¹ For details, see my The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Täbingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1981, 2nd ed. 1984; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 74–99.Google Scholar

² So also Hübner, H., Gottes Ich und Israel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1984) 109;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGundry-Volf, J. M., Paul and Perseverance (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1990) 179–80.Google Scholar

³ So also Sandness, K. O., Paul – One of the Prophets? (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1991) 86–7;Google ScholarStuhlmacher, P., ‘The Hermeneutic Significance of 1 Cor 2:6–16’, Tradition and Interpretation. FS E. E. Ellis (ed. Hawthorne, G.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 334.Google Scholar

⁴ If Col and Eph are deutero-Pauline, in view of their parallelism to 1 Cor 2 and Gal 1, Col 1.23–29 and Eph 3 are to be seen as legitimate interpretations or developments of Pauline understanding, and so their evidence can be used in support of our thesis here.

⁵ ‘Die Vision des Paulus im Tempel von Jerusalem’ (1970), now in his Jesus der Herr der Kirche (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1990) 91–102.Google Scholar

⁶ Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel 1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969) 16–21;Google ScholarWildberger, H., Jesaja 1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1972) 234–8.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Wildberger, , Jesaja, 236.Google Scholar

⁸ E.g., Hofius, O., ‘Das Evangelium und Israel’, Paulusstudien (Tubingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1989) 202;Google ScholarHübner, , Gottes Ich, 113, 121–2;Google ScholarMussner, F., ‘“Ganz Israel wird gerettet werden” (Rom 11,26)’, Kairos 18 (1976) 254–5.Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Evangelium’, 201; cf. Kim, , Origin, 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hübner, , Gottes Ich, 113–14 (n. 405);Google ScholarHofius, , ‘Evangelium’, 201.Google Scholar This is quite probable especially because Rom 11.7–8, the verses related to Rom 11.25, almost certainly echoes Isa 6.9–10: so Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961) 164;Google ScholarDunn, J. D. G., Romans 9–16 (Waco: Word, 1988) 640–1, 679.Google Scholar

¹¹ Paul, 178; cf. Dunn, , Romans 9–16, 679.Google Scholar

¹² Gottes Ich, 113. He also considers whether Isa 49.22–6 is reflected in vv. 25–6.

¹³ Ibid., 107–8; cf. also 122. So also Sandness, , Paul, 181.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘Evangelium’, 202.

¹⁵ Ibid., 202.

¹⁶ Cf. Käsemann, E., An die Römer (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1974) 299.Google Scholar

¹⁷ His suggestion is not without problems: e.g. 1) what about then Isa 45.13?; 2) does Isa 59.19a really have salvation of the gentiles in view? Cf. also Sandness, , Paul, 181, n. 40.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Müller, U. B., Prophetie und Predigt im NT (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1975) 229–32;Google ScholarZeller, D., Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus (Stuttgart: KBW, 1976) 252–3;Google ScholarWilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer (6–11) (Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1980) 254.Google Scholar

¹⁹ N.B. the present tense of the verbs in Rom 9.2–3 and of the implied verb in 10.1. On ηὺχόμην in 9.3, cf. C. Cranfield, E. B., The Epistle to the Romans II (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 455–6.Google Scholar In the interest of his thesis, Müller, , Prophetie, 229,Google Scholar says: ‘In 10,1; vgl. 9,2f., spricht Paulus von seinem Gebet zu Gott, in dem er für die Errettung Israels gebeten hat.’ (my emphasis). But is there any justification for this distortion?

²⁰ Cf. Sänger, D., Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1994) 182–3.Google Scholar However, Sänger's denial of the revelational or ‘mystery’ character of the ‘mystery’ of Rom 11.25–6 on the ground that its content is already imbedded in Rom 11.11 on (180–1, 192–3) betrays a confusion. The state of affairs which he refers to indicates rather that at the climax of his argument Paul solemnly discloses the ‘mystery’, something previously known to him, as the basis on which his argument so far has rested, than that while dictating Rom 11, he summarizes his argument so far under the novel concept of ‘mystery’ for the first time. Against Sänger, cf. also Dunn, , Romans 9–16, 679.Google Scholar

²¹ Dunn, , Romans 9–16, 679;Google ScholarSandness, , Paul, 180;Google ScholarMüller, , Prophetie, 229–31Google Scholar: wary of the possible criticism of his hypothesis from the fact that the ‘mystery’ actually does not function as a ‘comforting assurance of salvation’ in the context of Rom 11 but rather finds itself within a paraenetic context addressed to the gentile Christians (cf. Sänger, , Verkündigung, 182)Google Scholar, Müller insists that the ‘mystery’ ‘has an independent character over against its immediate context’ (229) and says that ‘the mystery of Rom 11.25f. is the original answer to Paul's intercession of which he reports in 10.1’ (231).

²² ‘Einige vorwiegend sprachliche Beobachtungen zu Rom 11,25–36’, Die Israelfrage nach Römer 9–11 (ed. L. De Lorenzi; Rome, 1977) 201.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. e.g. Bockmuehl, M. N. A., Revelation and Mystery (Tübingen; Mohr–Siebeck, 1990) 174–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Infra p. 425. Cf. Lüdemann, G., Paulus, der Heidenapostel: Bd I: Studien zur Chronologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980) 96.Google Scholar According to Riesner, R., Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1994) 217–38Google Scholar, Paul started his mission among the Jews and only later, during his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1.18; Acts 9.26–30), came to the understanding of his apostolic call as intended for the gentiles (cf. Acts 22.17–21). For this thesis, Riesner rejects the often suggested view (most recently Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘Paul in Arabia’, CBQ 55 [1993] 732–7Google Scholar) that Paul's reference to ‘Arabia’ in Gal 1.17 implies his missionary work among the Nabateans, on the grounds 1) that ‘while in the transition from the mission to the pure Jews to that to the Samaritans there was a contact-point not only of blood but also of religion, in connection with the Nabateans this factor was completely absent’, 2) that ‘in no other place does Paul mention churches in Arabia’, and 3) that in Rom 15.19 Paul mentions Jerusalem as the starting point of his gentile mission (230–1). But should Riesner's first ground be valid, Paul would never have been able to start a gentile mission! If on that ground Riesner cannot believe that Paul could have started it after the Damascus call vision, how can he believe that Paul could start it after the temple vision (Acts 22.17–21) or under the Hellenists’ influence in Jerusalem? Was there any reason why that ground was not valid for the Hellenists or for a later Paul, whereas it was valid for an earlier Paul? A propos Riesner's second ground: should, then, Paul's failure to mention a church in Damascus also be construed as denying his missionary work in that city? (In fact, Paul's stay in Arabia may have been brief and his mission there not very successful – so Murphy-O'Connor). A propos Riesner's third ground: in Rom 15.19, Paul mentions Jerusalem first not necessarily because he started his gentile mission from there but rather, as most commentators think, because Jerusalem was understood to be the salvation-historical centre from which the gospel was to go out to the whole world and possibly also because it was the southernmost location of his preaching to the gentiles while Illyricum represented the northwestern most location of his gentile mission so far.

²⁵ Stenger, W., ‘Biographisches und Ideal biographisches in Gal 1,11–12, 14’, Kontinuitüt und Einheit, FS F. Mussner (ed. P.–G., Müller & Stenger, W.; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 132–40.Google Scholar Cf. Baltzer, K., Biographie der Propheten (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1975).Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘Biographisches’, 136.

²⁷ Kim, , Origin, 94.Google Scholar Cf. Sandness, , Paul, 59, 143–4.Google Scholar In connection with the uniquely Pauline title ‘image of God’ for Christ, I worked out the thesis much more broadly – see my Origin, 205–56. It must be noted, however, that Stenger's strange contrast between the form of Einset zungs bericht and christophany and his attempt to see in Gal 1.15–16 only the former (op. cit, 138) are not justified.

²⁸ Donaldson, T. L., ‘“Riches for the Gentiles” (Rom 11:12): Israel's Rejection and Paul's Gentile Mission’, JBL 112 (1993) 88 (n. 29)Google Scholar, wonders ‘how the conception of the failure of the gospel within Israel could have made sense to the one who had been driven to zealous persecution of the Jewish church because of its success’ (his emphasis). But 1) did Paul really persecute the Jewish church because of the success of her mission? 2) Even at the time of his Damascus experience, in view of his own hardening, Paul would have understood the hardening of Israel against the gospel only too well! Cf. Rom 10.2–4 with Phil 3.4–11, and cf. 2 Cor 3.12–18; also Grundmann, W., ‘Paulus, aus dem Volke Israel, Apostel der Völker’, NovT 4 (1960) 268;Google ScholarLongenecker, B., ‘Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9–11’, JSNT 36 (1989) 100–1.Google Scholar

²⁹ Most recently Sandness, , Paul, 61–2Google Scholar, appealing, e.g., to Cerfaux, L., ‘Saint Paul et la “Serviteur de Dieu” d'Isaie’, Recueil Lucien Cerfaux II (Gembloux: Duculot, 1954) 439–54.Google Scholar

³⁰ Supra pp. 414–15.

³¹ Hübner, , Gottes Ich, 127–9Google Scholar also 1) recognizes the priority of the Damascus revelation and call, 2) agrees that from the beginning of his apostolic career Paul was convinced of his call to a gentile apostleship, and 3) grants that my attempt to explain the ‘mystery’ in terms of Isa 6 is ‘äusserst erwägenswert’. Yet Hübner rejects my thesis, pointing to 1 Thess 2.14–16 and also arguing that Paul could not have seen his call in the light of Isa 6 because there Isaiah was sent to Israel. On 1 Thess 2.14–16, see below. But à propos his second objection, could not Paul have overcome the problem by combining the relevant elements of Isa 6 and 49? Over all, given the above three factors, is it not more reasonable than ‘speculative’ to posit a thesis like mine?

³² See Betz, , Jesus, 100Google Scholar, for a parallelism between the conversion/call of Paul and that of Josephus.

³³ Sandness, , Paul, 180–1Google Scholar, recognizes this, and yet, in a confusing manner, insists that Paul obtained the ‘mystery’ only through scriptural exegesis.

³⁴ Hübner, , Gottes Ich, 129–30Google Scholar, citing Wilckens, , Römer (6–11), 184–5.Google Scholar

³⁵ Sandness, , Paul, 180;Google ScholarSänger, , Verkündigung, 182.Google Scholar

³⁶ Supra pp. 417–18 against the attempt to see Paul's prayer in Rom 9.2–3; 10.1 as his response to the prophetic pronouncement in 1 Thess 2.16 and the ‘mystery’ of Rom 11.25–6 as divine answer to that prayer.

³⁷ Cf. Schlueter, C. J., Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14– 16 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994).Google Scholar

³⁸ Sandness, , Paul, 65.Google Scholar

³⁹ The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993) 66Google Scholar (his emphasis). Dunn states this view even more strongly in his ‘“A Light to the Gentiles” or ‘“The End of the Law”’? The Significance of the Damascus Road Christophany to Paul’, in Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SCM, 1990) 89–107.Google Scholar However, it is astonishing to see Dunn arguing to deny that in Gal 1–2 Paul testifies to the immediacy of the revelation of the gospel as well as that of the call to gentile apostleship at the Damascus christophany. Actually in Gal 1–2 Paul's primary concern is to defend his gospel, his law-free gospel which has come into trouble in Galatia at the moment, by appealing, above all, to the divine revelation of it on the Damascus road (ἀπокάλυψις in Gal 1.12,16!), and he mentions his apostolic call to the gentiles along with the revelation of the gospel only because it is inseparable from the latter (cf. my Origin, 68–9; Lategan, B., ‘Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?’, NTS 34 [1988] 411–30).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Fortunately, in his essay The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2’ which immediately follows the essay ‘Light’ in his volume (108–29), Dunn appropriately speaks of the Damascus event in terms both of revelation of the gospel and of the apostolic call (see, e.g., 118), and by doing so, he at least implicitly turns against his own attempt to separate the two elements of the Damascus event and play one off against the other. This is no occasion to make a comprehensive response to Dunn's critique of my Origin in his essay ‘Light’, 93–100. While appreciating some helpful remarks of his, however, I am not persuaded by much of his argument, especially when he fails to take evidence fairly. In connection with the ɛἰκών-christology, readers will have to judge whether his critique of my thesis is justified. Here I would only like to point out that his argument for the presence of only the Adam-motif in 2 Cor 4.4, 6, consistent as it is with his argument for taking the evidence of Gal 1–2 only for the Damascus origin of Paul's gentile apostleship (cf. 97–8), is just as one–sided as the latter. In fact, his argument represents a failure to understand Paul's emphasis in both places. For, while in 2 Cor 3.18; 4.4, 6 both the Adam-motif and the Wisdom-motif are present, the revelational language of 2 Cor 4.4, 6 clearly indicates that the latter is the primary concern of the two in 2 Cor 4.4, 6 (cf. my Origin, 267), just as in Gal 1–2, while the Damascus origin of both Paul's gospel and gentile apostleship is testified to, the former is the primary concern of the two.

⁴⁰ Dunn, , ‘Light’, 90Google Scholar, also connects the μυστήριоν motif of Rom 11.25; 16.25–6; Col 1.26–7; and Eph 3.1–13 with Paul's Damascus experience of divine ὰπоκάλυψις and call (Gal 1.12,15), although in his Romans 9–16, 678–9 he forgets this completely.

⁴¹ See Kim, , Origin, 288–96.Google Scholar

⁴² Rendering of Martin, R. P., 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word, 1986) 351–2.Google Scholar In view of his association of μɛρίσɛιν and καλɛῖν in 1 Cor 7.17–20, here Paul seems to have in view God's allotment of gentile apostleship to him at his Damascus call which was confirmed at the apostolic conference of Jerusalem in Gal 2.7. So Lang, F., Die Briefe an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1986) 333.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Beker, J. C., Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Supra pp. 418–19. In Rom 15.19, he indeed refers to his mission in Jerusalem, but it is doubtful whether Paul had in mind anything more than the occasional preachings he must have done during his visits in the city (Gal 1.18; 2.1–10).

⁴⁵ So Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Erwägungen zum Problem von Gegenwart and Zukunft in der paulinischen Eschatologie’, ZThK 64 (1967) 430–1;Google ScholarDunn, , Romans 9–16, 864.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Cf. Riesner, , Frühzeit, 219.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Signum Crucis (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1967) 278–82.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lüdemann, , Paulus, 91–6;Google ScholarSchmidt, , ‘Das Missionsdekret in Galater 2.7–8 als Verein– barung vom ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem’, NTS 38 (1992) 149–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Their suggestions are based chiefly on the differences between vv. 7–8 and v. 9:1) whereas in vv. 7–8 only Peter and Paul are mentioned as representing the mission to the Jews and that to the gentiles respectively, in v. 9 ‘James, Cephas and John’ on the one hand and Paul and Barnabas on the other hand are mentioned as representing the two branches of mission respectively. 2) Whereas in vv. 7–8 the name πέτρоς is used, in v. 9 κμϕᾶς is used.

⁴⁹ Riesner, , Frühzeit; 105–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., 104–10, quotation from 107–8. Similarly already Bruce, F. F., Paul the Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 174.Google Scholar

⁵¹ This is correctly reflected in the list with James at the head in Gal 2.9.

⁵² ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition’, in Paul and Jesus (ed. A. J. M. Wedder-burn & C. Wolff; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 65–6.Google Scholar

⁵³ Paulus, 93.

⁵⁵ Kim, , Origin, 25–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The vocabulary and ideas common between the two passages: ‘revelation’ of ‘Christ’, God's ‘Son’; a contrasting reference to ‘flesh and blood’, and an apostolic commision. For details, see Wenham, D., ‘Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition’, Gospel Perspectives 5 (ed. Wenham, D.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 26–7;Google Scholar cf. also Riesner, , Frühzeit, 212–13.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ As Wenham, D., Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 202–3,Google Scholar suggests, the unusual Greek designation πέτρоς in Gal 2.7–8 instead of Paul's usual Aramaic designation κμϕᾶς may represent Paul's desire to remind his Greek readers of Jesus’ word-play on ‘rock’ in Matt 16.18. If so, it is an evidence that in Gal 2.7–8 Paul has the tradition in Matt 16.16–20 in mind. This would then strengthen the attempt to see in Gal 1.15–16 an allusion to the tradition in Matt 16.16–20 and also to see the agreement in Gal 2.7–8 as reached during Paul's private fellowship with Peter. Apparently during the fortnight's fellowship Peter and Paul agreed that they both had the ‘rock’ position for the Jewish and the gentile mission respectively. With the exact parallelism between Peter's commission and his own and with πέτρоς in Gal 2.7–8, Paul tries to remind his Greek readers of this fact. Cf. Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (5. Aufl.; ed. Rohde, J.; Berlin: Evangelisches, 1984) 81Google Scholar against the attempt to see in the absence of the title ‘apostle’ with regard to Paul in Gal 2.8 a significance more than a grammatical nicety. Further, if the original agreement had really lent itself to construing as a denial of apostleship to Paul, how could he cite it here when it would only have nullified his whole argument in Gal 1–2? Would he not have cited it with άπόστоλоς prominently inserted?

⁵⁸ Cf. Betz, ‘Vision’; Riesner, , Frühzeit, 234.Google Scholar