(Download PDF) Divine Agency and Divine Action Volume Ii Soundings in The Christian Tradition 1St Edition William J Abraham Ebook Online Full Chapter

Divine Agency and Divine Action
Volume II Soundings in the Christian

Tradition 1st Edition William J.
Abraham
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-agency-and-divine-action-volume-ii-soundings-i
n-the-christian-tradition-1st-edition-william-j-abraham/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Divine Agency and Divine Action A Theological and

Philosophical Agenda Volume IV William J Abraham
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-agency-and-divine-action-a-
theological-and-philosophical-agenda-volume-iv-william-j-abraham/
Divine Action and Emergence An Alternative to

Panentheism 1st Edition Mariusz Tabaczek
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-action-and-emergence-an-
alternative-to-panentheism-1st-edition-mariusz-tabaczek/
Divine Regrets Divine Cozy Mystery 8 Hope Callaghan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-regrets-divine-cozy-
mystery-8-hope-callaghan/
Chance or Providence Religious Perspectives on Divine

Action 1st Edition Louise Hickman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/chance-or-providence-religious-
perspectives-on-divine-action-1st-edition-louise-hickman/
Divine Disarray 1st Edition Jamie Hawke
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-disarray-1st-edition-jamie-
hawke/
Divine River 1st Edition Marina Vivancos
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-river-1st-edition-marina-
vivancos/
Divine Collector 1st Edition Mark Torr
https://ebookmeta.com/product/divine-collector-1st-edition-mark-
torr/
The Conquest List 2021st Edition Chikanma Divine
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-conquest-list-2021st-edition-
chikanma-divine/
The Conquest List 2021st Edition Chikanma Divine
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-conquest-list-2021st-edition-
chikanma-divine-2/
Introduction
University Press Scholarship Online
Oxford Scholarship Online
Divine Agency and Divine Action, Volume II:

Soundings in the Christian Tradition
William J. Abraham
Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780198786511
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2017
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786511.001.0001
Introduction
Orientation
William J. Abraham
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198786511.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords

This introduction forms the bridge between the first and second volumes. The
author points us back to his argument in Volume One that a central mistake in
debates about divine agency and divine action is that one must use a general
concept of divine action to understand the particular network of divine actions in
creation and redemption that are at the core of the Christian faith. Even if one
finds necessary and sufficient conditions for a concept of divine action, that
concept will not inform us in any meaningful way about what God has actually
done on our behalf. The author proposes that a careful, critical investigation of
the Christian tradition will best supplement the intellectual malaise among
Anglophone analytic philosophy on divine action. By careful attention to specific
divine actions in the Christian tradition, one will find fresh ways of thinking
about divine action in the contemporary debate.
Keywords: divine action, analytic philosophy, history of doctrine, systematic theology, divine agency,
philosophy and theology
Page 1 of 8
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: Apollo
Education Group, Inc.; date: 03 May 2019
Introduction
One central mistake that recurs in treatments of divine agency and divine action
in Christian theology is this: we think that some general concept of divine action,
or some general theory of divine action derived therefrom, will suffice in
understanding the particular network of divine actions in creation and
redemption that are at the core of the Christian faith. At the very least, it is
thought, this exercise will solve “the problem of divine action” once and for all
and allow us to get on with theology proper. If we could only get hold of a
generic concept of action or a general theory of providence we could then, it is
hoped, go on to apply one or both of these fruitfully to all those more “special”
and particular divine actions that have been so central to the Christian faith.
The major rival to this way of proceeding is represented by those who think that
one specific divine action, say, creation or incarnation, can provide the pivotal
clue to understanding divine agency and divine action more generally. Somehow
the grammar of creation, for example, will solve the only significant issues that
need to be tackled in Christian theology as it relates to divine action. In this
instance there is a move from the particular to the general, a refocusing in the
opposite direction from that of shifting from the general to the specific.
As I have argued at length against the first of these proposals—by far the more
popular proposal of the two on offer—in volume I,1 it will suffice here initially to
state briefly why I think this first way of thinking is a dead-end for Christian
theology.
First, it is simply not the case that the concept of action as applied initially to
human agents can be captured in a set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
The concept of action is an open concept; there are various sufficient conditions
but there are no non-trivial necessary conditions. Thus the whole idea of taking a
concept of action—one necessarily derived from analysis of human action—and
then applying it analogically to God collapses immediately.
Page 2 of 8
Introduction
(p.2) Second, even if we did have a set of necessary and sufficient conditions
for the concept of action, this strategy would not help much in helping us
understand the particularities of divine action. Consider a banal analogy. I am
sitting in my favorite pub in Dublin and my neighbor Jimmy O’Reilly tells me that
our mutual friend, Paddy Murphy, has performed a very important action on my
behalf. I am agog with curiosity and excitement. What has he done for me? Then
I am told that the essential thing to note is that he has performed an intentional
action. This is the essence of an action, “intentionality,” so it is the essence of
what he has done for me. I pause in exasperation, hoping to hear more. O’Reilly
has nothing more to say to me. He has given me the necessary and sufficient
feature of any human action and thus of Murphy’s action on my behalf. However,
this tells me next to nothing about what Murphy has done. I know that he has
done something; and I know that he has done it intentionally rather than
inadvertently, or unconsciously, or under duress, or by chance. But I have no
idea what he has really done for me. The only way forward is for O’Reilly to spell
out in detail what in particular Murphy has done for me. With this in hand I can
then go on to find out why Murphy has been so generous; and I can, if need be,
begin to revise my account of the character of Murphy compared to what I have
known about him before.
This is precisely how the matter stands with respect to divine action. Any
necessary and sufficient conditions we might lay down for understanding the
concept of action as applied to God will not really tell us how to read claims
about what God has actually done on our behalf. All that such a theory can tell
us is something like this: if we analyze the concept of action as applied to God as
requiring necessary conditions “n” and sufficient conditions “s,” then we can
expect conditions “n” and “s” to be satisfied when we think of any specific action
predicated of God. However, this will not help us make much progress on
understanding, say, the difference between divine speaking and divine
inspiration. This may seem a banal observation until we explore how failure to
observe the difference has wreaked havoc on Christian doctrines of Scripture.
We shall see the importance of this in Chapter 2.
Page 3 of 8
Introduction
For understanding this we must descend to the specific actions predicated of

God in the Christian tradition. We need to start at ground level, so to speak, and
go to work. Even then we need to be careful about building taxonomies or
“models” of divine action, in that these too quickly get us entangled in
metaphysical and epistemological concepts and worries that can warp our
thinking from the outset.2 We need to know a decent array of divine actions (p.
3) that Christians claim to have happened, say, that God has created us in his
own image, that he has become incarnate in Christ, that he baptizes us with his
Holy Spirit, that he forgives us our sins, that he promises eternal life in the
world to come, and on and on. We do not need agreement on the catalogue we
build but we need a generous survey of the domain. This is precisely why I shall
start in with Paul and see where this strategy takes us. Then we can begin to
look at the problems Paul’s claims about divine action evoked for him and how
he went about solving them.
Of course, once we make this move, we are up to our necks in theology. To

repeat, we cannot begin to get hold of what God has done without careful
attention to the actual actions predicated of God in the Christian tradition. These
are inescapably theological claims that have led across the centuries—and
continue to lead today—to reflection on their meaning, significance, and
coherence with other claims we want to make. So we can then proceed to
explore why God may have done what he has done; and we can press forward in
developing, say, an account of the nature or character of God. We have to turn to
theology proper in order to make substantial progress. It is not that we engage
in conceptual analysis of action and then do theology; we have to do theology to
make progress in conceptual analysis. Even then, such work may be ad hoc and
very provisional. As we shall see, it readily spills over into fascinating
metaphysical and epistemological moves that can be both daring and daunting in
the extreme.
There is a deeper reason for adopting this approach at this point in the history of
theology. The first mistake I have mentioned has so gripped our semantics and
intellectual sensibilities that we need drastic medicine to cure us of its
consequences. We live in an intellectual bubble where we think that if only we
could get one more general theory of human action then we would understand
divine action. Somehow, this would help us overcome the conceptual and
epistemological worries that bedevil the discussion. To change the metaphor, we
have developed a form of mental cramp which forbids one to take seriously the
rich array of divine actions that show up in the Christian tradition. To get out of
the bubble, to get relief from the cramp, we need to enter anew into the rich
resources of Christian theology and be mentored afresh. It is not enough to stare
down the opposition and get on with our work; we need help in getting on with
our work; and help comes when we immerse ourselves in the complex traditions
of Christian theology.
Page 4 of 8
Introduction
The medicine I offer is to be found in a careful review and evaluation of the

particularities of divine action that show up in the tradition from Paul to Louis de
Molina. I began with no grand scheme beyond my own best intuitions in making
the choices I have made. Even so, a list made up of figures as influential as Paul,
Irenaeus, Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Maximus, Symeon the New
Theologian, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John Calvin, and Louis de Molina constitute
a formidable team of players. The actions explored (they (p.4) range from such
actions as the divine inspiration of Scripture, through transubstantiation in the
Eucharist, to predestination and divine concurrence) are enough to give us
plenty to nourish our impoverished intellects and imagination. The theologians I
bring to the table provide us with a rich array of first-order claims about specific
divine action together with extensive second-order reflection.
There is an additional payoff from paying careful attention to crucial instances of

divine action. We can surely agree that the heart of Christian theology involved
very substantial claims about divine action from creation to eschatology.
Consequently there is a vast array of material available on various divine actions
across the history of theology. What distinguished this treatment of divine action
is the careful attention given to specific cases of divine action. The payoff is that
this approach sheds new light on a host of theological proposals that have grown
stale because of familiarity. Thus we can gain fresh insight into such well-worn
themes as divine inspiration, transubstantiation, and predestination. Equally
important, we encounter fresh ways of thinking about long-standing issues
related to Christology, pneumatology, grace and freedom, and the like. Hence we
can make available fresh ways of reading the history of theology that might
otherwise go unnoticed. Hopefully, we can also open up new ways to tackle old
problems.
In order to forestall an obvious objection, note that this project is not some
rearguard effort to develop a conservative theology that merely repeats what
has been said in the past. If we agree with this or that account as we find it in
the tradition, then it is not enough merely to appeal to the tradition. We need to
be able to see why we in our situation are persuaded that the tradition was on
the right track. Hence there is a deep critical element involved in our endeavors.
This is not to say that tradition lacks epistemic weight; it simply limits the
weight that can be given to it. Moreover, it will become perfectly clear that
certain ways of resolving the problems that show up in the tradition fail because
of incoherence, lack of relevant evidence, mistaken inferences, failures in
judgment, and the like. We cannot simply microwave what we find and serve it
up for our theological dinners. Just as historians are called to engage in
historical criticism, the theologian working carefully within the history of
theology is called to engage in doctrinal criticism. However, good critical work
can yield deep agreement with the tradition as much as it can yield significant
dissent.
Page 5 of 8
Introduction
This takes me to a comment on the second problem that played a much less
significant role in the first volume, namely, the move to hold that one particular
divine action, say, creation ex nihilo, would either give us the clue to all other
action predicates applied to God or provide the foundations for understanding
divine agency and divine action more generally. The obvious semantic problem
with this move is that we will surely need to distinguish divine creation from the
host of other actions predicated of God. Hence it is (p.5) surely odd to think
that this will allow us to figure out what to make of, say, divine forgiveness or
divine incarnation in Jesus. There are irreducible differences that will block this
kind of move relatively early in our deliberations. To use a different example,
many have thought that the vision of the incarnation as involving the union of
divine and human in Jesus is the way to work up an account of the ontology of
Scripture and thus resolve problems in debates about the divine inspiration of
Scripture. Just as we have the union of the human and the divine in the
incarnation, we also have the union of the human and the divine in the divine
production of Scripture. However, it is surely a massive stretch to think we can
run this analogy without encountering obvious difficulties.3 I once had a student
who insisted that the proper inference to be drawn from this analogy was that
there was a fourth Person in the Trinity. He failed to note the obvious problems
this would generate for the doctrine of the Trinity. The more obvious worry is
that this analogy will continue to perpetuate a vision of the inerrancy of
Scripture that simply does not work given what we know historically of the
origins and content of Scripture. At this point I do not offer this as a knock-down
argument but merely as an indication of the immediate difficulties this strategy
must meet. If this fails, think of what light the action of divine incarnation might
throw on any divine action predicate we choose; I suggest that we will quickly
see what is wrong with the whole strategy.
Page 6 of 8
Introduction
Even so, working on the strategy of moving from one divine action—creation ex
nihilo—to understanding divine agency and divine action more generally led me
to see that certain domains of divine action have had a role in evoking debate
about divine action that I had long overlooked. I have in mind the crucial place
of debates about grace and freedom in worries about divine action. The claim
that God creates the free actions of human agents, that divine efficacious action
goes all the way across the world in providence and all the way to the bottom in
the free decision to receive salvation, brings this into the sharpest focus
imaginable. If a theologian does not think that attributing the free actions of
human agents to God is a problem then we need to have a recall and bring them
back to school until they do so. The crucial place of doctrines of grace in
salvation became clear to me in the work of grammatical Thomists like Herbert
McCabe and Denys Turner and in the version of grammatical theology that
shows up in the work of Kathryn Tanner.4 I remain unpersuaded by their
proposals both methodologically and materially, but it was a revelation to see
how far the problem of grace has been the lead dog when it comes to discussion
of divine action.
(p.6) Originally, I had planned to take the soundings all the way up to the
present. This course of action would have enabled me to track some crucial
figures in the transition that led to the cultivation of the cramp that I aim to
eliminate. Thus it would have allowed me to include a chapter on Immanuel
Kant, clearly a pivotal figure in the impoverishment that I lament and excoriate.5
It would also have allowed me to tackle the problems that show up in Frederick
Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, liberation theologies, and Pentecostal theologies.
However, I decided that just as I ended Volume One with material informed by
the debate about freedom and grace, then it would be fitting to end this volume
on the same topic by tackling the proposals of Louis de Molina. Perhaps until we
crack this problem, crucial problems related to divine action will never be
resolved. Obsession with issues related to grace and freedom are another source
of mental cramp that we need to dissolve once and for all. For my part I am
convinced the problem of grace and freedom can be resolved by proper attention
to the language of causation as related to divine and human agency. In this
volume I show that when we look carefully even at the debate between
Augustine and Pelagius, the problem may not at all be as acute as the
commentary tradition insists it is. Augustine gives us more room to breathe than
either his own or later theories of predestination tend to allow. Whatever we
think of what I say about the problem of grace and freedom both historically and
conceptually, it is high time that we prevented it from dominating our thinking.
We need to keep our eyes on the full range of divine action that show up in the
Christian tradition. As I show in what follows, the insights of Athanasius on
divine action in creation and in Christ deserve far more attention than does the
attention we give to Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas on grace and freedom.
Page 7 of 8
Introduction
There is another reason why we do not need to take the soundings all the way up
to our own time. We do not need to go this far in order to get access to the
medicine that we need. I think there is enough here to heal our souls and open
up our minds to a better future in theology. Given that taking the medicine is
much better than talking at length about the medicine, we can move
immediately to the first dose. At the end we can come back around and make
some general comments on what we have learned by stepping back and
reviewing what we have learned from the raft of theologians who shall detain us
in what follows.
Notes:
(1) William J. Abraham, Divine Agency and Divine Action: Exploring and
Evaluating the Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
(2) Eugene Teselle, “Divine Action: The Doctrinal Tradition,” in Divine Action:
Studies Inspired by the Philosophical Theology of Austin Farrer, ed. Brian
Hebblethwaite and Edward Henderson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 71–92.
(3) For a recent treatment of the issue along these lines see Stephen Fowl,
“Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed. John Webster,
Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 345–
61.
(4) I discuss their respective contributions in Chapters 10 and 11 of volume I.
(5) I have provided a lengthy review of divine agency and divine action on Kant
in “Divine Agency and Divine in Kant,” forthcoming. The work of Benedict
Spinoza also deserves attention at this point, not least because he saw so clearly
the moral problems related to certain claims about divine action in Scripture and
the historical problems thrown up by historical investigation.
Access brought to you by:
Page 8 of 8
The Stamp of the Infinite
University Press Scholarship Online
Oxford Scholarship Online
Divine Agency and Divine Action, Volume II:

Soundings in the Christian Tradition
William J. Abraham
Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780198786511
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2017
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786511.001.0001

Divine Agency and Divine Action in Paul
William J. Abraham
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198786511.003.0002
Abstract and Keywords

In this chapter, the author engages what Paul of Tarsus says about divine agency
and divine action in his letters and in the book of Acts. Attention is given to the
types of divine actions Paul identifies, whether he identifies God as an agent of
various actions, and his comments about whether we have access to divine
agency and divine action. The author identifies particular divine actions seen in
Paul’s writings, like the work of God in his own life and in his calling as an
apostle, personal revelations from Christ, and divine action in the church that
brings about unity.
Keywords: Paul of Tarsus, personal revelation, divine action, apostle, new creation, Holy Spirit,
religious language, salvation
Page 1 of 24
Paul of Tarsus provides the first written accounts of the central claims about
divine agency and divine action in the Christian tradition. His place in the
tradition is so secure that various scholars have posited that he is effectively the
first Christian, radically departing from the much simpler message of Jesus and
inventing the basic Christian narrative about Jesus.1 This is not how he is seen
either canonically or historically by the church. Clearly we have radically
different evaluations of the content and significance of Paul. This should not
surprise us for Paul’s life and his vision of divine action involve a challenge to
any secular or naturalistic reading of his letters. Half a century ago, Wayne
Meeks readily captured the way in which Paul can undercut a common mode of
intellectual self-confidence.
Our vaunted objectivity, the universality of our reasoning, the efficacy of

our methods, are all in question. The aim of the modernist project that,
beginning in the eighteenth century, came to dominate the writing of
history in the nineteenth and twentieth century, was to free ourselves, by
the sheer power of our rationality and the austerity of our method, from
traditions and dogmas and the institutions that sustained and lived by
them. Thus, by seeing the past as it really was, we thought to find a secure
starting place for knowing and valuing. We discovered meaning to be
always dependent on context. We found identity to be a social process. And
we learned that we could not avoid involving ourselves whenever we
attempted to assess historical events and personages in a non-trivial way.2
Accepting most of the force of this observation but setting aside any final
evaluation of its content, my aim in this chapter is to chart what Paul has to say
about divine agency and divine action. What specific divine actions does (p.8)
he identify? Do some specific actions get more attention than others? How does
he identify God as the agent of various divine acts? What second-order
comments does he make about divine agency and divine action and about our
access to divine agency and divine action?3
Page 2 of 24
We can begin with an account of Paul’s call to be an apostle to the Gentiles.4

According to his companion Luke, Paul, a Jew brought up and trained in a
rigorous Pharisaic school of Judaism, set out on a journey from Jerusalem to
Damascus in order to secure legal action against a network of Jews who had
become followers of Jesus. Convinced that they had misread the role of divine
action in Jesus and that they posed a serious threat to the faith of his ancestors,
his aim was to bring them back to Jerusalem for appropriate reprimand. En
route a light from heaven flashed around him, he fell to the ground, and heard a
voice he named as “Lord,” which interrogated him: “Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute me?” The source and agent of the voice identified itself in turn in a
twofold manner, first, by way of the name of Jesus, and second, by way of a
definite description, that is, the one “whom you are persecuting.” Both
designations are puzzling in the extreme. For Jesus, whom Paul had assumed to
be justly punished and executed and was therefore dead, was not only present
directly in an utterly mysterious contemporary encounter with Paul but also
present in the people whom Paul was persecuting. Immediately Paul was given
orders by the same agent to get up and enter Damascus where he would be told
what to do. Blinded by this stage even though his eyes were physically open, he
was led by the hand to Damascus where he remained without sight and neither
ate nor drank.
Read straight up, this is an astonishing experience which should not be run
through casually. The crucial divine action involved is that of divine speaking
represented by interrogation and command. The agent is identified both as the
Lord and as Jesus. The speech acts of the Lord were preceded by flashing lights;
they were expressed in an audible voice heard only by Paul and not by his
companions; and they were accompanied by the loss of physical sight. For his
part Paul fell to the ground, remained remarkably docile, and has all the
appearance of a passive human agent overwhelmed by a show of divine strength
and person-relative revelation.
Page 3 of 24
The promise of further instruction from the Lord was no less remarkable in its
execution. A Christian disciple in Damascus, called Ananias, had a vision in
which he was told to go to a specific street and house in Damascus where he (p.
9) should look for a man from Tarsus called Saul, which was Paul’s common
name at the time. Simultaneously, Paul in prayer was experiencing a vision in
which he saw a man named Ananias come, lay hands on him, and thereby regain
his sight. Knowing Paul’s reputation Ananias was skeptical of such a prospect.
The rejoinder from the Lord to Ananias was as simple as it was effective. Paul
was an instrument chosen to bring the Lord’s name before the Gentiles, kings,
and the people of Israel. In turn this would be a vocation that would involve
much suffering. When Ananias eventually met Paul as anticipated, he made it
clear that he had been sent by the Lord Jesus, the one who had appeared to Paul
earlier. Ananias laid hands on Paul, acting as a human agent in the regaining of
his sight and his being filled with the Holy Spirit. Something like scales fell from
Paul’s eyes, he regained his sight, was baptized, ate some food, and regained his
strength.
We already have a network of dramatic phenomena related to divine action on

our hands: a divine voice, a most unusual agent, unexpected physical
phenomena, a vision, and a double miracle. These are precisely the kind of
phenomena that set our teeth on edge in and around the topic of divine action.
The shards of modernity still lingering within our breast tempt us to dismiss the
whole story as infested with superstition and credulity; our postmodern impulses
tempt us to look for the power play and the hidden drive to authority that must
lie beneath the surface. Ananias’ skeptical worries arise for different reasons.
What is reported in his vision about Paul does not fit with his background
beliefs; what immediately comes to his mind is the evil Paul has done to the
saints in Jerusalem. Even God is held to an informal standard of evidence in
which the narrative of divine action cannot ignore the human-historical narrative
that everybody knows to be the case. Ananias’ problem is one of coherence:
what God is saying does not fit with what he already knows to be the case. The
resolution of his skepticism does not involve debates about divine intervention
and miracle; it rests on the reception and recognition of the intentions and
purposes of God in the life of Paul as it relates to the spread of the Gospel. Even
then, he will need more than a mere articulation of potential coherence within a
narrative of divine action; what he is open to believing about divine action is
confirmed in his subsequent encounter with Paul in Damascus.
Page 4 of 24
As far as divine action is concerned, this account of Paul’s call is complemented

by his own way of identifying the divine actions that fit with what happened to
him. Thus he speaks of having been appointed to be an apostle5 and of being set
apart and called.6 Correlative with this we are not surprised that Paul claims
that he has been given authority by God to build up rather than tear down
believers in Corinth,7 that he has been given a specific sphere of (p.10)
influence,8 that he was an ambassador through whom God was making an
appeal,9 and that he has been given a ministry of reconciliation.10 He also dared
to say that he, together with Silvanus and Timothy, had “been approved by God
to be entrusted with the message of the gospel.”11 This gave them a distance
from the demands of human agents but only to bring into play an accountability
before God “who tests our hearts.”12
Within this vocation Paul received specific person-relative special revelation to

go to Jerusalem to meet with other Christian leaders in a private meeting. As he
noted: “I went up in response to a revelation.”13 More generally, Paul was the
subject of divine action described in terms of visions and revelation whose
contents were not shared in any great detail.14 These were of such an
exceptional character that they were laden with spiritual danger. Initially Paul
reported the antidote to this acute danger in terms of the evasive passive, that
is, “a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to
prevent me from being too elated.”15 The context makes clear, however, that God
was intimately involved, for when Paul appealed for release from this constraint,
the Lord responded: “My grace is sufficient for you for power is made perfect in
weakness.”16
Beyond such personal revelation Paul also insisted that he had been given non-
personal relative revelation, revelation that we might name as public or
universal in that it was intended for everyone. The shocking and abrupt way in
which Paul expressed this claim in his letter to the Galatians deserves to be
quoted at length.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in
the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is
another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to
pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should
proclaim to you another gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let
that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone
proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be
accursed! Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Or am I
trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a
servant of Christ. For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the
gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not
receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it
through a revelation of Jesus Christ.17
Page 5 of 24
One way to think of this claim is to see it as a claim on the part of Paul to be
among the prophets, that is, one who has special access to the will of God
because of his call and of his having received a word of revelation from God.
Such a reading dovetails naturally with the suffering that Ananias prophesied
(p.11) he would undergo, with the challenges to his status as an apostle, and
with the acute spiritual temptations to which he was subject.
Divine action in the life of Paul was not just confined to his dramatic call and his
long-term vocation as an apostle; it also shines through in both his specific and
in the more general accounts of his life and work. Thus he insists that his
competence comes from God. “…our competence is from God, who has made us
competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the
letter kills, the Spirit gives life.”18 He looked to God to direct a way to visit the
church in Thessalonica.19 When he arrived in Troas a door had been opened for
him in the Lord;20 God rescued him and his associates from deadly peril.21 When
his co-worker, Epaphroditus, became so ill that he nearly died, Paul described
his recovery in terms of divine mercy in action: “…God had mercy on him, and
not only on him but on me also, so that I would not have one sorrow after
another.”22 Anticipating a painful visit to Corinth, he was worried that when he
arrived God would humble him before the church because of extensive moral
failure of its members.23 Clearly divine actions such as these, while they are
named quite specifically take place in, with, and through the course of his
experience and encounters with others. Thus divine action naturally spreads into
the course of life as a whole. No matter whether Paul faced scarcity or plenty, he
could do all things through him who strengthened him.24 In a memorable
passage he put the issue clearly as follows. “We know that all things work
together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his
purpose.”25
Divine action in call and ministry in the church is not confined to Paul. Just as
God had called and worked through Paul among the Gentiles, God had made
Peter an apostle to the circumcised. These specific calls fitted into a wider divine
strategy in the life of the church. Hence Apollos and Paul are both servants with
work assigned to each by the Lord.
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one
who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the
growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common
purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For
we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s
building.26
Page 6 of 24
God commanded that special agents like these who were set apart full-time for
the proclamation of the Gospel should earn their living by the Gospel.27
However, it is not likely that all who were appointed to a special ministry in the
church shared this privilege. This is manifest in the additional network of agents
appointed by God in the church. “…God has appointed in the church (p.12) first
apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of
healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.”28
As Paul and others preach the Gospel those who hear and receive their message
are also subject to a diverse array of divine action. Thus believers in
Thessalonica are described as chosen by God29 and called into the kingdom of
God.30 The Corinthian believers have been called by God “into the fellowship of
his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord”;31 God has shone into their hearts “to give the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”32 The
Roman believers are “called to belong to Jesus Christ.”33 God demonstrated his
love for them in that while they were sinners Christ died for them.34 They were
justified by the grace of God as a gift, “through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood effective
through faith.”35 They were the recipients of the love of God poured out into
their hearts through the Holy Spirit that had been given to them. Similarly, the
Galatian believers had received the Holy Spirit through believing what they
heard rather than by doing the works of the law, so much so that God supplied
the Holy Spirit and worked miracles among them.36 More generally God sent the
Spirit of his Son into the hearts of believers whereby they cry “Abba! Father!”
and receive a spirit of adoption in which the Spirit bears witness to their spirits
that they are children of God.37 Elsewhere Paul speaks of God giving the Spirit
as a guarantee of future blessing in the life to come.38 Moreover, his general
aspiration for believers is that the God of peace sanctify them entirely.39 The
final outcome of this range of divine action in the lives of believers is captured in
his vision of those in Christ as a new creation: “So if anyone is in Christ; there is
a new creation: everything old has passed away; see everything has become
new. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ…”40
Living the life of the new creation does not mean that everything is plain sailing
for those who have believed, repented, and been baptized. Intimate divine action
comes into play as they suffer with and for Christ and as they struggle with the
moral requirements of Christian discipleship.
[T]he Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as
we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words.
And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit,
because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.41
Page 7 of 24
(p.13) In times of emotional and relational stress, as happened in Paul’s

worries about his relationship with the Corinthian congregation, God consoles
through the agency of others.
For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we
were afflicted in every way—disputes without and fears within. But God,
who consoles the downcast, consoled us by the arrival of Titus, and not
only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was consoled
about you, as he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me,
so that I rejoiced still more.42
Paul clearly believes that divine assistance is given more generally in the church
to bring about genuine harmony. Thus he prays: “May the God of steadfastness
and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in
accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”43 More specifically, given the
thorny problem of table-fellowship as it related to a pious commitment to
vegetarianism on the part of some Christians, “Those who eat must not despise
those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who
eat; for God has welcomed them.”44 Even faith itself is dependent on divine
action. “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of
yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment,
each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”45 In this instance
we observe a remarkable coordination between divine action and human action.
Believers are expected to think with sober judgment about their place in the
church, yet such thinking is exercised within the measure of faith assigned to
them by God. The context of this reference to divine action suggests that Paul
may be thinking of faith here as a divinely given awareness of the gifts
distributed by the Holy Spirit within the body. Elsewhere he makes it clear that
he sees divine action as essential to coming to faith itself, that is, in salvation.
“Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my
presence, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation in fear
and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and
to work for his good pleasure.”46
Page 8 of 24
Thus far we have looked at a range of specific divine actions that is naturally
articulated in the call of Paul, in the ministries of his co-workers in the church,
and in the lives of his converts scattered across the congregations to which he
wrote. We have taken a set of soundings so that we can begin to get a sense of
the wide range of actions predicated of God. We are working from below rather
than from above; that is, we are interested in the very particular action
predicates that show up. It would be tedious to rattle off a list of all the action
(p.14) predicates deployed at this point: create, call, appoint, redeem, direct,
humble, shine into human hearts, justify, sanctify, send the Spirit, raise Jesus
from the dead, reconcile, and so on. However, it is crucial to grasp the
significance of this exercise.
In the twentieth century the drive to develop various general theories related to
such discourse has been well-nigh irresistible. We can think of hermeneutical
theories that depict talk of divine action as mythological. Or we can think of
semantic theories that posit a generic account of religious language that treats
such discourse as expressions of intention to lead an agapeistic way of life, or as
expressions of emotion, or as sui generis and therefore not factual or
explanatory, or as disguised expressions and bids for power. There is no simple,
decisive way to rule out general semantic theories of the sort just identified;
virtually any expression deployed by, say, Paul can be uprooted and made to do
whatever work the theologian wants it to do. So one can take the sentence, “God
raised Jesus from the dead,” and use it to express the sentence, “The early
disciples of Jesus came to a new and life-changing perspective on the
significance of Jesus.” Moreover, we can expect that general theories of religious
discourse, like the poor, are always likely to be with us. What I want to do by
highlighting the particularity of divine action predication as we find it in Paul is
to bring all such exercises under strain. They fail to do justice to the radical
specificity of what Paul actually says. They cannot capture the cognitive content
and usage of the very particular claims about divine action that we encounter.47
The same applies in the drive to secure a general account of the necessary and
sufficient conditions of action discourse and then use that to understand
particular divine actions. So suppose we arrive at a strong consensus that all
actions necessarily involve conscious intention on the part of the agent who
performs them. This will not begin to do justice to the distinction, say, between
create and redeem, or between test our hearts and raise Jesus from the dead as
applied to God. It is specific actions like these that are the life blood of theology
and that are vital for the life and action of the ordinary believer. Being informed
that these actions are all carried out intentionally does next to nothing to help us
with how to think through the full meaning and significance of the divine actions
that are central to theology. Any general concept of divine action that we might
abstract from a paradigm case of divine (p.15) action or from a sampling of
divine action, even if this were semantically available to us, is next to useless in
theology.
Page 9 of 24
We can indeed move to a more general level in our thinking of divine action. At
this point Paul’s worries were radically different from how worries about divine
action are generally articulated. Paul’s challenge was to figure out how the
divine actions already specified fit into a wider narrative of divine action that
also has to be articulated in terms of very particular divine actions. The broad
question is this: How does divine action in Paul, in his associates, in his converts,
and in their churches fit into a more comprehensive narrative of creation and
recreation? Moreover, within this agenda, Paul was especially challenged to
figure out how the divine strategy to save the whole world, that is, the world of
Gentiles as well as Jews, is to be accurately interpreted. At this level what is at
stake is a thoroughly contested analysis of divine promise and fulfillment. Hence
our next task is to come to terms with the wider narrative as we find it in Paul.
Notice afresh that we are still in the realm of specific action predicates such as
creation, recreation, promise, and fulfillment.
Paul begins his wider narrative in midstream, as we find it laid out in Romans.
After initial salutations he portrays the Gospel as first and foremost the power of
God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the
Greek.48 The manifestation of this power is a salutary antidote to the wrath of
God that is also manifest across the Greco-Roman world of ungodliness and
wickedness.49 Divine judgment is entirely apt given the background divine
action of creation and revelation. God in creating the world has made manifest
his eternal power and divine nature. God has shown himself plainly in the
created order; God’s power and nature have been understood by human agents
through the things God has made. Human agents are therefore without excuse
when they suppress the truth about God, failing to honor and give thanks to him.
Consequently human agents “become futile in their thinking and their senseless
minds become darkened.”50 They claim to be wise but are essentially fools,
substituting the worship of images of humans and animals for the worship of
God. As a result God reacts by handing human agents to their own lusts,
passions, and debased minds. These inner dispositions are expressed in a host of
ways ranging from idolatry, to sexual immorality, to a general catalogue of
human vices.
They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice.
Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious
towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s
decree, that those who practice (p.16) such things deserve to die—yet
they not only do them but applaud others who practice them.51
Page 10 of 24
The divine antidote to this downward spiral of disordered human minds,

dispositions, and vicious habits and actions begins with God’s election of
Abraham and his offspring to be the bearer of a divine promise of righteousness,
that is, of victory over evil. Abraham and his children represent a reversal in
which faith in God’s promise to bless (and the obedience it evokes) replaces the
rejection of divine revelation and its consequences in human history. That
promise announced before in the scriptures is now fulfilled in the coming of
God’s Son, Jesus Christ.52 Gentiles who exercise faith in Jesus Christ have equal
access to the fulfillment of that promise as much as Jews do. “…the scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel
beforehand to Abraham, saying: ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed by you.’”53
Where before God has handed all over to disobedience, “so that he might be
merciful to all,”54 now mercy is available to all who return to God in repentance
and faith in Jesus Christ.
Two features related to divine action are pivotal to Paul’s account of the journey
from creation to recreation. First, God’s promise of salvation is now fulfilled and
focused on Jesus Christ; second, the fulfillment of the divine promise to Abraham
applies to all who have faith in Jesus Christ, that is, to Gentiles as well as Jews.
Focusing on Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the divine promise to Abraham

does not eliminate the privileges of the Jewish people prior to the coming of
Christ. “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong
the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is
over all, God blessed forever.”55 These promises are now embodied and fulfilled
in what God has done in Jesus Christ. God has sent his Son Jesus Christ to set us
“free from the law of sin and death.”56 “But when the fullness of time had come,
God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those
who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.”57 This
redemption was achieved through Jesus Christ, “whom God put forward as a
sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”58 “For our sake he
(God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him (Christ) we
might become the righteousness of God.”59 This Jesus was buried and then
raised from the dead by God.60 “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us
by his power.”61 And on the Day of Judgment, “God, through Jesus Christ, will
judge the secret thoughts of all.”62
Page 11 of 24
(p.17) What this wider angle of vision on divine action makes clear is that for
Paul what God has done in Jesus Christ lies at the very center of a narrative of
creation, freedom, failure, judgment, promise, and redemption. This involved for
him a revolutionary change of mind about the place of Jesus Christ in God’s
action in history for the reorientation of the world. It did not involve, however, a
repudiation of divine action in Israel; on the contrary it posited continuity
between God’s action in Israel and in Jesus Christ. For this reason it has rightly
become common to avoid talk of conversion when we think of Paul’s experience
on the road to Damascus. Paul was already a faithful Jew.63 What happened to
him was that he underwent a radical change of perspective on the meaning of
his Jewish faith.64
Furthermore, Paul was insistent that the promise of God to Abraham as it

applies to Gentiles does not require that they first become Jews.
[L]et each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned you, to which God
called you. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of
his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of
circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him
not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing; but obeying the commandment of God is everything. Let each of
you remain in the condition in which you were called.65
We can frame the issue felicitously in terms of God’s intentions. All along the
divine intention was to come in the person of his Son Jesus Christ as the
fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. “Now the promises were made to
Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, ‘And to offsprings’, as of many; but
it says, ‘And to your offspring’, that is, to one person, who is Christ.”66 Moreover,
the blessing promised was not simply to Jews but also to Gentiles. “…the
scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the
gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying: ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed by you.’
For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.”67
Finally, the blessing of Abraham came initially into effect not through his
observance of circumcision or the law but through faith in the promise of God. If
the inheritance came through the law, “it no (p.18) longer comes from the
promise, but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.”68
Page 12 of 24
Is this blessedness, then, promised only on the circumcised, or also on the

uncircumcised? We say, ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.’
How then was it reckoned to him? Was it reckoned to him? Was it before or
after he had been circumcised? It was not after but before he was
circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the
righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The
purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being
circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and
likewise the ancestor of the circumcised but who also follow the example of
the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.69
The focus on divine action in Jesus Christ within a wider narrative of creation,
freedom, failure, judgment, promise, and redemption, and the inclusion of
Gentiles into the family of Abraham, are pivotal in capturing the storyline of
divine action for Paul. It is not difficult to see that his catalogue of specific
actions is readily suggestive of fresh ways of naming the identity of the divine
agent at work here. It would be false to say that Paul identifies God explicitly in
terms of later Trinitarian theology but it would be equally false to say that the
issue remains exactly where it was before Saul became Paul.
Page 13 of 24
Paul identifies “the living and true God”70 in a variety of ways as God, our God
and Father, the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord, and the
Creator.71 However, there are fascinating instances where the action of God is
associated with—if not identified with—the agency of Jesus Christ and the
agency of the Spirit. Consider how the action of God is intimately related to the
agency of Jesus Christ. “…for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all
things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things and through whom we exist.”72 God sent his Son to redeem those under
the law.73 “Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our lord Jesus
Christ.”74 Grace and peace are traced to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ.”75 Paul is appointed as an apostle through Jesus Christ and God the
Father.76 “…we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal
through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”77 In times
of trouble God supplies the needs of the Philippians “according to the riches in
glory in Christ Jesus.”78 In the Day of Judgment “God, through Jesus Christ, will
judge the secret thoughts of all.”79 (p.19) We find similar intimate relations
between the action of God and the Spirit. The Lord is the Spirit.80 Human agents
as God’s temple are identical to human agents as the Spirit’s temple.81 The
power of the Spirit is identified with the power of God.82 The Spirit raised Jesus
from the dead.83 The Holy Spirit imparts true understanding of God.84 “…God’s
love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given
to us.”85 The Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.86 We
also find an intimate relation between the action of Jesus Christ and the action of
the Spirit. “No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Spirit.”87 Speaking of
his ministry Paul says this: “I will not venture to speak of anything except what
God has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word
and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God,
so that from Jerusalem and as far as Ilyricum I have fully proclaimed the good
news of Christ.”88 Speaking of his converts at Corinth he writes: “…you show
that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the
Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human
hearts.”89 Referring to the various gifts distributed in the local church of
Corinth, he writes: “Now there are varieties of gift, but the same Spirit; and
there are varieties of services but the same Lord; and there are varieties of
activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.”90
Page 14 of 24
It would be tempting to dismiss the preceding observations as a rearguard

attempt to provide some sort of proof texts for, say, the doctrine of the Trinity
and all that that implies for the naming of God. This is neither my intention nor
my point. What is at issue is the conceptual pressure that these ways of
predicating action of God are likely to bring to bear on how we name and
understand God in the Christian tradition.91 To speak of God in the way that Paul
does—and does in an entirely natural manner—is no casual affair. It is small
wonder that those committed to the theological traditions of Judaism who
rejected his claims and even fellow believers committed to following Jesus as the
Jewish Messiah were deeply unsettled by this kind of discourse. At the very least
the material claims advanced by Paul about divine action and about the way in
which divine action is intimately related to the actions of Jesus Christ and the
Spirit of God are likely to evoke prolonged reflection once they are taken
seriously. Given his vocation Paul had his own way of reflecting on divine agency
and divine action. On the negative side Paul eventually died for his convictions at
the hands of Roman officials.
Paul was not a professor of theology, as envisaged, say by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas takes Paul to be a theologian of the doctrine of grace, first as it is in (p.
20) Christ the head himself, second, inasmuch as it is in the principal members
of his mystical body, and third, inasmuch as it is in the mystical body itself,
which is the church.92 There is indeed much about divine grace in Paul; we do
well to ponder the very specific action predicates and their agents before we say
too much about, say, grace and freedom. Nor was Paul an analytic theologian
before his time, interested, say, in working out an account of the necessary and
sufficient conditions of divine action; or, say, in providing a taxonomy of divine
actions that would distinguish the natural from the supernatural; or, say, in
sorting through the potential conflict between divine action and human freedom,
or between divine foreknowledge, predestination, and human action. As he made
clear, Paul’s own self-designation was that of apostle to the Gentiles. He was a
preacher, an ambassador, and an agent of reconciliation between God and the
Gentile world. Yet as the last network of themes indicates, Paul provided the
platform and impetus for pursuing a host of questions about divine agency and
divine action. Moreover, he himself began to make some interesting second-
order comments on divine action that are worth noting at this point. Let me
briefly deal with three of these, the first of which was implicit and the other two
more explicit.
Page 15 of 24
First, it is clear that one of the crucial challenges for Paul when he ruminated on
divine action focused on finding coherence between what he had inherited as a
Pharisaic Jew with respect to divine action and what he had come to believe
about divine action in Jesus Christ in and of itself and as that action related to
the inclusion of Gentile Christian converts in the people of God. Paul was not
interested in coherence as a philosophical or logical problem; he assumed that
the idea of divine action is coherent and internally consistent in the sense that
the concept is in good working order and does not involve some kind of hidden
contradiction. He was, however, passionately interested in how to make
coherent sense of what God is doing in Christ as a fulfillment of the promises to
Abraham and his descendants. Put differently, he was looking for a narrative of
God’s intentions and purposes that would embrace both what God did in Israel
and what God did more recently in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ and in the subsequent experience of those who came to believe in him as
Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world. Moreover, narrative here is to be
taken in a realistic sense. He spoke of what God really had done in Israel, in
Christ, and among his converts. Paul was concerned to develop an account of the
internal consistency of divine action as placed against the background (p.21)
claims of divine action in Israel; this can only get off the ground on the
assumption that God really did act as depicted in Christ.
Second, prima facie the divine actions related to Jesus Christ are absurd. Given
certain narratives about the divine they are likely to be dismissed as ridiculous.
In particular, the story of Christ’s crucifixion was radically inconsistent both with
certain Jewish and certain Greek concepts of how God is supposed to act.93 In
the latter case the story did not exhibit appropriate wisdom; in the former it is
insufficiently warranted by miraculous signs. Hence it was bound to evoke
dissonance and ridicule by many of his interlocutors. Expressed in the later
technical language of theology and philosophy there was acute tension between
faith and reason. By faith I mean the specific claims advanced about divine
action in Christ; by reason I mean the material metaphysical and ontological
commitments about the relation between God, history, and the world. On the
grounds of reason, it was said, it is not possible for God to have done what Paul
claimed God has done in Christ. Paul’s initial response was quite simple: it has
happened, therefore it is possible. The particular actions performed by God
happened so the opposing account of how God works and how the world
operates must be false.
Page 16 of 24
Yet Paul did not leave it there. He also began reaching for epistemological
resources that would underwrite his first-order claims. Thus in Romans he
developed an account as to why human agents are likely to reject if not detest
what God has done; they have suppressed divine revelation, become corrupt in
their judgments, and generally no longer operate as properly functioning
epistemic agents. In his first letter to the Corinthians he developed a more
positive line by proposing that recognition and appreciation of what God has
done in the death of Christ stems in part from the work of the Spirit in imparting
a wisdom that renders intelligible what God has done. This did not preclude an
appeal to signs and wonders, what he called a demonstration of the Spirit and of
power.94 However, these are strictly limited in their capacity to persuade and
establish the truth of his proposals. All of these themes will be taken up later in
the history of theology and philosophy; they are a matter of intense debate in
contemporary work in the epistemology of theology. However, in Paul they
remained underdeveloped. Even so, they make clear that he was interested in
providing a reasoned defense of his convictions.
Third, the intensity of Paul’s intellectual self-confidence is utterly astonishing. It

is no surprise that from the beginning he made enemies, even among those who
shared much of what he believed about divine action in Jesus. In part this is
simply a matter of his personality and character; he was no shrinking violet;
most of the time there was not an irenic bone in his body. However, this is a
superficial observation. The deeper point of contention is (p.22) his claim to
possess privileged access to the truth about God and what God is doing in
history for the reorientation of human existence. He really meant it when he said
that he was not looking for human approval and when he refused to provide an
external set of credentials for his epistemic and executive authority to his
Christian opponents.95 Paul was a man on a mission from God made clear to him
in a divine call confirmed but not initially secured in various ways by others.
Paul was a recipient and mediator of divine revelation. Working inside his
perspective we can readily make sense of his brutal ways of speaking, for
example, to the Galatians, and of his tenacity to the point of death.
Epistemologically we can also make sense of these features of his life if we
recognize, as we should, that divine revelation furnishes the highest form of
knowledge. Operating at these levels is an acquired intellectual taste and
achievement; most ordinary mortals are exactly like those interlocutors of Paul
who tested what he said against their material background beliefs and when
they proved to be inconsistent with those beliefs rejected what was on offer.
However, there have always been those who have stayed the course with Paul
and been persuaded by his proposals. His letters are a landmark collection of
materials that were ultimately canonized and became Christian Scripture. The
exegetical, historical, theological, and philosophical inquiry they have provoked
is astonishing and continues unabated in our own day.
Page 17 of 24
Much has been written about whether Paul represents simply one voice in the
early developments of the Christian tradition in the New Testament. Against a
stream of scholarship that has championed a story of diversity over against that
of unity, Eugene E. Lemcio has proposed that there is a unifying kerygma of the
New Testament. He is convinced that there is a discrete kerygmatic core that
integrates the diversity that may be found in the New Testament.
The kerygmatic core here isolated contains six constant items, usually but
not always, introduced by a statement that what follows is kerygma,
gospel, or word about (1) God who (2) sent (Gospels) or raised (3) Jesus.
(4) A response (receiving, repentance, faith) (5) towards God (6) brings
benefits (variously described).96
Lemcio’s intent in part is to capture afresh
the theological component of the kerygma here identified. God invariably

appears as the originator of the saving event and the recipient of Christian
response. Furthermore, the content amounts to a recital of divine activity
(narrative in nuce) rather than the acclamation of Christological status.
Much more of theocentricity occurs in the New Testament; but I have
deliberately confined myself to its (p.23) presence in this kerygmatic
form (and to the appearances of all six elements, even though more
instances with fewer items could be adduced).97
Lemcio’s proposal is an arresting one despite its thin content. What we have
found in Paul certainly fits with his observations about the theocentricity of the
Gospel he proclaimed. At its heart was a ringing declaration of what God had
done in Jesus Christ and the promise that a divinely assisted response brought
amazing benefits. What I have been at pains to bring out is the richness,
complexity, and implicit realism of the details about divine action that Paul
supplies.
It is also important to capture the existential fear and trembling that so often
comes with the response. After forty years of biblical research the great
pioneering Catholic scholar, Pere M. J. Lagrange, was close to the mark when he
wrote as follows.
We feel tempted to say that it is all too wonderful to be true. But what is
there apart from this that is of any value to us, that bears the stamp of the
infinite? If we turn away from this, we are confronted with nothingness.
Whither should we go, O Lord? Shall we shut ourselves up in a state of
supercilious or despairing doubt, or shall we rather gather around Peter,
who says still: ‘Thou hast the words of eternal life’, and surrender
ourselves to the embrace of God in Jesus Christ.98
Page 18 of 24
It was Paul rather than Peter who provided an exceptionally rich written
articulation of the claims about divine action that Lagrange felt tempted to read
as all too wonderful to be true. In fact, Paul’s writings constitute the largest
block of writings written by a single author that we have in the New Testament.
In time, like the rest of Christian Scripture, they were treated as the product of
divine action. So the divine actions depicted by Paul were preserved in written
form that has been construed in terms of further divine action. More precisely,
they are said to be inspired by God. Given the significance of what Paul wrote
about divine action, it is surely not accidental that they became Scripture and
that his writings were seen in terms of divine action. For God to do what Paul
insists God did and then simply to leave the accounts of those actions to human
happenstance does not fit with the wider divine-historical narrative to which
Paul wants us to respond. So it is fitting to construe the accounts as originating
from divine inspiration. This was no casual development, for the action of divine
inspiration as applied to Scripture has its own twists and turns when theologians
sought to unpack that action as predicated of God. To that topic we now turn.
Notes:
(1) James D. Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012).
(2) Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, eds., The Writings of St. Paul:
Annotated Texts, Reception and Criticism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972), 691–
2.
(3) For purposes of economy I shall limit my account to what Paul covers in what
is generally accepted as his authentic letters, that is, First Thessalonians,
Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and
Philemon. While this is the standard consensus among contemporary biblical
scholars, it is by no means a secure consensus.
(4) Daniel J. Harrington SJ, Meeting St. Paul Today (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2008),
9–11.
(5) Gal. 1:1; cf. 1 Cor. 1:1.
(6) Gal. 1:5.
(7) 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10. Paul insists that this authority to speak on behalf of God is
accompanied by “a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” See 1 Cor. 2:4.
(8) 2 Cor. 10:13.
(9) 2 Cor. 5:20.
(10) 2 Cor. 5:18.
Page 19 of 24
(11) 1 Thess. 2:4.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Gal. 2:2.
(14) 2 Cor. 12:2.
(15) 2 Cor. 12:7.
(16) 2 Cor. 12:9.
(17) Gal. 1:6–12.
(18) 2 Cor. 3:6.
(19) 1 Thess. 3:11.
(20) 2 Cor. 2:12.
(21) 2 Cor. 1:10. The details are not specified.
(22) Phil. 2:27.
(23) 2 Cor. 12:21.
(24) Phil. 4:13.
(25) Rom. 8:28.
(26) 1 Cor. 3:5–9.
(27) 2 Cor. 9:14.
(28) 1 Cor. 12:28.
(29) 1 Thess. 1:4.
(30) 1 Thess. 2:12.
(31) 1 Cor. 1:8.
(32) 2 Cor. 4:6.
(33) Rom. 1:8.
(34) Rom. 5:8.
(35) Rom. 3:23–25.
(36) Gal. 5:3.
Page 20 of 24
(37) Gal. 4:6 and Rom. 8:16.
(38) 2 Cor. 5:5.
(39) 1 Thess. 5:23. Cf. 1 Thess. 4:3.
(40) 2 Cor. 5:17–18.
(41) Rom. 8:26–27.
(42) 2 Cor. 6: 5–7.
(43) Rom. 15:5–6.
(44) Rom. 14:3.
(45) Rom. 12:3.
(46) Phil. 2:12–13.
(47) E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977),

523.
(48) Rom. 1:16.
(49) What follows is drawn from Paul’s seminal analysis of creation given in
Romans 1:18–32.
(50) Rom. 1:21.
(51) Rom. 1:29–32.
(52) Rom. 1:2.
(53) Gal. 3:8.
(54) Rom. 11:32.
(55) Rom. 9:4–5.
(56) Rom. 8:2.
(57) Gal. 4:4.
(58) Rom. 3:25.
(59) 2 Cor. 5:21.
(60) Rom. 1:4, 1 Cor. 15:15, 1 Thess. 1:10.
(61) 1 Cor. 6:14.
Page 21 of 24
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Mary. Sh! you’ll wake the baby.
Phus (in a loud whisper). Mis’, de cap’n dun tole me he not feel
well, an’ you come to de weel-house. Phus tote de baby.
Mary (rising hastily). Take good care of him. (Exit r.)
Phus. Take good care ob him. (Imitates her voice, and tip-toes
round the room.) How golly fine it am to be de cap’n’s mis’, a-sittin’
down har all fix’ up, and den walkin’ on deck wid de par-sol, totin’ de
baby. Oh, Lor! (Sings softly.)
Min’ de pick’niny,
Min’ de pick’niny,
Take good care ob him.
Wot’s dem books? I dunno, caze I can’t read ’em all yit. But the
cap’n’s mis’, she try larn me. Lemme see. (Takes up a book and
reads.) “Meel-iss-see-felt-a-cold-han’-on-her-fore-head-an’-she-
scream-ded-scream-ded.” Wot’s dat? Golly! I can’t do dat. (Shuts up
the book.) Sh! sh! de baby’s wokem up. He’ll holler ef he see me. I’ll
make him tink I’m de cap’n’s mis’. (He takes the parasol and opens
it, spreads the handkerchief over his face, and sits down by the
cradle. Enter Captain Miller, r., leaning on Mary’s shoulder.)
Mary. Tell me, dear, just how you feel. (Sees Phus.) Oh, Phus!
you’ll scare the baby.
Phus. Mis’, de baby was a gwine to wokem up, and I specks he’d
tink ’twas you.
Capt. M. Phus, take off that rig, and go on deck, you lubber! (Exit
Phus, r.) Oh, I don’t know. I feel just as I did once when I was a boy,
before I had the typhoid fever,—tired all over. (Sits.) My head is as
light as a feather, and my feet are heavy as lead. I don’t feel as if I
could step a step.
Mary. Lie down a little while, and perhaps you’ll feel better. How
much farther do we go up river?
Capt. M. About two hundred miles. We shall reach the last station
in a few days. (Takes off his jacket and shoes wearily, as he talks.)
Patsy is at the wheel, and you can bring me word if he wants
anything.
Mary (aside). Oh, dear! I know he is going to be sick. (To him)
Where is the chart of the river?
Capt. M. On deck, in the wheel-house.
Mary. And all the things you use?
Capt. M. Yes. Why?
Mary. Because I want to know, so that you can have a good long
nap.
Capt. M. Our course is all marked out, and what to steer by; but I
shall feel better, I hope, after I have had some sleep. You’d better go
on deck, once in a while, see how things are going on, and let me
know. (Exit l., holding by the doorway.)
Mary (sitting). What shall I do! away up here, a hundred miles
from a doctor. I am afraid William has the river fever, the same as
Phus had last year. Oh! mother! mother! If I could only have you with
me! If I could only get word to you! (Leans her head on the table.)
(Enter Phus, r.)
Phus. Whar de cap’n? Pats say he want know which way ter go,
and de cap’n must tell him.
Mary. Phus, do you remember how sick you were last year?
Phus. An’! wouldn’t ’a’ libed ef you hadn’t ’a’ nussed me.
Mary. Do you want to pay me for it?
Phus. I ain’t got no money, mis’; but I prays ebery night: Lor’ bress
de cap’n’s wife. She nuss me; make me well.
Mary. I don’t want any money, Phus. You can pay me in a better
way.
Phus. An’ I sings in de cook-house w’en de pork’s a-fizzlin’, an’
Hank he likes it. (Sings mournfully.)
I’se poor Jo-Phus,—’Lijah cum down.
Sick in de ’teamboat,—’Lijah cum down.
Cap’n’s mis’ nuss me,—’Lijah cum down.
(Livelier.) An’ den I gits well,—’Lijah cum down.
Swing low de goolden charyot,
Rock de baby, car’ long de cap’n’s mis’.
’Lijah cum down.
(Mary does not listen.)

Mary. Phus, listen to me. The captain is very sick, and you can
help me if you will; and more than pay me for anything I have done
for you.
Phus. I’ll do ebryting. You so good to poor Phus—make me well,
an’ larn me to read—see here. (Reads.) “Mee-liss-see-felt-a-scream-
ded,” no, dat ain’t de place; “col’—col’—han’—” (cold hand.)
Mary. Never mind reading now, Phus. I want you to stay here
while I go on deck, and listen to the captain. If he wakes up and
wants anything, you must go in and tell him I will come right down;
then you come and call me. (Exit r.)
Phus. Yaas, mis’! (Applies ear to keyhole of door, l.)
Curtain.
ACT III.
Forward deck of the Creole Bride. Wheel-house at r.

gangway and railing at l., table and two camp chairs
at c., chairs c. Mary at the wheel, with the chart and
compass beside her.
Mary. I wonder if I am all right here! The course is not very clearly
marked out. Willie is still so sick that he can’t tell me any more about
steering, and Patsy don’t seem to know anything but his engine, or
how to go when it is plain sailing. (Studies the chart.) Let me see!
We must stop at three more stations before we reach the mouth of
the Washita,—Munroe, Columbia, and Harrisonburg; and then we go
down the Red and Yellow to Baton Rouge. Oh! yes, I see. We steer
right here by Dead Man’s Bluff, and then by Run-away Swamp. How
lucky I studied that book on navigation! It helps me so much to
understand these marks on the chart. If Patsy would only behave
well, I should be all right; but he don’t like the idea of being “bossed,”
as he calls it, “by a woman.”
(Enter Patsy, r.)
Mary. Patsy, have you thrown out the line lately?
Patsy. Yes, mum.
Mary. Where are we?
Patsy. Be-gorries! I dunno, mum.
Mary. How much water?
Patsy. Faix! the lid was varry well down, and the mud was yaller.
Mary. That may mean something to you, I suppose. You can’t
read. Bring me the line. (He bring it from l.)
Patsy. It’s tin fut, mum. (Aside) Bedad, she thinks she’s cap’n.
Mary. That’ll do, Take the line forward, and mind your engine.
Patsy (muttering). Mind the injun, is it? O’ coorse. Musha and faix,
I wull! I’m the lasht lad not to be mindin’ me injun. (Drops the line and
goes toward r.)
Mary. Patsy!
Patsy. Vart do yer want? I can’t be lavin’ my injun arl the time.
True for yez!
Mary. Patsy! I told you to take the line forward!
Patsy. I’ll not do it, mum, for all of yez. Ye’re not the cap’n!
Mary (looking at him severely). Patsy! Take that line forrard, and
be quick about it!
Patsy (takes the line to l., and exit r., muttering). I’ll not be
bossed by no woman!
Mary. I don’t know what I shall do with Patsy. He threatens to
leave me at the next station, and I can’t find a decent engineer short
of Baton Rouge; and I mustn’t trouble William with it, he is still so
feeble.
(Enter Phus, l.)
Phus. Mis’, de cap’n say he feel bet’ as did, an’ he wan’ ter see
yer.
Mary. Very well, I’ll go down. You call Patsy to stand at the wheel;
and then you go and stay with the baby.
Phus. Yes, mis’. (Calls, r.) Pats! Har! you Pats, lave dat injyne an’
cum an’ stan’ by de wheel. Pay—ats! Pay—ats! Pay—a—ts! Cum,
Pats, to de weel-house! Mis’ say so.
(Enter Pats r. He takes the wheel.)
Mary (to Patsy). Mind your helm now; keep her on her course.
(Exit Mary, r.)
Patsy. Ugh! Bedad!
Phus (sits down at the wheel-house and takes his banjo). Bress
de Lor’, de cap’n’s bet’ as was. He say he mean git well. (Sings and
rocks himself.)
Lor’ bress de cap’n,—’Lijah cum down.

Lor’ bress de cap’n’s mis’,—’Lijah cum down.
An’ let ’im git well,—’Lijah cum down.
As dis poor Jo-Phus did,—“Lijah cum down.
Swing low de goolden charyot,
Car’ long de baby, cap’n, an’ de cap’n’s mis’,
’Lijah cum down.
Patsy (putting his head out of the wheel-house). Musha! Shtop yer
hullabaloo, you black nayger.
Phus. Dere aint no sich man round here. My name’s Jo-see-phus,
Herodytus Miller. (Exit l.)
(Re-enter Mary, r., half supporting Captain Miller, who tries to
walk; he sits down near the table wearily.)
Capt. M. (feebly). It’s no use, Mary, I can’t walk. I can’t use my
legs a mite, and that’s a fact. The malaria has settled in them, and I
don’t know as I shall ever walk again.
Mary (stands beside him, and keeps her eye on the vessel’s
course). Yes, you will, dear. The doctor says so; and he says you
must get away from the boat, go into the mountains and stay awhile,
and then you will be as well as ever.
Capt. M. Oh, Mary! If I could only go to New England. I feel as if it
would cure me. If I could only go to Maine, and see the White Hills,
all covered with snow on top, from behind father’s house, see
mother, and have some of their good victuals—(He breaks down.)
Mary. You shall go. It won’t cost any more to go there than it will to
pay your board at some place near the mountains; and no matter if it
does.
Capt. M. How can I leave the vessel? If I take the money to go
East with, I shan’t be able to meet my payments, and shall lose my
chance of buying into her.
Mary (to Patsy). Ease her off a couple of points. (To William)
Never mind that! Don’t worry. It’s better to lose everything else than
to lose your health. But you will not lose the boat. I can run her while
you’re gone. Only three months! The doctor says he thinks that will
do.
Capt. M. I don’t know about your running the boat, Mary. Ours is a
thousand-mile trip, you know, next time, and it’s easier to come down
than it is to go up. The Yellow-red winds like a corkscrew.
Mary. I know that, William; but I think I can manage her. I have
done it; and here we are safe so far, and no accident yet.
Capt. M. (considering). This cargo is secure, and the next one all
promised. But I hate to leave you, Mary, and the baby.
Mary (to Patsy). Keep her on her course, boy! (To William) I hate
to have you go, William, only I know that it is for your good; and then,
if I go, you’ll have to give up the boat, and we shan’t have anything
to live on; and that will never do.
Capt. M. You’re right, Mary, as you always are.
(Enter Hank, the cook, with a waiter full of dishes.)
Hank. Here’s your lunch, sir.
Capt. M. Why, Hank! Have you come again? It isn’t more than half
an hour since I ate my breakfast.
Hank (drawling). Yes, it is, sir. It’s an hour. And the doctor says
you was to eat every hour.
Capt. M. (looks at the waiter). What have you got now?
Mary (to Patsy, hurriedly). Hard a-port, there! Give that snag a
wide berth! (She goes quickly towards the wheel-house.) Go below,
Patsy, and fire up, or we shan’t get to Munroe till moonrise. (Exit
Patsy, l., muttering.)
Hank (to William). Waal, tha’s some fixings the Indians say is
good for invaliges, and one on ’em showed me how to cook ’em.
Capt. M. What are they, Hank? Name over your bill of fare.
Hank. Waal, cap, this ere’s corn-pone, o’ coose; and a dodger or
so; a slice o’ bacon; a helter-skelter; some succotash; two frog’s legs
pealed and sizzled; a pigeon biled in milk; some baked punkin; eel’s
tails soused; and some no-cake.
Capt. M. What! what! what! Are you going to stuff me to death, or
poison me—which?
Hank. Oh, sir! you needn’t eat ’em all. The Injuns said if you eat
just the right thing for you, you’d be sure to get well.
Capt. M. I dare say. They’d cure a dog with their charms and their
notions.
Hank. Some of the vittals is good, and some pretty middlin’ poor,
but it’s all good for suthin’,— or the pigs!
Capt. M. (laughing). I shouldn’t wonder. (Looking over the waiter.)
What’s baked punkin for, Hank? It looks like raw, dried potato-
parings.
Hank. The Indians said ’twas to chaw, and give you an appetite.
Mary (from the wheel-house). What in the world are the soused
eel’s-tails for?
Hank. Oh, to make you feel lively, and cherk you up a little. They
make brains.
Capt. M. What next? What’s the no-cake for, and where is it?
Cake sounds kind o’ good. And hot biscuit. Mother’s hot biscuit! Oh!
how I should like some of them.
Hank. Well, the no-cake is that aire white stuff piled up on that aire
plate. It looks like something goodish; but when you chaw it, it feels
like sand. The Injuns eat it, and they said ’twould make the cap’n
sleep good.
Capt. M. I should think it would,—and dream of my grandmother. If
it chews like sand, it will be heavy enough.
Hank. There ain’t no decent vittals for a sick man to eat in these
diggings. ’Tain’t half so good as the Nantucket feed, such as my
marm used to cook.
Capt. M. Oh, Hank! don’t speak of it! How I should like some fried
perch,—some good fresh salt-water perch, with their heads on; and
some steamed clams, fresh-dug Nantucket clams, with the shells all
gaping at you. I feel as if I could eat a good four-quart tin pan full this
minute, shells and all.
Hank. I’d like to make you a rippin’ good chowder, sir. Such as we
have ter hum. What you want is real, good, hard, fresh cod-fish or
haddock, head and all, some white potatoes (none o’ your flat yellow
sweets), some onions, some Boston crackers, and a generous
rasher of salt strip pork (none o’ your middlings). But I can’t do it.
They never heerd of a Boston cracker, and there ain’t a decent piece
o’ fresh salt-water fish between here and Nantucket. Only this
darned canned stuff; and that’s enough to p’isen a feller.
Mary (to William, from the wheel-house). You’ll have some
chowder when you get home, dear; and you’ll eat again of all the old
New England food.
Hank. Oh, sir! you goin’ hum?
Capt. M. I think of it.
Mary (to Hank). Yes, he is going home; and pretty soon, too.
Hank. If you do, sir, I hope you’ll take a skip down to Nantucket,
and see my folks. Marm ’ll be mighty glad to see you. I’ll write to her,
and send her some money, and you can take the letter, sir, right
along. And please, sir, fetch me word how the old place looks, and if
marm seems comfortable.
Capt. M. Yes, Hank, I’ll take your letter; and if I can’t go to see
your mother, I will send it to her by express.
Hank. Thank you, sir, thank you; and if you should go to Annisport,
and see Miss Leafy Jane, please tell her I hain’t forgot her, and if you
can say I’ve been a good feller—and behaved tip-top—
Capt. M. Why, Hank! do you remember that little fly-away? You
steady old boy, you. Of course you’ve been a good fellow, and I’ll tell
her so,—if I see her,—but why don’t you write to her yourself?
Hank. Oh, sir! she might not like it.
Capt. M. That’s so. Well, do as you like, Hank. You can leave the
waiter. I will eat all I can of your concoctions. (Exit Hank, r.)
Capt. M. (turning towards Mary). I did not know that there was
any love-making in that quarter.
Mary. Nor I, neither.
[Disposition of characters at end of act. Capt. Miller at table, c.,
eating. Mary at the wheel, l.]
Curtain.
ACT IV.
The same as in Act II. Enter Mary, l., with her hands full
of papers. She sits down at the table.
Mary. There! The bills of lading are signed, and all my accounts
are straight, so we are ready to begin again. But here we are, still
fast at New Orleans, when we ought to have got away three days
ago. For some reason or other I can’t get the cargo that was
promised, and so I have had to fill up with watermelons. Heavy,
unprofitable things! (Writes.) I wish I could hear from William. Poor
fellow! The doctor at home said he must take a sea-voyage; and he
has gone off with his father to the Grand Banks, fishing. I wish I
could see him!
(Enter Phus, r., bringing a large watermelon.)
Phus. Wattermillions is bos’; dey’s bos’ an’ cool.
Mary. Why, Phus, what do you want of that watermelon?
Phus. It’s such a golly big one; and den it’s marked so peart.
Mary. Why! there’s hundreds of them on board just as good.
Phus. O no! mis’, dere ain’t. Dis one hab de little Voudoo mark dat
show dey’s sweet; an’ I wanted de baby to stick his little toof in it, an’
suck de juice. Oh, Lors! (Smacks his lips and sings.)
“Some are pa’shel to de appel, oddahs clamor fo’ de plum;

Some fin’ ’joyment in de cherry, oddahs make de peaches hum;
Some git fas’ned to de onion, oddahs lub de arti-choke;
But my taste an’ wattahmillion er’ bound by a pleasant joke.
“Hit er meller, hit er juicy,

Hit er coolin’, hit er sweet!
Hit er painless ter de stummick—
Yo’ kin eat, an’ eat, an’ eat!”
I helped you bring ’em on board, didn’t I, mis’?
Mary. Yes, Phus; you’re always handy. I wish you could be the
mate, in Patsy’s place, and help me steer the boat.
Phus. Lor’ bress you, mis’! I couldn’t do dat. I should steer for all
de snags in de riber; an’ git twisted all up in de bay-yous, an’ run
inter all de san’bars.
Mary. Have you found anybody yet to take Patsy’s place, if he
leaves?
Phus. No, mis’. All de boys dey say as dey won’t be de mate to no
woman. Dey say you has no licens’, an’ can’t be de cap’n. An’ Mass’
Rumberg, he cum an’ take away de Keyhole’s Bride.
Mary. Oh, Phus! is that what they say? Then that is the reason
that I could not get the cargo that was promised here; and when they
knew, too, that I had been running the boat these three months all
alone!
Phus. When de cap’n cum hum?
Mary. Not until December, Phus.
Phus. Whar’s he, mis’, now?
Mary. Away out to sea, on a ship; not a steamboat—a sailing
vessel. The doctor said it would cure him if he took a sea-voyage.
Phus. Is de sea bigger dan de Missip’ or de Gulf Mex’?
Mary. Oh, yes, Phus! a good deal bigger, and wider, too. You can’t
see across.
Phus. O, sho!
Mary (rising and walking about). And the waves are so high! and
white on the top! and they come booming in on the rocks! and the
breeze! Oh! the breeze is so sweet, so salt, so fresh! It is enough to
do your soul good to smell it.
Phus. Golly! mis’. It mus’ be hunky, if it’s sweet, and salt, and
fresh, an’ comes in boomin’ at ye, on de rocks, all at once.
Mary (smiling). Better go out again, Phus, and look among the
boys for a mate.
Phus. Yes, mis’. (Exit r.)
Mary. I think I’ll write to mother, and tell her my troubles. If she
can’t help me any, it will do me good to write; and I can get Phus to
carry it to the Post Office before we start. (She writes.)
(Enter Mr. Romberg.)
Mr. R. (slowly and deliberately). Mrs. Miller, I came to see what
you were going to do about the boat. Your husband has been gone a
long time; and it seems there is no prospect of his immediate return.
So we might as well talk the matter over now as at any other time.
Mary (rises and offers him a seat). Mr. Romberg? I don’t know as
I have seen you before. You are the largest owner in the Creole
Bride, I believe? Why do you wish to know what I am going to do?
(Sitting.)
Mr. R. (sitting). I (and the other owners) don’t want the boat to be
eating her head off here at the wharf.
Mary. We shall not stay here longer than this afternoon. As soon
as I come to terms with my mate, I shall be ready to steam her up.
Mr. R. I don’t see how you can run this boat.
Mary (rising). Why not, sir? I have run her for the last three or four
months. I carried her ’way up the Red and Yellow, and down again to
Baton Rouge, through the most crooked part of our whole thousand-
mile route; and I steered most of the time myself. The mate don’t
know much about handling the wheel.
Mr. R. The merchants, I find, are not willing to trust you with a
cargo; so I don’t see but you will have to give it up. You won’t be able
to meet your payments; and I must look out for my own property, as
well as that of the rest of the owners, for it is all in my care.
Mary. Is not Mr. Miller’s contract as captain of the boat all right? It
does not expire till next year. He is all paid up to the first of the
month; and I hope to be able to pay the next quarter,—that is, if I can
go on running the boat.
Mr. R. Yes, madam; but you must understand that the contract is
with Captain Miller, and not with his wife; that is where the trouble is.
Husband and wife are not one in this business. Captain Miller’s
contract is all right, and he is paid up; but if he dies, the whole thing
will have to be settled.
Mary (alarmed). But my husband is not dead. He is not going to
die! Why can’t I run the boat up to Cairo? I have a full cargo, and
another is promised there. I know the route for the next three
months. I have been over it all.
Mr. R. (rising). Mrs. Miller, you cannot be a captain in name.
Mary. But, Mr. Romberg, I am the captain.
Mr. R. No, Mrs. Miller. You may run the boat, but you cannot act
as captain,—you have no license. The fact is, the law does not allow
it. That is what the owners say; and we consulted a lawyer, and he
gave it as his opinion, after careful consideration, that a woman
cannot be master of a vessel legally.
Mary. Then we must lose our chance of owning the boat; and I
cannot raise the money needed for the support of my poor sick
husband and my little baby,—just because I am a woman! Oh! Mr.
Romberg! this is hard indeed!
Mr. R. I suppose it is rather hard; but that is the way of the law, in
Louisiana, at least, and I think all over the United States. When our
fathers framed the constitution, they thought it was better that
woman should be confined to the domestic sphere. The home, the
home is their place,—not the decks of vessels. They wanted to
protect women in their proper sphere.
Mary. Protect them! Hinder them, I should think!
Mr. R. (approaching Mary). If Captain Miller, now, were not living,
you might find some likely river-man to marry you, and be captain of
the boat, in name; and then you could keep on acting as master,—
your mate, perhaps,—then you’d be all right.
Mary. Marry! The mate! Patsy! Oh, Mr. Romberg! Oh, sir! what do
you mean?
Mr. R. (aside). Gad! the women are all alike. How they stick to
one man! (To her) I don’t see what else you can do.
Mary. There was Captain Tucker’s wife; after he died she took the
boat.
Mr. R. Yes, but she did not run it long; all of us owners objected to
a petticoat captain, and we discharged her.
Mary (severely). Then what has become of her and all her six
children?
Mr. R. Oh, she tends in a lager-beer saloon in Natchez.
Mary (indignantly). Yes, and I suppose her children are given
away or put out to service—all because she is a woman! She has to
do this degrading work to get an honest living, and all because you
wouldn’t allow her to do the only work she always had done and was
best fitted to do. She run the boat three years before her husband
died.
Mr. R. Well, she might have married and had some one to be her
captain. The merchants sent one of their best river-men to marry her,
but she ordered him off the boat.
Mary. I don’t blame her!
Mr. R. There ain’t much a woman can do round here but get
married. There’s many a likely man that is not a river-man who would
like to get a good smart Yankee woman like you.
Mary (sharply). Mr. Romberg! what do you mean?
Mr. R. I mean, of course, if your husband does not come back,
which seems most likely—
Mary (turning away). Oh! What shall I do?
Mr. R. My dear Mrs. Miller! you must be as wise as a serpent as
well as harmless as a dove.
Mary. Oh, sir! how can I be wise without money, without friends,
with my hands tied by a little child, and my means of earning a living
taken away?
Mr. R. Well, there is a month or two yet before I shall be obliged
to ask you to give up your husband’s papers. Meanwhile, you can go
on to Cairo, and come back; go along the Red and Yellow, and leave
your cargo. You needn’t take on any more. I’ll see you again when
you come down to New Orleans; and then, if your husband has not
returned, we must close up our accounts. That is what the rest of the
owners say, and I agree.
Mary. Oh, Mr. Romberg! is there nothing I can do to keep the
boat? Can I not get a license? Did a woman never have a captain’s
license?
Mr. R. I never heard of one. And I don’t think there ever was one.
It would be absurd! But I must bid you good-morning.
Mary. Good-morning, sir. (Exit Mr. Romberg, r.) Indeed! what
kind of a woman does he take me to be! Telling me about marrying
another man so as to have a captain! I will show him that I can be
master of my own boat. I go into a lager-beer saloon! As Mary
Gandy I would not have done it; and as Mary Miller I certainly shall
not. I give up the boat! My William’s boat? Never! Unless they put
me on shore by force. Why cannot I get a license? I’ll try! and then, if
worst comes to worst, I must make my way somehow back home
again. If I could only hear from mother! (Sits down at the table—
arranges papers.)
(Enter Phus, r.)
Phus. O, Lor’! Mis’ Miller! Here’s suthin’ I forgits. I met de pos’-
man out here, an’ he holl’d at me (She does not look up.)—“Har, you
nig!” I looks round, and sez: “Whar? whar? I dun’ see no nig.” He laf,
an’ sez, “You know who dat is?” “Whar?” sez I. “On dis let’,” sez he.
“No,” sez I; “who is it?” “It’s Mrs. Mary Miller,” sez he. “Lor’,” sez I,
“dat’s my cap’n’s mis’; gib it yere.” “Well, fotch it, then,” sez he, “an’
be darn quick ’bout it.” “I will,” sez I. (Mary looks up.)
Mary. A letter? Oh, give it to me! How long have you had it?
Phus. Jes dis minit, mis’.
Mary (tearing the envelope). From home, and written by dear
brother John. Dear little fellow! (Reads.)
Dear Mary,—
Mother wants me to write. She says: Tell Mary that I talked it all
over with your father, and he asked old Pete Rosson, and then I wrote
to the lecture woman up to Boston, and she says you must have a
captain’s license so’s you can keep the boat. And she says you must
apply to the Local Inspectors (here is a blank for you to fill out), and
that if you pass your examination they will see that it is sent to
Washington to the Solicitor of the Treasury. You must write to Mr. Le
Brun or Mr. Cholmly, Local Inspectors, New Orleans, La. Do it right off
before Mr. Romberg gets a chance to take away the boat. And oh!
mother says you must sign your own name to the application—Mary
Miller, or Mary Gandy Miller (’cause it isn’t legal to sign your
husband’s name, and Mrs. is nothing but a title). She’s found out that
a woman has no more right, legally, to use her husband’s first name
and title than he has to use hers. She says Martha Washington had
more sense than to call herself Mrs. George, or Mrs. General, or Mrs.
President Washington. Plain Martha Washington was good enough for
her. And oh! the folks round here are real proud of you, to think you
can manage a steamboat, and old Pete Rosson says “it’s a darned
shame you have such a hard time, and he hopes you won’t give up
the ship.” He expects to go to the Legislature this winter, and he says
“if the men at Washington don’t let you have the captain’s license, he’ll
vote agin every mother’s son on ’em.”
Yours, as usual,
John Quincy Adams Gandy.
Mary (folding the letter). Dear, dear folks at home! How good they
are to tell me just what to do! I must write my application at once.
(Sits down at the table.)
Phus. Is de folks well, mis’, an’ de cap’n?
Mary (writing). Yes, Phus, the folks are well; but the letter is not
from the captain. I do not expect to hear from him at present.
Phus. O, Lor’! mis, is dat so?
Mary. Yes, Phus. You wait round till I get this letter done, then you
carry it to the post-office. I want an answer from it, right off, as soon
as I can get it.
Phus. Yes, mis’. (He goes out, l., keeps popping his head in and
tiptoeing round.)
Mary (folding up the letter, and putting it in a long envelope).
There! my blank is all filled out, and my letter written; both signed
plain Mary Miller, which means to me (sighing) that I must hereafter
stand alone,—legally, at any rate, and take the responsibility of all
my actions. No more hiding behind a husband’s or a father’s name.
Plain Mary Miller! A good name, and I must show that I am worthy of
it. (To Phus) There, be as quick as you can; and then come back
here and take care of the baby while I go on deck. (She goes to the
cradle.)
Phus. Yes, mis’! I’m skippin’. (Exit r.)
Curtain.
ACT V.
Same as in Act III., with the addition of a hammock slung

near the wheel-house, containing the baby. Enter
Mary from the wheel-house with a small sailor hat
and reefer on. She takes them off, and lays them on a
chair as she talks.
Mary. Here we are at last, safe at New Orleans. I wish I could
hear from Washington; and why don’t I hear from William? I sent
home the last money I had saved up, and I shall have no more if
they take the boat away. I can’t give her up! And I can’t do anything
else to earn a living. This is my business—my life.
(Enter Phus, l.)
Phus. Oh, mis’! Pats he say he won’t help unload de boat; an’ I
can’t get nobody to help, as you tole me. Dey all say dey won’t be
bos’ by no woman.
Mary (sighs). Well, Phus, you’re willing to work for me, ain’t you?
You won’t leave your mistress, will you?
Phus. Neber! No, mis’! I allus work for you an’ de cap’n an’ de
baby. Hank, too, he stay. He ben hawlin out de cargo like sixty. He
say wimmin good ’nough for him. He ruther be cook to wimmin bos’;
cos dey knows more ’bout de fixin’s, an’ dey neber sez, “darn dat
stuff.”
Mary. Phus, you run and tell Patsy he can go. He’s all paid up;
and I don’t want him any more. And, here! take my reefer and hat
down into the cabin. I shan’t want them at present.
Phus. Yes, mis’. (He goes out, r.)
Mary (swinging the hammock gently). Must I leave my happy
home, where I came a bride? (Leans over the baby) My baby’s
birthplace? Why! I love every timber in this tight little steamboat. She
is as dear to me as one of the biggest houses on the river is to the
fine lady who lives in it.
Phus (re-entering). Oh, mis’! Pats he say he will go wid you up
riber a piece, to where he woman lib, an’ get off dar.
Mary. Very well. I’ll see him by and by; but I don’t know as I shall
want him. Oh! if my license would only come!
Phus. You licens’, mis; wot’s you licens’?
Mary (sadly). Why, Phus, I have asked the big men at Washington
to give me a license; same as the other river-captains have.
Phus (whimpering). Oh, Lor’, mis, bress de Lor’! I hope it’ll cum.
(Sits on floor at r., and sings softly.)
Bring ’long de licens’,—’Lijah cum down.
(Takes a book from his pocket, sits on floor at r., and reads with a
great deal of action.)
Mary (looking at him). Poor Phus! If the big men at Washington
could only see me as he sees me, and know, as he knows, how well
I can handle a boat, they would very soon say yes to my application.
(Enter Mr. Romberg, l.)
Mr. R. Good-day, Mrs. Miller. I am sorry to be obliged to proceed
against you, and ask you to deliver up your husband’s papers. I
might be willing to wait a little longer; but the other owners are not
satisfied. They say that as you cannot get a captain’s license, some
man must take the boat.
Mary. Cannot get a captain’s license? How do you know that? I
have applied for one; and am expecting every minute to hear from
Washington.
Mr. R. I know that. Here is the Delta with a long account of your
case, and the decision of the Solicitor of the Treasury.
Mary (coming forward). Let me see it! I have heard nothing about
it. We have had no mail since we got in.

(Download PDF) Divine Agency and Divine Action Volume Ii Soundings in The Christian Tradition 1St Edition William J Abraham Ebook Online Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Divine Agency and Divine Action Volume Ii Soundings in The Christian Tradition 1St Edition William J Abraham Ebook Online Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Divine Agency and Divine Action

Volume II Soundings in the Christian

Divine Agency and Divine Action A Theological and

Divine Action and Emergence An Alternative to

Divine Regrets Divine Cozy Mystery 8 Hope Callaghan

Chance or Providence Religious Perspectives on Divine

Divine River 1st Edition Marina Vivancos

Divine Collector 1st Edition Mark Torr

The Conquest List 2021st Edition Chikanma Divine

The Conquest List 2021st Edition Chikanma Divine

University Press Scholarship Online

Oxford Scholarship Online

Divine Agency and Divine Action, Volume II:

Print publication date: 2017

Abstract and Keywords

For understanding this we must descend to the specific actions predicated of

Of course, once we make this move, we are up to our necks in theology. To

The medicine I offer is to be found in a careful review and evaluation of the

There is an additional payoff from paying careful attention to crucial instances of

(4) I discuss their respective contributions in Chapters 10 and 11 of volume I.

Access brought to you by:

University Press Scholarship Online

Oxford Scholarship Online

Divine Agency and Divine Action, Volume II:

Print publication date: 2017

The Stamp of the Infinite

Abstract and Keywords

Our vaunted objectivity, the universality of our reasoning, the efficacy of

We can begin with an account of Paul’s call to be an apostle to the Gentiles.4

We already have a network of dramatic phenomena related to divine action on

As far as divine action is concerned, this account of Paul’s call is complemented

Within this vocation Paul received specific person-relative special revelation to

(p.13) In times of emotional and relational stress, as happened in Paul’s

The divine antidote to this downward spiral of disordered human minds,

Focusing on Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the divine promise to Abraham

Furthermore, Paul was insistent that the promise of God to Abraham as it

Is this blessedness, then, promised only on the circumcised, or also on the

It would be tempting to dismiss the preceding observations as a rearguard

Paul was not a professor of theology, as envisaged, say by Thomas Aquinas.

Third, the intensity of Paul’s intellectual self-confidence is utterly astonishing. It

Lemcio’s intent in part is to capture afresh

the theological component of the kerygma here identified. God invariably

(5) Gal. 1:1; cf. 1 Cor. 1:1.

(6) Gal. 1:5.

(8) 2 Cor. 10:13.

(9) 2 Cor. 5:20.

(10) 2 Cor. 5:18.

(11) 1 Thess. 2:4.

(13) Gal. 2:2.

(14) 2 Cor. 12:2.

(15) 2 Cor. 12:7.

(16) 2 Cor. 12:9.

(17) Gal. 1:6–12.

(18) 2 Cor. 3:6.

(19) 1 Thess. 3:11.

(20) 2 Cor. 2:12.

(21) 2 Cor. 1:10. The details are not specified.

(22) Phil. 2:27.

(23) 2 Cor. 12:21.

(24) Phil. 4:13.

(25) Rom. 8:28.

(26) 1 Cor. 3:5–9.

(27) 2 Cor. 9:14.