Adam and Paul

This post on Jesus Creed is mind blowing, although it is really just a summary discussion of some of Peter Enns book, The Evolution of Adam.

The basic points are:

1. Nothing in the OT gives Adam the importance protestant theology does
2. Nothing in the OT suggests that Adam's sin is imparted to his offspring
3. Paul's emphasis on Adam is an innovation in terms of the OT resulting from his encounter with Christ

I would add to those points that Adam is mentioned in only 3 of Paul's letter (Rom, 1 Cor, 1 Tim) and only twice in the NT outside of Paul.  Both those occurences are in terms of genealogy rather than assertions of hereditary sin (Luke 3:38, Jude 14) . He gets a total of 9 mentions in the NT. By contrast Abraham is mentioned over 70 times in the NT, in all four gospels and across both Pauline and catholic epistles.

Now I think those points are more or less irrefutable, but of course the implications are not so clear.  I know Enns' thesis is really about whether or not Christians need to understand Gen 2-3 as literal history or something else.  But long before we get to that topic I'd say this suggests our protestant emphasis on hereditary sin is at the very least an overemphasis and most likely a misreading of Paul.  Which send me scurrying to look at Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15 again, and I think to myself, this is possible . . .

Action points: I'm going to have to read Enns' book myself (I thought Inspiration and Incarnation was overrated, so wasn't going to bother) and I'm going to have to do some exegesis on these Pauline Adam passages.

So, what do you think? :-)

Keener on Paul and Women

A helpful article from Craig Keener - something of a NT scholarly ninja - on the subject of Paul and Women in leadership.  Check it out.

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

Eddie Fearon and Daniel Kirk have been reflecting on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture Colloquium that I also attended this weekend past, although neither of them found my paper worthy of mention ;-) but like the Murphy's i'm not bitter.  Kirk shares the following exchange,

In a side conversation with one of the presenters (whose paper I very much appreciated and whose overall position on theological interpretation I find quite congenial), I made a brief case for why Christian hermeneutics should be Christological rather than Trinitarian.
He sees these working together. And I get that. But in trying to situate my point I asked, “Was Paul a Trinitarian?” He said, “Yes.” End of conversation.
That’s a small picture of where a biblical scholar can’t say what a theologian presumes, and why scholarship’s Bible will continue to be an enigma to the church. Beyond whether scholars are approaching their exegetical task as Christians, theologians (and church people) often want the Bible to say what it does not say, to support what it does not speak to.
I do wonder if the church’s theology will need to learn to hear what it takes for throat clearing as the song of the Spirit before the chasm will bridged between theology and the Bible

Which raises a number of very interesting points.

It is certainly true that Paul never made anything approaching the trinitarian declarations of the historic creeds, but as the paper I shared attempted to show, Paul was certainly capable of theologising within a theological framework that gave significance to the work of God, Jesus and the Spirit.  many biblical scholars have been happy to call this something like a "latent trinitarianism" but you do need to be careful that that doesn't get confused with talking about ousias and stuff.  The kind of counterfactual arguing that this might lead to would go something like "would Paul have signed the Chalcedon Creed if he had been presented with the same circumstances as that creed was addressing?"  Which of course could only degenerate into a useless giving of opinions.  My useless opinion is that he probably would have but only after they added a substantial "therefore" section detailing the believer's ethical response to the theological mysteries contained in the Creed.

Asking Paul whether or not he is a Trinitarian is a waste of time, but, as Kirk eloquently puts it, if we listen to what "the song of the Spirit" through Paul is actually saying we may learn many things that will enrich our own Trinitarian (or otherwise) theology no end.

Abstract for TI Colloquium

I am presenting a paper at a colloquium on theological interpretation this month. I put myself in for this last year, knowing full well that I would regret it but having committed to do it have to do something.  This should hopefully be a reworking of the last chapter of my MTh thesis but I have been away from the material so long I'm worried even I'm not going to be convinced by my arguments!  I'm going to get started on the paper in the next few days, be keen to hear any initial reaction or questions to the abstract.  This will be my first proper presentation at an academic colloquium and there are some fairly heavy weight contributors so it will be inspiring and perhaps intimidating.  It will hopefully also result in a book so will be a first publication for me so I will try not to screw it up!

Paul’s Unconventional Sexual Ethics: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 6:12-20

ABSTRACT


David Horrell argues that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:12 – 7:16 is based on the “presumption” that sex with a prostitute is illicit, while sex with a spouse, believing or not, is permitted.  He claims that, “while Paul uses arguments about holiness and bodily union with Christ to support and promote his sexual ethics, the substantive ethical convictions themselves are not derived from these arguments but are already assumed.”  Likewise, Bernard Lategan, in a study on Paul’s ethics in Galatians, comes to a similar conclusion: that the content of Paul’s ethics is merely conventional but that “Paul develops a new understanding of what ethical responsibility entails – an understanding that flows directly from his theological assessment of the new existence in faith.”  Thus for Horrell and Lategan Paul’s motivation and responsibility for ethical behaviour may be transformed by his theology, but the actual ethics are both “universal” and “conventional.”  In opposition to this view, this paper will give initial consideration to what a conventional 1st century ethic of prostitution might be, with particular reference to Josephus and Dio Chrysostom.  Paul’s own ethic will then be explored revealing both a radical contrast to the conventional ethics of his contemporaries and a robustly theological ethic constructed from the perspectives of God, Christ, and the Spirit.  Finally it will be argued that, in this instance, a theological reading of the text has served as a valuable corrective to the readings produced by the social science methodology of Horrell and others.

The so-called "Slogans" of 1 Corinthians: Introduction

I will begin our discussion of slogans in 1 Corinthians by looking at 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and revisiting some of my work from my MTh thesis.  Then I plan to address every every possible instance of Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians paying attention to the resulting exegetical and theological ramifications of the argument.  Let me know what you think, :-)

Jay Smith defines a Corinthian slogan as,

[A] motto (or similar expression that captures the spirit, purpose, or guiding principles) of a particular group or point of view at Corinth, or at least a motto that Paul was using to represent their position or attitudes.[1]

Smith rightly warns that there is a risk in not attributing slogans, that the interpreter might mistake the Corinthians’ words for Paul’s.[2]  What also needs to be acknowledged is the risk of mistaking Paul’s words for the Corinthians’.   Although there is a range of nuances to the way such slogans might be derived and operate the basic question is whether or not those phrases identified as slogans should be read as Paul’s words or the Corinthians’; that is, should we understand that Paul is distancing himself from the assertions made in the slogan or do we distort Paul’s meaning by using quotation marks to signal a slogan? 

Two Helpful Paul Resources

A brief and helpful summary and comparison of tradition protestant readings of Paul against three different "new perspective" scholars.

Some interesting discussion of the "missional" Paul and his approach to church evangelism.

In both instances hat tip to Michael Gorman

brick-a-brack 8/12/10

• Randy Alcom takes evangelical dishonesty to task, it is a chilling article.
• Robin Gunston, National Director of Prison Fellowship NZ, speaks on Prisons (their rising costs), Penal Policy (our highly punitive outlook), and how ordinary New Zealanders can influence both for the better. 
• Lots of people have been getting excited about Scot McKnight's article on Jesus and Paul.  
• Stuart has a great post on preaching in a digital age.
• A fascinating post on Joseph's reasons for wanting to send Mary away, suspicion or humility?

The Apostle Paul on the Web

Well in momentarily losing the fight against the procrastination monster I suddenly realised Paul didn't stop causing trouble after his contributions to the NT, more recently he's been causing trouble for Christianity Today, (also available in Romanian) and contradicting Joel Osteen!  Who does he think he is?  :-D

Dio Chrysostom vs Paul on Prostitution

Among the Greeks, only Dio Chrysostom addressed the subject of prostitution directly and at length,[1] although the discussions of sexual morality by both Musonius Rufus (Fragment 12) and Seneca (Epistle 94.25-6) indirectly condemn the use of prostitutes.[2]  Chrysostom’s treatment (Discourse 7:133-37) warrants examination as it represents the only extant sustained treatment of the subject by one of Paul’s near contemporaries.[3]  Chrysostom’s target is those who rule the city (7:136-7) and his concern the way in which they deal with the “brothel keepers” (πορνοβοσκῶν, 7:133).   In line with other Greek moralists he considers that sex should not only be reserved for marriage, but also for procreation (7:134-5).[4]  He presents a number of ethical concerns.  Chrysostom considers it wrong to profit by human misfortune, assuming prostitutes to be slaves by either war or purchase (7:133; cf. 7:52).  He refers to the “hapless women and children” involved as σώματα (7:133).  Nevertheless, he does not show any concern for rescuing those hapless bodies, only that it is beneath the dignity of a moral man to exploit them.  Furthermore, such sexual activity outside of a productive marriage is a source of shame (αἰσχύνω) to its participants and constitutes disrespect of the gods (7:133-5, cf. 1 Cor 4:14; 6:5).[5]  Although much of Chrysostom’s treatment is humane, ultimately his concern is with the effect unrestricted prostitution has on the overarching morality of the city (7:140-52; cf. 1 Cor 5:6-13).  The holiness that is potentially defiled is not that of the individuals involved but of the “government buildings and temples” (7:133-4).  Moreover, Chrysostom’s injunctions are not absolute; the city rulers must moderate their response to this immorality according to what is “practicable” (7:137). 

It is noticeable how different Paul’s approach is from Chrysostom’s.  Admittedly they are addressing very different audiences.  One might expect Paul to share the humanitarian concern for the unfortunate prostitutes.  One might expect Paul to be concerned about the effect of prostitution on the rest of the church community (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-13).[6]  Instead we are presented with Paul’s detailed attempt to realign a wrong application of a correct principle of Christian life:  Christian freedom, “πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν”!  The moral landscape has to be reset to the new reality in Christ and a new ethic has to be constructed on the basis of this new reality.  Neither does Paul appeal to a rule or a demand for sexual purity, because to do so would contradict this freedom.[7]  Nor does he show any concern that the prostitute is an outsider to the community; 1 Cor 7:12-16 shows conclusively that sex with outsiders was not the issue.  Even so, there is no reason the prostitute could not have been a member of the community herself.  Prostitutes were usually slaves, and there were certainly slaves in the Corinthian church (cf. 7:21).  Finally, Paul’s concern for what is “practicable” only emerges later in his discussion of marriage (e.g. 7:1-7); his command to “flee sexual immorality” (6:18a) leaves no room for compromise or negotiation.

---

[1] Stambaugh and Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, 158.

[2] Cf. Abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia, Phil.: Westminster, 1986), 128, 152-54.

[3] Dio Chrysostom, Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-11, trans. J.W. Cohoon, LCL 257, (1932), 364-65.

[4] Cf. Malherbe, Moral exhortation, 152, 154.

[5] The absence of any discussion of procreation in 1 Cor 6:12-7:40 is a noticeable lacuna in Paul’s sexual ethics there and NT ethics generally.

[6] Cf. Gupta, “Which Body is a Temple?,” 527.

[7] See §2.1, especially §2.1.5, para 5.

Are Acts 15:36-41 and Gal 2:11-13 Describing the Same Event?

Will Willimon in his Interpretation commentary on Acts states,

The reasons that Luke gives for the breakup of the Paul and Barnabas team does not square with Paul's version in Galataians 2:11-13.  Paul's own assertion that he had doctrinal differences does not fit in with Luke's purposes (p133)

But it is surely incorrect to conflate the two events.  Paul gives no hint in Galatians that his disagreement with Peter led to a schism between him and Barnabas, but only expresses surprise that Barnabas should be led astray by Peter's actions (Gal 2:13).  Which statement surely evinces a high regard for Barnabas.  Rather, in this instance I think the criterion of embarrassment suggests that this episode in Acts does not show Paul in the best light, especially given the fact that Barnabas' trust in Mark is eventually proven correct (Col 4:10, Phil 24) and Paul and Barnabas later reconcile (1 Cor 9:6, Col 4:10), and is therefore a reliable account of the reason for the division. 

Is anyone aware of anything that would support Willimon's assertion?  Is there something I have missed?  It seems rather cut and dried to me.  let me know what you think :-)

Quote of The Day: Margaret Davies on Prostitutes and Capitalists

The Pauline denunciations of prostitution are usually coupled with denunciations of extortion, but churches have usually been more keen to exclude unrepentant prostitutes than 'venture capitalists.'

Margaret Davies, "On Prostitution" in The Bible in Human Society, 1995, p240

Proverbs 6:20-35, Background to Paul's Sexual Ethics?

I just came across this in my devotional reading recently and was kicking myself for not spotting it earlier as this may have been something that would contribute to my already submitted thesis.

In Prov 6:20-35, we have the interesting juxtaposition of the act of adultery with the stealing of a loaf of bread, and while the bread thief will have to answer for what he has done (v31), no one thinks any the worse of him (v30), but the adulterer's punishment and disgrace are endless (v32-35).  Interestingly the prostitute's fee (a loaf) is compared with the price of adultery - death (v26).

This passage could well be important background for 1 Cor 6;12-20 and 1 Thess 4:1-8.  In 1 Cor 6:12-20 Paul contrasts the eschatologically indifferent act of the consumption of food to sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:13-14).  In 1 Cor 6:12-20 it is not the prostitute who is condemned but the adulterous believer.  In 1 Thess 4:1-8 Paul warns against adultery with the promise of vengeance (v6).  In both cases the part of wronged husband from Proverbs is assumed by God as the one to whom the believer belongs (1 Cor 6:19-20, cf. Prov 6:29) and as the one who will avenge (1 Thess 4:6, cf. Prov 6:34). 

Obviously, to show any connection would require a good deal more work, but I think there are some interesting parallels there.  Let me know what you think.  :-)

Thesis Conclusion: Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Cor 6:12-20

[This is the conclusion from my thesis which I just submitted for marking yesterday, remember this is not a bunch of unfounded assertions but the conclusion to 40,000 words of argument worked out over a year and a half of research.  Not that that means you should agree with them, but remember this is just a teaser, before I publish the whole thing online.  I'm interested in your reactions, especially which areas you would like me to share/argue in more detail on the blog, but if you spot a typo don't tell me, it's too late! PS the cartoon is not in the actual thesis, but seemed appropriate for my premature moment of triumph. :-)]

 
This study has examined the notorious crux that is 1 Cor 6:12-20.  It has arrived at a reading which traces a clear and logical progression of thought through the pericope that is fully coherent with Pauline thought on Christian freedom elsewhere.  Attentiveness to the images and metaphors underlying Paul’s logic, and a desire to let them all influence the reading without privileging one over another, has exposed the intricacy and the consistency of Paul’s argument.   Even though some statements might appear un-Pauline in isolation, within the context of the pericope every phrase operates as Paul’s own words.  It is, consequently, unnecessary to attribute any of the phrases therein to the Corinthians as slogans. 

Within the pericope the citation of Gen 2:24 (1 Cor 6:16) functions as a central explanatory concept, both for the arguments preceding and the statements to follow.  For Paul, the sexual act constitutes an “oath-sign” which creates “one flesh” from the joining of the two bodies.  Πορνεία results in the removal of the believer from union with Christ, because union with Christ excludes such behaviour.  The believer unwittingly makes the prostitute his wife but treats her as if she was as insignificant as food, there only to serve an appetite.  The statement of 1 Cor 6:18, that only fornication is a sin against/into the σῶμα, is to be understood as hyperbolic, indicative of the unique seriousness with which Paul views πορνεία, rather than an absolute statement.  The pericope’s emphasis on σῶμα is indicative of a wider concern within 1 Corinthians to increase the Corinthians’ esteem for the body.  For Paul, the σῶμα is not a discrete part of the human being but an integral aspect, one that is essential both for glorifying God in this life and for the believer’s future hope.  Paul’s argument reveals how he understands the believer’s σῶμα relates to God as creator and eschatological judge, to Christ as “husband” and redeemer, and to the indwelling Holy Spirit.  When this argument is examined it is found to be theological in both form and content, constituting a dinstinctive Trinitarian argument against πορνεία, which stands in stark contrast to 1st cent. Jewish or Greek treatments of the same subject. 

Ultimately, the study of 1 Cor 6:12-20 yields rich insight into Paul’s understanding of and response to fornication.  It shows how Paul interpreted the received tradition of Jesus’ life and teaching to formulate and apply a Christian ethic in Corinth, a place removed geographically and culturally from Palestine of the same era.  It is an ethic that is radically opposed to an anti-somatic spirituality or to traditional notions of uncleanness and defilement.  It is also an ethic rooted in religious experience.  It demands that the believers situate their bodies in a matrix of relationships with God, Christ and Spirit, and also with the prostitute they seek to use for their own gratification.  Only when the Christian is attentive to their relationships with God, Christ, Spirit, and the human other can they truly exercise their Christ bought freedom as freedom from domination and as freedom for the good.

[Let me know what you think. :-)]

Rick Warren vs Elisha and Paul

I haven't read this book myself, but I saw over someone's shoulder yesterday that in The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren writes this:

You have heard people say, "I can't make it to the meeting tonight, but I'll be with you in spirit."  Do you know what that means?  Nothing, it's worthless! As long as you're on earth, your spirit can only be where your body is.  If your body isn't there then neither are you. (p105)

Which makes me wonder what Rick would make of 2 Kings 5, where Elisha's heart/spirit (לִבִּ֣י) follows Gehazi as he commits his crime and so consequently is cursed with leprosy.  Or more pertinently, of Paul in 1 Cor 5:4 where says he will be with the Corinthians in spirit (πνεύματος) when they assemble to deal with the incestuous man.  Of course Elisha did not mean that he was there but only that he was aware of what was happening (Elisha could work out the intentions of enemy kings from a distance, so his own bumbling servant would not pose much problem) and Paul did not mean he was there except by the fact that the Corinthians knew his decision on the matter and he wanted them to behave as if he was there giving his full apostolic weight to his opinion.  I'm sure most people who use the expression "with you in spirit" do not mean that they will actually be there, but instead mean that they will be thinking of you and praying for you and want you to know and feel their support in that time.  Which is nothing like worthless at all. 

Another bumper day on the web

• Marc Cortez gives a salutary lesson in statistics, as it seems rumours of the Web's demise have been greatly over exagerated
• Cynthia Neilsen on the dehumanization of slaves in the USA
• Steve Douglas writes to a friend struggling with faith
• Jim West shares a Michael Crichton quote on reading the news
• Ali tries to work out how to argue against homosexuality without being a jerk
• the Biblical World on the women in Paul's life
• and don't miss the majestic plastic bag, i have a song about this, but i won't sing it for you today cos i have lost my voice :-(

Hurtado on Why S/Paul Persecuted Christians

In pp6-7 of his review essay of James Dunn's new book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, Larry Hurtado gives a concise and convincing argument for what Saul of Tarsus (later to be Paul) found objectionable in Christian belief and praxis:

More directly to the question about why Paul opposed Jewish believers, nowhere in Paul’s letters or Acts do we find a statement that Paul’s persecution of them was on account of their supposedly lax (or non-Pharisaic) Torah-observance, their association with Gentiles, or their critique of the Temple. Instead, Acts depicts Paul as proceeding against “all who call upon [Jesus’] name” (9:14), as “opposing the name of Jesus” (26:9), and as seeking “to make them blaspheme” (i.e., probably pronouncing a curse upon Jesus, 26:11).

Moreover, nowhere does Paul say that his conversion was basically a capitulation to accepting a more relaxed Torah-observance, a more negative attitude toward the Temple, or more relaxed associations with Gentiles. Instead, he refers to the cognitive effect as a “revelation of God’s Son” (Gal. 1:15-16), and in Philip. 3:1-11 he contrasts his former Torah-centric life with his present fervent devotion to Jesus. The Damascus Road experience did not convince Paul primarily to approve a relaxed halakha, but to change his view of Jesus. In my view, that also suggests a lot about what he had previously found objectionable in Jewish believers.

It was therefore the way in which the Christians used and revered the name of Jesus that made them offensive to Saul, and it was Saul's encounter with that Jesus on the Damascus road that resulted in his change of heart towards the Christians and his acceptance and consequent advocacy of their beliefs and praxis (to put it mildly).

Sermon on Genesis 11:27-12:5, Galatians 3:6-9

pic from here

A sermon by yours truly, can be listened to here.  About 30 mins long, preached on the 25th July at Manurewa Baptist Church.  Can also be downloaded from here.  Texts: Gen 11:27-12:5, Gal 3:6-9.

Key concepts: the identity of God's people, whakapapa, introductions, pregnancy, faith, the gospel

BTW for non NZ listeners whakapapa ("wh" sounds "f") is a Maori word/concept which denotes ancestry, lineage, stories of identity and history.  See here for more details.

Sailhamer: The Adding of Laws in the Pentateuch

Well, Sailhamer may write long introductions, but he sure knows hows to get you hooked.  When considering the composition of the three legal codes of the Pentateuch he argues that the Mosaic law was added to the Sinai covenant as a consequence of Israel's transgressions. (p42)  So the structure of Exodus-Leviticus looks a little like this:

1. Sinai Covenant, Ex 19-31, original covenant >>>
2. Golden calf incident, Ex 32-33, priestly indiscretion >>>
   
3. Priestly Code, Ex 35- Lev16, extra laws >>>
4. Goat idols, Lev 17:1-9, popular indiscretion >>>
5. Holiness code, Lev17-25, extra laws

All of which serves to agree with Gal 3:19, where Paul states:  "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions . . ." (NIV)  For Sailhamer the giving of the law is thus an act of God's grace (not a punishment) because it is God's remedy for the Israel's  breaking of the covenant (p48). All of which is really interesting, but it does ignore lots of larger narrative interuptions to the law codes and puts a lot of weight on the goat idols/demons which in Leviticus seem like more of an aside that a central interpretive signpost.  That said, Sailhamer is just sketching his arguments at the moment so he may well address these issues later in the book.

Personally, as a father of young children, I like this scheme because it is true to life.  At home we do not create new rules till the kids' behaviour demands it. In our house, as in Sailhamer's scheme, rules are purely pedagogical. The default setting is freedom and grace. However, the jury is out at this stage over whether or not this really works as an explanation of the laws in Exodus-Leviticus.

Pentateuch = Galatians?? So says Sailhamer,

Sailhamer's massive book has received glowing endorsments from John Piper.  I will be slowly working my way through it.  It is far too long, and even the introduction is heavy going, but there are some fascinating ideas here.  Sailhamer makes the assertion that "The law given at Sinai neither had the same purpose nor carried the same message as the faith taught by the Pentateuch." (p13)  Instead the argument of the Pentateuch is a contrasting of two covenants, "Mosaic and Abrahamic, or law and gospel." (p14)  The meaning of the Pentateuch is thus not found in the laws within, which represent the broken covenant, but in the way that it "looks beyond the law to God's grace" and "to teach its readers about faith and hope in the new covenant (Deut 30:6)." (p26)  Thus, "the Pentateuch's view of the law is simailar to that of Paul in the book of Galatians." (p28)

It will be interesting to see what he does when he finally comes to dealing with the law and its meaning for us (Christians).  But my initial concern, although I do think he is on to something, is how Pauline, even admittedly Pauline, this approach is.  He is also arguing for a messianic consciousness to the Pentateuch which so far I'm not overwhelmed by, but that will have to wait for another post anyway.  So I hope he doesn't just show how compatible his reading of the Pentateuch is with Paul but also goes beyond that to show how it points to Jesus Christ, with more than just some strained references to a possibly messianic figure.

For those of you interested in redaction critical matters, Sailhamer considers the Pentateuch to be a 2nd edition work, with Moses being responsible for the first edition, but the final edition being produced late in the piece, after the prophetic canon was completed.  The Pentateuch is thus chronologically both the first and last book of the OT!   Annoying he refers to the Pentateuch as book, singular, when surely it is only book as Torah, but as Pentateuch (i.e. five books) should be books, plural, right?  Otherwise, this is shaping up to be an interesting read for anyone who think it would be fun to read 600 ages of thoughtful evangelical interpretation of the first five books of the Bible.

What say you? :-)

Bultmann on why Theology = Anthropology

Bultmann is much maligned for reducing Theology to anthropology.  Which is worrying because I find him hard to disagree with about this issue.  I think the key text in which he does this is in his Theology of the New Testament, vol 1, p190-191.

. . . Pauline theology is not a speculative system. It deals with God not as He is in Himself but only with God as He is significant for man, for man’s responsibility and man’s salvation. Correspondingly, it does not deal with the world and man as they are in themselves, but constantly sees the world and man in their relation to God. Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa. For this reason and in this sense Paul’s theology is, at the same time, anthropology. But since God’s relation to the world and man is not regarded by Paul as a cosmic process oscillating in eternally even rhythm, but is regarded as constituted by God’s acting in history and by man’s reaction to God’s doing, therefore every assertion about God speaks of what He does with man and what He demands of him. And, the other way around, every assertion about man speaks of God’s deed and demand — or about man as he is qualified by the divine deed and demand and by his attitude toward them. The christology of Paul likewise is governed by this point of view. In it, Paul does not speculatively discuss the metaphysical essence of Christ, or his relation to God, or his “natures,” but speaks of him as the one through whom God is working for the salvation of the world and man. Thus, every assertion about Christ is also an assertion about man and vice versa; and Paul’s christology is simultaneously soteriology.

Of course he is not really "reducing" theology to anthropology but arguing that meaningful theology is anthropological, and therefore does not just say something about God in the abstract but also realtes it to human reality and human response.  I'm sure Bultmann had his sins, but I'm not sure this is one of them.