Paul --- The Wrath to Come

[davidbrainerd]

Ephesians 2:3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

"Wrath" here seems to be a designation for the OT god, as "angels" is in Galatians 3:19. It explains the need to be "adopted" so often found in Paul. Born children of [the god of] wrath, have to be adopted by [the benevolent] God.

[Blood]

In the Paulines, which I have studied in detail for a long while now, I have bracketed verses or parts of verses that contain the word orgē that I feel are the additions of an editor who had reworked some letters that originally had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. So, here I see two uses of the same Greek word, but meant in differing senses. The writer of the original letters was thinking of the "Day of the LORD" when he rights all the wrongs inflicted upon the people Israel by the other nations. The Editor, in contrast, used the word to allude to the wrath of God which directed the destruction of the Judean nation and temple by the Romans.

Romans 1:18 [For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.]

Romans 2:5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 3:5 [But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say?] That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Romans 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 5:9 [Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood], much more shall we be saved [by him] from the wrath of God.

Your Editor certainly radically altered the meaning of the epistles, if that is the case.

[DCHindley]

In the Paulines, which I have studied in detail for a long while now, I have bracketed verses or parts of verses that contain the word orgē that I feel are the additions of an editor who had reworked some letters that originally had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. So, here I see two uses of the same Greek word, but meant in differing senses. The writer of the original letters was thinking of the "Day of the LORD" when he rights all the wrongs inflicted upon the people Israel by the other nations. The Editor, in contrast, used the word to allude to the wrath of God which directed the destruction of the Judean nation and temple by the Romans.

Romans 1:18 [For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.]

Romans 2:5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 3:5 [But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say?] That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Romans 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 5:9 [Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood], much more shall we be saved [by him] from the wrath of God.

Your Editor certainly radically altered the meaning of the epistles, if that is the case.

He (my proposed editor) was a strange bird. The original letters seem to be pretty much there intact, with the editor adding his alternate, and of course better, commentary to places where he disagreed with the points being made by the original writer(s). I do not think this part (the commentary) was meant for publication, maybe just marginal notes in some copy. Then it would have been actually published anew by an even later editor, who interpolated the commentary into the original letters, and added all those "in Christ" type glosses to "smooth" it out.

Why would he do it? Why not? Both the commentator and the final editor were clearly advocates of "high" Christological dogma. As the remnants of the gentile wing of the original Jesus movement now morphed into this mystery cult, I think they sought strength in numbers by reaching out to the household associations of the Herodian princes still at large.

These circles are where I believe the original author was active, probably himself a Herodian retainer, the son of a freedman who had converted by circumcision upon his emancipation, and his letters may have circulated in more than one batch, probably not too widely read though. This writer was once hostile to those who he felt wanted to be manumitted without the agreement to be circumcised, like his dad did, but it dawned on him that there was a whole underclass of not-likely-to-be-manumitted slaves who really did admire and love the Judean God.

To those among them who feared loosing out on the abundant life promised to Abraham's children because they were in no position to convert like that even if they wanted to, Paul offered access to it by the back door, by means of the same faith that Abram had that God would fulfill that promise, since this justified him before God even before he had himself and his household circumcised many years later.

The commentator secured some copies of letters of this man (who we can call Paul for convenience sake) and added his "2 cents," and this is what the later final editor published.

DCH

[robert j]

In the Paulines ... Both the commentator and the final editor were clearly advocates of "high" Christological dogma. As the remnants of the gentile wing of the original Jesus movement now morphed into this mystery cult, I think they sought strength in numbers by reaching out to the household associations of the Herodian princes still at large.

These circles are where I believe the original author was active, probably himself a Herodian retainer, the son of a freedman who had converted by circumcision upon his emancipation, and his letters may have circulated in more than one batch, probably not too widely read though. This writer was once hostile to those who he felt wanted to be manumitted without the agreement to be circumcised, like his dad did, but it dawned on him that there was a whole underclass of not-likely-to-be-manumitted slaves who really did admire and love the Judean God.

To those among them who feared loosing out on the abundant life promised to Abraham's children because they were in no position to convert like that even if they wanted to, Paul offered access to it by the back door, by means of the same faith that Abram had that God would fulfill that promise, since this justified him before God even before he had himself and his household circumcised many years later.

The commentator secured some copies of letters of this man (who we can call Paul for convenience sake) and added his "2 cents," and this is what the later final editor published.

DCH

Nice story, though too Eisenman-esque for my taste.

Have you thought of a title? Perhaps, The Acts of Paul and 2-Cents.

[DCHindley]

In the Paulines ... Both the commentator and the final editor were clearly advocates of "high" Christological dogma. As the remnants of the gentile wing of the original Jesus movement now morphed into this mystery cult, I think they sought strength in numbers by reaching out to the household associations of the Herodian princes still at large.

These circles are where I believe the original author was active, probably himself a Herodian retainer, the son of a freedman who had converted by circumcision upon his emancipation, and his letters may have circulated in more than one batch, probably not too widely read though. This writer was once hostile to those who he felt wanted to be manumitted without the agreement to be circumcised, like his dad did, but it dawned on him that there was a whole underclass of not-likely-to-be-manumitted slaves who really did admire and love the Judean God.

To those among them who feared loosing out on the abundant life promised to Abraham's children because they were in no position to convert like that even if they wanted to, Paul offered access to it by the back door, by means of the same faith that Abram had that God would fulfill that promise, since this justified him before God even before he had himself and his household circumcised many years later.

The commentator secured some copies of letters of this man (who we can call Paul for convenience sake) and added his "2 cents," and this is what the later final editor published.

DCH

Nice story, though too Eisenman-esque for my taste.

Have you thought of a title? Perhaps, The Acts of Paul and 2-Cents.

Eisenman would have offered 25 different possible interpretations to any passage. I just offer one.

However, you have correctly guessed the title for my future SBL presentation on the cents and non-cents of existential theories of early Christian development.

D¢H

[robert j]

... you have correctly guessed the title for my future SBL presentation on the cents and non-cents of existential theories of early Christian development.

D¢H

Good retort.

Existential .... Yes, the big questions --- ones we are not going to be able to answer here.