This is reflected in "the many / aU"-in-"the one" language Paul uses with respect to Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22). Though he does not elaborate on this corporate connection, various interpreters use the concept of "corporate solidarity" to explain it.119 1.2.3 Conclusion As surveyed above, recent scholarly discussion has called attention to the holistic and relational nature of Paul's anthropology with both an individual and corporate dimension. It also has given attention to the redemptive-historical, eschatological framework of Paul's theology within which the various facets of his thought operate. The "once / now" turning point from the old to the new creation and the "already / not yet" tension of redemptive time relate the past to the present and both of these to the future. This wider theological perspective provides the context for a narrower focus on the terms "old man / new man" and their contribution to Paul's University Press, 1959 [1926, 1940]) I-II: 263-96, 474-79; III-IV: 76-86; A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1942); R. P. Shedd, Man in Community: A Study of St. Paul's Application of Old Testament and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 132-38; and A. J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against Its Greco-Roman Background, WUNT 44 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987) 351-56. For a critique of the legal aspects of the concept, see J. R. Porter, "Legal Aspects of Corporate Personality," VT 15 (1965) 361-80. J. W. Rogerson, "The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Reconsideration," JTS 21 (1970) 1-16, presented a rigorous critique of Robinson's views in which he questioned the theoretical basis of his position. Rather than a concept of psychical or even physical unity, Rogerson argues that there is a concept of corporate representation in the OT. He concluded correctly that the expression "corporate personality" should be dropped. See also S. E. Porter, "Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language / Mentality Determinism," SJT 43 (1990) 289-307; and Dunn, Theology of Paul, 408-10. among others, who use the Adam-Christ typology in this way are E. Percy, DerLeib Christi in den paulinischen Homologoumena und Antilegomena (Lund: Gleerup, 1942); S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians, ASNU 14 (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1946) 67-70; E. Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955); C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last. A Study in Pauline Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1962); D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Saint Paul, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974) 45-46; 132-34; Ridderbos, Paul, 61-62; and, in a more nuanced sense, Dunn, Theology of Paul, 90-97,199-204, 208-12; 241-42.
119Some,

thought in this study. To prepare the way further, we must ask an additional question. In taking up these terms, did Paul make use of existing formulations, or did he himself contribute these terms to Christian thought? This leads us to consider the background of this dual metaphor. 1.3 Background of the "Old Man / New Man" The word dudpcoiros- has a versatile range of usage. It includes "man" (male person), "human being" (generic), and "humanity" (collective).120 The main corresponding Hebrew word, DTK, has a similar range of usage, including a reference to the first man, Adam.121 "Audpcjiros' also allows for a variety of special combinations as noted above (see p. 4). Specifically, for our study, this involves the modifying adjectives "old" and "new" and particularly the verbs "put off and "put on" with the "old man" and "new man" as their object respectively. In light of such adjuncts, background investigations could be wide-ranging if one were to pursue possible antecedent parallels related to the metaphorical uses of "old" and "new" and the clothing metaphor "put off/ put on" by themselves. However, our concern is focused more narrowly on the combinations "old man" and "new man" used as metaphors either independently, or as objects of the verbs "put off1 and "put on," or, for that matter, any other verb.

120H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon [LSJ], 9th ed. rev. and augmented by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols, in 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 192540) s.v. dripcono?, provide several examples of the meaning "man, both as a generic term and of individuals, the ideal man, humanity, and in the plural, mankind." See also W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BAGD], trans, and adapted from Bauer's 4th rev. ed. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2nd ed. rev. and augmented by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker from Bauer's 5th ed., 1958 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) s.v. dvQpumos, 1,

Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) s.v. Dn. There is a wordplay on "man," "mankind," and the first man, "Adam," in Gen. 1-3; see Dunn,'Theology of Paul, 8284.

121F.

43
1.3.1 'Put Off/ Put On" Parallels

The verbs direKSw (-o/dai, "take off') and evSvo (-o^ai, "put on"), with the "old man" and "new man" respectively as objects appear in Colossians 3:9-10 while the same construction occurs in Ephesians 4:22-24 using dirorlOmxi (-ofiai, "take off') and iuSvo). These verbs, often depicting the act of taking clothes off and putting them on in the active voice, were frequently used in the middle voice as metaphors in the ancient world. They had the sense of "taking off (of oneself), removing" something and "taking on (for oneself), acquiring" something, and often denoted a change in identity, status, or character.122 The objects involved were usually impersonal items. The picture of putting off vices and putting on virtues was relatively common in pre-Pauline Hellenistic literature.123 The imagery of clothing oneself with a person was much less common, usually occurring in a stage-play setting as "playing the part of [someone]," that is, taking on the status and character of that person and becoming like him / her.124 The idea of the soul that puts on a body as a "garment" and the physical body as the "garment" of the soul that is "put off' in death was widespread in antiquity.125

122BAGD, s.v. IKSVU, 2 fig. (also s.v. yvy.v6s, 4 fig.); dmicSt/opai, 1; diroTldrjfii, l.b fig., and ifStk), 2.b fig. See also LSJ, s.v. dvorlOmii, II.1-2; ttcSvco, III.l; ivSvoi, 1.1; and A. Oepke, "8fa, KT\," in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT], eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans, and ed. G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) 2:318-21. Cf. ch. 4, 212.

123por removal of vices or hindrances, see, e.g., Demosthenes 4.8, 8.6; for postPauline uses, see, e.g., Plutarch, Cor. 19.4; and Lucian, Dial. Mort. 10.8.9. For taking on virtues or benefits, see, e.g., Plato, Rep. 457A, 620C; Euripides, Iph. T. 602; Aristophanes, Eccl. 288; for post-Pauline uses, see, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 1.75; 6.25; Artemidorus 3.14; Hennas, Sim. 9.24.2; and CH 10.18; 13.8-9. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 11.5, "to put on Tarquin," i.e., to play the role of Tarquin; also Callimachus, Epigr. 21.6; Cicero, Tusc. 1.38.92; Off. 3.10.43; for postPauline uses, e.g., Libanius, Epist. 968, 1048.2-4; and Maximus Tyrius 1.4e. Pindar, Nem. 11.15-16; Euripides, Heracl. 1269; Bacch. 746; Aristotle, Anima 1.3; also Philo, Leg. All. 2.56, 59; Mut. 233; Fug. 108-12; and Op. 134. For the origin of this idea and further discussion, see Kasemann, Leib, 87-94; and E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966) 135-50. This metaphor also occurs in later authors, for example: Artemidorus 5.40; CH 1.24-25; 7.2; Origen, Contra Celsum 8.44 and Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.44; 8.10.7.
125E.g., 124E.g.,

In the Hebrew Scriptures the verb lb often denotes a change in character or position by the "clothing" of someone with moral and spiritual qualities or benefits. Using euSvo), translators adopted this metaphor in the LXX with a variety of objects: 1) <nmjplav{2 Chron. 6:41; Ps. 132:16; Isa. 61:10); 2) SiKcuoavvrjf (Job 29:14; LXX Ps. 131:9; Isa. 59:17); 3) ifrfioX6ynow Kal eimpiireiav (LXX Ps. 103:1; 92:1; Job 40:10 has 86avKal npr]v); 4) /a^iV (Prov. 31:25; Isa. 51:9; 52:1); and 5) Kardpav and evrponfy (LXX Ps. 108:18,29).126 Similar usage involving the removal of bad or the acquisition of good moral qualities or benefits is also found in early Jewish literature,127 in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:8; Col. 3:8,12; Eph. 4:25; 6:11,14; Heb. 12:1; Jas. 1:18-21; 1 Pet. 2:1-2), in rabbinic literature (e.g., humility and reverence, e.g., m. Aboth 6.1; Gen. Rab. 50.2), and in early Christian authors (e.g., Hermas, Sim. 9.23.5; Chrysostom, Horn, in Eph. 13). In the mystery religions and Gnostic literature, the metaphor is associated with an event of "transformation," such as in the Isis community where an initiate was clothed with a heavenly garment and transformed into a new being, and the priestess of Isis "clothed herself with the power of the goddess (cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11.21-24). All these passages and others show that the dual "clothing" metaphor was wellknown in the ancient world, and this in itself may have encouraged Paul's bold use of it, especially with a "person" as the object (cf. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 13:14).128 Most

examples are cited in E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983) s.v. tuBta; also Oepke, TDNT, 2:320; and L. Coenen, E. Beyrenther and H. Bietenhard, eds., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [NIDNTT], trans, with additions and revisions by C. Brown, gen. ed., 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1:314-16. Wis. 5:17-20; Bar. 5:1-2; 4 Ezra 4:14; Ep. Arist. 122; 1 Enoch 62.14-16; 1QS 4.7-8; Philo, Conf. 31; and Som. 1.224-25. usage of the clothing metaphor occurs in connection with three events: 1) conversion-initiation (Gal. 3:27); 2) ongoing acts of ethical renewal (1 Thess. 5:8; Rom. 13:12,14; Eph. 6:11, 14; Col. 3:8, 12); and 3) receiving the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:53-55; 2 Cor. 5:2-5). At issue for our study is the category in which Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24, 25 fit.
128Pauline 127E.g.,

126More

often it denotes a change in character, status, or mode of existence. When a personal object is involved, which is much less common, the allusion is likely to a stage actor taking on the persona of his character in a play. However, neither the "old man" nor the "new man" appear as the object of these verbs prior to Paul. 1.3.2 "Old Man / New Man" Parallel? To our knowledge, an exact antecedent parallel to the metaphorical use of the terms "old man / new man" has not been found in extant pre-Pauline literature.129 P. W. van der Horst claims to have found an exception to this in a fragment of Aristocles of Messene, a Peripatetic philosopher of the second century AD.130 This fragment from his historical work, ITepl (piXocrcxptas; was preserved by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica (14.18.26). Aristocles, in turn, preserved a fragment of Antigonus of Carystus, a popular biographer of philosophers, who lived in the third century BC. This fragment deals with Pyrrho of Elis, the founder of the Sceptic philosophical school. Pyrrho claimed that reality is unknowable and, thus, people should ignore sense impressions. However, when he was attacked by a dog, he sought refuge in a tree demonstrating that his behavior did not reflect his philosophical convictions. When bystanders mocked and criticized him for this inconsistency, Pyrrho admitted they were right and by way of excuse said: XaXenbu eli) rbv avQpoi-nov

TDNT, 1:366 nl2, states that "the extra-Christian provenance ... of the image of the old and new man has never been proved." He notes that the image occurs in Manichean literature (Aug. contra Faustum, 24.1.717-21), but Mani (3rd century A.D.), no doubt, borrowed it from Paul. J. Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen. l,26fim Spdtjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen, FRLANT 76 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 24041, also concludes that no exact parallel has been found in non-Christian sources. The formulations "knowing the perfect man" and "putting on the perfect man" appear in two later Gnostic works dealing with the creation of man, viz., the Apocryphon of John (NHL 11.1.15-25), and The Gospel According to Mary (NHL BGC 8502.1.18), see E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963) 1:322, 343. Later Christian writings refer to the new man: Ignatius, Eph. 20.1, "the new man Jesus Christ;" Ep. Barn. 16.8, believers "have become new [people]"; Ep. Diog. 2.1, Diognetus has become "a new man."
130P.

129Jeremias,

W. van der Horst, "Observations On A Pauline Expression," NTS 19 (1973) 181-

87.

iKSvuai, "It is difficult to put off the man." This wording cannot be attributed to either Eusebius or Aristocles because it occurs in Diogenes Laertius (9.66) who also reports this story from Antigonus of Carystus. Thus the words rbu audponov iKSvuai go back to Antigonus (3rd century BC) and may even go back to Pyrrho himself who was a contemporary of Antigonus. Van der Horst concludes that in the third century BC the expression was used "in philosophical language to denote the transition from... the unenlightened state to the enlightened state."131 He believes that Paul's acquaintance with the popular philosophy of his time makes this a plausible explanation of the origin of the expressions "put off the old man" and "put on the new man." However, three observations make this conclusion unlikely: 1) such a relatively rare use in extant literature suggests that the expression was not well known and makes Paul's acquaintance with it improbable; 2) Pyrrho's statement likely means no more than "it is difficult to put off what is human" (i.e., a natural human response); and 3) in Pauline usage avdpamos' is qualified by the significant words "old" and "new" that have no parallel in Pyrrho's statement or its context. 1.3.3 General Background Proposals In light of the absence of an exact antecedent parallel, scholars have offered several general solutions to the background question. Three proposals have received the most attention. First, some scholars appeal to the mystery religions or Gnosticism as the sources behind this motif. Accordingly, the clothing metaphor "put on" refers to 1) the act of initiation into the mystery religions in which the initiate is clothed with cosmic, divine-life power symbolizing deification or final redemption;132
131Ibid.,

186.

Hellenistic Mystery Religions, 338-42; K. M. Fischer, Tendenz undAbsicht des Epheserbriefes, FRLANT 111 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 158-60; see Kasemann, Leib, 147-50; and Jervell, Imago, 130-40, for parallels; also W. Matthias, "Die alte und der neue Mensch in der Anthropologie des Paulus," EvTh 17 (1957) 38597, esp. 386-87. The text

132Reitzenstein,

or, 2) the Gnostic idea of salvation in which the recipient is clothed with the knowledge of his true identity by the heavenly redeemer and taken up into the divine world and infused with its enlightenment and power.133 However, when Paul uses clothing imagery, he does not refer to a constitutional transformation of a person or the infusion of a divine element into a person. For him, the image pictures change of a different kind. Other objections can also be raised: 1) most parallels belong to a different sphere of ideas that often involve the release of the weOfia from the ocofxa prison; 2) none of the parallels cited predates the New Testament; 3) a true parallel with "man" or "person" as the object of the CKSVO) I ivSiw verbs has not been found; and 4) the proponents of this view find it difficult to explain how Paul came into direct contact with these ideas. 134 In Gnostic texts there is no concept of an "old" and a "new" man because the inner man, the spirit-image (pneuma-eikon) in man, is the dudponos' himself.135 All this militates against a background in the mystery religions or Gnosticism. Second, several scholars have suggested a connection between the clothing metaphor and the event of Christian baptism (cf. Gal. 3:27-28).136 If so, the imagery almost universally and exclusively cited in support of this interpretation is Apuleius, Metamorphoses 2.24; 11.21-24. Bultmann, The Old and the New Man, trans. K. Crim (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964 [three essays published in 1924,1932,1959]) passim; H. Schlier, "Vom Menschenbild des Neuen Testaments," in Der alte und der neue Mensch, ed. G. von Rad et al., BEvT 8 (Mtinchen: Kaiser Verlag, 1942) 24-36; id., Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1930) 27-37; Kasemann, Leib, 87-94; F. W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, BWANT 23 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1958) 156-64; and E. Brandenburger, "Alter und neuer Mensch, erster und letzter Adam-Anthropos," in Vom alten zum neuen Adam, ed. W. Strolz, WR 13 (Freiburg / Basel / Wien: Herder, 1986) 182-223.
134E.g., 135See 133R

Bultmann, Theology, 1:174, 251.

Jervell, Imago, 240-41; OBrien, Colossians, 189; and van der Horst, "Observations," 181-87. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ. A Study in Pauline Theology, BZNW 32 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1967) 52-54; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1972) 148-49; F. Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene der Schopfung. Untersuchungen zur Formalstruktur und Theologie des Kolosserbriefes (Wien: Herder Verlag, 1974) 152; R. Scroggs and K I. Groff, "Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ," JBL 92 (1973) 539-40; and van der Horst, "Observations," 182.
136R.

of the iicSw)/ evSixo verbs may be an allusion to the custom of putting off old garments and putting on new ones after emerging from the waters of baptism. However, this custom, which occurs later, was probably not practiced in the baptismal ceremonies of the early church. 137 Also, even in Pauline usage, there is nothing inherently "baptismal" about the clothing metaphor itself (cf. 1 Thess. 5:8; Rom. 13:12,14). Third, as noted above, the pervasive influence of Judaism on Paul causes one to look in that direction. Many interpreters counter the alleged influence of pagan ideas by an appeal to Jewish antecedents. Barth points out several possibilities: 1) Philo's doctrine on the creation of two men (one earthly, one spiritual);138 2) a wide variety of apocalyptic and early Jewish references to the first Adam;139 and 3) the "corporate solidarity" concept that underlies the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish references to Israel's patriarchs, the king, or the servant of the Lord.140 To this must be added references to Adam in Genesis 1-3 and Jewish proselyte language in rabbinic writings. In response, Philo's treatment of the ideal man and the earthly man as the source for Paul's antithesis between the "old" and the "new man" is unlikely since

137Evidence for this conclusion can be found in J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, SBT 15, 2nd series (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970) 109-10, esp. nl6. If Gospel of Thomas 37 contains an allusion to Christian baptismal practice as argued by J. Z. Smith, "The Garments of Shame," HR 5 (1965) 217-38, then this would be the earliest evidence, probably from the first half of the 2nd century AD. With respect to other later material that contains a reference to the practice, see A. F. J. Klijn, "An Ancient Syriac Baptismal Liturgy in the Syriac Acts of John," in XAPIZ KAI ZOMA, FS for K. H. Rengstorf, ed. U. Luck (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964) 216-28. 138E.g., 139For

Leg. All. 1.31-32, 53-55; 2.4; 3.104; Op., 134.

example, 4 Ezra 3:7-10, 21-26; 4:30-32; 7:11-14, 116-31; 8:44-45; 2 Enoch 3031; and 2 Bar. 54.14-19,115-19, although late 1st century, probably reflect ideas already current in Paul's time. See R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) 59-75, 97-111; and J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch, JSPSup (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), who presents a critique of previous studies of Adam as background for Pauline theology (14-23) and points out the diversity that characterized early Jewish interpretations of Adam.
140See

pp. 40-41 above; and Barth, Ephesians, 2:538 n200.

Philo does not use these terms and lacks a clear eschatological perspective. 141 Although Philonic and later Jewish texts show the influence of Gnostic thought patterns, the early Genesis narratives and extensive reflection on Adam and the fall in late Second Temple Judaism provide ample Jewish tradition prior to Paul's time.142 The treatment of Adam takes place within the broader framework of Jewish views on creation, the fall, and new creation. In Jewish thought, he is the archetypal individual who represents the whole human race, and, in creating him, God created the eschatological person as well.143 In some sources, Adam is often exalted and his attributes frequently cited as those that God intended human beings to possess now and those they will possess in the age to come.144 Considerable attention is also given to Adam's transgression and its effects on the human race. According to some strands of Jewish thinking, the salvation of the end time (Endzeit) would be the restoration of all that Adam and humanity through him had lost in his fall at the beginning (Urzeit)M5 The eschaton was pictured as the new creationthe reversal of the effects of the fall and the restoration of paradisein the Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 51:3; 4:2; Amos 9:12; Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25;

E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Paranese in Neuen Testament, WUNT 7 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964) 204; see Lohse, Colossians, 142 n60; and 0. Merk, Handeln aus Glauben: Die Motivierungen derpaulinischen Ethik, MThSt 5 (Marburg: Elwert, 1968) 206. Sir. 17:1-12; Wis. 2:23-24; 15:1-11; 4 Ezra 3:7-10, 21-26; 7:11; Jub. 3.17-31; 2 Bar. 17.3; 18.2; 48.42-43; 54.14-19; see further Levison, Portraits of Adam, 35-48, 123-24, 130-36.
143E.g., 142E.g.,

141Pace

4 Ezra 7:97,125; 2 Bar. 72.1-74.4; 1 Enoch 62.15-16; 85-90; T. Levi 18.4.

144E.g., Sir. 49:16 with 4 Ezra 7:95-97; 2 Enoch 30.11 with 1 Enoch 38.4; 39.7-9; 103.2-3; and 2 Bar. 15.8; 49.3, 51; 54.15, 19, 21. See Scroggs, The Last Adam, 23-30, 5460. li5Genesis Rabbah 12.6 lists six things lost to Adam that are to be restored in the world to come. Three of these refer to Adam himself: his glory, life, and stature. The other three are deprivations affecting the cosmos that will also be restored: the spontaneous reproduction of plants and trees, the brilliance of the luminaries, and peace between animals and people.

27:1; 24:21; 25:8; 26:19) and in early Judaism (e.g., 1 Enoch 4-5; 72:1; 91:16; 2 Bar. 32:6; 44:12; 1QS 4:23; 1QH 3:22; 11:12) as well as in early Christian eschatology (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:13).146 Some have also associated the clothing imagery with the restoration in the Jewish Urzeit-eqaals-Endzeit scheme mentioned above.147 Nils Dahl points out that the positive correlation of protology (JJrzeit) and eschatology (Endzeit) was as much a feature of Jewish eschatology as the contrast between this age and the age to come, and it was also a firm position within the common tradition of the early church, the New Testament, and especially the Pauline epistles.148 This correlation is expressed in several themes such as the creation / new creation motif and the Adam / Christ typology, but the common thought running throughout all these discussions is the idea that "the end will bring the final realization of what, from the beginning, was the will of God, the Creator, who is himself the first and the last (Isa. xliv.6, xlviii.12; Rev. i.8, xxi.6, etc.)."149 However, none of this was expressed by an "old man / new man" motif. Though many of the Urzeit IEndzeit themes appear in both Jewish and Christian eschatology, there is a shift of focus and a sharp difference of emphasis in the latter. The superiority of the new creation is emphasized more in the New Testament (especially by Paul) than is usual in Judaism because of Jesus, the crucified, risen Messiah. Paul does not speak of the glory of Adam before the Fall, but of Christ, the "last Adam," and the glory of the new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:27;

146See W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 36-57; Scroggs, The Last Adam, 3258, 70; D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 280-84; and N. Dahl, "Christ, Creation and the Church," in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956) 422-43.

A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983) 155,188; id., "Image of Androgyne," HR 13 (1974) 165-208, esp. 207-08.
148Dahl, 149Ibid.,

147W.

"Christ, Creation and the Church," 423, with supporting references. 429.

6:15). Nevertheless, this correlation provides for several applications of the creation pattern to God's dealings with humankind in redemptive history that are useful to our study. Another area of potential influence can be found in Jewish proselyte language. Erik Sjoberg has gathered material from Jewish rabbinic texts that speak of a Gentile proselyte as "created anew" and of Israel herself as "created into a new being."150 The idea of creating a Gentile anew and making him/her a proselyte may have been known in pre-Christian, Hellenistic Judaism as shown by the conversion experience of Aseneth. On becoming a proselyte, she was told by a heavenly messenger: "Behold, from today, you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again "151 A common rabbinic teaching declared that when a Gentile became a

proselyte, he experienced a radical change from a condition of unholiness to one of holiness.152 Such a proselyte was not only compared to one newly created but also to a newborn child, and as such he was considered to have no previous existence.153 This indicates that a proselyte's former relationships have ceased and that his sins have been forgiven. Thus, a whole new life begins for a Gentile converted to Judaism. He / she enters a completely new legal, social, and religious situation. For him / her, there is a new beginning. The former things are no longer taken into account. Indeed, there are

Sjoberg, "Wiedergeburt und Neuschopfung im palastinensischen Judentum," StTh 4 (1950) 44-85, esp. 45-61. For example: Gen. Rab. 39.14; Ex. Rab. 15.6; Lev. Rab. 30.3; Num. Rab. 11.2 (about Abraham); Cant. Rab. 1.3.3, 8.1-5 (about Israel); and Midr. Ps. 18.1. and Aseneth 15.5 (4), cf. also 8.9-11, 27.10. The date and origin of this Hellenistic Jewish romance is disputed, but most scholars believe it originated in Egypt between 100 BC and AD 115; see C. Burchard, "Joseph and Aseneth" in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985) 1878-88. Cf. also Cant. Rab. 8.1-2.
152See 153See 161Joseph

150E.

6. Yeb. 11a, 42a, 98a; b. Ket. 4.3; and b. Sanh. 57b, 58a.

b. Yeb. 22a, 23a, 48b, 62a; 6. Bek. 47a; and H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentarzum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch [Str-B], ed. J. Jeremias, 6 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-61) 2:423.

some striking analogies to Christian conversion that may have influenced Paul's thinking. Nevertheless, analogy is not necessarily origin. The "old man / new man" motif does not appear, and Paul's understanding, if not totally different, is at least distinctive in this religio-cultural milieu. 1.3.4 Conclusion There is no mention of the "old man / new man" metaphor in Hellenistic or Jewish texts prior to Paul. However, if we accept the above assessment, the Hebrew Scriptures and a Jewish milieu provide the best conceptual background for the "old man /new man" motif in Paul's thought. At this point it appears that he draws on the Adam / Christ typology and its corporate associations within his distinctive eschatological framework to formulate the "old man / new man" terminology. Then he takes up a common clothing metaphor representing a change of condition and character and attaches these two objects from his own thinking in order to capture in summary fashion some central ideas in his theology. If so, this motif may well be an original formulation that Paul contributed to Christian thought. Now we are prepared to survey various views on the referential meaning of this Pauline language and motif. 1.4 Views on the Meaning of the "Old Man / New Man" Various attempts have been made to explain the meaning and function of this double Pauline metaphor. Translators who retain the noun "man" in their translation reflect the Greek text more literally than those who render dvOpcoTros" hy an abstract term such as "nature," "self," "being," "humanity," or "way of living / life."154 Literal translations alone, however, give little help in understanding the meaning of

translations give the phrase d na\aid? dvQparros and its counterpart 6 mivbsl vio? &v6p<>mos an interpretive rendering such as: "old nature / new nature" (RSV, NEB in Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22, 24); "the man we once were / new humanity" (NEB in Rom. 6:6 and Eph. 2:15 respectively); "old self/ new self (NJB, NAS, NRSV, NIV); "sinful / renewed being" (Jeremias, TDNT, 1:365); and "old way of living/ new life" (Phillips). The KJV and ASV have the literal rendering "old man / new man."

154Many

the "old" and the "new man." The difficulty of this task is illustrated by the array of defining terms and the diversity of views among scholars. Barth summarizes the various views under three headings: the individual view, the corporate view, and the representative view. 155 The representative view, which Barth prefers, turns out to be a defining element of the corporate view, so it will not be considered separately.15' We shall use the first two categories as a convenient taxonomy for our discussion, bearing in mind that they are not mutually exclusive. 1.4.1 The Individual View Interpreters who hold this view treat the terms "old man" and "new man" as a reference to the life experience of each individual person. They maintain that every person has to put off his own "old man" and to put on his own "new man." Within this group of interpreters, however, there are two main explanations of these terms. 1.4.1.1 The Old Nature Versus the New Nature. Some interpreters in this group understand the contrast between the "old" and the "new man" as a conflict within the believer between the "old nature" derived from Adam and the "new nature" derived from Christ.157 In this view, the terms refer to distinguishable moral

155Barth, 156Barth,

Ephesians, 2:537-40.

Ephesians, 2:539, states his preference for the representative person view because it "includes the former two and gives them proper edge and depth." For him, the "old man" and "new man" denote Adam and Christ respectively and each one rules over the people connected to them determining their attitudes and actions. He claims that the christological understanding of the term "new man" in Eph. 4:24 is supported by the use of the term "man" elsewhere in Ephesians with specific relation to Christ (cf. 2:15; 3:16-17; 4:13) as well as the "put on / put off' metaphor with Christ as the object in Gal. 3:27 and Rom. 13:14. However, these texts involve issues that militate against viewing the "new man" as Christ Himself as we shall see.
157Some form of this view has been held in various Christian circles since the time of the Reformation. Some, among others, who hold this view are: M. Luther, Lectures on Romans, trans, and ed. W. Pauck, LCC (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961) 15:182; id., Luther's Works, eds. J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehman (Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press, 1958) 26:352, where he says, "by propagation from Adam we have acquired this garment, that is, this corrupt and sinful nature, which Paul calls 'the old man;"* J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. R. Mackenzie, eds. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids:

components in the Christian, hence a coexistence of "two natures," the "old" and the "new" nature. Accordingly, in Romans 6:6, the "old man" is judged and his power is "rendered inoperative" at one's conversion, but he remains active. He does not cease to exist. Thus the "old man" is a metaphor for the corrupt, sinful nature variously described as: the rebel within, the sinful disposition, indwelling sin, the inborn tendency to evil, the propensity to sin, the sin principle, the sin nature, the old Adamic nature, or even the "flesh." The "old man" is in conflict with the "new man," a metaphor for the (sinless) nature implanted in (added to) the Christian at conversion, which is described as: the new nature, the spiritual nature, or, the "inner man of the heart." When a believer sins, he is acting out of the old nature / man, which he still retains; when he does what is good, he is acting out of the new nature / man, which he has received. The moral struggle of the Christian life, in this view, is the struggle between these two natures within the believer's being. The "put off/put on" constructions in Colossians 3:9-10 and especially Ephesians 4:22-24 are usually taken as imperative in force. They call for an ethical response and thus are a reference to progressive renewal in the Christian that involves a continual "putting off of the old man" and a "putting on of the new man." Thus, the "old man" and the "new man" coexist, that is, the believer is understood to be partly an "old" and partly a "new man" at the same time, and this antithesis is functionally equivalent to what Paul refers to elsewhere as the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16-17). Many of these interpreters believe that the conflict between the old and the new nature / man is the ongoing Christian conflict with sin that is not fully and finally Eerdmans, 1976) at Rom. 6:6; id., Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles, LCC (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) 1:603; J. Owen, in The Works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Goold, 16 vols, (reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1965) 3:222, "This 'old man' is the corruption of our nature;" C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950 [1886]) 197; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (reprint of 9th ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959) 209, who says that each believer has in himself a two-fold moral potentialitythe "old man" and the "new man;" and L. S. Chafer, He That Is Spiritual (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 [l924]) 113-14,144-45.

resolved until the end of a Christian's earthly existence. Thus, the "putting off of the old man" and the "putting on of the new man" is the lifelong, gradual process of progressive sanctification.158 Some within this "two natures" view affirm the ongoing total corruption of the "old man / nature" but, at the same time, the present perfection of the "new man / nature." 159 Others, however, believe that this conflict is only the initial Christian conflict with sin until the sin principle within is eradicated and the "old man" is finally crucified at the time the Christian achieves a state of complete sanctification.160 1.4.1.2 The Old Self and the New Self. The interpreters in this group understand the contrast between the "old" and the "new man" as a reference to an individual before and after conversion respectively, that is, the person "in Adam" in contrast to the person "in Christ." In this view, the terms refer to the whole person under the lordship of sin through Adam or under the lordship of grace through Christ. The "old man" is a metaphor for one's pre-conversion identity and status, and the "new man" is a metaphor for the Christian's post-conversion identity and status. These interpreters hold that in Romans 6:6 Paul declares that the "old man" (i.e., the person enslaved to sin) was put to death with Christ with the result that he or she is no longer a slave to sin. Presumably, by contrast, the "new man" is

Bavinck, Magnolia Dei, 2nd ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1931) 474-75; id., Our Reasonable Faith, trans. H. Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 492-93; A. A. Hoekema, "The Struggle Between Old and New Natures in the Converted Man," BETS 5 (1962) 42-50, who later changed his view; and W. Hendriksen, Exposition ofEphesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967) 213-14.
159J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934) 388, states: "The believer is perfectly holy in so far as he is a new man." Also: "When a true believer sins, it is not his regenerated self or the new man in him that sins, but his Old Adam, his corrupt flesh" (399). See also Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 148.

158H.

Carradine, The Old Man (Chicago: The Christian Witness Company, 1965 [1896]) 118-22; H. 0. Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City: The Nazarene Publishing House, 1940) 2:481-83, "The 'old man' must be kept on the cross until he dies; and when sin expires, in that moment the soul is entirely sanctified and lives the full life of perfect love" (483); this view is mentioned but not held by W. Taylor, "The Epistle to the Ephesians," in Beacon Bible Commentary, ed. A. F. Harper (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965) 9:218-21, "the 'old man1 is the carnal mind, which is removed in the experience of entire sanctification" (220).

160B.

the whole person under the lordship of Christ. This is the basis for and the ruling principle of the believer's life-conduct. The transfer from "old" to "new" is usually said to have occurred at the time of faith / baptism (conversion).161 In the ethical texts of Colossians 3 and Ephesians 4, however, the contrast between the "old" and "new man" is understood in two distinct ways. First, many interpreters in this group take at least one (Eph. 4:22-24) or both of these passages (Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:2224) as imperative in force. They see Paul urging his readers to bring their daily conduct into correspondence with their conversion-initiation position by exhorting them to "put off the old man" and "put on the new man." In this way the terms are applied to the Christian's ethical situation such that he is to turn from the old, pre-conversion life of sin and error to the new, postconversion life of righteousness and truth (e.g., Eph. 4:22-24). Consequently, there is a shift from a conversion-initiation (baptismal) use of the term "old man" in Romans 6:6 to an ethical use in Colossians 3 and especially Ephesians 4. In these "ethical" passages Paul is said to be urging his believing readers to displace the conduct (vices) of the "old man" with the conduct (virtues) of the "new man." The dual metaphor, then, encompasses both the "once / now" transfer of conversion and the "already / not yet" tension of Christian existence.162

161J. Jeremias, TDNT, 1:365-66, states that the "old man" denotes "the sinful being of the unconverted man" and the "new man" denotes "the renewed being of the convert to Christ" (365). Some interpreters use regeneration language, viz., "the unregenerate and regenerate man," to express this antithesis (cf. Bruce, Epistles, 146-47 n83).

among others, who take this position are: H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. C. Moore, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881) 1:288; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 158; J. A. Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1909) 108-11; B. Rey, "L'homme nouveau d'apres S. Paul. ExSgese de Rom. 6,4-11; Col. 3,5-15; Ep. 2,11-22; Ep. 4,22-24," RSPR 48:4 (1964) 603-29; 49:2 (1965) 161-95; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 1:309; Lohse, Colossians, 141; Lincoln, Ephesians, 285; D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 372-75. Both Lincoln (Ephesians, 285, 291) and Moo (Romans, 374) et al. take Col. 3:9-10 as indicative in force but Eph. 4:22-24 as imperative in force.

162Some,

Second, some interpreters in this group take both "ethical" passages as indicative in force. They maintain that Paul is not exhorting believers to "put off the old man" and "put on the new man," but rather, he urges them to stop committing various sins because they have already "put off the old man" and have already "put on the new man." "Putting off the old man" is neither a gradual, continuous process nor a present duty, it is an accomplished reality of salvation. At the individual level, faith / baptism is the dividing line between the "old man" (unregenerate person) and the "new man" (regenerate person). Though there is continuity of person since the one who "put off the old man" and "put on the new man" is the same individual, the emphasis is on discontinuitya radical change of theological status and identity in which the "new man" replaces the "old man." The dual metaphor, then, applies only to the "once / now" transfer of conversion.163 Consequently, it is unwarranted to speak of the believer as having within him / her both the "old" and the "new man" at the same time, or, of his / her being both the "old" and the "new man" at the same time. To describe it another way, the "old man" was the believer in his / her preconversion mode of existencea person who was constantly deceived by the desires of the flesh and was in the process of being corrupted. He / she was in the state of being "dead in sin" and "without God." The "new man" is the same person in his/her new post-conversion mode of existencethe believer who lives on the basis of the gospel and is being renewed in the image of Christ. He / she is in the state of being "dead to sin" and "alive to God." In this way, the terms apply both to a state of existence and to the way of life within that state.164
163Some, among others, who take this position are: Abbott, Ephesians, 136, 284; J. Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 202-28; id., The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 1:219-20; Best, One Body In Christ, 67-68; van Roon, Authenticity

ofEphesians, 325-49; D. M. Lloyd- Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6, The New Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 62, "The 'old man' is the man I used to be in Adam.... It is the man I once was, but which I am no longer." further, van Roon, Authenticity ofEphesians, 336-40; Kasemann, "On Paul's Anthropology," 1-31, "Thus baptism marks the death of the old man and the miraculous beginning
164See

1.4.2 The Corporate View The interpreters who hold this view maintain that the "old man" is a designation for sinful humanity as a whole (old humanity) and the "new man" is a designation for redeemed humanity as a whole, that is, the Church, the Body of Christ as the expression of the new creation (new humanity).165 In effect, there is only one "old man" and one "new man," each a collective entity. The death and resurrection of Christ in redemptive history mark the dividing line between the "old" and the "new." In this event the new creation dawns, representing the beginning of a new order of life for humankind. The term "man" is considered appropriate because it can be used generically and collectively, meaning "humanity" (see p. 42 above). This view arises out of the Adam-Christ typology (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22,4549) in that the "old man" refers to sinful humanity in solidarity with Adam and the "new man" refers to redeemed humanity in solidarity with Christ (see pp. 40-41 above). It is reinforced by the expression "one new man" in Ephesians 2:15, which is viewed as a designation for the Church, the corporate Body of Christ. Elsewhere in Ephesians the descriptions of the Church as "one body" (2:16), a "mature man" (4:13), and "the bride of Christ" (5:22-33) appear to uphold a corporate view. In support of this view, Hermann Ridderbos argues that the contrast between the "old man" and "new man" is not to be understood primarily and only as a of a new life under the banner of the resurrection" (8);"... the old man truly and radically dies; the new man is therefore not to be understood as something like a metamorphosis of the old" (10). among others, who hold some form of this view are: C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 3rd ed., CGTSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 119; Barrett, From First Adam to Last, 92-99, who says the "old man / new man" terms are applied primarily to the individual Christian, but they also point to the new community"man" is a historical and individual term for Paul, but it is also an eschatological and collective term; id., Romans, 125, "'The old man' is Adam or rather ourselves in union with Adam and 'the new man' is Christ, or rather, ourselves in union with Christ;" Barth, Ephesians, 2:539, who relates the "old man" and "new man" more directly to Adam and Christ respectively (see footnote 156 above); Ridderbos, Paul, 62-64, 205-14, 224, who also acknowledges the personal application of this to the individual at conversion; Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 2430,48-54; and O'Brien, Colossians, 189-93.
165Some,

change that comes about through faith / baptism in the life of the individual Christian, but it is a change that took place once in history with the death and resurrection of Christ. It has affected Christians in their existence because their "old man" was crucified with Christ on Golgotha (Rom. 6:6). In His death and resurrection believers have been "transferred to the new order of lifethe life order of the new creation, the new man."166 At the same time, according to Ridderbos, the "put off/ put on" imagery in Colossians 3:9-10 and Ephesians 4:22-24 refers to the transition that came about in the life history of the individual believer by faith / baptism. Yet even here, these terms retain a supra-individual significance because in faith / baptism believers apply to themselves that which has already taken place in Christ. In faith / baptism they bid farewell to the old mode of existence ("old man") and become incorporated into the new mode of existence, the Church, which Christ has created in Himself as "one new man" (Eph. 2:15).167 1.4.3 Summary The classification of views concerning the "old man" and the "new man" given above presents the various ways in which scholars have understood these metaphors in the Pauline corpus. Some explain them in individual salvation-historical terms; consequently they are applicable to every human being subject to certain conditions. Some see them as metaphors related to the "once / now" conversion transfer only, while others view them as encompassing both the "once / now" and the "already / not yet" of Christian existence. Still others emphasize a corporate redemptive-historical dimension; consequently there is only one "old man" and one "new man," each a collective entity linked to Adam and Christ respectively. Some even equate the "old

166Ridderbos,

Paul, 63, 208; also note Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 25-30, 46-54. 167Ibid.,

Paul, 223-24.

man" with Adam and the "new man" with Christ directly. At any rate, there is a corporate structure involved for both the "old" and the "new man." In light of these options and the integrative nature of Paul's theology, it is not surprising that some scholars understand this double Pauline metaphor in a multidimensional sense that is contextually defined. Thus they subscribe to a combination of the views presented above without being confined to any one line of interpretation.168 Nevertheless, this classification of views provides a useful point of departure for a detailed investigation of the Pauline passages where these terms appear. This leads us, in a final section, to identify the key issues that will guide our investigation and to state our method of approach. 1.5 Key Questions and Method of Approach This study proposes to deal with the meaning and function of the "old man / new man" metaphor as a motif in Paul's theology. The contributions of the various perspectives and viewpoints presented above may now be gathered together in the form of three major questions that set forth the rationale for this study and form its agenda. 1.5.1 Key Questions First, what is the meaning of the Pauline double metaphor "old man / new man"? To elaborate, is the referent for each a distinctive component of human nature, a representative figure, a corporate community of people, an individual person, or a combination of these referents? Is the metaphor applied in only one way

example, for some, the "new man" is the Church in Eph. 2:15 and the individual person in Christ in Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10: Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 115; Barrett, From First Adam to Last, 92-99; O'Brien, Colossians, 189; and Lincoln, Ephesians, 283-289. For others, the "new man" refers to Christ, the Church, and the believing individualall three: Caird, Paul's Letters, 206; Bruce, Epistles, 147 n83, 299-300, 359; and Dahl, "Christ, Creation, and the Church," 436, where he states: "the new man is not simply the converted individual, but an eschatological entity, personal, corporate and pneumatic, nearly identical with Christ himself."

168For

throughout the Pauline corpus, or, is it applied in various ways depending on the context? Does it operate within an individual or a corporate structure? Second, do the "old man" and the "new man" coexist at both the individual and the corporate level? To elaborate, does the "old man" continue to exist, or does he come to an end at a point in time? If the former, what is the relationship between the "old man" and the "new man"? If the latter, when does the transfer from "old man" to "new man" take place? Is it a singular, one-time event, or, is it a gradual process? Third, what was Paul's purpose in using this double metaphor? To elaborate, does it function as doctrinal affirmation (the indicative) or practical exhortation (the imperative) or both? Does it apply only to Paul's "once / now" construct or does it encompass both the "once / now" and the "already / not yet" structure of his theology? Does it serve more than one purpose for Paul at the same time? 1.5.2 Method of Approach The above questions can only be answered satisfactorily after a thorough investigation of both the context and the content of the four passages in which Paul uses this double metaphor (see pp. 3-4 above). Thus the method of approach for this study is a detailed exegetical treatment of these passages. Then, in light of the results, we will set forth answers to these questions in the final chapter. The order in which we will consider the Pauline texts is complicated by two factors: 1) the chronology of Paul's letters, and 2) the scope of the metaphor, namely, the "old man" in Romans 6:6; the "new man" in Ephesians 2:15; and both the "old man" and "new man" in Colossians 3:9-10 and Ephesians 4:22-24. The conclusions of this present study do not depend on any particular chronological theory or any hypothesis about the development of Paul's thought.169 The problem of the
169Though we do not see signs of major theological development in Paul's thought, there certainly are differences in the way in which he expressed himself in different circumstances. Yet behind varying formulations there is a basic consistency of theological thinking. The variations are viewed as developments in presentation and argument.

sequence of Paul's letters is a complex one, but we maintain that Romans precedes the other two and consider it likely that Colossians precedes Ephesians but both come at roughly the same time from his Roman imprisonment near the end of his life.170 The order in which we will discuss the texts, however, is topical based on the single reference to the "old man" in Romans 6:6, the "new man" in Ephesians 2:15, and both together with the clothing metaphor "put off/ put on" in Colossians 3:9-10 and Ephesians 4:22-24. In addition to the exegetical analysis of the "old man / new man" passages, this study also seeks to relate these terms to Paul's anthropology and to his redemptivehistorical, eschatological perspective. Most scholars recognize the fact that there is a tension between the present and the future in Paul's eschatology, but there is less agreement about the precise nature of it. These elements have often been investigated in studies of various motifs, but, to our knowledge, no single, full-scale study has been undertaken from the perspective of the "old man / new man" motif with a view to answering the questions stated above. This is the intended contribution of the following study. Some of the questions we have raised have an important bearing on wider issues in the interpretation of Paul's theology. The targeted passages and the "old man / new man" metaphor have played an important role in various attempts to describe the basis and nature of Paul's teaching on sanctification and spirituality. Thus in the course of our discussion, we will attempt to shed some light on the following points: 1) the relationship between the redemptive-historical, corporate emphasis and the personal, individual emphasis in Paul's pastorally-applied theology; 2) the relationship between the "old man /new man" and other anthropological antitheses mentioned at the outset of this chapter (p. 4); 3) the relationship between

170For

discussion and support of this view, see p. 6 nil and pp. 20-21 above.

the "old man" and the "flesh" in the life of the Christian; and 4) the relationship between the "indicative" and the "imperative" and their function in Pauline ethics. These issues will be addressed at the conclusion of our study in the final chapter. In light of these defining features, our thesis will proceed along the following lines. Chapter two will investigate the crucifixion of "our old man" with Christ in Romans 6:6. Chapter three will discuss the creation of the "one new man" by Christ in Ephesians 2:15. Chapter four will deal with the formulations, "put off the old man" and "put on the new man" in Colossians 3:9-11 and chapter five will examine the same formulations in Ephesians 4:22-24. On the basis of these investigations, chapter six will summarize and draw some conclusions about the meaning, function and significance of the "old man" and the "new man" in Pauline theology.

CHAPTER 2 ROMANS 6:6 OUR OLD MAN CRUCIFIED The words "our old man was crucified with [Christ]" occur in Romans 6:6. This is the first occurrence chronologically and a primary reference theologically to the "old man" in the corpus Paulinum. It is also the only text in this literature to mention the "old man" without its counterpart, the "new man." For these reasons, an exegetical examination of this text in its context is important to our study. This chapter will proceed with an overview of the historical setting of Romans (2.1) and the literary context of Romans 6 (2.2), a discussion of the structural form of Romans 6:1-14 (2.3), an exegesis of relevant elements in Romans 6:1-14, especially 6:1-7 (2.4), and some concluding observations on the "old man" (2.5). 2.1 Historical Setting of Romans Paul wrote a letter to the Christians in Rome at an important transition point in his missionary career. For nearly 25 years he had planted and nurtured churches in the eastern Mediterranean region (15:15-21, 23). Now he was planning a journey westward into Spain by way of Rome for further missionary labor (15:22-24, 28). In his letter, he explained and defended the gospel he preached to a Gentile (majority) and Jewish (minority) Christian community.1 He had neither founded nor visited this church (1:1113; 15:22-23), but he hoped it would support him in his

contains evidence that Paul addressed both Jewish (e.g., 2:17-3:8; 3:19-20, 27-31; 4:1, 11-15; 5:13-14, 20; 6:14; 7:1-25; 8:2-4; chs. 9-11; 14:1-6; 16:3, 7, 11) and Gentile (e.g., 1:5-6,13-15; 11:13-32; 15:1-2, 7-12) Christians. Consequently, a majority of scholars believe his audience in Rome was a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians with the latter in the majority. See J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 18, Romans 9-16, 2 vols., WBC 38A, 38B (Dallas: Word Books, 1988) l:xlv-liv; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993) 25-36, esp. 32-33; and D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 9-13. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79) 1:17-21, acknowledges both groups but does not wish to estimate their relative proportion in number or influence.

1Romans

missionary work in the western Mediterranean region (15:24,28-29). To accomplish this purpose, among others, he wrote a letter containing substantial theological content and logical structure. 2 Bracketed by a personal epistolary opening (1:1-15) and closing (15:14-16:27)3 that relate the letter to the Christian community in Rome, the main body (1:16-15:13) is a "treatise" on Paul's gospel. It contains a sustained series of arguments expounding the gospel and addressing important theological issues facing Christianity in the middle of the first century AD. In light of this, Romans could be called a tractate letter; however, it is not a historically isolated treatise nor a comprehensive summary of Paul's theology. 2.2 Literary Context of Romans 6 2.2.1 The Wider Context: Romans 1-8 After introducing himself and announcing his plans to bring the gospel to Rome (1:115), Paul stated his theme in 1:16-17. He expressed his full confidence in the gospel because it mediates "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes," both Jew and Gentile alike (1:16). The gospel has such power because it reveals "the righteousness of God," namely, His saving activity in Jesus Christ, and all who respond to it in faith are put "right" (justified) before God and live under His favor (1:17).4
2Paul's purpose in writing is one of the most debated questions in the critical study of Romans. Because he says little on the subject directly (cf. 15:15), many different answers have been given. On this issue, see the survey of views in L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 7-18; the essays collected in K. P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); A. J. M. Wedderbum, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); and, with some critique of Wedderbum, A. J. Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition. The Purpose, Genre, and Audience of Paul's Letter, SNTSMS 81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 40-41,170-79. At the very least, one can say that Paul had missionary, pastoral, and theological reasons for writing Romans.

recent commentators believe there are good grounds for concluding that ch. 16 (minus w. 25-27 for some) was part of Paul's letter to Rome. For a review of the arguments and additional references, see Cranfield, Romans, 1:9-11; Fitzmyer, Romans, 55-67; and Moo, Romans, 5-9. theme of "righteousness" in Paul, expressed by SiKaioavvn and its cognates, has generated considerable discussion in recent years; see, e.g., M. T. Brauch, "Perspectives on 'God's
4The

3Most

The righteousness of God by faith is the theme of the first major section of the letter, 1:18-4:25. To explain why it was necessary for God to manifest His righteousness and why all people, Jew and Gentile alike, can experience it only by faith, Paul declared that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, have rebelled against God, turned away from Him, and are bound by the enslaving power of sin (3:9). They are unable of themselves to do anything to escape God's impartial judgment and gain a right relationship with Him (1:18-3:20). As Paul saw it, only God can change this situation, and this He has graciously done by making available through the sacrificial death of His Son the means of becoming righteous before God. This enables Him to redeem people from their dilemma, to put them in a right relationship with Him, and to do this without violating His own justice (3:21-26). Again, Paul stressed that this justification can only be obtained by faith for Jew and Gentile alike (3:27-31), as illustrated clearly in the life of Abraham (4:1-25). Justification brings about for the believer a new status before God and, at the same time, a new kind of existence. But what is the nature of this new status? What implications does it have for the present lives of believers and their future? Paul addressed these questions next. Traditionally, scholars have viewed chapter 5 as the conclusion to Paul's discussion of righteousness by faith in chapters 1-4.5 However, in recent years, with persuasive exegetical arguments, many have been inclined to place chapter 5 with Righteousness* in Recent German Discussion," in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 523-42; M. C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, JSNTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 149-56, where he summarizes and evaluates the BultmannKasemann debate about the meaning of righteousness in Paul; Moo, Romans, 79-90; and Wedderburn, Reasons, 122-23, who correctly emphasizes that the term "righteousness (of God)" has a "field of meaning" that embraces distinct aspects for Paul. ^The best recent treatments defending this structure can be found in U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, 3 vols., EKKNT (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag and Zurich: Benziger, 1978-82) 1:181-82, 286-87; 2:3-5; M. Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukunftiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu Rom 5,1-11, BZNW 43 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978) 207-16; and Dunn, Romans, 1:24244. See also J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965) 1:211-12; and Morris, Romans, 243 nl. Some argue for a major transition at 5:12; see F. J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. H. Knight, CNT 6 (London: Lutterworth, 1960,131; and A. Feuillet, "Le regne de la mort et le reene de la vie (Rom V, 1221)," 6 RB 77 (1970) 481-521.

chapters 6-8 as part of Paul's presentation of present Christian existence and future hope.6 In chapters 5-8, then, he deals with the new situation that has come about for all those justified by grace through faith. Being justified means "peace with God" now and a secure hope for final salvation in the future (5:1-11). This hope is grounded in the believer's solidarity with Christ who has undone the effects of Adam's sin and won eternal life for all who belong to Him (5:12-21). Christ has set believers free from the power of sin and, although they still must battle against its attacks, sin is no longer their master (6:1-14). God is their new master to whom they must present themselves for conduct pleasing to Him (6:15-23). Similarly, the Mosaic Law, which cannot conquer sin, no longer has controlling power over them (7:1-25). Through the agency of God's Spirit who makes them God's children, Christians are assured of final victory over the power of death (8:1-17). The same Spirit assures them that God's purposes, already worked out in justification, will be brought to a triumphant conclusion in future glory (8:18-39). 2.2.2 The Immediate Context: Romans 5 Chapter 5 plays a crucial role in the argument leading up to chapter 6. In 5:111 Paul celebrated the soteriological benefits given to those who have been justified. He emphasized two of them: "peace with God" or reconciliation to God now (5:l-2a, 11), and the sure hope of final salvation in spite of present sufferings based on God's love revealed in Christ's death for sinners (5:2b-10). Three things are of particular interest here: 1) for the Christian, the present reality of "peace with God"

best recent treatments defending this structure can be found in Cranfield, Romans, 1:252-54; Fitzmyer, Romans, 96-102; and Moo, Romans, 290-95. See also O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, KEKNT (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 129; and E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, trans, and ed. G. Bromiley, HNT8a (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 131, 159. Some argue that ch. 5 should be viewed as a transitional "bridging" chapter: B. N. Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans with Special
Reference to Chapter 6 (Austin, TX: Schola Press, 1979) 1-13; Sanders, Paul, 486-87; J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 64-69, 83-86, esp. 85; and de Boer, Defeat of Death, 148-49.

6The

in the realm of grace,7 and the hope of sharing the future glory of God is based on the past reality of justification by faith (5:l-2);8 2) Jesus Christ, sent by God, died for Christians while they were still sinners and alienated from God, thus demonstrating the magnitude and reliability of God's love undergirding their hope (5:5-8); and 3) the parallel TTOWUJ p.aXkov arguments (5:9,10)9 show the unbreakable connection between the Christian's present status (already "justified" / "reconciled") and his / her future destiny yet to come ("shall be saved"). The soteriological "now" (vvv, w. 9,11) situation as part of Paul's "already-not yet" eschatological tension forms the basis of what it means to have new life and prepares the reader for the exposition of death and life to follow. In 5:12-21 Paul explains why those who have been justified / reconciled already can be certain that they will be saved from final wrath (eternal death) and share in God's glory forever (eternal life). To accomplish this he used the Adam / Christ typology to show that there is "a life-giving union between Christ and His own that is similar to, but more powerful than, the death-producing union between Adam and all his own."10 It is Christ's death and resurrection that guarantee eternal life for
7In 5:2 xP^ is used to denote the state or realm into (els') which God through Christ transfers believers who were once in the realm of wrath as enemies of God (5:10). It is the realm (domain) "in which {.tv j?) we have taken our stand" (pf., eo-nJKanev, 5:2), in which "grace reigns" (5:21), and one that stands in contrast to the realm of Law such that believers are not "under the law" but "under grace" (6:14-15). This realm, where grace (i.e., God's work in Christ) rules, encompasses all that God conveys to believers through Christ, including, but not limited to, justification (pace Cranfield, Romans, 1:259, and Murray, Romans, 1:160-61).

aorist participle Simiudtvres' (5:1) is understood to have causal force: "since we have been justified by faith;" see D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 662, 631-32. words TTOAAW pateou (5:9,10,15,17) reflect the common rabbinic "TOTTO bp style of argument by which the point to be established is based on another already accepted or accomplished point that makes the conclusion all the more certain. Here the argument moves a minori ad maius in which the already accomplished and accepted action (justification / reconciliation) is mentioned first, from which the conclusion (final salvation) is evident a fortiori (cf. Wolter, Rechtfertigung, 179-80).
10Moo, Romans, 318. Most interpreters agree that TOVTO (5:12) is retrospective and the phrase 8ia TOVTO introduces 5:12-21 as a conclusion to something in the preceding context such as: 1) the whole argument from 1:18-5:11 (Dunn, Romans, 1:272); 2) the benefits won for the believer 9The

8The

all those who receive the gift of righteousness (5:17). The argument of the paragraph begins with a comparison (dkruep, v. 12) introducing the key similarity between Adam and Christ that is not completed until later in the passage because Paul expands on the protasis of the comparison (5:12) in preparation for the apodosis (5:18). In verses 13-14 he reinforces the fact of universal sin and death, even in the absence of a written law-code to define sin as transgression between the time of Adam and Moses, the Lawgiver. At the end of verse 14 Paul declares that Adam is a type of "the One who was to come," namely, Christ (cf. Matt. 11:3), but before completing the comparison of verse 12, he presents the dissimilarity between Adam and Christ in a series of clauses (G5S* ... ovrcos-Kat...) that contrast their representative acts and the respective consequences in 5:15-17. The comparison begun in verse 12 is reintroduced in 5:18a ("Apa ovv&s...), completed in 5:18b {OVTW? ml...), and supported by further clarification in 5:19 (okruep ydp... OVTO&KCLI ...)." These verses highlight the key similarity between Adam and Christ: just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam, "the many" (all those belonging to him) were constituted12 sinners who are destined for condemnation and death; so also through the through Christ in 5:1-11 (Cranfield, Romans, 1:271; Kasemann, Romans, 146; de Boer, Defeat of Death, 145-46); 3) the reference to reconciliation in 5:10-11 (Morris, Romans, 228); or, 4) the assurance of final salvation in 5:9-11 (Moo, Romans, 316-18). The last view forges the clearest, most fitting link between the content of both 5:1-11 and 5:12-21 largely because 5:9-11 have brought Paul's whole argument from 1:16 onward to an effective climax. commentators and translators observe a break in the grammatical construction at the end of v. 12 and treat it as an anacolouthon with the original protasis reintroduced in v. 18a, completed with the proper apodosis in 18b, and both explained in v. 19 (cf. Cranfield, Romans, 1:272-73 for supporting arguments). On anacolouthon here, see F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans, and rev. of the 9th and 10th German edition by R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 459 [hereafter BDF]; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) 438. Pace C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 109-10, who sees no anacoluthon here and translates ml ounos" ("and so") in v. 12c as "so also." verb Ka6loT7)fii in this text has a real, though forensic, connotation of "make" or "appoint" (active), "be constituted" (passive), or, with a double accusative, "to make someone (to be) something" (cf. Jas. 3:6; 4:4; 2 Pet. 1:8). See A. Oepke, "mdlornni," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans, and ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) 3:444-46 [hereafter TDNT]; and W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W.
12The 11Most

obedience of one man, Christ, "the many" (all those belonging to Him) shall be constituted justified ones who are destined for righteousness and life. For Paul, people are actually "made" sinners in solidarity with Adam, and deservedly so because all commit sins; and people are actually "made" righteous in solidarity with Christ, but undeservedly so because His righteousness is freely and graciously given to those who receive it by faith (5:17). To round off the discussion, verse 20 introduces the role of the Mosaic Law in multiplying sin in redemptive history, and verse 21 brings the section to a conclusion with a comparison (dkrrrep... ovrcosr) emphasizing the surpassing power of God's grace over sin and death.13 Several items are of special interest here in setting the literary context for Romans 6. First, the emphasis on "the one man" (els' dvOpcoiros) and his effect on "all men" (people, TTavres dvdpcorroi) or "the many" (ol noAXoQ is striking in reference to both Adam and Christ.14 In each case the act of one determines the existence and destiny of "the many." On one side stands Adam, his disobedient act, and its consequences for all those in solidarity with him (5:12,15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a). On the other side stands Christ, His obedient act, and its consequences on all those in solidarity with Him (5:15b, 16b, 17b, 18b, 19b). In light of verse 14 in which Adam is said to be a type of the One who was to come (Jesus Christ, 5:15,17), these texts clearly show the division of humanity into two groups. Each is determined by its Gingrich, rev. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker (Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press, 1979) s.v. KaOCoTruu, 3 [hereafter BAGD]. a good summary of the structure of this passage, see G. Bornkamm, "Paulinische Anakoluthe in Romerbrief," in Das Ende des Gesetzes: Paulusstudien, BEvT 16 (Kaiser, 1952) 76-92, esp. 81-82. I. H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, JSNTSup 111 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 186-212, views this passage as a masterful chiasmus similar to the pattern proposed by de Boer, Defeat of Death, 158-62. With de Boer, he concludes that the broken construction of 5:12 is completed conceptually by 5:21b, emphasizing that "the reign of sin is superseded by the reign of grace through Siicaiocrivn resulting in eternal life" (212). connection of dvOpxonos'with, "the one" and "the many" relationship used here is even clearer in 1 Cor. 15:45-49 where Paul begins with a scriptural text (Gen. 2:7 LXX) that uses the term dvepuno? and then designates Adam as the first dydpojiros" and Christ as the last (eschatological) 'ASdji (representative man), ignoring all the men who came between them. Clearly, Adam and Christ are dvdpcmoi in a sense that other men are not because "the many" wear the "image" of the one or the other (w. 48-49).
14The 13For

solidarity with the two divinely-appointed, representative-corporate figures of Adam and Christ. Paul sees human beings as either belonging to Adam, "in Adam," or belonging to Christ, "in Christ."15 His perspective here is redemptive-historical, corporate, and disjunctive. Second, in spite of a consistent third person perspective and a corporate emphasis on "the many," Paul does not lose sight of the individuals who make up the sum total of each solidarity. On one hand, he makes it clear that every person without exception is "in Adam" (5:12-14,18a, 19a), although he also declares that every person sins knowingly and culpably (5:14,16, 20; cf. 3:23). On the other hand, he also makes it clear that only those who receive the gift of righteousness are "in Christ" (5:17b, i.e., those who believe, 1:16-17; 3:21-4:25; 5:1-2), although he maintains the parallelism with Adam by using universalist language to emphasize how certainly Christ has secured the benefits of righteousness and life for all who belong to Him.16 In fact, with the TTOMW jiaXXou constructions (5:15b, 17b; "it is all the more certain that"), he highlights the superiority of Christ over Adam and the eschatological triumph of the Christ-solidarity (5:17). Third, Paul portrays sin (fj djiaprla in the singular) and grace (fj xfy1?)as two antithetical personified powers that determine human existence and destiny in their respective realms. On one hand, sin plays an active ruling role: it "entered" into the world of humanity (5:12a), and through Adam "has established its rule" in the realm of death (5:21a). Similarly, death "entered" into the world through sin (5:12c), D. Hooker, "Interchange and Atonement," in From Adam to Christ: Essays On Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 26-41, states:".. . it is arguable that for Paul the idea of human solidarity is a vitally important factor in the substructure of his thought, more fundamental than all the images he uses; and that for him, man's redemption is seen primarily in terms of moving from the sphere of Adam to the sphere of Christ" (41). this point an exact parallel between Adam and Christ breaks down. Although Paul seems to hold the view that all people sinned when Adam sinned (cf. 5:12,18-19), he does not take the position that all people "obeyed" when Christ obeyed (cf. 5:17; 3:22, 26; 4:23-25; 5:1-2, 6-8) otherwise it would nullify the gracious, vicarious nature of Christ's death and the need for personal faith in response (cf. Kasemann, Romans, 165-66).
16At 15M.

and "came to rule" by the trespass of the one man, Adam (5:17a). In verse 12, Paul makes clear the causal connection between sin and death for every human being "no one ... escapes the reign of death because no one escapes the power of sin."17 On the other hand, God's grace in Christ is also active: it "abounded" unto "the many" connected with Him (5:15b), and "overwhelmed" sin wherever it flourished (5:20b) in order that it "might establish its rule" by way of righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (5:21b). For Paul, then, Adam and Christ have epoch-making significance. Using the imagery of reigning with its associations of power and sovereignty, Paul sees two "realms" or "dominions" founded by two divinely-appointed representative men (Adam and Christ), in which two contrasting sets of powers (sin /condemnation /law vs. grace / righteousness / Spirit) rule or exercise dominion over people, and whose outcome is two contrasting destinies (death / life). On the redemptive-historical level, Adam and his realm stand at the beginning of history, and Christ and His realm stand at its center, the point from which both past and future must be understood. In His coming (Gal. 4:4-5; 1:4), Christ inaugurated what is "new" and, thereby, rendered "old" all that is connected with Adam. From this perspective, we can speak in temporal categories and call Adam's realm the "old age" (alc6u) and Christ's realm the "new age" (,al(ou). Because of Adam's disobedience, sin / law / flesh / death determine and dominate human existence in the "old realm" leading to eternal death. By reason of their participation in Adam's sin, all people start out and continue in the "old realm" (5:12,18-19). Because of Christ's obedience, grace / righteousness / Spirit / life determine and dominate human existence in the "new realm" leading to eternal life. By reason of their participation with Christ, as we shall see in chapter 6, only

Romans, 323, summarizes various interpretations ofty'to in the last clause of v. 12 and, along with many modern interpreters, adopts a causal meaning, which coheres best with Paul's emphasis here. Fitzmyer, Romans, 413-17, says that a causal translation is not certain and argues for a consecutive sense meaning '"with the result that' all have sinned."

17Moo,

believers (5:1-2,17b, 18b) are transferred from the "old realm" of condemnation into the "new realm" of redemption. All this relates to the "old" and "new" in the "old man / new man" metaphor. The contrast of the two realms connected with Adam and Christ is basic to Paul's discussion in Romans 6 because it enables him to develop the christological and soteriological foundation of the new realm. To do this, he refers explicitly to the death and resurrection of Christ and makes clear that they are events that include other people. Thus, he takes up the theme of the believer's dying and rising with Christ and applies it first to the important issue of the Christian's relationship to sin, the ruling power of the "old realm." Romans 6:6 is of particular importance because it makes this relationship clear. We now turn to this text in the context of Romans 6:1-14. 2.3 Structural Form of Romans 6:1-14 Before observing the structure of this text, we must first establish its limits. Does this pericope close at 6:11 or 6:14? Some interpreters argue that verses 12-14 open a new section by the use of imperatives that develop the premise given in 6:1-11.18 Also, the similarity between verses 13 and 19 ties verses 12-14 to verses 15-23. However, the imperative verb forms of 6:12-13 do not serve as the signal for the opening of a new section since an imperative form actually appears first in verse 11. Furthermore, Paul's use of ovv (v. 12) followed by a command often does not introduce a new section but simply serves to introduce a command that is based on what precedes.15 Thus, verses 12-14 do not give a clear signal that they begin a new pericope. A much clearer criterion for determining the limits of this pericope is found in
18Kasemann, Romans, 163,172,175; Murray, Romans, 1:211, 226; 0. Kuss, Der Romerbrief, 3 vols., RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963-1978) 1:295-96; Dunn, Romans, 1:305-06; and Fitzmyer, Romans, 431-32.

s.v. olv, l.b. See Rom. 11:22; 13:12; 14:16; 1 Cor. 4:16; 10:31; 16:11; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:1b; Phil. 2:29; 1 Thess. 5:6; and Phlm. 17 where ovv introduces a command based on what has preceded but does not introduce a new unit. Two possible exceptions to this occur in Rom. 14:13 and Col. 2:16. For further discussion, see ch. 4, 201 nl4.

19BAGD,

the structural parallels between 6:1-14 and 6:15-23. Both sets of verses contain: 1) a question formed with the interrogative ri plus ow (w. la, 15a); 2) a second question formed with the deliberative subjunctive (w. lb, 15b); 3) a strong denial to the second question (w. 2a, 15c); and 4) a third question that calls attention to the reader's knowledge or lack of it (w. 3,16) and introduces Paul's exposition (w. 4-11 and 17-23). The fact that 6:2b contains an additional rhetorical question that has no parallel in 6:15 does not diminish the overall parallelism. Since 6:1-2 clearly opens a new pericope, it is quite natural to expect the parallel form in 6:15 to do the same. Thus, Paul's style in chapter 6 indicates that the proper limits of this passage are verses 1-14.20 This results in binding together the indicatives (w. 3-10) with the imperatives (w. 11-13), a connection that is characteristic of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 5:25) and is basic to his argument here.21 Structurally, Romans 6:1-14 contains an introduction (w. 1-2) and two main sections (w. 3-11 and w. 12-14). In the introduction, Paul presents a false inference and strong denial (w. l-2a) plus a further question (v. 2b) that grows out of what he claimed in 5:20-21. This question states the thesis of the passage in question form: "How shall we [Christians] who "died to sin" still live in it? Section one (6:3-11), marked by continual references to "knowing" (dyuoeire, v. 3; yivcxxtKOvres, v. 6; d86res, v. 9), is Paul's answer to this question. The indicative mood and first person plural expressions dominate this section. It contains the following subsections: 1) a general statement about baptism "into Christ" and "into his death" (w. 3-4) that serves as the answer to the basic question of verse 2b, 2) two parallel arguments that elucidate view is held by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., ICG (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 153,167; Cranfield, 1:296-97, 321; Barrett, Romans, 120,127; Michel, Romer, 199201; H. Schlier, Der Rdmerbrief, HTKNT 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 190; Wilckens, Romer, 2:7-8; and Moo, Romans, 350-51. Pace Kasemann, Romans, 163. A similar stylistic parallelism occurs at Rom. 7:7 (7:7-12) and 7:13 (7:13-25).
21R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology, BZNW 32 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1967) 8-9.

20This

and support the statement regarding baptism (w. 5-7, 8-10), and 3) a transitional exhortation (v. 11). Giinther Bornkamm has laid out and explained the syntactical parallelism between verses 5-7 and verses 8-10.22 Both sets of verses contain: 1) a conditional protasis (w. 5a, 8a); 2) a concluding apodosis with future tense verbs (w. 5b, 8b); 3) an explanation stating a consequence (w. 6, 9); and 4) a ydp clause giving the basis for the explanation and the result (w. 7,10). Verses 5-7 focus on the believer's release from slavery to sin, while verses 8-10 focus on Christ's death to sin and life to God. Verse 11 serves as a "bridge" in which Paul's theological argument in verses 3-10 is drawn together so that the transition to exhortation can be made.23 Section two of this passage (6:12-14) consists of exhortations following the inferential conjunction olu in verse 12. In marked contrast to the constant use of the indicative mood and the first person plural in verses 3-10, the imperative mood and the second person plural dominate verses 12-13. In these verses Paul gives his Christian readers general directions for daily conduct based on what was highlighted in verse 11. Finally, verse 14 closes this unit with two ydp clauses that elucidate the imperatival instructions of verses 12-13 and pick up the concepts of grace and sin from verse 1. At the same time the antithesis, "not under law" but "under grace," serves as a springboard for the opening of the next section, 6:15-23, which extends and enriches the basic idea of 6:1-14. Both paragraphs look at the Christian's transfer from the realm of sin to the realm of righteousness and life. Verses 1-14 focus on the negative siderelease from sin, while verses 15-23 focus on the positive sidededication to righteousness. It is the former paragraph that contains the first Pauline reference to the "old man" that we will examine more closely. Bornkamm, "Baptism and New Life in Paul: Romans 6," in Early Christian Experience, trans. P. L. Hammer (New York: Harper & Row, 1969) 71-86, esp. 74-75; see also Michel, Homer, 200-01; Dunn, Romans, 1:305-06. Moo's argument that it is better to connect v. 5 closely with v. 4 is valid (Romans, 354), but it does not destroy the parallelism between w. 5-7 and w. 8-10.
23Cranfield,

22G.

Romans, 1:315.

2.4 Exegesis of Romans 6:1-14 2.4.1 Romans 6:l-2a: False Inference and Strong Denial Paul begins with the question: ri ovv ipovfiew, The inferential ovu provides the logical link with the preceding context.24 Here it occurs in an interrogative formula that in Romans usually raises questions and objections about what he has taught and leads to further discussion (cf. 3:1, 3, 5, 9; 4:1; 6:15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30; 11:7). It could be paraphrased: "What conclusion, therefore, shall we draw from what I have said?" This leads to a second question: "Shall we [Christians] remain in sin in order that (IVa)25 grace might increase?" These questions present an inference evolving out of Paul's argument in 5:12-21, and especially his assertion in 5:20b: ou 8 inXeduaaeu i) dpiaprta, imepeneplcraevaeu T) x&PlS' These words proclaim the triumph of God's grace over sin in redemptive history. If God acted this way in history, is He not bound in principle to give more grace to Christians while they remain "in sin"? In this regard, does not sin take on a positive role in the new order of things? It is difficult to determine precisely why Paul raised this issue here. Did he anticipate an antinomian distortion of grace,26 a legalistic objection to it,27 or, are both problems facing him?28 In light of Paul's negative reference to the Law in 5:20b and his arguments involving Jewish issues elsewhere in Romans (cf. 3:1-9; 4:1; 7:7; 9:14,30; 11:7), one might be inclined to think that this is a Jewish or Jewish Christian

24BAGD, 25The

s.v. ovu, 1; BDF, 451; Robertson, Grammar, 1191-92.

conjunction lua introduces a purpose (final) clause; see C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1959) 142-43. Romans, 165; Cranfield, Romans, 1:297 nl. Cranfield's claim is probably due to his attempt to make dyiaa/zdp "the key-word of the section [6:1-23], though it does not occur till v. 19 (cf. v. 22)" (Romans, 1:295).
27Sanday 26Kasemann,

and Headlam, Romans, 153-55. Romans, 1:212; Barrett, Romans, 120-21.

28Murray,

objection, or both.29 In their view, Paul's understanding of sin, law, and grace would encourage moral irresponsibility. On the other hand, libertarians might have agreed with Paul's statements and used them to justify complacency about sin and even sinful practices. Either way, the objection is real and not hypothetical. It was probably one that Paul has heard along the way in his missionary labors from opponents of the gospel he preached. He may be quoting or paraphrasing a critic, but it is more likely that he himself raised this question in order to make his gospel clear on this issue.30 In his answer, he wanted to show Christians that the gospel of grace, properly understood, leads to ethical righteousness and not to lawlessness and sin (6:19). The words emiiiuujiei^1 rfj dfiaprla22 introduce the subject of the paragraph, namely, the Christian's relationship to sin. As in chapter 5, Paul understands apiaprla (singular) here not as an act of transgression but as a personified power that rules over humanity in the "old realm" of existence inaugurated by Adam's transgression

Michel, Romer, 152-53, and Beker, Paul, 86, for a Jewish objection; Wilckens, Romer, 2:10, for a Jewish Christian objection; and for both, Dunn, Romans, 1:306-07, who states: "The interlocutor is thus not depicted particularly as a Jew,... but objection from the Jewish or Jewish Christian side is certainly included."
30Bornkamm, 31BAGD,

29See

"Baptism," 73; Moo, Romans, 356.

s.v. tmnivco, 2: used figuratively meaning "continue, persist (in), persevere" followed by the dative case (cf. T. Levi 4.1; Josephus, Vita, 143). On this use of this verb in the Pauline corpus elsewhere, see Rom. 11:22-23; Col. 1:23; and 1 Tim. 4:16. It is instructive to compare the present tense of the deliberative subjunctive verb imfiiimfiev in v. 1 with the aorist tense of the deliberative subjunctive verb dfiapTTJacofiev in v. 15. The former indicates an ongoing course of action, that is, continuing to live in a given state, viz., sin; while the latter indicates a given action in and of itself, i.e., to commit sin; see J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19081976) 3:71-72 [hereafter MHT]. Paul seems to reserve the deliberative subjunctive for rhetorical questions that call for a negative response (cf. Kom. 6:15; 10:14-15; 1 Cor. 11:22). See also MHT, 3:98-99; BDF, 366; Wallace, Grammar, 467-68. is the first often occurrences otdfiaprla in 6:1-14 showing the prominent role it plays in this passage. The article rg is anaphoric (cf. Wallace, Grammar, 217-20) pointing back to "sin" in 5:21 where it is said to reign as a ruling power, and ultimately back to 5:12 (cf. Stahlin, TDNT, 1:295-96; Kasemann, Romans, 165; Dunn, Romans, 1:306; and Moo, Romans, 374). Paul uses the dative case instead of a complementary participle (i.e., "sinning") following imiiivoi (cf. John 8:7; Acts 12:16; also 2 Clem. 10.5 and Hennas, Sim. 9.27.3). The dative 777 dfiaprCg indicates sphere or realm following this verb (BAGD, s.v. impiiuo), 2). (cf. 5:12; 6:14). To remain "in sin" is to continue to live in its realm. To live in its realm means to live under its rule; to live under obligation to sin as one's master; to live as a slave to sin (cf. 6:6,17a, 20a, 22a). Such a relationship, of course, includes continuing to commit acts of sin and to display sinful attitudes. But Paul's concern here is with the believer's objective status in
32This

relationship to sin.33 Thus the question in verse lb asks: Shall we Christians remain in the "old realm" ruled by sin in order that (Xva, purpose) grace might become more abundant34 since grace as a ruling power far exceeds the deadly grip and disastrous results of sin (cf. 5:15,17, 20-21)? Paul finds such an inference drawn from his teaching to be false and emphatically rejects it with his familiar /i7) yivoiTO (v. 2a).35 In itself, the inference has formal logic for support, but Paul's strong denial makes it clear that such an inference is a fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation of his gospel of grace. Now he moves on to support his repudiation of such false thinking and to explain why Christians do not to live under the rule of sin.

K. S. Wuest, "Victory Over Indwelling Sin in Romans Six," Bib Sac 116 (1959) 43-50, who states:". . . sin [is] seen here ... in the concrete, as indwelling sin . .. the sinful nature. This is the key to understanding Romans six. Where the word sin is found as a noun [in Rom. 6], reference is made to the totally depraved nature" (43). This anthropocentric view of "sin" is too restrictive and is difficult to sustain in the exegesis of this passage creating questionable statements such as: "The apostle says that the believer when he was saved died off to the sinful nature. That means he was separated from it. At the moment of entrance into salvation, God performs a major surgical operation in the inner spiritual being of the sinner, cutting him loose from the sinful nature, yet allowing that nature to remain in him until his death" (44). s.v. nXeoudCo), 1: "be or become more ..., be present in abundance, grow, increase." W. Bauder and D. Muller, nv\eovd(iJ' in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols, trans, with revisions, gen. ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 2:131 [hereafter NIDNTT], note that Paul uses nXeovdCco with reference to grace in 6:1 in contrast to [birep]iTepiaoEi>o) in 5:20 and explain that here "Paul is concerned with the process of grace becoming greater. It cannot be stimulated by a conscious persistence in sin."
35M) yivoiTo is a formula of strong denial and in Paul it always follows a question. Fourteen of fifteen NT instances are in his writings, and in twelve of these it expresses his repudiation of a false inference drawn from a correct premise in his argument. In Romans, this formula occurs at 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; and 11:1, 11. See E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 79; and A. J. Malherbe, "MH rENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul," HTR 73 (1980) 231-40. For the significance of the voluntative optative (also used in Rom. 15:5,13), see Robertson, Grammar, 936-40, and Wallace, Grammar, 481-83. 34BAGD,

33Pace