NT LETTERS Exam #3

In 2 John, what is the false teaching(s) that 1 and 2 John are attempting to combat? Your answer should include an explanation of Gnosticism, Docetism, Cerinthus, and the opponents of Ignatius in his "Letter to the Smyrnaeans." (Videos)

*Docetism* is the teaching that Jesus only "seemed" to be human, that he appeared as a human, but did not come in the flesh. (Docew - to seem) *Gnosticism* was a form of Docetism that appeared in the 2nd century. So maybe this is proto-gnosticism. They are very syncretistic. They were also Platonist, believing matter is evil or bad. We have evidence of teaching such as this in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter where in Peter asks the Lord what he is seeing (apparently looking at the crucifixion) and Jesus said it was a substitute. Jesus had merely invaded a body. Irenaeus mid to late 1st century speaks of Gnostic heresies that believed that the Anointed one descended into the human Jesus. They believed, in one case, that Jesus passed through Mary as water through a pipe. Jesus came by water and blood. Baptism and death, maybe. *Cerinthus* is a person located in Ephesus and is connected with John (*Irenaeus* reported that John went into a bathhouse in Ephesus and upon seeing Cerinthus, ran out for fear that the bathhouse would fall down upon them because of his false teachings). He had these gnostic false teachings. He taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but some lesser god. He taught that Jesus was not born of a virgin but was the ordinary son of Joseph and Mary and that the Christ descended upon him at his baptism. Also *Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans,* a town near Ephesus, and significantly emphasized the flesh of Christ, the actual sufferings of Christ and not merely appearance. This letter emphasizes the doctrinal as well as the love concerns that we see in 2 John. He, in fact, says that those who say that he only suffered in appearance are without God. They also did not demonstrate love to those in need among them.

Explain James Dunn's "new perspective" on Paul.

*Not legalism, but nationalism.* Dunn claims that what Paul opposes is the tendency of the Jews to confine salvation to their own nation. It is ethnic exclusivism, not personal legalism, that Paul finds wrong with Judaism. It was "national boundary markers," or "badges of covenant membership," that Paul was concerned with, not meritorious works. The difference between Dunn's view and the traditional interpretation of Paul can perhaps be seen most clearly in their conflicting interpretations of texts such as Romans 3:20: "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by works of the law." The Reformers saw in this text an attack on Jewish works-righteousness: Jews were claiming that a person had to do "works" to be justified, and Paul was denying the possibility that this could ever happen. But according to Sanders' view of Judaism, no Jews argued such a position. *So what is Paul opposing? Jewish ethnic exclusivism, responds Dunn.* The phrase "works of the law" cannot be reduced to the simple "works," as the Reformers did. *The "law" in the phrase is the Jewish Torah; and what Paul signifies by the phrase is Torah-faithfulness-and Torah-faithfulness understood as a means of setting Jews off from all other people.*

2 John 7: What is the tense of the attributive participle homologountes and what is its significance?

*Present* tense. It is not just that they denied Jesus as coming in the flesh once, but their activity, ongoingly, is that they do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a description of their deception.

What are the three possible places from where Paul wrote these letters? Which place is the most likely and why?

*Rome, Ephesus, and Caesarea. * Interpreters have traditionally held that Paul wrote the Captivity Letters (a.k.a. Prison Letters) from Rome in the early 60's. They place this after the ending of Acts and also hold that Paul was later released and traveled to these locales referred to in the Pastorals, including Ephesus, Macedonia, and Crete. Many think he may have even made it to Spain during this season of freedom. Some posit an imprisonment in Ephesus based on statements in the Corinthian letters thinking it more likely that Philemon would make it to Ephesus and not Rome, simply because of the distance to Rome. *Rome is most likely because of the references in Philippians to the "palace guard" and "Caesar's househhold," in Phil. 1:13 and 4:22. Also, Phil. 1:18-26 corresponds well with the ending of Acts.*

What are the two traditional answers that have been given to the question of the value or contribution of Philemon? How would you evaluate these proposed answers? What is Weima's proposed answer for the value or importance of this brief letter?

1) *It provides us with a more personal picture of Paul.* Rather than seeing him as an authoritarian hardliner, we see him much more user friendly--more caring, more loving, more humble. We may well get a better picture of this from 1 Thessalonians 2 (like a nursing mother). And there has to be a purpose for the actual content and its teaching. 2) *It gives us Paul's view of slavery, specifically, that he condemned it.* However, if you look for a statement against slavery you can't find it. F.F. Bruce says this letter gives us the atmosphere in which the institution of slavery could only wilt and die. Many say the letter overthrows any hierarchy of positions. *Weima's proposal* The fundamental teaching of Christian ethics is love: both for God and one's neighbor. *Although this love does not overthrow authority relationships* (e.g., parent & child; teacher & student; pastor & parishioner; employer & employee)*, it does control how one ought to act in these authority relationships.* Frank Thielman: "Paul assumes that he and Philemon agree on the central tenet of Christian ethics: love for one's neighbor. He therefore bases his appeal to Philemon on love (v. 9)-the Christian love that Philemon has already demonstrated toward Paul and many others by his willingness to refresh their 'hearts' (vv. 5,7)." Emphasis on acting according to the principle of love within the letter to Philemon: v 1 "To Philemon our beloved fellow worker" v 5 " ... hearing of your love and faith which you have to the Lord Jesus and to all the saints" v 7 "For I have derived much joy and comfort because of your love" v 9 "because of love more I appeal ... " v 16 "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother"

Scholars are greatly divided over the purpose of Romans. What are some of the proposed reasons why Paul wrote to the Romans?

1) *That Paul wrote Romans as his "last will and testament,"* in a sense. Cognizant of the dangers that potentially awaited him in Jerusalem, Paul may have written the letter in order to bequeath to others a literary landmark of and memorial to his gospel. In this view, the letter witnesses to and demonstrates the full contours and scope of his message. Melanchthon, called Romans a "compendium of Christian doctrine." 2) *A Fund Raising Letter* One of the reasons why Paul wrote Romans is to set the record straight (for those whose support he is seeking) about how his gospel is to be understood. With regard to the people of Israel, his gospel does not undermine God's faithfulness. And with regard to ethics, his gospel does not perpetuate behavioral immorality. Paul is intimating that Christians in Rome might find it in their hearts to back his plans to take the gospel to Spain by offering him the finances necessary to undertake such an enterprise. In Rom 15: 23 - 32, Paul speaks of his hope to visit them "when I go to Spain" and of his desire "to see you while passing through and *to have you assist me on my journey there,* after I have enjoyed your company for a while" (15: 24). While such assistance might certainly involve non-economic means of support (such as prayer and encouragement), the primary reference in this phrase is economic. If he was to succeed in his goal of preaching the gospel into parts where no one had yet taken it, he would need the financial support of those Christians; to get that support he must convince them that his gospel message was one that they should indeed support. The crux of the matter seems to have involved Paul's view (shared by others, but with him at the lead) that being a follower of Jesus did not require observing the stipulations that God had given to the people of Israel. *There were two issues that sprang immediately from this.* First, if God had given the law to Israel, but if the law was not required of all followers of Jesus, *what was the current status of God's covenant with the people of Israel?* The second issue pertains to ethics. If followers of Jesus are not required to observe the law and in fact can consider themselves to be "free" from the law, *does it follow that Jesus-followers have no ethical constraints on their behavior?*

What are the weaknesses of this newer *"aggrieved slave"* explanation?

1) It's appeal to the absence of any direct reference to Onesimus running away is an argument from silence, and even worse, an argument from silence where one would expect silence. Why would Paul aggravate an already tense situation? 2) The Roman Jurists document was written 5 centuries later and was intended to present Rome in its best light. 3) Laws aren't always a picture of how life is lived (e.g. gun laws, immigration laws, slavery in the U.S. in the early 20th century, etc.). 4) Even if Roman laws were practiced well in Rome, is it likely to have been the case as far away as Colossae, which was still transitioning from its former Asian culture? 5) How long could a slave travel to resolve a conflict before being considered a runaway? 6) *There is nothing indicating unfair treatment by Philemon, and plenty to indicate Philemon's love toward Christ and other believers. 1:18 indicates that Philemon is the one wronged, not Onesimus.*

What does Sanders mean by the following terms or expressions: (1) "covenantal nomism"; (2) "getting in" versus "staying in"; and (3) "from solution to plight"?

1) Sanders contends that the place of the law in Judaism was not meritorious (for earning salvation) but that it was obeyed as a response to God's gracious and redeeming work. Once in the covenant, people maintained their position in the covenant by obeying the law. God graciously saved his people, and they should respond to his grace in grateful and humble obedience. Covenental nomism is the subsuming of law under the covenant. 2) The former speaks to the issue of "getting in" vs. "staying in." The Law, according to his view, was never intended for "getting in" but was for the purpose of "staying in." (Hence Gentiles could get in through Christ, but had to stay in through the Law.) 3) Sanders argued that Paul argued from solution (Christ is the means of salvation) to plight (therefore the Law cannot be). I.e. Paul did not first see a problem with the Law and its inability to save, and then find Christ as the answer, but the other way around.

In James 2:14-26, be able for Test #3 to both explain and defend (a) the boundaries of this passage and (b) the internal structure of the passage.

1) The use of the vocative in v14 indicates a shift or transition (between 2 connected arguments). 2) There are also no connecting words (e.g. gar, de, alla, kai) which suggests a break with the former. 3) The word pair "faith/works" occurs 10x in 2:14-26, but "faith" occurs by itself only 2x in 2:1-13, and the combination not at all in the surrounding material. 4) James 2:26 signals the end of the section because it has the last occurrence of the word pair "faith/works". 5) 3:1 begins a new section with the use of the vocative. 6) 3:1 also shows a shift of topic to the tongue. So there is compelling evidence for 2:14-26 being a preaching unit.

2 John 10: What type of conditional clause is used here (1st, 2nd or 3rd) and what is its significance?

1st class conditional meaning that the author assumes that some will in fact come that fit this condition. It is evidence that such false teachers existed.

What is the problem in identifying the genre to which 1 John belongs? How should the genre of 2 and 3 John be classified and why?

2 and 3 John are clearly epistles each with a greeting, closing, and mentioning people by name. 1 John is believed to be a letter by some (Stott, who argued that it has many personal touches), but lacks all the items mentioned above. It's genre has been tagged as everything from a "sermon" to a circular explaining or expanding on ideas from the 4th gospel. Some have suggested that 2 and/or 3 John are cover letter(s) for 1 John, but we cannot go beyond speculation here.

James 2:15: What type of conditional clause (1st, 2nd or 3rd) is used here and what is its significance?

3rd class conditional. Some view this as hypothetical, but it is better (especially because of context here) to take it as a general or common situation. Not unlikely, but common. His inclusion of the specific "If a brother or sister" (both genders) points to the likelihood that it was real. Females in that culture were often overlooked.

James 2:14a: The phrase *ti to ophelos* is a fixed expression or question in the ancient world that always expected a certain answer; what is that answer?

A negative answer: It is of no benefit!

James 2:14b: What is the significance that this question is introduced with the negative mê?

A negative answer: No, such faith is not able to save him.

Explain N. T. Wright's "new perspective" on Paul.

Agrees with Sanders and Dunn, but adds an emphasis on the universal nature of salvation vs. individual salvation. God is not only saving individual believers, but all of creation. He also emphasizes inclusion, tolerance, and ecumenism (between Jew and Gentile in Paul's day; between other divided parties in our day). He talks about righteousness, not as something we become, but as a status before God. Not as a substance that can be passed around or imputed, but a status. He speaks more of union with Christ. Seems resistant to imputation and the law-court metaphor.

James 2:22: What is the tense of the verb synêrgei and how is this significant?

Along with the plural "works" or "deeds" this imperfect verb shows that it was not just this one work but all Abraham's works that came together in this final act of his faith being completed.

What are the four so-called "prison" or "captivity" letters?

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon

In James 2:14-26, what is the trouble in the text? In other words, what is the specific historical context in which James words about faith and deeds must be heard in order to accurately understand what he is saying?

Evidently there were actually needy people among them (not hard to believe) that were being discriminated against, and some were evidently defending themselves by professing to have a faith without works that was sufficient to save. Evidences for this: a) The 3rd class conditional in v 15-16 should be taken to be a common situation. b) The description of a brother *or a sister* rather than assuming the inclusion of the sisters under the masculine noun, points to actual situations and people. c) The fact that James chose to address such a situation indicates that it existed. d) 2:1-13 demonstrate that such a situation was likely. However, we do not know whether this was a liturgical context (coming into the church, synogogue) or whether it was juridical (coming before the synogogue for justice in legal matters). (On the latter, note 2:6: Is it not the rich who drag you into court.)

What is the likely composition of the Roman churches: (1) Jewish Christians, (2) Gentile Christians, or (3) a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile Christians? What evidence is there to support your answer?

From the list of names in Romans 16, it seems that Paul's addressees included Jews and Gentiles, slaves and freeborn, male and female. It is possible that many of these believers go as far back as the Pentecost incident described in Acts 2, where Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem became followers of Jesus before returning to their homeland. *Acts 2:10 specifically mentions "visitors from Rome"* being present there. Intriguing in this scenario is Paul's reference to Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16 — a husband and wife team whom *Paul refers to not only as "outstanding among the apostles" but also as "in Christ before I was"* (16:7).

What are characteristic features of Gnosticism?

Gnosticism was concerned with the origin of evil and with "knowledge" as a means of salvation. It had a thoroughly negative evaluation of the material world. Among the common ideas are: 1) P - *Preoccupation* with the problem of evil. 2) A - Sense of *alienation* from the world. 3) D - *Desire* for a special intimate knowledge of the secrets of the universe. Gnostic salvation was from ignorance, not from sin. 4) D - *Dualism*. It was a dualism of good and evil, body and soul. They also believed in a "hidden god" vs. the "creator god". 5) C - *Cosmology.* The pleroma, or divine world, contains gradations of being that are emanations or devolutions from the 1st principle. The archons rule this world by fate. (Sounds a little like the caste system.) 6) C - Human beings fall into different *classes* according to their nature, which is fixed and cannot be changed. 7) E - A radically realized *eschatology*. A spiritual person experienced his true condition now, and at death entered immediately into the pleroma. 8) E - *Ethical* implications: A pneumatic was free from fate, and therefore, free from moral law. For some this meant libertinism; more often, it meant asceticism.

Which reasons for either of the two positions do you find to be most important and convincing?

Hamburger A

What is E. P. Sanders' view of Judaism and why did this challenge the traditional view of the Reformers?

He contends that the long-entrenched conception of Palestinian Judaism as a legalistic religion is mistaken. The idea that the Judaism of Paul's day taught that one could earn salvation by keeping the law, says Sanders, simply cannot be defended from the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period. The Judaism of Paul's day is more aptly described as a form of "covenantal nomism." One did not enter into the covenant by performing good works but by God's grace. When God entered into covenant with his people, he mercifully forgave all their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment before entering into relationship with them. For him, then, the center of Paul's theology is not justification by faith, but rather participation in Christ.

Romans 8:1: What meaning does the adverb *nun* have elsewhere in Romans and thus likely also here in this verse?

In all of the other 13 occurrences of this word in Romans the meaning is clearly "now" as in comparison to the time past when we were in our sins, or prior to the appearance of the gospel. Likewise here the meaning is likely "now" in comparison to the time when we were in our sins (Romans 7:7-25).

James 2:16: What is the voice (active, middle or passive?) of the two verbs thermainesthe and chortazesthe and its significance?

In form they could be middle or passive. If middle, these people are saying, "Go warm yourselves and feed yourselves." (Sounds very American) If passive, it is a divine passive: "May God warm you fill you." (but I am not going to)

James 2:25: What is the significance of this question being introduced with the negative ouk?

It expects a positive answer: Yes, she was justified by works when ... .

James 2:21: What is the significance of this question being introduced with the negative ouk?

It expects a yes answer. Abraham was declared righteous when he offered his son on the altar.

James 2:18: The opening Greek word of this verse (all') is an adversative typically translated as "but." How does this word compare to the particle de which is also often translated as "but"? Are these two words synonyms or does each word express a different nuance?

It is usually a little stronger, but can indicate a transition in a text like this. BDAG translates it, "Well, someone will say..." (Well)

James 2:19: Do some research on the meaning of the verb phrissô. What did you learn?

It was used of hair standing on edge. Extreme fright. (Be appauled O heavens! Jer. 2:12)

Which of these two interpretations was most popular (i) in the early church, (ii) in the Reformation period, and (iii) in the 20th century?

Most of the early church father believed that the "I" of Romans 7 was an unregenerate person. Augustine did so initially but shifted during the time he was engaged in debating Pelagius. The Reformers believed this was a believer and, of course, it was very confirming of reformational doctrines. This perspective is still largely held, though in academic circles there has been much more debate and discussion of the two perspectives.

What is the evidence as to who wrote 1, 2, 3 John?

None of these mentions the author by name, though 2 and 3 John are from "the elder." (This complicates matters, only slightly, since Eusebius refers to "two Johns," one being the apostle, the other an elder, possibly a disciple of the 1st. But there is no historic reference to this John the elder as the author of any of these writings. Therefore, we have to look to tradition and critical analysis to identify the author. Based on grammar and content alone, it seems near certain that the author of 1 John is the same as that of the 4th gospel. Given the brevity of 2 and 3 John that would be much harder to ascertain. We have early tradition, however, that points firmly in the direct of John the apostle. > Papias of Hieropolis, mid-2nd century AD, according to Eusebius, "used testimonies drawn from the former Epistle of John." >Later in the same century, Irenaeus of Lyons, attributed at least 1 and 2 John to John (by quotation), the disciple of the Lord who also authored the 4th gospel. >Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Irenaeus who slightly outlived him, evidently knew of more than one epistle which he attributed to John, referring to "the greater epistle" of "the apostle John." >Tertullian (late 2nd, early 3rd) quotes 1 John extensively attributing it to John, and Origen (early to mid 3rd cent.) does likewise. >The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170-215) describes how John had come to write his gospel and refers to his epistles.

2 John 5: The verb erôtô is a synonym in NT letters for what other verb (see the Greek text of 1 Thess 4:1; also compare 1 Thess 5:12 with 5:14)? What does this tell you about the kind of epistolary convention being used here in 2 John and what function it has?

Parakaleo (I appeal): An appeal formula which indicates a shift or break in the argument. Paul is shifting in 2 John 5 from his introductions to the body of the letter.

2 John 1: What is the tense of the attributive participle hoi egnôkotes and what is its significance?

Perfect participle, indicating a present state of affairs resulting from a past action. All who having come to know the truth, know the truth!

2 John 4: What is the tense of the supplementary participle peripatountas and what is its significance?

Present, "your children" (the members of the church) walk and continue to walk (walking) in the truth.

James 2:15: What tense is the participle leipomenoi and what is its significance?

Present, and it emphasizes the ongoing and enduring poverty among them.

Explain E. P. Sanders' view of Judaism. (Be sure you can explain what Sanders' view is, making use of such terms or expressions as "covenantal nomism" and "getting in" versus "staying in".)

Sander's view of Judaism is that 1st century Judaism was not legalistic. I.e. they did not believe that one had to keep the Law in order to be saved (get into the family), but rather they were brought in utterly by grace and then stayed in by the keeping of the "family ways" (the Law). Covenental nomism, in other words, is that we are not under the law until we are brought into the covenant. Then the Law is incumbent upon us as a response of gratitude to the grace of God.

Present several arguments against Sanders's thesis and instead in support of the claim that there are two strands within Judaism: not only obedience to law in response to God's gracious election ("reacting nomism") but also obedience to the law to secure God's favor ("acting legalism").

Some of the key problems with Sanders argument are 1) the date of the sources he has date from the 3rd-5th centuries AD, and not from the 1st century. 2) This leads to a number of issues, including the fact that it assumes that Judaism is monolithic when we should really think more of Judaisms. 3) There were significant events that occurred (70 AD destruction of the temple; another failed rebellion c 130 AD). 4) Even the documents he shows reveal some meritorious kind of language. 5) It assumes that just because formal teaching of Judaism, even if it were all that was taught, had no meritorious leanings that the people themselves would be consistent with that teaching. Christianity definitively teaches that our works are not meritorious of salvation, yet on the streets, people are inclined toward meritorious thinking. It is far better to take the NT documents seriously as a source on 1st century Judaism, and recognize that Judaism, despite what the OT may teach, was at least in part, included people inclined to try to achieve salvation by their own works. To recognize that Judaism did not hold one view on this issue but a complexity of views. There is strong evidence to suggest that there were at least some Jews that were working under a construct of "acting legalism".

What alternative explanation ("Not a Runaway Slave" Hypothesis or what Longenecker & Still call the *"Aggrieved Slave" Hypothesis*) has been more recently proposed? What is the evidence for this alternative explanation?

The *"aggrieved slave" hypothesis* posits that Onesimus had some kind of falling out with Philemon (as implied by v. 18; see also v. 11). In response, Onesimus sought out Paul, a friend of his master whose whereabouts he knew or discovered, to mediate the conflict. The *evidences* for this hypothesis are: (a) The absence of any explicit reference in the letter to Onesimus' running away; (b) It answers well the question: "How did Paul get involved?" (i.e. Onesimus intentionally went to him.) (c) Parallel between Paul's letter to Philemon & Pliny's letter to Sabinianus re: a freedman who sought Pliny out to resolve a conflict between him and his former master. (d) Evidence of the Roman Jurists, a document put together in the 6th century in order to shine light on the best parts of historic Roman law, which speaks of laws that allowed slaves to seek out certain people to help them resolve conflicts with their masters.

Be able to explain James' two negative examples of a non-saving faith found in vv. 14-19.

The 1st is the person who supposes that they can have faith without works that saves. This person sees the needy person and utters pious words hoping that God would blessing them (at best). But does nothing. This illustrates that the kind of faith that is willing not to love their neighbor so blatantly, is not the kind of faith that saves. The 2nd is that of the demons who believe that God is one and shudder. But this is a faith that knows something (God is One), but they do not trust in Him or submit to Him. This is a "kind of faith" but not a kind that saves. Might be like the difference in believing in marriage, even knowing about it, vs. the kind of knowing marriage that I have after 37 years of marriage.

Romans 8:2: Instead of the first person personal pronoun "me" ("has set me free ...": so NIV 1984 & TNIV), other manuscripts have the second person personal pronoun "you" ("has set you free": so NIV 2011). Which of these two readings is more likely the original and why? The answer to this question has some relevance for the larger issue in this passage concerning the identity of "I."

The 2nd person singular "you" is more likely original because the earlier manuscripts give evidence to this. The "you" spoken of is the believer to whom the letter was written: each one of those loved by God and called to be holy (1:7).

Where was the letter to the Romans written from and when?

The final chapters of Romans indicate that it was written from Corinth. He sends greetings from Gaius (16:23), a disciple from Corinth (1 Cor 1:14), and presumably sends the letter by the hands of Phoebe, who is from the church in Cenchreae (16:1-2). Romans is likely to be dated to the *autumn of 57* or so, just prior to his final journey back to Jerusalem.

What are the two major interpretations as to the identity of "I" (egô) in Romans 7:14-25?

The first, and likely the most popular, is the idea that Paul is speaking of the Christian experience. His own, in particular. This is based in the 'straight up' reading of "I". It is first person singular present tense. The second, and most likely correct, is the idea that Paul is speaking of the unregenerate person who is trying to live according to the law (or possibly any believer attempting to live under the Law, but not under grace).

Romans 8:1-4: Verse 1 opens with the particle ara, verse 2 with the particle gar, verse 3 with the particle gar, and verse 4 with the conjunction hina. *What do these four terms indicate about the inter-relationship of these four verses?* In other words, what do these four words indicate about the internal structure of 8:1-4?

The particle ara, in 8:1, indicates a shift in the conversation from chpt 7. We are moving from the discussion about the state of the person striving under the Law, to a new state, "now". The two gar sections explain why or how this change of status has occurred. "For the Law of the Spirit... set you free." "For God has (acted in His Son)... ). Finally, the hina conjunction speaks to the ends to which this second gar was done. "God sent His Son as sin offering in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us (i.e. on our behalf)!"

Romans 8:4: The noun to dikaiôma is singular and yet the NIV translates it as plural: "the righteous requirements of the law ..." Is this translation justified? What, if any, is the significance of this noun occurring in the singular?

The plural translation does not seem justified. "Paul does not claim that the 'righteous requirements of the law' are fulfilled in us; he says that 'the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us' (the Greek word dikaioma is singular). The difference may not be great if Paul is thinking of the way that the Spirit enables Christians to obey the commandments of the law (note v. 7).3 *But the singular word, along with the passive form of 'fulfill,' suggests a different idea: God in Christ has fulfilled the entirety of the law's demand on our behalf*" (Moo, emphasis added).

James 2:14b: The NIV translates the simple definitive article "the faith" (hê pistis) as "such faith". What is the NIV trying to say by using the word "such"? In other words, what does their translation say about the kind of faith in view in this question?

The point is that "the faith" which we just described (the faith that does not have works) can that faith (such faith) save him? Answer: NO!

What is the traditional explanation of the situation being addressed in Philemon? What is the weakness of the traditional explanation?

The traditional explanation, the *"Runaway Slave" Hypothesis,* is that Onesimus and Paul crossed paths when the former, having stolen something from his owner (as implied by v. 18; see also v. 11), proceeded to run away from Colossae and somehow met up with Paul in Rome. A *key difficulty* of this proposal are that it is not easy to explain how it is that a runaway slave would have had opportunity to meet Paul who was under house arrest in Rome.

2 John 1: The relative clause "whom I love in the truth" introduces the reader immediately to two key words or concepts with which 2 John is preoccupied: love and truth. How many occurrences of these two terms/concepts are there in the letter and where are they found?

There are 5 occurrences of "truth" in this letter: 2 in v1; 1 in each of 2, 3, 4. There are two references to deceiver(s) in v7. There are 4 occurrences of "love" in this letter: 1 each in vv 1, 3, 5, 6.

Explain the classical Reformed distinction between the three types of law (ceremonial, civil or juridical, moral).

This is the idea that the OT Law could be broken down into 3 types. The ceremonial refers to the cultic, or temple worship types of laws; the civil refers to the kinds of laws necessary for the nation of Israel to function as a nation-state in the world; moral laws are the ones that carry through and are still, according to Calvin and some reformers, still binding on the Christian. Luther would say they are not.

2 John 10: There are two types of prohibitions (i.e. negative commands) in Greek: one type uses the Present Imperative, the other the Aorist Subjunctive. What type is found here and how is that significant?

This is the present imperative which indicates that they need to stop doing something they have been doing. Stop continuing to do it.

Romans 8:3: The prepositional phrase peri hamartias literally means "concerning sin". Yet it is translated in the NIV as "sin offering." What is the basis for translating the prepositional phrase this way and is it justified? What is the significance of the NIV's translation?

This prepositional phrase is used in the LXX (frequently in Leviticus) 54 times of which 44 it is used of a sin offering. Therefore it could be likewise used here. It is used 3x in Hebrews this way. I agree with Fee and Moo (and others) who think it has that meaning here. The idea is that God sent his own Son as a sin offering and so condemned sin in the flesh. "By 'condemning' sin in Christ as our sacrifice, he can now justly avoid 'condemning' us who are in Christ." (Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, p. 249. Kindle Edition.)

Explain the negative function of the law (cognitive, converting and catalytic) as well as the positive function of the law.

Typical categories: Restrains sin (civil use); teaches us our sin (teaching use), a guide to holy living (third use). Negative function: the 2nd use (teach us our sin). 1) Cognitive, like a mirror it shows us our true condition. Negative with a positive goal. Converting function, it takes sin and makes it more sinful. Takes what is bad to something much worse. Once known, sin is much worse. Causative/Catalytic function: Arouses sin within those who adhere to it. Sin added to law, makes us sin. Positive function: the 3rd use (a guide to holy living).

2 John 5: What is the case of the noun kyria and what grammatical function does it have? What literary function does it have?

Vocative case, used as direct address. Literarily, it too serves as a marker for a break, or shift in the argument.

James 2:20: What is the case of the noun anthrôpe? What is its grammatical function? What is its literary function?

Vocative. Grammatically it is direct address. From a literary perspective it is a slight shift in argument. James is now turning toward his closing argument, to show positively from the OT that it is a faith that has works that justifies.

What did the Reformers (Luther & Calvin) believe that Paul was primarily arguing against in his statements dealing with the law?

When Paul asserted that no one stands justified by the "works of the law" he was speaking of the law as a whole, insisting that no one can be right in God's sight through obedience to the law. They also insisted that the "works of the law" are not limited to the ceremonial law. A significant difference between Luther and Calvin lay in their understanding of the "third use of the law," that is, whether the moral law of the Old Testament is in force for the Christian today. Luther's comments on the topic were somewhat ambiguous, but on the whole one receives the impression that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, even the moral law. The Old Testament law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the New Testament and mirrors natural law. Calvin maintained that the moral laws of the Old Testament are obligatory for the believer and asserted that this is the "principal use" of the law.

What does James D. G. Dunn mean when he argues that Paul was not against legalism but nationalism?

While he agrees with Sanders' thesis that Judaism was not legalistic, Dunn tries to demonstrate that Paul never accused them of being so. Rather, for Dunn, the flaw in Judaism that stimulated Paul to criticize it was not legalism but nationalism. The Jews had limited the people of God so that only those who joined the Jewish people were members of the people of God. Gentiles could join God's people only if they submitted to circumcision, observed the sabbath, and practiced Jewish food and purity laws. Circumcision, purity laws, and sabbath observance were precisely what distinguished Jews from Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world. Jews, by insisting that Gentiles observe these laws, exalted Jewish nationalism and ethnicity above all else. Paul broke with the Jews because he disagreed with such an exclusive definition of the people of God. He wanted all who put their faith in Jesus as Messiah to be included in the people of God and did not make the observance of Jewish rituals a central issue. Paul dismissed circumcision and other practices not because they were rituals. After all, he imposed baptism and the Lord's Supper. Paul resisted the nationalistic and exclusive impulse that lay behind the imposition of these rituals.