British New Testament Society

There is general consensus now that the psychic and pneumatic man in 1 Cor 15 do not derive from proto-Gnosticism. About the relevance of Philo's differentiation between two types of man there is still debate. However, most of those who regard Philo relevant for understanding 1 Cor 15 construe a difference between Paul and Philo, reckoning with the possibility that Paul argues in fact against a Corinthian version of the two types of man anthropology known from Philo. The main reason why this is the case, it is argued, is that the sequence in Philo of the first, pneumatic man and the second, psychic man seems to be consciously inverted by Paul: 'Observe, the pneumatic does not come first but the psychic, and only subsequently the pneumatic' (1 Cor 15.46). In this paper I wish to show, however, that both Philo and Paul adopt the same tripartite anthropology and distinguish between body, psyche and pneuma. Also Philo is of the opinion that the first pneumatic man is subject to degeneration and that, for that reason, the second, psychic man should be restored to his original ideal, the heavenly man. This transition from psychic to pneumatic man is basically similar to that in Paul. Both develop a soteriological tripartite anthropology which aims at man's re-spiritualization.

We are indebted to T.H.L. Parker's Commentaries on Romans 1532-1542 (T&T Clark, 1986) in which he deals painstakingly with 11 commentaries proper written between 1532 and 1542. Parker was prepared to state his opinions: Melanchthon was a giant, Calvin is to be praised for his single-minded objectivity(x). There is admiration for Bucer even though he is unreadable. Bullinger is great on theory, less so in practice. Yet, Sadoleto (pace Roussel) is quite mediocre; indeed, as a group, the Catholics seemed to find Romans hard going. They did not use rhetorical tools to explain texts. Perhaps they were looking over their shoulders; after all, Sorbonne and Catharinus censured Caietan's attempts for being interested in Erasmus NT and the OT Hebrew.

There are three matters in which there is room for complementing Parker's work. There seems in Parker a tip-toeing around controversial and polemical theology and no real account of the awareness of other opposed views. Second, in giving us what 11 commentators had to say on Rom 1.18-23; 2.13; 3.20-28, he does not centre on the passage which must have given the sharpest differences of opinion: Romans 7:14-8:4. Third, in limiting himself to a decade the story of Romans in the Reformation lacks its beginning as well as its resolution. Parker's work is invaluable, but is a spur. In this paper, a review of treatments of Rom 7:14-8:4 and their reception will aim to show more clearly what was at issue between the interpreters.

This paper will examine Paul's citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 in particular, and the larger argument of 9:30-10:8 in general. Attention will be given to how the Leviticus citation interacts with Paul's exegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8. This passage as a whole has proven to be one of the most difficult in Pauline literature and is crucial for a proper understanding of Paul's view of the Law.

I will first examine briefly the various interpretative options that are popular today, assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of some recent proposals (esp. Francis Watson, Ross Wagner, N.T. Wright). I will then argue that the passage can be best understood when viewed through the lens of the hermeneutics of prophetic criticism. One feature of prophetic criticism is to show that the conditionally of the Old Covenant gives rise to its failure, and in order for God to save his people, he promises to act in an unconditional manner. Leviticus 18:5 captures, for Paul, this mark of conditionally, while Deuteronomy 30:11-14 the unconditional act of God in the Christ-event.

1. The Problem: In Pauline scholarship, arrabon and aparche, two crucial metaphors for the Spirit are typically interpreted as reflecting the eschatological tension between the 'already realized' but 'not completed yet'. However, such a view, essentially based on the 'inner logic' of the metaphors themselves, seems to run counter to the thrust of Paul's arguments themselves. A more 'context-friendly' interpretation seems required.

2. A lexicographical consideration A selection of examples (Greco-Roman, LXX. , and NT) will be examined, mainly to demonstrate the multiplicity of their potential meanings. The metaphors are ambiguous in themselves, so the context should provide the interepretive key.

3. In this main section of the paper, I will examine the role of the two metaphors in context, paying special attention to how they actually help Paul accomplish his argumentative goal.
1) Arrabon in 2 Corinthians 1:22 Paul's main concern is his apostolic integrity, with the metaphor serving as God's pledge of ownership of Paul.
2) 2 Corinthians 5:5 Here the sharply contrastive diction between present and future (visible and "invisible") dominates Paul's argument, rendering the idea of a 'partial fulfilment' out of place.
3) Aprache in Romans 8:23. There is similar contrast between present suffering and future glory, with a heightened accentuation of the 'not yet'. The hope is invisible, but we have the Spirit as God's guarantee for the surety of that 'invisible' glory.
4) The present is a time of suffering with the future still invisible. Listening to Paul's argument, it would be virtually impossible for the hearers to take Paul's references to arrabon and aprache in an 'already but not yet' sort of way. Paul is not mitigating the severity of the present by making the future already present, either partially or anticipatory. He is rather giving them encouragement, stressing the surety of their hope evidenced by the work of the Spirit.
5. Conclusion: Interpreting the 'dialectic' Paul or making Paul 'dialectic'?