Early Christianity

Review: Paul, Apostle of Grace

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "Paul, Apostle of Grace" by Frank Thielman

Paul, Apostle of Grace, Frank Thielman. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802876294) 2025.

Summary: An introduction to the life and world of Paul based on Acts, his letters, and other sources including archaeology.

The sheer number of books on Paul, discussing aspects of his life and theology, attest to his continuing importance to our understanding of the early Christian movement. But often, these discussions focus on a particular book or theological theme. In addition, many of these discussions reflect the narrower scholarly consensus regarding the Pauline corpus. Many relegate Acts to secondary status.

Frank Thielman has written an overview to Paul’s life and world that sets his travels, mission, and writings in a wider historical and cultural context. Unlike some works, Thielman bases his account on all thirteen canonical letters of Paul as well as Acts. He also draws upon non-canonical sources and archaeology to round out this chronological account of Paul’s life, mission, trials, and death.

Beginning with Paul prior to the Damascus road, Thielman traces his travels and the context of each city and region in which he worked. He notes the theologically formative aspects of his training, his early meeting with Peter, and the developing vision of God’s grace for Jew and Gentile alike, formed at Syrian Antioch and elaborated throughout his ministry.

For example, Thielman develops the Jewish opposition Paul encountered in Syrian Antioch, Asia Minor, and Achaia over the inclusion of Gentiles without circumcision. For Paul, their inclusion, and table fellowship as one new people was essential in testifying to the grace of God in Christ. Likewise, Gentile solidarity with the Jerusalem church drove Paul’s collection.

Also, Thielman helps us understand the role and movements of Paul’s companions, notably Prisca and Aquila, Silas, and Timothy. And he fits the composition of each of the letters into Paul’s travels, and later, his imprisonment. He discusses the concerns occasioning each letter, how Paul responds, and how the letters may have been carried to their recipients.

Thielman argues for the reliability of Acts as a source and Luke as a historian and creates a chronology drawing both on letters and Acts. He does take positions on the chronology of Paul’s life that he describes as “outliers.” He equates the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 with that described in Galatians 2. Thielman argues for Galatians as the earliest of Paul’s letters and affirms a southern hypothesis. He also argues for 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy being written within the time covered by Acts. Thus, he argues that Paul was not released from his imprisonment and later re-imprisoned.

Thielman defends his reliance upon Acts and all thirteen canonical letters in his first appendix. And he discusses the imprisonment and the timing and manner of Paul’s death in appendices two and three.

The strength of Thielman’s work is that it reflects a scholarly account that reflects conservative convictions. He accepts the full Pauline corpus and the reliability of Acts. More than that, his account sets Paul’s ministry amid Jewish opposition, imperial concerns, and religious and commercial culture.

Thielman admits at the outset:

“Writing a book about Paul’s life is like putting together a puzzle of a thousand pieces, but a puzzle whose pieces can fit together in different ways. The best one can hope for, perhaps, is a picture that is reasonable and that, at least in some cases, is probable.”

On one hand, Thielman succeeds admirably in putting all the pieces together. However, this book is touted as a successor to F. F. Bruce’s Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. As a cohesive reckoning of all the details in a theologically conservative account, that certainly is the case. Thielman incorporates scholarship to which Bruce did not have access. But, in comparison to Bruce, this account seemed too concerned with all the puzzle pieces. While Thielman gets the theology of grace right, I felt the book lacked the overarching vision of grace’s liberating power for Paul and his ministry that I found in Bruce.

Nevertheless, this book is a great resource to read alongside Acts and the letters of Paul. It offers the “big picture” of Paul’s life. We see Paul’s ministry and his letters in context rather than just as disparate biblical passages. Thielman lays a good foundation for anyone pursuing further studies of Paul, the apostle of grace.

___________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Thanks for visiting Bob on Books.  I appreciate that you spent time here. Feel to “look around” – see the tabs at the top of the website, and the right hand column. And use the buttons below to share this post. Blessings! [Adapted from Enough Light, a blog I follow.]

Review: Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments
Cover image of "Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute" by Frances M. Young

Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute (Doctrine and Scripture in Early Christianity, Volume 2), Frances M. Young. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802882998) 2024.

Summary: A study of how scripture was used in the doctrinal controversies concerning the Trinity and Christology.

One of the challenge early teachers in the church faced was how to articulate the evidence of the biblical text when discussing the nature of God as well as the nature of Christ as the Incarnate Son of God. These questions came to a head in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD articulated the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, of God’s singular nature subsisting in three persons. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD addressed the nature of the Incarnate Christ as the person of the divine Son, who subsisted in two natures, divine and human.

What Frances M. Young does in this second volume of her study of doctrine and scripture in early Christianity is show how the scriptures were used by the different parties to these controversies. The book begins in setting the stage with the discussions on the nature of God in the earliest centuries where the Oneness of God was affirmed but also the three persons of the Godhead. The ambiguities that remained led to further controversy.

Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the discussions of the Trinity. Chapter 2 addresses the challenge of Arius and his use of scripture and the response of Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea. Chapter 3 focuses on the Cappadocians and the decisive work of Gregory of Nyssa leading up to Constantinople. Chapters 4 and 5 turn to the unresolved questions about Christology. Chapter 4 contrasts the exegesis of Hebrews by Chrysostom and the interpretation of the Gospel of John by Cyril of Alexander. Chapter 5 centers on the polemic between Cyril and Nestorius over whether Mary was theotokos (Cyril) or christotokos (Nestorius).

Then Chapter 6 summarizes Young’s findings of the use of scripture. One was the importance of the Rule of Faith and baptismal creeds as summaries of scripture. These didn’t resolve controversy but pushed the church to articulate clearly the nature of the Godhead, Father, Son and Spirit, in whose name new converts were baptized and the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who they confessed. Young also observes how the process of “prooftexting” and the effort to express the overall teaching called for extrabiblical terms to express the mind of scripture, terms like ousia (substance) and hypostases (persons). Citing Augustine, Young notes both how doctrine informs right reading of scripture and the wrestling with the body of scripture leads to refined doctrinal understanding. She concludes that it is in worship where scripture and doctrine coinhere.

I would say in reading Young, one has to work to keep the forest in view with all the “trees” in the discussion. In addition to keeping a thumb in the detailed table of contents, it might have helped to have some summaries in tabular form. Absent these, the studious reader may want to take their own notes and outline.

Young describes a process far “messier” than many of us might like. Even after the councils, not all agree, as is the case with the Nestorians. Her discussion also underscores that everyone here treated scripture as authoritative and appealed to the Rule of Faith. As I personally consider the outcomes of the Councils, I see not a power struggle with winners and losers but a process superintended by God that led to wise formulations that guide us well to this day in articulating the sense of scripture.

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Remarriage in Early Christianity

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "Remarriage in Early Christianity" by A. Andrew Das

Remarriage in Early Christianity, A. Andrew Das. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802883742) 2024.

Summary: A study of both NT texts and early church fathers offers no basis for remarriage after divorce.

Not unlike the contemporary West, where divorce is often followed by remarriage, both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture permitted writs of divorce, after which both parties were free to remarry. The only exception was in the early imperial period, that upheld the ideal of the univira, the woman who never remarried, even after the death of her husband. This, however did not bar divorce or remarriage.

A. Andrew Das asserts that the early Christians stood in marked contrast to these cultural norms, permitting divorce only in the case of unchaste behavior, or a divorce initiated by an unbelieving spouse, and remarriage in no case. Das begins with the relevant gospel texts. He notes the categorical ban of divorce and remarriage in Mark and Luke, affirming God’s intention for marriage until death parts husband and wife. Das then does a more detailed study of the Matthean passages, which seem to allow for some form of exception. He considered the various possible interpretations. On the basis of the textual grammar, he concludes that Jesus, in Matthew permits divorce in the case of sexual sin, but this permission does not extend to remarriage, even for the innocent party. Such remarriage, while the spouse lived, would constitute adultery

Turning to the relevant material in 1 Corinthians 7, he maintains that Paul affirmed marriage and marital relations, limiting abstinence. He addresses widows and widowers, encouraging singleness but permitting marriage. He then turns to divorce, affirming the Lord’s command for believers, urging Christian spouses in mixed marriages to remain, unless the unbelieving spouse initiates divorce. No remarriage is permitted. Paul urges the advantages of singleness, but affirms the propriety of betrothed coupes to marry. Again, Das finds no basis for the remarriage of the divorced.

But was this how the early Christians read these passages? Surveying the Ante-Nicene fathers, he shows them to be unanimous. The only matter on which they differed was whether widows and widowers may remarry. Some prohibited even this. All this argues strongly that they would not even countenance the remarriage of the divorced. And there is no evidence that they went beyond Matthew and Paul regarding the circumstances in which divorce was permitted, nor that the “innocent” party could remarry.

I’ve summarized in a few paragraphs Das’s careful textual work, with ample documentation. Understandably, this is work may evoke strong emotions, which the author acknowledges. His approach is one that focuses on the evidence of the biblical texts and first centuries of Christian interpretation. He acknowledges interpreters as diverse as Craig Keener and David Instone-Brewer who adopt more expansive interpretations of the exceptions. He addresses those who have remarried as being in actual marriages and that adultery is not the unforgiveable sin. Das recognizes that scholars may try to mitigate the understanding he has argued. He simply hopes that when they do so, they will reckon with the early Christian witness.

Admittedly, Das promotes an unpopular position in this book. Perhaps it was beyond his remit, but I would have liked him to address the “hardness of heart” behind the OT permission to divorce. He does not address the issue of violence in marriages. Nor does he address why it is better for the widowed to marry rather than burn but why burning is preferable to the adultery of remarriage for the divorced.

That said, he underscores the high call of marriage for Christians. In turn, this emphasizes the high need for God’s empowering grace in the lives of couples. The evidence from of the early church calls into question the ease with which we accept divorce and remarriage. I hope that this study results not only in scholarly discussions but also in discussions among pastor-theologians. They are the ones who must consider the implications of this evidence for the church’s life and witness.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Cultural Sanctification

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image for "Cultural Sanctification" by Stephen O. Presley

Cultural Sanctification, Stephen O. Presley. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (ISBN: 9780802878540) 2024.

Summary: How the early church pursued cultural engagement through holy discernment rather than fight or flight.

How ought Christians engage a post-Christian, secular culture? Some opt for a strategy of flight, a retreat into communal Christian life exemplified by Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option. But others opt to fight to recover what they believe is a lost Christian cultural hegemony, as described in James Davison Hunter’s Culture Wars. Stephen O. Presley argues for a third way, which he calls “cultural sanctification.” Instead of turning to Benedict or Constantine, he turns to the early church of the first centuries, making its way amid the Roman empire, and many competing religious options.

Presley argues first of all that Christians exhibited a distinctive identity that began with baptismal catechesis, formed through distinctive liturgy in worship. There were doctrinal distinctives to be embraced in a rule of faith. And there were moral distinctives to be practiced in everyday life. Conversion marked a turning point between two ways–one of death and one of life. Baptism dramatically marked that turn, a dying to the way of death and a rising to the way of life.

Christians had to define what it meant to be citizens within the Roman empire. God’s transcendent sovereignty and providence framed all. Specifically, this included their belief that God bestowed political power for the purpose of promoting peace and security, enacting just laws that curbed sin, and to protect free exercise of religion. Christians walked a tension between appropriately honoring and obeying Caesar while worshiping God. This included praying for rulers, paying taxes, promoting virtue, while defending religious liberty.

Christian apologists and theologians actively engaged Roman intellectual life. Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Origen are important examples. They had to meet the likes of Celsus, who wrote On True Doctrine, an early example of the ridiculing of Christian belief. Apologists brought together Greek education and biblical training that “plundered the Egyptians,” offering an indigenized defense and proclamation of the faith. They argued for the uniqueness, antiquity, and public good of Christianity.

In addition, the early Christians faced discernment decisions concerning their participation in everyday, public life. For example, what occupations could they pursue and how did they deal with the religious rituals associated with many of them? Likewise, were there leisure and entertainment activities in which they could partake? Also, could the growing number of converts among soldiers partake in military service? In response, Presley argues that the Christians brought a response involving contingency, sanctification, and improvisation. By this, they sought not only to preserve their own purity but to have a redemptive influence through acts of love and pursuing justice.

The faithful presence of cultural sanctification did not always transform society or even result in a peaceful life. During various periods, it meant martyrdom. Rather than losing heart, most Christians persevered because of their hope in God’s coming kingdom and the resurrection. Neither did they lodge hope in the political structures and personalities of the day. As a result, Christianity subverted the established order rather than becoming captive to it.

In concluding, Presley argues that our current, post-Christian culture is not unlike that confronting the early Christians. He argues that their example of engaging the culture, while not perfect, is worth consideration. They fostered robust catechesis and formative liturgy that shape a distinctive identity with society. They engaged intellectually, as citizens, and in public life. And they sought to live holy lives in society, honoring and obeying the authorities while giving ultimate allegiance and worship to God. Thus, Presley makes what I think a persuasive case that we may learn from the early fathers as we seek an approach to culture that is neither fight, flight, or assimilation. Rather, the way of Jesus offers a distinctive path, reflecting our distinctive identity in Christ.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Strange Religion

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Strange Religion, Nijay K. Gupta. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2024.

Summary: Roman society thought Christians weird for both their beliefs and practices, and yet oddly compelling.

The early Christians in Roman society were weird. Strange. They weren’t trying to be. But their faith resulted in them standing apart from others in Roman society. Their beliefs and practices broke with religious conventions. Yet some found them strangely compelling and their movement kept growing. nijay K. Gupta transports us back to first and second century Roman culture to help us see why they were thought so strange.

He breaks his study into four parts. The first shows how strange becoming Christian was. In Roman society, the gods just were, and there were lots of them. One didn’t choose to believe in a god so much as did the things to stay on good terms with the gods, pax deorum, or “peace with the gods.” There were regular practices to appease the gods. No one thought about friendship with the gods, just staying on their good side. Then Christians came along talking about believing–that there was one God, that Jesus came as the image of God in human flesh, and thus they made no images. Faith had both content and was personal–people trusted in God because of Jesus, saw them in a covenant friendship with God. What’s more, this Jesus who they worshipped as the image of God died a despised death on a Roman cross and his followers claimed that he physically rose and, because of this, they believed they would one day bodily be resurrected. Strange, huh? They also thought it was dangerous, not a religion but a superstition that could endanger the social order. It was innovative rather than ancient, ecstatic rather than ritualized, individual rather than corporate, and desperate, as in intense in devotion, rather than ritually effective.

Then there was the matter of what they believed–unbelievable things! They believed in the supremacy of Jesus as Lord over all, not one of a company of gods. There was no smoke and blood of sacrifices but simply worship. Rather than believing in shrines and temples as “spiritual hot spots” to connect with the God, they believed themselves indwelt with God through the Holy Spirit, enabling them to worship and connect with God anywhere. Finally, they thought differently about time, not as an annual calendar of festivals to the gods, but in terms of what has been fulfilled in time and what is yet to be fulfilled–is it time yet?

They were strange in how they gathered to worship–privately in houses rather than at appointed times in public at temples. It led to a lot of rumors. There was the language of family–brother and sister. Instead of priest, the were led by the head of the household, who presumably managed his own household well. And these gatherings broke social conventions with rich and poor, slave and free, men and women at table together. It was also a priestless gathering, with Christ their priest, whose sacrifice for them was remembered in the bread and cup of shared meals. They responded to him in offered lives, songs of praise, and prayers as he had taught them. All in these private household gatherings.

Apart from the mystery cults, Romans didn’t want to get too close to their gods. By contrast, Christians sought to become like Christ, to imitate Christ. And what they imitated stood out. They sought to follow Christ in his humility, his love, righteousness, and purity–not qualities sought after by the Romans. The status-toppling life of Jesus from Son to despised servant who died upturned all social hierarchies, leading to a radical equality, as already noted. But Gupta pauses at this point to observe their imperfections. They fought and split. They did not protest the institution of slavery. and they slandered each other and spoke judgmentally, making statements that would later be used to justify anti-Semitism.

So what made these strange people so compelling? Gupta speculates:

“Some say it was the promise of immortality. Some say it was the networking savvy of spreading the religion in an organized across the whole empire. Some say it was the attraction of monotheism. Some say it was the teaching on morality. I am sure all of these are factors. But I can’t help but believe it was the people, the Christians themselves. In the first century a Roman encounter with Jesus was probably going to happen through a small community of Christians. This community had to be compelling.”

One can’t help but reflect on the parallels and differences in our own social setting. It makes me wonder if we are thought strange and weird and dangerous and compelling in ways that reflect the gospel of the kingdom of Jesus. Are we thought strange because we impoverish ourselves to help those with even greater needs in our midst? Are we thought weird because renounce consumerism and unsustainable living on our planet as well as self-promotion for ways of hidden service? Are we thought dangerous because we challenge national pretensions to imperial greatness for the sake of the advance of God’s transnational kingdom, and because we welcome the “others” that our politicians consider dangerous? Are we thought compelling in a society of epic loneliness because we really function as family, especially for those who have none? What troubles me as I write this is that by and large, I don’t think these are the ways we are found to be strange, weird, and dangerous. And I wonder if we are found compelling in consequence?

What strikes me in Gupta’s account is that the early believers weren’t trying to be strange, weird, dangerous, or compelling. They were struggling, imperfectly to be sure, to follow Jesus, to become like him. Their lives, their practices, including their transformed social relationships, were shaped by what they believed, by who they believed. And this makes me ask, quite simply, are we?

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism
Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism by Jaroslav Pelikan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

One of the problems of the Protestant Christianity I am associated with is that, by and large, we are unaware of anything that happened prior to the Reformation. Its Evangelical subculture is even worse, often being unaware of anything that has happened more than ten years ago, or anything outside one’s own church. Thankfully, there has been a resurgence of patristic (church fathers) scholarship in recent years to help redress this imbalance.

This book by church historian Jaroslav Pelikan is an early harbinger of this scholarly resurgence, being published in 1993 as the text of his 1992-1993 Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Aberdeen. The book focuses on the work of the Three Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus, along with Macrina, the sister of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa.

Pelikan organizes the book into two parts. Part One looks at the natural theology of the Cappadocians in their apologetic engagement with the Hellenistic world as well as Christian heretics. Part Two considers “Natural Theology as Presupposition” looking at how these figures worked from their engagement with Hellenistic thought to the formulation of Christian doctrine through the intersection of natural theology and revelation. The chapters in each part parallel the other part focusing on classical culture, natural theology, the language we use to speak of God, our ways of knowing including the relation of reason to faith, the one and the many, the nature of the cosmos, how God works in time and space, humankind in God’s image, the good, the true and beautiful in our worship, and the “end” of all things.

The cover “blurb” for this book describes Pelikan’s treatment as “erudite”. This is indeed the case and the book demands one’s careful attention. Familiarity with Hellenistic thought including the works of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle will enhance one’s grasp. And, for those unfamiliar with the key Greek terms which he transliterates, using the glossary of these terms he provides in the end matter is very helpful in reading.

That careful reading will reward the reader in several ways:

1. You will realize the tremendous intellectual life of these four figures (including Macrina) and how this was coupled with pastoral and apologetic testimony to the faith in a way that both engaged Hellenistic thought and marked out the Christian faith as distinctive when this thought threatened to distort or assimilate it.

2. You gain an appreciation for the critical contribution these thinkers made to our present framework of Christian theology for good or ill. For example, Basil’s work on the Holy Spirit was critical in the church’s affirmation of this sometimes “shadowy” reality as the third member of the Trinity, fully God with the Father and the Son.

3. This work also introduces us to a critical approach of these thinkers, the apophatic approach to theology that defines and clarifies theology by negation, by what God is not.

4. Finally, we see how Hellenistic thought and categories did have a shaping influence in the theological formulations of the early Christian centuries, for good or ill.

So, if you are interested in learning about the Cappadocian fathers and up for an intellectual challenge, this is a worthy book to consider. Perhaps the most accessible of their works and important as well is Basil’s On the Holy Spirit which is available in English translation from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. There is also a modern paraphrase of Gregory of Nyssa’s Sermons on the Beatitudes published by InterVarsity Press, which I reviewed in 2012.

View all my reviews