Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 7
Paul says he could wish (or once wished, or could almost wish) to be “anathema” from Christ for his kinsmen; which early-Christian interpretation (Origen’s Moses parallel, Chrysostom’s “separated from enjoyment,” Ambrosiaster’s “impossible hypothetical,” Constantius’ “before conversion”) best fits Paul’s character and the context, and what does your choice imply about sacrificial love versus theological limits?
Another way to ask: Which explanation of Paul wishing to be “anathema” best fits his character and the passage (Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, or Constantius)? What does your choice say about how far sacrificial love should go and what limits it has?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, Ambrosiaster’s “impossible hypothetical” fits well because it keeps Paul’s present loyalty to Christ intact while still showing the intensity of his love for Israel—“I could almost wish.” It implies sacrificial love can reach the edge of what is conceivable, yet it still recognizes theological limits: Paul cannot truly desire separation from Christ.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot notes the phrase is puzzling and has “many ways” it can be understood, including “I could wish,” “I once wished,” or an “almost wish” sense.
  • He explains “anathema” can mean “accursed” but also “separated or cut off,” like being removed from fellowship.
  • Ambrosiaster’s view: “Paul says, I could wish, not I do wish,” because he knew “it could never happen.”
  • Ambrosiaster paraphrase: Paul is saying, “I could almost wish.”
  • Bercot says, whatever the precise meaning, Paul’s purpose is “to demonstrate to the Jews how much he loves them.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where is the line between heroic love and saying something theologically impossible? How does Paul’s love remain genuine even if the wish is hypothetical?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next