^{page 128 note 1} See Ellis, E. E., ‘Paul and His Co-workers,’ N.T.S. XVII (1970–1971), 445–8Google Scholar, 451 n. In Revelation (i. 9, vi. 11, xii. 10, xix. 10, xxii. 9) άδελφ;ός always means prophet.

^{page 128 note 2} Ibid. pp. 440–5.

^{page 128 note 3} InEph. iv. 12 the work of ministry (έργον διακονίας) is one purpose for which the gifts are bestowed.

^{page 128 note 4} Cf. Schweizer, E., Church Order in the New Testament (London, 1961), pp. 184 f.Google Scholar = 22e f.

^{page 128 note 5} The New Testament usage is almost all Pauline,πνευματικά some twenty times and twice in I Pet. ii. 5; χαρίσματα sixteen times and once in I Pet. iv. 10. Pneumatiksa is not in the LXX, Against a hellenistic derivation cf. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, ² 1955). pp. 191–200Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Gnosis (Paris, 1949), pp. 178–80Google Scholar. See below, note 6, p. 131.

^{page 129 note 1} E.g. Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (London, 1952), I, 156Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1969), p. 245Google Scholar (on I Cor. xii. 4). The Spirit also may be the source of the charisms (I Cor. i. 7; xii. 11). Cf. I Cor. xii. 4–6: πνεῦμα, κύριος, θεός.

^{page 129 note 2} Rom. xii. 6; I Cor. i. 7; vii. 7; xii. 4, 28–31.

^{page 129 note 3} ICor. ix. 14, 16, 18; cf. Rom. xv. 27; ‘sowing’ in Mark iv. 14 and John iv. 35–8. Cf. lgn., Eph. viii. 2.

^{page 129 note 4} ICor. xii. 4–11 may be a traditional piece that Paul incorporates and them, in I Cor. xii. 12–27, applies to the Corinthians. It is a self-contained and carefully framed unity with a number of uncharacterisitic expressions. Note the hapaxes, both New Testament (διαίρεσις, 4–6; ένέργημα, 10), and Pauline (διαιρέω, 11). Also unsual are the phrases ή πανέρωσις τοῦ δνεῦματος (7), cf. I Cor. ii. 4; λόγοςσοφ;ίας (8), cf. I Cor. i. 17, ii. I; Col. ii. 23; iii. 16; Eph. i. 17; λόγος γνώσεως (8), cf. I Cor. viii. 7; xi. 6; διακρίσεις πνευμάτων (10), cf. I Cor. xiv. 28f.; τό έν καί τό αύτό πνεῦμα (11), cf. I Cor. xi. 5; ίδί $έκάστώ (11), cf. the usage in Rom. xiv. 5; I Cor. iii. 8, vii. 2 (vii. 7), xi. 21, xv. 23 (38); Gal. vi. 5.

^{page 129 note 5} Cf. I Cor. xiv. 15 (ψαλῶ), 19 (κατηχήσω) with xiv. 3 ff.; xiv. 3 f. (άποκαλύπτω, προϕητεύω, μανθάνω). In I Cor. xiv. 6 (cf. Rom. xii. 6) προφητεία apparently represents a particular kind of prophetic, i.e. ‘in the spirit’, utterance.

^{page 129 note 6} Schweizer, E., T.D.N.T. VI (1968/1959), 423Google Scholar. Cf. I Cor. xiv. 1: ‘especially that you may prophesy’. Otherwise: Leisegang, H., Pneuma Hagion (Leipzig 1922), pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar, who contrasts the pneumatika with prophecy.

^{page 129 note 7} Cf. I Cor. xiv. 37 (‘a prophet or a pneumatic’) with I Cor. xiv. 29 (διακρίνω), xii. 10, ii. 15 (άνακρίνω). In I Cor. xiv. 37 Paul speaks as a prophet (cf. Käsemann, E., New Testament Questions of Today, London 1969, p. 74)Google Scholar. On the role of discerning or testing a prophetic message cf. Ign., Eph. viii. 2–ix: I. Did. xi. 7 ff. is not necessarily contrary to Paul (pace Conzelmann, Korintherbrief, p. 289 n.) but only prohibits the judgment (διακρίνω) of a prophet by the congregation. Cf. I Cor. ii. 15; vi. 5 (σοφός). I Cor. xiv. 29 concerns the judgment of a prophetic message by (a circle of) pneumatics.

^{page 130 note 1} Cf. I Cor. iii. 1. Έχειν πνεῦμα (Rom. viii. 29) does not mean είναι πνευματικός.

^{page 130 note 2} I Cor. ii. 7.

^{page 130 note 3} I Cor. xiii. 2. ‘To have prophecy’ apparently is to be constituted a prophet and signifies more than merely ‘to prophesy’. cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, Apostolic History and the Gospel, Essays presented to F. F. Bruce, ed. Gasque, W. W. (Exeter and Grand Rapides, 1970), pp. 55, 62 f.Google Scholar Cf. Rom. xvi. 25–7; Eph. iii. 3–5, 9: the mystery ‘has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophests by the Spirit’ (iii. 5). Contrast ‘to have a demon’ (John. viii. 48; x. 20) or ‘to have a spirit of an unclean demon’ (Luke iv. 33 f.) or ‘of divination’ (Acts xvi. 16).

^{page 130 note 4} Note the sequence: theme (6 ff.) +Scripture quotation (9)+commentary (10–16) with verbal allusions to the preceding (áνθρωπος 9, 11) and concluding (γινώσκω, 8, 11, 14, 16) quotation (16). On the affinities of this form with Jewish and Christian midrash of the period cf. Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven (Leiden, 1965), pp. 51–8Google Scholar; Ellis, E. E., ‘Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts’, Mélanges bibliques au R.P.B. Rigaux, ed. Descamps, A. (Gembloux, 1970), pp. 303–12Google Scholar (expanded German translation in Z.N.T.W. LXII (1971), 94–104).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 5} Note, for example, (1) the shift from the singular (in ii. 1–5 and iii. 1 f.) to the plural with the ‘we’, i.e. the pneumatics as the subject (ii. 7, 10, 12 f., 16); (2) the unity of the section independent of its context; and (3) the considerable number of phrases not found elsewhere in the Pauline literature: ‘rulers of this age’ (6), ‘before the ages’ (7), ‘the spirit of the cosmon’ (12), ‘the spirit that is from God’ (12), However, there is only one Pauline hapax: διδάκτος.

^{page 130 note 6} Ellis, ‘Prophet in Acts’, pp. 56 ff.

^{page 130 note 7} Stählin, G., T.D.N.T. v (1967/1954), 822Google Scholar. Cf. Rom. xvi. 4 f.; II Cor. v. 20. In Rom. xii. 8, where prophēteia is used in a more restricted sense, Parakl$$$dst sis distinct from it. See above, note 5, p. 129.

^{page 130 note 8} Gal. vi. I also may be included. On Rom. i. 11 f. cf. Barn. i. 2–8: ‘ … if I am concerned to impart (μεταδοῦναι) to you some portion of that which I received, it shall turn to my reward for having ministered to such spirits’ (5).

^{page 131 note 1} Although I Cor. xiv. 26–36 is addressed to one community, it is clear from verses 33 (‘in all the churches’) and 37 (‘a command of the Lord’) that the instructions are not given ad hoc but represent a standard operating procedure within the Pauline circle.

^{page 131 note 2} E.g. I Cor. xiv; I Thess. v. 19–22. On the role of the pneumatics in the worship service cf. Schweizer, Church Order, pp. 220–3; Goguel, M., The Primitive Church (London, 1964), pp. 263–70.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 3} See Ellis, ‘Co-workers’, pp. 444 f.

^{page 131 note 4} Puneumatikoi ideally should be teleioi, i.e. understanding and mature Christians, but the terms are not synonymous. Paul's concern is, through his ministry, ‘to present every man teleion in Christ’ (Cor. i. 28; cf. iv. 12); similarly, through the spiritual gifts granted to some the whole Church should be brought to ‘mature manhood’ (άνδρα τέλειον, Eph. iv. 11–13). I Cor. iii. 1 expresses an irony: some who are pneumatikoi in terms of charisms are not yet so in terms of discernment and maturity. Cf. I Cor. xiii. 1–3, 10 (τέλειον); Scroggs, R., N.T.S. XIV (1967–1968), 38–40Google Scholar; Delling, G., T.D.N.T. VIII (1972), 67–78.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 5} This would explain the different attitude in this passage, vis-à-vis I Cor. xiv. 33–6, toward the parpticipation of women in the worship service. cf. Lindblom, J., Geschichte und Offenbarungen (Lund, 1968), pp. 140 f.Google Scholar The suggestion that I Cor. xiv. 33–6 is an non-Pauline interpolation is textually unjusitified and overlooks the catch-word connection between verses 28, 30, 34 (σιγάω). Other explanations are equally unsatisfactory.

^{page 131 note 6} Hos. ix. 7. The ‘spirit of the holy gods’ (□‵⊓ℷℵ⊓ℸℸ) gives Daniel (iv. 5 f. = iv. 8 f.) understanding in God's mysteries. Remarkably, the Spirit is not otherwise associated with Daniel's visions. On the similar absence of the Spirit in the major prophets cf. Lindblom, J., Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1962), pp. 177–9Google Scholar. In origin pneumatikos may be connected with Hos. ix. 7, cf. Num. xi. 25.

^{page 131 note 7} E.g. the Targum on Jidges iii. 10; I Sam. x. 6; Isa. lxiii. 10. Cf. Strack, H. L. and Bilerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (München, 1924, 1924), II, 129Google Scholar; Lindblom, , prophecy, pp. 175–9Google Scholar. Similarly, Tosephta Sota xiii. 2 equates the cessation of prophecy with the departure of the Holy Spirit (Billerbeck, I, 127); cf. Davies, W. D. in Christian History and Interpretation, ed. Farmer, W. R. (Cambridge, 1967), p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 1} Wis. vii. 27; cf. ix. 17; vii. 22, where wisdom is associated or equated with ‘your holy spirit’; Eph. i. 17: ‘a spirit of wisdom’. cf. Rylaarsdam, J. C., Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature (Chicago, 1946), pp. 99–118Google Scholar; Bieder, W., T.D.N.T. vi. (1968/1959), 371.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} IIKings ix. 11; cf. Isa. xxviii. 10; Dupont, Gnosis, p. 209 n. Re pagan prophets in the hellenistic world cf. Behm, J., T.D.N.T. I (1964/1933), 722, 724.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 3} Acts xiii. 2; xxi. 11; Rev. ii. 7. cf. Swete, H. B., The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (London, 1910)Google Scholar, passim; Johnston, G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 137–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellis, ‘Prophet in Acts’, pp. 55 f. In Rev. xi. 8 πνευματικῶς means ‘in prophetic rather that ordinary speech’ (Scheweizer, E., T.D.N.T. vi (1968/1959), 449Google Scholar). In the patristic writings the Spirit of God can be described as ‘the prophetic spirit’ (Justin, , I Apol. 6Google Scholar), and a prophet as one who has ‘the divine spirit’ (Hermas, , Man. xiGoogle Scholar. 7 ff.) or who speaks έν πνεύματι (Did. xi. 7 ff.; Barn. x. 2).

^{page 132 note 4} Prophētēs is similarly restricted in Acts. See above, note 3, p. 130.

^{page 133 note 1} cf. Frame, J. E., Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. 203 f., 206 f.Google Scholar, 246: ‘In the light of I Thess. v. 19 πνεῦμα [in II Thess. ii. 2] clearly refers to the operation of the Spirit in the charisma of prophecy’.

^{page 133 note 2} So, Godet, F., First Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh, 1886), I, 151Google Scholar; Lightfoot, J. B., Notes on the Epistles of St Paul (London, 1904), p. 180Google Scholar; Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburg, 1911), p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 3} So, Meyer, H. A. W., Epistles to be the Corinthians (Edinburgh, 1879), I, 69Google Scholar; The spirit of the world is ‘the spirit proceeding forth from the devil, under whose power the κόσμος lies and whose sphere of action it is’. Cf. John xii. 31; I John iv. 3; Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1970/1910), p. 63Google Scholar; Delling, G., ‘άρχων,’ T.D.N.T. I (1964/1933), 488 fGoogle Scholar. Possible: Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), p. 75Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Korintherbrief, p. 85Google Scholar. Contrast ‘spirit of man’ (I Cor. ii. 11). Paul elsewhere refers to Satan as ‘the god of this age [who] blinded the minds (νοήματα) of the unbelievers’ (II Cor. iv. 4; cf. I Cor. ii. 16) and ‘the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience’ (Eph. ii. 2; cf. vi. 11 f.), whose servants receive ‘a different spirit’ (II Cor. xi. 4, 15).

^{page 133 note 4} Especially, the Synoptic teachings of Jesus (e.g. Mark v. 1–13; Luke iv. 1–13, x. 18, xxii. 55) and the Johannine writings (cf. John xii. 31; I John iv. 1–6; Revelation, passim).

^{page 133 note 5} For example, as seen in the Pseudepigrapha and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

^{page 133 note 6} See below, pp. 139 f.

^{page 133 note 7} II Cor. xi. 4, 13 ff., xii. I, II, cf. Did. xi. 8. cf. Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen, 1964), pp. 298 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 1} So, Conzelmann, , Korintherbrief, p. 279Google Scholar; Robertson-Plummer, , I Corinthians, p. 311Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen, 1909), p. 76Google Scholar (on I Cor. xiv. 32).

^{page 134 note 2} Admittedly, the two are closely associated, and in Eph. vi. 12 the effect may be identified with the cause: ‘spiritual hosts (πνευματικά) of evil’. Better, perhaps, is ‘spiritual manifestations of wickedness in the heavenly warfare’ (cf. Weymouth, Wycliffe-Purvey).

^{page 134 note 3} Meyer, E.g., Corinthians, II, 29Google Scholar; Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St John (Edinburgh, 1920), II, 218Google Scholar; Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse (London, 1906), p. 299Google Scholar (on xxii. 6). Otherwise and rightly, Godet, , Corinthians, II, 307Google Scholar: the plural denotes ‘the particular impulses and revelations’. However, ‘divine inspiration differs from diabolical in the fact that the latter takes man from himself – it is a possession – whereas the former restores him to himself. The present ύποτάσσεται signifies, not are subject, but subject themselves, and that at the very moment when the prophet wills it’.

^{page 134 note 4} Lindblom, , Prophecy, pp. 175–8Google Scholar. Cf. Ign., Phid. vii. 1 (άπό θεοῦ).

^{page 134 note 5} I Thess. v. 21 (‘test all things’) may have the same meaning. Cf. I John iv. 1: ‘test the spirits’ = ? the prophets; I Tim. iii. 10: ‘let the ministers (diakonoi) be tested first’ Did. xi. 11: ‘every prophet who has been tested’; xii. I, xv. I. Apparently, the spirit working through the pneumatic becomes so identified with him, or he with the spirit, that pneumatics can be called ‘spirits’. See below, note 6, p. 136.

^{page 135 note 1} I John iv. 3b, 6. I John iv. 2b-3a has the marks of a traditional formula that is followed (3b-6) by John's commentary. In I Tim. iv. I Paul cites (őτι), a prophetic oracle that refers to ‘spirits of error’. Cf. Test. Judah xx. 1; Hermas, Man. 3.

^{page 135 note 2} I John iv. 4–6; I Cor. ii. 12; cf. John viii. 23, xiv. 17 (‘the spirit of truth which the world cannot receive’); xv. 19 with I Cor. ii. 12; also, cf. John xii. 31, xiv. 30 (‘prince of the world’) with II Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2. See Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1970/1924), p. 135Google Scholar (on II Cor. iv. 4): the dualism need not be understood as gnostic but may be derived out of the general primitive Christian conviction that the devil rules ‘this world’. Cf. Luke iv. 6; Rev. xii. 9.

^{page 135 note 3} Over a dozen times, sometimes (Luke x. 20, xi. 26; I Pet. iii. 19) without qualification. The term, spirits, also refers less frequently to both good and evil (I Cor. xii. 10; I John iv. 1) and to good (I Cor. xiv. 12; Heb. i. 7, 14; xii. 9; Rev. i. 4) angelic beings. Similarly, Jub. xv. 31 f. A close relationship, but not an identification, of spirit and angel appears in Acts xxiii. 8 f. cf. Foerster, W., δαίμων, T.W.N.T. II (1935), 17 fGoogle Scholar. On Beezelboul = Satan = the devil (cf. Matt. iv. 8, 10) as the prince of demons and as an angel cf. Luke xi. 17–23; Matt. xxv. 41; II Cor. xi. 14.

^{page 135 note 4} Ps. civ. 4. Cf. Jub. ii. 2: ‘the spirits who minister (τά λειτουργοũντα) before [God]’ (cited in Migne, , P. G. XLIII, 276)Google Scholar; Enoch 37: 4: ‘Lord of Spirits.’

^{page 135 note 5} On angelology at Qumran cf. Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War (Oxford, 1962), pp. 229–42Google Scholar; Mansoor, M., The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden, 1961), pp. 77–84Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., T.D.N.T. v (1968/1969), 389–392, 443 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 6} Otherwise, Betz, O. (Der Paraklet, Leiden 1963, pp. 165, 169)Google Scholar, who apparently draws too sharp a dichotomy between the ‘monism’ of the Old Testament and the dualistic (Persian) origins of the spirit of truth. See below, note 4, p. 141.

^{page 136 note 1} Perhaps IQS III. 18–25 refers to Michael (cf. C.D. v. 18 with IQM xvii. 6). So, Batz, , Paraklet, pp. 66 f.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} IQH viii. 11 f.

^{page 136 note 3} IQM xiii. 10.

^{page 136 note 4} IQH iii. 22 f.; 4 QSI 40 xxiv. 2, 6.

^{page 136 note 5} IQM xiii. 10.

^{page 136 note 6} Cf. also IQH i. 21–3: ‘you open my ears to wonderful mysteries (). But I [am]…a spirit of error and perversity () without understanding ().’ IQH ii. 15: ‘I have become a spirit of zeal against all seekers of smooth things.’ IQH xvii. 25: ‘a spirit of flesh is your servant’. In Wis. vii. 23, 27 those who receive wisdom and are made ‘friends of God and prophets’ also may be termed πνεύματα (so, Bieder, W., T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 371Google Scholar). The epistle of Barnabsas addresses as ‘spirits’ (i. 5) fellow pneumatics (i. 8; iv. 6, 9) who manifest ‘the spiritualgift’(ῆ δωρεάπνευματική) and to whom he wishes to impart ‘perfect gnosis’, which is to be found in a proper understanding of Scripture (i. 5; ii. 1–4). Correspondingly, false teachers, the ‘wise’ () of the world, also may be termed ‘spirits’ by the psalmist of IQH iii. 14 f., 18: ‘spirits of vipers’ (or ‘of illusion’). Cf. Matt. iii. 17; Eph. vi. 12; Mansoor, , Hymns, p. 115 n.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 7} cf. Leaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran (London, 1966), pp. 72 f., 230Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F. in Neotestamentica et Semilica, ed. Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 228 f.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 8} Mansoor, (Hymns, p. 106 n.Google Scholar) and Hyatt, J. P. (N.T.S. II (1955–1956), 277Google Scholar) and others rightly identify him as a teacher or the Teacher of Righteousness. Cf. IQH xii. 4 f. with IQpHab. vii. 4 f.

^{page 136 note 9} IQH xii. 12 f.; cf. vii. 5–7: ‘a distorted spirit () confounded me…I thanzk you, Lord, for you strengthened me by () your power. And your holy spirit you poured out on me that I might not stumble.’

^{page 136 note 10} At Qumran , found primarily in the Hymns, refers to the maskil (IQH ii. 13) and to the opposing demonic-led teachers, the ‘interpreters of lies’ (IQH ii. 31, iv. 7, 9 f.; cf. ii. 14) and, perhaps, to angelic interpreters (IQH vi. 13). Although the idea of intercessor, intermediary, or other kind of interpreter may be indicated by the context, it is adjectival (otherwise: Mansoor, Hymns, p. 143 n.). The basic meaning of mēlis is mēlis is interpreter, and this appears to be the case also in the Old Testament usage, whether specifying a translator (Gen. xlii. 23), envoy (II Chron. xxxii. 31), prophets (?Isa. xliii. 27), or angelic spokesmen or intercessors (Job xxxiii. 23; cf. xvi. 20). From Job xxxiii. 23, interpreted in the targum as , Johnston, G. (Spirit-Paraclete, pp. 101 f.; 120 f.)Google Scholar, following S. Mowinckel and N. Johansson, infers a connection between the Johannine paraclete ( = spirit of truth = Holy Spirit) and an angelic mēlis. But, unlike O. Betz, he does not identify them. cf. Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (Garden City, 1970), II, 1138 f.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} The word is translated in the Septuagint by διακρίνω and δοκιμάЗω. The former term is used in I Cor. xiv. 29 of the testing by pneumatics of prophetic speakers; the latter is used similarly in I John iv. 1. See above, note 7, p. 129.

^{page 137 note 2} Cf. I Cor. ii. 7, 13 f.; xiv. 29; Eph. iii. Cf. Eph. iv. 12 f.; Col. i. 26–8; ii. 2 with IQS iv. 21 f.

^{page 137 note 3} The force of the parallels should not be minimized in deference to a now somewhat discredited theory of a theological dichotomy between Palestinian and diaspora Judaism or Christianity. Traditional emphases were present in the diaspora and syncretistic emphases in Palestine. Also, a religious group might be strictly traditionalist in one respect (e.g. cultic practice) and syncretizing in another respect (e.g. theology); cf. Ellis, E. E. in T.U. CII (1968), 397.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 4} Hermas, , Mandates ix. 9Google Scholar; Ascen. Isa. iii. 16; ix. 36, 40; xi. Cf. Justin, I Apol. 6 with 61; Barn. ix. 2 (‘the spirit of the Lord prophesies’) with ix. 4 (‘an evil angel taught [the Jews] clever-ness’); xviii. 1 f.: ‘there are two ways of teaching and of authority (έξουσΙας), one of light and the other of darkness…On the one are arrayed the light-giving angels of God, on the other the angels of Satan. The [leader of] one is the Lord from everlasting to everlasting, the [leader of] the other is the ruler of the present season of lawlessness.’ According to Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 19) Simon Magus taught ‘that the prophets spoke prophecies, inspired by the world-creating angels’ (άпòτῶν κοσμοпοιῶν άγγέλων έμпνευσθέντας). In Epistula Apos. Jesus sends his power (δύναμις) in the form of an angel (xv. 5 = viii. 5), and he himself takes the form (μορϕή) of an angel (xiv. 7 = vii. 7). Cf. Test. Job Job xliii–1.

^{page 137 note 5} So Charles, , Revelation, I, 11–13Google Scholar ( on Rev. i. 4). Cf. Rev. iv. 5, v. 6, viii. 2; Isa. xi. 2. ‘seven angels’ in Jewish tradition cf. Ezek. ix. 2 f.; Tobit xii. 15; Enoch xx; xc. 21; TLevi viii. According to Swete, H. B. (Apocalypse, p. 310Google Scholar) the Spirit in the Apocalypse refers generally to the spirit of prophecy. ‘The Spirit and the bride’ (Rev. xx. 17) is practically equivalent to ‘the prophets and the saints’ (Rev. xvi. 6; xviii. 24). Cf. Charles, , Revelation, ii. 179Google Scholar. In Rev. xii. 10, cf. xix. 10, xxii. 9 it is probably the martyr-prophets who are called ‘our brothers’ by the angelic voice (so Bousset, W., Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen, 1906), p. 342CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Charles, , Revelation, I, 327 f.Google Scholar). On the prophet as martyr in primitive Christianity cf. Friedrich, G. in T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 834 f.Google Scholar; Michael, O., Prophet und Märtyer (Gütersloh, 1932), pp. 25–53.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 6} So Alford, H., The Greek Testament (London, 1861), IV, 243Google Scholar; Bonsirven, J. cited in Spicq, C., L'Epître aux Hebreux (Paris, 1953), II, 394Google Scholar; Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 401 fGoogle Scholar. The phrase is not parallel to ‘fathers of our flesh’. Most commentators, however, prefer an anthropological interpretation.

^{page 137 note 7} The spirit of truth has characteristics similar to the spirit of prophecy. In I John iv. 1 6 there is a direct association, if not an identification, of the spirit of truth and error with true and false prophecy. Cf. I. Tim. iv. 1; see above, notes 1, 2, p. 135, note 10, p. 136.

^{page 138 note 1} I Cor. xi. 4–10. On the suggested reasons for this practice cf. Jaubert, A., N.T.S. XVIII (1971–1972), 427 f.Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A. in Paul and Qumran, ed. Murphy-O'Connor, J. (London, 1968), pp. 31–47Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. IV, 1957–1958, 48–58Google Scholar + postscript). Fitzmyer rightly argues that good angels are in view (pp. 40–4). The same is true of Col. ii. 18 since the angels are distinguished from the opposing principalities and powers (Col. ii. 15). Also the invocation or worship of demons by the Colossians, unlikely in the nature of the case, would have evoked a far different response from Paul. For the view that κατακαλύпτegr;θαι, ‘to be covered,’ means to wear long hair’ cf. Martin, W. J. in Apostolic History and the Gospel…presented to F. F. Bruce, ed. Gasque, W. W. (Exeter and Grand Rapids, 1970), pp. 231–41.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} I Cor. xi. 4, 10. See above, note 5, p. 131.

^{page 138 note 3} See above, p. 133.

^{page 138 note 4} II Cor. xi. 3 f., 14 f. See above, note 7, p. 133. Note the comparison of their teaching to the serpent's tempting Eve to get ‘knowledge’ (cf. Gen. iii. 5 with II Cor. xi. 5). Cf. CD 12:2 f.: ‘every man over whom the spirits of Belial rule so that he preaches apostasy (’.

^{page 138 note 5} Paul's opponents in II Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians belong essentially to the same group, a faction within the Church's Hebraist, i.e. circumcision party. Cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘Those of the Circumcision,’ T.U. CII (1968), 390–9.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 6} Gal. i. 8. In the light of I Cor. xiv. 3, 12, 32, II Cor. xi. 4, 14, II Thess. ii. 2 this is not rhetorical flourish but rather a sober recognition of the opponents' possible appeal to angelic revelation, whose factual character Paul implicity accepts. Cf. Gal. iii. 19 where Paul presupposes the tradition of angelic involvement in the divine disclosure of the Law.

^{page 138 note 7} Col. ii. 18. See above, note 1. Note the connection with ‘visions.’ There is a similar worship of good angels in Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2, 32, 5; Swete, , Apocalypse, p. 248Google Scholar; Percy, E. O., Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epherserbriefe (Lund, 1946), pp. 149–55Google Scholar. Some scholars, recently Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 177–83Google Scholar (G.T., pp. 249–57), argue that Colossians and Ephesians exhibit sharp differences from Paul's theology and are, therefore, non-Pauline. Even if the arguments are accepted (and some of them seem to me to be questionable), the differences in style and thought from the other Pauline letters probably are better explained by Paul's use of pre-formed traditions and/or by the contribution of Paul's circle (or of an amanuensis) writing during Paul's mission and under his yee. One must, I think, resist the temptation simply to equate theological difference with chronological distance. In any case the present thesis does not depend upon the use of these letters.

^{page 138 note 8} II Cor. xii. 1–9. See below, notes 8, 9, p. 142.

^{page 139 note 1} I Cor. xiv. 32. Cf. Rev. xii. 10, xix. 10 where the angels are described as ‘brothers’, i.e. co-workers and as ‘fellow slaves’ of the prophets. See Ellis, ‘Co-Workers’, pp. 445–8.

^{page 139 note 2} I Cor. xii. 5. Cf. Eph. iv. 8 where the gifts are ascribed explicitly to Christ and include only the gifts of inspired speech.

^{page 139 note 3} cf. Lake, K. and Cadbury, H. J. in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Jackson, F. J. F. and Lake, K., 5 vols. London, 1920–1933), IV. 130Google Scholar: ‘Few things are more necessary for an understanding of early Christianity than a perception of the fact that it was essentially a prophetic movement.’ Everling, O. (Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie, Göttingen, 1888, pp. 43 f.Google Scholar) identified the ‘spirits of the prophets’ as angels who must be distinguished from the other (demonic) spirits (I Cor. xii. 10). His acute analysis came to my attention only after the present essay was substantially completed and, therefore, offers an independent corroboration of it. See below, note 4.

^{page 139 note 4} Eph. vi. 12. Cf. ii. 6; see above, note 2, p. 134. Note the oscillation between the singular (vi. 11) and the plural (vi. 12). cf. Hahn, H. A., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1854), I, 30Google Scholar, on I Cor. xiv. 32 (cited in Everling, Angelologie, p. 40): ‘the one spirit of God is thought of as a multiplicity of spirits that are all included (beschlossen) in Him’. Hahn also identified the spirits as angels.

^{page 139 note 5} For example, the synergoi (I Cor. iii. 9) are ‘stewards of the mysteries of God’ (I Cor. iv. 1), a function earlier identified with the activity of the pneumatikoi (I Cor. ii. 7, 13). Cf. II Tim. ii. 15; I Tim. v. 18 (kopiaō;) Did. xiii. 1. In Gal. vi. 1 the adelphoi are identified as pneumatikoi. See E. E. Ellis, ‘Co-Workers’, pp. 440–5, 447 n.

^{page 139 note 6} Ibid. pp. 448 f.

^{page 139 note 7} Col. i. 3; cf. iv. 12; I Thess. i. 2; iii. 10; II Thess. i. 3; cf. Eph. vi. 18 f.; II Thess. iii. 1 f.

^{page 140 note 1} Cf. Acts xiii. 1 f. Such notices remind us that we cannot understand the mission of Paul apart from the mission praxis that underlies it. On the association of prayer and prophecy of cf. Friedrich, G., T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 852 f.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} The regulations appear to be traditional (I Cor. xi. 2 f.; xiv. 33) and paradigmatic. Cf. also I Cor. ii. 6–16, which reflects the activity of a session of pneumatics in which Paul is implicitly included (‘we’).

^{page 140 note 3} As mentioned above, the most elaborate parallels appear to be in the Qumran writings.

^{page 140 note 4} cf. Ringgren, H., The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 79 f.Google Scholar; Leaney, , Rule, pp. 43–7Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., ‘σκότος,’ T.D.N.T. VII (1971), 432Google Scholar. Otherwise: Kamlah, E., Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 49, 163–8Google Scholar; Suggs, M. J., ‘The Christian Two Ways Tradition’, Studies in New Testament…in honor of A. P. Wikgren, ed. Aune, D. E. (Leiden, 1972), pp. 64–7.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 5} That is, the prophet apparently ‘sees’ the messenger as well as ‘hears’ the message (cf. Lindblom, Prophecy, pp. 55 f.).

^{page 140 note 6} Cf. Job xxxiii. 23 with Isa. xliii. 27 (). See above, note 10, p. 136.

^{page 140 note 7} I.e. possess divine wisdom: II Sam. xiv. 20; Dan. v. 16. Cf. Gen. iii 4, 22. Traditionally the roles of the ‘wise man’ and the ‘prophet’ were separate and distinct. But they approximate one another in David ((cf. II Sam. xiv. 20 with II Chron. viii. 14), in Ahithophel II Sam. xvi. 23) and in Isaiah and Jeremiah. In the person of Daniel they are identified. Apparently from the usage in Daniel the prophetic character of (true) wisdom continues in the thought of some apocalyptic and Qumran literature and in the New Testament. See above, pp. 132, 136. cf. Lindblom, J., ‘Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets’, Wisdom in Israel and in the Near East, ed. Noth, M. (Leiden, 1955), pp. 192–204Google Scholar; McKane, W., Prophets and Wise Men (London, 1965), pp. 114–18.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Cf. Gen. xviii. 9 f.; xix. 1; Zech. iii. 6 f. On the other hand the prophet Haggai (i. 13) can be called ‘angel, i.e. messenger of the Lord’. Perhaps the angel in Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12 is a prophet. Otherwise: Kittel, G., ‘άγγελος,’ T.D.N.T. i (1964/1933), 86 f.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} I King xxii. 19–22; Jer. xxiii. 18 (); Zech. iii; cf. Isa. vi; Amos iii. 7; Psalm lxxxix. 8 (7); Job xv. 8 (). cf. Whybray, R. N., The Heavenly Counsellor in Isa. xl. 13–14 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} Dan. x; Zech. iv–vi; Ezek. xl–xlviii; cf. viii. 3. On the angelus interpres in early Christianity cf. Revelation, passim; Ascen. Isa. x. 6, 8; xi; Hermas, Vis. iii. 10–13. Paral. Jer. iv. 12.

^{page 141 note 4} In II Kings vi. 16 ff. ‘those with us’ (16) refers to angels. Cf. Isa. xxxi. 3. The experiences related by the prophets provide in part the background for the references to angels in the Psalms. Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 7; xci. 11 with II Kings vi. 17, xix. 35; Hab. iii; Ps. xxix. 1 f., lxxxix. 6 f., cxlviii. 2 with I Kings xxii. 19; Isa. vi. 1–8; Ezek. i. 22–8.

^{page 141 note 5} Job i, ii; I Kings xxii. 19–23; Zech. iii. 1–4; cf. xiii. 2 f. 19–23; Zech. iii. 1–4; Cf. von Rad, G., T.D.N.T. II (1964/1935), 75.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 6} II Cor. xii. 7. The passive (έδόθη) veils a reference to ‘the Lord’, as is clear from Paul's prayer (xii. 8 f.). When Paul (cf. I Cor. ii. 12; John xvi. 11; I John iv. 1–6) contrasts the spirit έκ τοũ θεοũ with the spirit of the world (τοũ κόσμου) or terms Satan ‘the god of this age’ (II Cor. iv. 4), no dualism is implied, as though Satan were an independent power. Similarly, at Qumran, cf. IQH iv. 38; IQM xiii. 10 f.; Leaney, Rule, pp. 45, 53 f.

^{page 141 note 7} Paul also can deliver persons to Satan ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (I Cor. v. 4 f.; cf. I Tim. i. 20). According to the Qumran literature God created the spirit of deceit = the angel of darkness and determines the time of his activity and of his destruction (IQS iii. 18–21; iv. 18 f.; cf. IQM xiii. 11; IQH i. 8 f.). cf. Ringgren, H., The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 52–5Google Scholar. Cf. I Chron. xxi. 1 with I Sam. xxiv. 1.

^{page 141 note 8} Johnson, A. R., The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff, 1942), pp. 28 f.Google Scholar; cf. pp. 17 ff., 26–41. In Ps. xxxiv. 8 (7) the ‘angel of the Lord’ can be viewed as a collective unit (p. 35). Cf. Gen. xxxii. 2, 18–19; Hos. xii. 3 f.

^{page 142 note 1} I Cor. ii. 2; Gal. vi. 14; Col. ii. 2 f., 9 f.; II Tim. ii. 8. Cf. also the emphasis in I Cor. xii. 3 f., 11 upom the one Spirit of God who is the source of all the gifts. Somewhat differently, Leaney, , Rule, p. 50Google Scholar. cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘Christ and Spirit in I Corinthians’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, Essays in honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 262–270.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} I Cor. xiv. 12; Col. ii. 18. Cf. Jude 8; Heb. i. ii; Rev. xix. 10. Note the connection with visions in Col. ii. 18; see above, p. 138. The letter to the Galatians reflects the same problem if the στοιχεīα (‘elemental spirits’, RSV; NEB) of Gal. iv. 3, 9 are identified or associated with angelic, i.e. spiritual beings. So, for example, Everling, Angelologie, pp. 70 ff.; Bruce, F. F., B.J.R.L. LIII (1971), 268 f.Google Scholar; Reicke, B., J.B.L. LXX (1951), 261–3Google Scholar. But see Delling, G., T.D.N.T. VII (1971), 683–7Google Scholar; Banstra, A. J., The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen, 1964), pp. 57–9Google Scholar, and especially his survey of interpretations, pp. 5–30.

^{page 142 note 3} In the Pauline churches it is implied in such references as Gal. i. 8 and Col. ii. 18; cf. II Thess. ii. 2. The angelus interpres also may be presupposed in the visions of Acts xii. 7–11 and in Acts xxvii. 23.

^{page 142 note 4} Lindblom, , Prophecy, p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} cf. Childs, B. S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London, 1960), pp. 49–57Google Scholar, who develops the theme of the ‘broken myth’ along somewhat different lines.

^{page 142 note 6} Probably a genitive of origin. So the Jerusalem Bible.

^{page 142 note 7} In the light of I Cor. vi. 18 έκτος τοũ σώματος probably refers to a vision and does not reflect an anthropological dualism.

^{page 142 note 8} In Jewish apocalyptic texts paradise and the third heaven cf. Asc. Isa. vii. 24) are sometimes identified (II Enoch viii; xlii. 3; Apoc. Mosis xxxvii. 5; xl. 2) and/or are associated with the angelic presence (Enoch xx. 7) and with the presence of God (cf. II Enoch viii. 3; Apoc. Mosis xxii. 3 f.; cf. Rev. xii. 7–10; xxiv–xxii; Enoch xxiv–xxv). Cf. Traub, H., T.D.N.T. v (1967), 535Google Scholar: ‘paradise and the throne of God are in [the third heaven] or in close proximity to it’.

^{page 142 note 9} Favouring this is the audition (II Cor. xii. 4; cf. Jer. xxiii. 18), the reference to the third heaven, to the time (I Cor. xii. 1), and to Satan or his angel (cf. I Cor. viii. 5; Eph. vi. 12; I Kings xxii. 21f.; Job i, ii; Zech. iii; see below, note 1, p. 143. To be meaningful the ‘angel of Satan’ (I Cor. xii. 7) must have been announced or given, as the context indicates, at the time of the revelation: the ‘exaltation beyond measure’ would hardly have begun six months later. In some contemporary writings the third heaven is the locale of God's angelic court (see above, note 8, p. 142). Bowker, J. W. (J.S.S. XVI [1971], 157–73Google Scholar; cf. Windisch, , zweite korintherbrief, pp. 375 f.Google Scholar) suggests that the visions in II Cor. xii (and Acts ix. 3) arose our of merkabah contemplation (e.g. on Ezek. i, ii; cf. Hag. xivb) current among some rabbinic visionaries: (1) both refer to a ‘third category’ in heaven; (2) both may allude to the divine name ‘that man may not utter’; (3) Paul was a highly trained rabbi to whom visions are ascribed and who may, therefore, have practised merkabah contemplation. None of these rather general points carry us very far toward Bowker's conclusion. Against Bowker is the context of the visions in Acts: four are night visions (xvi. 8 f., xviii. 9, xxiii. 11. xxvii. 23) and two occur during prayer (ix. 12; xxii. 17). Only the Damascus road vision (xxvi. 19) is suitable to a context of meditation on Scripture, and neither that nor the visions reported in the letters (cf. Gal. i. 12; Eph. iii. 3) suggest such a context. II Cor. xii finds its best analogy, rather, in the ancient prophetic experience of being privy to God's secret purposes (Amos iii. 7) as that experience is later expressed in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic (e.g. Dan. xii. 4; IQH xii. 11 f.; Mk. ix. 9; Rev. x. 4). Betz, H. D., Der Apostel Paulus (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 70–73, 84Google Scholar: ‘II kor. xii. 2–4 ist die Parodic eines Himmel-fahrtsberichtes’.

^{page 143 note 1} II Cor. xii. 7 Without deciding among the myriad interpretations of the ‘thorn’ one sees that it is clearly ascribed to satanic power within the context of an ‘extra-natural’ experience (see above, note 9, p. 142) that, nevertheless, has its effects in ‘natural’ physical or psychological symptoms. See below, note 2. Cf. Acts of Pet. xxxii. = Mart. Pet. iii., where the false teacher Simon Magus is termed ‘the angel of the devil’, with Paul's similar characterization of his opponents in II Cor. xi. 14 f.

^{page 143 note 2} E.g. I Cor. v. 3–5, x. 20, xi. 29 f.; II Cor.. xii. 12; Col. ii. 15; I Thess. ii. 18; I Tim. i. 20 (Rom. viii. 38). Cf. Acts xiii. 10 f., xvi. 18, xxii. 6–16.

^{page 143 note 3} E.g. Holsten, C., Zum Evangelium des Pauls und des Petrus (Rostock, 1868), p. 87Google Scholar: the thorn is a physical weakness (II Cor. xii. 7, 9), ‘the painful exhaustion that is an immediate attendant and successor of intense ecstasy’. Weinel, H., St Paul (London, 1906), pp. 81Google Scholar.: the Damascus road experience, and II Cor. xii. is no different, is ‘the inward experience of the apostle’; Paul's blindness is understandable since the ‘eye may be disorganized by a psychical commotion’. Baur, F. C.Paul, 2 vols., London 1875, pp. 68–73, 77Google Scholar), along with D. F. Strauss and C. Holsten, marked the transition from an earlier rationalism, in which, for example, the blinding light at Paul's conversion had been interpreted as a flash of lightning. Baur took it is an internal impression and Paul's blindness as symbolic. Out of that ‘spiritual’ experience grew the myth in which‘figurative expressions came to be interpreted strictly and literally’ (p. 73).

^{page 143 note 4} Schoeps, H. J., Paul (London, 1959), pp. 54 f.Google Scholar cf. Richardson, A., History Sacred and Profane (London, 1964), pp. 201 f.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 5} The phrase is Bultmanns, R. in Kerygma and Myth, ed. Bartsch, H.-W. (London, 1960), p. 7Google Scholar. Bultmann thinks that such a world view is a necessary presupposition for ‘the historical method’ (Existence and Faith, New York 1960, p. 291)Google Scholar. But see Richardson, ,History, pp. 184–94Google Scholar. On the similar rejection in the Greco-Roman world of ‘supernatural’ causes for historical phenomena cf. Grant, R. M., Miracle and Natural Law (Amsterdam, 1952), pp. 55 f., 206Google Scholar (Lucretius, Plotinus).