Jonathan Edwards on the Oeconomy of the Trinity

From Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy of the Trinity, and Covenant of Redemption (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880), 21-36. Quoted in Reformed Reader, edited by William Stacy Johnson and John H. Leith. Text taken from here. (Update: I found it here too. See also here.)

Continue reading “Jonathan Edwards on the Oeconomy of the Trinity”

Augustine: God Became a Baby

“He by whom all things were made
was made one of all things.
The Son of God by the Father without a mother
became the Son of man by a mother without a father.
The Word Who is God before all time
became flesh at the appointed time.
The maker of the sun
was made under the sun.
He Who fills the world
lay in a manger,
great in the form of God
but tiny in the form of a servant;
this was in such a way that
neither was His greatness diminished by His tininess,
nor was His tininess overcome by His greatness.”

Augustine, Sermon 187

“Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?”

Augustine

“Man’s maker
was made man,
that He, Ruler of the stars,
might nurse at His mother’s breast;
that the Bread
might hunger,
the Fountain
thirst,
the Light
sleep,
the Way
be tired on its journey;
that the Truth
might be accused of false witness,
the Teacher
be beaten with whips,
the Foundation
be suspended on wood;
that Strength
might grow weak;
that the Healer
might be wounded;
that Life
might die.”

– Augustine, Sermons 191.1

“Man exalted himself and fell;
God humbled himself and raised him up.
Christ’s lowliness, what is it?
od has stretched out a hand to man laid low.
We fell,
he descended;
we lay low,
he stooped.
Let us lay hold and rise,
that we fall not into punishment.
So then his stooping to us is this: ‘Born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.’ His very nativity too as man – it is lowly and it is lofty. Whence lowly? That as man he was born of men. Whence lofty? That he was born of a virgin.”

Augustine

Do me a favor? If you know of any more similar Augustine quotes, please email them to me.

(Hat tip to Tadd Winter, Spencer Smith, Jonathan Brown, and Cynthia Petermann for the quotes.)


See also:

“What is this novel mystery?
The judge is judged and is silent;
the invisible is seen and is not confounded;
the incomprehensible is grasped and is not indignant at it;
the immeasurable is contained in a measure and makes no opposition;
the impassible suffers and does not avenge its own injury;
the immortal dies and complains not;
the celestial is buried and bears it with an equal mind.”
– Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on the Arian Heresy, ANF, vol. 6, VI


“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God come in flesh, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 7).


“There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation—that is, His Word—He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 3.9.1)

H. W. Hoehner on three categories of apostles

In the NT the term “apostle” is used in three different ways.

First, there are the Twelve that Jesus named “apostles” (Matt 10:2–4 = Mark 3:16–19 = Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:13). This seems to refer to the office of the apostle. Acts 1:21–22 indicates that to qualify as an apostle one must have been with the Lord in his earthly ministry and must have witnessed his resurrection body (Acts 1:21–22; 4:33; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:1). The witness of the Twelve to Christ’s resurrection is affirmed by Paul (1 Cor 15:5).

Second, there were apostles in addition to the Twelve. There were Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor 9:5–7), James, the Lord’s brother (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), and Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9), probably Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:6 [GT 2:7]), Titus (2 Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), and possibly Andronicus and Junia(s) (Rom 16:7). Paul mentions James and all the apostles (1 Cor 15:7) as distinct from Peter and the Twelve (15:5). In Gal 1:18–19 Paul states that when he went up to Jerusalem he visited Peter and he did not visit other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Hence, Paul recognized apostles beyond the Twelve. These are most likely those who were endowed with the gift of apostleship because they did not meet the above mentioned qualifications for the office.

Third, there was Paul who was an apostle (1 Cor 9:1; 15:9) and yet had not been with Jesus in his earthly ministry but did, however, see the Lord in his resurrection body. Hence, he claimed that he was born out of due season (1 Cor 15:8). Rather than trying to include him in either of the two categories above, it is best to see Paul as an exception to the rule and make a third category. It seems that he had the office of an apostle for the following reasons: (1) he used authority as an apostle (1 Cor 4:9; 9:1, 5; 11:5; 12:11–12); (2) he performed miracles (Acts 13:8–11; 14:3; 19:11; 2 Cor 12:12) that seemed to be done by those who had the office (Acts 2:43; 5:15–16; Heb 2:4); (3) his laying on of hands brought the Holy Spirit to the believers (Acts 19:6) such as happened to Peter (Acts 8:17); and (4) his greetings in most all of his letters (see passages above) are similar to those of Peter (1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1). It would not be likely that he would have referred to himself as an apostle in his formal greetings if he had only the gift. Thus, this third category is an exception exclusive to Paul.

Hoehner, H. W. (2002). Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (pp. 134–135). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Emphasis and paragraphing mine.

Apostles, prophets, and evangelists

Apostles

  • “The term ‘apostle’ was originally used as an adjective, describing a dispatch that was usually made by sea. It could also designate the thing that was sent out.” (Lexham Bible Dictionary)
  • In the New Testament the term “apostle” refers to an authorized person sent on a special mission. He is a messenger, envoy, ambassador, or an emissary. He is an official delegate of Jesus Christ.
  • The 1st category of apostles: The Twelve. Called, authorized, and sent (Matthew 10:1-4). Mission extended (Matthew 28:18–20).
  • Matthias replaced Judas. The candidates considered had to fit a special criteria: they had been with Christ from the beginning of his ministry and they were eye-witnesses of the risen Christ (Acts 1:21–26).
  • This replacement was unique.
    • “Peter explained that the reason for a new apostle was that Judas had apostatized and abandoned his office (Acts 1:16-17, 20, cf. 1:25), not that Judas had merely died (52, 179). The prayer of the disciples in Acts 1:24-25 “is not a set prayer such as the Lord’s Prayer or prayers in a liturgical setting, but a unique prayer on a specific and unrepeatable occasion” (75). “In the immediate context in the Book of Acts, the appointment of Matthias as the twelfth apostle prepares the way for the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Zwiep argues (172–73), correctly I think, that in this context the appointment of Matthias was necessary so that Israel’s believing community could be fully represented by twelve men corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:28-30). “There is more, but Zwiep’s thorough monograph on the Matthias passage—one of the very few such monographs ever published—confirms that Luke did not view Matthias’s appointment as [precedent] for an ongoing institutional office of apostle. To the contrary, the twelve apostles were a unique group of men whom Christ had chosen to fulfill a unique, eschatological role in redemptive history.” (Robert Bowman’s review of a book by Arie W Zwiep)
  • The 2nd category of apostle: The one untimely born, Paul. He is a literal eyewitness of the risen Christ, and considered himself the last in an exclusive group (1 Corinthians 15:4–11). Paul is very clear that he did not receive his apostolic authority or commission from another apostle (Galatians 1:1, 2:1-10).
  • The 3rd category of apostle: A broader, more generic sense of messenger.
    • “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers [Greek: apostles] of the churches, the glory of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 8:23) These were part of a church-endorsed, church-sent effort to establish other churches in areas that had not been reached. Today we have a similar category: missionaries. “There were Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor 9:5–7), James, the Lord’s brother (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), and Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9), probably Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:6 [GT 2:7]), Titus (2 Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), and possibly Andronicus and Junia(s) (Rom 16:7). Paul mentions James and all the apostles (1 Cor 15:7) as distinct from Peter and the Twelve (15:5). In Gal 1:18–19 Paul states that when he went up to Jerusalem he visited Peter and he did not visit other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Hence, Paul recognized apostles beyond the Twelve.” (Hoehner, 135)
  • The apostles were church planters.
    • “It seems then that the main function of an apostle is to establish churches in areas that have not been reached by others (Rom 15:20). They are God’s messengers to open up new territories for Christ.” (Hoehner, 542)
  • The apostles and prophets were the pioneers to initially reveal the mystery of the gospel, “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs.” (Ephesians 3:4-6)
  • The the message and authority of the apostles (particularly the Twelve and Paul) was validated by significant miracles.
    • “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” (2 Corinthians 12:12)
  • The apostles and prophets laid an initial foundation that the rest of the household of God would build on / grow into (Ephesians 2:19-21).
  • Paul, Peter, and Jude exhort their readers to remember, teach, and contend for the apostolic deposit of teaching definitively delivered to the saints (2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Peter 3:2, Jude 3).

Prophets

  • They stimulated the church by telling the future (Acts 11:27-30).
  • They spoke clear words of instruction from God (Acts 13:1–3).
  • They encouraged and strengthened believers (Acts 15:30–35; 1 Corinthians 14:3).
  • They disclosed the secrets of the heart (1 Corinthians 14:24-25).
  • They were to prophesy in an orderly manner, and to be weighed by others (1 Corinthians 14:29–33; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
  • They were secondary to the apostles and were to submit to the teaching of the apostles (Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:37–38).
  • They helped lay an initial foundation upon which the household of God could grow into and build upon (Ephesians 2:20).

Building on their foundation

How do we today build on and grow into the foundation of the apostles and prophets? Consider what Paul, Peter, and Jude exhort toward the end of their lives:

  • “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2)
  • “Remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.” (2 Peter 3:2)
  • “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) Later Jude writes, “remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Jude 17)

Summary: Entrust, teach, remember, contend for the foundational apostolic deposit definitively delivered to the saints.

(Addendum: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32) He doesn’t tell them to pay attention to a succession of future prophets or apostles. He commends them to God’s word.)

Evangelists

  • A basic definition: Evangelists preach the good news to those who have not heard it.
  • Compare these two words:
    • εὐαγγελιστής (evangelist)
    • εὐαγγέλιον (gospel)
    • See the overlap?
  • Philip was called an evangelist (Acts 21:8).
  • Philip preached to crowds (Acts 8:4-8). God used miracles to help him draw a crowd!
  • Philip practiced Spirit-led individual stranger-evangelism (Acts 8:26-40).
  • Paul tells Timothy, a younger man left behind to help stabilize churches with church leadership, to do the work of an evangelist: “As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:5)
  • Paul tells this same Timothy to avoid quarreling, but yet to persist in teaching and correct his opponents, and to do so kindly and patiently (2 Timothy 2:22–26).
  • Evangelists preach with clarity what Old Testament prophets inquired about and what angels longed to look at. What they anticipated we evangelists get to announce (1 Peter 1:10–12).

“Christian”: a title construed as a name, given a Latin suffix and confused with a slave-name

“In Antioch the disciples were first called Christians [Χριστιανούς].” (Acts 11:26)

F. F. Bruce writes, “It is natural that the designation ‘Christian’ should first have been given to the followers of Jesus in Antioch, and by Gentiles.” He explains:

1. This followed a pattern of attaching a Latin suffix to a name. “As the Herodians in the Gospels were adherents of Herod, so the Christians (christianoi) were adherents of Christ (such forms consisting of the stem of a personal name followed by an originally Latin suffix, -ianus).”

2. Non-Christian Jews would have avoided calling Jesus “Christ.” “Greek-speaking Jews at that date would not have referred to Jesus as Christ, for that was still a title (christos, the “anointed” one, corresponding to the Semitic messiah); to refer to him thus would have been to acknowledge him as Messiah.”

3. Gentiles, however, could have construed “Christ” simply as an alternative name. “But in Gentile ears Christ was simply an alternative name for Jesus; it had no such associations for them as it had for Jews.”

4. “Christos” sounded like a common slave-name. “Christos sounded exactly like a fairly common slave-name, Chrēstos (Latin Chrestus), and among Greeks and Romans there was considerable confusion between, the two spellings, as also between christianoi and chrēstianoi.”

5. The slave name sounded so similar, that some scribes copying Acts made the mistake of using it. “Even in Acts 11:26, where it is mentioned that “in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians”, a few Greek witnesses to the text (including the first hand in Codex Sinaiticus) exhibit the spelling chrēstianous (accusative plural) instead of christianous. The latter is certainly what Luke wrote, but the former may well represent what some of the Antiochenes thought they were saying.”

Bruce, F. F. (1977). Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (p. 132). Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster.


The Jesus-movement was otherwise (more internally?) simply called “the Way” (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 19:23, 24:14, 24:22).

I hear you but I don’t hear you: Resolving the superficial contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

Acts 9:7 says that the men around Paul “stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.” (NRSV)

In Acts 22:9 Paul says they “saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.”

Is this a formal contradiction, or merely a superficial contradiction that can be harmonized? Robert Bowman summarizes[1]:

“Evidently Luke [the author of Acts] means to convey that Paul’s companions saw a light and heard the sound of someone’s voice coming from the light, but only Paul saw the person in the light and heard the words spoken by the voice of that person. This explanation is reasonable, plausible, consistent with the wording of the texts, and supported by contextual elements in both accounts and in the third account found in Acts 26.”

Continue reading “I hear you but I don’t hear you: Resolving the superficial contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9”

Book of Mormon Intertextuality

Royal Skousen is the editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project. He has been a conservative voice on the topic of the method of translation of the Book of Mormon, arguing that the text as we have it was dictated by Joseph Smith.

“I began to see considerable evidence for the traditional interpretation that witnesses of the translation process claimed: (a) the text was orally dictated, word for word; (b) Book of Mormon names were frequently spelled out the first time they occurred in the text, thus indicating that Joseph Smith could see the spelling of the names; and (c) during dictation there was no rewriting of the text except to correct errors in taking down the dictation… Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text.”

My Testimony of the Book of Mormon, Scholarly and Personal, December 2009

His recent position on intertextuality is causing a stir.

“One incredible aspect of the Book of Mormon is the complex blending into the text of phraseology from all over the King James Bible. Other scholars have been working on this issue and generally refer to it as “intertextuality”… Here I am not referring to the language of the long biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon (from Isaiah and Matthew, for instance) but within the Book of Mormon text proper…

“We end up with these general results with respect to the archaic nature of the Book of Mormon: (1) the words, phrases, and expressions mainly date from the 1530s through the 1730s; (2) the syntax best matches that of the second half of the 1500s; and (3) there is an astounding blending in of King James phraseology (from both the Old Testament and the New) throughout the Book of Mormon…
 

“Is the Book of Mormon English translation a literal translation of what was on the plates? It appears once more that the answer is no. The blending in of specific King James phraseology, from the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, tells us otherwise. The Book of Mormon is a creative translation that involves considerable intervention by the translator (or shall we say translators, since we’re in a speculative mood). There is also evidence that the Book of Mormon is a cultural translation…

“Did the Lord himself do the translation, or did he have others do it? The answer is: We have no idea, and it’s basically a waste of time trying to figure out how the translation was produced.”

— “The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018))

See sections started at 1h00m12s and 1m28s36s.


“All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates. Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period. What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe. To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed ‘a marvelous work and a wonder.'” (Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Volume 3, Part 5: The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, p. 6)


Nicholas J. Frederick summarizes a related problem (which he attempts to address):

“Terms such as quotation, allusion, and echo may be appropriate and even accurate for describing the way the Book of Mormon interacts with the Old Testament. After all, Nephi states that he has a record, the brass plates, in his possession. Readers of the Book of Mormon should then expect to encounter passages such as Genesis or Isaiah from the Old Testament. However, these terms become problematic when discussing passages from the New Testament found in the Book of Mormon, since, as far as can be determined, the Nephites did not possess that record.”

— “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology“, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015)

 

The following three LDS scholarly views attempt to explain the anachronistic presence of the King James Bible translation of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon text. Ranked from conservative to liberal:

  1. Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon word-for-word from an already-composed “Early Modern English” (EModE) translation that another/others (unknown) had already accomplished. It was a creative English translation, but not one that Smith himself produced beyond dictation. This is the view of Royal Skousen (as I understand it).
  2. Smith creatively and collaboratively participated in the translation process of the Book of Mormon, using his 19th-century setting (including the language of the inherited King James Bible) to translate the original language of the Book of Mormon into intelligible linguistic categories. This is the view of Brant Gardner (as I understand it).
  3. Smith creatively and collaboratively expanded upon the ancient text of the Book of Mormon. He addressed theological controversies of the 19th century by adding stories and speeches to the ancient core of the Reformed Egyptian text. This is the view of Blake Ostler (as I understand it).

The traditional and mainstream narrative, that God was providing a live translation to Joseph Smith as he dictated, seems all but abandoned by LDS scholars.


According to a FairMormon post, as I read it, Skousen is holding to a form of the expansion theory, but an expansion that Smith himself did not participate in:

“Skousen argues that the themes of the Book of Mormon – religious, social, and political – do not derive from Joseph Smith’s time (also an 1831 claim of Alexander Campbell’s), but instead are the prominent issues of the Protestant Reformation, and they too date from the 1500s and 1600s rather than the 1800s – examples like burning people at the stake for heresy, standing before the bar of justice (often called the pleading bar in the 1600s), secret combinations to overthrow the government, the rejection of infant baptism, the sacrament as symbolic memorial and spiritual renewal, public rather than private confession, no required works of penance, and piety in living and worship. Skousen believes that the Book of Mormon would have resonated much more strongly with the Reformed and Radical Protestants of the 1500s and 1600s than with the Christians of Joseph Smith’s time.”

— Celebrating Two New Books in the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project: The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon


Summarizing the critical view:

“The skeptical theory is that the Book of Mormon is also an unsuccessful attempt to archaize, in that it aimed at the KJV but failed to nail it. Where Carmack apparently sees skillful “blending” of EModE and King James English, a skeptic sees a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese whose grammar ranges erratically between accurate KJV and older forms.”

— “Physics Guy” on MDDB, September 28, 2018


Richard Bushman from an interview with Bill Reel:

I think right now the Book of Mormon is a puzzle for us, even people who believe it hardily in every detail, it’s a puzzle.

To begin with we have the puzzle of translation: translating the book without the plates even in sight and wrapped up in a cloth on the table. So, it’s not something that comes right off the pages, the characters on the plates. So we don’t know how that works.

And then there is the fact that there is phrasing everywhere–long phrases that if you google them you will find them in 19th century writings. The theology of the Book of Mormon is very much 19th century theology, and it reads like a 19th century understanding of the Hebrew Bible as an Old Testament. That is, it has Christ in it the way Protestants saw Christ everywhere in the Old Testament. That’s why we now call it “Hebrew Bible” because the Jews never saw it quite that way. So, these are all problems we have to deal with.


The New Testament in the Book of Mormon: Excerpts from Laura Hales’s interview of BYU Religion Professor Nick Frederick

Roger Terry, editorial director at BYU Studies, writes:

“King James text (both Old and New Testament) appears all throughout the book, and it is often skillfully woven into the text in intricate and surprising ways. This fact leads to some conclusions about the Book of Mormon text that create some interesting dilemmas for scriptural purists.”


Which KJB was used to produce the Book of Mormon?


See 6:42 (EME), 9:52 (BofM not given in 19th century English), 18:41 (on dictation, reading it back)

Ten observations about Stephen

1. He already had a good reputation before he was chosen to assist the apostles. He was “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” (Acts 6:3)

2. Saul may have attended or visited a synagogue where Stephen attended. Among the synagogues that disputed with Stephen was the synagogue of the Cilicians. Saul was from Tarsus of Cilicia.

3. Stephen did a lot of teaching. “He won’t… shut… up!”

“This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

Acts 6:13–14

4. Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew, was considered an outsider to the Hebrew community. This made his teaching that the Law and temple were fulfilled in Jesus (presumably what he taught given the allegations against him) especially scandalous.

5. Stephen responds to the accusations in a high-stakes juridical setting. But what initially looks like his defense is turned around: Stephen goes on the offensive. He puts his audience on trial.

6. In his speech Stephen gives an overview of Jewish history, but he doesn’t highlight established Jews settled in the Promised Land. Instead, he highlights mistreated and oppressed strangers rescued by God.

7. Stephen mentions the *portable* tabernacle and the *inadequacy* of Solomon’s temple to contain God.

8. Stephen also mentions agents of rescue sent by God but rejected by Israel.

9. Having primed his audience, Stephen climaxes with his own accusation against the council: They follow in this ancestral tradition of murdering God’s agents of rescue. “As your fathers did, so do you.” (7:51)

10. Paul was almost certainly present for this speech. He guarded the coats of those who, immediately after, stoned Stephen. But Paul’s life ended up being a continuation of Stephen’s ministry. Echoes of the theology of Stephen’s speech are later found in Paul’s own teaching. And Paul’s own salvation is an answer to Stephen’s prayer, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (7:60)


“Various elements in Stephen’s teaching arguably laid a foundation for Saul’s later theological views as a Christian. Stephen’s dramatic declaration of his preference for the diaspora Jews over the people of the land may well have prepared the way for Saul’s vision of ministry to the Gentiles. Stephen’s view of Moses as a type of the One who was to come perhaps laid the groundwork for Paul’s view of the law of Moses as fulfilled in the person, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (Rom 10:4). Stephen’s rejection of the centrality of the temple may have diminished the significance of the holy place in the mind of Paul, who would see the new covenant people as the “temple of the living God” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16). Henceforth Saul’s view of these various elements — the land of Israel, the Gentiles, the law and the temple — would each undergo radical change.

“Much of Saul’s dramatic reinterpretation of these elements is attributable to Stephen’s words heard in the Hellenistic synagogues, although Saul radically disagreed with them at the time. However, it was Saul’s acknowledgment of Jesus as *the Christ* on the road to Damascus that transformed his comprehension of Stephen’s words and inspired a radical new worldview.”

Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 226

Paul wears his heart on his sleeve

The apostle Paul paces back and forth, closes his pitiful eyes, smiles, looks up, sees his audience, and then gushes his heart out to a scribe:

“[Paul] wears his heart on his sleeve. This spontaneity was no doubt facilitated by Paul’s practice of dictating his letters instead of writing them out himself. As he dictates, he sees in his mind’s eye those whom he is addressing and speaks as he would if he were face to face with them.” (“Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free”, F. F. Bruce, 16)

Hasty Misdirection

I think that we men especially (at least me) have a tendency to say something important and sincere but then quickly clothe it with a humorous joke or roast or light-hearted misdirection.

This too often detracts from the boldness, directness, and felt sincerity of what we genuinely think. It lessens the force of our compliments, criticisms, and encouragements. It makes our relationships thinner than they have to be.