The Theology of Paul the Apostle (New Testament)

If one needs to get a good summary of Paul's theological thought, here is the one book which could be the very good choice. However, I considered long whether it is justified to give five stars. That's because some points in the book didn't convince me. The greatest flaw, I think, is Christology. It's not because I would be a "traditionalist". Dunn's argument seems just to strike against the meaning of biblical verses and my reason. He claims that, yes, Paul had the idea of preexistence of Christ, but he interprets this so that the preexistent Wisdom worked in Christ and so personally Jesus wasn't preexistent. Of course, there is some points here. Maybe Paul didn't think that the human person Jesus didn't exist before the birth of Jesus (it seems that the impossibility of this is what Dunn reads to the thoughts of Paul). Also, the good idea is to connect Wisdom and Christ. As always, Dunn strives also to present good argumentation for this idea. However, I think that this idea rather makes things more complicated. It seems that one tries to escape the most probable interpretation of Pauline passages, because he assumes claims like "surely Paul the Jew couldn't have the idea that Christ was somehow preexistent". But that doesn't make sense to me. Surely the emphasis on Jewish roots of Paul's thoughts is one of benefits of book, but that doesn't mean that one should read his assumptions to Paul. His idea of Christ was surely different than that in the gospel of John, there was more idea of subordination, but Dunn doesn't remark (I dare to say) that it isn't so easy to say that Christ as historical person is Wisdom (law as personification or imaginary metaphor about Wisdom as woman etc. are different things) . If you think that Christ as person is Wisdom, then it's difficult to evade the idea that somehow he - and not only Wisdom - was preexistent. Somehow his person was connected to Wisdom even before creation. Some other points can be questionable, too. One advantage in the book is, however, that Dunn takes the modest view at least in the end of his book and understands it as dialogue. Some of his ideas can be historically wrong, and then they should be rejected. But one can still grow through dialogue.Having said that, there are very good reasons why I didn't give just four stars. Namely, the book has considerable good points. It isn't only very comprehensive with over 700 pages. Often Dunn writes in a way which encourages one to ask questions and read more. It's always a good sign when you almost can't leave theological book away but want to read the whole story to the end. Generally speaking, Dunn argues convincingly and profoundly, and although some of his ideas may seem to be not traditional, they can help one to find new aspects in the theology of Paul.But, honestly speaking, one shouldn't call the book necessarily an unorthodox one. Leave the question of Christology without consideration, and there aren't much more problematic material for the main message of Christianity. Sure, of course Dunn doesn't follow traditional ideas always, but that is hardly problem for orthodoxy. If we emphasize the Jewish dimension in Paul's thought more and think that he had positive idea of law, that is hardly problem. In fact, Jesus respected highly law, so Dunn's book turns out to support the consistency of New Testament. Some Protestants could whine that Dunn seems to reject the idea of salvation by faith alone. As Lutheran, I don't think so. He explicitly says that Paul thought that one is saved by grace alone. However, Paul saw salvation with many dimensions, so that it wasn't only the moment when you are seen as justified but also the process of salvification and the eschatological judgment, when even believing people can face punishment because of their bad deeds even though they would be saved thanks to grace. Yes, the reason for Paul to "find" the idea of justification was that Jews had no privileges anymore compared with Gentiles. But at the same time, he was led to claim the idea about salvation solely by faith, and later generations then did no unjustice to him when they talked more about general attempt to save oneself by one's works. You can take both aspects; it isn't either-or but both-and.These ideas already should explain why I considered Dunn's argumentation mostly very good. They made much sense both to the Bible and to reason. In fact, they developed my theological thought a lot. One additional good point in book, too, is that although Dunn skillfully avoids reading modern issues to the time of Paul, he remarks if some of his ideas have meaning for issues of our time. That's always the sign that exegete doesn't live in vacuum but wants that his argumentation will help one to understand God, His word, and theology more fully. To conclude, as one specific point, I deeply recommend one to check book if those commands for women to be silent in church have troubled your mind. Dunn's explanation is the best I have so far encountered. He argues that that passage in 1.Cor. 14 rejects only that wives would assess the prophecies of their husbands in congregation, because that would have been great shame for men in patriarchal culture. That would explain both why Paul said something like that when he generally even encouraged women to speak and had even female assistants, and why that command is told in the context of prophesying.

Mr. Dunn is a great writer. The subject is very interesting. The seller was fast, and the book quality was good.But I gave this book 1 star because I believe that it is promoting (seducing) readers to be ‘ ... removed from Him that called you into the Grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.’ ( Galations 1:6,7 ).This book is more about the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ movement (see the preface, page xv, and chapter 1 Prologue, page 5.), than it is about ‘The Theology of Paul the Apostle’ - misleading title - I am not even for sure about how much theology Paul really had, because he was taught the Gospel by Jesus Christ Himself (Galations 1:11,12). I believe that this book creates a Judaism that does not exist, then it creates a Paul that does not exist, then it recreates a old brand of Christianity, that still does exist, in legalism. The New Perspective is a new and novel way of looking at an old perspective, that Christ is the Savior, BUT, you still gotta keep the law, or part of it at least - it is a Christ PLUS, you gotta do do this, and don't do that, or else, doctrine. It is a do do religion, and it always comes from a but. And those buts come in many shapes and forms - there are small buts, big buts, wide buts - you get it - and those buts always take you far far away from the cross of Christ ( 1 Cor. 2: 1-5 ), and the ‘simplicity that is in Christ’ (2 Cor. 11:3).Mr. Dunn has an interesting but. I guess that he believes in GOD, but, Mr. Dunn clearly calls into question the true authorship of some New Testament books like Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles (page 13) - THAT says a great deal about him ! Is it really true thatall Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16 ) ? Is it really true that the Scripture can be broken (John 10:35) ? Does God in His Word abide by His own Law, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor " (Exodus 20:16 ) ? Are God's Words really pure? and can He really preserve His Words (Ps. 12: 6,7) ? Is the Bible really "truth" (John 17:17) ?Not only is what Mr. Dunn writes about interesting, but it also may be even more interesting in what he does not say, write, or make reference to in his book. Mr. Dunn never makes 1 single reference to Hebrews Chapter 11, the great faith chapter of the entire Bible. I could not find it - it is not listed in the index - He does however make reference to well beyond 100 other non-scriptual writings - THAT IS AMAZING !Now speaking of faith - I do not think Mr. Dunn has the slightest idea what faith is (1Cor. 1:27-31). He is always attaching his own slant on words. Take the word ’faith,’ for example - he constantly makes ‘faith’ equal to ‘faithfulness’ ( pages 196, 374, 375 just to show a few ). Well I have seen lots of married couples that are faithful to each other , yet they show NO faith to each other at all. They can be faithful and hate each other at the same time. The Bible is very good at defining its own words and giving multiple stories to back it up. Let the Bible define the faith word (Rom 4:15-25). Mr. Dunn says (page 636) faith "determines the individuals conduct" - Did Rahab the harlot have good conduct, or good faith ? She is known as a heroine of faith. Mr. Dunn shows us (pages 378, 379) that faith is simple trust - Abraham gave glory to God (Rom. 4:20 ) - select, cut, crop, copy, paste - well , do not demons trust the Lord in some sense of the word (Matt. 8:29) ? Then later in the book (e.g. pages 634-642), he makes sure that you understand that REAL faith is expressed in love ( love-energized-faith ), and that law and faith are not at odds with each other (ahhhemmmm ... 2 Corinth 3:6-12) - and law is not to be understood in terms of works - and that faith in God was for Paul a means to ‘right living’ (Dunn page 642) Remember faith and faithfulness are virtually the same things for Mr. Dunn (page 374) and He regards the snippet, ‘from faith to faith’ (Rom. 1:17 ) as puzzling. So let me try to understand this, a new Christian starts off in faith (Gal. 3:2) - he/she grows in faith (2 Peter 1:4-9) - and in this growing the person goes from ‘strength to strength’ (Ps. 84:7), and from ‘glory to glory’ (2 Cor. 3:18), and from ‘grace to grace’ (John 1:16), - ... so ‘the just shall live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17) - and in the living, or this growing, the just grows (or lives) from faith, to even more faith - or that is my take on Mr. Dunn's puzzling verse. All of this and much more is why Mr. Dunn talks a confusing message to a simple guy like me, and thinks that some believers will be "saved only by a whisker" (page 491), and that justification by faith will not exclude judgment in accordance with the law and by reference to works done in the flesh - and that justification has to be "worked out" until and in the final verdict of acquittal (page 493). WHAT was that again Mr Dunn ? ‘SAVED ONLY BY A WHISKER?’ Are you kidding me ??? It takes the Blood of Christ, and at the very least, a whisker from me ??? Well, reading this book is like reading 800 pages of the Epistle of James - all through it he is trying to prove that ‘faith without works is dead,’ (James 2:20) and that ‘you see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY’ (James 2:24). Mr. Dunn is expert at telling you that you are not redeemed, justified, made righteous, or saved, by your own works, and then in other words, at other places, turning it all around and telling you that you are - it is the age old faith plus works doctrine/argument that appeared in Acts 15. Just as James was giving Paul troubles in his days, a James is still giving Paul trouble nowadays.(Gal.1:6,7) Things that are different, are not the same. To add or subtract anything to Paul's message destroys Paul's message.Mr. Dunn does not believe that justification is not a once-for-all act of God pg 386.He strongly implies, or believes that Paul teaches that you can lose your salvation pg 498.He focuses more on the ‘not yet’ than the ’already’ of the ‘already-not yet’ tension pg 466.He teaches that the gospel can be reduced to "the love of God " or " the love for God" pg 498.He regards the Garden of Eden a "mythic story" page 84.He teaches real faith (faithfulness) is expressed in love (works even tho he says it is not) - Love energizes faith - not faith energizing love.It is the ‘if you really have faith, you will show it to me in your works’ doctrine.Mr. Dunn regards Paul's opening salutations in his letters ‘Grace to you, and Peace ...,’ as the ‘regular greetings’ of Paul ( page 28). Is not ‘Grace, Peace, and Mercy’ the extensions and outcome of Jesus the Nazarene having been born, living life, died, raised from the dead, and ascended into the heaven? I disagree with Mr. Dunn - these Words that the Apostle Paul inserts into the beginning of all his letters are not simply regular greetings and salutations - they are in fact Paul's way of stating the Gospel in a very succinct way - it is THIS GRACE that the Galations were being so soon removed from ( to go back to law ) (Gal. 1:6).For Mr. Dunn, Paul's convictions about God are all "axioms" ( page 28) - ‘Paul did not need to explain his beliefs about God because they were already common to, and shared with his readers (page 29). Oh Really ? So, the Sadducees, Pharaisees, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots, Sicarii .... all share common beliefs about God ? Did everybody in the Book of Acts share common beliefs About GOD ? Did all the other apostles, disciples, and readers understand "the unsearchable riches of Christ" ( Ephesians 3:8 ) ? Were any of the other apostles, disciples, readers "made a minster...to fulfill the Word of God... (Colossians 1:25,26,27) ?Well I could go on and on and on - Mr. Dunn is 100s of times smarter than myself - he is an intellectual giant.If you believe that some 2000 years of Catholic and Protestant scholarship have gotten the entire Bible wrong,jump on in. There are lots of buts, and endless do do.

I bought this book because I thought it might explore the development and changes of the Apostle Paul's theology. I have noted other biblical scholars making comments about Paul's theology having an evolution but I am still unfamiliar with the details that have been underlying such comments. Dunn's book does do a thorough development of Paul's theology using Roman's as the guide.His development did show me insights that I didn't see or appreciate before. The book was formative for me. In short I could see how some scriptures which troubled me were explained by Dunn in his view of Paul's theology. And I am critical. In short Paul argues that the works of the Torah do not bring about salvation but faith in Christ does. But essentially Paul substitutes the law of the Spirit for the Torah for those who come into the Christian fold. In short those who have tasted grace yet return to their evil practices destroy the work of God through Christ and do not have any salvation left.In pondering this thesis, I have wondered if some of the rules for holy living and requirements for the Christian way of life were added by others. Certainly there are conflicting passages of Paul which are attributed to other writers editing letters as we have them. For example, the classic one is that Paul speaks of women prophesying (in which they would speak in an assembly) but then in another place he admonishes that women are to be silent in an assembly.Efforts have been extensive to discern what Jesus actually said in the gospels. There may be unknown to me efforts to do the same treatment with Paul.

Another brilliant and comprehensive work from James Dunn

It is an exellent book who cover without omissions the whole pouline view of the revelation of the church like body of Christ.

Great book, bought it for my theology course. Very readable.

as expected