Book Review: The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 2nd ed. (eds. McKnight, Cohick, Gupta)

The first edition of this dictionary, published in 1993, spilled considerable energies in the spaces occupied by the Old and New Perspectives. However, so much has changed in the last thirty years that a new edition updating the discussions on all the topics was needed. In addition, many new topics have risen to the surface, and we have done our best to present as wide a view of these studies as can be mustered in one hefty volume.

I really enjoy nerding out on the IVP Bible Dictionaries, and I’ve been lucky enough to get to review The volumes on Jesus and the Gospels and this one, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Being the second edition, the editors—Scott McKnight, Lynn Cohick, and Nijay Gupta—refer to this as DPL2. The first edition was published in 1993 and spent a lot of time on the Old and New Perspectives on Paul. However, so much has changed in the last thirty years that an update needed to be made. In the first paragraph of the Preface, the editors note how within the space of only three years, two books were published exploring different perspectives on the apostle Paul’s theology and mission. One book explored the four views—Reformation, New Perspective, Apocalyptic, Participationist. The other book explored five different views—Roman Catholic, Traditional Protestant, New Perspective, Paul Within Judaism, and Gift. As the editors note, still, “both books were quick to acknowledge that there were still so many other voices on Paul that could have been included” (ix).

In this updated volume, fifteen articles were revised or reused from the first edition, but the rest were written specifically for this edition (even if some some draw from the previous volume). Some of the previous authors have passed away, some remain, and many new have come with new ideas. But all in all there are 141 scholars and editors who have put this tome together. One scholar (although we don’t know who) told the editors that he spent 140 hours writing his entry! These guys (and ladies!) were committed! As well, the scholarship here is more diverse. Articles are written by men, women, asians, and african-Americans.

What are some of the articles?

Afterlife

S. J. Wood shows us that “Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension brought a portion of the eschatology into the present as a revelation that heaven and earth… are no longer separate” (15). We not only have God’s presence with us (2 Tim 4:16-17), but Christ’s resurrection allows us to reap eternal life as new creations today (Gal 6:8).

Apostasy

Briefly, A. C. Thornhill admits that when it comes to the topic of apostasy, one could find support for either apostasy or “perseverance of the saints” (46).

Church structure

Paula Gooder shows that some of the Pauline communities/churches might have had more structure or clearly defined roles than others. She writes that one problem is that the NT is not consistent in its usage of the terms for bishop/overseer, presbyter/elder, and deacon/servants. This article was helpful in showing the diversity of opinions. At the same time Gooder didn’t really give much clarifying information.

Circumcision

Tom Schriener shows how important circumcision was in the OT and Intertestamental periods, helping us understand the opposition against Paul. However, Paul lays out four kinds of arguments as a defense for why Gentiles could be part of God’s people without being circumcised. He argues based on the Gentiles’ reception of the Spirit, on Abraham’s justification being circumcised, on salvation history and the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant, and because of the cross. Yet Paul didn’t forbid Jews from keeping the law, as seen in the circumcision of Timothy. Spent a fair bit of time on the point about Timothy in proportion to the rest of the article.

Disability and Paul 

Louise Gosbell helpfully reminds us that our disabilities today would be both similar and quite different than those of the ancient world. Greco-Romans had no glasses, and so even mild visibility loss would have been disabling. Though we don’t know what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was, “the cross/resurrection paradigm governs Paul’s reading of the divine response”—that being Christ’s resurrection power being made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9)—“to be God’s characteristic design for Christian life” (230).

Election and Predestination 

A. C. Thornhill didn’t say much about what predestination isn’t. Meaning, while he notes it is God’s “‘beforehand’ activity” (see Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:5), “Christ is described either as the goal or the means for this predestination” (241). Gods plan of salvation was planned before the ages, so is it that believers who are elected are done so as a corporate group “in Christ”? And the fact that we are predestined is because we are part of a plan made long ago? These statements aren’t made explicit, so it is hard to know exactly what Thornhill meant. Find his book on the topic here.

Homosexuality

Preston Sprinkle (also the host of the excellent Theology in the Raw podcast) is refreshing for his biblical stance. He sketches how Paul wrote that “all humanity is idolatrous based on how it has exchanged God’s will for its own, including engaging in same-sex sexual relationships” (438). Paul’s language on same-sex sexual relations is “generic and absolute” and it is “irrespective of age or class distinction” (438). Paul refers to both the active and passive partners as he describes “relationships that would appear to be mutual and consensual” (438). While some today said that same-sex relationships in Greco-Roman culture were devoid of “true love,” Sprinkle disagrees. While male same-sex relationships were often portrayed by writers as “the result of excessive lust,” female same-sex relations “were often described in terms of mutual love” (439).

Paul’s coinage of the Greek word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 puzzles some scholars, but it is a compound word, which combines two words from Leviticus 20:13 (and 18:22)—arsēn and koitē. Paul’s intended meaning is rooted in Leviticus’ prohibition against male same-sex relations. There is much more that could be written here. Sprinkle has written more about this topic here.

Households and Household Codes 

Lynn Cohick surveys Greco-Roman households and their codes (based on Aristotles’ political theories) and compares them with Paul’s household codes. Unlike the surrounding pagan culture, husbands were to love his wife “as his own body, as he loves himself,” and “in a self-sacrificial way” (456). Being culturally accepted as the superordinate member of the husband/wife pair, The husband’s self-sacrificial love toward his wife both would have been strongly countercultural and reflected the mutual one-flesh union of Genesis 1. Paul does not condone parents requesting their children to sin. And he probably give commands specifically to fathers because the society empowered them “with extensive control over their children” (456). Paul expects his followers to emulate the self-giving nature of the crucified and resurrected Lord and to treat their slaves accordingly, even learning from their slaves’ model of obedience. Cohick has written more about this topic in her commentary on Ephesians (NICNT).

Marriage and Divorce, Adultery and Incest 

David Instone-Brewer gives six pages to explaining marriage, divorce, adultery, remarriage. Instone-Brewer shows how both Jesus and Paul affirmed Jewish marriage vows (which Instone-Brewer briefly looks at). When it comes to believers, both Paul and Jesus agreed that a marriage could end either due to adultery or neglect. Instone-Brewer shows how Paul skillfully navigated the tension of Greco-Roman law and the enduring authority that OT law had on Christians. He shows how divorce was allowed of cases of either adultery or neglect based on Jewish divorce certificates from first-century Judaism. Instone-Brewer has written some great books on this here and here.

Supercessionism 

Michael Bird shows how supercessionism did not begin with Christianity, but is in fact something Christianity inherited from Judaism (1029). In the OT, Israel is the corporate elect people of God (Ex 4:22–23; Isa 41:8–10). The prophets foretold of a renewed remnant of Israel coming after the exile (Isa 10:19–22; Jer 23:3). Further discussions arose about a remnant in the Qumran community, by Philo, and by rabbinic Jews of the second and third centuries (1028).

Bird surveys 1 Cor 10:32; Gal 6:16; and Rom 9–11 and observes that “for Paul the ‘church of God’ is neither Jewish nor Greek but seems to be something different altogether, something like a ‘third race’” (1029). That Gentile Christians are grafted into Israel’s election is seen through them being described with the terms “sons of God” (Gal 3:26; 4:5–7), Abraham’s “seed” (3;29), and “children of promise” (4:28). They are also described as belonging to the “Jerusalem which is above” (4:26, 31). Paul’s argument in Romans is not that Jews are replaced by a Gentile church. Gentries have been grafted in, and all find their salvation in Christ alone. There is no salvation for Jews nor Gentiles outside of Christ. Find his book on the topic here.