Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?

Teofrastus · Thursday at 10:32 AM

In We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, M. David Litwa argues that Paul describes the pneuma (breath, spirit) received in baptism as a sacred pneuma, an unmistakably divine entity. The pneuma "living in" the believer's self signals a high degree of integration between the divine and human selves (Rom 8:9; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). Litwa maintains that Paul's entire argument in Romans 6-8 is that, when the pneuma indwells the believer, it alters the very nature of the mind so that it can obey God's promptings. Romans 8, therefore, presents a discourse on a new, pneumatic self (p. 162).

On this basis, Litwa concludes that Paul advances a soteriology of ontological deification in this life: we undergo substantial transformation into angelic beings and receive glorified bodies in which we continue to live after death.

That we are indwelt by divine essence in this life is an idea that sits uneasily with much traditional theology. Is this a sound reading of Paul? Was he, in some sense, operating with categories that overlap with pagan thought?

Critics have argued that Paul's language of transformation does not necessarily imply ontological deification. Many scholars accept participatory soteriology in Paul but reject Litwa's claim that Paul teaches substantial transformation into angelic beings.

Litwa's claim is that Paul thought in concrete, ontological terms rather than in the metaphorical way modern readers tend to interpret him. I'm not sure what to make of this. I find myself genuinely uncertain.

Mark Quayle · Thursday at 11:30 AM

Teofrastus said:
In We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, M. David Litwa argues that Paul describes the pneuma (breath, spirit) received in baptism as a sacred pneuma, an unmistakably divine entity. The pneuma "living in" the believer's self signals a high degree of integration between the divine and human selves (Rom 8:9; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). Litwa maintains that Paul's entire argument in Romans 6-8 is that, when the pneuma indwells the believer, it alters the very nature of the mind so that it can obey God's promptings. Romans 8, therefore, presents a discourse on a new, pneumatic self (p. 162).

On this basis, Litwa concludes that Paul advances a soteriology of ontological deification in this life: we undergo substantial transformation into angelic beings and receive glorified bodies in which we continue to live after death.

That we are indwelt by divine essence in this life is an idea that sits uneasily with much traditional theology. Is this a sound reading of Paul? Was he, in some sense, operating with categories that overlap with pagan thought?

Critics have argued that Paul's language of transformation does not necessarily imply ontological deification. Many scholars accept participatory soteriology in Paul but reject Litwa's claim that Paul teaches substantial transformation into angelic beings.

Litwa's claim is that Paul thought in concrete, ontological terms rather than in the metaphorical way modern readers tend to interpret him. I'm not sure what to make of this. I find myself genuinely uncertain.

This makes me think of the old argument that there are older religions than Christianity. Some forms this argument takes deal with such 'legends' as the flood, etc. But those make me think they are assuming the age of what has been found is where a thing began. That's bad logic, if that is what they think.

Obvious, current time, we see, this kind of thinking is common. An extreme form of it is the notion that if we don't observe something it didn't happen. I remember reading several years ago, the headline, "Because of Recent Scientific Advances Lightning Can Now Have Up To 1 Million Volts"

Of course, that is stupid, but I mention it to demonstrate the illogic of supposing, for example, that what was a poor copy of the original IS the original. IF the ONE God is Self-Existent Creator (which necessarily implies the ONLY First Cause), and Jesus Christ is God, and the Spirit of God is God, then Paul's mentions of the Spirit are not drawn on Pagan concepts, (though granted, on occasion he used some of their better logic to describe truth (such as in Acts 17:28).) If, as is reasonable according to scripture, God came first and omniscient God intended Redemption when he created, (as we can see produces an end-result better than Eden), then Christianity came first, and everything else is a poor copy.

Thus, any heresy inherent to pagan narratives is avoided. On its own, then, what Paul says, should be understood to be 'other than' pagan concepts, which logically were not spiritual truth, since according to the principle in 1 Corinthians 2:14, the pagans didn't know what they were talking about.

Cross referencing with more passages than I can count—and with the whole of scripture, really—I find a very able description of what it means to be "in Christ" here in this matter of the indwelling of the Spirit of God. We do not become divine in the same sense that God is, but it is so near a thing in our final glorification, which carries even now a sense of, "already, but not yet", as to be scary, implying more responsibility on our part than we are able to comprehend, or to consider to any real depth. John 17 is hard to read, in that sense. But, we are not of the world any more than Jesus was. (17:16) We are his 'dwelling place' —not his being. In the most extreme description, we can upon glorification be considered "gods", but not God himself. As members of the Body of Christ we are above the angels, but we are not God.

Counter-intuitively, then, is also implied the fact that we are not our own, and even that responsibility we undertake as members of the Body of Christ is not ours to do in the same sense we might have otherwise thought, but rather that it is God in us doing it through, in, or to, us. (For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good purposes. Philippians 2:13)

jas3 · Thursday at 11:52 AM

It feels like some of the key parts of Litwa's argument are missing. What pagan category is he claiming Paul used? How does "ontological deification" differ from traditional theological concepts like theosis and sanctification?

Teofrastus · Thursday at 12:29 PM

Mark Quayle said:
This makes me think of the old argument that there are older religions than Christianity. Some forms this argument takes deal with such 'legends' as the flood, etc. But those make me think they are assuming the age of what has been found is where a thing began. That's bad logic, if that is what they think.

Obvious, current time, we see, this kind of thinking is common. An extreme form of it is the notion that if we don't observe something it didn't happen. I remember reading several years ago, the headline, "Because of Recent Scientific Advances Lightning Can Now Have Up To 1 Million Volts" Of course, that is stupid, but I mention it to demonstrate the illogic of supposing, for example, that what was a poor copy of the original IS the original. IF the ONE God is Self-Existent Creator (which necessarily implies the ONLY First Cause), and Jesus Christ is God, and the Spirit of God is God, then Paul's mentions of the Spirit are not drawn on Pagan concepts, (though granted, on occasion he used some of their better logic to describe truth (such as in Acts 17:28).) If, as is reasonable according to scripture, God came first and omniscient God intended Redemption when he created, (as we can see produces an end-result better than Eden), then Christianity came first, and everything else is a poor copy.

Thus, any heresy inherent to pagan narratives is avoided. On its own, then, what Paul says, should be understood to be 'other than' pagan concepts, which logically were not spiritual truth, since according to the principle in 1 Corinthians 2:14, the pagans didn't know what they were talking about.

Cross referencing with more passages than I can count—and with the whole of scripture, really—I find a very able description of what it means to be "in Christ" here in this matter of the indwelling of the Spirit of God. We do not become divine in the same sense that God is, but it is so near a thing in our final glorification, which carries even now a sense of, "already, but not yet", as to be scary, implying more responsibility on our part than we are able to comprehend, or to consider to any real depth. John 17 is hard to read, in that sense. But, we are not of the world any more than Jesus was. (17:16) We are his 'dwelling place' —not his being. In the most extreme description, we can upon glorification be considered "gods", but not God himself. As members of the Body of Christ we are above the angels, but we are not God.

Counter-intuitively, then, is also implied the fact that we are not our own, and even that responsibility we undertake as members of the Body of Christ is not ours to do in the same sense we might have otherwise thought, but rather that it is God in us doing it through, in, or to, us. (For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good purposes. Philippians 2:13)

Simply asserting that pagans lacked spiritual truth doesn't address the textual question: does Paul describe an actual pneumatic transformation of the human being, or only a moral/spiritual reorientation? Is Paul's language in Romans 6-8 metaphorical (as later theology tends to read it) or ontological (as Litwa argues).

Paul uses terms like pneuma, metamorphosis, and participation in ways that overlap structurally with Graeco‑Roman categories of divine embodiment and transformation. Arguably, Paul is articulating a participatory anthropology that his ancient audience would have recognized as similar to other Mediterranean discourses of divinization.

He is speaking in the pagan, Stoic, and Platonic idiom of a world shaped by those intellectual traditions. If Litwa is wrong, the error must lie in Paul's conceptual grammar: that Paul's use of pneuma, indwelling, and glorification does not constitute an ontological transformation of the human being. That is the point that must be demonstrated.

Teofrastus · Thursday at 12:49 PM

jas3 said:
It feels like some of the key parts of Litwa's argument are missing. What pagan category is he claiming Paul used? How does "ontological deification" differ from traditional theological concepts like theosis and sanctification?

Litwa contends that Paul's mode of assimilation is corporeal: believers take on Christ's glorified, pneumatic body and thus receive an immortal, ethereal form. He supports this by noting Graeco‑Roman conceptions of divine, incorruptible bodies; Paul's portrayal of believers sharing Christ's pneumatic body (1 Cor 15:44-45); and the link between pneumatic transformation and celestial immortality. His argument relies substantially on Stoic and Platonic ideas familiar in Paul's cultural milieu.

Today, theosis is usually framed as relational union with God through grace, moral transformation of character, participatory sharing in divine life, and energetic participation in divine energeiai rather than divine ousia. Litwa's claim that Paul envisions corporeal and substantial deification goes well beyond what modern theology is prepared to affirm.

Dan Perez · Thursday at 1:27 PM

Teofrastus said:
Litwa contends that Paul's mode of assimilation is corporeal: believers take on Christ's glorified, pneumatic body and thus receive an immortal, ethereal form. He supports this by noting Graeco‑Roman conceptions of divine, incorruptible bodies; Paul's portrayal of believers sharing Christ's pneumatic body (1 Cor 15:44-45); and the link between pneumatic transformation and celestial immortality. His argument relies substantially on Stoic and Platonic ideas familiar in Paul's cultural milieu.

Today, theosis is usually framed as relational union with God through grace, moral transformation of character, participatory sharing in divine life, and energetic participation in divine energeiai rather than divine ousia. Litwa's claim that Paul envisions corporeal and substantial deification goes well beyond what modern theology is prepared to affirm.

And in COL 1:25 Paul wrote this ;

Of. which. I BECAME a servant according to he DSPENSATION OF GOD , the one having been given to ME for you

to COMPLETE THE WORD OF GOD. !!

dan p

Mark Quayle · Thursday at 3:16 PM

Teofrastus said:
Simply asserting that pagans lacked spiritual truth doesn't address the textual question: does Paul describe an actual pneumatic transformation of the human being, or only a moral/spiritual reorientation? Is Paul's language in Romans 6-8 metaphorical (as later theology tends to read it) or ontological (as Litwa argues).

Paul uses terms like pneuma, metamorphosis, and participation in ways that overlap structurally with Graeco‑Roman categories of divine embodiment and transformation. Arguably, Paul is articulating a participatory anthropology that his ancient audience would have recognized as similar to other Mediterranean discourses of divinization.

He is speaking in the pagan, Stoic, and Platonic idiom of a world shaped by those intellectual traditions. If Litwa is wrong, the error must lie in Paul's conceptual grammar: that Paul's use of pneuma, indwelling, and glorification does not constitute an ontological transformation of the human being. That is the point that must be demonstrated.

Ok, I think I follow you, now. Jesus did that, too, more often than people want to think. (For example, in his account of Lazarus and the Rich Man, they think that it is a true account of something that really did happen, or at least, of the realities of the afterlife, rather than being a description of human nature and a direct attack on the religious leaders (and other unbelievers). I speculate that he was using contemporarily commonly held notions or motifs concerning the afterlife to tell the story, told to make a point(s).)

Ok, so Paul, whether validly or not, is using their thinking to make his point. (From what I'm hearing, you are opining, "validly", though that opinion is irrelevant to your main argument/question.) I don't think either Litwa, or an opposite POV, is accurate, their thinking being based on the CURRENT (temporal) status of the Human Being as basic, rather than what God spoke into being from the foundation of the world being the "real" ontology—that completed creature we are becoming—members of the Body of Christ—the Bride of Christ at the consummation, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. Because, THAT is what God made, even though we find ourselves necessarily living here, for now. THAT is basic to fact. We are not what we will be.

I see a whole 'raft' of "already but not yet", here. Our ontology is coming to be. Now, that may not feel satisfactory, so all I can say then, is that what we are is "in Christ" and all else is vanity.

Teofrastus · Thursday at 10:10 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Ok, I think I follow you, now. Jesus did that, too, more often than people want to think. (For example, in his account of Lazarus and the Rich Man, they think that it is a true account of something that really did happen, or at least, of the realities of the afterlife, rather than being a description of human nature and a direct attack on the religious leaders (and other unbelievers). I speculate that he was using contemporarily commonly held notions or motifs concerning the afterlife to tell the story, told to make a point(s).)

Ok, so Paul, whether validly or not, is using their thinking to make his point. (From what I'm hearing, you are opining, "validly", though that opinion is irrelevant to your main argument/question.) I don't think either Litwa, or an opposite POV, is accurate, their thinking being based on the CURRENT (temporal) status of the Human Being as basic, rather than what God spoke into being from the foundation of the world being the "real" ontology—that completed creature we are becoming—members of the Body of Christ—the Bride of Christ at the consummation, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. Because, THAT is what God made, even though we find ourselves necessarily living here, for now. THAT is basic to fact. We are not what we will be.

I see a whole 'raft' of "already but not yet", here. Our ontology is coming to be. Now, that may not feel satisfactory, so all I can say then, is that what we are is "in Christ" and all else is vanity.

One could argue that, because Paul’s congregations were spiritually immature and shaped by Graeco‑Roman religious ideas, he expressed Christian truths using conceptual categories familiar to them, including popular pagan notions of pneumatic substances, divine embodiment, and celestial immortality. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, had to make his language culturally intelligible.

The problem is this: if Paul's theology requires a cosmos populated by pneumatic gods, daimons, and angelic intermediaries, then modern Christianity has already rejected the metaphysical world Paul assumed. Either Paul was wrong about the structure of reality, or modern Christianity is no longer Pauline in any meaningful sense.

However, one could argue that modern theology went too far in its rationalism. We may reject Paul's ancient notion that angelic and demonic beings operate within the material, sublunar world, while still affirming a transcendent heavenly realm in which such beings exist. This preserves the metaphysical structure of Paul's worldview without committing to the outdated cosmology that framed it.

Mark Quayle · Friday at 1:53 AM

Teofrastus said:
One could argue that, because Paul’s congregations were spiritually immature and shaped by Graeco‑Roman religious ideas, he expressed Christian truths using conceptual categories familiar to them, including popular pagan notions of pneumatic substances, divine embodiment, and celestial immortality. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, had to make his language culturally intelligible.

The problem is this: if Paul's theology requires a cosmos populated by pneumatic gods, daimons, and angelic intermediaries, then modern Christianity has already rejected the metaphysical world Paul assumed. Either Paul was wrong about the structure of reality, or modern Christianity is no longer Pauline in any meaningful sense.

However, one could argue that modern theology went too far in its rationalism. We may reject Paul's ancient notion that angelic and demonic beings operate within the material, sublunar world, while still affirming a transcendent heavenly realm in which such beings exist. This preserves the metaphysical structure of Paul's worldview without committing to the outdated cosmology that framed it.

Not to disagree with you exactly, but you seem to slough across two categories in your two last paragraphs. Rationalism and spiritual realities are not mutually exclusive. And, it would have made more sense to me if you had used 'modern theology' in the second, and 'modern Christianity' in the third. Or maybe, 'modern Christendom', in the second. Also, European and American 'Christian' concepts/assumptions about such things—at least, about demonology—don't quite represent world-wide Christianity. I can't speak for Christendom, but Christianity—even in America—I would say, has NOT rejected the Pauline structure of reality—particularly as relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the second paragraph, I don't know why you would say that Paul presented a cosmos populated by pneumatic gods (plural). That demons and angels were more evident in Hebrew history than nowadays, as I said earlier, was not a result of popular pagan notions. That demons were evident during Jesus' ministry is apparent. Less apparent was the activity of angels though their absence can hardly be drawn from their mentions in the gospels. As for 'pneumatic God' (the Holy Spirit), that is unmistakably the description given throughout the whole Bible. So why the description as though Paul could be presenting something only culturally intelligible, and not factual? Christianity still holds also to the immortal soul and its glorification. That is not drawn from a pagan source, nor used in order to be intelligible by Paul or by the rest of us.

Thus I don't see why modern cosmology nor rationalism contradict Paul's 'framing' nor Christianity's use of Paul. That the focus isn't the same in most places, I agree. But we don't, (generally, from my perspective), disagree with it.

Minister Monardo · Friday at 5:16 AM

Teofrastus said:
In We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, M. David Litwa argues that Paul describes the pneuma (breath, spirit) received in baptism as a sacred pneuma, an unmistakably divine entity. The pneuma "living in" the believer's self signals a high degree of integration between the divine and human selves (Rom 8:9; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). Litwa maintains that Paul's entire argument in Romans 6-8 is that, when the pneuma indwells the believer, it alters the very nature of the mind so that it can obey God's promptings. Romans 8, therefore, presents a discourse on a new, pneumatic self (p. 162).

On this basis, Litwa concludes that Paul advances a soteriology of ontological deification in this life: we undergo substantial transformation into angelic beings and receive glorified bodies in which we continue to live after death.

That we are indwelt by divine essence in this life is an idea that sits uneasily with much traditional theology. Is this a sound reading of Paul? Was he, in some sense, operating with categories that overlap with pagan thought?

Critics have argued that Paul's language of transformation does not necessarily imply ontological deification. Many scholars accept participatory soteriology in Paul but reject Litwa's claim that Paul teaches substantial transformation into angelic beings.

Litwa's claim is that Paul thought in concrete, ontological terms rather than in the metaphorical way modern readers tend to interpret him. I'm not sure what to make of this. I find myself genuinely uncertain.

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?

Paul as a fully trained Rabbi and Pharisee taught from the Law, the very purpose of which was to establish a people whose being would be distinctly separate from paganism. By that nature, pagan concepts had to be clearly identified, and rejected.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
17 Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”

Teofrastus · Friday at 8:48 AM

Minister Monardo said:
Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?
Paul as a fully trained Rabbi and Pharisee taught from the Law, the very purpose of which was to establish a people whose being would be distinctly separate from paganism. By that nature, pagan concepts had to be clearly identified, and rejected.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
17 Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”

Paul communicates Christological and eschatological claims in a world where Jewish, Greek, and Roman conceptual vocabularies overlap. The real issue isn't his previous job title, but how his Jewish background interacts with the Graeco-Roman conceptual environment in which he preached and wrote. He came from Tarsus, where Stoicism likely dominated.

Teofrastus · Friday at 9:07 AM

Mark Quayle said:
Not to disagree with you exactly, but you seem to slough across two categories in your two last paragraphs. Rationalism and spiritual realities are not mutually exclusive. And, it would have made more sense to me if you had used 'modern theology' in the second, and 'modern Christianity' in the third. Or maybe, 'modern Christendom', in the second. Also, European and American 'Christian' concepts/assumptions about such things—at least, about demonology—don't quite represent world-wide Christianity. I can't speak for Christendom, but Christianity—even in America—I would say, has NOT rejected the Pauline structure of reality—particularly as relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the second paragraph, I don't know why you would say that Paul presented a cosmos populated by pneumatic gods (plural). That demons and angels were more evident in Hebrew history than nowadays, as I said earlier, was not a result of popular pagan notions. That demons were evident during Jesus' ministry is apparent. Less apparent was the activity of angels though their absence can hardly be drawn from their mentions in the gospels. As for 'pneumatic God' (the Holy Spirit), that is unmistakably the description given throughout the whole Bible. So why the description as though Paul could be presenting something only culturally intelligible, and not factual? Christianity still holds also to the immortal soul and its glorification. That is not drawn from a pagan source, nor used in order to be intelligible by Paul or by the rest of us.

Thus I don't see why modern cosmology nor rationalism contradict Paul's 'framing' nor Christianity's use of Paul. That the focus isn't the same in most places, I agree. But we don't, (generally, from my perspective), disagree with it.

The pagan author Celsus (2nd century), in his work The True Doctrine, claimed that the beings Christians call angels are actually the same as daimones (divine intermediaries) honoured in traditional Graeco‑Roman religion. He argued that rejecting the gods/daimones was impious and socially destructive.

If Litwa is correct that angels were understood as pneumatic beings with bodies of finer, subtler substance capable of entering the sublunar realm, then Celsus’ evaluation seems surprisingly apt: Christians may simply have renamed the existing pagan divine intermediaries rather than introducing entirely new celestial beings.

Yet mainstream Christians today do not regard angels as bodily in any substantial sense. Among the few who still take angelic beings seriously, they are usually seen as spiritual powers or energies, closer to psychological or symbolic manifestations than to embodied celestial agents.

Minister Monardo · Friday at 12:11 PM

In Acts 17, Paul mocks Greek philosophers on the Areopagus, including Stoicism. He then taught them the Resurrection of Christ, for which many of them mocked him in return. There is no teaching of Paul that reflects Greek philosophy as an influence on His Christology.
Where Paul was born is only deemed relevant for his Roman citizenship , which served him during his missionary travels. Paul was raised and educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and he was only marginal in the Greek language, his fluency was in Hebrew. Most of his letters were dictated to Greek traveling companions, and his theology is closely reflected by Luke in his recording of Acts, not to mention the Gospel that bears his name.
There is no Greek influence on his theology, and trying to force this idea is fruitless. There is no pagan Christianity outside academic circles, from which your voice would no doubt be heard and embraced.

Teofrastus · Friday at 1:16 PM

Minister Monardo said:
In Acts 17, Paul mocks Greek philosophers on the Areopagus, including Stoicism. He then taught them the Resurrection of Christ, for which many of them mocked him in return. There is no teaching of Paul that reflects Greek philosophy as an influence on His Christology.
Where Paul was born is only deemed relevant for his Roman citizenship , which served him during his missionary travels. Paul was raised and educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and he was only marginal in the Greek language, his fluency was in Hebrew. Most of his letters were dictated to Greek traveling companions, and his theology is closely reflected by Luke in his recording of Acts, not to mention the Gospel that bears his name.
There is no Greek influence on his theology, and trying to force this idea is fruitless. There is no pagan Christianity outside academic circles, from which your voice would no doubt be heard and embraced.

Paul's theology wasn't untouched by Greek thought. He lived and worked in a thoroughly Hellenistic world, wrote in Greek, quoted Greek poets, and used terms that already carried philosophical weight in the wider culture. Koinonia is a good example: in Plato and later Middle Platonism it refers to participation or sharing in a higher reality, and Paul uses the same word to describe participation in Christ, in the Spirit, and in the sufferings and glory of Jesus.

A Hellenistic Jew didn't stop being Jewish, but he also didn't live in a conceptual vacuum. Greek categories were simply part of the air everyone breathed. So the real question isn't whether Greek influence existed (it obviously did) but how Paul reframed those concepts within a Jewish and Christological worldview. That's where the interesting work lies.

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?​

​

Active Member

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?​

​

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?

Was Paul Using Pagan Conceptual Categories?