DU TOIT PHILIP NoeT 2019 Was Paul A Christian

Was Paul a Christian?
Philip la G. du Toit
Neotestamentica, Volume 53, Number 1, 2019, pp. 1-29 (Article)
Published by New Testament Society of Southern Africa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2019.0007
For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/730786
Access provided at 30 Aug 2019 17:42 GMT from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Was Paul a Christian?
Philip la G. du Toit
North-West University
Abstract
While the “Jewishness” of Paul has been accentuated in the New
Perspective on Paul, in the Radical New Perspective on Paul he is
portrayed as remaining within “Judaism” and thus not as a Christian.
In the latter approach, Paul’s Damascus encounter is perceived to be
merely a call and not a conversion. In addition, in scholarship
generally, both Judaism and Christianity, as full-scale religious
systems, are strictly speaking understood as later developments after
the Second Temple period, making it problematic to contend that Paul
converted from Judaism to Christianity. This article reconsiders both
the definition of Christianity and whether Paul has undergone a change
of core identity, which is argued to be foundational to the question
whether Paul underwent a conversion or not. An assessment of
whether Paul underwent a change of core identity is pursued along
four categories: (1) the way in which Paul utilises “now” and “us/we”
language in describing the “in-Christ” identity; (2) his use of the
concepts of “flesh” and “Spirit” in respect of identity; (3) the way in
which Paul describes the “in-Christ” identity relative to the law; and
(4) the way in which he refers to Judaeans as outsiders.
Key Terms
Paul; Christian; Christianity; Jew; Jewish; Judaism; conversion; flesh;
Spirit; now language; us/we language; the law; in Christ
1 Introduction
For most contemporary Christians, the question stated in the title would be
a bizarre question, since, traditionally, the apostle Paul is considered to be
the most important person after Jesus in the history of Christianity and the
most significant and influential NT author (Sanders 2018). In the traditional
view of Paul, he is considered to be a convert to a new faith in the resurrected
Neotestamentica 53.1 (2019) 1–29

© New Testament Society of Southern Africa
2 P. la G. du Toit / Neotestamentica 53.1 (2019) 1–29
Jesus separate from the Ἰουδαῖοι (“Judaeans” or “Jews”). 1 While the

Jewishness or Judaeanness of Paul has been accentuated in the New
Perspective on Paul (NPP), in the so-called Radical New Perspective on
Paul (RNPP), rather than viewing Paul as a convert to a new faith or to
Christianity as such, Paul is considered to be nothing more than a “Jew” and
certainly not a Christian (Gager 2015; Runesson 2015; Fredriksen 2017, xii;
cf. Collins 2017, 159–187). As a proponent of the RNPP, Pamela
Eisenbaum (2009) provocatively titled her book Paul Was Not a Christian.
In following Stendahl (1976, 7–23), she argues that Paul’s Damascus
encounter was merely a call to be an apostle to the gentiles and not a
conversion as such. In a similar approach, Caroline Johnson Hodge (2007,
153) describes her agenda as “rescuing [Paul] from Christians, rather than
for Christians.”
The aim of this article is twofold: (1) to reconsider the question
whether Paul can be considered a Christian, which involves a
reconsideration of what Christianity is; and (2) to reconsider whether Paul
has undergone a change of core identity, which will be argued to be
foundational to the question whether Paul’s Damascus encounter was
merely a call or whether it also included a conversion. Engagement with a
combination of these two aspects (1 and 2) do not normally feature in this
debate.
2 Definitions of Christianity in Encyclopaedias
One of the most important questions one has to answer before answering the
question whether Paul could be considered a Christian is: What is
understood with the terms “Christian” and “Christianity”? Instead of merely
considering how these terms are defined in NT scholarship, definitions in
encyclopaedias will be incorporated here in order to account for more varied
perspectives on these designations. In dictionaries and encyclopaedias,
these terms are indeed approached from diverse perspectives and can thus
convey a wide range of meaning. Although a measure of overlap is
acknowledged, the definitions of the terms “Christian” and “Christianity”
can broadly be divided into categories that focus on (1) what an individual
Christian professes or commits to; (2) historical descriptions of Christianity
as a movement and/or religion; and (3) how a particular denomination or
Christian group defines the terms.
1
To distinguish the Ἰουδαῖοι in the NT from the fully developed religion of Judaism after 70 CE,
“Judaean(s)” will be the preferred terminology in this article (e.g., BDAG, s.v. Ἰουδαῖος; Esler
2003; Mason 2007).
Was Paul a Christian? 3
In the first category, Peretto (2014, 504), in the Encyclopedia of

Ancient Christianity, points to the reference in Acts 11:26, which reports of
the disciples in Antioch to whom the title “Christian” (Χριστιανός) was
applied first (cf. Acts 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16). Peretto argues that the term
“designates anyone who professes the doctrine proclaimed by Jesus
Christ,” 2 and that as an adjective, it “describes whatever has any bearing on
the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the rites, symbols and institutions
deriving therefrom.” Similarly, Wigoder (2007, 673–674), in the
Encyclopaedia Judaica, connects the term “Christianity” 3 to the “followers
of Jesus of Nazareth; the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the
beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community,” but then adds, “and—in
the widest sense—the forms of civilization which it created or influenced.
(Thus many elements in modern, secular, Western civilization are still, in
one way or another, called ‘Christian’ or attributed to ‘Christianity.’)”
Wigoder’s (2007, 674) wider definition above overlaps with the
second focus area: definitions that describe Christianity as a religion or
movement. Such a definition is that of Pelikan (2006, 203) in the Britannica
Encyclopedia of World Religions, who describes Christianity as “the
religion that traces its origins to Jesus of Nazareth, whom it affirms to be
the chosen one (Christ) of God” (cf. Woodhead 2004, 1). Similarly, Jasper
(2003, 179), in Major World Religions, states that Jesus Christ is “regarded
as the founder and continuing leader of the Christian Church.” According to
Pelikan (2006, 203), Christianity is “the religion of one-third of the people
of the world,” which “has been principally a Western phenomenon.” He
states that “Christianity begins with Jesus Christ,” and that “[t]he effects of
his life, the response to his teachings, and the experience of his death and
resurrection were the beginnings of the Christian community” (ibid.).
Pelikan further writes that “[w]hen Peter, Christ’s apostle, is represented in
the New Testament as confessing that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the
living God,’ he speaks for the Christianity of all ages” (ibid.). Within a
similar broad approach to Christianity, White (1996, 927), in The Anchor
Yale Bible Dictionary, describes Christianity as a “movement that emerged
around the figure and memory of Jesus of Nazareth,” but, in distinction from
Pelikan, argues that Christianity “did not burst onto the Roman world as a
fully developed religious institution, the Church.” The movement “began
2
The term did not necessarily originate with the Christians themselves, but could have had a pagan
origin. Apart from the writings of the NT, there is no firm evidence that the term “Christian” was
used as a self-designation until the second century CE (Rayburn 2001, 236).
3
The first occurrence of the term “Christianity” that we are aware of is in the writings of Ignatius
(Magn. 10.1–3; Rom. 3.3; Phil. 6.1; Mart. Pol. 10.1) in the 110s (Dunn 2015, 12).
rather as one or more small sects in an out-of-the-way province,” but later

developed to be “the very center of Roman society” (cf. Eisenbaum 2009;
Snyder 2013). It is noteworthy, however, that Dunn (2015, 12) describes
Christianity as “the movement that began in Jerusalem in 30 CE,” even
though he acknowledges that “the movement began within first-century
Judaism and drew heavily on the heritage of Judaism.” This kind of
historical approach is the approach that most NT scholars follow (see
below).
In a third approach to the term “Christian,” Patrick (2003, 528), in
the New Catholic Encyclopedia, connects the term to that which is stipulated
in the Vatican Council II: “the Church recognizes that in many ways she is
linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of
Christian.” The same document points to “those who in faith look upon
Jesus as the author of salvation and the sources of unity and peace,” to those
“who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized” and to “those
justified by faith through baptism.”
While the approaches listed above do not represent all possible
definitions for the terms “Christian” and “Christianity,” it will suffice to say
that one’s definition of Christianity or of being a Christian is dependent on
one’s perspective. One could hardly identify a single working definition for
Christianity. In terms of the first focus above, there would hardly be
consensus about which criteria would apply for an individual to profess or
to commit to in order to qualify as a Christian. Regarding the second
approach, the perspective of the observer or historian is determinative of
when exactly the Christian religion or movement is considered to have
started. In terms of the third approach, it is relatively obvious that the criteria
for being considered a Christian vary between denominations and/or groups
that self-identify as Christians. As a historian, Salter (2000, 94) thus argues
that Christianity in the “New World . . . involves exploring the various
construals of Christianity made by real people—without any criteria for
whether these are ‘true’ Christianities or not.” Salter takes “as particularly
Christian whatever anyone claims is Christian.” 4
4
Cf. also Cross and Livingstone (2005, 336), in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
who assert that “the name Christian has usually been claimed by every form of belief stemming
from historic Christianity, and has tended, in nominally Christian countries, to lose any credal
significance and imply only that which is ethically praiseworthy (e.g. ‘a Christian action’) or
socially customary (‘Christian name’).”
3 Defining Christianity and Judaism in NT Scholarship
As pointed out above, in NT scholarship, especially in the NPP and the

RNPP, the tendency is to date the origin of Christianity later than had
traditionally been the case, that is, to somewhere in the second century,
when the church became institutionalised. One of the main reasons for this
is that in NT scholarship the term “Christianity” is considered to be a fully
developed religious system that is distinct from Judaism. Mason (2007,
483–488) points out that “religion” is strictly speaking a Western category
with no counterpart in ancient culture (cf. Esler 2003, 73). He identifies
various elements that constitute a “religion,” such as ethnos, cult,
philosophy, rites of passage (e.g., at birth, marriage and death) and voluntary
association (e.g., church or synagogue). Yet, he distinguishes between the
term “religious” and “a religion” as such. In other words, one can hardly
speak of the “Christianity” or “Judaism” of NT times in the same manner
one speaks of these religious systems as they are known today. On the basis
of a similar set of implied criteria, scholars such as Neusner (1984, 1–5) and
Dunn (2015, 12) argue that Rabbinic Judaism was a gradual movement that
came into existence after 70 CE. It was only after 70 CE that Judaism
became “a political entity defined in social and religious terms” without
territorial connotations (Neusner 2000, 13). According to these approaches,
it would be erroneous to say that someone such as Paul converted from one
religion to another or from “Judaism” to “Christianity.” Such a notion would
in fact be anachronistic (cf. Mason 2007; Campbell 2008, 12; Eisenbaum
2009, 135, 142; Gager 2015, 18–19, 22; Runesson 2015, 55). 5
One has to acknowledge that a historical approach to Christianity,
which is the prevalent approach in NT scholarship, is also bound to specific
preconceived criteria of what constitutes Christianity. One could ask, for
example, whether the criteria for what constitutes a “religion” or a “religious
system” should be applied universally to determine whether individuals
from either the NT times or today may be considered “Christians” or not.
As seen from the array of definitions above, the designation “Christian”
does not have to be understood as a religious system, but could denote a set
of beliefs or a certain disposition towards Jesus Christ and his teachings. To
put it candidly, NT scholars cannot prescribe whether contemporary
5
Peculiarly, while arguing against the category of “Christianity” as a category in existence in
Paul’s time, Eisenbaum and Gager fail to apply the same principles to the category of “Judaism,”
as if “Judaism” was a stable category during the Second Temple period. In contrast, Mason (2007)
shows that in the time of the NT (Gal 1:14) the term ᾽Ιουδαϊσμός did not carry the connotations of
a comprehensive religious system that it later acquired.
Christians may lay claim to Paul as paradigmatic for their belief or not.
Neither can they deprive contemporary Christians of calling their
identification with the teachings or role models of Jesus and Paul
“Christianity.”
Yet, if the notion is adopted that the term “Christian” can be defined
as adhering to a certain set of beliefs and as constituting a certain disposition
towards Jesus (and Paul), one may still ask whether Paul should be
considered a “Christian” in distinction from the faith of the Ἰουδαῖοι. While
it is certainly important to reconsider whether Paul underwent a conversion
or merely responded to a call in continuation of his upbringing as a Ἰουδαῖος
and/or Pharisee, this debate is dependent on a specific understanding of the
development of Christianity into a full-blown religious system. A more
fundamental question is arguably whether Paul underwent a change of core
identity, which will be the focus of this article. An assessment of whether
Paul underwent a change of core identity will be pursued along four
categories in his writings, of which the first three overlap:
(1) The way in which Paul describes identity in Christ, with special
reference to “now” and “us/we” language. This will be the main focus.
(2) Paul’s use of σάρξ (“flesh”) and πνεῦμα (“S/spirit”) in respect of
identity.
(3) The way in which Paul describes the position of believers in Christ
relative to the law and covenant or testament.
(4) The way in which Paul refers to (the) Ἰουδαῖοι as outsiders.
4 Identity “in Christ” in Terms of “Now” and “Us/We” Language
In Gal 1:13–14, Paul writes about his former (ποτέ) life in Ἰουδαϊσμός,
which is a hapax legomenon in the NT. In the Second Temple era, the use
of the term Ἰουδαϊσμός mainly pointed to a body of practices, such as
circumcision, dietary laws, sabbath observance, feasts and a system of
sacrifices, that would identify this people-group as being distinct from
gentiles (Hays 2000, 213; Mason 2007; DeSilva 2018, 141). 6 Before 70 CE,
the term was used as an ethnic-geographical term rather than pointing to a
full-blown religion as such (Mason 2007). Notwithstanding the importance
of these distinctions, the more important question is whether Paul still
identified with this identity. Eisenbaum (2009, 134–135) argues that ποτέ in
6
This usage can especially be identified from texts such as 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Macc 4:26;
Ign. Magn. 10 (Mason 2007, 466–470).
v. 13 should be translated as “earlier” rather than “former.” In this

reasoning, Paul would still be identifying with Ἰουδαϊσμός, but would just
refer to an earlier time in his life as a Ἰουδαῖος. But the choice of translation
cannot be decisive. The question is whether such a notion can be derived
from the context of the whole letter.
The context of Gal 1 is that Paul refers to the time when he persecuted
the church (v. 13). At the same time he was advancing in Ἰουδαϊσμός
beyond many of his kinsmen, being extremely zealous for the traditions of
his fathers (v. 14). But then Paul contrasts this time with his Damascus
experience and the revelation of God’s Son to him (vv. 15–17). In v. 23,
Paul refers to the churches in Judaea who heard that Paul used to persecute
the church, but was “now” (νῦν) preaching the faith he once tried to destroy
(v. 23). There was thus a fundamental change in Paul’s theology. But did
such a change also signify a change of identity?
In Gal 2, Paul refers to “our” liberty that “we” have in Christ, which
obviously includes himself as Judaean believer (v. 4). In v. 15, he states that
“we are Judeans by birth” (ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι; BDAG, s.v. φύσις, §1;
Longenecker 1990, 83; Hays 2000, 236; Moo 2013, 156; DeSilva 2018,
215). Yet, in spite of such a birth-status, he knows that one is not justified
by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ (vv. 15–16). He then
follows with a decisive statement: “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus
[καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν], in order to be justified by
faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no
one will be justified” (emphasis added). 7 In other words, even though he
was born a Judaean and being a Judaean constituted his earlier life, he also
believed in Christ in order to be justified, which probably involved final
acquittal (DeSilva 2018, 216–224). Hence, Paul puts forth that he could not
have been justified by staying a Judaean or by having the identity markers
of a Judaean. Significantly, Paul continues in the first person singular in vv.
19–20: “through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have
been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in
me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who
loved me and gave himself for me.” If Paul died to the law, it means that the
law (or the works of the law) is not constitutive of his identity any longer.
His identity is now defined by the person of Christ who lives in him. Paul
thus writes about “the life” that he “now” (νῦν) lives, which carries
eschatological connotations (Silva 2001, 175) and is defined by Paul’s faith
7
Unless otherwise stated, all translations of the Bible in this article derive from the English
Standard Version.
(2:16) in Christ. 8 Paul thus left the Judaean way of life and laid down his
Judaean identity, taking on a new identity in Christ (Hays 2000, 244, 344;
Silva 2001, 169–186; De Boer 2011, 86–88, 161; Fee 2011, 38–42, 53; Moo
2013, 100; Das 2014, 124–129; DeSilva 2018, 141; cf. Witherington 1998a,
98–99, 189; 1998b, 52–88). 9 Das (2014, 124) rightly states that “[a] decisive
social and religious break has taken place. God’s people are no longer
defined, for Paul, by birth of ethnic identity or obedience to the Torah. Jew
and gentile are now brought together in the assembly of God.”
I have argued elsewhere (Du Toit 2018) that in Gal 3 Paul puts forth
the new criteria for covenant membership and belonging to God’s people,
which is based on faith in Christ (vv. 7, 9, 23, 25–26) and on partaking in
the Spirit (vv. 3, 5, 14): those who actively believe in Christ as the single
seed of Abraham (v. 16) and partake in the Spirit become God’s children
(vv. 7, 9, 29). Significantly, Paul points out in vv. 13–14 that Christ
redeemed “us” from the curse of the law and that, as a consequence, the
blessing of Abraham came to the gentiles in order that “we” might receive
the promise of the Spirit. As a result, “we” are no longer under the tutor of
the law (v. 25). At heart, the mode of relating to God through πνεῦμα is set
over against the mode of doing so through σάρξ, which points to an attempt
towards justification or covenant membership by means of an ethnic and/or
biological relationship with Abraham and by means of the works of the law.
In this context, σάρξ (v. 3) and πνεῦμα (vv. 2, 3, 5, 14) thus constitute two
mutually exclusive identities and ways of relating to God that belong to two
distinct eschatological ages, namely an eschatologically obsolete identity
and mode of existence under the law (σάρξ) and a new eschatological
identity and mode of existence in Christ (πνεῦμα). The fact that Paul refers
to faith that “came” (ἐλθεῖν, v. 23) or “has come” (ἐλθούσης, v. 25),
confirms that the fundamental contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα is
eschatological.
It is especially in Gal 3:28 where the consequence of the new identity
is illustrated. Paul states that in the new believing community there is neither
Judaean nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all
8
I have argued elsewhere that amidst three unambiguous references to active faith in Christ in Gal
(2:16; 3:6, 22), it is unlikely that unqualified (potentially ambiguous) references to πίστις in the
rest of the letter would refer to God’s faithfulness (Du Toit 2018, 50–51). Gal 3:26 could in fact
be added to the list of unambiguous references, where Paul has πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (“faith
in Christ”; Holloway 2017, 166). Holloway (ibid., 167–168) argues that in Paul’s reference to “we”
who have “believed in Christ” (ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, 2:16), he “clarifies” the
use of the genitive in πίστεως (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ for the rest of the letter.
9
Witherington holds that Paul broke with his former way of life as Judaean, but continued to view
himself as ethnically Judaean.
are one in Christ Jesus. Just as being male or being female does not
contribute to one’s identity in Christ, the other sub-identities do not
contribute to one’s new identity either. In other words, these sub-identities
are treated as mere social identities in the domain of σάρξ. These social
identities are not eradicated as such, but they are not considered as being
constitutive of the new identity in Christ and the Spirit (see Du Toit 2018).
I further argued (Du Toit 2018) that this same eschatological contrast
between the old age, where the works of the law were co-constitutive of
identity, and the new age, where faith and the Spirit are the markers of
identity, is conveyed by Gal 4. The eschatological age started breaking
through in the “fullness of time,” when God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman, born under the law (v. 4). God’s Son was thus born under the old
age, but this happened to inaugurate the new age by redeeming those under
the law so that they (“we”) might receive adoption as sons (v. 5). 10 By using
the first person plural, Paul indicates that these adoptees included Judaeans
who believed in Christ, which means that since the first Christ event
adoption as sons had been redefined in terms of identification with Christ
only. In v. 25, Paul refers to the Jerusalem which “now” (νῦν) is. The first
person plural continues when Paul indicates that this Jerusalem is the mother
of “us” all, that “we” are children of the promise (v. 28), and that “we” are
not children of the bondwoman, but of the free (v. 31).
The “us” and “we” language is perpetuated in Gal 5 when Paul warns
the believers to stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made “us” free
(v. 1). In light of this inclusive liberty, Paul admonishes believers not to be
circumcised, for it is an old, fleshly identity marker that would sever them
from Christ and make them fall from grace (vv. 2–4). Directly following
this admonition, Paul states that “we” eagerly await the hope of
righteousness by faith (v. 5). Being embedded within first person plural
language (vv. 1 and 5), the instruction not to circumcise hardly pertains to
gentile believers only, but has to include Judaean believers as well (see
further below). Consequently, “we” have to live and walk through the Spirit
(vv. 25–26), which obviously includes Judaean believers. The redundancy
of circumcision (cf. esp. Moo 2013, 342–349) in marking off identity in the
new era in Christ is perpetuated in Gal 6:12–15 (see Du Toit 2018).
The new identity in Christ of both Judaean and gentile, signified by
Paul’s use of first person language (“we,” “us” and “I”) in tandem with
10
Here, adoption as sons (υἱοθεσία) has to mean something different from adoption in Rom 9:4,
where it pertains to a default privilege of historical Israel. In other words, the concept of adoption
as sons was reset and redrawn in the new faith-era in Christ.
eschatological “now”-language (νῦν), can also be identified in Rom 4–8.

This eschatological “now” language is prominent in Rom 3:21 and 5:9–11.
A major turning point in Paul’s argument occurs in 3:21, where he states
that righteousness has “now” (νῦν) been manifested apart from the law.
Apart from signifying a turning point in Paul’s argument, the νῦν in 3:21 is
best understood as a temporal νῦν, which constitutes an eschatological and
salvation-historical contrast between the old era and identity under the law,
on the one hand, and the new era and identity in Christ, on the other
(Käsemann 1980, 92; Osborne 2004, 92–93; Matera 2010, 96; Middendorf
2013, 270, 278–279; Longenecker 2016, 399; Moo 2018, 241; Schreiner
2018b, 188; cf. Dunn 1988, 164, 176–177). I have argued elsewhere (Du
Toit 2016a) that within the rhetorical build-up of the letter to the Romans,
the whole of 1:18–3:20 focuses on the old era before Christ, whereas the
subsequent 3:21–31 focuses on the new era in Christ. This means that 1:18–
3:20, including 2:28–29, 11 constitutes an elaborate argument that both
Judaeans and gentiles 12 in the old era were under the obligation to perfectly
fulfil the law in order to be justified, but that all people, including Judaeans,
fell short of this ideal (3:1–20). I argued that Paul rhetorically radicalised
obedience to the law (esp. 2:1–29) in order to create a plight in need of a
solution for all people. 13
In Rom 4, Paul continues to utilise inclusive language when he refers
to Abraham as “our” father (ἡμῶν, 4:12) or the father of “us all” (πάντων
ἡμῶν, 4:16), thereby including both Judaean and gentile Christ-believers
(e.g., Moo 2018, 304; Thielman 2018, 247–248; Schreiner 2018b, 240). In
4:24–25, Paul reiterates God’s promises and righteousness that will be
counted to “us who believe” (πιστεύουσιν) in Him who raised Jesus from
11
Instead of interpreting 2:28–29 as pointing forward to a circumcision of the heart when the Holy
Spirit will indwell believers, as most commentators do, I argue that “the circumcision of the heart
in the spirit” (περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι) is better understood within an OT context as denoting
the inward capability to do the law and an inward alignment toward the law, which Paul in Rom 2
presents as the ideal under the law. Such a close connection between the circumcision of the heart
and obedience to the law can be identified in the contexts where the concept of the circumcision
of the heart is used (esp. Lev 26:41; Deut 10:6; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:13–14, 25–26; Jub. 1:22–25). The
ideal or true Judaean (according to Rom 2) would thus be capable of doing the whole law (cf. esp.
Porter 2015, 84).
12
Even the gentiles are portrayed as having a law to themselves (2:14). According to 3:9, gentiles
are included as those who are under sin. In 3:19, gentiles are likewise reckoned as being under the
L/law, forming part of the whole world that is accountable to God (cf. the first person plural
language in Gal 3:23).
13
Paul’s intent was not to present a comprehensive depiction of Second Temple Judaism as such.
Although Paul probably alluded to texts such as Lev 18:5, Deut 4:1, Ezek 20:11, 13, 21 and Neh
9:29, which do indeed connect obedience to the law to life and/or justification, his contention was
rather to radicalise law obedience in order to present faith in Christ for salvation as absolutely
indispensable for all people.
the dead, who was delivered up for “our” (ἡμῶν) trespasses and raised for
“our” (ἡμῶν) justification. These include both Christ-believing Judaeans
and gentiles (e.g., Wright 2002, 502; Porter 2015, 110; Moo 2018, 312–313;
Schreiner 2018b, 250). In sequence of 3:21–31, where Paul establishes faith
in Christ as the sole criterion for justification or righteousness (the new
identity) in the new era since the Christ event, 4:1–25 can be understood as
establishing such a concept on the faith of Abraham and the promise that
God made to him. 14
First person plural language prevails in Rom 5:1–11. Paul confirms
that “we” have been justified by faith, that “we” have peace through Christ
(v. 1), and that “we” have obtained access by faith to God’s grace in which
“we” stand (v. 2). These qualities or privileges thus apply to Judaean and
gentile alike, which they would not have had outside of Christ. Even the
love of God is poured out through the Holy Spirit in the hearts of “us” who
participate in the new identity in Christ (v. 5; cf. v. 8). In vv. 9–11, there
exists a noticeable overlap between “we”-language and eschatological
(Dunn 1988, 257, 261; Longenecker 2016, 565–566) “now”-language (νῦν),
while the concepts of being saved (σώζω, vv. 9, 10) and being reconciled
(καταλλάσσω, v. 10 [x2]; καταλλαγή, v. 11) are introduced for the first time
in the letter. There is also a close relationship between being saved, being
reconciled and being justified (δικαιόω, v. 9): Since “we,” gentile and
Judaean (Dunn 1998, 258), have “now” (νῦν) been justified (in Christ), “we”
shall be saved from God’s wrath (v. 9). Similarly, while “we” were enemies,
“we” were reconciled by Christ’s death. The result is that “we” will be saved
by Christ’s life (v. 10). Both Judaeans and gentiles (“we”) also rejoice in
God through Christ, through whom both groups (“we”) “now” (νῦν), in the
new identity in Christ, have received reconciliation (v. 11). In other words,
the convergence of “we” and “now” language in 5:9–11 cements the notions
that both Judaeans and gentiles can only be justified, reconciled and saved
in and though Christ, which implies that none of these benefits would be
possible for either Judaean or gentile outside of the “in-Christ” identity.
Taking part in justification, reconciliation and salvation thus implies a
14
It is true that Abraham could not believe in the resurrection of Jesus in history, but ever since
the Christ event, faith has to be directed towards Jesus (Schreiner 2018b, 250). Jipp (2009) explains
Rom 3:27–4:1 as a preview of Paul’s narration of the Abraham account in 4:2–25, which centres
on four issues: (1) the exclusion of works in justification (3:27–28 // 4:2–8); (2) Abraham’s
justification as preceding his circumcision (3:29–30 // 4:9–12); (3) the continuity between the law
and faith (3:31 // 4:13–15); and (4) the nature of Abraham’s paternity (4:1 // 4:16–25). The
Abraham narrative is thus to be understood in terms of Paul’s “prior Christological commitments,”
according to which “Abraham functions for Paul as a representative figure whose story
typologically portrays features of Paul’s gospel” (ibid., 239).
fundamental change of identity for both Judaean and gentile, which is only
to be found in Christ.
Paul’s inclusive language continues in Rom 6. It speaks in the first
person plural of the appropriation of the new identity in Christ through
baptism (vv. 3–4), which results in death to sin and being alive to God as
instruments of righteousness (vv. 5–21). Paul’s seamless change from the
first person plural (vv. 1–15) to the second person plural in v. 16 signifies a
more personal tone, where Paul also incorporates the mixed
congregation’s 15 previous identity under sin. On the basis of the
aforementioned, Paul still has both Judaean and gentile believers in mind.
He contrasts their old life under sin with an urge to “now” (νῦν) present their
members as slaves to righteousness (v. 19). Similarly, νῦν in vv. 21 and 22
points to their eschatological identity in Christ, according to which they
have been set free from sin and have obtained eternal life (v. 22). Paul ends
aptly by pointing to eternal life as the gift of God in Christ “our” Lord (v.
23).
In Rom 7, the theme of the law is reintroduced. In vv. 1–3, the release
from the binding power of the law and the new relationship to Christ in
which believers stand is compared to a wife whose husband dies and who
marries a new husband. Who are these believers? When Paul starts in v. 4
to explain the image of vv. 1–3, he starts off in the second person plural:
“you also have died [καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε] to the law through the body of
Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from
the dead.” But when Paul at the end of v. 4 seamlessly switches over to the
first person plural (“in order that we may bear fruit for God” [ἵνα
καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ]), he deliberately includes himself, a Judaean
believer. Verses 5–6 that follow are also in first person plural language. Paul
thus includes Judaeans as having lived in the “flesh,” which involves sinful
passions, aroused by the law, that bear fruit for death (v. 5). Then follows
the eschatological νῦν (Jewett 2007, 437; Longenecker 2016, 637): “now
we are released from the law” (νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου),
having died to that which held “us” captive, so that “we” might serve in the
“new way of the Spirit” (καινότητι πνεύματος) and “not in the old way of
the written code” (οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος). All believers are thus relieved
15
Most commentators acknowledge a gentile believing majority and a Judaean believing minority
in the Roman congregation (see, e.g., the mention of Aquila and Priscilla in 16:3; esp. Wright 2002,
407; Elliot 2007, 147; Hagner 2012, 522; Longenecker 2016, 9; Moo 2018, 8–12; Schreiner 2018b,
11). Moo (2018, 11) indicates that while 1:5–6 could give the impression that the congregation is
gentile, Paul probably used such terms to indicate that the congregation had taken on the
complexion of gentile Christianity.
from the condemnation and rule of the law, which can be understood as “a
power belonging to the old age” (Schreiner 2018b, 348). In Christ, all
believers share a new existence and a new identity in the Spirit, which
belong to a new salvation-historical age (Moo 2018, 439–448; Thielman
2018, 339; cf. Segal 1990, 139; Longenecker 2016, 637–638).
In the rest of Rom 7, while the theme of the law stays in view, the
first person singular (“I”) is prominent (esp. vv. 14–25). Without going into
the intricacies of the interpretation of Paul’s use of the first person here, one
can derive with a fair amount of certainty at the estimation that the Judaean
identity takes a prominent role in the experience Paul is describing, of which
the struggle with the law is a central element. The wretched man that longs
for deliverance in Christ (v. 24–25) thus includes the Judaean (e.g., Wright
2002, 553, 558, 565; Moo 2018, 482).
Romans 8 starts off with another prominent eschatological νῦν (v. 1)
and deals with the new era in Christ that follows salvation-historically
(Longenecker 2016, 684; Moo 2018, 495; Schreiner 2018b, 394–395; cf.
Wright 2002, 575; Thielman 2018, 378) on the struggling identity under the
law that yearns for deliverance (7:7–25). In 8:2, it is reasonably certain that
Paul switches to the second person in the accusative form (σέ) 16: the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set “you” free from the law of sin and
death. After explaining this reality in v. 3, Paul makes yet another seamless
transition to the first person plural in v. 4, where he points to the goal of the
freedom in Christ, which is that the righteous requirement of the law “might
be fulfilled in us” (πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν) who walk according to the Spirit. After
elaborating on the two opposites that σάρξ and πνεῦμα represent (vv. 5–11),
Paul urges in v. 12 that “we are debtors” (ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν) not to σάρξ. In
vv. 13–15, there is another transition to the second person plural when
stating the consequences of living according to σάρξ over against πνεῦμα.
At the end of v. 15, Paul yet again reverts to the first person plural in
reference to the Spirit by whom “we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (κράζομεν· Αββα
ὁ πατήρ). This is all about the new identity that both Judaean and gentile
acquire in Christ, which includes Paul, for the Spirit bears witness with
“our” spirit that “we” are children of God (v. 16).
In 1 Cor 1, the inclusiveness of God’s salvation is indicated by “us
who are being saved” (σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν, v. 18) and by Christ who became
to “us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”
(σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις, v. 30).
16
This NA28 reading is supported by ‫ א‬B F G, etc., while some manuscripts have μέ (A D K L P,
etc.)
These statements are set in a context where both Judaeans and gentiles or
Greeks are mentioned (vv. 22–23). Later, in 1 Cor 12:13, Paul refers to the
reality of the one “new identity” (Thiselton 2000, 997; Ciampa and Rosner
2010, 596; cf. Hays 1997, 214) in Christ that all people-groups (“we”)
acquire in Christ’s body in or by the Spirit, which specifically includes both
Judaeans and Greeks (εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες). In other words, all
people acquire a new identity in Christ, which includes Paul himself and all
other Judaean believers (cf. Gal 3:27–28 above).
In 2 Cor 5, Paul vividly portrays the corporate dimensions of the new
identity in Christ. In v. 14, he points out that one has died for all, “therefore
all have died” (ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον). As a consequence, those who live
(i.e., all believers who are being raised with Christ) 17 are no longer to live
for themselves, but for Christ who died and was raised for their sake (v. 15).
The death of all in Christ’s death (v. 14) represents the laying down of the
old identity, while those who live not for themselves (v. 15) represent the
acquisition of a new identity under Christ’s lordship. Paul then utilises the
eschatological νῦν: from “now” on, therefore, “we” regard no one according
to σάρξ (v. 16). What does σάρξ point to here? Paul explains that “we” once
regarded Christ according to σάρξ, but that “we” know him no longer as
such (v. 16). Although the term σάρξ could in this context have a broader
scope, pointing to the outward or external side of life (BDAG, s.v. σάρξ, §5;
Harris 2005, 427), the term here seems to focus on Christ’s natural, ethnic
identity as Son of David. Such a conclusion can especially be derived from
the things in which Paul’s opponents boasted κατὰ σάρκα (11:18–22; cf.
5:12). 18 In the context of 2 Cor 5, Paul would then be arguing that since we
do not know Christ according to his natural, ethnic identity anymore, we do
not know any person in Christ in such a way (Barnett 1997, 296). 19 For, if
anyone is in Christ, he or she is a “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις). The old
way of existence or the old identity has passed away and the new way of
existence or the new identity has arrived (v. 17). In this, God reconciled “us”
to himself and gave “us” the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18), and so on.
By implication, both Judaean and gentile undergo a fundamental change of
identity in Christ, which would include Paul himself (Harris 2005, 429–434;
17
“Those who live” (v. 15) does not include all who died (v. 14). Individual reconciliation is
effected by belief in Christ (Harris 2005, 422).
18
They boasted about being true Hebrews, Israelites and offspring of Abraham (11:22).
19
That does not mean that the historical Jesus should not be regarded, but that in Christ’s ultimate
identity, which he acquired after his resurrection (cf. Phil 2:9–11), he is not confined to the natural
markers of identity of the people of Israel. Danker (1989, 81) takes the notion further, and argues
that viewing Christ κατὰ σάρκα would bring about a view of the Messiah that regards him as “a
national hero who would endorse the traditional interests of Israel” (cf. Garland 1999, 285).
Seifrid 2014, 251, 255; Garland 1999, 284, 287). Using social identity
theory, Lim (2014, 299) argues that believers have to “align themselves”
with their “status as being in Christ as a new creation.” In other words, on
the basis of 2 Cor 5:17, the “in-Christ” identity can be considered a
predefined theological reality that has to come into effect in believers’ social
identity. The “in-Christ” identity is thus something that Paul declares to
believers, to which they have to align themselves (ibid., 300).
Last but not least, Paul portrays his change of identity in Phil 3. He
reacts against his opponents, who mutilate their flesh (κατατομή). The latter
is a play on the word circumcision (περιτομή) and indeed points to his
opponents’ insistence on circumcision (v. 2). Yet, the term κατατομή has
pagan connotations, referring to those who cut their own flesh, to whom
Paul compares the circumcisers (e.g., Fee 1995, 296; Reumann 2008, 462;
Hansen 2009, 220). While condemning this practice, Paul states the counter-
reality: “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and
glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (v. 3). With the first
person plural, Paul includes himself as Judaean believer, as well as all other
Judaean and gentile believers (Witherington 2011, 193–194; Keown 2017,
107). In other words, the real circumcision is not external, but internal (cf.
Hawthorne and Martin 2004, 176; Silva 2005, 149, 152; cf. BDAG, s.v.
σάρξ, §5); it is spiritual, not physical (cf. Holloway 2017, 154, 157). Yet
Paul was circumcised himself and could have had confidence in σάρξ if he
wanted to (vv. 4–5). Paul says καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί,
which can be translated: “although I myself have [reason for] confidence in
the flesh.” He continues by saying εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί,
ἐγὼ μᾶλλον, which can be translated: “if any other thinks to trust in flesh, I
more” (v. 4). 20 This does not mean that Paul still considers the identity
markers (Hawthorne and Martin 2004, 183; Holloway 2017, 157) that
follow as constitutive of his “in-Christ” identity (see vv. 7–11 below,
O’Brien 1991, 366; Segal 1990, 117, 141–142; Silva 2005, 152, 155–158;
Witherington 2011, 182; Keown 2017, 117–118; cf. Wright 2013, 985), but
rather that Paul conjures up a kind of mock boasting (Silva 2005, 149) about
the kind of credentials or pedigree that his opponents would boast in. Paul
was not only circumcised, but he also stems from the people of Israel and
from the tribe of Benjamin. In terms of his heritage, he can be considered a
Hebrew of Hebrews, and in respect of the law, a Pharisee (v. 5). 21 In respect
20
These translations are not from the ESV, but are my own.
21
Bockmuehl (1997, 198) claims that Paul “may well continue to hold Pharisaic views,” but in
light of vv. 7–9, this is hardly the case (see below). He in fact challenges Pharisaic beliefs in this
passage (Keown 2017, 128). Furthermore, Paul’s blamelessness in respect of the law points to law-
of zeal, he persecuted the church, and in respect of righteousness, he was

blameless (v. 6). Without going into detail about all of these identity markers
and accomplishments, it is important to note here that when Paul describes
his pedigree and (former) accomplishments (vv. 5–6), he does not use verbs,
except when he uses the aorist participle of γίνομαι (γενόμενος, v. 6) to refer
to himself as being blameless, which is mostly left untranslated, but could
be translated as “becoming” blameless. In other words, Paul does not
specifically claim that these four identity markers and three
accomplishments still constitute his identity, for then Paul would still define
his identity on the basis of σάρξ, which would defeat the purpose of his
whole rhetoric. It is clear, for example, that Paul is not persecuting the
church anymore (v. 6; see Gal 1:13).
In what follows in Phil 3:7–9, Paul completely renounces these old
identity markers (Hawthorne and Martin 2004, 188; Witherington 2011,
200; Keown 2017, 136) 22 and considers them to be a loss (ζημία, vv. 7, 8;
ζημιόω, v. 8), to be rubbish or dung (σκύβαλον, v. 8), which enables him to
gain Christ (v. 8). His righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) is now not defined by the
law, but by faith in Christ (v. 9). 23 This means that Paul underwent a
fundamental change of identity and status. His identity is not defined by
anything external anymore, such as pedigree, ethnicity, physical
circumcision or law. Paul’s identity is now solely defined by his union,
knowledge and identification with Christ (vv. 7–10), as well as the Spirit of
God by whom he now worships (v. 3).
In sum, the convergence of eschatological “now”-language and first
person language in Gal 1–4, Rom 4–8, 1 Cor 1, 2 Cor 5 and Phil 3 shows
that Paul envisioned both gentile and Judaean Christ-believers as acquiring
a new identity and a new way of existence in Christ. In using first person
plural language, Paul did not merely direct his rhetoric to gentile believers,
even though many of his target congregations were predominantly gentile.
obedience in terms of a Pharisaic interpretation of the law (O’Brien 1991, 380; Fee 1995, 309),
rather than that “Paul did not imagine the law to be impossible to keep” (Holloway 2017, 160).
22
Rather than merely expressing a “shift in values” (Holloway 2017, 160) or merely making a
“reassessment” (Heil 2010, 122).
23
As in Gal (see above), it is unlikely that Paul would use a subjective genitive here. Holloway
(2017, 165–168) shows that Paul probably coined the expression πίστεως (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ as an
objective genitive in Gal 2:14–21 (see above) for later use in his other letters. It is also significant
that, just as in Gal 2:14–21, here in Phil 3:9 faith in Christ is set over against righteousness ἐκ
νόμου, which can here be understood as an abbreviation for the concept of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (Gal
2:16 [x2]; cf. Silva 2005, 160).
He consistently included himself in the new identity in Christ, and other

Judaean Christ-believers by implication. 24
5 Paul’s Use of σάρξ and πνεῦμα in Respect of Identity
Both the lexemes σάρξ and πνεῦμα can convey a large semantic range in the
NT. σάρξ can point to anything from physical flesh, the human body, a
human being, human or earthly descent, a nation and earthly life to physical
human nature and even psychological human nature (BDAG, s.v. σάρξ;
L&N, s.v. σάρξ). As could be seen from the context of Phil 3:2–11,
confidence in σάρξ (vv. 3–4) involves a trust not only in the physical identity
marker of circumcision, but also in ethnic identity markers such as being
from the nation of Israel, being a member of a certain tribe or speaking a
specific language (v. 5). 25 Confidence in σάρξ even includes nationalistic
zeal and living according to the law in a way that expresses identity (v. 5–
6). σάρξ in this context thus covers a spectrum of external, ritual and ethnic
markers of identity. While πνεῦμα can also convey a range of meanings, it
is set in Phil 3:3 in contrast with σάρξ. In other words, identity is not marked
off by anything external, ritual or ethnic, but by worshipping or serving
(λατρεύω) God through the Spirit and by boasting or glorying in Christ. This
has to do with a position of righteousness in Christ that is not based on law,
but on faith in Christ. That σάρξ and πνεῦμα in Phil 3:3–9 are each linked
to a distinct identity correlates well with Paul’s use of the expression εὑρεθῶ
ἐν αὐτῷ (“I might be found in him”) in v. 9. Although the idea to be found
in Christ probably points forward to the day of judgement (Hawthorne and
Martin 2004, 193), it also points to Paul’s position in Christ in terms of his
standing before God (δικαιοσύνη), which logically involves a “new
relationship with God” (Fee 1995, 324) and a new identity. 26 Another
closely paralleled instance, where σάρξ carries strong connotations of
outward identity markers such as those in Phil 3, is 2 Cor 11:18, where Paul
reacts against the boasting κατὰ σάρκα of his opponents. They would have
boasted about being Hebrews, Israelites and offspring of Abraham (2 Cor
11:22), which, again, constitute ethnic identity markers. As argued above,
σάρξ can be understood along similar lines in 2 Cor 5:16.
24
Cf. also the use of the eschatological “now” (νῦν) in Eph 3:5, 10; 5:8; Col 1:26 and the first
person plural language in Eph 1:3–12, 14, 19; 2:3–5, 7, 10, 14, 18; 3:12; Col 1:12–14; 2:14; 3:4.
These occurrences all indicate that the newfound faith and identity in Christ pertain to both Judaean
and gentile believers alike.
25
Most commentators agree that being a Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων points to Hebrew or Aramaic being
Paul’s mother tongue (e.g., Reumann 2008, 483; Hansen 2009, 224; Holloway 2017,157).
26
Cf. the transformation into the image of Christ in 2 Cor 3:18 (cf. Gal 4:19; 1 Cor 15:49).
In Gal 3, there is an explicit contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα (v. 3),
where σάρξ specifically relates to the works of the law and πνεῦμα to faith
(vv. 5–29). The works of the law include circumcision, which overlaps with
the kind of identity markers that Paul points out in Phil 3:2–5. It follows that
performance of the law somehow belongs in the domain of σάρξ. A similar
idea is found in Rom 7, where σάρξ (v. 5), in contrast with πνεῦμα (v. 6),
points to an eschatologically old identity and way of existence under the
law, sin and death (see esp. Käsemann 1980, 190, 210; Fee 1994, 504, 821;
Jewett 2007, 436–437; Longenecker 2016, 636–367; Moo 2018, 444;
Thielman 2018, 337–339). It is not that the law itself is “fleshly”; it is in fact
“spiritual” (v. 14), but the performance of the law is dependent on human
ability, which is in the domain of σάρξ. There is thus a way in which the
σάρξ-πνεῦμα contrast also correlates to human (σάρξ) versus divine
(πνεῦμα) ability. In contrast to σάρξ, πνεῦμα points to a new, eschatological
way of existence and identity that is determined by God’s Spirit. This is
what the “serving” (δουλεύω) in the “new way of the Spirit” (καινότητι
πνεύματος, v. 6) points to.
Together with the acquiring of a new identity, there has been a
change of masters. The close relationship that God’s Spirit has with identity
in the life of the believer, irrespective of ethnicity, can be deduced from Gal
3:3, where the Spirit signifies the beginning (ἐνάρχομαι) of the “in-Christ”
identity (Dunn 1993, 152–153, 156; Moo 2013, 182). But the decisive text
where the Spirit directly signifies a new identity for both Judaean and gentile
believers is arguably Rom 8:16, where Paul writes in the first person plural:
“The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
God” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα
θεοῦ). The indwelling of God’s Spirit within the human spirit thus signifies
childhood of God for both Judaean and gentile believers in the new era in
Christ (cf. Longenecker 2016, 703, 705; Moo 2018, 526).
Lastly, in Gal 6, Paul contrasts those sowing to σάρξ with those
sowing to πνεῦμα (v. 8). Although both terms, σάρξ and πνεῦμα, are
multifaceted in Paul, in their extended meanings the contrast between these
concepts pertains to two mutually exclusive identities, namely the old and
the new aeon respectively (cf. Fee 1994, 466–467). Such a connotation is
confirmed in the context of Gal 6, because further on Paul refers to “those
who want to make a good showing in the flesh” (ὅσοι θέλουσιν
εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί) as those who want to force men to be circumcised
(vv. 12–13). In vv. 12–13, σάρξ thus points to an identity marker that
belongs to the old era before the Christ event. Apart from overlapping with
the identity markers listed in Phil 3:2–5, that which is in the domain of σάρξ
is not only contrasted with πνεῦμα, but is ultimately also contrasted with the
“new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις, v. 15), meaning the new identity that all obtain
in Christ (Hays 2000, 344; De Boer 2011, 402). In De Boer’s (2011, 402)
words: “The religious, ethnic, and cultural distinctions caused by a world
divided into circumcision and uncircumcision have, in Paul’s view, been
violently replaced by ‘a new creation.’” That Paul shares in the new creation
is especially confirmed by his reference not only to his own death and
crucifixion with Christ, but also to Christ that lives in him (2:20).
In light of the way in which the σάρξ-πνεῦμα contrast functions in
Phil 3, Gal 3, Rom 7 and Gal 6, one may conclude that natural human ability
and observable human performance (σάρξ) are set over against divine ability
and the intervention by God’s Spirit (πνεῦμα) in constituting identity. Since
the σάρξ-πνεῦμα contrast in these contexts overlaps with the eschatological
“now”-language and first person language, both Judaean and gentile
identities are included in this contrast.
6 The New Covenant and the New Relationship of Judaean and

Gentile Believers towards the Law
Since the indwelling Spirit signifies the new identity in Christ (see above),
the concept of the “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη, 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6)
has everything to do with this new identity. It is especially in 2 Cor 3 where
a close link between the new covenant and the ministry of the Spirit is
established. In v. 6, the new covenant is pictured as being “of the Spirit”
(πνεύματος), which points to the fulfilment of God’s promised gift of the
Spirit at the end of the ages (1 Cor 10:11, Fee 1994, 304–305). The new
covenant of the Spirit stands in opposition to the one “of the letter”
(γράμματος). This refers to the written code of the law (e.g., Barnett 1997,
176–177; Harris 2005, 273; cf. Rom 7:6), which can be described as the
“hallmark of the old covenant” (Harris 2005, 273). In the same vein, in vv.
7–8, the “ministry of the Spirit” (διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος) is contrasted with
the “ministry of death” (διακονία τοῦ θανάτου). The law that kills thus
points to an eschatologically old era, during which life and righteousness
were sought after by law, and the identity of God’s people was defined by
law (cf. Kruse 1987, 92–93; Fee 1994, 306, 814–815). In Wright’s (2013,
983) view, the Spirit has “redefined ‘election,’ the covenant status of the
people of God.” In v. 14, Paul specifically refers to the “old covenant”
(παλαιᾶς διαθήκης), which stands prior to the new covenant. Elsewhere,
Paul associates the old covenant of the letter with an existence under law,
sin and death (Rom 7:5–9; 8:2; 1 Cor 15:56). It is significant that at the end
of 2 Cor 3, Paul uses inclusive language to point out that “we all” (ἡμεῖς
[. . .] πάντες) are being transformed into the image of the Lord (Harris 2005,
315), that is, “the Lord who is the Spirit” (κυρίου πνεύματος). In other
words, the new ministry of the Spirit, which involves the inauguration of a
new identity, involves both Judaean and gentile believers. In essence, the
new covenant points to an eschatologically new era, during which believers
stand in a different relationship to God and the law, in contrast to the old
covenant, which is portrayed as eschatologically surpassed.
The idea of two covenants is also conveyed by Gal 4. Some see the
two covenants (v. 24) as representing one covenant with two different
understandings: the one from the perspective of Paul’s opponents in terms
of law and flesh, and the other in terms of freedom and promise (e.g., Hays
2000, 302; Dunn 1993, 249). But such an understanding becomes strained
in the context of the actual birth of Abraham’s two sons (vv. 23, 29), who
each points to two actual covenants with salvation-historical significance.27
In vv. 4–6, Paul uses ὑπὸ νόμον (“under the law”) to define the old
salvation-historical dispensation in contrast to the new one (see above).
Since ὑπὸ νόμον is repeated in v. 21, it is more likely that the two covenants
in v. 24 point to the actual old and new covenants (Longenecker 1990, 211;
Fee 1994, 413, 416; Meyer 2009, 115–137). 28 The new covenant is related
to “Jerusalem above” (ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ) and includes freedom from the
slavery of the law. Paul portrays Jerusalem above as “our mother” (μήτηρ
ἡμῶν, v. 26), which connotes the new identity of both Judaean and gentile
believers in Christ (cf. Moo 2013, 305; DeSilva 2018, 400).
In the Pauline corpus, the new relationship of believers in Christ to
the law is vividly portrayed by the description of believers not being “under
the law” (ὑπὸ [τοῦ] νόμου) anymore (Rom 3:19; 6:14–15; 1 Cor 9:20; Gal
3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18; cf. ἐν νόμῳ in Rom 2:12). In these instances, being
under the law is contrasted with the righteousness of God that has “now”
been manifested (Rom 3:21); with grace (Rom 6:14–15); with Paul not
being under the law himself (1 Cor 9:20); with the coming of faith as the
criterion for covenant membership in the new era that ends the period of
temporal captivity (Gal 3:23, see above); with adoption as sons in the new
27
Cf. other references to Abraham (Rom 4; 9:7; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 3) and Isaac (Rom 9:7, 10).
28
Strictly speaking, the covenant of the promise relates to the covenant with Abraham and not to
the new covenant as such (Moo 2013, 301), but in light of Gal 4:4–5, it points to the new covenant
by implication. This is probably so because elsewhere in Paul there is a direct connection between
God’s covenant or promise to Abraham and the new covenant itself. Paul would call Christ-
believers “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7), or he would call Abraham “our” father (Rom 4:12) or the
father of “us all” (Rom 4:16).
era (Gal 4:5); with being born according to the Spirit (Gal 4:29); and lastly,
with being led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18). As discussed earlier, the release from
the law under the reign of the Spirit in the new era, which involves both Paul
and other Judaean believers, is vividly portrayed in Rom 7:1–6. Similarly,
in Rom 8:2, the principle of the Spirit of life in Christ stands in opposition
to the principle (Longenecker 2016, 685; Moo 2018, 497–499 29) of sin and
death, which Paul relates to the Mosaic law itself in the next verse (Rom
8:3, Moo 2018, 500). In sum, the new era under the reign and leadership of
the Spirit is a new covenant of grace with new criteria of covenant
membership. These new criteria, which apply to both gentiles and Judaeans,
free believers from the law, which marked people off in the old covenant
under the reign of the letter of the law.
In respect of Paul’s own relationship to the law, I have argued
elsewhere (Du Toit 2015) that in light of mainly 1 Cor 9:19–23, Paul did
not see himself as still being under the law. In the context of 1 Corinthians,
Paul’s reference to the keeping of God’s commandments in 1 Cor 7:19
hardly points to full law-observance on Paul’s part (e.g., Tucker 2011, 77).
Apart from the possibility that it could point to the general ethical
imperatives for believers in Christ (cf. Barrett 1968, 169; Thielman 1992,
237–240; Fitzmyer 2008, 308), which is equivalent to doing God’s will (Fee
2014, 347), I (Du Toit 2015) have argued elsewhere that it can be understood
as a shorthand, pejorative reference to the requirement to do the whole law,
which equates to an old way of existence under the law as a consequence of
an “old age” attitude that reverts back to outward and external identity
markers. Such a reference would evoke an earlier teaching for the
Corinthian congregation, with which they would have been familiar, similar
to that which is put forth in Rom 2:12–29 (see above) and Gal 5:1–6.30
29
Moo points out that neither of the two occurrences of νόμος can refer to the Mosaic Law as such
in this verse. Regarding the first occurrence, the Law is incapable of doing what the verse describes:
the Law itself cannot set you free from the law of sin and death. Regarding the second occurrence,
the expression νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας is also found in 7:23, where it is distinguished from the Mosaic
law (7:22). νόμος thus most likely points to a principle or power in both instances.
30
A reading of Gal 5 that regards it as pertaining to gentiles only, who would be under the
obligation to do the whole Law if they are circumcised (v. 3, going back to 3:10), is untenable in
light of (1) Paul’s reference to Christ who set “us” free (v. 1), including both Judaean and gentile
believers; (2) Paul’s reference to “every man” (παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ, v. 3); (3) the implication that if
such a reading is maintained, Christ would be of no advantage to Judaeans (5:2); (4) the implication
in such a reading that Judaeans would be severed from Christ in their justification (v. 4); (5) the
implication in such a reading that Judaeans would not share in the grace in Christ (v. 4); and (6) the
implication that faith working through love would only apply to gentile believers (v. 6; see Du Toit
2015).
I have also argued that Luke’s narrative in the book of Acts does not imply
full torah-observance on Paul’s part either (Du Toit 2016b). 31
7 Paul’s References to (the) Ἰουδαῖοι as Outsiders
In the Pauline corpus, there are at least four pertinent references to “the
Judaeans” as a people-group outside of the Christ-believing community.
The most pertinent and probably the most controversial reference is the one
in 1 Thess 2:14–16. Some have even viewed the passage as an interpolation
(Pearson 1971; Schmidt 1983), although without manuscript support. Paul
refers to the churches in Judaea that suffered “under the Judaeans” (ὑπὸ τῶν
Ἰουδαίων). He then qualifies these Judaeans as those “who killed both the
Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and
oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they
might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins” (vv. 15–
16). Some understand τῶν in v. 15 in a restrictive sense, limiting these
Judaeans to a specific group of Judaeans who did these things (e.g., Fee
2009, 95; Weima 2014, 208), but it is likely that the reference to the killing
of the Lord and the prophets echoes an existing tradition carried over from
the OT (1 Kgs 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 36:15; Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30) to the NT (Matt
5:12; 23:31–35, 37; Luke 11:48–51; 13:33–34; Acts 7:52; Rom 11:3), which
would mean that Paul’s reference is to the Judaeans more generally
(Wanamaker 1990, 115; Weima 2014, 207). Furthermore, their displeasing
(ἀρέσκω) of God probably points to their rejection of Jesus as Messiah or
agent of their salvation (Wanamaker 1990, 115, 118). Likewise, their
opposition to everyone (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων) probably reflects the
general anti-Judaeanism of the Greco-Roman world, according to which
Judaeans opposed other people on the basis of Judaean exclusivism (ibid.,
115). It is unclear whether the word “us” in the phrase “drove us out” (v. 15)
refers to Paul and his co-missionaries or all Christ-believers. Yet, it is quite
clear that Paul views the non-believing Judeaens as an entity separate from
the Christ-believers, which inevitably included ethnically Judaean Christ-
believers such as Paul himself. While a reading that understands Paul’s
31
I have argued that the so-called “apostolic decree” (Acts 15) is to be understood as a measure to
accommodate “weak” law-abiding Judaean believers (cf. Rom 14), rather than as a requirement for
gentile membership. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), the references to Paul’s
participation in purification rites (Acts 18:18; 21:27–26), his references to himself as a Ἰουδαῖος
(Acts 21:39; 22:3) and even the references to him as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; 26:5) can all be
understood within a polemical context as Paul wanting to be everything to everyone, including
being a Judaean to the Judaeans in order to win them for the gospel (1 Cor 9:19–23). Apart from
the context of Acts itself, one has to assign priority to Paul’s own writings, rather than prioritising
the picture that another author sketches about Paul.
reference to the Ἰουδαῖοι here as a more general reference to Judaeans could

be interpreted as constituting a kind of anti-Judaism, such a contention has
to be balanced not only by the likelihood that Paul reacts to their opposition
to the gospel rather than to them as an ethnic people (Green 2002, 146, 149),
but also by the likelihood that Paul here used a stock feature of ancient
rhetoric called vituperatio, which functioned in the context of social conflict
between individuals or groups with competing interests and claims. These
differences would help demarcate and define the identity of a new group,
while simultaneously casting doubt on the legitimacy of a rival group
(Wanamaker 1990, 118).
The probability that Paul refers to Judaeans more generally as an
outside group in 1 Thess 2:15 is strengthened by a general reference to
Judaeans in 1 Cor 1:22–23, where it occurs without qualification. There, the
context is about seeking a sign and stumbling at the message of the crucified
Christ. Segal (1990, 123) rightly argues that Paul was well aware that the
Judaeans expected a messiah who would defeat their national enemies. If
Paul was still a Pharisee, however, such a concept would eliminate the
possibility of a crucified messiah. While Paul still understands the Judaean
position, he works with a new understanding of messiahship. Paul could
thus no longer consider himself a Judaean or a Pharisee in this respect.
Similarly, in 2 Cor 11:24, Paul reports that he received forty lashes less one
ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων. Although, from the perspective of those administering the
lashes, Paul would be seen as “a wayward brother rather than an apostate,
which normally would have resulted in expulsion from the synagogue,”
(Guthrie 2015, 557) Paul probably uses ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων in this verse to
portray the Judaeans as outsiders. Lastly, but profoundly, in 1 Cor 9:20, Paul
refers to Judaeans as a group targeted for evangelisation: “to the Judaeans I
became as/like a Judaean, in order to win Judaeans” (my translation). In this
context, one is hard pressed to see Paul himself as still being a Judaean. He
is rather someone who has taken on a new identity (Fitzmyer 2008, 369;
Taylor 2014, 272; Schreiner 2018a, 190–191; cf. Garland 2003, 429–430),
who becomes like (ὥς) a Judaean in order to win them over for the gospel.
In Barrett’s (1968, 211) words, “He could become a Jew only if, having been
a Jew, he had ceased to be one and become something else” (emphasis
original). Although Paul perceives the Judaeans as being “under the law”
(ὑπὸ νόμον), it is significant that he does not see himself as being under the
law anymore (μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον). These contexts in which a general
reference to the Judaeans occur thus testifies to the likelihood that Paul saw
himself and fellow Judaean Christ-believers as constituting a new group

with a new identity, being separate from the Judaeans in general.
8 Conclusion
It was argued that the question whether Paul underwent a change of core
identity is foundational to the question whether Paul underwent a
conversion. Concerning the way in which Paul portrays identity in Christ,
the “now”-language points to a new salvation-historical era during which
the conditions for both covenant membership and identity have been
redefined. The first person plural (“we”/“us”) and singular (“I”) language
that Paul uses to write about this new identity shows that Paul includes
himself and all other Judaean believers in Christ. In other words, just like
gentiles, Judaeans also acquired a new identity in Christ based on new
principles of covenant membership. Paul no longer views old identity
markers like circumcision and being part of the ethnic nation of Israel as
constitutive of his own identity or that of fellow Judaean believers. While
the σάρξ-πνεῦμα dichotomy in its extended application points to two ways
of existence or modes of identity (esp. Rom 7:5–6), Paul also uses σάρξ to
point to old, natural, external markers of identity. In contrast, God’s πνεῦμα
points to a new, supernatural, internal marker of identity, which belongs to
the new identity in Christ. At heart, σάρξ points to a human origin of identity
based on human ability, while πνεῦμα points to a divine origin of identity
based on divine ability. Participation in πνεῦμα signifies both the beginning
of the new identity in Christ and the ongoing mark of childhood for both
Judaean and gentile believers in Christ. In Christ and in the Spirit, the
believer shares in a new covenant that fulfils the old one. In the new
covenant, the Spirit defines identity and not the law. All believers, including
Judaeans, are in fact not under the law anymore. Therefore, in Christ, Paul
is neither fully torah observant nor does he define his own identity by the
law. He can thus refer to Judaeans as outsiders and as a group targeted for
evangelisation.
As such, Paul’s change of identity indeed points to a conversion
(Longenecker 1990, 26, 28; Segal 1990, 285–300; Dunn 1993, 53; Fee 2007,
37; De Boer 2011, 77; Moo 2013, 102; Das 2014, 128; DeSilva 2018, 146),
not from one fully developed religious system to another, but from an
identity marked off by natural markers of identity (including circumcision,
ethnicity and the works of the law) to an identity marked off by supernatural
markers of identity (including especially the indwelling Spirit received
through faith in Christ). Boyarin (1994, 228) is thus right to argue that
“Paul’s writing poses a significant challenge to Jewish notions of identity.”

Similarly, Collins (2017, 181) writes: “Those who followed Paul would base
their identity not on the ancestral laws of the Judeans but on faith in Christ.
On this premise, an eventual parting of the ways between Judaism and
Christianity was inevitable.” Although Collins envisions such a parting of
the ways much later, according to Paul’s own writings, Paul had arguably
already parted ways. That is not to say that all Judaean believers
immediately parted ways together with Paul. This process indeed took some
time, but in view of the canonisation of Paul, such a parting of the ways was
indeed inevitable. It is also significant that Ignatius (Magn. 10.3; Phil. 6.1),
in the 110s, describes Christianity as something other than Judaism (Dunn
2015, 13). Yet, Paul’s change of identity stands in complete fulfilment of
his Judaean past. Paul did not renounce his Judaean identity for the sake of
renouncing it, but followed his Judaean identity to its very end and
completion. For Paul, Christ, as fellow-Judaean, fulfilled, completed and
ended the old era (Rom 10:4; Gal 3:13), not as an outsider, but as an insider,
being born under the law in order to free his own people (and everyone else)
from the law’s requirement to mark off identity on the basis of law. Christ
redefined and gave new content to the whole concept of adoption in and
through himself (Gal 4:4–5). Christ inaugurated the new creation as
something that was always part of OT prophecy (Isa 42:9; 43:18–19; 48:6).
Was Paul a Christian? If Christianity is strictly defined as an
institutionalised religious system, no. But if Christianity is defined as the
acquiring of a new identity in Christ that is not based on “flesh,” but is
effected by God’s Spirit through faith, then Paul was indeed a Christian. In
fact, many contemporary Christians refuse to define their faith in terms of
an institution, but define it on the basis of God’s Spirit through faith in
Christ, which they base on Paul’s writings in particular.
Bibliography
Barnett, P. 1997. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
[NICNT].
Barrett, C. K. 1968. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Peabody: Hendrickson [BNTC].
Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press (BDAG).
Bockmuehl, M. 1997. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. London: A&C
Black [BNTC].
Boyarin, D. 1994. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Campbell, W. S. 2008. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T&T Clark.
Ciampa, R. E., and B. S. Rosner. 2010. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Nottingham: Apollos [PNTC].
Collins, J. J. 2017. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from
Deuteronomy to Paul. Oakland: University of California Press.
Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. 2005. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Danker, F. W. 1989. II Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg [ACNT].
Das, A. A. 2014. Galatians. St. Louis: Concordia [CC].
De Boer, M. C. 2011. Galatians: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
[NTL].
DeSilva, D. A. 2018. The Letter to the Galations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NICNT].
Du Toit, P. la G. 2015. Paul’s Reference to the “Keeping of the Commandments of God”
in 1 Corinthians 7:19. Neot 49(1):21–45.
_______. 2016a. Paul’s Radicalisation of Law-Obedience in Romans 2: The Plight of
Someone under the Law. In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 50(1):1–8.
_______. 2016b. Was Paul Fully Torah Observant according to Acts? HTS Theological
Studies 72(3):1–9.
_______. 2018. Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership
in the New Faith-Era in Christ. Neot 52(1):41–67.
Dunn, J. D. G. 1988. Romans 1–8. Dallas: Word [WBC 38A].
_______. 1993. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. London: A&C Black
[BNTC].
_______. 2015. Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Christianity in the Making,
Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Eisenbaum, P. 2009. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a
Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins.
Elliott, J. H. 2007. Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a “Jew” Nor a “Christian”: On
Correcting Misleading Nomenclature. Journal for the Study of the Historical
Jesus 5(2):119–154.
Esler, P. F. 2003. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Reading of Paul’s Letter.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Fee, G. D. 1994. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
_______. 1995. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NICNT].
_______. 2009. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans [NICNT].
_______. 2011. Galatians. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing [Pentecostal Commentary
Series].
_______. 2014. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
[NICNT].
Fitzmyer, J. A. 2008. First Corinthians. New Haven: Yale University Press [AB].
Fredriksen, P. 2017. Paul the Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gager, J. G. 2015. Who Made Early Christianity?: The Jewish Lives of the Apostle Paul.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Garland, D. E. 1999. 2 Corinthians. Nashville: Broadman & Holman [NAC].
_______. 2003. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].

Green, G. L. 2002. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester:
Apollos [PNTC].
Guthrie, G. H. 2015. 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].
Hagner, D. A. 2012. The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
Hansen, G. W. 2009. The Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Nottingham:
Apollos [PNTC].
Harris, M. J. 2005. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Milton Keynes: Paternoster [NIGTC].
Hawthorne, G. F., and R. P. Martin. 2004. Philippians. Nashville: Thomas Nelson [WBC
43].
Hays, R. B. 1997. First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox [Interpretation].
_______. 2000. The Letter to the Galatians. Pages 181–348 in The New Interpreter’s
Bible. Vol. 11. Edited by L. E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon.
Heil, J. P. 2010. Philippians: Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ. Atlanta: SBL.
Holloway, P. A. 2017. Philippians: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress [Hermeneia].
Jasper, A. 2003. Christianity. Pages 178–229 in Major World Religions: From Their
Origins to the Present. Edited by L. Ridgeon. London: Routledge.
Jewett, R. 2007. Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress [Hermeneia].
Jipp, J. W. 2009. Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and “Us” in Romans 4. JSNT
32(2):217–242.
Johnson Hodge, C. 2007. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the
Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Käsemann, E. 1980. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Keown, M. J. 2017. Philippians 2:19–4:23. Bellingham: Lexham [Evangelical Exegetical
Commentary].
Kruse, C. G. 1987. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Leicester: InterVarsity
Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [TNTC].
Lim, K. Y. 2014. “If Anyone Is in Christ, New Creation: The Old Has Gone, the New Has
Come” (2 Corinthians 5.17): New Creation and Temporal Comparison in Social
Identity Formation in 2 Corinthians. Pages 289–310 in T&T Clark Handbook to
Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. B. Tucker and C. A. Baker.
London: Bloomsbury.
Longenecker, R. N. 1990. Galatians. Dallas: Word [WBC 41].
_______. 2016. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NIGTC].
Louw, J. P., and E. A. Nida. 1989. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based
on Semantic Domains. New York: UBS (L&N).
Mason, S. 2007. Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in
Ancient History. JSJ 38:457–512.
Matera, F. J. 2010. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [Paideia Commentaries on
the New Testament].
Meyer, J. C. 2009. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman.
Middendorf, M. P. 2013. Romans 1–8. Saint Louis: Concordia [ConcC].
Moo, D. J. 2013. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].
_______. 2018. The Letter to the Romans. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic
[NICNT].
Neusner, J. 1984. Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
_______. 2000. Defining Judaism. Pages 3–19 in The Blackwell Companion to Judaism.
Edited by J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck. Malden: Blackwell.
O’Brien, P. T. 1991. The Epistle to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NIGTC].
Osborne, G. R. 2004. Romans. Downers Grove: IVP Academic [The IVP New Testament
Commentary Series].
Patrick, J. 2003. Christian. Pages 528–529 in New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2d ed. Vol. 3.
Edited by B. L. Marthaler. Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Pearson, B. A. 1971. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation. HTR
64:79–94.
Pelikan, J. 2006. Christianity. Pages 203–233 in Britannica Encyclopedia of World
Religions. Edited by W. Doniger. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Peretto, E. 2014. Christian—Christianity. Page 504 in Encyclopedia of Ancient
Christianity. Vol. 1. Edited by A. D. Berardino. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Porter, S. E. 2015. The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.
Rayburn, R. S. 2001. Christians, Names of. Page 236 in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology. 2d ed. Edited by W. A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Reumann, J. 2008. Philippians. New Haven: Yale University Press [AB].
Runesson, A. 2015. The Question of Terminology: The Architecture of Contemporary
Discussions on Paul. Pages 53–77 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-
Century Context to the Apostle. Edited by M. D. Nanos and M. Zetterholm.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Salter, R. 2000. “What is Christianity?”: An Epistemological and Padagogical Problem.
CSSRB 29(4):93–96.
Sanders, E. P. 2018. St. Paul, the Apostle. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Online:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle.
Schmidt, D. 1983. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation. JBL
102:269–279.
Schreiner, T. R. 2018a. 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove: IVP Academic [TNTC].
_______. 2018b. Romans. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].
Segal, A. F. 1990. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Seifrid, M. A. 2014. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Nottingham: Apollos [PNTC].
Silva, M. 2001. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2d ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic.
_______. 2005. Philippians. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].
Snyder, H. G. 2013. Early Christianity. Pages 177–196 in The Cambridge Companion to
Ancient Mediterranean Religions. Edited by B. S. Spaeth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stendahl, K. 1976. Paul among Jews and Gentiles: And Other Essays. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Taylor, M. 2014. 1 Corinthians. Nashville: Broadman & Holman [NAC 28, ePub edition].
Thielman, F. 1992. The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First
Corinthians. NTS 38:235–253.
_______. 2018. Romans. Grand Rapids: Zondervan [Zondervan Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament].
Thiselton, A. C. 2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
[NIGTC].
Tucker, J. B. 2011. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities
in 1 Corinthians. Eugene: Pickwick.
Wanamaker, C. A. 1990. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
[NIGTC].
Weima, J. A. D. 2014. 1–2 Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT, ePub
edition].
White, L. M. 1996. Christianity: Early Social Life and Organization. Pages 927–935 in
The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday.
Wigoder, G. 2007. Christianity. Pages 673–694 in Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. Vol. 4.
Edited by F. Solink and M. Berenbaum. Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Witherington III, B. 1998a. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the
Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
_______. 1998b. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity.
_______. 2011. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans [ePub edition].
Woodhead, L. 2004. Christianity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wright, N. T. 2002. The Letter to the Romans. Pages 394–770 in The New Interpreter’s
Bible. Vol. 10. Edited by L. E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon.
_______. 2013. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. London: SPCK.
philip.dutoit@nwu.ac.za
North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2735,
South Africa

DU TOIT PHILIP NoeT 2019 Was Paul A Christian

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DU TOIT PHILIP NoeT 2019 Was Paul A Christian

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Was Paul a Christian?

Neotestamentica, Volume 53, Number 1, 2019, pp. 1-29 (Article)

Published by New Testament Society of Southern Africa

For additional information about this article

Neotestamentica 53.1 (2019) 1–29

Jesus separate from the Ἰουδαῖοι (“Judaeans” or “Jews”). 1 While the

2 Definitions of Christianity in Encyclopaedias

In the first category, Peretto (2014, 504), in the Encyclopedia of

rather as one or more small sects in an out-of-the-way province,” but later

3 Defining Christianity and Judaism in NT Scholarship

As pointed out above, in NT scholarship, especially in the NPP and the

4 Identity “in Christ” in Terms of “Now” and “Us/We” Language

v. 13 should be translated as “earlier” rather than “former.” In this

eschatological “now”-language (νῦν), can also be identified in Rom 4–8.

of zeal, he persecuted the church, and in respect of righteousness, he was

He consistently included himself in the new identity in Christ, and other

5 Paul’s Use of σάρξ and πνεῦμα in Respect of Identity

6 The New Covenant and the New Relationship of Judaean and

7 Paul’s References to (the) Ἰουδαῖοι as Outsiders

reference to the Ἰουδαῖοι here as a more general reference to Judaeans could

himself and fellow Judaean Christ-believers as constituting a new group

“Paul’s writing poses a significant challenge to Jewish notions of identity.”

_______. 2003. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic [BECNT].

Вам также может понравиться