 Paul was 謝謝 and justification debates. In this presentation, I will summarize the general context of the longer paper which will be submitted for publication in the Wissen, Schaftwch, Ontsluh, Ondswllnd, Dunwys, Testament volume to emerge from this conference. That paper is divided into two sections. In the first I analys comedy themes in Paul which relate to that which opposes God. What did Paul speak of as standing over against God? What themes does he enumerate in such terms? In part two, and armed with certain exegetical results, I turn to explore how evil is presented in a few key theologies of Paul and note how this affects their understanding of Paul's use of the forensic verb, decaio. Ultimately, I will argue that a grasp of evil in Paul raises serious problems for representatives of both so-called old and new perspectives on Paul and thus we need to move beyond them both. Nothing too contentious then. Part one begins with a methodological point. In examining evil in Paul's letters, we must resist the urge to lose sight of Paul's own texts. This is a matter of inestimable importance in light of the number of albeit helpful monographs which involve shorter atomised exegesis of Paul and larger analysis of other texts or hermeneutical frames. But a paper on Paul must keep Paul central. Working through the undisputed letters in canonical order chapter by chapter allows me to explore Pauline patterns and note clearly the interrelation of ideas. But due to severe time restraints, I will highlight just two of my more significant exedetical findings. My first thesis. Evil finds expression in a number of issues ranging from idolatry, sin, flesh, law, death, Paul's opponents, hardships and persecutions, as well as in the powers Satan, the rulers and authorities, ambiguous angels, demons and language of this present evil age. But significantly, none of these issues can be neatly separated from the other. This is contra-done, for example, who maintains that Paul demythologises the language of powers by focusing instead on experiential, not ontological issues such as sin and death. In support of my thesis, and given the number of the beast, I now offer six points. One, idolatry, linked to sin in Romans 3-1 and so on, is associated with the presence of demons in 1 Corinthians 10. The Corinthians must flee from the worship of idols 1014, not because an idol is anything, 1019, but because what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God, I do not want you to be partners with demons, 1020. 2 Corinthians 6, 14-7, 1 makes a similar link, paralleling Beliar, presumably Satan, with idols. Yet Paul also speaks of idolatry in terms of sin as a power, which enslaves Romans 3-9-20, 5-6, and so on. Material in Romans must be noted second. A, in Romans 7, sin is an active agent, seizing, deceiving, killing, working death, and so on. Yet the same words are used to describe the activity of evil spiritual agents, the serpent in 2 Corinthians 11. Satan's deceptions also work through the activities of certain humans, namely the false apostles and deceitful workers, 2 Corinthians 11 again. B, Romans 8 speaks often of sin, death, flesh, law, and so on. But at the end of the chapter, Paul identifies potential blockers of the love of God, listed in a series of pairings, death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, and powers, height, depth, and any other creature. This is 838-39. As Dun argues, the full sequence of references confirms their status as supramundane powers, close quote. And to be noticed is that death is in this sequence. A word Paul has deployed 23 times in Romans 5-8 in correlation with sin, flesh, and the law. Robert Moses concludes, Paul's powers consist of both personifications of abstract nouns, for example, sin and death, and spiritual entities with will and intellect, for example, Satan, demons, rulers, angels, close quote. 3. In Romans 16, Paul's opponents are both millions of Satan, and elsewhere, workers of the flesh as in Galatians, or led by false gods, the belly, Philippians. 4. Following the recent work of Moses, not of Torah fame, I take the language of the rulers of this age, common in 1 Corinthians, to mean spiritual powers, not earthly authorities. And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains that the end comes only after Christ has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power, which leads to his famous statement, the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Paul will shortly go on to speak of death in the same chapter in terms of the power of sin and law, 1556. Yet earlier in this chapter, death is associated with the powers. Once again, death, sin and law are linked to the powers. 5. In Romans, Paul states that the law is weakened by the flesh, 8.3. It's abused by sin, 7.7-14, and just so brings death from Romans 7 various places. Yet in 2 Corinthians, the Torah, 3.7, becomes a ministry of death because of a veil, 3.14-16. But 2 Corinthians 4 continues using veil language by stating that the gospel is veiled because the God of this age has blinded the mind of unbelievers, 4.4. This is presumably referenced to Satan, so the flow of these chapters suggests that this supermundane, personal, evil agent who opposes God is in ways analogous to sin and flesh in Romans at working, making the law about death. 6. I end with mention of relevant material in Galatians. After linking being bewitched by the evil eye in 3.1, presumably some kind of sinister spiritual forces involved, Paul also explains the actions of the Galatians in terms of the flesh, 3.3. Works of law, Paul writes to the Galatians, leads to slavery. I portashtokia tu cosmo 4.3. Now, to summarise my ecstitical work, I argue that tostokia are simply the four elements, fire, water, air, earth. They are not demons themselves, Contra, Schröder, Arnold. They are the basic elements coopted by non-Gods, whose ontology is nothing but nevertheless demonic. I'm referring to 1 Corinthians 10. Likewise, the law parallels the basic elements. It is fully God-given, Contra, Martin, but A, because angels are ambiguous figures for Paul, sometimes good, sometimes bad, and B, because they also stand behind the giving of the law, according to Galatians 3.19, the law can be coopted by the powers for evil. This reflects Paul's experience for these Gentiles. As Moses concludes, just as, quote, hostile angelic powers can coopt the law, so also angelic powers can coopt the elements. This is why accepting the yoke of Torah puts these Gentiles again under the elements, and why Paul can say that while we were miners, we were slaved to the basic elements of the world. In other words, in Romans the law was weakened by sin and flesh. In 2 Corinthians it was affected by Satan's power to veil. Here angelic spiritual agents spell trouble, incapacitating the law and the elements leading people into slavery. These six reasons lead me to conclude that sin, death and flesh do not stand neatly separate in a different hermeneutical compartment for Paul from angels, demons, the basic elements, Satan, nor the rulers and authorities. Paul is not demythologising one set in the name of another. That which opposes God for Paul is a dark mixture of evil, personified nouns and spiritual agents with will and intellect. Use that word carefully. And a key point flows from this, which constitutes my second multi-layered thesis, namely, these various shades of evil in Paul have one thing in common. They exercise force A and in so doing enslave B. The solution is that the powers need defeating C and given A and B humans need to be set free or delivered D. I will now affirm this thesis again in six points, taking one closer to completing the number of the beast. But it must also be noted that in pressing this case, it includes a negative. It suggests that the problem Paul articulates, A and B, is not primarily sin or usually sins understood in terms of culpability, guilt and punishment, which is to say forensic language understood in terms of retributive justice. Corresponding with this, it also suggests that the key solution Paul offers, C and D, is not simply or primarily forgiveness for sins committed. These other issues can play a part in certain Pauline arguments, but they remain peripheral. I turn now to those shady six points in support of my second multi-layered thesis, one. Following our earlier analysis of Galatians, it should be noted that all of the named elements of evil, whether angels, sin, death, flesh, law, the basic elements and non-gods, all primarily lead to slavery. Galatians 4.3.8.9. And so Paul's major emphasis in Galatians becomes freedom from slavery. So to the present Jerusalem, according to 4.25, is in slavery with her children. So 5.1 exhorts not to submit again to a yoke of slavery. Paul speaks of the present evil age in verse 4 of chapter 1, which reminds one of language depoloid in the Corinthian correspondence. Paul immediately explains the solution. Christ gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age. This language involves terms often deployed in retributive forensic accounts, namely sins, but the wider set of themes we are here outlining distance his Paul's, distance his Paul from these specific forensic notions. In Galatians 2.4, when Paul once again mentions the false brothers, they are said to be at work to enslave us. Paul then speaks of being imprisoned under the power of sin 3.22. And in 5.16 to 21, he develops the spirit flesh dualism such that the flesh is portrayed as a force opposed to the spirit which prevents one from doing what they want. 5.17.2. Force is apparently involved in leading people to idolatry. So pagans are led astray to mute idols. 1 Corinthians 12.2. Also in 2 Corinthians 11.3, Paul writes that the serpent deceived or seduced Eve by his cunning. And so he worries that the thoughts of the Corinthians will also be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. The serpent is an active agent in blinding both Christians and as we saw in relation to 2 Corinthians 4.4, also unbelievers. 3. Perhaps something similar is suggested by the terms Ypsomar on Vathos in Romans 8.39, which are astronomical terms that Paul very likely used to refer to celestial beings. As Dewet notes, quote, some connection with astrological forces seems to be assumed because they have the power to determine earthly life and thus could be thought capable of separating believers from divine love. Close quote, which of course Paul will deny. These aspects of the powers Paul lists are thus possibly understood as forces with the power to determine. 4. Whatever one makes of the language of every ruler and every authority and power in 1 Corinthians 15.24, Thysselton hardly strains the meaning when he notes that the point is, quote, the individual, qua individual, is helpless and held in bondage as a victim. Close quote. In light of Galatians 1.4, noted earlier, this seems especially appropriate. 5. In 2 Corinthians 3, speaking in the context of the veil which Christ lifts, Paul writes that it is the spirit who brings the necessary freedom. 3.17. 6. Of course, material in Romans must be noted. In Romans 6 we are told that sin reigns or dominates 5.21.6.12 and in slaves. As is evident in Paul's frequent use of the verbs choreo, thulio and the noun in relation to sin. You can see multiple occasions of this in Romans 6. In Romans 7, Paul continues such language as well as speaking of sin as an active agent, seizing, deceiving, working death and so on. This leads to 7.14-25 and the famous first singular passage. Whoever or whatever Paul means here, once again the terminology of flesh, sin, slavery are all interconnected. Personified sin forces the ego to do evil 7.19, 7.21. The law of sin drags the ego into captivity and slavery 7.23.25. Paul states, we know the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin 7.14. As Paul here explains, the result of sin is death. But this is not first and foremost in the sense of death as the right punishment for sin within Paul's own rhetoric as Bultman long ago noted. The organic link between sin and death is the emphasis. Sin instead exercised dominion in death 5.21. And Paul can say that because Christ died, quote, death no longer has dominion over him 6.9. As Dun notes, death, quote, exercises a rule like a king, Romans 5.14.17. It lords it over the living 7.9, sorry, 6.9. It is one of the powers which might intervene between God and those he loves 8.38. In a similar way, it is also the last enemy 1 Corinthians 15.26, which Christ will defeat. To sum up the import of my two theses, evil in Paul is a complex beast involving Satan, demons, angels, powers, rulers and authorities, false teachers, hardship, sin, flesh and death. The dominant picture in Paul is that one needs deliverance from them. Sin understood in terms of his wider set of themes is simply not best, or at least not usually located in a sin guilt culpability scheme. Sin has its true home as one way of speaking of the evil which in slaves deceives, temps entices, exercises dominion blinds, leads astray and lords it over humans. From this plight, humans need deliverance and the evil forces need defeating. I turn now to the second and much shorter part, examining some important Pauline passages of evil and Pauline theologies of evil and accounts of Dicayo language. So what justifies, excuse my pun, an analysis of forensic Dicayo language after our two theses about evil, two things. First, much of the language we have overviewed in part one finds expression in Pauline arguments in direct conjunction with his Dicayo language and I have a list of verses. Second, numerous scholarly accounts of Paul's use of Dicayo explicitly draw upon certain portrayals of the problem of evil with misleading results. Here again I summarise my longer treatment in the paper where for the third time I have a list of six representative scholars completing a number of the beast. We begin with Rudolf Bortman and Douglas Mew both of whom I take to represent the so-called old perspective on Paul. For Bortman, his sophisticated account of flesh, sin and world is ultimately driven by apologetic concerns. Dematologisation means that he ends up passing thin in terms of human culpability and guilt that is a forensic retributive account of justice. His reading of Dicayo language is as follows. Quote, Dicayo sine is a forensic term. It is not something a person has of his own rather it is something that he has in verdict of the forum law court to which he is accountable. To be Dicayo'd is therefore to be acknowledged innocent. The primary problem for which Bortman's Dicayo language functions as the positive solution is therefore sin as legal culpability and guilt. The problem with this is simple. Bortman has made central to understanding Paul's Dicayo language at most a peripheral issue within Paul's own portrayal of evil namely guilt and culpability. In so doing Paul's forensic language is put in the wrong light. Douglas Moe in his essay, Sin in Paul also tends to sideline sin and the powers as enslaving. He spends relatively more time than Paul at least speaking about the import of sins, plural and the issue of culpability. Corresponding to this he speaks of the verb justify Dicayo as meaning this quote. To be acquitted by God from all charges that could be brought against a person because of his or her sins. Note the plural. In the paper I turn to new perspective scholars, Dun and Wright. But given time restrictions I will only mention Wright's recent presentation of evil in Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Wright has written a lengthy and terrific section entitled The Dark Side of Revised Monotheism, The New Vision of Evil. Now for all of its many positives, the first thing I notice is that there are a mere two instances of words such as slave, enslave and slavery in 76 pages. Now of course number counting is hardly the final litmus test but concerns are also raised by claims as follows. Quote, when we map this solution driven reworking of the plight onto the picture of Second Temple Judaism one thing becomes clear. What is now being offered is the solution to the problem of Israel's exile. He uses exile seven times. He continues by claiming that quote, Israel's exile was the result of Israel's idolatry and sin. Exile was the covenantal punishment envisioned in Deuteronomy 28 and 29. Thus near the heart of the complex of elements involved in the original plight, the radicalized and reframed in the reimagined plight, we find the need for the fresh divine action in faithfulness to the covenant and the justice which that involved when Paul speaks of justification, it is this complex problem to which he is offering what he sees as the new solution. Right could not be clearer. His understanding of justification corresponds to his particular control of the problems, one which emphasizes the plight of exile. This involves a covenantal and particularly retributive forensic eschatological accounts of the solution as he explains quote, exile was the result of Israel's idolatry and sin. Exile was the covenantal punishment, close quote. Likewise for right quote, justification in itself arguably and certainly in the ways Paul speaks of it in Romans two and three brings with it the idea of a law court in which humans first stand guilty in the dock, close quote. The ultimate test for all approaches that treat Paul's language as in many ways synecdic as Paul, sorry, as right does, must be the extent to which the wider proposed narratives lead to clarity about the mixture of themes and concepts Paul himself deploys. However, one may object that right's approach has led away from Paul's letters. It neglects the mixture of interweaving and interweaving of themes within Paul's own arguments. Sin as a power that enslave is pushed to the side by a desire to see exilic themes as determinative for understanding Paul's decaio language. Sin, decoupled from its Pauline context, now becomes primarily about Israel's culpability, guilt and the ensuing punishment which is a retributive paradigm. Unfortunately, right's brilliant construct makes central what is peripheral in Paul's letters and this leads to a problematic account of Paul's forensic language. In light of these points, I won't beat around the bush. I think these representatives of both old and new perspectives on Paul offer a defective account. What is needed is a presentation of evil bearing in mind at the very least the two theses I supported in part one. Can an account of Paul's forensic decaio language be given that corresponds to the power of evil to enslave? I believe so, but unfortunately time has run out so I will be selling copies of my book beyond all the new perspectives on Paul at the door. So yes, this entire lecture has been an elaborate sales pitch.