| P. 1-27; idem. The Significance of the Adam-Christ Typology for the Resurrection of the Dead: 1 Co 15, 20-22, 45-49//Résurrection du Christ et des chrétiens (1 Co 15)/Ed. L. De Lorenzi. R., 1985. P. 99-126; idem. Sectarian Diversity at Corinth//Paul and the Corinthians/Ed. T. J. Burke, K. J. Elliott. Leiden; Boston, 2003. P. 287-302; Conzelmann H. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Gött., 196911; Lietzmann H., Kümmel W. G. An die Korinther I, II. Tüb., 19695; Schenk W. Der 1. Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung//ZNW. 1969. Bd. 60. N 3/4. S. 219-243; idem. Korintherbriefe//TRE. 1990. Bd. 19. S. 620-640; Schmithals W. Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen. Gött., 19693; idem. Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung//ZNW. 1973. Bd. 64. N 3/4. S. 263-288; idem. Die Briefe des Paulus in ihrer ursprünglichen Form. Zürich, 1984; Thraede K. Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik. Münch., 1970; Windisch H. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Gött., 1970; Bruce F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids; L., 1971; idem. The Pauline Circle. Grand Rapids, 1985; Spörlein B. Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15. Regensburg, 1971; Williams C. K., Fisher J. E. Corinth, 1970: Forum Area//Hesperia. Camb., 1971. Vol. 40. N 1. P. 1-51; Borse U. Der Standort des Galaterbriefes. Köln; Bonn, 1972; Wilson R. M. How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?//NTS. 1972. Vol. 19. N 1. P. 65-74; idem. Gnosis at Corinth//Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett/Ed. M. D. Hooker, S. G. Wilson. L., 1982. P. 102-114; Arai S. Die Gegner des Paulus im I. Korintherbrief und das Problem der Gnosis//NTS. 1973. Vol. 19. N 4. P. 430-437; Fascher E. Die Korintherbriefe und die Gnosis//Gnosis und NT: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie/Hrsg. K.-W. Tröger. B., 1973. S. 281-291; Hyldahl N. Die Frage nach der literarischen Einheit des Zweiten Korintherbriefes//ZNW. 1973. Bd. 64. N 3/4. S. 289-306; idem. Die paulinische Chronologie. Leiden, 1986; idem. |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| The same Prophet Hosea, proclaiming the name of God and addressing the chosen people, says: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). God defines Himself as such, which means that holiness is one of the most important definitions of God (Cf., Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:3, 7, 26; 21:8; 22:2, 32. Jesus of Navi [Joshua] 24:15, 19. 1 Kings Samuel] 2:2, 10; 6:20; 2 Kings Samuel] 22:7; 4 Kings Kings] 19:22. 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 16:10, 27, 35; 29:16. 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 6:2; 30. 27. Tobit 3:11; 8:5, 15; 12:12, 15. Judith 9:13; Job 6:10; Psalms 2:6; 3:5; 5:8; 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 27 32 42 45 46 47 50 64 67 70 76 77 54; 78 88 97 98 5, 9; 101 102 104 42; 105 110 137 144 21; Proverbs 9:10; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5; 9:8, 10, 17; 10:20. Wisdom of Sirach 4:15; 17:8; 23:9–10; 43:11; 47:9, 12; 48:23. Esaias [Isaiah] 1:4; 5:16, 19, 24; 6:3; 8:13; 10:17, 20; 11:9; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11–12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14–15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 52:19; 54:5; 55:5; 56:7; 57:13, 15; 58:13; 60:9, 14; 63:10–11; 65:11, 25; 66:20. Jeremias [Jeremiah] 23:9; 31:23; 50:29; 51:5. Baruch 2:16; 4:22, 37; 5:5; 20:39–40; 28: 14; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25. Ezekiel 43:7–8; Daniel 3:52–53; 4:5–6, 10, 14–15, 20; 5:11; 9:16, 20, 24. Joel 2:1; 3:17; Amos 2:7. Abidias 1:16. Jonas 2:5, 8; Michaias [Micah] 1:2; Abbacum [Habbakuk] 1:12; 2:20; 3:3; Sophonias [Zephaniah] 3: 11–12; Zacharias [Zechariah] 2:13; 2 Maccabees 8:15; 14:36; 15:32; 3 Maccabees 2:2, 11, 16; 5:8; 6:1–2, 4, 17, 26; 7:8; 2 Esdras 14:22; Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19. Mark 1:8, 24, 29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 49, 67, 72; 2:25–26; 3:16, 22; 4: 1, 34; 11:13; 12:10, 12. John 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 17:11; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 3:14; 4:8, 25, 27, 30–31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17–19, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44–45, 47; 11:15–16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 35, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:12, 15–16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:7. Jude 1:20; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 3:17; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:13. Ephesians 3:5; 4: 30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6: 4; 9:8, 14; 10: 15; Revelation 3:7; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5). |
| SOURCE: Orthodoxyinfo.org The oikonomia of our salvation began with the very creation of the world. It is not by chance that the fourth Gospel does not commence with a genealogy of our Lord but takes us back to the very beginning. All things from the beginning to the end, from the alpha to the omega are part of God’s oikonomia for our salvation, God’s providential ordering of our salvation. Man was created that he may participate in the Divinity of his Creator by first participating in his own perfection. We are taught by the Fathers that man was created for perfection. Adam was offered perfection but fell victim to the guile of the serpent. God " s plan could not be frustrated and the Lord prepared the world for another Adam who would rescue the offspring of the first Adam. St. Paul tells us that Adam is a type of the future Adam ( Romans 5: 14). All Christians are descendants of both the first Adam and the last Adam . From the first we inherited death, from the last we inherited life. (1 Corinthians 15: 45-50). It is this Apostolic teaching of the two Adams which was developed by the Fathers and formed the nucleus of the Church " s teaching on the salvation of mankind. Mankind, which had its beginning in the first Adam, had to be given a new beginning. A new Adam was needed to become the Head of the New Humanity, the Head of the body, the Church, which is His body ( Ephesians 1:22-23). However, just as in the creation of the Old Humanity, mankind was given the freedom to choose sonship; similarly in the creation of the New Humanity, mankind was granted the opportunity to choose. The first Adam was from the earth, a man of dust, the second is from Heaven (1 Corinthians 15: 47). The first could choose sin because he was not yet perfect, the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, being God by nature, was totally alien to sin. It is because God " s oikonomia required a member of the human race who was able to prove himself free from every sin that the time had fully come ( Galatians 4:4) for God to send forth His Son, since mankind was able to bring forth the All-Holy Virgin. |
| Strange though this concept of vicarious repentance may seem to most modern readers, it has in fact an excellent Patristic pedigree. One author who expresses this idea in strong terms is St Mark the Monk (?early fifth century): The saints are required to offer repentance not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of their neighbour, for without active love they cannot be made perfect.... In this way the whole universe is held together in unity, and through God’s providence we are each of us assisted by one another. ‘Adam, our father’ St Silouan’s consuming desire for the salvation of all stands out in yet sharper relief when we take into account his teaching about what may be termed the ‘total Adam’. This is not, I think, a phrase that he himself employs, but it accurately sums up his point of view. For St Silouan, Adam is ‘our father’ (451), the ‘father of all mankind’ (448). Following St Paul (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45), the Starets sees Adam the first-formed man as the collective head of the human race, containing and recapitulating within himself the whole of humankind. There are obvious parallels here between St Silouan and St Irenaeus of Lyon, even though the Starets was probably unfamiliar with the Irenaean writings. This solidarity and recapitulation in Adam renders all human persons ‘consubstantial’ and ‘ontologically one’, as Fr Sophrony puts it (123, 51, 217). This ontological unity is not merely abstract and theoretical but specific and actual, ‘for the whole Adam is not an abstraction but the most concrete fullness of the human being’, to quote Fr Sophrony once more (222). It was the denial of this ‘consubstantiality’ that constituted, as we saw earlier, the essence of Adam’s fall. This unity in the ‘total Adam’ is movingly expressed in the best-known of all St Silouan’s writings, ‘Adam’s Lament’ (448-56). Here the Starets takes up and develops in his own way the liturgical texts for the Sunday before Lent, the ‘Sunday of Forgiveness’, on which the Orthodox Church commemorates the expulsion of Adam from paradise. In particular he has used the ikos appointed for that day: |
| 208 См. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 3d ed. (Crestwood, N.Y.: SVS Press, 1981) 198, n10. Существуют различные мнения относительно значения φ в Рим.5:12 . К «наименее убедительным толкованиям» этого выражения, несомненно, относятся толкования, основанные на латинском переводе, «in quo», «в котором». Так считает Джозеф Фицмайер, автор комментария к Посланию к Римлянам для Jerome Biblical Commentary. Если бы Павел имел в виду мысль, выражаемую в латинском переводе, «он бы написал en ho». См. JBC 53:56. 209 Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 198, n10. См. также того же автора Gregory Palamas – «воспринятое нами от Адама – смерть, а не вина» (125). С другой стороны, Фицмайер находит это толкование также неудовлетворительным, потому что, как он объясняет, в Рим. 5:21 и 6:23 смерть является результатом греха, а не его источником. Из всех толкований он полагает, что «наилучшим образом значение передается выражениями «потому что», «ввиду того что», которые обычное и используют греческие патристические писатели». См. JBC 53:56. 210 См. James D.G. Dunn, “I Corinthians 15:45 – Last Adam, Lifegiving Spirit”, в Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1973) 136, n28. См. также Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) о 1Кор.15:22 . 211 Автор приводит цитату по переводу Иерусалимской Библии, которая соответствует приводимой нами по переводу еп. Кассиана (прим. перев.). 212 Христос стал «духом животворящим». Он превосходит земной прядок существования, теперь Он свободен от всех законов, которые ограничивают тех, кто живет этой жизнью земного существования. «Господь есть Дух» – так апостол Павел в 2Кор. 3:17 подытоживает и выражает все, что закрепляет Его небесным существованием. Этим утверждением он не отождествляет воскресшего Христа со Святым Духом. Христос бел воздвигнут из мертвых Духом Божиим ( Рим.8:11 ). То, что Господь есть Дух, для апостола означает, что в Своем воскресении Христос стал «духом животворящим». Тождественность между Христом и Духом подразумевала бы отрицание Его воскресшего тела. Отрывком 2Кор.3:17 , как 1Кор.15:45 , Павел выражает отношение воскресшего Христа к общине, роль воскресшего Христа в Церкви. Он посылает Духа. См. обсуждение этого вопроса в F.X. Durrewell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960) 99–107. |
| Falk, Jesus Falk, Harvey. Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1985. Fallaize, «Purification» Fallaize, Ε. N. «Purification: Introductory and Primitive.» Pages 455–66 in vo1. 10 of Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edited by James Hastings. 13 vols. Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1918. Fallon, «Law» Fallon, Francis T. «The Law in Philo and Ptolemy: A Note on the Letter to Flora.» Vigiliae christianae 30 (1976): 45–51. Fallon, «Theodotus» Fallon, F. Introduction to «Theodotus.» OTP 2:785–89. Farmer, Problem Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Farmer, «Samaritan Woman» Farmer, Craig S. «Changing Images of the Samaritan Woman in Early Reformed Commentaries on John.» Church History 65 (1996): 365–75. Farmer, Verses Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Farmer and Kereszty, Peter and Paul Farmer, William R., and Roch Kereszty. Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome: The Ecumenical Potential of a Forgotten Perspective. Studies in Contemporary Biblical and Theological Problems. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1990. Farrer, «Q» Farrer, Austin. «Q.» Theology 59 (1956): 247–48. Fascher, «Jesus» Fascher, E. «Jesus der Lehrer.» Theologische Literaturzeitung 79 (1954): 325–42. Fass, «Angels» Fass, David E. «How the Angels Do Serve.» Judaism 40 (1991): 281–89. Fauth, «Metatron» Fauth, Wolfgang. «Tatrosjah-Totrosjah und Metatron in der judischen Merkabah-Mystik. " JSJ 22 (1991): 40–87. Fears, «Rome» Fears, J. Rufus. «Rome: The Ideology of Imperial Power.» Thought 55 (216, 1980): 98–109. (NTA 24:284). Fee, Corinthians Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Fee, «Inauthenticity» Fee, Gordon D. «On the Inauthenticity of John 5 :3b-4.» EvQ 54 (1982): 207–18. Fee, «Once More» Fee, Gordon D. «Once More– John 7:37–39 .» ExpTim 89 (1977–1978): 116–18. |
| Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. S. 179. Fitzmyer J.A. Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary//The Anchor Bible, 33. Ν.Υ., 1993. P. 128. Jewett R. Paul’s Anthropological Terms... P. 434. «St. Paul says ‘consciences’ and not ‘conscience’, because he appeals to the individual conscience of each of them» ( Plummer A. The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh, 1999. P. 169). «Divine-Man-Missionaries» ( Jewett R. Paul’s Anthropological Terms... P. 433). Fitzmyer J.A. Op. cit. P. 128. Послание к Римлянам. Комментарий к греческому тексту. М., 2005. С. 29; Fitzmyer J.A. Op. cit. P. 309. Lohse E. Der Brief an die Römer//Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über Das Neue Testament. Göttingen, 2003. Bd. 4. S. 105. Cathercole S.J. A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2:14–15 Revisited//Journal for the Study of the New Testament. March. 2002. Vol. 24 (3). P. 41; Dunn J.D.G. Romans 1–8//Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, 1988. Vol. 38 a. P. 115. Deidun T.J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. Rome, 1981. P. 166; Cathercole S.J. Op. cit. P. 45. « По словам двух свидетелей, или трех свидетелей... » ( синод. ). Eckstein H.-J. Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. S. 162–66; Pesch R. Die Neue Echter Bible: Kommentar Neuen Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung. Würzburg, 1994. Bd. 6. S. 34. Мецгер Б.М. Канон Нового Завета. М., 1998. С. 300–303. Ианнуарий (Ивлиев), архим. Послания Апостола Павла к Тимофею. URL: (дата обращения: 10.01.2023). Мартин Дибелиус этику Пастырских посланий именует «средней» (см.: Стотт Джон Р.У. Послание к Тимофею и Послание к Титу: Жизнь поместной церкви. СПб., 2005. С. 19). Fee G. The First Epistle to the Corinthians P. 17–18. «The Pastorals belong firmly to this tradition» ( Maurer С. Συνεδησις//Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. P. 918). Павловы послания: комментированное издание. М., 2017. С. 590. Wild R.A. The Pastoral Letters//The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey, 1994. P. 896. Maurer C. |
| Он не проявляет интереса к земному царству Христа. В 1Фес.4:13 и слл. «парусия заканчивается судом»; в 2Фес. 2 «парусия заканчивается истреблением антихриста и всей власти греха» (51–2, n 57). Деян. 24:15 говорят о воскресении и праведных, и неправедных, а Рим. 2:5 и слл. – о праведном суде пред лицем Божиим над всеми – иудеями и эллинами. 186 Harold Riesenfeld, “Paul’s «Grain of Wheat» Analogy and the Argument of 1Corinthians 15“ в его собрании The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1970) 180. Он также пишет, что «представление Павлом образов посева состоит, вероятно, в применении христологического символизма пшеничного зерна со ссылкой на смерть и воскресении христиан» (183). 188 Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) 27f, 47f, 88. 189 Jean Héring, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth Press, 1962) 3, 39f; и также см. в особенности Scroggs, 67–8. 191 Tertullian, Against Marcion, в ANF 3:449–50. Какова бы ни была природа этого крещения, ап. Павел подразумевает, что оно не уместно, если не существует воскресения мертвых. 197 Catechetical Lectures, в William E. Telfer, tr. and ed., Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, Library of Christian Classics, 4 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955) 179. 199 Там же, 94. Тождественность называется «соматической», что означает, что «это не просто вопрос той же “личности” (понимаемой в современном смысле, т. е. чего-то нематериального внутри “тела”), ни просто вопрос наличия тех же мыслей, воспоминаний, ассоциаций, характера и т.д., но также и того же “тела”». 200 См. Гомилии на Первое послание к Коринфянам 41 Златоуста, а также рассмотрение этого вопроса в Wiles, 45–6. 203 Но что будет с телами, тех кто не будет принадлежать к этой категории «праведных»? Согласно учению отцов, их тела будут соответствовать их духовному росту и святости. Они примут свои тела в соответствии с их делами, ибо Бог Своим праведным судом «воздаст каждому по делам его» ( Рим. 2:6 и слл.). Все будут жить в бессмертии, но не все – в блаженстве. См. Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ (Crestwood, N.Y., SVS Press, 1974) 81–4. 204 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection, в P. Schaff and H.Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2d series, 14 vols. )New York, 1890–1900) 5:462. |
| 2586 See Hayman, «Monotheism,» though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, «Metatron»; Abrams, «Boundaries»; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235. 2587 With Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–4,27–28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like Wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26–42). 2588 Pritz, Jewish Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48–49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God " s unity reflects some polemic against Christianity. 2590 For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–15,26–42; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 35; Wright, Paul, 63–72. 2591 Moore, Judaism, 1:437. Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Jesus, 33–35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16–17). 2593 See comment on 1:1–18; further, e.g., Dunn, «John,» 314–16, who finds it pervasive throughout the Gospe1. 2594 Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145)–both Stoic (Moffatt, Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Meeks, Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, «Formula»)–and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277–278; Grant, Gods, 84–85) language here; his wording probably represents esp. an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Hering, 1Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), pervasive use of which is attested early, e.g., the Nash Papyrus (second century B.C.E.); m. Ber. 2:5. 2595 Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116–18; idem, " Morphë»; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, «Hymn»); others have denied it (Glasson, «Notes,» 137–39; Wanamaker, «Philippians»; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God " s image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; L.A.E. 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; h. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Ecc1. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God " s image in the ultimate sense (Wis 7:26; Philo Planting 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense ( Phil 2:7–8 ), especially in presenting Jesus» divinity (cf. Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ " s préexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 156–68; against Talbert, «Problem»); on other christological hymns stressing Christ " s préexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19. |
|
|
