Re-examines Paul within contemporary Jewish debate, attuned to the significant theological issues he raises without imposing upon him the frameworks developed in later Christian thought

The aim of this volume is to re-examine Paul within contemporary Jewish debate on the topic of divine grace and its relation to human agency.

La 4e de couverture indique : "For the Apostle Paul, humans do not identify and act on their own but are constituted, in part, by relationships. Samuel D. Ferguson shows that, according to Paul, the work of the Holy Spirit further attests to this, as Christians realize their new life through Spirit-created relationships of sonship and communal interdependence"

Following recent intertextual studies, Kyle B. Wells examines how descriptions of ‘heart-transformation’ in Deut 30, Jer 31–32 and Ezek 36 informed Paul and his contemporaries' articulations about grace and agency. Beyond advancing our understanding of how these restoration narratives were interpreted in the LXX, the Dead Sea Literature, Baruch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and Philo, Wells demonstrates that while most Jews in this period did not set divine and human agency in competition with one another, their constructions differed markedly and this would have contributed to vehement disagreements among them. While not sui generis in every respect, Paul's own convictions about grace and agency appear radical due to the way he reconfigures these concepts in relation to Christ.

In God and Grace in Philo and Paul, Orrey McFarland examines how Philo of Alexandria and the Apostle Paul understood divine grace. While scholars have occasionally observed that Philo and Paul both speak about God’s generosity, such work has often placed the two theologians in either strong continuity or stark discontinuity without probing into the theological logic that animates the particularities of their thought. By contrast, McFarland sets Philo and Paul in conversation and argues that both could speak of divine gifts emphatically and in formally similar ways while making materially different theological judgments in the context of their concrete historical settings and larger theological frameworks. That is, McFarland demonstrates how their theologies of grace are neither identical nor antithetical.

Revision of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Durham (England), 2011.