Fitzmyer, ―The Semitic Background of the New Testament Title Kyrios,‖ in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, Rev. Hurtado argued that Jesus had actually been worshiped as God since the early days of the church.
Additionally, writers focusing on New Testament Christology also comment on the verse. Casey concludes without exegesis that Paul did indeed intend to refer to Jesus as qeo,j. First, the issue of the stumbling block (Romans 9:30-33) must be addressed, where I will argue that the Jews stumbled over the person of Jesus.
The abbot understood that the confession of Jesus as Lord was the fundamental article of the Christian faith. I will place the verse in the context of the whole letter to the Romans, as well as in the context of chapters 9-11.
Generally
The antecedent of the relative pronoun is Paul's relatives according to the flesh mentioned in verse 3. In addition to the evidence from the form of the doxology, there is the problem of such a doxology fitting the overall thought of Romans 9:1-5. The expression κατὰ ςάρκα occurs in that form in the Nestle-Aland27 text of the New Testament 20 times.
Δεν υπάρχει συνεπές μοτίβο χρήσης της έκφρασης με ή χωρίς το οριστικό άρθρο. Το πώς καθορίζει κανείς το αναφορικό της μετοχής είναι το βασικό ζήτημα της συζήτησης. Stauffer, "Qeo,j," στο Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. πατέρα του Κυρίου Ιησού, η μετοχή δεν είναι επίσης απαραίτητη.
Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry in the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2de uitg. Paulus het dus κύριοσ gebruik om Jesus as die Allerhoogste God van die Ou Testament te identifiseer. 11Rudolph Bultmann, ―The Christological Confession of the World Council of Churches,‖ in Essays Philosophical and Theological, trans.
Similarly, Nathan MacDonald draws attention to the problem of the modern idea of pure monotheism. However, it is possible that some of the text in the first part (ל ֵא ָששׂ ִי י ֵנ ְב) is not original. In the above portion of the argument, Bauckham's emphasis is on those aspects of God's uniqueness that are more transcendent.
Bauckham further argues, however, that the incarnate Christ is the revelation of divine identity. In addition to the Shema, there are two important texts that can lie in the background of Paul's statement about the oneness of God. Clearly the answer is yes, God is the God of the Gentiles.
The importance of the statement that there is one Lord and one God is seen best in context of the whole letter, especially in context of the emphasis
Perhaps, however, it is not necessary to argue that the same decision should be made for all four instances of πᾶσ in that verse. The words "one God and Father of all" (εἷσ θεὸσ καὶ πατὴρ πάντων) have been modified by the relative clause, which can simply mean that the one God and father of all men (male gender) is also over all things. The importance of the statement that there is one Lord and one God is best seen in the context of the entire letter, especially in the context of emphasis.
Arnold further notes that the categories other than flesh, as noted by Beker, rarely appear in Ephesians, and flesh appears in Ephesians 2:2-3 as one form of influence, while the prince of the power of the air appears as another.125 In addition, a similar distinction between flesh and blood and rulers, authorities and powers occurs in 6:12. Thus the important reference to "every rule and authority and power and dominion" in Ephesians 1:21 must refer to actual beings whose existence Paul affirmed and best understood as beings hostile to God's rule.126 The demonstration of God's power. is in his raising Christ to sit at his right hand—far above all rulers and. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, although Abbott does not think it matters whether they exist or not, Christ is above them); Rudolph Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary, trans.
O'Brien, ―Principalities and Powers: Adversaries of the Church,‖ in Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization, ed. Against Wesley Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase Hai Archikai Kai Hai Exousiai (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 43. Carr concludes that when the language of ϋρχαι ἐξουσία and δύναμισ occur in Jewish they are limited to the angels and archangels of YHWH and never refer to demonic forces.
O'Brien formulated a cogent response in which he criticizes Carr's exegesis, but most tellingly is the problem of Eph 6:12, which Carr resolves by suggesting that it is a second-century interpolation for which there is no evidence. But the importance of this is the reference to Psalm 110:1, which gives this a Christological twist, and.
In this passage those to whom Paul refers in verse 3 as
134 In contrast to Zeller, see Werner Foerster, ―Κύριοσ,‖ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. On two such occasions, Paul included Jesus as Lord as part of his statement of the Shema‗. Thus, Bauckham's argument that the New Testament writers understood that the identity of the one God included Christ the Lord is the best way to understand Paul's monotheism.
No such case can be demonstrated in either of the two passages he offers as examples. Moo, “The Christology of the Early Pauline Letters.” In Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. For a detailed analysis of the issue and the argument that Paul used an existing hymn, see Peter T.
30For an overview of the various arguments against the view that the passage is ethical, see Ralph P. The crux of this part of the response to the objection is whether it is demonstrable that Paul does not actually use the word θεόσ to describe Jesus. The argument here, then, is that even in the face of the distinction, Paul nonetheless identifies Christ with God.
Pietersma argues that the texts of the Greek Pentateuch do not provide convincing evidence of an original tetragrammaton in the LXX. Jesus is not just another of the intermediate figures who appeared in Jewish apocalyptic literature in Paul's time. Much of the conceptual overlap that Kreitzer discovers is in relation to the Messiah's function in this kingdom.
While Kreitzer's argument regarding the identification of Jesus with YHWH on the Lord's Day is certainly correct, his argument that Paul was dependent on.
Romans 14:10 addressed believers in Rome who might judge another and warned that all will stand before the judgment seat of God (τοῦ θεοῦ). 79
For these reasons, it is best to understand κύριοσ as referring to God in this case, despite the referential shift from verse 9.85. The point of the argument that κύριοσ in Romans 14:11 refers to God is to show that there is considerable fluidity in Paul's thinking between Jesus and God. Man's union with God depends on the intimate union of the Father and the Son. 88.
The easy movement of expression is further indication of the closeness between God and Christ.92. 93For further indications of the proximity or even identification of Christ and God, see Elwell, "The Deity of Christ," 300-06. However, such an argument does not convince everyone, in part because of the controversy over Titus' authorship.
Unless its use was a slip in a moment of ecstasy, as suggested by A. Furthermore, there is ample evidence for the importance of Christ in the letter as a whole. After all, it is Christ who is the subject of the gospel itself (1:3).9 Because it is likely.
85, where Hays argues that Romans does not support Christological exegesis of the OT. 9 In Romans 1:3, Paul writes that the gospel refers to his (God's) son (πεπὶ ηοῦ ςἱοῦ αὐηοῦ), which I understand to mean that Christ is the subject of the gospel. According to Munck, the core of the passage is God's way of salvation through faith.
Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Righteousness and Law
Ένα από τα αρχικά ερωτήματα που ανακύπτουν βρίσκεται στη σύνταξη των στίχων 30-31, στις λέξεις ότι το έθνος του νόμου καταλαμβάνει ο νόμος, ο νόμος του νόμου. Αναγνωρίζοντας το πρόβλημα της αδεξιότητας, ο Fitzmyer επιτρέπει την εναλλακτική λύση ότι οι λέξεις θα μπορούσαν να ληφθούν ως απάντηση στην αρχική ρητορική ερώτηση. Άλλοι προτείνουν ένα είδος υπαλλαγίας, έτσι ώστε ο Παύλος εννοούσε πραγματικά τη δικαιοσύνη του νόμου, αλλά εκεί.
29 See e.g. Robert Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective, JSOT Supplement Series, vol. Watson argues that works here refer exclusively to the practice of the Jewish law causing Israel to stumble over the stumbling block. See Moo, Romans, 70-78, for an overview of the different views on Paul's use of God's righteousness.
49 For perhaps the most detailed defense of the telic meaning, see generally Badenas, Christ the End of Marriage. Christ is the τέλος of the law for righteousness to all who believe.51 In this way, the connection with Romans 9:30-33 is preserved. Israel did not recognize it as the meaning and purpose of the law and rejected it.
Israel's abuse of the law became evident only when God placed the stumbling block in Zion.53. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill. Wagner agrees that Paul worked from a text from the LXX, but that Paul reworked this text to bring it closer to MT.
As verse 13 makes it clear, YHWH is the antecedent of the pronoun in ―he will be.‖63.
