WCE

Douglas J. Moo- Books

Douglas J. Moo (Ph.D., University of St. Andrews) professor of New Testament, Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author of the NIV Application Commentary 2 Peter and Jud

VIDEO Moo vs. Campbell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlujS-fH8R4

Review of Douglas A. Campbell by D.J. Moo (Incipient Marcionism)-pdf
web –link

However, my main focus here is on the possible dissonances that Campbell’s interpretation of Romans (and Paul) creates with other biblical material. While not entirely fair to Campbell, since he does not claim to be providing an interpretation that coheres with the broader scriptural witness, the “fit” with Scripture generally will obviously be of concern to many in- terpreters and theologians, this one among them. To mention just one such issue: How does the Johannine stress on “believing in [eis] Christ” fit with Paul’s apocalyptic construal of “deliverance”? Campbell’s repeated claim that Paul’s quarrel with the “Teacher” is, at root, a debate about two different conceptions of God (p. 184), or even two different “Gods” (p. 812) raises a  more serious question. Campbell insists that the “Teacher” is not a repre- sentative of Judaism as such, espousing instead a Jewish-influenced Chris- tian aberration. Yet his description of the “Teacher’s” program is hard at many points to differentiate from widespread Jewish views (his claim that  the “Teacher” was advocating for his view a “significant ethical advantage” and a “decisive eschatological advantage” [p. 562] sounds a lot like typical Jewish claims for their religion). And, as Campbell recognizes, in texts such as Rom 9:1–5 and 10:1–3 Paul appears to be explicitly dealing with Judaism as such. Moreover, his claim that there is “no retributive character to the God revealed to Paul by Christ” (p. 706; italics his) sets Campbell’s construal of “Paul’s God” off from the revelation of the OT God (see, e.g., Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Isa 59:18). Talk of  “two different gods” in this context appears to me   to leave Campbell’s construal open to the charge of incipient Marcionism.

From the Gnostic teachings of Simon Magus, flourished the religion of the Simonians, a sect of Gnosticism arising in the 2 ^nd century, after the death of their namesake.  The pretext of Simon’s teachings was that he was “the Great Power of God”, a false claim of being the Messiah in the eyes of the Christians.  He wrote his own cosmology, stating that Fire was the first of all things, and as it was both female and male, it gave birth to the universe in six different “roots”: Nous (mind), Ennoia (thought), Logismos (reason), nthymêsis (reflection), Phonê (voice), and Onoma (name).  Nous became what is later known as Father—presumably a variation of God the Father or Zeus—and Ennoia became the equivalent of a mother goddess.  Together, these two made six parallels to the aforementioned roots: Ouranos (heaven), Gê (earth), Aêr (air), Hydôr (water), Hêlios (sun), and Selênê (moon). (As one can see, these parallels (or eons) are all named after ancient Greek Titans.  It was not uncommon to borrow from other religions during this period, as so many were thriving side by side.)

According to the Simonians religion, the world was formed in a very different fashion than the Romans and Christians believed.  Simonians claimed that Ennoia, the first thought, came from God the Father’s mind and manifested into angels.  According to Simon, these angels are the ones that truly created the tangible world, and sealed away the first thought because they were jealous of her power.  Ennoia went forced to pass from human to human through the years, as she could never return to God, culminating in Ennoia’s possession of Helena—the consort of Simon Magus himself.  The Simonians continue that Simon was actually the Father in human form, attempting to reunite with the first thought and thus bringing salvation to the people of the world.  It was Simon and Helena who decided the fates of the mortal race, determining who would go to heaven and hell, rather than those fates being decided after death….

11 June, 2015 – 14:58 Riley Winters

The Strange Life of Simon Magus, Christian, Pagan, Magician, and Sorcerer

_____________

Review of Douglas A. Campbell by D.J. Moo (Incipient Marcionism)-pdf web –link

The Deception of Simon Magus-Douglas A. Campbell-Thread Image Links-pdf web link

The Deception of Simon Magus-Douglas A. Campbell-Thread-pdf web link

Douglas J. Moo Thread on D.A. Campbell-pdf web link

The Deception of Simon Magus-Opposition & Politics-pdf web link

Douglas A. Campbell-Spooky Anti-Christ in Post Supersessionist Theology-pdf web link

However, my main focus here is on the possible dissonances that
Campbell’s interpretation of Romans (and Paul) creates with other biblical
material. While not entirely fair to Campbell, since he does not claim to be
providing an interpretation that coheres with the broader scriptural witness,
the “fit” with Scripture generally will obviously be of concern to many interpreters
and theologians, this one among them. To mention just one such
issue: How does the Johannine stress on “believing in [eis] Christ” fit with
Paul’s apocalyptic construal of “deliverance”? Campbell’s repeated claim that
Paul’s quarrel with the “Teacher” is, at root, a debate about two different
conceptions of God (p. 184), or even two different “Gods” (p. 812) raises a
more serious question. Campbell insists that the “Teacher” is not a representative
of Judaism as such, espousing instead a Jewish-influenced Christian
aberration. Yet his description of the “Teacher’s” program is hard at
many points to differentiate from widespread Jewish views (his claim that
the “Teacher” was advocating for his view a “significant ethical advantage”
and a “decisive eschatological advantage” [p. 562] sounds a lot like typical
Jewish claims for their religion). And, as Campbell recognizes, in texts such
as Rom 9:1–5 and 10:1–3 Paul appears to be explicitly dealing with Judaism
as such. Moreover, his claim that there is “no retributive character to the God
revealed to Paul by Christ” (p. 706; italics his) sets Campbell’s construal of
“Paul’s God” off from the revelation of the OT God (see, e.g., Ps 62:12; Prov
24:12; Isa 59:18). Talk of “two different gods” in this context appears to me
to leave Campbell’s construal open to the charge of

incipient Marcionism.

REVIEW ARTICLE
THE DELIVERANCE OF GOD:
AN APOCALYPTIC REREADING OF
JUSTIFICATION IN PAUL BY DOUGLAS A. CAMPBELL
douglas j. moo

JETS 53/1 (March 2010) 143–50
REVIEW