Jesus And Paul’s Gospel: Perpetuating The Early Church Tradition

By Crhistian D. Cardona

[Crhistian D. Cardona is Research Master in Religion and Theology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.]

Abstract

The debate about the Jesus tradition versus Paul’s gospel has passed through different stages: from total discontinuity to a more significant continuity, and then to a measured delimitation of such continuity. The present study is located in this last stage and focuses on Paul’s use of the Jesus tradition. It argues that Paul’s emphasis on the Easter events and his interpretation of them clearly indicates his awareness of the Jesus tradition and his projection of it in his own way.

* * *

The debate about Paul and the Jesus tradition, which is the story of Jesus’s life, ministry, teachings and sayings, passion, death, and resurrection, goes back to the year 1831, when F. C. Baur, a Tübingen scholar, started to challenge the continuity between Jesus and Paul. His main premise was that Paul “developed his doctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive Christian community.”[1] This trend was followed by Wendt and Wrede, who sustained that Paul went further than Jesus while focusing more on the means of salvation than on Jesus’s teachings about pure piety (Wendt), thus taking Christianity to the next level (Wrede).[2] In the early twentieth century, Rudolf Bultmann continued the trend started by Baur, followed by Walter Schmithals and in the modern era by Francis Wright Beare, Lloyd Gaston, Nikolaus Walter, Frans Neirynck, and others.

Parallel to those arguing for the discontinuity of the Jesus tradition in Paul were those who claimed continuity. In the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, scholars such as Heinrich Paret, Hermann von Soden, Arthur Titius, Harry Kennedy, Arnold Rüegg, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Johannes Weiss, William Davies, Hans Windisch, and Archibald M. Hunter proposed the continuity of the Jesus tradition in Paul from different grounds. The majority looked for parallels between the sayings of Jesus contained in the Gospels and the Pauline Letters.[3]

The increasing amount of research on Paul and the Jesus tradition revealed an interesting shift from the initial question. Those arguing for continuity not only asked the question of the continuity of the Jesus tradition in Paul, but they also started to look for parallels in order to find the origin of Paul’s knowledge of that tradition.[4] As a result, many passages in Paul’s letters were recognized as either direct references or allusions to the Jesus tradition. However, this impressive number of references generated doubts not only among the opponents of continuity but also within the circle of scholars who favored it. For instance, scholars such as Victor Paul Furnish, Dale C. Allison Jr., David Wenham, and Michael B. Thompson reduced the number of parallels between the Jesus tradition and Paul, thus generating more agreement among scholars.[5]

In recent years, a different approach to the debate has arisen. This approach has two focuses: first, to describe how Paul uses the Jesus tradition within his writings,[6] and second, to explain why he does not mention the Jesus tradition in his writings as much as the Synoptic Gospels do.[7] This type of approach helps to move the debate from quicksand to solid ground. Furnish rightly affirms that “scholars must concentrate not on what or how much Paul knew about the historical Jesus, but rather on the way he employed and applied the knowledge he did have, and what place the Jesus of history had in relation to the heart and centre of his preaching.”[8]

The present study helps with the two aims proposed by Furnish by focusing on Paul’s perception and understanding of his gospel.[9] The main presupposition in this study is that Paul knew the Jesus tradition, and the main objective is to explain (in part) the role of this tradition in his preaching about Jesus, that is, its impact on the way Paul perceived the gospel. In addition, the present study helps locate Paul’s gospel within the early church tradition about Jesus and its efforts to preserve it.

Origin And Nature Of Paul’s Gospel

Undoubtedly, any attempt to explain the origin of Paul’s gospel should take Galatians 1 into consideration. In verses 11–12, Paul categorically argues that his gospel “is not according to man”[10] because he received it “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” The genitive in the last phrase (᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) can imply that the gospel he received was of Jesus Christ (means: subjective genitive) or about Jesus Christ (content: objective genitive). The majority of scholars favor the second option on the basis of verses 15–16, where Paul says that God is the revealer and Christ is the one being revealed. Hence, the content of the revelation on the Damascus road is Jesus Christ.[11] Others prefer to take this phrase as a subjective genitive based on Paul’s use of the phrase δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως that parallels the phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 1, where Christ is said to be the agent of Paul’s apostleship. Thus, the revelation in verse 12 implies that Christ is the source (means) of Paul’s revelation.[12] However, the context may suggest both interpretations.[13]

First, Paul offers clear hints that Christ is directly connected to his gospel; in fact, he could say that “Jesus Christ is the gospel.” For him, there is no other gospel but “the gospel of Christ” (v. 7), and the person who was revealed to him was “the son of God” (v. 16). The whole Epistle to the Galatians revolves around the premise that justification is possible only “through faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16). This is the gospel that Paul initially preached to the Galatians and the one to which he was holding in the present (1:8–9). Paul elsewhere connects the revelation of a mystery with the gospel of Christ (Rom 16:25; cf. Eph 3:1–5; Col 1:26–27),[14] which suggests that the revelation in 1:12 is indeed a revelation of the content of his gospel, the mystery about Jesus Christ.

Second, it is hard to deny that one of Paul’s major points in Galatians 1–2 is that his gospel has a divine origin (source). He categorically affirms that his gospel “is not according to man” (1:11) nor “received from man” (v. 12a). Here, Paul is talking about source and not content. His gospel is not from a human source. This interpretation allows a reference to the source in the phrase “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (v. 12c). If his gospel does not have a human origin then the most natural question is, What is the source of Paul’s gospel? to which his answer is, Jesus Christ.[15] Moreover, the fact that he does not bestow any credit on the apostles, as far as the origin of his gospel is concerned (1:17–24; 2:1–9), indicates not so much that his gospel is contrary to what they preached[16] but that he did not receive it from them. It has a divine origin.[17]

Origin Of Paul’s Gospel

At first sight, the previous interpretation makes the connection between Paul’s gospel and the early church’s Jesus tradition difficult. If the gospel Paul preaches has a divine origin, and none of those within the circle of apostles is connected to this origin, then it follows that Paul does not know the Jesus tradition handed down by the apostolic church and portrayed in documents such as the Synoptic Gospels. However, this way of thinking overlooks essential aspects in Paul’s argument. At no time did Paul suggest a sharp contrast or discontinuity between the content of his gospel and the gospel of the apostles. What is implied is a contrast in the source. This is not in the sense that the apostles’ gospel is not divine but in the sense that his gospel is not taught through human agency (Gal 1:17).

After affirming that he did not receive his gospel from the apostles (v. 17), Paul mentioned that he met Peter and James three years after his experience in Damascus (vv. 18–19) and that fourteen years later he went again to visit the church and the leaders at Jerusalem (2:1). Dunn concludes that the verb ἱστορῆσαι (“to visit,” 1:18) carries the idea of visiting Peter “for the purpose of inquiry.”[18] It is obvious on the basis of 1:11–12 that such an inquiry was not about the content of his gospel, since Paul knew that “the revelation of Christ for the proclamation of Christ to the Gentiles was complete.”[19] It is likely though that he wanted to be acquainted with that part of the Jesus tradition unknown to him.[20]

Similarly, Paul did not submit his gospel to the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (2:1–2) to receive their approval,[21] for that would equate to doubting the source of his gospel. He let them know about his newly received gospel in order to find common points and avoid possible discrepancies that could appear along the way because their evangelistic targets were different (1:7, 9). This point is confirmed by the outcome of the meeting: “recognizing the grace that had been given to me . . . [they] gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (v. 9).[22]

Some might take Ephesians 2:20 to suggest that Paul’s gospel was dependent not only on Christ but also on the apostolic tradition. Here the metaphor of a building reveals to the community that their foundation as the church of Christ rests on solid ground: the apostles, prophets, and Christ the cornerstone. Muddiman indicates that the apostolic tradition plays a significant role in the edification of the community, since they were the ones who interpreted the Christ event:

So the Church began to realize that the Jesus tradition could be dangerously opaque and open to distortions, unless it was officially interpreted in the light of the teaching of apostles, like Paul, James the Lord’s brother, Peter and John. Adherence to the tradition of the apostles and their legitimate successors, along with an upright moral life, became the litmus tests of right belief.[23]

As already mentioned, Paul was acquainted with the apostolic tradition about Jesus; however, this does not mean that his gospel found its origin there. In the words of Muddiman, the reference to “apostles and prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 is to be understood as “the gifts of the exalted Christ to the Church”[24] and not narrowly to the circle of the twelve. Thus, Paul and other leaders of the early church were administrators of the Jesus tradition, not only the twelve. They were not to take the place of Christ but to work alongside him. In a way, they are the first stones of the new building[25] and Christ its binding element.

The Nature Of Paul’s Gospel And The Jesus Tradition

To say that the content of Paul’s message originated in a divine revelation is not to say that there is a discrepancy between his gospel, the gospel proclaimed by the rest of the apostles, and the Jesus tradition. Once the nature of Paul’s gospel is correctly understood, then the apparent differences are blurred and the similarities become more evident.

What gospel did Paul receive on the Damascus road? The term εὐαγγέλιον is generally used by Paul to refer to “the content of his apostolic message.”[26] When εὐαγγέλιον is combined with the noun Χριστός, the phrase clearly refers to the content of his message: “the gospel of Christ” (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2).[27] This is the best label for his preaching.[28] When Paul defends “the gospel of Christ” in Galatians 1, this is an apology for the nature of his proclamation. There is no gospel without Jesus Christ, and regardless of the form of a particular proclamation, if Christ is not the center, then that is another gospel (vv. 6–7) and another Jesus (2 Cor 11:3–4). For this reason, the gospel of Christ is usually associated with power (Rom 1:6; 15:19; 1 Cor 1:18, 23–24; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 1:8). Therefore, destruction and disintegration of the gospel are to be expected when the figure of Jesus Christ is absent.

This Christ-centered gospel is not unique to Paul. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul talks about the eschatological resurrection and places Christ at the center of the discussion while affirming that the apostles share in the Christocentric proclamation of the gospel: “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (v. 11).[29] What seems to be peculiar to Paul’s gospel is his evangelistic target. While the apostles focus their mission on “the circumcised” (Jews), his evangelistic efforts are directed towards “the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7–8). Notice that in his major letters, Paul always introduces his Christ-centered gospel together with his target, “the Gentiles” (τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; Rom 1:5, 13; 15:16; 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:6; 2:2; cf. Eph 3:8; Col 1:27; 2 Tim 4:17). He even labels himself as “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13; cf. 1 Tim 2:7).[30] From here, the significance of Paul’s gospel is seen in terms of both content and apostleship (Acts 9:15; 22:17–21; 26:16–23; Gal 1:16).[31]

Another significant aspect of Paul’s gospel is his emphasis on the events surrounding Easter. Although the majority of the debate on Paul and the Jesus tradition has focused more on Jesus’s sayings, events such as the Last Supper, the death of Christ, and his resurrection should be considered part of that tradition as well.[32] Walter approaches the debate with a “minimal hypothesis,” or from a middle ground, and claims that “Paul may have known more sayings of Jesus than are directly attested in his letters.”[33] However, not only sayings, which are a minimum part of what Paul could have known about Jesus,[34] but also historical facts like the Easter events[35] shaped his thought (theology) and behavior (praxis).

As mentioned before, Paul’s visit to Peter in particular (and also James; Gal 1:18–19) was not a social call but was informative. Peter probably informed Paul about the Jesus tradition unknown to him. Perhaps, without losing sight of the divine origin of his gospel, this is the part of the tradition that he recalls in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11. In verse 3, he says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.” The verb παραλαμβάνω is used by Paul in the sense of “receiving” or “taking from” (1 Cor 11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal 1:9, 12; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 4:17; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6).[36] With three exceptions (Col 2:6; 4:17; 1 Thess 4:1), the usage of παραλαμβάνω might be restricted to the Jesus tradition.[37] Though the phrase “I received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23) might seem to downplay any human intervention, the language of tradition (παραλαμβάνω and παραδίδωμι) suggests that indeed Paul considers some of the early Christians as human instruments in this process of transmission of the tradition, but of course, he establishes the Lord as the ultimate source of the tradition.[38]

Paul saw himself as part of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. This was made evident through his implementation of the verb παραδίδωμι, “hand over” or “deliver.”[39] He exhorted the Corinthians to maintain the traditions, παραδόσεις, as “I delivered them to you” (παρέδωκα, 11:2)—what he received as part of the Jesus tradition that he also “delivered” (παρέδωκα, v. 23; 15:3).[40] Thus, Paul’s gospel and the Jesus tradition handed over by him were in harmony with the early church’s teaching and proclamation of the Jesus tradition. This was a continuation of their legacy.

Notice that focus on the Easter events is not unique to Paul. The Synoptic Gospels are evidence that there was a vast awareness of the pre-Easter and post-Easter events (Matt 26–28; Mark 14–16; Luke 22–24). Furnish claims that “at first, certain of those traditions would have been known even beyond the circle of Jesus’ own followers.”[41] Hollander also believes that, besides Paul, there were other Christians “who were telling and writing down stories about the things Jesus said and did while on earth.”[42] The existence of the so-called noncanonical gospels (e.g., Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Hebrews)[43] and other texts from the first and second centuries reflect the intent of some communities in writing about the historical Jesus.[44] This then points to the following question, In which way is Paul’s gospel and portrayal of the tradition of Jesus unique?

This uniqueness could be seen in two ways: first, the emphasis that Paul puts on the Jesus tradition and to which he limits himself in his letters, and second, his interpretation of the Easter events in light of the revelation at the Damascus road. These two points show that the Jesus tradition reaches new levels in Paul.

Emphasis On The Easter Events

The Pauline Letters reflect Paul’s preference for the events surrounding Easter over other materials. However, this reference is not noticed in part because the Paul-Jesus debate is usually assessed based on how much information from the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, or the so-called Q is found in Paul’s Letters. This way of proceeding reveals that an important point has been missed, which is that the Pauline Epistles, chronologically speaking, precede this material.[45] If the Gospel of Mark (the first written among the Synoptics) appeared sometime between 65 and 70 AD, then it is appropriate to conclude that “most of the Pauline corpus was already in existence.”[46] That means the Jesus tradition found in Paul’s writings is one of the earliest.

Unlike the Synoptics, Paul does not write much about the sayings or teaching of Jesus.[47] In fact, Paul’s direct mention of Jesus’s sayings is traditionally limited to three passages (cf. 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; and 11:23–25).[48] He instead discusses the Easter events. This is seen in the major Pauline Letters. For instance, Paul mentions the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 (cf. 10:16). The significance of this passage is not seen in terms of how many times he uses this part of the tradition but in its theological value. For him, the betrayal of Jesus, the breaking of the bread, and the drinking of the cup become a symbol and reminder of Jesus’s sacrifice, which he interweaves with his covenantal theology (11:25; cf. Rom 9:4; 11:27; 1 Cor 3; Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24; Eph 2:12). The Last Supper with all its symbols and meanings is the institution par excellence that points to the cross and perfectly fits with Paul’s theology of salvation (soteriology). From here Paul confidently says, “For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).

From the Easter events, the one that receives the most attention by Paul is the death of Jesus at the cross. To this event, he devotes his meditation and proclamation—“but we preach Christ crucified” (1:23) and “for I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:2). He draws the Galatians’ attention to the cross (Gal 3:1), which is the only thing he can boast of (6:14). The reason for this emphasis is that the cross is a synonym of power for salvation (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18, 24). The part of the tradition that says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture” (1 Cor 15:3), is the gospel of Paul in a nutshell, and this is elaborated and explained throughout his writings.[49] He commonly refers to the event of the cross with death language: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Paul is not hesitant to use verbs like ἀποθνῄσκω (“to die,” e.g., 5:6; 5:8; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:14; 1 Thess 4:14) and nouns like θάνατος (“death,” e.g., Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 11:26; Phil 2:8) and αἷμα (“blood,” Rom 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25; Eph 1:7; Col 1:20)[50] to point to the sacrifice of Christ.[51]

Besides Jesus’s passion and death on the cross, for Paul, the resurrection of Christ marks the completion of his soteriological task. Although this might be the event with which the Synoptics (and John) conclude their narratives of the Jesus tradition, the resurrection is at the beginning of Paul’s theology, and it offers meaning for the rest of his theological system. Without the resurrection, the cross would be void. Jesus not only died, “he was buried” and “was raised on the third day” (1 Cor 15:4). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul presents his longest exposition on the eschatological resurrection, which serves as the basis for the Easter events.[52] From all the thirty-eight occurrences of ἐγείρω (“raise up”) in the Pauline Epistles that are connected to the resurrection,[53] nineteen are found in 1 Corinthians 15. This shows that Easter is central in Paul’s theology of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians. In fact, he can categorically affirm that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is vain” (v. 14). At the beginning of two of his major letters, Paul highlights the significance of the resurrection. In Romans 1:4 the resurrection attests to the sonship of Christ (cf. 2 Tim 2:8), and in Galatians 1:1 the Father’s role in raising Jesus from the dead is brought forth in support of Paul’s apostleship. The resurrection is the clearest evidence of the victory over death (Rom 6:9), and salvation can be reached by confessing Jesus’s lordship and resurrection (10:9). Moreover, the exaltation of Christ has its basis in the resurrection (Eph 1:20; cf. Rom 8:34). Like the cross, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is “at the center of Paul’s theology as well as at the center of his experience.”[54]

Therefore, the cross of Christ cannot be separated from the resurrection; both complement each other. For Paul, the sacrifice of Jesus at the cross is the essence of his gospel, but it is a gospel without hope if there is no resurrection. Schreiner rightly states that “the gospel that Paul proclaims centers on the crucified and risen Lord.”[55] Such a connection is articulated in several passages such as the following:

• Romans 6:5: “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection” (emphasis supplied).
• Romans 8:34: “Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (emphasis supplied).
• 2 Corinthians 5:15: “And He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf” (emphasis supplied).
• Philippians 3:10: “That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” (emphasis supplied).

Thus, the Easter events are that part of the Jesus tradition to which Paul renders more attention, even more than to Jesus’s sayings.[56] Of course, this emphasis depends on the circumstantial character of his Epistles. Though Paul knows some of the sayings and teachings of Jesus,[57] the Epistles are simply not the place for such transmission.[58] Paul limits the implementation of the sayings tradition to sections where he deals with ethics,[59] while he draws from the passion narrative when dealing with theological matters.[60] In Luke’s report in Acts 26:22–23, Paul proclaims what is prophesied in the Old Testament—that Christ would suffer and resurrect—and it is this story that is the key to his salvation theology and the focus of the proclamation of the early Christian churches.[61] This part of the Jesus tradition known and proclaimed also by the early church is Paul’s reason for meditation. And such a reflection would eventually give rise to the interpretation of the Easter events.

Interpretation Of The Easter Events

So far, it is clear that Paul’s proclamation of the passion narrative and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is in agreement with the tradition received from the apostolic leaders (1 Cor 15:1–11) and also with God’s revelation at the Damascus road (Gal 1). However, the continuation of the Jesus tradition and its significance for Paul are seen not only in the fact that he centers his gospel on the Easter events but more importantly on his interpretation of these events.[62] For Schnelle, this is evidence that Paul writes history: the fact that he narrates and interprets the Christ event.[63]

For Paul, the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:14) is crucial for his theology. Segal rightly states that “the most obvious mark of Paul’s conversion is his revaluation of his previous life on the basis of his experience of Christ.”[64] Thus, Christ constitutes the hermeneutical principle for scriptural interpretation (theology)[65] and the factor that determines believers’ behavior (ethics). From here, several scholars agree that Paul offers christological and soteriological interpretations of the Damascus event.[66] In the words of Kim, “In Paul Christology and Soteriology are not two separated doctrines but one, the former being the ground of the latter and the latter the anthropological and cosmological application of the former.”[67]

The Pauline Epistles are full of interpretations of the Easter events that should be analyzed diachronically, since Paul in all of them offers a retrospective look on the Damascus revelation, and this should be the basis for the synchronic interpretation of such revelation.[68] Themes such as justification, redemption, reconciliation, election, resurrection, and others, reveal a reflection upon the passion narrative and Easter.

Justification

The act of Jesus Christ at the cross is an act of justification. Paul’s meditation on this event in the context of his Damascus experience[69] allows him to conclude that, through his death, Jesus declares believers not guilty and makes them stand rightly before God and experience a new relationship in Christ.[70] He expresses these ideas through the verb δικαιόω (“justify,” 24x) and the noun δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness,” 52x).[71] Jesus has freed believers from God’s wrath (Rom 5:9), and for this reason they are at peace with him (v. 1). Only through Christ, justification is possible and this is free (3:24). Perhaps one of the common nuances of Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s sacrifice is that since humans cannot be righteous on the basis of their actions, they simply ought to have faith because “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (3:28; cf. v. 30; 5:1) and “the righteous man shall live by faith” (Gal 3:11; cf. v. 24). This is the great premise that Paul develops in his exposition against the Judaizers in Galatians (2:16–17). Such reflection leads him to give up dogmas and experiences that were formerly shaped by his understanding of the law (Phil 3:4–6) and are now reevaluated and redirected in Christ (vv. 7, 9).[72]

Redemption

Paul also ponders Jesus’s death and its redemptive character. Of the ten occurrences of the noun ἀπολύτρωσις (“redemption”) in the New Testament, seven take place in the Pauline Epistles. From these, four specifically refer to Jesus’s sacrifice (Rom 3:24; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14).[73] This word carries the idea of “setting free for a ransom”[74] and should be viewed in light of legal and financial metaphors and the Jewish understanding of sin.[75] For Paul, redemption is possible only in Christ (Rom 3:24), whom God constituted as ἀπολύτρωσις (1 Cor 1:30). Believers are redeemed specifically from sin, and therefore they are forgiven through Christ’s blood (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). From here, the metaphor of a slave being bought with a price implied in verbs such as ἀγοράζω (“to buy”) and ἐξαγοράζω (“to redeem”)[76] could be explicative of Paul’s concept of redemption:[77] “You were bought with a price” (1 Cor 7:23). Unlike the eschatological redemption visualized in Romans 8:23 and Ephesians 1:14 and 4:30, freedom from sin through Christ is a present reality, and this is suggested by Paul’s use of ἔχομεν (“we have”) in Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14. Redemption is of course something received freely, and it constitutes the basis for justification (Rom 3:24).[78]

Reconciliation

Paul’s view on the sacrifice of Jesus as effectuating reconciliation is unique in the New Testament.[79] The verb καταλλάσσω (“to reconcile”) and the noun καταλλαγῇ (“reconciliation”) occur only in Paul’s writings.[80] Schnelle argues that the concept of reconciliation is “the second major interpretation of his apostolic ministry.”[81] Although early Christian literature deals with the passion narrative, Paul should be singled out as the only one who interprets Jesus’s work in these terms. Reconciliation is “the exchange of hostility for a friendly relationship”[82] between two parties. In the marital union, both wife and husband can be reconciled after a disagreement (1 Cor 7:11). However, the utmost manifestation of reconciliation is the one effectuated by God. Humans were alienated from God and were therefore his enemies, but this enmity did not hinder him from bringing reconciliation (Rom 5:10). Notice that for Paul, God is the subject who reconciles. In 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, where Paul displays his theology of reconciliation with clarity, two main actions are attributed to God:[83] (1) “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ” (v. 18a) and (2) “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (v. 18b).[84] However, Christ is not left out of the picture; he is the agent through whom reconciliation is possible. The whole passage of 2 Corinthians 5:14–21 is both theocentric and Christocentric. Phrases such as διὰ Χριστοῦ (“through Christ,” v. 18) and ἐν Χριστῷ (“in Christ,” v. 19) offer different nuances of Christ’s function in this plan of salvation set in motion by God. Perhaps Paul’s clearest interpretation of Jesus’s death is expressed in verse 21: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Although the passion of Jesus is not explicitly mentioned, the language in this verse points to cultic and sacrificial aspects of his death prefigured in the Old Testament where the concepts of death and sin are articulated together (sin offering in Lev 4, Day of Atonement in Lev 16, and the substitutive character of the suffering servant in Isa 53; cf. Rom 8:3; Gal 3:13).[85]

Election

One of the greatest changes in Paul’s theology is his understanding of the doctrine of election. For Paul, Israel, the people of God, were demarcated by God’s election (Deut 7:3; 14:2). Within Judaism, election was “defined by means of the exclusive relationship with their God in which all non-Jews, including Christians, have no part.”[86] This concept is now reshaped and interpreted from a Christian perspective[87] as a result of Paul’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus road (Gal 1:12). There, he received his apostolic commission to the gentiles (vv. 15–16; 2:2, 7–8), which was contrary to his former attitude as a zealous Jew who persecuted and tried to destroy God’s church (vv. 13–14; cf. Acts 9:1–2). Now, in light of this revelation and his understanding of both Jesus’s passion and resurrection, Paul could categorically say that “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). In the blood of Christ both gentiles and Jews are brought together (Eph 2:11–22): “For He [Christ] Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (v. 14). This doctrine is elaborated on in Romans 9–11, where Paul presented this inclusive theology of election.[88] Israel are not only those who are descendants of Abraham and Jacob (9:6–7) but also those who acknowledge Jesus as Savior. From here, “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek” (10:12) because “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (v. 9); this includes both Israel according to the flesh and the gentiles who have already believed and those yet to come (11:25–26). Thus Christ became the leading hermeneutical principle in Paul’s theology of election.

Resurrection

Whenever Jesus’s death is discussed, his resurrection from the dead should be mentioned also. For Paul, resurrection is a “necessary extension of Christ’s death.”[89] Clearly, Paul’s theology of the resurrection goes back to his former Pharisaic life. As a good Pharisee, he believed in the eschatological resurrection (Acts 23:8); nevertheless, Christ did not play any significant role in Paul’s theology until his Damascus encounter with the risen Jesus. However, in his recapitulation of the concept of resurrection after his conversion, Paul showed both continuity and discontinuity with Pharisaic dogma.[90] Like the Pharisees, he continued believing that the dead would rise; unlike them, he claimed that Jesus Christ—the crucified Messiah—materialized the resurrection of believers through his own resurrection. This could oddly be called “Christological resurrection,” a phrase that points to a conceptualization and experiential understanding of Paul’s resurrection theology centered on Christ.[91] The importance of Paul’s interpretation of this event is seen in the fact that if Christ’s resurrection is denied, neither Paul’s proclamation of the gospel nor his eschatological hope would make sense (1 Cor 15:12–19). Nevertheless, there is no room for doubt: “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (v. 20). For him, Jesus’s resurrection constitutes the down payment of the resurrection of believers at the end and also guarantees their transformation (vv. 20–22, 42–44). Moreover, the resurrection unveils and confirms Jesus’s status as the Son of God (Rom 1:3–4) and signals his enthronement at the right side of the Father (Eph 1:20). Resurrection is also linked to the justification of believers (Rom 4:24–25). It is connected with Jesus’s death and his reconciliatory work (5:10). When combined with the figure of baptism, it illustrates the concept of a new life (6:3–11). Thus, for Paul, the resurrection event shapes both his theology and the Christian experience.

These five theological concepts show that Paul interpreted the Easter events in ways that were perhaps new within early Christian circles. When many were reading the Jesus tradition as a biography and when others were attracted to the sayings tradition, Paul showed interest in discussing the passion and resurrection narratives and bestowed a central role on these in his theology and Christian experience.

Conclusion

Although the scarcity of direct references to the sayings of Jesus and historical facts of Jesus’s life in Paul can generate doubts about how much of the Jesus tradition he knew, his emphasis on the Easter events reflects a substantial continuity with the Jesus tradition of the early church. The fact that he constantly highlights the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, determining these two as a significant part of his gospel, suggests that Paul prefers this part of the tradition. The revelation at the Damascus road plays a significant role in the delimitation of his gospel, not only in terms of his evangelistic target but also in terms of the content of his proclamation, which is Christ-centered. Moreover, Paul takes a step further in the continuation of the Jesus tradition. He offers christological and soteriological interpretations of the Easter events, where Christ becomes the hermeneutical principle. This interpretation of the Easter events shows that what happened at the cross and the resurrection is vital for a correct articulation of his theological system. Themes like justification, redemption, reconciliation, election, and resurrection indicate that the story of Jesus is not merely a collection of facts and sayings but a theological and experiential understanding of them. Finally, Paul’s emphasis and interpretation of the passion and resurrection narratives is in itself a perpetuation of the Jesus tradition, confirming that Paul is acquainted with this tradition but decides to project it differently.

Notes

1. Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. W. Montgomery (London: Black, 1912), 12.
2. See Hans Hinrich Wendt, “Die Lehre des Paulus verglichen mit der Lehre Jesu,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 4.1 (1894): 1–78; William Wrede, Paul, trans. Edward Lummis (London: Green, 1907; repr., Lexington KY: American Theological Library, 1962). For a full discussion and bibliography on the Jesus-Paul debate, see Victor P. Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays, ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 17–50.
3. For further historical review, see Heinz Arnold Hiestermann, “Paul’s Use of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition” (PhD diss., University of Pretoria, 2016), 23–90.
4. Hiestermann, 45.
5. After analyzing the history of the debate on Paul and the Jesus tradition by stages, Hiestermann offers detailed tables that contain the number of parallels suggested by scholars, thus making it easier for the reader to perceive general disagreement and agreement in the parallels between Paul and the Synoptic Gospels. Hiestermann, 23–90.
6. Luigi Walt says one of the most debated issues is “the presence of explicit or implicit quotations from Jesus in Paul’s writings.” “A Non-Canonical Jesus in Paul?: 1 Corinthians 1–4 as a Test Case,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 25.2 (2008): 56.
7. This second question seems to be the focus of recent research, including the present study. A. J. M. Wedderburn rightly says that “apart from trying to trace continuity we must also try to understand the discontinuity between Jesus’ message and Paul’s.” “Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity,” Scottish Journal of Theology 38.2 (1985): 201.
8. Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate,” 50.
9. Paul used the noun εὐαγγέλιον sixty times in his epistles.
10. All Scripture is taken from the New American Standard Version (1995).
11. See J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 144; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 63; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 89; and James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Continuum, 1993), 53.
12. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 23–24.
13. Timothy George argues that the reading does not harm the text and that the ambiguity is probably intended by Paul. Galatians, New American Commentary 30 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 111. Similarly, R. Alan Cole’s advice is “to leave the meaning as ambiguous in the English as it is in the Greek.” The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 9 (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 85. Rightly, G. Walter Hansen says Paul’s “autobiographical account is constructed to support his claim for the revelatory origin and nature of the gospel” (emphasis supplied). Galatians, IVP New Testament Commentary 9 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 41.
14. Interestingly, some take the phrase “the preaching of Jesus Christ” in Romans 16:25 as referring to both the content and the source of Paul’s kerygma, thus implying both subjective and objective genitives. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible 33 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 754.
15. This interpretation is not in opposition to 1:15–16, where God is presented as the revealer. In fact, it gives another nuance to Paul’s understanding of the origin of his gospel. In the same way that Jesus Christ and God are the agents who constituted him as an apostle (v. 1), they could be the revealers of his gospel. Similarly, Longenecker sees the idea of source in verse 12, though a bit differently. Based on verse 1, he takes Jesus as the agent and God as the source of his apostleship. Then he applies the same formula to Paul’s view of his gospel in verses 11–16. Galatians, 23–24.
16. Paul’s affirmation in 2:7 does not suggest a difference in the content of his gospel versus Peter’s but rather a difference in the target. See Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 98–99.
17. Hansen states, “Just as he vigorously denied any human origin of his apostleship, so now he denies any human origin for the gospel he preached.” Galatians, 40–41.
18. James D. G. Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2, ” New Testament Studies 28.4 (1982): 465. This interpretation is followed in Frederick W. Danker et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 483.
19. Dunn, “Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem,” 465.
20. This point has received wide support. See Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 73–75; Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 98; Longenecker, Galatians, 37–38; Cole, Galatians, 95; Douglas Moo, Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 109.
21. According to Dunn, Paul downplays any role of the church leaders at Jerusalem as an authoritative source as far as the origin of his gospel is concerned. First, he went to Jerusalem seventeen years after receiving the revelation that “determined and defined” his gospel (2:1), and second, he went there only because he had received instruction to do so through a revelation (v. 2), otherwise, it is assumed he would not have done it. “Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem,” 467.
22. For Paul, being on good terms with the leaders of the church at Jerusalem was something that would contribute positively to his evangelistic efforts in regions outside Judea. See Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 109; followed by Longenecker, Galatians, 49.
23. John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Continuum, 2001), 141.
24. Muddiman, 141.
25. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 304.
26. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Gospel in the Theology of Paul,” Interpretation 33.4 (1979): 341; Gerhard Friedrich, “εὐαγγέλιον,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2:730.
27. Sometimes Paul interchanges the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ, “the gospel of Christ” with others such as τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου, “the gospel of the Lord” (2 Thess 1:8; cf. Rom 1:1), τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, “the gospel of his Son” (Rom 1:9), or τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ, “the gospel of God” (1 Thess 2:8, 9; cf. 2 Cor 11:7). All are references to the message he preaches.
28. James D. G. Dunn, discussing the noun εὐαγγέλιον, affirms that “it is quite probable that it was Paul himself who coined the usage as a new technical term for his own proclamation.” The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 168.
29. This is also suggested by Fitzmyer, who posits that Paul’s gospel is not “peculiar to himself ” or different from the apostles’ gospel. “Gospel in the Theology of Paul,” 342.
30. Paul’s awareness of his commission to the gentiles is widely discussed by interpreters. See Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 80; E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 102–11; and Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 32.
31. Seyoon Kim writes that “for Paul the Christophany on the Damascus road constituted both his gospel and his apostolic commission to the gentile mission.” The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 57. See a similar point in Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 47–48. The connection between content and apostleship is also reflected in 1 Timothy 2:7: “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle . . . to the Gentiles” (emphasis supplied). Here, “preacher” and “apostle” stand for the content and target of Paul’s gospel.
32. Dale C. Allison, talking about echoes of the synoptic tradition in Pauline writings, states that “it is extremely unlikely that these texts mark the limit of Paul’s familiarity with the Jesus tradition.” “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels,” New Testament Studies 28.1 (1982): 10.
33. Nikolaus Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays, ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn (London: T&T Clark, 1989), 53. See the original article in German in Nikolaus Walter, “Paulus und die urchristliche Jesustradition,” New Testament Studies 31.4 (1985): 498–522.
34. Allison, “Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels,” 10.
35. From now on, the phrase “Easter events” is used to refer to the events surrounding Easter: the Last Supper, Jesus’s passion and death, and the resurrection.
36. Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 768.
37. Gerhard Delling summarizes this Christian tradition in a fixed form based on 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 15:1, 3: “The account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper and of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus.” “παραλαμβάνω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:13.
38. This last phrase does not leave out the possibility that Paul received the Jesus tradition from the early church. Gordon D. Fee argues that the language for the transmission of “tradition” in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is different from the language of the “revelation” in Galatians 1:11–12, 17. According to him, in the former passage, Paul refers to the words of the institution that were part of “the church’s ongoing tradition,” while the revelation in the latter passage focuses more on “Christ’s death and resurrection, offered freely by God to those who believe.” The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 548. Thus, he understands this verse “in the sense that Jesus himself is the ultimate source of the tradition.” Fee, 548–49. Similarly, Hans Conzelmann comments that “he [Paul] was of course acquainted with it [tradition] through the mediation of men.” 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 196. For a contradiction of this interpretation, see Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 7 (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 157.
39. For the range of meaning of παραδίδωμι, see Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 761–63; R. F. Büchsel, “παραδίδωμι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:169–72.
40. This same command to hold fast to the tradition is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6. Paul also contrasts the Jesus tradition with “the tradition of men” (Gal 1:14; Col 2:8).
41. Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul, Understanding Jesus Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 20.
42. Harm W. Hollander, “The Words of Jesus: From Oral Traditions to Written Record in Paul and Q,” Novum Testamentum 42.4 (2000): 341.
43. See a more complete list of the noncanonical gospels in Michael F. Bird, The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 283–86.
44. From these, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip focus on the teachings and sayings of Jesus.
45. See the reminder of Furnish: “In posing these questions [on the Jesus tradition in Paul] we must remember that even the earliest of the four Gospels was not written until after Paul’s death.” Jesus according to Paul, 20.
46. Fitzmyer, “Gospel in the Theology of Paul,” 340. Hollander dates the first written account about Jesus’s sayings from 60–70 AD (Q) and the first biography of Jesus from 70 AD (Mark). “Words of Jesus,” 343. Contrarily, David P. Scaer affirms that the axiom of the “epistles before gospels” should be reevaluated. “Epistles before Gospels: An Axiom of New Testament Studies,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 77.1–2 (2013): 5–21.
47. Most of the early Christian tradition “concentrated upon [the] sayings of Jesus,” according to Hollander, “Words of Jesus,” 350.
48. First Corinthians 7:10–11 references Mark 10:9 (cf. Matt 19:6), Matthew 10:11–12 (cf. Matt 19:9), Luke 16:18 (cf. Matt 5:32). First Corinthians 9:14 references Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10. First Corinthians 11:23–25 references Matthew 26:26–28, Mark 14:22–24, and Luke 22:19–20. Some of Jesus’s sayings to which Paul may allude (echoes) and that are submitted to debate are the following: Romans 12:14 (cf. Luke 6:27–28; Matt 5:43–44); 12:17 (cf. Luke 6:27–28; Matt 5:39, 43–44); 13:7 (cf. Mark 12:17); 13:8–10 (cf. Mark 12:29–31; Matt 22:37–39; Luke 10:27); 14:13 (cf. Matt 18:7; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1–2); 14:14 (cf. Mark 7:15); 1 Corinthians 4:12–13 (cf. Luke 6:27–28; Matt 5:43–44); Galatians 5:14 (cf. Mark 12:29–31; Matt 22:37–39; Luke 10:27); 1 Thessalonians 5:2 (cf. Matt 24:43; Luke 12:3); 5:13 (cf. Mark 9:5); and 5:15 (cf. Matt 5:38–48).
49. Allison emphasizes the transcendence of this tradition for the early church: “The passion of Jesus was of central importance for those who transmitted the Jesus tradition, and the formation of a protracted passion narrative probably goes back to the very beginnings of the Christian church.” “Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels,” 16.
50. For the concept of blood in the New Testament, see Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 121–26.
51. George Eldon Ladd highlights the centrality of Christ’s death within Pauline theology and discusses the work of Christ (atonement) as expressed in a variety of phrases: Christ’s death, blood, cross, and crucifixion. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 464–77.
52. See also 1 Thessalonians 4:14, where Jesus’s resurrection guarantees the resurrection of those who fall asleep.
53. The occurrences of ἐγείρω in Romans 13:11; Ephesians 5:14; and Philippians 1:17 are not included.
54. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 386.
55. Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 378.
56. “For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus, precisely what the sayings tradition can easily do without, are the key to the counter-cultural radicalism that he encourages in his communities.” Stephen J. Patterson, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It Is Time for Another Look,” Harvard Theological Review 84.1 (1991): 39.
57. Hollander grants this point. “Words of Jesus,” 349. See also footnotes 44–47 above.
58. Allison, “Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels,” 22.
59. Walter writes, “The main stock of demonstrable material from the Jesus-tradi-tion in the Pauline letters occurs in connection with ethical paraenesis” (emphasis in original). “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” 68. Similarly, Hollander highlights that the three undisputable references to Jesus’s sayings in Paul (1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25) are from ethical contexts. “Words of Jesus,” 349.
60. Walter argues, “It is precisely in his decisive theological statements that Paul adduces no Jesus-tradition.” “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” 63.
61. On Jesus’s suffering and resurrection as key to Paul’s salvation theology, see John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 505–6. On the focus of the early church on the proclamation of the passion and resurrection narratives, see Dunn, who says that “what Paul received and preached, and echoed in his letters, was indeed the common Christian conviction that ‘Christ died (for us) and was raised (from the dead).’ That remained the shared confession and bond which held together the first Christian churches, despite all their diversity, in one gospel.” Theology of Paul the Apostle, 177.
62. For Fitzmyer, Paul’s uniqueness resides in the fact that he focuses not only on telling stories about Jesus but reading and interpreting his salvific work: “Paul never told his ‘story of the cross’ in the form of stories about what Jesus did and said. Yet even before those stories took final shape he had presented his ‘gospel,’ his interpretation of the Christ-event.” Fitzmyer, “Gospel in the Theology of Paul,” 342.
63. Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 32.
64. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1990), 79.
65. Dunn acknowledges this when he says that for Paul, Christ is the “hermeneutical clue to read and understand the scriptures.” Theology of Paul the Apostle, 173.
66. Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 100, 271; Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 71; and Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 90.
67. Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 100.
68. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 46.
69. On Paul’s conversion as a crucial factor for his interpretation of Jesus’s death, see Jacques Dupont, “The Conversion of Paul, and Its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel:Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 176–94; J. G. Gager, “Some Notes on Paul’s Conversion,” New Testament Studies 27.5 (1981): 697–704; J. D. G. Dunn, “ ‘A Light to the Gentiles,’ or ‘The End of the Law’?: The Significance of the Damascus Road Christophany for Paul,” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 89–104; and Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel.
70. On this concept of justification, see Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 351–62; and Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 478–90. For other related works, see Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Brian C. Wintle, “Justification in Pauline Thought,” in Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 51–68; and P. T. O’Brien, “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades,” in Right with God, 69–81.
71. For an overview of δικαιόω and its cognates, see Gottlob Schrenlk, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:178–225.
72. This rethinking of the law is recurring in Paul (e.g., Rom 3:20–21, 28; 5:13, 20; 6:14–15; 7:4; 8:3–4; 10:4; Gal 2:16–21; 3:10–13, 24). For the rethinking of the law at Paul’s conversion, see Ulrich Wilckens, “Die Bekehrung des Paulus als religionsgeschichtliches Problem,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 56.3 (1959): 273–93.
73. The other three references (Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14; 4:30) envision the eschatological redemption.
74. Rostock F. Büchsel, “ἀπολύτρωσις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4:351–52.
75. George Wesley Buchanan, “The Day of Atonement and Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption,” Novum Testamentum 32.3 (1990): 236. For a complete treatment of ἀπολυτρώσεως, see Henry Beach Carré, Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption (New York: Macmillan, 1914); and Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 1–52.
76. ἀγοράζω in 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23, 30 and ἐξαγοράζω in Galatians 3:13; 4:5.
77. See Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 117.
78. The phrase διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως indicates that redemption is the means of justification. See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 179.
79. For the concept in Paul’s thought, see Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 182–204; and Ralph P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981). For the concept in the NT, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 492–98; and Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 214–50.
80. καταλλάσσω (6x: Rom 5:10 [2x]; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18, 19, 20) and καταλλαγῇ (4x; Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18, 19).
81. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 255.
82. Danker et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 521. See also Rostock F. Büchsel, “καταλλάσσω, καταλλαγῇ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:255–58.
83. Paul Barnett notes that 2 Corinthians 5:14–17 is Christocentric, while 2 Corinthians 5:18–19 is theocentric. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 301.
84. Verses 19a and 19c are a synonymous parallelism or rhetorical repetition of verses 18a and 18b. It should be acknowledged that the added phrase in verse 19b “not counting their trespasses against them” could support seeing the entire verse 19 as a symmetrical parallelism of verse 18.
85. See the complete explanation in Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 452.
86. Michael Wolter, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. Robert L. Brawley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 401.
87. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 71.
88. For a wider discussion of election and Israel in Romans 9–11, see N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1156–258; Wolter, Paul, 413–22; Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 499–532; Ridderbos, Paul, 327–61; John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1983); Mary Ann Getty, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50.3 (1988): 456–69; and R. Schmitt, Gottesgerechtigkeit—Heilsgeschichte—Israel in der Theologie des Paulus (Frankfurt: Lang, 1984).
89. Porter, Apostle Paul, 131.
90. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 72.
91. For the Pauline theology of the resurrection, see Richard B. Gaffin Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978); N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 207–398; and Frederick S. Tappenden, Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation, Early Christianity and Its Literature 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016).

“Renewed Unto Knowledge”: The Restoration Of The Image Of God In Colossians 3:9–10

By Eric R. Montgomery

[Eric R. Montgomery is Professor of Biblical Studies, the International Graduate School of Leadership, Manila, Philippines.]

Abstract

This study examines the words “renewed unto knowledge according to the image” in Colossians 3:10, and it seeks to answer two questions: what did Paul mean by “renewed unto knowledge,” and what is the relationship between knowledge and the image of God? It argues that Paul utilized a well-known Jewish creation tradition in Colossians 3:9–10 to demonstrate that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of divine wisdom and that the Colossian believers are progressively becoming images of God like Jesus as they grow in their knowledge of Christ.

Introduction

In Colossians 3:9–10, Paul[1] exhorts his audience by saying, “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of the one who created him”[2] (μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν). The focus of this article is the phrase in verse 10: τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα (“the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image”). This study will answer two questions about this phrase: (1) What did Paul mean by ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“renewed unto knowledge”) and (2) What is the relationship between knowledge and the image of God?

While most interpreters have observed that the terms “knowledge” and “image” in 3:10 are both related to a believer’s “renewal,” scholars have seldom connected the two words with each other in a convincing manner that makes sense within the context of the sentence. In fact, many commentators have simply examined the terms “knowledge” and “image” in isolation from each other. For example, in his commentary on Colossians, Wright first discusses the relationship between “renewal” and “image” without any consideration of the term “knowledge.” He writes, “The new self is being renewed . . . in the image of its Creator.”[3] Wright omits the word “knowledge” and replaces it with an ellipsis, thus avoiding any discussion of “knowledge” at this point. Two pages later he returns to the word “knowledge” and says, “This renewal is put into effect not only in outward actions but also, and as a prior necessity, in knowledge: the phrase literally means ‘into knowledge’, implying that the ‘renewal’ spoken of is to result in the true knowledge of God.”[4] Here, Wright discusses the relationship between “renewal” and “knowledge” but neglects to explain how this knowledge is related to the word “image.” While Wright’s analysis of the passage contains several good observations, ultimately he fails to explain how the words ἀνακαινόω (“I renew”), ἐπίγνωσις (“knowledge”), and εἰκών (“image”) are related to one another conceptually.[5]

Some scholars have gone further and attempted to explain the relationship between these words. For example, Dunn states that the renewal of knowledge implies a restoration of the relationship between God and man that once characterized Adam as the image of God. The relationship between God and man was broken by the knowledge of good and evil, but now it is restored by the knowledge of God available in Christ.[6] Dunn’s explanation is creative, but it does not adequately consider the syntax of the sentence, the context, or how εἰκών is used elsewhere in Colossians.

Lohse argues that 3:9–10 refers to the event of baptism, at which time the believer puts off the old man (i.e., disobedience to God) and puts on the new man (i.e., obedience to God). After being baptized, the believer is responsible for renewing the new man by daily demonstrating his conformity to Jesus, the image of God, through his obedience to God. Obedience to God is now possible for the believer because he knows God’s will.[7] Like Dunn, Lohse has made a commendable effort to interpret this passage, but his interpretation does not do justice to Paul’s choice of terms or the syntax of the sentence.

After reading the various interpretations of Colossians 3:9–10, two questions remain unanswered: (1) What did Paul mean by “renewed in knowledge” or “renewed unto knowledge,” and (2) What does knowledge have to do with the image of God? This article argues that the answers to these two questions can be found in a Jewish creation tradition that was prevalent during the Second Temple period. According to this tradition, when God created the primordial man, he endowed him with special wisdom and knowledge, and this wisdom made the first man an image of God.

Paul knew of this creation tradition, and he utilized it in his letter to the Colossians. The Colossian Christians were being tempted to perfect themselves through human wisdom. Paul sought to counter this by demonstrating to the Colossians that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of wisdom, and the Colossian believers can obtain perfection as God renews them to the same knowledge and wisdom that is found in Jesus. Before looking at the creation tradition underlying Paul’s thought in Colossians 3:9–10, it is necessary to make a few syntactical observations and interpretive decisions about this passage.

Analysis Of Colossians 3:9–10

Colossians 3:9

Colossians 3:9 continues a series of moral exhortations that began in verse 1. In verse 9, Paul says, μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ (“Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices”). Most commentators agree that the aorist participle ἀπεκδυσάμενοι is causal, indicating the reason why followers of Christ should not lie to one another.[8] The meaning of τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον is more debated. It is clear that Paul was using a clothing metaphor in verses 9–10.[9] Followers of Christ “have put off the old man” and “have put on the new [man].” The difficult question is what Paul meant by “old man” and “new [man].”[10] Some have argued that the imagery refers to baptism, when believers took off their old clothes and donned new clothes after their immersion.[11] While baptism might explain the acts of “putting off” and “putting on,” it does not explain why Paul used ἄνθρωπος here.

As many interpreters have observed, the use of ἄνθρωπος (v. 9) needs to be understood in light of the creation language employed in verse 10, which includes at least four references to the creation account in Genesis 1–3. First, the verb ἐνδύω is taken from Genesis 3:21 (LXX), where God made garments for Adam and Eve and clothed them.[12] Second, the word ἐπίγνωσις is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge.[13] Third, the use of εἰκών is a reference to 1:26–27. Finally, Colossians 3:10 mentions τοῦ κτίσαντος, which is an allusion to God as creator. With this context in mind, the word ἄνθρωπος in verse 9 should be understood as a reference to Adam. Hence, when Paul says that followers of Christ “have put off the old man [i.e., Adam] together with his practices,” he means the old sinful Adamic nature and the practices associated with it.[14]

The meaning of ἄνθρωπος in verse 9 is related to another Pauline expression: ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (“inner man,” Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16).[15] For Paul, the inner man represents the seat of human will, desire, and decision-making. It is equivalent to the לֵב (“heart”) in Jewish thought[16] or the νοῦς (“mind”) in Greek thought.[17] In Romans 7:22–24 Paul uses the terms ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and νοῦς synonymously, indicating that he considered these to be equivalent concepts.[18] Thus, when Paul uses the terms “old man” and “new [man]” in Colossians 3:9–10 and elsewhere, he is describing different minds, that is, different ways of thinking and behaving.[19] So, when Paul tells the Colossians that they have put off the old man and put on the new man, he is effectively signifying to them that their minds have changed.[20]

Colossians 3:10

The same line of thought continues in verse 10, where Paul says, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (“and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of the one who created him”). As with the previous aorist participle, ἐνδυσάμενοι is causal. The object of the participle is τὸν νέον, which should be understood as “the new man” based on the parallelism with verse 9. Like the old man, the new man refers to one’s mind or way of thinking. In essence, Paul tells the Colossians that they should not lie to one another because they have adopted a new mind.[21]

If the old man refers to the former sinful Adamic way of thinking, then the new man must be drawing upon the idea of Christ as a second Adam.[22] Paul is, in effect, telling the Colossians that they have put on a new mind (i.e., a new way of thinking) associated with Christ as the new Adam. Formerly, they had a mind marked by hostility and evil deeds (1:21),[23] but they have put off the old mind of the first Adam and have put on the mind of the new Adam.

The verse goes on to say that the new man is ἀνακαινούμενον (“being renewed”). As many have noted, the present participle denotes a present, continuous process. The terminology here is reminiscent of Romans 12:2: μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός (“be transformed by the renewal of the mind”). Colossians 3:10 is also similar to 2 Corinthians 4:16, which says, “Therefore, we are not wearied. Even though our outer man (ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) is perishing, our inner [man] is being renewed (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν ἀνακαινοῦται) day by day.” Paul declares that the inner man (i.e., the mind)[24] is in a process of gradual renewal day by day. Likewise, Colossians 3:10 describes a transformation of the mind.[25]

Verse 10 continues by stating that the new man is being renewed εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. The prepositional phrase εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν is one of the most misunderstood parts of verse 10. Many modern Bibles translate εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν as “in knowledge” as if εἰς denotes the means of renewal (i.e., “renewed by knowledge”) or the sphere of renewal (i.e., “renewed in the area of knowledge” or “renewed with regard to knowledge”).[26] While it is true that εἰς is sometimes used in place of the preposition ἐν when speaking of a position or location within a certain area (e.g., “in Capernaum,” Luke 4:23, or “in the synagogues,” Mark 13:9),[27] such a meaning does not work in Colossians 3:10. It is also true that the preposition εἰς is occasionally used in the New Testament with an instrumental sense, but such usages are quite rare.[28]

The best sense for εἰς in verse 10 is to denote the goal or objective of renewal.[29] The preposition is used in a resultative manner to describe the entrance into a state of being that will be brought about by the renewal.[30] This conclusion is supported by a very similar construction in Hebrews 6:6, which states, ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν (“[it is impossible] to renew unto repentance,” i.e., to renew unto a state of repentance). In his comments on Colossians 3:10, Meyer correctly states that εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν “expresses the end aimed at by the ἀνακαινοῦσθαι.”[31] Thus, in Colossians 3:10 the words τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν could be translated as “the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge” (i.e., unto a state of knowledge).[32]

The meaning of ἐπίγνωσις (“knowledge”) is not explicated in 3:9–10, but 1:9–10 and 2:2–3 supply the clearest definition. In 1:9–10, Paul informs the Colossian believers that he has been praying that they might be filled with “the knowledge of his will (τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ) in all spiritual wisdom and understanding to walk worthy of the Lord fully pleasing in every good work.” In this passage, the word ἐπίγνωσις is associated with the knowledge of God’s will, which enables one to walk rightly before God.[33] Such knowledge constitutes a “spiritual wisdom and understanding” that is antithetical to the fleshly and human wisdom Paul denounces in chapter 2.

Colossians 2:2–3 gives added definition to the word ἐπίγνωσις. Here, Paul states that he wants the Colossian believers to attain “the knowledge of the mystery of God” (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ), which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” In this passage, Paul proclaims that he desires the believers to come to a full knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Jesus. He then says that wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Jesus himself. If the information from 2:2–3 is combined with 1:9–10, then it is clear that the knowledge that Paul had in mind is the knowledge of Christ through which a believer obtains the knowledge of God’s will and is able to walk in true righteousness and Christlikeness (1:10; 2:6).[34]

After the words καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge”), Paul adds another modifying prepositional phrase: κατ’ εἰκόνα (“according to the image”). Commentators have often passed over the preposition κατά without substantial comment, but the syntax is important here. The preposition κατά is being used to indicate a standard or measure.[35] Thus, the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα means that the renewal unto knowledge takes place “according to the standard/measure of the image.”

The preposition κατά could modify either ἀνακαινούμενον or ἐπίγνωσιν. Most commentators have assumed that κατ’ εἰκόνα modifies the participle ἀνακαινούμενον.[36] However, Meyer rightly argues that the prepositional phrase modifies ἐπίγνωσιν.[37] Paul did not mean to say that the new man (i.e., the new mind) is being renewed according to the image unto a state of knowledge. Such an interpretation leaves εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν standing “abrupt, isolated, and indefinite” in the sentence.[38] Rather, Paul intended to say that the new man is being renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with the image.[39] In other words, εἰκών signifies a measure or standard of knowledge, and the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα more precisely defines the kind of knowledge to which the new man is being renewed.

This interpretation of κατ’ εἰκόνα can be confirmed by looking at the only other usage of εἰκών in Colossians. Commentators generally recognize that the word εἰκών in 3:10 is related to 1:15, where Jesus is called the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (“image of God”).[40] The use of εἰκών in both 1:15 and 3:10 is an allusion to Genesis 1:26–27. In fact, it is likely that Paul consciously lifted the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10 directly from Genesis 1:26, which says: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν (“And God said, ‘Let us make man according to our image’ ”). Thus, in Colossians 1:15 and 3:10, Paul used the word εἰκών to depict Jesus as the image of God and a new Adam.[41]

Furthermore, in Colossians the word εἰκών also carries the connotation of divine wisdom. Colossians 1:15–20 contains the so-called “Colossian Hymn,” and the first half of the hymn (1:15–17) describes Jesus as follows: “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him; and he is before all things and all things hold together in him.”

In recent years, scholars have generally recognized that the language employed in the first half of the hymn is strikingly similar to the descriptions of divine wisdom in other Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period.[42] Apparently, the author of this hymn intended to describe Jesus by using terminology normally applied to God’s wisdom. Thus, like God’s wisdom, Jesus is the image of God (Col 1:15; Wis 7:26) and the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15; Prov 8:22–23). Both Jesus and divine wisdom existed before creation (Col 1:15, 17; Prov 8:22–31; Sir 1:4; 24:1–9; Wis 9:9), and both served as God’s agent through whom he created everything (Col 1:16; Prov 3:19; 8:27–31; Jer 10:12; Wis 7:22; 8:6; 9:2). In addition, both Jesus and divine wisdom are the means by which God holds together and brings order to the universe (Col 1:17; Sir 43:26; Wis 1:7; 7:22–27; 8:1).[43]

The word εἰκών has a double connotation in Colossians. It is a reference to Adam as the image of God, and it is also a reference to God’s divine wisdom.[44] Thus, Jesus, as the εἰκών of God, is both a new Adam and the fullness of divine wisdom. This has tremendous bearing on the proper interpretation of κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10. In this passage, Paul tells the Colossian believers that their minds (i.e., the new man) are being renewed unto a state of knowledge that is in accordance with Jesus, the image of God, who is the fullness of wisdom and knowledge. In other words, through the progressive renewal of their minds, the Colossian believers grow in wisdom and knowledge until they are conformed to Jesus, who is the archetype of God’s wisdom.

The final words in verse 10, τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, are relatively easy to interpret. The substantival participle, τοῦ κτίσαντος, refers to God as creator,[45] and the pronoun, αὐτόν, refers back to τὸν νέον (“the new [man]”).[46] So, τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (“the one who created him”) means “the one who created the new man.”

Summary

At this point it will be helpful to provide a periphrastic translation of Colossians 3:9–10 that takes into account the observations made above: “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices and have put on the new man, the one who is being renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with the image of the one who created him [i.e., the new man].”

In this sentence Paul asserts that the Colossian believers have cast off the old man (i.e., the mind of the old Adam) and they have put on a new man (i.e., the mind of the new Adam). Furthermore, he states that the new man is being progressively renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with Jesus, who is the image of God. Earlier in Colossians, Paul described Jesus as the embodiment and fullness of divine wisdom (1:15–17; 2:2–3, 9). In 3:10 he tells the Colossian believers that they are being renewed in their minds unto the same state of knowledge that characterizes Jesus as the image of God.

Paul’s thought process in 3:9–10 seems strange to most modern readers of the Bible who are primarily acquainted with the creation account in Genesis 1–3. In Genesis the image of God is not associated with wisdom or knowledge, nor does Genesis say that Adam possessed special wisdom at the time of his creation. Quite the contrary. Genesis 2–3 indicates that Adam and Eve were cursed because they sought after the knowledge of good and evil. However, as will be demonstrated in the next section, there was another creation tradition prevalent in the Second Temple period that explains the reasoning behind Paul’s thought.

Creation, Wisdom, And The Image Of God In Early Judaism

In recent years, scholars have increasingly recognized that diverse creation traditions existed in ancient Israel.[47] Remnants of these traditions can be found in the Psalms, Job, Ezekiel, the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 6–36), and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While these creation traditions are varied and often fragmentary, it is clear they differ in substantial ways from the Genesis narrative. Thus, it is apparent that Jews in the Second Temple period did not have a single, universally accepted conception about creation.

One ancient creation tradition is particularly relevant for a proper understanding of Colossians 3:9–10. At least as early as the Persian period, some Jewish writers held the view that God initially created the primordial man with special wisdom, and it was his wisdom that made the first man superior to other earthly creatures. The idea that the primordial man was created with divine wisdom is attested in extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern texts,[48] and it is evident in Old Testament passages such as 1 Kings 3:1–14, Job 15:7–8, and Ezekiel 28:12–19. This view continued in Judaism well into the late Roman period. Examples can be found in Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan texts as late as the fourth century AD.[49] The examples below are not exhaustive but intended to illustrate that this tradition was well-known and widely attested in the late Second Temple period.

Meditation On Creation C

The first source to be considered is a document known as Meditation on Creation C (4Q305), which was discovered at Qumran.[50] Although the text is very fragmentary, it is pertinent because it unequivocally asserts that God gave knowledge to Adam at the time of his creation. The relevant portion (4Q305 II, 1–3) states:

(1) and he created in it animals [. . .	ויברא בו חיות[ . . .
(2) he gave to Adam knowled[ge . . .	נתן לאדם דע[ת . . .
(3) and evil[ ] to know [. . . .	ור֗ע֗[ ]לד֗ע֗ת֗[ . . .

Line 1 is a summary of Genesis 2:18–19, which describes how God brought all of the animals to Adam so that he could name them. The narrative continues in line 2 by stating that God gave knowledge to Adam. Since line 2 is most likely related to the events in line 1, it is reasonable to conclude that the knowledge that God gave to Adam was the knowledge necessary to name the animals (cf. Gen 2:19–20). According to later Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, Adam exhibited his profound knowledge by naming all of the animals.[51] Although line 3 is very broken, its proximity to line 2 and its use of the words רע (“evil”) and דעת (“to know”) suggest that line 3 is describing the nature of the knowledge that God gave to Adam.[52] Thus, the original, undamaged text of Meditation on Creation C probably stated that God gave to Adam the knowl-edge of good and evil, and it was this knowledge that enabled Adam to know the names of the animals. This contradicts the account in Genesis 2–3, but, as will be seen below, other Jewish texts declare that God created Adam with the knowledge of good and evil.

Words Of The Luminaries

Another text discovered at Qumran, the Words of the Luminaries,[53] goes a step further than Meditation on Creation C. In the Words of the Luminaries, God’s gift of knowledge is directly associated with Adam’s status as the image of God. The relevant section of the text (4Q504 8 recto 4–7) states:

(4) . . . אדם א]ב֗י֯נו֯ יצרתה בדמות כבוד֯[כה . . .

(5) . . . נשמת חיים נ]פ֯ח֯תה באפו ובינה ודעת [מלאתה אותו . . .

(6) . . . בג]ן֯ עדן אשר נטעתה המשלת֯[ה אותו . . .

(7) . . . ]○ם ולתהלך בארץ כב֗וד א○[ . . .

(4) . . . Adam,] our [fat]her, you fashioned in the image of [your] glory [ . . .

(5) . . . the breath of life] you [b]lew into his nostril, and [you filled him with] understanding and knowledge [ . . .

(6) . . . in the gar]den of Eden which you planted. You gave [him] dominion[ . . .

(7) . . . ] and to walk in a glorious land [ . . .

The author of the Words of the Luminaries merged elements from Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:7–8 to create a new narrative. According to this new narrative, God created Adam in his glorious image at the very moment when he breathed into his nostrils.[54] Furthermore, as line 5 states, when God breathed into Adam, he filled him with understanding and knowledge.[55] The author apparently interpreted Genesis 2:7 to mean that God imparted knowledge to Adam at the moment when he breathed into him.[56]

In the Words of the Luminaries three creation events are merged into one: the formation of Adam in God’s image, God breathing into the first man, and God’s bestowal of knowledge and understanding. For the author, these three events were one and the same.[57] The Words of the Luminaries is far from alone in this interpretation. The same concept is in other texts like Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Sirach

In Sirach 17:1–7, the sage states:

The Lord from the earth created humankind, and makes each person return to earth again. Limited days of life he gives them, with power over all things else on earth. He endows them with a strength that befits them; in God’s own image he made them. He puts the fear of humans in all flesh, and allows them power over beasts and birds. Discretion, with tongues and eyes and ears, and an understanding heart he gives them. With wisdom and knowledge he fills them; good and evil he shows them.[58]

In this passage Sirach combined elements from Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:7–9 to narrate the creation of humanity. Verses 3–4 state that God made humankind in his image, and he gave them power to rule over the creation (cf. Gen 1:26–28). Then, verses 6–7 continue by saying that God gave wisdom to humanity.[59] He endowed humans with physical sensation and an understanding mind/heart (v. 6). God also filled them with wisdom and knowledge, and he showed[60] them good and evil (v. 7).[61] Although Sirach does not explicitly state how God granted this knowledge to humanity, the verb ἐμπίπλημι (“to fill”) in verse 7 seems to allude to God filling the first man with his breath in Genesis 2:7. Thus, in Sirach’s view, God endowed the first humans with wisdom and knowledge when he breathed into them.

As with the Words of the Luminaries, Sirach merged three creation events into one: the formation of humanity in the image of God, God breathing into the first man, and God’s bestowal of wisdom and knowledge. The authors of both texts believed that God endowed the primordial man with knowledge when he breathed into him, and they both associated the man’s knowledge or wisdom with his status as God’s image. The same associations between wisdom, the image of God, and the breath of God are also made in the Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Wisdom Of Solomon

In Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26, the author describes God’s wisdom using concepts from the Genesis creation account and Hellenistic philosophy. The passage states, “For she is a breath of the power of God, and an emanation of the pure glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the activity of God, and an image of his goodness.”[62] In this passage the author drew upon Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7 to describe God’s wisdom as the image of God (“an image of his goodness”)[63] and the breath of God (“a breath of the power of God”).[64] A few chapters later, the text goes on to say that divine wisdom dwelt with Adam at the time of his creation: “She carefully guarded the first-formed father of the world, when he alone was created, and delivered him from his own transgression; she gave him strength to rule over all things” (Wis 10:1–2).[65] In the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s divine wisdom is associated with the image of God and the breath of God, and this divine wisdom was given to Adam at the time of his creation.

Philo Of Alexandria

Like the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo of Alexandria used an interpretive tradition that asserted God endowed the first man with wisdom and the divine image when God breathed his spirit into him.[66] According to Philo, after God formed the corporeal man from dust (i.e., the primordial Adam), he breathed his divine spirit into him (Opif. 134–35) and thus imbued him with a rational mind (Opif. 139; Leg. 1.39–42; Her. 55–57). The divine spirit that God breathed into Adam was in fact an image of God’s own rationality, which Philo frequently refers to as God’s λόγος (Plant. 18–20; Her. 230–36; Somn. 2.45).[67] Since God’s λόγος is the very image of God, Philo states that Adam’s rational mind was the image of the image of God (Plant. 44; Her. 231; Spec. 1.171, 3.207; QG. 2.62). When God breathed his spirit into Adam, he filled him with divine wisdom and a rational intellect, thus making Adam’s mind an image of God’s own mind (Opif. 145, 151).[68] As with the preceding examples, Philo had a concept of creation according to which God intentionally imbued the primordial man with wisdom at the time of his creation, and this wisdom made the first man an image of God.

Other Texts

In addition to the texts already discussed, several documents written after the Second Temple period declare God created the first man with wisdom and knowledge. Examples can be found in 2 Enoch 30:10–15, the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12:36–43 (contained within the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions), the Samaritan work known as Memar Marqah (2.1, 8–9; 6.3), and several so-called gnostic texts (e.g., Orig. World, Ap. John, and Ap. Adam). Although these works originated in different time periods and geographical locations, they all contain the same basic belief that God endowed the first man with wisdom, and it was the first man’s divine wisdom that made him an image of God.

Summary

From the evidence surveyed above, it is clear that there was a widespread and well-known creation tradition in the Second Temple period, which differed in fundamental ways from the account in Genesis 1–3. Paul knew of this tradition, and he utilized it in order to persuade the Colossian believers that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of wisdom. Moreover, they are progressively being conformed to the image of God as they grow in their knowledge of Christ. At this point, it is necessary to understand the circumstances surrounding Paul’s letter to the Colossians before examining his argument in Colossians 3:9–10.

Wisdom And The Colossian Heresy

For more than a century scholars have debated the particular problem, the so-called “Colossian heresy,” that Paul was addressing in his letter to the Colossians.[69] Numerous suggestions have been made over the years, and there is still no general consensus.[70] While it is far beyond the scope of this paper to address the specific nature of the Colossian heresy, some comments about its general contours are important for understanding 3:9–10.

Many scholars have observed that the Colossian heresy involved some kind of “philosophy” (φιλοσοφία, 2:8) that Paul opposed. While commentators vigorously debate about the precise background and nature of this philosophy, most scholars have agreed that one aspect of the philosophy had to do with the pursuit of wisdom. Apparently, the opponents claimed that they possessed or had access to special knowledge and wisdom.[71] This explains why the polemic in chapter 2 begins (2:3) and ends (2:23) with statements about the source of true wisdom and why wisdom and knowledge terminology is so prominent in the letter. The opponents claimed that wisdom is found in or acquired through what Paul calls “the traditions of men” (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 2:8) and “the elements of the world” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, v. 8). These traditions and elements were related to certain practices described in verses 16–22: dietary requirements, calendrical observances, a form of asceticism,[72] worship of the angels,[73] possibly some kind of revelatory experience,[74] and certain human precepts and teachings.

Paul’s opponents sought to overcome the “gratifications of the flesh” (πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός, v. 23) through human wisdom, regulations, and teachings. Apparently, the opponents believed that their wisdom and its associated practices would help them attain fullness and perfection.[75] But Paul responded by saying that such things merely have the “appearance of wisdom” (λόγον . . . ἔχοντα σοφίας, v. 23). True wisdom, according to Paul, is only found in Christ. It is the wisdom available in Christ that would allow the Colossian believers to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord (1:9–10; 2:6–7). Perfection and maturity are only possible through Jesus because he is the embodiment of wisdom (vv. 15–17), and in him are the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (v. 3).

Knowledge And The Restoration Of The Image Of God In Colossians 3:9–10

This study began with two questions related to the words τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10: (1) what did Paul mean by ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“renewed unto knowledge”) and (2) what does knowledge have to do with the image of God?

Paul’s opponents in Colossians 2 professed that they had access to special wisdom, which would lead them to fullness and perfection. Paul countered this by refuting their claim to possess wisdom and by asserting that Jesus is the source of true wisdom. Paul argued that whatever supposed wisdom the opponents possessed was not true wisdom. It had no value for overcoming the gratifications of the flesh (v. 23). The minds of the opponents were still alienated from God (1:21) and fleshly (2:18) because they had not put off the old man—the mind of the old Adam (3:9).

In chapter 3, Paul informs the believers that they are not like their opponents. They do not need human wisdom with its regulations, precepts, and teachings. They have died and been united with Christ, and they are able to set their minds on things above (vv. 1–3). In verses 9–10, Paul exhorts the believers not to lie to one another because they have put off the old mind and they have put on the new mind, which is ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα (“being renewed unto knowledge according to the image”).

In verse 10, Paul utilized a popular and well-known Jewish creation tradition in order to portray Jesus as a new Adam—a perfect Adam—who is both the image of God (1:15; 3:10) and the fullness of divine wisdom (1:15–17; 2:3). Paul proclaims that Jesus is the archetype or supreme standard of wisdom, and only the wisdom found in Christ is able to bring people to perfection (1:28). Since the Colossian believers have access to Jesus and know him, they can obtain the wisdom and knowledge hidden in him. Furthermore, as they grow in their knowledge of Christ, their minds are progressively being renewed unto a state of wisdom and knowledge that resembles Jesus, the image of God. Thus, through the wisdom available in Christ, the Colossian believers are in the process of being perfected in wisdom, ultimately becoming images of God like Christ.

Notes

1. Throughout this article the author of the letter to the Colossians is referred to as “Paul,” although the letter’s authorship is highly debated. The true identity of the author has no significant bearing on the arguments presented here.
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are the author’s own translations.
3. N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 137.
4. Wright, To theColossians and to Philemon, 139.
5. Wright is not alone in dissociating the terms “knowledge” and “image” in his discussion; many other commentators have done the same. See T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 284; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 148; David E. Garland, The NIV Application Commentary: Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 207; Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 269–70.
6. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 221–23. Following Dunn, Beale offers a similar interpretation. He argues that “knowledge” in Colossians 3:10 refers to the knowledge of God, which Adam and Eve once possessed in the Garden of Eden. However, Adam and Eve failed to act according to their knowledge because they were deceived by the serpent (just as the Colossian believers were in danger of being deceived by the false teachers). In verse 10, Paul tells the believers that they are being renewed unto a true knowledge of God which characterizes Jesus, the last Adam. See G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 284.
7. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. William R. Poehlmannand and Robert J. Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 142–43.
8. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, trans. John C. Moore, rev. and ed. William P. Dickson, American ed., (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 352–53; Abbott, To the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 283–84; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 189; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 265–66; Dave Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions,” Filología Neotestamentaria 9.17 (1996): 34. Lohse, however, argues that the participles carry on the imperatival force of μὴ ψεύδεσθε at the beginning of verse 9 (Colossians and Philemon, 141).
9. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 189–90; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 266–67.
10. Elsewhere, Paul uses the language of “old man” and “new man” in Romans 6:6 and Ephesians 2:15; 4:22–24.
11. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 141; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 138; Dunn, To the Colossians and Philemon, 220–21. It should be noted, however, that there is no evidence for a ritual change of clothing at the time of baptism until the mid-second century AD (Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 267; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 288).
12. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 278.
13. The word ἐπίγνωσις is not used in Genesis 1–3, but the verb γινώσκω is used several times (Gen 2:17; 3:5, 7, 22) and the word γνωστός is used once in Genesis 2:9.
14. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 190; Bruce, To the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 147; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 268; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 278–79.
15. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1956), 296–97; Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 135–37.
16. Cf. 1 Peter 3:4, ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίαςἄνθρωπος. Also, in Ephesians 3:16–17 the terms ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and καρδία are conceptually related.
17. Philo used language similar to Paul’s “inner man” to describe the νοῦς. Philo referred to the νοῦς as ἄνθρωποςἐνἀνθρώπῳ (Congr. 97) and τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀλήθειανἄνθρωπον (Plant. 42).
18. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:363; Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology, 137.
19. The association between the “new man” and the “mind” can also be observed in Ephesians 4:23–24, where the phrase ἀνανεοῦσθαι τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν (“to be renewed in the spirit of your mind”) is parallel with the phrase ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον (“to put on the new man”).
20. The meaning of “old man” in Colossians 3:9 is probably described in Colossians 2:18 where Paul mentions the τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς (“fleshly mind”) of those who were trying to lead the Colossian believers astray.
21. Many commentators have noted the similarity between Romans 13:14, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 3:10 in that all three verses speak of putting something on. However, Lohse correctly observes that Colossians 3:10 differs from the other two. He states, “Col does not speak of putting on Christ like Gal 3:27 and Rom 13:14. Rather it exhorts to put on the ‘new man,’ who is formed according to the Creator’s ‘image’ (εἰκών) which, in fact, is Christ” (Colossians and Philemon, 142).
22. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 119; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 268.
23. In Colossians 1:21 the word διάνοια is used instead of νοῦς, but the meaning is not substantially different.
24. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman, rev. and ed. William P. Dickson, American ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 501–2; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 135–37; George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
25. Moule correctly notes the similarity between 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Colossians 3:10 (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 120).
26. NIV, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, NET, LEB.
27. Frederick W. Danker, et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 289.1.a.δ.
28. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 291.9.
29. Danker, 290.4a–b.
30. Beale states that “the preposition here expresses either purpose or intended result.” Colossians and Philemon, 282n42.
31. Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 354. See also Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269.
32. Garland states that the knowledge mentioned in verse 10 “comes as a byproduct [sic] of our renewal.” Colossians and Philemon, 207. This is quite the opposite of what Paul intended. Knowledge is not the by-product of renewal. Rather, it is the goal of renewal.
33. Throughout Colossians, wisdom and knowledge are associated with one’s conduct and behavior (1:9–10, 24–28; 2:2–3, 23; 3:9–10, 16–17; 4:5–6).
34. After conducting an exhaustive study of the uses of ἐπίγνωσις in the New Testament, Moule concludes that the word “is closely concerned with the knowledge of Christ and conformity to his likeness, which, in turn, is the substance of God’s self-revelation” (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 159–61).
35. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon, 513.B.5.b.
36. See, for example, Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 284; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 191; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269–70.
37. Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 354–55.
38. Meyer, 355.
39. Meyer writes, “Through the [renewal] there is to be produced a knowledge, which accords with the image of God” (Meyer, 354).
40. Moule, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 120; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 138; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269–70.
41. Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 78–85; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 113–14; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 80–86, 119–20.
42. Dunn has commented, perhaps somewhat hyperbolically, “Indeed, few issues in recent NT theology have commanded such unanimity of agreement as the source of the language and imagery used in these two passages [i.e., 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15–20]. By common consent, it was drawn from earlier Jewish reflection on divine Wisdom.” James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 269. See also Moule, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 58; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 37–40; Bruce, To the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 56; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 66–68; Dunn, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 87–94; Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Wisdom in Col 1:15–20: Contribution and Significance,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41.1 (1998): 45–53.
43. The notion that Jesus and divine wisdom bring order and cohesion to God’s creation is borrowed from Greek philosophy. See C. John Collins, “Colossians 1, 17 ‘Hold Together’: A Co-opted Term,” Biblica 95.1 (2014): 64–87.
44. Moo rightly observes that Colossians 1:15–20 utilizes both Adam and wisdom as typological figures (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 113–14). On the integration of Adam and wisdom themes in Colossians 1:15–20, see Dave Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 12.39 (1990): 101–6; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 123–24.
45. Although some earlier interpreters (most notably Chrysostom) read τοῦκτίσαντος as a reference to Jesus, such a reading would make no sense in the context if εἰκόνα also refers to Jesus. Moreover, in the New Testament, God, not Jesus, is always referred to as the creator. See Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 355.
46. The masculine pronoun αὐτόν refers to the masculine adjective νέον, not the feminine noun εἰκόνα.
47. John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Yair Hoffman, “The First Creation Story: Canonical and Diachronic Aspects,” in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 319 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 32–53. See also David J. A. Cline, “Varieties of Creation in the Bible,” New Directions in Cosmology Conference, St. John’s College, Durham University, January 10, 2013, video of lecture, http://www.academia.edu/2381241/Varieties_of_Creation_in_the_Bible.
48. E.g., the myth of Adapa (Adapa and the South Wind), the story of Oannes in Berossus’s Babyloniaca, the Enuma Elish, and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
49. For a more detailed discussion of this creation tradition, see Eric R. Montgomery, “ ‘He Gave to Adam Knowledge’: A Competing Creation Tradition in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 72.2 (2021): 676–708.
50. Torleif Elgvin et al., Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 20 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 157–58.
51. See Ecclesiastes Rabbah 8:2–3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 3.21; Qur’an 2.30–31.
52. The word טוֹב (“good”) may have been written at the end of line 2, which is no longer extant.
53. Maurice Baillet, ed., Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 137–75.
54. It was not uncommon for ancient Jewish interpreters to read Genesis 1:26–27 together with 2:7. Examples can be found in 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 1, 7; Life of Adam and Eve 13:1–3; Pseudo-Phocylides 105–8. See also Jarl Fossum, “Gen. 1, 26 and 2, 7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 16.2 (1985): 202–39; Gregory E. Sterling, “ ‘Wisdom among the Perfect’: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” Novum Testamentum 37.4 (1995): 355–84.
55. Although the beginning and end of line 5 are no longer extant, the waw conjunction indicates complementary parallelism between the first half of line 5 (the act of God breathing into the man) and the second half of line 5 (the understanding and knowledge). Even though the words מלאתהאותו (“you filled him”) must be reconstructed in 5b, the parallelism with 5a supports the interpretation that God gave “understanding and knowledge” when he breathed into Adam.
56. The idea that God’s breath could impart wisdom or knowledge is the result of a conflation of ideas. First, God’s breath in Genesis 2:7 (נִשְׁמַתחַיִּים) was equated with his רוחַ. In several passages God is said to have breathed his רוּחַ into the human being (Gen 7:22; Job 33:4; 34:14; Isa 42:5). In late Second Temple Judaism it was widely believed that God breathed his “spirit” (רוּחַ or πνεῦμα) into Adam (e.g., Wis 15:11; Philo, Opif. 135; Leg. 1.33, 36–37; 3.161; Det. 80; Plant. 18–19; Her. 55–57; Spec. 4.123; Josephus, Ant. 1.34). Second, the spirit that God breathed into Adam was associated with the spirit of God which, in other contexts, is known to grant special knowledge and wisdom to people (e.g., Exod 31:3; Isa 11:2; Dan 5:12). On the spirit of God as a giver of wisdom, see John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 34–86. Based on these intertextual connections, Jewish interpreters deduced the idea that God breathed his divine spirit into Adam, which filled the first man with wisdom and knowledge. Such an interpretation is evident in Job 32:8: “But truly it is the spirit in a mortal, the breath of the Almighty, that makes for understanding.”
57. John Collins, “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 299–300.
58. Translation from Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, The Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 276–77.
59. Verse 5 is a late interpolation into the text.
60. Skehan and Di Lella translate verse 7b as: “good and evil he shows them” (καὶἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς). In this verse, the verb ὑποδείκνυμι probably has the connotation of divine revelation (i.e., “good and evil he revealed/made known to them”). The same verb is used in verse 12b, which alludes to the Sinai theophany when God revealed his decrees to Moses. Elsewhere in Sirach, the verb ὑποδείκνυμι is normally used in a context dealing with divine or prophetic revelation (Sir 3:23; 14:12; 46:20; 48:25; 49:8).
61. These two clauses in verse 7 should be understood as complementary parallelism. The knowledge of good and evil (v. 7b) explains in more detail the kind of wisdom and knowledge that God gave to humanity (v. 7a).
62. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
63. In Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, the author also associates divine wisdom and the image of God. He writes, “Because God created human beings for incorruption and made them the image of his own nature.” Here the author equates the image of God in Genesis 1:26–27 with incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσία). Elsewhere in the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s wisdom is responsible for producing such incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσία, Wis 6:18–19) or immortality (ἀθανασία, Wis 8:13, 17; 15:3). Thus, it was divine wisdom that made the first humans incorruptible images of God.
64. In Wisdom of Solomon 1:6 and 9:17 the author refers to God’s wisdom as a “spirit” (πνεῦμα) or the “holy spirit” (τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα).
65. In Wisdom of Solomon 10:1–2, divine wisdom is associated with the creation mandate in Genesis 1:28. It was God’s wisdom that enabled Adam to rule as a king over the creation.
66. Philo’s anthropology is complex and multifaceted. For a more thorough discussion of the creation of man in Philo, see A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Philo’s ‘Heavenly Man,’ ” Novum Testamentum 15.4 (1973): 301–26; Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 14 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983); Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.317 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 138–51, 164–72.
67. S. Vernon McCasland, “ ‘The Image of God’ according to Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69.2 (1950): 92–93; Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 3rd rev. ed., 2 vols., Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 1.389–95.
68. In commenting on Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7, Sterling remarks, “For Philo . . . the image of God is what is breathed into the face of humanity” (“Wisdom among the Perfect,” 364). He also describes Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7 as follows: “It is thus our rational capacity which God breathes into us. It therefore does not matter whether we speak of εἰκών or πνεῦμα since both refer to the rational capacity of humanity” (Sterling, 365).
69. A small minority of scholars have doubted whether a specific heresy or group of opponents was being addressed in Colossians. See, for example, Morna D. Hooker, “Were There False Teachers in Colossae?” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 315–31. However, after surveying a century of scholarship on the Colossian heresy, DeMaris plainly states, “The vast majority of scholars are convinced that the author is combating opponents or a well-defined faction in the Colossian community, or that at the very least he has in mind an established set of beliefs and practices that he finds objectionable and that warrant his opposition.” See Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 96 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 39.
70. For a survey of opinions, see J. J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 3–4; Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, trans. and eds., Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies, rev. ed., Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 4 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975); DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 11–40.
71. The exact nature of this knowledge or wisdom and how the opponents acquired it are not pertinent to the present argument. These questions are related to the much-debated background of the Colossian heresy.
72. The word ταπεινοφροσύνη is used twice in Colossians 2, in verses 18 and 23 (the word occurs one other time in the letter in 3:12). The meaning in verse 18 is not explicit, but in verse 23 the word ταπεινοφροσύνη is related to ἀφειδίᾳσώματος, (“deprivation of the body”). This suggests that ταπεινοφροσύνη in chapter 2 indicates a form of bodily asceticism.
73. The meaning of θρησκείᾳτῶνἀγγέλων in verse 18 is highly debated. Three problematic issues are: (1) the meaning of θρησκεία, (2) which ἄγγελοι Paul had in mind, and (3) whether τῶνἀγγέλων is a subjective or objective genitive.
74. Again, the meaning of the phrase ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων in verse 18 is debated. It might refer to a revelatory experience, or it could simply mean “which he has seen upon close scrutiny.” See DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 63–66.
75. Most likely Paul used the terms πληρόω (1:9; 2:10), πλήρωμα (1:19; 2:9), πληροφορία (2:2), πληροφορέω (4:12), and τέλειος (1:28; 4:12) in response to the claims made by his opponents (Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 78, 173; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 93).