A Narrative Theology of the New Testament: Exploring the Metanarrative of Exile and Restoration (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161540127, 9783161540370, 3161540123

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

350

Timo Eskola

A Narrative Theology of the New Testament Exploring the Metanarrative of Exile and Restoration

Mohr Siebeck

Timo Eskola, born 1955; 1992 Dr. theol.; 2011 Dr. phil.; 1998 Dr. habil. (University of Helsinki); currently a New Testament scholar at the Theological Institute of Finland, and a Privatdozent at the University of Helsinki.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154037-0 ISBN 978-3-16-154012-7 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buch­binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

For Tiina

Preface The field of investigating New Testament theology is flourishing. In two decades more than thirty monographs have been written on the subject. There are numerous ways to deal with the issue. Thematic, dogmatic, and book by book readings have been written. Some scholars have focused on important metanarratives that shape the overall thinking of the New Testament writers. The variety of approaches explains why new interpretations can—and need— to be written and can contribute to contemporary scholarship. Ever since the days of writing my first dissertation on Christology under professor Lars Aejmelaeus in Helsinki, and during that time visiting Tübingen University and its outstanding professors, Peter Stuhlmacher and the late Martin Hengel, I have been interested in the great metanarratives of Second Temple theology. Later analyses on justification theology, the problem of theodicy, and dualistic views on predestination deepened my conviction that both Jesus and the apostles’ gospel answered the burning problems of the fallen Israel. A study on resurrection Christology then widened my horizon concerning Israel’s hope and restoration eschatology. What was needed, however, was a new perspective on Jesus’ teaching. Only then could all these aspects be brought together in order to construct a more holistic understanding of both Jewish and Christian Second Temple theology. At first I believed that I had myself found new grounds for interpreting New Testament theology before gradually realizing that the ideas of continuing exile and restoration eschatology had already before been key issues in Sanders’ and Wright’s Jesus-studies for a good many years (while remaining absent from Sanders’ theory of covenantal nomism that prevailed in Pauline studies, and which I knew well enough). After becoming acquainted with the new narrative reading I could see a much larger picture. This is how I ended up writing a complete narrative theology of the New Testament by testing the new perspective on Jesus and investigating how the metanarrative of exile and restoration could decipher uniting features in Second Temple and especially Christian theological thinking. The methodology for this approach derives mostly from my second dissertation on comparative literature. This is where rhetorical narratology and semiotics became important for my work. Several scholars and works have been significant for my investigation. In addition to N.T. Wright I want to mention Brant Pitre with whom I have had some correspondence, and whose monographs have inspired my work. For studies on narrative theory, Professor Hannu K. Riikonen, Professor Heta Pyrhönen and Professor Kai Mikkonen have helped me with patience and empathy. I wrote the analysis when working as a New Testament scholar at

VIII

Preface

the Theological Institute of Finland, and as a Privatdozent at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Theology. I also want to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Sydney Palmer C' de Baca, my dependable language revisor, who once more has put her best professional expertise at my disposal. For a Finn, this is a conditio sine qua non in order to be able to publish in English. I further thank the Theological Institute of Finland, our former general secretary Rev. Henrik Perret (retired) and general secretary, Dr. Ville Auvinen, for making this investigation possible. It has been a privilege to work as a New Testament scholar at the Institute for two decades. My thanks will also extend to our secretary Kirsi Sell as well as the staff of the library. Finally, I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Prof. Jörg Frey for the kind acceptance of my study for publication in this distinguished series, as well as to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and the editorial staff at Mohr Siebeck for their professional assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication. I dedicate this monograph to my wife Tiina who, over the years, has supported all my efforts in the area of New Testament studies. Timo Eskola Dr. theol., Dr. phil. (Theological Institute of Finland) Dr. habil., Privatdozent (University of Helsinki)

Table of Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................... VII List of Abbreviations .................................................................................XIV

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................... 1 I. A narrative theology: purpose and method ................................................. 1 1. History and narrative ........................................................................... 1 2. On the changes of methodology ........................................................... 3 3. Semiotics and signification processes .................................................. 5 II. Testing Sanders and Wright’s challenging hypotheses .............................. 8 1. From Meyer to Sanders to Wright ........................................................ 8 2. Responses and developments ............................................................. 10 3. Studies expanding the paradigm: continuing exile and temple criticism................................................. 11 III. Setting the task: an attempt at a synthesis .............................................. 13

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message ................................................................... 16 I. Exile and restoration ................................................................................ 16 1. Babylonian exile in history and theology ........................................... 16 2. Expansions of the concept of exile ..................................................... 20 3. Patterns of restoration ........................................................................ 23 4. The question about the continuing exile of Israel ............................... 30 5. Theodicy ............................................................................................ 37 II. Son of David as a builder of an eschatological temple ............................ 43 1. Jesus’ triumphant entry and the prophecies of restoration .................. 44 2. Opposing the barren temple ............................................................... 51 3. Sermon of the temple mount .............................................................. 57 4. Signs of spiritual exile ....................................................................... 62 5. Expectation of the eschatological temple ........................................... 67

X

Table of Contents

III. The time of tribulation marking the end of the exile ............................... 74 1. John the Baptist’s death as the beginning of the age of tribulation ..................................................................... 75 2. On the topos of interfamilial peace: fathers’ hearts ............................ 85 3. Gathering the tribes by preahing the gospel ....................................... 88 4. The age of transition .......................................................................... 95 5. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Messianic apocalypse .............. 99 IV. God the King and his royal jubilee ...................................................... 103 1. The gospel of restoration. ................................................................ 103 2. God the King returns to Zion ........................................................... 111 3. The Messiah and the inauguration of the jubilee .............................. 115 4. Blessings of the jubilee .................................................................... 120 5. The new community as a messianic temple ...................................... 123 V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance ....................................... 130 1. The Shema prayer and observant faith.............................................. 131 2. The Sermon on the Mount................................................................ 135 3. A temptation to give up.................................................................... 137 4. The parable of the sower: did Israel hear? ........................................ 139 5. “Abba” fulfilling the first commandment ......................................... 142 6. Jesus and nomos............................................................................... 146 VI. A community of priestly purity ............................................................. 151 1. On purity regulations ....................................................................... 151 2. Purity of the new temple .................................................................. 153 3. Keeping the sabbath ......................................................................... 156 4. The question about fasting ............................................................... 157 VII. The Lord’s Supper as a priestly meal ................................................. 159 1. Covenant of blood............................................................................ 160 2. The priestly meal at the temple ........................................................ 163 3. Paul on participation in sacrifice ...................................................... 169 4. The final victim of the tribulation ................................................... 171 VIII. A suffering Messiah: on Jesus’ identity ............................................. 174 1. The Son of Man the martyr .............................................................. 174 2. Redemption and substitutional atonement ........................................ 177 3. Sin offering for the exilic corruption ................................................ 180 4. Anticipating the exaltation of the Son of Man .................................. 182 5. On resurrection ................................................................................ 185

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 3: The teaching of earliest Christianity. ......................... 189 I. Interpreting the events of the Easter ...................................................... 189 1. A preliminary scene: Pentecost ....................................................... 189 2. Early confessions and belief in the resurrected Lord ....................... 191 3. Psalm 110 legitimating exaltation Christology ................................. 199 4. Christ on the cherubim-throne.......................................................... 205 5. From throne mysticism to royal Christology .................................... 209 II. Six Christological narratives ................................................................ 215 1. Heavenly enthronement of the Davidic king .................................... 215 2. Prince of life conquers death ............................................................ 219 3. The suffering Servant gives his offering .......................................... 223 4. Eternal high priest enters the debir................................................... 225 5. Messianic judge on the judgment seat .............................................. 227 6. Belief in the King of restoration ....................................................... 229 III. Early Christology and Jewish synagogal liturgy .................................. 232 1. The Amidah and restoration eschatology .......................................... 233 2. The Benedictus of Zechariah ........................................................... .238 3. Christology in the Magnificat .......................................................... 240 4. Stephen and early synagogal preaching ............................................ 242

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian ......................................................... 246 I. Focusing on restoration eschatology: fulfillment and liberation ............ 246 1. The turn of ages and fulfillment of the kairos ................................. 247 2. Avodat Israel and critique of Torah obedience ................................. 253 3. Abandoning the works of the law ..................................................... 257 4. Christ’s new temple ......................................................................... 263 5. Paul and the metanarrative of exile and restoration .......................... 271 II. Paul’s sapiential law of love ................................................................. 273 1. Paul and Moses ................................................................................ 274 2. Law as the widsom of creation ......................................................... 278 3. The essence of love .......................................................................... 281 4. Ministratio mortis ............................................................................ 284 Excursus: E.P. Sanders and the theory of covenantal nomism .............. 288 III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis ............................................... 290 1. Sacrifice and substitution ................................................................. 291 2. The Akedah – Isaac as a model ........................................................ 298 3. Christ as a curse ............................................................................... 299

XII

Table of Contents

4. Representation, ransom, redemption ................................................ 303 5. Participation in crucifixion............................................................... 306 IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy ....................................... 313 1. Paul on the Jewish theology of crisis ............................................... 313 2. Righteousness and the problem of theodicy ..................................... 317 3. Humanity imprisoned....................................................................... 323 4. Justification by faith ........................................................................ 328 Excursus: The new perspective and Justification theory ...................... 336 V. Israel’s status in the dikaosyn theou .................................................... 341 1. Old Israel and new Israel ................................................................. 341 2. Submission to God’s righteousness .................................................. 346 3. The principle of regarding as loss .................................................... 354 4. Restoration eschatology: all Israel will be saved .............................. 358 VI. The Christology of enthronement in Paul ............................................. 360 1. Christ and confession ....................................................................... 360 2. Paul and the Resurrected one ........................................................... 363 3. Christology of royal dominion ......................................................... 365 4. Humiliation and exaltation ............................................................... 369 VII. Gathering the new Israel .................................................................... 373 1. Service in the new temple ................................................................ 373 2. Paul as the apostle to the nations ...................................................... 376 3. Baptism and salvation ...................................................................... 379 4. Eschatology and the creation of the new world ................................ 382

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity ........................................................ .387 I. Jewish Christianity and restoration eschatology .................................... 387 1. The letter to the Hebrews: creation of the heavenly temple .............. 387 2. The Letter of James: community that celebrates a jubilee ................ 394 3. Letters of Peter: on heavenly priesthood .......................................... 397 II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology......................................... 399 1. Spiritual exile comes to an end ........................................................ 399 2. The eternal word tabernacling in the flesh ....................................... 403 3. From the time of tribulation to the new temple ................................ 406 4. Restoration eschatology in the deep structure of 1 John ................... 408

Table of Contents

XIII

III. The temple, creation and new Jerusalem in Revelation ....................... .410 1. Release for the tribes of Israel .......................................................... 410 2. Enthronement of the Root of David ................................................. 413 3. Re-establishing the garden-temple ................................................... 415

Chapter 6: Conclusion – from metanarrative to theology ......... 418

Bibliography............................................................................................... 427 Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................................... 449 Index of Authors ........................................................................................ 467 Index of Subjects ........................................................................................ 471

List of Abbreviations 1. Periodicals, Series, Reference Works AASF AGAJU AncB ABD AGSU AnBib ANFa ANRW ASOR ATD AThANT AThD BA BAR BBB BBR BDR BEThL BEvTh BHTh Bib BINS BK BKAT BNTC BZ CB CB.NT CB.OT CBQ CCWJCW

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Ante-Nicene Fathers Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt American Schools of Oriental Research Altes Testament Deutsch Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Acta Theologica Danica Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Biblischer Kommentar Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblische Zeitschrift

CJAS CNT

Coniectanea Biblica Coniectanea Biblica. New Testament Series Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series Coniectanea neotestamentica

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan)

List of Abbreviations

EJ EJTh EKK EQ EvTh EWNT ET ExpT

XV

Encyclopedia Judaica European Journal of Theology Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. H. Balz, G. Schneider Expository Times Expository Times

FAT FzB FRLANT

Forschung zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GCS GNT GTA

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten

HAT HNT HR HThK HThS HThR

Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament History of Religions Herders Theologischer Kommentar Harvard Theological Studies Harvard Theological Review

ICC IntB IVP

International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Bible InterVarsity Press

JBL JJS JR JRS JSHJ JSJ JSJS JSNT JSNTS JSOT JSOTS JSS JThS

Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Religion Journal of Religious Studies Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies

KAT KEK LCC LCL

Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Library of Christian classics Loeb Classical Library

XVI

List of Abbreviations

MESJ MNTC MS MSSNTS

Missiologian ja ekumeniikan seuran julkaisuja Moffatt New Testament commentary Monograph Series Monograph Series. Society for New Testament Studies

NAC NCeB NF NIBC NICNT NIGTC NSBT NT/NovT NTA NTD NTL NTOA NTS NT.S NTTS

New American Commentary The New Century Bible Commentary Neue Folge New International Biblical Commentary New international commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary New Studies in Biblical Theology Novum Testamentum Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neues Testament Deutsch New Testament Library Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum. Supplements New Testament tools and studies

OTL OTP

Old Testament library The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

PNTC PVTG

The Pillar New Testament Commentary Pseudepigrapha veteris testamenti Graece

RB RGG RQ RTT

Revue biblique Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue de Qumran Reviews in Religion and Theology

SBL SBL.DS SBLMS SBLSBS SBL.SP SBM SBS SBT ScEs SESJ SEÅ SJLA SJT SNT SNTS StANT STAT

Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Seminar Papers Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Science et esprit Suomen eksegeettisen seuran julkaisuja Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Schriften des Neuen Testaments Society for New Testament Studies Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian toimituksia

List of Abbreviations StB StBL STKSJ StNT StTDJ StTh StUNT SVT SVTP

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Literature Suomalaisen teologisen kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja Studien zum Neuen Testament Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah Studia theologica (Lund) Studien zur Umwelt der Neuen Testaments Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

TANZ TB TBLNT TDNT TDOT ThLZ ThR ThSt ThW ThWAT ThWNT ThZ TRE TS TSAJ TToday TVG TyndB

Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theologische Bücherei Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Theologische Wissenschaft Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Realenzyklopädie Theological studies Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theology Today Theologische Verlagsgemeinschaft Tyndale Bulletin

USF UTB

University of South Florida Uni-Taschenbücher

VT

Vetus Testamentum

WBC WTJ WMANT WUNT

Word Biblical Commentary Westminster theological journal Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAW ZNW ZThK

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

XVII

XVIII

List of Abbreviations

2. Technical and Other Abbreviations AV cf. col. ed(s). ET f FS H KJV LXX m MS(S) MT n n.d. NEB NIV NRSV NT o.c. OT RSV v(v) vol.

Authorized Version confer columna editor(s) English Translation fragment Festschrift (Studies in Honour of, etc.) Hebrew text of Sirach King James Version Septuagint Mishnah tractate manuscript(s) Masoretic text footnote no date New English Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version New Testament opus citatum Old Testament Revised Standard Version verse(s) volume

Chapter 1

Introduction The investigation of New Testament theology has flourished in the new century. While scholars in the post-Bultmannian vein, after the Second World War, assumed that the era of writing extensive overviews had gone for good, now more than thirty large monographs or even multi-volume works have been published. After such revitalization of the field, everything has changed. Scholars from different currents and backgrounds are invited to present their synthesis of the New Testament’s message or, given the scholar’s preferred approach, the theological spectrum that is contained in this canonical collection. There are numerous ways to perform the task and each of the different attempts can contribute to our understanding of this enchanting compilation of writings.

I. A narrative theology: purpose and method Why narrative theology? After the turn to linguistics in academia, the discussion concerning the nature of history and understanding the past has been lively. The question of interpreting ancient writings has been posed anew. In earlier scholarship, theoretical questions concerning “real” history were often directed by the debate about metaphysics. Then German historicism tended to play down all metaphysical issues and suggest different alternatives according to which reconstructions were made – as long as “divine” occurrences were reduced to explainable human or natural phenomena and interpreted in terms of social action. Later such premises have proven to be lacking. Just as there is no “real” Plato behind “Plato the Metaphysician,” or no “real” Hegel behind “Hegel the Idealist,” there can be no “real” New Testament theology behind the semantic meaning of New Testament texts. Theology is a matter of the content of the texts and, therefore, depends on the semiotic nature and narrative structure of the texts in question. 1. History and narrative In the New Testament, however, theology is intertwined with history. History is a matter of history writing. The investigation of early Christian ways of explaining the events that the authors – and their predecessors –

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

experienced concerns meanings, beliefs, reasons and consequences. Historical investigation is completely dependent on sources and, in the case of the New Testament, most of these sources are written documents. Archaeology has little to contribute to these issues. In these documents the past is presented in the form of narratives, and most descriptions are directed by metanarratives that provide the rationale of the presentation. Understanding theology, for the most part, depends on understanding these metanarratives. The basic problems in “reading” history are simple: do we impose an order on the past, or do we read off an order that is already there? Historicists usually believe that they are doing the latter, and their critics claim that they are guilty of the former. Opinions vary on this question. While Hayden White supports a rather strong constructivist theory where the emphasis is on personal reconstruction, David Carr sees narrativity as means to understand the nature of human events: “Narrative is not merely a possibly successful way of describing events; its structure inheres in the events themselves.”1 Advocating a mediating position, Meir Sternberg presents a post-historicist, structuralist understanding of writing history. He states that writing history always means an interpretation of the meaning of certain historical events.2 I prefer Carr to White, even though the latter’s ideas are often useful, at least when read in the light of Sternberg’s ideas concerning the signification process. History as a story, in this sense, does not at all mean legendary fictionalizing. One needs to understand that historical descriptions were never empirical documents of “what really happened.” Nowhere in ancient literature, be it Josephus, Tacitus, or Eusebius, can we find simple lists of brute facts. Truth – and especially historical truth – is not a matter of hammers and nails. Historical truth, not to mention theological truth, is about positions, relations, attitudes, and causalities. Truth is a matter of values, beliefs and doctrines. The significance of the world view and especially changes in world views – consider the primary element in the days of historicism – must now be seen relative vis-à-vis the treatment of truth. Not everything changed in the Enlightenment.3 Written history, found in various ancient documents, provides an interpretation of historical events by selecting a number of details and investing them with meaning. Therefore, narrativity must be seen as an epistemological element. Historical descriptions have always tended to be concise. Authors rely on the readers’ ability to fill in gaps, read between the lines, and put the story in a hermeneutical context. Many texts also guide and direct the 1

Carr, History and Theory, 137; cf. White, History and Theory, 16. Sternberg, Poetics, 23f. 3 I have discussed the theory of writing New Testament theology in my assessment of Western biblical hermeneutics, especially focusing on the heirs of historicism and sociological reading (sociology of knowledge). See Eskola, Beyond New Testament Theology. Toward the end of the investigation, I discuss major currents in writing New Testament theology, see pp. 235–317. 2

I. Purpose and method

3

reader’s interpretation suggesting an ideal reader who understands the author’s position. Nineteenth century historicism, playing with the “reliability” or “genuiness” of certain texts or historical details, misunderstood the nature of history writing somewhat. Ancient authors naturally based their presentation on historical details but, nevertheless, the their writing focused the meaning of certain events and acts of important persons. What was Jesus’ attitude towards the temple? Why did Jesus send his disciples to preach? Why did Jesus oppose the Pharisees? How did he expect the final tribulation to end? History is about meaning. 2. On the changes of methodology It is interesting to note that, during the last twenty years or so, many important fields of New Testament study have changed essentially. Two decades ago the current called Third Quest finally ended the era of historicism and especially the study of the “historical Jesus.” The real Jesus had been sought by attempting to produce a critically sound reconstruction of his life or by deciphering a theological kernel of his proclamation, cleared of all apostolic, post-Easter enthusiasm, assumedly corrupting the gospels. The first effort drifted into minimalism where practically nothing was known about Jesus himself. Käsemann’s and Robinson’s Bultmannian New Quest hoped for help from existentialism but, following existentialism, it became unpopular.4 The Third Quest for the historial Jesus focused mainly on his social environment. Speaking of a fourth quest today would be inaccurate. Instead, one could call the change a new theological turn. Scholars today often use narratological or semiotic approaches in order to overcome the deficiences of the historical-critical heritage. New methodology opens new doors. These approaches want to shed light on the “eclipse of narrative” (Frei) which has separated the gospel story from history. They concentrate on Jesus’ message, not merely on his environment.5 Methodological changes have been more profound than people first expected. The new narrative analysis or rhetorical narratology have little to do with the descriptive narrative interpretation that was popular in systematic theology towards the end of the twentieth century. The interpretation of 4 In my previous investigations I have noted that standard theories on New Testament theology have often been indebted to different philosophical stances, starting with Deism and Wolffian rationalism and continuing through Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger. These commitments teach scholars the old lesson: if all you have is a hammer, the world starts to look like it’s made of nails. If the discussion in New Testament theology wants to continue the dialogue, scholars must be ready to submit their philosophical premises to open discussion. See Eskola, Beyond New Testament Theology, 316-317. 5 For the history of the research into the gospel material and the question of the socalled historical Jesus, see Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation 4; Witherington, The Jesus-Quest; Frei, Eclipse of Narrative.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

narrative discourse today takes a semiotic approach where the dynamics of expression are addressed, and study endeavors to open the process and to explicate the emergence of theological thoughts and claims.6 There are several phases in a tradition process. Naturally, many passages contain Jesus’ “original” speech, at least as a translation.7 The role of the translator, as regards the extant text, is also a fact, though. The most important phase, for narrative analysis, is that of the original author/narrator. The author/narrator is the one who selects features, produces historical settings, introduces characters and roles and, probably the most important task of all, sets Jesus’ words into place.8 Even though one would assume that a distinction should be made between the author and the narrator, at least in a theoretical sense, this will not alter the situation of the reader essentially. Gospel stories are short and economical. They usually contain only a few details. They are almost like preliminary sketches drawn before the painting of a more colorful picture of the event. The narrator is doing what the author usually does. Despite this, gospel stories are still quite informative. They are striking and impressive, and they also usually have a specific aim. A re-evaluation of methodology means that one needs to be critical of the theological redaction criticism popular especially in the historical-critical tradition. In that vein, gospel stories have too often been treated merely as theological constructions of the church. This is how both Jesus’ proclamation and that of his (pre-Easter) disciples were lost.9 Sanders already pointed out that a credible reconstruction based on standard criteria cannot be made: “The test rules out too much.”10 Therefore, scholars must assume that there is a positive relationship between Jesus and his contemporaries in Judaism. Then Sanders uses a term that could well be a new standard in Jesus-studies. One needs a “satisfactory reconstruction” of the life and teaching of Jesus, 6

For the new methodology in general, see e.g. Bal, Narratology; Keen, Narrative Form; Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics; on rhetorical narratology especially Chatman, Story and Discourse. 7 This kind of dicussion may, at least in part, sound elementary. It needs to be thought through for narratological analysis, though. It is no longer possible simply to adopt the rhetoric and approaches of traditional form criticism since most of the concepts used in that methodology have now changed and many are completely different. 8 Authors of short gospel pericopes are usually also narrators of the story. For questions concerning the role of the author, the implied author, and the narrator in narrative, see e.g. Chatman, Story and Discourse, 151–157. This field has developed quickly; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and Watson, Gospel Writing. 9 The problems of the so-called criterion of dissimilarity are obvious. Haacker remarked that if one separates all Jewish and Christian features from the “authentic” Jesus-tradition, it would not result in a historically grounded picture of Jesus but in an “unhistorical” picture of Jesus (“unhistorischen Bild von Jesus”), namely a Christological abstraction. Haacker, Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 76. 10 Sanders, Jesus, 16.

I. Purpose and method

5

and today narratological analysis can come to the rescue. It allows the scholar to pay attention to the whole process. When Jesus, for instance, preaches against the temple, or presents a parable about Israel, his words have a point of their own. Stories may, however, have different emphases in different gospels. They may have been connected with different kinds of Old Testament passages or other interpretive traditions. The original story may have been given different theological interpretations during the process of transmission. In a similar way there must have been development in early Christology. The construction of theology is a process and, in a limited way, it is possible to detect these processes in the extant texts. Today it should be admitted, though, that the importance of such processes – or theories concerning them – is not particularly significant for writing a New Testament theology.11 New Testament theology, thus, builds on a new reconstruction of Jesus’ teaching. Proper investigation of the gospel narratives is vital for a succesful treatment of the content of his message. The analysis will inevitably lead to a reconstruction of certain metanarratives that open up the basic nature of the theology that influences his followers’ thinking. This is how particular steps toward the Christology and soteriology of the early Christianity can be deciphered. Focusing on this kind of process also helps one to understand Paul’s more refined theological thinking. 3. Semiotics and signification processes The study of theological themes, in turn, is a matter of semiotics. Anyone dealing with theological subjects must concentrate on processes of signification.12 As regards the New Testament, and Jesus’ teaching in particular, the focus lies in the interpretation and re-interpretation of Old Testament passages and in the treatment of Jewish tradition, temple ideology and zealous Second Temple soteriology. Jesus’ proclamation is exemplary for its 11

Chester asks whether a narrative approach leaves the issues concering historical processes too far behind the texts and so without consideration. Chester, Messiah, 40– 43. This should not be the case. Seeing the narrative as a part of the original historical record helps scholars to evaluate the tradition from a new point of view. This transformation in historical research, however, is parallel to the more essential change in methodology where both the minimalist views of historicism and over-enthusiastic redaction criticism have been abandoned. The issues of narratology and processes should not be set at odds, however, and narratology as a tool should not be rejected as if it were interested only in the extant text – thus making it one-dimensional. 12 Semiotics, to give a short definition, is a field where the meaning of (especially linguistic) signs is investigated. Signs can of course be any tokens that are invested with meaning. Semiosis, in turn, means the signification process itself, and semioticians often focus on discerning details in such processes. Semiosis then overlaps a bit with narrative analysis on this point. For a general introduction, see Deely, Semiotics.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

skillful appropriation of scriptural quotations, allusions and revisions of Jewish tradition. It is a masterpiece of intertextual innovation, and this is something every vibrant analysis should be able to tackle.13 As noted, processes of signification usually occur in narratives. Therefore, narrative analysis has a central role in the methodology of the present investigation. Stories about reality are not mere fiction. History is about interpretation. This epistemological aspect of narrativity can be detected most clearly when signification processes are studied. If one wants to explain meanings in ancient documents, one has to explore how signs are given a particular meaning. The most important thing that takes place in “reading the past” is that narrators and authors introduce new interpretants. According to Charles S. Peirce, both a progress in knowledge and a progress of culture is based on interpreting signs like ideas, words, statements, and actions. Investing meaning in some event or tradition takes place in a process of signification, semiosis. Jesus’ followers, producing a story, or formulating a theological statement, are producing an interpretant. This interpretant is a thought, a new “sign,” which interprets the former sign, former clause, thought, or act.14 As the author/narrator, for instance, selects features, produces historical settings, and introduces characters, he is involved in semiosis. When Old Testament passages are connected with different aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings, new interpretants are brought into the picture. The process of signification, thus, is an interplay between former signs and new significations produced in their reception. Therefore, one may say that the investigation of Jesus’ message is, partly, also an investigation of this semiotic process in the texts themselves. Jesus’ message can be discerned and defined on the basis of the reciprocal relation between his intentions and the new signs, the readings of the reception.15 The investigation of New Testament theology, and of Jesus’ teaching as its integral core, is not a one way, deductive study from the early post-Easter Church to some assumed, “historical critical” Jesus. Instead, it is an investigation of the dynamical process, semiosis, that has been taking place in the text production of the messianic movement Jesus founded. Today any 13

For a more detailed discussion of semiotics and the role of linguistic methods in the service of studying Christology, see Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 17–42. 14 Peirce, admittedly, is a highly controversial scholar – especially because he did not publish much. Ideas concerning his semiotics are based on analyses of his huge number of unpublished papers, preserved unsystematically. It must suffice to rely on certain general presentations of Peircean semiotics, such as Deledalle, Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs; and the collection Peirce’s Doctrine of Signs: Theory, Applications, and Connections, edited by Colapietro and Olschewsky. For Peirce’s original definitions, see Peirce, Essential Peirce 2, 4–10, 272–279. 15 In my analysis in previous works, I have noted that where there is textuality, there is intertextuality. These issues have now become significant in writing New Testament theology. Eskola, Beyond New Testament Theology, 310–317.

I. Purpose and method

7

discussion concerning New Testament theology must start with Jesus himself. A great change has taken place in scholarship since the days of Bultmann and Käsemann. Signification processes involve the construction and use of metanarratives. Particular metaphors, topoi, and motifs are invested with meaning as they are put in a context. This is why, in the present work, focus will be on the testing of one influential metanarrative, that of exile and restoration. The subject has been chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has been able to explain the motivation to construct soteriology both in Second Temple Judaism and in early Christianity. Secondly, it is a growing issue in New Testament theology today, as we shall see later, and, thirdly, it has a central role in canonical theology where it has a profoundly heuristic power.16 Narrative analysis is quite popular in contemporary scholarship, and so other metanarratives could have been adopted. The metanarrative of exile and restoration has been used especially by N.T. Wright but, for instance Frank Matera, in his New Testament theology, focused on a larger metanarrative concerning the fall and redemption.17 James Hamilton, in turn, investigates what the title of his work proclaims: God’s glory in salvation through judgment. Ben Witherington, in his Paul’s Narrative Thought World, considers different points of view but finds unity in theology.18 And finally Desmond Alexander has written an ingenious New Testament theology discussing the idea of restoring the garden-temple of Eden in New Testament writings.19 Why narrative theology, then? The first reason for adopting a new approach, as stated above, is the linguistic element. Methodology has changed, and our understanding of written texts has improved. In the wake of a post-liberal reading of the New Testament “real” history is no longer seen as something hiding behind allegedly corrupted texts which are laden with supernatural intentions. History, as it appears in ancient documents, has been 16 Even though I have arrived at this methodological approach following a path different from Wright’s, it is proper to note that, in his New Testament and the People of God I, he provides a thorough presentation of a narrative and even structuralist reading of gospel material, and there is much for me to learn from it in the future. See Wright, People of God, 113–115, 215–232. My literary approach is dependent on my research into recent Jesus-novels, Evil Gods and Reckless Saviours: Adaptation and Appropriation in Late Twentieth Century Jesus-novels. 17 Matera provides a five point definition of his “master story”: “I make use of five categories to summarize the master story of the New Testament: (1) humanity in need of salvation, (2) the bringer of salvation, (3) the community of the sanctified, (4) the life of the sanctified, and (5) the hope of the sanctified.” Matera, Theology, xxx. 18 To pick up a selection of his thoughts: “It is a Story about creation and creature and their redemption by, in, and through Jesus Christ. It is a Story about a community of faith created out of the midst of fallen humanity.” Witherington, Narrative Thought World, 2. 19 These monographs will be presented more closely below.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

presented to us in the form of narratives. A proper understanding of New Testament theology depends on a proper reading of narratives. This leads us to the second reason. History as an explanation of ancient events is always already an interpretation. Narrative theology investigates such interpretations especially by focusing on metanarratives. These premises also dictate the approach of the work. One does not need to focus on chronological order. Neither will a dogmatic system be adopted here. The writing of this narrative theology shall begin by opening the narrative structure that directs Jesus’ proclamation and explaining the role of restoration eschatology in his mission.

II. Testing Sanders and Wright’s challenging hypotheses New Testament theology, building on the new paradigm in Jesus-studies, must start with a credible reconstruction of Jesus’ teaching in the context of Second Temple Jewish theology. There are several ways to introduce the development of the latest quest. It is proper to begin with E.P. Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism which has been a watershed in gospel studies. 1. From Meyer to Sanders to Wright Many ideas in recent scholarship and explanations derive from Sanders’ monograph.20 Sanders belongs to the vanguard of scholars who wished to apply the new expertise in Jewish studies to New Testament criticism. Both his Paul and Palestinian Judaism and his other studies in Jewish writings prepared the ground for his monograph on Jesus. This is probably the reason why Sanders, in his studies of the background of Jesus’ teaching, emphasize the essential role the exile still played in the writings of Second Temple Jewish theologians.21 Sanders was in fact following the ideas of his Canadian mentor Ben Meyer who had already in 1979 written a rather original monograph, Aims of Jesus. In this investigation Meyer wrote about Jesus’ relation to the temple and suggested that Jesus’ attitude had to do with the belief that the exile was not entirely over yet. Many of Meyer’s ideas found a developed formulation in Sanders’ work.

20

See especially Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–81. The standard monograph on the subject of exile and restoration as such has been Peter Ackroyd’s Exile and Restoration (1968). It was later followed by Raymond Foster’s The Restoration of Israel (1970), and Ralph Klein’s Israel in Exile (1979) among others. 21 Sanders in fact wanted to revitalize Albert Schweitzer’s eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ message. See Schweitzer’s own description in his Quest, 385–388. For Sanders’ reflection on this, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 23–24.

II. Testing challenging hypotheses

9

In his own book, Sanders starts by referring to George Nickelsburg’s Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (1981) in order to remind his readers that, according to several ancient Jewish writers, Israel’s essential institutions had never been fully restored.22 The majority of people in the diaspora were still expected to return. The continuation of the exile was a discussion that had remained alive within Jewish theology itself. Most of the tribes had never returned to Israel. Even the status of the rebuilt Second Temple had been questioned by some Jewish groups. Jewish identity at the time of Jesus was in no way monolithic. Many Jewish preachers in the Second Temple period still believed that the exile was not over. For Sanders, we can easily see how Jesus was able to use in this in his own criticism and denunciation of the present Israel, as well. The idea of a continuing exile was then made an explanatory factor for Jesus’ teaching in N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (1996). Here Wright connected the idea with Jesus’ proclamation of a renewed eschatological Temple. Wright’s basic view has been summarized in many different passages in his writings, for example: “one of the main kindgomthemes informing Jesus’ retelling of Israel’s story was his belief that the real return from exile, and the real return of YHWH to Zion, were happening in and through his own work.”23 Furthermore, following the ideas of Meyer and Sanders, Wright suggested that: “in his work the Temple was being rebuilt.”24 It will be the task of the present work to test Wright’s hypothesis and the task itself will be defined in more detail in the next subchapter. In fifteen years this Wrightean view became so popular that we can justifiably speak of a new paradigm in Jesus-studies. It should be noted, however, that we are not speaking of completely new discoveries. It would be presumptuous to claim that all relevant ideas were the product of the present generation. Even though no complete history of research is needed here, it is useful to refer to some persuasive historical and theological works, such as Joachim Jeremias’ Jesus als Weltvollender (1930).25 Jeremias already focuses on Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem and on his prophetic demonstration in the temple. Jeremias interprets Jesus’ triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple in terms of ancient Babylonian and Jewish cultic messianism. Enthronement and temple reform go together. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem as a triumphant Son of David and then attacked the temple, he

22 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 79–80; Nickelsburg, Literature, 18. The role of Sander’s colleague Ben Meyer will be discussed below. 23 Wright, Victory, 428. 24 Wright, Victory, 434. 25 Later Martin Hengel developed such ideas in his Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (in German originally in 1971, War Jesus Revolutionär?).

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

claimed eschatological messiahship and even proclaimed his anticipated enthronement and the revelation of a heavenly temple.26 Hence the renewed eschatological hypothesis. Jesus’ message can be best explained when it is understood as prophetic proclamation against the sins of Israel. Jesus stands in line with Isaiah and Zechariah when he states that the present Israel does not represent the true Israel as seen in patriarchal times or the time of the faithful kings. Instead, Israel still lives under God’s wrath. This is why any prophetic warning presented by the great prophets in their own time is valid also in Jesus’ time. The Jerusalem temple does not yet serve the joyous gospel that God promised through the prophets. Priests and scribes cannot redeem people from their guilt. The exile still enslaves the people of Israel. Therefore, a new temple will be built when the promised Messiah enters the eschatological scene. 2. Responses and developments A direct response to the abovementioned work was published in the edited collection Jesus and the Restoration of Israel by Carey C. Newman (1999). In Newman’s collection, Craig A. Evans, after an extensive survey of Jewish writings, concluded that Wright’s statement was justified. Firstly, even many Jewish theologians assumed that final restoration had not yet begun. Secondly, Jesus undoubtedly understood his ministry as the beginning of the end of Israel’s exile.27 After Wright, several scholars have contributed to the issue and their work will be discussed during the analysis. Several examples of these texts are Steven Bryan’s dissertation Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, written under Andrew Chester in Cambridge, Dale Allison’s Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, and Nicholas Perrin’s Jesus The Temple. The metanarrative of exile and restoration is essential for James Hamilton in his New Testament theology called God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology, as well as for Thomas Schreiner’s New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. The new/renewed hypothesis is essentially theological since it no longer discusses Jesus’ social environment to the exclusion of all else. Scholars focus on Jesus’ teaching and proclamation. Therefore, Sanders and Wright’s theory attempts to shed light on Jesus’ identity as a prophetic preacher and of course as a messianic figure who has developed an eschatological program. 26 Jeremias, Jesus, 35ff. Jesus’ royal entry is a fruitful point of departure as his identity is assessed, since this is the point where his contradiction with Jewish leaders and temple authorities appears in its sharpest form. These kinds of subjects were further investigated by many Catholic scholars, such as Yves Congar in his Le mystère du temple (1958). 27 Evans, Restoration, 98–100. Another collection discussing Wright’s views has been published, namely Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright, edited by Perrin and Hayes.

II. Testing challenging hypotheses

11

Applying new views to New Testament theology is a challenge, naturally. Rudolf Bultmann’s extensive Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1953) dominated the field for decades. It was a long time before novel attempts began to flourish. In Great Britain George Caird finally started a new line of inquiry and, in the United States, Brevard S. Childs introduced the idea of canonical theology, gaining many followers.28 In Germany the Bultmannian tradition has continued to be quite strong, with thorough books by authors such as Hans Hübner, Georg Strecker, Walter Schmithals, and Udo Schnelle. A new Tübingen tradition opposing that of the Bultmannians comprises above all Peter Stuhlmacher’s work on biblical theology. One could probably count Ferdinand Hahn’s and Ulrich Wilckens’ works among these, even though they come from other universities. Furthermore, there are some “Wredean” works attempting an early Christian history of religion. The one delving into this ground was Heikki Räisänen, with Gerd Theissen providing a helpful contribution. In the present work, it will be quite impossible to discuss all the views proposed for New Testament theology in recent years. In crucial passages, however, an attempt will be made to compare the new views to other important interpretations of early theology and its metanarratives despite the fact that most of these authors have not yet commented on the new paradigm.29 The crucial element is that the metanarrative of exile and restoration opens up a new horizon in New Testament theology as such. Sanders and Wright have started a fruitful new tradition. And as Hamilton and Schreiner have proved, we can use this to interpret the narrative structure of the entire corpus of texts. Now that Wright himself has expanded his own interpretation to the field of Pauline studies, any attempt to write a complete New Testament theology is more than justified.30 Most monographs to date have focused on some particular aspect in the metanarrative. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate how the metanarrative of exile and restoration shapes the basic structure of New Testament soteriology. 3. Studies expanding the paradigm: continuing exile and temple criticism Wright’s book, as well as his numerous writings thereafter, have aroused much discussion among scholars. Literature on the themes of exile and restoration is plentiful, and we will glimpse this by making a few remarks on different approaches here. In the first phase, Meyer stated that in the 28 In the English speaking world, then, we will need to discuss the monographs written by Roy Zuck and Darrell Bock, Frank Thielman, I.H. Marshall, J. Julius Scott Jr., Ben Witherington III, Philip Esler, Jon M. Isaak, and Gregory Beale, as well as Catholic scholars such as Joachim Gnilka and Frank J. Matera. For the discussion on canon, see Frey, Aufgabe, 46-48. 29 For detailed information concerning the books behind these long lists, see the bibliography. I have discussed most of the books in Eskola, Beyond, 235–317. 30 See Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (later indicated by: Paul).

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

“cleansing” of the temple Jesus sought a restoration of Israel. His action was a harsh critique of the sanctuary. It was a sign of the future, not an attempt to protect temple purity.31 Bruce Chilton then investigated Jesus’ relation to the temple in his The Temple of Jesus (1992), but put emphasis on Jesus’ sacrificial program.32 The particular story about Jesus’ act in the temple is treated in detail by Kurt Paesler, Das Tempelwort Jesu (1999), and Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel (2000). Ådna also contributed to the collection Gemeinde ohne Tempel (see below).33 Many of the later treatments of these subjects are not in fact influenced by Wright himself. Quite early on James Scott published an edited collection called Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (1997).34 In a few years time another compilation followed: Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (2001). In these books scholars updated our understanding of Second Temple views on these subjects. At about the same time, a German alternative was introduced by Ego, Lange, and Pilhofer, called Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Community without Temple (1999). In the realm of monographs, David Ravens focused on Luke in his Luke and the Restoration of Israel (1995), and David Pao on Acts in Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (2000). Brant Pitre published an extensive dissertation investigating exilic themes in eschatological settings, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (2005). Quite recently Michael Barber contributed to the issue in his Fuller dissertation The Historical Jesus and Cultic Restoration Eschatology: The New Temple, the New Priesthood and the New Cult. Furthermore, one needs to remember Jon Levenson’s monograph written from a Jewish point of departure, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (2006).35 Restoration eschatology has also been explored in the context of temple ideology. This is only logical because the destruction of the First Temple became the very symbol for the entire exile. In several Old Testament passages, prophetic hope lies in an eschatological temple that becomes the 31

Meyer, Aims, 168–170. Donna Runnalls treated these events in 1983 in her article The King as a Temple Builder, where she interpreted the temple incident along the lines of Zechariah’s prophecies and presented Jesus as an eschatological temple builder. David Catchpole, by contrast, in his article The ’Triumphal’ Entry (1984), relied on form criticism and considered the theological content of the passage a result of post-Easter intentions. 32 Chilton, Temple of Jesus, 98–111. 33 See for instance Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 424-430; Ego et al., Gemeinde, 470–473. 34 In addition to this it should be noted that after the standard monographs of Ackroyd and Foster, Knopper later published a collection Exile and Restoration Revisited (2009), followed by Ralph Keen’s Exile and Restoration in Jewish Thought (2009). 35 For the Gospel of John, it suffices to refer to Mary Coloe’s God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel.

II. Testing challenging hypotheses

13

center of Israel’s final restoration. One of the main treatments of this issue is Gregory Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (2004). It was published in the same year as the collection Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, edited by Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole. Alexander later published a complete New Testament theology on the issue, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. (2008). Paul’s theology, then, is a world of its own. One should note that James Scott, mentioned above, published already in 1995 his study Paul and the Nations. In this investigation focusing on the concept of ethnos in the works of Paul and his predecessors (Old Testament and Second Temple writings), Scott saw the continuation of the exile as an important theme in Paul’s soteriology concerning the salvation of the nations.36 Theological issues concerning the temple were investigated by Albert Hogeterp in his Paul and God’s Temple (2006), but he focuses mainly on Paul’s use of cultic imagery. The theme of presenting the Christian community as God’s temple is usually the only element discussed in monographs on New Testament theology. In recent discussion, however, there are two exceptions. Since Hamilton’s abovementioned New Testament theology also covers Pauline letters, he often explains Paul’s soteriology by focusing on restoration eschatology. Furthermore Wright, in his new work on Paul, writes a lengthy analysis on Paul’s use of the metanarrative.37 A brief overview of the relevant literature on our subject reveals that, even though the metanarrative has been under discussion for a couple of decades now, the field is not at all uniform. Much work needs to be done before a coherent presentation of restoration eschatology in New Testament theology is possible. What is especially necessary, in the present situation, is to test Sanders and Wright’s theory and investigate whether Jesus’ eschatological identity as a Davidic temple builder can really be considered an essential factor of his teaching. Even more interesting will be the effort to investigate Paul’s relation to Jesus’ teaching from the standpoint of this grand metanarrative. The very same approach can then more easily be applied to the study of the Letter to the Hebrews and other letters, as well as the Book of Revelation.

III. Setting the task: an attempt at a synthesis The Wrightean hypothesis is quite well defined and challenging as such. Furthermore, the short survey of monographs and articles concerning the metanarrative, summarized as Jesus’ Jerusalem mission and his attitude 36 37

Scott, Paul, 66–74, 130–134. See for instance Hamilton, Glory, 467; Wright, Paul, 139–163.

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

towards the temple, as well as works discussing the idea of the continued exile, have proven that a remarkable number of recent scholars regard these themes as essential to Jesus’ message. Jesus’ identity may be fruitfully studied from the standpoint of the restoration of Israel. The focus in this case is on the Son of David who enters Jerusalem, removes the curse of the exile, and reforms worship by building an eschatological temple. There is good evidence that Jesus proclaimed this kind of renewal in strict opposition to the temple. He raised himself against temple authorities and predicted the destruction of the sanctuary. It seems evident that this message lead to his arrest and his conviction. All this suggests that a theological assessment of Jesus’ teaching is starting a new page is gospel studies. What remains to be done is a detailed analysis that tests these ideas. We must also attempt a more general interpretation of Jesus’ exilic rhetoric and of his proclamation concerning the eschatological temple. It is, therefore, the task of the present study to attempt to construct a synthesis of the theological thinking present in different New Testament writings by focusing on the metanarrative of exile and restoration. This requires an investigation of both the content and implications of Jesus’ eschatology. Why does Jesus denounce the temple? Why has he identified himself as the eschatological figure entering Jerusalem on a donkey and temple builder mentioned in Zechariah? What does it mean that the present temple cannot be considered the place of eschatological renewal? And where does God’s shekinah return at the end of days? The present investigation will suggest that Jesus compares the temple of Jerusalem with an eschatological, spiritual restoration that is metaphorically depicted as a temple. Furthermore, analysis of the implications of such a message in Jesus’ teaching in general is needed. This brings to the fore issues that deal with purity, fasting, holiness, and atonement. If Jesus has actually proclaimed the emergence of a new temple, priestly aspects in his teaching become crucial. A synthesis requires a novel treatment of the relation between Jesus’ teaching and the soteriological message of the early Christian community. This will be mostly a matter of Christology but other aspects, like Jewish synagogal liturgy, will be assessed. The relationship between Jesus and Paul was an enigma during the historical-critical period. These new perspectives will shed new light on this issue as the “Jewish Paul” is interpreted in the context of Second Temple Jewish eschatology and restoration theology. The preliminary hypothesis concerning this issue is that most authors of the New Testament, or theologians of the early Church, adopted this basic metanarrative. It shaped their thinking and provided material for their theology. Therefore, it is possible to attempt a synthesis and hope that a reconstruction may, gradually, also solve certain problems in the field of New Testament theology, problems that have puzzled scholars who explore both the pedal point and contrapunctus of early Christian thinking. There are many challenges in writing a concise New Testament theology. The space is limited and, in order to have a reasonable the number of pages,

III. Setting the task

15

one must write briefly on issues that admittedly need a more thorough treatment. The genre itself, however, demands condensed expression and, therefore, only the most important themes and passages are explored in more detail. Every author confronts the same challenge. I will adopt a similar principle for previous literature and footnote discussions. In important passages, I will rely on more references, whereas less important subjects will receive treatment from just a few scholarly authorities. Due to the genre, thus, most of the references to earlier literature have more weight in this study than in a monograph with a narrower subject. Therefore, postulations tend to surpass more careful investigation here, but I hope that it will happen for the benefit of the primary aim: to present an overview of a narrative theology of the New Testament directed by the eschatological metanarrative of exile and restoration.

Chapter 2

Jesus’ message I. Exile and restoration As the narrative analysis of Jesus’ proclamation focuses on one particular metanarrative in his theology, the treatment of the issue must start with a short survey on Israel’s exile and the variety of meanings it has been given both in the Old Testament and in Second Temple Jewish writings. During the investigation I shall use the terms exilic rhetorics and restoration escha– tology, the former referring to theological developments that put exilic themes in the the forefront of Israel’s imagination and, the latter speaking of Israel’s restoration after the exile. Jesus’ gospel, generally speaking, centers on restoration and forgiveness. It is logical to expect that these views relate to a particular view on the historical exile as well. Also from the point of view of Second Temple Jewish theology the exile has extraordinary importance. As a historical event it has affected the very formation of Jewish, to say nothing of Christian, theology. 1. Babylonian exile in history and theology “With all the historical uncertainties which remain for our appreciation of what happened in the sixth century BC in Palestine and Babylonia,” starts Peter Ackroyd in his summary over the investigation of the exile, “there is no real doubt about the main outlines.”1 And Ralph Klein goes on: “Exile meant death, deportation, destruction, and devastation.”2 What we have here, in a historical sense, is a condition of war. In that context the destruction concerned especially the capital Jerusalem and deportation of the wealthy but most significantly the temple–centered religious life was destroyed. What is the nature and content of different reactions on this significant event? Descriptions of the conditions that led to the razing of Jerusalem are 1 Ackroyd, Exile, 232. He states that the “reality of the disasters of 597 and parti– cularly of 587 is amply attested in the biblical records, sufficiently confirmed in such non–biblical records as are available, and abundantly illustrated in the archaeological discoveries in Palestine itself.” Ackroyd’s monograph has become a standard on the subject. 2 Klein, Exile, 2. More recently, in the collection written in his memory, many of the basic findings are still accepted despite the fact that new investigations have shed more light on the issue, see the recent collection Exile and Restoration Revisited.

I. Exile and restoration

17

surprising, and theological reactions to the events are unique. The people’s identity is rocky. Theological assumptions about Israel’s God are shaken. The primacy of the nation is compromized. The historical process that led to the destruction of Jerusalem is understandable in itself. Babylonian empire rose to superior power under two rulers in 604–562, namely Nabopolassar and Nabuchadnezzar. The political situation in Israel was unstable and quite soon after the death of Josiah (609), Syria and Palestine came under Babylonian rule.3 Jerusalem was rebellious, though, and Babylonians invaded it first in 597. The city was finally captured in 587/586 and young Zedekiah was taken to Babylon in fetters (2 Kings 25:7). Scholars assume that the actual deportation concerned only a small portion of the population. It targeted, as usual, the higher classes, those in power, whereas the “poor of the land” remained in Palestine. Even 2 Kings mentions this: “But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil.” (2 Kings 25:12). The region was useful for expanding the wealth of Babylon, and a good many people and families were needed for daily work in the captured country.4 The temple however, according to all scholars, was destroyed. Its riches were stolen, bronze vessels – not to mention silver and gold – were stolen. Buildings were burnt, and priests were taken away. According to 2 Kings, the chief priest Seraiah was put to death at Riblah (2 Kings 25:21). Futhermore, the contemporary archaeological evidence suggests there is no reason to doubt that the walls of the city were broken down (2 Kings 25:10). In the Lamentations we find passages that cannot be taken as merely poetical. The Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary; he has delivered into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; a clamor was raised in the house of the Lord as on a day of festival. (Lam 2:7)

The destruction of Jerusalem is reflected also in the tradition that the nearby city of Mizpah was made the new capital of the country (2 Kings 25:23). Furthermore, it is possible that Bethel became an important cultic center for those remaining in Judah. From the days of Jeroboam Bethel had been the place for the northern sanctuary – and a reason for God’s wrath, too (1 Kings 12:29). Now it offered a possibility for the remaining people to maintain something of their cultic past during occupation. Some scholars assume that later when the Second Temple was being built this displacement caused significant tension between Bethel and Jerusalem (Zech 7:2).

3

Ackroyd, Exile, 17. Cf. Carroll, ABD III (1992) 569: “Most people lived on in the land as if nothing, except the burning of Jerusalem, had happened. But from an ideological point of view, the few who were deported were the cream of society and the nucleus of the future.” 4

18

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The role of the great prophets is crucial in the theological explanation of the events. For theologians the crisis was not merely a matter of unsuccesful politics, as some previous conflicts with Egypt or some other countries may have been. The occupation of the country and destruction of Jerusalem were held to be inevitable. The occurrences as such were accepted. They were seen as a direct result of Israel’s sins. The exile was interpreted as a divine judgment on the people and its leaders. Theology of the exilic period is directed by a new narrative: Israel and Judah lived in apostasy and idolatry. It was logical that God would punish the people for their infidelity. The doom was held to be justified and the prophets never questioned the reason for the destruction of the Temple. In these texts the divine will is acknowleged as righteous.5 You yourselves have seen all the disaster that I have brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Look at them; today they are a desolation, without an inhabitant in them, because of the wickedness that they committed, provoking me to anger, in that they went to make offerings and serve other gods that they had not known, neither they, nor you, nor your ancestors. (Jer 44:2–3; cf. Ezek 8)

One of the crisis’ main features was that God’s messengers were rejected: “Your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.” (Jer 2:30). This theme is repeated later in Jeremiah: “Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, ’I beg you not to do this abominable thing that I hate!’ But they did not listen or incline their ear, to turn from their wickedness and make no offerings to other gods.” (Jer 44:4–5). Destruction was destined to follow: “So my wrath and my anger were poured out and kindled in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they became a waste and a desolation.” (44:6; cf. Deut 28:58–68; 29:22–29). In Nehemiah’s national confession we find a response: Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their backs and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies. (Neh 9:26)6

Even the Chronicler whose approach to Israel’s/Judah’s history is more tolerant than that found in Kings, is quite harsh when explaining the causes that led to the divine punishment and exile. The Lord, the God of their ancestors, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy. (2 Chr 36:15–16)

5

See for instance Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 107–120. Cf. the formula in Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; as well as the threat Jeremiah faced in his own life, 26:8; 38:4. 6

I. Exile and restoration

19

The hermeneutical pattern here is quite evident. Different writings betray different tones, as well. The Torah describes how the proper cultic relationship between God and his people is maintained, whereas the theology of the prophets focuses on the historical catastrophy of the chosen people. In Jeremiah the traditional credo focusing on exodus has been expanded and the weight shifts to new exodus and restoration. Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, “As the Lord lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt,” but “As the Lord lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. (Jer 16:14–15; 23:7–8; cf. Isa 51:9–11; Ezek 20:9, 34)

These facts have inspired the developers of canonical hermeneutics. Their point of departure is simple: why was it necessary to compile the Tanakh, the “Old Testament” canon? The main corpus of the collection consists of exilic and post–exilic writings. The Deuteronomistic collection, ranging roughly from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, is permeated by exilic theology and explains Israel’s troublesome history. All the great prophets and many of the lesser ones denounce Israel’s sins – as do many Psalms. The canon, in this respect, is a document of Israel’s severe crisis. It attempts to explain how the chosen people have suffered for their infidelity. In addition to this, a new dialectic prevails. Canonical theology is theology of exile and restoration. God promises renewal. History will change. Israel’s status shall be altered and her wounds shall be healed.7 Canonical theology, thus, has a somewhat different hermeneutical purpose than the Torah. The Pentateuch focuses on exodus, the promised land, and temple cult. Canonical theology, in turn, explains the destruction and anticipates the merciful restoration God will bring about in near future. These points of view are not mutually exclusive but their co–existence reveals a change of context. The canon itself serves as a proof for the reality of the exile, whereas the impact of the exilic period can easily be seen in the selection of theological themes.8 This is why canonical theology, first and foremost, focuses on theology of crisis. Exile and restoration form a binary pattern that is unmistakably eschatological. Israel’s renewal lies in the future but it is not yet clear how it will come true in the course of history. As a hermeneutical explanation this makes a good hypothesis. It certainly has many points of contact with Second 7

Childs, Biblical Theology, 161–166. One should note that, in later discussions, scholars have remarked that Ackroyd focused mainly on “thought.” Grabbe and Knoppers mention this in the Introduction as they comment on Ackroyd’s subtitle referring to the relationship between history and thought; see Exile and Restoration Revisited, 11. Therefore, it is quite proper to treat the theme of exile and restoration also from the perspective of canonical theology. 8

20

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Temple Jewish writings, as we shall see in more detail below. It furthermore serves as a basis for a consistent explanation of many New Testament themes. Before turning to these issues there are other kinds of questions that need to be addressed. How did Old Testament authors understand the nature of the exile? How did they expect the restoration to take place? Why did some groups still in the Roman period believe that the final restoration had not yet begun? 2. Expansions of the concept of exile The theological interpretation of the exile, provided above all by the great prophets, has several important features that need to be taken into account when treating the issue for our present purposes. In their theology, the exile is not merely a matter of politics, deportation, or geography. Not all people were taken to Babylon, and not every family returned. Furthermore, there had been refugees in other countries who escaped the Babylonian threat. And what is even more important, they appear to ignore the northern state Israel, especially when it comes to restoration. All these features have allowed scholars to focus on different aspects in the prophetic tradition. As Ackroyd remarks, the destruction of Jerusalem is not seen merely as a condemnation of the past but “also a stage within the working out of a larger purpose.”9 The people’s spiritual state has degenerated so severely that the prophets no longer see how any single act of repentance could alter the situation. Israel is blind and has turned its back to its Lord: “Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but do not see, who have ears, but do not hear. Do you not fear me? says the Lord.” (Jer 5:21–22). Such problems lead to a reassessment of the glorious past. Apostasy and idolatry prove that Israel has hardened her heart: “But this people has has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away.” (Jer 5:23). The prophet Isaiah proclaimed something similar in the northern state more than a century earlier: “these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me.” (Isa 29:13). Also in Judah people have “turned their backs to me, and not their faces.” (Jer 2:27). Furthermore, the people’s relation to the temple has been compromised. If the heart is rebellious, hollow service will do no good for those entering the courts of the Jerusalem Temple. “Do not trust in these deceptive words: This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” (Jer 7:4). No human effort can remedy this situation. If there was ever a chance that that could happen, the time has long since passed. Only divine action can bring hope to those living now under God’s wrath. Ackroyd states: “With the exile, this need for repentance and reform is set in the context of a new act of God.” All the great prophets proclaim that God himself will turn to his 9

Ackroyd, Exile, 234.

I. Exile and restoration

21

people. He is the one who shall bring renewal and salvation (Isa 35:2). After the destruction a new start will follow: “Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel.” (Jer 31:4).10 Just as the exile in several writings is not merely a political deportation but more like a condition of the fallen people, so to does the renewal often mean something other than a concrete journey back to the promised land. The restoration of Israel is not necessarily identical with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Instead, it means the renewal of hearts and the restoration of the people’s spiritual state. This can be seen in texts where the Second Temple no longer has a unique status. In Daniel, for instance, the seventy years of punishment (cf. Jer 25:12; 2 Chr 36:21) become seventy weeks. Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Dan 9:24).

It is noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel had already predicted a longer period of time. God demanded that the prophet lie on his left side three hundred and ninety days, “equal to the number of the years of their [Israel’s] punishment.” (Ezek 4:5).11 Judah’s years of punishment, however, added only forty days for the prophet (verse 6). The time of punishment corresponds with the time of apostasy. Such numbers are usually taken for their symbolic value, and the hundred years’ difference between Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s estimations has not occasioned much severe disagreement among Jewish writers. The book of Daniel, according to the general view, refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (reigning approximately from 175 B.C. onwards). Ezekiel’s numbers would fit that scheme better but he is not directly referred to or used before the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Damascus Document the appearance of the new reformatory group is explained by referring to a period of three hundred and ninety years. According to scholars, Ezekiel’s numbers are used probably because they fit well in the historical situation. The counting of days is so accurate that the arrival of the Teacher of Righteousness is said to take place only twenty

10

Ackroyd, Exile, 235. Reading Ackroyd one should, however, remember that his overview is heavily based on Old Testament texts. Eskenazi notes that more recently, there has been much discussion about the nature of the restoration and its reality. Many scholars today assume that people did not see the change as black–and–white as some texts would have us believe. For contemporary discussion, see Eskenazi, Exile and Restoration Revisited, 78–80. This view, of course, simultaneously emphasizes the theological nature of restoration eschatology. 11 Since Solomon’s temple stood, according to a general view, for 422 years, this number 390, establishes the age of the divided kingdom. In Ezekiel’s eschatology, restoration will bring this division to an end (37:22).

22

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

years after the birth of the movement – probably when Maccabean rulers take over the high priesthood.12 And at the moment of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after having delivered them up into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and from Aaron a shoot of the planting [...] but they were like blind persons and like those who grope for the path over twenty years. And God appraised their deeds, because they sought him with a perfect heart and raised up for them a Teacher of Righteousness, in order to direct them in the path of his heart. And he made known to the last generations what he had done for the last generation, the congregation of traitors. (CD I.5–12)

In Qumranian eschatology Israel’s restoration is not yet considered complete. Instead, the temple of Jerusalem is believed to be in the hands of the Wicked Priest, “Man of Lies,” and God raised the Teacher of Righteousness to oppose him (in the commentary on Psalm 37, 4Q141, I; cf. 1QpHab VIII). This must be the reason why, in the Damascus Document, even the Second Temple period is still depicted as the “age of devastation of the land.” (CD V.20). God remembers his covenant only when the faithful, “the princes,” leave the land of Judah and start to live in the land of “Damascus.” Those fleeing in the desert have “shut the temple doors” just as the book of Malachi demanded (Mal 1:10). But all those who have been brought into the covenant shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close the door, as God said: “Whoever amongst you will close its door so that you do not kindle my altar in vain!” Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the law for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves from the sons of the pit.” (CD VI.11–15)

Exile, in this kind of eschatology, is clearly a condition of the people. Even though the new temple has been erected, the most holy place has not been anointed. Many of these writers believed that Israel’s sin had not yet been taken away and temple cult could not atone for the sins that led to such severe punishment under the Babylonians. A theological motivation directs religious teaching over these issues. We could probably speak of the spiritualization of the concept of exile.13 The historical event becomes a symbol for the spiritual exile where people’s hearts are not open to the Lord. And what is even more important, teachers begin to develop different views concerning the nature of restoration.

12

See for instance VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls, 100. The same is true as regards the eschatology of Jubilees. Halpern–Amary points out that, in Jubilees, the cycle does not close with the return from exile. Instead, the book expects days of repentance and “a spritual regeneration.” Halpern–Amary, Exile, 140. As noted, similar tenets can be found in several writings of that period. 13

I. Exile and restoration

23

3. Patterns of restoration The larger purpose of God’s divine punishment, mentioned above, can be easily detected in the great prophet’s treatment of Israel’s crisis. The paradigmatic start of the second part of the book of Isaiah promises: “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God.” Jerusalem has “served her term,” and the time of restoration has arrived: “her penalty is paid.” (Isa 40: 1–2). Later God’s sovereign act is emphasized: “I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” (43:25). As God himself is the guarantee for forgiveness, absolution will be complete: “I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like a mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you.” (44:22). A similar attitude prevails in the proclamation of other exilic prophets. “I am going to bring it recovery and healing; I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security,” states Jeremiah. “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me.” (Jer 33: 6–8). Cultic terminology is replete with these promises, and Ezekiel adds the act of sprinkling with water to symbolize new purity. I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you [...] (Ezek 36: 24–26)

In exilic rhetorics and theology the deportation is not merely a political or geographical issue. In prophetic proclamations, it appears as a false attitude: people live with a divided heart. Infidelity and sin separate people from their Lord. This is also why restoration will be a restoration of hearts, not just a political restoration of the state. The final part of Isaiah states: the Lord’s anointed one will come and proclaim good news (LXX: euangelisasthai): “to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners” (Isa 61:1). In such theology the exile is not merely an event that takes place in a particular historical situation. Instead, it becomes a condition of the entire people from which only the final age and God’s divine restoration will bring release. Until that time Israel will live in a spiritual exile.14 This kind of crisis is often acknowleged in Jewish writings, and the problem is solved in several different ways. Beyond the spiritual aspect, the abovementioned passages prove that the great prophets proclaimed forgiveness and mercy in the name of the “God who gathers.” Paradigmatic passages for this message are Isaiah 56 and Zechariah 2. In Isaiah 56 the day of deliverance is promised. “Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them 14

Ackroyd, Exile, 242; Childs, Biblical Theology, 163.

24

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

besides those already gathered.” (Isa 56:8). Zechariah proclaims in the same spirit as he cries: “Flee from the land of the north” (Zech 2:6). In Second Temple Jewish theology these voices remain strong. In Tobit, prayer puts hope in divine forgiveness: “he will show mercy.” As God takes control, he “will gather us from all the nations among whom you have been scattered” (Tobit 13:5). Jonathan’s prayer in 2 Maccabees puts this in the form of a plea: “Gather together our scattered people” (2 Macc 1:27). And Baruch appears to reinterpret Zechariah: “they are coming, gathered from east and west” (Bar 4:37).15 Furthermore, in exilic proclamation there is also a particular theological reason for why the land has become desolate. Already in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, right after the presentation of the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee, one can find a reason for the deportation of the people. If Israel “will not obey” God and observe all his commandments, God will “bring terror” on her (Lev 26:14–16). The most severe punishment will be exile: “I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors [...] And you I will scatter among the nations.” (vv. 31– 33). This will be a period when the land is allowed to rest from all the iniquities of the people.16 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years. As long as it lies desolate, it shall have the rest it did not have on your sabbaths when you were living on it. (Lev 26:34–35)

The Chronicler, then, uses this reason when explaining the divine punishment: Israel had to pay off its sabbaths. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. (2 Chr 36:20–21; cf. 1 Esd 1:58)

As noted, the prophets are convinced that after a reasonable period of rest the land will see the inauguration of a real jubilee, the year of liberation and restoration. According to this idea God – through his servant – will “proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Isa 61:1–2). This is evidently related with the fact that keeping the sabbath has a special role in the eschatology of exilic prophets (Isa 56:2, 58:13, 66:23; Jer 17:22; Ezek 20, 22:8, 46:1). A similar eschatological pattern can be found in 11QMelchizedek where Israel’s restoration is presented as the arrival of the final year of jubilee. Starting with a quotation concerning jubilee in Lev 25 the text moves on to 15

For the analysis of Second Temple literature, see Evans, Exile, 312–316. For the treatment of the theme of jubilee in Jewish eschatology, see for instance Bergsma, Jubilee, especially 81ff. 16

I. Exile and restoration

25

its interpretation for the last days: the passage refers “to the captives,” and according to Isa 61:1, their liberty is promised. Liberation will come as the mystery figure Melchizedek arrives, “who will make them return.” Melchizedek will himself start the restoration: “He will proclaim liberty for them, to free them from [the debt] of all their iniquities.”17 Furthermore, the appearance of Melchizedek is presented as the fulfilment of promises given through the prophet Isaiah. This is the day of [peace about which God] spoke [of old through the words of Isa]iah the prophet, who said: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, of the mess[enger of good who announces salvation,] saying to Zion: ‘your God [reigns.”] Its interpretation: The mountains are the pro[phets ...] And the messenger is [the ano]inted of the spirit about whom Dan[iel] spoke [... and the messenger of] good who announces salv[ation is the one about whom it is written that [he will send him “to comfo[rt the afflicted, to watch over the afflicted ones of Zion.”

After the time of affliction, a year of jubilee will come but, according to 11QMelchizedek, this had not yet taken place when different groups returned from Babylon or when the Second Temple was built. The anticipated day of divine enthronement (“your God rules”) will come only when Melchizedek arrives and brings liberation. References to Daniel prove that the period before the important ten eschatological jubilees that 11QMelchizedek mentions are believed to correspond to the weeks of years during which Israel still lives in her exile. Sacred elements are evidently important in restoration eschatology. It is not merely the “land” that has to make up for its sabbaths. Exilic prophets always point out that the people of Israel, in addition to falling into idolatry, have not kept the sabbath: “my sabbaths they greatly profaned” (Ezek 20:13; 23:38; Jer 17:21–27; Isa 1:13). This focus has led scholars to elaborate on the Old Testament understanding of the sabbath. The command to keep the sabbath belongs to the great commandments, naturally, and the feast itself is closely connected with temple worship. There is more to it, though. The basic nature of sabbath is seen in the creation narrative where God rests after the act of creation. This conception unites the sabbath with paradise and the temple. Finding rest in God through the exilic condition means, for many biblical writers, finding a place where God dwells. Scholars have recently maintained that, in the first creation, paradise itself was understood as a garden–temple where God dwelt among the humankind. Therefore, in the Old Testament texts, the garden of Eden is seen as an archetypal sanctuary and a divine residence for God himself.18 Consistent with this idea, in the new creation at the 17

Bergsma, Jubilee, 281–285. See especially Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 283–285; cf. Beale, Temple, 31ff.; Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 50–57. 18

26

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

day of the restoration of Israel, God is expected to create a new temple where the very idea of the sabbath finds its consummation.19 Later in the New Testament, in Hebrews, we find a contrast between rebellious Israel and the community of restoration (Heb 4:6). Here the author, using Psalm 95, identifies salvation with sabbath rest: “So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his.” (Heb 4:9–10). Outside salvific faith the situation remains similar to that of the rebellious Israel in the wilderness: “They shall not enter my rest.” (v. 3). Such features provide important elements for a central narrative in Second Temple restoration eschatology. According to many writings God who will renew Israel is about to found a new paradise where he can dwell among his people. This conception implies the idea of a new creation after which the redeemed can live with their Lord forever. Such an act will consummate the very idea of sabbath and, therefore, the age of liberation can be described as a state of an eternal sabbath. Finally, if we take these features together, God’s new garden–temple will become a sanctuary of salvation for the redeemed. In 11QMelchizedek the arrival of the final jubilee is justified with the idea of God’s enthronement at the day of liberation. Scholars have found different roots for such an idea. Above all, God’s resting on the seventh day of creation has been interpreted as his enthronement in the Edenic garden– temple. This idea is reinstated in temple worship where a paradisical rest can be experienced in connection with the Lord who sits enthroned in the Holy of Holies behind the temple veil. In agreement with these themes, the Old Testament sabbath Psalms 92–93 rejoice in the Lord who “has established the world” and now sits enthroned as a king on his lofty throne, “robed in majesty” (Ps 93:1).20 The metanarrative grows as the aspect of creation shifts the focus from earthly temple to new creation. Therefore, in many Jewish texts, an eschatological view of the temple becomes different from previous conceptions. The influential metanarrative changes interpretations. The first temple, being basically an imitation of the cosmic garden–temple, must necessarily have a transitional and functional nature. It is merely a model, a microcosm that must pass away as God in the new creation makes the entire cosmos his dwelling place. This is also what Isaiah 65 appears to anticipate. For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. (Isa 65:17–18)

19

Alexander, Eden, 21. Alexander also mentions certain details, such as pictures of the cherubim, arboreal decorations, a lampstand symbolizing the tree of life, and the use of gold and onyx, all these emphasizing the parallel between the creation story and temple construction; see pp. 21–23. 20 So especially Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 290.

I. Exile and restoration

27

The concept of the temple could not be abandoned, though. It remained the center of Israel’s renewal. The destruction of the earthly temple symbolizes the nation’s fall and the end of its close relation to the Lord. Restoration necessarily concerns the temple, and this is why it is important to understand how the first temple is said to be related to the eschatological temple. This is where the aspect of creation becomes significant. According to a view that has recently gained growing support, the Old Testament describes the first temple as a cosmic tabernacle, just as Josephus and Philo depict the temple in Second Temple period literature. The temple has been understood as a microcosm that symbolizes the entire world. Beale writes: “The Old Testament highlights particularly the heavenly symbolism of the temple, both with respect to the visible and invisible heavens.”21 In biblical theology, thus, the metanarrative of restoring the original paradise includes the idea of creating/building a tabernacle or temple. The temple in Jerusalem is an edifice that represents the whole created world with the bronze sea in the courtyard. Pitre notes: “For example, the famous ‘bronze sea’ – which contained some thousand gallons of water – was actually meant to represent ‘the sea’ (1 Kgs 7:23; 1 Chr 18:8; Jer 52:17).” 22 Furthermore, there is the veil of heaven in the inner room covered with decorations of heavenly luminaries on it, as Josephus tells us.23 “On this tapestry was portrayed a panorama of the heavens, the signs of the Zodiac excepted.” (B.J. 5.214). The same spirit can be found in Philo’s works where the relationship between the earthly temple “made by hands” is paralleled with its heavenly typos: “for it followed of necessity that those men who were preparing a temple made by hands for the Father and Ruler of the universe must take essences similar to those of which he made the universe itself.”24 This is the place where God’s invisible throne stands and where God can be met with. Therefore, this is also the place where people can experience sabbath rest, find atonement for their sins, and live of the divine presence alone. These descriptions may be Hellenistic interpretations of Hebrew traditions but they nevertheless they build on canonical originals. The first temple, in this scheme, is temporary, though. After Jerusalem’s destruction great prophets begin to proclaim the glory of a new eschatological temple. This kind of tradition drifts gradually into conflict with the 21

Beale, Temple, 36; for his treatment of the subject in more detail, see pp. 29–46. Cf. Barker: “The temple in Jerusalem was in mythical space and time. It was not just a highly decorated building, but rather a place where the eternal and the earthly were one.” Barker, Gate of Heaven, 61. 22 Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 57. In this sense the temple, like paradise, was symbolically “surrounded” by the great sea, see Barker, Gate of Heaven, 65–67. 23 In the Antiquities Josephus writes that the tabernacle that was open to the priests “was withal an imitation of universal nature,” and the holy of holies, inaccessible to the priests, “was like heaven devoted to God.” A.J. 3.123. 24 Philo,Mos. 2.18.88; cf. Her., XLV.221–228.

28

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

standard Sadducean understanding of the new temple built by Zerubbabel (Ezra 3). Even in the context of the large metanarrative aiming at the creation of a cosmic temple, however, the problems of the exilic period remain alive. Since the first temple represented and symbolized the whole world by providing a microcosm, its fall must have been extremely important for meaning construction and the theological signification processes. It is reasonable to assume that, for the great prophets and many Second Temple Jewish theologians, “the destruction of the old Temple represented the demise and passing away of the old creation.”25 According to several writers, the eschatological renewal would be a cosmic event. This is how the prophetic idea of a new eschatologial temple implicitly takes on the idea of a new creation.26 Furthermore, there is the question about the agent of restoration. The great prophets are quite unanimous that the renewal will be consummated by an extraordinary eschatological figure. Usually they identify the renewal with the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. There are certain hints of this in the book of Isaiah, but in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as well as in Haggai and Zechariah Israel’s salvation is dependent on the new David. The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jer 33:14–16)

In Ezekiel the agent of salvation is a shepherd, a new prince from the family of David. My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes [...] and my servant David shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them. (Ezek 37:24–26)

What is even more interesting is that, according to Ezekiel the new David will bring a new temple to people. “My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations shall know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevermore.” (Ezek 37:27–28). In Zechariah the “house of David” also has a special role in the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem as well as the temple itself. The “word of the Lord” promises an eschatological figure who shall enter Zion riding on a colt (9:9). This is the shoot of David, man “whose name is Branch,” “for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord.” (6:12). Like his contemporary Haggai, Zechariah emphasizes that the building of a 25 26

Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 62. Alexander, Eden, 60.

I. Exile and restoration

29

renewed temple is the sign of Israel’s redemption. Haggai makes a special remark that “The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former.” (Hag 2:9). In Zechariah the reason for such primacy is probably in the fact that the temple will be built by the new David who fulfils the expectations that were laid during the exile by the great prophets. “It is he that shall build the temple of the Lord; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.” (Zech 6:13) Finally, we need to pay attention to the universalistic element in restoration eschatology. If the real sabbath, in prophetic writings and Second Temple Jewish theology, is identified as the jubilee of God’s new creation and the restoration of the entire created world, this can simultaneously be understood as the re–creation of the original paradise. God wishes to consecrate the whole of humankind and bring all creation under his kingship. Therefore it is only logical that this metanarrative, by nature, possesses a universalist feature in its soteriology.27 In eschatological reality the Lord has already started to build a new garden–temple that comprises the entire world. Thus says the Lord: Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the Lord. (Isa 66:1–2)

Here most of the basic themes are joined together. God the creator will bring restoration but it does not mean any traditional rebuilding of Jerusalem. He has already established that his temple has cosmic dimensions. No earthly building is necessary in the new creation because the renewed paradise as such serves as God’s temple. It is the place where God dwells among humankind. Such a metanarrative is well in line with the universalist expectations of other prophets. Jeremiah, for instance, is convinced that all nations shall come to Jerusalem and praise God in the new Temple. “At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no longer stubbornly follow their own evil will.” (Jer 3:17). The same theme appears explicitly in the latter part of the book of Isaiah as well. It is too light a thing that you should be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. (Isa 49:6)

The book of Haggai contains similar hopes: “I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with 27

This is true already on the level of Jewish theology, see Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 295; cf. Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 72.

30

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

splendor, says the Lord of hosts.” (Hag 2:7). This also explains the greater splendor that the temple will possess: the eschatological Davidic figure shall make nations come and serve God in the new temple. According to this metanarrative, the new Israel will be the agent of universal restoration. “For it is through a renewed and purified Israel that the nations are to know God and recognize him in his action towards his people.”28 Restoration, thus, means first and foremost the spiritual awakening of God’s people. Israel finds her God anew. Her sins are forgiven and people love and praise the Lord with all their heart. God sends the new son of David who builds the temple of the Lord as the place for eschatological salvation. The Holy Spirit fills the sanctuary and God lives among his people. This will be the year of jubilee for the people living in dispersion. As the Jewish scholar Levenson states, the Isaian idea of “release” serves several functions: “The symbolic resonance established through one word in Isa 61:1 is resounding: Jubilee, Sabbath, Temple, enthronement, liberation, returning home, atonement.”29 And what is more extraordinary still, through the purified Israel all nations will recognize the glory of God and find rest in Zion. Both in Old Testament and Jewish texts, however, all these aspects appear in a cosmic context. Many writers believe that all this takes place in the new creation where God will bring forth a new garden–temple, a place where he shall dwell among his people and an earthly temple is no longer needed. 4. The question about the continuing exile of Israel Several Jewish groups and sects in the Second Temple period were convinced that the oppression of the exile had not yet completely ended.30 Should one also think that, according to these theologians, the magnificent new temple itself was corrupt? This issue has become a crux interpretum and watershed in the “new perspective” studies on the historical Jesus. Sanders, despite proposing a renewed eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ mission, does not think that temple worship was in crisis or even having problems. Neither does he assume that Jesus denounced corruption in temple practices. He emphasizes his view by stating that there is no textual evidence

28

Ackroyd, Exile, 235–236. Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 294. 30 One of the first movements in this direction came from the field of Qumran studies. Garnet, referring to his 1977 dissertation on Qumran soteriology, suggests that Jesus’ teaching had features of exilic soteriology. According to Garnet, many Jewish texts also teach that the exile is not yet over. “By the term ‘exilic soteriology’ I mean salvation ideas, during the period of the Second Temple, which were based on the conviction that Israel was still in Exile as far as the accomplishment of God’s purposes for a national restoration was concerned.” Garnet, Studia Biblica, 111. 29

I. Exile and restoration

31

whatsoever that would support the view that abuse of “money and trade” was a source of difficulties in the first–century Jerusalem temple.31 N.T. Wright, however, in his Jesus and the Victory of God, states that the exilic condition that enslaved the people from the days of Assyria and Babylon still prevailed in Jesus’ time. “But in Jesus’ day many, if not most, Jews regarded the exile as still continuing.” People lived in sin and the temple was in the state of corruption. Jesus, focusing on the continuing exile, proclaimed both the destruction of the present temple and the restoration of Israel: “one of the main kindgom–themes informing Jesus’ retelling of Israel’s story was his belief that the real return from exile, and the real return of YHWH to Zion, were happening in and through his own work.” 32 Furthermore, following the ideas of Meyer and Sanders, Wright suggested that: “in his work the Temple was being rebuilt.”33 Sanders’ optimistic view is no doubt dependent on his theory of covenantal nomism. For him, Jewish faith in the Second Temple period followed the pattern of a salvific religion. The temple was held to be the center of reconciliation and salvation and priestly religion was considered faultless.34 Against this view one is entitled to say that, apart from the “official hope” implicitly ascribed for instance to Sadducean circles of Israel in the Second Temple period, the realistic picture that emerges from different writings is quite devastating. According to several ancient writers Jerusalem was corrupt and the temple polluted. This need not be noted just to prove that Jesus was merely continue the proclamation of several Jewish theologians but to show instead that the Sandersian picture of convenantal nomism does not describe the actual state of affairs in Second Temple Judaism well. If Jesus did denounce the continuing exile, as Wright suggests, his words would have been quite consistent and understandable in the prevailing situation.35 In Second Temple Jewish theology there is a tension between agony over the continuing dispersion of Israel and the fact that the temple has been rebuilt. In the so–called geographical argument the exile is still a reality that cannot be overlooked. Prophets from Isaiah to Zechariah expressed their hope for a return of the dispersed people of God. This hope was never realized. The Israelite deportees were evidently assimilated among their neighbors. A sizeable and significant number of Jews 31

Sanders, Jesus, 66, 367 fn. 39. For the discussion, see Evans, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, 522. 32 Wright, Victory, 126; 428. His ideas were tested later in Newman (ed.), Jesus & Restoration of Israel; see especially Evans, Restoration, 77–100. 33 Wright, Victory, 434. 34 See especially Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 180–182; 422–424. 35 Relevant passages will be discussed below. For recent discussions, see for instance Evans, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, 522–539; Evans, Restoration, 77–100; Snodgrass, Key Events, 429–480; Bock, Continuum, 171–210; Ådna, Handbook, 2635–2675.

32

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

remained in Babylon. Large numbers continued to live in Egypt. Many Jewish exiles chose to remain in Dispersion long after the restraints of exile had been removed.36

Moreover, prophets and writers used exilic rhetoric to criticize Israel’s spiritual state already in the Greek period. Sirach, for instance, prays for God’s people in a manner that cannot be merely reduced into a speech focusing on the Babylonian exile.37 Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time, and let people recount your mighty deeds. Let survivors be consumed in the fiery wrath, and may those who harm your people meet destruction [...] Gather all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning. Have mercy, O Lord, on the people, called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn. Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. (Sir 36:10–19)

Even in the Second Temple period a devout Jew could pray that God would have mercy on the people living under oppression and finally fill his temple with his “glory” (Hebrew Sirach). In the book of Tobit we find a similar prayer. He will afflict you for your iniquities, but he will again show mercy on all of you. He will gather you from all the nations among whom you have been scattered [...] O Jerusalem, the holy city, he afflicted you for the deeds of your hands, but will again have mercy on the children of the righteous. (Tobit 13:5,9)

In the dream visions of 1 En. 83–90, in a section that apparently also comments on the Greek period, Israel’s situation is once more difficult. In the passage, Israel, after the Babylonian exile, started to build a temple but it was defiled just like the first temple. God’s people has not yet found relief for their burdens.38 [A]gain began to build as before; and they raised up that tower which is called high tower [the temple]. But they started to place a table before the tower, with all the food which is upon it being polluted and impure. Regarding all these matters, the eyes of the sheep became so dim–sighted that they could not see – and likewise in respect to their shepherds – and they were delivered to their shepherds for an excessive destruction, so that the sheep were trampled upon and eaten. (1 En. 89:73–75; emphasis added)

Even before the Maccabean revolt, the time of the Diadokhi was interpreted as a time of apostasy. Pollution (molysmos) became the new key–word for Israel’s apostasy. The book of Jubilees, then, provides a dark picture of cultic life and the state of temple worship. In Jubilees, the Jerusalem temple is depicted as corrupt, and the author awaits an eschatological temple in the new creation. For the author, the future generation in the Second Temple

36

Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 17. For the analysis, see especially Evans, Exile, 305–311. 38 See for instance Snodgrass, Key Events, 456–457. 37

I. Exile and restoration

33

period “will pollute the holy of holies with their pollution and with the corruption of their contamination” (Jub. 23:21).39 In the Enochian vein the Testament of Levi describes eschatological weeks as well as the so called jubilee–priesthoods. In the seventh priesthood “there shall be pollution such as I am unable to declare in the presence of human beings” (T. Levi 17:8). Later the Testament of Moses provides a detailed reception of such a view. Most scholars believe it is important since it is dated approximately to the New Testament era. Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will play the harlot after foreign gods. For they will not follow the truth of God, but certain of them will pollute the high altar by [...] the offerings which they place before the Lord. (T. Mos. 5:3–4; emphasis added)

The basic reason for the continuing exile and divine wrath was identical with that of the first exile: sin. Israel’s heart is divided. With her iniquities Israel has drawn destruction on her from generation to generation. In a historical sense, this is easy to understand because after the time of the Diadokhi the Maccabean wars started, to then be replaced by Roman power. By no standard could such a history be described as a time of peace. For instance Baruch provides a perfect description of the theological situation from this point of view.40 All those calamities with which the Lord threatened us have come upon us. Yet we have not entreated the favor of the Lord by turning away, each of us, from the thoughts of our wicked hearts. And the Lord has kept the calamities ready, and the Lord has brought them upon us, for the Lord is just in all the works that he has commanded us to do. Yet we have not obeyed his voice, to walk in the statutes of the Lord that he set before us. (Bar 2:7–10)

According to Baruch, Israel/Judah shares in the shame of the fathers: “The Lord our God is in the right, but there is open shame on us and our ancestors this very day” (v. 6). The theological key, thus, is found in loyalty. In Tobit the restoration of Israel is dependent on the shema–obedience of the people: “If you turn to him with all your heart and with all your soul, to do what is true before him, then he will turn to you and will no longer hide his face from you.” (Tob 13:6). Exile is not merely a matter of geography, but the heart. Qumran writings have a special place in this discussion. There must have been a rebellious sect but can one really call it a sect in a theological sense? 39

Pollution was the term used by Jeremiah against the fruit of false prophets before the exile (Jer 23:15 LXX; cf. Lam 4:14 LXX). It is quite often used of the defilement brought by Antiokhos (1 Macc 1:37; 2 Macc 6:2), as well as of post–exilic life (1 Esd 8:80–83). 40 So Evans, Restoration, 83. Furthermore, Scott notes that at least some Diaspora Jews in the Greco–Roman period still understood themselves as living in an ongoing ‘exile’.” Scott, Exile, 218.

34

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

As far as we know, the first leaders of the community had been priests in the temple itself. They had high regard the first temple and also preserved the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from the post–exilic temple. Therefore, the community can be seen as a very conservative priestly group that wanted to maintain a temple–centered tradition in Israel. Their open antagonism towards the present Jerusalem temple, noted above, was justified by a deep conviction that the later temple worship was corrupt and led by a “wicked” high–priest. In the Damascus Document the post–exilic time is depicted quite pointedly as the “period of wrath,” and the generation in question is called “the congregation of traitors” (CD I.4,12). Commentaries on the Psalms, in their turn, list different sins of the infidels (4QPs. 37, II.14–15; III.6–12; 4QpNah. 3–4.I). The Habakkuk Pesher is convinced that God will finally judge those who have stepped aside from God’s paths (commenting on Hab 1:12–13).41 God is not to destroy his people at the hand of nations, but by means of his chosen ones God will judge all the nations; all the evildoers of his people will be pronounced guilty for the reproof of those who kept his commandements in their hardship. (1QpHab V.3–4)

The Wicked Priest who is responsible for the present violation of God’s will is described in a harsh manner: “when he ruled over Israel his heart became conceited, he deserted God and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches” (1QpHab. VIII.9–11). One of the main sins in this passage is greed: “And he stole and hoarded wealth from the brutal men who had rebelled against God.” In addition to “every type” of repulsive act the Wicked Priest embezzled “public money” (lines 10–12). In Jewish theology Israel’s sins have always been primarily the sins of the leaders, and the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to treat the problem of sin is treated similarly. Furthermore, in the War Scroll the war is fought against the “angels of destruction,” and the faithful Israel – during the Second Temple period – is the remnant that lives in the desert, “the survivors of your covenant” (1QM XIII.8–12). Therefore, for Qumran theologians, exile as such is not yet over. In the Words of the Luminaries, Israel’s return from the exile is still only partial also in a spiritual sense, and the age of eschatological restoration lies still in the future. You did favours to our people Israel among all the countries amongst whom you had exiled them, to introduce into their heart turning to you and listening to your voice, in agreement with all that you commanded through the hand of Moses, your servant. For you have poured your holy spirit upon us, to fill us with your blessings, so that we would look for you in our anguish, [and whis]per in the grief of your reproach. We are coming into anguish, [we were str]uck and tested by the anger of the oppressor; 41

Cf. Snodgrass, Key Events, 457. It is interesting to note that, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as many other texts, an exilic condition seems to prevail despite the historical changes that had already taken place.

I. Exile and restoration

35

for we too have wearied God by our sins, we have wearied the Rock with our failings. (4Q504, V.11–19)

Anguish in this passage can also be translated as tribulation. The eschatological pattern behind this expression refers to the period of wrath that in Qumran writings explains Israel’s present state (cf. CD XX.13–16; 1QM XVII.8–9; 4QFlor.) 42 In the Testament of Levi 14 the “pollution,” referred to earlier, is described in a realistic way. You plunder the Lord’s offerings; from his share you steal choice parts, contemptuously eating them with whores. You teach the Lord’s commands out of greed for gain; marrried women you profane; you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take gentile women for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God. With contempt and laughter you will deride the sacred things. (T. Levi 14:5–8)

Under the siege of foreign nations, it had become customary to describe Israel’s present situation as slavery. Even Ezra the scribe uses that word when complaining about the incompleteness of the restoration: “Here we are, slaves to this day – slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts.” (Neh 9:36; cf. T. Jud. 23:3).43 In the Roman period, then, the Testament of Moses presents a devastating picture of the chosen people still living in the condition of exile. Now, the two tribes will remain steadfast in their former faith, sorrowful and sighing because they will not be able to offer their sacrifices to the Lord of their fathers. But the ten tribes will grow and spread out among the nations during the time of their captivity. (T. Mos. 4:8–9)

In chapter 5 the Testament of Moses proclaims: “They are not (truly) priests (at all), but slaves, yea sons of slaves” (5:4). As Josephus then ponders when Israel’s “slavery” began, he accuses the “party strife” that “brought Pompey against the city” (A.J. 5.9.4.). Most of these discussions over the infidelity of the post–exilic Israel/Judah focus consistently on the Jerusalem temple. Several biblical and other ancient writings considered the situation to be parallel with the situation before the first exile. These authors join the proclamation of the great prophets in condemning the people’s life of apostacy – and not least because this apparently was the reason for the continuing oppression. In the Testament of Levi such parallelity is evident: “Therefore the sanctuary which

42 43

For the analysis, see Pitre, Tribulation, 91–120. Cf. Evans, Restoration, 85.

36

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

the Lord chose shall become desolate through your uncleanness, and you will be captives in all the nations” (T. Levi 15:1).44 One of the results of such theology was that promises for the eschatological temple were renewed. In Sirach’s prayer (36:1–22) the author pleads for mercy also for the temple. Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn. Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. Fill Zion with your majesty, and your temple with your glory. (Sir 36:17–19)

Around the same period Tobit’s speech represents a similar attitude towards the eschatological temple. When blessing Jerusalem, Tobit urges the people to “bless the King of the ages,” because this will lead to the building of an eschatological temple: “so that his tent/tabernacle may be rebuilt in you in joy.” Like in the proclamation of the great prophets, the exile is the constant state of the people: “May he cheer all those with you who are captives” (Tob 13:10). Tobit makes a distinction between the Second Temple and the final fulfillment of salvation. But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come. After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it. (Tob 14:5)

In the dream vision of 1 Enoch the author describes a complete transformation of the Jerusalem temple in an eschatological age. Then I stood still, looking at that ancient house being transformed: All the pillars and all the columns were pulled out; and the ornaments of that house were packed and taken out together with them and abandoned in a certain place in the South of the land. I went on seeing until the Lord of the sheep brought about a new house, greater and loftier than the first one, and set it up in the first location which had been covered up – all its pillars were new, the columns new; and the ornaments new as well as greater than those of the first, (that is) the old (house) which was gone. (1 En 90:28– 29)

In Jubilees eschatological hope is based on a divine promise according to which God will finally answer the prayers of the exiles. In a final restoration God’s new temple will be the center of salvation. All this will take place on the “day of the new creation” when “the sanctuary of the Lord is created in Jerusalem upon Mount Zion” (Jub. 1:29). Similar views are replete in later

44 The Testament of Levi is quite explicit about the continuing exile: “You shall have no place that is clean, but you will be as a curse and a dispersion among the nations until he will again have regard for you, and will take you back in compassion.” (16:5)

I. Exile and restoration

37

writings from the Christian era (cf. for instance Sib. Or. 3:286–294; 2 Bar. 68:5–6). Qumran writings naturally reflect a deep hope that at the end of time God will renew his temple and the community will have a special role in the new sanctuary along with the priestly Messiah that is to come and restore worship in the temple. The Temple Scroll speaks actually of two different temples, the final place of salvation being God’s eschatological temple that will – like the one in Jubilees – be created at the end of time. I shall sanctify my temple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, establishing it for myself for ever, in accordance with the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel. (11QTemple 29:8–10)

Furthermore, in the eschatological text 4Q174 the restoration of the Jerusalem temple is grounded on the Davidic promises in 1 Sam 7:10–14 and Amos 9:11. The parallel ideas are clear here: the new son of David will build a temple as God brings the kingdom of peace on the earth.45 These examples show that exilic rhetorics was a familiar style for writers to explain the religious and political situation in Second Temple Israel. Hellenistic oppression and Roman rule made it impossible for priests and scribes, not to mention apocalyptists, to maintain that the chosen people would at present enjoy the fruits of eschatological restoration. Instead, one should still hear the voice of the great prophets. Exile was a matter of the heart, not merely of geography. There was hope, naturally, but it was shadowed by recurring periods of ungodly oppression. All in all, for a great many writers, the final redemption lay still in the future. 5. Theodicy In the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings of the Second Temple period it is difficult to find any text that would proclaim a realized restoration of Israel. These writings express a theology of crisis. They often focus on the burning question: why does God not help his own people? The narrative of exile and restoration remains the main hermeneutical principle for most authors well into the post–exilic times. Second Temple Jewish theology, investigated from this point of view, is centered on the problem of theodicy. Why does God not fulfill his promises? Can the reason be found in Israel’s apostasy or in its complete opposite: God is not able to help his own people. How can a trustworthy theodicy be written where both God’s promises and his good will are maintained?

45 The numerous examples mentioned here confirm Wright’s conclusion: “Many if not most second–Temple Jews, then, hoped for the new exodus, seen as the final return from exile.” Wright, Victory, 209; so also Evans in his analysis on Wright’s thesis, Restoration, 86–87.

38

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Israel’s agony is present already in the book of Psalms. The book is filled with cries of agony from the chosen people. O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke againt the sheep of your pasture? Remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago, which you redeemed to the the tribe of your heritage. (Ps 74:1–2)

Scholars have debated whether this psalm should be dated to the exilic period or the Hasmonean period. Both settings are possible. The basic cry concerns Israel’s continuing situation under foreign rule. “How long, O God, is the foe to scoff? Is the enemy to revile your name forever?” (74:10). The same is true of other Asaph’s psalms. “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins [...] How long, O Lord? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealous wrath burn like fire?” (Ps 79:1, 5).46 Even some pre–exilic songs may reflect the age of Israel’s degradation. This can be seen in the paradigmatic prayer that is quoted also in the New Testament: Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good, no, not one [...] O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad. (Ps. 14:1–3, 7)

Be it the agony experienced under apostate kings, violence suffered under the siege of the surrounding nations, or just the confused situation of the post– exilic times, theological explanation resembled that found in Habakkuk. The prophet’s cry anticipates the rise of Babylon and serves as a model for any preacher who attempts to understand what is happening to the chosen people. O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen? Or cry to you ‘Violence!’ and you will not save? Why do you make me see wrong–doing and look at trouble? (Hab 1:2–3)

A theology that is born under siege is haunted by two burning questions: how long and why? The despair of the righteous and even doubt as to the justice of God is expressed in quite a classical manner in Habakkuk. The righteous are suffering while godless people meet with success: “Why do you look on the treacherous, and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?” (Hab 1:13). In Second Temple literature there are several examples that make this line of explanation explicit. In Daniel, for example, the politics of Alexander the Great are condemned severely. Here Alexander is a “warrior king” who destroys the country and takes action “as he pleases” (Dan 11:3). His “fourth 46

For the analysis, cf. Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination, 61–92; see also Lange, Prädestination, 169f.

I. Exile and restoration

39

kingdom” was an embodiment of violence and godlessness (Dan 7:7; 8:5–21; cf. 1 En. 90:2; Sib. Or. 4:80–96.).47 The writer of 1 Maccabees describes the conquests of Alexander in the same way: “He fought many battles, conquered strongholds, and put to death the kings of the earth... When the earth became quiet before him, he was exalted, and his heart was lifted up” (1 Macc 1:2– 3). As Israel falls between Egyptian and Syrian rule and has to face the endless struggles of the Diadochi, the author of 1 Enoch reacts to these struggles especially in 1 En. 6–11, the oldest part of the text.. In the giant– story, the acts of warrior–kings are described as a battle between “giants.” Military expeditions bring constant crises, and in 1 Enoch it is resolved by God’s divine intervention. The agony of crisis is expressed in the language of theodicy: the giants maintain tyrannous rule over Israel. Hanson describes the attitude as follows: Though the concern with theodicy, wedded to a pessimistic view regarding the possibilities inherent within historical processes, has moved the problem of alienation to the lofty plane of cosmic events, traces of the concrete social matrix have not been completely obliterated. Under circumstances within which the victims of oppression find themselves powerless to eradicate the evil they see engulfing them, they give expression both to their bitter frustrations and their fervent hopes by creating a new myth.48

Does God remain silent, then, as these afflictions fall on Israel? Apocalyptic theologians answer: no. Israel’s cry will be heard, and vindication is promised. Guardian angels communicate the information of the fate of the martyrs to the King of kings (1 En. 9:3–5), who also gives his answer. The earth “and everything” will be destroyed and judgment will fall because of the ungodly giants (10:2–4).49 Apology is needed, naturally, since post–exilic history had not yet proved Israel’ restoration. The theological problem was probably even more difficult than it had been during the Babylonian exile. Two tribes had been allowed to return, and a new temple had been built. If the time of peace had not yet come despite these signs, the next question was: is God just and is he still willing to help and guide his people? Why did God allow Israel’s enemies to oppress his chosen ones constantly? The theology of crisis was fuelled by the difficult problem of theodicy.50 47

See Hengel, Political and Social History, 44. Hanson, JBL 96 (1977) 219. 49 Cf. Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 192: “The apocalyptic outlook became a way both to understand and to cope with such issues as the problem of evil, the suffering of the righteous, unfulfilled promises of blessing and longevity, the defeat and humiliation of God’s people, and the evident dominance and prosperity of the wicked.” 50 Hengel discusses problem of theodicy when explaining the nature of the Hellenistic period, see Hengel, Judentum, 262, 357, 395, 457. The theology of crisis 48

40

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

There were several ways to treat this time of crisis in theology. Some writers of the time focused on Israel’s sins as discussed above. In Jubilees we read: “For they all did evil and every mouth speaks of sin and all of their deeds (are) polluted and abominable.” People who should have kept the covenant have “forgotten the commandments and covenant and festivals and months and sabbaths and jubilees and all of the judgments.” Therefore, they must be returned to “the way,” but “they will not be returned until much blood is shed upon the earth by each [group].” (Jub. 23:17, 19–21). The author of the Testament of Levi is careful in separating human acts and transgressions from God’s works and his will: “For your father, Israel, is pure with respect to all the impieties of the chief priests, [who laid their hands on the Savior of the world,] as heaven is pure above the earth.” (T. Levi 14:2–3). And the Testament of Judah solves the problem by proclaiming divine wrath. Israel lives in sin: “My grief is great, my children, on account of the licentiousness and witchcraft and idolatry that you practice contrary to the kingship,” and God’s response will come. “In response to this the Lord will bring you famine and plague, death and the sword, punishment by siege.” (T. Jud. 23:1, 3). In the Testament of Moses the time of crisis is explained as Israel’s tribulation. “Two tribes” address “the ten tribes” and the latter answer: “Then, hearing the reproachful words of the two tribes, the ten tribes will lament and will say, ‘What shall we, with you, do, brothers? Has not this tribulation come upon the whole house of Israel?’” (T. Mos. 3:7–8). Israel obviously still lives in sin – despite all God’s good works (the temple) and providence. What should pious people do? Different answers were given. The popular solution of sapiential theology was that of soteriological dualism. For instance Sirach maintains that God has given no one permission to transgress the divine precepts. There is no excuse for sin. For Sirach, the world is not deterministic. Human beings are indisputably responsible for their acts. “Do not say, ‘It was he who led me astray’; for he has no need of the sinful” (Sir 15:12). It is not possible to escape the problem of evil. Instead, it must be given a faithful answer.51 Soteriological dualism is a practical answer to the problem of theodicy because it is weighted towards human beings. Writers in the sapiential tradition are optimistic in trusting human capability in the midst of the people’s corruption. Despite the modern criticism presented by the covenantal interpretation, in many Jewish texts salvation is reserved for those who obey God’s commandments and follow his precepts. The Lord is against the proud and arrogant. Since sapiential theology puts emphasis on creation, the origin of dualism is already here seen in the act of creation (Sir 33:14–15).

is examined especially by Scott, EQ 64 (1992) 199–200. For the problem of theodicy in Jewish theology in general, see Crenshaw ABD VI (1992) 444–445. 51 Such ideas can be found throughout sapiential literature, cf. Wis 1:15–2:1.

I. Exile and restoration

41

In many Qumran writings, such dualism is later perfected by the introduction of two entirely different realms: “He created man to rule the world and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are the spirits of truth and of deceit.” (1QS III.17–19). The fate of the wicked ones is predestined. “And in the hand of the Angel of Darkness is total dominion over the sons of deceit; they walk on paths of darkness.” (lines 20–21).52 At the time of crisis, then, Jewish theology must answer difficult questions. Why does God not help his people even though the “two tribes” have been released from their captivity? Instead of peace and mercy, priests and scribes see merely tribulation. How can this be explained? As previously stated, some biblical writers answer that the exile never really ended. The original reason for both the northern and southern exile was still unresolved: people’s hearts had turned away from God. A typical theological solution emphasizes soteriological dualism. People themselves are responsible. The arrival of better times depends on their willingness to repent and follow God’s commandments. Israel had most likely been influenced by the spirit of deceit. Or perhaps even some people were predestined to follow the Angel of Darkness.53 This analysis shows that the theological metanarrative of exile and restoration, deriving from the proclamation of the great prophets, was alive and well during the Second Temple period. People encountering the oppression of Greek rulers or living under Roman rule could not believe that Israel’s final restoration had really begun. Instead, they hoped that one day in the near future divine prophecies would be fulfilled. that God would reveal himself, send his Chosen One and restore the fallen nation. Pagan rule would then come to an end; and an eschatological temple would be built. God would send his Shekinah on the earth and an adoption as children would begin. As we have noted, there has been much discussion concerning the issue of continuing exile. Some scholars doubt the very concept since a new temple had after all been built. Others hesitate because the promises of the great prophets implied that God would end the agony and let the tribes leave Babylon – and this too came true. Despite all this, the analysis shows that, for many Jewish writers, the condition of exile – at least as a spiritual reality – 52

Sapiential theology would not take things so far: “For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, ‘Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end [...] for we were born by mere chance.” (Wis 1:15f.). The darkness of human life was interpreted more gently. 53 According to Keen, the reality of a state of exile influenced Jewish thought through later generations. Jewish intellectual tradition attempted to formulate theology concerning a “benevolent divine sovereignty” in a situation where evidence of God’s benevolent goodness was “largerly absent.” Keen, Exile and Restoration, vii; 2–3. In this respect, speculations over theodicy have always directed theological reflection on the phases of Jewish history.

42

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

still prevailed in Israel during the Second Temple period. In this respect it is proper to speak of the continuation of the exile, if the term is defined correctly. But more importantly, there was even a wider agreement during the Second Temple period concerning the delay of restoration. This aspect should not be forgotten. Almost no author of that time proclaimed the happy realization of Israel’s renewal. As we remarked above, the Roman rule in no way represented the kingdom of God for the Jewish people. Restoration, for such Jewish theologians, was to take place only in the future. After examining these ideas, we believe that the hermeneutical discussion on biblical theology cannot remain quite the same as it has been. Standard Neo–Kantian (and Bultmannian) interpretation usually postulated a view according to which Christian proclamation attempted to tear down a certain, quite narrowly defined Jewish status quo prevailing in the Second Temple period. In this interpretation Jewish belief was more or less understood in terms of traditional Mosaic cult, represented by the temple authorities and Jewish priesthood. This constructed contradition is an oversimplification. During the history of research, such interpretations have been periodically re–established, like for example in the use of the criterion of dissimilarity (separating the “Jewish” – and paradoxically a “non–Jewish” – Jesus from the proclamation of the post–Easter Christian church). Furthermore, in Pauline studies, the theory of covenantal nomism adopts a similar defective premise when Paul is being made into the theologian who denigrates “standard” Jewish theology – as if such a thing existed during that time – and invents a theological “plight” because he already has the “answer” in Jesus – thus creating a distorted picture of Jewish faith.54 Applying the findings of recent scholarship, we must allow for a significant hermeneutical change in the field of biblical theology. Canonical theology suggests that the only proper state of stability one can detect in Israel’s history appeared in the beginning of the era of the kings, and it collapsed just in a century. When the great prophets later enter the stage, the nation is already in a crisis. They start to proclaim the theology of exile and restoration. They put their hope in final reconciliation. Such ideas more or less direct Jewish thought through the Second Temple period and, what is quite obvious on the basis of several very different writings, theologians did not believe that the expectations had been fulfilled. For them the final restoration had not yet come true. After Ackroyd, scholars became aware that this kind of view on exile and restoration is mostly based on texts, especially from the Old Testament. It is a theological interpretation that gradually finds its way into Jewish apocalyptic writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. As such a strong tradition, it further influences the formation of the New Testament message. We can 54

For contemporary positive treatment of the criterion of dissimilarity, see The Five Gospels, 2–5. For the Pauline re–interpretation, see Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 200–201. On covenantal nomism, see Excursus later.

I. Exile and restoration

43

conclude, therefore, that the factual situation in Roman Jerusalem, the diversity of Jewish theology, and the enthusiastic expectation of Israel’s renewal form an interesting background both for Jesus’ message and Christian proclamation. They both quite openly start to preach the fulfilment of promises and a solution for the crisis.

II. Son of David as a builder of an eschatological temple Starting the analysis concerning Jesus’ teaching and mission is a delicate issue. The great majority of scholars have begun by focusing on the kingdom of God – holding that this theme necessarily serves as a historically solid corner–stone on which not just the Church but also the scholar herself or himself can build solid theology. This tradition broke with Sanders. In Jesus and Judaism he assumed that Jesus’ Jerusalem period reveals the central features of his eschatological identity and the core of his message. Even though this aspect was well known, Sanders’ work led to a renewed eschatological reading of Jesus’ theology, and this idea has been adopted in several later monographs. The theme of continuing exile was introduced, in turn, by Wright who built his reconstruction on the idea of restoration. Therefore, it is proper to propose a synthesis where the findings of recent Jesus–studies can interact with our knowledge about earliest Christology – and not forgetting the most recent post–Sandersian perspectives on Paul.55 The metanarrative of exile and restoration functions on two levels in Jesus’ proclamation and gospel tradition. Firstly, Jesus himself adopts exilic rhetorics and promises restoration for Israel. Secondly, early theologians – authors who have constructed the original gospel stories as well as the actual gospel writers – apply this narrative point of departure in their expositions. As Jesus’ message is investigated, his relation to the temple becomes a crucial issue. When this theme is put in the context of the idea of Israel’s continuing exile, our narrative analysis has a good point of departure. Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem is a prophetic act whose theological meaning becomes evident through the context and the reactions of those watching the event. His entering into Jerusalem, in the story, is further accompanied by the cursing of the fig tree, by the demonstration in the temple, by certain discussions concerning his authority, like the parable of the vineyard, and finally by the prediction of the destruction of the temple. This cycle of texts are the essential core for investigating the aims of Jesus’ Jerusalem mission.

55 See especially Wright, Victory of God, 125–129. Parts of this footnote keep disappearing. Similar ideas form a basic point of departure for certain new New Testament theologies such as Alexander, Eden; and Hamilton, God’s Glory; for Old Testament theology, see Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty.

44

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

1. Jesus’ triumphant entry and the prophecies of restoration What is Jesus’ role in the context of Second Temple Judaism? How does he fit in the major period of crisis in Israel’s history? When attempting to discern essential features in Jesus’ teachings, we will focus on situations where his mission is highlighted. It is evident that, in several Gospel passages, his message is prophetical. But there is more to it since, in the narrative, he often has a royal role and even a messianic task. Jesus adopts the severe proclamation of Israel’s great prophets during the first period of oppression, the exile. People now living under the occupation of Rome hear Jesus proclaim that the key moment, kairos, of history has arrived. It is true that the southern tribe of Judah had been allowed to return home after the long years of captivity in Babylon. There was no real liberation, however, at least not in the sense that the great prophets had anticipated. Jesus mission focusing on final release no doubt climaxed in the Jerusalem period of his ministry. The key narrative starts with his ride to the Holy City.56 Jesus’ ride is interesting for several reasons. As a story in the gospel tradition, as such, it is well attested. As regards Jesus’ role, the story itself has no difficult statements or questionable words that should be discussed before taking the story as an example of Jesus’ own proclamation. What one encounters is a prophetic act that is simple by nature, even though its interpretation may be somewhat more difficult. Jesus is entering the city of Jerusalem, and his entry has elements that make it a crucial scene in an eschatological play. As noted, the description of the triumphal entry belongs to a larger passage where several pericopes treat the events that take place in Jerusalem. In addition to the stories of cursing the fig tree and overturning tables in the temple, there are the periocopes of Jesus’ weeping over the fate of Jerusalem (Luke), and the questioning of Jesus’ authority. In different gospels these pericopes appear in a slightly differing order, but their essential message remains primarily the same. The meaning of the first story in this long series of events depends also on the interpretation of the other passages. As Jesus chooses to ride on a colt when entering the city, he does something unusual. He never rides outside of this occasion in any of the gospels. He just walks from town to town and from village to village, as most peasants and common people did. Therefore, it is justified to conclude that his entry is a deliberate prophetic performance. It has been intentionally constructed, and the nature of the event is by no means a mystery for his followers and other people following his ride. The story itself is simple enough. The story starts on the practical note of borrowing of the colt, and the short journey begins near the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:1; Matt 21). After this, Jesus is no longer mentioned 56

There is growing interest in the role of the “triumphant entry” as regards Jesus’ identity. In addition to the analyses of Runalls and Ådna, see for instance Harvey, Constraints of History, 120–125; Catchpole, Politics, 319–334; Duff, JBL 111 (1992) 55–71; Losie, Dictionary, 854f. Tan, Zion Traditions, 149–157; Kinman, Key Events, 383–427.

II. Son of David as a builder

45

and does not even speak. The story focuses on the crowd. The meaning of the event is constructed by the joyful singing of the visitors of the temple feast and of Jesus’ own disciples and other followers. The special feature in the story is that the actual meaning of the ride cannot be determined by something that Jesus says. Furthermore, the meaning is not merely in the eschatological performance itself, even though it must be understood as the basis for any theological interpretation. In fact, the meaning of the event is a result of a hermeneutical process between the ride and its interpretation. In a narratological interpretation, the “text” of the event and of Jesus’ act is being constructed in the co–operation between the Hosannah–song and its theological accents. The point of departure is the theme of an eschatological figure’s approach while riding an animal. In the manner of the Old Testament prophets Jesus performs a symbolic act, and the context simultaneously provides its meaning. In the narrative, the counterpoint of Jesus’ act is Psalm 118, understood from a messianic perspective. People praise Jesus as the Davidic prince of peace who is about to enter the holy city in order to bring release for the oppressed Israel. Read from an intertextual point of view, there are elements of a royal entrance in this story. The narrative is reminiscent of Solomon’s ride in 1 Kings 1 where David declares Solomon to be king instead of Adonijah. Nathan and Zadok “went down and had Solomon ride on King David’s mule, and led him to Gihon. There the priest Zadok took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon” (1 Kings 1:38–39).57 Furthermore, the spreading of cloaks on the road is mentioned in an important passage where the prophet Elisha anoints Jehu as Israel’s king and takes revenge on Jezebel for her apostacy and violent deeds. As other officers hear of this anointing they immediately greet Jehu as a king. “Then hurriedly they all took their cloaks and spread them for him on the bare steps” (2 Kings 9:13). If we assume that, in the formation of Gospel tradition, features with scriptural associations have been selected from more general descriptions of events, we can see how these features emphasize the aspect of a royal entry in this piece of tradition. Furthermore, as Harvey notes, even the borrowing of the colt hints at royal privilege to requisition transport.58 What is even more important, however, is that in Zechariah this kind of eschatological mounted entry becomes a symbol for the restoration of Jerusalem. The text apparently comments on the earlier restoration work conducted by Zerubbabel, by referring to a messianic figure called Branch (6:12). The anticipated eschatological savior will build a temple: “It is he that 57

For this reason Kinman calls this a “royal” ride, Kinman, Key Events, 399–402. Harvey, Constraints of History, 123. Duff notes that Josephus, when describing Alexander the Great’s entrance into Jerusalem points out similar details in the king’s royal procession. A.J. 11.8.5. See Duff, JBL 111 (1992) 58. Catchpole presents an extensive list of triumphant entries described in Jewish sources, Catchpole, Politics, 319–321. 58

46

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

shall build the temple of the Lord; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.” (6:13).59 The eschatological renewal will celebrate the glory of the house of David: “On that day the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, at their head.” (12:8). Simultaneously, however, the same prophecy refers to martyrdom which is a condition for the renewal: “when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child” (12:10). Martyrdom has not taken place in vain, though, since this will also lead to a religious renewal: “On that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.” (13:1).60 According to Zechariah, God’s glory will return to the temple: “I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem.” (8:3). The degradation of the holy place will come to an end. But how does this restoration take place? What marks the inauguration of Israel’s renewal? This is where the themes of the new temple and the eschatological rider meet. “Lo, your king comes to you: triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (9:9). The renewal is dependent on an ambivalent figure, in whose person both royal power and modest humility are united.61 What about the future of the temple? There may be some tension between Ezekiel’s horrifying prophecies and Zechariah’s optimistic expectation. Ezekiel warned the chosen people of the decay that would lead to divine punishment. “The end has come upon the four corners of the land.” (Ezek 7:2). This was the end of independent Israel/Judah, and it was the end of the temple cult. The elite of the people, as well as a great number of common people, were exiled to Babylon. The temple was desecrated and profaned. God’s shekina left the temple and never returned (Ezek 10). Zechariah, in turn, proclaims the glory of the new temple. The son of David, a great temple builder, will come as an eschatological figure riding a beast of burden and restore God’s people.

59 The essential difference between a mere royal description and the motif of temple building is important, and the latter is evident in this passage; contra Kinman, Key Events, 400. 60 Cf. Witherington who finds a link here, Indelible Image 1, 164: “Jesus saw himself as bringing in the divine cleansing and saving activity of God in the midst of Israel and that he was the one to build the eschatological house of God, a house built on people of faith [...]” 61 Duff suggests that there may even be a connection between the riding motif and the so called “divine warrior” theme found in Zech 14. As nations have gathered against Israel God himself would appear on the Mount of Olives, prepare a “processional highway” and enter the city of Jerusalem. This procession results in new creation and the manifestation of God’s universal reign and the sanctification of Israel. Duff, JBL 111 (1992) 57–58.

II. Son of David as a builder

47

Similar elements can be found already in Ezekiel’s prophecies. One might assume that Jewish hopes concerning the renewal of the temple would have been quite conservative and even nostalgic. In contrast, Ezekiel’s new temple (chapters 40–42) is somewhat idealistic and unreal. It is related to the enigmatic words of Haggai who promises Zerubbabel that his efforts for the new temple will not be in vain: “The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former” (2:9). The statement consciously distorts the principles of Jewish rhetoric since all earlier works of God and all earlier patriarchs and their deeds should always exceed the glory of latter endeavors. In some sense one may assume that, at least for some theologians in Judah, the eschatological temple had become a metaphor for the religious renewal of the nation. During the Second Temple period this is only to be expected since even the literal, physical exile had not really ended, to say nothing of the religious captivity that was debated in Second Temple theology. Before proceeding any further, we should note that the temple motif as such is essential in Second Temple Jewish restoration eschatology. As we saw in the first chapter, not all Jewish theologians believed that the exile was over.62 In many texts standard eschatological themes maintain their importance. For instance the images of the Davidic figure as a restorer of Jerusalem and even a temple builder remain important. They still appear as essential elements in synagogal prayers in post–biblical times. In the Shemoneh Esreh (The Eighteen Benedictions) Jerusalem’s hope is in a Davidic king who appears as a builder. And to Jerusalem, thy city, return with mercy and dwell in its midst as thou hast spoken; and build it soon in our days to be an everlasting building; and raise up quickly in its midst the throne of David. Blessed art thou, Lord, who buildest Jerusalem. (Babylonian recension, Benediction 14)63

The Palestinian recension mentions also “Zion, the dwelling–place of the glory,” and “thy Temple and thy habitation” which the “righteous Messiah” will bless on his arrival (Benediction 14).64 Exilic prophecies were easily utilized in different situations. In the Second Temple period they were useful for those righteous believers who were convinced that the state of exile would continue until the tribes returned to the holy land. And after the destruction of the temple in the Jewish War, exilic prophecies still described the situation of Israel living without the Temple.

62

See 1.4. above. See Schürer, History 2, 458. Cf. later synagogal prayers: “O you who have fulfilled the promises which (were given) through the prophets, and have had mercy on Zion, and have had pity on Jerusalem, by your having exalted the throne of David, your servant, in her midst [...] accept the entreaties on the lips of your people, who (have come) out of (the) gentiles, who call upon you in truth.” (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 6.1; Apos. Con. 7.37.1) 64 Schürer, History 2, 461. 63

48

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Thus Jewish theology provides a context that helps to understand the intentions behind Jesus’ ride to Jerusalem. As Runnalls has already concluded, Jesus’ entry into the city “was clearly orchestrated to reflect the prophecy of Zechariah.”65 The act itself is simple enough but, nevertheless, Jesus appears with royal authority and exercizes a right to requisition transport. The event becomes a procession where the son of David arrives at the Holy City in order to bring release in the manner of restoration eschatology. Tan goes even further with his conclusions: “with his entry, the reign of God is ushered into Jerusalem.”66 This aspect of royal procession becomes even more explicit as the people’s response to Jesus’ performance is investigated. One of the important issues concerns the nature of the event itself. Should one presuppose, just as all “fixed” presentations of triumphal entries found in Jewish writings do, that here too is an already achieved victory, as Catchpole suggests?67 Not necessarily, because the prophetic act serves also as a royal procession. This aspect is highlighted even more as one considers the role of the Hosannah hymn in Psalm 118. The question about the original form of the Hosannah hymn has its problems. The Psalm itself belongs to temple hymns and was sung at festivals. In addition to this, Jewish theology already considered it a Davidic hymn bearing messianic overtones. It is obvious that each Gospel provides its own variation of the wording of the hymn. Such variety often reveals a rich history of tradition. Such an important hymn, still present in the liturgies of most major Churches, has apparently been in enthusiastic use in the congregations of the early Church. But how should we explain its formulary nature? We may start with the fact that Mark provides the longest version of the hymn.68 Mark’s text is interesting because it is constructed beautifully in the form of a chiastic parallelism (parallelismus membrorum). Thus we have here an independent text which, at least in its Greek version, is well structured and an easy object for analysis. It seems like a messianic hymn built on Psalm 118 / LXX 117 (Mark 11:9–10). Hosanna! – Blessed is the one who comes (erkhomenos) in the name of the Lord! – Blessed is the coming (erkhomenos) kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!

In a strict form (A–B–B’–A’) the parallelism wishes to illuminate the meaning of the eschatological figure by reinterpreting Psalm 118. Now David becomes the key figure. What arouses our attention is Mark’s transliteration hōsia–na, for “save us”. In the Septuagint the word has been translated (sōson dē; LXX 65

Runnalls, Spirit, 29. Tan, Zion Traditions, 151; cf. also Losie, Dictionary, 855. 67 Catchpole, Politics, 322. 68 For the difficulties, see Evans, Mark, 144–147. 66

II. Son of David as a builder

49

Psalm 117:26). Since Mark does not simply quote the Septuagint, there must be another reason for this word. Does it derive from an Aramaic community? 69 This would support the early dating of Markan tradition. In Mark’s version, the latter line has been constructed in the psalm’s pattern. The blessing of a visitor is paralleled with the blessing of the new David. The structure is further emphasized in the Greek version by the repetition of the participle erkhomenos. This produces a perfect Greek parallelism. The repetition of the participle has theological force as it puts emphasis on “coming.” It is the basileia of David that is to be anticipated, and the eschatological arrival will be a fulfilment of the acclamations found in Psalm 118. Burger remarks that Mark speaks of “our father” David (patros). Since David is for all practical purposes never presented as one of the fathers of the nation, this may be a theological reference to a messianic dynasty.70 There are variants, though. Matthew’s tradition reverses the order; and Luke leaves the hosanna out and adds the word “king.”71 The existence of such variants implies that it is impossible to attempt to decipher the original version of the hymn using only redaction criticism.72 Apparently the hymn has been so popular and so important in the early Church that it has been transmitted in different forms in different congregations. It had a life of its own in the liturgy of the congregations. This tradition was so strong that it resisted any harmonizing when the gospels were compiled. This is why we can conclude that the hymn’s originality was revered in the oral tradition of the Church. There may be a later text that helps us understand the emergence of this particular tradition. The targum on Psalm 118, as an Aramaic rendering of the original Psalm, proclaims the renewal of Israel after exile. David’s son will come to Zion and bring salvation for the imprisoned people. The original mss text speaks of a stone that will be rejected: “The stone that the builders rejected 69 So Evans, Mark, 145. This creates problems for the explanation since the existence of parallel participles is not expected in Hebrew or in Aramaic. In Hebrew one would expect a dynamic parallelism in the manner of wisdom sayings. Therefore, the metrical harmony must be a result of a Greek translation. 70 See Burger following Lohmeyer; Burger, Jesus, 50–51. 71 Matthew’s tradition starts with “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt 21:9). The rendering “hosanna” remains the same, but the interpretation appears to be actualizing: people sing directly to the Son of David. Luke, in turn, leaves the hosanna out and adds the expression “king” (Luke 19:38): “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord.” As the song continues with a eulogy, it apparently has a different origin than the other versions. John too describes the triumphant entry. His version starts with Psalm 118 but then speaks directly of a king: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord – the King of Israel!” (John 12:13). 72 The differences between the versions of Matthew, Luke, and John cannot be explained merely by suggesting certain theological or pragmatical reasons to alter Mark’s “earlier” parallelism. In fact Matthew’s version has an original “Aramaic” tone. What is important is that these versions do not represent different theology. They communicate the very same theology and present Jesus as a Davidic Messiah.

50

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

has become the chief cornerstone.” (118:22). In the targum this stone (’eben) has been identified with a son (Hebrew ben), at least on a conceptual level, and refers thus directly to the son of David.73 The targum of Psalm 118:22 substitutes Aramaic talya’ for the Hebrew ben, and the text reads as follows: “The boy [talya’] which the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse, and he is worthy to be appointed king and ruler.” The whole targum of Psalm 118 has turned into a paraphrase where the original Hebrew text has been changed into a story about David’s life. His youth, his early rejection, as well as his eventual enthronement as Israel’s king are being described in the interpretation. This Psalm has thus become part of Davidic history. What is essential in regard of the explanation of the Hosannah–hymn is the fact that such a targum on the Psalm was mainly interpreting ancient history. The interpretation concerned David’s status, not merely the eschatological status of a later Davidic figure who would appear at the end of time. Therefore, an interpretative Hosannah–hymn present in Mark 11 may well be the result of synagogal reading already present in the Second Temple period.74 The idea of substituting the word son for stone in the interpretation of Psalm 118 can thus be seen as a standard modus operandi in Jewish hermeneutics. The parallelism in Mark contains features that are common in Jewish theology itself (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:21; 4QFlorilegium; 4Q252). The content of the passage as such is not simply a construction of post–Easter theology. The Markan parallelism can be understood as an eschatological midrash on Psalm 118. It comments on Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem and, even though we can no longer know whether this was sung to Jesus in the form(s) we know, it provides a proper response and acceptable interpretation of the event. It proclaims: this is the son of David who we expect to establish his basileia and restore Jerusalem.75 The story about Jesus’ triumphant entry, therefore, serves as a perfect introduction to his message as well. The “aims of Jesus” can be detected in this prophetic performance. Even though Jesus himself does not say anything important in the story, the message is clear. The key in the interpretation lies in 73

For the discussion concerning the version in the targum, see Evans, Mark, 146. A wordplay between ben and ’eben can be found in several passages in the Old Testament. It is present already in the description of priestly garments decorated with precious stones. “You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel.” (Exod 28:9). Stones have an important role also when Israel is crossing over the Jordan river in Joshua 4. One man from each tribe was to take up a stone on his shoulders and carry it from the river to Israel’s camp where it would become a sign for Israel entering into the promised land. These stones were to provide a memorial for the “sons of Israel” for all times: “So these stones shall be to the Israelites a memorial forever.” (Joshua 4:7) For a detailed analysis of passages reflecting the wordplay, Snodgrass, Wicked Tenants, 113ff. 75 So also Runnalls, Spirit, 29–30; Catchpole, Politics, 334; Tan, Zion Traditions, 157; Wright, Victory of God, 491; Evans, Mark, 145–147. 74

II. Son of David as a builder

51

the dynamic between Jesus’ act and the people’s response. The joyful song praising the Davidic figure who rides in front of them, puts its greatest hopes in this new figure: is this the one who will finally end the agony of the people and restore Israel? Is he the one who will build the eschatological temple of salvation? Thus a modest gesture, a ride on a colt, brings restoration eschatology to the center of Jesus’ mission. 2. Opposing the barren temple Jesus’ ride to Jerusalem starts a chain of events that leads to a conflict in the temple courtyard. First he curses a fig–tree. Then he enters the temple area, the great portico, and protests, calling the holy place a den of robbers. After this he tells the parable about the wicked tenants of the Lord’s vineyard. His speeches climax in a quotation from Psalm 118, leading to a confrontation with Jerusalem priests. As Jesus departs temple precincts, he finally predicts the destruction of the entire sanctuary. In the story following Jesus’ eschatological entry we find a somewhat surprising act of cursing a fig tree. Jesus first approaches the tree but when he finds out that there is no fruit left, he straightforwardly curses the tree (Mark 11:12–14) This story has been interpreted in several ways throughout its history.76 Of course those with a scientific world–view have first focused on the the quick withering itself. This has led to speculations about the historical nature and Sitz–im–Leben of the story. The content of the passage, however, has usually been interpreted in theological terms. Building on Old Testament themes, the message of the act has been seen to be directed against religious hypocrisy in general, or Israel in particular.77 Another eschatological interpretation claims that the point of the story is to express Israel’s failure to recognize the advent of the Messiah.78 After looking at more standard scholarly interpretations, we can see that the exilic interpretation brings new light. In the original story, Jesus’ act refers to exilic prophecies complaining that no good fruit can be found any more the Israel–tree. The most direct reference is to Micah. Woe is me! For I have become like one who, after the summer fruit has been gathered, after the vintage has been gleaned, finds no cluster to eat; there is no first–ripe fig for which I hunger. The faithful have disappeared from the land, and there is no one left who is upright. (Mic 7:1–2) 76

For a thorough history of investigation, see Telford, Barren Temple, 1–38. See Telford, Barren Temple, 7–9. France, Mark, 436. 78 After J. Weiss and A. Schweitzer, their eschatological interpretation gained ground even though the story itself was considered a late legend. E. Lohmeyer, however, attempted to find a link between Jesus’ original teaching and the story. In addition to this, scholars treating Mark as a creative theologian support an eschatological interpretation. Telford, Barren Temple, 10. 18–20. For a social interpretation, however, see Oakman, Semeia 64 (1993) 253–272. 77

52

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The basic expression for God’s wrath is the exilic condition: “The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge” (7:4). Reading the Old Testament prophets reveals that God himself has picked the fruit and scattered the figs around the world. Jeremiah, for instance, warns the people of Israel about the exile: “I will take away their harvest, declares the Lord. There will be no grapes on the vine. There will be no figs on the tree.” (Jer 8:13; NIV). Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I am feeding this people with wormwood, and giving them poisonous water to drink. I will scatter them among nations that neither they nor their ancestors have known; and I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them. (Jer 9:16; cf. 13:24)79

This is why the tree is barren. It is not merely the case that (some) people live in religious hypocrisy, or that Israel fails to recognize the Son of David as he arrives. Instead, Jesus’ act proclaims that Israel as a whole still lives as God’s enemy. She lives in spiritual exile with a hardened heart. The chosen people have fallen completely into sin and when God seeks their fruit he discovers that the season is over.80 It is somewhat surprising that literary critical questions have little affect on the theological interpretation of the fig tree story. When explained via the exilic metanarrative, the story finds its place among other passages that proclaim the very same theology and aims. Therefore, in the explanation of this passage, theology comes first and after that it is a matter of personal scholarly taste how one assesses its relation to the teaching of the “historical” Jesus. The analysis as such shows merely that the story is well in line with Jesus’ intentions and eschatological message. Israel is a barren tree. God cannot find fruit on it. Hearts are still scattered “among the nations” and among other gods, selfish intentions and violent greed. Jesus curses Israel as the great prophets did. “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” (Mark 7:14). The tree will be destroyed. The temple that is in the sight of the pilgrims will not be the center of eschatological renewal. This is how the cursing of the tree becomes an introduction for later events in the temple area. The narrative then proceeds to what appears to be the main event of the Jerusalem period: Jesus’ demonstration in the temple. The Prince of peace shows his militant face. The colt has gone. There is no humility left in Jesus. In the court of the Gentiles we meet the eschatological temple builder who curses the barren temple, the pile of stones he sees before his eyes. Jesus’ demonstration in the temple has been considered a key to the understanding of his program and his identity.81 After Sanders many scholars have investigated 79

So also Deut 4:27; 28:64; Isa 24:1; Ezek 12:15; 20:23; Ps 44:12. Cf. Wright, Victory of God, 333–334; Evans, Mark , 155–160. Runnalls remarks that the temple hierarchy “had not borne fruit.” Runnalls, Spirit, 30. 81 For the discussion, see for instance Evans, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, 522–539; Evans, BBR (1993) 93–110; Evans, Context and Meaning, 417–442; Neusner NTS 35 (1989) 287–290; Snodgrass, Key Events, 429–480; Ådna, Handbook, 2635–2675. 80

II. Son of David as a builder

53

Jesus’ message in relation to this act. It is no doubt a crucial story because different Jewish identities collide in the event. In the temple court the establishment and ruling class meet fresh messianic eschatology.82 There has been a long discussion about the nature of the temple demonstration. Calling the incident either a cleansing, purification, or a demonstration is already a statement. Before accepting one of these views one needs to discuss many different elements. The interpretation of the passage has become essential since the event is more and more considered a clue to Jesus’ identity and to his proclamation. There have been several different attempts to explain the event. The previously generally accepted interpretation concerned the purification of the temple. According to this view Jesus was mainly interested in the ritual purity of temple worship and wished to protect the holiness of God’s house.83 Bauckham has later reinstated the standard economic interpretation speaking of issues such as taxation and the selling of sacrificial animals. The temple had turned into a profit–making business, a “den of robbers.”84 Therefore, Bauckham concludes, Jesus saw the commercial interests of the temple as serious misconduct by the religious leaders. Hence the idea of cleansing even though the word itself does not occur in the texts. Jesus’ act is undeniably severe. He is violent in this passage, and no evidence of any assistance by his “troops” is recorded. For this reason Brandon has provided a political interpretation of the event. The incident is called occupation and Jesus is treated as a political revolutionary.85 Even though this political interpretation is hermeneutically somewhat vague, there are certain features in gospel traditions that might support such a view. One of Jesus’ followers apparently had a sword (makhaira) in Gethsemane (Mark 14:47 par.), right in the middle of the Jerusalem mission. Furthermore, in some of the preceding passages Jesus’ disciples have speculated over their anticipated offices in the future kingdom. Could these elements be understood as signs of militant fervor, actions done in the temple court in order to perform some kind of zealous or “Qumranian” eschatology? Sanders in his influential explanation spoke of religious revolution. He suggested that Jesus’ act was a prophetic demonstration, an act symbolizing the destruction of the temple.86 Jesus was not protecting the temple or its ritual purity and did not accept what it represented at present. For some reason he 82 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77f. Mentioning Sanders here is not to undermine the work of previous scholars who have given the “triumphant entry” and the “cleansing” of the temple an essential role in Jesus’ teaching (see above). After Sanders’ influential monograph, however, the issue has become one of the most discussed features of Jesus’ appearance. 83 See for instance Tan, Zion Traditions, 185. 84 Bauckham, Law and Religion, 72f. 85 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 331f. The term occupation is used also e.g. by Betz, JBL 116 (1997) 456; Chilton, The Temple of Jesus, 91f. 86 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 80f.; cf. Herzog, Jesus, 234–235; Kirk, CBQ 74 (2012) 520.

54

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

raised himself against the very temple and its service. After a comparison with certain mishnaic explanations, Neusner has added that Jesus’ demonstration actually aimed at the rejection of the most important rite of the Israelite cult, the tamid, the daily whole–offering. Ådna has picked up and developed these views and suggested that Jesus’ prophetic purpose was the replacement of the sacrificial cult.87 What needs to be discussed is above all the nature of Jesus’ action. What was the function of the money changers’ and dove sellers’ work in the temple? What did Jesus attack when he turned the tables over? These questions are of the utmost importance for discerning what Jesus’ action meant. A related and critical question is how this incident affected Jesus’ relationship with the temple authorities. A provocation of that sort probably aroused anger among temple officials. The group that arrested Jesus had been sent by the high priest (Mark 14:43). Furthermore, they had the right to bring Jesus before the Sanhedrin and, so it is plausible that there were soldiers (speira) and temple police (hypēretai) included, as John states (John 18:3). In addition, there has been discussion about the authenticity of the passage. Can we find traits of Jesus’ own mission in this story or does it merely represent convictions of the early Church? Many recent scholars consider Jesus’ act one of the clearest examples of the proclamation of the “historical” Jesus. Others, however, believe that the whole passage in the synoptic Gospels is a late construction. It seems evident that any solution for the problems of authenticity depends on the interpretation of the whole passage. Mere analysis of different details does not help this ultimate goal. As we investigate the event narrative, we need to ask what precisely takes place in the court of the Gentiles. Temple court was a vast area, hence some scholars have questioned the effect of Jesus’ act, or even its historicity on this basis. Jesus alone could never have controlled all that area. Nevertheless, there are several features in this narrative which prove that Jesus’ act has a clear purpose.88 One key for the understanding of Jesus’ act can be found in the setting itself. The place was a market – and there was nothing wrong with that. Based on what we know of temple architecture, the southern portico was the main hall for commerce and meeting in the area of the court. As Josephus describes it, the Solomon’s Portico, which is also mentioned in the New Testament, was the “Royal Portico, which had three aisles, extending in length from the eastern to the western ravine.” (A.J. 15.411–416). This extensive stoa had, according to Josephus, been constructed on 162 columns “ornamented in the Corinthian style of carving,” and it was some fifteen meters wide.89

87

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 80f.; Neusner, NTS 35 (1989) 289f.; Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 424f. 88 For a thorough discussion on questions of authenticity, see Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 111–130. 89 See Snodgrass, Key Events, 448–452.

II. Son of David as a builder

55

The notion of three aisles reveals that the building was actually a basilica. Solomon’s portico was a columned hall where people could meet and groups could assemble, as the apostles did in Acts 5:12. Being located behind one of the main entrances to the temple area, the stoa provided a splendid place for those selling and purchasing sacrificial animals, the dove sellers, and those buying things on the temple agora, “market,” as well as money changers. Quite evidently the stoa was a bazar for the trade in sacrificial animals and for other common temple functions.90 Therefore, it is proper to conclude that Jesus did not attempt to control the entire temple court with hundreds or even thousands pilgrims walking around. The vast temple court was not suitable for an occupation. Instead, he must have aimed at a particular provocation and had deliberately chosen a crucial place for that. It was the temple portico where officials had set their tables and where they fulfilled the tasks the temple management had ascribed them. This is the natural context for Jesus’ act. The money changers or bankers mentioned in Mark 11:15 had an essential role in the daily life of the temple. The kollybistai (often called just trapezitai, table officials) who had set their tables in the portico at the temple court belonged to the temple management. They were collecting the annual temple tax prescribed by the Holy Scriptures. According to Exod 30, every adult man over twenty years old had the duty to pay “ransom for his life” to the Lord (Exod 30:11–14). The Old Testament passage pronounces that the amount of the tax was a fixed one: “half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary” (v. 13).91 The money that was used in New Testament times is in itself well known. It is a silver coin of two drachmas. Josephus calls it a didrakhmon, describes its usage, and even mentions the banks (A.J.. 18.312): The Jews, in consequence, trusting to the natural strength of these places, used to deposit there the two–drachm coins which it is the national custom for all to contribute to the cause of God, as well as any other dedicatory offerings. Thus these cities were their bank of deposit.

This two–drachma coin was equivalent to a half–shekel coin. The bankers were thus needed not only for the changing of money but for collecting it.92 The tax collection was usually begun in the month preceding Easter. “On the fifteenth of the same month [Adar] they set up money changers’ tables in the 90

For architectural argumentation, see Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 247–250. The kollybistai (from kollybos, a small coin) are no doubt temple bankers, called the kermatistai (from kerma, coin) in John 2:14, and not run–of–the–mill businessmen shamelessly working in the temple area. These bankers are mentioned in a neutral or even positive sense in the parable of the talents, the trapezitai (Matt 25:27) who make a profit in business usually financed by the temple bank. 92 For the tax, see Snell, ABD VI (1992) 339f. Ådna reminds us that the coin itself was not religious or holy. In New Testament times, the coin had a picture of the city god of Tyros on the one side, and a Ptolemaic eagle on the other. The latter was even called “the bird of Zeus” within the Hellenistic culture. Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 252 n. 34. 91

56

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

provinces. On the twenty–fifth they set them up in the Temple.” (m. Seqal. 1:3). This also enabled Jews living in the Diaspora take part in the temple worship for the most important festival of the year. This provides a logical reason for why Jesus paid attention to the temple tax. It was rhetorically effective since most adult men had to save money for the temple tax just before the event.93 Even though the temple was rich and the kollybistai served as bankers in the temple court, the point in Jesus’ demonstration is not simply the business aspect itself. All this had been based in the Holy Scriptures, on a divine precept, and it was donated to God himself through the Sanctuary. The link between temple tax and sacrifice is established already in the Exodus: You shall take the atonement money from the Israelites and shall designate it for the service of the tent of meeting; before the Lord it will be a reminder to the Israelites of the ransom given for your lives.” (Exod 30:16).94

The “atonement money,” also in Jesus’ time, was designated for temple service. Paying the didrachmon enabled Jewish families to participate in the daily offering, the tamid. This daily offering consisted of the burnt offering (côlâ) of a lamb along with cereal and drink offering (Exod 29:38–42; Lev 1:1ff., Num 15:1–10). The atoning function of the tamid is obvious in most Old Testament texts mentioning the burnt offering (e.g. Lev 1:4; Num 15:25; Job 1:5).95 What is of special interest here is the fact that the tamid, in the daily practice of Israel, was the most common offering providing atonement for the Israelites both present in the temple area and in the diaspora. As Neusner has noted, an attack against the temple tax must have provoked astonishment, “since it will have called into question the very simple fact that the daily whole offering effected atonement and brought about expiation for sin, and God has so instructed Moses in the Torah.”96 Biblical proof for such a belief is ubiquitous and unequivocal. Furthermore, the birds and other animals sold at the temple court were reserved for the offerings of individual people. Doves, especially, were defined as the offerings of poor people. There is thus a growing agreement among recent scholars about the nature of Jesus’ overturning of the tables. Money changers in the temple court were true bankers, not the “robbers” mentioned in Jesus’ quotation of the Old Testament. The temple tax, in turn, was associated with the tamid, and thus with the cult of atonement. Doves were the offerings of the poor. The baskets 93 As regards temple taxation and its function, see Schürer, History 2, 295–297; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 166–167. 94 Josephus praises the temple for its wealth and explains that the temple tax was one of the main streams of income. A.J. 14.110. 95 Anderson, ABD V (1992) 878. 96 Neusner, NTS 35 (1989) 289–290. Even Crossan notes that Jesus’ act “destroys” the temple in the sense of stopping its sacrificial and liturgical operations. Crossan, Jesus, 357–358.

II. Son of David as a builder

57

were reserved for the carrying of offerings. By overturning the tables Jesus attacked the temple cult and prevented the fulfillment of the daily offering. He gave a provocative demonstration against the temple itself.97 This was not merely an act of “cleansing.” Instead, it was a prophetic sign that proclaimed the advent of restoration.98 Reading the story in the context of the metanarrative of exile and restoration confirms such a conclusion. The temple incident needs thus to be interpreted primarily in the light of the entire Jerusalem narrative. The message of the prophets seems to have directed Jesus’ intention in this demonstration. He answers the cries of Malachi as the prophet faced the pollution of Israel’s worship: “Oh, that someone among you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not kindle fire on my altar in vain!” (Mal 1:10). This is what Jesus does. He proclaims that Israel’s restoration is at hand but that it shall not become manifest through this pile of stones, this den of robbers, where the Shekinah has never returned. 3. Sermon on the temple mount According to the presentation of Mark and the other synoptics, Jesus also taught people in the temple court. He did not merely perform a symbolic act there but he also proclaimed certain prophetic words concerning the situation and fate of God’s house. The speech itself is somewhat surprising since it comprises two references to Old Testament prophets, and that is all. Is this the outline of Jesus’ speech or is it a later interpretation of the event? The question concerning historical authenticity must at first be set aside because the question about the content of the passage is more interesting. Later, we can assess how the sermon fits the context and the intentions of Jesus’ other actions in the Jerusalem mission. Of the two references to the Old Testament a quotation from the book of Isaiah comes first (Isa 56:7). This passage speaks about the time of salvation and the event of return. All nations may enter God’s holy mountain in Jerusalem. In the final renewal the temple will be the place where God will gather all the fylai, all exiled Jews, and probably even other nations besides Israel. “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” (Mark 11:17). What is important is the context in which the prophet’s statement is located. In Isaiah’s text the passage continues as follows: “Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered.” (Isa 56:8). 97 Wright, Victory of God, 417. Wright accepts Sanders’ basic claim that Jesus “symbolically and prophetically enacted judgment” upon the temple and his act symbolized its imminent destruction. There is, however, also a cultic aspect in his action; Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 405f. 98 So already Meyer in his Aims of Jesus, 198: “But the cleansing of the temple said ‘restoration’, too, and was already itself a fulfilment event” (referring to Zech 14:21).

58

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The nature of the quotation follows the rules of Jewish hermeneutics. Firstly, there is more than one reference joined together (gezerah shavah). Secondly, a short quotation refers, not merely to the individual words in the present clause, but to the whole train of thought in the original passage (davar ha–lamed). Sometimes the point cannot be found in the quotation itself but in its original context. The use of such principles is common both in Jewish texts and in the New Testament. The Gospel of Matthew makes good use of them, and Paul is an expert in providing such references. This is why the interpretation of this Old Testament quotation necessarily begins with an analysis of the larger context of the passage quoted.99 What we have here is restoration eschatology about the return of Israel. The house for the nations is primarily a place for the expelled. Isaiah’s God is a “God who gathers.” The first focus of Jesus’ speech is thus evident. God is now going to pardon his people in Assyria and Babylon. All the dispersed families will be brought back, and a temple of salvation will be given to them. This is the time of God’s deliverance (Isa 56:1), and a time of everlasting renewal (a new name; v. 5). Even foreigners who join the temple worship (v. 3) will be welcomed in the eschatological house of prayer. The latter quotation is surprising, though, since there is a discrepancy here between the eschatological temple mentioned by Isaiah and the present temple of Jerusalem. By referring to Jeremiah Jesus maintains that the present temple is a servant of corruption and evil: “but you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17). The crucial question here is, who were the “robbers” (lēstai) mentioned in this accusation (cf. Jer 7:11)? In the context of Jesus’ act it would be tempting to identify them as the money changers and dove sellers he has just attacked. In this case a strict semantical interpretation would prevail. An interpreter should thus search for criminals who have robbed the temple. The “robbers” would then be those officials who have turned temple ceremonies into business.100 This kind of interpretation is problematic, firstly, because in the light of the Old Testament, temple tax collectors and animal sellers were not brigands. As we saw above, these merchants were merely serving the usual Jewish ceremonies of the temple. Secondly, money does not seem to be the issue here. The robbers whom Jesus accuses defile the temple, not temple economics. Furthermore, such a solution does not do justice to the original prophecy. Jeremiah, confronting the robbers, was denouncing the idolatry of the people 99 There is thus a rather important methodological solution behind the present treatment. The short statements of the passage need to be interpreted in the larger context of the original prophecy. In the western hermeneutics of the so–called modern era this kind of Jewish methodology was abandoned and passages were interpreted merely according to the key words, and often even according to their separate semantical meanings. This, however, can rarely explain the theological purpose of the passages in question. For the principles, see e.g. s.v. “Hermeneutics” in Judaica 8 (1971) 367–370. 100 See e.g. standard commentaries such as Branscomb, Mark, 205.

II. Son of David as a builder

59

(Jer 7:8). Once again the question about the original context becomes essential. Each one of the Mosaic commandments had been broken: Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!” – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the Lord.” (vv. 9–10).

The brigands mentioned here are the people of Israel who believe they are safe. These robbers were not just business sharks in the temple court. Jeremiah speaks against the entire nation and criticizes Israel’s relationship to her God.101 There is also an interesting rhetorical argument supporting the solution adopted here. Were we to identify the money changers as robbers, we should conclude that these criminals are willing to rob their own horde. This would no doubt be a misunderstanding of the metaphor. Calling the temple the “den of robbers” does not equate the temple court with the place where the brigands attack. The den (spēlaion) is a hiding place. The crimes have been committed elsewhere. The prophetic claim is directed against all the idolatrous criminals who hide inside the temple walls and think they are safe. The place of penitence has become a cave where, when the unrepentant people leave, they just return to their abominations.102 It is reasonable to conclude that the robbers Jesus had in mind were both the people attending the temple and the priests and other officials serving there. This is the connecting link between Jesus’ speech and Jeremiah’s cry against the “cave of brigands.” They were both referring to the threat of the exile. The prophet’s statement was part of an exhortation where those entering the temple were warned: “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord’.” (Jer 7:4–5). The prophet’s message is apparently Jesus’ message, too: do not trust this temple, because God’s judgment has not yet been removed. Such a message is identical with the cursing of the fig tree. All the fruits have been picked. The tree is barren. Israel is barren and even in a state of death until God enters and resuscitates it into a new life. Therefore, it is not that people living in Jesus’ time were worse or more idolatrous than those Israelites or Judeans who had lived in Israel before the exile. Nor should one say that Jews had been obedient at the time the Second Temple was being built and that they were corrupted only later. Instead, Jesus states that there is no distinction between Jews living before the actual exile, especially to Babylon, and Jews living after it. God’s 101

It is not possible to follow Bauckham’s conclusions on this issue. He has written an extensive analysis of the economic aspect of the question. The point of departure, however, needs to be changed. 102 So for instance Wright, Victory of God, 418–414; Evans, Context and Meaning, 432–442; Holmén, Jesus, 325; Ådna, Handbook 3, 2669.

60

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

salvation had not arrived before Jesus’ time. Jesus himself proclaims a “God who gathers,” and his answer to the expelled Jews is now evident. God will rebuild the “den of robbers,” and even forgive the robbers. He provides a solution. But this solution will not come in the form most temple authorities expected. There will be a proper eschatological temple, according to Jesus, but it cannot be found on the mountain. It can be found only in penitence and faith. The genuine temple has its proof in the fruits of a just life. If there is no repentance, it is no use repeating the “temple, temple” prayer in the Jerusalem sanctuary. The Divine Judge will not hear it. Instead of earthly ceremonies and temple sacrifices, the tamid, Jesus brings spiritual renewal. In the manner of Ezechiel’s promises, the dead bones will be resuscitated and a temple of the Holy Spirit will be built. The analysis of Old Testament quotations used in this passage shows that the outline of Jesus’ speech is quite coherent with the general message of the Jerusalem mission. The period of God’s judgments will be terminated, and the promises of the prophets will come true. The eschatological temple builder has arrived. At his arrival, however, the present temple must acknowledge its fallenness and corruption and repent. The defiled temple will be replaced by a spiritual temple where atonement will be acquired without the tamid and other sacrifices.103 Jesus’ proclamation during his Jerusalem mission proves the message of exilic prophets still alive and well. In this phase of history God’s word is still directed against the fallen Israel. The point of departure has not changed. God has picked Israelites like fruits from the fig tree. He has scattered the chosen people among all other nations. The glory of God, the shekinah, has left the temple. The tree is without fruit. People will keep living under the despotic hegemony of sin until the promised son of David will come. The basileia, however, is on its way. The kingdom of peace is on the doorstep. The son of David will remove Israel’s sin, a fountain shall be opened, “to cleanse them from sin and impurity (Zech 13:1). Both Jesus’ riding into Jerusalem and the overturning of the tables are actions. They are prophetic acts whose meaning is derived from Old Testament writings. In both cases, thus, an Old Testament word – for instance Zechariah’s rider – becomes a “Peircean” interpretant in the process of meaning. There is a dynamic interaction between action and word in these passages. Present Israel is not facing the novel situation. God’s plans cover extensive periods. Therefore the colt on which Jesus rides practically demands an interpretant which provides meaning. Similarly, the overturning of the tables demands prophetic words which make the act eschatological. On this basis we may speculate on the question whether the Old Testament passages quoted here derive from Jesus’ original speech or whether they 103

See for instance Wright, Victory of God, 423; Evans, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, 538; Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 66–67.

II. Son of David as a builder

61

should be regarded as apostolic interpretation. On the one hand, it is quite possible and even probable that these quotations belonged to Jesus’ original speech since they are in line with Jesus’ general proclamation during the Jerusalem mission. According to the principle of coherence, the case is quite definitive. On the other hand, however, if these passages were not part of Jesus own speech but merely a later interpretation, this interpretation should still be regarded as a proper understanding of Jesus’ act. Preventing the offering of the tamid fits with exilic rhetorics attacking the temple and questioning its worship. It is based on a strict polarization between Jesus and the temple. As we have earlier discussed, the semiotic processes of meaning are produced in an interplay between Jesus’ words or acts and the reactions they raise.104 In these Jerusalem–narratives it may be the crowd, or it may be Jesus’ disciples, or it may be his opponents who produce meaning inside the narrative. Furthermore, naturally, the author/narrator may be the one who takes part in the process of signification by introducing new hermeneutical aspects for instance through presenting new passages from the Old Testament. This is why the process itself reveals that the meaning which we encounter in the story is an expression of Jesus’ original message.105 Among the various alternatives for the final interpretation of the theological meaning of the temple incident, one appears to be compelling. We must conclude that Jesus’ demonstration represents restoration eschatology.106 All the important features point at that direction. The Old Testament passages concern the time of restoration but, nevertheless, the prophetic admonition is still hard. Jesus’ eschatological sermon is severe. The exile has truly not yet ended. People still live in sin, and the temple is even a hiding place for robbers. Priests and temple authorities cannot help God’s people since they themselves belong to the band of brigands. Jesus himself is not merely a prophet in these narratives. He is clearly the expected Davidic figure who finally does what the prophets anticipated. He is acting in the spirit of Malachi who, frustrated by the corruption of priests, cried for the suspending of temple worship, for someone who would “shut the 104

See the Introduction, 1.3. Snodgrass lists the main interpretations of the basic meaning of the temple incident. As noted already above, some scholars suggest that it was an attempt to start a revolution, others just believe it was an act with which Jesus objected to the popular distinction between profane and holy. Furthermore, it has been seen as a “cleansing” directed at commercialism – or Herodian cultural pragmatism – or an attack on the sacrificial system itself. It could also be interpreted as a symbolic act concerning the future destruction of Jerusalem, or just future eschatological hope. Snodgrass, Key Events, 463–464. 106 Even though there are several alternatives, this one is gaining more and more supporters. It has been suggested for instance by Runnalls, Spirit, 30, and developed later by many scholars such as Wright, Victory of God, 426 (Snodgrass defines his view somewhat incorrectly), Ådna, Jesu Stellung, 386; Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 66, and even Snodgrass himself, Snodgrass, Key Events, 471–474. 105

62

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

temple doors.” Such passages are not quoted in the New Testament, but the attitude enlightens the aims of Jesus. When overturning the tables he is shutting the temple doors and thus following Malachi who also wanted to suspend the offering of tamid (Mal 1:10b).107 How severe was the conflict between Jesus and the temple management? The temple police do not arrive during Jesus’ demonstration. Therefore, one can conclude that his act is considered more like a sermon or a performance than an occupation. His authority is questioned, though. The high priests and scribes start a debate over Jesus’ ministry. The nature of this discussion will be investigated later, but even now one can remark that Jesus’ act instantly aroused reactions. There may, however, be a link between Jesus’ act and his arrest by the temple police later in Gethsemane. Therefore it is probable that Jesus’ demonstration was seen as a conflict between the prophet and the priestly class. The basic reason for the conflict cannot be in Jesus’ acts, namely in the overturning of the tables, since this is only a minor incident. The real reason, naturally, must be in Jesus’ message. He presents himself as the Davidic prince of peace and temple builder, riding into Jerusalem and proclaiming the destruction of the temple. There is further a rather surprising feature in the temple incident. Just as the cursing of the fig tree can be interpreted as a cursing of Jerusalem, so too can the altercation at the temple be interpreted as a cursing of the temple in its present state. These two passages are thus the first signs of Jesus’ severe message which will only deepen in the following texts, as we shall see. Jesus acts openly against the temple and even against what it stands for both for the priestly elite and the common people. 4. Signs of spiritual exile Among the texts of the Jerusalem period we can find one extensive parable that focuses precisely on exilic themes. It is the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1–11). In the synoptic passion narratives it is preceeded by another conflict between Jesus and the priests. The discussion is placed in the temple area where the representatives of the establishment attempt to question Jesus’ authority. “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you

107

This is an attitude found also elsewhere in Second Temple theology. In the Qumran community those fleeing to the desert have “shut the temple doors” just as the book of Malachi demanded. Qumran community wished to “to separate themselves from the sons of the pit” but Jesus, in turn, came to fulfill his prophetic mission proclaiming God’s imminent intervention unless the people turned to their Lord. “But all those who have been brought into the covenant shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close the door, as God said: “Whoever amongst you will close its door so that you do not kindle my altar in vain!” Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the law for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves from the sons of the pit.” (CD VI.11–15)

II. Son of David as a builder

63

this authority?” (Matt 21:23). If Jesus raises his hand against the temple, can he still work as a rabbi? Jesus’ words may sound evasive but in fact they hit the target. Since Jewish rulers have already executed John the Baptist, they themselves have raised their hand against God’s messengers. Jesus has come to Jerusalem as John’s spiritual heir and the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Matthew there are two separate traditions concerning John’s role, and they apparently belong together. After the discussion concerning authority, the parable of two sons follows. They need to be investigated together.108 Jesus’ answer is strict. The eschatological crisis is escalating. Now it is time to ask what the opponents think about the baptism of repentance John proclaimed. “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (11:30). Do people really think that John was a God–sent prophet? Jesus rhetorical strategy is clever. Let the people decide. Jesus’ action in the temple corresponds to John’s strict words. The kairos moment in Israel’s history has arrived. God’s basileia is near. Every Jew is called to repent. John’s baptism came inevitably from heaven. Jesus has the same authority as John. The eschatological turn is at hand. Jewish tradition as such is of no help if the hearts have not turned to God. Even the temple has become a den of robbers. This is the only answer that needs to be given. John the Baptist is apparently the hero here. His character is contrasted with the ignorance and apostasy of the people. Israel is God’s vineyard but the people living in this garden do not recognize the prophet God has sent to them. Jesus’ parables underline the judgment against the temple and the band of robbers that defile the vineyard. God has done what he can: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him” (Matt 21:32). Jesus’ eschatology evolves around John’s fate, and this will be the issue in the next main chapter.109 All the essential elements for introducing the parable of the wicked tenants are already gathered together in this phase. The situation is as logical as one could expect. By turning to the story of Israel as the Lord’s vineyard in Isa 5, Jesus emphasizes his proclamation of the eschatological time of wrath. His parable of the tenants reminds his hearers about the history that led to Israel’s fall and the time of exile.

108

Matthew’s tradition about the parable of the two sons belongs to M and, therefore, is a good addition to words concerning John the Baptist. Furthermore, scholars such as Snodgrass note that, if the reference to John in this parable (v. 32) is original, it suits the context well. Snodgrass also assumes that, as regards the wicked tenants, Matthew’s story may well be the earliest account since it is short and consistent. Snodgrass, Stories, 271, 283. 109 Concerning the theology, whether or not all these stories derive originally from the Jerusalem period or have been woven together by the evangelist is not very important. What is important is that they all represent a similar eschatology.

64

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. (Mark 12:1)

Israel’s corruption is striking in the story. God has planted a vineyard, but its tenants have constantly acted against the owner. There are several textual prototypes in the Old Testament for this parable. Isaiah’s prediction provides merely a general context for the subject since, in 1 Kings, the story of Naboth’s vineyeard serves as a practical example of what Jesus means. In the story the corrupt king Ahab is tempted by his wife Jezebel – the archetype of all idolators – to steal Naboth’s vineyard after Jezebel has had him killed (1 Kings 21:1–16). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that later in rabbinic teaching (Sifre Deut.) a parable of corrupt tenants appears as a comment on the Song of Moses. The song itself, a harsh critique of the people’s infidelity, climaxes in God’s decision to “hide” his face from them “for they are a perverse generation” (Deut 32:9).110 This is no doubt the context for Jesus’ parable, too. In his story, the slaves and messengers have been beaten and killed. When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty handed [...] And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. (Mark 12:2–8)

Such details prove that this parable finds its justification in the proclamation of the exilic prophets (Jer 44:4–6; cf. Deut 28:58–68; 29:22–29). Israel has killed the prophets that God has sent. The chosen people have not listened to God’s admonitions but answered with violence. And as will become obvious in the course of the later analysis, the last of the prophets, John the Baptist, has been murdered. The eschatological tragedy will not be complete before Israel attacks even the owner’s “beloved son.”111 What will the owner do? According to Matthew, Jesus teaches with questions and challenges his opponents who are thus compelled to pronounce their own sentence. Mark follows Isaiah more closely, letting God speak on this occasion: “And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.” (Isa 5:5). Divine punishment is directed against the vineyard, the temple will be desecrated and the people will be taken into Babylon. In Jesus’ parable Isaiah’s text becomes a proof text also for a future 110

For the rabbinic story (Sifre Deut. §312), see Snodgrass, Stories, 279. Blomberg reminds us further that, in the rabbinic narrative, Abraham and Isaac are identified as the corrupt renters of the story because they are responsible for the evil of their sons Ishmael and Esau. Blomberg, Parables, 250. 111 According to Schreiner, Jesus identifies himself as “the culmination of God’s revelation” to his people. The son is sent after the servants have been rejected. Schreiner, Theology, 182.

II. Son of David as a builder

65

eschatological punishment: “He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.” (Mark 12:9). Here the original denotation is perfectly maintained. This is not merely a matter of executing some tenants. Instead, the parable has the word “destroy” (apollymi). The difference is important. The owner will not only punish the tenants for killing his servants and son. He will destroy all the leaders of the people and give the true Israel to others. Jesus proclaims the destruction both of the temple and its priesthood. The vineyard remains the same but the way of tending it will change. In a theological sense the fate of the rejected son is crucial. This subject is explained in the narrative by quoting once more the important Psalm 118, as it reads in Mark: Have you not read this scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? (Mark 12:10–11)

Like the later version of targumim, by leaving just one letter out in the hebrew word the tenants can be said to reject the “son” (ben).112 In Jewish hermeneutics an analogy is a sufficient argument for a theological conclusion. Both Ps 118 and the parable speak about the abandoned Son of David. Was the Psalm used by Jesus himself or should the interpretative part be seen as the contribution of the narrator? Both alternatives have been suggested. Since Jesus uses the Psalm elsewhere in his teaching, it makes for a consistent theology here. On the other hand, this may be the narrator’s theological construction because the Old Testament passage unites the parable and eschatological theology of tribulation based on the fate of the Son of David. Matthew and Luke make the picture even more difficult because they provide a combined quotation also using the text of Isaiah. In this prophecy God himself will be a stumbling block for Israel. He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over – a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken. (Isa 8:14–15).

There are two points of contact here, first the stone (lithos) and second the son. Therefore the point is clear: the son will destroy the temple. “The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” (Matt 21:44; Luke 20:18). The eschatological scheme is quite alarming. In Jewish eschatology the Davidic figure is expected to defeat Rome and destroy the “Kittim.” In this text, the son of David will attack Israel. He raises himself against the temple and destroys all fallen priests and leaders. A possible link to Daniel has been suggested but this remains vague (Dan 2:34). 112 Nolland adds that there is “already likely to be a wordplay” between “builders” and “stone” in Psalm 118. Nolland, Matthew, 877. Evans provides an extensive discussion on the subject and a practical quotation of the targum in question, Evans, Mark, 228–229.

66

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Is the quotation part of the original speech or is it rather a sign of reflection? In both cases it the point remains the same. In the end of time God himself attacks the fallen temple and destroys its representatives. Earthly Jerusalem is replaced by David’s new kingdom of peace. This is what Jesus also states in Matthew: “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom” (21:43).113 Psalm 118 finally presents the Son of David as an eschatological Messiah. The “stumbling block,” the rejected son, will be installed as a cornerstone. Jesus will be the cornerstone of the new temple. He is – to take the image literally – a keystone (rosh pinna), the head that holds the entire building together. God sends his Son who is not welcomed among his people. Instead, he drifts into a conflict with the religious elite. The son shares in the fate of the prophets. He will die as a martyr and so is symbolically thrown out of the vineyard. Final justification comes from God, though. After his death the son will be exalted in heavenly glory. The consummation of eschatology is at hand. The Son of God will be installed as the head of the new temple. The context of the parable in Mark emphasizes the eschatological content of Jesus’ words. The discussion takes place in the temple court where priests, teachers and elders are no doubt present (Mark 11:27). The parable itself is an answer to a direct question posed by priests, asking about Jesus’ authority.114 The hearers, thus, are identified as tenants in God’s vineyard. In such a setting there is no uncertainty about the role of the son. This is evident because right after the debate, in Mark’s text, the same hearers want to arrest Jesus. This small detail reveals that those opposing Jesus belong to the Sanhedrin. Mark emphasizes this aspect by describing next how the religious rulers send new examiners from both the Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13). Israel’s religious elite is present as Jesus is tested. In Mark’s next story, the Sadducees step forward and pose the question about the resurrection (Mark 12:18). The point in describing such a contradiction is evident. Israel’s spiritual leaders live in apostasy and cannot accept the one whom God sends to them. The exile continues in people’s hearts. The accusations of the great prophets are repeated here. Exile is a condition, not merely a geographical issue. This is why the superficial setting, the one justifying the opponents’ reaction, is paradoxical: Jesus appears to oppose divine statutes and holy institutions. What Jesus does, however, is that he exercises prophetic power over Israel. This is where the eschatological reasons for Jesus’ acts become explicit. He points out several signs of spiritual exile in the lives of his hearers. The most 113

As scholars have noted, whatever the interpretation concerning different details, in the end we are left with the dead son, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the idea of a new vineyard. (For the discussion, see Nolland, Matthew, 877–879.) These motifs unavoidably raise the question about Jesus’ role in the restoration of the people. 114 Evans remarks that the parable answers the question about authority, put to Jesus a little earlier. Jesus acts as he does because, after the work of John and the other prophets, he has arrived as the “son.” Evans, Mark, 231.

II. Son of David as a builder

67

important of these are violence and rejection. He himself experiences this time of contradiction. God’s word is not accepted. People hear but they do not understand. Nevertheless, his mission is that of the Son of David. He will destroy the fallen Israel and create a new reality, a new community, and a new temple. Restoration comes directly from God and it comes in a manner that is no longer widely recognized. This is how Matthew interprets Ps 118: “this was the Lord’s doing.” The exaltation of the rejected son will be “amazing in our eyes” (Matt 21:24). The tone in Jesus’s parable, thus, is almost pre–exilic but the basic message is that of restoration eschatology. God is no longer silent. The Lord will bring salvation and the vineyard will flourish again. Just like in the days of the first David, God still wants to live in the temple of people’s hearts. 5. Expectation of the eschatological temple Even though both Jesus’ deeds and speeches in these passages are openly critical toward the temple, they are motivated by hope. God does respond to the cries of the deported. Jesus proclaims good news about Israel’s God “who gathers.” The present temple undoubtedly represents false beliefs. The Zerubbabelian temple did stand strong through Herodian times but can no longer be considered as the place for eschatological renewal. One can speak of a kind of two temple eschatology. For Jesus, stone buildings cannot serve as a permanent abode for the Lord.115 Instead, Jesus adopts Isaianic eschatology according to which the end of the old temple representing the old creation has come. Atonement for the sins of the people will be provided and liberation is at hand, but these will not be granted by the shrine that stands on the Mount Zion. God will start a new creation and the agent of change will be the son of David who enters the scene intentionally as a temple builder. Such ideas link Jesus’ teaching directly with Jewish restoration eschatology that anticipates a complete renewal of God’s people. As noted in the first chapter, the expectation of Israel’s redemption through a temple of salvation was a constant feature in Second Temple Jewish theology. The Babylonian destruction of the Jerusalem temple was understood also as a symbol for the collapse of the covenant. The “temple” as a community of faithful hearts had been corrupted. The great prophets proclaimed that God’s Spirit would return to the temple only when hearts transformed. This must have been one of the reasons why the restoration was understood both as the work of the messianic temple builder and an act of new creation. In this respect Jesus’ mission fits perfectly into the eschatological climate of his day. This, however, does not yet mean that his message would have been easy to accept. Quite the contrary, it is 115 One of the main purposes of this investigation is to apply the new perspective in Jesus–studies in the interpretation of New Testament theology. The analysis this far confirms many of the suggestions made for instance by Wright, Alexander, Pitre, Witherington, and Hamilton. Next, the aspect of building a temple will be discussed.

68

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

easy to understand that such a “romantic” relapse into Babylonian rhetoric must have aroused hatred among the religious authorities governing the Holy City.116 Considering the analysis made above, Sanders’ initial suggestion for the interpretation of shorter stories woven together seems convincing. Later investigations have gone into more analytic detail and have been able to refine the construction of the metanarrative behind the imagery. Using Tan’s summary about the Sandersian interpretation one could express the line of thought as follows:117 Overturning of tables – Destruction of the temple – Erection of the new temple

One of the clearest features in Jesus’ proclamation, thus, is his conviction that God will replace the present temple with an eschatological temple in its stead. Such a belief has been supported by Ezekiel’s prophecies about an ideal heavenly temple. Such views already made a distinction between the temple of salvation and the historical Jerusalem temple. Furthermore, as we saw, some prophets link eschatological renewal with the appearance of a Davidic figure who is expected to build this eschatological temple. It was indeed possible to express Israel’s hope in opposition to the Herodian temple. The setting is interesting enough: by proclaiming the appearance of a temple that God himself will build, one was able to maintain a cultic idealism despite the fact that the fallen priesthood with its defiled sanctuary were without Spirit and rejected. According to this interpretation the fig tree episode and temple demonstration belong together. Also this confirms the view that Jesus’ act was not simply meant to be a cleansing, as Kirk remarks: “A tree withered from the roots up makes for a poor illustration of a purified temple.”118 Jesus has evidently been more severe in his words. One may assume that the basic point in Jesus’ demonstration in the temple is to claim that God’s Holy Spirit does not live in these precincts. The Shekinah has not yet returned to Jerusalem. This kind of conviction can explain why Jesus later predicts the destruction of the sanctuary itself. The present temple will face the very same fate as the first Solomonic temple. This is what Jesus teaches in Mark 13. As Jesus is about to leave the temple area his disciples happen to praise the magnificent building. The reason for this is not given in the story. One can 116

For recent literature on the subject, in addition to Levenson and Ådna, see the collection Gemeinde ohne Tempel (hrsg. Ego et al.); Scott (ed.) Restoration, for instance pp, 107–146, 435–488; Beale, Temple, 81–166; Alexander, Eden, 13–60: Barker, Gate of Heaven, 57–132; Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 47–83; Perrin, Temple, 46–79. 117 Tan, Zion Traditions, 167. The important question remaining to be discussed in this scheme concerns the nature of the new temple. Wright criticizes Sanders for having a too–social understanding of the next temple. Wright, Victory of God, 426. For the discussion, see Bryan, Handbook 3, 2846–2847. 118 Kirk, CBQ 74 (2012) 520.

II. Son of David as a builder

69

assume that, as in several other cases, Jesus picks up an off–hand remark and turns it into a teaching. As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Mark 13:1–2)

Considering that the passion narrative is the climax of the Jerusalem period, it is fitting that Jesus highlights the complete destruction of the temple mount. The new son of David follows his own theological program. He preaches against the fallen nation. Israel has not learned her lesson despite the historical exile that took place – quite astonishingly – five centuries earlier. Even now these tenants kill God’s servants and reject the owner’s son. Therefore God’s inescapable punishment will prove that the “Second Temple” never became the promised eschatological “house of prayer” for the rescued. Instead, it will vanish. No stone will be left standing as divine wrath falls on it. There is but one conclusion to draw. If the Son of David really is a temple builder, as many Jewish teachers of the law believe, his new temple must lie outside the Jerusalem temple that is destined to burn to the ground.119 What remains to be discussed, then, is the nature of the new eschatological temple. Sanders, as noted, assumes that Jesus apparently believed in the erection of a temple of bricks and mortar. Wright, however, states that this is where the mystical aspect of restoration eschatology – present already in the proclamation of the prophets – becomes important. “I think that Jesus saw himself, and perhaps his followers with him, as the new Temple.”120 Scholars have later put emphasis exactly on this aspect. In passion narrative the builder theme occurs several times. John links the temple demonstration with a discussion of where Jesus responds to his opponents, now justifying his act. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19). In John the statement is accompanied by several different interpretations. Some hearers discuss Roman building projects, but the narrator links it with the building of Jesus’ resurrected body. Nevertheless, read in a Markan context, the statement is based on a contrast between the historical temple and (some kind of) eschatological temple (the nature of which remains to be seen). The very same issue is at stake when Jesus is taken to the court to face his accusers. Mark notes that in the accusations a reference is made to Jesus’ proclamation against the temple itself (presented as a quotation in the text). “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” (Mark 14:58)

119

This, to my understanding, is the main idea behind Meyer’s first suggestions concerning Jesus eschatological temple theology. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 181–184. 120 Wright, Victory of God, 426.

70

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The statement itself appears so many times in the Gospels that it must be considered one of the ipsissima verba. In Mark it can still be found in the mouth of people who deride Jesus on the cross: “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” (15:29–30).121 As a statement Jesus’ proclamation is directed against the Jerusalem temple as clearly as the other saying that predicts the complete destruction of the temple. The abovementioned word implies the existence of two different temples in the eschatological time. There is a strict opposition between a temple made with hands (kheiropoiētos) and another temple not made with hands (akheiropoiētos).122 The image of stones that no human hand has hewn apparently derives from Old Testament passages where the building of an altar or the temple itself is described. According to Joshua this is “an altar of unhewn stones, on which no iron tool has been used” (Josh 8:31). According to 1 Kings, the temple was built so that “neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron was heard in the temple while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). There are also certain examples of the stone’s metaphoric use.123 In Danielic eschatology the kingdom that “shall never be destroyed” crushes all the ungodly kingdoms: “just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” (Dan 2:44–45). As this stone is the stone that was cut, “not by human hands” (2:34), it is “evocative of the stones of the Temple.”124 In Daniel, this stone becomes finally “a great mountain” and fills the whole earth.” (2:35). In Jesus’ abovementioned short story, or implied story that provides the hermeneutical stand for the short word, the Son of David has thus two roles. On the one hand he proclaims doom and, on the other hand, he presents himself as the builder of the temple of salvation. The weight is not on the destruction of the historical temple, although this issue provokes popular interest. Instead, the weight rests on the arrival of the eschatological temple which promises the end of Israel’s spiritual exile and brings to existence a community where God’s Holy Spirit dwells. The contrast with the temple that is kheiropoiētos is simply in the fact that the new temple is the work of God. Furthermore, this implies the idea that the stones themselves are “living” stones, human beings.125 It is quite astonishing that the Qumran community, admittedly in a different hermeneutical context, uses rather similar language. The covenantal community is convinced that the Jerusalem temple is in the hands of a wicked priest 121

See Wright, Victory of God, 335. For a detailed analysis, see Sweet, Templum Amicitiae, 368–390. 123 Beale, Temple, 153. A similar belief can be found further in 4 Ezra 13:6–7, and Sib. Or. 4.11. The Jerusalem temple, however, was kheiropoiētos. Philo, Mos. 2.88. 124 So Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 60; italics his. 125 See Catchpole, Jesus People, 257. 122

II. Son of David as a builder

71

who has led God’s people astray. Therefore, the community has formed a true temple in the wilderness. In the Rule of the Community we read: When these things exist in Israel, the Community council shall be founded on truth, [...] like an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron, true witnesses for the judgment and chosen by the will (of God) to atone for the earth and to render the wicked their retribution. (1QS VIII.4–7.)126

The Community council would apparently take care of temple functions: providing atonement for people attending the community, and probably even “atone for the earth” in the eschatological restoration. Temple criticism like this was part of Jewish theology in the Second Temple period, as we have seen in chapter 1. It is naturally true that a great many people – especially in Pharisaic and Sadducean circles – believed the Jerusalem temple to be the mediator of divine mercy after the time of exile. Nevertheless, there were good reasons for temple criticism. Since Jesus is quite persistent about the destruction of Jerusalem he apparently believes that, in eschatological times, there must be other alternatives for the Shekinah to dwell in this world. Apart from resurrection predictions there are certain standard passages that have been mentioned in connection with this. The first of these concerns the story about plucking grain on the Sabbath, mentioning David’s men in the sanctuary and Jesus’ relation to the temple (Matt 12). By taking up two examples about the nature of divine holiness on earth Jesus ends up proclaiming: “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here” (Matt 12:6).127 In this saying, the temple as a dwelling–place of God and Jesus’ person are implicitly compared with each other. How could Jesus be “greater” than the temple? As Pitre has noted, the only thing greater than the temple – at least according to human logic – is “God himself, present in person, ‘tabernacling’ in the flesh.”128 It is worth noting that Hos 6:6, quoted here, contrasts a pure heart with corrupt temple service (“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice”), thus making true worship spiritual.129 In this story Jesus himself is given the role of the temple.

126 Even in the Temple Scroll, the idealistic schema concerning the true temple reflects Qumranian ideas of an eschatological place of salvation – apart from the extant temple in Jerusalem. See 11Q19, 30–33. Cf. Maier, Temple Scroll, 59–60. 127 Luke follows Mark here and, therefore, I hold the M version original. It not only suits the story but also adds a scriptural attestation that fits perfectly (Hos 6:6). 128 Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 53. 129 Cf. the idea of the spiritualization of the concepts of exile and restoration in chapter 1.2.

72

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Next passage to be discussed in this connection is Jesus’ famous interpretation of Jacob’s ladder in John 1.130 After Nathanael’s confession Jesus responds to him: Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. (John 1:51)

Together with an allusion to Daniel’s vision presenting “heaven opened” and the Son of Man appearing in the heavenly court (Dan 7:13) Jesus speaks about the real Beth–El where angels ascend and descend on a heavenly ladder: “This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:17). God’s house on earth is the sanctuary where his Spirit dwells and where the appearance of angels marks the direct connection to God’s heavenly temple. In Jesus’ eschatology, the Son of Man has become the locus of God’s presence and the house where God can be met. Whoever approaches the Son of Man approaches the gate of heaven. 131 An eschatological interpretation of the Bethel story was a living tradition in Jesus’ lifetime. In the Temple Scroll we find the interesting passage where God himself promises to build a future temple and dwell among his people forever. I shall sanctify my temple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, establishing it for myself for ever, in accordance with the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel. (11QT XXIX.8– 10)132

This kind of restoration eschatology has carried on the idea that the temple of salvation would not be made with human hands (cf. Florilegium 4Q174). At Qumran such hopes are to be expected because next to nothing in the present fallen temple is considered correct, neither measurements nor installations, nor festivals nor calendars. Therefore, the Qumran community depicted itself as a true temple. In Jesus’ teaching the point was somewhat different. Since he proclaimed that the house of God would be an eschatological community gathering around his person and even incorporated in him, his hearers would have easily understood that he means the final restoration of the fallen Israel. They both speak of a community, but only Jesus states that Son of Man is the gate of heaven. But what about the eschatological crisis? Why must Jerusalem be destroyed again? According to Jesus, the Holy City has been doomed to destruction ever since the corruption of the Davidic kingdom. He consistently preaches that the divine promises of restoration have always concerned the eschatological temple made by God’s own hand. It is a temple that is actually a community, 130 Even though it is difficult to decide between tradition and redaction in John, this passage sounds original. It is an amen–saying, a Son of Man word, and has a distinctive character. 131 See especially Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 54. 132 For recent analyses of the passage, see Betz, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 91– 100; Brooke, Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 286–291.

II. Son of David as a builder

73

Jesus himself being the “keystone” (Ps 118) in this spiritual tabernacle. There is an inherent contrast between earthly shrines and the eschatological temple in this tradition. There are certain passages in the Old Testament that support a two temple eschatology and the idea of a spiritual temple. As we have already seen, the great prophets anticipate a temple that is a community of true believers. The eschatological temple, in this context, is considered an entity built by God’s hand. In the last part of the book of Isaiah, the emphasis is on God’s heavenly court: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place?” (Isa 66:1).133 The footstool, in this context, is most probably the ark of the covenant. In such a scheme God’s true shrine is in heavens, just like in the great vision in Isa 6 where the prophet sees a huge throne that hardly touches the earth (6:1–2). According to Isaian eschatology God does not have a permanent residence on earth. He does not dwell in houses made by human hands, a negation that many New Testament authors reiterate. Instead, the focus is on new creation where a new temple will be the center of the new cosmos and this will be the place where God will dwell eternally (66:18–22).134 This is most probably the frame of interpretation around which the later two–temple eschatology has been constructed. Jesus also teaches that the eschatological temple will be the center of the new creation. It will be a house that God has made, a house that in some mystical way will both be his body and his community. A hint at this kind of corporeal understanding of restoration can already be seen in the Old Testament, in the enigmatic statement found in Isa 8: “He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against” (8:14). In many passages, and especially here, we find a synecdoche, one stone standing for the entire temple, and this fact supports the corporeal interpretation. Apostolic reflection confirms these ideas. When the Gospel of John describes the nature of the incarnated Word on earth it uses an expression taken from the Septuagint. “And the Word became flesh and lived among us (eskēnōsen)” (John 1:14). Just as God “tabernacled” or pitched a tent among his people, so Jesus the Word “tabernacles” in the temple of his body in the midst of Israel. In his incarnation Jesus is the house of God and the gate of heaven. He is the Holy Place in his very person and, therefore, anyone uniting his or her life with him will belong to the community of the saved.135 As Jesus identifies the destruction of his own body with the destruction of the (first) temple, he simultaneously claims that he shares in the destiny of the 133 Cf. Isa 63:15. The transcendence of God’s temple in Isaiah is emphasized especially by Beale, Temple, 133–136. 134 Isa 66 is cited in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, and here the man–made temple is contrasted with God’s/Christ’s eschatological temple that is a spiritual reality. For an analysis, see later chapter II.3.5. 135 For a more detailed analysis, see the treatement of John’s theology later.

74

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

fallen Israel. There is a community of fate between the corrupted people of God and his own life. He will be rejected and “crushed for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5). Another temple and another body will be built, however, one that is not made with hands. There is a close connection between the ideas of the eternal eschatological temple and resurrection. God’s new creation will begin. As God answers the cries of his people he pardons those eating the spoiled fruit of the apostate kings of past Israel. He brings restoration for those living under the condition of exile. This is done by the Son of David who enters Jerusalem as a temple builder. He will inaugurate a kingdom of peace and a community where the Shekinah lives. The new congregation is the place of divine presence, the place where God dwells. All in all, it is justified to conclude that the story about David’s son as a temple builder serves as a hermeneutical key in the study of Jesus’ message. It explains both his identity and the core of his teaching. He is destined to bring about an eschatological temple, a true Bethel, the house of God where the Shekinah lives. This message makes him rise up against the present Jerusalem temple, and the act cannot be avoided: this is the only way God is going to bring restoration for Israel. As noted before, the Jewish concept of release served several functions in eschatology already. According to such teaching, the day of restoration would bring about a jubilee, a temple of salvation, atonement, and peace with God. In Jesus’ proclamation all these motifs are made alive. The story about the building of an eschatological temple becomes a metanarrative that directs both him and his followers, especially the disciples’, understanding of eschatological reality. Furthermore, it becomes a structural principle that helps readers to understand several other of Jesus’ words in the gospel tradition.

III. The time of tribulation marking the end of the exile A renewed eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation changes many conventional views concerning his message. The great metanarratives speaking of the changing eras and the end of exilic agony direct his thoughts. As the Son of David and the heir of the Davidic kingdom Jesus identifies himself as the one who will gather Israel after the dispersion. He is not just a Galilean enthusiast leading a small charismatic movement, or a self-taught rabbi teaching sapiential (or Stoic) morality. Neither is he a traditionalist attempting to maintain alleged Second Temple Jewish covenantal nomism. Such views have filled Jesus-studies in the twentieth century. The return of the eschatological view, therefore, is a welcomed revision of this line of investigation.

III. The time of tribulation

75

1. John the Baptist’s death as the beginning of the age of tribulation Great eras do not transform easily. The narrative of final restoration, in the Gospels, is not merely a happy story about birds and flowers or admonitions to love one’s neighbor. Several passages in Gospel tradition show that Jesus feels deeply the agony of the spiritual conflict that then drives him in the conflict that was investigated in the previous chapter. Jesus has been dramatically affected by a personal experience that biblical scholars often miss: the death of John the Baptist. Every speech where Jesus reflects on the event expresses true concern. The setting is familiar from certain ideas of apocalyptic thinking. There will be a period of eschatological tribulation, and it will climax during Jesus’ own mission. But most importantly here, oppression has started with John’s execution. True Israel will be redeemed only after the time of persecution has passed. Israel as a whole neither accepts nor receives the restoration God offers by sending his servants, because the people still live in sin. Instead, Jerusalem kills the prophets sent to her. John’s fate is a horrifying example of such reality. In such a situation anyone may face the fate of a martyr – even Jesus himself.136 Like earlier exilic prophets, Jesus too is convinced that the new Kingdom cannot be born without the time of tribulation. Even though it is clear, in the Gospel narratives, that the time of great affliction will lead to the final fulfilment of God’s salvation, present Israel still lives as God’s enemy. During the end times, she will sink deeper into her apostasy.137 People will gather the wrath of God upon themselves until the final day of salvation. The features typical of Israel’s sin are strife and violence. There is hostility between religious groups – and Jesus refers to these – and they are but the first birth bangs for the great conflict that Elijah as the Messiah’s forerunner will arouse.138 John the Baptist, in the New Testament narrative, has a high profile as an exilic prophet. He denounces the sins of Israel and prepares way in the wilderness for a new exodus. John warns the people of the apocalyptic events that shall turn Israel’s fate around but he also proclaims restoration. John is 136 As noted in the Introduction, the first scholar to suggest such an eschatological interpretation was Schweitzer. He assumed that Jesus’ readiness to suffer for the kingdom was based on the conviction that the kingdom cannot come until the peirasmos has taken place. Schweitzer, Quest, 387. Sanders refers to this passage but hesitates by stating that the idea of tribulation may have occurred only after the Jewish wars. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 23. Wright, when discussing the implications of restoration eschatology in his own work, sets out to modify Schweitzer’s interpretation. Wright, Victory of God, 578. 137 The aspect of tribulation has recently been discussed for instance by Allison, Jesus, 145–147, and Pitre, Tribulation, (on Schweitzer, see pp. 9-12). 138 On this subject Pitre’s dissertation Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile has especially opened up many interesting views on restoration eschatology. On the relation between John and Jesus, see pp. 176–198.

76

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

quite clear about the agent of renewal. He himself is merely a forerunner. God’s Servant will be the one who baptizes with Spirit.139 Elijah has a special role in this story, as Malachi prophesied, because he will inaugurate the messianic age and prepare way for the Servant of the Lord. Elijah is the one who will start the restoration. He will “turn fathers’ hearts to their children,” as the tradition states. Israel is a family and, therefore, this metaphor is used in prophetic language to describe the time of reconciliation – and to bring to the fore its opposition, the time of sin and Israel’s interfamilial strife. Jesus adopts this terminology but also develops it and uses it for his own purposes.140 First of all, Jesus speaks of John the Baptist as Elijah who is more than a prophet. “What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces.” (Matt 11:7–8). What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ (Matt 11:9-10; cf. Luke 7:24–28)

John has been identified here by using a somewhat difficult expression. A verbatim translation Jesus reminds us that John is really a prophet: “For all the prophets and the law, up till John (heōs), proclaimed their prophesies (eprofēteusan; usually: ‘prophesied’).” (Matt 11:13). The expression emphasizes that John belongs to the great prophets and is performing a task given by God. John is the messenger who comes before the Messiah: “and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” (verse 14). There are two different things that speak about the coming of the Messiah, the proclamation of the second Elijah and the situation he enters into. John’s death is a prophetic sign that witnesses to the inauguration of the messianic era.141 The final period of tribulation will end the exile and so be a hopeful sign of restoration and salvation. In practice, however, this will also be a time of grief because the messengers of God must enter the new age through martyrdom. Such images derive from Daniel’s descriptions of the period of tribulation, used also in several Second Temple writings. These are the issues and features that allow us to state that John’s fate directs Jesus’ proclamation in a programmatical way.142 139 Garnet, who was among the first to develop the interpretation focusing on restoration eschatology, spoke about “exilic soteriology.” In his short article John plays the main role since “John’s programme for Israel’s restoration” was exemplary for Jesus’ teaching as well. Garnet, Studia Biblica, 112. 140 On John, see Wink, John the Baptist; Hollenbach, ABD III (1992) 887-899; Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet; Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death; Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist. 141 Pitre, Tribulation, 181-189. 142 Such eschatology usually interpreted the afflictions that Antiochus had brought on Israel in this vein. So in 1 Macc 1:64, “Very great wrath came upon Israel.” (cf. T. Mos. 5:1; 7:1f.). Second Maccabees explains the period in terms of Daniel’s

III. The time of tribulation

77

For Jesus, John’s death in the hands of Herod Antipas (tetrarch in Galilee in 4 B.C. – 39 A.D.) must have been the final sign marking the beginning of the last great events. We can assume that John’s fate is essential for his (Jesus’) exilic rhetorics. John’s execution, which probably took place in winter of 29/30, was proof that Jewish rulers still seemed to be acting as God’s enemies. This is also how the sons of Herod the Great were compared with the fallen kings of the pre-exilic period, the ones who “killed the prophets.” It makes sense then that, in the middle of such events, Jesus experiences his lifetime as the last phase of world history, the era when eschatological tribulations lie heavily on the messengers of God.143 Jesus speaks about the execution of John the Baptist on several occasions. He himself calls John the second Elijah who will appear during the time of affliction. In Marcan tradition the disciples ask Jesus: “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” In most translations Jesus’ answer is usually interpreted positively: “Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things.” (NRSV). This translation, however, cannot explain why Jesus continues with an antithetical statement. Therefore, some scholars suggest that Jesus actually starts his sentence with a question.144 A dynamic translation, in this case, goes as follows: He said to them, “[Is it so, that] Elijah must come first to restore all things? How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.” (Mark 9:12-13)

The passage can now be explained in terms of structural analysis. Is it so, as some Jewish theologians expected, that Elijah comes and brings peace to Israel (using Marcus’ terminology: base verse)? If this were true, Jesus asks, why has the age of tribulation not ended? Why did the restoration not begin? Why must the Son of Man suffer as well (Marcus: contrastive scriptural expectation)? The form of Jesus’ antithetical answer here is similar to when he speaks about the Son of David (Mark 12:35-37). How can David’s son be David’s Lord? According to Jesus, the generally accepted interpretation of Old Testament passages is erroneous in both cases. Elijah will come, and prophecies even though the author sees that the time of wrath does not yet mean the final consummation of eschatology (2 Macc 6:9). Goldstein, II Maccabees, 278. Being an important topos in 1 Enoch and Jubilees, the time of tribulation is also a constant issue at Qumran (1QH 11; 4Q171; 4Q246; 1QM 15; and even 1QS 3–4). A detailed analysis is in Pitre, Tribulation, see especially 98-120. 143 For the historical situation, see Hoehner, Herod Antipas, especially 110ff., 129–131. 144 See especially Marcus, ZNW 80 (1989) 48-55; cf. Marcus, Way, 103. Pitre, however, does not think that the first line needs to be interpreted as a question because the point is in the juxtaposed “scriptural contradictions.” The idea is communicated perfectly in this way. Pitre, Tribulation, 179. The alternative of a question sounds good, as it clarifies the issue.

78

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

even has come, but the time of peace does not start with him. Instead, Elijah will inaugurate the final age of wrath and violence (Marcus: new interpretation of the base verse).145 The point Jesus makes here becomes quite apparent. Jesus’ disciples need to notice that eschatological upheaval, promised already in the Old Testament, is near. Elijah/John himself did not see the time of peace. Instead, he had to suffer a terrifying end. People did to him “whatever they pleased.” In other words the conflict that was to occur at the end of times has climaxed. We encounter a narrative pattern similar to that in the parable of wicked tenants. People want to kill the prophets God sends to them. Israel does not await God’s salvation or the end of the exile with a pure heart. The people are bound by sin and John’s violent death proves all prophecies about the coming Elijah true.146 Jesus’ saying refers to Old Testament passages that proclaim the appearance of a second Elijah before the day of the Lord. The most important passage, and also the one that is most used, comes from the book of Malachi. “Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.” (Mal 3:23 [4:5]).147 Furthermore, Malachi makes good use of Isaian terminology in his speech. His Elijah is the voice “in the wilderness” (Isa 40:3), preparing the way to the Lord. He is God’s messenger who shall arrive in the midst of the fallen Israel and denounce its sins. He will prepare the people for the termination of the exile. Restoration is at hand. A similar idea can be found in Sirach. At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore (katastēsai) the tribes of Jacob. Happy are those who saw you and were adorned with your love! For we also shall surely live. (Sir 48:10, LXX)

The book of Sirach presents a view that is common in Second Temple Jewish theology. When Elijah arrives he will “calm” the wrath of God and restore the tribes.148 Christian interpretation could of course see this either as a reference to John’s death or to his office as a prophet. Be that as it may, Sirach also reminds his readers that the people never listened to the warnings of the first Elijah who lived a long time before him. “Despite all this the people did not repent, nor did they forsake their sins, until they were carried 145

Marcus compares the technique with that found in the Mekilta and uses the abovementioned terminology such as base verse. He further parallels the Elijah passage with a similar teaching that concerns David’s Lord (Mark 12:35-37), see Marcus, Way, 139-144. 146 Pitre, Tribulation, 187-188. 147 Webb provides a thorough analysis of the disputations in the narrative of Malachi and, in his esteem, the Elijah–redivivus is most of all “a figure of judgment and restoration.” Webb, John, 254. Webb fails to pay attention to the aspect of tribulation, though. 148 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 533–534.

III. The time of tribulation

79

off as plunder from their land, and were scattered over all the earth.” (48:15). In Sirach’s opinion, the second Elijah has a more merciful task: he will end the dispersion and start the restoration of Israel. In his time, God will renew his people and call the tribes of the exile to him. Furthermore, as the time of hate ends, resurrection has its role in the renewal: “we also shall surely live.” But all this is something to be realized in the future. The age of wrath is not yet over. In the gospels, Jesus apparently wants to question the conventional views of his own generation. The hearts of fathers have not yet turned to their children. Israel still persecutes God’s messengers. This is why Jesus further refers to the most important passage speaking about Elijah in the Old Testament: namely the story about Elijah on Mount Horeb. Under Jezebel’s persecution and in the midst of Israel’s unfaithfulness Elijah contemplates his fate and prays to his God: He answered: “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away. (1 Kgs 19:14)

This is an important topos of Elijah’s suffering, and it also becomes a key in Jesus’ teaching. John faced the very same situation as the first Elijah. The difference is crucial, though. God never saved the life of the second Elijah. Instead, he became a martyr in the eschatological age.149 This is why the New Testament sermon about the new Elijah finds its essential content in the book of Daniel. Here eschatology is directed by a clear view about the time of tribulation.150 At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan 12:1–2)

In the eschatology of the book of Daniel both Israel’s restoration and the end of the exile take place during a great affliction. This is expressed, first of all, in the prophecy of “weeks.” Seventy weeks “are decreed” for a special reason: “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for 149

Yamasaki pays attention to the fact that in Matthew, Jesus “depicts John as a casualty in the war raging between the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God.” Yamasaki, John, 134. He does not refer to Elijah’s role in the Old Testament but emphasizes the position John is given as Elijah in Jesus’ speaking concerning John’s death. 150 Pitre debates with Morna Hooker on the issue about whether there is any direct prophecy of suffering for Elijah in the Old Testament. Hooker denies this but Pitre suggests that the idea is implied in Mal 4:5–6, and the theology is then developed in Daniel. Pitre, Tribulation, 186. Nevertheless, as noted, the topos of suffering is clear already in 1 Kgs 19.

80

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Dan 9:24). Israel’s renewal will mean reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, criticism of the temple is fierce since, according to the prophecy, the Holy of Holies will be anointed when salvation arrives. What is important for the present discussion is that all this takes place in the middle of a crisis: “to the end there shall be war” (9:26).151 These passages probably justify the combination of the figure of Elijah with the idea of resurrection. In Mark 6 we find speculation over John’s possible resurrection. “John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work with him.” (Mark 6:14; Matthew links this saying with Herod Antipas himself, Matt 14:2). Such discussions prove that it would be normal for a Jew to assume that Elijah will appear right before the eschatological renewal.152 In sum, it is apparent that when Jesus speaks about John as Elijah, he builds his speech on a dark eschatology that is based in the Old Testament. Enmity towards God and interfamilial strife will continue uninterrupted until the divine plans are finally consummated. Both the new Elijah and the Son of God will have to endure persecution. It is only logical for Jesus to teach that the time of tribulation (peirasmos) will be, and already is, a reality in the life of his followers. This spirit can be seen in Jesus’ eschatological list of afflictions in the woe passages. In these words he accuses Israelites above all of killing the servants God sends them. The oppressive attitude described here reminds us once more of that in the wicked tenants. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ’If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in the shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:29–33)

The fallen people kill their prophets. Scribes and Pharisees decorate their graves in order to wash their hands of their murders. They fill up the measure of their sins until God’s punishment reaches them. Jesus’ imitation of John’s proclamation must be intentional. Jesus calls the hypocrites a brood of vipers. Since scribes and Pharisees did not recognize John, they cannot recognize the

151

Pitre, Tribulation, 187. There is one interesting detail in the Mishnah where Elijah is presented as the agent of resurrection: “the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes through Elijah, blessed be his memory” (m. Sotah 9:15). The saying is preceded by a quotation from Micah, where “the son dishonors the father and the daughter rises up against her mother.” 152

III. The time of tribulation

81

voice of the living God. Instead, they offer the people their poison that is destined to take both them and their hearers straight to hell.153 Furthermore, in Jesus’ teaching we find other words that relate to similar prophetic traditions of the Old Testament. One of the most striking of these speaks of the innocent blood that Israel has shed over the centuries. Therefore I send you prophets, sages and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. (Matt 23:34–36)

According to these words the prophecies of Daniel are now being fulfilled word by word. Contemporary persecutors are the same criminals who despised the law of Moses, broke their covenant with God, and were finally deported to the exile. The forefathers of the false teachers have brought punishment on Israel. Now their children continue harass the pious. This is why all the blood, every martyr from Abel to the last victim in the Tanakh, this being the priest Zechariah who was stoned to death in the court of the Temple (2 Chr 24:21), all this guilt will be upon “this generation”, Jesus’ own generation.154 The message here is straightforward. The chosen people have always murdered the messengers of God. Now Israel opposes the Son of Man, the messianic Nazarean. The blood of the innocent and the pious, however, shouts from the earth. The proclamation of the great prophets is renewed here: this is the generation that kills its prophets. As noted in the first subchapter, Jeremiah accuses Israel whose “own sword” has devoured the prophets (Jer 2:30), and Nehemiah confesses the people’s disobedience as they had “killed your prophets” (Neh 9:26). Exile as a punishment has been justified – and it still is. Such an eschatology opens up finally the meaning of one of the most enigmatic speeches in Jesus’ teaching concerning a violent attack against the kingdom of heaven. The passage in question is the biazetai–logion in Matt 11.155 153

Taylor holds the view that John’s violent death became an important event for the historical Jesus. She connects the theme with one of the blessings in Matthew 5 that says: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Taylor, The Immerser, 314. 154 The unusual reference to Barachiah’s “son” may be a theological reading according to which the murder of Zechariah fulfills the prophecies and warnings of the prophet Zechariah. For the discussion, see Hagner, Matthew, 676-677. 155 This logion has been depicted as one of the most difficult “conundrums” in the New Testament. The main interpretive attempts are presented above all in Davies and Allison, Matthew II, 254–255; see also Schrenk, TDNT I, 609–612; and Hagner, Matthew, 306–307. For recent literature on the subject, see Yamasaki, John, 117–118 (especially fn. 39).

82

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven must suffer violence (biazetai), and the violent (biastai) attempt to conquer/defeat (harpazousin) it. (Matt 11:12, my translation)

The difficulty of interpretation lies first of all in the question whether the saying should be understood as positive or negative. Is the kingdom itself breaking forth, or does it has to suffer violence? The positive version has been popular from the days of Luther and Erasmus, and it has also found its way for instance to the present Finnish translation.156 Most translations, however, adopt the negative interpretation and speak about attacking the kindgom in one way or another: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (NRSV). This alternative is semantically valid but it brings in a rather difficult implication of gaining the kingdom of heaven by the help of violence.157 The NIV version apparently seeks some kind of compromise: “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.”158 From a linguistic point of view, Schrenk is quite right in concluding that biazomai in the first sentence is semantically dependent on the biastai in the second sentence.159 The reference here is no doubt to the attackers’ vehemently hostile action. This is further emphasized by harpazein which usually refers to wrenching or stripping (cf. Matt 13:19). Moore has shown that, in Josephus, biazomai refers usually to violent action and, especially combined with harpazein, signifies “the direct employment of physical violence as a means of coercion.”160 Therefore, one can support Schrenk’s conclusion that Jesus’ logion speaks of the “enemies of the divine rule,” and that the kingdom is “contested, attacked or hampered by contentious opponents.”161 If Jesus speaks in this statement about the opponents of the kingdom, who are the enemies he refers to? Several alternatives have been suggested. It 156

For the history, see Schrenk, TDNT I, 610. The Finnish translation 1992 in fact changes the earlier negative interpretation of the 1938 translation. The positive aspect is present also in NIV: “forcefully advancing,” and Lamsa (translating the Aramaic of the Peshitta): “administred by force, and only those in power control it.” 157 The negative alternative is commonly accepted, and it has also prevailed from the Authorized Version to RSV and NASB. 158 Notley has argued, on the basis of Mic 2:13 (“The one who breaks out will go up before them”), that the logion would originally speak of restoration. Following his teacher Flusser, he suggests that biazetai should be understood as “breaking forth.” Notley, Scripture, 307. 159 Schrenk, TDNT I, 610-611. 160 Moore, NTS 21 (1975) 540. This is why Moore’s alternative sounds more convincing than Notley’s suggestion above, even though the latter also has linguistic justification. 161 Schrenk, TDNT I, 611; so also for instance Davies and Allison, Matthew II, 256, Yamasaki, John, 119, and Pitre, Tribulation, 166–168; he also lists helpful textual evidence.

III. The time of tribulation

83

would be logical to assume that Jesus’ opponents were Pharisees – despite the fact that the Pharisees are not usually known for their violent action. Zealots have also been proposed as an alternative, because such fanatical groups were no doubt militant. But did they oppose Jesus and his followers? Some scholars simply speak of Zealotic Pharisees.162 These alternatives are not very convincing. The opposition may also be spiritual. According to one solution the kingdom “has suffered attacks in warfare fought in the spiritual realm.” In this case Jesus would refer to violent demons.163 It is true that Jesus speaks much about the battle against demons but, in this case, the context does not appear to suggest such content. These explanations do not take John’s role into consideration enough. There is a specific point to Jesus’ saying. As the second Elijah enters history, the period of tribulation reaches its summit. Ever since the death of John the Baptist the time of persecution has become real. Simultaneously, however, God’s kingdom has come near. His messengers proclaim the inauguration of a new kingdom. Jesus’ gospel can be heard both in Jerusalem and in its surrounding villages. The spiritual exile that the people are still immersed in prevents many of them from accepting the salvific message.164 Therefore, the conflict grows more pointed, and Israel persecutes those who proclaim the good news. The kingdom must suffer violence. Read in the light of Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants, God’s enemies really wish to take the vineyard “by force.” This battle is fought to the death. John’s execution proves that Israel still opposes her God. The people do not welcome the gospel of salvation but attempt to defeat the new kingdom.165 The very same message can be found in Jesus’ prophetic word and the woes against Jerusalem. Even though the word in Matthew is placed among other woes against Israel, it apparently is an independent word from the sayings-source (cf. Luke 13:34-35). This prophecy about Jerusalem focuses on hard oppositions during the time of wrath. God’s holy city does not welcome God’s messengers.

162

For the alternatives, see Davies and Allison, Matthew II, 255. Moore uses the term “Zealotic Pharisees,” NTS 21 (1975) 541. 163 Quotation from Yamasaki, John, 120. For previous supporters of this alternative, see Davies and Allison, Matthew II, 255. 164 Some scholars speak of tribulation, see Perrin, Language, 46. Usually writers tend to emphasize the particular opposition that both John’s and Jesus’ preaching had encountered, and mention John’s imprisonment. See for instance Nolland, Matthew, 458. As Betz has noted, Jesus’ situation is similar to that of the author of the Hodayot, who has been oppressed at the hands of the “ruthless men” in an eschatological period of tribulation (1QH/a, x.20-30). Betz, Messias, 88. 165 Allison, treating Luke 16:16, states that “Jesus used the concept of eschatological tribulation to make sense of misfortunes around him.” Allison, Jesus, 146. Pitre, following Beasley-Murray, speaks of tribulation “that precedes the kingdom.” Pitre, Tribulation, 166, cf. already Beasley-Murray, Jesus, 95.

84

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’ (Matt 23:37–39)

John’s fate apparently directs Jesus’ words in this passage. Jerusalem kills the prophets and prevents the ending of the exile. God has arrived, though, and he wants to gather the children of Israel to his Kingdom – but they do not want to return. This is why Jesus here denounces the temple. It never became the center where God could gather the dispersed tribes from all the countries they inhabited. The present house built by Herod will be left desolate. Therefore, Jerusalem no longer has a role in the fulfillment of salvation. God will abandon the colossal building of cold stone for good. A new messianic temple will be erected only later when people sing Psalm 118 to the new son of David. John the Baptist was beheaded in Herod Antipas’ own fortress Machaerus, an eastern stronghold facing the highlands of the Nabatean Moab.166 Josephus writes that this was done for political reasons, fear of rebellion, right after Antipas’ second marriage with Herodias. Divorce as such was apparently not the main issue in John’s message. When Antipas deserted his first wife, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas, this evidently offended the Nabateans, but not theologically. The main problem for the Jews was that Antipas’ new marriage with Herodias, the daughter of another of his brothers Aristobulos, was held to be incestuous.167 In Matthew 14 the latter aspect is emphasized when things take a dire turn right after Salome, Herodias’ daughter (born to Aristobulos), has danced for the king. Herodias becomes the focus since she wishes to have John executed and the moral problem solved by a sword (Matt 14:1–12; cf. Mark 6:24–28). Hence this family becomes a symbol for the fallen Israel that kills its prophets. It is astonishing that Salome later appears as the wife of a fourth brother Philip (born of Cleopatra). Philip the terarch restored and expanded Bethsaida into a roman polis in order to make it his provincial capital. He also lived there with Salome until his death, which probably took place in the same year as Jesus’ crucifixion. In Bethsaida, then, the hometown of the apostle Philip (and possibly even of Andrew and Peter), Jesus and his followers opposed the very family that persecuted John the Baptist. Furthermore, the royal marriage was incestuous here too: Philip the terarch had married the granddaughter of his brother Aristobulos. From this perspective it is no wonder that Jesus directs his harsh words against Bethsaida: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! 166

On Machaerus, see Loffreda, ABD IV (1992) 457-458. Herodias had been married to another brother whom Josephus merely calls Herod, born of Mariamne II; A.J. 18.116-119. For Old Testament precepts, see Lev 18:13-16. For John, the new marriage was immoral and against the law of Moses. 167

III. The time of tribulation

85

For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” (Matt 11:21). Judgment will fall heavily on these cities. For Jesus, then, the rulers of both western and eastern Galilee represented apostate powers that upheld the age of tribulation.168 The death of John the Baptist is of the utmost importance both for Jesus’ eschatology and New Testament theology. It becomes part of the narrative, not just because it works well with the metanarrative of exile and restoration but because it is a brute fact in the life of Jesus and his followers. There is an apocalyptic tone in this theology. The tradition of Daniel was right when proclaiming that the age of wrath and the seemingly endless exilic condition of Israel would not end before she had faced a time of terrible tribulation. The second Elijah will come but he shall not bring peace yet. Instead, he shall share the fate of the first Elijah: sin prevails and people will want to kill him. With his teaching Jesus prepares his followers for the period of persecution. The road will be rough and finally the Son of Man himself will have to suffer – before the anguish of the exile will be over and salvation realized. 2. On the topos of interfamilial peace: fathers’ hearts What should one think about the “topos of interfamilial peace,” part of the restoration discourse found in its original form in Elijah’s history? Who is the one who will eventually “turn the fathers’ hearts to their children?” Jesus does say that salvation is on its way, and it will be a salvation of reconciliation. Members of the family called Israel will be reunited with each other. But this is not the whole truth. During the age of tribulation this topos will first turn into its opposite. At the time of wrath, the Son of Man will be a stumbling block that will incite children against their fathers.169 In Jewish theology, before the New Testament, Elijah’s topos of reconciliation appears first of all as its opposite. It describes strife within families and hatred between individual persons. The fall of Israel becomes explicit in the interfamilial crisis and violence between human beings. According to Jubilees many people in Israel fight against each other in the last days. “Some of these will strive with others, youths with old men and old men with youths, the poor with the rich” (Jub. 23:19). For the author the time of salvation is evidently near but before the great return “much blood [will be] shed upon the earth” (23:20). Only after that period will Israel see a time 168 On Philip and Bethsaida, see Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 48-50; and Stickert, Philips' City, 129-140. Further Kuhn, in spite of being quite critical concerning the authenticity of certain sayings that locate Jesus’ mission in Bethsaida, admits that Jesus “most probably” stayed for some time in this town which Philip had decided to turn into a larger city. Kuhn, Handbook 4, 2986, 3003-3004. 169 For the analysis, see especially Pitre, Tribulation, 198-217.

86

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

when “all of them will be infants and children” and they may “live in peace and rejoicing” (23:28-29). In the Damascus Document, in turn, we find a remarkable passage speaking about an era before the messianic time when “God will make a visitation.” Covenant has been broken and unfaithfulness prevails. For they entered the covenant of conversion, but did not keep themselves apart from the path of traitors and defiled themselves by paths of licentiousness and with wicked wealth, avenging themselves, each one bearing resentment against his brother and each one hating his fellow, and each one despising his blood relative. (CD 19.16–19)

In addition to this we should note that the very same topos appears in later writings. Even after the writing of the New Testament these ideas remain important in Jewish texts. In the first book of Enoch the author says: “In those days, the father will be beaten together with his sons, in one place [...] For a man shall not be able to withhold his hands from his sons nor from (his) sons’ sons in order to kill them” (1 En. 100:1-2).170 The passage of Malachi, quoted in part above, is paradigmatic as it has obviously directed the theological developments described above. Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse.” (Mal 3:23–24)

In Mark 9 Jesus states that John has a key role in eschatology and the appearance of the new Elijah will be essential for the realization of Israel’s restoration.171 When John proclaims repentance he does start to “restore all things (apokathistanō)” (Mark 9:12). In this respect the topos of reconciliation can be applied already to John’s ministry. This is not exceptional in Jewish theology, as we know from 4Q521 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It provides an eschatological interpretation of Malachi’s passage emphasizing that the work of Elijah is crucial for Israel’s renewal. Furthermore Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, uses a tradition where Mal 3 has a special role. John will come with “the power of Elijah” and proclaim restoration: “to turn the hearts of parents to their children” (Luke 1:17).172 The negative view, however, needs to be connected with another theme in the prophetical books of the Old Testament. As Micah criticizes Israel’s spiritual state where “the best of them is like a brier,” the abovementioned topos continues in Micah’s reversed meaning: “for the son treats the father 170 Cf. the parallel in the Mishnah (m. Sotah 9:15) that was quoted earlier. For the Jewish background, see Bauckham, Restoration, 442–444. 171 In Jewish theology, Webb notes that in the reception of the Mal 4:5–6 text, especially in Sir 48:10, Elijah was believed to partake in Israel’s restoration and this would “include his involvement in the political re-establishment of Israel” as well. Webb, John, 253. 172 Bauckham notes that the Septuagint is not used here. The text is reproduced from the Hebrew text of Malachi. Bauckham, Restoration, 447.

III. The time of tribulation

87

with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Therefore, Micah’s passage shows evidence of what happens in the opposite of a pious life and reveals interfamilial strife in Israel: “your enemies are members of your own household” (Mic 7:6–7). At the time of Jesus, Israel’s exile had not ended. Therefore, John has the necessary task of “turning” the people’s hearts. Elijah’s office of restoration has only begun, and much needs to be done. In light of all this, Micah’s version is true. The idea of interfamilial strife best describes the situation of the people living in spiritual exile. This is evidently the reason for the dual use of the topos of reconciliation in Jesus’ teaching. Elijah, who was expected to bring reconciliation and start the time of peace became a victim of interfamilial strife himself. Israel in Jesus’ time destroys her own family. The people’s sin has not yet attained its full measure. This is why Jesus uses the reversed topos in his proclamation like Israel’s prophets before him.173 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt 10:21)

The disciples who, according to the present story, will preach the gospel of the kingdom, may have to face the same end as John the Baptist. Israel’s “family” will not welcome them, at least not in every village they enter. Instead, “all” will hate them because of Jesus’ name. All this emphasizes the essential importance of John’s prophetic role. He has not merely stepped forward in order to discover that a change has already started to take place. Instead, his office as prophet highlights: “repent!” (Matt 3:2). John admonishes people – even the Pharisees – to “bear fruit worthy of repentance.” (3:8). This is how he turns “the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents.” John is not simply a sign of restoration but, rather, an agent of the change that inevitably must take place. He starts to gather the community of renewal as he baptizes people by the baptism of “repentance” (3:11).174 Furthermore, Jesus emphasizes that the period of his mission is a time of contradiction. Micah’s topos of interfamilial strife defines his entire program. Both John/Elijah and Jesus/Son of man become stumbling blocks so that people’s reactions will bring forth violence. Jesus himself ignites strife between fathers and sons. This is why Jesus states that he has not brought peace “but a sword.” For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. (Matt 10:35–36) 173 Pitre remarks that Micah himself locates the period of interfamilial strife directly before the restoration of Israel. Pitre, Tribulation, 209–210. 174 Cf. Webb: “By means of this baptism he ‘gathered together’ his group (Ant. 18.117), which became the true, remnant of Israel.” Webb, John, 360.

88

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The basic content of Jesus’ statement is clear, even though the Matthean and Lukan versions differ slightly. According to Matthew Jesus brings a sword (so too in the Gospel of Thomas in a rare parallel, saying 16), but according to Luke he brings strife. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34). Jesus will separate (dikhasai) sons from their fathers and daughters from their mothers. Israel’s impenitence is so deep that even God’s good news will make sons rise against the faith of their fathers.175 We have another feature where Jesus’ proclamation is closely united with John’s fate. Jesus’ speeches, commenting on Micah’s description of Israel’s interfamilial strife, can be understood in terms of an eschatologial metanarrative. When Elijah came and was executed, the final period of persecution began. Elijah had had the mission of turning the parents’ hearts to their children, as the prophets had anticipated. This was performed by means of preaching. John’s eschatological office was not in conflict with standard restoration eschatology because the spirit of contradiction and conflict can only increase due to the preaching of God’s message. The last prophet has been sent to Israel, but the strife still appears to continue. This is how the Malachian topos turns into its opposite: the Son of Man becomes a symbol of strife. With his preaching Jesus actually sets sons against their fathers – as presumably John had done during his time. Even though Jesus apparently believed that the final conflict was unavoidable and necessary, the situation was not hopeless. This conflict will lead to the ending of Israel’s spiritual exile. And this had been both Micah’s and Malachi’s essential message. 3. Gathering the tribes by preaching the gospel How will God then gather “the lost sheep” of Israel? Traditional views proposed by Jewish theology are overturned even here. Since the temple in Jerusalem is no longer considered the geographical center of salvation, it is not the place where the dispersed will be gathered. Jesus does not appear to proclaim that the tribes would return to Jerusalem – or even be able to return. Instead, Jesus claims that, as God sends the good news to the world, an eschatological temple of “living stones” will be built in the diaspora. The Son of David has arrived. He will build a new temple “not made with hands” for the people for whom God will once again be King. There are two good reasons for this explanation. Firstly, Jesus’ temple criticism is so harsh that it inevitably changes his attitude toward the eschatological function of the Jerusalem temple. His gospel (euangelion) gradually builds a temple of the Holy Spirit, the place where the divine Shekinah can returned. Secondly,

175

For the word “divide”, see Hagner, Matthew, 292.

III. The time of tribulation

89

Jesus founds a missionary organization where twelve disciples are made twelve apostles with a symbolic status: one for each tribe.176 As Jesus calls and sends his twelve disciples, Matthew states that their mission is explicitly to gather the “lost sheep” of the “house” of Israel (oikou Israēl). This term refers undoubtedly to the house of Jacob, the tribes of Israel.177 Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house [oikou] of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.” Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. (Matt 10:5–8).178

Jesus’ thematic word about the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mark 1:15) justifies missionary work here. The disciples must carry on the work Jesus started and keep it going. They must reach out to the tribes of the exile and call people to the kindgom of salvation.179 This is the eschatological task Jesus gives his followers. It will fulfill Isaian expectations about the time of peace: the sick will be healed and the dead will be raised (Isa 35). According to Isaiah, this is how a new road to freedom will be opened for those living under oppression: “the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return” (35:9). Jesus states that this is a metaphorical picture. Israel will return to Zion as they come to their God by the help of Jesus’ sanctification.180 One of the standard Old Testament passages about this issue is the one quoted in the temple demonstration narrative. The Lord who speaks about his “house of prayer” is “God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel” (Isa 56:8). This passage no doubt affects the implied narrative of gathering. Furthermore, there is an interesting reciprocity between the end times and the eschatological gathering in Jesus’ teaching. In Mark 13 he locates the final gathering in the appearance of the Son of Man:

176

See especially Schnabel, Jesus and the Twelve, 207–262. Analysis and literature in Hagner, Matthew, 267–273. 178 Cf. Hamilton, God’s Glory, 371: “To prosecute the return from exile, Jesus sends out the fishermen he has gathered to find ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 10.6).” 179 So also Kreplin, Handbook 3, 2504-2505. “By calling the twelve, Jesus makes it clear that the eschatological reconstitution of the people of God is now beginning.” 180 The missionary program discussed here has traditionally been held to be part of the sayings-source material (Q). Even though the idea of such a source, as an independent unit carrying a special message of one small group in the so-called Jesusmovement, is no longer very popular among recent scholars, I believe that the sayings-source has another kind of significance in itself. The stories about John the Baptist, followed by descriptions of the Galilean mission, lead finally to the eschatological woes and Jesus’ crying over Jerusalem. 177

90

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:26-27)

By referring to Zechariah Jesus suggests what the arrival of the Son of Man will mean on the day of restoration. The “four winds” represent areas like “the land of the north”: “for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven, says the Lord” (Zech 2:6).181 Movement happens here in both directions. The disciples gather people into Jesus’ new temple as they travel to new towns. However, Jesus will gather all the elect to the kingdom that starts in the new creation. What is Jesus’ message in the abovementioned oikou Israēl-logion, then? Like Micah before him, Jesus proclaims that the remnant of the dispersed will be gathered during a time of wrath. In Mic 7 the prophet cries out that “the faithful have disappeared from the land” (7:2). Then he warns people of putting their trust “in a friend” (7:5). In the end-time chaos “the son treats the father with contempt” (7:6). The topos of interfamilial strife is repeated here. The expected renewal will take place in the middle of these kinds of hostilities. God will gather a remnant that will be a seed of the kindgom of salvation: “In that day they will come to you from Assyria to Egypt” (7:12). “Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock that belongs to you, which lives alone in a forest in the midst of a garden land” (7:14). As this happens, the “nations shall see and be ashamed” (7:16). Such a missionary program fits well in the overall eschatological expectation of the Second Temple period.182 As we saw in 1.3., Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are filled with examples where writers expect God to gather the “scattered people” back to their own country. Restoration theology evolves around the theme of gathering like in the perfect summary at the beginning of Jubilees: “And I shall gather them from the midst of all the nations. [...] And I shall build my sanctuary in their midst, and I shall dwell with them.” (Jub. 1:15-17). Jesus’ mission is restoration theology in practice.183 Moreover, the number twelve itself expresses the theme of restoration. Most scholars supporting the new perspective on Jesus assume that Jesus intentionally chose twelve men to serve as the heads of the renewed Israel.184 This view is further supported by logions where the disciples are given authoritative status after the period of tribulation. From this perspective, the

181

See Evans, Restoration, 96-97. He also refers to the Targumic reading of Zech 2 where the exilic condition is emphasized. 182 Cf. Bryan, Restoration, 34. 183 Catchpole, Jesus People, 261-262. 184 Pao further notes that, in Acts, the election of the twelfth disciple (Acts 1:1226) supports the significance of the number itself, as well as the disciples’ role in the reconstitution of Israel. Pao, Acts, 123-125.

III. The time of tribulation

91

purpose of gathering the tribes has a strong foundation in the theological metanarrative that speaks about Israel’s final restoration.185 In the first phase of mission, however, the act of gathering has to be done during the period of tribulation. According to Jesus’ missionary program, his followers will have to give their testimony in the time of wrath. Any disciple taking part in this mission may have to suffer persecution. They are in a situation similar to that of John the Baptist’s. Jesus sends his own even though he knows that some of them are destined to encounter violence. A short collection of the mission to Israel given in Matt 10 proves this: – you are like sheep in the midst of wolves (v. 16) – they will hand you over to councils (v. 17) – brother will betray brother to death (v. 21) – you will be hated by all (v. 22) – they will persecute you (v. 23) – you are household of the Beelzebul (v. 25) – do not fear those who kill the body (v. 28) – do not think that I have come to bring peace (v. 34) – I have come to set a man against his father (v. 35) – you are those who lose their life for my sake (v. 39) The disciples are sent like sheep in the midst of wolves. It has been noted that a comparison between the fallen Israel and Jesus’ followers could not be more harsh.186 Jesus has nothing to offer but the role of a martyr. Every messenger is in danger of getting torn to pieces. They will be hauled before councils. They will be sentenced in synagogal courts. They will be hated and persecuted. Jesus alludes to the prophecy of Micah that speaks about Israel’s interfamilial strife during the period of tribulation. Sons will be in conflict with their fathers, and brother will betray brother to death. The Beelzebuldispute (see below) proves that Jesus and his followers are depicted in satanic terms. As the fallen people have demonized Jesus, their attitude toward his disciples remains the same. The threat of persecution is so obvious that Jesus encourages his followers even in the face of death: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body to hell” (10:28).187

185

See Sanders, Jesus, 229-230; Wright, Victory of God, 169; Meier, Restoration, 404 (who also provides an extensive analysis of the issue); and Bryan, Handbook 3, 2845 (correcting Sanders’ rather political interpretation). 186 Hagner, Matthew, 276. 187 There is an interesting variant reading in 2 Clem. 5:2-4. Peter responds to Jesus' speech: “What if the wolves tear the sheep in pieces?” Jesus says: “Let the sheep not fear the wolves after death; you also fear not them who kill you, but otherwise cannot do anything to you; but fear him who after your death has power over body and soul to cast (them) into hell-fire.” See Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha I, 172.

92

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Israel’s remnant will thus be gathered in the middle of the final tribulation. This aspect explains further why Jesus speaks about the delay of the actual restoration in the new creation. God’s kingdom cannot be renewed before the suffering is over for good. This is why Jesus will not – at first – bring peace to the earth: “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34). It is precisely Jesus’ own proclamation that incites sons to rise up against their fathers (verse 35). The exile will end only when the time of wrath will climax in the final battle. Among Jesus’ directions we find a peculiar word about fleeing from town to town before the Son of Man arrives. What did he mean when saying that the Son of Man will come even before the mission is accomplished? When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt 10:23)

The interpretation of the passage is at least partly dependent on the view whether we have here one or two separate sayings. The first part 23a speaks clearly about persecution and fleeing (feugein), as do many other of Jesus’ teachings treated above. Is the latter part independent or not? If it is interpreted – at least as far as the content is concerned – as independent, it may well speak about preaching the gospel in the towns of Galilee. This can be said despite the fact that preaching and persecution are not mutually exclusive but, rather the former leads to the latter.188 Since Jeremias, many scholars have assumed that the sayings belong together. In this case 23b states simply that the disciples need to flee from town to town because they will be persecuted for the sake of Jesus’ message. The key word teleō means either “accomplish” or “finish,” and this might refer to missionary work as such. It may, however, refer to “flight” as well, and in this case the saying would emphasize the length of the eschatological tribulation.189 But, as noted above, there is no restriction here as if these are mutually exclusive. The only reason for the disciples to travel to the towns of Galilee instead of, for instance, going fishing, is Jesus’ mission. What does the coming of the Son of Man mean? Since the days of the Schweitzerian “consistent eschatology” movement this verse has been the key logion on the basis of which scholars stated that the end would arrive during the lifetime of the present generation.190 Later at least three alternatives have been suggested. Firstly, it might be hinting at the parousia and the beginning of the eschaton proper. Secondly, Jesus may be speaking

188

For the alternatives and earlier discussion, see for instance Jeremias, Theology, 135-137; Davies and Allison, Matthew II, 187-192. 189 According to Jeremias this logion speaks about persecution. Jeremias, Theology, 136. 190 See Kümmel, Investigation, 235.

III. The time of tribulation

93

about Jerusalem’s destruction. Thirdly, some scholars assume that the passage refers to resurrection, or Easter in a more general sense.191 It is apparent that Jesus’ saying depends on the idea that a time of tribulation is at hand. As his disciples preach good news in Galilee, their work will arouse hatred in the fallen people. Not all hearers are ready to accept the message. This is why in many cases the disciples must run for their lives. They must flee. During the time of tribulation towns will be shelters for the disciples to escape to. Every synagogue will be divided, though, as people hear the eschatological message. Therefore, the disciples must face the same opposition that Jesus himself did. This is why their journey will be a witness to Israel just before the final upheaval starts. In the Gospel narrative, however, the disciples return well before “every” town in Israel has been reached. Jesus’ saying is prophetic, not geographic. One can of course assume that, in the end, Jesus’ company had drifted into trouble in Galilee so Jerusalem was one of the last places they could flee to. This alone, however, would not explain the saying above. From the eschatological view, there are certain relevant explanations. It is probable that the disciples will not even have time to go through all the towns before the Kingdom of God arrives in the sense that Daniel prophesied and the time of tribulation ends – because all this will take place quite suddenly. In this case the saying would argue that the agony of Jesus’ followers will come to an end before they have time to go through all the towns. This would apparently mean that Jesus’ death ends the program.192 In this case the saying would point to Easter events. The age of tribulation will come to an end and Israel will no longer kill her prophets. The appearance of the Kingdom of God is at hand – despite the fact that Jesus and his followers will have to suffer persecution during the last period before final restoration.193 What about the famous restriction mentioned in Jesus’ directions, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles?” It can be seen as a direct prohibition, a false translation causing much futile debate, or as a rhetorical contrast emphasizing the restoration of Israel. Some scholars have thought that the historical Jesus himself would have wanted salvation for the chosen

191

These alternatives and the history of research into this topic is presented in Hagner, Matthew, 279. 192 Wright emphasizes the aspect of haste: “They would not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the ‘son of man’ would be vindicated.” Wright, Victory of God, 303, 365. 193 There is a second alternative that involves the towns. If the disciples will not have time to go through all the towns, it can mean that the towns will be destroyed. When the Son of Man comes and takes people to the last judgment, there will no longer be towns to visit. If this alternative is true, Jesus will also predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the occupation of Israel. It is difficult to decide between the alternatives but, despite the precise meaning, the basic point of the saying remains the same.

94

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

people.194 Read now in a new perspective this interpretation needs to be altered. During the time of tribulation testimony must first be brought “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This is well in line with the view that the sayings-source, focusing on Galilean mission, in itself predates Easter.195 Apart from this particular feature, restoration eschatology does have universalist features both in the writings of the exilic prophets and Jesus’ teaching. As God’s Servant will remove the cause of deportation, and so other nations will be granted access to God’s new temple. The Messiah will be a “light of the nations” (Isa 46:9). A universalist view concerning the gathering all nations to God can be seen for instance behind the Matthean apocalypse. One of the signs of the end is the testimony to all nations. “And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matt 24:14). A similar statement can be found in Mark: “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.” (Mark 13:10). According to Jesus’ eschatology, God must first enter the scene, and so the time of tribulation is inescapable. Then, however, a period of testimony (martyrion) follows. This will be an age where difficult upheavals will color the history of human beings. The conflict between God and the human beings he created will grow. In the middle of such cosmic drama, nevertheless, the disciples will proclaim the gospel of kingdom. In this phase the twelve tribes are no longer the focus of the mission. Instead, the testimony will be preached to all nations. This view seems to aim at a kind of Isaian universalism (Isa 62:10–12).196 Certain passages in Micah, interpreting the role of “the mountain of the Lord’s house,” cling to a similar universalism. The prophet has first been quite fierce in proclaiming divine punishment and imminent exile, but his message ends with visions of hope. “In the days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains.” It will become the center of salvation: “Peoples shall stream to it, and many nations shall come and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob” (Mic 4:1-2). All nations will go to the renewed temple, the oikos of God.

194

This is a common interpretation from Bultmann onwards (Theologie, 58). Pitre notes that the Greek text actually speaks about Gentile mission. Providing a rendering of the AV version he translates: “Do not go along a road of the Gentiles.” Pitre, Tribulation, 274. Jesus admonishes his followers to avoid Gentile highways and Samaria during the journey – in order to gather the lost sheep of Israel. 196 Schnelle makes a distinction between a “Jewish Christian stance” and later universalism, referring especially to Matt 10:5b-6. Schnelle, Theology, 454. Considering the universalist nature of Jewish restoration eschatology (cf. chapter 1.3. above), however, it is implausible that this universalism would be a product merely of the Matthean congregation. 195

III. The time of tribulation

95

The gospel of all nations is finally the key issue in the great commission at the end of Matthew. As a prophecy of the Resurrected it certainly represents the disciples’ experience of Jesus’ original aim. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. (Matt 28:18-20)

According to Jesus’ commission the Lord has now enthroned David’s son as the heavenly king. After the resurrection he is all powerful (pasa eksousia). The new kingdom has become real and all over the world the missionaries proclaiming the eu–angelion, about the new King, also proclaim the final termination of the exile and universal restoration through baptism in the Holy Spirit. The time of the dispersion is over. Anyone who hears the good news will be called into the kingdom of peace. The disciples are not sent separately to each tribe but they “make all nations disciples” (mathēteusate panta ta ethnē). Echoes of Isaiah are close:”salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa 49:6). Universalist eschatology itself depends on the great metanarrative of restoring the garden-temple of Eden. Paradise, in the Old Testament, is God’s dwelling place on earth and the Jerusalem temple later, as a microcosm and an image of a “resting place,” is a prototype of the eschatological community of salvation that will be a temple, akheiropoiētos, filled with the Holy Spirit. The primary purpose of proclaiming the gospel is to bring people back to the paradise from which they have been expelled. God’s kingdom on earth is the entrance to the garden – already representing the first fruits of new creation – and in the end a cosmic upheaval will inaugurate the new paradise where the saved will worship God forever. As restoration eschatology builds on the narrative of a God “who gathers,” so does Jesus’ missionary purpose focus on gathering the tribes. The stance has changed, though. Since the community of the saved is the new temple, Jesus’ call resounds in two directions. The good news must first be proclaimed to the people of promise, to the “lost sheep” of the house of Israel. When the days of tribulation are over, however, everything will be changed. The Son will be a light to the nations and all people shall be permitted to enter the new Jerusalem and worship God. Jesus sends his apostles to gather people into his kingdom from every nation on the earth. God’s salvific work aims at the restoration of the very first temple, the paradise that God made for himself and his people in the beginning. 4. The age of transition How does this view of restoration eschatology relate to the more general picture of Jesus’ eschatology? It is apparent that repeatedly in his speeches Jesus admonishes and warns his hearers. People have abandoned their God,

96

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

they worship the Lord only with their lips but their hearts are distanced from him. If they do not repent, Israel will be destroyed as divine wrath appears in the end of days. People’s sins shall be punished. In Jesus’ eschatological discourse, the rhetorical woes express his concern in the same manner that the great prophets addressed the people. Restoration euangelion is proclaimed in the courts of a world of sin. Only part of the hearers shall return to their God. True belief means the way of the cross: “whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:38). These words interpret the abovementioned topos in Micah’s prophecy. Everything is in a state of chaos. The Son of Man intervenes in this chaos and raises up the children of Israel against their false teachers. “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (v. 37). Of these sayings, the one about the cross has usually been located in the post-Easter community but, seen in light of Jesus’ exilic rhetorics, it must be given a new interpretation. This takes place in the midst of wolves; Jesus warns of those who “kill the body.” At some point there will be an execution. In spite of this, hope prevails: there will be a release. “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39). The most powerful expression of prophetic warning can be found in Jesus’ cries of woe.197 He bemoans the spiritual exile under which the chosen people still live. There are references for such acclamations in the Old Testament. Isaiah presented his woes to the rotten vineyard of the Lord (Isa 5:1–23). Habakuk cries out five separate times on the nation of violence (Hab 2). In Matthew the eschatological woes appear in opposition to the blessings (makarioi) starting the Sermon of the Mount. Towards the end of the Gospel Jesus’ message is completed. If the hearers do not accept God’s message they remain under divine judgment. In Matthew there are seven woes (ouai hymin), and the collection differs somewhat from that found in Luke (see Matt 23:13-36). But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land... Woe to you, blind guides... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... who murdered the prophets...

197

Wright has picked up the detail that Schweitzer already emphasized on the importance of the woes in Jesus’ eschatology, see Wright, Victory of God, 578. For the discussion, see Pitre, Tribulation, 11.

III. The time of tribulation

97

These warnings repeat the message of Israel’s exilic prophets.198 The term hypokritēs, denoting an actor or a hypocrite, refers to a situation where the speakers not only deceive themselves but especially their audience. This is why these hypocrites oppose God’s true Messenger who has come to bring final restoration: “woe to you [...] For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them” (Matt 23:14). A somewhat peculiar woe against proselytism then completes the first cry. The teachers willingly oppose Jesus’ work as a rabbi who proclaims true gospel but simultaneously they themselves “cross the sea and land” to make one convert. Such action, in Jesus’ estimation, is a warped picture of the good news that should now be shouted out so that everyone can hear that the agony of the spiritual exile is over. This is why Jesus claims that all that these false teachers can acieve is to make their listener a “child of Gehenna,” a child of hell (Matt 23:15). This is exilic rhetorics in its sharpest version: this people spreads the gospel of Satan instead of listening to God’s word.199 According to what Jesus says, people probably themselves assume that they follow God’s law but in reality they live in ungodly egoism. The outward reputation is faultless, of course. Reference to tithing mint points to the Pharisaic nomism that surpassed even Old Testament precepts, extending to spices. Such conduct, without a true conversion of heart, amounts to merely “straining out a gnat” while swallowing a camel (Matt 23:24). As Jesus moves on to address purity regulations, he touches on the very themes of the prophets. A nation made of dead bones (Ezek 37) has no hope other than the new David who can bring the bones to life. Israel’s teachers are blind guides. Purity regulations are followed in vain because the inside of the cup is filthy and impure (Matt 23:25). Hypocrites are like “whitewashed tombs” filled with dead bones. They are not only impure themselves but they also contaminate each and every person that hears their teaching (23:29). It is apparent that their hope can only be in the Son of David who can give life to dead bones (Ezek 37). Another sign of the age of transition is a spiritual war against demons. Such a battle is part of the great change in the world. “Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work” (Luke 13:32). As Jeremias has noted, the “third day” here is not a post-Easter formulation but a Jewish idiom that denotes the arrival of a special turning point.200 The special signs in Jesus’ work emphasize his 198 In addition to this scholars often refer to a certain Jesus son of Ananus who just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. started to denounce the city by crying: “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” B.J.. 6.5.3. 199 See for instance Nolland, Matthew, 934. Gehenna appears often in Matthew. Sons of Gehenna is a synonym for sons of evil (see Matt 13:38). In chapter 23 the last woe highlights in a cry against people as snakes and a brood of vipers: “How can you escape being sentenced to hell?” (23:33). 200 So also in Mark 14:58 and 15:29. See Jeremias, Theology, 285.

98

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

commitment to his prophetic mission: he is not trying to avoid the fate that is expected to be fulfilled in Jerusalem: “because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem” (13:33). Elijah’s destiny is something that the Son of Man must share. As hinted at in the statement above, the battle against demons appears in Jesus’ mission throughout Israel. According to his teachings, demons hold people captive and lead them astray. Satan has a kingdom of his own (Matt 12:26) and commands his own troops (Luke 10:19). Demons are soldiers in Satan’s legion (Mark 5:9). Therefore exorcism is depicted as a battle where Jesus defeats his enemies, as one can see already in the beginning of Mark where the demon cries: “Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:23-27). Both demons and sicknesses are seen as bonds of Satan that are used to keep people captive (Luke 13:16). When the kingdom of God arrives evil spirits have to surrender. “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Luke 11:20).201 Jesus’ work arouses opposition, and in many settings, the tables are turned and Jesus is accused of being Satan’s henchman. “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, that this fellow casts out demons.” (Matt 12:24). Since the satanic force of Baal is seen behind Jesus’ power, so too will his followers be considered idolaters. “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!” (Matt 10:24). There is a word-play about the master of the house here (a Greek reference to a Hebrew term bēl zebul; a verbatim translation was given in 12:24 above). In Judaism the Canaanite Baal was considered to be the head of all demonic powers.202 Even though the context suggests teachers and disciples, the metaphor itself speaks of a divine Lord. Therefore, there are two more potential conclusions to be drawn. It is possible that Jesus accuses the Jews, in their apostasy, for making the Lord their God in fact Beelzebul. Another alternative is that there is a “Christological” intention behind the expression. Jesus is falsely depicted as Beelzebul even though he is the Lord himself.203 Signs of the age of transition have an important function in Jesus’ mission. The first level of argumentation concerns his list of grievances, seen in the woes, against the fallen people. Israel still lives as God’s enemy and bears rotten fruit in her everyday life. Teachers and leaders avoid meeting God as he is and reject all admonitions to repent. Therefore, they end up opposing divine restoration and the renewal of Israel. The second level of argumentation reveals the spiritual reality behind the historical situation. Jesus intends to slay the serpent that has not be defeated since the days of the 201 See already Jeremias, Theology, 94-95; cf. Schreiner, Theology, 54: “Jesus saw in his exorcism a sign that the kingdom of God had broken into history.” So too Meier, Marginal Jew 2, 416-417; Witherington, Indelible Image 1, 85. 202 Hagner, Matthew, 282. For the linguistic background of the expression, see Albright and Mann, Matthew, 126. 203 Cf. Nolland, Matthew, 434.

III. The time of tribulation

99

expulsion from Eden. In the cosmic battle he aims at the re-creation and restoration of the world that Satan has subjugated.204 Such biblical perspective fits well with the idea that the renewal of the kingdom of God also indicates a overturning of great aeons. 5. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Messianic apocalypse There is one more theme that needs to be discussed when exploring the significance of the period of tribulation in Jesus’ teaching. How does this view relate to the more general expectation of the day of retribution? How does Jesus use Old Testament texts as regards the last judgment? In the interpretation of his eschatological speeches one needs to make a distinction between predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and prophecies concerning the last judgment. This has always been one of the difficult tasks of New Testament theology. The metanarrative about the end of the exile can contribute to this discussion. Jesus’ words about the destruction of the earthly temple are so clearly part of the signs of the age of tribulation that they cannot be separated from that context. Since the kingdom of peace will be realized only after a final conflict, the suffering and martyrdom of faithful followers will eventually lead to the fall of Jerusalem. Markan apocalypse, taken up both by Matthew and Luke, is reminiscent of the description of the age of wrath found in the sayings-source. The period of persecution, mentioned in these sayings, mark the inauguration of the kingdom of God. In addition to this, the time of tribulation climaxes in a great Jewish war that also ends the history of the (at least seemingly) independent Israel. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. (Mark 13:7-8)

The signs mentioned in this passage – and in this context – repeat the warnings presented already earlier. The typos of the interfamilial strife is present: “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child” (13:12). This will be a time of persecution when “everybody” hates Jesus’ disciples as they transmit their witness to the tribes of Israel. The state of opposition is still difficult. The period Jesus speaks about is a time of peirasmos. On this side one is menaced by delusion, and on that side courts of law. The difficult theological question has usually been whether these descriptions should be

204 Schreiner, Theology, 66; following Kallas. Such metaphors may be called mythological since they describe a cosmic battle. The aim of the narrative is similar to that of restoration, though. Here the idea is simply applied to the largest of the metanarratives, that of re-creating the paradise that was once lost.

100

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

understood as pointing to events in the distant future or to the present time of Jesus and the disciples. Recent scholarship suggests the latter.205 Jesus further teaches that this age will be identical with Daniel’s “time of anguish” (Mark 13:19; Dan 12:1). It will come to an end when salvation becomes real. The first part of the Markan apocalypse states clearly that the kingdom of salvation will be opened only after a great tribulation: “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). The description of tribulation contrasts with the “birth pains” mentioned earlier. The opposition Jesus and his followers encounter in their Galilean ministry is but the beginning of the “really serious trouble,” as Evans calls it.206 If we assume that this passage predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, the realistic description of the apocalypse is like a summary of the horrifying documents Josephus later presents in his Jewish War. There will be famine, as the attack will put the city in a state of siege. The catastrophe will be completed by earthqakes. Those living in Judaea need to escape to the mountains. Their departure must be quick. Not even a robe may be fetched from the house because the attackers will kill anyone they can catch. Israel, already an occupied country, will be taken over again and Jerusalem will be destroyed. Jesus’ teaching expands the saysings about the demolition of the temple in Mark 13:2.207 According to this interpretation even Jesus’ predictions about the fall of Jerusalem and ravaging of Israel describe the process that will end the period of spiritual exile. It is a time of persecution, the Danielian age of affliction. The peirasmos started with the death of John and it will end when the Son of Man is executed. In addition to this, there will be an eschatological turning point. Jerusalem will slide into a state of war, and the temple will be destroyed. During Jesus’ lifetime, no Israelite could have anticipated such a development of the political situation. Jesus’ speech must have sounded exaggerated and wild. 205 Pitre notes that, according to this passage, the destruction of the temple “will not happen apart from a preliminary period of eschatological tribulation.” Pitre, Tribulation, 231. 206 See Evans, Mark, 322. The term “abomination of desolation” (actually: that makes desolate) derives from LXX Dan 12:11 (cf. 1 Macc 1:54) apparently depicts an apostate king like Antiochus but, simultaneously, refers to the result – the situation where Jerusalem is once more destroyed and the exilic condition is consummated. Cf. Evans, Mark, 317-319. 207 This, however, does not mean that the narrative has been written only after the destruction itself. Instead, the Markan “apocalypse” has features according to which some added comments prove its originality (like the remark “let the reader understand,” in 13:14). Hengel has noted that Jesus’ directions as such do not fit the practical situation of the siege, “for the fugitives would run into the hands of either the Romans or the Sicarii,” Hengel, Mark, 16. He reminds us that usually people “fled into the city,” and that was also the case in Jerusalem. Therefore, Jesus’ words are a prediction and warning about the city long before the events.

III. The time of tribulation

101

Such a view concerning Jesus’ eschatology is in agreement with different Jesus-sayings concerning the end times. In the same sequence in Mark we find the saying about the fig-tree. “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.” (Mark 13:28). Since this is a rather enigmatic passage, it has not been easy to explain. There are two completely contrasting interpretations for it in the history of research. Either the blossoming branch is the community following Jesus, or the leaves are the signs mentioned earlier. The fig tree produces leaves only late in the spring and, therefore, summer is soon to be expected. But is the point in this parable positive or negative? The nature metaphor may mean that summer is a dry season when the sun will burn the grass and demolish the soil so that nothing can grow from it before the rains come. The metaphor may well point to the destruction of the temple.208 The first period Jesus speaks about is rather short. The time of persecution concerns his own generation. “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” (Mark 13:30). A similar thought can be found in Matthew: “Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation.” (Matt 23:36). Jesus states that the future course is inevitable. History will roll on event by event, and nothing can prevent Israel’s fall. In this process God is the sovereign judge of history.209 What should one then think about Jesus’ statements that the exact moments cannot be known beforehand? “But about the day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). The statement itself is authentic, no doubt. Nothing suggests that it was generated only later. Even though Father has given “all knowledge” to the Son, the future is not revealed in detail. Divine authority remains completely above the present course of history. Since there is no mention of one particular generation in this prediction, this saying is apparently a prophecy about the day of judgment. Therefore, it belongs to a different discourse and should not be confused with the speeches concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. In a theological sense it is easy to understand that Jesus has left all authority to the Father as regards the consummation of escahtology. But as we assess the nature of descriptions concerning more concrete events, the situation is different. Considering the future events in 70 C.E. and 208

So France, Mark, 538. The view is debatable since, for instance Jeremias suggests that the parable speaks of life: “God is creating new life from death.” Jeremias, Theology, 106. It may also be that the parable merely sums up the signs from bdelygma to war, and what is near is the coming of the Son of Man. 209 Elaborating on Jesus’ words concerning the destruction of the temple, Bryan concludes that “he believed the prophetic tradition announcing impending and unavoidable judgment on the temple as the central element in God’s judgment of the nation was a tradition wholly applicable to ‘this generation’.” Bryan, Handbook 3, 2847.

102

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

the complete demolishing of the temple during the Jewish war, it is astonishing that Jesus’ predictions of the events were so precise. This aspect is not to be neglected in New Testament theology despite the fact that it has seldom been referred to in twentieth century scholarship. Some of Jesus’ followers, who had witnessed both John the Baptist’s execution and Jesus’ death, also had to witness the Roman attack on Jerusalem. Even though they probably avoided the agony of the siege (for instance by fleeing to Pella, as Eusebius writes), they knew that the temple had been torn down and Israel had been made a Roman provence. The priestly class lost their status and Judaism began transforming into its rabbinic, diaspora stage, later collecting their religous customs into the Mishnah.210 According to the analysis, therefore, one can find two different eschatological narratives behind the presentations of the Markan apocalypse. The first of these resembles the teachings of the time of wrath found in the sayings-source. The second one is a story of a cosmic upheaval that will precede God’s divine judgment. In Jesus’ teaching these two are distinct entities that comprise different concepts, and they should not be confused in later interpretation. Read in this perspective, the cosmic description concerns the parousia. But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. The he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:24-27)

In Jesus’ eschatology, the final judgment takes place as the Son of Man arrives. He comes in the clouds and takes control. There are also two different messianic roles here that became important later in the construction of Christology. Enthronement and parousia are separate events. They represent different themes in theology. The royal throne is distinct from the judicial bēma. This is consistent with the imagery of Jewish theology. The basic problem that upholds the state of exile is that God is not allowed to be Israel’s king. Therefore the time of anguish ends just like the great prophets anticipated: it ends when God is enthroned and he – or his messianic representative – starts to rule the “Davidic” kingdom of peace. This is what the exaltation discourse proclaims for Jesus' resurrection. There is another narrative that directs eschatological teaching. Only later in the final eschaton God will sit on the judgment seat, and every human being will be put on cosmic trial for his or her deeds. The originality in the Markan apocalypse is that later transmitters of tradition have not attempted to 210 “Already present in Jesus’ ministry, and climatically inaugurated in his death and resurrection, the divine kingdom will be manifest within a generation, when Jesus and his followers are vindicated in and through the destruction of Jerusalem.” Wright, Victory of God, 365.

III. The time of tribulation

103

discern different features in it. Such ideas still appear together, mixed almost inextricably, even though after 70 C.E. it might have been tempting to create certain Josephus-like horror-stories about the siege. The main metanarrative emphasizing the period of tribulation claims that Israel attempts to take the kingdom by force by killing the prophets and rejecting the Son. Such a thematic can be detected behind several sayings and parables. After the time of anguish, however, God shall avenge the deaths of these two witnesses and destroy Jerusalem once more. This results in a second exile and a new dispersion. At the same time Jesus’ own messianic community brings about the expected Davidic kingdom of salvation that fulfils the promises of restoration. Thus in Jesus’ teaching, the final tribulation marks the end of the exile. The concept apparently has the features of a spiritual exile but the descriptions follow those used during the historical event of the Babylonian exile. As regards its interpretation, the chosen metanarrative shows its explanatory power in full measure. Jesus, opposing the fallen Israel and reinforcing the harsh criticism presented earlier by exilic prophets, denounces her religious elite and the temple. He is convinced that John’s execution proves the apostasy of the people. The period of tribulation is inevitable but it is also necessary because the final conflict leads to the perfect restoration. Many difficult words and enigmatic passages can now be interpreted in terms of Jesus’ restoration discourse and as instances of the remarkable metanarrative working behind his eschatological sermons. Jesus offers nothing less than the final termination of Israel’s spiritual exile and the emergence of the community of salvation, the eschatological temple, that will finally serve as the house of prayer for all nations.

IV. God the King and his royal jubilee The gospel, as the name of the euangelion that Jesus’ preached, is essentially an eschatological term. Formerly, in the teaching of Old Testament prophets, it was good news precisely for those living in the diaspora, far from the holy places of their religious tradition. As Jesus makes this word the symbol of his mission he implies that his message has to do both with the important narrative of God as the King of Israel and the particular expectation that Son of David shall appear as the true shepherd of the people in the days of restoration. 1. The gospel of restoration For centuries there has been an amical agreement about Jesus’ most important message that is quite explicit at the beginning of the Gospels. Jesus proclaimed the inauguration of God’s basileia. This is why most all Jesus–

104

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

studies through the ages have made this the central theme of his teaching – and with reason.211 Several scholars have also identified Jesus’ theology referring to this theme, and many have held it to be the key issue of his prophetic appearance. As we read in Mark, a summary of Jesus’ preaching deals with kairos, the crucial moment in world history.212 The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news. (Mark 1:15)

The passage is heavily directed by eschatology introducing the words: completion (plērōma), kingdom (basileia), repentance (metanoia) and good news (euangelion).213 Jesus’ sentence proclaims the gospel in the midst of the state of exile in the deepest sense of the word. God’s kingdom, his divine rule (basileia), has failed to appear in Israel. The people have been unfaithful. Nevertheless, God’s promises belong to the chosen people in a special way. The time has come, and the Lord is about to bring salvation. The God–sent Savior comes and the people can turn to God again and find divine joy in him. As we have seen such a message is neither unexpected nor strange. Jesus’ message corresponds to the hope of Jewish synagogal prayer, benediction number 14: “Be merciful, Lord our God, with thy great mercies, to Israel thy people and to Jerusalem thy city; and to Zion, the dwelling–place of the glory; and to thy Temple and thy inhabitation; and to the kingship of the house of David, thy righteous Messiah.” Pious Jews wished for God to gather the dispersed Israel into the kingdom of salvation. The Lord will send the Son of David. In his kingdom of peace the returned Israel will live with her Creator and Shepherd. As the time of peace arrives people will turn to God in penitence and live of his mercy and forgiveness.214 Jesus’ proclamation differs from the Jewish prayer text in that it no longer looks to the future. In his mission, the kairos is here. The time of salvation has arrived. Salvation can be found in the gospel he teaches. This is restoration theology about God intervening in Israel’s history. Jesus has come to turn people’s hearts to the God of Israel. God’s kingship can become real in their hearts, just as the great prophets had urged and demanded. The renewal is not possible without a metanoia, a turning to God. A transformation of minds is needed. Spiritual exile has not yet been overcome. 211

Starting for instance with Bultmann (Theologie, 3) and the post–Bultmannians (Schnelle, Theology, 87) and all the way to Stuhlmacher (Biblische Theologie I, 67) and Schreiner (Theology, 45). 212 For recent overviews, see Merkel, “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu”, 119ff.; Kreplin, Handbook 3, 2493–2509. 213 Gospel (euangelion) is such a key term that only certain general bibliographical notes are possible here; see for instance Friedrich’s thorough article in TDNT II (1964) 707–737, and Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 109–180. 214 See later II.3. The idea is identical with the one found already in Hebrew Sir 51.

IV. God the King

105

Israel still lives in hypocrisy and apostasy. The most important change has happened, though, Jesus states. God has turned to his people. He has stepped forward as he promised he would.215 The terminology in Jesus’ central statement derives from the book of Isaiah. As God calls the exiled people to his renewed kindgom he urges them to turn to a Savior who will pardon them of their transgressions. “I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist. Return to me, for I have redeemed you.” (Isa 44:22). In Jesus’ teaching, the change of direction (Hebrew šûv) that Isaiah proclaimed turns into a change of one’s inner direction, repentance (metanoia). They both mean a return to God. Israel has a stubborn heart and she has not needed her Lord but, despite this God turns his face to his people. The idea that both texts emphasize here is “coming near.”216 Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from deliverance [= righteousness]: I bring near my deliverance [= righteousness], it is not far off, and my salvation will not tarry; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory. (Isa 46:12– 13)

Few translations follow the Hebrew original or the Septuagint version exactly. These speak both of righteousness and something “coming near.” The original sentence goes as follows: “I have brought my righteousness near and my salvation is not far away” (my translation). The verb kārav means ‘to bring near’ and ‘to offer,’ and this is also what the prophetic text wants to express. When Jesus in the beginning of his mission states that salvation has come near, he means God’s saving righteousness. Even though the term for righteousness (dikaiosynē) seldom occurs in the gospels, Matthew records it in the Sermon of the Mount. Here it appears in a passage that interprets the Isaian gospel, euangelion. The passage promises that people who thirst for righteousness should be glad because they will now be given fresh water: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matt 5:6).217 In the book of Isaiah we read: “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground” (Isa 44:3). A little bit later an idea of a heavenly rain follows. This rain symbolizes God’s saving righteousness.

215

“Jesus not only proclaimed that the rule of God had drawn near. In his healings and exorcisms, and in his calling of the group of the twelve, he was already accomplishing in a fragmentary manner the rule of God which had drawn near.” Kreplin, Handbook 3, 2509. The turn of ages, in many senses, was also a reality. 216 In this respect, Jesus’ program resembles that of John. They both proclaim repentance. For the background concerning Old Testament prophets, see Webb, John, 184, 196. For the term, see France, Mark, 93. 217 Apparently reflecting on Ps 107, this logion connects the psalm’s message of deliverance with the ideas of thirsting and drinking. Hagner, Matthew, 93.

106

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the skies rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation may spring up, and let it cause righteousness to sprout up also. (Isa 45:8)

According to the Isaian good news, righteousness that rains down on earth will water the dry land. Salvation will spring up like fruit from God’s rain. Already here this salvation is called the sprouting up of righteousness. Similar terminology becomes essential for Paul, of course. This kind of theology can be found in Joel too. Here salvation from the exile is described as a heavenly rain on the dry ground. O children of Zion, be glad and rejoice in the Lord your God; for he has given the early rain [of righteousness] for your vindication, he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the later rain, as before. (Joel 2:23)

In Joel the rain of righteousness also refers to the eschatological restoration that God’s Spirit brings (“I will pour out my spirit on all flesh,” 2:28). Later the passage about the pouring out of the Spirit became essential for the early Christian congregation and it served as biblical proof of God’s acts when the day of salvation arrived (Acts 2). Furthermore, Paul uses the sentence according to which “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). Because Jesus has made this kind of Isaian terminology part of his own identity, he apparently has also identified himself with the Servant of the Lord who brings the message of salvation, the good news (euangelion) to Israel. Narrative analysis pays special attention to the motif of the rain of righteousness, developed by the prophets. The chosen people will be released from the agony of the exile. God will, according to his words in the books of the prophets, give righteousness as a present from heaven. He himself will redeem Israel. God brings salvation “close” and sends his servants to proclaim the good news. Jesus’ thematic statement repeats the promises that speak about the rain of righteousness. God’s kingship and basileia have come near. Redemption is at hand. God calls the rebellious people who live as his enemies to enter the renewed covenant, the covenant of grace. Therefore, one can say that forgiveness of sins is part of the restoration gospel. Wright has noted: “Forgiveness of sins is another way of saying ‘return from exile’.”218 There is even a slight tension between Jesus and John the Baptist on this matter. John lived a life directed by strict precepts, but Jesus gained the reputation for being a “friend of sinners.” He drifted into conflict with orthodox Jews when purity regulations were at stake or the holiness of sabbath was defended. He made friends with the sick and disabled, not to mention public sinners (Matt 11:5). In fact the revolutionary nature of Jesus’ mission is highlighted when compared with John’s rigorous fervor. What is exceptional is that they are both rejected. 218

Wright, Victory of God, 268. He refers to Lam 4:22: “The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter Zion, is accomplished, he will keep you in exile no longer.”

IV. God the King

107

But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to one another, “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.” For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ’He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet widsom is vindicated by her deeds. (Matt 11:16–19)

As Scobie has noted, one group proposes a game of “Weddings” and the other the game of “Funerals.” So the people “in their perversity”, object to John for his prophetic mission and Jesus for his message of the jubilee feast.219 The reason for the tension is identical. The basic unity of John’s and Jesus’ message depends on Old Testament restoration theology. For instance Jeremiah is quite confident that in the end, God will have mercy on his people and forgive their transgressions. The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah […] I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people […] for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (Jer 33:31–34)

The idea of one–sided pardoning is evident in this passage. As we stated in the preliminary analysis in the first chapter, this was an essential feature in the restoration eschatology of the exilic prophets. A similar view can be detected in the prayer for Israel in 1 Kgs: When your people Israel, having sinned against you, are defeated before an enemy but turn again to you, confess your name, pray and plead with you in this house, then hear in heaven, forgive the sin of your people Israel, and bring them again to the land that you gave to their ancestors. (1 Kgs 8:33–36)

In Jesus’ teaching forgiveness is a leading subject. Even in the Lord’s prayer it has been made one of the key issues of salvific faith. According to Matthew, Jesus speaks of debts: “forgive us our debts” (Matt 6:12). Pitre has noted that this expression refers to the idea of a jubilee that has become present reality.220 The theological theme of jubilee will be treated in more detail below, but we must discuss two notions already. In the Old Testament the idea of jubilee comprises two different themes. On the one hand, the original jubilee emerged from the exodus, release from the slavery of Egypt (Lev 25:2). Already this feast implied that the land should be let to rest in every seventh year and, after seven periods of rest, all debts should be forgiven on the day of atonement (25:8–28). On the other hand, in Jewish theology, the jubilee later became an important symbol representing the release from Babylon and the end of the exile. In the new exodus, God’s people will be granted the forgiveness of their sins.221 219

Scobie, John, 159. Pitre, Tribulation, 144. 221 For a more thorough treatment, see chapter 4.3. below. 220

108

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Jesus teaching in the Lord’s prayer, asking God to forgive “us our debts,” refers thus to the final jubilee, the feast that is now taking place as the time of restoration has started. Since the eschatological renewal is already on its way, Jesus’ disciples experience the time of the great jubilee in their own lives. They ask for forgiveness and they also forgive others, just as Jesus taught them to do. This is how the second exodus is brought about. The people who have been living under God’s wrath are now granted the permission to enter God’s kingdom. Many Lukan parables express such pardoning. The man having a hundred sheep goes after the one that is lost, and the woman losing one silver coin searches carefully in order to find it. Sinners have been lost, and God searches everywhere so that he can bring them back into his kingdom. “Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:10). Furthermore, the parable of the prodigal son is a paradigmatic example of what it means that Jesus and his God are friends of sinners. The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) belongs to the most beloved teachings in the gospels and, therefore, its present interpretation is loaded with meaning. The son who had wished for his father’s death, asked to divide the property while his father still was alive, and then lost his share is, nevertheless forgiven: “this son of mine was dead and is alive again” (15: 24). The God of restoration is the God of forgiveness. The parable has usually been counted among the “lost and found” parables, and sometimes among “kingdom of God” parables.222 According to a traditional interpretation this parable is about admonition: the narrative encourages sinners to repent. The “prodigal” in the story is a reckless apostate who is called to repentance. Therefore, he becomes an exemplary penitent.223 This is a kind of metaphoric interpretation speaking of repentance and focusing on an individual sinner. Such an aspect, no doubt, is always present in the parable but, according to many commentators, this interpretation still does not catch the real intention of the narrative. Should one read the parable as an allegory, there would appear to be two groups and three poles in the story. In that case this is a story of two sons and two attitudes, and of course about the God of Israel. This alternative solves some of these problems, especially the one concerning the role of the older brother. Usually the sons are seen in contrast but sometimes they are both considered to represent of two different ways to oppose God.224 For some scholars, the entire parable is actually a story about the older son who does not repent (“I have been working like a slave” 15:29). If this were the case, 222

For the former interpretation, see e.g. Wenham, Parables, 109; Snodgrass, Stories, 117. In Finnish discussions, a young scholar Vesa Ollilainen suggests the “kingdom of God” alternative, See Ollilainen, Jesus, 179. 223 See for instance Blomberg, Parables, 174. 224 See the standard interpretation by Jeremias, Parables, 131.

IV. God the King

109

the proclamation would have been directed against the Pharisees and Sadducees who often are the target of Jesus’ harsh words.225 The problem with an allegorical reading, however, is that Jesus’ parables seldom demand a detailed application. Instead they aim at one target, and interpreters should attempt to discover it. Detailed allegory usually drifts into imaginary fantasies that can no longer be applied to anything in the real world. The third way to interpret the prodigal son is to see it as a rewritten story of Israel itself. This may well be a paradigmatic story that shows hearers the present Israel’s situation. Several alternatives for a proper background have been suggested. This could be a story about Israel in slavery, like in the Egyptian period and the first exodus. In that case the role of Joseph would be being alluded to. Some scholars prefer to think it alludes to Jacob who fraudulently obtained his father’s blessing and later lived in slavery in another country.226 More recently, Wright has proposed a bold reinterpretation. This parable can be seen as a story about exile and restoration. Apostate Israel has sinned against her God and, as a result, has been forced to live among other peoples in slavery. According to the parable the time of change has come. Should Israel want to repent and return, God the Father is waiting for her with open arms. The time of restoration has come.227 This is a plausible interpretation but it is not completely without problems. Critics have commented that Wright, putting the Samaritans (who still occupy the land) in the role of the older son, makes it an unfruitful allegory. The details do not all fit.228 The Samaritans seldom have such a role in Jesus’ teaching. Even though this is an important notion it does not weaken the power of the original idea concerning exile and restoration. There is a more probable interpretation available. One should not attempt to stretch allegorical reading too far. The parable is better understood as a story of the two different roads Israel could take. Read as a story of Israel, the parable apparently addresses whole nation as a prodigal son. Following the tradition of the prophets the parable maintains that all Israel has gone astray. According to the proclamation, this should now be acknowleged at the crucial moment when God the Father has opened his arms and reached out to his people through Jesus of Nazareth. The only problem is that Israel still acts as the older son. She does not accept the eschatological feast and does not want to attend the 225

But Snodgrass states the opposite: “the parable is not an attack on the Pharisees,” Snodgrass, Stories, 135. The father’s comments are far too positive for that. 226 For the cultural background, see Bailey, Finding the Lost, esp. 54f. Later he suggested that the paradigmatic story of Jacob lies behind the parable, see Bailey, Jacob and the Prodigal. 227 The explanation of this parable is in fact how Wright opens his analysis in Wright, Victory of God, 125. 228 See Snodgrass, Stories, 134.

110

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

messianic banquet. Like the older son, Israel rejects the king’s invitation to wedding in the parable of the wedding feast (Matt 22). Read in this perspective, the prodigal son parable is a story about exile and restoration. Israel has lived like an apostate and still rejects God’s goodwill towards his people. The two roles presented in the narrative are like the two baskets in Jer 24: all the figs are thrown out and even the remnant in Jerusalem will be cursed. Forgiveness is a matter of God’s goodwill and mercy only. The good figs are those who are saved. In a similar way the prodigal son, too, proclaims the beginning of the time of mercy. Restoration has started, and any repentant sinner is welcome through God’s mercy, not because of his or her own righteousness. The spiritual exile continues and, therefore, only the penitents who return to God through Jesus’ community will be allowed to attend the eschatological feast.229 The parables of lostness are quite evidently prophetic parables of restoration.230 Their imagery derives from passages like Ezek 34, or Isa 43. God seeks for the lost members of the chosen people and rejoices over any convert that attends the eschatological banquet. In the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15) the owner puts up a feast when the lost one is found. In the most popular of these metaphors, Israel has been scattered like sheep but now God himself goes after them and brings them back one by one (Matt 18). In the lost sheep parable, the eschatological shepherd performs the task in Ezek 34, gathering the lost sheep of Israel, one by one. All in all Jesus, leading a life that is quite the opposite of John’s ascetism, eating and drinking and rejecting all purity regulations, pronounces the very inauguration of an eschatological feast that will finally lead to paradise in the new creation. Furthermore, in Jesus’ teaching, a counterpart for the restoration gospel is the call to repentance. The “chosen people” cannot be automatically identified with the people of God. Every hearer needs to repent and turn again to his God, because this is one of the last occasions when God will reach out to the people living in the diaspora. The eschatological restoration will gather a new people, a redeemed people. Even the most despised sinners are called. Preachers of the gospel realize the basic exilic antagonism in the situation: the King does have a wedding banquet but not every one who gets the invitation wishes to come. Then turn to the meek, says Jesus: “Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet” (Matt 22:9). Jesus never mentions torah obedience in these contexts. He does not refer to sapiential parenesis. Salvation is not a matter of inner purity or perfect 229 According to this hermeneutical principle, total corruption is described through the dichotomy of the damned and the saved, but in a new way. Similar rhetoric can be seen in Paul when he writes about the “vessels” or objects of wrath, where God “has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction.” (Rom 9:22). The gospel of restoration wants to save these precise objects of wrath. 230 Wright, Victory of God, 533; Snodgrass, Stories, 109.

IV. God the King

111

sanctification. This is where Jesus’ teaching appears in striking contrast to Sirach’s synergism or Qumranian ascetism. God is not merciful to the children of light. He has sent his gospel to save the children of darkness. The striking feature in Jesus’ preaching is that, just as John does before him, he directs his words toward priests and pharisees alike.231 In his mission Jesus forgives sins and appears as the true enactor of restoration. The gospels state that he has the power to pardon sin. Such a conviction must be based on a unique eschatological identity. In the expectations of the exilic prophets, healing and forgiving are inextricably linked. This is also what Jesus does in his work. He first says to the paralytic: “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). Then he adds that this healing has been done “that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (2:10). God’s kingdom is a kingdom of mercy. This is why Jesus preaches constantly about the merciful God and admonishes people to lead a merciful life. In the story about the sinful woman (Luke 7) Simon the Pharisee is contrasted with a woman who is despised in the community. In her life, however, Jesus finds the proper attitude of the hearer: “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little” (Luke 7:47). The kingdom of God is for those sinners who have much on their hearts. In the story about Zacchaeus, the repentent sinner turns into a generous philanthropist: “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much” (Luke 19:8). The basic euangelion that Jesus preaches is, therefore, a restoration gospel concerning God’s basileia. His message is about the eschatological fulfilment of all the hopes of the exilic prophets. Israel’s renewal is at hand. Despite the fact that final restoration will come only after a period of tribulation, signs of salvation already mark the beginning of the renewal. People are freed from their bondage. The sick are healed and sins are forgiven. The good news is preached to every person, no matter how great a sinner he or she may be in the eyes of the community. 2. God the King returns to Zion Since God in the Old Testament is the actual King of Israel, Israel has always been called God’s Kingdom. Hence, in the primary royal narrative of the Old Testament, the term Kingdom of God is simple and easy to understand. It refers to the chosen people who have a special role in God’s merciful actions. 231 The Qumran covenant community did have marvellous promises of mercy for any penitent who wished to enter the community. It would have been a sacrilege, however, to suggest that children of darkness, real sinners that is, could be forgiven and find peace. Garnet, Salvation, 116.

112

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

During the Second Temple period it also became an eschatological term. It appears in different sources both in Hebrew (4QShirShabb; cf. Ps 22:29) and Greek (Ps. Sol. 17:3). While the people live through this crisis, God’s kingdom still awaits its realization.232 The main idea remains the same in the new texts, as well. The term God’s kindgom, basileia tou theou, implies the idea of God’s kingship (Hebrew malkūt Jahve). These terms speaking about kingship denote especially ruling and lordship. This is also their meaning when the role of earthly kings are described. In Israel, according to these passages, God himself is king. This is why God’s power, basileia tou theou, means his active ruling and government. The word does not mean simply a relation, though. Instead, its double meaning denotes both kingship and kingdom. Israel, as God’s kingdom, is separated from all other nations. Later this double meaning influences the theological ideas of the New Testament.233 In a theocratic monarchy the relation between king and his royal God needs to be defined carefully. In Old Testament theology earthly kings appear as God’s servants whose rule is legitimated by the heavenly King. God’s royal throne was located in the temple and, therefore, the entire temple cult reflected that theme. In Old Testament texts God is called king long before Israel has earthly kings. In Judges, for instance, the judges have a theocratic role in the government of the chosen people.234 During the period of dynastic kingship, then, the idea of God’s kingship serves as a metaphor and becomes a topos that appears in several contexts. The Lord is called king in passages that refer to his militant identity (Ps 24; Zech 14). In other passages his role as a heavenly judge is emphasized (Isa 41:21; Ps 5:3). In Micah the royal God is called a shepherd (Mic 2:13). God the King may also appear as the Creator (Isa 43:15; Ps 149:2). In a general sense he is naturally also the King of Israel (Isa 44:6; Zeph 3:15), an eternal king (Jer 10:10), or the king of heaven (Dan 4:34). In the book of Psalms, mount Zion is mentioned as the place where Lord the King lives (48). The temple is his royal palace and Jerusalem his capitol. 232

For critical overviews, see Brettler, God is King; Hengel and Schwemer’s collection Königsherrschaft Gottes; Moore, Moving beyond; and Flynn, YHWH is King. 233 So especially Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 67–69. 234 This is a standard theme in Old Testament narrative. When Gideon refuses to become a king for the people he says: “the Lord will rule over you” (Judg 8:23). In a theocratic system kingship works as a metaphor that describes God’s sovereign power. Old Testament theocracy did not merely mean priestly government where political power would have been invested in religious leaders. In the Song of Moses (Exod 15) a theocratic view is applied to the context of the promised land. “You brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established. The Lord will reign [is King] forever and ever.” (15:17–18). An earthly king is not yet mentioned in this text.

IV. God the King

113

“Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God. His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King. Within its citadels God has shown himself a sure defense.” (Ps 48:1–3). In the scriptural world of the Tanakh, then, the Lord’s kingship has a special role. Furthermore, in the cluster of kingship–psalms the motif appears in descriptions of divine enthronement. These psalms have a liturgical nature: “Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.” (Ps 95:2–3). Some scholars speak of a Jerusalem–liturgy here. The psalms do contain exaltations of Lord: “Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!” (96:10). Several psalms start with similar praise (Pss 93:1; 97:1). The Lord is king; let the peoples tremble! He sits enthroned upon the cherubim; let the earth quake! The Lord is great in Zion; he is exalted over all the peoples. Let them praise your great and awesome name. Holy is he. (Ps 99:1–3)

God’s heavenly court is described with many metaphors in the Psalms. In the Temple God sits on his holy throne and rules the nations. “God is king over the nations; God sits on his holy throne” (Ps 47:8). It is also typical of Jewish mysticism to present the throne as a metaphor for the center of eternal power: “your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting” (Ps 93:2). Such a royal picture can be completed with other metaphors, like thunder: “Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him, and consumes his adversaries on every side. His lightnings light up the world; the earth sees and trembles.” (Ps 97:2–4).235 In the texts of the great prophets we find visions of God’s heavenly throne: “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty” (Isa 6:1). Kingship represents God’s omnipotence. At the end of days, the Lord the King will punish the kings of the earth (Isa 24:21): “the Lord of hosts will reign [as a king] on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem” (verse 23). Prophets warn Israel about unbelief in the name of God the King (Jer 10:6–7) and proclaim that this King will make people answer for their deeds (Ezek 20:33). It is no wonder then that, in several different texts from Old Testament prophets to Second Temple Jewish writings, restoration eschatology is depicted in terms of God’s kingship and the salvation its reconstitution produces. The comfort that is given to Israel in captivity concerns the renewal of

235

Especially in regard of Psalms, see Brettler, God is King, 148–156; Flynn, YHWH is King, 36–42. Scholars debate the question whether Israel needed to have an imperialistic model for their depiction of the Lord as a universal king or not; Flynn argues that a special model was not needed because Assyrian imperialism certainly served as a model; see p. 37.

114

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

the people’s relation to God the King. In the latter part of Isaiah the “tender speech” to Jerusalem establishes the end of the age of captivity. Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, “Here is your God!” See, the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. (Isa 40:9–10)

The blessing that comes to the people is based on the traditional belief that the Lord, Israel’s King, is the only God there is: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Isa 44:6). This is also why the “good news” for the captives comes from this Redeemer. Israel’s hope is in the restoration of God’s kingship over the people. This theocratic terminology carries an eschatological message of redemption. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” [“Your God is now King”] Listen! Your sentinels lift up their voices, together they sing for joy; for in plain sight they see the return of the Lord to Zion. (Isa 52:7–8)

The Isaian gospel of restoration provides one of the key passages that gives birth to the concept of proclaiming good news (< bšr) in the New Testament. The noun, translated as euangelion, derives from the Septuagint version of this passage.236 Israel living in the agony of the exile will find salvation when God sends her the time of peace. God himself will return to Zion and rule there as a king. The redeemed people answer by singing a “new song,” the song that the renewed community sings to her God and so praises her Savior (Isa 42:10).237 In Old Testament theology the metaphor of kingship is a topos that expresses God’s special relation to the chosen people. In theological discourse it is expanded into a theme of renewing God’s kingship. This is how eschatology focuses on the fulfilled kingship of post–exilic Israel. The God of restoration is Israel’s King and Lord. This is a theme used constantly by Jewish authors who anticipate the expulsion of either Greek rulers or Roman oppressors. The expectation of divine enthronement is really a leitmotif in Second Temple Jewish eschatology, appearing in texts from Sirach to Qumran and other apocalyptics. At Qumran the Isaian passage (52:7) became

236

In the Septuagint version the original Hebrew verb “to bring good news” has been translated by euangelizasthai. 237 Friedrich TDNT II (1964) 708: “He is the herald who precedes the people on its return from Babylon to Sion.” Cf. Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 117–118. Meyer notes that, in the reception history of Isa 52, Ps. Sol. 11:1–3 correlates “the proclamation of the herald (euaggelizomenos)” with the salvation of the nation. Meyer, Aims, 133. The term itself, thus, denoted the herald proclaiming Israel’s restoration.

IV. God the King

115

a central text for proclaiming the time of salvation (1QH 18.14; 11QMelch. 16). One should here pay attention to the fact that God’s kingship is simultaneously a key feature in the temple cult. A royal theme can be found in many different areas. In the Old Testament, the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies is understood as the place where cherubim are holding God’s invisible throne.238 Such themes of kingship ideology can be best seen in the throne–psalms that speak directly of the Lord’s kingship (Pss 22; 47 etc.). Furthermore, Jewish synagogal liturgy is filled with doxologies where God’s heavenly kingship is praised constantly. Such theology flourished in later Jewish mysticism as well where God’s royal throne is the sole center of all heavenly worship. Reception history of this theme is long and important.239 One conclusion about all this is that Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingship and his renewed basileia in fact summarizes the core of traditional Jewish faith. There is a direct continuity between the Old Testament belief in the Kingship of God and Jesus’ teaching.240 Restoration theology promises salvation to those living under the weight of sin and under God’s punishment. God’s kingship has not appeared even after the historical return from the exile and the rebuilding of the temple. Jesus then adopts Isaian rhetoric and wants to bring the people back to their God. Eschatological renewal coincides with the Lord’s enthronement. As God enters the throne of glory in Israel, he will again be Israel’s true King. The power of sin will be defeated and people shall live in the basilea as adopted sons of God. The good news must be brought to people because it is now the message itself, the euangelion, that brings salvation. 3. The Messiah and the inauguration of the jubilee Both in Old Testament texts and other Jewish writings, the end of the exile is depicted as the arrival of an eschatological jubilee.241 This is well in line with the idea that the time of release begins after a divine enthronement has taken place in the days of restoration (see Isa 52:7–8 above). This was an understandable belief. As Leviticus proclaims, the land will lay desolate due to Israel’s sins in order to “have the rest it did not have” when the people lived in their promised land (Lev 26). Consequently, then, the day of resto-

238

For a detailed analysis, see II.1.3. According to Scholem’s famous remark, “the earliest Jewish mysticism is throne–mysticism.” Scholem, Major Trends, 42. 240 See especially Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 73. This is also one of the key ideas in the new perspective. “In sum, once the theme of national restoration in its full eschatological sweep is grasped as the concrete meaning of the reign of God, Jesus’ career begins to become intelligible as a unity.” Meyer, Aims, 221. 241 See chapter 1.3. For essential literature, see Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, and Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees. 239

116

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

ration is described as the arrival of a jubilee. Jesus’ eschatology no doubt rested on these kinds of presuppositions.242 The book of Isaiah is quite important for the gospel tradition and apparently for Jesus himself. The first sermon at the synagogue of Nazareth is said to deal with certain passages taken from the last chapters of Isaiah. The text, given only by Luke while Mark and Matthew describe only the event, speaks about Israel’s restoration through the preaching of God’s anointed. The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor (euangelisasthai ptōkhois). He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18–19)

The gospel about an eschatological jubilee is expressed by a combination of quotations that comprise texts from different parts of Isaiah. The first part concerns Isa 61. The good news, euangelion, is the same term that appears already in Isa 52:7, which speaks of the restoration of God’s kingship. The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn. (Isa 61:1–2)

This speech focuses on communication and speaks about taking the message to the poor (ptōkhois). A similar term appears for instance in the Sermon of the Mount, and later first Christians were called by that name. The task of Lord’s servant is to “proclaim release to the prisoners.” In a combined quotation liberty to the “prisoners” concerns all those who have lived under God’s punishment in the exile. As the servant will also “open the eyes that are blind” (Isa 42:6), the aim of the sermon is apparently to preach spiritual awakening: Israel will wake up and see the Lord her God. After a reference to chapter 42, the quotation returns to chapter 61 by promising freedom to the oppressed. Finally, and what is most extraordinary, the day of salvation is identified as the year of the Lord’s favor, the jubilee. Centering on such features this catena of Old Testament passages beomes a proclamation of general pardon. Relying first on synoptic comparison it is difficult to decide whether this catena was already part of the original narrative or was added in the Lukan tradition. Nevertheless, I believe that here, as well as in the temple speech treated above, short Old Testament passages carry the core of Jesus’ message and his sermon. What is especially interesting here is the confirmation of the fact that exilic themes were central and irreplaceable for the first Christians and that Jesus’ work was seen as the beginning of God’s eschatological 242

Already Stuhlmacher points out that the description of the good news, in Isa 52, follows the pattern of an enthronement song and, therefore, implies the idea of a new exodus under the Lord’s kingship. Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 118.

IV. God the King

117

jubilee. Since the content is preserved by Luke – of all the writers – there is another interesting angle here. In Roman times, it was the task of a history writer to imitate the aims of the original speaker as well as he or she could (cf. the speeches in Josephus). Therefore, this passage can well be held as a reminder of what Jesus himself preached.243 As we have seen, the idea of a jubilee has a special place in Jewish theology. According to the basic point of departure after seven cycles of years (49 years) slaves must be freed and the land is given a rest.244 And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. (Lev 25:10)

It is easy to see why such a symbol of liberty became crucial during the exile as a symbol of returning from captivity. When the Son of David arrives he will free all captives in Babylon. People are allowed to return to their land and property and live from God’s goodwill. In earlier chapters we noted that one of the explanations for the punishment of exile was centered on the issue of keeping the jubilees. As this had not been done, God made the land to be left alone for seven weeks of years: “the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years” (Lev 26:35). In the book of Jubilees, where the evilness of the “future” generation is described in harsh words (Jub. 23), the restoration of Israel depends on the sufficient celebration of jubilees:245 And jubilees will pass until Israel is purified from all the sin of fornication, and defilement, and uncleanness, and sin and error. And they will dwell in confidence in all the land. And then it will not have any Satan or any evil (one). And the land will be purified form that time and forever. (Jub. 50:5)246

In 11QMelchizedek, the Isaian passage that appears in Jesus’s sermon is similarly connected with the idea of releasing the captives of Babylon during an eschatological jubilee. There is a short pesher on Isa 61:1, “To proclaim liberty to the captives.” A somewhat mysterious heavenly figure Melchizedek will be an agent in the restoration and he “will make them return” (11QMelch II.4–5).247 There will be ten jubilees and finally, “the day [of atonem]ent is the end of the tenth jubilee.” Many of the standard themes of restoration eschatology appear in this short text. God’s judgment will come 243

For the principles of ancient history writing, see especially Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. 244 A general overview is provided by Bergsma, Jubilee, 81–95. 245 See for instance Halpern–Amaru, Exile, 140–141. 246 In Jubilees the symbolism is even stronger: “The Israelites are released from Egyptian slavery in the fiftieth jubilee cycle, and enter the land of Canaan in the fiftieth jubilee year from creation (2451 A.M). Thus, in Jubilees the nation of Israel experiences a corporate jubilee liberation in the fiftieth jubilee cycle, particularly in the fiftieth jubilee year.” Bergsma, Jubilee, 238; Kugel, Jubilees, 9–10. 247 On Melchizedek in the 11QMelch, see Bergsma, Jubilee, 281–291.

118

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

and atonement will be made for the righteous. Restoration means also the renewal of the covenant; and God’s royal rule, expressed best in Isa 52:7, is here the focal point of the relationship between God and his people. There will be an anointed servant who, along with Melchizedek, will carry out God’s salvific plans. In fact, 11QMelchizedek is an astonishing parallel to the Lukan passage.248 In Jewish eschatology some people expected a messianic figure to bring a true jubilee for those living in the exile – or release for those suffering under the power of an evil generation. The release would simultaneously mean the restoration of Israel and the people’s return to God’s kingship. Already in Jewish eschatology, the release from Babylon was understood as the realization of God’s kingdom. For certain groups, and especially for Qumran covenanters, this new turn would concern only the pietists of the sect itself. This kind of spirit governs 11QMelchizedek, be it an original text of the community or just a writing used in that group. In Jesus’ teaching, the promises of the prophets concern Jesus himself or his disciples. This is also what Luke states in the passage above: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:21). The exilic euangelion has been fulfilled. The messenger is here. The ancient period of exile – now merely an object of reminiscence some 500 years later – becomes a metaphoric symbol for the spiritual captivity that is still a reality. Jesus maintains the same attitude than the prophets. Exile is a matter of one’s heart. Israel had abandoned her God. Now, however, everything changes. The good news must be proclaimed because God shall release the captives. Rhw forgiveness of sins starts to restore the people and confirm the eternal covenant. Furthermore, in Isa 61, there is a significant justification for the great pardoning. The jubilee begins after a heavenly enthronement. In the passage the messianic figure states: “the Lord has anointed me” (61:1). The inauguration of the new kingship and rule brings “release to captives” as a gesture of goodwill. The miraculous recovery and cure of the sick, explicit in the new situation, testifies to God’s new creation, the beginning of a new aeon. This means that the universalist features in eschatological restoration are also valid. The termination of the exile will at the same time mean the recovery of the original paradise, Eden, God’s actual temple that shall be open to all nations.249 A similar eschatology building on the same Old Testament passages can be found in Jesus’ answer to John’s disciples after the Baptist has been imprisoned. In the wake of the crisis, they ask Jesus about his true identity. Jesus simply states that his work answers the expectations of Jewish

248

For 11QMelch see Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 283–285; cf. Beale, Temple, 31ff. For the imagery, see Levenson, JR 64 (1984) 293–294; Alexander, Eden, 59– 60; Beale, Temple, 137–138. 249

IV. God the King

119

eschatology. Even the details in this answer correspond with those of the previous example. Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me. (Matt 11:4–6)

The answer John’s disciples get is based on a compilation where several Isaian descriptions about the time of salvation have been brought together (Isa 26:19; 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 42:7; 61:1–2). The most essential passage of them all is in Isa 35 and Jesus appears to build on it. Nevertheless, even a short comparison shows that the words have been altered intentionally. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy. (Isa 35:5–6)

In Jesus’ saying the blind shall see, and the lame are mentioned, but the description goes further. The lepers will be cleansed. Both texts imply the reality of a jubilee that brings astonishing renewal. The most remarkable addition in Jesus’ version concerns the raising of the dead, an idea deriving probably from Isa 26:19. This is an interesting version, actually a catena, that has a parallel in the messianic apocalypse (4Q521) in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Quoting Ps 146:7–8 this short interpretation describes messianic eschatology quite in the manner seen above: “For he will honour the devout upon the throne of eternal royalty, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twisted” (4Q521, 2.11.7–8). The lines below this passage are fragmentary but they evidently describe the age when the Lord’s salvation appears. This is where the abovementioned passage from Isaiah becomes the focus of interpretation: “the Lord will perform marvellous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id] for he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the meek, give lavishly [to the need]y, lead the exiled and enrich the hungry” (4Q521, 2.II.11–13). In this combined quotation, Isa 61 is united first with 42:7, but then the raising of the dead (26:19) is mentioned.250 The Qumranian messianic apocalypse proves that certain apocalyptic groups in the Second Temple period before the Christian period focused on restoration theology with the idea of a jubilee. Prisoners are freed, and when the exiled are led to the kingdom of peace, God will perform “marvellous acts,” one of these being the resurrection from the dead. It is interesting to note that the groups mentioned in Jesus’ speech have something in common: none of these people were allowed to approach the inner courts of the temple. The disabled and the sick were closed off from the weekly sacrifical service. This was the case also at Qumran where the disabled could never become full 250

See Dunn, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 266–267.

120

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

members in the community following priestly purity (1QSa II, 11QT 45). Jesus makes the healing of these people a sign of eschatological restoration. They may enter the eschatological temple. A reference to Jesus’ sermon at Nazareth is a vague start, however. The text itself is, at most, a reminiscence of what Jesus proclaimed in Galilee. Nevertheless, it can once more serve as a window to important ideas behind Jesus’ thoughts. In his teaching, he never drops this subject. Quite the contrary, the idea of the beginning of an eschatological jubilee permeates his entire message. 4. Blessings of the jubilee As we move on to the Sermon on the Mount, similar hopes of renewal and eschatological joy fill the “blessings” (makarioi) at the beginning of the sermon. The word itself refers originally to happiness. These sayings express how the kingdom of salvation comes true and the jubilee of final release arrives (Matt 5:3–10).251 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Ps 40; Isa 61) Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (Ps 41–42; 126; Isa 61) Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. (Ps 37) Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. (Ps 17; Isa 44–46; 55) Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. (Ps 41) Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. (Ps 24) Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Prov 12) Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The blessings are really a commentary on the book of Psalms, completed with certain referencs to the book of Isaiah. Several of the blessings explain the psalms dealing with suffering (37–42). In all of these clauses the narrator (Jesus) congratulates the people who persistently wait for God’s mercy to be revealed in the midst of the agony of the exile. In the first saying, these people include the poor (ptōkhoi) who in Old Testament terminology are humbled and broken people. In Ps 40 the author blesses the person who will not put his or her trust in proud people (40:5). At the end of Isaiah, the post– exilic restoration begins when God anoints his servant to proclaim “good news for the poor” (euangelisasthai ptōkhois), as we said above. People who witness the start of the jubilee are lucky to be in a situation where they see the Kingdom of God appearing.252 251

Cf. Nolland: “The Matthean beatitudes in 5:3–10 have as their background the sufferings of the Exile. Their good news is that for those who have learned the lesson of the Exile the time of painful loss and deprivation will now come to and end.” Nolland, Matthew, 37. 252 See already Meyer, Aims, 130; cf. Hamilton, God’s Glory, 369.

IV. God the King

121

The second blessing refers to a jubilee in the manner of Isa 61. Comfort to those “who mourn” is a theme that once again brings forth the idea that Lord’s anointed will inaugurate a jubilee. Here Jesus sermon in Nazareth gets a practical application: “to provide for those who mourn in Zion – to give them a garland instead of ashes” (Isa 61:3). The captives will be given liberty by the servant of the Lord who “will cause righteousness and praise to spring up” in the restored kingdom (61:11). Similarly in Psalms people who thirst for God in the exile and mourn in tears, anticipate the time when they shall return to the temple and “behold the face of God” (Ps 42:2–3). In the final passage Jesus mentions the time of tribulation. Paradoxical as it is, those people “persecuted” during the eschatological period of anguish are happy because they already experience the nearness of the kingdom (Matt 5:10).253 Who are the meek who shall inherit the earth? According to Ps 37 humble people will inherit the earth because on the day of reckoning (37:11) God’s wrath will reach godless infidels. Those who “thirst for righteousness,” in turn, are in Ps 42 exiled Israelites who long for their return to the Lord’s temple. “As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God” (Ps 42:2). They are blessed now because the eschatological temple has arrived on earth. Thirst for righteousness may also be seen as an allusion to the Isaian gospel where the “rain of righteousness” will make the dry land fertile (Isa 45:8). This terminology of hunger appears also in Ps 17:15. Furthermore, Isaiah invites the deported to eat freely: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat!” (Isa 55:1).254 These examples show that the blessings repeat the makarios–sayings from the book of Psalms, one after another, and focus on the yearning of the exiled. Why are the merciful blessed (makarioi) in Ps 41? So that people living in harsh conditions will get release. In the psalm the poor pray to God and ask for forgiveness, and God is merciful to them (Ps 41:5). The definition of the proper purity of heart is solved by reading Ps 24. “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? Those who have clean hands and pure hearts” (Ps 24:3–4). The “pure in heart” may see God because the Psalm states: “Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in” (v. 9). When Jesus proclaims the happiness of the pure in heart he simply means 253 Matthew probably added the other, longer section about tribulation after the blessing above. In verse 11 the presentation resembles the material found in the directions given for the Galilean mission in the sayings–source, see I.3.3. 254 Since this is clearly a constant theme in the proclamation of the historical Jesus, one is entitled to assume that Jesus’ discussion about the living water in John – quite often labelled as a later construction – belong to the ipsissima verba. Jesus opens a new fountain that refers to everlasting salvation: the one who drinks from here will never thirst again (John 4:14; 7:37).

122

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

that the temple that they have longed for already exists. Now the time has come to enter through the invisible gates that are up high and whose doors are wide open. Jesus speaks about a temple where the King of Glory himself lives. A survey of the gospels proves that the jubilee–theme can be found throughout the Jesus–story. In his speeches and his deeds Jesus enacts the fulfillment of a jubilee and an economic revolution where the entire society needs to reconsider its values. This is the time of forgiving all debts. He speaks of and denounces subjugation to mammon and urges people to share their wealth. He becomes known as the friend of the poorest in the community, and his followers commit to voluntary poverty. Jesus presents generosity as an ideal and denounces greed. In a famous saying he states: Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not breal in and steal. (Matt 9:19–20)

In Jesus’ program, forgiveness of debts and restoration of property to the poor are signs of a true end of the exile.255 Jesus making friends with the poor and rejected is in fact a prophetic act that has a clear message: the day of salvation has come. This is the time when God will open people’s hearts and they, in turn, will forgive debts and evil deeds done to them. This hints at why this is also one of the lines in Jesus’ own prayer: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12). Such blessings are simultaneously the blessings of God’s Spirit. Both in the Old Testament and Jewish theology, the eschatological renewal is understood as the return of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is depicted as a period of adoption, the beginning of a new childhood. Both of these features are essential for Jesus’ teaching, as well. Since the destruction of the temple resulted in the departing of the Holy Spirit from the shrine, the restoration would mean the renewal of the time of the Spirit. Ezekiel had been quite straightforward about this message. The fallen Israel was depicted as a pile of dead bones, but God had the power to resuscitate them. “I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.” (Ezek 36:27). This renewal of Spirit will also mean the end of the exile: “I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil” (37:14). Also in the book of Isaiah, the time of punishment will end with a rain that means the pouring out of the Spirit. 255 So especially Perrin, Temple, 137–139. Perrin concludes that the driving impetus behind Jesus’ “mission to the poor” was indeed jubilee: “In anticipating the imminent return from exile and a rolling back of the law’s curse, Jesus saw his own movement as embodying a returned–from–exile Israel, whose task was to initiate among its own numbers a public reversal of the presenting symptoms of exile: expropriation and indebtness” (p. 139).

IV. God the King

123

For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. They shall spring up like a green tamarisk, like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, “I am the Lord’s,” another will be called by the name of Jacob, yet another will write on the hand, “The Lord’s,” and adopt the name of Israel. (Isa 44:3–5)

In Jubilees, the final jubilee will be a time of new childhood in God’s Spirit: “And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever.” Pneumatological experience will be accompanied by adoption: “And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called ‘sons of the living God’.” (1:23–25; cf. also later 4 Ezra 1:29). A similar eschatology inspires the Testament of Levi where the continuing spiritual exile is a fact but also God’s answer is clear. God will send a priestly Messiah who removes the curse and renews Israel’s adoption as children: “The spirit of holiness shall be upon them” (T. Lev. 18:11). The idea is identical in the Testament of Judah: “And he will pour the spirit of grace on you. And you shall be sons in truth (T. Jud. 24:3). Jews at the time of Jesus were well aquainted with themes of spiritual renewal, final jubilee, and adoption as children. In fact, many of these themes were simply understandable under the idea that God is the Father of all Israel. He is a father who shall have mercy on his people.256 In sum, as Jesus proclaims release to the captives, this simultaneously means the time when the blind shall see and the poor will be raised up. The end of separation is depicted in terms of divine enthronement. God rests upon his heavenly throne and grants a gracious jubilee for the entire land. Therefore, the jubilee of salvation is also the day when the Lord shall begin to make everything anew. It is identified as an act of creation. Restoration is further understood in practical terms in these passages. This is why Jesus’ blessings focus on the kairos–moment when mourning will turn into joy. Temple imagery has its place even here: the blind and crippled were not allowed to enter God’s earthly temple. In the great restoration they shall be healed and they may live in the new temple, filled by God’s Holy Spirit. A true jubilee has arrived. The time of enmity is over and God is acknowleged as the King of Israel. 5. The new community as a messianic temple The final jubilee does not begin with the help of Jerusalem temple worship, though. Jesus’ attitude toward the misuse of the Holy Place has become quite evident during this analysis. According to Jesus’ teaching, there will be a new eschatological community, and it will become the place where the deported shall be gathered. Even though such an idea sounds quite bold and 256

For a short overview and literature, see Evans, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4 (2006) 48–49.

124

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

original, there are certain parallels for it in the literature of the time. Other religious groups in the Second Temple period had similar beliefs concerning the anguish at end of the time, especially the people residing at Qumran. Therefore the idea of a temple not made with hands had support elsewhere but in Jesus’ teaching it was developed into its full maturity. In earlier chapters (especially 2.5) we analyzed the theme of erecting a new temple from an eschatological point of view. Next we need to investigate how these ideas in Jesus’ proclamation developed into the teaching that the community of the saved is itself the new temple. According to the restoration narrative, the Son of David has a task: to mitigate the divine wrath by providing atonement and the healing of the deportation as punishment. Therefore, the eschatological temple that Jesus builds is a community of salvation. The kingdom of peace that the Son of David founds is identical with the spiritual temple that consists of believers. Such a teaching is consistent in the context of Second Temple Jewish theology because there David’s basileia is already interpreted as a religious community. Writers of the time speak about a spiritual temple that was identified with true Israel and a community of the redeemed. Elements of the narrative can be found in different passages of the Old Testament.257 When reconstructing the historical background of temple theology one needs to start with the promises that were given to king David in the sayings of the prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7), same prophecies that later became crucial in the earliest formation of Christology in the post–Easter community. These sayings speak of kings and their dominion, but they also have clear collective features. Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. (2 Sam 7:11–14)

The prophecy of Nathan deals with the special status of David’s royal “house.” The house and temple that David had just a moment earlier promised to build for God turns next into a dynasty of successive kings. Furthermore, the exact word is interpreted to refer to David’s son who is to come. The son will build the temple. This is no doubt a theme that is used in Zechariah where the Davidic figure is similarly cast as the one to build an eschatological temple.258 Thus, the idea of building an eschatological “house” does not necessarily mean the building of a house of stone. When God himself builds a house on 257 258

These aspects were discussed already by Meyer, Aims, 179–180. For the Old Testament background, see Sweet, Templum Amicitiae, 369.

IV. God the King

125

the earth, it will be a noble community of religious believers, the family of David. This is the idea transmitted in 1 Chronicles (LXX): “For you, my God, have revealed to your servant that you will build a house for him (oikodomēsai autō oikon); therefore your servant has found it possible to pray before you” (17:25).259 In the Old Testament there are several passages where the Temple of the Lord is in fact not a house built with human hands. The word also easily denotes a community, a group of believers. Furthermore, some passages remind the reader that Israel’s God does not live in houses made by human hands. In addition to passages treated in previous chapters one can note that, already in Moses’ song (Exod 15), the Temple or God’s dwellings are made by God himself.260 Some theologians in the Second Temple period, too, expected God himself to build an eschatologial temple. You brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established. (Exod 15:17)

This song speaks about God’s temple on mount Zion. The text states explicitly that the Lord’s “hand” has made it. In a spiritual sense it is a temple “not made with hands,” where God is respected as the King of Israel: “The Lord will reign [as a king] forever and ever” (v. 18).261 In the Dead Sea Scrolls we find an interesting parallel where the promises of a sanctuary are identified with promises of a community of salvation. 4QFlorilegium begins with a reference to the abovementioned Old Testament passage. It is preceded by another proof text. In Qumranian interpretation the new community fulfills the promise in the prophecy of Nathan concerning the eschatologial community that the Son of David will found (2 Sam 7:10): “And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more.” The Qumran community commentators continue: “This (refers to) the house which [they will establish] for [him] in the last days, as is written in the book of [Moses: ‘A temple of the Lord] will you establish with your hands. YHWH shall

259

Cf. Beale, Temple, 108–109; Alexander, Eden, 43f. Perrin is probably right when stating that, already in the Old Testament interpretation of the Exodus, “the final goal of Israel’s redemption was not merely freedom, but the opportunity to establish a proper temple and with it proper worship.” Perrin, Temple, 10. He also reminds us that, in Second Temple theology, the eschatological temple was nothing less that the heavenly temple “come down to earth.” (p. 11). 261 Clements notes that, in Exodus, the title “tabernacle” itself is formed from the verb “to dwell.” He adds: “The manner of Yahweh’s dwelling in Israel is therefore expressed by the Priestly writers as an impermanent ‘tabernackling’ on earth by means of the cloud of the divine glory.” Clements, God and Temple, 116–117. 260

126

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

reign for ever and ever’” [Exod 15:17–18] (lines 2–3). Furthermore, in the interpretation, the promises become quite practical.262 This (refers to) the house into which shall never enter [...] either the Ammonite, or the Moabite [...] never, because there [he will reveal] to the holy ones; eternal [glory] will appear over it forever [...] And he commanded to build for himself a temple of man, to offer him in it it, before him, the works of the law. (4QFlor 1.6)263

The Florilegium combines several proof texts deriving from Old Testament royal eschatology. Temple thematics are given here a collective interpretation. The temple may as well be a community. This is understandable in Qumran since temple criticism here climaxes in a belief that the community council serves as the core of God’s sanctuary: “an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron, true witnesses for the judgment and chosen by the will (of God) to atone for the earth and to render the wicked their retribution.” The Florilegium appears to suggest that the temple “not made with hands” exists in Qumran. It is “the most holy dwelling for Aaron” (1QS 8.5–9) Prophecies have been fulfilled as God himself has built a new house in the wilderness. Both in the Old Testament and Jewish theology, then, we find the idea that the temple of salvation is not necessarily a building but, rather, a community of the pious. Admittedly, this view is present only in selected expressions. Most believers in the Second Temple period assumed that the Jerusalem temple was the place to meet God. God had promised that he would live in this temple, it was the “footstool” of his royal throne and, therefore, it was also the place to seek atonement. In prophetic texts, beside standard temple ideology, we can find the idea that God does not live in a temple made by human hands. After the exile the relationship of many theologians with the temple became problematic. For some writers the community of eschatologial salvation was a new community into which God’s Holy Spirit would return.264 In the gospels, the most important passage to speak about the building of an eschatological community is Peter’s messianic confession in Matt 16. This material belongs to Matthew’s independent tradition (M), and one can assume that it derives from Antiochian gospel tradition. In the narrative Peter says: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16). In his answer Jesus speaks about the founding of a community. 262

In a more general sense, Snodgrass links Qumranian views with Jewish visions about the future transformation of the temple, see Snodgrass, Key Events, 472. 263 The well–known debate over the proper interpretation of the unclear manuscript concerning “acts of gratitude” or “works of the law” (so Martínez) is secondary for our issue, since in this context they denote the very same thing. 264 Cf. Clements, God and Temple, 139: “The major difference between the new fulfilment and the old promise is that whereas the Old Testament had spoken of a dwelling of God among men, the New Testament speaks of a dwelling of God within men by the Holy Spirit.”

IV. God the King

127

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (epi tautē tē petra) I will build my church (oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. (Matt 16:17–18)

In this story there are several details that highlight its eschatological intentions. Firstly, it starts with a makarismos, linking the saying with the blessings in Matt 5.265 One can expect that it speaks of the time of salvation. Furthermore, the message and confession are based on divine apokalypsis. What Peter has confessed is actually a revelation concerning the time of new childhood, one that the “Father” himself has brought about. Like in the Lord’s prayer, we find here an implied narrative that speaks about the coming of the kingdom. Peter’s role has, of course, been one of the most debated issues concerning this crucial statement. Suffice it to say that the wordplay on the (Greek) word petros does not merely refer to Peter as a person but also to the entire new community. Like Abraham, Simon receives a new name in connection with the founding of a new people. So there is a conceptual link to Isa 51 here: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn” (Isa 51:1) – namely Abraham “your father.”266 Seen from this perspective, Peter is not the foundation but the first stone in the eschatological temple – the temple that the messianic Son of David shall build. The passage is quite clear about the building of an eschatological community. In Septuagint theology, the term ekklēsia refers to God’s community, or more precisely a congregation (Deut 23:2, “assembly of the Lord,” ekklēsia Kyriou; cf. Mic 2:5). The word itself translates the Hebrew original qāhāl (congregation, community). It is worth noting that the Septua-gint sometimes translates qāhāl as “synagogue.” In Jesus’ time these words usually referred to a community of believers. The Qumran community used qāhāl and called itself the “community of God” (1QSa 2.4). So in that context the term denoted a community of the saved and served as a counterpoint to other synagogues and Jews who belonged to the children of darkness.267 The content of Jesus’ sentence as such is somewhat complicated but the saying is based on a clear polarization. On the one hand we have an eschatological stone (petra), and on the other side we have the gates of Hades (pylai hadou). These are two kinds of stones or pillars that represent opposite 265

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 621. So Hagner, Matthew, 470. The passage naturally touches on the discussion of Peter’s “office” and therefore, it is quite complicated and difficult to comment on. See for instance Hauerwas, Matthew, 150–151. 267 Some commentaries discuss whether Jesus could have spoken of building a community in the future, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 614. Albright and Mann, however, remark that “A Messiah without a Messianic Community would have been unthinkable to any Jew” and, therefore, this feature as such sounds original; see Matthew, 195. 266

128

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

powers in cosmic and world history. The special term “the gates of Hades” is an Old Testament idiom denoting gates of death. Jesus states here that the basic doctrine of the ekklēsia is so strong that not even death can defeat it. The metaphor “stone” seems somewhat rare but it does have a theological point of departure. Similar terminology can be found in the book of Isaiah where the prophet speaks of the cornerstone of the eschatological temple (Isa 28:15–16).268 Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol (hadou) we have an agreement; when the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter”; therefore thus says the Lord God, See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: “One who trusts will not panic.” [LXX: one who believes will not be put to shame].

The book of Isaiah and Jesus describe the opposition in a similar way. Humankind is threatened by Sheol, which also threatens the chosen people. A struggle against the armies of death is not hopeless because God begins to build a temple of salvation in Zion. The new shrine will be built on the foundation of a tested stone and a precious cornerstone. Everyone who believes in this cornerstone will be saved from the eschatological destruction. Those who have made a covenant with death will be left in the hands of Hades but the members of the eschatological temple will live eternally with the Lord.269 Similar terminology can be found in Ps 118 (LXX Ps 117), in a passage that may be treated as a reinterpretation of Isaiah’s text. Here too the singer faces death and puts trust in God: “I shall not die, but I shall live, and recount the deeds of the Lord. The Lord has punished me severely, but he did not give me over to death” (v. 17–18). The gates of the Temple are now gates of salvation: “Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter through them and give thanks to the Lord” The gate of salvation is simultaneously God’s own gate: “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it.” (v. 20). Entering the gates will grant salvation (LXX: eis sōtērian, v. 21). What unites the text with Isaiah’s eschatology is the stone–metaphor. “The stone that the builders (oikodountes) rejected has become the chief cornerstone (LXX: eis kefalēn gōnias, v. 22).” In Ps 118 the gates of death, that are not explicitly mentioned, are contrasted with the gates of rigteousness. After casting out the false builders, God himself will build the eschatological Temple on a precious stone. The righteous may enter this Temple through the Lord’s gate. Such passages help us to understand the direction Jesus’ teaching is taking. One of the key metaphors is the stone: “on this rock (epi tautē tē 268 269

Hagner, Matthew, 471. Nolland, Matthew, 675–767; Hagner, Matthew, 471–472.

IV. God the King

129

petra) I will build.” In Jesus’ teaching, just as in the Old Testament original, the stone is the antidote to the eschatological threat of Sheol. Isaiah’s text is needed in order to make the precious stone the cornerstone of the coming temple. It is a keystone that God himself has given for his people at the end of time. Since Jesus himself proclaims that he will build his ekklēsia on such a foundation, he becomes a “good carpenter,” a God–sent construction worker replacing the incompetent builders of Israel. He is the one who builds the eschatological temple, a community of the saved. Peter “the Rock”, in turn, with his nickname becomes the guarantee of this message. His confession is crucial because he recognizes Jesus to be the keystone promised by God.270 Isaian prophecies are fulfilled in his life: he shall not be put in shame. He believes in the Son of David on whose foundation the eschatological temple will be built. Jesus the King is the Son of the living God who shall give life to the people living under the power of Hades. Why can the gates of Hades not overcome the eschatological rock? What is the rationale in using such extraordinary terms? Life conquers death, naturally, but there is probably more to it than that, though. Reading Ps 118 here also suggests that the Jerusalem temple, in Jesus’ own time, was a rock of salvation for the priests and Sadducees who opposed his message. Its gates were believed to lead to the courts of divine mercy. Since Jesus questioned temple worship as such and denied its eschatological role, Peter’s confession can be interpreted in these terms as well. In Jesus’ harsh words the temple gates had become the gates of Hades that lead to the court of death. Now, however, as God places a precious stone in Zion, the rock of salvation can no longer be found in the old temple. It is located in the new community that confesses their messianic faith in Jesus. The Jerusalem temple, in this scheme, becomes the servant of death and cannot defeat the emerging new community that is the temple of the living God. Jesus’ fierce opposition toward the temple and its practices imply that there must be an even more profound basis for his criticism. In his demonstration in the temple court, Jesus temporarily causes the cessation of sacrifice.271 This must have implied that another sacrifice will come in the place of the temple sacrifice.272 Ådna summarizes such a view minutely in his article: The implication of Jesus’ attack on the atonement cult is that it will be replaced under all circumstances, if not by the immediate realisation of the eschatological renewal on Mount Zion, then in a different way. The alternative is that Jesus dies vicariously as a 270 Even the Catholic scholar Matera points out that, in this passage, emphasis is on the confession, not Peter as a person: “the faith of the church is the faith Peter has confessed.” Matera, Theology, 45. 271 See Wright, Victory of God, 423: “Without sacrifice, the Temple had lost its whole raison d’être.” 272 Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 67f.

130

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

ransom (cf. Mark 14:22, 24). Jesus foresaw his violent death and declared, most explicitly in the words of administration during the Passover meal with the Twelve, that his death would have an atoning effect.273

The motifs of temple building and final tribulation meet here. Jesus anticipates his own death and believes that a sacrificial suffering for the eschatological cause will result in redemption and restoration. The temple not made with hands shall be a temple of atonement and forgiveness, but the sacrificial system shall be renewed. We shall return to the treatment of this issue later in chapter 8. In Jewish theology many authors suggest that the final temple of restoration will be a temple built by God himself. In several descriptions it is depicted as an ideal temple and in many ways a mystical one. Qumran theologians were justified in concluding that it may also be a community, not just a house of stone. The temple at its best is God’s people when they completely united with her Lord. This is what Jesus teaches, too, in his gospel of restoration. God’s glory will appear and the new Son of David shall start to build a temple of salvation. Psalm 118 has been essential in such teaching. The rejected Son will be the keystone of the new building and therefore, the eschatological temple must be built of living stones. According to Peter’s confession, the acceptance of Jesus’ message means the recognition of God’s Kingship in Israel, and this will draw to a close of the curse of the exile. This is the rock on which the temple not–made–with– hands will be built.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance How do restoration eschatology, the investigated metanarrative, or Jesus’ eschatological proclamation relate to other important themes such as Jewish law and its numerous precepts? In several sayings Jesus discusses covenant issues and, in fact, demands perfect commitment to God’s covenant. In Jewish life, daily worship focused on Shema prayer, a confessional passage taken from the Deuteronomy and was completed with certain supporting words from the Scriptures. These were the kind of criteria according to which observant Jewish faith was assessed. Jesus’ teaching clearly reflects concern for these key issues of Jewish religious identity.

273

Ådna, Handbook 3, 2671.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

131

1. The Shema prayer and observant faith When Jesus was tested concerning the core of Jewish faith he gave his famous answer citing the Shema.274 His words not only confirm his focusing on the basic beliefs of Jewish teaching but also proves that these issues were essential for Jewish identity in his time.275 The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12: 29–31)

The double commandment, of course, derives from the Old Testament, where the Shema is presented as the foundation of Jewish identity. The passage in Deuteronomy reads as follows. Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:4– 9)

The translation attempts to interpret the rather difficult expression “Lord is one” (YHWH ’ehad), and the result is quite acceptable.276 The Lord YHWH and he alone is Israel’s God. The demand of the first commandment is fulfilled here. The short statement is accompanied by a tripartite explanation. Faith concerns one’s whole life: heart, soul, and belongings. To recite something like this means commitment to God’s covenant and its promises. Josephus, describing the Mosaic tradition that focuses on Exodus theology, notes that “twice each day” people should “acknowledge before God the bounties which He has bestowed on them through their deliverance form the land of Egypt.” The recitation of the Shema had actually a special meaning as it signaled an act of “bearing witness” (martyrein tō theō). Second Maccabees (apparently) calls the Israelite praying tradition a homology (homologia), and treats it as a tradition Antiochus attempted to terminate (2 Macc 6:6).277 Recitation of the Shema was understood as a confession representing Jewish identity. 274

Instead of a linguistic translitteration, a modern version of the term Shema shall be used throughout the study. 275 For the importance of the Shema for Jesus’ message, see Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 418–419; and Tan’s article in Handbook 3 (2011) 2677–2707. 276 Weinfeld thinks that this translation is not linguistically sound, however, and prefers the alternative “YHWH our God is one YHWH” (because ‘our God’ always stands in apposition to YHWH). The meaning remains the same, though, since the expression implies exclusiveness. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 337–338. 277 See especially Goldstein, II Maccabees, 276. NRSV translates: “confess themselves to be Jews.”

132

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

There are several elements that indicate the primacy of this confession. For instance the corpus of the Mishnah, around 200 A.D., begins with the explanation of Shema. According to this text it was a constant element in daily worship (m. Ber. 1:1–4; 2:1–2), recited both in the morning and in the evening. In Jewish tradition the saying is presented as a catena of three passages: Deut 6:4–9, 11:13–21, and Num 15:37–41. The middle passage binds the confession with divine blessing or curse. In Numbers, the famous “fringes on the corners” of garments are mentioned. They serve as a reminder of the habit of reciting the homology.278 For Jews the Shema symbolized the very Kingdom of God. There are several features that indicate this. The triad of heart, soul, and might became gradually a crucial hermeneutical principle both in Jewish theology and the New Testament. After all, Jesus states that he proclaims the purest possible form of Jewish faith. Those three aspects were the criteria according to which both the keeping of the covenant and people’s relation to their God were assessed. They were signs of orthodox belief and faithful obedience. Therefore, it is appropriate that modern scholars elaborate their role and present even more precise interpretations about their meaning in Jewish texts.279 (1) The heart. The first word demands a wholehearted love towards the Lord. The heart is a positive symbol for love. Therefore, it is also a fine metaphor for describing perfect obedience. In the Old Testament, a whole heart is usually a sign of king’s proper attitude toward God (2 Kgs 20:3; Isa 38:3). Therefore also the opposite may appear: human heart may be unfaithful to God (Isa 44:20; cf. LXX), or disobedient (Jer 5:23) and turn away from the Lord (Jer 17:5). According to Jeremiah a circumcized Jew can, in his apostasy, become uncircumcized in heart: “all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jer 9:26; cf. Ezek 44:7). But the opposite is also true: the renewal of the people is described as an event when God gives them a new heart (Jer 24:7; Ezek 36:26). Joel, in his call to repentance and the hope he gives to the exiled, states: “return to me with all your heart” (2:12). This, of course, was already part of the Deuteronomistic hope. Israel is among the people and there they seek the Lord: “you will find him if you search after him with all your heart and soul” (Deut 4:29; cf. 30:2). Later in Rabbinic texts a divided heart appears as a metaphor of infidelity.280 (2) The soul. The second demand tells people to love God with “all their soul.” A true commitment to the covenant entails that a pious Jew loves God more than his own life. People must be ready to put their lives in God’s hands and defend Israel’s Lord until death. The second form of perfect love means 278

Schürer, History II, 449. This has been brought to New Testament scholarship especially by Gerhardsson in his The Testing of God’s Son, 48–51; and in several articles (re)published in his collection called Israel. 280 For Gerhardsson’s analysis, see Gerhardsson, Israel, 14–17; Gerhardsson, SEÅ 31 (1966) 84–85 (in Swedish); followed later by Tan, TyndB 59 (2008) 183. 279

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

133

complete devotion that is ready to sacrifice one’s life. This is also the understanding of the word in the Mishnah: “even if He takes your soul.”281 (3) Might. The Hebrew root m’d has many meanings, denoting multitude, abundance, riches, might, and strength. In Jewish theology the idea of loving God with all one’s strength is usually understood as sacrificing one’s riches to God.282 In the Aramean Targums this is unambiguously explicated: “with all your belongings,” or “with all your money” (Targum Onkelos translates: “wealth”). Therefore, in Rabbinic teaching “might” means especially riches (mammon).283 The basic content of the demand can be seen above all in the light of its opposition. If a human being loves riches more than his God, his heart grows distant from God and his love vanishes. As these riches, in Jewish literature, are called mammon, a new point of view arises. The word has been translated into Greek and in the New Testament it is used to refer to the worldly riches that tempt people to infidelity.284 In the Mishnah we find an interpretation of the Old Testament statement, building on the three ideas presented above: As it is said, And you shall love the Lord your God with all our heart, with all your soul, and with all your might (Dt. 6:5) With all your heart – [this means] with both of your inclinations, with the good inclination and with the evil inclination. And with all your soul – even if He takes your soul. And with all your might – with all of your money. (m. Ber. 9:5)

Even though such features of reception history are not yet final proof for the interpretation of Jesus’ teaching they nevertheless provide an interesting point of departure for the important hermeneutical task. No one can deny that Shema has had a crucial role in Jewish piety and, therefore, any explanation revealing certain aspects of such devotion open up the potential for understanding much more of the thought–world behind hortative preaching. Therefore, it is of no minor importance that, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, one can find several additional statements suggesting that precisely this kind of nomistic fervor has fertilized religious thought in the Second Temple period. At Qumran in particular the Shema became a rule whose interpretation was a widely used principle permeating all teaching and belief. Commitment to the 281 See m. Ber. 9:5 below; cf. Targum Onqelos on Deut 6:5. This is also a Rabbinic interpretation of the expression, used in explanations concerning martyrdom, see Avemarie, Neues Testament, 161–162; following Boyarin, Dying for God, 93f. Boyarin notes that in both 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees martyrs instantly “earn salvation” as they die (p. 95). 282 The aspect of wealth appears also in Sir 7:30–31. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1– 11, 339. 283 So for instance in the Palestinian Targum (Targum Neofiti) on Deut 6:5. 284 On later discussions concerning Gerhardsson’s theory, see Davids’ article, “The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty years after Gerhardsson.” In: Gospel Perspectives I, eds. R.T. France and D. Wenham, 75–99.

134

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

community demanded submission to the priestly order of the group. The Rule of the community begins with a shema–statement. Anyone wishing to live in the community must “seek God [with all (one’s) heart and with all (one’s) soul; in order] to do what is good and just in his presence, as commanded by means of the hand of Moses and his servants the Prophets” (1QS I.1). There are also certain consequences from this that are quite practical. One has to follow the precepts given by Moses and the calendar of feasts. And what is interesting, the principle of loving one’s neighbor is mentioned: “to love all the sons of light.”285 Such love of heart directs the covenantal community to submit their might to the community: All those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge, their energies [i.e. strength, Hebrew kwh], and their riches to the Community of God in order to refine their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal their energies in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in accordance with his just counsel.” (1QS 1.11–12)

The hermeneutical principles accompanying the Shema can easily be detected in the passage even though the key term heart has turned into a word denoting knowledge or intelligence (dacat). This corresponds with the usage in later rabbinic writings. Also in one variant reading of the Septuagint the Shema itself starts by referring to the understanding (dianoia) instead of the heart. The Rule of the community, thus, uses traditional hermeneutics when teaching about the proper nature of love.286 Furthermore, according to the Damascus Document, the Inspector of the camp will examine every applicant “concerning his actions, his intelligence, his strength, his courage and his wealth” (CD XIII.11). At Qumran, the covenanters had to trust their entire life, their heart, soul and strength to the God of Abraham and Moses. This would mean an ascetic life, focused on studying the Torah. Readiness for martyrdom has been grounded in love of God and willingness to defend the Torah at least from the Maccabean times onwards. The well– known passage in Mattathias’ speech, spoken during a “time of ruin and furious anger,” reflects this fervor: “Now, my children, show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of our ancestors” (1 Macc 2:49–50). Josephus, in turn, makes Eleazar, the leader of the Masada resistance, speak about the martyrous death of those still opposing the Romans: “God who has granted us this favour, that we have it in our power to die nobly” (B.J. 7.325) – despite the fact that the people’s own sins were held to be the real cause for the defeat. Referring to Jerusalem’s defenders Eleazar cries out: who would not “regret that he is still alive” as the holy city has been “razed by an enemy’s hands” (B.J. 7.378–379). Many more examples can be found. In the Talmud 285 286

For the content, see already Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls, 114–115. So especially Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 338.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

135

Rabbi Akiva’s violent death is explained by focusing on how Akiva’s love for his Lord surpassed his willingness to live.287 These examples show that the hermeneutics built around the Shema were essential for any pious Jew during Jesus’ life. The interpretation of the famous Mosaic triad had turned into a symbol that represented fidelity to the covenant. A wholehearted commitment entailed trusting one’s life and soul to God, as well as opposing the temptations of mammon and serving God with all one’s might. These features are crucial in Jesus’ preaching too. Several examples prove that they form the basis of many of his familiar teachings. 2. The Sermon on the Mount: do not worry about your life The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is quite probably a thematic compilation of Jesus’ teachings about the Torah. Here Old Testament law is treated by taking up various perspectives, and we would expect that nomistic observance would have an essential role here. As noted above, the hermeneutical importance of the triadic interpretation of the Shema has been emphasized especially by Birger Gerhardsson. He stated that both Jesus’ teaching of the law and some of his parables are structured according to these three aspects: a wholehearted love, a trust of God expressed by putting one’s life in his hands, and a resisting the temptations of mammon. The appearance of these issues in many of Jesus’ most important teachings proves that he has committed himself strictly to the Mosaic tradition.288 For Jesus, the traditional obligation to love one’s neighbor is not enough. Instead, perfect love goes farther, to the responsibility of loving one’s enemy. In a set of tight contrast verses Jesus sets the father’s teaching against the actual essence of the law. “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:44–45). This statement wants to instill perfect observance: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). The heart is the source of both good and evil in people’s lives, and this soon becomes clear in the sermon. A lustful man looking at a woman has already “committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28). Furthermore, this fixed metaphor appears often in Jesus’ admonitions. “For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matt 15:19). According to Jesus, the heart’s treasure, be it for good or for ill, produces the fruit of everyday life (Luke 6:45). 287 See Avemarie, Neues Testament, 162; cf. Boyarin, Dying for God, 105–106; cf. 95: “For Jews, it [the death of the martyr] was a fulfillment of the commandment to ‘love the Lord with all one’s soul’.” 288 Gerhardsson treats these passages in Israel, 80–82. Even though many modern commentaries speak here about “uncompromising commitment” to God’s will (see Hagner, Matthew, 160; Nolland, Matthew, 299), only Gerhardsson pays attention to the fact that the key–words “heart,” “mammon,” and even the “soul” appear in this sequence, with the presentation evidently based on them.

136

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Soul, in turn, is taken care of in divine providence. God has promised to provide clothes and food to the people he has created. Flowers on the meadow become a parenetic sermon for Jews who several times a day promise to love from all their heart, soul, and power: “do not worry about your life (psykhē), what you will eat or what you will drink” (Matt 6:25). Life is completely in God’s hands: “And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?” (6:27). The grass is alive today, and “tomorrow is thrown into the oven” (6:30). If love of God is right, life is eternal. Finally the demand of perfect love in the covenant is crystallized in Jesus’ interpretation of human power and wealth (mamōnas). Riches can tempt people away from God’s covenant and become an idol. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Matt 6:19). These words are a straightforward interpretation of the Shema: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (v. 21).289 The riches of this world become a temptation that seduces people from a wholehearted worship of God. Therefore, pious Jews live in danger of a divided heart: “No one can serve two masters” (6:24). Mammon is an idol that seduces even the chosen ones to unbelief: “You cannot serve God and wealth.”290 In a general sense, then, the Sermon on the Mount seeks for faith completed by love – just like the Shema prayer. Jesus demands faithfulness of the whole heart. He advises the chosen people to trust God and put their lives in his hands. And he warns his hearers of the dangers and temptations of mammon. Even riches belong to God, and our true treasure exists in heaven. The ideal is similar to that found in Jesus’ discussion about following him. “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.” (Mark 8:35). The opposition between saving and losing rewrites the Old Testament choice between blessing and curse, implied by the proper understanding of the Shema (Deut 11:26). On the path of blessing one has to denounce the riches of this world. Power is lost but the soul is saved. “For what will it profit them to gain the whole world (kosmos) and forfeit their life (pshykhē)” (Mark 8:36). Observing the Shema, for Jesus, brings him to the possibility of encountering violence and even death. True faith may lead to martyrdom. In this respect Jesus shares in the zeal of the Maccabean warriors and Qumran covenantal community. Perfect obedience remains loyal to the very end and 289

Matthew’s text proves that, by New Testament times, the term strength in the Shema has been interpreted as mammon. The rabbinic teaching that later became popular, basing on a Hebrew original, is already in use in Jesus’ time. A person’s strength or might is based on his or her belongings. This is why one can say that since might here refers to riches (mammon), covenant fidelity is in the focus of this speech on riches. Pious Jews must love their God regardless of earthly success. 290 The point in the last sentence is clear. This speech concerns serving the Lord. A commitment to observe the Shema is contrasted now with serving mammon. Witherington in his Indelible Image I, 151, reminds us that Jesus speaks pointedly about slavery here. One who serves mammon becomes mammon’s slave.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

137

requires that one put one’s life in God’s hands. This is the way one should resist the world/mammon in faith. Therefore one is entitled to conclude that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus already anticipates the ultimate conflict that his mission shall arouse. He himself is going to suffer – not at the hands of foreign soliders, though, but in the hands of the fallen Israel. 3. A temptation to give up In Matthew the story of Jesus’ baptism is followed by another story where Jesus is taken to the wilderness for the Devil’s temptations (Matt 4:1–11). It is quite unnecessary to speculate whether this story represents Jesus’ prophetic period in the wilderness or just his teaching to his disciples. It has been called an “early Christian midrash,” and as such, it informs us about Jesus’ mission and brings forth his identity. There is a grand picture in the Gospels that can only be observed when the texts are read together. John, in his gospel, sees the “Lamb of God” who “takes away the sin of the world” (only in John 1:29) and who fulfills “all righteousness” by calling for a baptism of repentance. We can then see this in relation to Matthew’s story, which continues by describing Jesus as a scapegoat that literally takes the sins of the people to Azazel in the wilderness (Lev 16:10). Furthermore, the nature of this story is connected with the theology of Jewish piety. Jesus is taken to the desert like Israel in the exodus in Old Testament times. These temptations do not test Jesus’ knowledge about the nature of the Divine Being, his familiarity with the precepts of the Torah, or a proper conduct of Jewish religion. Instead, these temptations attempt to make Jesus abandon observant faith and the essence of the Shema. Three different temptations correspond with the Jewish notions concerning heart, soul, and power.291 The first example concerns fasting. According to Old Testament tradition fasting means restricting one’s ordinary life to focus on worshipping God. After a long period of fasting Jesus gets hungry. The Devil tempts Jesus to acquire food by transforming stones into bread by his divine power. Jesus answers according to the hermeneutical directions of the Shema.292 How does one hear God’s word properly? “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Life is completely dependent on God who maintains the world with his word. This is why proper obedience listens to the word that comes from God’s mouth (4:4). Jesus wants to love

291 Gerhardsson developed his theory in The Testing (already in 1966) and, therefore, this passage has a special role in his explanations. According to Thielman, Jesus personifies Israel in this story. Matthew patterns the story “after the account of Israel’s wandering in the desert as Deuteronomy 6–8 describe and allude to it.” Thielman, Theology, 95; so also Matera, Theology, 37. 292 For the interpretation, see Tan, HSHJ 3 (2011) 2704.

138

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

God with all his heart, and this is the reason why he never questions God’s word.293 In the second temptation the Devil puts Jesus in mortal danger. The Devil took him to the holy city and “placed him on the pinnacle of the temple.” Gerhardsson notes that: “The temptation is to be about protection from mortal danger; so the participants are removed from the wilderness to the pre–eminent place of divine protection: the holy city and its centre – the temple precincts.”294 In this dangerous situation, Jesus should be certain that God would take care of him all the more so because they are in the holy city.. “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.” The core of this temptation is deterministic. Surely God would send his angels to protect his chosen one. Jesus rejects such testing by refusing to tease God. He shows that a true follower of God loves him from all his soul. He does not try to save his life. If necessary, he is ready to sacrifice his life for God. Jesus’ ministry and mission are not dependent on any expectation that God will protect him from peril. The opposite is true: Jesus may have to face even more dangerous tribulation and, nevertheless, he still trusts his Father.295 The third temptation can be interpreted with the same hermeneutic. On a high mountain the Devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world (kosmos). He attempts to offer Jesus anything mammon can mean in any sense of the word. The only condition is that Jesus would serve mammon rather than God: “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (4:9). Jesus shows that he wants to serve God from all his might, in other words submitting all his possible wealth to God. He shall not worship mammon instead of God. This is why he rejects Satan in the spirit of the Shema prayer: “it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him’.” (4:10).296 The story of the temptations is thus both a description of Jesus’ obedience and a teaching about the Devil’s temptations. Pious believers are similarly tempted to abandon observant faith. Their Lord has stood the test. This can help also his followers. Furthermore, as far as narratology is considered, the story of the temptations teaches us about Jesus’ consciousness about his own calling. After his baptism by John, and his identification with the sinful world, 293 In fact Jesus is apparently in a great danger in the wilderness, as he has no food and nothing to protect him. Cf. Hagner: “The testing then amounts to this: shall Jesus exercise his messianic power for his own ends in a way that avoids difficulty and pain, or shall he accept the path of suffering (and death) that is his Father’s will?” Hagner, Matthew I, 65. 294 Gerhardsson, The Testing, 61. 295 Hagner accepts Gerhardsson’s suggestion that the temptations “are related to the Shema.” Hagner, Matthew I, 66. The second temptation, about testing, is a clearly reminiscent of Israel’s situation. Jesus quotes Deut 6:16 and so, “Israel is challenged to do better than they had at Massah.” Nolland, Matthew. 165. 296 As France notes, in the final passage Jesus remained loyal “even where it meant renouncing the easy way of allowing the end to justify the means.” Jesus would “achieve world–wide dominion,” but only after painful suffering. France, Matthew, 99.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

139

three separate tests show that Jesus is ready to step forward and take the mission his baptism has offered him. Jesus is ready to serve God from all his heart. He is ready to sacrifice his life, if necessary. And by all his heart he rejects the temptation of mammon, of becoming a political Messiah who strives after riches and success. He chooses God’s message and God’s mission instead. 4. The parable of the sower: did Israel hear? Jesus’ parable of the sower likewise deals with three issues: three kinds of soil. These soils represent the exact opposite of the love that observant faith in the Shema demands (Mark 4:1–9; Matt 13:1–9; Luke 8:4–8). And as one may now properly expect, this parable speaks about hearing God’s word. God first sows his word into this world and then expects a good crop. Fidelity is not self– evident, though. Instead, this parable rests on the assumption that an exilic condition still prevails in Israel.297 Jesus’ parable is quite pointed. The first group does hear the message but does not trust God. What is sown on the path will become birds’ food. The explanation even here repeats the triad of the Shema. “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart” (Matt 13:19). An undivided heart is once again what God asks. The one who hears God’s word properly, remains faithful and does not let his or her heart mislead him or her to unbelief. Jesus speaks of a person who “hears” but does not “understand.”298 Matthew has placed this saying into a context where Isaiah (Isa 6:10) describes impenitence and hard–heartedness using similar words. Even though God’s messengers proclaim to the people, they do not hear God’s voice, and their hearts cannot understand. The depth of the fall is expressed by heart’s lack of understanding. It is useless to recite the Shema if their faith itself is in crisis.299 297

This parable was one of the first texts Gerhardsson investigated as he developed his ideas, especially in his Swedish articles, see Gerhardsson, SEÅ 31 (1966) 20f. His approach is later adopted by Hagner, Matthew I, 379. “Though by its nature a hypothesis of this kind falls short of proof, it is both intriguing and suggestive.” One could also go futher and state that a hermeneutical pattern as clear as this fits very well with Jewish rhetoric and, at least according to a narrative analysis, serves as proof as well. 298 So Gerhardsson, SEÅ 31 (1966) 24–27. An issue concerning the authenticity has been raised (for the discussion, see Nolland, Matthew, 539f.). This question is not that important for theology however. The crucial issue is whether the explanation itself suits aspects of the parable. 299 Garnet has in fact interpreted the parable in terms “exilic soteriology,” as he says. For him, the different soils, especially the “rocky places,” represent the desert into which Israel has been cast because of her sins. The exilic condition prevails until God sends his word that brings restoration. Garnet, Spirit Within Structure, 43–45. This is no

140

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn – and I would heal them. (Matt 13:15; a rendering of Isa 6:10)

Other seed falls on a rocky ground. The picture the parable uses is simple. The Palestinian summer is hot. The heat of the sun puts farmers in a difficult situation. Therefore, this is perfect material for a punchy parable. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet such a person has no root but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. (Matt 13:20–21)

These people do not trust God or put their lives in God’s hands. Trouble and persecution make them deny their Lord. When their life is at stake, they are not obedient to God with all their soul.. A martyr tradition is prominent in this passage. The sown word is accompanied by terror and chasing (thlipsis ē diōgmos). The Greek word thlipsis means pressure and trouble. Both in Jewish theology and the New Testament it is an important term in describing the final tribulation, the violence of God’s opponent. The persecution that includes chasing expresses the leaders’ intention to exterminate all rebels from within the people.300 This means that, according to this parable, God’s true followers are put to test since they too are sent as lambs among the wolves. The parable reflects Jesus’ black–and–white eschatology. Moreover, the conflict arises between God’s eternal world and the world of men, matter, and events (proskairos). This is why Jesus warns his hearers that without roots no one can stand, because in that case the heart is interested in worldly matters. Later for instance Paul writes about trouble (thlipsis) by placing it into the context of a tension or conflict between the visible and eternal.301 Moreover, the topos of might and riches appears here. What is sown among thorns gets choked. The thorns are now given an interpretation: “the cares of the world (kosmos) and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing.” Here an allusion to the book of Jeremiah is apparent. “do not sow among thorns.” People must return to their God and “remove the foreskin” of their hearts (Jer 4:1–4). The basic temptation concerns “the [constant] lure of wealth (ploutos)”. Infidelity is once again described in convenantal terms. An doubt the background for the parable but, nevertheless, the triadic structure appears to follow the Shema interpretation. 300 Be this an explanation deriving from Jesus’ teaching or a later interpretation of the early church (so already Jeremias, Theology, 77), it is apparent that, considering “exilic soteriology,” the parable refers to the period of tribulation. I believe that thlipsis and di ō gmos are part of Jesus’ eschatology and, therefore, they have been transmitted later to Paul’s teaching for instance (Rom 8:35). 301 In Paul’s text: “[F]or what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Cor 4:18)

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

141

attempt to secure one’ personal wellfare contains a seed of apostasy. Even pious Jews are tempted by mammon. This is not yet the end of Jesus’ parable. His words aim higher still. The parable focuses first on observance. Then the focus shifts to the kingdom of salvation. Who listens in the right way? “But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields” (Matt 13:23). The answer is simple. These faithful believers are Jesus’ followers to whom the secret of God’s kingdom has been revealed. They eat the fruit of restoration. They hear and understand. Their heart is not divided but whole, just like Pharisaic teaching elsewhere expected. Also in Jesus’ teaching the whole heart means full understanding (syniēmi). These hearers have understood.302 This aspect provides one answer to the challenging question concerning the “messianic secret.” The explanation is conveniently located between the parable and its commentary. The passage states that a proper observance of the Shema provides for a plausible solution: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt 13:11). The secret lies in the fact that, without Jesus, no one can serve God perfectly. The religious ideal that the Shema expresses is unattainable. Restoration eschatology alone can make a difference: blessed are “your ears, for they hear” (13:16). This is why Jesus’ teaching remains a riddle for the Israel that lives in unbelief. The problem is not that people could not understand Jesus’ parable. It is straightforward enough and many hearers become furious at Jesus’ teachings. They do not “understand” in the sense that their heart turns and acknowledges Jesus’ mission. “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing.” (Matt 13:15; Isa 6:10). These issues will be dealt with in detail in the next subchapter. In a sense, reading the parable in its context, Jesus’ teaching is depicted as God’s own words. His work is God addressing his people: hear, O Israel! Shema! God keeps sowing his word in his people. Israel should now listen to Jesus as they were previously told to listen to God. In spite of this challenging admonition he faces the same stubbornness the prophets faced. Israel does not listen. She is no longer observant, her heart is not undivided, she does not trust her soul to God, she is not prepared to face the troubles of tribulation, and she does not serve God with all her might. Only Jesus’ own followers, the small

302 Like Garnet, Wright interprets this parable in terms of restoration eschatology. For him, Jesus here tells the story of an Israel that has not borne good fruit but, instead, is a dry land. As Jesus arrives, God is now sowing new seed that will bear good fruit: “the remnant is now returning.” When the exile is finally over, Wright concludes: “Your god [sic.] is at last sowing the good seed, creating his true Israel.” Wright, Victory of God, 233.

142

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

group, has ears to hear. This is the remnant that will be the seed of restoration.303 This is evidently the reason why the parable finally adopts exilic rhetoric, known already from several other passages. Israel as God’s fertile soil should have listened to what God has to say. Proper hearing should result in observance. If someone hears but does not act, his or her apostasy has made him or her deaf. The people have failed in all three points. Israel has been unreceptive soil. The Devil has snatched the word away and Israel lives in spiritual exile. As the time of tribulation arrives, there is no longer true faith among the Israelites. The seeds have been whisked away or dried in the sun. Only a small group has ears to hear. It is tempting to state that the parable of the sower is one of the best passages supporting this work’s argument. The heart of this study is to test this hypothesis: the exile and restoration narrative directs both Jesus’ thinking and the apostles’ preaching. This parable shows that both Jesus’ teaching and its reception focus clearly on the pattern that the narrative lays before the listeners. For Jesus, the persecution of John the Baptist proved that there is no longer pure belief in God. The people put their trust in worldly well being instead of in God. The lure of wealth has choked the faith in the one and only God of the world. The judgment shall be severe.304 The focus of the parable, therefore, is once more in the eschatological kingdom. True Israel is a people of pure heart, the faithful group that follows Jesus. This is the community that understands the metaphor of the good soil. The adoption as children of God has sanctified and enabled them to hear God’s words in the right way. The restoration of the Spirit has provided them a heart of flesh instead of cold stone. They have lost their lives in order to achieve true life as followers of God’s servant. They are ready to follow their Lord all the way to martyrdom because they put their lives in God’s hands and trust him. In Jesus’ new community the blessings of the Shema prayer are given to them as a gift from the God of restoration. 5. “Abba” fulfilling the first commandment It is remarkable that the Aramean form Abba (Mark 14:36) has survived in the gospels. Along with expressions such as talitha koum (Mark 5:41) it must have been held to be a special term that preserved something essential from Jesus’ teaching.305 Devotion to God the Father is, above all, a sign of true Old 303 Cf. Nolland: “I am inclined to agree with Gerhardsson that a pattern of Jewish exegesis of the Shema has influenced the Matthean form of the interpretation of the Parable of the Sower.” Nolland, however, ascribes such a theological contribution in the passage to Matthew. Nolland, Matthew, 38. 304 So for instance Garnet, Spirit Within Structure, 50. Also Snodgrass, following Wright, accepts this interpretation, Snodgrass, Stories, 161. 305 In addition to this the Lord’s prayer in Luke starts with a short form that may derive from Abba as well, see Luke 11:2 using pater.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

143

Testament faith. It fulfills the first commandment: “you shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3). By no means can Jesus be depicted as a mere teacher of Stoic philosophy or even Jewish wisdom in any practical sense. His theology starts with the Lord of the chosen people and ends with a eulogy to the heavenly King.306 Jesus, by proclaiming the Father and teaching his disciples to pray to this heavenly Father, presents himself as the Son. His message turns out to be a gospel about adoption as children of God. Many of the occurrences of this term in the New Testament are well known but there is one aspect that stands out amidst other descriptions. In Matthew Jesus states that his own sonship is the very justification for the special revelation he has been granted. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father [...] and anyone whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matt 11:27)

The passage is quite unique in the synoptic gospels and parallels with Johannine tradition are close.307 According to Jeremias this is no anomaly, but rather the consolidation of Jesus’ extraordinary identity. His interpretation starts with the expression to “hand over” (paradidonai) referring to transmitting certain traditions or knowledge.308 The first sentence expresses that God has handed over to Jesus a “full” (all things) revelation. The message of salvation – and especially that of Israel’s restoration – is exclusive. It has been granted to Jesus alone. This statement serves as an opening and is confirmed by a synthetic parallelism whose form is obvious even in Greek. Jeremias himself reconstructs it as follows: Just as only a father (really) knows his son, so only a son (really) knows his father.309

According to Jeremias’ explanation, this is in fact a common saying, almost a proverb. It is a culturally–bound statement about the unique relationship between fathers and sons. No one can know a grown man better than his son – at least two thousand years ago in a patriarchal society. Jesus, claiming to be the Son, has perfect knowledge about God’s intentions for eschatological future. Salvation is in the euangelion that Jesus preaches and nowhere else. 306 Stuhlmacher notes that the term Abba is linked both with Jesus’ proclamation of God’s basileia and his messianic identity as the Son of God (2 Sam 7:14). Jesus who teaches the gospel of the kingdom “acts and lives” in the name of the Father. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 74. 307 Cf. John 8:38: “I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.” Cf. John 5:19–20. 308 Jeremias, Theology, 59–61: “a technical term for the transmission of doctrine, knowledge and holy lore.” 309 Jeremias, Theology, 59. So also Witherington, Indelible Image I, 645: “Matthew 11:27b makes evident that one can come to know God as Father only through Jesus and by being his disciple and believing that he is God’s unique Son.”

144

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

This is why Jesus alone is the mediator of restoration for Israel and probably even the sole intercessor between God and humankind. Once again one can detect the order A–B–B’–A’ in the sequence. Since the saying in the middle covers the structure B–B’, the last part A’ belongs together with the opening sentence A. Therefore, transmission of tradition (paradidonai) is related to the Son’s mission: he must reveal (apokalyptō) this message to the fallen people who will carry on this chain of revelation.310 The word in Matthew 11 represents thus a very personal feature in Jesus’ identity. The statement confirms the more general view that has emerged during this analysis concerning Jesus’ mission to bring about restoration. He is convinced that he alone is the chosen servant who proclaims release for Israel. Only his message can remove the curse and bring renewal, bring people back to God the King. What is interesting is that this “Antiochian” passage in Matthew – the place of origin of Matthew’s tradition – also bridges the gaps that many scholars have dug between the Synoptics and John. Sonship being a source for special revelation is a theme that unites these traditions. Therefore, Johannine teaching gains new relevance for the study of the ipsissima verba.311 Such a view on Jesus’ special identity opens up the hermeneutical horizon of other teachings in Matthew 11, as well. Jesus further praises God because “you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants” (Matt 11:25; cf. Luke 10:21). Jesus’ teaching is a secret that is revealed only to the disciples. This has apparently something to do with the so–called messianic secret in Mark: “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables” (Mark 4:11). Given all this, we should also explain Jesus’ words concerning the nature of God’s law in terms of this exclusivity: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil (plērōsai, to make revelation perfect)” (Matt 5:17). While some Jewish teachers assume that Jesus teaches against the law, he actually aims at unfolding the proper meaning of the writings. This explains the antithetical rhetorics that governs Jesus’ nomistic discourse: “You have heard that it was said [...] but I say to you (Matt 5:21–22). A divine revelation justifies such confidence. Jesus’ teaching is God’s word just like the revelation given through Moses. It is natural that rabbinic tradition as such is filled with diverging views on different precepts, as the Mishnah proves, but what is extraordinary here is the content of Jesus’ message. 310

In John we find similar conceptions all over the gospel, see 12:49, “for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak,” cf. 14:10; 15:10; and 17:6, “I have made your name known (efanerōsa) to those whom you gave me from the world,” cf. 17:8, 18–21. 311 I follow the scholarly tradition that locates Matthew in Antioch, perhaps even more clearly than Hagner who, nevertheless, writes: “Of Diaspora cities that might fit what is required, Syrian Antioch has been the clear favorite.” Hagner, Matthew, lxxv.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

145

On the one hand, Jesus admonishes his hearers to wake up and remember the true faith and the Shema that once was entrusted exclusively to the chosen people so that they “would have life.” On the other hand, Jesus simultaneously teaches his closest followers that the message of salvation is in fact a secret. It is intertwined with his person and everything that God the Father has revealed to him. The secret, apparently, lies in the state of things in Second Temple Judaism. The people live in spiritual exile, still under God’s curse, and even the well–taught Mosaic teachers miss the point in Jesus’ proclamation. The final answer is revealed only to those who accept Jesus’ euangelion and who recognize Jesus’ unique role in Israel’s restoration. Jesus is not merely a prophet preaching divine truths. He is the Son whose revelation is now open to anyone who has ears to listen. Abba–faith is best expressed in the Lord’s prayer. Jesus teaches his own disciples to pray in the manner he himself does. The prayer itself, as we have seen, focuses on the eschatological jubilee that the Son has brought about. This is a prayer of the expected kingdom. It lists the signs of the time of restoration. Furthermore, what is interesting, the structure of the prayer follows the lines of Shema–obedience, at least thematically.312 Features appearing both in the temptation narrative and the parable of the sower can be found also in this prayer. The necessity of bread is there, and so is the danger of being left behind in the peirasmos. Believers should trust their Lord even it threatens their lives. They should not put their trust in mammon nor collect all the debts that run the spiritual and economic systems of the god of this world.313 Give us this day our daily bread, And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. (Matt 6:11–13)

The heart of Shema–obedience directs the entire prayer. Commitment to the Father by hallowing his name and praying for his kingdom expresses wholehearted belief in Israel’s Lord. In a sense, then, without reducing such features to mere coincidence, praying the Lord’s prayer completely fulfills the traditional Shema confession: faith in Israel’s Lord, as well as the first and foremost commandment in the form Jesus taught it: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.” 312 It is not possible to delve into the vast scholarly discussion concerning the Lord’s prayer in general. Suffice it to say that I follow an eschatological interpretation. For discussion and literature, see Hagner, Matthew I, 143–152; and Jesus’ teaching on prayer in Auvinen, Prayer. In the present study, central features of the prayer will be assessed only in light of the adopted hypothesis. 313 For the features referring to the theme of exile and restoration, see Wright, Jesus, 293; Pitre, Tribulation, 137f. For the particular nature of the “bread,” see below subchapter 7.2.

146

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

6. Jesus and nomos Already the general analyses investigating Jesus’ attitude towards God’s commandments and Torah observance prove that he was quite orthodox.. This can be seen in the sermon on the mount, as well: “not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). In this long passage, Jesus deals with every commandment starting with the one concerning violence. Following the Shema means simultaneously following the Torah. There is a new attitude, though. Righteousness for Jesus is a matter of the heart. Casuistic nomism has little to offer. This is why he also lists the acts that can come from an evil heart. “For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander” (Matt 15:19). In the sermon on the mount he teaches that the commandment about killing is actually about hate.314 You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matt 5:21–22)

Jesus uses effective rhetoric in the passage. As the transgressions progress, the punishments get harder: first you meet the synagogal court, then the great council. Finally just a remark sends you to the hell of fire. Jesus states that the essence of the law can be recognized only in love. Therefore, real knowledge about God’s will shall turn one’s sense of justice inside out. With his teaching about loving one’s enemy Jesus crosses all boundaries. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:43–45). God who gave the command of love is the Creator of the whole world and the Lord of each and every human being. Therefore, the teaching about the law of love culminates in submission: “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matt 5:39). At this point the commandment has turned all human ways of reacting 180 degrees – even though one needs to recall that such slap on the face is mainly an insult, not a violent beating as such.315 The sermon is directed by Jesus’ conception of love but, in addition to this, Jesus treats Jewish tradition in a radical way. The most typical expressions state: “You have heard that,” and: “But I say to you.” Once more we encounter 314

Mark has a longer list (Mark 7:20–22) but Matthew focuses on issues that relate to the ten commandments; see Nolland, Matthew, 627. The authentic introduction, however, emphasizes that this is precisely a matter of one’s heart. 315 Hengel and Schwemer note that the purpose of these antitheses is to bring to the fore the original will of God in his creation. This is why Jesus contradicts standard interpretation that has lost the original sense of God’s law. Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 446.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

147

the preacher whose authority comes from God the Father who has revealed his will to the Son. This is why a conflict with other teachers is unavoidable. Jesus never demolishes the essence of the commandment. Instead, he attempts to teach his hearers the true nature of divine holiness (Matt 5:48). The righteousness that should “exceed that of the scribes” (5:20) is evidently a in conflict withJewish oral tradition. In example after example Jesus shows how the state of the heart is at the core of all problems.316 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matt 5:27–29)

As noted above, the greatest commandment in Jesus’ teaching – apart from the first commandment following the Shema – is the one teaching altruist love: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29–31). In Matthew, this is interpreted by the Golden Rule: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” There are theological grounds for this: “for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12).317 The double commandment as such derives from the Old Testament. In addition to the Shema, Torah observance was motivated by God’s holiness: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy (Lev 19:2). This holiness implies justice and equality, because stealing and lying profanes God’s name (19:11–16). Therefore, social life must be based on mutual love: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18).318 In Deuteronomy, the essence of the law is defined in quite practical terms: “love [...] the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul [...].” The Lord is God of gods, who “is not partial and takes no bribe.” He “executes justice to the orphan and the widow,” and “loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” This is the very reason for living a morally good life as 316

According to Stuhlmacher, early Christianity (cf. Gal 6:2) saw Jesus also as a messianic teacher of the law. The passage in Matt 5:17f. shows that Jesus appears as a messianic “Vollender” (the one who fulfils) of the Sinaic Torah. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 105 317 Scholars often refer to the Talmudic story about Shammai and the pagan testing of Jewish scribes. The question focused on the short description of the Torah (that could be taught while standing on one foot only). Shammai failed and directed the candidate to Hillel who made him a proselyte by teaching him the Golden Rule (b. Shab. 31a). The story proves that speculation on the guiding principles of the Torah must have been common in Second Temple theology. 318 This is what Jesus refers to in Matt 5:48: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The aspect of holiness opens up the horizon to which Witherington seems to be referring: “Thus it seems clear that Jesus is talking not about some sort of state or condition of sinless perfection but rather about behavior that emulates the perfect behavior of God. But this behavior on the part of believers arises only out of the new and whole relationship that one has with Abba.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 145.

148

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

well: “You shall also love the stranger” (Deut 10:12–19). The divine command of love has no limits, as one can see in Jesus’ teaching about the parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37). Such love means the circumcision of the heart and the return to observing the very essence of the Shema, loving one’s neighbor as one would take care of one’s own body and soul. Defining ethics that would be generally acceptable has never been a terrible problem, though. As Jesus says, every human being can recognize moral principles even through introspection. The Golden Rule concerns personal reflection. What would you like? In the created world, God’s Torah – just as the teachers in the sapiential movement in the Second Temple period had taught – is the very principle according to which human life should be conducted.319 The difficult part concerns proper obedience, or righteousness if we use Jewish terminology. There is an implicit question hidden in Jesus’ teaching, asking why this simple rule is not observed in the world. This reveals that even Jesus’ teaching about the nature of the law is part of his exilic rhetoric. This is a world of corruption and defilement. No principle no matter how good or outward demand for justice can cure its wounds. Therefore, it is no surprise that in eschatologial sayings the teachings about the essence of the law are made the criteria according to which the last judgment will be conducted. “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Matt 25:40). The judge executing final judgment has a severe message: “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” (Matt 25:41–43)

Deuteronomistic Torah observance that flows from a good heart and perfect love is the standard according to which the lives of human beings are assessed. As the Mosaic tradition states, the philanthropic purpose of the law concerns “food and clothing.” True love is not partial. This, no doubt, has been the message in the sermon on the mount, as well. Jesus, representing the true revelation from the Father, sticks to Mosaic Shema and its demand for a pure heart. Spiritual exile will not end until the hearts of sinners turn back and are renewed. In this respect Jesus’ teaching differs essentially from the Pharisaic nomism known from many Second Temple writings. Pharisaic synergism did recognize the problem but it simply put hope in human effort. God has not permitted

319

According to Jesus’ teaching, God intended to restore the good order of creation, and this reveals – as does sapiential thinking – the very essence of God’s Torah. Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 420–421.

V. Resuscitation of profound Jewish observance

149

sinful life – therefore, keep the commandments. A perfect example of this can be found in Sirach.320 The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice (diaboulion). If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. (Sir 15:13–15)

The sermon on the mount, as a counterpoint to such teaching, preaches against synergism. Jesus does not trust in sapiential dualism because the human heart struggles. Exile cannot be reversed by dividing the community in two and promising the religious half a good future. There was an attempt at living such sn eschatology at Qumran where the children of light opposed all children of darkness, including those working at the Jerusalem temple. Jesus demands more. He addresses the entire nation that has been cursed in the deportation. Only as one adopts the gospel and embraces the new kingdom one shall move from death to life. In New Testament scholarship, moralist interpretations have often prevailed, and this is especially true of twentieth century Kantian traditions. Writers following von Harnack have attempted to discern the core of Jesus’ teaching merely by focusing on his ethical program. Such views have since been mostly abandoned although in the Sandersian covenantal nomism school, a dispensationalist alternative still holds a positive view on the human possibilities for observing God’s commandments. As Sanders himself put it, Second Temple Jewish writers speak about covenantal religion where Torah observance is subjugated under the great umberella of Abrahamic promises concerning the chosen people. Observance, in this scheme, is merely a response to the covenant of grace.321 Jesus’ message, viewed through this interpretation, becomes just a demand to keep the covenant. All his sermons about the essence of the law are seen as directions for a nation already living within the covenant. This theory has been criticized for its sociological nature and lack of eschatology. It is quite difficult to apply in the interpretation of Second Temple texts. A covenantal idea may reflect Sadducean pragmatism or later rabbinic theology where such non– eschatological views have appeared, but it does not fit the tumultuous Second Temple apocalyptic thinking.322 These critical comments remain valid but in recent discussion another argument surpasses them. Sanders started this new perspective that Wright then developed much more fully. However, Sanders 320 For [sapiential wisdom A bit redunant.] theology, see Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 275–306. Marböck, Weisheit, 150f.; Murphy, Tree of Life, 78–79, 86f., 113. 321 Sanders had developed his views in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) but they appear also in Jesus and Judaism, see pp. 50–51. 322 For critical treatment of covenantal nomism, see Excursus in 4.II. An extensive analysis of nomism in Jewish thought is provided by Avemarie, Tora und Leben, see especially 376–381, 575–580.

150

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

founded his interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on a theory that contradicts the covenantalist premise. The exile as a condition of the people, and thus the continuing of the exile, cannot be reconciled with simple covenantalism. The people living in exile no longer enjoy the mercies of the covenant. Instead, they live under God’s wrath until the time of forgiveness and restoration arrives. An Israel living in the “den of robbers” cannot rely on covenantal promises unless they turn to God in penitence. One could even state that Jesus’ proclamation is located between covenantal nomism and judicial eschatology. Many particular groups in the Second Temple period, such as the Pharisees and Essenes, apparently believed that they shared in all covenantal promises. At Qumran such beliefs are quite explicit. Even though it is true that such groups usually demanded strict observance of the law, no group assumed that they would be saved without God’s mercy. They just did not believe that people outside their own group would manage. Likewise, many passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of grace and forgiveness – only without a Savior. But despite all these gracious passages, no other group was as pessimistic as the Qumran community about the fate of the children of darkness. Jesus never adopts that kind of soteriology. He poses the challenge both to Sadducees and Pharisees, scribes and priests. The day is coming when everything shall burn in fire and on that day, nothing but the new temple made without hands can grant salvation to the elect.323 Observant faith, following the ideals of the Shema prayer, must thus be interpreted in terms of restoration eschatology. Jesus holds strictly to Jewish tradition as he teaches about the nature of the law. The Torah as divine revelation embodies love itself. God’s law is the principle of life and the purpose of creation. Heart, soul and might must be subordinated to God, and mammon must not be made the new god that displaces Israel’s Lord. Jesus’ proclamation wishes to wake people from the sleep that started during the reign of apostate kings and deepened when the people were taken to exile. They have eyes but they do not see. Spiritual exile is a condition of the heart and cannot be fixed merely by proposing certain synergistic precepts. Divine punishment will be removed only when God sends the Son of David to purge the fallen nation of sin and defilement. This will be the day of renewal and salvation. Vague covenantalist expectations proclaimed by Second Temple apocalyptic groups turn now into the obedience of faith. People following God’s Servant and praying to God as Father are pure in heart and their sins are forgiven in the new “covenant” of restoration.

323

One should probably note that Sanders created his theory when writing on Paul and developed it in his Jewish studies. He did not revise his views, however, when moving on to investigate Jesus. Also this issue will be dealt with in a later excursus.

VI. A community of priestly purity

151

VI. A community of priestly purity Restoration eschatology focuses on the idea that the new Son of David will build a temple of salvation. In Jesus’ teaching this implies that the community Jesus gathers has features usually ascribed to the temple – as the community at Qumran ascribed to themselves as well. First of all, the community is the place where the Holy Spirit lives and, accordingly, divine holiness dwells. Therefore, the head of the congregation, Jesus, grants holiness as a gift to every member. People attending the group live in a state of constant sabbath. They taste the eschatological feast in advance. This conviction results in two particular features in their service to God. Firstly, they do not fast. Secondly, they follow no standard purity regulations. Jesus has invested in them a greater holiness than the Jerusalem temple ever could have done. 1. On purity regulations In order to understand the idea of imputed holiness one needs to consider Old Testament cultic prescriptions and purity regulations, as well as views concerning impurity and defilement. Israelites were summoned to separate themselves from many things that would make them impure in a cultic sense. The rules concerned above all eating and what vessels or containers could be used but, in addition to this, there were rules for common interactions, including situations like meeting non–Israelites in the marketplace. Rules for priests were stricter than those for lay people, and temple service was regulated much more rigorously than ordinary life.324 Prescriptions for the priests, in the Old Testament, focus on issues such as the following: “No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his relatives” (Lev 21:1). There were strict restrictions also for participaing in sacrificial service. “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand […]” (21:18–19). A disabled priest was allowed to be in the temple area but he was not allowed to participate in offering any sacrifice “that he may not profane my sanctuaries” (21:23).325 A similar lofty view on holiness can be found in Qumran scrolls. According to the Rule of the Congregation no man with even a blemish was allowed to enter the community: No man, defiled by any of the impurities of a man, shall enter the assembly of these; and everyone who is defiled by them should not be established in his office amongst the congregation. And everyone who is defiled in his flesh, paralysed in his feet or in his 324

For purity regulations in general, see Chilton’s article in the Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000) 874f.; and in Jesus’ teaching, Avemarie’s article “Jesus and Purity” in his Neues Testament, 408f.; as well as Holmén’s article “Jesus and the Purity Paradigm” in Handbook 3, 2709f. 325 Cf. Holmén, Handbook 3, 2716–2717.

152

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb or defiled in his flesh with a blemish visible to the eyes, or the tottering old man who cannot keep upright in the midst of the assembly, these shall not enter to take their place among the congregation of famous men, for the angels of holiness are among their congre[gation]. (1QSa II.3–9)

Reading the Temple Scroll as well, we can further conclude that such views had been derived from rules concerning the temple itself (11QT 45). The Qumran community, originally a priestly group following priestly regulations, wanted to follow the purity regulations in their everyday life. For our theme, it is important to note that membership itself was limited by these rules.326 In Jewish theology cultic impurity could often happen in very ordinary circumstances. People could become impure when dealing with corpses, people with leprosy, or even meeting with menstruating women. For cleansing and purification, there were several stages. In some cases just a period of time sufficed, while in other cases one would need to wash in a mikvah, a small pool for religious cleansing. If the case was severe, one would need to bring a sacrifice to the temple.327 In the Mishnah, particularly in the tractate Kelim concerning purity regulations, the causes of impurity are explained in detail. The Fathers of Uncleanness [are] (1) the creeping thing, and (2) semen [of an adult Israelite], and (3) one who has contracted corpse uncleanness, and (4) the leper in the days of his counting, and (5) sin offering water of insufficient quantity to be sprinkled. Lo, these render man and vessels unclean by contact, and earthenware vessels by [presence within the vessels’ contained] airspace. But they do not render unclean by carrying. (m. Kelim 1:1)

There were many different vessels that needed purification. In the Mishnah one can find extensive discussions over the methods of how clay vessels or cutlery should be cleansed. Stone vessels were considered always clean and they needed no purification with water. This is also the reason why cultic water (purification water) was kept in stone jars. This can be seen for instance in the story about the wedding at Cana. Cultic impurity was not merely a taboo in the sense magical religions teach it. For instance in the Qumran community defilement was a matter of the heart like in Old Testament narratives concerning fidelity to God. The Rule of the Community gives the example of a rebel who “in the stubbornness of his heart” refuses to follow the knowledge of the group. He has not remained constant in the transformation of his life and shall not be counted with the upright. His knowledge, his energy and his wealth shall not enter the council of the Community because he ploughs in the slime of irreverence and there are stains on his conversion. He shall not be justified while he maintains the stubbornness of his 326 Qumran views on purity are studied by Harrington, Impurity System of Qumran, see p. 70–107. 327 Ritual baths, mikvah, were common and constantly used. See for instance Wright, Archaeology of Israel, 190f.

VI. A community of priestly purity

153

heart, since he regards darkness as paths to light. In the source of the perfect he shall not be counted. He will not become clean by the acts of atonement, nor shall he be purified by the cleansing waters, nor shall he be made holy by the seas or rivers, nor shall he be purified by all the water of ablutions. Defiled, defiled shall he be all the days he spurns the decrees of God, without allowing himself to be taught by the Community of his counsel. (1QS III.1–6)

Cleanness at Qumran was understood mainly as purity of heart. Rites merely symbolized the spiritual reality. This community practiced ablutions and baptisms, and the small area had half a dozen mikvahs. Every cleansing was supposed to lead the person to a proper following of the “knowledge” taught by the group. In Jesus’ teaching, the attitude toward holiness and purity changes completely. He proclaims that at the time of salvation the symbols for holiness are new. It is no longer necessary to guard God’s integrity in the temple by preventing defective people from entering temple precincts. Now God himself calls the sick and disabled to his vicinity. This is a period of new creation and God’s servant will heal the sick and make the blind see.328 Furthermore, the new purity was the sign that proved Jesus’ mission. As the Son of David arrives, the time of new creation begins: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” (Matt 11:5–6; cf. Isa 26:19; 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1– 2). Jesus’ healings, like the lepers and the woman with hemorrhage, prove that the message was – in addition to other theological meanings – one of new purity.329 It is somewhat astonishing how accurately Jesus’ sayings address Jewish lists of impurity in,for instance, the text of Leviticus, or the Qumran restrictions for the “lame, blind, deaf, and dumb.” Even the Mishnaic leprosy is mentioned. The time of restoration is a time when those who were not allowed to draw near “sing for joy” to their God in the eschatological temple, and there will be a Holy Way, and no “unclean” person shall travel on it (Isa 35). At the time of restoration, the understanding of holiness and purity will be turned upside down. This surely contributes to why views on purity regulations change. 2. Purity of the new temple Jesus’ attitude to purity regulations show that his understanding differs almost completely from that of most teachers of the law. He teaches like the great prophets: rituals are merely symbols of the proper attitude of one’s heart. Real 328

Cf. Fletcher–Louis, JSHJ 5 (2007) 65, noting that Jesus “purifies through his power to heal.” There is no contagion of impurity “flowing from impure to pure, it flows from pure to impure.” (italics his). 329 So Holmén, Handbook 3, 2713f.; cf. 2718: “along with the restored health of the people came also their restored purity.”

154

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

purity does not come true just by performing a rite. As long as the people live in sin, no cleansing water can purify them. Instead, true purification comes from God himself on the day of salvation as he restores his chosen people. In the gospels, Jesus’ eschatological message is often presented as the opposite of Jewish purification rituals. This can be seen most clearly in Mark, who also explains Jewish habits to his readers. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of their elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles. (Mark 7:3–4)

In addition to the ritual sprinkling mentioned here, there were cleansings that needed mikvah–pools. They were built outside synagogues or sometimes inside the buildings themselves. There were also large mikvahs in front of the temple gates in Jerusalem. The Qumran community was especially fastidious in their ritual bathing.330 Jesus and his followers did not follow such rules and, therefore, their everyday life differed distinctively from, for instance, Pharisaic life. This is the background for the pointed question: “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (Mark 7:5). Considering the detailed prescriptions in the Mishnah, such a question was more than to be expected. Jesus’ answer plays with the concepts of Jewish piety: the point in ritual purity is in one’s pure heart and right mind. This is why he discusses the question about purity regulations by referring to Isaiah, just as Qumran community had done. Israel as a whole needs restoration. Eschatological purification would mean a renewal in the Holy Spirit – not in outward rituals. Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ (Mark 7:6–7)

Jesus does not build an opposition between cultic purity and ritual defilement, but contrasts true holiness with superficial hypocrisy. A little later he states: “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” (Mark 7:14–15). Impurity in one’s life is a result of a sinful heart, not failure in following rites. Jesus’ answer revolves around the basic content of Mosaic law. “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intention come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (7:21–23). The debate 330 In faithful Jewish tradition, water was an important symbol for purity, see Harrington, Impurity Systems, 113–118. At Qumran there were numerous pools and, according to the texts, there was also a particular feast where ablutions were the focus of events; see IQS II; Knibb, The Qumran Community, 92.

VI. A community of priestly purity

155

on purity, thus, focuses on issues crucial in exilic rhetoric: Israel’s fall and the judgment of a sinful humanity.331 It is apparent that Jesus’ teaching on the significance of purity regulations is based on his view of the new eschatological temple. His theology is based on Ezekiel’s narrative speaking about the nature of Israel’s final restoration. As God’s saving actions start to come true, he shall forgive Israel for the defilement of his name. Therefore, it is God himself who shall cleanse the people. I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you. (Ezek 36:24–26)

Cultic purity is an essential sign for eschatological restoration. In the tradition of the great prophets ritual cleansing and sprinkling with water – symbolizing the ending of the exile – confirm the promise that God will give birth to a completely renewed Israel. “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the towns to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt.” (Ezek 36:33). This is the day when wilderness will turn into “a garden of Eden,” dead bones shall be filled with God’s Spirit, and the new David shall be Israel’s shepherd: “Then the nations shall know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevemore.” (Ezek 37:28). In Jesus’ teaching, these promises have now been fulfilled. As Jesus sends his disciples to Galilean towns, he tells them not to take bread, bag, money, a change of clothes – not even a staff or sandals (Matt 10:9–10). This enigmatic list is difficult to explain without a comparison to certain Mishnaic precepts. According to the Mishnah, one is forbidden “to enter the Temple mount with his walking stick, his overshoes, his money bag, or with dust on his feet” (m. Ber. 9:5). Chilton notes that, within Jesus’ ministry, the order “was designed to be an enacted parable of Israel’s purity.” It was a “commission to treat every village they might enter as clean, as purely Israel as the temple itself.” The disciples entering the town were the heralds of restoration come true.332 All this proves that, while Jesus apparently reinterprets the ritual rules of Jewish tradition – without rejecting Mosaic laws – he simultaneously proclaims good news for the deported and promises the final restoration. He claims to inaugurate a time when God sprinkles purifying water on sinners and cleanses the impure. Jesus’ followers are already now part of this renewal. Mechanical rituals no longer add anything to the eschatological reality. Their contribution 331

Avemarie is right in noting that Jesus does not repudiate “the custom of ritual hand–washing” but, instead, claims that defilement as such “does not at all take place.” The reason for this is “dynamic purity.” Like in the healing stories, here Jesus‘ act is the source for purity. “The reason is simply that for attaining purity, Jesus and his disciples disposed of means stronger than ablutions and food avoidances.” Avemarie, Neues Testament, 417–418, 429. 332 Chilton, Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000) 878.

156

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

is not needed. Jesus abandons the good in order to offer the best. His community is a temple with priestly purity, but it is donated purity that is a gift from God. 3. Keeping the sabbath The question about the sabbath is a theme of its own. No issue in practical Jewish life could be more important than this. In the Mishnah we find an entire chapter regulating behavior on the sabbath. Rest and finding community with God are inseparable. Therefore, no work in any form is allowed – be it cooking, or carrying things out of the house, or even walking too far.333 This is the context for the story where Jesus heals a man on the sabbath. Healing itself is a sign of restoration. It is God’s own work, as Isaiah had proclaimed. A complete renewal will come. But why does Jesus perform miracles on the sabbath? Speaking from the perspective of eschatological reality it is easy for him to pose a countering question: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4). Once again it would be impossible to answer such a skillful question and, therefore, the reaction it creates is to be expected. Jesus, appearing with divine authority, arouses hatred in those who attempt to preserve tradition. The most important of the passages concerning behavior on the sabbath is the story of the grain fields. Jesus and his disciples are plucking heads of grain during their walk and so are guilty of working on the sabbath. They did not commit a crime because the poor were allowed peple to cut grain for their basic needs. This was a matter of theology, not ethics. One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (Mark 2:23–24)

Recalling some of the passages in the Mishnah, we can see that this the basic setting in this story is plausible and historically trustworthy. In every synagogue scholars debated the details concerinng the “fence of the law.” Jesus’ answer is quite surprising and highly theological. Even though their behavior was against the law of Moses, it was not without biblical precursors. “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” (Mark 2:25–28)

What happens in this new story? Is this a story about Jesus’ Davidic authority? Or should one assume that this is just an example where a militant group is 333

See especially the Mishnah’s chapter Shabbat. For the status of the sabbath in Second Temple Jewish thought, see especially Back, Handbook 3, 2604f.

VI. A community of priestly purity

157

allowed to deviate from an exact understanding of the law if they are on God’s own mission? Probably not. The focus is on grain and eating, and one should not attempt to make an allegory of the entire Old Testament passage. David took his men to the temple and let them eat the bread of the Presence. They were in a holy place and ate what God himself gave them. Jesus and his followers, in the story, live metaphorically in an eschatological temple. They live the sabbath every day of their life because they have found rest in the Son of Man’s community. Therefore, even though they are fishermen and peasants, they live like priests in the temple. The grain God gives them is like sacrificial food, it is holy food like the bread of the Presence: “so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28).334 It is obvious that Jesus teaches a new purity that no longer follows traditional Jewish conceptions. They can most easily be seen in passages where he discusses the nature of cultic prescriptions. Tradition gives way to eschatology, and Jesus claims to offer complete unity with God by faith alone. Faith denotes participation in the kingdom of God, hence it can be interpreted as the fulfillment of the purpose the sabbath.335 Furthermore, the boundaries of the purity regulations have been broken. Restoration reality has opened a new temple not–made–with–hands for anyone who accepts the good news. In the Old Testament, the sabbath sanctified one day in a week and brought people to the temple. This was a short visitation in the symbolic paradise where God himself dwells. With his courageous perfomance, Jesus sends a message to the Pharisees that the sabbath has become manifest in the new fellowship because the eschatological temple of salvation is here. This group lives the gracious sabbath that sanctifies human life. 4. The question about fasting The third issue in religious debates concerns fasting. In the Old Testament fasting is part of repentance, and it prepares one to meet with God. In practice, it was something to be done before great feasts in the temple. When Jesus neglected fasting this was easily interpreted as questioning the very need for repentance. In the gospels, the opponents raise the issue their accusation: “your disciples do not fast” (Mark 2:18). Here too Jesus’ answer grows out of the gospel of restoration: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridgeroom is with them, can they?” (Mark 2:19). An eschatological feast is at hand. Jesus’ followers are experiencing the joy of

334 There is a link between this story and the theology of the Last Supper, see Pitre, Jewish Roots, 139: “Yet again, the message to the Pharisees is, ’My disciples can “work” on the Sabbath, because they have the same privileges and prerogatives as the priests in the Temple.’” 335 So Back, Handbook 3, 2632: “Jesus also defended his Sabbath acts with an awareness that he was inaugurating the eschatological and salvific reign of God.”

158

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

a wedding. When Israel’s renewal arrives, she will be like a bride to the coming Messiah (Isa 61:10–62:5).336 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridgeroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (Isa 61:10)

Jesus’ interpretations of Isaiah suggest that since this moment has arrive, it would be impolite for the guests to fast. Instead, this is a time of eating and drinking. God himself has prepared the wedding feast, and the teachers of law should not deny his saving deeds. Isaiah obviously provides the proof–text to the whole passage. On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well–aged wines […] And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth. (Isa 25:6–8)

It is not difficult to parallel such metaphors with the last supper. At the moment of tribulation it would have been proper to fast and pray but Jesus chooses to organize a feast. A good supper with wine and bread symbolizes the content of his kingdom. This is also the message of Jesus’ answer above. The time of fasting was the period Israel was in exile – in one sense or another. Now the era of eschatological joy has arrived. Appearing as a “friend of sinners” Jesus brings the theology of an eschatological feast in the midst of everyday life. He makes friends with tax collectors and uses hospitality as a symbol of the radical forgiveness of sins. Something like this could never have happened at Qumran, and the Pharisees too were highly critical of it. Jesus, however, maintains his mission: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ’I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” (Matt 9:12–13).337 The theology of an eschatological feast has been so prominent in Jesus’ work that his identity evolves around it. The proof of this can be seen also through how John’s mission is made to be the opposite of Jesus’ joyful message.338 336

Scholars from Meier (Marginal Jew, 448–449) to Witherington (Indelible Image I, 620–611) conclude that this eschatological image shows how clearly Jesus appeared as the realizer of the kindgom of renewal. 337 Witherington remarks that, “Jesus at a minimum was not observant of various rules about ritual purity and at a maximum thought that such purity rules had been abrogated with the coming of the dominion of God.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 621. 338 We should note that these poles reflect different aspects of exilic rhetoric. John, naturally, represents prophetic warning, since fasting is a sign of mourning. Jesus,

VI. A community of priestly purity

159

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ’He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds. (Matt 11:18–19)

Such examples show that Jesus, in his restoration eschatology, speaks about a completely new level of holiness. According to his eschatological temple theology, the temple that is not made with hands is his own community. All prophetic promises concerning the cleansing of Israel have come true. The people attending this temple are filled with the Holy Spirit and are sanctified by the God who gathers his people at the end of time. The concept of holiness has changed, and the authority for pronouncing divine revelation has changed.339 Jesus’ disciples no longer need purity regulations because they live in the holiness of the temple.340 Their food is like the sacrificial food in the shrine. They have found the sabbath’s rest and, therefore, they live a renewed sabbath with their whole life. They do not need to fast because the eschatological wedding promised by the prophets is near. They have been cleansed by something better than John’s cleansing waters. They are ritually pure on the basis of God’s acts – not on the basis of something they have done themselves.

VII. The Lord’s Supper as a priestly meal Theology concerning the last supper unites most of the important features of restoration eschatology. First of all, Jesus’ death interprets the exodus, Israel’s release from captivity. Sacrificial atonement proclaims the forgiveness of sins and the inauguration of a new covenant. Futhermore, the event itself is based on Jesus’ calling – his readiness to take the path that John had taken and to bear the afflictions of tribulation. Through the holy meal Jesus is prepared to give his life as a sacrifice for his people so that the time of anguish would end and Israel’s restoration would begin.

however proposes a feast because the days of restoration are here. Cf. Nolland, Matthew, 463. 339 Bock has summarized aspects of Jesus’ proclamation as follows: “If one takes the whole of this tradition one sees claims that include authority over demons, authority over the sacred calendar (Sabbath), authority over sacred space (Temple), authority to alter completely imagery tied to a feast (Last Supper), authority over relationships (associations), authority to perform activity pointing to arrival of the kingdom, and, finally, the claim of authority to sit with God and judge in the end.” Bock, Continuum, 209. 340 According to Alexander, the concept of holiness becomes then one of the leading features in biblical theology. “The concept of holiness is exceptionally important within the biblical meta–story, especially for understanding the fulfilment of God’s creation blueprint that the entire earth should become his temple–city.” Alexander, Eden, 139.

160

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

What needs to be investigated now is how the narrative of the last supper reflects temple theology. What kind of meal is this holy communion among the members of the eschatological temple not–made–with–hands? What kind of priestly features are there in the theology of the Eucharist? 1. Covenant of blood An exegetical analysis of the words of institution is not a simple task because these words have been in liturgical use for two thousand years. There are definite and quite fixed interpretations about the meaning of the Eucharist and established ways to deal with the issue. The holy meal has usually been understood as a pesach, a Passover meal, where details of the narrative should be located in that context. There is a chronological problem, however, as Jesus is said to die at the moment the lambs are sacrificed in the temple. The supper must have taken place earlier. The Passover narrative is undoubtedly significant in the interpretation, but there may be other aspects that need to be taken into account, even the idea of sacrifice is allegedly wider than the conception concerning the death of the Passover lamb. Therefore, in what follows, several different aspects of interpretation will be pointed out.341 Compared with the messianic ideals of Second Temple Jewish eschatology in general, the words of institution are quite radical. Jesus appears as a martyr, ready to sacrifice his body and blood for his followers. The supper as such cannot be explained merely as the foretelling of Jesus’ death, though. Even in Mark’s short version Jesus’ sacrificial blood is “blood of the covenant.” A strong theological interpretation affects the content of the description. While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. (Mark 14:22–25)

The words of institution are slightly different in different gospels. The exact wording can no longer be reconstructed. In Matthew we read about the blood of the covenant which is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). The clause may be original or an intrepretation by his congregation. Luke, in turn, follows the version Paul provides in his letters (1 Cor 11:24–25). Paul’s 341 It is not the purpose of the present study to discuss all different explanations concerning the Last Supper. For older studies, see Jeremias, Eucharist Words; for recent discussion, Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 130–143; Betz, Jesus, 217–251; Marshall, “The Last Supper” in Key Events, 481–588; Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist; for a general presentation of previous discussions, see for instance Feld, Das Verständnis des Abendmahls; and for more recent views, see Schröter, Das Abendmahl. For an up–to–date treatment of the scholarly discussion, see Barber, Cultic Restoration Eschatology, 591–675.

VII. The Lord’s supper

161

tradition is early, for certain, and it may be that his clauses translate an Aramaic version of the tradition. The wording differs from that of Mark, and Paul’s version has a somewhat more liturgical, institutionalized tone.342 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:23–26)

Many aspects in the words of institution refer to the Passover and the exodus event. Blood, naturally, is the main topos in the original Passover narrative and its symbolism directs the theology. The sign of the blood saved the people from divine wrath, and after eating the body of the lamb the people started the journey that led to freedom in the promised land. Anyone eating the pesach meal was saved from slavery. In the words of institution Jesus does not mention the lamb but uses bread instead. The lamb is present in the sacrificial blood.343 There are two kinds of metaphors in the words of institution, and they are interrelated: bread and wine, and body and blood. They all belong to an independent semantic field but, nevertheless, their final meaning is constructed as they are brought together. The bread may stand for the “body” of the Passover meal, as the lamb is brought to the table right before breaking the bread. This can be seen still in the Mishnah where rabbi Eleazar teaches: “And in the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover offering” (m. Pesahim 10:3). After this the wine was blessed. It was necessary to mention the bread, as well, as Rabban Gamaliel has noted: “Whoever has not referred to these three matter connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation, and these are they: Passover, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs” (m. Pesahim 10:5).344 In the Old Testament the blood of the covenant is an important concept. It not only derives from the Passover narratives but, especially, from the Sinai narrative. Blood that is “poured out for many” is covenant blood that Moses himself already poured out (“dashed”) both against the altar and on the people 342

Concerning the form, see the discussion in Hagner, Matthew II, 771. In John the lamb has a particular function in the interpretation of Jesus’ death. As no bone is broken, the Passover narrative becomes scriptural proof Jesus’ sacrifice: “None of his bones shall be broken” (19:36). Furthermore, this is a confimation that his sacrificial death is the offering of the Suffering Servant in the Isaian tradition. Cf. also: “They will look on the one whom they have pierced” (John 19:33–37). 344 Hengel and Schwemer, following the ground breaking work of Jeremias, list several elements that refer to the Passover meal. The occasion was no doubt a feast, the breaking of bread had a central role, good wine was expected to be served, and the evening would end by singing Hallel–psalms. Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 583. 343

162

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

of Israel.345 Matthean description of the covenantal blood (Matt 26:28) is thus clearly reminiscent of the Mosaic original. Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, “See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exod 24:6–8)

The story about the Mosaic covenant of blood continues by presenting a magnificient narrative about a priestly meal that has a sacrificial nature. The elders were allowed to eat sacrificial meat in the presence of God himself. In Old Testament theology, the meal of the covenant of blood was understood as a meal that was reserved for the elect. What is extraordinary is that God’s presence did not destroy the eaters, they were even allowed to see God’s face as they attended the meal. Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank. (Exod 24:9– 11)

There are features of merkabah–mysticism in the description of this heavenly sacrificial meal. The story climaxes with a theophany on the mountain of God. The eaters have a vision where divine reality is revealed to them. God stands in front of the throne of glory, on the “pavement of sapphire stone.” The actual description of the throne is missing, and only the platform under God’s feet is mentioned.346 Moses, Aron, and the rest are protected by the atoning blood, quite in the manner the high priest is protected by the blood in the holy of holies. As regards other important features of the story, one needs to pay attention to the altar with twelve pillars that is built at the foot of Mount Sinai. This is primarily a covenant meal, and therefore the point is God himself. It is noteworthy that, in the Old Testament, covenants are often celebrated by a feast (Gen 26:28–31; 31:44–54; Josh 9:11–15; 2 Sam 3:20–21; Isa 55:1–3; Ps 345

The blood of the cup refers to blood that is dashed on the altar. Identifying wine with blood makes blood a sacrifice. Jesus says that his blood is “poured out” (ek/kheō) on the altar for sins. The Mishnah presents a detailed description of the original situation. “An Israelite slaughtered [the Passover lamb] and a priest received the blood, hands it to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, [each one] receiving a full basin and handing back an empty one. The priest nearest the altar tosses [the blood] in a single act of tossing, toward the base. [...] [The Levites meanwhile] proclaimed the Hallel psalms [113–118].” (m. Pesahim 5:6–7) 346 It is made of opaque blue lapis lazuli (of Mesopotamia) as several scholars note, like heaven itself.

VII. The Lord’s supper

163

81:9–17).347 Furthermore, this appears to be a victory banquet, like the one in Ps 23:5, “You lay a table before me, in my adversaries’ presence, you smeared my head with oil, my cup overflows.” In a theological sense the story describes both an offering and a blood oath for a covenant. Childs notes: “Israel has accepted the divine offer and entered a covenant with her God.”348 These men are very conscious of God’s majesty in the situation, even terrified of it, but they experience a covenantal community with Israel’s Lord who has appeared to them. Can the Mosaic story help one understand any features in holy communion? The covenant of blood is a uniting feature that cannot be overlooked. Jesus’ death is a sacrifice made in order to bring about a new covenant. Jesus’ blood is blood of the covenant. The original exodus narrative is not brought into theology where the aspects of atonement and forgiveness are present. Blood is a sign for a covenant of mercy. Furthermore, the original sacrifice is presented as a meal that is eaten. And the apocalyptic setting makes the meal a revelatory event. Jesus, in the words of institution, is not a new Moses, though. He is the sacrifice himself, granting the covenant of blood for every follower who comes into his community. The words of institution elaborate on the details of Passover meal but, in addition, there are traits of the Mosaic covenant of blood. Blood is an important sign in both cases along with the bread that signifies the “body” (carcass) of the Passover offering. The sacrificial animal itself, however, is absent as we consider the elements of the sacred meal. No lamb is now eaten despite the fact that in a Passover meal that would have been traditional. We are therefore justified to consider other theological themes that could add more about the particular unity of bread and wine. One of these is the covenant theme but there are also aspects that concern temple worship. 2. The priestly meal at the temple There are also several priestly aspects in the description of holy communion. The sacrificial meal is a supper of bread and wine. In a narrative sense, these two become main metaphors, surpassing the significance of the otherwise central element present, the lamb. This cannot be a coincidence. When compared with food offerings in the temple, there are certain interesting parallels in the words of institution. Part of the temple offering was bread for the tabernacle, the bread of the Presence. It was understood as sacrificial food that was reserved for the priests.

347

Childs, Exodus, 507, referring to the ceremony of sealing the covenant, mentioned a few verses earlier: “These verses in their present position in the biblical narrative function as a eucharistic festival in which selected witness celebrate the covenant sealing of vv. 3–8.” 348 Childs, Exodus, 508.

164

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

You shall take choice flour, and bake twelve loaves of it; two–tenths of an ephah shall shall be in each loaf. You shall place them in two rows, six in a row, on the table of pure gold. You shall put pure frankincence with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering by fire to the Lord. Every sabbath day Aaron shall set them in order before the Lord regularly as a commitment of the people of Israel, as a covenant forever. They shall be for Aaron and his descendants, who shall eat them in a holy place, for they are most holy portions for him from the offerings by fire to the Lord, a perpetual due. (Lev 24:5–9).

This priestly meal, conducted by the high–priest, was a special honorific occasion for any serving priest. The priests were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence and the wine of libations, the special sacrificial food on the table of glory. A participation in the “most holy portions” of offerings resulted in the eaters’ sanctification. Certain small details in Lev 21 broaden our picture of this holy meal. No one “who has a blemish” was allowed to draw near the altar itself. Nevertheless, he was allowed to attend the priestly meal: “He may eat the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy.” (Lev 21:22).349 The idea of a sacred meal that has a priestly character is known well from the traditions of the Qumran community too. In the Dead Sea Scrolls we find descriptions of the community’s holy meal that resembles the priestly meal conducted in the Jerusalem temple. As the Qumran group was distinctively a priestly sect, following a Zadokite order, there is a good reason to interpret their holy meal in terms of its Jerusalemite equivalent. The focus is on the community meal that was open only to the full members of the group. The description of the meal is reminiscent of the one conducted in the temple.350 “And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine for drinking, the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first to bless the first fruits of the bread or the new wine for drinking.” (1QS VI. 4–6). Only bread and wine are mentioned here. This meal continues to be presented as an eschatological supper focused on the renewal of Israel when the promised Messiah arrives. In the eschatological Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) the author speaks first about the council, which is to include “the famous men, those summoned to the assembly, those gathered for the community council in Israel under the authority of the sons of Zadok, the priests.” (1Q Sa, II.2–3). This is the group that awaits the appearance of a messianic figure: “This is the assembly of famous men, [those summoned to] the gathering of the community council, when [God] begets the Messiah with them.” (II.11–12). The entering of Israel’s Messiah is an act of revelation that expresses the Messiah’s day of power. This is evident as the signs of his appearance are interpreted, and not least the fact that his presence will lead to a feast that resembles a covenant meal.

349

See especially Pitre in his Jewish Roots, 118–133. For the Qumran meal, see for instance Kuhn, The Scrolls, 67–72; also Ringgren’s standard description is still useful, Ringgren, Qumran, 215–221. 350

VII. The Lord’s supper

165

And [when] they gather at the table of community [or to drink] the new wine, and the table of community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed] for drinking, [no–one should stretch out] his hand to the first–fruit of the bread and of the [new wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who bl]esses the first–fruit of bread and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the bread before them. Afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand towards the bread. (1QSa II.17–21)

The Qumran narrative provides a surprising parallel to the gospel story about the holy communion. The priestly meal imitates the meal eaten in the temple itself, it is of a sacrificial nature and refers to the days of Israel’s restoration. The only conclusion one can draw is that traditions concerning temple conventions and priestly privileges were alive in the Second Temple period. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that in the visions of the War Scroll, the covenanters believe that in the end of days God will “atone for all his congregation,” and let the believers eat the bread of Presence at the “table of his glory,” the table on which the sacrificial bread was laid in the temple (1QM II.1–6).351 It is quite remarkable that the elements of the priestly meal have been transposed onto Qumran’s eschatology. This shows, firstly, that Jewish theologians felt free to reinterpret even the holiest matters in temple ideology. These matters were easily brought into a new context when there was proper justification for such an interpretation. This, apparently, is what happened in Jesus’ teaching, too. He used the priestly tradition to make it serve a restoration eschatology. The theological content of Jesus’ action surpasses that of the Qumran meal, though. The foundation for the atoning power of the priestly meal changed. His own sacrifice, his body and his blood, become the source of eschatological atonement.352 Another ancient text, Joseph and Aseneth, which is an imaginative narrative building on Genesis 41:54, puts the holy meal in the center of Jewish religious identity. It is no longer possible to assess which features in this story should be regarded as Christian interpolations. However many scholars think that the basic story focusing on a sacred meal of bread and wine is thoroughly Jewish. In the narrative Joseph, taken to Egypt, prays for Aseneth who has been given to him as a wife, and asks God to bless her: “let her eat your bread of life, and drink your cup of blessing” (Jos. Asen. 8:11). Since the story is about Aseneth’s conversion, the archangel Michael arrives finally to validate the new faith: “Behold, from today, you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again, and you will eat blessed bread fo life, and drink a blessed cup of 351

This text is one of the most important passages proving that at Qumran the eschatological meal was understood as a priestly meal. Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 79. 352 It is probably good to be cautious, like Jeremias is in his Eucharistic Words, not to try to make the Qumran meal some kind of sacramental meal in the manner of the Eucharist; see p. 32. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, in Jewish thought, it was not at all difficult to understand the meaning of a cultic meal with a priestly context.

166

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

immortality [...] (Jos. Asen. 15:5). Looking at Jewish tradition as a whole, as Kuhn has noted, a proper context for such a meal can be found in Qumran’s practices. Even though texts like this must have also served the liturgy of early Christianity well, their Jewish origin confirms that there has been a consistent link between a preceding Jewish “priestly” meal and Lord’s supper.353 A priestly meal of bread and wine has an interesting foundation in the Old Testament also through a character belonging to a priesthood outside the Aaronic succession. As Abram returns from Chedorlaomer he meets a priest who has an exceptional ministy. “And king Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” (Gen 14:18a). It is no wonder, then, that in rabbinic tradition Melchizedek’s meal is interpreted in terms of a priestly meal, the bread alluding to the bread of the Presence, and wine to libations.354 These passages prove that a holy meal of bread and wine was a well known theme both in Old Testament times and Second Temple Jewish thought. Can such views have any parallels in Jesus’ teaching? There is a slight possiblity that the enigmatic expression artos epiousios (“our daily bread”), in the Lord’s prayer, could refer to the cultic lehem hapānim (LXX: artos ho prokeimenos) in Old Testament temple texts (“the bread of the Presence,” especially Exod 39:36; LXX 39:17) – but indirectly. There have, of course been numerous attempts to explain this difficult and rare New Testament word which occurs only in this prayer (Matt 6:11, maybe from Q, and in Luke 11:3; later occurrences depend on these).355 But it is precisely the fact that a word so difficult to explain has remained in this precious prayer, without being replaced by some other word, that inspires us to propose novel explanations. The participle ousios, deriving from eimi, is a word for existence, and it has usually been assumed that the expression refers to the coming day.356 The first problem here is that the participle denoting existence determinates the word “bread,” and does not as such refer to the word “day.” Therefore, the construction used by the prevailing interpretation is deliberate (*hē epiousa hēmera, stating: “the day that lies before us”). Nevertheless, the original meaning may also derive from a purely theological source. Had Jesus wished to underscore the priestly nature of his new temple, he might have referred to the sacrificial meal that Jewish people knew well enough from the customs of the temple service. The most important linguistic argument for a new point of departure is found in Num 4:7 where the bread of the Presence is called lehem hatāmid, the

353

Kuhn, The Scrolls, 74–75. So Pitre, Jewish Roots, 127, referring to Rab. Gen. 43:6. 355 For different alternatives in interpretations, see Hagner, Matthew I, 149–150; and the second edition of Bauer’s Lexicon, s.v. epiousios. 356 Scholars often remind us that Origen, the Greek speaking Church Father, assumed that the word denotes existence and does not necessarily refer to the word day; see Mundle in Dictionary 1, 251. 354

VII. The Lord’s supper

167

expression that is later in the Septuagint translated as hoi artoi hoi dia pantos (ep’ autēs esontai). Over the table of the Presence they are to spread a blue cloth and put on it the plates, dishes and bowls, and the jars for drink offerings; the bread that is continually there is to 357 remain on it. (Num 4:7, NIV)

The bread of the Presence (cf. Exod 25:30), the tāmid bread (in the MT expressed simply as the table of the Presence), is bread that lies on the golden table of glory (ep’ autēs esontai) and may thus have been called artoi epiousioi. To claim a connection here would require the existence of a Jewish custom of calling the bread of the Presence simply “displayed bread.” There is a hint for such a convention in the Synoptic tradition, in the narrative where David and his men eat holy bread when they seek food in the sanctuary (Mark 2:25–28). This food, in all the gospels, is called hoi artoi tēs protheseōs, the displayed bread (cf. LXX 1 Sam 21:7). This is notable because in the Old Testament the table itself was called trapeza tēs protheseōs (LXX Exod 39:17; cf. MS Exod 39:36). The bread, in turn, is called artoi tēs protheseōs just like in the New Testament (LXX Exod 40:23). According to this interpretation artoi epiousioi can be explained as an ad hoc Greek translation of an expression that in the Septuagint has the form artoi t ē s prothese ō. sIn a linguistic sense the meaning is identical.358 Thus, even though the New Testament expression, taken as is, is not artos prokeimenos, it can conceivably refer to it by using the convention “displayed bread,” for the holy bread in the presence of God.359 The David story suggests further that in Jesus’ understanding everyday bread provided by God in the new kingdom and the temple of his community is always holy bread, bread of the Presence. Jesus’ prayer would thus be a priestly prayer where the deep 357 This passage (Num 4:7) was brought to my attention by my colleague, the Finnish Old Testament scholar and linguist Matti Liljeqvist. NIV provides a better translation here than NRSV since it follows the MS more precisely. The latter explains and adds, for instance, the words “the bread of” the Presence. 358 This is in fact a common expression in the Septuagint, see 1 Chr 9:32; 23:29; 28:16; 2 Chr 4:19: 13:11; 29:18; and so also later in 1 Macc 1:22; 2 Macc 10:3. 359 As one can see in the Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich–Danker Lexicon, the Syrian translation of Matt 6:11 interestingly enough uses amin to translate epiousios (as well as lahm for artos). As these Aramean words are also used for translating the Hebrew lehem and t ā mid which, apart from the Syrian Lord’s prayer, appear together (as Liljeqvist also noted) only in Num 4:7, artos epiousios has apparently been understood as continual bread, namely the bread of the Presence. Such a rendering differs from other early translations, like those of the Peshitta (“for our need”), and Jerome (“panis supersubstantialis”) that are more exclusively etymological. See Bauer’s Lexicon, s.v. “epiousios.” Such a background was suggested by Hadidian in an early article where he concluded: “It should read: ‘Set before us this day (or each day) the bread of continuity’.” Hadadian, NTS 5 (1958–9) 81. As noted, the Syrian translation probably maintains the right intention, but the original behind the Greek translation is different.

168

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

structure reflects temple discourse: “give us this day the ‘displayed bread,’ and forgive us our sins,” while on the surface the words simply refer to our usual food and personal transgressions. Assuming such a background, it would be no wonder that, at the Last Supper, this is the image Jesus uses when he treats the bread in his hands as a holy sacrifice of his body that shall now be given to his followers as a holy meal. 360 Even though all the details and arguments are not decisive, one is entitled to conclude that, when Jesus institutes the Holy Supper, he has the priestly tradition in mind. He adopts the aspects of a priestly meal and adapts them to an eschatological feast. Like a God–sent high priest he delivers sacrificial food, and the sacrifice of body and blood brings atonement. The Passover table becomes the golden table in the holy of holies in the new temple. By instituting a priestly meal offering the new bread of the Presence, Jesus proclaims the inauguration of an eschatological temple that replaces the corrupt temple in Jerusalem. Israel’s restoration begins and the new community lives out a new relation to the Lord. The renewed people are like priests in the temple, living in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament description of a priestly meal of bread and wine supports this narrative well.361 But which kind of eschatological feast should we be thinking of here? There is one more aspect that may shed light on the basic nature of the Last Supper. While the Passover meal serves as a metaphoric point of departure for Jesus’ meal that must have been eaten before the lambs were sacrificed at the temple, and the tradition of a priestly meal provides only a general background for the Last Supper itself, there may be a simpler explanation for a sacred meal like this. It may have been a standard Jewish feast and meal, part of a thanksgiving offering, that has its origin in the Old Testament (Lev 3:1–17). Gese has suggested that a tôdā sacrifice contains all the essential elements found in the words of institution. In the Old Testament, a tôdā is a sacrifice that is brought to God after having been rescued by the Lord from an extreme danger (Lev 7:12–13). It celebrates the new existence of the one who has escaped death. The sacrifice itself comprises both an animal and unleavened bread. It is accompanied by a sacred meal that is eaten together with temple priests. This meal serves to restore both communion with the temple community and the state of shalôm with God. Many psalms belong to this kind of situation originally (especially Ps 22; 116). Moreover, the thanksgiving offering is called a sacrifice of salvation (2 Chr 33:16 LXX, thysia sōteriou kai 360 Among scholars belonging to the new perspective, Barber provides a short analysis of the bread of the Presence. Barber, Cultic Restoration Eschatology, 141–143. He does not develop the interpretation much further, though, but speaks merely about “cultic allusions” between the Lord’s Supper and the bread of the Presence; see p. 640. 361 After developing these ideas some years ago, I was encouraged to discover that Pitre published an entire book on a similar intepretation, see Pitre, Jewish Roots,142– 144: “It was also the institution of the new Bread and wine of the Presence, the bread of Jesus’ own presence” (p. 143, italics his).

VII. The Lord’s supper

169

aineseōs). Psalm 116 mentions one particular feature of the feast: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord” (116:13). Therefore, this thanksgiving feast contains the very feature to which Paul refers in 1 Cor 10:16 (cf. Luke 22:20): “the cup of blessing” (potērion tēs eulogias), “is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ” (oukhi koinōnia estin tou haimatos tou Khristou). Communion is emphasized in the next sentence: “we who are many 362 are one body for we all partake of the one bread” (v. 17). Thanksgiving sacrifice, therefore, unites the themes of communion with God and communion with the confessing community, and on the exact same basis of participation in the holy sacrifice – unleavened bread and the cup of salvation. Psalm 116 itself functions as a remembrance, anamnēsis, both for the hardship and the Lord’s help. This is also a well–known feature in the Pauline– Lukan tradition (cf. 1 Cor 11:24; Luke 22:19). Furthermore, the semantics of tôdā refers to confession, eksomologēsis (Josh 7:19). Together these two aspects explain why the first Christians believed that the Last Supper was a central part of the community’s task: “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). Finally, there is an eschatological feature in this tradition. In Isa 51:3 the sacrifice of salvation means thankfulness for the release from exile. It has an eschatological quality that is apparent in several New Testament texts. The inauguration of the new covenant means the beginning of God’s eschatological kingdom.363 Several motifs get thus intertwined in the institution story. Jesus and his disciples sit at a Passover meal remembering Israel’s release from captivity. Jesus stands up and with unique authority performs a priestly act. The eschatological Savior conducts a sacrificial meal where the disciples participate in a sacrifice that atones for their sins and makes them priests in the new community.364 They are now allowed to eat the food offering in God’s temple, and a holiness is donated as a gift merely on the basis of Jesus’ own body and blood that are, that very evening, left for slaughter. On this Passover, a new Exodus begins as people leave the corrupt world and find the promised land in the community of the Davidic Messiah. 3. Paul on participation in sacrifice One should next move to Paul because the apostle too sees a connection between the temple meal and Christian holy communion (1 Cor 10). According to Paul, as believers eat the sacrificial supper they also participate in the sacrifice itself. They step into the role of the priests who eat the food offerings in the temple. In addition to this, Paul states that in Christ they will become 362 363

Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion, 190, 197–198. See Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion, 199; cf. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 140–

141.

364

This interpretation is gaining ground, see Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 79; Alexander, Eden, 134; and Hamilton, God’s Glory, 378; cf. also Hahn, Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 126.

170

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

“one body” (hen sōma) with their Lord – and with each other. The metaphor is familiar from other Pauline passages, which also depend on temple terminology and denote the eschatological temple of salvation.365 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing (koinōnia) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing (koinōnia) in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners (koinōnoi) in the altar? What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners (koinōnous) with demons. (1 Cor 10:16–20)

In Paul’s theology, holy communion is a perfect parallel for the priestly meal in the Jerusalem temple. He reminds the Corinthians that priests in the temple are allowed to eat food offerings with the high priest. For the servants of the old covenant the meal of bread and wine was a sacrificial meal in the temple itself. “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar?” (1 Cor 9:13). In a similar way also believers in the new covenant are priests in Christ’s eschatological temple and are allowed to eat the sacrificial meal in the community.366 The koinōnia at the altar is not merely a communal participation in the temple service, though. Such an interpretation cannot explain why Paul speaks both of sacrifices and altars. As the priests participate in the sacrifice by eating the meat or bread that has been sacrificed for their and the people’s sins, they apparently participate in the very act of sacrifice as well as its result, the forgiveness of sins. Only this can explain how Paul can parallel the acts of the priests with the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Believers participate in Christ’s sacrifice and their sins are forgiven.367 In this passage, there are in fact three different examples how believers can share in (koinōnia) a sacrifice. In the Eucharist, they “share in” the blood of Christ. Israelite priests eating the temple sacrifice share “in the altar.” And as a counterpoint, idolators become partners with, or better “participate” in demons that work behind the idols. Christ’s sacrifice provides atonement and benefits the eaters but it also becomes part of them by participation. It is precisely this 365 For the relationship between Paul’s presentation and the words of institution in the gospels, see especially Betz, Jesus, 217f. 366 Scholars have different ways of treating this aspect of sharing. Thiselton speaks of “communal participants in the altar of sacrifice,” Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 772. In this interpretation the point of view is negative: the participants may become open to demonic forces (see p. 775). A positive interpretation seems better, though. Paul means that Jewish priests already participated in the temple sacrifice; see Betz, Jesus, 236–239. 367 So Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 478: “By ‘participating in the altar’ Paul evidently means that those eating the meal from the food taken from the altar are counted as those who offered the worship through the sacrifice that was offfered there (and expect to benefit from the efficacy of that offering).”

VII. The Lord’s supper

171

idea of participation (or even possession) that makes the eating of food sacrificed to idols dangerous. There is always a danger of participating in the demonic world and its evil spirits. Paul continues by arguing that there can be two kinds of participation: “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (10:21). The interesting part here is that, according to Paul, Jewish priests partake in the altar. Service in the temple means participation in real sacrifice that unites the priests with God. In Paul’s rhetoric, it is precisely the Jewish prototype that explains the meaning of the Eucharist. In holy communion one will participate (metekhein) in Christ himself. Through the Eucharist believers become one with God in Christ, “one body” (v. 17). This is how the Eucharist, on the one hand, is a meal of atonement and forgiveness (“for you”), and on the other, a new covenant, a “new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor 11:24–25). The Eucharist’s basic nature is derived from a sacrificial event, and it unites believers with their God in a new purity.368 This aspect is emphasized when the tôdā sacrifice is considered. Participants in the sacred meal share in the thanksgiving offering and their communion with the worshiping community is confirmed. This is what Paul means when he says that koinōnia in Christ leads to koinōnia in the community. The Lord’s Supper becomes a feast of salvation, full of thankfulness, held in remembrance of Christ’s suffering. As it is a sacred meal of Israel’s restoration, it is also a feast of resurrection. Gese is right in concluding that the Lord’s Supper is the tôdā of the Risen One. Pauline reception of earlier theology on the Eucharist apparently carries forward and even develops the features that are implicit in the original words of institution. Eating the sacrificial meal unites people with the spiritual world and even divinity. Old Testament priests have been privileged as they were given the right to partake in the divine world in the place where the Lord lives. Sacrifice, being a token of atonement, removed their sins and, in this sense, brought them temporarily into the heavenly paradise. Paul writes about similar issues but adapts them into the Christian situation. Believers who attend the Eucharist eat the meal of atonement. Their sins are forgiven, and they are granted the status priests have as they participate in the altar under the old covenant. In the reality of the new covenant, believers participate in Christ and people become members of his body. In this respect, Pauline Christ–mysticism may well derive from theology concerning the words of institution. 4. The final victim of the tribulation The metanarrative of exile and restoration has proven to be quite helpful in assessing the theology behind the Last Supper. It has in fact a central role in the performing of the task. So this point of departure is quite fruitful. Pointing 368

Participation has been considered an essential feature in Paul’s theology concerning the Eucharist, see Betz, Jesus, 223.

172

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

inevitably at Jesus’ death, the Last Supper serves as the final sign for the ending of the period of tribulation. The time of Jesus’ suffering is near, and soon he shall follow the path of John the Baptist, his forerunner. Jesus’ words at this occasion come as no surprise since many of his – admittedly somewhat enigmatic – words concerning suffering have prepared his followers for experiencing the climax of the conflict. Furthermore, the words of institution state that God’s Servant must die in order to bring atonement for the Israel that lives in spiritual exile and under God’s wrath. There is no restoration without redemption. The Last Supper speaks quite straightforwardly of sacrifice: Jesus offers his body and blood on behalf of humankind. The words of institution are pointless without this. The raison d’étre of Jesus’ proclamation here derives from Mark 10:45, the passage that speaks of how the Son of Man must give his life as a ransom for his people. Another important element is that this supper is a sacred meal for the final restoration that the prophets awaited. The conflict is not the final word. The period of tribulation will not go on forever; the agony will stop. What lies ahead will be just a priestly act, an act of slaughter in a cosmic temple, where the sacrifical blood shall perform a task similar to what the blood of animals does in the earthly temple. When appearing as a high priest of the eschatological temple, Jesus confirms his teaching about the temple not–made– with–hands. He will have a temple that is based on a superhuman sacrifice. Jesus’ followers, those who eat the sacrifice, are given the status of priests in the new temple of salvation. Their status implies that they themselves directly meet with God, the sacrifice has sanctified them completely, and they participate in the Holy Spirit that fills the new temple by his glory. Therefore, the main feature in the words of institution, especially as they relate to restoration eschatology, is that Jesus speaks here about the final victim of the end time tribulation. Two major themes unite in these words. The tribulation itself implies that God’s servant must give an offering. He must sacrifice his life on behalf of his people. The servant will now be handed over “for our trespasses.” This sacrificial and cultic theme is united with the concept of a priestly meal that takes place in the new eschatological temple. This sacrifice will mitigate God’s wrath and bring about restoration. In addition to this larger picture, there are several details in the theology of the Lord’s Supper. Even a short analysis of different aspects of the Last Supper shows that many eschatological themes are being brought together in this story. It is a covenantal meal with priestly features, and also an eschatological meal representing a messianic feast. Jesus himself refers to such a feast in Matt 8: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 8:11). In the words of institution a similar aspect is apparent: “Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:25).

VII. The Lord’s supper

173

There is a revolutionary element in Jesus’ teaching as he, in his eschatological fervor, is convinced that communion with God will become perfect through his own mission. He had been granted “all revelation” and restoration would become real through his work. His followers already live in a new temple with their Master. The eschatological Abba–reality, adoption as children of God through baptism in the Holy Spirit, had become manifest among those who believe in him. The gifts of redemption are real: the followers have been sanctified through Jesus’ word and their hope is in the gospel of restoration, the forgiveness of sins. Implicit temple criticism can be detected throughout Jesus’ teaching. No priestly class is needed for the distribution of divine mercy. Instead, the followers themselves are granted the status of temple priests as they are allowed to approach God without any sacrificial mediator – apart from Jesus. This is how the priestly aspects in the words of institution are located in their proper context in Jesus’ mission. Communion with Jesus in the last supper reminds us of the communion of priests in the sacrifice that the High Priest delivers in the temple precincts. Bread and wine become a holy sacrificial meal for the disciples. In the lives of the believers this meal functions on two levels: as a sacrifice it grants them forgiveness and as a communion it unites them with the source of life himself. Temple theology is important in the signification process as such. Above all, it justifies the focus on a meal of bread and wine. Wine, in this context, naturally refers to blood that has been sprinkled on the altar. The body as a sacrifice will be the substitutional offering that Jesus will give on behalf of all people. However, it is important to note that Christians do not begin to organize regular Passover meals in their congregations. Instead, Paul instructs the community to celebrate the Holy Supper as a sacrificial meal symbolizing the new Exodus. The standard meal of bread and wine gains new significance from its depiction as a priestly meal in the temple. Its sacrificial nature is confirmed by the fact that no other sacrifice is needed ever again in the new community. If we read the words of institution through the metanarrative of the restoration of the garden–temple, the interpretation changes once more. The Lord’s Supper, in the congregation, becomes the locus of a paradisial rest – what the temple was in the old covenant. The priesthood too can be seen from a new perspective. Priesthood now represents a direct communion with God, participation in God’s sacrifice, and a new life in the holy precincts. The Lord’s Supper, in this sense, is taste of heaven on earth. It is characterized by all the gifts of Israel’s renewal, forgiveness, resuscitation, and peace. And finally, when read in the light of the larger Old Testament narrative, the Lord’s Supper becomes a “mountain experience” where the disciples, after witnessing a blood sacrifice, have a vision of God and his work. Like Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (Exod 24) the fathers of the new Israel are now allowed to take part in a heavenly meal of bread and wine. In this respect, the narrative implied in the words of institution is revelatory, sacrificial, and sanctifying. God’s mountain, represented later by the temple rock in Jerusalem,

174

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

has moved once more. It is now the place of the Lord’s Supper where the “dashing” of the atoning blood results in table–fellowship with God himself. The concept of the last victim of the final tribulation in the exile and restoration narrative explains the theological dynamic undergirding Jesus’ words of institution. Sacrifice and the holy meal belong together. Restoration will begin when God himself builds a new temple on earth, and everyone participating in the sacrifice that God has offered will become a priest in that new temple. As we move on to treat the last issue of this section, questions concerning Jesus’ identity, these conclusions will have an important role in that task.

VIII. A suffering Messiah: on Jesus’ identity Was Jesus prepared to die for his mission? The question concerning Jesus’ identity and self–understanding has been the most debated of all the issues prominent in the discussion about the true nature of the “historical Jesus.” Scholars adhering to the New Quest have contributed to this discussion, and the minimalism of twentieth century historicism has gradually vanished. New constuctions use new tools to explain why Jesus often speaks about his unavoidable suffering. There have been different interpretations concerning Jesus’ calling but the best of these is based on the parallel between John the Baptist and Jesus. John’s death was a sign for the inauguration of the final period of tribulation, and this belief motivated Jesus’ mission. What needs to be investigated here is how personal identity and the aspect of martyrdom are related in Jesus’ teaching.369 1. The Son of Man the martyr Several New Testament scholars are quite certain that Jesus both expected his death and spoke about it. In the gospels, he speaks about the conflict that will escalate and gradually reach its peak. He also makes clear that the final battle will be an extraordinary eschatological event. This is one of many reasons why scholars assess Jesus’ anticipation of death from new perspectives. After Sanders noted that Jesus’ death is one of the crucial events that is almost never questioned in scholarship, scholars have shown a new interest in it. A 369

While it would be impossible to discuss all the proposed views concerning the identity of Jesus, we will comment as necessary in due course. As Witherington has shown in his Jesus Quest there have been several major attempts to explain Jesus’ mission and to suggest what kind of identity could be derived from the gospel texts. Jesus has been depicted as a Jewish teacher, a charismatic, a political rebel, a Cynic philosopher, an eschatological prophet, a wisdom teacher, a messianic savior, a Jewish prophet and, finally, the bringer of restoration. Witherington, Jesus Quest, 58f. Cf. Evans, Handbook 2, 1217–1243; and several articles in the collection by Gaventa and Hayes, Identity of Jesus.

VIII. A suffering Messiah

175

Galilean preacher was executed as the result of an extreme conflict. This made Sanders ask a simple question: why was Jesus considered such a threat that he had to die? Any plausible investigation or interpretation should be able to provide an answer to this.370 This clue will also help us reconstruct some of the features in Jesus’ identity. The metanarrative we have been studying in this work will forward this analysis. Since the death of John the Baptist started the final age of tribulation, Jesus united his own future with John’s fate.371 In Jesus’ discussion of Elijah, quoted earlier in chapter I.3., he speaks about the anguish of the Son of Man: “that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt.” (Mark 9:12–13). Just as John had to face death in the final tribulation (peirasmos), so too was Jesus ready to suffer. The comments about Elijah place the Son of Man among the rejected. We have already treated the Old Testament passages behind this statement. The second Elijah entered history when the eschatological period of wrath reached its peak, just as Malachi prophesied. Daniel, in turn, proclaimed that the Son of Man would appear in world history in the middle of the period of tribulation. These ideas must be connected to Jesus’ sermons on Ps 118 speaking about the rejection of a corner stone. It has been commonplace in gospel studies to explain Jesus’ allusions to his death as secondary and of late origin.372 The eschatological interpretation presented here opens up new horizons, though. “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.” (Mark 9:31). Jesus speaks of the Son of Man as he speaks about John. The Son of Man will face the fate of the second Elijah. Fallen Israel rejects the messengers sent to her. Everything shall go as the parable of the wicked tenants suggests (Mark 12:1–12). The conflict is inevitable and will result in martyrdom. Therefore, it is no longer frivolous or fanciful to put considerable weight on Jesus’ predictions of his suffering and death in the Gospels (Mark 8:31; 9:12; 9:31; 10:33).373 Several scholars have long assumed that Jesus’ self–identity has been built at least partly on the figure of the suffering servant in Isaiah.374 In Lukan tradition this theology is reflected in Jesus’ answer to Herod about the fate of a prophet: “Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work” (Luke 13:32). Jeremias 370

Sanders, in his Jesus and Judaism, says that “a good hypothesis” must be able to “offer a connection between his activity and his death,” Sanders, Jesus, 22. For later discussions, see Bock, Continuum, 172–174. 371 See subchapter 2.III.1. above. 372 Starting with Bultmann, Tradition, 163; a claim that garnered numerous followers later. 373 Among recent writers, see Witherington, Indelible Image I, 108. For other scholarly discussions and argumentation, see especially Pitre, Tribulation, 188–191. 374 So already Jeremias, Theology, 286.

176

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

states that the expression the “third day” derives from Jesus, not the post– Easter community, and it reinterprets a Semitic narrative practice implying that the “third” day can be used as a special turning point in any story (cf. Mark 9:31; 14:58; 15:29). Thus this passage belongs to those texts proclaiming the suffering of God’s Chosen One at the hands of the fallen nation. A confrontation with traditional Judaism is unavoidable.375 It is only logical to assume that Jesus speaks about resurrection in this passage because, in Second Temple Jewish theology, most people believed that Elijah would arrive right before the resurrection of the dead. Since Jesus connected the suffering of the Son of Man with the character and work of the second Elijah in the period of tribulation, he must have hoped that the resurrection would inaugurate the kingdom of restoration. The time of exile will be over, and God will start to renew both Israel and the whole of humankind through the agent he has chosen, the Son of Man. The final conflict implied in these clauses is not claimed to be the end of everything. Instead, the events will form a gate to a new reality. God will raise the saved, the believers, and exalt them in heavenly glory. One of the key passages and also a subject of considerable debate has been the intense passage in Mark 10:45. It a special status because Jesus openly claims that the Son of Man must give his life as a sacrifice for the people. The ransom logion has become an object of dispute that of course reveals something about each interpreter’s larger point of departure. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.376

In many Jewish traditions the Son of Man is a heavenly figure symbolizing divine power. He appears as the final judge both of angels and human beings. Jesus challenges such views by claiming that the Son of Man must first face a time of anguish. Justification is attained through tribulation. The main reference point appears to be the book of Daniel where the Son of Man, who no doubt is also presented as a heavenly king, nevertheless enters history in the midst of the expected persecution. According to the eschatological story he will himself be destroyed. The last eschatological week of years in Dan 9 is extraordinary, though, since it results in reconciliation: “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in

375

Jeremias, Theology, 92, 285; for further discussion, see Marshall, Luke, 571–

572.

376

This verse is really a crux interpretum in New Testament scholarship and a watershed concerning Jesus’ identity. The historicists’ view locates it straightforwardly in the post–Easter community, see Bultmann, Tradition, 159; Schnelle, Theology, 151. More recently, however, several scholars hold it to be authentic. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 121; Schreiner, Theology, 220.

VIII. A suffering Messiah

177

everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9:24). Can such ideas be the ransom logion’s background?377 In Jesus’ saying, three aspects unite. The Son of Man is God’s servant, and he is in the role of the suffering servant. He must adopt the way of the fallen nation, be punished and slaughtered, as the people were in their corrupt and exiled state. Secondly, he pays a ransom. The relationship with God needs to be corrected. Payment must be made. And thirdly, he makes atonement and brings redemption. All of these aspects are familiar to us from previous analyses. Many Second Temple theologians assumed – in the manner of the great prophets – that God himself must provide a sacrifice for Israel’s sins. And Jesus in his teaching submitted to the agonies of the end–time tribulation. Why then did Israel’s leaders feel that Jesus was dangerous? Restoration eschatology provides answers to this detail. When calling for metanoia Jesus questioned the status of the officials and priests who were responsibe for temple service. He confronted the Israel who still kills her prophets. As a friend of sinners he opposed the traditions of the halakha. His association with prostitutes and unclean people provoked a constant conflict with scribes and especially with the Pharisaic movement. The guardians of the Mosaic tradition could not understand how the kingdom of God could be extended to embrace the children of darkness. Jesus’ charismatic performances were difficult as well. The signs of the kingdom were naturally explained as satanic acts inspired by demons but those following Jesus ignored such claims. The followers rejoiced over the eschatological wedding feast that had now begun with Jesus who proclaimed a forgiveness and reconciliation surpassing purity regulations and rabbinic precepts.378 2. Redemption and substitutional atonement The idea of Jesus’ martyrly suffering was connected to his eschatological mission. Many different possibilities can explain how atonement is acquired through innocent suffering. Stuhlmacher suggested the first of these: that Jesus had adopted a thoroughly Jewish conception about the reconciliatory meaning of a martyr’s death. The most familiar scriptural proof, used in

377

For a detailed analysis, see Pitre’s article on the ransom logion, Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 41–68. He notes that, as Daniel prays for restoration, “Gabriel promises him a period of tribulation.” 378 In a collection discussing Wrights theory, Perrin notes that even though Wright’s ideas concerning restoration eschatology were not the final word in the study of the historical Jesus, “it came at just the right time, when historical Jesus studies would either have to move outside the confines of its self–constructed cardboard box – or suffocate.” Perrin, Theological Dialogue, 97. I believe this is right because in the investigation of Jesus’ identity and the purpose of his mission, the new perspective has attained good and well–argued results.

178

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

several passages in the New Testament, is the description of God’s suffering servant in Isa 53. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces […] Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities […] For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people […] When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days. (Isa 53:3–12)

The Isaian tradition held that the exile would be reconciled by a suffering servant of the Lord, and this servant would atone for the fallen people. According to this prophetic teaching, the eschatological restoration could not be brought about through an end–of–times war. Divine punishment could not be wiped away by escalating violence. Therefore, a servant must arrive. He needs to pay the ransom and bring redemption by sacrificing himself for the people.379 In addition to Isaiah, there are several other passages in the Old Testament that apply a similar concept of a substitution in their soteriology. For instance in Zechariah even a suffering Son of David is introduced: And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. (Zech 12:10; cf. 13:7)

Furthermore Ps 22, a prayer of deliverance, proclaims that God did not ignore the people’s affliction but sent his help. A universal restoration is at hand when “all the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord” (22:27). Reconciliation will not be achieved easily, though. Just like in Isaiah, here too the author describes a substitution and a suffering figure who is rejected before the renewal can start. “But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people.” (22:6). In Second Temple theology, there is a special way of treating the theme of suffering particularly in combat or when defending the Torah. The setting is understandable because life in an occupied country has left the religious elite longing for the lost days of theocracy. Even before New Testament times, the suffering of hasidic martyrs was believed to atone for the sins of Israel (see 2 Macc 7:37f.; 4 Macc 6:26ff.; 16:16–25). Even at Qumran certain scrolls refer to similar beliefs. The commentaries on Job and the Greek translation of Job 42:9 speak of atonement (cf. 11QtgHi 38:2f.). According to these passages 379 For a special analysis on the significance of Isa 53 for Jesus’ proclamation and especially Mark 10:45, see Stuhlmacher, Gottesknecht, 96. Another line of inquiry adopts a strict criterion of dissimilarity in order to relegate such material to the post– Easter church. Strecker may still believe that the idea of substitutional atonement is pre–Markan, but he does not ascribe it to Jesus. Strecker, Theology, 106 (also fn. 83), 355.

VIII. A suffering Messiah

179

God held the sacrifice of the just martyrs in high esteem and accepted their prayers for other sinners.380 The Qumran understanding of atonement was mostly based on perfect obedience and Torah observance. In this respect it was related to the piety of the Zealots.381 Following the new perspective on Jesus, one is inclined to accept that such views on eschatological obedience have guided Jesus in his mission. Both the ransom logion and Jesus’ words at the Last Supper mentioning covenantal blood prove that the Son of Man has come to “serve.” Jesus identifies himself as the Servant and his view is directed by the prophetic tradition. He shall give his life a ransom for his people. He is prepared to shed his blood in order to enable the new covenant to become real. The servant’s song becomes flesh in Jesus’ life. But how should we understand the role of restoration eschatology in Jesus’ own view on suffering? Scholars ascribing to the new paradigm have given many different suggestions. Since the exile itself has been a time of oppression and slavery, restoration could be interpreted as release from pagan rule. Some scholars – and in the present discussion this includes Wright himself – emphasize the covenantal idea according to which God establishes an eternal covenant by Jesus’ death as a martyr.382 According to this view, interpretation should focus on the idea of kingdom. Because of the long foreign occupation Israel was not yet independent. The “Roman” cross was the most bitter symbol for such political oppression. The theocractic leaders believed that nothing had been achieved and power was in wrong hands. For five hundred years the tribes had had to endure violent rule under the military force of ungodly nations. Now Jesus was believed to share in their fate and suffer the consequences of the violent hate in his own body.383 It seems that Wright has attempted to interpret restoration eschatology strictly in terms of covenantalism. Since he sees the cross as a symbol for Roman power, the interpretation shifts to nationalistic themes. Therefore, since Jesus’ death apparently renews the covenant, Wright concludes that Jesus’ death on the cross must be a redemptive work for Israel as a nation. He has a collective view in mind. In this respect, Wright does not really see 380

On the interpretation, see especially Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 127– 128. For Qumran’s views, see Garnet, Salvation and Atonement, 115–117. 381 For Zealots and obedience, see especially Hengel, Zealots, 177–190. 382 Wright, in his Victory of God, concludes that Jesus’ reference to his own death when handing over the fourth cup, alludes “to this theme of covenant renewal,” (p. 561). 383 Wright says that this is more or less what Jesus thought and, when Matthew added the clause “for the forgiveness of sins” to the words of institution, “this denotes, not an abstract transaction between human beings and their god [sic], but the very concrete expectation of Israel, namely that the nation would at last be rescued from the ‘exile‘ which had come about because of her sins.” Wright , Victory of God, 561; his views are later shared by McKnight, New Vision, 225.

180

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

Jesus’ death as an act of reconciliation for individual sinners but, instead, as redemption for the entire nation.384 This is an important aspect in restoration soteriology but it is probably not the only significant aspect here. There are clear features of substitution in Jesus’ mission. He takes the role and place of Israel, and his suffering is the Servant’s task. He dies on behalf of others. Furthermore, in the words of institution, we find the element of participation. Eating the priestly meal unites the eater with him who presented the sacrifice and therefore, the participant also benefits from the sacrifice. The contribution that the covenantal interpretation makes concerns the big picture. It involves the basic purpose of Jesus’ mission: that Jesus as a martyr suffers and atones for the curse that hung over Israel. After the redemptive act, the gates are open for the blessings of restoration. It seems apparent, however, that this view needs to be completed with the idea of Jesus’ substitutional suffering. He offers a sacrifice and, therefore, his sacrifice will become the bread of renewal in which believers participate when eating the priestly meal in the community of salvation. 3. Sin offering for the exilic corruption The aspect of a national renewal, however, cannot answer all the soteriological questions raised by restoration eschatology. Jesus’ teaching was also “liturgical” – as it has been described – and focused on the ideas of priesthood and the temple of salvation.385 As the shared mission of the second Elijah and the Son of Man, during the period of tribulation, led to inevitable destruction, no new kingdom could be established without sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus not only anticipated his death but he also believed that the great new aeon was at hand. These events would be part of the extraordinary renewal when the new temple was built. If he had to die, it would benefit the eschatological temple. Jesus’ teachings do not pointedly focus on the Roman occupation or even the pagans in general who oppress Israel. Instead, the reason for Israel’s painful history lies in its own sins. This allows us to state that the exile is still a reality at least in a spiritual sense and an ongoing condition of the people. Jesus does not proclaim that Israel needs to be redeemed merely from the violent power of Rome. The entire people still lives under God’s wrath. This is why Israel needs the very problem that caused the exile in the first place redeemed, and which holds the people captive to this day – sin, infidelity, evil hearts, and idolatry.386 384 The general view as such can be supported by noting that, according to many scholars, Jesus did appear as the Messiah of Israel. His appeal to Isa 61 and his healing activity point in this direction. Moreover, the herald was expected “to proclaim the eschatological jubilee,” as Evans notes in, JSHJ 4 (2006) 48–49. 385 See for instance Hahn Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 124. 386 In this question I agree completely with Wright; see above.

VIII. A suffering Messiah

181

Jesus is prepared to sacrifice his life, as several passages state, but he is not focused on opposing Rome. He is in conflict with Israel and her religious elite. The tension with the scribes and Pharisees is severe, and the priests get their fair share of criticism as well. Jesus’ soteriology is not covenantal in a traditional sense. Instead, he creates a new covenant. He does not attempt to purify temple worship through political means. He claims to build a new temple not–made–with–hands. A simple covenantal interpretation alone cannot explain Jesus’ understanding of restoration since the release appears to be a result of sacrificial atonement.387 As we did above, when we read Jesus’ woes against the Israelites who fashion themselves as the pious ones of the Mosaic tradition, we become convinced that even Jesus felt that God’s own people still kill the prophets. Renewal must necessarily come through a time of tribulation.388 The old covenant is corrupt. It has been broken and is no longer valid. No national covenant still exists and, following the logic of such a proclamation, it probably never did existed in any ethnocentric sense. God’s people have always been a select group whose hearts are in a right relationship with him. So Jesus follows the prophets when he states that the community of salvation, the proper people of God, is something that needs to be created. Dead bones need to be given new life. Jesus’ death as the death of the suffering Servant is the climax of the eschatological conflict and atones for the sins of Israel. This is the act that terminates the historical exile. Therefore, Easter becomes the kairos that inaugurates Davidic kingdom of peace. A substitutional atonement results in the forgiveness of sins. This is why the new ekklēsia, the eschatological temple, is grounded on absolution and the renewal of human nature, which has hitherto been corrupt. In God’s kingdom “his will” will be done also “on earth.” People will forgive other’s sins just as they themselves have been forgiven.389 If we look through the lenses of temple ideology and priestly messianology, Jesus death must be seen mainly as a substitutional death for the sins of Israel. Jesus himself has been committed to such soteriology for two reasons: he is convinced that restoration will be brought about by martyrdom 387

So for instance Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 71. Different versions of a political mission have been suggested, though; see Horsley, Spiral of Violence, 318– 319. 388 Pitre, Tribulation, 514. “And it appears that Jesus took this hour of trial upon himself quite willingly as his final prophetic and messianic act, in order to bring about what had been the driving goal of his whole mission from the first: the coming of the kingdom of God.” 389 Fletcher–Louis maintains that this was Jesus’ central conviction in his mission from the very start; Fletcher–Louis, JSHJ 5 (2007) 78. Moreover, Evans notes that Jesus’ prayers in Gethsemane serve as perfect evidence for the fact that Jesus anticipated his death. Evans, JSHJ 4 (2006) 49f.; cf. also Marcus, Identity of Jesus, 145.

182

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

and, moreover, as a fruit of restoration, such a sacrifice shall result in atonement for the people’s sins. This is what the words of institution proclaim. Blood sacrifice in the Old Testament was a cultic act and resulted in atonement that is both personal, for the sins of the individual entering the temple, and general, accounting for the exilic sins of the nation. Both of these aspects are present in the theology of the Lord’s Supper.390 It is fitting then that Jesus’ followers, completing this theology, also pick up scriptural corroboration using the Servant’s song (Isa 53), Ps 22, and the book of Zechariah. Jesus has been prepared to suffer on behalf of the people. And he has been convinced that his humiliation will benefit the long–awaited restoration of God’s people. In the wider context of Jesus’ theology, however, all this must be understood as part of his proclamation of the eschatological temple. The cultic sacrifice of the Jerusalem temple will be replaced and Jesus will become the only sacrifice that counts before God.391 Is it fitting within reception history that such a belief is considered an integral part of the proclamation and mission of the historical Jesus? Obviously it is because after Easter, his followers no longer put their faith and hope in the sacrificial office of the temple. Instead, they start to proclaim that Jesus has made the perfect and final sacrifice. After this high priestly work no other sacrifice is needed. His death as the Suffering Servant has resulted in redemption, forgiveness of sins, and Israel’s restoration. His community is an eschatological temple where God–given sacrifice sanctifies those participating in the renewed liturgy. 4. Anticipating the exaltation of the Son of Man The aspect of humiliation is a natural part of the theology of tribulation but, in the narrative concerning the eschatological future, it is merely the first phase in a more extensive course of events. Restoration eschatology is salvation history par excellence. It is the story where God will bring justice to his people, transform the state of apostasy, and return those deported. What will be re–established is the kingship of God and a theocratic rule in Israel. This narrative focuses essentially on the exaltation of the Son of Man. In Jesus’ teaching, the Son of Man is an eschatological messianic figure who is constantly depicted as a heavenly king. There are passages where 390

See for instance Ådna, Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 471. For the idea of substitution, Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 160. In addition to the many standard “new perspective” works cited above, see also Garnet, Spirit Within Structure, 50; Bryan, Restoration, 240–242; Bockmuehl, This Jesus, 74, 94; Barber’s recent dissertation, Barber, Cultic Restoration Eschatology, 693–694; and Evans, Handbook 2, 1242. 391 Pitre expresses this perfectly (by commenting on John 19): “it is no longer the Temple in Jerusalem from which the blood of sacrifice will flow. The Temple has now been replaced by the immolated body of Jesus.” Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 70 (italics his).

VIII. A suffering Messiah

183

Jesus identifies his own role with the task of the Son of Man. “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38). There is a judicial tone in this passage and no doubt about the status Jesus bestows on himself. His fate is directly intertwined with the acts of the Son of Man. Several passages prove that, despite his commitment to the role of a suffering preacher in the manner of the second Elijah, Jesus has been convinced that, in the end, God will win. Psalm 118 has served as scriptural support for the idea that the rejected and abandoned “stone” that appears in the center of the narrative will be exalted in glory. God shall raise even Jesus when the time comes. This is how his eschatological office as the proclaimer of God’s kingdom (basileia) will be completed: when he himself as the heavenly Son of Man shall take part in divine royal rule (basileia), especially the last judgment. The most important passage where the Son of Man is presented as the Master of eschatological princes in heaven is in Matt 19.392 Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, and judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

This eschatological statement gathers together several essential features of restoration eschatology. The event Jesus anticipates is the renewal (palingenesia), the “new genesis,” that will inaugurate the second creation. This word must be related with “universal restoration” (apokatastasis) in Acts 3:21.393 In his mission for the restoration of Israel Jesus has attempted to gather people from all tribes into the new kingdom. He has sent the twelve disciples to perform this task in Galilee. When serving God’s people in the time of tribulation he has believed that both his own mission and the work of his followers will continue until the final renewal arrives. New rule will become real through the rule of the Son of Man and his twelve princes. Even though the eschatological mission must be conducted in the shadow of the suffering experienced by the second Elijah, it will not be done without hope. Jesus himself may have to suffer and “give his life as a ransom for many,” as we saw in Mark. 10:45 above, not even execution will end his work. As the eschatological turning–point during the period of transition 392

This passage has been important among the writers of the new paradigm. See for instance Sanders, Jesus, 100; Allison believes it is an important passage reflecting the belief in the restoration of the tribes, even though he is cautious about the original form of the saying. Allison, Jesus, 142. 393 In the apostolic letters we have several expressions denoting the same cosmic change. For Paul it means freedom from the “bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21), or putting on “imperishability” (1 Cor 15:53), or bringing people into (paristēmi) God’s presence (2 Cor 4:14). In Ephesians the expression “to gather up all things” (anakephalaiōsasthai) refers to a similar change (Eph 1:10), as does the statement that God will create new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1).

184

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

arrives, God will inaugurate the final resurrection of the dead. This marks the birth of the new world. The Son of Man will be enthroned and the new Son of David will become the ruler of the kingdom of peace. This eschatological narrative reveals much about Jesus’ identity. Heavenly thrones promised to God’s servants and now to Jesus’ disciples are, in Second Temple Jewish mysticism, standard metaphors for heavenly exaltation and the vindication of martyrs.394 The highest throne is given to the Son of Man, though. There is no doubt about the identity of the one enthroned there. He is the Master of the disciples, the Teacher himself. Jesus’ throne is not just one more throne in the heavenly court. Instead, according to the passage above, it is the “throne of glory,” (thronos doxēs), the seat that is well known from the descriptions in Jewish eschatological texts: the throne of God.395 In the eschatological speeches toward the end of Matthew similar terminology appears again. “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.” (Matt 25:31–32). Such Daniel–like description makes Jesus the Great Judge who shall implement righteousness and justice on earth. There is a powerful narrative concerning salvation history implicit in this passage. Jesus appears as an agent of salvation. Judicial discourse prevails and Jesus appears as the one who shall implement God’s kingship and his royal rule over humanity. All this depends completely on the exaltation of the servant who must first walk the path of the second Elijah, his forerunner.396 Jesus’ missionary task, in this respect, can be seen as God’s final outreach toward the nation that was scattered because of her iniquities. The world (to assess the situation from a universalist perspective) lives under God’s judgment and every human being is held captive in spiritual exile. Through Jesus God proclaims release to the prisoners and the servant, as Isaiah stated, shall make many righteous. After the time of tribulation God shall exalt the suffering Son of Man. Jesus will be enthroned on the throne of glory where he completes his mission as the bringer of the kingdom of God and the Davidic kingdom of peace. In summary, this survey of Jesus’ eschatology has served as a heuristic tool to explicate the general nature of his teaching. When speaking of the Son of Man he has anticipated his own exaltation in the renewed world. 394

See below the analysis in part II.1. Sirach uses the terms thronos endoxos (Sir 40:3) and thronos doxēs (47:11; also Wis 9:10). When Isaiah sees his great vision he sees God’s throne in the house of his glory, oikos tēs doxēs (Isa 6:1). In the gospels the throne of God appears almost incidentally in the speeches concerning swearing: “whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it” (Matt 23:22). 396 This kind of conclusion concerning Jesus’ eschatology is quite generally accepted; see Hengel, Studies, 69–70; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 123–124; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 209; Wright, Victory of God, 644. 395

VIII. A suffering Messiah

185

Restoration eschatology reaches beyond the time of tribulation. Furthermore, the apostles who start to create theology after Easter have themselves been followers of the eschatological figure who rode into Jerusalem in glorious triumph with people singing Old Testament psalms. They believed that it was they who needed to carry on the new message. The kingdom had arrived and restoration was at hand. Jesus alerted his disciples to the dangers of the age of tribulation. He taught about suffering and even called on them to carry the sign of execution, the cross. But then, despite the horror, hope was not lost. A new vision of restoration emerged. The kingdom shall come. One day the disciples shall sit on heavenly thrones and rule as the new heads of the twelve tribes. 4. On resurrection The passion narrative climaxes in detailed descriptions of Jesus’ resurrection. This is no minor issue. No New Testament scholar should take it for granted or treat the subject merely as one of the themes of early Christian theology. What modern people confront here is the claim that death has been defeated.397 The belief in restoration had always contained aspects of the new creation and the resurrection of the dead. This is what the events after the crucifixion on Calvary suggest, too. Jesus’ followers, the first Christians, believed that after his death Jesus’ body was created anew and he personally appeared to them, talking and teaching as he had done before his execution.398 New Testament testimony is unanimous about this. The tomb was empty, Jesus appeared to his disciples several times, and the frightened group of devoted followers turned into a bold community preaching the inauguration of the resurrection of the dead.399 397

Luther often said in his insightful sermons that Christians should not treat Easter theology superficially. Should they do that, they would be like cows looking at a fence. Easter is the center of early Christian theology and, anyone wishing to understand its essence needs to assess such beliefs delicately – just as cultural studies do today, adopting an empathetic attitude toward the objects they investigate. Therefore, this issue requires that the enormous significance the resurrection has in the New Testament be taken into account. 398 This is a recurring topic in scholarship, see for instance Auferstehung – Resurrection (Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium), Resurrection in the New Testament (FS Lambrecht), Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Becker, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi nach dem Neuen Testament. Even though existentialist scholars still teach that Jesus was raised only in a spiritual sense, Göttingen theologians put the resurrection in the core of New Testament theology. See Strecker, Theology, 269–275, (quoting Bultmann, “Jesus rose into the kerygma”); Schnelle, Theology, 54, (“a revelatory event”). 399 In the so–called historical–critical tradition, negative views have reigned from Reimarus to Käsemann. Later some writers have claimed that Roman soldiers buried Jesus’ body in a mass grave (Myllykoski, basing his views on his dissertation Die Letzten Tage Jesu I–II), or threw it in a ditch where it was left to animals (Crossan,

186

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

The gospel tradition has several references to Jewish beliefs in the resurrection of the dead. A distinction needs to be made, however, between the final resurrection and the extreme miracle stories where Jesus enlivens several dead persons. Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21f.), the widow’s son in Nain (Luke 7:11f.), and Lazarus (John 11:1f.) from the dead. Furthermore, Herod is said to have suspected that John had been raised from the dead (Matt 14:2). These are probably best understood as signs of a jubilee, providing the first fruits of its future glory but they are not yet the eschatological resurrection of the dead. In John, Jesus and Martha discuss the fate of Lazarus and the resurrection of the dead at the end of days (John 11). Here the Jewish belief in the general resurrection of the dead is clearly expressed. “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection of the last day (eskhatē hēmera)” (11:24). Jesus himself speaks about the “resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14; 20:36; cf. Matt 22:31). In John we find the expressions resurrection of life and resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). As Jesus reveals his own role in the great plan of restoration he apparently refers to the exaltation of the Son of Man. “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live.” (John 11:25). Theologically, then, there is one aspect that surpasses all other issues. Considered in the light of the restoration narrative, Jesus’ belief in the end time resurrection is a logical counterpoint for his proclamation of the time of anguish. Martyrdom implies vindication, and tribulation implies the raising of the dead. A message of mere suffering without hope of life after death would offer nothing but despair. In this respect Jesus’ teaching is permeated by apocalyptic idealism and bold dedication to God’s mission. Many of Jesus’ sayings about the future glory of the Son of Man and his disciples prove that Jesus anticipated that the final restoration would begin in the new creation where the just shall be raised from the dead. Since the renewal will be a cosmic event changing history, the idea of resurrection is in agreement with the metanarrative of exile and restoration. Both in the proclamation of the great prophets and in Second Temple Jewish theology, the final restoration was going to take place in the extraordinary renewal of Israel that meant life from death.400 In the presentation of such a view, the idea of creation is essential. Since the old creation is corrupt, God has decided to create everything anew. The destruction of the Solomonic temple, understood as a microcosm of creation, represented the rejection of the first creation. Being faithful to his promises, Who Killed Jesus?). For a critical view of these theories, see Evans JSHJ 4 (2006) 52–53. 400 As we have noted earlier, Levenson has already shown how in Jewish eschatology belief in restoration meant simultaneously belief in a new creation and divine enthronement and cosmic change. An essential part of such hopes was the expectation of the resurrection of the dead. See Levenson, Resurrection, 159.

VIII. A suffering Messiah

187

God was chose to bring about a new temple, a new paradise where the saved souls could live in harmony. This temple would be built in the new reality of resurrection. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Jesus himself expected that the new temple would be raised only after the event of the resurrection of the dead.401 Eschatological resurrection is moreover linked with the idea of divine enthronement. We have seen earlier that in Jesus’ teachings the fulfillment of Isa 61 has had a central role. After the time of anguish God will bring a jubilee, the year of deliverance and forgiveness of debts. This will take place after a heavenly enthronement, as the messianic figure states: “the Lord has anointed me” (61:1). This is the good news to the humble and “release to captives.” Such imagery was well known among those Jews who knew their scriptures. God’s reenthronement in the eschatological temple (Ezek 43:4–7) was expected to lead to royal pardoning, sublime mercifulness and a restoration of cultivated lands. There is a cosmic tone in this renewal: release to captives meant also release to the captured souls in Sheol.402 And finally, the idea of bodily resurrection would be understood as part of the eschatological resurrection of the dead that is universal. It is not a matter of resuscitation but rather of the final resurrection of all the dead, serving as a starting point for the events of the end–time. It is inextricably intertwined with the idea of the last judgment when every human being must face God the Judge and eternal justice will be pronounced. This is why divine righteousness, the righteousness that shall fall like rain from the heavens, is part of the resurrection discourse. God will pardon fallen humankind, which is why the final resurrection cannot arrive before the time of tribulation is over. Suffering makes atonement and leads to exaltation. The methodological solution to focus on metanarratives provides an interesting answer to the perplexing question concerning the identity of the historical Jesus. Did Jesus anticipate his death and resurrection? The standard historical–critical answer from Reimarian resuscitation–theories to Bultmannian spiritualism has been neagative.403 Now, however, in the sphere of the new perspective emphasizing restoration eschatology, it is not logical to assume that he didn’t. Undergoing the period of tribulation without any hope of vindication for those who suffer during the eschatological battle or get killed in the course of events would not be the least bit consistent. Jesus was no Sisyphus ceaselessly rolling an immense boulder uphill without knowing why. Instead, he was convinced that John the Baptist who died at the hands 401

Cf. Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 62. For the background of such beliefs in Second Temple Judaism, see Wright, Resurrection, 153–162. 403 Some scholars still stick to the criterion of dissimilarity and, therefore, practically all references to Jesus’ death in the gospels are considered secondary. For an analysis of such views in recent discussions in general, see Evans JSHJ 4 (2006) 49–50; also fn. 38. 402

188

Chapter 2: Jesus’ message

of the people who “kill the prophets” was his forerunner. The Son of Man too “has to suffer.” Such obedience was the only way to atone for the sins of Israel. Then, on the eschatological “third day” – as Jeremias states – God will answer.404 A short period of humiliation leads to glorious exaltation. Public defamation leads to heavenly power. God shall raise his loyal servants, found the Davidic kingdom, and inaugurate the time of peace. Belief in restoration was, simultaneously, belief in the new creation and resurrection.

404 This is probably the main result of the new perspective’s view of Jesus’ identity. It admittedly takes many forms and the views of Wright (Victory of God, 610, 653) differ slightly from those of Stuhlmacher (Biblische Theologie I, 160), Ådna (Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 471) or Pitre (Tribulation, 514) but the main point remains similar. Jesus believes that Israel’s restoration cannot come without the suffering of the Servant whom God himself has sent to the world.

Chapter 3

The teaching of earliest Christianity If Jesus taught restoration eschatology, the arrival of a jubilee after divine enthronement, and the building of a new temple akheiropoiēton, how should one expect all this to influence the emergence of early post-Easter theology? One can find this in the earliest stratum of hymns, confessional statements and kerygmatic formulas still detectable in New Testament writings. They repeatedly describe the eschatological enthronement of the Son of David, the inauguration of his kingdom, and the glorious jubilee that will be realized in the complete pardoning of sins and peace with God.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter When Jesus’ followers, after the Easter events, start to create Christocentric soteriology, they do not preach or write in a vacuum. Early theology focuses on Jesus’ resurrection and the first confessions are structured on the wellknown events recited in the passion narrative. The disciples had been taught that the exile would soon be over. God takes power and declares an eschatological jubilee that brings restoration for the whole of humanity. All this shall naturally take place only after the period of tribulation and, therefore, the movement from one era to the next shall be one of considerable confusion. Their hope, however, was in the great metanarrative proclaiming the themes of God’s new creation, the building of an eschatological temple, and atonement for the fallen people. 1. A preliminary scene: Pentecost Since the Jerusalem temple, according to Jesus’ teaching, is barren and cursed, God has therefore actually been absent. The harsh words of the Old Testament prophets reminded the disciples that the Second Temple period was a time when God himself was in exile. Even the Holy Spirit had departed from the temple. During that time, God had retreated to his heavenly palace. Therefore, the new kingdom of peace would begin with a divine enthronement that would mark the final end of the exile, release from slavery, liberty for captives, and the renewal of God’s people. The Holy Spirit would return to the new community. Therefore, any presentation interpreting the cause and meaning of Jesus‘ resurrection would apparently need to be made

190

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

in terms of restoration eschatology and the metanarrative promising salvation. The narrative point of departure, the story that underlies the description of different confessional statements and hymns, focuses on the birth of the apostolic church. This story, especially in Acts, is depicted in terms of the coming of God’s Spirit at Pentecost. As we recall some of the central themes in restoration eschatology, the return of the Shekhinah in the temple of salvation is one of the most important issues. Scholars have explained the event through parallels found in the Old Testament where God fills the tabernacle with his presence (Exod 40:34–35), or the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11; cf. 2 Chr 7:1–2, the latter describing a theophany by referring to fire). In Peter’s speech (Acts 2) Joel 2:28–32 is used in order to emphasize that the new blessing signals the end of exile and confirms the fact that Israel’s restoration has begun.1 Luke’s story is really a deliberate description of the work by which God fulfills the promises of restoration. The Twelve are present as the “nucleus” of the restored Israel and with them a great number of converts.2 The Apostles’ speech is addressed to “devout Jews from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). A remarkable list of countries follows, summarizing the content of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Representatives of all humanity are present. Xenolalia proves that the curse of Babel has been removed. Hahn summarizes: “The exile is reversed.”3 There is one more important aspect in the Pentecost story. It has not been easy to speculate about where the meeting happened because no precise place is mentioned in the passage itself. There are certain clues, however, that suggest that the meeting took place in the temple area.4 According to Acts 1– 5 this was the place where Jesus’ followers used to gather repeatedly after Easter. In addition to this, the story implies the presence of a great crowd of people speaking many different languages. A natural place for this kind of meeting is the royal portico in the court of gentiles, just the place where the apostles are said to have taught people every day: “they were all together in Solomon’s portico” (Acts 5:12). This is the place where people came to look for Peter after he had healed a crippled man (3:11). Repeatedly in the early 1

See Beale, Temple, 201ff., Alexander, Eden, 68. For the Twelve, see Pao, Acts, 123–124. According to Bauckham, Luke’s story in chapters 1–2 points out the idea of restoration, see Bauckham, Restoration, 463. 3 Hahn, Creazione, 186. 4 Scholars usually struggle with the word “house,” assuming that the location in question cannot originally be the temple area itself. So, for instance Pervo notes that the “scene shifts” in the middle. Pervo, Acts, 65. The story speaks of a large place – apparently the temple court. Bruce notes this and suggests that the crowd went out and moved to the temple area where Peter addressed them, Bruce, Acts, 51; so also Witherington, Acts, 132. I believe that the context invests the word with meaning here. 2

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

191

stories in Acts we find a similar description: Jesus’ followers are standing “in the temple and teaching the people” (5:25).5 If these conclusions prove true, the place itself starts to gain theological significance – and in a manner which the first followers cannot have failed to understand. The awaited return of God’s Spirit in the eschatological temple that is now understood as the believing community has taken place in the temple precincts. The Shekhinah has returned to the temple, but not to the old temple that remains under the shadow of Jesus’ severe judgment. Instead, God’s glory has returned to the new messianic temple that is the living tabernacle and community of salvation.6 Another detail needs to be added here. In earlier chapters we noted that Jesus enacted the realization of a jubilee among his followers. He invited the poor to take part in the restoration where all sins and debts are forgiven. In the descriptions of the early community in Acts, similar tenets prevail. The converts denounced riches and turned to those in need: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribulte the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (2:44–45). Even though charity as such can be held to be a Christian virtue, such an attitude no doubt reflects the core of Jesus’ mission, restoration through forgiveness and generosity – in a word, eschatological jubilee. This is the context in which one needs to interpret the earliest data concerning the content of the follower’s beliefs. Read in the light of Jewish restoration ideology, early apostolic teaching repeatedly uses the terms that carry the hope of salvation: temple, liberation, return, enthronement, and atonement. Therefore, such a background helps us to explain many important features in early resurrection Christology. 2. Early confessions and belief in the resurrected Lord Study of early Christology has changed significantly over the years. Scholars no longer focus merely on the so-called Christological titles, as writers still did after the Second World War. In Protestant scholarship, an influential pattern had prevailed, one which concerned an evolution from “low” Christology to descriptions with more substantial views of Christ’s divinity.7 5 Beale notes that, taking the allusions to 1 Kgs 8 and 2 Chr 7 at face value, the “house” referred to is precisely the temple. Beale, TyndB 56 (2005) 65. For the temple’s role in Acts 1–5, see Chance, Luke-Acts, 82. 6 This, of course, is an important theme in Second Temple Jewish eschatology, see for instance T. Jud. 24:3 and T. Lev. 18:11. The return of God’s Spirit, representing God’s presence in the temple, marks the beginning of restoration and the new period of adoption as children. Cf. Alexander: “At Pentecost the believers become the new temple of God and, as the rest of Acts goes on to illustrate, the church expands to include people from many different nations.” Alexander, Eden, 169. 7 When writing my dissertation three decades ago on the Christology of the prologue of Romans, most studies still represented the “evolutionist” view. A change

192

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

Such a pattern was partly dependent on the history-of-religions school and partly on Baur’s conception of the development of history. When research into Jewish writings exploded toward the end of the twentieth century, a change occurred in the New Testament field as well. Old premises were gradually abandoned, and the nature of early Christology was studied using Jewish messianic views, different figures from apocalyptic writings, and exaltation stories from various Second Temple texts.8 Taking the narratological stance, such new suggestions have been fruitful for understanding early Christological confessions and their creation. Many different kinds of characters have been proposed as the predecessors of Christological images. There are many divine agents in Jewish texts, and they are believed to have important functions in eschatological events.9 Some scholars speak of angelic figures, and others are interested in more clearly messianic figures.10 In addition to essential characters and their roles, the very setting of the exaltation – prominent in most descriptions – is important as such. This has drawn scholars’ interest to the heavenly throne that appears to be the center of the eschatological events in most essential Jewish writings.11 There is also an important discussion concerning the intertextual strategy working behind the formation of Christology. Furthermore, one needs to pay attention to the story itself, the narrative that directs the formation of Christological clauses. Remaining sensitive to different currents in the scholarly world, one also needs to elaborate somewhat on the debate over the issues of “high Christology.” Following the twentieth century tradition, some scholars still consider high Christology quite late. This view assumes that no highly developed expressions about Jesus’ divinity were possible within the context of Jewish monotheism, the perspective that allegedly prevailed in the earliest community.12 Most of the new approaches see the issue differently, though. The early confessional statements and acclamations, as well as liturgical and homiletical (kerygmatic) formulas, represent views where Christ’s exaltation was under way, however, and I benefited from the new Tübingen school (Hengel and Stuhlmacher) when attempting to explain the intertextual background of the prologue. Eskola, Messias (only in Finnish); see also a revised analysis in Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 217–250. For a famous example or the titular investigation, see Hahn, Hoheitstitel. 8 For short introductions to the issues of methodology, see Hurtado, TS 40 (1979) 306–317; Eskola, Throne, 1–17; and Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 13–80. 9 One of the first scholars to suggest this kind of explanation, and one of the most influential, is Hurtado, see his One God, 17, 123f.; later also Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 98f. 10 Angelic figures are suggested by Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 272; and Fletcher-Louis, Angels, 251f. 11 This scholarly tradition owes the greatest debt to the work of Hengel, see for instance Hengel, Studies, 119f. 12 So for instance Casey, Prophet, 105f.; and Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 53, 243.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

193

as such is a divine event. We need to pay attention to Jesus’ new status, the depictions he is given, and the aspect of veneration that have become very important in recent studies on Christology.13 Many of the interesting and challenging questions will be dealt with during the analysis. To start, however, one needs to focus on the material on which all argumentation is based. All essential data for the investigation of the earliest teaching hides amidst the extant writings. One needs to discern confessional clauses, homologies, hymns, parallelisms, fixed formulas and established expressions from the letters and other texts constructed probably decades after the invention of the sayings themselves. There is a considerable treasury in Acts but the Pauline letters are especially filled with pre-50 C.E. statements and kerygmatic formulations.14 The primary premise in this kind of investigation is that these statements and hymns guarantee the continuity of the belief system of the – undoubtedly – messianic movement that grew into a distinct group in Second Temple Judaism. Since religion is a matter both of belief and cult (liturgy and rites), we have here a useful heuristic tool for the investigation. It is important to pay attention to passages that express identity and provide the foundation for beliefs. This is why confessional statements (Greek: homologia) have a special role in this line of research. The scholar needs to search for clauses in which the content of the saving gospel is presented. Luckily, there is an abundance of material available in the New Testament. There is no question about the essential content of the earliest Christian preaching. All confessional material focuses on Jesus’ resurrection. This point of departure is so self-evident that it may sometimes be passed over for some more peripheral issue in the investigation of Christology. Despite possible distractions, however, it is clear that the first apostolic witness centers on the fact that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. The chains of death have been broken. God has started to create something new. The cosmic kairos has arrived. As Paul defines salvific faith in Rom 10, he apparently quotes much older traditional statements in a fixed form. In the passage 10:8–11 the heart of Paul’s gospel can be found in a “word of faith” (rēma pisteōs) that brings salvation. This word, apparently the core of Pauline proclamation as far as the euangelion is concerned, is a short resurrection statement, accompanied by a liturgical acclamation.15 “The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in 13 Chester has written a detailed presentation on the debate, see Chester, Early Christianity 2 (2011) 22–50. 14 On early Christian hymns, for example, Hengel’s older article “The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship,” is still quite useful, see now in Hengel, Studies, 227–291. 15 See especially Kreitzer, Jesus and God, 168f.; for the aspect of homology, see also Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 113, 142.

194

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. (Rom 10:8–11)

Many important key words occur in this passage. This is a word of pistis, and it is a confession that is in people’s “hearts,” probably even fulfulling the traditional Israelite Shema (see below). Christian identity is a matter of confession (homologizein). Even the liturgical aspect is present as the confessor entering the ecclēsia pronounces the acclamation Kyrios Iēsous. As Jesus’ resurrection is, in a sense, merely a historical event, the penitent confesses its theological meaning: the Resurrected One is the Lord, “my Lord,” one could say. The content of the salvific message itself is obvious: God raised Christ from the dead. The transition to a new age has come. The resurrection gospel expresses the core message of the community of redemption.16 How can the resurrection gospel then have such power? Restoration eschatology is implied already since this kind of statement has already been codified. The eschatological change has proved that the final restoration has begun. This is also how Paul understands his tradition. The salvific rēma is grounded on the word of heart (Rom.10:8) promised in Deut 30:14 which Paul quotes directly. There the people of the diaspora, scattered “among all the nations,” shall hear the good news from God himself: “the Lord your God will circumcise your heart” (Deut 30:6). Therefore, also in the new salvific confession, Paul concludes, you “will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,” as the text in Deuteronomy continues. Through faith in Jesus the purpose of the Shema is completed.17 The confessional statement itself is a resurrection formula that can be found in similar forms throughout the New Testament. In many passages it also expresses the content of faith. It helps to form or articulate Christ’s identity in different spheres of tradition. (Son), whom he raised from the dead, (1 Thess 1:10) (Christ and) God the Father, who raised him from the dead, (Gal 1:1) (believe in him) who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (Rom 4:24) (whom) God raised from the dead (Acts 3:15; 4:10) (God) who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus (Heb 13:20) “(believe in) God, who raised him from the dead (1 Peter 1:21, NIV)18

Since such clauses are statements of pistis and have a confessional character, these early formulas draw attention to the feature that Hurtado has emphasized in the analysis of Christology. In confessional statements Christ is clearly the object of devotion. The Father is not praised to the exclusion of 16

Analyses of the passage are numerous but Neufeld’s general introduction, Neufeld, Confessions, is still valid and useful. 17 See Stuhlmacher, Romans, 156; Jewett, Romans, 629. 18 Cf. also Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:12; 15:20; 2 Cor 4:14; 2 Tim 2:8.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

195

the Son, but these clauses are binitary: Jesus is the one who grants salvation. The true Mosaic faith growing from a whole heart confesses that Jesus is Lord. Restoration starts with faith in him. This kind of theology fertilizes even the soteriology of James – the letter that has so often been considered strikingly different from the Pauline tradition. James 2:1 speaks of faith (pistis) in “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” Translations may water down the original point in the statement: in this clause Jesus is the Lord of glory (kyrios... tēs doxēs), the Kyrios who has been exalted in heavenly kingship.19 Scholars first assumed that early confessions (homologia) were short. Interest has accordingly been focused on Christological statements such as the abovementioned “Jesus is Lord,” “Jesus is the Christ” (1 John 2:22), or “Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37, according to the western text E). The extraordinary “one Lord, Jesus Christ,” which echoes the Shema statement, probably derives from early material, but its structure can no longer be discerned from Pauline syntax (1 Cor 8:6). At the end of 1 Corinthians we find another quotation of an eschatological acclamation: “Our Lord, come!” (16:22).20 Cullmann believed that these kinds of formulas developed into larger confessions only later.21 Seeberg noted, however, that already quite early on there must have been a distinction between confessional descriptions and acclamations – and that the length of the confession cannot be a ground for its dating. Furthermore, it was noted that there need not be a rigid separation between elementary liturgical use and Christian proclamation. This is easily seen in Paul’s work where all kinds of material is used in teaching.22 Already in the tradition that he used in Rom 10, the content of the resurrection message completes the meaning of the acclamation. One should also probably note that such a confession appears to signal true Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians Paul comments that “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). The hymn in Phil 2, in turn reminds us that “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11). Confession as such, naturally, is a matter of belonging and implies fidelity. This is apparently why Jude warns against any ungodliness that denies “our only Master and Lord” (Jude 4).

19

For Hurtado’s ideas, see, Lord Jesus, 153, 214–215; cf. also France, Christ the Lord. 17–36. One of the crucial issues in the study of early Christology is how this kind of teaching can have emerged in the context of Jewish monotheism. This discussion has brought up new views concerning monotheism itself, so that a kind of binary element can be seen even in Jewish writings – not to mention New Testament texts. See Chester, Messiah, 108–117. 20 Cf. Rev 22:20; and Phil 4:5, “The Lord is near” (ho kyrios engys). 21 Cullmann, Glaubensbekentnisse, 36. Later Dunn considered even certain Christological epithets confessional, such as the Son of Man, Messiah, and even the Son of God. Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 35–50. 22 Of the early authors, see Seeberg, Katechismus, 150–182; so also Kramer, Gottessohn, 15f. Cf. Neufeld, Confessions, 42–62.

196

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

Some of the confessional material can be traced back to the early Jewish Christian community using Aramaic statements. Probably the best example of such passages is Luke 24:34 where, once again, an Easter confession is recorded. “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” As a fixed expression the saying exceeds the style of standard prose and can be identified as a confessional statement. Luke presents it as a summary of the beliefs of the assembly that is located in Jerusalem (v. 33 mentions “the eleven”). Aramaisms in the passage are obvious: the raising of the Kyrios (ēgerthē ho kyrios) is paralleled with a Semitic expression for a revelation, denoting “seeing” (ōfthē) – and this is given in a passive expression. Peter, in turn, is called by his Hebrew name Simon. All these features betray old tradition material that has been translated into Greek at some point.23 Similar aspects are present in the most famous confession of them all in the New Testament, the pre-Pauline homology in 1 Cor 15. Here salvific faith is described, and Paul uses a word for transmitting tradition, paradidōmi. The confessional material that the Apostle is about to recite is the same according to which he has been taught: “what I in turn had received” (v. 3). The content is now more precise than in the short descriptions, building the confessional formula on a short passion narrative.24 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas. (1 Cor 15:3–5).25

The content of the passage is most inspiring. The first line starts with a simple depiction Christos, referring apparently to the Anointed one in a very original sense (like in Acts 2:26: “God has made him both Lord and Messiah”). In a Jewish context this would be a powerful opening, claiming that the promised Messiah has died. This usage is something different from the connotations of the common proper name Christ that appears all over the New Testament. In the context of Second Temple Judaism, as we have seen, it was not at all usual to believe that the Son of David who was expected to bring release would die himself.26

23

For the details, Fitzmyer, Luke, 1569. For an analysis with discussion, Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 168–170; cf. Eskola, Throne, 313–314. A thorough treatment of the passage is provided by Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1186–1205; with a discussion concerning the issue of the empty tomb. 25 A similar pattern of history can be detected behind Paul’s description of baptismal theology in Rom 6:3–4. This suggests that the confession depending on the passion narratives has been used in baptisms – a notion that is self-evident in a historical sense. 26 Furthermore, it is apparent that a short passion narrative lies behind the sermons recorded in Acts. Not all of these need to be counted as Lukan innovations. Acts 2:22f., 3:13f.; 4:10; 5:30f.; 10:36f.; 13:22f.; 17:2f. 24

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

197

Temple theology enters the signification process by the simple rhetorical device hyper. Israel’s Christos has not died merely as a martyr in the battle for God’s kingdom. His death has been a sacrifice for sins (hyper tōn hamartiōn). The passion narrative follows the events of Jesus’ last days, his death, burial, and resurrection. The outline is historical, but the content of the confession is deeply theological. History and message are interwoven so that the rather unusual mention of burial in a tafos has been preserved in this short statement. Is there theology behind this detail, even though it was not written down in the confession? This is possible because a resurrection from a tafos would indicate the inauguration of the new creation where tombs will be empty. In the Second Temple world, tombs probably also represented the power of death and, in this sense, the idea of raising someone from a tomb would express release from the bonds of Sheol. There has been discussion of the role of Hos 6:2 both in early Christology and this passage. The “third day” is probably made the symbol for Jesus’ resurrection simply because the historical situation fits the promise that was available for the first theologians: “on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” (Hos 6:2b). It cannot be mere coincidence that this Old Testament passage also belongs to the prophecies of return. It is quite probable that, according to the creators of the confessional formula, Jesus now enacts the sufferings of Israel after God’s wrath has been laid on him: “for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up” (Hos 6:1). Jesus is the suffering servant who experiences Israel’s torments. He bears their punishment – and this is why God revives him. The promises given to the people speak of the servant, as his death is a substitutive suffering on behalf of his people. The primary witness here is Peter, now Cephas (ōfthē Kēfa), like in Luke’s passage above. The Aramaic meaning is apparent even more here: the passive verb connected with the Aramean form of the “rock.” This passage is likely a translation. Therefore, it is no surprise that Paul links the formula with apostolic tradition. He brings Cephas, James, and the twelve, as well “all the apostles” behind the authority of the statement. This formula has been called the “Jerusalem confession, “ and with good reason, since it is used as the common denominator representing a confession that all the pillars of the early Church acknowledge. “Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.” Paul claims that the creed represents the faith of the entire community.27 As far as the metanarrative of restoration is considered, the aspect of redemption in early confessions is of the essence. Many scholars believe that the crucial passage for substitutional atonement in Rom 3:24–25 is built on fixed tradition material. Paul speaks of Jesus whom “God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood.” Even though the passage is hard to 27

See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 172f.; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1203. For Peter’s primary role in this formula, see Wright, Resurrection, 318–323.

198

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

explain in detail, the basic idea is quite clear. The blood, explained by the intensely symbolic term hilastērion (for both a sacrifice and the place for pouring out the blood on the ark of the covenant) is no doubt sacrificial blood that makes expiation and results in the forgiveness of sins. Temple theology is present and the function of the haima remains the same: it grants redemption (apolytrōsis).28 Such theology, coming from the Aramaic speaking community, no doubt derives from theological circles where temple metaphors are important. New faith is expressed in terms of the old cult on which Jewish identity had been constructed. This is consistent when we consider the original purpose of proclaiming the good news of redemption for the children of Israel. The euangelion of Jesus’ death and resurrection promises release from the spiritual exile that has kept people in captivity for centuries. One more traditional passage supports the theme of sacrificial theology in early Christology. Paul quotes a pistis formula in Rom 4 as he speaks about faith in the God who raised Jesus: “who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).29 Only a dynamic translation can graso the nature of the expression: “sacrificed for our trespasses – raised for our justification.” The parallelism builds on two Greek participles (handing over and raising), supported by a dia-structure. The theological content is evident here. Jesus is handed over as the sacrifices were in the temple cult. In cultic terminology the word paradidōmi denotes the sacrificing of an animal.30 The reason for this handing over is “our” trespasses. From the very start, Jesus’ death has been understood as an act of atonement. His substitutional death grants forgiveness for those who still live under sin. Release, in turn, is promised as an act of justification (rectification, dikaiōsis). As noted already before, Paul did not invent the use of dikaiōsis or dikaiosynē in early Christian theology. They existed long before his letters were written. Therefore, such theology existed in the Christian community before – as I suppose – or at least apart from Paul’s own teaching. The theology of the earliest confessions revolves around a resurrection statement where God is believed to have started something extraordinary: the eschatological resurrection of the dead. According to the original authors, this must be the beginning of the new creation that the great prophets had anticipated. Jesus’ disciples appear as witnesses of his revelatory appearances, and a key role is given to Simon Peter in this task. What is interesting is that from the very start Jesus’ death is understood as a sacri28

On the features that are considered traditional see Jewett, Romans, 283–290. Stuhlmacher notes: “The Christian’s kapporet no longer exists hidden in the holy of holies of the temple, but is revealed to all in the form of Christ hanging on the cross.” Stuhlmacher, Romans, 60. 29 This passage will be investigated in detail later. 30 The expression appears in Isa 53:12 where the suffering servant is handed over, and he makes expiation for the sins of “many” people.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

199

ficial death. A cultic interpretation prevails in many confessional statements. The earliest traditions apparently build on restoration theology where the “Jewish” aspects of return, forgiveness, and new life are proclaimed. Easter signals the transformation of the great eras and the inauguration of God’s kingdom. The first post-Easter confessions then continue to build on Jesus’ teaching and apply his euangelion to the startling event of his death and resurrection. This opens the question about whether the themes of enthronement and jubilee can be found in the earliest stratum of tradition. 3. Psalm 110 legitimating exaltation Christology It is generally accepted that Ps 110 belongs to the most important scriptural testaments in early Christology. It is the most frequently quoted psalm in the New Testament.31 Allusions to this Psalm also appear in some traditional material behind Paul’s writings and the Acts. Seen from a tradition critical point of view, the custom of using Ps 110 derives thus from the earliest possible stratum of Christian teaching in the New Testament. The psalm, combining the aspects of enthronement, exaltation of the Son of David, and the kyrios term, beautifully serves the intentions of early Christology. The extended search for the meaning of early exaltation Christology must begin with the most central of all the speeches in the New Testament using this psalm, namely Peter’s speech at Pentecost in Acts 2.32 Whatever one thinks about the tradition history behind Peter’s speech, it nevertheless has a unique status in Acts. As the first speech of the first apostle in the beginning of the second part of the Luke/Acts, its purpose is no doubt to represent the original message of the first disciples.33 It was customary in ancient history writing to construct speeches and put them in the mouths of important leaders; those found in Josephus’ works are good examples.34 It will be presupposed here that the Lukan speech builds (1) on older tradition materials, (2) on generally accepted scriptural proofs (catenae), and (3) on the early homiletical tradition that has apostolic authority in the early Church.

31

For instance in Matt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 5:31; 7:55–56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22. 32 The crucial significance that Ps 110 has in the formation of early Christology has been emphasized especially by Hengel, Anfänge, 43–45; and Studies, 133–139. I start with Acts because of the clarity of the passage and because its elements can be seen quite early when assessed from the perspective of tradition history. 33 As Witherington notes, with good rhetorical style Luke uses the pistoi (the arguments) before taking up the peroratio (the exhortation). The proofs he uses derive from the tradition of the early communitites transmitting the teaching of the apostles. Witherington, Acts, 138–140. 34 See Hengel, Geschichtschreibung, 18, 38. For a practical example, see Josephus, B.J. III.10; IV.3.

200

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

The main themes of the speech concern Davidic ancestory and Christ’s unique exaltation. As noted in earlier chapters, Jewish restoration eschatology put its hope in the renewal of the house of David. This issue was quite important in the Second Temple period and is accurately represented in both the Eighteen Benedictions and the blessings found in the Hebrew Sir 51: “Give thanks to him who makes a horn to sprout for the house of David.” Peter’s speech draws from such expectations and describes Jesus as the fulfillment of eschatology.35 First of all, in the speech, particular scriptural proofs link the new theology to the old tradition. A messianic interpretation of Ps 16 starts the argumentation and, next, a new passage from Ps 132 is introduced. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah. (Acts 2:30–31)36

In the presentation of the speech, these two psalms belong together. They have a similar message. When David as a prophet speaks of the “Holy One” who shall not “experience corruption,” he refers to a descendant in his own family, who shall be exalted and enthroned. What, then, is the oath God swore to David? There is little doubt that the famous prophecy of Nathan (2 Sam 7:12-14) is behind this reference, even though the actual wording here refers to Ps 132. The prophecy of Nathan belongs to one of the central scriptural proofs aso in Acts since there is another allusion to it in Acts 13:23.37 In the prophecy of Nathan the Davidic dynasty is established by divine decree. I will raise up your offspring [AV: seed] after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. (2 Sam 7:12–14).38

The significance of this concept for different Old Testament writers is apparent, since there are several related traditions in the writings. In Ps 2, for instance, the God’s decree becomes a song sung to a new Son of David: “You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). The decree of the prophecy of Nathan is also referred to in Ps 89, which is probably behind the 35

See subchapter III.1. below. The Old Testament text reads: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: ‘One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne’. “ (Ps 132:11) 37 Nathan’s oracle is directly quoted also elsewhere in the New Testament, for example in Heb 1:5. 38 The prophecy of Nathan belongs to the most crucial texts both in Jewish messianology and New Testament Christology, since it emphasizes the status of a new Davidic figure in the restoration of Israel. Its use is attested also at Qumran (especially 4Q174 III). For the oracle and its background, see Laato, Star, 33–47. 36

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

201

wording of the passage in Acts: ”I have sworn to my servant David: ‘I will establish your descendants forever, and build your throne for all generations’.” (Ps 89:3b–4). How is the exact relation between enthronement language and Jesus’ resurrection defined in this speech? Can the oath mentioning a throne be identified with the resurrection? The answer, at least partly, depends on semantics. There is an inner logic between the words that denote resurrection and enthronement. It was therefore possible to ground the new Christian statement on a wordplay. The actual Greek word for ‘resurrection’ (anastasis) also appears in the Septuagint version of the prophecy of Nathan (anastēsō to sperma sou, 2 Sam 7:12, LXX).39 Here the word naturally means the “raising up” of a descendant and may well refer to an enthronement. Therefore, on the level of Greek tradition such a connection between the two theological ideas is well established.40 The word play on exaltation appears in fact already in the original text since, in Nathan’s prophecy, the Son of David shall build a house for God and God himself promises to maintain the Davidic dynasty. The coming seed shall be raised and his throne shall be established forever. The seed himself shall be called the Son of God. These all-important elements that could have easily been used in early Christology are already present in God’s oath to David. In the speech, then, the promise becomes important because this is simultaneously a proof for the fact that already David expected the exaltation and resurrection of the Messiah/Christ (“foreseeing this”, v. 31). According to Peter’s speech, the promise did not refer merely to the resurrection. Eschatology relating to the figure of David is not merely a matter of certain extraordinary events, such as the resurrection of the dead, that will take place. The play on anistēmi shows that this Christology is about enthronement. Resurrection of the Son of David has a dual meaning: resurrection means simultaneously enthronement to heavenly kingship in God’s new kingdom. Eternal power is granted to the Son of David as he sits on the heavenly throne.41

39 The wordplay works also in Hebrew, playing on qūm. In Old Testament kingship ideology, it is a key word often used for the enthronement of the Davidic figure (see e.g. Ezek 34:23; Jer 23:5). 40 The importance of Nathan’s prophecy was brought into scholarly discussion quite early by the new Tübingen school, see for instance Betz, Jesus, 66; Hengel, Sohn Gottes, 100. For a thorough investigation, see Duling, NTS 19 (1973) 55–77. Later, it was one of the essential scriptural proofs that I studied in my dissertation (Eskola, Messias, 43–45), and Hurtado still considers it important, Lord Jesus, 103– 104. 41 We should probably point out that even though the compilation and transmission of “Nathan’s oracle” in Old Testament times is apparently a complex issue, as noted by Chester, Messiah, 222f., the prophecy itself had an established status already in Second Temple Jewish texts. Chester has therefore studied its influence in Qumran’s

202

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

There is an interesting trinitarian element in the enthronement scene. According to the speech, the consummation of eschatology has been the work of the Father, the Son of David, and the Holy Spirit. This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens [...] (Acts 2:32–33)

As God enthroned his servant the Son of David, the Son received the promise of the Holy Spirit. The miracle of Pentecost is a seal for salvation history. The day of salvation is here and God’s Spirit has returned to the believing community. This is the reason the apostles give their witness. The argumentation of the speech highlights the reinterpretation of Ps 110: “The Lord said to my Lord, ’Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’.” (2:34). This famous enthronement psalm introduces the very core of throne mysticism. In this passage Jesus is the kyrios who has been exalted “at the right hand” (ek dexiōn) of God.42 It is necessary to note that the expression “at my right hand” appears already in Ps 16:8, and so is the scriptural proof that the speaker quoted first (Acts 2:25).43 It is not merely the aspect of bodily corruption that is at stake when this psalm is mentioned. Instead, it belongs to a catena of Old Testament passages where the exaltation theme is clear. By focusing on the use of Ps 110, we can see the foundation of many essential elements in early exaltation Christology. The description focuses on God’s heavenly throne, the throne of glory. The setting is unique: Christ is exalted and in the place where all the heavenly host praises God as he reigns over the universe from his throne. This is the place for Christ’s enthronement. God tells him to sit at “his right hand.” Christ’s kingship shall be heavenly kingship, he shall rule from the throne of glory, and there will be no limit to his power. All his enemies shall be made his footstool.44 The speech finally highlights a saying that has most often been considered a pre-Lukan traditional statement. The enthronement narrative closes by presenting a Christological explanation for the meaning of the Easter events. Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah (kyrion auton kai khriston epoiēsen), this Jesus whom you crucified. (2:36)

conceptions of the Messiah, see p. 336. One of the crucial fragments there is 4QFlorilegium, which is a commentary on the oracle. 42 See especially Hengel, Studies, 143, 217f. 43 The same expression appears further in Ps 18:35; 20:6 (with “his anointed”); 80:17; 118:16 (exaltation); cf. the eschatological statements Ps 48:10; 78:54; 98:1; and in the context of restoration theology in Ps 108:6; 109:31; 138:7. There are no clear allusions to these other passages in New Testament Christology though. 44 For a detailed analysis, see Eskola, Throne, 234–243.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

203

This sentence has aroused heated debate among scholars over the years. Could Christ, in this passage, be seen merely as a righteous person who has been given a heavenly throne for the sake of his righteousness, as happens to some figures in Jewish apocalyptic texts? What does it mean that God has made (epoiēsen) him both Lord and Messiah? Firstly, one needs to note that the expression does not refer to any idea of deification. Neither did exaltation or enthronement, in Jewish tradition, mean the deification of the exalted persons, such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah or even the angelic beings. No Jewish-Christian preacher or listener would have thought that the “making” of a Messiah would mean an ontological change taking place in such an exaltation.45 But what about the adoption as a Son of God reference? We must note that Acts 2:36 was the key text for the so-called adoptionist Christology. This theory assumes that Jesus was exalted “at the right hand” of God merely as a human being and “adopted” as a Son of God. This theory, despite its seeming popularity in the twentieth century, has turned out to be anachronistic and without proof. The main argument in this interpretation has been that early Jewish Christians (cf. the tradition behind Paul’s formula in Rom 1:3–4) had had Christological views that the Ebionites later adopted and taught .46 The Ebionite view, however, was taken from the writings of Epihanius (around 370 C.E.). Among western Church Fathers, however, the Ebionite view was known just as a current in the Gnostic stream. Irenaeus knew the dualistic “adoption” that some heretics teach (Haer. 1.25.1-3). According to Irenaeus, they claimed that a heavenly spirit possessed the earthly Jesus in his baptism (and left his body before crucifixion). Such views have nothing to do with early exaltation Christology.47 What should one think then about the act of exaltation and enthronement? Interpreted in terms of restoration eschatology, Jesus’ exaltation means the day of the crowning of the long awaited Son of David. In his enthronement he is raised by the right hand of God and is made the Messiah-King of the cosmic kingdom. He is given the seat of God, the name of God, and the power of God which, as many scholars today remind us, these aspects of devotion prove that he is worshiped as God. This means that no ontological change has taken place somewhere in the middle. Therefore, if Jesus is

45

There has been disagreement about this passage between the supporters of low Christology and high Christology. Taking a semantical point of view, v. 36 does not appear to have features that would denote how Jesus is made either a divine being in the resurrection or exalted as a human being. The crucial feature in this early statement is that it speaks of Jesus’ enthronement. 46 See Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 237–245. 47 For a detailed analysis, Eskola, Throne, 299–306.

204

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

depicted and honored as a divine being after his enthronement, he must have been divine before – according to the early theologians.48 In sum, the crucial statement concluding Peter’s speech is based on the metanarrative that has been constructed during the speech itself. Jesus has been a “prince” in the Davidic family, but he was not given power before the Easter events. Resurrection then turned into an act of enthronement where Jesus became a heavenly ruler. In this exaltation he is called by God’s own name, Kyrios. The enthronement itself has been an anointing and, therefore, Christ in power is precisely the Messiah, the Anointed One. He has been anointed into his Lordship. Furthermore, scholars have dated the earliest passage using Ps 110 to be in Rom 8. In the midst of comforting his readers who suffer under the oppression of an unfaithful world, Paul makes good use of a traditional for-mula that focuses on exaltation Christology. It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. (Rom 8:34)

This clause in Romans contains a four-line formula, “bekenntnisartige Formulierung” as Hengel says, where the words taken from Ps 110 have been completely adapted into the new context.49 According to the tradition Paul uses, the exalted Christ sits on a heavenly throne – but not merely as a king. He has also been given a priestly function in the heavenly temple. He may be said to pray for the oppressed but the word means that Jesus literally pleads for them before God (entygkhanō), hence the translation “intercedes.” This aspect obviously derives from early Jewish Christianity as it is later repeated in the most important letter of that tradition, namely Heb 7:25. The surprising aspect in this passage is that Christ does not appear as a heavenly priest before the throne. Instead, he sits on the throne itself.50

48 There is a growing agreement on this, see Hengel, Studies, 222–225, Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 1765–169; Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 181; Eskola, Throne, 308–309. 49 Hengel, Anfänge, 45. It is possible to call passages such as this “confessional” formulations, or like those as Hengel says, because that is all we know of these sayings. They are confessional because they focus on the core of the salvific faith but we cannot know exactly how they were used. Their most obvious “Sitz” is in homilies as is the case with Paul, but they may also have had a liturgical function. 50 Christ’s task, Hengel reminds us, is performed on the throne, not before it: “in contrast to the heavenly cult and to the priestly service in the sanctuary or to courtly etiquette, Christ as intercessor does not stand before the throne of God but is the companion on the throne at the right hand of God.” And he adds: “he sits.” Hengel, Studies, 152.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

205

This pre-Pauline material is remarkable in that it already presents a short passion narrative that is united with a description of Christ’s exaltation, and the latter is explained by using the image from Ps 110. This kind of confessional sequence, naturally, forms the core of the later Symbolum Apostolicum that has become the basic creed uniting most churches and denominations even today. The history of influence both of this passage and the hermeneutical tradition of using Ps 110 in exaltation Christology is extensive.51 The use of both Ps 110 and Nathan’s prophecy, thus, adds a new aspect to early Christian restoration theology. The inauguration of the new kingdom starts with a heavenly enthronement. The content of the Isaian gospel remains intact in the Christian community since the message of salvation focuses on the kingship of the Lord. The day of release has arrived. God has sent his Spirit, and among the people living in exile, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (2:21). Israel’s renewal starts in the Davidic kingdom where Christ rules on his heavenly throne. Two new questions arise here. How does the idea of enthronement relate to other descriptions of heavenly thrones, and what kind of status does Christ eventually gain when enthroned? 4. Christ on the cherubim-throne In New Testament Christology focusing on heavenly thrones is a common feature. Already in the gospel traditions there are stories about heavenly seats expressing the idea of eschatological power. When the mother of the sons of Zebedee discusses eschatological hope with Jesus, she brings up the idea of thrones: “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom” (Matt 20:21). Jesus never denies that there will be thrones but merely emphasizes that everything will be in God’s hands: “this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (20:23). The eschatological tendency and even mystical quality in Jesus’ teaching becomes even more apparent as we return to the passage that was treated in the first chapters of this study. At a certain point in the mission, expectations turned into promises. Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

51

Hengel searches all the important occurrences of Ps 110 in credal formulas up to the second century; see Hengel, Studies, 119–133. The most important of the allusions to the psalm can be found in the letter of Polycarp 2:1 because it appears in a pistis formula. Hengel, Anfänge, 53.

206

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

Jesus describes heavenly power by using royal terminology. His disciples will be given the power to rule the new Israel. Their Teacher, in turn, will be their heavenly king. As the Master sits on the throne of glory, he shall rule the world directly from God’s throne. In this saying, the power of the Son of Man is identified with God’s cosmic rule in a unique way. The figure of the heavenly throne has an extraordinary significance in the Old Testament narrative. Its earthly counterpart is the tabernacle: “There I will meet with you” (Exod 25:22). And from above the mercy seat, “from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant,” God “will deliver” all his “commands for the Israelites.” In Old Testament descriptions it is not always precisely clear which throne is being discussed, and it does really even matter: “God is king over the nations; God sits on his holy throne” (Ps 47:8). This image embodies the theocratic ideal according to which God is the real king of the chosen people.52 One cannot overestimate the significance of God’s throne in the temple cult and Jewish belief. This is the place where kings pray and priests adore God. “O Lord the God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, you are God, you alone” (2 Kgs 19:15; cf. Ps 99:1–5). The metaphorical cherubim-throne refers as such to a heavenly throne that is believed to be in the “real” precincts of God. “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, obedient to his spoken word. Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will.” (Ps 103:19–21). As noted before, thrones have a special place in Second Temple Jewish theology and mysticism.53 Jewish mysticism is throne mysticism, and the justification for this is in the cult. The great prophets’ visions find their logical context in this atmoshere. One of the most prominent examples of this is Isaiah’s vision in the temple. I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings; with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. (Isa 6:1–2)

52

God’s throne, the virtual image of which was believed to be in the debir, was a natural choice for the center of devotional thought. Scholars often quote Scholem here, according to whom early Jewish mysticism was “throne-mysticism.” Scholem, Major Trends, 42. Even though there has been much discussion concerning the nature of later Jewish mysticism (which Scholem investigates in his book), the slogan itself is well suited to the nature of Second Temple apocalyptic works. 53 There are many analyses about the thrones in Jewish mysticism, see Hengel, Studies, 189–212; Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology, 83–133; Bock, Blasphemy, 115–162; and Eskola, Throne, 65–126. It is necessary to add that mysticism here is defined in a very general sense. What these works study are the apocalyptic texts where heavenly thrones appear. No special reference will be made on later heikhalot texts or their significance in Jewish mysticism.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

207

Later texts describing heavenly journeys and extraordinary visions paint a similar scene. In the Book of the Watchers, in 1 Enoch, the visioner stands in front of the throne of glory. And I observed and saw inside it a lofty throne – its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and (I heard?) the voice of the cherubim; and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it – as for his gown, which was shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow. (1 En. 14:18–20)

In a much later text, Levi is permitted to enter the heavens in a vision, and he sees God enthroned: At this moment the angel opened for me the gates of heaven and I saw the Holy Most High sitting on the throne. And he said to me, “Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel.” (T. Lev. 5:1–2)

The visionary experiences of Jewish mysticism focus on the heavenly merkabah, divine throne or throne-chariot on which the Lord of the universe sits. We can treat it as a significant symbol since it is used repeatedly in speculation concerning the heavenly temple. In a sense, the apocalyptic mystics of Second Temple Judaism attempted to reach the realm usually open only to priests in the temple. This feature is prominent in the Dead Sea Scrolls where throne visions appear in a cultic setting. In the writings of the Qumran community there are traces of merkabah speculation and a welldeveloped sacral mysticism. As Qumran was the center of a priestly sect, both the Temple and the throne of God were of great significance in the community’s thinking. The setting of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is quite similar to that of apocalyptic visions. The main source of inspiration is probably the Book of Ezekiel, from which the concepts of the throne-chariot and the heavenly sanctuary are taken.54 They bless the image of the merkabah-throne / Above the firmament of the cherubim / And they hymn the splendor of the firmament of light / Beneath the seat of his glory. (4Q405 22.8)55

In Jewish writings several patriarchs and exemplary forefathers are promised heavenly thrones. In the Exagoge of Ezekiel the throne is promised to Moses (Ezek. Trag. fr. 6, 15). The Testament of Isaac mentions Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (T. Isaac 2:7). The Testament of Benjamin adds Enoch, Noah, and Shem (T. Benj. 10:6). All in all, there is an extensive list of people who are believed to have a seat prepared for them in the heavens, comprising figures like Isaiah and Job. 54

In apocalyptic Jewish mysticism in the Second Temple period, the throne-chariot has become the image that is used for God’s heavenly throne. Therefore, it could also help to illuminate some essential features in early Christology. 55 Translation by Halperin, Chariot, 52.

208

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

In this respect early Jewish merkabah mysticism follows good Israelite tradition. The main beliefs extant in the temple cult are adopted when God’s heavenly throne is considered the center of eschatology. The symbolic universe of traditional Old Testament religion maintains its relevance in the literature of Jewish mysticism. Heavenly journeys are described in terms of theocratic theology, and the cultic nature of the encounter with God is evident. Communication with God is constantly linked to heavenly liturgy. Furthermore, the temple cult itself may have had mystical features – at least if the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice really reflect Second Temple priestly traditions. It is quite logical, then, that when early Christians start to explain Christ’s heavenly enthronement in his resurrection, they take up familiar symbols (or “signs” in a semiotic sense) of their tradition and focus on the throne of glory. As the apostles describe the heavenly realm they too understand God’s world as a cosmic temple where God himself is served by cherubim and all heavenly creatures. The metanarrative directs particular descriptions. Heavenly enthronement takes place before the throne of glory. And when God commands his Anointed One to “sit at my right hand,” he speaks from the merkabah that is the center of all heavens. Jesus’ followers did not need to invent the images that are typical of the heavenly court. Instead, the apostles are pious Jews who anticipate Israel’s renewal and construct their new Christology at the revolution of the era in terms of their own tradition.56 Our investigation into early Christian confessional traditions has proven that the first post-Easter theologians who construct exaltation Christology link the image of God’s heavenly throne with Jesus’ resurrection. The semiotic point of departure remains the same as it was in Jewish Second Temple mysticism. Jesus’ resurrection is explained by creating a narrative where he is exalted on the heavenly merkabah. Jesus’ heavenly enthronement takes place as God places him “at his right hand” on the throne of glory (Ps 110). The themes of Davidic ancestry are completed with images of heavenly thrones. The locus for the enthronement shifts to the heavenly temple, the place where God dwells. 56 Cf. Hengel, Studies, 210; see also Eskola, Throne, 328f. For a critical assessment of this explanation, see Chester, Messiah, 27–43. Chester is right in pointing out that the definition of merkabah mysticism should not be too vague if one wishes to argue for some kind of direct influence. I have not meant to imply any genetic connection with some fixed tradition, though. Instead, I have focused on the image of the throne and its semiotic implications. Signification processes appear to revolve around the image of a heavenly throne and, in the New Testament, this is God’s own throne. Chester appears to accept this. He gives credit to my work (Throne) and concludes that its “contribution would be to demonstrate how the earliest Christians, in formulating the Christology we find in the New Testament, did indeed use the world-view and main specific aspects of Jewish tradition (especially mystical tradition), but transformed these into something utterly different and distinctive.” Chester, Messiah, 39.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

209

The basic narrative of resurrection Christology leads readers to the heavenly debir, the holy of holies. As Peter’s speech concludes with Ps 110 and states that God has made Jesus Kyrios (Acts 2:36; cf. 5:31; 7:56), readers are confronted with a cosmic enthronement. The same setting directs the traditional formula in the prologue of Romans, where Jesus, the seed of David, is depicted as the “Son of God with power,” appointed to this office in the resurrection of the dead (Rom 1:3–4; a more detailed analysis is provided later). The beautiful hymn in Phil 2, in turn, highlights in the enthronement scene where Christ is given the name “above every name,” and all humankind must submit to the confession “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11). It is therefore possible to discern a distinctively Christian “merkabah tradition” behind early Christological traditions. The throne became the basic metaphor which helped to clarify Jesus’ eschatological status. When the first theologians state that Jesus has been exalted “at the right hand” of God, the hearers understood his unique position. Jesus had been given the highest possible status in heaven. In this setting it was easy to adopt Old Testament enthronement clauses and interpret them as promises of Christ’s resurrection. Resurrection, in this particular case, was understood as an act of enthronement. Christ on the cherubim-throne became the king of restoration, the Messiah of the new kingdom of peace. 5. From throne mysticism to royal Christology Many elements in Jesus’ teaching prepare the ground for the genesis of early Christology. Firstly, his proclamation about the appearance of God’s basileia, which drew on the Isaian promises concerning divine kingship, bound the understanding of Israel’s restoration to some kind of divine enthronement – at least in a metaphorical sense. Jesus’ disciples believed that the new kingdom would be established in the near future. Secondly, the twelve in their apocalyptic enthusiasm, apparently believed that they would be entrusted with heavenly thrones as the new era began. As twelve eschatological patriarchs they would govern the new Israel with their Lord. Jesus himself would sit on the highest throne, the divine throne of glory, and rule as the anointed king of the Davidic kingdom. These beliefs conform to the theology of early post-Easter confessional formulas that focus on Jesus’ resurrection. In several passages the apostles proclaim Jesus’ heavenly enthronement in his exaltation (especially Acts 2 using Ps 110). Resurrection theology is thus directed by the idea of enthronement and, therefore, it is related to throne mysticism. It shares many features with Second Temple Jewish theology. One needs to be careful here, though, because Jewish discourse differs from Christian discourse in certain respects. In the New Testament, as one would expect, the eschatological hope focuses on Jesus and the Easter events. Narrative analysis leads us to recognize, first of all, that Jewish metaphors are essential for early Christian expressions. Furthermore, several proof texts

210

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

that are used in Second Temple writings (Psalms of Solomon, 4QFlor etc.) are crucial for New Testament teaching as well. Gleaning different details from all these texts, we can see a metanarrative come to the fore. In the coming eschatological upheaval, God’s throne of glory will be at the center of the entire event. Since the presentations often build on Old Testament descriptions, we must be careful not to consign all ideas to being just postexilic theology. The divine throne was a crucial topos for the concept of God’s kingship well before the time of post-exilic theology. Hence this topos has the same function in early Christology.57 The picture gets even clearer as we consider the function of two psalms, 110 and 132, in the emergence of Christology. The narratives aim at describing a process of royal coronation, the enthronement of an ideal king. The enthronement itself is often expressed by referring to an exaltation “at the right hand” of God. Peter’s speech in Acts 2 lays out all possible arguments. Jesus’ resurrection must be understood as an exaltation (anistēmi), meaning the enthronement of the Davidic prince. The setting is taken directly from Jewish throne mysticism. A key figure is exalted on a heavenly throne. This is how Ps 110 takes on its crucial role in New Testament Christology. Kingship ideology is united with the heavenly stage that focuses on a heavenly palace. The third feature brings to the fore a discontinuity between Christian theology and its Jewish roots. In the New Testament the exalted Christ is depicted as the Messiah from the house of David. In this respect he differs from many other heavenly figures that appear in Jewish mysticism. The risen Christ that appears in confessional statements is not like the angelic figures or exalted patriarchs who appear in Jewish writings.58 Instead, he is a heavanly king who is enthroned to rule over human beings and all other creatures in the universe. This is not to deny that many Jewish theologians expected the arrival of a new Son of David but it means that early Christian authors planted such expectation in another narrative, that of an exaltation story: the Messiah’s heavenly journey and enthronement in God’s divine palace where the throne of glory was located. In addition to this it is useful to emphasize the self-evident fact that, Moreover in Christology, both Davidic ancestry and the exaltation narrative are applied to the calling of a historical person. In the context of Christian theology, this is normal, but in the context of Second Temple Judaism, it is 57 While scholars following a typological interpretation would wish to find certain types that would explain the genesis of Christological expressions, the narratological and semiotical explanation is simpler. If we have a topos, like God’s throne, it can be used anew when Jesus’ resurrection is given a theological interpretation. Cf. Eskola, Throne, 383. 58 A distinction between angel Christology and angelomorphic Christology needs to be made, see Gieschen, Christology, 28. Interpretation concerns mostly analogies. Few scholars would identify Christ explicitly as an angel.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

211

unique. In Jewish writings the exalted patriarchs or prophets are figures that now appear in situations beyond the historical sphere. No such honor was bestowed, for instance, on the Teacher of righteousness who was one of the first leaders in the Qumran movement. The patriarchs, of course, were historical figures but their exaltation was considered an eschatological posthistorical event. Early Christology, however, speaks of the realization of eschatological hope in the middle of history. Jesus’ resurrection is depicted as an empirical fact. The risen Christ touches people and eats with them. And in his exaltation and enthronement, Jesus Christ acquires heavenly power. As he sits on the throne of glory he rules over the kingdom of peace as a heavenly king. There is another detail that unites such hopes with Jewish eschatology. In the tumultuous events of the exile, God’s Spirit left the temple and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel’s restoration is often described as the age of the Holy Spirit, a new era of adoption as children. The Holy Spirit returns to the congregation that is understood as a new temple. In this way God’s Spirit confirms the unity between the heavenly kingdom and the earthly congregation. Furthermore, as Jesus himself is presented as the one who sends the Spirit, he clearly has a unique status in heaven. Intertextuality plays an important role in the genesis of the Christological narrative. In the context of Second Temple Judaism, it quite exceptional to maintain that enthronement takes place in resurrection (Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2: 3–11; Acts 2; Heb 1). Two eschatological themes are united here. Firstly, Jesus’ messianic status is justified by referring to Ps 110. Secondly, however, the very same passage justifies the belief that enthronement takes place in resurrection. Thus early Christology transforms the views that direct Jewish throne mysticism. Even though the idea of the resurrection of the dead appears in the eschatological context of some Jewish enthronement narratives, resurrection as such is never presented as the cause of the enthronement itself. Christian teaching is a new narrative. It must be considered an independent enthronement discourse. It focuses on Jesus’ resurrection. There is a relevant context where these ideas live together, and it is Second Temple restoration eschatology. Resurrection is the event that is to be expected after the eschatological enthronement of Israel’s Lord. As Bauckham investigates Luke, who starts his Gospel by collecting several extraordinary promises of Israel’s restoration (Luke 1–2), he states that the evangelist has a difficult task: to show his readers how the renewal comes by an “unexpected route.” Bauckham lists the Old Testament passages that help Luke explain his views in Luke-Acts and notes that such passages simultaneously underscore crucial aspects of Christology.59

59

Bauckham, Restoration, 467–468.

212

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

In these passages Jesus appears as an “authoritative teacher and healer before and after his death,”60 “the Messiah rejected and exalted,”61 he is treated “as a criminal put to death,”62 and “the Messiah raised from death,”63 he has been “exalted to the heavenly throne of God,”64 he “bestows the Spirit,”65 and, finally, he “will come in the glory of universal rule.”66 The list is extensive and impressive. It covers central elements familiar to us already from early Christian confessions. Bauckham concludes: Thus it turns out that the new exodus is accomplished through the Messiah’s death (Luke 9:31) and he enters upon his messianic reign, not by ascending the throne of David in Jerusalem, but by sitting at the right hand of God on the throne of the cosmos (Luke 20:42–43).67

Thus in Luke’s theology, the great metanarrative of exile and restoration directs the whole presentation of Israel’s history, as well as the development of salvation history. This basic term still accurately describes Luke’s theological project where he sees Israel’s history as a long-term divine plan. The anticipated restoration does take place after the enthronement of the Lord, but it does not resemble the political expectations typical of zealots or militant Qumran eschatology. Instead, Israel’s renewal comes through Christ’s work and, therefore, the entirety of Luke-Acts is built on images where the time of adoption as children starts after Christ’s enthronement in his resurrection. As we have studied early post-Easter soteriology, and especially Christology, we have paid attention to the changing views or theories of how Christology was written. It is true that the so-called Christological titles can – in a sense – be detected in New Testament texts and some mid-twentieth century scholars, such as Cullmann, have been able to draw grounded conclusions about their theological background.68 Nevertheless, the practical problem has been that later these titles have been treated as heuristic tools in order to locate different titles – or the Christology they are supposed to represent – on the artificial Baurian continuum between low Christology and high Christology. The titles have been regarded as signals that reveal a certain Christological entity – and not the other way around. For instance, “Christ/Messiah” has been separated from “Kyrios,” and at times they have both been considered independent from “Son of God.” To avoid this kind of

60

The passages are Isa 61:1–2/Luke 4:18–19; 7:22; and Deut 18:15–19/Luke 9:35; Acts 3:22–23; 7:37. 61 Ps 118:22/Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11. 62 Isa 53:12/Luke 22:37; Isa 53:7–8/Acts 8:32–33; Ps 2:1–2/Acts 4:25–26. 63 Ps 16:8–11/Acts 2:25–28, 31; 13:35; Isa 53:3/Acts 13:34. 64 Ps 110:1/Luke 20:42–43; 22:69; Acts 2:34–35; 5:30; 7:56. 65 Joel 2:28–32/Acts 2:17–21. 66 Dan 7:13/21:27. 67 Bauckham, Restoration, 468. 68 Cullmann, Christologie, 114f., 205f.

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

213

particularism, Christological analysis should focus on theological expressions and try to understand the titles in their context.69 It is also plausible that several divine agents, exalted characters or angelomorphic figures in Jewish theology may provide a typological background for Christological expressions. One may find useful analogies that help scholars to explicate the nature of early Christology. We have, however, been hesitant to use such principles in the explanation of early Christology because the types themselves cannot have a primary role in the genesis of actual Christological statements. There is no direct cause-and-effect relation between Jewish types and Christian soteriology.70 Therefore, we have preferred narratology to typology, and signs/symbols to types in this study. In a theoretical sense, then, many of the key elements in Christology, such as “Son of David,” or “high-priest,” or some other figure or subject, are best understood as “signs in a signification process,” if we adopt the terminology of semiotics. As noted in the introduction, meaning is directed by narratives and sometimes by larger metanarratives. Hence it is not even useful to try to define the nature of separate titles or typoi in a Christological clause. Instead, it is better to try to understand the Christological narratives that use, adapt and reinterpret elements that have usually been taken from Jewish theology or the Old Testament. Such a treatment opens up the signification process and shows how different elements are used together – such as Christ the Son of David as the Messiah and Kyrios, all in one and the same narrative – when attempting to describe a certain Christological theme in early soteriology. New Testament Christology in practice proves such an approach to be fruitful. Early Christology is mostly filled with stories about the risen Christ. The meaning of particular titles depends always on metanarratives, not the other way round. The focus is not merely on the “Anointed One,” for instance, but on enthronement. Psalm 110 was evidently one of the most important passages to introduce the topos of Lordship, Jesus being the kyrios. In his enthronement, however, Jesus is not like human kings in the family of David. Instead, he is the kyrios who rules as a king on the throne of glory. Meaning is directed by the narrative. This is how such kyrios-statements become part of exaltation discourses. If there are some submetaphors en69

I mean mostly the scholarly tradition starting with Bousset here, but one cannot deny that Hahn in his Hoheitstitel does exactingly separate Jewish Christianity and Hellenistic Christianity (and sometimes even Hellenistic Jewish Christianity) one from the other. 70 This is not to play down the contribution, for instance, of Hurtado in his One God, One Lord. In fact, many of his conclusions approach those that have been made in this study, cf. Hurtado’s work pp. 93–99. He falls into a theoretical trap, however, and in order to avoid it one should not rely merely on a typological explanation. Chester notes this when he admits that my criticism of the “cause-and-effect” method of a typological approach is necessary. Chester, Messiah, 39.

214

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

riching these descriptions, like throne or sceptre, they confirm the original meaning gained by narratological or semiotical analysis. What is essential in early Christology, in a theological sense, is the changing concept of theocracy. As Christ is given a throne in the heavenly palace/temple and he sits “at the right hand” of God, he himself is Lord, kyrios. He is God who must be approached, not merely by someone guiding penitents or believers to God: “Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; cf. Rom 10:13, “For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’”). The apostles describe Jesus as a Savior and, therefore, baptism in his name will bring salvation: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Such theology no longer fits the pattern of Old Testament theocracy. This feature shall be investigated in detail below (see 2.6). When studying early New Testament Christology, therefore, we do not need to search for a “missing link” between Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian teaching. Christology in the earliest confessional statements and pre-Pauline hymns is unique. Jesus will be made kyrios on the throne of glory. No other community of the time had anything like this. Only the Easter events make the construction of this kind of doctrinal formulation possible. The background itself explains, however, that Christian proclamation was not difficult to understand in the religious context of the time. Any Jew conscious of his theological heritage could accept the idea that God had exalted his kyrios at the right hand of his throne in heaven. The difficult part was that this kyrios was Jesus of Nazareth. Early Christology, therefore, builds on two kinds of imagery and theological themes. On the one hand, it is founded clearly on Jewish eschatology and Old Testament passages that are already significant in Old Testament theology. On the other hand, early Christology continues and completes Jesus’ teaching. Earlier, in I.1.3. we noted that according to Levenson, the Isaian idea of “release” works with several key topics in Jewish eschatology: “Jubilee, Sabbath, Temple, enthronement, liberation, returning home, atonement.” Restoration eschatology, interpreting the extraordinary event of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, unites the issues of bodily resurrection, enthronement as a sign for the inauguration of a new kingdom, final redemption through atonement resulting in forgiveness of sins, and the arrival of the day of God’s jubilee. In early Christology, the narrative about the end of the exile and Israel’s restoration is nuanced in the post-Easter situation. The new soteriology is quite “traditional” in one sense because it focuses on images that are central in Jewish religion: the temple, the debir, and the Ark of the covenant as God’s throne. The exalted Christ sits at the right hand of God on the throne of glory in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The Lord is finally acknowleged as the King of the Chosen People. The time of tribulation may not be over entirely, as far as the new community is concerned, but the great transition

I. Interpreting the events of the Easter

215

has taken place. The kingdom of peace is here. The resurrection of the dead has already started and Jesus’ resurrection is a proof of that. Christ has been the “first-born” of the resurrected. The new creation has started. The Son of David has been enthroned on the throne of glory, at the right hand of God. All this points to the end of the spiritual exile. The fruits of restoration are at anyone’s disposal in the community of mercy.

II. Six Christological narratives Within the earliest and rich traditions of exaltation Christology in the New Testament, one could speak of six different Christological narratives. Descriptions of Christ’s work and its functions illuminate the meaning of the final events from different points of departure. These points are not necessarily very far from each other but one can discern separate ways of arguing about the theological significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. 1. Heavenly enthronement of the Davidic king The first of these narratives, with its basic justification and main argumentation, has been investigated in the previous chapters. As noted above, the main interpretation in the earliest stratum of tradition is based on an enthronement narrative. In early Christology, Jesus’ resurrection is interpreted as an act of crowning and installation to a heavenly office. This narrative describes the scene of a heavenly court. A prince arrives. God the King, the representant of the highest possible power enthrones the Son as a cosmic ruler. He is anointed with Holy Spirit and exalted at the right hand of Yahweh himself. The metaphors used here emphasize the theological significance of the event. The promise of the Old Testament is fulfilled. People have anticipated the arrival of the Son of David from the days of the great prophets. Now the narrative is completed and the promises fulfilled.71 In the preceding chapters we have seen many essential passages grounding their presentation on this narrative. What still remains to be investigated is the prologue of the letter to the Romans, one of the key passages in Christological research. The prologue contains a traditional confession which, according to most commentators, belongs to the oldest and finest expressions of early Christology. There are some traits of the original formula still

71 This formula was first seen as a simple confessional statement (Dodd, Romans, 4–5). Its content, however, has been explained earlier for instance as an example of adoptionist Christology (Käsemann, Römer, 9); a representative of two-stage Christology growing from the earthly Davidide to the exalted Christ (Schweizer, EvTh 15 (1955) 569f.); and then as tradition that has features both form Jewish Christianity and Hellenistic Jewish Christianity (Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 253).

216

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

detectable in Paul’s text but, unfortunately, its exact wording is impossible to discern form the passage. [T]he gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (Rom 1:3–4)

The linguistic structure of the passage is difficult. The parallel use of participles, as well as the superficial parallel produced by the use of certain prepositions (ek, kata) might hint at the structure of the original formula. But, as scholars have noted, there is no strict parallelismus membrorum in this sequence.72 The particular elements in the clauses are not parallel, and the second sentence is too long for a precise comparison. This is why the tradition must be assessed mainly on the basis of the content. There is a promise tradition involved, since Paul himself refers to the promises of the prophets (v. 2). Davidic descendance is clear but it is not expressed in any easy way. Jesus, in this passage, is “from the seed (ek spermatos) of David,” and this expression alone makes the promise tradition truly present. Scholars are quite unanimous about the textual proof behind this expression: in Nathan’s prophecy (2 Sam 7:12–14) the exaltation/raising of David’s “seed” is mentioned (anastēsō to sperma sou meta se). So the linguistic structure using the preposition ek derives most probably from that root. This means that the following expression kata sarka expands the first expression by forming a short parallelism already in the first sentence: from his seed and his flesh. There is a strong dynastic concern behind such a statement.72 The word for appointment has been popular among those supporting an adoptionist reading of the passage and, admittedly, the word horizein is difficult. Translations normally use the word declare, “declared to be Son of God” (NRSV), as we have seen earlier, but this sounds more like a compromise than a justified translation. The word usually refers to ordaining like in Acts 10 where Jesus is “the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). Such a designation to an eschatological ministry occurs also in Acts 17:31: “he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” The idea of a designation can be applied to the prologue of Romans too, even though judgment is not the issue here. The translator of the Vulgate may have understood the meaning of the word well, translating the prologue by: qui

72

See the detailed analysis of these lines in my Throne, 220–226. For the more recent discussion, see Jewett, Romans, 103–108. The expression kata sarka has often been considered Paul’s addition, especially because it creates an opposition between flesh and spirit; see Linneman, EvT 31 (1971) 273.

II. Six Christological narratives

217

praedestinatus est Filius Dei. According to the Vulgate the formula refers to a divine decree according to which the exaltation has taken place.73 In the formula there is a reference to the Holy Spirit but it is unconventional. The “spirit of holiness” (NRSV) translates kata pneuma hagiōsynēs. This rendering derives from the Old Testament and the form can be traced back to Hebrew. The expression no doubt refers to the Holy Spirit, not in Christ’s alleged spirit of holiness. The function of the term in the clause is instrumental: the Holy Spirit makes the designation true. This means that the seeming opposition between flesh and spirit in the formula as it is is accidental. It may be that Paul, by inserting kata sarka himself, wants to emphasize the historical reality of the dynasty, but even this is merely a secondary conclusion that cannot be ascertained. The expression denoting resurrection ex anastaseōs nekrōn is crucial as it refers to the general resurrection of the dead. If the original author had meant to refer to Jesus’ resurrection exclusively, he could have used another expression. In that case the expression would speak merely of Jesus’ resurrection and underline the event of resurrection at Easter. When read as is, the expression now speaks about the general resurrection of the dead (anastasis nekrōn). Jesus’ resurrection has been described in terms of an eschatological resurrection. This kind of description fits well with early Jewish Christianity and we can assume that the conception of resurrection derives from Second Temple Jewish eschatology. A general resurrection was a fitting event that would precede divine judgment at the end of days.74 In Acts 26 we find a similar conception. Christ who has suffered is the first to be raised in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 26:23): “being the first to rise from the dead (prōtos ex anastaseōs nekrōn).” In the Romans’ prologue, the formula we encounter is thus an eschatological discourse where the theme of the resurrection of the dead is introduced to messianism. Is there a connection between Davidic dynasty, resurrection of the dead and the Easter experience of the followers of Jesus? The Acts author maintains that the enthronement of the Son of David took place in the eschatological event of the resurrection of the dead. One must therefore refute any dualistic interpretations of the passage in the prologue of Romans.75 There are not two stages here, and the Christo-

73

There is a long discussion concerning this word in literature, see already Hengel, Sohn, 97; Allen, NTS 17 (1971) 105f.; Betz, NT 6 (1963) 32. As this is a statement of enthronement, the alternative “designation” sounds acceptable. 74 This alternative, proposed for instance by Michel, Römer, 32; and accepted by many others (see Jewett, Romans, 105) is quite well grounded. The point in the formula is to underscore the significance of the general resurrection of the dead. 75 These are conclusions that I presented already in my dissertation. My interpretation has moved more and more in the direction of a “Christian” merkabah mysticisim where the aspect of enthronement is emphasized. Thus the formula is seen

218

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

logical construction does not revolve around particular titles. The impression of a Greek parallelism is secondary. Originally, this is one long description of the Exalted One. The statement in verse 3 needs to be interpreted through verse 4 and with its help. Therefore, the inference moves backwards through the passage. The first line is based on a parallelism describing Jesus as an eschatological Davidic figure who has no rival. This makes the formula an enthronement statement focusing on an eschatological kairos moment. God’s divine “designation” or decree mentioned in verse 4 refers both to the seed of David mentioned in verse 3 and to resurrection mentioned in verse 4. Summarizing the results of this short analysis, we can create a dynamic version where the inner logic of thought moves toward the last line: From the seed of David, the promised Son of God in power, according to the Holy Spirit, through the resurrection of the dead, Jesus the Messiah, our Lord.

The idea of a cosmic enthronement of the Davidic figure is perfectly in line with Old Testament temple ideology. Just as the temple was understood as a microcosm of creation and a kind Eden, the eschatological temple was expected to be the center of the new creation. Therefore, it is no wonder that the first theologians – and the New Testament writers using their traditions – focus on Old Testament passages that describe the Davidic king as God’s own son. In kingship ideology the king in Jerusalem is “the first-born of the Lord” (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2 and 89).76 In the new Eden, thus, the messianic king is also an archetypal man, a new Adam, appearing as a ruler of the new paradise that is the eschatological temple itself. This Son of David is the prince who has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” He will govern the new creation just like the first king Adam should have ruled the old one. In early Christology Jesus is given this authority. In the passages speaking about the enthronement of the Son of David he is depicted as the Son of God and in this sense he is a new Adam. He is the first fruit of the new reality. As God’s first-born he brings about the final resurrection of the dead and rules en dynamei. His flesh does not experience corruption (cf. Acts 2:31) and, therefore, he sits now on his throne of glory as the Lord of the renewed universe. The narrative about the enthronement of the Son of David is, thus, simultaneously part of a larger metanarrative about the new creation that the Son of God will inaugurate. Jesus’ enthronement in the heavenly temple takes place in the new Eden, the paradise where the very idea of the temple will be transformed. It becomes a garden where the Lord dwells among his

as one entity, as proposed above. Eskola, Throne, 217–227; for the conclusions presented above, see 242. 76 Barker, Gate of Heaven, 73.

II. Six Christological narratives

219

people. This must be the hermeneutical background that explains what kind of signification process lies behind the confession Kyrios Christos.77 Early confessional statements describe how the seed of David has been raised from the dead and enthroned as the King of a new holy people. There are no more traces of political messianism in these descriptions. The scene is in the highest heavens and the presentation focuses on the heavenly merkabah, the throne of glory. Jesus is neither an angelic figure nor a divine agent performing superhuman tasks. Instead, he appears as the heavenly King himself, who rules over the whole of creation. Even though we have focused here only on the prologue of the letter to the Romans, previous analyses have shown that this kind of Christology can be detected in many traditions and early formulas in the post-Easter period. 2. Prince of life conquers death In a somewhat more intentional resurrection narrative the story hinges on the dichotomy between life and death. The exaltation discourse focuses on the appearance of new life. The scene itself remains the same as in the first story. There is a temple of God in the heavens that is the journey’s final destination. The essential content of the resurrection brings a new, particular element into the discussion, though. According to this story, the enthronement of the Davidic figure is exclusively a matter of raising someone from the dead. This can be seen as a Christological transformation of Jewish messianology, because this is the first occasion in Second Temple Judaism where the power of the Son of David starts at the moment of resurrection – or even through resurrection.78 The narrative behind the Romans’ prologue contains the detail of the resurrection of the dead, even though the basic aim of the confession is to express Davidic kingship in a cosmic perspective. Jewish theology has no descriptions where such a messianic enthronement connects with the eschatologial event of raising someone from the dead. In fact, as far as tradition history is concerned, the formula behind the prologue is one of the first presentations of this feature in Jewish-Christian theology. The raising of Jesus Christ has started the resurrection of the dead. General resurrection, thus, must be seen as a great watershed in the course of history. When it has become manifest, heremeneutics change: the moment of salvation has 77

This aspect of creation that has been important from the early prophetic writings onwards, and links Israel’s restoration to the creation of the new world, is obviously one of the key issues in early Christology. What this means for the understanding of the more precise emphasis on resurrection will be discussed in the next subchapter. 78 I will be the first one to admit that there is little difference between this narrative and the previous one. The point in presenting it as a Christological narrative of its own is in bringing up the aspect of the resurrection of the dead. Death in itself, as a theological motif, has distinct features and this kind of Christology takes them into account.

220

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

arrived. When the Son of David rules on his throne, the resurrection of the body concerns anyone becoming his disciple. Paul continues to use such resurrection theology elsewhere in his letters: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died” (1 Cor 15:20). This phrase must be a reliable reception of prePauline teaching. Therefore, Paul believes that when Jesus returns on the day of judgment, the believers too shall be raised (v. 23). In Acts, Paul speaks before king Agrippa: “that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23).79 Even though there is no causal relation between these issues in Jewish eschatological discourse, their unity is essential in early Christology. First, as noted, messianism is linked with the resurrection discourse. Second, resurrection becomes enthronement. This is why the only center for such events is God’s heavenly court where the throne of glory lies. This means that Jewish cosmology still dictates the formation of Christology here. Messianism, in this respect, is apocalyptic by nature. When early theology speaks about a heavenly enthronement, soteriology becomes universal. Christ’s new power concerns the entire created world. By focusing on Jesus’ bodily resurrection, this narrative in fact emphasizes Jesus’ humanity. It is the (incarnated) earthly Jesus who is raised from the tafos. This shows that the basic images behind such Christology cannot be very mystical. Compared, for instance, to the theory of angelomorphic Christology, the latter is not that useful in explaining resurrection. It would be incomprehensible for any Jew to speak about the death and resurrection of some angelic figure. But as regards a prince from the family of David, all this makes sense – even though the description is unique as such.80 The resurrection narrative, thus, expresses a Christology that tackles the question of conquering death itself. Christ is the hero of the story, clearly, but the narrative is unusual. The hero is no soldier. There is no battle where the Son of David shows his power. Instead, the image is that of a suffering Messiah whose exaltation is solely the work of God. This implies that there is 79 Wright, speaking about Paul, puts him in the long continuum where the resurrection has a significant role as such: “Within the Jewish spectrum, he belongs, with most Jews of his day, at the same place as the Pharisees, many writers of apocalypses, and others [...] He believed, that is, in the future bodily resurrection of all the true people of the true God [...].” Wright, Resurrection, 372. The same appears to be true about the early traditions behind Paul’s letters. 80 Hurtado notes several features behind this kind of reasoning. “The earliest indications are that these convictions were the following: (1) that God had released Jesus from death, so that it really is Jesus, not merely his memory or influence, who lives again; (2) that God has bestowed on Jesus uniquely a glorious new form of existence, immortal and eschatological bodily life; (3) that Jesus has also been exalted to a unique heavenly status, thus presiding by God’s appointment over the redemptive program [...].” Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 72.

II. Six Christological narratives

221

a pattern of humiliation and justification behind this narrative. There cannot be one without the other.81 A strong emphasis on royal enthronement raises the inevitable question: why did the prince have to die? It would have been much easier to accept a story – present in the Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls – where the designated prince (Messias designatus) is simply enthroned without suffering. Obviously a pattern of humiliation and exaltation accompanies the theme of suffering. This is why the traditional narratives of Jewish messianism do not necessarily provide the only background for early Christian theology. The explanation of resurrection must be included in any Christological explanation of the Easter events. The investing of power is the highlight of eschatological change. The hero is not merely a militant king but, rather, the dead prince whose exaltation had been awaited from the time of the actual exile. This is why only the resurrection confirms Jesus’ final installation, his appointment to universal power. This is how the Son of David becomes a “Prince of life” (AV; arkhēgos tēs zōēs) who has power over death (Acts 3:15).82 This second of the Christological narratives must thus be defined in terms of the resurrection expectation. Being directed by the resurrection discourse, it has a somewhat different tone than the mere description of enthronement – even though the other differences are minimal. Here Christ becomes a suffering prince who faces execution. This leads to the conviction that he has a cosmic mission: he will enter the land of death and return victorious. As the general resurrection of the dead – as a sign of final restoration – begins, he will be appointed to eternal kingship and become the ruler of the heavens and the earth. Since death has been conquered, Jesus Christ will be a life-giving ruler. Such a narrative structure explains why Jesus’ human nature is often emphasized in early confessions. He is the Son of David, from the dynasty that has been granted all the exceptional promises during Israel’s history. The messianic figure takes part in humankind and is identified with other human beings. When Christ is then exalted, this includes Jesus, the bodily resurrection of the incarnated Nazarene who lived a human life. In this case Christology is directed by the dichotomy between the mortal Jesus and the exalted Jesus who lives eternal life in the heavenly realm.83

81

In regard of Luke's theology, see Rowe, Narrative Christology, 117–119. Translated also as “Author of life,” NRSV. In both cases the point is new life. In this passage, however, the clause itself refers to killing the Author of life. Cf. Witherington: “the intended contrast is between the one who gives life and those who take it away.”, Acts, 181. 83 As noted already before, Pitre proposes the interpretation that, in Christ’s death, in the destruction of his “old temple” that is, the old creation has passed away. Resurrection signals the new creation where the temple of his body (and the new 82

222

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

The pattern of humiliation and exaltation, grounded on the fact of Jesus’ death, is prominent again in one of the most beautiful of all the early confessional formulations and hymns, Phil 2:6–11. All the essential elements of a resurrection narrative are present here. There has been much discussion about the original form of the hymn, nevertheless, its basic tenets are quite obvious. [T]hough he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (ekenōsen), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself (etapeinōsen) and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted (hyperypsōsen) him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6–11)

The essential ideas of enthronement Christology are apparent in this hymn. The strong pattern of humiliation and exaltation, however, proves that the focus in this passage is on death and resurrection.84 On the level of the narrative, this pattern most obviously derives from the work of the Isaian suffering Servant who participates in the agonies of the chosen people. The Servant is put in a vicarious role, he is punished for their sins, and he is pierced on the behalf of others. Kenosis, a somewhat mysterious term that is burdened with dozens of competing explanations, is paralleled with tapeinōsis. The Servant must submit to the tyranny of the final tribulation before the time of redemption arrives. Christ’s slavery is thus identified with the exilic condition, and he humbles himself: morfē theou is contrasted with morfē doulou.85 As Jesus dies – even on a cross, according to the remark that is usually regarded a Pauline interpretation – new life is possible only through resurrection. The hymn builds its Christology on the eschatological idea according to which restoration arrives at a kairos of cosmic renewal. Exal“body” in the sense of the eschatological temple as a community) is created anew. Pitre, Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 62. 84 So especially Martin in his early work, Carmen Christi, 211–213. For later discussions, see O’Brien, Philippians, 228–230. When examining tapeinōsis, Isa 53:8 LXX is usually mentioned. 85 Matera provides an interesting discussion about the word morfē pointing out that, in ancient Greece, the word denoted more or less the “nature” or “condition” of things. Matera, Theology, 209. This is identical with the use of the word “form” (Lat. forma) in systematic theology, usually denoting the essence of things, in contrast to the common sense understanding of the opposition to materia (this being merely the “vehicle” for forma).

II. Six Christological narratives

223

tation here means the justification of a dead slave. The entire event is about the resurrection of the dead. The narrative starts to grow only after an implied burial. Therefore, the pattern of humiliation and exaltation underscores that Jesus, in this hymn, is the Prince of life.86 Such Christological content is further confirmed by the detail that the enthroned Christ, bearing the divine Name, honored like the Lord of restoration in the Old Testament (Isa 45:23), is also the King of the new creation.87 Heaven and earth – after the resurrection and so in a renewed state – praise him in the recreated Paradise. Even though this description could be understood in a sociological sense referring to devotion to Christ in the Christian community like it was for Paul, it probably refers to a higher reality. The text refers to the heavenly court, like in other Christological statements and confessions. In the heavenly temple all tongues confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.88 The second of the Christological narratives reconstructed here describes Christ’s victory over death. The implied metanarrative does not differ essentially from the one discerned behind the first story, but the weight has shifted. According to the narrative the exaltation of the Son of David is an eschatological event that must be understood in a cosmic perspective. When the messianic figure is enthroned, the power of death is defeated. This is why the new reality in the community of restoration promises that the bodies of the believers shall be restored. They can expect to take part in what happened to Jesus in his resurrection. 3. The suffering Servant gives his offering As the Servant theme was prominent above in Phil 2, it appears in other early formulas as well. There are traits of Jewish martyrology in this theology but, in addition to that, cultic images are also often present. There are at least three different narratological elements here: the story of temple sacrifice, the story of the suffering Servant, and the story concerning the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. The idea of a temple sacrifice or sin offering (hatta’at) is clearly present in many early formulas. Already in the Jerusalem confession (1 Cor 15:3) the first line states that Jesus/the Messiah dies for (hyper) our sins. This refers to a substitutional sacrifice. The particular mention of sins makes the theo86

Martin notes that, according to “Jewish martyr-theology” it was quite customary to believe that pious sufferers were servants of God who “suffer vicariously for Israel.” Martin, Carmen Christi, 225. Such a background was discussed earlier in I.8.1. 87 As Witherington states, the name Christ is given “connotes the nature that he has: he is the risen Lord God Almighty.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 195. The exalted Christ is again morfē theou, as he was before. 88 I prefer the explanation for instance of Alexander, Eden, 116; cf. Barker, Gate of Heaven, 171.

224

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

logical reason more precise. This is a sacrifice in the sense of a sin offering. Jesus’ death has been a vicarious act for the transgressions of his people. In pre-Pauline traditions, Romans 4 refers to a sin offering. The terminology here has been taken from cultic rhetoric. According to the formula Paul adapts to his teaching, Christ is “handed over (paredothē) to death” by God “for (hyper) our trespasses” (Rom 4:25). Handing over (paradidōmi), in a cultic setting, refers to a vicarious sacrifice. The idea was important already before Paul in the early community, and it becomes crucial for Paul as we shall see later. The suffering Servant theme that was treated in the previous subchapters is essential for the soteriology of this first generation too.89 In addition to this, there are hints in early theology, according to which God himself hands the sacrifice over. This has been underpinned by Isaac’s sacrifice (the Akedah). The clearest example of this kind of soteriology can be found in Rom 8: “He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us [...]” (Rom 8:32). The clause uses the interpretation given to Abraham’s sacrifice in Genesis (22:16, LXX). It parallels Jesus with Isaac.90 Later, such sacrificial thinking is typical of John (3:16). When these aspects from Genesis and Isaiah are combined, Jesus is presented as the new Isaac who is handed over, and who is obedient as a suffering son (pais), including torture and execution, so that righteousness may be acheived. We cannot ignore that the Easter narrative itself inspires a theology that focuses on the slaughtering of a lamb. This feature is more rare in extant texts but, nevertheless, it does occur. According to the story, God’s people have lived in agony and bondage. When the blood of the lamb redeems them, their time of slavery is over and they are released into a new life – and the journey to the promised land begins. The Jewish theology of the Passover narrative becomes Christian soteriology of the new exodus. In 1 Corinthians, Paul probably works with traditonal material when he states: “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). This rather irregular expression – here in the context of parenetic preaching – proves that the idea of Christ as a paschal lamb was familiar to early congregations. Jesus has been presented as a sacrifice whose blood is a sign of freedom that releases captives and sends them toward the new Jerusalem.91

89

See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 192. We will discuss this theme when we study Paul’s soteriology below, but refer to the analyses of Childs on this issue, Childs, Biblical Theology, 325–336. Romans 8:32 may build on an earlier tradition as the expression is liturgical, which makes it stand out in this context. 91 See Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 405: “Here, for Paul, the old is abolished and the blood of the Passover lamb ratifies the promises of redemption from bondage (where “Egypt” symbolizes the bondage of human existence without Christ) to a new purity and freedom by a costly act.” 90

II. Six Christological narratives

225

The third Christological narrative describes Jesus as the suffering Servant of the Lord who sacrifices himself for the sins and transgressions of the people. He is the obedient servant who makes substitutional atonement before God. This is why a priestly element is implied in this theology, and we will study this in the next subchapter. In the present narrative, the soteriological content is derived from cultic images, and especially from the crucial sin offering (hatta’at) that always has a prominent role in Old Testament texts. The cultic point is substitution. Christ, in these formulas, is the lamb who is sacrificed for others’ sins. 4. Eternal high priest enters the debir The cultic element in the early Christian atonement theology already implies that the narrative that describes the sacrificial act may also allude to a priestly role. It is only logical that, at some point, Jesus is presented as a high priest who approaches God in the heavenly temple. Such features are naturally prominent in the Letter to the Hebrews but, in addition to that, they can be detected in the early formulations and confessions that appear for instance in the Pauline letters. Paul uses imagery that was standard in Jewish worship at the temple and mentions details such as the sacrifice itself, blood, and the hilastērion above the ark of the covenant, the place where the atoning blood was sprinkled. Apart from the Letter to the Hebrews there are no clear examples that build on the priestly theme through the figure of Melchizedek. It is apparent, however, that cultic discourse itself has united the typoi of early resurrection statements where Melchizedek has a central role. This happens thanks to the rich use of Ps 110 in exaltation Christology. It is precisely this psalm that establishes the Melchizedek role that the Davidic figure will have in the redemption of Israel. This explains why Jesus, in the soteriologial passages of early confessions, appears both as the sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice to God. In the Pauline reception of earlier Christian tradition Jesus is depicted as a sacrifice offered by God who “gave him up for all of us [...]” (Rom 8:32). The word paradidōmi here is the same word that appears in the traditional passage of Rom 4:25. Christ is the sin offering that God himself has given on behalf of the people’s sins. In Romans 5 such ideas occur frequently. Christ’s death is a sacrifice “for us,” Khristos hyper hēmōn apethanen (Rom 5:8). As noted before, Paul inherited the use of hyper-formulas from an earlier tradition. For him, Christ’s sacrifice is a sin offering that was based on the sprinkling of blood, “justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9). Cultic symbolism is most clearly expressed in another traditional formula in the Romans, the famous passage appearing in chapter 3. This passage is likewise believed to have been built on tradition material. Jesus has entered the Holy of Holies and taken his own blood to God as a sacrifice for sin. This

226

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

is why God has made him a hilastērion who sinners can approach in their turn. Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement (hilastērion) by his blood (en tō autou haimati) effective through faith. (Rom 3:23–25)

The passage is exceptional because this idea is identical with that of the priestly theology of the Letter to the Hebrews.92 Like that unknown author, Paul too believes that the place of atonement (hilastērion) that is originally God’s divine throne has become a “mercy seat” as Hebrews calls it (Heb 9:5; cf. Lev 16:2–14).93 As the penitent approaches God’s throne, Jesus himself receives his confession and grants absolution. The mercy seat appears as a metaphor. The divine throne is no longer merely the place for sprinkling blood, but it is more like the sacrifice itself (which of course is also one of the meanings the word receives). Jesus has become a hilastērion for anyone who wishes to approach the throne.94 The clearest reception of such priestly soteriology can be found in Hebrews and, even though the theology of the letter shall be treated in detail later, certain features may be referred to already here. Temple symbolism is prominent in this letter. In his death, Jesus passes through the heavenly veil, the veil of the temple (6:19). He enters the Holy of Holies, the heavenly debir itself (9:24). The contents of the room is like in the shrine of the “first covenant.” The ark of the covenant is in the center of the debir and above it one can still find the mercy seat (hilastērion, 9:5). Jesus’ death has a precise meaning – he gives his life as a sin offering: “offered himself without blemish to God” (9:14). He takes his own blood to the Holy of Holies and obtains “eternal redemption” (9:12). As the traditional formula behind Paul’s text in Romans speaks of offering, it builds on similar imagery. We need to return briefly to this passage that was dealt with already earlier. After giving his sacrifice, Christ is exalted: God raises him “for our justification” (Rom 4:25). The implied narrative is that of Christ’s priestly function. According to this story, Christ enters the heavenly temple and, by making atonement, gains the gift of justification. The narrative is incomprehesible without assuming that Christ appears as a substitutional sacrifice here. It is the sacrifice that God accepts. 92

It is quite commonly assumed that, behind v. 25 there is a pre-Pauline formula. For scholarly discussion of this, see Dunn, Romans, 163. 93 Witherington concludes: “It seems likely, then, that propitiation is in view in Romans 3:24–25.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 493. Dunn goes even further than that by saying: “If the primary reference of ’the act of ransom’ was not already clear, Paul puts it beyond doubt by following through the definition of it as “a means of expiation.” Dunn, Romans, 180. 94 The cultic term hilastērion had already been given a metaphoric role in Jewish theology. In 4 Macc 17:22, a martyr’s death is described by using the very same word.

II. Six Christological narratives

227

This is why the formula states that it is precisely Christ’s resurrection that obtains redemption in the sense of justification. Even this short parallelism in Rom 4 implies a larger narrative speaking about the office of the high priest and his task to bring the blood of atonement behind the veil. The theology of the earliest Christian community has thus been built on temple symbolism. Like in apocalyptic Jewish texts, heaven is understood as God’s actual Holy of Holies, the place where all the created world can encounter him. This is where the heavenly ark of the covenant lies, the seat that is the throne from which the Almighty God rules. Christ’s resurrection becomes part of atonement theology when his exaltation is interpreted as a priestly act. As noted, there must be traces of merkabah speculation behind such a treatment of soteriology. As a cosmic high priest Christ takes his own sacrificial blood into the place where atonement is made for the sins of the all humanity. The very same metaphor, already a center for Old Testament theology, becomes the most crucial image in New Testament soteriology. As an exalted Davidic figure, a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Christ sits on the same throne of glory in order to rule the new kingdom as the Son of Man, Judge, and Lord of the new Israel.95 The earliest stratum of confessional formulas and homiletical summaries has thus created a narrative where Christ appears as a high priest in the heavenly temple. The fourth Christological narrative is simply a story about a sacrificial act before the throne of glory and God himself in the highest heaven. There are several images, temple, veil, debir, priest, sacrifice, and blood, that appear in the different occurrences of this narrative. The story itself depicts the role of a transcendental high priest like Melchizedek, a king with a cultic mission. Through his death and resurrection he enters Holy of Holies in the heavenly temple, and by his blood obtains eternal redemption and remission of sins. A blood sacrifice in the debir further justifies a new covenant. The imagery enables theologians to identify cultic mission with enthronement. The symbols of the original story carry meaning into the new narrative. The heavenly Melchizedek sits at the right hand of God and rules his kingdom of peace. 5. Messianic judge on the judgment seat It is further noteworthy that there are more than one image of a heavenly seat in Christian eschatology. Jesus is exalted either on a throne (thronos) or a judgment seat (bēma). As far as narratology is concerned, this means that the story that uses these images changes too. In Matthew a distinction is evident. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another... (Matt 25:31–32). 95

84.

The royal aspect is important here, as noted for instance by Hagner, Hebrews,

228

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

At the end of Romans, Paul refers to this kind of judgment story as a common tradition in the Christian community. “For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God each of us will be accountable to God.” (Rom 14:10– 12). Read from the letter’s perspective, Paul speaks of a situation where God will judge the world through Christ. “God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Rom 2:16b). Even though this is Paul’s message, it is no doubt based on the teaching that was supported in the Antiochian congregation. There is the precise concept of the future that can also be seen in Pauline sermons in Acts. [H]e has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

According to this narrative Jesus is the Son of Man, a heavenly judge who shall bring justice to the world. God has appointed Jesus to be the ruler who shall gather all people before him. In Second Corinthians the bēma is mentioned in a similar context. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil. (2 Cor 5:10)

A Christological reinterpretation is apparent in these statements. In the Old Testament prophetic passages it is God who acts as the heavenly judge in the last days. In early Christology, Christ is appointed to this office. In a sense, he is put in a role where he carries out God’s eschatological mission. This resonates with another element in Jewish theology because, in this tradition, a king usually serves as a judge too (and Solomon, the paradigmatic son of David, is the most famous of such judges). Similarly, Jesus the Son of David is a just judge who shall bring righteousness to the new kingdom.96 One could call this approach to Christian eschatology judicial discourse. Its cosmology remains the same as in other discourses, and a heavenly seat or throne is still the center of the future events. In the altered setting only the nature of the seat is new. The divine throne is seen as an eschatological judgment seat. The narrative has special features. We are no longer dealing with a traditional exaltation story. There is no longer any need for Jesus’ resurrection in the presentation. Like in many Jewish texts, the point is to describe Christ’s ascension on the bēma before the final judgment. This is the stage depicted in 1 Thessalonians that apparently reflects the vivid eschatological views of the “young” preacher Paul.

96

As Riesner points out, there is no paradox between resurrection Christology and other eschatological notions concerning Christ’s heavenly office in Paul’s thinking (or in the descriptions of early Christology, one might add) because the writers usually imply that it is the Resurrected One who is appointed as a heavenly judge. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 399–400.

II. Six Christological narratives

229

Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. (2 Thess 1:7–10)

The fifth narrative is thus a story about the appearance of a messianic judge. The world turns into a gigantic courtroom. Christ is presented as an omnipotent ruler who shall judge the whole of humankind. Both the living and the dead shall be gathered before his seat, and their fate is decided fairly. Juridical terminology in these stories is clear, and the metaphors are taken from a courtroom as such. This is a narrative about judges, a law, accusations, guilt, judgment, and punishment. The special nature of this kind of Christology is partly based on a different strategy in intertextual relations. The office of the heavenly judge is depicted in similar terms both in Jewish and Christian descriptions. Typology is the tool used here. Certain elements in passages speaking of the Son of Man in particular are remarkably similar. As a heavenly king Christ has the task of setting up eternal justice on earth. 6. Belief in the King of restoration All the abovementioned narratives reflect some element in Jewish eschatology and restoration theology. The role of the Son of David is apparent in the texts, and the eschatological renewal is believed to occur at the moment of God’s new enthronement. This will also be a day of resurrection and new life. The renewal will be brought about by God’s suffering servant. Furthermore, in some texts, there are clear features of priestly functions and redemption through sacrifice. And most importantly, the consummation of things shall be completed by a divine judgment at the final hour of justice. In addition to these distinct features of Jewish expectation, there is a further story that is rooted in the very idea of restoration. The most abstract of the metanarratives uniting Old Testament themes and early Christology is the story about God’s royal dominion, God as a king. It is precisely the emergence of this story that has been analysed in the preceding chapters. The gospel, euangelion, is the good news that is now proclaimed to all those living under the oppression of the exile, be it historical, geographical, or spiritual. It brings good tidings about the establishment of God’s divine kingship, basileia (Isa 52:7). This is how God intended to bring salvation, restore Israel, and renew the spiritual unity between the Israelites and their God. The final story is thus based on the previous narratives and it uses the same scriptural attestations. The Isaian gospel, well known in Second Temple Judaism (especially at Qumran) looks forward to the time of restoration. In the time of apostasy the great prophets put their hope in the eschatological future when God may again be Israel’s king. Early exaltation Christology, in turn, draws on the narrative where a prince from David’s house is enthroned in eternal kingship in the eschatological event of the resurrection of the dead. He enters the

230

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

heavenly Holy of Holies and sits on the throne of glory, at the right hand of God. The Son of David sits on the throne where God himself is. He sits where God the King sits. No clear distinction is made between Christ’s heavenly kingship and the Lord’s heavenly kingship. They are even called by the same name: Kyrios Iēsous. As Christ, in early Christology, is given all power on the divine throne, he rules as a heavenly king on the seat that had long been the center both of Jewish theology and throne mysticism. It is the secret debir, the holiest place in the universe, the place of God’s presence that cannot be approached without atoning blood. It is, therefore, a place where the symbols of life and death are inseparable from the symbols of glory and happiness. The theological conclusion is inescapable: the enthroned Christ sits where God, the King of Israel should be sitting.97 Since exaltation Christology has a soteriological function that focuses on the salvation of human beings, it is also the climax of early Christian proclamation. The heavenly rule of the Son of David becomes a hermeneutical principle according to which the content of traditional Jewish theology is reinterpreted. Theocracy always aims at the closest possible contact with God. Israel has only one God, “Yahweh alone”, who directs and guides his people. He is the one who can be approached in the temple. In early Christology this pattern changes. God can be met through his Son Jesus Christ. Old Testament faith is not rejected but it is reinterpreted via exaltation Christology.98 One of the most important features in the hermeneutical use of the Old Testament royal metanarrative in early Christology is that Christ’s Lordship becomes a principle according to which both the theocratic ideal and the temple cult are re-interpreted. The actual focus of Old Testament faith, God’s kingship, is now seen to be realized and, in a way, fulfilled in the royal rule of the enthroned Christ who sits on the throne of glory. Eschatological enthronement has ended the exile and inaugurated the time of freedom.99 As we noted before, Second Temple Jewish theology and throne mysticism preserved a theocratic hierarchy in all their descriptions of heavenly journeys and enthronements. The role even of the exalted was the same as that of those worshiping God in the (heavenly) temple. They were all below the throne of glory expecting God to save them and bless them. In early Christology, all hierarchies are overturned. Christ sits on the throne of glory and people come to him in order to find atonement and blessing. This 97

Gieschen notes that already in Jewish apocalyptic texts “divinity could be ascribed to the enthroned figure,” Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 94. Bauckham adds: “should be ascribed,” Bauckham, God of Israel, 165 fn 35. Cf. Hengel who states that, in the New Testament, it is ascribed to the enthroned Christ, Hengel, Studies, 220–222; so also Hurtado in his conclusions, Lord Jesus, 151–152. 98 Cf. Bauckham in his “God Crucified,” God of Israel, 20f. 99 This is the main conclusion of my book, Throne, 368.

II. Six Christological narratives

231

confirms the theological view that Israel’s Lord’s kingship becomes manifest in Jesus’ heavenly rule. Jesus Christ is the one who will save people from the agony of exile, and he will grant forgiveness to those living under God’s wrath.100 This striking feature in New Testament Christology necessarily reinterprets Jewish monotheism, at least in a Pharisaic or rabbinic sense. As we have seen earlier, many scholars have attempted to explain the gradual divinization of Jesus of Nazareth in theology as an evolution from JewishChristian monotheism to Hellenistic high Christology.101 Several scholars have started to question this explanation on several grounds. Hurtado has explored the aspect of devotion in many of his studies. In early Christology, Christ is no doubt venerated as God himself, and he is the object of faith.102 Enthronement Christology provides the justification for such beliefs. The Old Testament theocratic ideal has transformed and, therefore, the earliest Christological formulas depict Jesus as the Lord himself on the lofty throne.103 In a theological sense, Christ’s enthronement is seen as the Lord of Israel’s enthronement at the end of days. It becomes the event that fulfills the eschatological expectations. Since God is the “God who gathers,” the exalted Christ becomes the Lord who calls people into his kingdom of peace. The exile is “reversed” (see Hahn above), and fittingly so has the movement of deportation. Jesus sends his disciples out to proclaim the jubilee that has now been inaugurated. The year of release has come. Sinners are guided to the new temple of reconciliation and forgiveness. This is one of the main motifs in the redactional theology of both Luke and Matthew. Luke, as we saw, has first argued for a new gospel where several basic Old Testament passages support the understanding that Jesus’ sufferings and his resurrection belong to God’s plan. Luke then states that the apostles are sent to “call” (kaleō) people from every nation to Christ’s kingdom. The same is true of Matthew who ends his Gospel in a crescendo leading to the Great Commission: “All 100

In the Ascension of Isaiah, for instance, the author still warns the listener from worshiping either the throne or angels (Ascen. Isa. 7:21). 101 Even scholars such as Fletcher-Louis, Angels, 251; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 272 still assume that there was no real breach of monotheism in early Christology. Bauckham, however, ponders Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation and considers it as “the unique act of God’s self-giving, in which he demonstrates his deity to the world by accomplishing salvation for the world.” When the first Christians ascribed the features of the Servant in Isaiah to Jesus, they expanded the concept of monotheism. “With deliberate hindsight they understand the identity of the God of Israel afresh in the light of his new identity as the God of Jesus Christ. They find him to be one and the same God [...].” Bauckham, God of Israel, 50, 54. 102 See especially Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 153, 215. 103 Chester in his article analyses all recent views that consider high Christology as an early phenomenon, and especially within a Jewish context, see Chester, Early Christianity 2 (2011) 24–30; for exaltation Christology, see 29–30.

232

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:18–19). There is, therefore, a direct connection between Jesus’ message and the teaching of the early Church. While Jesus proclaimed that the Son of David would build an eschatological temple, his followers, right after Easter, started to preach that the new temple had arrived. It is a spiritual temple with an ark of the covenant, the place of the throne of glory. All believers can approach because their Savior Jesus Christ has been enthroned on the “mercy seat” in his resurrection. Resurrection Christology, thus, is the fulfillment of restoration hopes. The apostles who constructed the early Christological statements were convinced that Jesus’ promises about the ending of the exile had come true. It was inaugurated with the resurrection of the dead. The last days had arrived. In this cosmic event Christ was exalted at the right hand of God, sitting on the throne of glory. Christ’s royal dominion becomes a criterion according to which the entire Old Testament temple cult as well as theocracy are reinterpreted. God’s kingship in Israel has become manifest through Christ’s Lordship as he sits on his heavenly throne. As believers confess their faith in Jesus they also fulfill the aim of traditional worship: they believe in God as a heavenly King. Hence faith in Christ the Lord bears good fruit, good fruit that is the opposite of exilic apostasy. Believers confess their faith in God and remain faithful to him. They obtain the forgiveness of sins as Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted. They keep the new covenant that is a covenant of mercy. They are filled with God’s Holy Spirit and dedicate their life to God. They pray to God as his adopted children. In short: they live in peace with God who himself has purified his people and let righteousness rain fall from heaven to make the ground fertile.

III. Early Christology and Jewish synagogal liturgy The natural birthplace for early Christology is the synagogue. Its prayers and liturgy taught people the elements of piety and as well as the content of Jewish faith. The two most important elements in synagogal liturgy are the Shema and the Amidah, an established prayer that lists the central elements in Jewish faith. It makes sense then that the first descriptions of early Christology appear in confessions and hymns – and even prayers. Among the writings of the New Testament, hymns in particular play a special role in revealing material with a dedicated Christian identity. There are several exemplary passages such as the kenosis-hymn in Phil 2, treated above, the Benedictus of Zechariah (Luke 1), or the exceptional Magnificat of Mary (Luke 1). These texts show that there was a fixed tradition long before the

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

233

recording of Christian material in written form. They emerge from the very first decades or even years of the Christian church. 1. The Amidah and restoration eschatology In New Testament times the synagogal institution blossomed, and they existed even in small villages.104 The New Testament authors mention numerous synagogues that Jesus visited. Paul, in turn, worked constantly in local synagogues during his travels. The liturgy is quite well known, even though there are only few direct sources concerning its content. Titles of the main parts of the liturgy are mentioned in the Mishnah, and there is no reason to doubt that they had found their form in Herodian times, and possibly even early during the Second Temple period.105 In a standard morning service liturgy started with a kaddish praising God’s name, like in the Hallel-psalms: “Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time on and forevermore” (Ps 113:2; cf. Daniel’s prayer in Dan 2:20: “Blessed be the name of God from age to age”). Then fixed prayers followed. The Berakhot mentions prayers such as “Who Creates Light” and “Everlasting Love” (m. Ber. 1:4).106 In the first prayer God is praised as the creator of light, appropriate for a morning prayer (cf. Ps 136:7). The content has symbolic significance, though, because God has apparently (as far as we can tell from the later versions of the prayer) been depicted as the “eternal light,” as well as “light from darkness” (using Isa 45:7, “I form light and create darkness”). Elbogen notes that, at some point, a messianic interpretation was added to this prayer stating: “Cause a new light to shine upon Zion.”107 “Everlasting Love” is a prayer giving thanks for God’s love since he gave the Torah to Israel. Not surprisingly, this prayer is very ancient. Then the Shema with its essential texts are recited, and one more prayer is added. The center of the liturgy, in a religious sense, is the Shema and the long Amidah prayer following it, most probably accompanied by the Trishagion from Isa 6:4. There was probably a scriptural reading, accompanied by a Targum (explanation of the text). The liturgy ended with a great kaddish praising God.108

104

Recent archaeological discoveries have brought many of these synagogues to light, see Corbett’s article “New Synagogue Excavations,” BAR 37 (2011) 52–59. 105 For the history of the synagogue, see Schürer, History II, 423–447. 106 Elbogen in particular researches ancient Jewish liturgy; for synagogal prayers, see his Jewish Liturgy, 16. 107 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 19. The dating of this part is difficult. 108 Such elements can be detected in m. Ber 1–5. It is quite understandable, therefore, that light is made a central metaphor in the New Testament, where “light shines in the darkness” (John 1:5), and the light of creation is made the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). In the

234

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

The Shema, as noted before, combined Deut 6:5 and the collection of 11:13–21 and Num 15:37–41 under the title “And it shall come to pass” (from the first line of the second passage). We have argued before that the content of the Shema was important in Jesus’ own teaching. The structure of the synagogal liturgy confirms that the aspect of obedience was crucial in the devotional life of pious Jews. Furthermore, toward the end of the liturgy, the priestly blessing was read (Num 6:24). Many of these elements sound familiar because they later found their place in Christian liturgy. The prayer of the Eighteen benedictions, Shemoneh ‛esreh, has been the chief prayer in synagogal tradition most likely from the days of Jesus and his disciples. In Jewish theology it is often called Amidah since it should be prayed “standing.” According to the Mishna the whole liturgy was built around this prayer (m. Ber. 5). The Amidah with its eighteen berakhoth has been transmitted in two versions. The larger Babylonian version still serves as the basis of Jewish synagogal liturgy. The Palestinian version is somewhat shorter but its main content is identical with the Bablyonion.109 The theology of these prayers builds on exilic tradition and reflects a strong hope of restoration – partly experienced and partly anticipated. The first prayer begins in the spirit of the Shema and the greatest commandment. 1. Blessed art thou, Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob, great, mighty and fearful God, most high God, who bestowest abundant grace and createst all things and rememberest the promises of grace to the fathers and bringest a Redeemer to their children’s children for thy Name’s sake out of love. O King, who brings help and salvation and who art a shield. Blessed art thou, Lord, shield of Abraham.

Behind the prayers of the Amidah one can easily detect centuries of Jewish history starting with father Abraham. The identity of the nation rested very much on the blessing Abraham received from God Almighty. This was also the proof text according to which Abraham was to become an “ancestor of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5). In Genesis the passage starts with the mention of the shield: “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great” (15:1). Later shield serves as a metaphor for protection in Moses’ blessing (Deut 33:29). One of the important features in the Amidah is that all prayers end with a summary that works as a mnemonic. Therefore, the nature of the blessings can be captured by these summaries (here identified according to their number).110 baptismal liturgy in Eph 5:14 light symbolizes the new life of the disciple: “Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” 109 See Schürer, History II, 455–563. The Babylonian recension has one peculiar feature. Despite its title it actually consists of nineteen prayers. It is apparent that the messianic prayer 14 has been divided into two parts. Number 12, in turn, has been adapted to a new situation by adding a clause against heretics. 110 For the Babylonian and Palestinian editions, see Schürer, History II, 456–463.

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy 2. Blessed 3. Blessed 4. Blessed 5. Blessed 6. Blessed

235

art thou, Lord, who makest the dead alive. art thou, Lord, holy God. art thou, Lord, who grantest knowledge. art thou, Lord, who delightest in repentance. art thou, Lord, gracious, rich in forgiveness.

In synagogues people prayed to God who is Israel’s Savior. He heals the sick and makes the dead alive. The Lord is holy but he forgives. True wisdom – and apparently true understanding of the law – comes only from him.111 7. Blessed art thou, Lord, redeemer of Israel. 8. Blessed art thou, Lord, who healest the sick of thy people Israel. 9. Blessed art thou, Lord, who blessest the years. 10. Blessed art thou, Lord, who gatherest the banished of thy people Israel.

The content of the Amidah resembles Jesus’ teachings in many respects. Both terminology and intentions coincide. The prayers have a certain tone of agony: the final release of God’s chosen people has not yet come. God, however, will gather the dispersed. Keeping this in mind, we can assume that the origin of the prayer is in the early phases of the synagogal system both in Babylon and other countries like Egypt. Simultaneously the prayers reinterpret the Old Testament eschatological tradition and focus on God’s preservation of and faithfulness to the covenant. Many of these prayers originate in the period before Jesus’ birth. The oldest known versions can be found in the (Hebrew) book of Sirach. In the larger Hebrew version the texts still continues after verse 51:12. In the first addition many of the familiar subjects occur in the form of a prayer but they do not yet follow the exact order known from the Amidah itself: – Give thanks to the redeemer of Israel. – Give thanks to him who gathers the dispersed of Israel. – Give thanks to the shield of Abraham.

This is exilic proclamation anticipating the restoration of Israel and focusing on the one who will redeem the people, the Son of David. It is somewhat surprising that the pious ones who pray these words put their hope in a messianic figure who appears quite like Jesus in the Gospels. The Savior who appears in the Amidah will rebuild Jerusalem and restore the temple. These ideas are clear both in Sirach and in the Amidah. Amidah: 14. Blessed 15. Blessed 16. Blessed 17. Blessed

art thou, Lord, who buildest Jerusalem. art thou, Lord, who causest the horn of salvation to shoot forth. art thou, Lord, who hearest prayer. art thou, Lord, who causest thy presence (Shekhinah) to return to Zion.

111 Elbogen notes that in the Amidah there are remnants from the liturgy of the temple, benedictions of general content, and different prayers. Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 27.

236

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

Sirach: – Give thanks to him who rebuilt his city and his sanctuary. – Give thanks to him who makes a horn to sprout for the house of David. – Give thanks to the rock of Isaac. – Give thanks to him who has chosen Zion. – Give thanks to the King of the kings of kings, for his mercy endures forever; He has raised up a horn for his people, praise for all his loyal ones.

As noted, Jesus’ teaching resembles such hopes rather closely and later apostolic tradition maintains the idea of the Son of David as the Savior of humankind. There is a close affinity between this theology and the synagogal prayer. A narratological perspective helps here. All these presentations are based on a short eschatological narrative: the horn of the family of David, the Messiah, will arrive and sanctify the temple. God’s glory will dwell among people in the congregation. This is when the period of silence will end and God will hear the prayers of the people who have lived under oppression.112 The fact that there are different sources for a quite established prayer tradition confirms the assumption that there has been a longer synagogal tradition behind the Amidah. A list of berahkot grew in different forms and was gradually edited into the form one can now find in Jewish tradition. Especially on the basis of the Hebrew Sirach, we can assume that a rather unified prayer appeared already during the time of Jesus and his disciples. As such, it can be understood as a devotional tradition in the middle of which the apostles grew up. It must have been familiar to all Jewish-Christians in the early church. One of the most interesting features in the prayer is the conviction that a Davidic Messiah will come as a Savior for Israel. This directs our attention to prayer 14 in the Palestinian version. It treats several messianic themes: 14. Be merciful, Lord our God, with thy great mercies, to Israel thy people and to Jerusalem thy city; and to Zion, the dwelling-place of the glory; and to thy Temple and thy inhabitation; and to the kingship of the house of David, thy righteous Messiah. Blessed art thou, Lord, God of David, who buildest Jerusalem.

In the Babylonian recension, prayers 14 and 15 deal with the subjects taken up in prayer 14 in the Palestinian version. Prayer 14 speaks about the rebuilding of Jerusalem: “build it soon in our days to be an everlasting building; and raise up quickly in its midst the throne of David.” Prayer 112

One early remembrance of the synagogal prayer, apparently, is Ps 147 where themes later found in the Amidah are replete. “The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcast of Israel” (v. 2; cf. Amidah 14 and 10). “He heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds” (v. 3; cf. Amidah 8). “Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure” (v. 5; Amidah 4). “The Lord lifts up the downtrodden; he casts the wicked to the ground” (v. 6; Amidah 12). “Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!” (v. 12; Amidah 17). “For he strengthens the bars of your gates; he blesses your children within you. He grants peace within your borders” (v. 13–14; Amidah 19).

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

237

number 15 adds: “Cause the shoot of David to shoot forth quickly, and raise up his horn by thy salvation.” Quite standard metaphors of shoot and horn transmit the basic hope. These words denoting ancestry and eschatological power express strong messianic expectation. A similar feature is obvious in Sirach’s prayer quoted above: “Give thanks to him who makes a horn to sprout for the house of David.” Pious Jews expected the Son of David to come as the redeemer of Israel. They were therefore well equipped for interpreting the event when Jesus rode to Jerusalem on a colt as the prince of the Davidic family. Looking at this through the hermeneutics of biblical theology, it is useful to focus on poetic passages and songs. They show theology as it crystalizes into conceptions. Key songs in the Old Testament are the songs of Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Hannah, and David. David’s song is essential for instance for Sirach’s song and the Amidah (see 2 Sam 22; cf. Ps 18). There is a tone of relief in David’s song. The introductory words refer to his rescue from the hands of Saul. This is probably why it is suitable for those suffering from the agonies of the exile. In the narrative of the song, a prince who has experienced deportation finally experiences also the fulfillment of God’s promises. He will be enthroned in Israel and become also a ruler of nations. God, for this kind of messianic figure, is a fortress on a high mountain: “The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge” (22:3). The same terminology can be found in the Amidah, especially in prayer 18 that serves as a kind of summary for the whole prayer. According to the original song David became a mighty ruler once the revolt was over. “You delivered me from strife with the peoples; you kept me as the head of the nations; people whom I had not known served me.” (22:44). Such rhetoric is applicable to descriptions where God is expected to do mighty acts to end the exile: “the God who gave me vengeance and brought down peoples under me, who brought me out from my enemies; you exalted me above my adversaries, you delivered me from the violent” (22:48–49). It is quite obvious that the Amidah has had a strong influence on the genesis of early Christology. Daily prayer kept restoration hope alive. All believers spoke the words of redemption daily so it is unnecessary to speculate how relevant these ideas were in the days of Jesus and his followers. The crucial issue for the development of theology concerns the adaptation of these themes in new situations. For instance Sirach still awaited the appearance of David’s horn. Later, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the eschatological content of these prayers was relevant indeed. But even during the Roman period Jewish theologians no doubt had reason to put their hope in the shield of Abraham. They must have wished that David’s son would bring peace in Israel sooner rather than later. It was easy, therefore, for the first Christians to apply the ideas found in the Amidah to their own theology. Jesus as the Son of David was now praised

238

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

as the Messiah whom God had sent in order to build an eschatological temple and bring the people to a renewed adoption as children. Salvation was granted to all believers – not for the proud but for the humble. Jesus’ new kingdom was based on forgiveness. For the first followers, Jesus’ teaching and work must have meant the actual fulfillment of each prayer in the Amidah. 2. The Benedictus of Zechariah The Benedictus at the beginning of Luke is penetrated by the restoration eschatology that both John and Jesus proclaimed (Luke 1:68–79). The hymn describes how the Son of David arrives during a period of tribulaton. He defeats all enemies, confirms God’s covenant, and grants the adoption that had been promised to Abraham. John the Baptist comes first as the forerunner of the Savior and prepares the way for the deported to return to Jerusalem. He lets the light shine on those who live under the shadow of death (Isa 9:1–6). In this respect the canticle promotes Lukan salvation history, his grand vision about the fulfilment of the final restoration through Jesus’ work.113 The Lukan passage still appears in the form of a hymn. Its structure is independent of the standard prose in the first chapter. Scholars usually assume that it is a reconstruction, building on traditional material.114 It provides an interpretation of the messianology mentioned in the beginning of the gospel and applies it then to John’s ministry (vv. 76–79). There are no doubt two themes combined in the hymn but the first one apparently reflects Jewish eschatological tradition and is necessary for the second part. Therefore, there is no reason to divide the Christian version of the hymn into separate parts. The Benedictus starts in the same manner as Jewish psalms and synagogal prayers: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them [actually: “prepared redemption,” epoiēsen lytrōsin]” (Luke 1:68; cf. Ps 41:14; 72:18; 106:48).115 Such a form is well known for instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The hymn in column 14 ending the War Scroll starts with the same words: “Blessed be the God of Israel, the one who keeps mercy for his covenant.” (1QM 14.4). Redemption (lytrōsis) is a key-word for the ending of the exile. The Lukan presentation of salvation history revolves around different terms denoting release from the exile. The same is true for the next term Luke uses, which is the word to visit. The 113 Salvation history has recently been emphasized in this context by Witherington, Indelible Image I, 679. 114 For issues of composition, see Nolland, Luke, 83–84. It is more than probable that Luke builds on very early traditions in this compilation. 115 Bovon notes that the short benediction at the very beginning of the hymn links the content to the Eighteen Benedictions, the Amidah. Bovon, Luke, 72.

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

239

reason for praising God is that he “visits” his people and, so, arrives as Savior (Gen 21:1; Exod 4:3; Ps 106:4). This is how the author prepares the ground for the main idea of how God “prepares redemption” for his people.116 He has raised up a mighty savior [a horn of salvation] for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us. Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (Luke 1:69–75)

The horn topos in both David’s song and synagogal prayer serves as an Old Testament metaphor for deliverance brought by God. In some texts God himself is depicted as the “horn of salvation” (2 Sam 22:3); in others, God promises that a new David will bring salvation.117 In this respect, the Lukan Benedictus is practically a reinterpretation of Sirach’s prayer and the Amidah.118 According to the text, God will remember his promises and the covenent made with Abraham. He sends the Son of David in whose kingdom the chosen ones may live in peace and holiness. In the text, such a “visitation” is anticipated by John the Baptist who prepares way for the Israelites who live in the darkness of spiritual exile.119 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins. By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:78–79)

Both Isaiah 9 and the end of Malachi are reflected in the closing verses of the early hymn. Here two missions are united: the appearance of the Son of David and the proclamation of the new Elijah who anticipates the imminent 116

Cf. Ravens, Restoration, 37. The passage is filled with epithets that have a messianic connotation, like “dawn,” “horn,” and “servant.” See Chance, Luke-Acts, 52–53; Bovon, Luke, 76. 118 The connection is noted by Marshall, Luke, 91. 119 Chance reminds us that “All the characters in these two chapters are Jews; in point of fact they represent the best Jewish piety has to offer.” Chance, Luke-Acts, 55. And Ravens emphasizes continuity by saying that Luke “has written a prologue in which God’s coming salvation of Israel is emphatically established.” Ravens, Restoration, 49. 117

240

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

raising of the sun of righteousness: a light will shine upon those who walked in darkness, “they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death” (Isa 9:2, AV). The weight is on the Lord: “you will go before the Lord.” Even though kyrios in this passage derives from Isaiah (40:3), it possesses a high Christology. The arriving kyrios who will visit the earth and bring salvation is definitely Jesus of Nazareth.120 Narratively, Zechariah’s Benedictus recounts the same eschatology that Jesus taught. The events that the singer witnesses are presented as a fulfillment of the hopes recited in standard Jewish synagogal prayers. The agony of the exile will come to an end only when the horn of David will be exalted. Then the people will experience the forgiveness of sins. The Messiah will arrive and the covenant of grace will become manifest. This Savior is Jesus of Nazareth whose entrance John will prepare. John the Baptist will serve as a messenger who will proclaim the arrival of a king. This king shall not come with troops despite the fact that he will save the people from the hands of her enemies. In the rhetoric of the Benedictus the most dangerous of all the enemies are sin and death. As the Son of David arrives, God will pardon Israel for all her sins. The shadow of death will no longer hover over the people. 3. Christology in the Magnificat The famous Magnificat, Mary’s song of praise (Luke 1:46–56) has close ties both with Old Testament hymns and Jewish synagogal prayers. It most clearly reinterprets the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2) but there are references to the Pentateuch, several psalms, and the song of David (2 Sam 22). The subject in the hymn is Mary herself. There is a clear intertextual relation with the song of the childless Hannah. Both songs deal with two parallel themes: firstly, a God-given child in a situation where a child is not expected and, secondly, a child who is dedicated to God.121 My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. (Luke 1:46) My heart exults in the Lord, my strength is exalted in my God. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in my victory [salvation, jeshua’]. (1 Sam 2:1)

In both cases God has “looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant” (Luke 1:48; 1 Sam. 1:11). Here Luke appears to follow the Septuagint but 120 Luke’s Jesus “is not simply a prophet, he is the Lord’s Anointed, the shepherd king of David’s line who will rule over the restored Israel.” Ravens, Restoration, 48. 121 Nolland notes that views concerning the nature of this hymn vary significantly. Some scholars assume that it is entirely a Lukan composition, whereas others state that “there is nothing specifically Christian about the hymn,” apart from the sense of eschatological fulfillment. Nolland, Luke, 63; so also Ravens, Restoration, 35.

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

241

this can no longer be detected in translations.122 One can also assume that there is a linguistic reference to Jacob’s first wife Leah whose misery in the shadow of the beloved Rachel was not left unheard. God remembered Leah and made her the mother both of Levi and Judah. So it is definitely Leah who is the great grandmother of the Davidic dynasty. “Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for the Mighty One has done great things for me” (Luke 1:48–49; cf. Gen 30:13).123 Secondly, it is easy to see that the basic theme in Hannah’s song, humiliation and exaltation, becomes significant in the Magnificat. “The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust” (1 Sam 2:7–8). God’s salvation is merciful and it will come true no matter what earthly kings do.124 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:52–53)

The genealogy of such messianic themes in the Magnificat is apparent. Leah, the rejected mother of Judah, and childless Hannah who awaits a horn to spring up from the family of Judah, are both pious figures of the Old Testament. They prophesy about the exaltation of a future king. Among these great female figures must now be counted Mary as well, who witnesses the culmination of the eschatological ages. Hannah’s hymn ends with words: “The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed” (1 Sam 2:10). In a similar way David’s song reaches its climax in praise for the Davidic Messiah.125 He is a tower of salvation for his king, and shows steadfast love to his anointed [or: show mercy for your Messiah], to David and his descendants forever. (2 Sam 22:51)

Such themes are taken up by the Magnificat. The last part of the hymn seems like a summary of the blessings in the synagogal prayer. Those who surrender to the Messiah from David’s dynasty are convinced that God 122 “Luke does not work from a rigid prophecy/fulfillment scheme; nor are the prefigurations in the Old Testament of character and event (e.g., Abraham, Sarah, Hannah) read in simple typological correspondence with the characters and events of Luke's time. Rather, Luke's reading of the LXX enables him to shape his story to exert pressure upon the reader by means of atmospheric resonance.” Rowe, Narrative Christology, 33. 123 See Fitzmyer, Luke, 367. 124 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 84. 125 This aspect proves that, despite the fact that the hymn “lacks specific Christian references” (Ravens, Restoration, 35), it has no other raison d’être than Mary’s situation. This is why, it must be considered a unique combination of Second Temple Jewish restoration expectation and early Christian conviction about the arrival of the Son of David.

242

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

continues to hear his own: “[you] rememberest the promises of grace to the fathers and bringest a Redeemer to their children’s children for thy Name’s sake out of love” (Amidah 1). In the first blessing the Lord, shield of Abraham, will bring salvation in due time. In the Magnificat such hopes have seen their fulfillment. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever. (Luke 1:54–55)

The Magnificat thus presents a story of women chosen by God. It develops into a story of raising the humble and a proclamation of the birth of the Messiah. God has heard the prayers of those in the Old Testament who cry out and sing to him. From generation to generation he has made his plans and worked for the salvation of humankind. Finally, through Mary, God has fulfilled all his promises and given the world a descendant from the family of Judah, the horn of the royal dynasty, Messiah from the house of David, Savior who will bring peace to the descendants of Abraham. The Christology of the early church builds consciously on Old Testament hymnic traditions and messianism transmitted in Jewish theology and synagogal prayers. 4. Stephen and early synagogal preaching In certain passages of the New Testament one can find traces and influences of the synagogal preaching tradition. Sermons, as seen above, grew gradually out of the targums and explanations of the Hebrew text read aloud in the liturgy. Translation to Aramaic involved interpretation as well. The translations themselves were more like paraphrases of the original text. Messianic interpretations, probably inspired by the berakhoth, were applied to Old Testament passages. Even though there are particular commentaries for specific biblical texts, even among the Dead Sea Scrolls, paraphrases were also a popular form. One of the largest of these is the Temple Scroll at Qumran.126 Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 is a rather typical targum-reading. What is the relevance of this sermon in its narrative context? The targum-like interpretation of several Old Testament passages is actually based on a catena of important passages that criticize the spiritual state of the people. What we have in Acts 7 is a pointed speech about the spiritual exile of the hearers. Furthermore, as Witherington has noted, the examples Stephen has selected and used underscore events where God addresses his chosen ones “outside the context of the temple in Jerusalem.”127 126

It must be concluded that as the liturgical tradition in Greek speaking synagogues developed it built on the extant custom of targumic sermons, despite the fact that no translation for the Septuagint was needed. 127 Witherington, Acts, 266. “In short, much of this lengthy speech prepares us for the argument that God transcends the temple.”

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

243

The sermon follows perfect rhetorical principles, starting with an extensive reference to Abraham and his calling.128 The captatio is inescapable. Taking up the promise Abraham was given in the past, the speech repeats the point of departure that the Amidah uses. Next the preacher describes Israel’s infidelity and the punishments under which the people have suffered. The key figure is Moses who, already from the start was rejected by the Israelites: “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?” (Acts 7:27). Moses also predicts the appearance of a messianic prophet: “God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people as he raised me up” (7:37).129 The people, however, remain recalcitrant from generation to generation. He is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living oracles to give to us. Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt. (Acts 7:38–39)

When Moses later was on the mountain Israel fell into idolatry before the golden calf. “But God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the hosts of heaven.” (7:42). Israel’s sins were the reason God sent the people into exile, as the great prophets had foretold: “so I will remove you beyond Babylon” (7:43). By using rather long Old Testament paraphrases, Stephen’s speech builds a rhetorical tension where Israel’s present spiritual state is explained in terms of God’s punishments.130 God has turned his back on the people. No essential change will come until the people turn to their God in penitence and pray for mercy before the Righteous One. According to this speech, Israel still lives in exile regardless of their literal return to their own country. Religious Jews attempted naturally to appeal to the temple because it served as a symbol for God’s acceptance and mercy. This, however, was done in vain. Stephen builds a rhetorical contradiction and solves it skillfully. “Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands.” (7:48). Temple criticism is further supported by a quotation from the book of Isaiah (Isa 66:1–2).131 Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, 128

Ravens remarks: “Stephen stands firmly in the Abraham tradition.” Ravens, Restoration, 59. 129 See Witherington who says that here “we have the first overt reminder of where this discourse is leading.” It was Moses himself who prophesied about the new prophet – Jesus. Witherington, Acts, 271. The verse draws on Deut 18:15, as does Acts 3:22 in Peter’s speech above. 130 Cf. Ravens: “Stephen’s own words add little of substance to what has already been said by Amos and Isaiah so that any criticism contained in the speech is neither new nor specifically Christian.” Ravens, Restoration, 64. 131 Bruce suggests that the expression “made with human hands” implies a contrast with a temple “not made with hands.” Bruce, Acts, 149–150. Therefore, also this detail proves the continuity between Stephen’s speech and Jesus’ eschatology.

244

Chapter 3: Earliest Christianity

or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?

The quotation from Isaiah completes the criticism against Israel’s sins. The Temple has become an ineffectual meeting point because people’s hearts are not with God. The original text in Isaiah – difficult as it is to translate – continues by criticizing people who bring sacrifice but still remain in their sins, even murder. In this case, their sacrifices become like pig’s blood, they completely defile (Isa 66:3). The Jerusalem Temple has become a den of robbers even here and as we saw earlier. Stephen’s prophetic accusations remind us of Jesus’ speech at the temple. And like the great prophets, Stephen takes an “apocalyptic” view according to which God’s real throne is in the heavens. Therefore, any Jew wishing to be reconciled with God must approach that temple and that throne. This is why Stephen’s tone, like that in Jesus’ speeches, gets sharper and sharper toward the end of the sermon.132 You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Rightous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. (Acts 7:51–52)

Israel’s hardening of heart is obvious because they oppose the living God. For Stephen, this explains why Israel has abandoned the Messiah that God has sent. Moses himself prophesied that a new Moses would arrive (7:37), but now it has become clear that the new Moses was murdered. The sermon is thus based on a tragic narrative about the chosen people. God had given his promises to the people led by the patriarchs. He saved them from many different calamities. Israel, however, had responded by being unfaithful. And now the tension was so extreme because the people had killed the new Moses. Stephen’s speech reaches its apex in describing the period of tribulation. We find an Israel that kills the prophets that God sends. In a sense, the speech is almost a summary of Jesus’ program and his speeches, especially during the Galilean mission. The time of anguish ends only when people find Israel’s Messiah whose suffering and exaltation inaugurates the promised restoration. Therefore, there are two foci in the speech. On the one hand, it explains why Jesus died. On the other had, it warns Israel against opposing the living God. Exilic reality is inescapable. The context for the speech underlines this aspect. Stephen himself will become a martyr. He is the next victim of the period of tribulation. Not even the Easter helps Israel repent. At the end of his speech Stephen gives his testimony about the congregation’s belief in Jesus’ resurrection: “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56). Because of this faith he is then stoned to death. 132

Ravens, Restoration, 66.

III. Christology and synagogal liturgy

245

Even though one might say that the tone of the speech is negative and critical, the very same text implicitly presents a positive picture of God’s salvation history. The speech has the air of the parable of the sower. Israel has been infertile soil for centuries, but now God has begun to sow the seed of restoration. All the promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled. Moses’ hope for a Savior has come true. And as David wanted to see the real temple of God, there is now an answer to this as well. Adapting Isaiah’s words, we can say that the eschatological sanctuary it is not a house made of stone but a temple of hearts. Proper faith in the Righteous One means circumcision of ears. And the true sign of the chosen people’s membership is the circumcision of heart in the Holy Spirit (v. 51). Stephen’s sermon is part of the exilic rhetoric that focuses on restoration eschatology. Every one following the new Moses will be led to God’s real temple where the Savior is their righteousness and where the Holy Spirit will sanctify them. Such examples show how the liturgy of the synagogal prayer has provided a perfect point of departure for the construction of the early Christian gospel. The general use of the Shema, the prayers of the Amidah, and speeches given in a targumic style have influenced the formation of theology. The common ground was found in the eschatology that focused on the Son of David who restores Israel and founds a messianic temple. These issues, as expressed in the metanarrative of exile and restoration, have already become familiar to us through the analysis made above, and they clearly unite Jesus’ teaching and early Christian doctrine.

Chapter 4

Paul the theologian Approaching Paul’s theology from the point of view of restoration eschatology may sound like a somewhat daring enterprise. It changes and challenges some of the more traditional assessments of the basic nature of his teaching, like justification. Furthermore, it is not at all clear how these views relate to the “new perspective on Paul” that has directed Pauline studies for decades. Paul’s theology cannot be sufficiently explained by focusing only on his theology concerning the law. Nevertheless, many of Paul’s wellknown theological themes point in this direction: the questioning of Israel’s ethnocentric status, his vehement criticism of Israel’s sins, the adoption of apocalyptic views concerning aeons, and his focus on the new kingdom of salvation through the son of David.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology: fulfillment and liberation In earlier Protestant tradition, Paul has been considered an idealist with universal beliefs (Deissmann), a mystic (Schweitzer), or even a Gnostic (Bultmann), as well as the theologian of justification (Schlatter). It is more than understandable that later in the Western post-WW II remorse, Paul came to be seen more and more as a Jewish teacher, and so the time was ripe for Sanders’ theories.1 While Paul had previously been depicted as an opponent of the standard Judaism of his day, some scholars now draw contra-Pauline conclusions, like Dunn (who questions the standard Protestant reading of justification) and Räisänen (who questions Paul’s theological consistency altogether).2 In addition to this, however, one must note that there have also 1

New approaches comprise W.D. Davies’ Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, as well as Schoeps’ Paulus. In this respect, Sanders and Wright follow a well-trodden path. For the change of attitude after the war, see Wright, Justification in Perspective, 246. 2 Dunn claimed that it is a mistake to ascribe legalism to Judaism, as Luther did, which makes Paul an opponent of Jewish practices like Lutherans opposing the indulgences and legalism of their time. Dunn, Romans, lxv. Räisänen, in turn, claims that Paul is inconsistent in his thinking, using arguments (concerning the law in particular) that merely attempt to “give a distorted picture of Judaism.” Räisänen, Law, 188.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

247

been many approaches to Paul’s thinking. Some scholars have focused on apocalyptic features in his eschatology (Beker) while through the great interest in Second Temple Judaism that flourished in Tübingen, Paul was located more and more in his original context (Hengel, Stuhlmacher, Hofius).3 To center on restoration does not mean that this theme would be presented as the only perspective or core with which one attempts to explain all of Paul’s thinking. Paul was a man of many visions. It is useful to discuss law and salvation, or even law and gospel in good Protestant fashion, or to speculate on justification terminology or different aspects of covenantal theology. In contemporary research, Paul can be seen as a Pharisaic convert, Hellenist teacher, charismatic preacher, a moralist with a social conscience, or the founder of a personal counseling movement. Nevertheless, the story of exile and restoration provides a metanarrative where issues such as Davidic messianism, the return of the Holy Spirit, renewed adoption as God’s children, the congregation as the temple of salvation, and even resurrection eschatology can be consistently explained. By exploring the narrative theology of the New Testament, we can see that Paul fits beautifully into the tradition that turns out to be behind much of the teaching.4 This new point of departure has several advantages. Firstly, it helps to assess Paul’s relationship to Jesus’ message in a new way. This area has been neglected in biblical scholarship for decades. Secondly, it lets Paul speak in his own voice without bringing predetermined dogmatic categories into the analysis.5 1. The turn of ages and fulfillment of the kairos It is one of the peculiarities of recent Pauline scholarship that the new perspective on Jesus and new visions concerning restoration eschatology have not inspired the investigation of Paul’s soteriology in any significant way. The reason for this is probably Sanders’ influential theory, according to which Paul’s theology should be interpreted mainly as a response to an alleged covenantal nomism prevailing in Jewish theology in the Second Temple period. This theory – as commentators claim – directed Pauline studies for three decades and remains influential to this day among many of the adherents of the “new perspective on Jesus,” now of course commonly called the “new perspective on Paul.”6 A disconcerting question about the 3

See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 234–252; and the two important books, Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul; and Riesner, Paul’s Early Period. For earlier apocalyptic interpretation, see Beker, Paul. 4 Good introductions to Pauline studies in general are many, see Kümmel, Investigation; Witherington, Paul Quest; and Westerholm, Perspectives. 5 For recent publications, however, see the collection by Still, Jesus and Paul Reconnected. 6 This line of investigation started with Sanders’ monograph Jesus and Judaism (1977). There are overviews in addition to Westerholm, see Dunn, New Perspective,

248

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

relationship of these two perspectives arises, though. How does the harmless covenantalism of the latter suit the exilic visions that drove Jesus to proclaim that the final period of tribulation rests heavily on Israel? How can the Second Temple experience of crisis be reconciled with another picture that tries to make Paul an average Jew attempting to restore the status quo of idealistic Mosaic obedience? Should we think that Paul did not understand Jesus’ program and developed something completely different in its stead,or did Paul, despite of the assumptions adopted by some present day scholars, in fact continue Jesus’ mission and proclaim restoration eschatology in a similar manner?7 As one starts to unravel the details in this new assesment of Paul’s eschatology one is inevitably lead to the important notion that he proclaims the turn of the ages. It is proper to examine how he presents the ideas of exilic rhetoric in his writings and how his definition of euangelion fits into the picture. Furthermore, the chosen point of departure focuses on the idea of community as God’s temple – a theme that always has been prominent in his teaching. Only after these analyses will it be possible to investigate how Paul’s treatment of theodicy and his construction of justification theology in this very context can be related to restoration eschatology.8 When focusing on eschatology Paul re-writes a narrative that intentionally uses salvation history. This has often been acknowleged in Pauline scholarship: Paul has a large vision of Israel’s history.9 He follows Jesus in claiming that a time of fulfillment has come, the kairos of the ages is here. He also implies that the exilic condition is still unchanged, all people including Jews must repent and recognize the appearance of the Son of God. The time of restoration is real, but in can remain unfruitful if Jesus is rejected and Kim, New Perspective, and they explain different currents inside the school itself. Also the recent massive monographs on Paul, namely Dunn’s Paul, Campbell’s Deliverance, and Wright’s recent two-volume work Paul, still partly adopt the principles of covenantal nomism, a least in some form. Details change, naturally, and we shall discuss these in due course. 7 Even though we have little room here to evaluate elements of the history of research, it is rather important to note that Sanders first wrote his monograph Jesus and Judaism and only later applied (some of) his views to Jesus-studies. Therefore, one should consider Meyer’s The Aims of Jesus the important source text that inaugurated the new perspetive on Jesus. Sanders’ Pauline studies, in turn, depend on Davies among others. 8 It is noteworthy that even Wright, who first presents a thorough treatment of the issue of continuing exile in his Paul, does not in fact start his explanation of Paul’s theology by examining the significance of the theme in Paul’s soteriology. Wright, Paul, 139-163. This is not simply a result of using Sanders’ theory but rather his deliberate choice to interpret Paul’s theology in the framework of the “covenant narrative of Israel,” as he says; Paul, 1453. He does use restoration eschatology in his explanation, but it is not the leitmotif. 9 This is noted for instance by Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 251–252; Witherington, Thought World, 38–39; Schreiner, Paul, 73–75.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

249

and his message is neglected. Elements of restoration eschatology are clearly present in Paul’s theology. The euangelion, for Paul, is not just one doctrine among many, a concept that should find its place in a larger system of beliefs. Instead, it belongs to the core message and describes God’s long-time plan for Israel’s final restoration. Therefore, Christ’s appearance is the sign denoting the beginning of the end. This is also what Paul writes in 1 Cor 10:11. The apostle and his hearers belong to the generation “on whom the ends of the ages (ta telē tōn aiōnōn) have come.” People have been enslaved “to the elemental spirits (stoikheia) of the world” but now God has stepped down to be among his people. In Galatians Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, “who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age” (Gal 1:3). In Paul’s eschatology the evil age is paradoxically parallel with the age of salvation. They are both true at the same time, and Paul has been called and set apart for proclaiming the good news.10 While Jesus proclaimed his exilic euangelion speaking of the fulfillment of time (eplērōthē ho kairos ) Paul, in turn, states that in the fullness of time (to plērōma tou khronou) God sent his Son. 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. (Gal 4:3–4)

Paul builds on Isaian themes. The time of slavery is ended. God’s servant has come, and now the time of punishment is over. In Paul’s hermeneutics the slavery in Babylon has transformed into slavery under the accusing law. Paul expands the idea of exile to cover earlier exiles: firstly that in Egypt and secondly, looking back, the great event of expelling human beings from Eden. For Paul, the whole of humanity has awaited the appearance of the Son of God. Israel then, as the chosen people, has only had a symbolic role representing the all humankind under slavery. God’s purpose from the very start has been the restoration of humanity as his adopted children. This could not have been done had the cause of sin and power of the law not been removed.11 It is apparent that Paul himself believed to have taken part in this eschatological change at the crucial moment when divine revelation penetrated into world history. In Galatians Paul states that, when God called him, he “was pleased to reveal his Son” to Paul. The interesting expression apokalypsai ton huion autou en emoi builds on the word apokalyptō, referring most probably to Paul’s conversion. This is also why Paul reminds his hearers in 10

Cf. for instance Wright, Paul, 525. Liberation from slavery is explained in Martyn’s “apocalyptic” reading of Galatians where he also pays attention to the turn of the ages. Martyn, Galatians, 389, 407. 11

250

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

the beginning of the letter that he is an apostle dia Iēsou Khristou, not one sent by human authorities (Gal 1:1). This revelation is the foundation for Paul’s gospel, which he is destined to proclaim (euangelizōmai) about Christ “among the Gentiles” (1:16).12 In Paul’s theology, exilic themes intersect with his conceptions of Israel’s current state. While it is difficult to treat the issue before we examine Paul’s soteriology in more detail, we need to mention the basic point of departure here. In the letter to the Romans especially, Paul addresses the issue by asking: who is a proper Jew? What should be considered essential in God’s election, human fidelity, and personal faith? It is clear that Paul adopts the rhetoric of the great prophets to respond to this question. According to Paul, God’s covenant with Abraham has never been a selfevident truth that would automatically make all descendants unquestioned members of the elect merely by birth. The covenant of salvation does not concern every Israelite. True faith has always been a matter of the heart. This is why Paul states that “real circumcision is a matter of the heart” – as the interpretative translation goes. It is a peritomē kardias, circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29; depending on Jer 4:4 or 9:26). The Old Testament itself testifies that outward signs do not prove true faith. God’s Israel is a nation of faithful hearts. This is why Paul wishes to define the true Israel that has a role in God’s eschatological plans.13 Israel has fallen into a crisis and, as Paul claims, not without reason. Most Israelites have gone astray. This has resulted in a division within the nation. “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6). There is an eschatological tone in this claim. God’s exiled people has never been promised a salvation without certain conditions. Paul refers to Isaiah who proclaims that “only a remnant of them will be saved” (Isa 10:27). Originally, this is an exilic promise speaking of return to the land. God will remain angry with the people until his salvation will make the restoration manifest. This is why Paul makes a distinction between the community of salvation and earthly Israel. He states that “not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants” (Rom 9:7). By referring to Abraham Paul touches the core of Jewish identity. An example from Genesis is expected to convince his learned opponents since it belongs to their own arsenal: biblical proof. Teachers of the law were well aware that an example in the scriptures makes a good case: only Isaac was given the famous promises (Gen 21:12). Others were left ouside the covenant. In the end, Paul reminds them, there is an

12

This is a point emphasized especially by Stuhlmacher, see for instance his article “Das paulinische Evangelium” in Evangelium, 161–162; see also Stuhlmacher, Theologie I, 313. 13 Gorman, Apostle, 356; Wright uses this passage when explaining the “implicit narrative” about the fulfilling of the Torah’s decree. Wright, Paul, 512.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

251

opposition between “the children of the flesh” (tekna tēs sarkos) and “the children of the promise” (tekna tēs epangelias, 9:8).14 Paul builds his eschatology on principles similar those that Jesus used. Israel will never attain divine mercy just by sticking to her outward service and temple liturgies. Paul says that it is useless to cry: “This is the temple of the Lord, This is the temple of the Lord.” Those Israelites who have returned from other countries do not yet represent the true remnant of the eschatological community of salvation. Instead, they merely represent remnants of the Israel from the period of the fallen kings – the nation that was punished by God’s wrath. Paul’s biblical proof, mentioned above, justifies this view.15 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant (hypoleimma) of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” (Rom 9:27– 28)

The remnant of true Israel is, for Paul, the community of Shema obedience, people of the circumcision of the heart. Nevertheless, the concept of the remnant itself serves as proof for the suggestion that Paul implies the metanarrative of exile and restoration. He does not speak of a sect or another religion. He maintains that the community of salvation, created by God in the restoration of the people, is Israel itself – the spiritual Israel whose heart is righteous. This is in fact underscored in the Isaian quotation where the Septuagint reading (used by Paul) replaces the original word, denoting a small part that is left, with the hopeful word “seed.”16 Furthermore, it is surprising that in Romans 9–11 Paul uses Elijah as an argument in his eschatological reasoning. Even though Israel persecutes both the first Elijah and the second Elijah, such tribulations belong to the final era that will restore the fallen Israel. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven

14

Michel call this a “divine process of exclusion,” Michel, Römer (5. Aulf.), 300. Jewett recognizes this and remarks: “What Paul denies here is that the covenantal promises extended to all of Abraham’s children.” Jewett, Romans, 575. 15 Remnant theology is discussed in several very different monographs, see Stuhlmacher, Romans, 150–151 (and the excursus, 177–184); Witherington, Thought World, 67f., Beale, Theology, 706f. 16 So Günther and Krienke in DNTT 3, 251 (s.v. “Remnant”). Isaiah 1:9 (MT) reads remnant but both LXX and Paul have sperma. Jewett notes that there is a deep meaning hidden in the term remnant (remembering its background in Isaiah): “The basic idea is that the salvation of the remnant consists in their having survived while the rest of the population was killed in battle or disappeared in exile.” Jewett, Romans, 659.

252

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Rom 11:2–5)

This passage, complex as it is focusing on the status of Israel of Paul’s time, states that it is Elijah who brings the change. He is the one with whom the kairos arrives.17 The situation in Israel remains unchanged from the time of the first Elijah: people want to kill him. God’s chosen people accepts neither Elijah nor Christ (9:3). The God of restoration is merciful, however, and he starts to build an eschatological community despite all the difficulties. The time of tribulation gives birth to a new kingdom. What is left is a remnant – this remnant that believes in the Savior of Israel.18 There is a narrative behind Paul’s soteriology – or one could say that there are several interrelated narratives. It is quite obvious that Paul adopts Jesus’ basic proclamation concerning exile and restoration. He takes the idea of spiritual polarization and applies it to several issues. The whole of Israelite worship is questioned in the face of divine restoration. Israel’s obedience is contrasted with an eschatological adoption as children. Christ is set against Moses. The second Adam will correct the corruption of the first Adam.19 As a trained teacher of the law Paul reinterprets restoration eschatology by expanding the idea to include every human being’s inner conflict. Like Israel’s great prophets before him, Paul makes exile primarily a matter of the heart. He brings the agony of sin to a peronal level. When Israel’s sin is dealt with, all sin is dealt with. This means a universalization of national restoration. As we saw above, the great prophets invented the principle on which such a universalization could be constructed. Israel’s restoration will benefit all nations. Forgiveness bestowed on Israel will bring release even to the pagan nations. Jesus expanded his mission according to these principles. Building on them, Paul started to create new narratives. These are evidently the reasons why Paul brings Moses, Abraham, and Adam into the picture. Speaking on the level of great principles, all people die in Adam. The great exile started when human beings were expelled from the garden of Eden. After that, there is a strict polarization between “natural” existence and “spiritual” existence. Death has exercised dominion in this world since the days of Adam and, therefore, new life starts only when the new Adam, Christ, arrives (Rom 5:12–18).

17

What is apparently meant here by the term kairos, is the “present critical time.” Jewett, Romans, 658. We are thus quite close to Jesus’ meaning of the word. 18 Wright assumes that Paul, before his conversion, had identified himself as the zealous Elijah or Pinehas and now, in a new situation, he hears the same answer: “there is still a remnant.” Wright, Paul, 1223. I agree on the nature of that answer, the Old Testament promise, but I think that in Paul’s case, it functions more as a biblical proof, referring to Jesus’ situation, not Paul’s. 19 In this sense, many recent monographs (at least when reading Rom 9–11) address such a metanarrative, see Beale, Theology, 709–710; Wright, Paul, 502–505.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

253

Furthermore, this is why the dichotomy and opposition between the weakness of the law and the sending of the Son becomes meaningful only in the context of the very same eschatological tension. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:3–4)

Paul teaches salvation in the same manner as Jesus did: the divine gospel releases human beings from the bondage of sin and brings them to God’s basileia, under his kingship. As Paul writes to the Thessalonians, God calls (kaleō) people into his kingdom (basileia; 1 Thess 2:12). Paul calls the saved sinners “heirs” of God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9). The kingdom in the new basileia belongs first to Christ but in the end times he will give it back to his Father (1 Cor 15:24). Paul depicts this community as a kingdom of glory and, therefore, long vice-lists describe possible obstacles to entering this kingdom. When people enter into this new community by receiving Christ’s righteousness as a gift, the state of their realized salvation is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). In studying this first element, we can see that Paul’s restoration eschatology proves that Paul, too, builds on a metanarrative where a crucial kairos moment fulfills God’s salvation history. While biblical theology in the Protestant tradition has often lost the connection between Jesus and Paul, restoration eschatology is able to bridge that gap by providing a new point of view. For Paul, the Jerusalem temple is not yet the place where the heavenly good news (euangelion) starts to renew those living in spiritual exile. Therefore, God sends his Son who will remove God’s wrath and open the way to adoption as children. The message of this new Savior starts to call the true Israel (ekklēsia) that is the remnant of God’s people. This is why, also for Paul, God’s basileia is the fulfillment of the Isaian promises. Paul ends up with a universalism where Israel’s Messiah is held to be the light of all the nations. 2. Avodat Israel and critique of Torah obedience What the new perspective on Jesus can bring to the interpretation of Paul’s soteriology is that Jesus’ opposition toward the temple seems to be paralleled by Paul’s criticism toward “works of the law,” Jewish Torah obedience.20

20 There is a long discussion concerning the “works of the law” among the adherents of the new perspective on Paul, some scholars referring to the Mosaic law in general, some focusing on the aspect of legalism, and some speaking about certain “boundary markers” that were not intended to cover the entire Torah. See Westerholm, Perspectives, 300–320; Dunn, New Perspective, 121–140, 213–226. Even though it is not possible to discuss all the alternatives here, it is apparent that

254

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

This challenging hypothesis claims to solve two difficult problems in Pauline scholarship. Firstly, it deepens the claim made above, that Paul’s theology is closely related to Jesus’ teaching. And secondly, it provides a consistent interpretation of Paul’s essential term erga nomou, works of the law. Paul, like Jesus, denounces Israel’s cold heart and calls his hearers to repentance.21 When Paul attacks the works of the law he in fact opposes all worship that is conducted in the temple, the synagogue, and private life. The reason for this is that work as a term in Jewish religious vocabulary also refers to a devoutly-lived life. In Paul’s letters we see that he assumes that Jews have a positive attitude toward erga nomou and that he creates a conflict precisely around this issue. A typical passage linking Jews with a positive attitude toward works of the law and justification without law is in Galatians 2. We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law (erga nomou) but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (Gal 2:15–16)

For Paul, the works of the law consitute the identity of any person being a Jew by birth. Works represent the positive ground according to which devout Jews understand their existence. But Paul is ready to question the very basis of this religious belief. The tension is as extreme as it was in Jesus’ proclamation.22 One can assume that Paul, who always wrote theology reflecting on his personal history, implies that he of all people really knows what a devout Jew by birth thinks about the Torah. Paul assessed the works of the law in a positive way and only after his conversion did he begin to question their soteriological relevance. An analysis of the term, therefore, must begin with a positive definition of its content. Already in Old Testament texts it is typical of Jewish theology to call religious service “work” (‘avodah). Jewish identity was centered on an obedient “service of the law” (“Dienst des Gesetzes”),23 or “nomistic service.”24 The task of fulfilling God’s will was the “work of the solution suggested in what follows will answer most of the implicit questions concerning the content of the term. 21 For a general assessment of my view in the context of other scholarship, see Westerholm, Variegated Nomism II, 20–21. 22 The aspects of nationality and law belong together here, in a simple way that may easily escape the reader. As Hahn says, the Jewish separation from the Gentiles implied the fact that the latter had nothing to do with the Torah. What concerns the law, in what follows, treats issues that are typical of Jewish thought. Hahn, ZNW 67 (1976) 59; ibid. Theologie II, 78. 23 Lohmeyer and Tyson have especially focused on the connection between the cultic practices of the Old Testament and the important term “works of the law”. See Lohmeyer, Probleme, 33–74; especially 67. 24 A term used by Tyson, JBL 92 (1973) 424–425, following Lohmeyer.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

255

Israel,” Avodat Israel, to which the people of Israel had been elected from among all peoples.25 There are several examples that support this view. In the Old Testament the service of priests and the making of the tabernacle was designated in this way.26 In the book of Joshua this work (‘avodah) of Israel, service to God in the tabernacle, testified to the people’s will to serve God and thus secured their relationship to the Lord (Josh 22:27). A service like this was not a task restricted to the priests, however. In the Passover narrative, God commands “this work/rite/service” (‘avodah), i.e. the Passover meal, as an ordinance which Jewish families should obey “for ever.” (Exod 12:24–26). Work for the Lord comprised feasts and prayers. When God commanded the service as a work for Israel, he actually gave the people the command which became the law, i.e. the law of Moses in the books of Moses. God’s command was the Torah, which Israel was to obey. In this way the “work” of Israel was identified with the law. In practice, “work” meant the fulfilling of the precepts of the law of Moses.27 This kind of thinking is clear in several Jewish texts from the Second Temple period. Already in sapiential literature the works of devout men are identified with obedience to the law. In most cases the writers denounce wrong deeds, which are bound to be subject to the judgment of God. In the Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, kings’ works (erga) will be tested according to their willingness to obey the Torah (Wis 6:3–4; cf. 12:4, 19; Sir 10:6; 11:20–21; 15:19). According to Sirach, the judgment of God will concern precisely the “works” of men (16:12). In the Wisdom of Solomon the law is, moreover, the wisdom of God, and the devout believers are urged to choose its works (erga, Wis 8:4).28 In Jewish theology the concept of righteousness according to works is thus based on the Old Testament. In the Second Temple period, this kind of theology was affected by the tension between exile and restoration, which had given birth to the problem of theodicy. Examples from the Psalms of Solomon support this affirmation. In Ps. Sol. 9 the writer first mourns the horrors of exile, but at the same time he praises God for his just judgments. Israel has suffered because of her sins, because no sinner can avoid God’s judgment (Ps. Sol. 9:3). In this psalm, too, the theological solution of the writer follows a synergistic concept of the meaning of the law. The subject of reconciliation in this text is naturally God himself, but it is the task of men to ensure this grace with their good works. “Our works [erga] (are) in the choosing and power of our souls, to do right and wrong in the 25 The term Avodat Israel in the popular form, adopted also here, is still in use in the Siddur, the Jewish prayer-book. 26 Exod 35:21, 24. See Kaiser, Theological Wordbook (1980) § 1553; Hahn, TBLNT (1979) 1387. 27 So especially Lohmeyer, Probleme, 33f. 28 For a detailed analysis, see Eskola, Theodicy, 208–217.

256

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

works of our hands, and in your righteousness you oversee human beings” (Ps. Sol. 9:4). Obedience to the law surely brings life and salvation: “The one who does what is right saves up life for himself with the Lord” (9:5). Resting the argument on these examples it is possible to state that in Jewish theology obedience to the Torah was described as “working,” as fulfilling the precepts of the Lord. A devout life was Avodat Israel in practice. This is evident when we examine the Septuagint and Greek texts from the Second Temple period. The same kind of theology and terminology can be found in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic texts, as well. This is most clearly demonstrated by the manuscripts from Qumran (especially 4QMMT c, 27; b, 2ff.).29 Thinking about Saul as a Pharisee it is logical to assume that he learned the basics of sapiential theology that Sirach and other Jewish writers had taught. Therefore, the young Paul believed that service both in the temple and in personal prayer meant the “work” that the Lord had summoned his people to. Erga nomou was a positive concept for him, denoting Jewish devotion at its best. He willingly followed the prescriptions as had the author of the Psalms of Solomon and the covenant members at Qumran. Such faithfulness was not understood merely as a matter of practical halakha. Avodat Israel concerned the whole Torah, and temple worship made it legitimate. Sanders was right in stating that this kind of Torah obedience was no casuistic nomism but, rather, understood as the guarding of God’s honor – as people believed at Qumran. In Paul’s letters we can find similar ideas in, for instance, the letter to the Philippians. There he writes that his previous attitude toward the law had been enthusiastic: “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:6). Righteousness under the law is here identical with the work of Israel. This is something Paul has done all his adult life. Following the commandments of the Mosaic law has been easy for him and it has provided him a good life – in that context. As Paul mentions zeal here, this does not mean that his life would have been severely legalistic. According to the synergistic nomism of Second Temple Judaism Paul, like Sirach, must have believed that God’s mercy belonged to all those who follow the Torah with all their heart. This conviction resulted in Paul’s zeal (zēlos) to protect the Torah against all false teachers, even those calling them the followers of Christ. When Paul then, in Galatians, proclaims that “no one will be justified by the works of the law” (2:16) he questions the entire Jewish tradition that formerly had given even him hope. In a sense Paul the converted Pharisee takes his conclusions farther than Jesus does in his eschatology: on the basis of total corruption of the law, he relativizes all devotion as an opposition to the appearance and work of the Messiah. There is a rhetorical purpose behind such a presentation, no doubt, but Paul’s theological anthropology is dark – 29

For the Dead Sea Scrolls see also 4QFlor 1.6–7 which refers either to works of torah or works of todah. The result for our conclusions is the same in both cases.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

257

and this is something that he shares with Jesus. When the inside is corrupt, no outward acts can help, not even the best service focusing on erga nomou.30 In his restoration eschatology Paul does not focus exclusively on the temple and its religious function. Paul develops Jesus’ denunciation of the inner corruption of human beings. There is a tension between Moses and Christ and even Adam and Christ. This is why the understanding of the people’s spiritual exile must be expanded to mean also the basic sinfulness of humankind. In this respect the polarization deepens. In relation to Christ, all personal devotion and even Avodat Israel will turn out to be useless. It cannot keep people from sin. While Jesus raised his voice against the temple and its worship, Paul confronts the whole of Jewish obedience. Security in the Torah and Jewish tradition is seen a parallel to the barren temple that has become a den of robbers. As God’s law addresses sinners, Paul believes, it penetrates even behind the good works according to which devout Jews direct their life. Paul is convinced that only the final release from the exile will restore all of humanity. 3. Abandoning the works of the law When Paul criticizes the role of the works of the law he no doubt questions the same religious service and Jewish worship that Jesus opposed. According to Paul temple worship and personal devotion became useless to people still living in spiritual exile. This is why the conclusion made above becomes crucial: Paul attacks the core of Jewish practice, the works of the law. He could not have honed his criticism more sharply. A paradox is inevitable. How can Paul claim that true salvation must be separated from the most holy works of the law? Has he become a servant of sin? Does he make God a servant of Satan? Does he open doors to promiscuity and recklessness? All these accusations have been made against him, when one considers the rhetorical discussions in his letters. In his explanation Paul turns to Abraham. His purpose is evident. If he can use Abraham to support his soteriology, no learned Jew can oppose him. The key word here is righteousness (dikaiosynē), a word that represented faithfulness also to any Jew from Jubilees to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Paul starts with the claim that Abraham was wholy justified by faith before Moses was given the Torah.31

30 This conclusion suggests that those scholars defending that erga nomou denotes the entire Torah as it is have good arguments to support their view. The contribution of Lohmeyer and Tyson, however, suggests that, in Jewish theology, the expression refers widely to the entire Jewish service and obedience. 31 Jewett notes the rhetorical point and, quoting Hays, says: “Thus instead of arguing against a conventional picture of Abraham, who could boast of having earned righteous status through conformity to the law, Paul wants to show ‘that Judaism itself, rightly understood, claims its relation to Abraham not by virtue of physical

258

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:1–3)

The Old Testament passage, quoted from the Septuagint, was perfect for Paul because it mentions both faith and righteousness (Gen 15:6). The key words faith (pistis) and righteousness (dikaiosynē) can now be understood in the way Paul wishes to have them understood. Furthermore, Paul uses the word “to reckon” (logizomai), which is one of the more difficult verbs in his theology (German: rechnen, bewerten, ansehen als, taxieren). It denotes counting and reckoning and is related to logeuō that is used, for instance, when speaking about collecting taxes. According to Balz–Schneider it refers often to objective reckoning of value and, therefore, in Rom 4, the usage is derived from commerce: “wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due” (4:4).32 Abraham was given something good, namely grace, not as wages but as a gift. Righteousness had been the demanded fee, but now faith was the only fee that was required of the believers. This means that judicial discourse governs the emergence of meaning here. God should have been counting people’s good works but he only “counts” faith. The number of deeds is irrelevant. The only thing Abraham needed was pistis. Paul’s Pharisaic reasoning is perfect. The story about Abraham, taken word for word, legitimates Paul’s new gospel and argues for his case. Paul used “work” as a rhetorical tool in order to explicate his main point. Works of the law have no role in salvation and justification. Israel’s restoration is not dependent on human effort because that road has turned out to be a blind alley. Any Jew, living in exile, will be saved like Abraham: by faith. When he returns to God who renews his people by his merciful act, his faith will be “reckoned” as righteousness. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Rom 4:5)

How can Paul then escape the accusation that God, in this scheme, could be understood as a servant of sin? Is there a reason why erga nomou have become powerless? This discussion has been conducted in Gal 3, and the answer is God’s curse. There Paul the Pharisee once again quotes Old Testament texts. “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.” descent... but by virtue of sharing his trust in the God who made the promises.” Jewett, Romans, 307. 32 Stuhlmacher points out that, for Paul, the justification of the ungodly is both a judicial act and an expression of God’s new creation (“schöpferisches Rechtsakt”). Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 334. This is confirmed by verse 17 mentioning God “who gives life to the dead,” and where the believer is “a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17).

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

259

This claim is legitimated by a quotation from Deuteronomy: “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law” (Gal 3:10).33 The book of the law has inaugurated Avodat Israel, a perfect service according to which the people should live. The Israelites should be faithful in everything that has been written. If they are not perfect, they cannot approach God. But who could be perfect after Babylon, after the divine punishment that crushed the people of the covenant? It is clear that Paul adopts exilic rhetoric here. The issue of personal ability in fulfilling the precepts of the law came under scrutiny in the time of Isaiah the prophet in the northern kingdom and much more so in the days of Jeremiah and Ezechiel. The entire nation was held accountable, and everyone was corrupt. Later the subjectivist speculation of the Torah-schools of the wisdom tradition in the Second Temple period was far too individualistic, at least for Paul. The fulfilling of the works of the law was not merely a matter of personal integrity. From the days of the exile, the wrath of God rested on Israel. Therefore, the justification of the ungodly was the only hope – and the perfect restoration hope for any sinner who wanted to approach God.34 Romans 4:5 is probably the clearest passage where the function of the law changes. For Paul, it cannot be avoided. Since all children of Adam live under sin, it is impossible for them to reach perfect unity with God just by following his precepts. Despite the fact that both the law and the performance of the erga nomou have been given by God himself, they must now be considered ineffective. The law has only “guarded” humankind before the final restoration could take place (Gal 3:23). This creates the tension that drives any devout Jew in a crisis – in other words to the process that Paul himself has gone through. One complementary note is necessary here. Paul never states that for the Jews themselves – or to him before his conversion – work as worship, Avodat Israel, would have meant self-righteousness or hypocrisy.35 Most Jews were

33

Cf. Martyn on the passage in Galatians. “Reaching back to his apocalyptic interpretation of the Jewish-Christian atonement formula in 1:4a, Paul strikes a note that subsequently premeates the whole of the exegetical section of 3:6–4:7: the human dilemma consists at its base, not of guilt, but of enslavement to powers lying beyond the human being’s control.” Martyn, Galatians, 308. These “powers” can now be seen more clearly as the powers of the exile – and the law. 34 Wright in his covenantal reading does not use this part of restoration eschatology in his explanation. For him, the works of the law mean simply obedience to the Torah. He says that Paul solves the problem of fulfilling the precepts of the law by stating that faith itself fulfills the law: “Messiah-people do in fact keep Torah.” Wright, Paul, 1037, italics his. 35 Sanders attacked the picture of “Jewish legalism” and this grew gradually into an attack against the “Lutheran” view of justification. Sanders, Paul, 33–59. It is good to note that Paul’s purpose was not the denigration of Jewish belief but the positive presentation of restoration soteriology. Sanders’ criticism, however, proper

260

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

convinced that they represented the very devotion that God expected (and Paul’s new teaching was usually denounced as a form of antinomism, as we can see in Romans). The “new perspective on Paul” claims that, since the Jews did not intentionally promote self-righteousness or legalism, the Protestant understanding of justification theology is false. This is not a coherent conclusion. For many Jews in the Second Temple period, works of the law were a positive way of life. Paul does not in fact state that the law itself would be the problem. The problem lies in people’s inability to keep it. Sin has corrupted even good things. Temple worship and Avodat Israel need to be challenged because they cannot save anyone. They cannot end the exile and cannot bring restoration. God sent his Son and, therefore, there is no return to erga nomou, even though these would essentially be encouraging a good life. For Paul, God’s law is perfect. It is “holy and just and good,” as he says in Romans (Rom 7:12). In the great story of Israel’s renewal, however, it no longer has a role of its own. Faith in Christ has come in its stead.36 This is why the law, in Paul’s reasoning, is given a new function. Law reveals sin: “through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” This is not a Protestant invention. Paul’s theology of the law is based on his anthropology. The law in itself has another ministry: the ministry of death (2 Cor 3:7; cf. analysis later). There is a reason for God’s precepts. They teach people to recognize sin and its consequences. This is essential in order to understand the necessity of atonement, redemption, and restoration. In this basic function the law serves condemnation. Paul’s essential argument in 2 Corinthians is that the Jews of his time lack this understanding of the proper nature and function of the law. “Indeed, to this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds” (2 Cor 3:15). Jewish teachers of the law, and especially the Judaizers that oppose Paul’s mission, have no understanding of their own primary subject: the law of Moses. Moreover, as far as Romans is considered, Paul appears as a high level Jewish teacher. In chapter 7 he states that, “when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Rom 7:9-10). The basic train of thought in this passage can be explained without finding a solution for the problem of the as it may be when applied to certain nineteenth-century German scholars, cannot as such be applied to the “Protestant” view on justification. 36 For Paul’s view on the law, see the analysis below in 2.1. Hays in his DurhamTübingen Symposium article states that, in Rom 3–4, Paul gives the law three “dramatic roles.” First, it defines Jewish identity; second, it pronounces condemnation; and third, it serves as an oracular witness “that prefigures the righteousness of God disclosed in Jesus Christ.” Hays, Mosaic Law, 151–158. One can agree with the first two roles and the third role seems plausible. As Hays notes, Paul does “uphold the law” (3:31), and Jewish people do have an “advantage” (3:2) on the basis of the law. It is through nomos itself that the righteousness of God is revealed in the first place.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

261

“I” in the chapter. This may be Paul speaking, or it may be his alter ego, it may be a Jew pondering the law, or it may be an experience of a Christian convert, if it is not the whole of Israel.37 Nevertheless, this is an issue where a human being, fallen and corrupt as he or she inevitably is according to Pauline anthropology, encounters God’s precept and dies: “and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.” Here the covering “veil” is taken off the mind of humankind. The function of the law has changed. It now serves the ministry of death. In the end, it was “sin” that deceived Paul and “killed him.” Sin has the power to kill because humanity is definitely guilty of transgressing God’s commandments. Paul’s negative anthropology surpasses the synergistic tradition of wisdom theology and devout service in the temple. This is why he abandons the works of the law and turns to Christ who alone is the perfect righteousess, the greatest possible work of the law.38 Avodat Israel with its service to God can picture the ideal time of restoration but it cannot bring renewal about. God’s salvation will take place as an eschatological adoption when the children of God appear in the power of the Holy Spirit. The ministry of death must step aside as the ministry of the Spirit comes true. Here Paul perfectly completes the gospel that Jesus proclaimed: as the period of adoption as children arrives, believers call on God as a Father. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption (pneuma huiothesias). When we cry: “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God. (Rom 8:14–16)

But what about the widely accepted Sandersian explanation that emphasizes continuity and states that the “pattern of religion” uniting Jewish belief and early Christian theology was covenantal? Should we not interpret the works of the law rather in terms of covenantal obedience?39 All we can say about this point of departure here is that it has no semantic justification. This aspect has not been much dealt with in the discussion. Covenant (diathēkē) as a word appears only a dozen times in the New Testament apart from the Letter to the Hebrews. In the Gospels it denotes the “new covenant” in Jesus’ blood, 37 The problem itself has generated an enormous amount of literature and differing views, see for instance Stuhlmacher, Romans, 114–116; and Jewett, Romans, 441– 445. 38 Guilt, despite the fact that some scholars would like to bypass the subject, is inescapably there. Paul reminds us in 2:1 that there is no excuse, “whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself.” This aspect is emphasized in the recent discussion for instance by Hays, Mosaic Law, 156. 39 This is an important question because the new perspective on Paul treats the works of the law mainly from a covenantal perspective. See for instance Sanders, Paul, 551f.; Dunn, New Perspective, 178f. See also the excursus on Sanders below.

262

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

forming the highlight of the words of institution (Mark 14:24 par.), and Paul repeats the same tradition (1 Cor 11:25). Therefore, the New Testament tradition does not emphasize continuity but the end of the “old” covenant. In this respect Paul, in 2 Cor 3:6 speaks of his work as the service of the new covenant, finding its counterpoint a few verses later in the “old covenant” (3:14).40 In Galatians Paul speaks of two covenants, those of the law and the promise, depicting them as covenants of slavery and freedom (Gal 4:4). His terminology is reminiscent of Hebrews where the new covenant is praised as a “better” one. Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews agree on the basic point of departure that the “new covenant” is the one promised by Jeremiah (31:31). It is the covenant of restoration providing apostates a new heart. Christ, both in Paul’s letters and Hebrews, is the “mediator” of the new covenant (Heb 9:15; 12:24). He is the high priest whose sacrificial blood provides expiation (Heb 9:20; 10:29; 13:20). The Christ of the new covenant is the Lord of the Holy Supper whose blood atones for the sins of the humanity.41 The contrast between the old covenant and the new covenant is approximately the same as Paul’s opposition to the Avodat Israel. In sum, then, one can draw several conclusions about Paul’s concept of the works of the law. What does Paul oppose when contesting the significance of the works of the law? (1) It cannot be the content of the Torah, the Mosaic law, because Paul appreciates the nature of the law and understands its function – just like Jesus did in his sermons. Even though Paul was accused of antinomism, abandoning the law, he always defends his view and teaches that law is good when revealing sin, even if it would “kill” the person it addresses. (2) If the problem is not in the content, could it be in people’s misinformed attitudes? It is logical to suspect that Paul would attack Jewish legalism. In this way the good content of the law could be maintained. The problem with this alternative is that, according to Sanders and his followers it presents a false picture of Jewish thought. These scholars attempted to save the good “covenantal” content of the law but, in their mission to “destroy” (Sanders’ own word) the view that presents Judaism as a religion of “legalistic work-righteousness,” they lost the raison d’être of the contrast between Paul and his adversaries.42 The next attempt (3) was to 40 “Covenant” as a word, in fact appears with nomos only in a negative sense in Paul. Therefore, one must conclude that the Sandersian suggestion of a positive use is based on argumentum e silentio. 41 It is of no minor importance that when seen within its semantic field, the word appears in the term denoting the “ark of the covenant” (Heb 9:4; cf. Rev 11:19). In the New testament, the word covenant is linked with the hilastērion on which the atonement blood is sprinkled. Christ’s rule after his exaltation on the ark/throne of glory grounds the changing of the covenant and the changing of the source of redemption. 42 Sanders, Paul, 59. It is noteworthy that Wright, when assuming that the problem is in defective Torah obedience (see the discussion above), in fact implies that in a theologial sense Jewish faith is legalistic. This comes from his covenantal

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

263

change the content of the particular term works of the law. Dunn suggests that the term denotes the “identity markers,” like circumcision, marking the boundaries of ethnocentric Judaism.43 This solution cannot explain the background of the term in Second Temple Judaism. “Works” never denote merely certain markers but the whole of religious service. This is why it is consistent to conclude (4) that here we are dealing with restoration eschatology. Like Jesus who attacked the barren temple, Paul questions the standard obedience, Avodat Israel, since it cannot recognize God’s salvation. Instead, it represents spiritual death – the exilic condition. Cultic life with its feasts and prayers as well as works must now be contrasted with the spiritual temple of the new community. Paul’s polarization is as strict as that of Jesus’ eschatology. The Avodat Israel that has been conducted by the works of the law (erga nomou) has become useless. Unrepentant sinners bring their gifts in vain. The present temple and present religious tradition are fruitless – as fruitless as Paul himself was before his conversion. Instead of defending Israel’s Lord, devout Jews have become God’s opponents, killing the prophets and rejecting his own Son. Zeal for the law has produced but death and corruption. In this respect Paul’s personal path has been a symbol for Israel itself.44 The abandoning of the works of the law, in the end, signals that Paul has found the real source for the restoration of Israel. 4. Christ’s new temple What is most important for the relationship between Jesus and Paul is that the apostle proclaims the appearance of an eschatological temple that is built of living stones. Jesus and the great prophets were right. Israel’s restoration cannot be brought about by attempting to repair the remains of the fallen nation. Paul is convinced that God never intended to restore the Jerusalem cult. Zadokite priests cannot have any crucial role in the eschatological salvation. Instead, Paul believes that the earthly temple will be replaced by God’s spiritual temple. The resurrected Christ will build a community that represents the messianic kingdom of peace. interpretation according to which both the Jewish theologians and Paul speak about keeping the Torah. Wright, Paul, 1036–1037. Wright attempts thus to deal with the problems that Sanders’ explanation creates. As Dunn’s and Räisänen’s conclusions prove, when the covenantal nomism theory is applied strictly in Pauline interpretation, the apostle becomes a malevolent propagandist who distorts the original view of obedience. In Wright’s version, the dark picture is cast back to Jewish theology – even though Wright himself does not aim to do so. 43 See Dunn, Romans, lxix. 44 There is undoubtedly a connection between Paul’s earlier zeal for the law and his attack on the works of the law later. Paul of all people knows the negative result the “good work” of the erga nomou can produce. In the light of restoration eschatology Paul the convert sees that he unwittingly tried to prevent Israel’s renewal. For Paul’s zeal, see especially Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 65–66.

264

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

For Paul, the ekklēsia is God’s temple and the place where God’s Holy Spirit dwells. In this respect, the new temple is a religious community. The concept is collective and the “house” is made of individual people. Accordingly, the house itself can be used as a metaphor for a place where believers serve as the priests of God’s temple. In Paul’s letters terminology varies and depending on the circumstances, he depicts both the individual believer and the entire community as the temple of the Lord.45 The rhetoric in 1 Corintians focuses on the idea of building a temple. Paul presents arguments for Christian life by claiming that the new eschatological temple is holy – as a temple should be. The aspect of construction work is common in his letters. In chapter 3 he says that he himself, “like a skilled master builder” has laid a foundation. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:10–11). Then he applies the same metaphor to parenetic issues. All believers build a house and the value of their construction will be assessed on the day of judgment. Fire will test the structures: “what sort of work each has done” (3:13). For Paul, the Christian congregation is an eschatological temple. No one is allowed to touch its holiness and defile it. Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor 3:16–17)

This is one of the important passages showing that Paul adopts Jesus’ eschatology and continues teaching and applying it to more practical issues. In the end times there are, at least temporally, two temples and the apostles have been called to build the temple of salvation which is a spiritual temple, completely apart from the temple of Jerusalem.46 According to this theology, the body of every Christian believer is the temple of God’s spirit: “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19). The claim is ontological and Paul’s teaching focuses now on an individual. All followers of Christ together become the place where God’s glory (Shekinah) dwells. God’s spirit never returned to the Jerusalem temple. The promises read in Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Joel became true only in the new community. The Holy Spirit returned to the temple made of living stones, human beings.47 45

The classic study behind recent investigations is Gärtner’s The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cf. later Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 205–217; Sweet, Templum, 368–390. 46 According to Böttrich, there are several markers in the passage that underscore the aspect of God’s temple: it is God’s “property” (“Eigentum”), it is ruled by God, God dwells there (“Einwohnungsmotiv”) and, as a holy place, it is guarded by taboos (“die Qualität eines tabuisierten Bereiches”). Böttrich, Gemeinde ohne Tempel, 416. 47 Gärtner, Temple, 56–59. Gärtner concludes that such statements, completed later in 6:16 with some exclusive claims, simply mean that Paul understands the temple in

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

265

The next passage describing the nature of the eschatological temple is in 2 Cor 5 – now only interpreted in terms of the human body. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building (oikodomēn) from God, a house not made with hands (akheiropoiēton), eternal in the heavens. (2 Cor 5:1)

The vocabulary used here is reminiscent of Jesus’ temple saying, even though a direct dependence cannot be established. The idea, however, remains the same. God’s eschatological temple is “not made with hands” and it consists of believing human beings. This is why Paul can state that the earthly “tent” is a seed for the eternal temple that is in the heavens. The temple metaphor prepares the ground for Paul’s ideas some verses later, reminding us that believers are the temple of God.48 The passage in chapter 5 is important, because Paul uses the temple metaphor later in 2 Corinthians, in a passage that is probably the clearest connection of his teaching with restoration eschatology. Even though scholars have seldom paid much attention to the passage in chapter 6 (2 Cor 6:14– 18), it can be held in the same class as the more famous passages speaking about Holy Communion (1 Cor 11), Easter confession (1 Cor 15), Christological credo (Rom 1:3–4) and the kenosis-hymn (Phil 2). All these important passages, clearly containing traditional material predating Paul’s career, focus on Christian identity and its limits. On the one hand they define the core of Christian belief and, on the other hand, they emphasize a tension between fallen humanity and the community of salvation.49 The sequence in 2 Cor 6 has been a difficult passage to translate. As Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament prove (Exod 29:45; cf. Jer 31:33, Ezek 36:28), he does not speak merely of an outward relation between people and himself. God is not simply among his people (“I will dwell among the Israelites”). Instead, Paul uses ontological language as he does in passages using inessive case: God will live in his believers (enoikēsō en autois). These a new way. “The image of the temple appears to have been used here as it was used in Qumran, to show that the ‘presence’, Shekinah, of God had removed from the official Jerusalm temple to the ‘new’ people of God, the Christian Church.” (p. 50). 48 So especially Sweet, Templum, 371–372. Juel suggests that as the expression “not made with hands” can be applied both to circumcision (Col 2:11 and Eph 2:11) and the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:11, 23–24), it would semantically refer to a temple “of a different order.” Juel, Messiah, 154–157. There is more to it, though. In restoration eschatology, the messianic temple is God’s creation as he starts to build himself a temple of salvation. 49 Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 206, notes that 2 Cor 6:14–18 contains six keywords that are not found elsewhere in the New Testament: heterozygeō, metochē, symphōnēsis, synkatathesis, Beliar, molysmos. The passage as well as the catena itself are quite extraordinary. Furthermore, the word molysmos in 7:1 connects this reasoning with the Second Temple Jewish expectation of restoration in the time of continuing exile, see 2.I.4. above.

266

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

words would lose their significance without an ontological perspective. How could the believers be God’s temple if the Lord himself were left wandering outside the temple itself?50 The context in 2 Cor 6 is parenetic, even though the content of the argument is deeply theological. Once more in his correspondence with the Corinthians Paul states that the believer’s new holiness must direct his or her daily life. This demands total renunciation and abandonment of idolatry. After the renewal people must reject idols with determination similar to how they forbade idols in temple precincts in Jerusalem. What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the lord Almighty. (2 Cor 6:16–18)

His parenetic aim makes Paul quote a tradition that originally had a wider meaning and profound theological content. It surpasses the needs of parenesis, just as did the famous Christological hymn in Phil 2, which was used for parenesis. Paul here quotes a collection of Old Testament escha-tological texts or phrases. The passage apparently belongs to a previous tradition because it containts several words that Paul never uses elsewhere. A collection such as this is usually called a catena (chain), a compilation of passages taken from the scriptures. In this case they all refer to God’s eschatological temple in one sense or another. Each clause contributes to the view concerning the nature and justification of the temple.51 (1) “I will live in them and walk among them.” The first quotation has been taken from Leviticus. The text, originally speaking about the situation in the wilderness, promises that God himself will live among his people. Israel is collective here, and her relation to her God is unbreakable. In Leviticus the context fits well the one in 1 Corinthians, denouncing idolatry. You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or pillars, and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them; for I am the Lord your God. You shall keep my sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord. (Lev 26:1–2)

These admonitions are accompanied by a promise. If Israel will live according to God’s statutes, he will grant peace in the land (26:6). God will also multiply the nation (v. 9). Furthermore, God promises Moses that he will 50 For the linguistic question, see Harris, 2 Corinthians, 505–507. Harris, quoting McKelvey, notes that, in contrast to the Old Testament view, Paul claims that God dwells “in them,” and “they are his temple,” p. 506, italics his. 51 The catena itself is pre-Pauline but it is no longer possible to decide whether it could also be pre-Christian. Scholars have discussed its relation to Qumran scriptures, though, see Gärtner, Temple, 54–56; Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 205f.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

267

live among his people. To take it literally the passage speaks of God’s tabernacle in the midst of Israel: “I will place my dwelling in your midst” (Lev 26:11). It is therefore the Hebrew text that motivates the use of this particular word in the beginning of the catena. God promises to build his tabernacle (mishkan). This has not been taken from the Septuagint because the precise word does not appear there. In that version God sets his “covenant” in the midst of his people.52 Paul himself apparently knows the Greek version of the catena, a tradition that has already changed the exact wording of Leviticus. The tabernacle is not mentioned. It has been replaced by the verb “live/inhabit” (enoikein), probably because mishkan also can be translated as “dwelling.” Semantically, the Pauline word also builds on oikos (house) and this illuminates a link between these two texts. It is also possible that the individual word has been taken from Ezekiel (37:27 LXX, “My dwelling place shall be with them”), where we find a word with a corresponding root (kataskēnōsis).53 It is a direct translation of the Hebrew mishkan, denoting the temple. Therefore, the conclusion is that the first clause in the catena may intentionally combine Leviticus and Ezekiel in order to express something important about God’s temple: God lives in his temple and, therefore, lives among his people. (2) “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The second clause presents a combination of two different Old Testament passages. Even though the original text appear in Leviticus, Ezekiel repeats them verbatim, but now in a new context. In Ezekiel’s text God promises to pardon his people after they have been expelled from their country. He also promises restoration. “My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Ezek 37:27). The latter part of the verse is one of the credal statements recurring throughout Old Testament texts. It can be compared with the standard confessional statement “As the Lord lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt,” reinterpreted in Jeremiah by the new saying: “As the Lord lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” (Jer 16:14–15).54 When Paul’s tradition uses the word deriving originally from Leviticus it has been relocated in the new context: that of restoration. In Ezekiel God promises to pardon his people suffering in Babylon. This is the proper context in which the same statement appears in Ezekiel. 52

This feature has been noted by Gärtner, Temple, 53. Even though the word is the same, there are two possibilities for the background, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 204. The promise of a sanctuary that God himself shall build was rather common in Second Temple Judaism (see 2.I.), cf. for instance Jub. 1:17. 54 See chapter 1.1. in part I discussing exile and restoration. This confessional statement is important and focuses on the core of Israel’s faith. For the relation between Leviticus and Ezekiel, see Harris, 2 Corinthians, 506. 53

268

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and I will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. (Ezek 37:21–22)

In Ezekiel the agent of restoration will be the son of David, the new king who shall grant peace to all Israel. “My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd” (37:24). Also according to Ezekiel, the exilic promises and restoration eschatology will become manifest with the appearance of a new Davidic figure. This will be a time when God returns and dwells among his people. (3) “Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean.” The testimony of Old Testament prophets in the catena is completed by a reference to the book of Isaiah. The saying itself may first give the impression that only separation is at stake. The original context, however, proves that the admonition deals with restoration eschatology. “Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.” (Isa 52:11).55 These words in Isaiah address the people who live in captivity: “loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter Zion!” (52:2). The nation was “sold for nothing,” and now she shall “be redeemed without money” (52:3). This is the larger context for the quoted passage. Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. (Isa 52:9–11)

The prophetic admonition for separation means specifically leaving Babylon. It means joining the eschatological people of God. This idea is confirmed by the fact that the standard passage for the exilic “gospel,” good news, appears in the very same context (52:7), where the focus is similar to that of Ezekiel’s eschatological hope above. Along with the restoration, God’s basileia will become manifest: “Your God reings.” When good tidings are delivered the oppressed nation will hear God’s command: depart! For Paul and evidently for other Christians in the early community this is also a message for the members of the new kingdom. The ekklēsia has been sanctified by God and, 55

It is crucial that the context of the Old Testament passage is read here because the rationale behind the quotation comes from the larger passage. Gärtner compares this passage with 4QFlor and notes that in that text, “The community is the sanctified group which, refusing to follow the sinful ways of the official Israel has established its holiness in the light of the Law.” Gärtner, Temple, 55. Moreover, read later in terms of the new metanarrative one can conclude that the quotation serves as a perfect proof for restoration.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

269

therefore, she must depart from the idolatrous world. Christians must denounce defilement like God’s people leaving Babylon. (4) “[T]hen I will welcome you.” This short remark completes Ezekiel’s message. “I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered” (Ezek 20:34). The visible connection has been lost because the word originally denoting gathering (dekhomai) has been translated by “welcoming,” which is semantically correct as such. The result, however, is that the idea of gathering the exiled has vanished from the clause. In Paul’s catena the word still refers to Ezekiel’s original thought. Furthermore, in Ezekiel’s text the tension in Israel’s history is obvious. “Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your ancestors and go astray after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts and make your children pass through the fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day” (Ezek. 20:30-31). Despite all the warnings God also promises the restoration, which is dependent on his basileia. “As I live, says the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, I will be king over you.” (20:33).56 According to an interesting detail God will “enter into judgment” with his people. Salvation does not concern all people but only a remnant: “I will purge out the rebels among you” (20:38). These promises will finally bring the redeemed Israel to the holy mountain where “all the house of Israel” will serve him in freedom (20:40). The short passages of the catena turn thus out be promises for the exiled Israel. They are good words about the restoration. God will gather his people and bring them to his renewed basileia. (5) “I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters.” One more very traditional statement completes the proclamation of coming renewal. The “adoption narrative,” adoption as children of God, is one of the grand themes of restoration eschatology. In 1 Chronicles this promise was applied to the entire nation (1 Chr 17). Then in 2 Samuel God promises that adoption as children will become real along with the adoption of the Davidic Messiah. “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” (2 Sam 7:14). God himself promises to build an eschatological temple for the son of David. This “house” will be a spiritual community. According to the apostolic message of the Pauline catena, adoption as sons becomes real in Christ’s eschatological temple, namely the community itself. This is the place where God will be a father for the believers as he was for Jesus in his lifetime (cf. Abba; Rom 8:15).57 56

So Harris, 2 Corinthians, 509. Martin notes the change to plural (in 2 Sam 7 speaking about the Son of David only). Martin, 2 Corinthians, 206. The reason for this, however, is not just proper syntax. Nathan’s prophesy here reinterprets the covenant formula in verse 16, and confirms that the new community of salvation is the messianic remnant that is the collective body of the new Davidic figure, the one where adoption as sons of God has happened. 57

270

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

(6) “[A]nd daughters.” A short detail brings up still another scriptural proof. The notion of daughters does not derive from Old Testament historical books but from Isaiah 43:6. The Isaian description of eschatological childhood mentions daughters and emphasizes the hope of restoration. All tribes will be gathered in Israel when the era of salvation arrives: “bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the end of the earth – everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made” (Isa 43:6-7).58 The prophet states that this how the people will be brought forth: “the people who are blind, yet have eyes.” God alone will make this happen because “besides me there is no savior” (43:11). The restoration gospel is evident behind every word collected in this catena. (7) “[S]ays the Lord Almighty.” The collection ends with an assurance that may derive from Davidic promises given by Nathan. The Lord Almighty (pantokrator) seems like a term taken from the Septuagint. The Hebrew original denoting Sebaoth is translated there by pantokrator (LXX 2 Sam 7:8). If this link is correct the catena ends with majestic words that appear in the central promise where the Davidic figure is adopted as a son of God.59 In this case even the concluding phrase underlines a collective interpretation of the Davidic promise: adoption as children of God becomes real in the realized kingdom of the Son of David. This basileia is the “house,” the temple that God has promised to build, and where he has also promised to dwell. Paul’s next remark proves that he has intentionally quoted a traditional catena of Old Testament promises: “Since we have these promises” (2 Cor 7:1). There is a promise tradition that has similarities with 4QFlorilegium, 4QCatena/a (4Q177), and 4QTestimonia. A catena of Old Testament passages serves as a scriptural proof for belief in restoration and the reality of the new temple that lives in holiness. This is why Paul concludes: “let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holi-ness perfect in the fear of God” (7:1).60 The Qumran scroll 4QFlorilegium has interesting parallels with the Pauline catena. This text also reflects the eschatological hope laid on Davidic kingship. Here the Davidic promises are applied to the existence of the community. Eschatological hope focuses on the new “house” of David’s son (2 Sam 7:10, “And an enemy will thouble him no more”): “This (refers to) the house which [they will establish] for [him] in the last days, as it is written in the book of [Moses: ’A temple of the Lord] will you establish with your hand. YHWH shall reign for ever and ever’.” Such a temple is built by God himself (just as the song of Moses proclaims, Exod 15:17) and clearly denotes a community. 58

Harris, 2 Corinthians, 510. See Martin, 2 Corinthians, 207. 60 For the promise tradition and its importance at Qumran, see Gärtner, Temple, 51–53. 59

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

271

The fate of the temple has been hard, though: “eternal [glory] will appear over it for ever; foreigners shall not again lay it waste as they laid waste, at the beginning, the tem[ple of Is]rael for its sins. And he commanded to build for himself a temple of man, to offer him in it, before him, the works of the law.” Now the new temple that has not been made by human hands will correct Israel’s history. This is why the community of salvation must also be separated from the wicked (reference to Isa 8:11). The true Israel will be given rest “from all the sons of Belial.” At Qumran, the holy community (qāhāl) was seen as the opposite of the congregation of Belial (1QH 2.2). Even though the context is different, the purpose of the Qumranian catena comes surprisingly close to that used by Paul.61 The analysis shows that the passage in 2 Cor 6 is neither an interpolation, nor a direct reworking of Qumran material – even though both alternatives have been suggested by various scholars. Instead, it represents standard Pauline theology where the apostle embraces traditional material and adapts it into his own soteriology. In this passage an earlier tradition has been made part of Paul’s teaching where the community is seen as an eschatological temple that God himself builds. It is the house that fulfills all the Old Testament promises of restoration and adoption as children. It is a true temple of the Lord, filled by the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the dwelling. Especially in these letters to the Corinthians, Paul describes it as a sanctuary “not made with hands.” It is the very body of salvation about which Jesus proclaimed. Therefore, one can conclude that the narrative of temple building has become a crucial factor in Paul’s soteriology, and he continues the basic teaching both of Jesus himself and his disciples. 5. Paul and the metanarrative of exile and restoration Paul appears to be an expert in applying the metanarrative of exile and restoration in his theology. In his letters he teaches soteriology that builds on the examined grand metanarrative speaking about the fulfillment of restoration. Paul believes that fallen Israel lives still in an exilic condition and subject to God’s wrath. God has promised a house for the Son of David that has been sent to this world. This house will be an eschatological temple, a community that consists of saved believers. Israel’s restoration becomes real when the new people separates itself from idolatry and defilement. God pardons his people and gathers his own from all over the world and among all possible nations. The eschatological kingdom is God’s basileia, and 61

Fitzmyer notes that, already in Paul’s introductory words before the quotations in 2 Cor 6 there are several elements that have a direct counterpart in Qumran writings, such as: light and darkness, [Christ and] Beliar, the opposition to idols, the concept of the temple of God, and separation from impurity. Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 208. Fitzmyer wants to see this passage as a Christian reworking of the Qumran material. That may be going a bit too far but the traditional passage shows the nature of Jewish thinking that was employed in early Christian soteriology.

272

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

David’s son shepherds this flock according to the promises given by the prophets. The time of salvation is a time of adoption as children. David’s house is a collective ekklēsia, where God may again be the Abba-Father of all believers. For Paul, the theology represented by the abovementioned catena justifies the existence of the eschatological community. The ekklēsia of believers is Christ’s body and a temple made without hands: “We are the temple of the living God.” Israel’s restoration is already happening because the longawaited Son of David has made atonement by his sacrifice. This is why God himself will sanctify all people in his eschatological temple. Any one who calls upon his name will be taken into his merciful kingdom. The Holy Spirit lives in this new temple and, therefore, the community is holy. This is precisely the reason why the exilic promises and restoration hope may be applied directly to this community with the same meaning they have in the Old Testament prophetic writings. Those who come to Christ will be purified of all defilement, they will denounce all idols, and they will find real unity with God.62 This is also the reason why Paul applies such theology to parenetic issues. Believers who have found freedom in Christ should live in the purity of the temple: “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). When proving his point, Paul returns to the very beginning. “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” The temple is holy and, therefore, every believer needs to keep watch his or her life and maintain the holiness of the temple in their daily life. In his restoration eschatology, Paul thus uses the very themes upon which Jesus built his exilic rhetoric. The great turn of the aeons has come. All promises given to Israel have become true. God has sent his suffering servant who has been obedient unto death. Now God has raised Jesus from the dead, started the resurrection of the dead, and exalted Christ at his “right hand” on the throne of glory. For Paul, Christ’s community is a temple built by the son of David, the house that the prophets had anticipated. God answers the cries of the people and pardons his people. He himself builds a temple by using living stones. This is a place where the Holy Spirit lives and believers serve as the priests of the temple. They participate in the offering and they are sanctified by the holiness presented by God. This is how God now lives among his people: he lives in their hearts. Furthermore, restoration eschatology makes Paul contest the “good” Avodat Israel, the people’s religious service and Torah obedience. Like Jesus, Paul – mutatis mutandis – attacks the temple and its practices. This is 62

It is also possible that the pillars (styloi), namely James, Cephas and John, mentioned in Gal 2:9, refer in fact to the pillars of the temple. Such rhetoric appears later in Rev 3:12, “If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God.” Cf. Sweet, Templum, 377.

I. Focusing on restoration eschatology

273

how it is possible to explain Paul’s original and later quite debated concept of the works of the law. In the context of Paul’s soteriology, religious customs are given a negative treatment because they are practices conducted in the “den of robbers” – should we choose to apply one more feature of Jesus’ teaching. Just as it is too late to cry “this is the temple of the Lord,” it is too late to cling to works of the law, the good service in itself. The exilic condition has destroyed Israel’s possibilites to serve God without metanoia. Paul’s thinking is unique, he works with a high level of abstraction and with a vast historical perspective. He sees Christ as the culminating point of the entire history of Israel. The Messiah of the chosen people has arrived but the nation itself promotes the tradition of wrath, thus creating the period of peirasmos, the time of agony. Israel, like Paul himself before his conversion, lives as God’s enemy – without understanding her condition. When trying to defend the Lord and Torah obedience, they destroy God’s restoration. Israel does not welcome her Savior but, instead, kills both Elijah and the Son of David whose appearance this end-time prophet heralds. Such soteriology is finally completed by introducing remnant theology – one more theme gleaned from the writings of the prophets. The salvific gospel belongs only to the poor. The good message calls the lost tribes and collects a remnant that is true Israel. It is the group who has circumcized their hearts and who hear God’s voice. This remnant calls on the name of the Lord and – as the conclusion states – is saved from this evil age. The community that believes in Christ is the seed of restoration that will gradually grow into a huge tree of salvation. It can be concluded, therefore, that Paul uses two kinds of traditional material in his teaching. On the one hand, he continues Jesus’ preaching by making good use of restoration eschatology. On the other hand, he borrows kerygmatic material and confessional formulas from the preaching of the early Christian community. These two combined result in soteriology that builds on the exilic rhetoric of the great prophets and also creates perfect restoration theology where all the central elements of renewal discourse can be detected. These aspects can be considered important principles of interpretation both for Paul’s view of the law and how his understanding of justification can be explained – the two necessary themes to which we must next turn.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love Paul’s treatment of the works of the law opens up one dimension in his theology of the law. In addition to this, it is necessary to provide a detailed study of his teaching about the meaning of the Torah. It has already become clear that the issue of Paul and the law has been a major topic of New Testament scholarship for decades. Many writers have discussed the

274

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

problems of Second Temple nomism and, for a long time now, the theory of covenantal nomism has prevailed. Before treating the benefits and disadvantages of that theory, one needs to investigate how Paul really understood the concept of nomos. He clearly uses the term in several different contexts and gives it many meanings. We have seen above that the term “works of the law” appears in a negative light in his writings while he simultaneously and openly praises the Mosaic law and deems it holy. Therefore, it is proper to ask, how can the nomos be the source of widsom and an expression of love for Paul? 1. Paul and Moses Moses’ significance for Jewish teachers cannot be overestimated. All theological teachings as well as disputes are tested by references to the Pentateuch. It is the standard for assessing what is decent and important. Paul the Pharisee works on these premises. The small introduction “as it is written” appears in different forms (like kathōs gegraptai or hoti gegraptai) in many passages where scripture is quoted. Everyone taking part in the discussion accepts the texts as authoritative and submits his conclusions to the inferences found in such passages.63 Also Paul refers constantly to Old Testament scripture. For instance in Galatians he mentions the “scripture” (hē grafē) and “the book of the law” (biblios tou nomou, when quoting Deuteronomy, Gal 3:10). The Letter to the Romans begins with a reference to holy scriptures that serves as a testimony to the gospel (en grafais hagiais; 1:2), and when Paul in chapter four uses Abraham as his example, he simply states: “For what does the scripture say?” (Rom 4:3). Paul also uses Old Testament texts as source texts which his teaching builds upon. In the first chapter of Romans the teaching about the fall of humankind is based on a simple pesher on the beginning of Genesis with all the tetrapodoi and reptiles. (Rom 1:20–27). In 1 Corinthians, in turn, the wanderings of Israel serve both as good examples and as a warning, with the phrase “as it is written.” His presentation comprises the cloud, the passing through the sea, and water that sprang from the rock. (1 Cor 10:7). But what about the essence of the law? In Romans the implied reader changes from passage to passage, and Paul often drifts into a disputation with a learned Jew. In these constructed discussions Paul completely accepts the high view of the Torah his tradition has taught him. But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the 63 There have been several good overviews about Paul’s understanding of the law, see Winger, By What Law?; cf. Also Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

275

embodiment of knowledge and truth, you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? (Rom 2:17–20).

It is through the law that people know God’s will and make a distinction between good and evil. Some messianic expressions were also well loved by many Jewish teachers. They were helpers of the blind because the right servant of the Lord should open the blind person’s eyes (Isa 42:6-7). Already according to Isaiah a teacher should be “a light to the nations” and a helper to those “who sit in darkness.” And according to the beloved Ps 119 the devout say: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” (Ps 119:105). Later such clauses were transferred to descriptions concerning the tasks of rabbis and scribes. The teacher’s task was to educate the ignorant and make pupils understand the intricacies of God’s perfect will. This is how the Mishnah admonishes teachers to pass on Jewish tradition (m. Avot). In Paul’s original text the law also has the “basic form” (morfē, the word has often been left out of translations) of true knowledge (here the “embodiment” of knowledge, NRSV). This is why, for Paul as well as for Jewish teachers, the law is an essential tool for understanding the world we live in.64 When treating Paul’s concept of the law it is therefore necessary to distinguish between the essence and function of the law. Even though the law is good it may in Paul’s opinion have a negative function in a person’s life – not to mention his or her eschatological future. This double vision of the nature of the law has sometimes obscured the explanation of Paul’s view. And admittedly so because his pointed descriptions about the different functions of God’s law resist clarification.65 There is no contradiction in Paul’s teaching about the law, though. He does not question the content law and he persistently points this out in his letters. This is not where his views and the scribes’ teachings differ. “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31). For Paul, the essence of God’s law is good. “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.” (Rom 7:12). Regardless of what Paul is about to state concerning the different functions of the law or about human potential, he never attacks the essence of the law. The law is holy because God himself gave it. The commandments are good because they maintain life. In this respect, the law could well be a source of blessing or rather, the source of blessing. This point of departure is important to notice because the history of interpretation is filled with very confused conceptions of Pauline nomism in general. Paul starts with the positive in order to influence his potential Jewish hearers and persuade them to believe his transformed views about the function of the law. Paul often uses the word “boasting” which is a complex term indeed. The word usually gets a negative connotation in Western languages but this is not 64 The law was a nomos zōēs (Sir 17:11), a perfect guide to a good life. For the content of the law, see Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 258–261. 65 For these two functions, see for instance Hahn, Theologie II, 351–352.

276

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

so in the original context, at least not necessarily. Paul uses the word often when referring to Jewish zeal for good things and for God’s law in particular, as was the case above: “you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God.” (Rom 2:17). It is typical of Jewish belief to rejoice over God’s law. One only needs to remember some of the joyful expressions in Ps 119: “I delight in the way of your decrees” (Ps 119:14a). This apparently is what Paul has in mind here.66 The word that Paul uses, “to boast” (kaukhasthai) denotes either bragging or rejoicing. In the present context it obviously means delight in God’s law. There is basically a positive tone in it (like in the tension in Gal 6:13-14; cf. boasting about God or Christ, 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 5:17). In the Old Testament the word is used also in a negative sense denoting the boasting of the sinners (Ps 52:3/LXX 51:3; 94:3/LXX 93:3). Far more often, however, it describes the joy devout believers have in God (Ps 5:12; 32:11/LXX 31:11; LXX 88:18; cf. the end of Moses’ blessing, Deut 33:29; and Jer 17:14). Rejoicing kaukhēsis thus refers to Israel’s joy over the perfect essence of divine law. This view is supported by Sirach as well: “He will show the wisdom of what he has learned, and will glory (kaukhēsetai) in the law of the Lord’s covenant” (Sir 39:8).67 Rejoicing in God’s law, for Paul, is naturally a positive thing. This is how we should also understand his teaching in Rom 2:17 above. When Paul speaks of Jews rejoicing in the Torah, he refers to their happiness about the Avodat Israel. Jewish theologians did not assume that their kaukhēsis would be legalistic or self-righteous boasting about their personal ability before God. In the good manner of Second Temple sapiential synergism, most Jews believed that everyday observance would be enough, and the Torah is the light and delight of their life. This, once again, is precisely what Paul wants to oppose. One’s attitude toward the law changes when its function changes. This is why Paul later uses the very same word when describing the contradiction between law and grace. Joy over the law changes into joy over Christ. Paul wishes “to boast” (kaukhasthai) over God’s gospel.68 66

So especially Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 284f. For the general background, see Hahn, TBLNT II, 1052. He tends to emphasize the negative aspect of boasting, though. Gathercole, however, notes that among the adherents of the new perspective on Paul, boasting is seen more as racial privilege. Gathercole, Boasting, 220–226. 68 In the Bultmannian tradition boasting has usually been explained as selfreliance, see Käsemann, Römer, 95; Hübner, Law, 116. Dunn criticizes this in his commentary and I agree with his conclusions as he says that Paul attacks Jewish “pride in the law as indicating God’s commitment to his people and as marking them off from other nations.” Dunn, Romans, 185; cf. Gathercole who states that as Paul picks up the theme of Jewish boasting in Rom 3:27, he means “confidence that God would vindicate Israel on the basis of both election and obedience, and that he would vindicate them both before and over against the gentiles.” Gathercole, Boasting, 226 (italics his). 67

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

277

Paul knows well the features of Mosaic tradition, admonition to Torah obedience, and the two famous roads laid before the people of Israel. The first road is that of observance and the other of apostasy. To follow the straight path brings blessing in life, but to abandon God’s word brings a curse upon the apostate (Deut 30:15–20). Paul never questions this point of departure but he wishes his hearers to learn the proper meaning of God’s law. The law is necessary in order to reveal sin and to keep it under control, but it is too late for humanity to try to find salvation and God’s favor through the positive blessing of the law. All the law can bring, he claims, is God’s curse. In Paul’s soteriology, the law is a prosecutor. Paul’s judicial rhetoric puts people in a court of divine law and in front of God’s judgment seat (Rom 3:19). When the prosecutor stands up, no one can defend himself or herself. All people live under God’s condemnation because of sin.69 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:19-20)

Therefore, what is essential in the law is its function. Here a typical Jewish question arises – a question that must have first been difficult for Paul the Pharisee himself. Has the human condition, even in the chosen people, ever been different? And even more pressing: was humankind free before people became aware of God’s law? Paul is consistent until the very end. He states that sin was “not counted” during the period between Adam and Moses. That was a time when relationship to God was not assessed in terms of God’s commandments. When we apply Pauline terminology here we can say that sin remained unrevealed, and it was “dead” – despite the fact that people did unethical things. Sin, in Paul’s use, means transgressing God’s word. This, however, did not alter the human condition or people’s fate. Eternal death governed the whole of humanity since the fall: “many (polloi) died through the one man’s trespass” (Rom 5:15). And “because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one” (5:17). Paul has thus a “positive” task (at least seen from the perspective of the law’s original function) for the Mosaic Torah whose essential content he accepts and adopts in his theology. “Through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). This knowledge is not superficial or academic. It has a judicial nature, since the concept itself has always been associated with justice: transgression will lead to a sentence. Transgressions are recognized as sin because they result in punishment.70 Both in the Old Testament and in Paul’s letters God is expected to punish those who transgress his will, the 69 70

65f.

This aspect will be discussed in detail later in 2.4. Winger, By What Law?, 15–20; cf. Thielman, Plight, 99–100; Schreiner, Law,

278

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

essence of which is love. This is why, in Pauline soteriology, the relationship between Israel’s Lord and corrupt humankind has a juridical tone. God asks for just behavior and he desires social justice where all individuals are treated fairly. No soteriological aspect developing the realization of salvation can abandon or neglect this aspect in this understanding and in Paul’s thinking. All this means that Paul’s treatment of the Mosaic law has many different elements. Before we can discuss the many negative comments he also presents on the nature of the law, we need explore further the very positive view he has adopted concerning the essence of the law. Paul does not suggest any improvements to God’s perfect nomos. Instead, like a good sapiential theologian he only tries to find new ways to express the vast content of the law in terms of God’s wisdom. 2. Law as the wisdom of creation For Paul the view that the law is God’s perfect word and expression of true love was based both on Old Testament writings and ideas developed during the Second Temple period. As a scribe in the Pharisaic movement Paul knew the sapiential tradition. Therefore, he understood the law’s practical significance as the wisdom of life. For Paul too, God’s law represented the wisdom of creation. The theological focus was no longer merely on Sinai but at the very beginning of everything. This is another reason why Paul interpreted the whole world and all human life in terms of the Mosaic law.71 The books of Moses, noted above, spoke of two ways resulting either in God’s blessing or curse. Jewish sapiential theology has a somewhat more philosophical approach to the same issue. Nomistic theology is placed in a wider context. God’s will comprises more than just the commandments given at Sinai. The law is identified with the system of creation and divine ordinances. As Martin Hengel has put it: theologial concepts are directed by Tora-ontologie. The whole world is organized by a vast set of rules that conform to God’s law. All human life is subject to these more general laws.72 In sapiential theology the Torah is complemented by a personalized wisdom that reflects God’s creative power. Scholars have often assumed that the beautiful description of the genesis of wisdom found in Proverbs, wisdom being created as the firstborn of God’s works, expresses this sapiential belief (Prov 8:22, 27, 32). Later Sirach writes about creation by referring to God’s eternal order: When the Lord created his works from the beginning, and, in making them, determined their boundaries, he arranged his works in an eternal order, and their dominion for all generations. (Sir 16:26–27) 71

I believe that this is one of the aspects of post-war research that has been quite widely accepted, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 44–45; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 255f. 72 So especially Hengel, Judentum, 455f.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

279

The same idea can be detected elsewhere in wisdom literature. In Baruch, wisdom that is grounded in God’s creation (Bar 3:32) is identified with the law of Moses. “She [wisdom] is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever.” (Bar 4:1). Sirach too states this. The wisdom of creation is the wisdom of God’s precepts: “If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments, and the Lord will lavish her upon you” (Sir 1:26). In Jewish theology wisdom is depicted as the producer and maintainer of life. It is identified with the Torah, like in the Old Testament. Following wisdom brings life, but abandoning it leads to death (Bar 4:1; Sir 15:17; Wis 1:12–15). The two ways that are so important in Old Testament parenesis mean here listening to either God’s wisdom or godlessness as such. The standard according to which things are measured is wisdom, and precisely this makes wisdom identical with the Torah. Righteous believers follow God’s will but apostates do not listen to the voice of wisdom.73 Such a sapiential view of the law appears often in soteriological contexts. This is to be expected because the point is to ask who lives his or her life before God. Irreverent people’s lives show that they disobey the divine commandments and God’s plan of creation. There are basic laws in the world, and according to several early Jewish theologians, they derive from the system of creation. This is the proper context for many long lists of sins that one finds in Second Temple writings. The frivolous lives of godless people are described in detailed records of evilnesses. The negations in these lists are based on the positive views concerning different aspects of the law. The first item on the list is usually apostasy that finds its clearest expression in idolatry (Wis 11:15; 12:24; 14:12). Here sapiential theology follows Old Testament nomism where apostasy is presented as the most dire sin the chosen people can commit. It is the transgression that brings God’s wrath on the people (Ex 20:3–5). In addition to this, sapiential writers often state that, due to the conflict, human life is a “raging riot of blood.” Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God but though living in great strife due to ignorance, they call such great evils peace [...] and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, defiling of souls, sexual perversion, disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery. For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. (Wis 14:22, 25–27)

A list of sins like this should not be seen merely as a collection of harmful issues in general. Instead, it is a description of human beings’ godlessness as such. The first point of departure is positive: since human life is entirely the result of God’s good creation, any transgression against life simultaneously means transgression against God’s law. Despite the fact that these lists focus on many concrete issues in a detailed manner, they should be seen as 73

For standard features in wisdom literature, see for instance Murphy, Tree of Life, 113–117.

280

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

collections of examples describing the human condition. When the apostate abandons God’s wisdom, he or she has abandoned God himself. This is why his or her whole life reflects the senseless selfishness that breaks the laws constitutive of life. The lists become understandable and meaningful in the context of a sapiential view of the law. Any good aspect of human life can be seen as an aspect of God’s law as well and, therefore, it can be used as a criterion when assessing the corruption of human life.74 One cannot contradict Paul’s hamartology with a sapiential view of the law. Sin, for Paul, is not merely a cosmic power that governs the world after Adam – even though that is one aspect in Paul’s theology. Paul speaks of sin in a very detailed manner. The concept has a distinct content that builds on a sapiential interpretation of the Torah. The two most common features of sapiential teaching can also be detected in Paul’s letters. Firstly, wisdom is identified with divine creation and, secondly, the wickedness of humankind is described as the constant transgressing of God’s ordinances. These features are prominent in the first chapter of Romans. Creation, Paul states, should in fact form the basis for knowing God. Furthermore, people’s knowledge of God’s law is essentially based on the fact that God has created everything. “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” (Rom 1:20). Paul thus starts with a sapiential understanding of the law. All laws of creation are identical with God’s Torah. When Paul then proceeds to describe human godlessness he maintains his sapiential position. He proclaims that people have abandoned the wisdom of creation and God himself, and they have fallen into idolatry (Rom 1:23). This has had its consequences. Human life has been corrupted and Paul lists sins when describing the many different expressions of a sinful life: 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 toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Rom 1:29–31)75

First Corinthians also begins with sapiential themes. Behind the presentation of the first chapter one can hear echoes of the Wisdom of Solomon. “For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his work; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent 74 Dunn correctly lists several “catalogs of vice” in Second Temple Jewish literature. When Paul writes later about vices he does not need to copy any standard list but only to apply the principle in his hamartology. Dunn, Romans, 67. 75 Jewett notes that, as the details of these catalogs are considered, Paul appears to use words both from Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman ethics, and even some particular terms familiar from Stoic ethics. Jewett, Romans, 183.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

281

water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world” (Wis 13:1–2). In principle, it should have been possible to know God through natural theology, by watching God’s creation. This, states Paul, has not led to any good results. People have not submitted themselves to divine wisdom. “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided to through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21). It is therefore apparent that Paul has used sapiential concepts and ideas in his theology of the divine law. In his soteriology, however, he no longer believes that wisdom could serve as a way to salvation. Knowing God would have been possible in the beginning and in principle in a perfect world. The problem is that the time of innocence is over. The reality of the human condition proves the opposite. Should one wish to find salvation, one must seek God’s foolishness. 3. The essence of love Old Testament views about the law are undoubtedly important for Paul but one should not forget that the main theme in his teaching derives directly from Jesus’ teaching. When Paul writes about the purpose of the Torah and God’s precepts he states that at the core of nomistic teaching one can find the principle of love. In Galatians he confirms this by quoting Jesus. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14)

Paul is convinced that theologians have a solid point of departure about the nature of the commandments,. God’s law wants people to live a righteous life that seeks to benefit others. When the law denounces crimes and violence it simultaneously shows that life should be based on the principle of love. People have been created as social beings, and they should take care of each other’s needs and rights as if they were their own. This is how the original principles of creation could have been fulfilled. All the demands of the law can be derived from the principle of law and, vice versa, when one loves all they fulfill the commandments. These two are interrelated and by no means opposites.76 In a theological sense, then, the command to love one’s neighbor grows from Paul’s sapiential tradition. He still believes that the essence of law can be recognized in the created order of this world. In principle, people can decide themselves what kind of behavior they demand from their fellow citizens. People are usually quite fierce about protecting their rights. Life must not be violated. This is probably why Paul’s wisdom tradition is so easily linked with Jesus’ teaching: love your neighbor as yourself. Treat 76

This needs to be mentioned since in both cultural Protestantism and Nietzschean atheistic philosophy the principle of love is distanced from God’s commandments.

282

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

others as you wish to be treated yourself. “All” the precepts of the law, as Paul says, reflect the great wisdom of creation. Whereas Jesus interpreted commandments by linking them with attitudes of hatred and lust, so Paul was able to adapt long lists of vices in his interpretation of God’s law. Adopting this great principle of love Paul, like Jesus, departs from ancient concepts of justice. General ideas of equality usually resulted in practices where punishments were defined in terms of “similar” pain. Jesus commented on the conception of “eye for an eye.” Justice as retribution and revenge cannot elevate ethical principles. Paul follows his master by teaching a love that surpasses the justice of equality. In Romans he expands the short definition that was earlier seen in Galatians.77 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10)

Paul believes that all commandments are summed up in love because love is the essence of God’s will. This point of departure develops into a complete theology of love that governs Paul’s teaching in many of his letters. God himself is love and in the paradise he created he desired a perfect life and harmony among the images of God on earth. Paul describes his understanding of such love in 1 Corinthians where traditional lists of vices are replaced by a list of virtues that brings up the ideal of love. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor 13: 4–7).

For Paul, love is an image of the first paradise. The divine Torah is eternal. Perfect community between individuals is not merely the ideal concerning the present life on earth. It is the very purpose of creation that is to be fulfilled after the eschatological tumults when the new creation comes into being. “Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.” (1 Cor 13:8–10). Love, for Paul, is thus not merely a concept defining the law. It can also describe God’s essential nature because God is the source of love. This is 77 Commentaries often hesitate to discuss the relationship between Jesus and Paul here, probably because the quotation follows Lev 19:18 (LXX), but Bruce states that “Paul’s ethical teaching is based on the tradition of Jesus’ teaching,” Bruce, Galatians, 242. Dunn notes that the passage in Lev 19 is “most often” cited in the New Testament and must “therefore be peculiarly Christian and is best explained as deriving from Jesus himself.” Dunn, Galatians, 291.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

283

why his good creation could look like a paradise – if only the law could be fulfilled in human lives. After Adam’s fall, however, it is no longer possible to see or recognize this. Perfection has been perverted by corruption. This is why the concept of love the descriptions of eschatology. The new creation shall remedy everything, and the new life is depicted in similar terms of divine love. “And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” (v. 13).78 Since the law both as God’s will and the wisdom of creation inevitably represents the truth, for the wisdom theologians as well as for Paul, it must also be the basis for social justice and “state law.” This is how Paul’s concept of authority in the sense of a political legal system becomes understandable. God himself guarantees law and order in the community. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. (Rom 13:1–3)

Such a view no doubt builds on sapiential theology. The rationale behind the conclusion is that the whole world has been created according to the nomos of God. The purpose of creation is fulfilled in justice and mutual care. In the fallen world this cannot be attained without the help of authorities who ensure (in an ideal case) that especially the weak and vulnerable receive justice. Paul the theologian speaks about perfect officers and just judges but, one must take into account that he constructs his theology in the midst of Roman rule. There is something necessary even in the militant authority that easily transgresses its higher values. Nevertheless, those doing good need not be afraid: rulers are a terror to the bad only. Should the community be deprived of such an authority, it will be replaced by chaos and violence. The theological treatment of the law must be seen in a light other than that of social reasoning. Philosophers, even in Paul’s time, taught people to search after virtue. For them, the good life emerges in one’s striving after equality and just behavior. Paul is convinced that in society the law has a different role than in theology. In society, every member is admonished to act correctly. Authorities should then discipline criminals whenever they appear. Facing God, coram Deo, everything appears in a new light, though. The “good law,” God’s perfect precepts, make sin real. This is where the contemplation of the nature of the law is not enough, and personal virtue will always be defective. Sinners need to find better counselors than society’s authorities.

78

Cf. Witherington: “In other words, the love commandment is the sum of them all [commandments, that is], which is what the ode to love in 1 Corinthians 13 suggests more eloquently.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 259.

284

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

For Paul, then, the essence of the Torah is love – just like it was for Jesus. The commandments can be summed up in one sentence: love your neighbor. Paul knows the golden rule and uses it skillfully. But this interpretation can stretch even wider. Paul applies sapiential nomism in his theology of the law. In fact the whole world has been created according to the principle of love. This is why any transgression against human life can be seen as transgression against the Torah. Vice-lists serve as heuristic tools when the corrupt nature of humankind is revealed. Human life should be based on the principle of love, and anything compromising this ideal authenticates why we were deported from Eden. The principles remain, though, and this is why legal systems guarded by authorities force people to live according to the formal principles of social justice – because love is not a means but an end. 4. Ministratio mortis When treating the function of the law, Paul finally reaches a conclusion that questions several theological views prevailing in his lifetime. Even though the essence of God’s law is love itself, and people by their own free will try to define justice as well as they can – this does not yet solve the problems concerning the function of the law. For Paul, the basic function is not yet implicated by the nature of the law. There is more to it. Greek philosophy had, for centuries, tried to define virtue. Ethics was part of ancient Greek philosophy. Second Temple Jewish theology was built on a strong sapiential tradition that wanted to apply the Old Testament nomos to every area of human life. Most writers before Paul had been convinced that the perfect definition of a virtue or regulative precept would be able to orient people’s lives in the right direction. The problem was believed to be one of knowledge. People from Torah schools to philosophical centers assumed that every human being, having been well informed about the principles of life, would be able to practice justice and find happiness.79 Paul denies all this. In Romans 7 he contributes to this age-old discussion. Human beings live in a condition of bondage: “I do not do what I want” (Rom 7:15). The mere definition of a good life cannot explain the paradox of ethics. Instead, claims Paul, the human condition is governed by our fall from our proper relationship with God. Sin is a fact, and it prevents people from living a virtuous life. The problem is not a matter knowledge. In fact, thanks to the reality of sin, people are unwilling to realize how challenging the situation is. The contemplation of perfect justice proves 79

It is quite obvious that the juridical function of the law has mainly been discussed by Lutheran scholars. Writers adopting a convenantal interpretation tend to focus on other issues and sometimes even question the Protestant view that judicial elements are important in Paul’s soteriology. For a covenantal treatement, see Dunn, Paul, 153. Taking another approach, Stuhlmacher reminds us that, for Paul, “The criterion of the last judgment will be the will of God as it is expressed in the Law.” Stuhlmacher, Romans, 46.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

285

people to be even more morally corrupt than they ever believe themselves to be. This is what Paul claims when he writes that God’s law awakens people and allows them to recognize their sin. When a human being encounters a precept or even by himself defines an ethical command, he simultaneously becomes aware of the immoral situation he or she may live in. Law indicts for an offence. This why Paul concludes that the law cannot produce life but – at least in the eyes of the Lord – only death.80 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. (Rom 7:9–12)81

The imediate consequence of this foundational discovery for Paul is that one needs to treat the law of love in two completely different ways. As regards its essence, the divine command expresses love and, by using a negation that attempts to prevent sin, describes the perfect life – a true condition of paradise. “Law does no wrong to a neighbor,” Paul states (Rom 13:10). The law is “just and good” (7:12). Due to the reality of sin, however, this very same law of love gets the task of executioner. It will and must prove that, in principle, humankind lives in slavery: “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin” (7:14).82 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (Rom 7:15–23)

80

The question concerning the identity of the “I” in Romans 7 is complex but, it is possible to explain the function of the law apart from it, or without holding to one interpretation only. For the alternatives in identifying the “I,” see Jewett, Romans, 441–445. 81 I would personally agree with Moo that, in most cases in Romans 7, the presentation is logical if we assume that the “I” is a collective expression for the whole of Israel (but then also denoting Paul as one member). The commandement “coming” and bringing death is described in Gal 3:17. See Moo, Romans, 430. 82 It is noteworthy that Wright does not emphasize a covenantal reading of Romans 7 but interprets the passage along the lines of a larger narratological view: “This is the story of Israel under Torah, exactly as in 5.20: ‘the law came in alongside, so that the trespass might be filled out to its full extent.’ The arrival of Torah precipitates Israel into recapitulating the sin of Adam.” Wright, Paul, 1014.

286

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

On the one hand, Paul reinstates the idea that the law in essence is good. As human beings accept the fact that inner tension is a reality, they simultaneously admit that divine commandments are right. Human corruption as such does not prevent philosophers and theologians from attempting to define virtue or investigate God’s law. In a sense, however, the philosophical road is rather short. Humanity’s basic problem here is not one of knowledge. It is rather easy to define right and wrong, at least in the more general issues. Most people can easily condemn all violations of rights that are directed against their own person or the members of their family. The core of the problem lies in human selfishness that is constantly prepared to exploit other human beings whenever people feel they can benefit from such behavior. Therefore, despite the fact that love is the essence of God’s law, the function of the law needs to be defined on other terms. Paul believes that the law in itself cannot compel people to love altruistically or to live according to a virtue. Instead, Paul states that the crucial function of the law is ministratio mortis, “the ministry of death.” He is convinced that divine law shows corrupt humankind that it is spiritually dead. This is followed by the fact that any offence is subjected to judgment. In 2 Corinthians Paul describes such a ministry by referring to the great lawgiver Moses.83 Now if the ministry of death (diakonia tou thanatou), chiseled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? (2 Cor 3:7–8)

The element of goodness is present when Paul speaks of glory. This is in fact an interpretation of Exodus 34. “As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God.” (Exod 34:29). The glory was so extraordinary that the Israelites were afraid to approach Moses. He had to cover his face with a veil (v. 33). For Paul, the divine law represents God himself. Moses had seen God face to face. Therefore, the veil Moses used takes on new hermeneutical importance. Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ it is set aside. (2 Cor 3:12–14)

The veil over Moses’ face lies first over the law itself. Paul states that Israel knows the law only superficially. Israel no longer sees the glory of the law. Here we have reached one of the culminating points in Paul’s theology of the law. He believes that Israel cannot recognize the law’s ministry of death. As theologians read the Torah, “a veil lies over their minds.” The veil thus 83

Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 316; Schreiner, Paul, 134–135.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

287

becomes a metaphor for the hardening of the people’s minds. The fallen nation does not know God’s will. There is a solution, though. Paul’s pesher on Exodus continues in what follows.84 According to Exodus, the skin of Moses’ face “shone” as he had been talking to God, and so he had to veil his face when living among his people. There was one exception, though. When Moses went to the mountain, he would remove the veil: “but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would take the veil off, until he came out” (Exod 34:34). This passage inspired Paul to speak about turning to the Lord (epistrefein). Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds [hearts]; but when one [namely: Israel] turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:15–18)

With just a few small changes Paul inserts his own interpretation into the passage. The present situation is no longer similar to Moses’ turning to God. In Paul’s text the passage concerns Israel. This intertextual change makes Moses predict the eschatological future. In the corrupt world the veil lies over people’s hearts (epi tēn kardian) and – just as the shema-obedience commands – when the hearts turn to God, the veil will be removed.85 Paul apparently means that when a Jew who has not known the power of the law finally repents, he or she removes the veil that has prevented him or her from recognizing the real glory of the law. In this phase, every penitent encounters the ministratio mortis, the real function of the law. A parallel passage in Rom 7 confirms this explanation: “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.” (Rom 7:9). In eschatological contexts, sapiential vice-lists are then given a new role. The law’s ministratio mortis is expressed by its task of passing sentence.. In Galatians 5 Paul describes the works of the flesh by quoting or even creating a list of mortal transgressions. The list itself climaxes in a judgment formula: “those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21). Hamartology, expressed in these devastating words, underscores the judicial nature of people’s relation to the Lord Almighty who has created the world.86 84

A number of interpretations for the function of the veil have been proposed, see Harris, 2 Corinthians, 297–305. I would not say – like Harris – that the veil just refers to the Jews’ “inability to realize that the Mosaic order was temporary,” or an inability to recognize Christ. Instead, understanding the ministry of the law means recognizing its amazing power to kill and, therefore, such a recognition should open hearts to Christ’s glory as well. 85 This is in fact added in the present Finnish translation: [“when their hearts turn to the Lord”]. 86 The juridic aspect is clear in passages such as this. See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 260.

288

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9–10)

In sum, Paul uses the law in a judicial discourse where he discusses issues of divine judgment. Law in its various forms becomes the standard according to which human beings are judged. Paul refers to the Torah itself as well as uses sapiential images where the entire creation is understood as God’s book of perfect justice. In Paul’s theology, the law gets the office of death, ministratio mortis, and it will kill sinners in the end. Once again the exilic condition of human beings is the primary motivation for Paul’s reasoning. God’s good law no longer has the function that its perfect content and basic essence implies. It is not enough to tell people to live according to the principles of acting justlya . In a situation where such demand is necessary, the condition itself proves human beings’ hopeless situation. Excursus: E.P. Sanders and the theory of covenantal nomism Pauline soteriology cannot be treated without discussing Sanders’ influential theory of covenantal nomism. During the last three decades he has inspired an enormous amount of research and, as we have seen, these focus especially on the issue of Paul and the law. In his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism Sanders analyses the soteriological structure of Judaism – working back from the Mishnah and Talmud – and comes to the conclusion that its theology is covenantal. Jewish writers and teachers do not expect to gain salvation on the basis of their deeds. Only God can give salvation. Thus nomism, too, has to be understood in terms of this structure.87 Sanders’ theory is primarily sociological. He discusses “patterns of religion” where social relations are expected to express the soteriological structure of the system. The theory is based on a dichotomy between two sociological categories which are called “getting in” and “staying in”. These terms concern the conditions of getting into a group and staying in it. A pattern of religion, defined positively, is the description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function. ‘Perceived to function’ has the sense not of what an adherent does on a day-to-day basis, but of how getting in and staying in are understood: the way in which a religion is understood to admit and retain members is considered to be the way it ‘functions’... A pattern of religion thus has largely to do with the items which a systematic theology classifies under ‘soteriology.’88

The change to the well-known, traditional Protestant soteriological view concerns the role of nomos in the pattern of religion. Covenantal nomism, for Sanders, means a concept according to which the keeping of the law is a 87 Sanders, Paul, 422ff. The influence of the theory is discussed in Westerholm, Perspectives, 164–194. 88 Sanders, Paul, 17.

II. Paul’s sapiential law of love

289

response to God’s mercy and election. It takes place inside God’s covenant. Nomism as such cannot be a condition for “getting in.” Sanders thought that Paul had known Judaism as covenantal nomism. In his soteriology Paul naturally changed the basis of salvation, which could come only through Christ, but he did not alter the concept of covenantal nomism.89 Several analyses have been written on Sanders’ theory during the last decades and few theories are as debated as this is at the moment. While we cannot contribute to that discussion in detail here, we must assess the coherence of Sanders’ interpretation from the point of view of the whole New Testament theology.90 The basic problem – and an essential one – appears to be that the new paradigm in Jesus-studies, that owes much to Sanders himself, is at odds with his covenantal view on Second Temple Judaism. The fundamental claim behind covenantal nomism theory is that the covenantal Jewish religion in Jesus’ time does not consider itself as experiencing a crisis in its relationship to Israel’s Lord. According to the new view of restoration eschatology, however, Israel still lives in exile. Seen from this perspective, Israel is not at all in the situation of “staying in” but, rather, in serious trouble with the “getting in.” To state this in the context of the present discussion implies simultaneously a change in concepts that are used in this argumentation.91 Even according to several ancient Jewish authors, as the analysis has shown, Israel did not live in a situation that could be called a matter of “staying in” the covenant. Instead, the covenant had been broken and these theologians were convinced that only divine intervention could bring reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration. Should one want to apply Sanders’ categories in such a situation, those “staying in” the covenant were the exiled and cursed Israelites who had not yet experienced renewal. The discussion about the question of continuing exile has shown that traditional views on Jewish history – still working with Sanders’ analyses written in the early 1970s – are no longer valid. As the first part of the present work has pointed out, Jesus was never content with proclaiming the benefits of the covenant. In his speeches one encounters the rhetoric of discontinuity. The eschatological tension is extreme: restoration can become real only after the final period of tribulation when Israel kills the messengers God sends to her. The relation between sociology and eschatology is entirely different from what Sanders suggested. 89 Sanders, Paul, 497, 514, 552. One of the main criticisms of Sanders’ theory, and his book, is that it is somewhat anachronistic. He worked with rabbinic writings and interpreted Second Temple Jewish soteriology in terms of his findings. Many scholars have noted that the diversity of Second Temple Judaism suggests a different picture and does not support covenantal nomism. See Saldarini, JBL 98 (1979) 302; Collins, Apocalyptic, 359f.; Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 582. 90 For my critical analysis, see Eskola, JSJ 28 (1997), 390–412. 91 See also Irons, Justification, 340–341.

290

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Paul appears to build on a similar eschatology. He attacks Israel’s religious apostasy, of which he himself has been part in his earlier life. In Paul’s theology there is always a contrast between Israel’s (or all children of Adam’s) exilic condition and restorative release. This view questions the traditions of Pauline interpretation in the Sandersian vein. Paul’s soteriology is neither pro-covenantal nomism attempting to maintain the status quo (Sanders, Dunn), nor a deliberate distortion of the alleged gracious nomism of the era (Räisänen, Kuula). Paul adopts Jesus’ harsh criticism of the temple, as well as of the Jewish nomos.92 As noted earlier, the covenant for Paul, was the new covenant that was contrasted with the old covenant of slavery. The terminology itself derives from the words of institution that promote the theology of a new covenant.93 The interesting feature in Sanders’ theory is that he builds heavily on Schweitzer’s apocalyptic interpretation of early Christianity. As noted already during the analysis, Sanders refers to Schweitzer as he develops the new eschatological approach to Jesus’ teaching. He also adopts Schweitzer’s concepts as he defines Paul’s soteriology as a participationist eschatology.94 It is, therefore, apocalyptic mysticism that dictates the principles of participationist soteriology – that are then cast against the traditional Protestant understanding of Paul’s view of freedom from the law. Sanders no doubt drifts into problems as he then attempts to apply such apocalyptical views to non-eschatological covenantal nomism.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis Reading the narrative of reconciliation that Paul develops in his letters, and considering his terminology, Paul’s soteriology can well be called a theologia crucis, a theology of the cross. Christ’s death in general and his cross in particular have a central role in what Paul writes. Furthermore, crucifixion has a special significance for Paul personally. He often states that he has been crucified with Christ. 92

See Sanders, Paul, 552; Dunn, Law, 194–196; Räisänen, Paul, 201; Kuula, Law,

209.

93

Having said this, I do recognize that it would be impossible to try to change established dogmatic premises, or to extend the interpretation of Pauline soteriology to ecumenical discussions between different confessional traditions. The covenantal interpretation as such is popular in the Reformed tradition and, therefore, widely adopted especially in Anglo-American scholarship. In general, it has made several notable contributions to the investigation of Paul’s theology. With my remarks I hope to be able to open certain new visions concerning the interpretation of Paul’s thinking and to put my finger on some problematic issues that need to be reconsidered on exegetical grounds. 94 Schweitzer, Mystik, 110, 122–124; Sanders, Paul, 459.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

291

When Paul writes to the Corinthians for example he reminds them of the core of the saving gospel: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2). The idea of a crucified Messiah would have been inconceivable in standard Jewish teaching in the Second Temple period. In many writings of the time, messianic figures, and especially royal saviors, are militant characters. They are expected to arrive and remove injustice and oppression from this world. Paul does not focus merely on the Messiah’s victory, even though this aspect is obviously known to him. Paul teaches his hearers that the Messiah, after been tortured, was executed on a Roman cross. Mors turpissima crucis.95 One should not overlook obvious issues behind Paul’s choices for constructing his theology. He has long been well informed about the Easter narrative since he hauled Christians to legal courts in local synagogues. After his conversion though he became convinced that God acts within history. The restoration gospel is deeply rooted in historical events. God cannot be approached merely by religious contemplation or human reasoning. God has entered history and walked among us. This is why the salvific message evolves around the killing of the Son of God on the cross. 1. Sacrifice and substitution For any Jewish teacher of the law, theological issues had to be legitimated by referring to the scriptures. Eschatological statements needed to be derived from Old Testament passages. Cultic atonement needed to be rooted in the sacrificial laws of the Leviticus. As long as the temple remained standing, all religious feasts as well as the temple calendar were important elements of Jewish life. Most feasts focused on sacrifices, and these, in turn, mostly deal with the problem of sin. Attending temple festivals was important because it meant participation in the pardoning of sins. In Paul’s letters, several passages focus on Christ’s work as a sin offering. One of the crucial passages is the pre-Pauline confession in 1 Cor 15 which Paul himself depicts as his own gospel. This is an Easter confession bestowing meaning on the final events in Jesus’ life (1 Cor 15:3–4). Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

95 The famous slogan ascribed to Origen (and appearing as the original title of Hengel’s Crucifixion) describes the situation well: a repulsive death. Plautus and many other authors describe the cross as the evil cross (maxuma mala crux), see Hengel, Crucifixion, 7. For a detailed analysis of all relevant passages in Roman literature, see Cook, Crucifixion, 51ff., on Plautus, p. 52; cf. also Samuelsson’s thorough treatment in Crucifixion in Antiquity.

292

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

All of the important elements are present in this short confession. Firstly, it builds on the Easter story, acting as a succinct reminder of the passion narrative. He mentions Jesus’ death, burial, rising from the grave, and appearances. Secondly, separate statements are legitimated by referring to the scriptures. Both Paul and his tradition depend on God’s promises. This is salvation history: the Easter events are part of a larger narrative proclaiming the restoration of Israel and the whole of humankind. Paul expresses his sacrificial theology, pithy as it is in this passage, through an ingenious structure. According to the homology Christ (or even the Jewish Messiah, assuming that Christos in the beginning is a direct translation) has died “for our sins” (hyper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn). This hyperformula brings cultic discourse into the rhetorical structure.96 There is a connection to temple liturgy: something or someone must be sacrificed for sins to be forgiven. Jesus is depicted as a sin offering. According to this early homology, then, Jesus sacrificed himself as an offering when he died on the cross. His death can be compared with the well known sacrifices that were offered in the temple. The people’s sins were transferred to Jesus, and atonement was achieved. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:21)

Cultic narrative focuses on substitutional sacrifice: Jesus becoming a sacrificial lamb and a scapegoat. These two images overlap in Paul’s presentation. God “made him to be sin (hamartian epoiēsen).” This expression builds on Old Testament cultic laws. Be it the daily offering (Exod 29:38), the tamid, the “atonement for your lives” (Exod 30:15), paid for by a temple tax or a sheep “without blemish” for another kind of atonement, “the sin that you have committed,” it was usual to lay hands “on the head of the sin offering” (Lev 4:32–35).97 The same is true concerning the offerings on the Day of Atonement. There were two goats, one for the temple and the other for sending into the wilderness. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Lev 16:9–10)

Such an offering, called hattā’t (LXX: hamartia), was typically substitutional. Traditional Christian conceptions of atonement are based on these passages. Both the sin offering and Christ have a representative role. This 96 The cultic aspect of hyper is commonly noted, see for instance by Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 171; Laato, Servant, 185–186. Referring to the scholarly discussion, Thiselton states that hyper involves the notion of expiation. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1191. Ciampa and Rosner comment that this may also be an allusion to Isa 53; 1 Corinthians, 747. 97 Harris, 2 Corinthians, 451–452.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

293

implies identification since the offering represents the penitent personally. This is expressed for instance by laying on of hands: Then Aaron “shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel” (Lev 16:21). This results in substitution because the sins of the penitent are transferred to the offering, which is then slaughtered on his behalf.98 When Paul says that God condemned “sin in the flesh” he states that Christ has been made a sin offering on behalf of all penitents: “by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:3–4). Likeness here denotes identification with the victim, and probably has a double meaning: the pure victim is counted as a sinful sacrifice, and Christ who is “made to be sin” substitutes for sinful humankind.99 The paradigmatic story in the Old Testament explaining reconciliation is the presentation on the Day of Atonement. Here both the scapegoat and the sin offering are introduced. On Yom Kippur priests offer sacrifice both for themselves and for the people. The story focuses on two goats, one of them serving as a sacrifice to be slaughtered. He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazael shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Lev 16:7–10)

The slaughtered goat atones for Israel’s sins. Since blood symbolizes life, it is the blood in particular here that serves as the means of atonement. Sacrificial blood needs to be placed in front of God himself, sitting on his thone above the mercy seat in the debir. He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. (Lev 16:15)

98

For the sin offering, see Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 195. Stuhlmacher remarks that in 2 Cor 5:21 the theology draws on Isa 53 and so focuses on the work of the Servant of God. 99 The word homoiōma has given rise to much discussion because it is not clear whether Paul means similarity or identity. It is theologically incoherent to assume that Jesus would have become a sinner (the opposite is emphasized throughout the New Testament). For the discussion, see Jewett, Romans, 483–484, who suggests that the antinomy of the verse is contained in “Christ’s fully participating in the realm of sinful flesh.” It must be noted that the problem is mitigated when the role of the victim is considered.

294

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

As the high priest enters the Holy of Holies he makes atonement by sprinkling blood on the “cover” of the ark of the covenant. This cover, kappōret (Gr. hilastērion) becomes a key topos in all sacrificial theology.100 The word itself has a long history of influence, expressing both the place, the atonement, and even the sacrifice. The description of the scapegoat has important features as well. The element of substitution is present since the goat represents the lives of the Israelites. The laying on of hands emphasizes the substitutive role: “Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat” (16:21). The name Azazel is somewhat of an enigma. It may denote a goat that is sent away (as goat is ’ez, and sending ‘azal), or even “complete removing” (an intensive form of ‘azal). One theological meaning is simple enough, though: “The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region” (16:22). In the New Testament we find then several passages where the priestly narrative and Yom Kippur soteriology explain the meaning of Jesus’ death. For practical reasons, it is useful to refer to some of these ideas here. The letter to the Hebrews offers the most developed description of sacrificial theology, and it parallels Paul’s presentations in many respects. The author describes the heavenly Holy of Holies by referring to the sanctuary of the “first covenant.” Behind the curtain there stood the ark of the covenant and “above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat” (hilastērion, Hebr. 9:5). Jesus’ death is depicted as a sacrificial act: “who […] offered himself without blemish to God” (9:14). Furthermore, Jesus’ work is described as priestly service. He enters the Holy of Holies, puts his blood on the ark of the covenant and makes atonement. But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption (lytrōsis). (Hebr 9:12)

In Romans 5 Paul, in turn, uses Yom Kippur in his theology by referring to the sin offering. “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (5:8).101 Atonement has been made because Christ is able to save us “from the wrath of God.” Forgiveness of sins is achieved with sacrificial blood since “we have been justified by his blood” 100 From kipper, to cover or to make atonement; thus later, a mercy seat. See the thorough article by Lang in TDOT 7 (1995) 288ff. My analysis is also based on Laato in the Finnish discussion, Laato, Uhri, 25–29; Cf. Thiselton, Doctrine, 341. 101 Paul’s use of the Old Testament background is noted by Schreiner, Theology, 359–361. “Paul explains that Christ was set forth as a mercy seat to demonstrate God’s righteousness.” Cf. Thielman, Theology, 354.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

295

(dikaiōthentes nyn en tō haimati autou, 5:9). As God’s enemies we “are reconciled to God through the death of his Son.” (5:10).102 There is one passage in Paul’s letters where he uses imagery taken from temple cult. In Romans 3 he explains redemption by speaking of Christ who has taken his blood to the Holy of Holies. [T]hey are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement (hilastērion) by his blood, effective through faith. (Rom 3:23–25)

The sentence is difficult in Greek with its tightly-packed information. God has put Jesus forward or put him “in a public place” (protithēmi) or even made him a kapporet through his blood.103 The idea of the original (hilastērion) is present in the cluster of meanings behind this difficult expression. Such theology is typical of Jewish-Christian teaching. In Hebrews the word denotes “mercy seat” (Hebr 9:5) that is the kapporet itself. The NRSV provides here a dynamical translation, and the “sacrifice of atonement” comes close to Paul’s thought world. In a sense Christ is “the place for atonement” through faith in his blood. Anyone interpreting this passage should visualize the scene that is described in Hebrews. Christ is the sacrifice in the place of atonement, before the ark of the covenant, and his blood grants the forgiveness of sins. Anyone believing in his sin offering will be reconciled with God.104 The theological significance of blood in this passage resembles the expressions appearing in 1 Corinthians where Paul speaks of the meaning of the last supper. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor 11:16). Participation is an essential part of Paul’s reconciliation theology, and we will return to this issue below when this theme is discussed in detail. In the Old Testament the role of blood is extraordinary. The cleansing of the priests was done with blood (Lev 29:20–21). The altars needed to be sanctified, as the letter to the Hebrews reminds us: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebr 9:22). At the Exodus, blood was the sign of salvation (Exod 12:21–22). It is noteworthy that in Paul’s theology, Christ is not merely a sin-offering but also the sacrifice brought to God at 102

Colossians speaks of the “blood of his cross,” that brings reconciliation (Col 1:20), and in Ephesians “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Eph 1:7). 103 The expression is difficult but protithēmi can be used in Greek to denote a dead body that is viewed by the public before the funeral. Here, however, a cultic reading is plausible, as Dunn notes: “the idea of the public use of sacrificial blood,” Dunn, Romans, 170. 104 Cf. Stuhlmacher: “The Christian’s kapporet no longer exists hidden in the holy of holies of the temple, but is revealed to all in the form of Christ hanging on the cross.” Stuhlmacher, Romans, 60.

296

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Easter. He writes: “our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor 5:7). As sinners believe in Christ’s blood, God’s wrath passes us by and the real exodus toward the new paradise begins. Furthermore, any treatment of Paul’s theology about Christ’s death must take Isa 53 into account. Paul uses imagery that derives from that passage, and the primitive Christian tradition he uses builds on similar theological themes. Here the role of God’s servant is depicted in cultic terms expressing identification and substitution.105 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for out iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole,106 and by his bruises we are healed. (Isa 53:4–5)

Isaiah 53 not only speaks about punishment, though. The Servant’s suffering becomes identified with temple sacrifice: “When you make his life an offering for sin he shall see his offspring” (Isa 53:10a). Like the temple sacrifice, he is handed over and bears the “sin of many” (paredothē eis thanaton, LXX 53:12). Paul has also made good use of the Isaian theology of justification. In the text the suffering Servant “shall make many righteous” because “he shall bear their iniquities” (53:11). In Paul’s letters, Isaian sacrificial theology appears in a traditional passage that probably predates Paul in the history of the early Church, and the paralleism is perfect only in Greek. Nevertheless, scholars assume that it builds on Semitic background.107 Therefore, we need to return to this subtle passage that speaks both of giving a sacrifice and rising from the dead. who was handed over (paredothē) to death for our (hyper) trespasses and was raised (ēgerhtē) for our (hyper) justification. (Rom 4:25)108

The hyper-formula expressing Christ’s death “for our trespasses” derives most probably from the abovementioned passage in Isaiah. In Isaiah 53:12 God’s servant is handed over for the people’s sins (dia tas hamartias autōn paredothē). The “handing over,” based on paradidōmi, is standard cultic terminology. This is emphasized by the use of hyper, denoting representation and suggesting substitution.109 Furthermore, the result of this kind of reconciliation is peace, as Paul states in the next sentence (5:1).

105 Paul’s use of Isa 53 has been investigated quite thoroughly, see Hofius, Gottesknecht, 107–127; Laato, Servant, 184–194. 106 Even though the clause is difficult to translate, the concept of peace should probably be maintained here: the Servant grants peace since he is struck down for our transgressions. 107 So Hofius, Gottesknecht, 121. 108 For the analysis of the structure of this important passage, see 1.2. above. 109 Laato, Servant, 188.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

297

Paul – or rather his tradition – has used Isaian terminology when combining Jesus’ sufferings and sacrificial cult. Christ has been handed over for the sins of the people, and so the promises of exilic prophets have been fulfilled. This parallelism depicts Christ as a sin offering, hattā’t. This explains precisely why Christ’s rising from the dead atones and justifies.. The close connection between these expressions is obvious because parallel participles have been used. The idea is similar to that found later in chapter five where Pauls states that Christ’s obedience will make (a very) many (polloi) righteous (cf. Isa 53:11).110 The Isaian link makes this theology of reconciliation part of exilic rhetoric and restoration eschatology. The famous chapter 53 proclaims that the Servant will suffer for the transgressions of the people. “For he was cut off the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people” (53:8). Both for the pre-Pauline tradition and the apostle himself, atonement and forgiveness mean the pardoning of Israel’s sins. When Christ intercedes “for the transgressors” (Isa 53:12) or “for our treaspasses” (Rom 4:25) he fulfills the expectations the book of Isaiah transmitted. The basic narrative unites these passages. Israel’s Messiah must suffer for the fall of the chosen people. He is handed over so that the people can be called back to their God. When Paul later applies the same theology of reconciliation to all descendants of Adam he simply speaks of the great exile that took place when human beings were expelled from paradise. There is not only a narrative behind the parallelism mentioned above, but also a complete cosmology. The picture drawn here resembles that found in the letter to the Hebrews. The risen Christ enters the heavenly temple and, carrying his own blood to the debir, he atones for sinners. This results in justification and, as Paul later says, justification of the ungodly. The same idea is repeated in chapter five: through Christ’s work “we have been justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9).111 There is no doubt that for Paul sacrificial theology, representation, substitution and expiation form the basis of salvation. He sees Christ as a victim representing all sinners. This is why Christ becomes a substitute who dies on behalf of others. This has been made possible because their sins have been taken off their shoulders and laid on the victim, Christ (transference). Since Christ brings his blood to the place of atonement, sinners participate in his blood and are granted forgiveness. Blood as a symbol of life represents the penitent’s life that has been brought in front of God. This is how expiation for the transgressions of all people has been made. After this, absolution is perfect.

110

This aspect of sin offering in Isa 53 is investigated later, see subchapter 4.2. So Stuhlmacher, Romans, 81. Cf. also Schreiner: “In Rom. 5:9–10 justification and reconciliation are alternate ways of describing God’s work in Christ.” Schreiner, Theology, 364. 111

298

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

2. The Akedah – Isaac as a model One of the most important themes in Old Testament sacrificial theology is the near sacrifice of Isaac, the Akedah (“binding”). In the Genesis story, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you. (Gen 22:2)

According to the Genesis story God wants to “test” Abraham (Gen 22:1) by asking him to offer his son to the Lord. While this treatment of fidelity to God may seem excessive to modern ears, it is this passage that has become a key text in Old Testament sacrificial theology. The sequence comprises several essential terms such as burnt offering, lamb, as well as the idea of a theophany. These concepts appear later also in passages describing offerings given in the tabernacle.112 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together. (Gen 22:7–8)

As read in the context of the Old Testament sacrificial system, Isaac’s sacrifice gets a unique meaning. It becomes a symbol for God’s own sacrifice: “God takes the initiative in providing his own sacrifice.”113 The text has two functions in this context. On the one hand, it speaks of Abraham’s loyalty: “now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (22:12). On the other hand, Abraham trusts God because God is expected to keep his promises and “provide the lamb” on behalf of Abraham. Isaac’s “binding” becomes thus a story of a God who will himself provide a victim and sacrificial atonement for the fallen nation. In the New Testament Abraham’s sacrifice and the Akedah remain part of sacrificial soteriology. Paul uses the idea in Rom 8. Once again the esssential statement appears as part of a another description, an admonition for people living in Rome. There is some similarity in the contexts, though. Christians living under the threat of persecution feared that they would have to sacrifice their life for their faith. Paul’s answer interprets Isaac’s sacrifice: He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? (Rom 8:32)

In Paul’s soteriology Christ’s offering is depicted in terms of Isaac’s binding. God is faithful and does not withhold even his own Son. Christ becomes the victim that is sacrificed by God himself. Like the Akedah it will bring peace 112 This theme has been brought to biblical theology especially by Childs, Biblical Theology, 325–328. 113 Childs, Biblical Theology, 327.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

299

and establish unity with God. Paul emphasizes sacrificial terminology by using the formula hyper denoting representation and substitution.114 This theme appears to be generally used in Jewish-Christian theology. A similar tradition can be found in Hebrews. The author develops the same idea further and interprets Abraham’s faith as belief in resurrection. Willingness to sacrifice the son is based on the conviction that God will conquer death. By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead – and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Hebr 11:17–19)

In Johannine theology this theme appears in the locus classicus John 3:16, where the offering of the “only son” is prominent. In the soteriologial descriptions of the early church’s biblical theology, the Akedah is thus an important theme. Even though, apart from John, it has rarely been mentioned, the passages where it does appear show that it was important for teaching the congregations. In Paul’s writings it obviously affected his teaching about Abraham’s blessing, or the curse of the law. 3. Christ as a curse The message of the cross is not the leading theme only of 1 Corinthians. In his other letters, too, Paul repeatedly explains how the death of the Messiah becomes a source of life and salvation. He never attempts to present Christ’s death in a noble way. Instead, he emphasizes the brutal nature of the event and finds the heart of the gospel in the shameful event of public execution. For instance in Gal 3 Paul focuses on the basic purpose of the act of crucifixion. As he speaks of Christ’s death he quotes the text of Deuteronomy and discusses Old Testament views on executed criminals. Anyone crucified on a tree is cursed by God: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal 3:13b).115 In Deuteronomy the original passage forms part of the wider teaching on blessings and curses. Therefore, this theme belongs primarily to nomistic theology. God’s law, according to the Torah, is a law that fosters life and maintains it. God has first chosen his people, then liberated them from slavery in Egypt, and then placed good and evil before them.

114

Childs emphasizes the aspect of faithfulness, Childs, Biblical Theology, 334. The wording is almost the same as in Gen 22:16 LXX, with the only exception being the word “beloved.” Dunn suggests that Paul wanted to avoid the idea that the “beloved son” is merely one of many sons and, therefore, adds “only son.” Dunn, Romans, 501. 115 See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 298–299; Elgvin, Themelios 22 (1997) 14–21.

300

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. (Deut 30:15–17)

God’s Torah becomes here the criterion of the perfect life. If you follow his precepts you shall be blessed by the good fruit the nomos bears. Transgressions, in their turn, draw God’s curse on the apostate. This is why, a little earlier in the text, blessings and curses are listed in detail (Deut 28). That passage opens up with the parenetic words: “If you will only obey the Lord your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today [...]” (28:1). A life according to the law brings abundance. “Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, and the fruit of your livestock.” (Deut 28:4).116 On the other hand, there is a theology of curse involved: “But if you will not obey the Lord your God by diligently observing all his commandments [...]” (28:15). Breaking the commandments has its consequences. “Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle.” (Deut 28:18). Such theology is accompanied by a complete liturgy of blessings and curse in chapter 27. After crossing the river Jordan, with Simeon, half of the tribes are set to bless the people, and with Reuben half of the tribes are set to proclaim curse (Deut 27:12–13). These curses are in fact God’s commandments in a shortened form: “Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice” (27:19).117 Already in Deuteronomy the theology of blessing and curse is applied to restoration eschatology. The final blessing of Israel will mean forgiveness of sins and renewal of the relationship to God. When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back. (Deut 30:1–4)

116

Paul apparently works with Deut 27–30 here, so says Scott, JBL 112 (1993) 657–658; and contra Martyn who constructs an opposition: God blesses – the Law curses. Martyn, Galatians, 325. 117 Scott sets out to answer the important question that has long confused scholars: “How could Paul assume that the curse of Deuteronomy had indeed come upon Israel and that the nation needed deliverance from it”? Scott is convinced that the basic reason is in the exilic condition of the people. “Paul evidently assumes,” he says, that “the divine judgment begun in 587 continues on Israel, that the Jewish people remain in exile until the time of restoration.” Scott, JBL 112 (1993) 657.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

301

In the New Testament, restoration eschatology builds on all of these passages. According to Paul, the curse lies on the nation, and a proof of this is the dispersion in which the people live. The curse implies punishment, and someone has to suffer before the curse of the law can be removed. In Paul’s thinking, therefore, Christ’s substitutional death is explained in terms of the Old Testament theology of blessing and curse. The clearest point of contact is the aspect of curse that can easily be applied to a human figure who is executed for a transgression. The fate of the one who is hung on a tree, in Old Testament theology, depends particularly on the idea of curse, and this is the passage Paul quotes directly. It implies the aspect of desecrating the body of the convict.118 When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. (Deut 21:22–23)

The criminal hung on a tree is under God’s curse (Hebr. qelala, Gr. kataraomai). This passage explains many features in Jesus’ execution. He was nailed to the cross while he was still alive. This punishment was the most excrutiating possibility. (In other cases, the dead corpse could be hung on a tree.) When nailed to a cross, a person would slowly suffocate as his muscles started to fail. Often the legs were broken in order to hasten death. This was in fact an act of mercy in such a horrible situation.119 Dead bodies were left often on the cross for hours. They were mocked and spit on. Naturally, they were supposed to arouse fear in those who opposed the rulers who put them there. In Israel, however, one element was compulsory. No corpse should be left on a cross over night. Hence, dead bodies were taken down before the day ended.120 118 Wright pays attention to this aspect but, due to his covenantal interpretation, he treats the dependence of Gal 3 on Deut 30 differently (Wright, Paul, 864–865). He interprets Gal 3 like 2 Cor 5:21 where, “the idea of the apostle embodying the divine covenant faithfulness emerges as the natural and right meaning” (p. 881). Moreover, Wright connects Deut 30 with Rom 10, where faith in Jesus is “the true fulfilment of Torah itself” (p. 1036). Therefore, the fulfilment of Deut 30, for him, means “covenant renewal and the end of exile” (p.1164, italics his). This is probably why Wright almost neglects the theology of the cross in his monumental work. Wright admits the controversial nature of his reading but he does not explain why diathēkē never appears in this context in Paul’s letters. 119 In the Temple Scroll at Qumran this Old Testament passage was commented on. It was applied to the case of a spy who “betrays his people” or “causes evil” to descend on his people. On the evidence of two or three witnesses he shall be executed “and they shall hang him on the tree.” Also according to this passage their corpses “shall not spend the night on the tree,” but be buried on the same day “because they are cursed by God and man.” (11QT 19.64.) 120 For the customs of crucifixion, see Hengel, Crucifixion, 8–10; Cook, Crucifixion, 418–421; Samuelsson, Crucifixion, 296–299.

302

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

This is exactly what Paul implies when he states that, on the cross, Christ has become a curse – and even cursed by God. God has apparently abandoned and punished. For Paul, all this – paradoxical as it may seem – is what the theology of the cross is about. Christ did not die because of his own sins or criminal action. He was cursed “in our stead.” Aspects of representation and expiation are present. For Paul, the punishment is real and for actual sins. These sins are not Jesus’ sins but those of the descendants of Adam. The idea of a vicarious death is evident.121 The same particular feature is prominent in 2 Cor 5: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (5:21). Here Paul emphasizes the difference between Christ and humanity. Jesus knows no sin but all sins are laid on him. This is how divine punishment falls on actual sins.122 Cursing Christ, for Paul, is identical with cursing transgressions. In Galatians, another Old Testament text explains the element of cursing. God cannot accept injustice. “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” (Gal 3:10). Since the divine law exposes human infidelity, the transgressors are given to God’s judgment. This is why Paul claims that the “curse of the law” is the key problem that determines human fate. It separates the human race from God completely. No human being can approach God on the basis of his or her personal merits. This Adamic world is still under the curse. Should one hope to meet with God, one would merely encounter his wrath. Therefore, Paul proclaims, there is but one solution: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). Redemption explains why the foolishness and disgrace of the cross are part of divine punishment. Sin needs to be punished and, therefore, no salvation is possible without Christ’s vicarious act, his appearance as a criminal and an apostate who is cursed on the cross. As we return to Gal 3, the blessing here is Abraham’s blessing: “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you” (3:8). In Paul’s thinking the theology of blessing and curse will find its consummation in justification by faith. Abraham’s blessing will be granted to sinners as a free gift. “For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.” (3:9). This is how the curse of the law is reconciled and ended. And as we consider its theological background in Deut 30, this also means the end of the exile. Through the themes of blessings and curse, Paul’s soteriology is once more linked with promises that are given to those in the diaspora. God in his mercy will change the fate of his people. He will remove the curse by making Christ

121 See Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, 195–197; Carrol and Green, Death of Jesus,123–124; Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 164–165. 122 Elgvin suggests that, given how Deut 21 is reinterpreted in the Temple Scroll, the Qumran custom reveals new aspects in the punishment. Now one “who is guilty of national treason or blasphemy” must be crucified. Elgvin concludes that the priestly class held a belief like this. Elgvin, Themelios 22 (1997) 15.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

303

hamartia for the sinners. This becomes the foundation for a gospel that gradually will gather the those in exile from all over the world. Pauline theology of reconciliation, thus, is both a theology of Israel’s restoration and bringing relief to the descendants of Adam. Firstly, the curse of the law concerns Israel who lives in an ongoing exilic state. Secondly, it extends to the Gentiles because, either by transgressing against the Torah itself or the law written in their hearts, they are guilty of defiling creation. This is why Paul repeats his soteriological summary here: “no one is justified before God by the law” (3:11). Only the one who has made atonement by taking the curse on himself can bless those living as God’s enemies. 4. Representation, ransom, redemption The narrative of redemption depends on the metanarrative of exile and restoration. We have seen above that many of the important aspects in particular passages build on an Old Testament text where Israel’s restoration is described. Moreover, the very same theological purpose is expressed by the word redemption itself. In Isaiah, the terminology of ransom money provides a foundation for the whole of salvation history: this is how God shall forgive his people and redeem the slaves of Babylon. In order to do this, God will atone for all the “Gentile sinners” (to use a Pauline term here). This is why he gives Egypt and Ethiopia as a ransom for Israel. Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine [...] For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you. (Isa 43:1–3)

The idea of giving Egypt as ransom sounds peculiar but can be explained by the idea of ransom money. God wants to buy Israel back and offers to pay the price himself. The Hebrew word for ransom, koper, has also come to mean atonement. Reconciliation can thus be evoked without direct reference to cultic atonement – despite the fact that one implies the other. The price for this ransom is that God himself must atone for sinners. Thus says the Lord: the wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia, and and the Sabeans, tall of stature, shall come over to you and be yours, they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying, “God is with you alone, and there is no other; there is no god besides him. (Isa 45:14)

This kind of reasoning is coherent only if we acknowledge that, through the fall and in the exile, Israel has become one of the nations – a sinful nation among the others. When the fallen nations are redeemed, the barrier between Israel and other nations, the ethnocentric primacy, will be torn down. Israel will be saved, and other nations will be driven into a crisis where they will have to deal with their idolatry. Then they will be awakened and shall serve

304

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Israel’s Lord. Redemption benefits the Gentile world as well as Israel. They, the Gentiles, will confess the Lord and serve no other gods.123 We can argue that Jesus proclaimed this same eschatology in the temple. The Jerusalem temple should have been the “house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17), but Jesus did not find it so when he arrived. The temple was not the place where God would gather the nations. The reason was obvious: the nations had not yet been given as ransom for Israel. This helps to explain why even Jesus depended on Isaiah’s theology of redemption. Only the final reconciliation shall redeem the nations and restore Israel. Reading Isaiah once more, redemption will be fully accomplished when the Lord’s Servant will be “a covenant to the people” and “a light to the nations” (Isa 42:6). This will be when God’s eschatological temple will be the house of prayer for all the nations as he had promised. This is the time God will give Egypt as ransom. Then, the Isaian gospel will be proclaimed to all nations: “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa 45:22). A similar theology can be found also in the beginning of Luke (1:67–69). Paul adopts such themes and joins them together. Summarizing the results of the analysis above, one can note that in Romans Paul proclaims that all people, “both Jews and Greeks,” live under the power of sin (Rom 3:9). They share a similar condition. When God puts Jesus forward “as a sacrifice” (Rom 3:25) and in other passages Paul adds that he is “made hamartia” for the sinners (2 Cor 5:21), and when Christ appears “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” then God shall “condemn sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). Redemption concerns every human being in a similar way, since all are descendants of Adam. After this there will be no “distinction” (diastolē) between the nations (Rom 3:22). Paul refers to the ethnocentric principle that has now been mitigated.124 The same idea was symbolized by the short wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the actual temple area. This balustrade (dryfaktos) served as a symbolic barrier between the Jews and others. In Paul’s theology this wall is torn down.125 In Paul’s soteriology, the concept of redemption covers all the main metaphors of atonement: sacrifice, blood, and the place (hilastērion) of atonement (Rom 3:24–25; cf. Hebr 9:11–15). Moreover, in Romans, Paul adopts many essential themes that appear in Isa 40–55. According to the apostle, all nations share in one status before God. Since sin unites all of

123

This is the key issue in the discussion about the continuing exile. As regards Paul, see also Scott, who was referred to above, Scott, JBL 112 (1993) 657–659. 124 So for instance Dunn, Romans, 167. 125 The balustrade is most clearly referred to in Eph 2:14. Josephus mentions it in.A.J. [15.2.5] as a balustrade that prohibits entrance “under threat of the penalty of death.” The slabs have also been found, and the discovery published, see Finegan, Archeology, 194.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

305

humankind, which lives in an exilic state, salvation is based on ransom and redemption (apolytrōsis). In Paul’s theology, redemption is based on atonement. It is effective because of the sacrificial power of Christ’s blood and, therefore, the idea implies the concept of representation. God has paid an expensive ransom for the redemption of sinners through a vicarious servant. As the ransom has been paid, salvation is open to all nations. Paul builds on Isaian universalism: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom 3:29). In Isaiah 54, this theology of redemption is described beautifully in terms of restoration eschatology. Salvation brings dispersion to an end. Israel is like a bride whom God loves and frees from slavery. For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer. This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the Lord, who has compassion on you. (Isa 54:7–10)

Such theology, based on Christ’s cross, is no doubt “foolishness” in the eyes of any (Jewish) theologian focusing on the acts of God the Almighty. In First Corinthians Paul’s theology of the cross culminates in the description of God’s insurmountable wisdom and the paradox of his gospel. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block (skandalon) to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:22–24)

The Greek and Jewish perspectives here make sense. The Greeks desire wisdom, and even European scholars drawing from ancient philosophy can empathize with this. God should be understood as an object for reasoning. A message about the crucified Son of God, in such a context, inevitably sounds irrational. Jews, in turn, “demand signs.” This is typical of Second Temple Judaism even though it has sometimes escaped the eyes of Western scholars.126 Many Jews assessed the power of the gospel on the basis of its consequences. It is no wonder, then, that Paul’s theology of the cross, showing no power at all, is really a blasphemous skandalon for Jewish theologians. This word denotes religious heresy that tempts people to stray from their faith. The cross is an offence that should not be allowed into a decent belief system.127 126

See Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers. Justin later comments on his adversaries: “They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in the second place after the unchangeable and 127

306

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Such comparisons, very practical in nature, explain the essence of Paul’s theology of the cross. “For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18). Any claims about the capture of Israel’s Messiah and the act of hanging him on a tree were considered insane. With his foolish message, Paul claims, God has reversed the values of wisdom. “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). His intention was “to shame the wise” (1:27). God is not just an object of philosophical reasoning and his being cannot be reduced to power and dignity. God’s real power can be detected in Christ’s cross when the Son of God submits himself and becomes weak. He puts himself into the hands of his persecutors. “God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1 Cor 1:25). Earlier, in 2.VIII.4., we concluded that Jesus, following the path of John the Baptist, consciously took on the role of the Suffering Servant. He anticipated his death and was certain that it would be counted as a sin offering for Israel’s exilic corruption. When Paul explains soteriology as the revelation of divine wisdom he adopts a similar restoration eschatology. Paul is convinced that when God’s only Son enters this world he must face death. Fallen humanity does not welcome him. He is detested and rejected by the people living in spiritual exile just as the prophets before John the Baptist were, and then John himself. Christ becomes the object of people’s wrath. Paul believes that this attitude is the expression of “flesh,” corrupt human nature that opposes God in the post-Edenic world. The apostle appears to think that Jesus was destined to face this kind of death. It was only a matter of time before he would be captured and executed. Up to that moment, in this world, there was a conflict between God and the descendants of Adam – a conflict that could not be reconciled. Christ, however, submits himself to becoming the target of infidelity. He is destined to carry the burden of the two exiles: The first from Eden, the second from Jerusalem. As the wrath is transferred onto him, God atones for both the deported Israel and fallen humanity. This, for Paul, is the theology of the cross that gives the Gentile nations as ransom for Israel. The entire Adamic world will be pardoned, and the restoration made manifest. There is nothing to mitigate the foolishness of God’s plan. It does not meet the religious demands of learned Jews or religious Greeks. For Paul, however, it forms a message that inaugurates peace with God. Thus the Lord renews the Edenic unity that once was lost. 5. Participation in crucifixion In recent Pauline scholarship, Paul’s soteriology has often been interpreted as participationist eschatology. In the context of a covenantal nomism theory, eternal God, the Creator of the world.” Justin, Apology, 1:13. For the interpretation, Hengel, Crucifixion, 1.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

307

Paul’s theology is explained by emphasizing spiritual experience and diminishing the importance of traditional (Lutheran) themes such as sin and deliverance, or justification by grace. According to this view, participation in the resurrected Christ forms the core of the new faith, and speculations on the consequences of the believer’s unity with Christ are treated as secondary rationalizations. Many adherents of the covenantal nomism theory regard Paul’s teachings about atonement and iustificatio impii irrelevant and uninteresting.128 The new approach is directed by a dogmatic concern, which need not be a disadvantage as such, but it does mean that participation as a general concept has been understood as an abstraction of certain particular soteriological expressions in Paul’s letters. Anachronism becomes a danger then since contemporary concepts start to control the understanding of original texts. In order to avoid such exegetical mistakes, we must analyze Pauline writings by focusing on the expressions he has intentionally used. Their meaning is inevitably constructed in the passages and contexts where they appear. We must not concentrate only on later discussions where the reception of theological ideas directs interpretation. In a theological sense, participation is undoubtedly a useful concept for describing Paul’s understanding of salvation. As one assesses terminology used in crucial passages, the emerging picture, however, differs from that suggested by covenantal nomism. “Participation” is not a self-evident category to be used as such in an exegetical procedure. Linguistically, the most precise of Paul’s terms in this context is koinōnia, translated usually as “share in” (1 Cor 10:16; 2 Cor 1:7), and it has little to do with the suggestions of participationist eschatology. The only term semantically related to “participation” would be metokhos deriving from metekhein (translated in the Vulgate by “participatio”) but it appears in relevant contexts mainly in Hebrews (e.g. Hebr 3:14), and Paul uses it only when explaining the meaning of Lord’s supper in 1 Cor 10:17. Paul typically uses, and sometimes creates, words beginning with syn- such as systauroō (Gal 2:19), synthaptō (Rom 6:4; symfytos, 6:5), and symmorfizomai (Phil 3:10).129 The actual meaning of Paul’s participationist language depends on the context where the relevant terms appear and, therefore, also on the discourses that direct the general meaning of these passages. At least four different discourses can be detected in Paul’s presentations. 128 This line of interpretation was inspired by Sanders, Paul, 549 (see the more detailed treatment of the issue in subchapter IV.4. below). Many of the adherents to the covenantal nomism movement have accepted the participationist view. 129 In this analysis I am indebted to a young colleague of mine, Pekka Jauhiainen, who in his dissertation Paul Crucified (forthcoming) will present a detailed analysis of all the relevant passages. The analysis and the classification of discourses are mine, though, and he cannot be held accountable of any shortcomings that my conclusions may contain.

308

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

(1) Soteriological discourse. As the passages above show, Paul most often describes participation in Christ by speaking of participation in his crucifixion and death: “I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:19–20). Jesus’ death is given a cultic interpretation according to which his act on the cross has been a substitutional sin offering: “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Soteriologial participation, for Paul, is the most intimate and personal relationship with his crucified Lord. He describes the legitimation of faith and salvation by using the imagery of life and death. Paul as the person he used to be has been crucified. He considers himself dead to his previous way of life and even conduct as a Jew. His spiritual death is related to Jesus’ death on the cross. Therefore, his new life is related to the new life of the Resurrected one. This is also the message of Paul’s baptismal catechesis in Rom 6. According to this passage, Paul has died with Christ, he has been buried with him in a tomb and so he has been baptized in Christ. And he is also united with the Risen Christ in his spiritual resurrection that the baptism brings about. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we have been buried (synetafēmen) with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united (symfytoi) with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Rom 6:3–4)130

First of all, then, Paul’s idea of participation in Christ’s person and work focuses on crucifixion. It is based on the idea of death sentence. In Galatians 2 Paul’s thought develops directly from a discussion concerning God’s law to the issue of being already crucified in Christ. Participation in the resurrected Christ – the theme that covenantal nomism emphasizes – is also a relevant factor describing the new life after baptism but, in Paul’s soteriological narrative, it is a consequence of dying together first. In Paul’s writings, it is a result of substitutionary atonement that acquires righteousness.131 (2) Missionary discourse. The idea of dying with Christ is constantly accompanied by Paul’s teaching on suffering with Christ. In 2 Corinthians 4 Paul states that, when preaching the gospel, he carries Christ’s death in his own body. 130

The word symfytos is a metaphor for growing: two plants have grown together and share a common stem. For terminology, cf. Dunn, Paul, 484–485. 131 See Wedderburn who notes that dying and rising with Christ is an eschatological event that has become a “salvific event.” Therefore, one has an “anticipatory” participation in it. Wedderburn, Death, 161.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

309

We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. (2 Cor 4:8–12)

Paul uses crucifixion imagery when he speaks of the hardships he has suffered in his mission as an apostle. This can be called a missionary or even a homiletical discourse: it deals with the event of preaching the gospel. Paul is convinced that every preacher (2 Cor 4:1–5) must face affliction and perse-cution. His or her service partakes in Jesus’ afflictions. Workers are “given up to death” in their mission. The Easter narrative directs the presentation here because death and (Jesus’) resurrection form the basic tension. It depicts how the gospel works among its hearers. Death is at work in the life of the apostles as they encounter affliction, but life among the hearers because they will be created anew.132 This is also an argument for Paul as he defends his ministry at the end of 2 Corinthians. He has been given up to death in a concrete way: “with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death” (11:23). He has been stoned and suffered hardship, in danger in the city and in danger in the wilderness. This is apparently part of what Paul means by participation in the crucifixion and death of Christ. “So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” (12:9).133 Sharing in Christ’s death, in this case, means sharing in the hostility that fallen humanity directs toward those serving Christ in the community. Participation concerns all believers. At the beginning of the 2 Corinthians, he states that believers in that city “patiently endure the same suffering that we are also suffering” (1:6). There is a spiritual battle, and Paul does not hesitate to construct quite militant narratives. One could say, therefore, that participation in Christ’s crucifixion, for Paul, means also sharing in his sufferings when the sinful world attacks God’s community. This is what Paul – or Pauline tradition – states in Colossians: “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” (Col 1:24). Sharing in Christ’s sufferings means sharing in his work for the salvation of humanity. What “is lacking”

132 Schnabel even suggests that: “This means that his suffering represents a public demonstration, a graphic image of the death of Jesus Christ.” Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 966. 133 Riesner notes that the tension had to have been to severe. Paul was a Roman citizen, so it was risky to lay hold of him (even though his citizenship may not have been known widely in the synagogues). Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 150.

310

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

in a rhetorical sense is that the gospel must be taken to the end of the world, and completing this task will entail suffering afflictions.134 In Philippians Paul finally presents a very personal confession about his inner convictions. Lying in jail and facing the threat of execution, Paul believes that “Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life of by death. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain.” (1:21). This belief makes him once again refer to the fundamental participation that legitimates his hope. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:10)

For Paul, sharing in Christ’s sufferings can in an polarized situation lead to martyrdom. He is prepared to face the same fate as his Lord. This would complete his belief in the one in whose death and resurrection he has participated through his baptism. (3) Cultic discourse. As noted before, participationist terminology appears in its most original sense in Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s supper. This is where Paul uses metekhein and describes unity in the body of Christ. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in (koinōnia) the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake (metekhomen) of the one bread. (1 Cor 10:16–17)

Paul’s terminology here contributes to the corporeal metaphors well known in his letters. A little later in 1 Corinthians he speaks about the church as the body of Christ, now based on the sacramental power of baptism: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13; cf. Rom 12:4; cf. Eph 4).135 The idea of participation derives from Jewish theology. “Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners (koinōnoi) in the altar?” (10:18). Paul keeps it simple: this is about eating. As believers eat a sacrifice, they become one with it. The basic reason for metekhein, then, is a real unity with the one who has sacrificed himself for all sinners. This helps Paul argue about his practical problem: idolatry in the community. “You cannot partake (metekhein) of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (1 Cor 10:21). Since eating a sacrifice makes one participate in the

134

I personally consider Colossians as Paul’s original letter as I have argued elsewhere but, in this case, issues of authorship are not important. This theological idea is very Pauline since it appears also in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. 135 The different aspects of participation are also investigated by Schreiner, Theology, 308–310, among others.

III. From reconciliation to theologia crucis

311

spiritual world of which it is a part, believers should concentrate on the Lord’s supper. This keeps them away from the “table of demons.”136 The appearance of participationist terminology in cultic discourse shows that, for Paul, unity with Christ – concerning his death especially – means participation in his blood and body. The Christian community being one through the “one bread” participates both in Christ’s sacrifice and his resurrected life. The ontological nature of Paul’s views comes from the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple. (4) Parenetic discourse. Being crucified with Christ, for Paul, results simultaneously in the believer’s fight for faith against his own corrupt flesh, sarx. “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Gal 5:24). Participation in Christ’s crucifixion has its consequences. In Romans 6 Paul writes that Christ, being raised from the dead, “will never die again.” The death he died, “he died to sin” (6:10). In Paul’s theology this means that God “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). In chapter 6 he states that since “our old self was crucified with him,” this spiritual fact has a purpose: “so that the body of sin might be destroyed” (6:6). The conclusion should be evident. According to Paul, spiritual reality should lead to parenetic reality. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. (Rom 6:11–13)

Paul applies participationist language to parenetic discourse. Crucifixion with Christ is the cornerstone on which each believer’s new life is grounded. Therefore, the same metaphor can be used when discussing each believer’s attitude toward everyday life. These examples prove that participationist eschatology, taught by many adherents of the covenantal nomism theory, does not sufficiently explain Paul’s participationist soteriology. Paul teaches participation in Christ’s death, crucifixion with Christ. His soteriological view comprises the entire Easter narrative: Christians die with Christ, they are buried with him, they are symfytoi in death, and they grow into Christ as he resurrects them in living faith in the new creation. New life in faith is life in Christ, en Christō.

136 Thiselton summarizes the theological purpose as follows: it is impossible “to participate in Christ, his redemptive act of self-giving in suffering and death, his resurrection mode of existence through the Holy Spirit,” and “simultaneously to participate in the seductive, assertive, manipulative powers of evil which inspire idolatry by substituting themselves in the place of God.” Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 776.

312

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Cultic atonement and justification of corrupt humanity by grace must not be separated from this picture. Instead, they are implied in the very narrative.137 When Paul boldly states that this participation in Christ’s death means dying the death sentenced by Mosaic law (Gal 2), he is not arguing from “solution to plight” as Sanders once suggested.138 Instead, he has a completely different horizon before him. The cross has a primary status in his reasoning. This is why Paul states in the same context that Christ cannot have died without a reason, “for nothing.” Jesus as the Son of God has died, and his afflictions are not without reason. This is why all sinners partake in his death in their baptism. Furthermore, cultic discourse in participationist theology explains the emergence of the idea of participation. Eating temple sacrifices makes the Jews partners (koinōnoi) of other gods at their altars. Such a cultic idea provokes Paul to use ontological participationist terminology: believers partake (metekhein) in the table of the Lord. Therefore, the whole idea of participation depends primarily on Christ’s death, not yet on his resurrection. This should not be overly stressed, though. There is a distinction but no separation. In every passage, Jesus’ resurrection is mentioned, and after one goes through cultic forgiveness and sacrificial atonement, new life is depicted as participation in Jesus’ resurrection, even in his spiritual body. This train of thought reaches its summit in corporeal metaphors, namely in the teaching according to which the Christian community forms Christ’s spiritual body. Even though we have made distinctions between different discourses, there are also many uniting factors in Paul’s participationist soteriology. They connect different theological views that flow through these discourses. Christians, in Paul’s opinion, fight a battle on two fronts. Firstly, one has to face the attacks of the flesh (sarx), the corrupt humanity that hates its creator. Secondly, one has to face the threat of the devious enemy in one’s own heart: flesh or the sinful mind in one’s own body. Paul even uses a general definition of this battle: “But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also” (Gal 4:29). Mission in this world cannot be succesfully carried out if Christ’s followers will not subject themselves to all the afflictions the apostolic ministry (2 Cor 4) brings with it. 137

The wider view has been noted by Wedderburn, Death, 159–160. Even Dunn, despite adopting the covenantalist view, admits that participation should not be seen as the only form of salvation in Paul’s thinking: “The resurrection power of Christ manifests itself, and inseparably so, as also a sharing in Christ’s sufferings. The process of salvation is a process of growing conformity to Christ’s death.” Dunn, Paul, 487. 138 For the discussion about these Sandersian terms, see the excursus later in this chapter. The question about a “plight” that Paul would respond to needs to be answered on completely different grounds.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

313

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy In Protestant theology, justification has traditionally been at the core of Paul’s soteriology. Scholars have often analyzed Pauline thinking entirely in terms of his justification theology. The “new perspective” on Paul attempted to shift the focus to covenantal ideas, and some scholars made justification a secondary issue appearing in the apostle’s theology only occasionally as a result of a kind of rationalization.139 The basic question is quite interesting. How did Paul understand his relationship to his Jewish background? Is there justification for his concept of justification by faith? 1. Paul on the Jewish theology of crisis Had the post-Sandersian Pauline studies not branded the justification discourse as a Lutheran invention, a preliminary analysis of the dik–word group would be commonplace. Now, however, one needs to return to the basics. It is important to note that in the Old Testament and in Second Temple Jewish literature, words like dikaiosynē and the substantive dikaios (usually translating zedaqā) belong to the most important definitions of a pious, Jew, obedient to the Torah. The use of such a judicial term in a purely religious context is naturally motivated by God’s law and the divine commandments. A righteous Jew lives according to the Avodat Israel and observes any precept the Lord has given (see passages from Deut 30, Wis 15:1–5, and Sir 24:23–30). This is not to belittle the connotation of fidelity in covenantal relations that the word has, especially when it appears with the key word denoting faith and loyalty, pistis. In the Old Testament, Abraham is the paradigmatic “righteous one,” in the very passage where he is given the great promises (Gen 15:6). Later, and throughout most of the Writings, the word group appears almost exclusively in its basic meaning. In Second Temple literature, Sirach depicts the andres dikaioi as the symbolic representatives of Jewish faith (9:16). Another example from wisdom literature, the Wisdom of Solomon, adds a beautiful definition: “for to know you is complete righteousness” (Wis 15:3). The Dead Sea Scrolls show that, in the Second Temple period, it was a great honor to call the leader the Teacher of Righteousness. Righteousness, in the texts of the sect, is often presented so beautifully that scholars compare it with Paul – with the exception of Paul’s astonishing universalism.140 139 I only refer to some primary sources here. Sanders started the discussion of course, see Sanders, Law, 40–47. Dunn contrasted the issues in light of Lutheran tradition (now found in Dunn, New Perspective, 101–102). And finally Räisänen depicted Paul as an incoherent thinker who did not do justice to the Jewish theology of his time, Räisänen, Law, 201. Certain collections focusing on the basic dispute clarify the issue, see especially Paul and the Mosaic Law (a Durham-Tübingen research symposium on the subject, hosted by Dunn). 140 See 1QS XI; for my analysis elsewhere, Eskola, Theodicy, 91–92.

314

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

It is not, therefore, a Protestant bias to note that, as Paul the converted Pharisee starts to explicate his faith in Jesus in terms of his own theological background, he elaborates on the concept of righteousness. He refers to Abraham, discusses the righteousness of the law, pays extraordinary attention to juridical elements, and makes a real attempt to define the true nature of a righteous human being. But there is even more to it. It is impossible to understand Paul’s views by focusing only on certain words. His theology, and his “narrative,” have a much wider perspective. Paul was very much aware both of the history of his people and the situation Israel then lived in. Therefore, he takes on the huge task of explaining why the restoration did not really start five centuries earlier, as many of his Jewish contemporaries believed. Reading Paul’s soteriological passages makes it quite evident that he is committed to restoration eschatology. But how deeply are his theological ideas rooted in the great agony of Second Temple Jewish theology? The new perspective in Pauline studies has emphasized the apostle’s Jewish background, which we would do well to follow even further. Paul develops theological ideas that he has learned as a devout Jew in the Pharisaic tradition. This perspective will open and clarify the most familiar theological concepts that we know in Paul’s letters: redemption and justification by faith. The Jewish theology of crisis is completely dependent on the idea of the continuing exile of the people. As we saw in the first chapter, Second Temple writers attempt to understand the situation: the chosen people – of whom ten tribes never returned to the holy land – were constantly forced to live under foreign oppression. After Alexander, the Diadochi wars devastated the land. And as the Romans took over, all hopes of independence were lost. There had been rebellions but these all failed since the enemy was always too strong. No self-respecting theologian could state that Israel’s restoration had already taken place. Instead, from generation to generation the situation drove theologians to despair.141 For many Jewish theologians, soteriological dualism had been a plausible solution for the problem of theodicy. This dualism shifted the responsibility for the state of affairs onto human beings. Writers in the sapiential tradition were usually optimistic about the human capacity to confront corruption and sinfulness. They reserved salvation for those who obey God’s commandments and follow his precepts. Here is where covenantal nomism no longer explains the aims of Jewish eschatology. Covenant was not able to protect people from God’s punishments. To use Sandersian terminology, “getting into” God’s restored kingdom did not depend only on the covenant. Even

141 See especially J.J. Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 107ff. In Pauline studies such a background has been taken into account for instance by J.M. Scott, Paul, 66–70; Beale, Theology, 835ff.; and Wright, Paul, 139ff.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

315

Jewish theologians before Jesus and his followers stated that nomistic service was the sign for getting into the community of the children of light.142 In the Dead Sea Scrolls soteriological dualism appears in its strictest form. The community of salvation was restricted. To enter the group, a man (only men were permitted) would have to swear an oath and follow every precept in the Mosaic law in the priestly manner adopted by the Qumran community.143 He shall swear with a binding oath to revert to the Law of Moses with all that it decrees, with whole heart and whole soul, in compliance with all that has been revealed concerning it to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and interpret his will and to the multitude of the men of their covenant who freely volunteer together for this truth and to walk according to his will. (1QS V, 8–10).

Qumran covenant followers counted themselves among the dikaioi,those who entered the community with the conviction to follow God’s will perfectly. Fidelity was the key word, and members of the first period were loyal to the Teacher of Righteousness, and later of course to the priestly leaders of the group. By their faithfulness and nomistic service they believed that they attained God’s grace. Nowhere, however, do they state that a child of darkness could be granted God’s forgiveness or the “purifying” waters of the community. Paul, writing in the long Jewish tradition of the theology of crisis, was interested in similar issues. He attempted to define the human condition and to present God’s gospel, the euangelion, as a solution for the most troublesome problems of the period. Paul would not trust in human capacities, though. His view of humanity’s fate without God’s help is dark and hopeless. Compared to his contemporaries in Jewish scribal schools, Paul the Pharisee radicalizes the definition of the human condition. In contrast to the soteriological dualism of sapiential nomism Paul ontologizes sin and makes it an Adamic heritage. “All” people participate in corruption because “every one has sinned” (pantes gar hēmarton, Rom 3:23), this being participation in Adam (Rom 5:12). In Romans, Paul argues that the whole of humanity has become corrupt in the fall. In a midrash on Genesis 1–3 he claims that ever since the days of creation people’s minds were darkened (Rom 1:18–23). They started to worship tetrapodoi and herpetoi, which were simply part of the creation. Therefore, humankind falls short (hysterein) of the glory (doxa) of creation (3:23). This is a theme common both to Paul and Jewish theology in general. The fall is depicted as losing divine glory (especially in Apoc. Mos. 20). 142 See for instance Sirach: “Do not be so confident of forgiveness that you add sin to sin [...] for both mercy and wrath are with him, and his anger will rest on sinners” (Sir 5:5–6). This aspect of the problem of theodicy was pointed out by Hengel, Judentum, 262, 357f. For Qumran soteriology, see Garnet, Salvation, 115–116. 143 Josephus notes that the Essenes must “take tremendous oaths” in the community, and this may well refer to Qumranian customs. B.J. 2.8.7.

316

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Eschatological hope, in turn, is described as the restoration of this glory in the days of the Messiah (Apoc.Mos. 39:2; 1 En. 50:1; 4 Ezra 7:122–125; 2 Bar 51:1, 3; 54:15, 21; 1QS 4:23; cf. CD 3:20). Glory in this line of theology means simply sinlessness. It is not identical with the “image of God” in a human being. Instead, glory in the creation narratives describes human righteousness, the perfect Edenic condition. Therefore, in Paul’s letters, the term glory appears as an opposition to fallen human nature or “flesh” (Rom 1:23; 6:2–4; 8:21; 1 Cor 15:40–48). In Romans 2 Paul then continues his argument and describes how Jews live in sin and suffer God’s wrath. All “who have sinned apart from the law” will naturally perish as they remain Gentiles. But all “who have sined under the law” will be judged by the law (Rom 2:12). God shows no partiality. He will judge “the secret thoughts of all” (2:16). Therefore “true circumcision” is a “matter of the heart” and so a Jew is not a person”who is one outwardly,” but “who is one inwardly” (2:28–29). Shema observance continues to be the criteria for pure faith. In this section Paul also makes a short and almost unnoticeable remark that Jews, too, break the law: “For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’.” (2:24). This quotation from Isa 52:5 explains the reason: the people in exile do not mend their ways and keep the precepts. Instead, even among the nations, they make God’s name the object of blasphemy. People eat unclean things (Ezek 4:13) and, therefore, it is only for the sake of God’s “holy name” that the people are saved despite the fact that it is the name “which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations” (Ezek 36:21). By citing Isaiah in this crucial passage Paul reveals that he, too, believes that Israel still lives in exile. Israel’s sin is inexcusable.144 Then in Romans 3 Paul reaches the climax as regards hamartology. Pagans and exiled Jews share in the same condition: “both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (3:9). Sin is a despot who rules over people and holds them in his power (hypo hamartian).145 In Paul’s theology, hamartology expands to cover the Adamic condition, which explains the occurrence of sin everywhere. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned – sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12–14) 144

Scott writes that the citation of Isa 52:5 “assumes that the contemporary Israel that Paul is castigating is in Exile, scattered among the nations.” Scott, Paul, 131. 145 In principle this theme is found in Jewish theology too. See for instance Sir 21:2; 27:10; 1QH 1:27; 4:29–30. The idea of total corruption is generally accepted in Pauline studies. See Schreiner, Theology, 526; Witherington, Indelible Image I, 186; the Bultmannian tradition hesitates on this issue, though, see Strecker, Theology, 128.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

317

Basing his analysis on Genesis, Paul adopts the connection between sin and death. The fall resulted in spiritual death and life in ungodliness and wickedness. Since these examples are given as arguments for restoration eschatology, Paul plays here with two identical narratives. Expulsion from Eden is paralleled with the expulsion from Jerusalem. Exile becomes the fall of Israel – because the temptation to transgress had already taken place during the time of the kings. In the end, this is why Paul must be right in this debate when stating that Israel still lives under the power of sin.146 Can the problem of theodicy be addressed on the basis of such premises? More importantly, can Paul communicate this argument be communicated to the pious Jews who still hold to the beliefs that he held before his conversion? Yes he can. Paul believes that his opponents are caught up in the theology of crisis. They all share a common view about the condition of humankind – despite the fact that standard Jewish interpretation tends to emphasize soteriological dualism. Paul argues that the message of the great prophets must be taken seriously. Spiritual exile is a fact and redemption becomes real only when God himself takes over, takes his seat on his throne, and brings release to the captives. This will be done by the Son of David, God’s servant who sacrifices his life for the renewal of his people. There is an answer for the problem of theodicy, and the time of anguish will end. This is the great theme of Rom 3 where Paul treats the problem in detail. 2. Righteousness and the problem of theodicy If Israel and the rest of humanity in their Adamic corruption live in spiritual exile, how should one then define righteousness? Has Paul drifted into a theological dead end, as his opponents claim? If the apostle is right, no virtuous human beings exist on earth, no one lives according to God’s will and, therefore, God – horribile dictu – becomes a servant of sin. Such a paradoxical situation leads to what proves to be the climax of Paul’s historicallymotivated soteriology. Paul proceeds rigorously, making good use of the basic semantics of the word righteousness (dikaiosynē). As noted, the word itself belongs to the semantic field comprising judicial terminology and denoting justice as such. The root dik– even refers to criminal justice (dikē). Reflecting on righteousness thus brings people to the heavenly court where God appears as a cosmic judge – and this is where Paul wants to bring people.147 There is a slight tension between the Old Testament covenantal promises and Paul’s Adamic hamartology. Were it not a problem, no speculation concerning covenantal nomism would have ever emerged in the scholarly 146

Stuhlmacher reminds us that Paul does not have a neutral approach to cosmology or anthropology, “Er zeihnet also keine wertneutrale Kosmologie und Anthropologie,” Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 269. 147 For a more precise treatment of the term, see subchapter IV.4. below.

318

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

community. Did Israel ever have hope, or was she destined to go astray? The question is difficult, but new answers can be found if we make restoration eschatology the point of departure for theological reasoning. One needs to ask again: If Israel’s problems are the result of the people abandoning God’s law and exchanging true worship for idolatry, how could there be righteous human beings among the fallen nation at all? Paul leads his hearers to conclude that God’s own people live as God’s enemy. Israel is like Paul before his conversion. Despite all the good things present in the Mosaic tradition, the situation today is hopeless. It is clear that as the apostle writes about perfect righteousness in this context, the presentation is completely bound up with the problem of theodicy.148 What unites Paul most closely with Second Temple theology of crisis, then, is his treatment of theodicy in Rom 3. Here all the important key-words are put into effective use in order to argue for the final restoration that the community proclaims. Could it be that Israel has not only lived under sin – but still does in Paul’s time? In the rabbinic dialogue that Paul uses as a rhetorical tool in this chapter, postulations and claims are thrown against one another furiously. If Israel has been sold to sin, has God been unfaithful to the chosen people? Why has he not kept his own from sin, and if that has not been possible, why has he not fulfilled his promises and forgiven them? What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.” But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) (Rom 3:3–5)

The problem of theodicy has been defined in this passage quite clearly. The first set of claims are the assumed words of Paul’s opponents attempting to make Paul’s argumentation seem ridiculous. The speaker puts God on trial, and Paul answers by quoting two psalms (Pss 116 and 51). Then the opponents make hypothetical claims that censure God: why has he not protected his people from disbelief? And the claims grow more painful – so painful that Paul has to refer to them as “people’s thoughts.” If God has allowed sin, so that sin belongs to his plans, should sin not be seen as a positive force in salvation history? How could God appear as a judge in this situation? The challenge is clear. If Paul’s position in this debate is right, his opponents claim, there should be no punishment at all. In sum: if one treats the problem of theodicy as Paul does, God himself proves to be deceitful.149 148

This is why the reality of the exilic condition becomes an explanatory factor in Paul’s soteriology. This is also where my interpretation has developed after becoming acquainted with the new perspective on Jesus and the influential metanarrative it builds on. 149 This passage forms the basis for my argumentation on Pauline soteriology in Eskola, Theodicy, 96–101. In previous scholarship the passage is linked with the problem of theodicy by Dodd, Romans, 45, and Wilckens, Römer I, 169.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

319

The opponents believe that they have proved their point. Their view is, of course, also a universally known claim: God as the Creator of a completely corrupt world cannot be good. While Paul’s opponents can make this claim, it is necessary to note that they themselves have no answer. They suffer under foreign oppression, and they object to the ungodly power of the Romans. They are confused as they attempt to understand restoration promises and Second Temple worship in the context of the political and even cultural anguish that is so typical of their time. Nevertheless, it is not easy to accept Paul’s message. The opponents cannot easily adopt Paul’s argument that God remains angry with the people whose hearts have not submitted to metanoia.150 How does Paul answer? He starts with his opponent’s orthodox beliefs. Just as Torah schools had taught, Paul teaches that human sin does not make God unfaithful. Israel suffers for its own sins only. Paul writes as the great prophets did. The chosen people have abandoned their Lord and become defiled. Because the people still sin, God’s promises cannot yet be fulfilled amidst Israel. This is the reason why the people – including orthodox Jewish theologians – still ask the same questions as their predecessors and do not rejoice in the restoration. This furthers what Paul means with the word unfaithfulness (apistia) in the first clause. Some translations use “unbelief” but this is not semantically sound. In the context, pistis refers to God’s faithfulness. In contrast, apistia necessarily refers to Israel’s un/faithfulness. The pattern of opposition is analogous to that between true and false in the next verse. Such an opposition deals with theodicy by making it an apology for God. God does not fail. He cannot be accused of humanity’s faults. Instead, his righteousness is contrasted with human sinfulness. History will come to an end, and God shall bring justice. He shall punish sinners when the time comes. God will repay according to one’s deeds.151 Israel has gone astray. Paul is certain about the chosen people’s condition. They live in apistia, and this exile will end only when the Son of David brings restoration (Rom 1:3). Jewish theologians have every right to ask why God seems to remain silent? Israel has been waiting, and many devoted scribes have prayed for God to enter history and remove the curse. Now Paul proclaims that God has been faithful. He has heard the people’s cry. God has been patient and has deferred his final judgment in order to bring release. 150

Paul’s rhetorics use standard Jewish concepts. According to Stowers, Paul does not have a difficult task to prove that Israel has been unfaithful in the covenant. Stowers, CBQ 46 (1984) 715. 151 Dunn translates the word as faithlessness. In his covenantal interpretation he thinks that Paul means living unfaithfully to the covenant. Despite the slight difference in argumentation, the result remains the same as here. See Dunn, Romans, 131–132.

320

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins, previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:25b– 26)

Here pistis no longer means faithfulness. Instead, God’s faithfulness, which Paul has underscored throughout the entire chapter, results now in salvation by faith alone. Paul claims that justification by faith is the answer for the very problem of theodicy.152 In his “divine forbearance” (anokhē) God has restrained from punishing the transgressors of this world.153 There were previously committed sins, no doubt, and Israel’s history is filled with examples. Godless rulers have oppressed seemingly innocent human beings. Paul only expands the horizon and states that all of Adam’s descendants sin. God has had to be patient with all people, not just the despots of this world – and he has. But now the time of restoration has arrived and the Lord has acted. Paul boldly states that God’s silence has been a sign of mercy. He has not let his wrath fall on sinners. Instead of destruction he lets righteousness rain from the heavens – if we accept Isaiah’s terminology on this occasion. The autumn rain has come, and the wilderness rejoices.154 For Paul, there is no dualism in the sense that the sapiential tradition understood it. God has not predestined a certain few to eternal damnation. The situation is more difficult. God has imprisoned all people for their disobedience. All the children of Adam fall short of true righteousness.155 For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace 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. (Rom 3:22–25a) 152

Objective genetive, “faith in Jesus,” rather than subjective genetive, “Jesus’ faithfulness.” The PISTIS KHRISTOU debate has been going on for a long time, and I can refer to it only briefly here. See Eskola, Theodicy, 109–115; cf. Schreiner’s summary on main alternatives, Schreiner, Theology, 574–576 It is normal for Paul to use the objective genetive, and the subjective genetive is different even in 3:3 above. When expressing God’s righteousness Paul uses an article (hē pistis tou theou). Faith in Jesus, in turn, appears at least 14 times only in chapters 3–4. 153 Cf. Gathercole who notes that the term “refers to God’s merciful withholding of his judgment for a season, so that sin does not immediately receive the penalty of merits.” Gathercole, Justification in Perspective, 223. 154 Also Wilckens concludes that the justification of sinners by faith alone solves the problem of theodicy. Wilckens, Römer I, 169. 155 I do recognize that the issue of predestination divides scholars coming from different backgrounds. Once more it needs to be said that it is not the task of this study to try to affect larger traditions of interpretation in Christian history. What is important is to note is that Paul, in these passages, undoubtedly speaks of universal atonement. From God’s perspective, everything is ready for restoration. The only thing left for the Church and its apostles, states Paul, is to proclaim the word so that people can “call on the name of the Lord” (Rom 10).

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

321

This is the climax of restoration eschatology. Israel’s redemption has arrived. Christ’s blood has been shed for the sins of humanity, “all” (panta), and he has become the hilastērion itself, be that the original hilastērion on the ark of the covenant, or the sacrifice bringing atonement. Linguistically both translations are possible, and they denote approximately the same object. The former emphasizes the place of atonement and the latter the blood on the very same place. The primary meaning in both cases focuses on sacrifice, atonement and forgiveness of sins. All these issues mark the end of the exile and the inauguration of the time of redemption (apolytrōsis). Christ’s sacrifice brings release for the captives who have lived under the power of sin.156 The theological motivation behind this significant passage uniting the apostle and his pre-Pauline tradition most evidently grows from Isa 53, and we need to return briefly to the analysis of the intertextual relation. There are two particular verses in that sequence that deserve special attention for explicating Paul’s reasoning and its background. Israel’s restoration in that passage depends on the appearance of a “lamb,” a servant who shall represent the people. Strong verbs are attached to the lamb and his role, verbs like to wound, to crush, and to slaughter. The feeling of suffering and death is imminent, and a grave is mentioned (53:5–9). The first particular idea that must have affected both pre-Pauline theologians and the apostle is the concept of sacrifice. Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offsprings, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. (Isa 53:11)

The passage has a particular expression for sin offering, actually a “guilt offering” (‘āšām; Lev 5:6–25 etc.), and this enables later interpreters to use the concept of sacrifice in new explications of the passage. The word itself, however, has also a wider meaning, denoting “compensation for a misdeed.”157 In the context of Isa 44–55, this aspect widens the horizon to include the exilic condition of the entire people. Therefore, Isa 53:10 apparently speaks both of the collective release of the nation and the realized (personal) forgiveness of sins through the atonement of the lamb. As Childs notes, the “point of the Isaianic text is that God himself took the initiative in accepting the servant’s life as the means of Israel’s forgiveness.” This means that the sacrifice in question is an offering that makes atonement for the

156 Paul, apparently using earlier tradition material here, is convinced that Christ as hilastērion, and especially his blood (sprinkled before God), has become a cosmic sacrifice for the sins of humankind. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 193. 157 So Childs, Isaiah, 418; referring to the analyses of Janowski. In the Septuagint the word is simply hamartia, sin offering. This may have directed later use in the Greek speaking world.

322

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

exiled people. It is based on God’s own initiative – as the exilic prophets constantly remind their readers – and it results in Israel’s restoration.158 The next verse in the chapter brings in the justification discourse. This is why the passage has served Paul well in his own explication of justification soteriology. Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isa 53:11)

Even though also this clause has problems as regards syntax, the basic message remains clear. The latter sentence states that the servant “bears the sins” of the “many” (LXX: hamartias autōn). Therefore, the former sentence that speaks of “making many righteous” yields for a new interpretation speaking of a vicarious death.159 In this clause, dikaiōsis results in the expiation the servant/lamb will make when he gives his life as a sacrifice for the exiled people. This is a theme that perfectly serves Paul’s argument in Rom 3. He states that God, in his “divine forbearance,” has overlooked the iniquities of the fallen nation, endured the exilic condition, and then fulfilled his promises that one can still read in Isa 53. Christ’s blood has become a hilastērion, the Old Testament ‘āšām that results in justification: “that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.”160 Futhermore, this is one more passage where Paul speaks in Jesus’ voice. The arrival of the Son of David is the sign that proclaims the termination of Israel’s spiritual exile. God has revealed his mercy in Christ. Even though God, in many commentators’ eyes, has remained silent and seemingly indifferent to the agony of his people, Paul reminds them that he has also restrained his final punishments against the ungodly nations. Through all of history, God has been preparing the arrival of the Son of David. The logical 158

Childs states that this is the primary purpose of Isa 53: “Already the scene for Israel’s restoration was set as God designated the servant as the embodiment of Israel (49:3), through whom God would be glorified and the nation would be gathered again to him. When seen in the light of the unfolding drama of God’s plan to redeem Israel in chapters 40–55, the vicarious role of the servant lies at the very heart of the prophetic message and its removal can only result in losing the exegetical key that unlocks the awesome mystery of these chapters.” Childs, Isaiah, 418. 159 So Laato, Servant, 149. He also reminds us that the idea of the vicarious death of a martyr can be found in 2 Macc 7:37, in the story of the seven martyrs. “In the passage the death of a martyr is seen to benefit others and the hope is expressed that, through his death YHWH would turn his wrath from the people and show his mercy (hileōs genesthai).” 160 The important atonement passage in 2 Cor 5:21, examined earlier, should most evidently be interpreted in a similar way. In this passage Christ is made hamaritian, not only sin but sin offering in the sense the word in LXX translates guilt offering (Isa 53:10). In Christ’s sacrifice “we” then become “the righteousness of God” (dikaiosynē theou) “in him” (en autō). See Harris, 2 Corinthians, 452.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

323

chain has reached its summit. For Paul, God’s divine forbearance reveals God’s righteousness: “it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:25; cf. Rom 3:30; 4:16; 5:11; 9:30–32; 10:6; 14:23). Therefore, restoration discourse, focusing on Christ’s substitutive role, his expiatory death and the justification he acquires for the “many” (that is the exiled), solves the problem of theodicy. God has been silent only because his plan was to bring restoration through the service of his suffering servant, the new Son of David. Therefore, all proper soteriology must be built on these premises. 3. Humanity imprisoned The study of Paul’s letters proves that almost all traditional features in the treatment of the problem of theodicy appear in his theology. He starts with God’s wrath and judgment. His realistic and even pessimistic view of the human condition adds an element that is necessary for a proper soteriology. Nevertheless, there is one more point without which Paul could never have completed his argument that set out to change Jewish views. He was looking for a new polarized presentation that would serve as a solid hermeneutical basis for his theology. This was found in the idea of divine coercion. As Paul describes the human condition – of people living in a state of exile, one could add – he uses the language of predestination and expressions that sound rather deterministic. Predestination is a dogmatic issue that has a long history. The term itself is not important as such, but the issue itself is one of the most crucial in Second Temple Jewish theology. Paul does adopt certain premises from that tradition, but his solution is new. A radical view of the human condition is accompanied by a radicalized view of divine coercion. These two, in turn, provide the ground for the positive content of Christologically motivated soteriology.161 Paul’s view is in striking contrast to Jewish thinking, especially to the vein prominent in the wisdom tradition. As noted before, Sirach wished to solve the problem of theodicy by emphasizing human responsibility and the – quite traditional – concept of free will. This, of course, is one of the standard ways to deal with the threat against God’s goodness. As long as one can believe that human beings have free will, there are good anthropological grounds for making people responsible for their ungodly deeds. This is why Sirach (and his later commentator) concluded that divine judgment would fall on those who choose to transgress God’s wise precepts. In a sense, according 161 I did use the term when investigating the themes of theodicy and predestination in Paul’s soteriology, but I have gradually become more cautious in this matter because the word “predestination” is overloaded with meaning(s) and subjected to misunderstandings. Westerholm is justified in commenting that it is unfortunate that the term itself (in my use), “does not readily convey to readers what the author means to say.” Westerholm, Variegated nomism 2, 20–21, especially fn. 53.

324

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

to Sirach, God has predestined, has already judged, those who in their ill will and malice have chosen apostasy.162 At Qumran, the dualism was stricter. Their view on divine predestination was based on a distinction between the children of light and children of darkness. They believed that spirits had predestined the fate of particular people already from birth. In practice, however, soteriological dualism can seldom be consistent or abandon the concept of free will. They had to believe that a conversion was possible, if only in order to enter the sect. Simultaneously it was clear that the distracted children of darkness were predestined to damnation.163 Paul does speak about divine coercion but he does not use the key terms of free will or dualism because of his pessimistic view of the human condition. In Paul’s view, the power of sin in this fallen world is complete. Separation from God’s world and providence began in the Adamic fall. There will be a divine judgment, of course, but in principle it does not concern only those who chose to live without God. Divine judgment will concern the whole of humankind because all human beings are equal before God. Such a belief could be called an extreme view of predestination, but in this case the word itself is already used in a particular way. In Paul’s letters, there are many passages where the idea of divine coercion is described and the concept itself proves the case. For his sake all is ‘made loss’ (ezēmiōthē), (Phil 3:8; my translation) But the Scripture has imprisoned (synekleisen) all things under the power of sin, (Gal 3:22) I am of the flesh, sold (pepramenos) into slavery under sin, (Rom 7:14)

All of these clauses are clearly coercive. Paul claims that all people’s relation to God has been broken by the power of sin. The entire world is destined to fall under God’s divine judgment. There is no longer room for the optimistic hope of sapiential dualism. In his understanding, “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9); or: “sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin” (Rom 5:12). Imprisonment, captivity, and slavery belong to the words that describe the condition people live in. If there is one passage describing coercion that could be raised above all others, it would be the true climax – as scholars call it – of the letter to the Romans: For God has imprisoned (synekleisen) all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (Rom 11:32) 162

See for instance Hengel, Judentum, 255f. Qumran writings and also some other Second Temple texts prove that predestination theology as such was quite common at that time. Most solutions were dualistic and lead to, especially at Qumran, a strict view about predestination and the fate of the children of darkness. See Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 185f.; Lange, Prädestination, 169. 163

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

325

What we have here is a summary of salvation history and the fate of humankind in God’s world. With good reason it can also be seen as a summary of the theology of Paul’s letter to the Romans as well.164 Throughout the letter Paul has argued that, since all people live under sin, they live in similar conditions. Therefore, divine coercion concerns “all” (panta). This is also why God has been longsuffering throughout the rebellious times in the wilderness, the period of apostate kings in Jerusalem, and the period of exile – until the day of redemption. God has been patient with this world because his aim is to be merciful to all. What is quite unique in Paul’s soteriology here is precisely the idea of coercion. In several passages he underscores that, since the days of Adam, humankind has been imprisoned. Disobedience and slavery are not just certain attitudes that people through their free will can adopt. Humanity is corrupt and has been locked up in a place where no human effort can help. This, of course, is where Paul steps on the toes of his Pharisaic contemporaries. Until this point, the primacy of the chosen people has been unquestioned. Now Paul strikes at the very core of Jewish identity: the separation from ungodly Gentiles. This is no minor rift in the acclaimed tradition. But could someone fulfill the precepts of the law? Why does it seem that in Rom 2 Paul speaks of such a possiblity? Some of the adherents of the new perspective on Paul have suggested that the apostle in fact does use that kind of argument – thus proving to be inconsistent in his theology. Everyone agrees that knowledge of the law is one thing and the ability to keep it another. But did Paul think that the former actually led to the latter? This question brings up the problem of the “righteous Gentile.” In 2:26 Paul seems to assume that there are Gentiles who undeniably keep the law: So, if (ean oun) those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law (ta dikaiōmata tou nomou fylassē), will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? (Rom 2:26)

For Räisänen this was the main argument that revealed Paul’s inconsistent thinking.165 Räisänen is right when he first says that Paul does not mean the keeping of “some” precepts of the law. Neither is Paul speaking of Gentile Christians who would keep the law in the new life governed by the Spirit. What Räisänen does not note, however, is that Paul, in his rhetoric, uses hypothetical argumentation.166 In fact, reading the Greek text carefully, we 164 So for instance Dunn, who calls it “the summary of the summary,” Dunn, Romans, 695; and Hübner, for whom it is “the climax of Paul’s whole argument of justification,” Hübner, Law, 262; see also Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, 92. 165 “We thus have to accept that Paul is really speaking of Gentiles who fulfil the law outside the Christian community.” Räisänen, Law, 105. 166 This is suggested by van Dülmen, Theologie, 77ff. Räisänen knows this alternative but rejects it.

326

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

see that this is the only possibility for understanding the passage. What we have in this clause is a prospective case for a conditional statement (ean oun with subjunctive). The conditional purpose serves Paul’s argument.167 In a sense he invents the philosophy of “possible worlds” as he states that “if the conditions were different” even Gentiles could keep the law. A linguistically correct translation goes as follows: “If one who is uncircumcised were to keep the righteous requirements of the law, would not his uncircumcision be counted to him as circumcision?” The rhetorical power of the argument is not dependent on the possibility of man’s fulfilling the requirements of the law in practice. The rhetorical power is in the principle that obedience precedes circumcision – and this is Jewish rhetoric at its best. Paul’s adversaries have to agree that the argument is right.168 Paul presents his claims by conforming his argumentation and his terminology to the convictions of the reader. This is clear because Paul speaks of circumcision in a positive sense only here – for rhetorical purposes: “will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” This is understandable only if we admit that Paul wants to convince his readers by using their own arguments. Paul is trying to say that the intention of circumcision is fulfilled when the law is kept. As one considers the entire argumentation in vv. 12–29 it becomes obvious that Paul’s aim is to tell his readers that the circumcision God accepts now is the “circumcision of the heart,” which is a result of the work of the Holy Spirit (2:29). In order to justify his claim Paul first argues that all men are equal before God. The inference starts with a reference to the universality of the knowledge of the law. Next he needs to prove that the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, trespass against the law. If this is true, Paul’s Jewish readers will have to admit that they no longer have a privileged status for salvation vis-à-vis the Gentiles. And finally Paul makes his opponents use their own arguments against themselves to prove that, in principle, a Gentile fulfilling the law would in fact condemn the Jew who has transgressed the law. The ideal reader would react not by recognizing that almost anyone can keep the law but, instead that we all live under sin, and divine coercion has imprisoned us in infidelity. All in all, it is fitting to say that Paul’s polarized soteriology becomes a true hermeneutical key to his theology in general. Both in Galatians and Romans he writes that God or scripture has imprisoned people in 167

See Bornemann-Risch, Grammatik, § 279; cf. also the examples in BlassDebrunner-Rehkopf, Grammatik, § 373. If Paul had wanted to present a direct claim, he would have used another expression. He never uses ean oun in any sense other than the conditional. Thurén emphasizes that this is a rhetorical argument where Paul wants to “minimize the significance of the distinctive Jewish symbol, circumcision.” In v. 26 Paul presents “a theoretical case, quaestio infinita,” by using the linguistic expression, “of an hypothetical Gentile fulfilling the law.” Thurén, Derhetorizing Paul, 108–109. 168 Following Käsemann, Römer, 68; and contra Jewett, Romans, 233.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

327

disobedience – thus changing traditional hamartology. Such a view forms the rationale behind Paul’s elaborations of Adam’s role. According to Rom 7 people are “sold” under sin. Furthermore, in Galatians Paul writes that scripture has served as a tool of coercion – outrageous as this may sound – and therefore nomistic speculation can never be what it was in the Second Temple period. The function of the Torah is destined to change. But there are many other important aspects as well. The distinctive principle of “counting as loss,” prominent especially in Philippians (3:7) finds its basic motivation here.169 The entire treatment of Israel’s fate (cf. next chapter) is directed by these premises. For Paul, not only is the extraordinary election of Israel a sign of God’s saving actions but it is her almost incomprehensible rejection that becomes a vehicle of final restoration. Paul’s holistic soteriology rejects standard beliefs of ethnocentric idealism and tears down the walls. All this is Christocentric soteriology, which is fitting because Paul constantly aims at the adoration and exaltation of Christ. God is merciful, and even the imprisonment leads to “justification and life for all” (Rom 5:18). Salvation happens “by his grace as a gift” (Rom 3:24), because “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:3). Paul’s descriptions of coercion occur most often in contrast formulas where human corruption is contrasted with God’s grace as a free gift. Divine coercion was necessary only for a particular purpose: it served as a point of departure for Christ’s substitutional death. When the sins are laid on the lamb, the sacrifice carries the punishment. In this respect, Paul’s view on divine coercion is just the background for his proclamation of complete redemption and his conviction that the gospel is open to all. Since renewal is a historical process, we are justified in resuscitating the hermeneutical tool of salvation history – this being not only a principle used by the reader but by Paul himself. As Paul thus treats the problem of theodicy and develops his soteriology in terms of restoration eschatology, he reveals his pessimistic view of the human condition and quite radical view of divine coercion. In the Reformed tradition scholars often speak of double predestination, meaning that God in his wisdom has predestined certain people to salvation and some – at least according to some theories – to damnation. Paul suggests another solution.170 God appears to have imprisoned the whole of humankind in disobedience. This means the damnation of the whole world. This is temporally true, but it is not true eternally. Such a divine coercion, in the sense Paul means it, is not unconditional. For Paul, no part of humanity can be assumed to be in the

169

The issue will be dealt with in a subchapter of its own, see V.4. below. Even though the doctrinal debate cannot be changed, one observation may help the discussion move forward. The more scholars emphasize the universalist nature of atonement, the more they also tend to believe that – at least in Paul’s theology – salvation is open to all the descendants of Adam. 170

328

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

sphere of final eternal damnation. Instead, there is a universalist element in his teaching. Punishment can be redirected and the imprisonment ended.171 Interpreting Paul’s views in the context of metanarratives, it is possible to say that his idea of human imprisonment is identical with the concept of spiritual exile. Being a wisdom theologian and beginning his theology with creation, Paul just widens the horizon to Adam. The exile that theologians should speak about is the original exile, the expulsion from Eden. Forgiveness has been there from the very start, and Abraham himself is the paradigmatic predecessor for a covenant of grace and justification. But the root of the human problem has always been the same: the evil heart. This is why, according to Paul’s soteriology, humanity imprisoned in disobedience has from the very start been awaiting restoration – the new creation, resurrection, and the final restoration of paradise. 4. Justification by faith Adherents of the new perspective on Paul debate the issue of justification. The first discussion in the new perspective concerned mainly the nature of the “works of the law,” but the importance of justification in Paul’s theology was soon questioned because several post-Sandersian scholars claimed that it was merely part of the “solution” known long before a decent “plight” was invented to justify dikaiosynē ek pisteōs. Hence it is not easy to treat the issue without commenting on the discussion that still prevails in the scholarly community.172 However, the analysis must start with standard exegetical notions. Righteousness as a word (dikaiosynē) is somewhat confusing in the English speaking world since it is longer semantically related to the English word justification (dikaioō), although they are related the original Greek. In principle the words have the same root dik-, and they belong to the same semantic field. The word is used most often to depict the nature of a human 171

Scholars seldom speak of double predestination though. The issue is raised, however, in Rom 8. Cranfield appears to support the view (Cranfield, Romans, 432) but Dunn hesitates (Dunn, Romans, 485). Röhser adopt the Augustinian “positive” predestination (Röhser, Prädestination, 97), as does Schreiner, Theology, 343. Wright, however, moves toward universalistic views, Wright, Paul, 914f. (“election redefined”). 172 The scholarly debate has a long history. In the first phase (1) Dunn suggested that the standard view was loo “Lutheran.” Then (2) the issue was discussed in Durham-Tübingen Research Symposiums and the results published in large collections. In the U.S. (3) similar collections were published under the title Justification and Variegated Nomism. And later (4) Campbell has come out with a new suggestion about a particular Justification Theory where the standard Protestant reading is depicted as a “contractual” view of salvation (in his Deliverance of God, treated below in the excursus). Such a background shows that any attempt to define Paul’s understanding of justification needs to be put in context.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

329

being. Righteous people are expected to be upright people, living according to the principle of love and for the good of creation. In order to understand righteousness one only needs to imagine its opposite: greedy exploitation and selfish concern only for one’s own welfare, regardless of any damage inflicted on others. In Paul’s teaching, this definition is to be distinguished from another term, the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou). The expression itself derives from the Old Testament and has a history of its own. In the Old Testament, God’s righteousness does not refer only to the Lord’s nature or a kind of divine quality, or his office as heavenly judge. The term appears where God’s saving acts are described (Deut 33:21; 1 Sam 12:7; Ps 103:6).173 In such passages God acts for the salvation of Israel. For instance Isaiah promises that “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness” (Isa 1:27; cf. Ps 89:17). The importance of this particular term in Pauline studies lies in the strict distinction the apostle makes between dikaiosynē theou and other terms. One of the key passages where the expression occurs can be found in Rom 3.174 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom 3:21–22)

God has disclosed or revealed (pefanerōtai) his righteousness “without the law” (khōris nomou). Paul means that now it is possible to attain righteousness in a special “state” without the law. God can be approached without any fear of punishment that that law had ordain. God has now disclosed his saving action so that perfect righteousness is given as a gift. It comes through Christ, through faith (dia pisteōs). This is why the main content for dikaiosyn ē in Paul’s theology is righteousness through faith (ek pisteōs), probably better translated as justification by faith. It is somewhat difficult to translate the important prepositions properly in English but, the first of these (dia) has an instrumental tone and, the second depicts participation in Christ (ek) in faith. The meaning is close to that of another expression en Christō denoting an ontological participation in the resurrected Christ. When this relation has become real in faith, the sinner becomes righteous.175

173

The original idea was brought into the modern discussion especially by Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche 2, 192; and Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 142ff. For a recent analysis, see Irons, Righteousness, 131–156. 174 This view has recently been put at the center of Pauline soteriology by Campbell (see the excursus on his theory below), Campbell, Deliverance, 698f. He sees God’s righteousness as contradicting other Pauline concepts of righteousness, however, and this results in a rather unorthodox explanation of Paul’s understanding of justification. 175 See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 335–340; Kim, New Perspective, 152– 153; Irons, Righteousness, 323.

330

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

In Pauline scholarship, the topic of justification was first suspected to be just a Pauline peculiarity, but then scholars started to notice connections with the Old Testament background. Later this was forgotten, as noted, and justification was assumed to derive mainly from the Protestant history of interpretation. Today, we can see that Paul has made good use of the Isaian prophecy concerning the righteousness of God. In addition to the famous Isa 53 (treated above), other aspects need to be taken into account. This tradition provides a new bridge from Jesus to Paul since Jesus himself used passages where the gift of righteousness comes from God and “rains” down from heaven itself, “let the skies rain down righteousness” (Isa 45:8). In this respect, justification theology builds on restoration eschatology where Israel’s renewal is based on God’s gift, which penitents freely depend on. As the rain falls, righteousness sprouts up. Reading Isaiah 45 proves that his sermon for the exiled people connects the justification discourse with restoration hopes: “turn to me and be saved” (45:22). This is the familiar passage where salvation is linked with confession: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (v. 23). The word righteousness appears constantly in the passage. “Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness [zedaqōt] and strength.” (v. 24). In an unusual statement, the passage highlights how justification is still the issue (even though this is usually difficult to show in translations): “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified [zidd eqū], and shall glory” (v. 25). For those Jewish theologians reading Isaiah, they could see how restoration eschatology puts its hope in the righteousness that comes from God as a gift. This terminology is confirmed by the Septuagint (LXX: dikaiōthēsontai) and, therefore, both Paul and his readers have been able to understand it perfectly.176 For Paul, this is the final renewal and justification that God bestows without nomos. Restoration renewal is salvation (sōtēria ) that is given to apostate sinners who have been expelled from the kingdom. When the idea is read in the context of Paul’s soteriology in general, Paul appears to be speaking about justification that is given without Avodat Israel. Obedience has nothing to do with it because grace is given to the disobedient as they “turn” to their God. Once again Paul is at odds with the teachers of the Pharisaic or Essene movements. For those theologians there was no righteousness without the Torah. For instance, at Qumran grace may have 176 It is quite important to recognize the Old Testament background of the term because, among the adherents of the new perspective on Paul, there is a tendency to see “justification” just as Paul’s personal and somewhat inconsistent view concerning salvation. In the Finnish discussion, Kuula claims that justification is an insignificant bypath in Paul’s reasoning. He adopts Sanders’ and Räisänen’s claim of Paul “thinking backwards” and states that Paul had to develop the concept of justification in order to find proof for the “solution,” his new understanding of salvation in Christ. Kuula, Law, 165, 195.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

331

been given lip service but the purifying waters were granted only to those who submitted themselves to the law and the teachings of the Teacher of Righteousness. Paul follows Isaiah and presents a new vision: justification brings about true restoration. It is based on the sacrifice of God’s own son, and it is confirmed by the jubilee inaugurated by the enthronement of the Son in his resurrection. At the beginning of Romans, the famous quotation from Hab 2 completes Paul’s presentation of justification by faith. This is another passage where the term God’s righteousness plays a decisive role in theology. For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” (Rom 1:16–17)

A short semantic analysis is needed here. The content of the middle part clearly depends on the first statement: God’s righteousness (dikaiosynē theou) is “disclosed in the gospel [in it].” As the opening section of the entire letter speaks about the gospel of the Son of God, the one who is the Son of David and is exalted in Lordship in the kingdom of glory, Paul no doubt believes that God’s saving righteousness is brought about by this very gospel. There is an implied narrative working behind Paul’s thinking because he states that God “reveals” (apokalyptō) his saving acts in the midst of history. The scriptural attestation he uses supports this, because Paul believes that Hab 2 speaks precisely of this form of salvation: “The one who is righteous will live by faith” (o de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai). Using Habakkuk – albeit for one particular word – links this issue to the theology of crisis treated above. Habakkuk is programmatic in dealing with the problem of theodicy in the history of Israel.177 The particular difficulty in interpreting this quotation is the obvious detail that, in the Old Testament passage, the prophet asks for fidelity in a situation where the whole nation has become corrupt. This understanding of the Hebrew original is confirmed by the Qumran pesher on Habakkuk. In the commentary, the “faith/faithfulness” mentioned in Habakkuk is interpreted as loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness (1QpHab VIII,1–3) in a situation where the temple of Jerusalem has become corrupt. The Septuagint is of little help here because the reading extant in Paul’s time provided another reinterpretation: “The one who is righteous will live by my faithfulness.” Only the Nahal Hever text seems to translate the Hebrew

177 For a detailed analysis concerning the quotation, see Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination, 101–107. There are several different versions available, but they are mostly dependent on different readings in the Septuagint text tradition.

332

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

original verbatim: “The one who is righteous will live by his faithfulness” (8HevXIIgr 17.29–30).178 What has Paul done, then? By seeking a proper translation of the original wording – even against the well known Septuagint rendering – he has used the passage for his own purposes. His translation is acceptable, even though the aspect of fidelity is abandoned. When God’s righteousness is disclosed in the gospel, Habakkuk becomes a model believer. God answers the cries of his people. Righteousness is a gift, and corrupt people who turn to their God are justified by faith. The word pistis with its Hebrew equivalent can be found in scripture – and in a sequence where the fate of the righteous one is discussed. For Paul this means that God’s righteousness is his saving act in Christ and, after his death and resurrection, people are justified by faith alone. It was important for Paul the scribe to find scriptural proof for this message in the Old Testament. Now he has found a word proving that the gospel is “the power of God for salvation” (1:16). Habakkuk thus becomes one of the main witnesses for justification by faith.179 These passages lead us to the finest example of Paul’s justification theology. In Romans 4 Paul brings in Abraham to be the primary witness for his concept of justification. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:2–3; cf. Gal 3:6)

There are certain important premises behind this presentation. It was essential for Paul to deal with Abraham because the entire identity of Jewish faith would stand or fall with this patriarch. Furthermore, Paul was able to use the very promise that established the nation. Once more Paul the scribe works with particular texts and even more particular words. Almost as if using a concordance Paul finds passages where pistis or a related verb is linked with dikaiosynē. According to Paul’s reading, Abraham is a man of faith. He believes in God. And this belief is counted as righteousness. Therefore, justification by faith is a doctrine that is rooted in Abraham himself.180 178

The conclusion is, therefore, that Paul has provided a translation of his own here, one that is linguistically correct but differs from the Septuagint reading. It must have been considered acceptable, though, because it does justice to the Hebrew original. 179 Even though the arguments may differ, this is the conclusion of several scholars; see Michel, Römer (1987), 86–90; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 28–29. 180 There is a famous debate between Wright and Piper concerning the nature of justification. Piper accused Wright of separating salvific faith and justification and suggests (the quite standard Protestant) imputation in its stead (in his Future of Justification, 95–97). Wright answered by writing his Justification and stated that his covenantal explanation does not mean that is abandoning the forensic view. He does make a distinction between the concepts, though. “The point is that the word

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

333

For Paul, this notion was only the beginning, though. Since promise and pistis are the cornerstones of Abraham’s election, they must precede works, the detailed precepts of the law, and the entire service that was gradually called Avodat Israel. The argument of originality was important in Jewish hermeneutics and Paul uses it verbatim in Galatians: “the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise” (Gal 3:17). Abraham’s calling was an act of grace. Justification, in the new situation as well as the old, must be a real renewal since people live in a corrupt state. Paul’s theology of erga (works) finds its deepest expression here. No obedience and no service is needed when God himself approaches the fallen nation. He is about to create himself a renewed nation just like he did in the past: only the promise and pistis are needed. The God of restoration reaches out to sinners. “But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned (logizomai) as righteousness.” (Rom 4:5). The entire reasoning concerns the ungodly. The vocabulary suggest to the reader to a court of law. In judicial discourse, counting (or reckoning, logizomai) either of transgressions or good deeds and blamelessness is a crucial matter for determining the sentence. This fact emphasizes the paradoxical nature of Paul’s claim: transgressors are counted as blameless – through faith. It is clear that exilic rhetoric directs Paul’s thinking here. All of humankind has been imprisoned in disobedience; Israel learned the lesson when it was expelled from the promised land – and from God’s presence. There is no longer any difference between peoples. Hearers must recognize this and seek for the promise and pistis. It is God who justifies the ungodly, and this is the only possible righteousness there is.181 ‘justification’ does not itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from unbelief, idolatry and sin into faith, true worship and renewal of life.” Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives, 121. He says that Paul uses the word “call,” and he proceeds: “The word ‘justification’, despite centuries of Christian misuse, is used by Paul to denote that which happens immediately after the ‘call’: ‘those God called, he also justified’ (Romans 8:30). In other words, those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people [...].” (p. 121–122). Wright no doubt contests the Protestant understanding of justification in Rom 4 (above). 181 Wright is probably too strident when stating that: “we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.” Wright, Justification in Perspective, 261. Gathercole mitigates the disagreement by commenting that, in Paul’s view, God’s act “of justification is not one of recognition but is, rather, closer to creation.” And he adds: “It is God’s determination of our new identity rather than a recognition of it.” Gathercole, Justification in Perspective, 229. The latter view is close to Stuhlmacher’s Lutheran interpretation: “dass Rechtfertigung ein von Gott gewirkter schöpferisher Rechtsakt ist” (God’s creative and judicial act). Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 334. The debate appears to be parallel to the discussion concerning favor (favor) and donum (gift) in dogmatics. In Protestant theology justification is often defined in terms of God’s favor (imputation), and scholars debate whether this should

334

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Paul was undoubtedly aware that this passage about Abraham was a primary proof text for fidelity in Jewish theology. For Sirach, Abraham the “great father” was the finest possible example of Torah obedience: “He kept the law of the Most High, and entered into a covenant with him; he certified the covenant in his flesh, and when he was tested he proved faithful” (Sir 44:19–20). In 1 Maccabees, we find a passage that could be held a direct counterpoint to Paul’s text: “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc 2:52). At Qumran Abraham was depicted as God’s friend because he kept God’s commandments (CD III.2). When Paul picked up this crucial passage making Abraham the forerunner of kingdom of grace, he challenged the Second Temple status quo. The point in doing this was simple: Abraham’s faith was an answer to the spiritual exile that still prevailed in Israel. Only faith can be reckoned as righteousness.182 The arguments Paul used were not solely dependent on particular words, though. Toward the end of chapter 4 he builds an astonishing parallel between Abraham’s faith and later belief in the resurrection. Abraham had received a promise concerning his descendants but it seemed to be a promise without any realistic potential. At his age his body was already “as good as dead,” as the translation of the word using the root of nekros, “dead,” goes (Rom 4:19). Nevertheless, Abraham believed in God, “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (4:17). Therefore, the faith that was reckoned to him as righteousness was belief in the God who gives life, who makes one alive (zōopoieō). Now the logical chain is complete: Abraham believed in the resurrection. This is why Paul concludes by stating that the promise was not written “for his sake alone.” Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. (Rom 4:24)

Paul could not have reached for more. In this passage in chapter 4 he starts by reminding his hearers that Abraham’s heritage can be found in the promise and pistis. The basic terminology, accepted apparently by all scribes, united Jewish faith and bestowed righteousness.183 Then, however, he be separated from donum (Christ himself as the content of faith in one's heart), or from all the good things that God bestows after the forensic act (God's gifts). Wright, however, emphasizes faith first (faith meaning entering the covenant) and then defines justification as a forensic (declarative) act. Wright, Justification, 213. 182 If Sirach and the other examples should be reckoned as representatives of Second Temple Jewish covenantal nomism, as Sanders no doubt thought (Sanders, Paul, 331), Paul does not appear to appreciate it. 183 Considering the debate between Wright and Piper above, it is possible to make use of the recent (more general) discussion concerning justification in Lutheran theology and suggest another solution. In standard Lutheran dogmatics both favor (favor) and donum (gift) belong to justification. Since Christ, crucified and

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

335

proceeded to demonstrate that Abraham’s faith was primarily belief in the resurrection from the dead. Restoration is acheived through the creation of new life. Paul, believing in the resurrection of the Son of God, shared in the faith of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham is not merely a witness for justification by faith. He is also a predecessor of all those who put their faith in God who raised Christ from the dead and started to create a renewed and redeemed “chosen people.” Considering such a consistent and thorough presentation of justification, based on both Old Testament texts and Jesus’ teaching concerning the eschatological “rain of righteousness” from heaven, it would be erroneous to assume that these views had no special status in Paul’s soteriology. The competing explanation, from the ideas of Schweitzer and Davies, and affecting both Sanders and Campbell, puts emphasis on participation.184 This interpretation claims that Paul is basically promoting participationist eschatology (cf. Schweitzer’s “consistent eschatology”). This means that his soteriology would focus on the believer’s participation in the resurrected Christ in a somewhat mystical sense. Paul is definitely – also – a participationist, there is no doubt. His extraordinary use of existential language expressing en Christō can be clearly detected in his letters (2 Cor 5:17), supported by expressions using syn (Rom 6:8), or Christos en hymin (Rom 8:10 cf. Gal 2:20). For Paul, the believer’s relation to his or her Lord is ontological and, in a sense, mystical (if one understands the word in the sense of Jewish mysticism). This special relation reflects both the physcial metaphor of Christ’s body, as well as the “temple not-made-with-hands.” Furthermore, Paul speaks of the believer’s participation in Christ’s sufferings (see 4.III.6 above). In his theology, participation describes the result of justification by grace. In no passage does Paul oppose it to the juridical treatment of the human condition.185 resurrected for us, is both the gift that is counted as our righteousness and the gift that creates faith, favor and donum should not be separated. There is a conceptual distinction but they belong together. This view encourages scholars to adopt a somewhat wider meaning for the word justification. It may be that Wright seeks a similar result, using non-Lutheran terminology. For him, Christ’s sacrifice is the basis for universal redemption and the focus of living faith, and justification is (so to say) God’s Rechtsakt where Christ’s work gains us justification. Simultaneously, as Wright describes it, God’s act serves as a donum creating sinners anew. Wright, Justification, 21–26, 212–213. Cf. Schreiner who presents arguments that support “transformative righteousness,” solving the same problem. Schreiner, Theology, 360– 361. 184 So Schweitzer, Mystik, 110f., 122f.; Davies, Paul, 99–102; Sanders, Paul, 549; Campbell, Deliverance, 66, 934. 185 Campbell, for instance, does note that Paul also speaks of participation in Christ’s sufferings but, because he originally said that Rom 1–4 reflects non-Pauline soteriology (see below), he mainly follows Sanders in claiming that the standard Protestant view on justification is defective. Campbell, Deliverance, 66.

336

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Justification, thus, belongs to the very center of Paul’s soteriology and is not the result of an erroneous (Protestant) reading of his thinking. Paul, tackling the difficult issues of Second Temple Jewish theology and attempting to explain the theology of crisis in terms of restoration eschatology, has focused on the key issue of pure faith: proper righteousness. When explicating his soteriology he has played the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) against human righteousness. As the latter is defective, the former proves to be God’s salvific action for the benefit of the ungodly. Justification is based on Christ’s sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice that atones and makes renewal possible. Simultaneously, it perfectly solves the problem of theodicy, the agony of God’s seeming silence throughout the political horrors the nation faced from generation to generation. The exile has continued, at least in a spiritual sense, but God has not been silent. He has kept his promises and sent his Son, so that righteousness would be a gift and justification by faith would bring final release to the world of corruption. Excursus: The new perspective and Justification theory In addition to the discussion presented in the previous subchapters, it is necessary to comment on some of the recent views on justification. It is well known that, in Pauline scholarship, the new perspective began to change the view according to which justification were the most central issue in Paul’s soteriology. As noted above, Sanders started the discussion concerning the “plight” and “solution” in Paul’s hermeneutic. The debated claim was that, as the solution was there from the very beginning (for those believing in Christ and his resurrection), it was necessary to invent a proper plight from which Christ would then save his own. The plight partly concerned the works of the law, because the yoke of the law had to be seen in a negative light. The issue also partly dealt with justification because, as Sanders and his followers put it, according to Paul Second Temple Jews could not attain perfect righteousness by their own efforts. Räisänen, later, proposed that all Paul could do in order to justify his new views was “secondary rationalization,” thus distorting the original gracious soteriology of Jewish convenantal nomism.186 This discussion can now be seen in a new light since the nature of Second Temple Judaism has become clearer through numerous studies. It has become quite clear that Jewish theology cannot be described solely in terms of a simple covenantal nomism (cf. the excursus on the issue above). The belief system of the Sadducees excluded, most groups believed that there was something essentially defective in Israel’s (and the Israelites’) righteousness. This view has been confirmed by the new perspective on Jesus. Despite the 186 Such discussion is known well enough and it is not necessary to repeat its details here. See Sanders, Paul, 442–447; Westerholm, Perspectives, 159–163; Räisänen, Paul, 232–233; and my analysis in Eskola, Theodicy, 267–286.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

337

fact that opinions differ about whether the exile had ended or not, almost no group believed that the restoration had really begun.187 Righteousness, in the sense the great prophets understood it, was not perfect – not even close to perfect. The “plight,” in Sandersian terminology, was Israel’s exilic condition (but Sanders’ terms have turned out to be defective and should propbably be forgotten in the present situation). Because Paul now proclaims that the restoration gospel offers justification by grace since God’s final jubilee has started, there is both an understandable need and a perfect cure.188 Later developments of Sanders’ theories have found completely new solutions for the problems created by this explanation. Campbell, in The Deliverance of God (2009), has suggested that the Protestant, or even “Lutheran,” tradition of interpretation produced a “Justification Theory” that prevailed in scholarship until the appearance of the covenantal nomism theory. The Justification Theory claims that sinners are under God’s wrath until the punishment is redirected on Christ. When sinners hear this message, they turn to faith and attain salvation. For Campbell, this is a volutarist and rationalist version of justification, based on human decisions. This is why he calls it contractual.189 The “Lutheran” view, in Campbell’s estimation, thus implies the concept of a “forensically retributive God.” It focuses on the juridical nature of dikaio-words in Paul’s text.190 This means that the basic premise in his explanation concerns the concept of God. For Campbell, God is not a judge. Salvation, therefore, should not be understood in terms of retribution/ expiation. The first obvious problem here is that in Greek, dikaio-words are judicial. Paul did not invent this, and neither did the Lutherans. Any decent interpretation of Paul’s theology must take the semantical aspects of 187

In addition to the literature mentioned before, see Neusner, Exile and Return. Neusner has a “cyclical view of exile” (Scott below), meaning that, since the restoration obviously did not happen with the first arrival from Babylon, Jewish groups tended to push expectations to the future. They also often believed that they themselves lived in an exilic condition. For the application of such view to Pauline studies, see Scott, JBL 112 (1993) 649. 188 In Sandersian terminology the plight is the exilic condition that proves, both for Jewish theologians and Paul, that the chosen people live under God’s wrath. There were, of course, certain dualistic solutions for this problem in Second Temple Jewish theology but, in principle, Paul’s own solution fits perfectly the expectations of the great prophets. 189 See Campbell, Deliverance, 5–18. Campbell should be able to prove that God’s wrath is not a consistent Second Temple concept and that Paul did not adopt it. It is obvious that, from this very first detail, Campbell’s theory is in a strict contrast with the idea of continuing exile. 190 Campbell, Deliverance, 16. For Campbell, dikaio–words are forensic and, therefore, represent an un-Pauline view. Such a view neglects simple semantics and implies erroneously that Paul would use dikaio–words only in Rom 1–4. For the use of the word, see Westerholm, Perspectives, 261–296.

338

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

just/justice/judge/justification into account. Furthermore, Campbell’s view changes not only the understanding of Paul’s view on justification but also the entire early Christian soteriology: should Christ even be seen as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and does humanity’s corruption demand retribution per se?191 Justification theory, considered a false, Protestant reading, creates “voluntarist” soteriology, as Campbell calls it, and a “contractual” concept of salvation.192 Why so? In order to argue his case, Campbell presents an entirely new interpretation of Romans. According to his central argument Rom 1– 4 is a rhetorical device describing the views of Paul’s opponent, a false teacher. The “retributive” (contractual) view in 1–4 is later contrasted with Paul’s own, apocalyptic and “unconditional” view in Rom 5–8.193 There are several difficult problems in Campbell’s theory. First of all, it drifts into problems when stating that, in Paul’s view, God is not “retributive.” Campbell probably means that God does not plan to punish all people for their sins immediately, and that Christian proclamation should not threaten people with the idea of divine judgment. But what Campbell in fact does is question both divine judgment and Christ’s atonement. There is no logical bridge from these premises to Campbell’s “apocalyptical” view where God again appears as a judge and the story points to divine judgment. It is quite difficult to apply a covenantal perspective to apocalyptic eschatology where the clash of ages makes issues of continuity problematic, and Campbell has not achieved clarity here. The next difficulty with Campbell’s definition is that no Protestant interpreter would subscribe to it. Even some of the first commentators of his work noted that Campbell’s accusation has no target. A volutarist, contractual view of justification would be possible only where an idea of completely free will is united with a voluntarist proclamation of decision. This is the opposite of the Lutheran view, though, and very unfamiliar to any 191 Campbell argues that the “real” Paul only uses the expression the “righteousness of God,” a term that denotes God’s salvific act. Stuhlmacher proffered such an explanation, as we have seen above, but that expression is sui generis and distinct from general judicial discourse. See Campbell, Deliverance, 699. The terms should not be seen exclusive. 192 Campbell, Deliverance, 26f. 193 This is the most important argument in Campbell’s theory and, unfortunately, one that cannot be falsified by any other argument. Its logic is circular and supported only by Campbell’s own claims. Campbell, Deliverance, 314ff. Paul does refer his opponents’ arguments in 1–4, but these references are quite easily detected in the text. He addresses a person by calling him “you,” and depicts him as a “Jew who is one outwardly.” But to make the entire 1-4 an exposition of a mysterious “teacher” makes reading impossible. Should we think that the “teacher,” adopting a Justification Theory, first accuses Paul of being wrong, and then makes him a “Jew who is one outwardly.” Not likely. Moreover, Paul refers to his opponent also in 6:1; 7:1; 7:7; 9:6; 9:14, etc. His theology does not change between 1–4 and 5–8.

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

339

Calvinistic denomination as well. It might be true of some evangelistic groups but it is unlikely that such groups would write theological treatments of Paul’s soteriology.194 One may conclude, thus, that Campbell is right in opposing a legalistic and synergistic reading of Paul but, in practice, he uses defective arguments. Reading Campbell more closely shows that he has in fact restored some of the traditional Lutheran conceptions instead of rejecting them. He emphasizes Paul’s apocalyptic world view and notes that forensic metaphors of judgment belong, despite all the criticism he has presented, to the core of his soteriology. The apocalyptic notion of the appearance of God’s wrath prepares the ground for a proper understanding of justification.195 This shows that Campbell does not actually oppose the idea that God’s wrath is significant to the idea of justification – it is only the voluntarism that he wishes to reject. By stating this he in fact follows the conclusions of Luther who wanted to reinstate the Pauline views of total corruption and human bondage. Also in Campbell’s explanation, the law (and the works of the law) are strictly separated from the gospel that brings salvation. It is then no wonder that toward the end of his book, Campbell claims to accept the “Lutheran” view concerning the justification of the ungodly.196 This implies, of course, that the concept of divine retribution still has an important role in his explanation. When Campbell started with a strict dogmatic presupposition that contrasted an “Athanasian reading” (salvation as God’s monergistic work given unconditionally from heaven) with an “Arian reading” (making theology in human terms), he brought an important element to the interpretation of Paul’s soteriology.197 Campbell tries to assess Paul’s thought in terms of the huge discussion concerning the free will. However, he pays very little attention to the debate between Luther and Erasmus, as well as how it

194 One starts to wonder whether there is a completely different background to Campbell’s criticism. He himself states that the views of the “teacher” Paul supposedly opposes, are “roughly analoguous to the frequent modern depiction of born-again Christians – and especially televangelists.” Campbell, Deliverance, 546. Needless to say that there in nothing Lutheran in the voluntarist views of free will decision making, and Campbell confuses the concept. Scholars should agree that the concepts of total corruption and free will are opposites. 195 Campbell, Deliverance, 929. 196 Campbell, Deliverance, 934. Campbell turns out to claim that the train of thought in Rom 1–4 is voluntarist and builds on human potential, whereas the alternative Paul in 5–8 adopts a “pessimistic” anthropology. See Deliverance, 64–66. There is something essentially problematic in this claim because, as our analysis showed, in 1–4 Paul first shows how the Gentile world lives under sin and then proceeds to reveal Israel’s situation – highlighting his views then in 3:23 that “all have sinned.” Cf. Matlock, JSNT 34 (2011) 120. 197 See especially Campbell, ExpT 123 (2012), 385.

340

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

grew throughout the Protestant world.198 Nevertheless, we must admit that Campbell tries to tackle these problems. If everything in salvation is God’s gift, what can the sinner’s role be? When one ascribes significance to individual faith, Campbell concludes, this will immediately endanger the uniqueness of Christ’s salvific work. One cannot blame Campbell for attempting to bring this discussion into Pauline scholarship. His own solutions do not seem very convincing though. As commentators have noted, erasing an individual’s person results in two alternative views already tested in many post-Calvinist traditions. If human beings are mere objects, God (1) apparently has to choose (since he does not save everyone); or God (2) shall save everyone in the end, even though the fruit of such universalism cannot be observed at the moment.199 It is obvious that Campbell does not develop his conclusion in either one of these directions. What does Paul think about the sinner’s salvation, then? For the apostle, the demand to convert does not appear to be a problem. He knows that human beings are already dead in their sins. All die in Adam. Therefore, only God’s own work in Christ can bring salvation. The event is never psychologized, though. There is always a demand for repentance, but metanoia is never considered a salvific act. According to the Protestant tradition, it is the gospel itself, God’s initiative, that empowers sinners to “call on the name of the Lord.” In the Roman Catholic tradition the empowering factor is God’s “grace,” or one form of grace, and the monergistic view is confirmed. Calvinist versions usually differ from this since they emphasize God’s election – but this only strengthens the aspect of monergism. Considering this history of interpretation, there is no need to claim that “faith,” or “justification by faith” should be seen as a human effort or a synergistic act opposing unconditional grace.200 Therefore, as Campbell calls the proper

198

This is the main issue in Luther’s famous On the Bondage of the Will, a difficult and somewhat complex monograph written against Erasmus. The main point in the debate is clear, though. While Erasmus teaches free will and synergistic soteriology, Luther emphasizes the total corruption of humankind. This means that, despite the different views of predestination this may generate, at least one thing is certain: salvation is based solely on Christ’s work, his death and resurrection. Solus Christus. Campbell does not use similar concept and therefore the discussion is somewhat muddy. 199 I owe these observations to Nijay Gupta; see also Gupta, RRT 17 (2010) 248– 255. There is a temptation among scholars to present only two alternatives: voluntarism or predestinarian soteriology. This is not the state of affairs, though. The traditions of the major Churches usually follow a third path where “justification of the ungodly” merely by faith does not consider “faith” to be “work,” but its opposite – as it is in Paul’s theology. 200 Wright too discusses this, although he only considers faith (which he separates from the concept of justification, as we have seen). Does “faith” become a “work” if it becomes the basis of salvation? For Paul it is impossible, states Wright, because

IV. Justification solving the problem of theodicy

341

Pauline view participatory and transformative, he in fact draws very Lutheran conclusions. Furthermore, his view is covenantal, as is that of Wright, but the element of apocalypticism in fact distances him from the covenantal nomism theory in a way similar to how restoration eschatology distances Wright from the Sandersian interpretation he first adopted.201 In our search for the way forward, the metanarrative of exile and restoration becomes a useful point of view here. As Paul speaks of human corruption, he states that the whole of humankind, Jews and Greeks alike, are under the power of sin and God’s wrath. Such a spiritual exile can end only in Christ who has made expiation and has become the source of justification by grace. When sinners turn to God in repentance, God washes their sins away in baptism and fills them with the Spirit of adoption as children, thus making them living stones in the eschatological temple. This is not contractual but unconditional salvation.

V. Israel’s status in the dikaosynē theou The theology of restoration concerns Israel, and therefore Paul wants to explain Israel’s role as well as the nature of the true Israel in God’s salvation history. This is a matter of God’s own people. Jesus is a Jewish Messiah. Paul sees his work as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. The question about Israel is so essential in Paul’s letters that practically all his theology is about Israel. It is not a subchapter in his agenda, and neither is the somewhat exceptional Rom 9–11 a sidetrack in that letter. Instead, for Paul, salvation means the restoration of Israel. This is why he always states: “the Jew first” (Rom 2:10). Paul had to face the same paradoxical situation as John and Jesus before him. The chosen people did not accept the Messiah, or the gospel delivering the message of renewal to all. So a new question arose: who is not the true heir of God’s promises? 1. Old Israel and new Israel It is no wonder that scholars have often assessed the sequence in Rom 9–11 separately from the other parts of the letter. Romans has traditionally been read as a dogmatic treatment and, in that respect, it seems that Paul proceeds from justification and sanctification to issues concerning the nation. Considering the context of the entire letter this is a wrong conclusion. salvation is an “act of sheer grace.” Therefore, “God evokes this faith in people from Abraham to the present day and beyond.” Wright, Justification, 210. 201 It remains to be seen how clearly Campbell will finally conclude that covenantal nomism is contractual – especially if one assumes that it is Paul’s view too. He does say that Sanders’ theory adopts the claim “to which Justification theory is also committed.” Campbell, Deliverance, 115, italics his.

342

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Already in chapter 2 Paul attempts to define who is a proper Jew and speaks about circumcision of the heart. In the third chapter he discusses the relation between Jews and pagans. Chapter 4 focuses on Abraham’s heirs and then, in the following chapters, he takes up the burning question concerning Israel’s relation to the “ministry of death” that the law apparently has in the present situation of fallen humanity. This proves that the question about the nature of the true Israel, for Paul, is identical with the issues of salvation and true righteousness.202 In our attempt to find an explanation for Israel’s status in the dikaiosynē theou, an investigation of Rom 9–11 will be necessary.203 For a start, Paul never questions the sacred history. Israel has the patriarchs and the Messiah. The people have the covenant, the Torah, and the worship. And above all, Israel has the adoption: they are children of God (cf. Ps 103:13). This is why the eschatological adoption as children must take place in the days of the restoration (as expected in Jub. 1:23–25; T. Lev. 18:8–11; and T. Jud. 24:3). But just as Abraham was the father of the promise and pistis, so true Israel, for Paul, consists of the children of the promise. There are no ethnocentric priorities, and Israel’s terrible history should prove that beyond doubt. Mere lip service has never been a sign of true faith. Here Paul follows the example of Moses and the prophets. Romans 9, thus, can be read as an answer to the question, who is a true child of God, what is the eschatological adoption as children like. “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel.” (9:6).204 This is the result of remnant theology. Only “the children of the promise” (9:8) are counted and, according to the apostle, there have always been such children in the history of the nation. Nothing has changed throughout the centuries. There are several scriptural supports for such a belief. Once again Paul turns to the Old Testament. The election of Isaac is the first argument to be used in this debate: “not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants” (9:7). The “children of the flesh” (tekna tēs sarkos) are now contrasted with the “children of the promise” (tekna tēs epangelias). One can be a child only through God’s grace. Paul then proceeds to Sarah (9:8) and Jacob (9:13; in Mal 1:4–7 Esau becomes an enemy, refusing serve God). Historical Israel has always been divided.205 202 The structure of Romans has been discussed for decades now; see Dunn’s article in the collection Romans Debate, 245ff. Consensus seems to be moving toward the view that the letter is a unity, and this is argued by Dunn (p. 427–429). For the arguments behind my solution, see Eskola, Theodicy, 150–151. 203 What will be discussed here is a development of some of the ideas growing from remnant theology treated above in subchapter I.1. 204 Wright reminds us that, in 9–11, Paul refers to Israel’s unbelief more than a dozen times, see Wright, Paul, 1161. For adoption as children, see Scott, Adoption as Sons, 248–250. 205 This has been the view of Jewish theology from the days of the great prophets onwards. In the introduction when we discussed the ongoing exile, it became clear

V. Israel's status

343

Then Paul proceeds to his next argument: election by grace. This passage has often aroused heated discussion and here we will examine only the main point of Paul’s presentation. Now Paul wants to underscore that God is merciful to whomever he wishes and, therefore, he chooses to pardon sinners. What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses: ”I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. (Rom 9:14–16)

Paul uses the strictest Jewish logic and rhetoric he can. He picks up Old Testament passages that, one after another, witness to God’s mercy: election by grace. Who could attempt to accuse God? Was the Lord unjust when he chose whomever he wanted? Does God make wrong decisions? The Lord said to Moses: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Exod 33:19). Paul’s point is simple: God is gracious and merciful, and his election is always good even if the Israelites do not always understand how this could be. This is why the pardoning of Pharaoh proclaims God’s mercy. Paul’s argument is so deeply Jewish that readers often fail to find the point in his reasoning. Pharaoh could easily be used as a symbol for all evil but here, Paul states, it is his “raising” that reveals the mind of God. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Rom 9:17)

The word for raising, in this sentence, translates the original word denoting “saving one’s life” and pardoning: “this is why I have let you live” (Exod 9:16). God did not completely destroy Egypt by the plagues. Paul has translated the word denoting “saving” and “leaving to be” by using a word for “raising” and “putting in place” (eksēgeira). This adds a theological interpretation. When the Pharaoh was saved, he was raised to an important position (cf. the use of the word in Hab 1:6; Zech 11:16). God’s omnipotence is seen in his acts as he saves even the hardened Pharaoh even though he could have crushed him. The conclusion is obvious (for Paul, at least): after that event, God should be proclaimed all over the world as a powerful and merciful Lord. Therefore, this passage from Exodus is a sign of God’s graciousness: “he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses” (Rom 9:18).206 that some kind of soteriological dualism govenrned most theological schools in the Second Temple period. Jewett notes that, in the “antithetical context” of this verse, sarx has a negative connotation like in Gal 4:21–31. Jewett, Romans, 576. 206 So already Micher, Römer (1978), 309. Covenantal intepretation, however, sees only “God’s covenant mercy to Israel.” Dunn, Romans, 554. Such a reading misses the point. Paul repeats the same contradiction often when treating several other examples (the vessels, for instance).

344

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Pharaoh has thus two different functions in Paul’s reasoning. The word for hardening (sklērynō) means to make one hard and indifferent. This is what happened to Pharaoh at first. Despite this, God was gracious to him. This is how Pharaoh, strange as it may sound, becomes an example of a hardhearted apostate who is pardoned, in other words: of the justification of the ungodly. The passage does not teach that God hardens people’s hearts, as some scholars assume, but salvation history. On one particular occasion the role of Pharaoh served the release of God’s people. This is why God proves to be the God of restoration and his name is proclaimed all over the world.207 The example becomes rather pointed, of course, as Paul parallels Pharaoh with the Israel of his own time. The hardened heart of the people reminds Paul of Pharaoh’s. When Paul’s Jewish brothers do not accept Christ they become God’s foes, as Pharaoh was. There is hope, though, and this must have been Paul’s original aim in his preaching. Just as Pharaoh was saved, so also Israel will be saved – when God’s name has been proclaimed over all the world. This conclusion, naturally, is what Paul discusses then in chapter 11. The final argument is brought to the implied debate behind Paul’s presentation. In regard of the humanity, there are two kinds of vessels in this created world – even though these may not be separate vessels as such. Paul starts to speak about objects/vessels of mercy that prove God’s merciful disposition. The gospel makes the children of the flesh children of the promise. In a similar way metaphors using pottery emphasize the very same change. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory. (Rom 9:22–23)

Returning to his soteriological treatment in chapter 3 Paul now turns once more to those who live with a hardened heart. God has “endured” his opponents, the “vessels of wrath” (AV).208 God has not wanted to destroy sinners – be they Gentiles, Pharaohs, apostate kings, or deported Israelites. All must be considered as vessels of wrath, no doubt, and they must face the divine judgment seat. The first argument claims that the vessels of wrath have been imprisoned to be destroyed (eis apōleian) in the end. The 207

The tendency to detect predestinarian theology in this passage has led some scholars to neglect simple exegetical work. The passage speaks about the saving of Pharaoh. 208 The point in this verse is that God (yet again) in his forbearance (cf. 3:25) has saved the vessels of wrath instead of destroying them. He naturally means all the descendants of Adam. For such an interpretation, see Stuhlmacher, Romans, 150. But when the opposite interpretation is adopted, like in the case of Pharaoh, the objects of wrath are merely made God’s adversaries in a semi-dualistic way. Therefore, Moo concludes: “God works with those who are not in positive relationship with him to display in greater degree his own nature and power.” Moo, Romans, 606.

V. Israel's status

345

restoration euangelion changes all this, though. According to the second argument, God’s mercy reaches beyond this seemingly dead end situation. The restoration gospel creates vessels of mercy wherever it is preached. Vessels of wrath become vessels of mercy. As they are prepared in the mission of Jesus’ followers, they are predestined to see resurrection and glory (cf. Rom 8:29).209 So the argumentation is complete. God creates true Israel as he desires, and he desires to bestow mercy. He does not pick out particular individuals but he chooses himself to be merciful to all. He can be merciful even toward the despotic Pharaoh, and he can be merciful toward the vessels of wrath. This is what restoration is all about. It means the justification of the ungodly. And whom does this concern? “Even us,” states Paul in verse 24, “us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” Finally, then, in Rom 9 Paul reinterprets what Jesus had proclaimed to his hearers. Each and every person must repent. There is no diastolē, distinction when it comes to sin and salvation (cf. Rom 3:22 that was treated above). This is what Paul underscores also in the next chapter. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him.” (10:12). Within the people of God, there exists only one kind of person, one who belongs to the children of the promise whom God has saved by his mercy. There has always been one true Israel, and it consists of people who have not hardened their hearts but hear the voice of the Lord. Therefore, Paul states, in every generation the true Israel has been but a remnant. This is the logical conclusion to be drawn from his arguments, and it would be difficult for a Jewish teacher to disagree. The Old Testament testifies that in every period of history the people have been rebellious and only a remnant has continued salvation history. Only a small group was brought back from Babylon, and even after the return it took centuries to see the days of the Son of David. Now that the restoration has become real, only a small part of the extant people hears God’s voice in the gospel of the new community. Working with Hosea and Isaiah Paul then confirms God’s desire for the salvation of humankind. “Those who were not my people I will call ’my people’.” (Rom 9:25). God has mercy on whom he wants, and he wants to pardon the whole of humanity. In order to do this, he lets his gospel be preached among the nations, and even there only a remnant will be saved. The same must be true for Israel. This is confirmed by another passage, now from Isaiah.210 209 The essential observation here is that there is no dualism between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy (as Moo assumed above). Instead, Paul proclaims that the vessels of wrath are turned into vessels of mercy by the gracious act of the Lord. 210 This is a very “Pauline” quotation, as it transfers the focus from God’s “own people” to other nations. Michel, Römer (1978), 316. In Paul’s view, it serves the mission, and it also proclaims “eschatological pilgrimage of the nations” to

346

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved.” (Rom 9:25–29)

As we return to the key-word “remnant” (hypoleimma), it can even more clearly be seen as a term that Paul uses to prove the previous principle true: a person is a Jew if he or she is one inwardly (Rom 2:29).211 Therefore, everything that has taken place in Jerusalem during the two decades of early Christianity proves God’s word true. Apostate Israel has not welcomed God, they have neglected restoration, and they have rejected God’s Son. A majority of the people still live in spiritual exile as enemies of God. Nevertheless, states Paul, the true Israel has remained alive in the remnant that God has called out (kaleō) in the ekklēsia. The situation, he continues, reminds us of the prophet Elijah – now already a common example in the community. Israel killed the prophets and has now been seeking Paul’s life (as he himself had done to Christians before his own conversion). But just as God had kept a remnant at the time of Elijah, so “too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.” (Rom 11:5). As Paul defines Israel’s role in Rom 9–11 he draws on the proclamation of the great prophets. The chosen people have all the promises but they have gone astray.212 Historical punishments are a fact that cannot be neglected when one considers the status of the people. Israel, in Paul’s opinion, consists of vessels of wrath. Like Jesus before him, Paul warns his hearers that God’s judgment is soon to come. The gospel of restoration, however, works in the midst of even a corrupt humankind. God has not been silent but has acted in Christ. After Jesus’ unique sacrifice, salvation has become real, and the saved community forms the remnant that has always recognized God’s voice. These renewed people, Jews and Gentiles, share in Abraham’s faith and are counted as true members of Abraham’s covenant. 2. Submission to God’s righteousness As noted before, the problem of self-righteousness, or achieving righteousness of one’s own, has been one of the most debated issues in recent Pauline studies. It is of course true that, in Protestant tradition, righteousness Jerusalem, the universal restoration that the prophets proclaimed (see below in 5.4.). Scott concludes: “Whereas these OT passages originally looked forward to the Restoration of Israel after the Exile, Paul applies them to believing Jews and Gentiles who are made the people of God and sons of God.” Scott, Paul, 133. 211 See analysis in subchapter 4.I.1. above, and Wright: “Israel is not simply an example of a people to whom God made promises in the past. Israel was and is, for Paul as for Israel’s own scriptures, the people through whom God would bless the world.” Wright, Paul, 1186. 212 I completely agree with Wright who states that Rom 9–11 builds on Deut 30. Rom 10:5–13 in particular builds on that passage but, moreover, the entire theology in 9–11 reflects similar ideas: “This is all about the fulfilment of Deuteronomy 30 [...] – covenant renewal and the end of exile.” Wright, Paul, 1164 (italics his).

V. Israel's status

347

given by God as a gift has always been made the counterpoint of human selfrighteousness. But is this something unfamiliar to Paul? Do the claims of the new perspective fit Paul’s own texts? When Sanders maintained that, for Paul, the primacy of Christ’s work was of utmost importance – also for nomism – he stumbled upon an important notion. It was not a novelty to Protestant scholars, of course, but it was proper to emphasize that Paul focused on soteriology, not on ethics (the heirs of Marburger neo-Kantians in the Bultmannian tradition) or on some kind of mysticism (the post-Schweitzerian current). The problem with Sanders and the new perspective is that they do not pay enough attention to Paul’s other premises that are well grounded both in Old Testament texts and Second Temple Jewish theology.213 These scholars seldom speak of sin and its consequences. The concept of covenant is unproblematic in that theory despite the fact that, in exilic theology, it was precisely the covenant that was questioned since the problem of theodicy prevailed in the theology of crisis. It is of course essential to emphasize that Paul’s entire theological configuration depends on the fact that Christ is seen as the promised Davidic figure who inaugurates Israel’s final restoration. For Paul, this fact did not mean, however, that there would not have been proper “Jewish” rationale for justification by faith. Self-righteousness as a term is not a Lutheran invention. It derives from Paul as he speaks of people’s “own” righteousness that is then contrasted with bestows righteousness. This presentation can be found in the central passage in Rom 10 that in many ways contains the essential conclusions of the whole letter (cf. other conclusions in chapter 11). I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. (Rom 10:2–3)

“Zeal for God” belongs to Paul’s standard terminology. He is well aware that Jewish theologians have had this zeal (zēlos) for God’s law. In the Zealotic fervor of Second Temple piety Paul defended the faith of his fathers before his conversion (Phil 3:6). Therefore, Paul states, it is even possible to protect God’s honor in a state of enmity. This is what Christ’s crucifiers did, and it is what Paul did as he voted for the execution of those who confess Christ. Now, however, everything has changed. Since the moment revealing of

213

I have noted elsewere that there is a certain ambivalence in Sanders’ theory. He first states that Jewish belief cannot have legalistic features because nomism is always under the concept of covenant. Then he later concludes that grace and works are “in the right perspective” in Jewish theology (Paul, 427). He apparently means synergism. This is why he criticizes those scholars who have accused Judaism of legalism. Covenantal nomism as a theory thus describes Jewish belief as a form of synergism rather than an “almost Christian” sola fide religion. Eskola, Theodicy, 236.

348

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

dikaiosynē theou in Christ, only God’s righteousness from heaven can bring restoration.214 The passage in Rom 10 is so impressive and pointed that, among the adherents of the new perspective on Paul, it has at times been entirely separated from the issue of righteousness of the law.215 In Paul’s text, however, such a restriction should not be made. Above in 9:32 he has just spoken about works and, therefore, the righteousness he refers to here necessarily means righteousness that is based on works (in Paul’s vocabulary). This is further confirmed by a parallel passage in Phil 3: “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith” (Phil 3:9). The contrast in Paul’s letters is always between one’s own righteousness (by works) and justification by faith. The main argument in Paul’s reasoning is that his fellow Jews who have heard the gospel of Christ have not “submitted” (ouk hypetagēsan) themselves to God’s righteousness. This means that they have not accepted God’s way of restoration. To be precise, Paul never claims that the Judaism of his time would consciously have been a religion of self-righteousness. The discussion conducted in the new perspective on Paul has been somewhat muddy and unfocused. Paul states that, living in an exilic condition, the Jewish people have no other hope than the observance they cling to. What is interesting here is that Paul underscores the “ignorance” of Jewish theologians. They “do not know” what proper righteousness means. The idea of spiritual blindness no doubt lessens the idea of intentional selfrighteousness – but it does not mitigate the seriousness of Paul’s accusation. Those who do not submit themselves to God are not faithful to him. The situation is similar to the days of Jesus’ mission: to abandon Christ means to abandon God.216 The next conclusion in Rom 10 should be read in this perspective. “For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (10:4). Christ is the telos of the law, not in the sense of abandoning the law but, as the end of the righteousness that can be attained through the law.217 Paul’s summary is a kind of closing statement in a long 214

Zeal, both for Maccabean piety and Zealot enthusiasm, as well as the writers of sapiential theology and orthodox Qumran covenant, was an important expression of obedience. It is a tradition Paul too inherited (cf. also Sir 46:23–24). Hengel, Zealots, 149–150; Garnet, Salvation, 59–60. 215 So Dunn in his covenantal interpretation, Dunn, Romans, 587–588. 216 In this respect it is precisely the new perspective on Paul that has clung to the ninteenth century Protestant dichotomies, trying to solve problems that in fact to not appear in the texts. A more balanced solution is sought by Westerholm, Perspectives, 329. 217 There are different ways to understand the word telos. It does not mean simply a purpose or destination of the law but, in the context of Paul’s soteriology, the end of the “righteousness according to the law” which Paul has contested in his long

V. Israel's status

349

argumentation. This must also be the reason why this rhetorical climax is accompanied by the most extraordinary piece of restoration eschatology one can find in Paul. By providing a reinterpretation of Deut 30 the apostle proves that, in salvation history, the restoration gospel has always depended on the creative word of renewal that comes directly from God. “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down).” Deuteronomy 30, where God’s curses have fallen on the sinful nation, serves now as a biblical proof for the good news that will grant redemption to the people scattered among the nations. In the renewal that is to come, “The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart” (Rom 10:8). In Deuteronomy 30, the context of exilic theology is evident.218 Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back [...] Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live [...] Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us” [...] No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Deut 30:4–14)

For Paul, there is but one way to understand this Old Testament passage. As Christ is the telos of the nomos, it must be the new confession, the new commandment that fulfills the law. It is the same opposition that Paul used before but it is expressed in terms of the crucial biblical passage that proclaims Israel’s restoration. Righteousness that comes from the law, the obedience that Deut 30 demands, is made to oppose the word that has come near, the gospel of restoration that is preached all over the world.219 For Paul, it is the “word of faith that we proclaim” (Rom 10:8). Paul refers to the argumentation. I have not usually referred to my commentary on Romans as it has been written in Finnish but here I make an exception since the alternatives have been discusses there. Eskola, Roomalaiskirje, 258–259. I build on Michel, Römer (1978) 326–327; and Stuhlmacher, Romans, 155–156. 218 For Wright the use of Deut 30 in Rom 10 is a primary proof for the fact that Paul has understood the core of the Christian gospel to be a fulfillment of restoration eschatology. According to Wright, telos means that “the Messiah is the end, the goal, the final destination of Torah.” Wright, Paul, 1172. I could not agree more but, in addition to this, one needs close reading in order to explain why those who “seek to establish their own” righteousness (10:3) are wrong. It is evident, as Wright says, that Paul is here “telling the Torah’s own story of Israel” from the call of Abraham to the “goal.” Nevertheless, Paul also explains why “one’s own” righteousness remains defective. The curse mentioned in Deut 28–30 is real. 219 Wright, as expected, emphasizes a covenantal interpretation: “Through the Messiah the prophecies have come true, the covenant has been re-established, exile is over.” Wright, Paul, 1172. The problem with this explanation is that, while maintaining a clear continuity with Jewish covenantalism (and covenantal nomism) it fails to take into account Paul’s evident aim to express harsh discontinuity.

350

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

confession Kyrios Iēsous that is on a believer’s lips when he or she calls “on the name of the Lord” (10:9–13). Anyone who refuses to submit himself or herself to this “word of faith” that comes from heaven remains under the curse. Hence the justification by faith also here: Christ is the perfect righteousness that renews people mired in corruption. One essential distinction needs to be made at this point. When Paul claims that it has been possible to attain righteousness by works of the law, he does not imply that anyone has attained it in reality. He uses this theological idealism for rhetorical purposes. Every scribe would agree that the law is good – and this is the argument that Paul uses in Rom 7. Both Paul and his opponents share the view that perfect observance of God’s commandments would mean perfect righteousness. Now Paul teaches the new revelation: God’s saving action has been revealed without the law. This is why Christ is the end of the law, and proclamation about the demands of the law is no longer needed. The only thing that is needed is submission. But why did Paul need to argue on this matter? If the theory of covenantal nomism were right, most hearers should have agreed with him at least on the principles of the inference. The answer suggested here should be familiar at this point. Like Jesus before him, Paul questioned the entire Avodat Israel, the normative observance of the Torah. He questioned the power of the temple and its sacrifices. He questioned the significance of circumcision and purity regulations. Anyone claiming to find God within the terms of the old covenant was wrong. This theological conclusion of Paul’s builds on a paradoxical polarization of traditional beliefs. He states that the spiritual death that led Israel to its agony is identical with the power that has held the world captive since the fall of Adam. Therefore, in an ideal situation, there are but two kinds of righteousness: one’s own righteousness and the one that comes from God by faith.220 Summarizing the results this far we can ask, why did the Jews of Paul’s time, as he maintains, not submit themselves to God’s righteousness? Paul’s answer, read in the light of the entire letter to the Romans, refers to the exilic condition the people lived in. Jews in his time are like people in Jesus’ time: they do not recognize the Son of God but reject him. For Paul, this is a symbol of spiritual death. This rejection is ample proof that most Jews still live as God’s enemies. Does this mean that Jews in Paul’s time were selfrighteous or even sententious about human potential? Paul does not address these attitudes. He constructs his understanding of “one’s own” righteousness by opposing the essence of the good Torah with the dikaiosynē theou that brings new life to the world that has died in its sins. The works of the law have reached a dead end because the exilic condition has deprived it of all human potential. In the context of this polarization all obedience becomes one’s “own” righteousness despite personal intentions or attitudes. 220

For a more thorough treatment, see Eskola, Theodicy, 239–241.

V. Israel's status

351

But what about the works of the law? In particular we discussed above the background for Paul’s theology, the thoroughly Jewish idea of nomistic service. This, however, does not yet reveal the status that the works of the law have in his soteriology. A path forward can be found in Rom 9 where Paul develops the subject of Israel’s righteousness, treated in the previous subchapters. [B]ut Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law (diōkōn nomon dikaiosynēs), did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works (hoti ouk ek pisteōs alla hōs eks ergōn). (Rom 9:31–32)

The basic tension is here again built between the two concepts pistis and erga, faith and works. This passage, short as it is, is an important hermeneutical key to Paul’s thinking – especially when read in the context of the analysis made in the immediately precedeing subchapters. Israel’s zeal to protect the law has been sincere, Paul admits. He has himself been part of the group doing all they can to defend the Torah in the time of Roman oppression and persecution. Such a zeal turned out to be defective, though, because pious Jews did not submit themselves to God’s salvific plan. Using the interpretative expression nomos dikaiosynēs Paul emphasizes that law itself aims at righteousness.221 According to the passage, this righteousness is something Israel never attained. Paul probably uses a word play here. It is true that, as Israel never attained righteousness, she actually did not attain the essence of the law (“succession” here is a term common in sports, referring to attaining a goal). But, simultaneously, Paul means that Israel was not faithful to “law and the prophets,” in other words to God’s promise. She never understood that the law itself pointed to Christ. This is why, in Paul’s opinion, the nomos dikaiosynēs can only be attained in and through faith.222 This is how Paul, using a long argumentation, finally reaches his point in criticizing the righteousness of the law. Any righteousness beyond justification by faith is “of works” because it is not “of faith” (ouk ek pisteōs). Apart from Christ, any righteousness, as noted in the preceding subchapter, is futile, based as it is on the human condition. Therefore, Israel was striving for righteousness “as if it were based on works.” This is the climax of Paul’s rhetorical statement here. The small word Paul uses here, “as if” (hōs) becomes much more important than one would expect. Many scholars have ignored it, probably thinking of it as an idiom without any deeper meaning. Some writers have suggested that it emphasizes Israel’s false attempt to gain righteousness, “as 221

Scholarly discussion of the term has been presented by Martin, Law, 135–138; and Badenas, Law, 194f. 222 In this respect I agree with Wright who says: “All those who believe are now demarcated as the true Torah-keeping people.” Wright, Paul, 1036 (italics his).

352

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

if there were some works” – even though we know that there are none. Käsemann uses the word “illusion.” From the perspective of Paul’s rhetorical argument, however, there is more to it, and the expression is essential. Paul uses similar term elsewere, and it has a special function in expressing a claim “as if” some issue would influence the subject in question (2 Cor 2:17).223 This passage, finally, is a watershed, dividing interpretations of Paul’s soteriology. At least at first, it appears to justify Sanders’ claim that the basic problem with Judaism, according to Paul, is that it is not of faith: “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.”224 This is no doubt a culminating point in scholarly discussion but, instead of solving the problems of Pauline interpretation, it shows that two competing explanatory currents now drift apart completely. Covenantal nomists – if we are allowed to use the term here – suppose that Paul, in his theology, makes inferences backwards and that Christology has a primary role in his reasoning. This leads unavoidably to the conclusion that Paul cannot have had any true problem with the alleged covenantal nomism. Some scholars even state that Paul’s intention was to restore a proper covenantal nomism, which had been abandoned among certain Second Temple groups. As we have noted, this view results in several difficulties. First, the theory is unable to explain why Paul contests the works of the law in the first place. The most important questions concerning Paul and the law are left unanswered. Second, some of the suggested solutions provide a complete reductio ad absurdum of the covenantalist interpretation. Räisänen concludes that, if Sanders is right, it only proves Paul’s inescapable inconsistency in treating the views of Jewish faith.225 And third, Sanders himself appears to be in contradiction with his earlier views about Jesus. In his Jesus and Judaism he asks the crucial question: why was Jesus considered so dangerous that he had to die? If Jesus was merely a proclaimer of decent covenantal nomism – and Paul later continued his program – no Jewish leader would have been forced to demand the ultimate punishment and execute him on the cross. But if Jesus was put to death because of his sharp criticism of religious corruption, he evidently found something essentially wrong in Judaism. And if Paul understood any of this eschatological soteriology, Sanders’ provocative statement has no justification. Nevertheless, his interpretation lives on among the adherents of the covenantal nomism interpretation. There have been attempts to solve the problems described above. The most popular one of these claims that Paul, in fact, wanted to contest Israel’s

223

Käsemann, Römer, 266. Sanders, Paul, 552 (italics his). And Räisänen adds: “The root of evil lies in a Christological failure.” Räisänen, Paul, 176. 225 So Räisänen, Paul, 201. See the chapter “The ‘Hobgoblin’ of Consistency” in Westerholm, Perspectives, 164–177. The question itself has generated certain monographs, the most important of which is Van Spanje, Inconsistency in Paul? 224

V. Israel's status

353

ethnocentric identity, or even racial pride.226 Longenecker, answering the “What Paul finds wrong” question states that, according to Paul, “Israel has considered righteousness to be their own and theirs alone (idian), as a nationalistic possession. They have defined the covenant along ethnic lines, thereby excluding others.”227 The acceptable point in this solution is that Paul no doubt needs to question the ethnic primacy always present in Jewish identity. Furthermore, this alternative appears to treat the conduct of Jewish religious customs as a form of “righteousness” that is typical of Jews alone. Nevertheless, these aspects do not really change the interpretation. For Longenecker and others taking this position, “what is wrong in Judaism” appears to be merely the attitude. This cannot be true. Paul’s heaviest theological artillery cannot be directed merely at people’s inner feeling, a pride in a perfect covenant. The other slope of the watershed of course reveals a different view. The interpretation focusing on restoration eschatology does emphasize that Christology has a primary role in Paul’s reasoning – who could state anything different after the events of the Easter – but it goes farther. Despite such a prominent point of departure, Paul knows well what is “wrong in Judaism.” It is the exilic condition. Paul teaches what Jesus had proclaimed, namely that the two exiles, the deportation from Eden and the deportation from Israel, have changed the situation of the chosen people. The exilic condition draws God’s wrath on Israel. Hence not even the obedient piety of the people is sufficient. Service is practiced “as if it were based on works (hōs eks ergōn)”.228 The exilic people, for Paul, are slaves in two respects. They are deported slaves who have not yet been allowed to return to the promised land. And they are slaves of the law that constantly condemns them to death on the basis of works. For Paul, the slaves’ achievements are merely works. Even though they imitate the life and the acts of free men and women, they are done in chains. Therefore, ethnocentric pride that is undeniably often present, is not the disease, it is merely a symptom. The problem is not in people’s attitudes. Paul is convinced that the Jews do not sumbit themselves to God’s righteousness beause their hearts are not in the right place. This is why they still suffer God’s wrath. 226 So for intance Dunn, New Perspective, 205. For the discussion, see Westerholm, Perspectives, 250–252. 227 Longenecker, Eschatology, 218–219. 228 It is interesting that Wright stands on the dividing line when explaining Rom. 9:32. He notes that, for Paul, the law erects “a solid boulder” between the promises God made to Abraham, and the fulfilment of those promises “in the creation of a single worldwide family.” Wright still accepts a version of covenantal nomism but, nevertheless, he admits that for Paul, the human condition is not simple. The essential problem of Israel is “in the people,” or “in their Adamic condition.” Wright, Paul. 1178. Since he applies the idea of the continuing exile in Pauline interpretation, Wright admits that Israel’s problem does not merely concerns attitudes.

354

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

This proves that Paul is very strict in his interpretation of the works of the law. Any human conduct in religious matters remains in the sphere of selfrighteousness. Even if the motives were pure, as his own no doubt were when he persecuted Christians according to the law in his early years, everything is done “as if” it was based on works. Theology, for Paul, is a matter of dealing with the human condition, religious corruption, enmity toward God, and the imminence of God’s wrath. Therefore, Israel as a nation did not attain dikaiosynē theou but was left outside the promise and pistis. Similar principles direct Paul’s teaching about justification. The righteousness of God has turned out to be a term that Paul has been able to justify simply as a Jewish theologian using the Old Testament. His view on the human condition is founded on multiple proof-texts. His understanding of the works of the law (like one’s conduct in the Jewish service to the Lord) is quite understandable, when it is interpreted in terms of his soteriology. Therefore, the result of the analysis must be that Paul really speaks only of two possible kinds of righteousness – one being of works and the other of faith – and this has been his message to his fellow Jews. In sum, Paul teaches that the Jews have not submitted to the righteousness that comes from God sola gratia. He admits that his former colleagues in the Pharisaic movement and in other sects of that time are sincere and have a zeal for God and his Torah. They believe that they defend the Lord with all their life. Paul too did before his conversion. But since they oppose the Son of God through whom sin has been condemned “in the flesh,” these earnest covenanters drift away from God’s restoration gospel that culminates in justification by faith. They continue in enmity toward God that has been the mortal sin of all exilic people. Even their well-intentioned striving after perfect obedience is conducted “as if it were based on works.” Adam’s shadow is long and keeps them imprisoned. 3. The principle of regarding as loss Israel’s status in the dikaiosynē theou must be defined in terms of the real restoration that comes from God himself, as a divine act that no longer depends on human effort. In Paul’s theology, this results in a new understanding both of Israel’s religious service and saving righteousness. Moreover, Paul’s soteriological views lead finally to certain larger hermeneutical principles that govern his thinking. The apostle is convinced that all people face the same situation when it comes to God. There is no distinction (diastolē) among human beings – be it religious or ethnic. All children of Adam on this earth are under eternal punishment, and none could escape this – had God not given a covenant of promise. From Abraham onwards, God has offered justification by grace, based solely on faith. This is why all other aspects of divine revelation must be interpreted in terms of the “righteousness of God” – the righteousness that rains down from heaven. According to Paul’s important hermeneutical principle, anything that

V. Israel's status

355

concerns the Torah or Avodat Israel must be regarded secondary. While these elements are tremendously important in Jewish tradition, Paul discourages any trust in them. . This point of departure results in a paradoxical interpretation of standard Jewish belief. Paul rejects “boasting” and makes works of the law a negative term. He neglects all the gains of an obedient life and counts even his personal successes as loss. Such an interpretation could be called paradoxical polarization. From the beginning, Paul turns previous understandings upside down. He starts to deal with issues that people usually consider proper in Jewish religion. But for Paul, even virtues can be used to serve God’s enemies. And as Paul himself knows, zealously defending God’s law can turn into a battle against God himself. There are three important passages in Paul’s letters where polarizing hermeneutics dictate the nature of his theology. In the first of these, Paul speaks of abandoning previously held ethnocentric trust and identity. A proper understanding of justification, Paul states, removes any distinction between the chosen people and the Gentiles. This, admittedly, is a hard demand to accept. Paul expects his readers – and opponents – to relativize their national identity. But Paul is persistent. In no way would he reject the core of Jewish soteriology, Abraham’s faith, but he interprets it in terms of restoration eschatology proclaiming divine justification by grace. We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (Gal 2:15–16)

There are, thus, two different intepretations concerning soteriological dualism. The old view stated that the chosen people are in a covenantal relationship with God while the Gentiles are “sinners,” as presented here. “We are Jews by birth (fysei),” Paul writes. This is an argument Paul’s opponents accepted without doubt. Other nations were assumed to serve idols. The only way to escape God’s wrath was to become a proselyte.229 Then, however, Paul creates a contradiction and presents the proper way of assessing such ethnocentric primacy. The old covenant was not meant to be the medium for eschatological salvation. The only way to find release is the covenant of grace, because spiritual exile ends only in Christ. This is why Paul, a devoted Pharisaic Jew, has had to reject his past and believe in Jesus. This idea is explicated by the final clause “so that (hina) we might be justified” (v. 16). It is important to note, then, that Paul’s argument here does not focus on an ethnocentric ideal itself, but on the works of the law. He points out that the nomistic service of the people will not help them reach 229

This is the passage where we find the ethnocentric principle in its full force, cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 83; Betz, Galatians, 115.

356

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

salvation.230 In a sense he prepares ground for the later theological developments according to which Jews do not submit themselves to God’s righteousness (in Romans). Already here Paul uses the language of submission when stating that “as we know (eidotes)” that the exilic route is a dead end, “also we” have come to believe in Christ “so that” the restoration gospel can make us free.231 This is how the principle of “regarding as loss” enters Paul’s theology. The expression itself is taken from another passage (see below) but it describes Paul’s thinking well. A polarization needs to be made. A submission is necessary. In a sense this means conversion but it has a wider meaning. When one understands Jesus’ original program perfectly, one needs to reinterpret the entire content of Israel’s service to the Lord. Like in the National Confession in Neh 9, the penitent needs to put his own person in the place of the one who is praying: here we are, slaves to this day. It is now “we” who were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind us and killed your prophets (cf. Neh 9:26). Therefore, even the obedient shema-faith that has given orientation to life in the exilic condition must now be considered “loss.” Next passage, the one containing the key-term “regarding as loss,” is in Phil 3. In these verses Paul first describes the stages of his own life and assesses his Jewish background. His education was exceptional, as was his zeal for God, and at first these gave him an important status in the Jewish community. All this, however, turned out to be a curse for him because he ended up in persecuting the followers of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13–14). The context itself reveals that there is a parallel between these verses and the passage in Galatians treated above. Paul has adversaries, in this case they are preachers that visit his congregations and proclaim a legalistic message. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. (Phil 3:4–6)

Paul’ rhetoric surprises us. Even though he usually states that nobody can fulfill the law, he claims here that “as to righteousness under the law,” he was “blameless.” This could be dogmatically problematic. Considered from the rhetorical point of view, however, the statement can be seen in another light. Paul, who in human terms and in the sapiential tradition of Second Temple Judaism has lived an orthodox life (just like Sirach or the Qumran cove230

Tyson notes that this passage shows perfectly how the apostle questions “nomistic service” as he calls it. Tyson, JBL 92 (1973) 426. 231 Even Sanders admits that Paul, before his conversion, was zealous for the law and considered this to be an element that separated Jews from the Gentile nations. Sanders, Paul, 499. It is necessary for him to assume, then, that Paul radicalized his soteriology only after finding the solution in Christ. This is not very coherent. Such zeal was probably quite radical even before.

V. Israel's status

357

nanters), he too has had to put his hope in Christ. Even if he had never been sinful, his own righteousness was insufficient: his eyes have been opened, and he recognizes that he has been living in spiritual exile. The questioning of the Jewish Avodat Israel, the aspect that was investigated above in I.2., is the hermeneutical foundation on which Paul builds his extraordinary soteriology. He speaks not only of circumcision and ethnocentric primacy but, in fact, zeal for the Torah. Paul uses a principle of interpretation that no longer conforms to Jewish hermeneutics. He questions values that to the Jewish mind would be considered obedient, turns it upside down and regards it as loss. He rejects the good in order to attain perfection. The key clause in Phil 3 reads as follows: “Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss (zēmian) because of Christ” (Phil 3:7). The Christological rationale of Paul’s soteriology is emphasized when he presents the foundation for his regarding so much as loss. The loss, taken literally, denotes “damage” that is caused. Paul, building on his personal experiences as well as his theological conviction, believes that religious zeal led him astray because it did not direct him towards real renewal. It hurt him because it distanced him from the Lord of restoration. The polarization in this verse is as harsh as it can get. Christ has made “everything” – i.e. Jewish piety – loss (ezēmiōthē ) because true righteousness comes from another direction (Phil 3:8). Paul’s explication in this passage, along with that of Rom 11:32, is the clearest expression of his soteriology. And like in the traditional formulation quoted several times during the analysis, justification is a result of Christ’s resurrection from the dead and his eschatological enthronement in heavenly power. The tradition Paul adopts states that Christ “was handed over to death for our trespasses,” he was also “raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). In Philippians Paul desires to know the power of the resurrection of Christ and receive the righteousness that comes from him. Paul again uses the final clause “so that (hina)” he would gain Christ. Because Christ has come, a zealous Jew (Paul), too, has had to believe in him in order to attain salvation. This is emphasized once again through similar expressions. Paul seeks righteousness in Christ, so that he can “be found in him” (Phil 3:9). Therefore, “regarding as loss” in Paul’s soteriology, is really a hermeneutical principle that embodies the heart of restoration eschatology. It is a key that helps scholars unravel the difficulties of Pauline interpretation. Stressing the exilic condition, Paul proclaims that when sinners – be they Jews or Gentiles – meet Christ’s gospel, they need to re-evaluate their entire life. This is the Son of God whom the Lord sent as his Servant to this world to make atonement for past sins and to reconcile fallen humanity – including all other nations – with himself. After Christ’s eschatological enthronement there is nothing left for individual Jews to do other than repent and convert. People must submit themselves to God’s righteousness and dismiss their small personal achievements as loss since they too have been defiled by the

358

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

sin of apostasy. The heavenly dikaiosynē theou recreates sinners by renewing them and filling the new temple with the Holy Spirit. 4. Restoration eschatology: all Israel will be saved Finally, we need to focus on the results of Paul’s inferences in Rom 9–11. He draws conclusions about the eschatological future and Israel’s salvation. Israel’s hardened heart, paralleled with Pharaoh’s, is a mystery (mystērion). It is something that God perhaps has not very clearly revealed to his own but, Paul sees it in the context of the general pattern of salvation history. While a veil (cf. 2 Cor 4:3) obscures the view for most Jews, Paul believes all this serves God’s desire to save humankind. So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” (Rom 11:25–26)

This passage has inspired a great amount of literature speculating on Israel’s eschatological fate and the probable conversion of “all Israel,” understood as an entire nation – or the adherents of the Jewish religion – living in some distant future. A thorough treatment of such views in this concise synthesis is not possible. Suffice it to say, a novel treatment of the passage, underscoring the basic nature of Paul’s thinking in these clauses, is needed. This implies a new explanation of many of the key expressions in the passage. According to Scott, the theological background for Paul’s thinking and terminology here is Israel’s restoration. First of all, there are terms in this passage that refer directly or indirectly to the texts of the prophets, like the number of the Gentiles. “All Israel,” the crucial term that captures the interest of the reader, “should be seen in light of the twelve-tribe system of Israel.” Scott looks at the term’s use in the Old Testament and notes that it usually refers either to Israel in general (for instance Exod 18:5; Deut 27:9), or to the United Monarchy (2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kgs 4:1 etc.). It can also refer to a unified entity that has remained in the land despite the exiles (1 Chron 9:1), or a selection from all twelve tribes of Israel (2 Sam 10:17; 1 Kgs 8:65).232 Israel has been scattered among the nations, and the restoration is expected to reverse this movement. The Table of Nations, which identifies and counts the “nations” (ethnē) in Genesis 10, as well as its reinterpretations in several other passages in the Old Testament (1 Chron 1; Ezek 38–39 describing the eschatological war, and especially Jub. 8–9) has a unique status.233 Already in Deut 30 Israel’s return is described in more general 232

Scott, Restoration, 500–505. And he concludes: “When applied, as here, to the future hope for Israel, we should view ‘all Israel’ as a term which strongly implies the restoration of the whole nation, including all twelve tribes.” (p. 525). 233 Scott, Paul, 5–15.

V. Israel's status

359

terms than just a return from Babylon: “gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you” (Deut 30:3). Taking these two aspects together, there is reason to believe that, as Paul speaks of the “full number” of the nations, he means the nations of the known world as such, the peoples mentioned in the Table of Nations. Therefore, Paul’s hope focuses on the “eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Zion.”234 The “number” of the Gentiles is in fact the plērōma of the nations. Already in v. 12 Paul has referred to the plērōma of Jews attaining salvation in the end. The mystery will gradually be revealed as the kingdom of God becomes manifest. The point in restoring the tribes is prophetic universalism: it will include all of the Gentiles as well. The reinterpretation of Isaiah is similar to that presented in the Pss. Sol. 17. And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning, (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord. (Pss. Sol. 17:30– 31)

For Paul, then, the expression “all Israel” refers to the final consummation of the restoration. The return thus far is incomplete, including only a remnant. As the good news is taken to the nations, as well as to Jews living in the diaspora, the restoration gospel will gather the tribes that have been scattered among “all” the nations.235 Then, in the end, when Jesus returns to Zion, the sōtēria will be completed. The deliverer will come from Zion and gather the community of salvation together. “The salvation of the twelve tribes (’all Israel’) in conjunction with the deliverance that goes out from Zion reflects one of the central concerns of Jewish eschatology, the restoration of Israel, which is repeatedly mentioned in postexilic OT and early Jewish literature.”236 When Paul explains Israel’s status in the dikaosynē theou, he connects restoration eschatology with Isaian remnant theology. The principles of exilic rhetoric are quite prominent here. God’s wrath has covered the corrupt nation and, through all the horrors the people have faced, God seemed to remain silent. For Paul, the vessels of wrath have been awaiting divine judgment with little hope of salvation. But everything changed when Christ came. His enthronement proves that restoration has begun. God gathers the true Israel, the remnant that will reach final salvation. Together with the gathering of the tribes, the pl ē r ō ma of the Gentiles will also be gathered. Following the eschatology of the exilic prophets Paul proclaims that the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations consummates salvation history. God has 234

Scott, Restoration, 525. For the Table of Nations, Scott, Paul, 72. “Unlike the partial return from Exile and failed attempt at Restoration in the socalled ‘post-exilic period,’ the eschatological Restoration will be complete and comprehensive.” Scott, Paul, 72. 236 Scott, Restoration, 525. 235

360

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

“imprisoned all in disobedience” so that he may bring renewal for the whole of humanity. Then, together, converted Jews and Gentile Christians shall welcome the Deliverer who arrives out of Zion. The mystery of restoration has been disclosed, and Eden will be created anew.

VI. The Christology of enthronement in Paul Paul’s letters have become familiar to us through this study of early Christology because many of the significant traditional confessions and hymns describing pre-Pauline teaching can be found in his texts. On the one hand, thus, Paul draws on the teaching of the community and the tradition of the “pillars” that have served the gospel before him. On the other hand, he also applies tradition in a new way and skillfully presents salvation history in terms of Christology. Therefore, when analyzing Paul’s teaching on the meaning of Jesus we first need to assess his relation to the tradition he uses and then investigate some of the narrative expressions that he uses when he teaches about the work of Christ. 1. Christ and confession Paul adopts and adapts these confessional statements in his theology, humbly presenting himself merely as one of the preachers of the new kingdom. He uses confessional material, kerygmatic (meaning homiletical) formulations, hymn and prayers. These comprise the exceptional Easter confession (1 Cor 15:3–4), the kenosis-hymn in Philippians (Phil 2:6–11), and the Christological prologue of Romans (Rom 1:3–4). Paul’s Christology is not a product of his own imagination, and he rarely creates new formulations on the basis of the Old Testament. Instead, he transmits the common theology of early congregations. The simple reason for this is that the community’s religious identity is based on a Christological confession. Paul’s understanding of Christology is based on his conception of euangelion. And, as noted when we analyzed the teaching of the early church, the prologue of Romans shows that this gospel could be easily described by presenting a fixed formulation. The term “gospel” was not yet a meaningless terminus technicus in Paul’s time. He intentionally continues Jesus’ restoration eschatology by adopting this term that has quickly became a symbol for the realization of restoration: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news.” Paul, too, joins those who announce salvation and say to Zion, “Your God reigns.” [“Your God is now King”] (Isa 52:7–8). As a witness to Jesus’

VI. The Christology of enthronement

361

resurrection, Paul believes that he has seen “the return of the Lord to Zion.”237 Further, in the prologue of Romans, the content of the gospel is depicted in terms of an eschatological enthronement where Christ has become a Lord “in power.” The seed of David has finally been exalted. Therefore Paul, in his exaltation Christology, adopts and transmits the confession of the early church: that in his resurrection Jesus has been crowned in his heavenly kingship: Kyrios Christos. This Christologically motivated gospel, for Paul, is the “power of God” (Rom 1:16). Since the different exiles of humanity have now been reconciled, no distinctions or divisions remain. God gathers the lost members of his creation from all over the world.238 For Paul this message has become a regula fidei, “the word of faith that we proclaim” (Rom 10:8). This “word” (rēma) has a simple but effective content: Jesus has risen from the dead (and he has been enthroned on the heavenly throne as Lord). As people hear this message and accept it, they confess their faith by reciting the confession Kyrios Iēsous (10:9). Such message is brought forth only when the community has enough preachers – whose necessity Paul underscores toward the end of Romans 10. His argument closes with a new quotation, Isa 52:7, the crucial passage that concerns the divine enthronement that will begin Israel’s restoration (Rom 10:15).239 In his Christology Paul uses all the narratives that were taught before him in the early church. The story about the heavenly coronation of the Davidic figure is perfectly maintained in his letters – the best example of the passages being the prologue of Romans mentioned above. Paul also describes the exalted Christ as sitting at the right hand of God, thus fulfilling the expectations laid by Ps 110 (Rom 8:34). Furthermore, Jesus for Paul is the prince of life who conquers the power of death (1 Cor 15:26; Rom 5:17). In passages focusing on atonement, Paul presents Jesus as the suffering Servant of the Lord, the God-chosen offering who sacrifices himself for the sins of the people (2 Cor 5:21). He is the paschal lamb that has been slaughtered (1 Cor 5:7). Paul is well aquainted with Jesus’ role as a cosmic high priest. He describes Christ stepping into his priestly role, atoning for the people (Rom 3:25; 4:25). On the other hand, the eschatological enthronement is present in many passages: Jesus is the heavenly judge who saves his own from the 237

So Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 315. For the occurrence of the motif in the Old Testament, see Hengel, Studies, 175ff. 238 For the special use of Khristos as the “anointed one,” see Chester, Messiah, 382–384. 239 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 156. The rēma, deriving originally from Deut 30:14 but forming here a new expression becomes, as Jewett notes, a logos, like logos tou Theou, or logos tou Khristou. Jewett, Romans, 629. For the connection between Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30 and restoration eschatology, see Wright, Paul, 1171– 1174.

362

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

wrath that is to come (1 Thess 1:10). But he also gathers all people to him when the last day arrives as a day of judgment (2 Cor 5:10).240 Another way to approach Paul’s Christology is to investigate theological themes. For Paul, Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God whose origin is in eternity (1 Cor 2:7). Christ participates in the “form of God” (Phil 2:6). He has taken part in creation (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16), and has directed Israel’s history: “For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4). The incarnation of this Son of God, Paul states, brings life to the world.241 For you know the generous act (Greek: the grace) of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, 242 so that by his poverty you might become rich. (2 Cor 8:9)

There is also the motif of “sending” in Pauline Christology. God sends his Son into this world. The Son is born of a woman. The incarnated Son of God will save sinners that have been left under the law, and this will result in eschatological adoption as children. “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.” (Gal 4:4–5). In the hymn of Phil 2, the kenōsis of the eternal Son is an exemplar of Christian humility (Phil 2:6– 11). God has sent his Son into the world and he submitted to being a servant. The theology of creation is completed by an Adamic typology. When Paul explains the resurrection as the inauguration of the new creation, he parallels Adam with Christ: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being” (1 Cor 15:20–21).243 Adam typology builds on Old Testament terminology. Human beings as images of God justify the reasoning then that Adam’s descendants are his images (Gen 5:3). Paul depends on this tradition when he distinguishes between the earthly realm and the heavenly realm. “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). For Paul, the risen Christ is the firstborn of the new creation and the renewed humankind. As the Son of God he himself is not part of

240

For Paul’s Christological reading of Old Testament YHWH texts, Bauckham, Jesus, 186–191. 241 Pre-existence Christology in Paul is discussed especially by Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 118–126, 242 Even though this passage in Paul’s text is a “reminder,” Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 123, it also implies – as he says – a glimpse of the deep content of Jesus’ cosmic mission; so also Harris, 2 Corinthians, 580. 243 For the narrative background, see Witherington, Narrative Thought World, 141–145; cf. Indelible Image I, 202.

VI. The Christology of enthronement

363

creation and does not parallel Adam in that sense. Instead, he is the new Adam, the firstborn of the new reality. The general features of Paul’s Christology are similar to those from the theology of the early church. Be it a Jewish-Christian community or a Pauline church in the Roman imperium, the most important expressions of Christology are presented by confessions, Christological formulations, and hymns. These focus on Jesus who as the Son of David fulfills the promises given to the exiled people. He stops the punishment inflicted on the people and gathers the tribes to the new kingdom. As a sacrifice himself, he acquires redemption for the cursed people, makes atonement, and by perfoming a priestly task, grants justification to sinners. Jesus is raised “at the right hand” of God on his throne of glory and, on that throne, he rules as the eternal King of the world. Paul’s Christology restores the teaching of the ekklēsia in its deepest sense. 2. Paul and the Resurrected one It is impossible to separate Paul’s Christology from his personal experiences. In several passages the apostle describes what his conversion was like. He speaks of his commission by the resurrected Lord himself, and the particular aspect that he – among other famous men of that time – belongs to the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. In Galatians Paul maintains that the Resurrected One gave the gospel to him in a revelation (apokalypsis). “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” (Gal 1:12).244 The importance of the Damascus Road experience in Paul’s life cannot be overestimated. The experiences described in the Acts (9:3; 22:6; 26:12) basically repeat what we know from Gal 1. The event has been crucial for Paul’s understanding that Jesus has risen indeed. Paul the Pharisee could never have understood his vision merely as a revelation of a resuscitated human being. What he proclaims is that he has witnessed the apokalypsis of the enthroned Lord.245 This is why this vision had the power to change his life. After that event, the euangelion for Paul is above all a gospel of Christ’s glory. “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor 4:6). Paul has personally met with Christ who has been exalted to the heavenly glory. He has understood that God has enthroned Jesus in the unique status he now has in the heavens. On this basis Paul repeatedly states in his letters that he has not received his mission from ordinary people. It was Christ’s revelation that convinced him of the new reality. This is why the gospel, for Paul, is based on the revelation of the

244 245

Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 247. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 236–237.

364

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Lord of glory. This Christ is the one whom the Christians confess, the people whom he persecutes and puts to death in the tribunals of the synagogues.246 Paul’s personal history further explains how the apostle knows the suffering Christ. Paul of all people recognizes the period of tribulation. He knows personally the people who have persecuted John the Baptist, and he knows exactly who executed Jesus. And of course Paul’s personal history has a particular twist: he belongs to those who killed Christians. “You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.” (Gal 1:13).247 And the rumors were an obstacle for his work, too, since the congregations were rightfully suspicious of him: “The one who formerly was persecuting us in now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” (Gal 1:23). In other letters he constantly refers to his almost unbearable guilt – that he has persecuted those confessing Christ (Phil 3:6; 1 Cor 15:9). The very same picture is given in the Acts. “But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.” (Acts 8:3). Therefore, the mission of an apostle, for Paul, is the task to conform to Christ. As we have seen above when treating the “Paul crucified” theme, God and this world meet in Jesus’ crucifixion.248 [We are] always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. (2 Cor 4:10–11)

It may sound like an overstatement to claim that the apostle carries “the death of Jesus” in his body, but the purpose of the sentence is clear. For Paul, the cosmos is God’s enemy until the very end, since it fights against the spreading of the gospel. In a sense, the good news is taken right into the den of robbers. The exilic condition implies an opposition to God and, therefore, Paul too has to accept the strikes from this world – and he recognizes that he himself has been one of the attackers. In what he experiences, he sees his own work before his conversion. The gospel will start spreading to the nations during the period of anguish that killed John and Jesus – as well as Stephen, Jacob and many others. In his letters Paul often describes his experiences of traveling around the Roman empire. When defending himself against false teachers he chooses to bring up the sufferings he has had to endure. In addition to the passages treated before, the extensive list of hardships is useful to repeat here. Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman – I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I 246

Cf. Kim, Origin, 5–13. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 63–67. 248 See subchapter 4.III.5. above. 247

VI. The Christology of enthronement

365

was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked. (2 Cor 11:23–27)

These sufferings are real markers of a just apostle. In his conversion Paul moves to the other side of this polarized opposition and the tradition of violence. Now he endures the same persecution and mocking that Jesus had to bear. The disciple cannot expect a better fate than his Lord. For Paul, hardships were part of his ministry. He wanted to work so humbly that “no fault may be found with our ministry.” This is what a servant needs to do: “through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger” (2 Cor 6:3–5). These ideas appear to derive from the eschatology of tribulation. As Paul submits himself to human wrath he participates in Christ’s suffering and completes what is still lacking. He does this quite conscious of the wider picture: this is part of the eschatology of tribulation. In Colossians he states that when facing all this violence, he is in fact hastening the return of Christ (Col 1:24). This is why Paul teaches that God works through weakness. Christ’s power is not in political power or success in society. It can be found only in the cross, in the message that changes people. And so Paul rejoices that the gospel as preached to the sinners is what the kingdom of God is about. His entire mission is shaped by Christology: “but he said to me, ’My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’ So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” (2 Cor 12:9). Therefore, one can say that Paul’s understanding of Christ’s significance and his mission is intertwined with his own experiences. Paul has recognized and admitted that he himself has been part of the exilic people that “kills the prophets.” He has been helping to sustain the tribulation, and his zeal has been directed against God. Hence Paul is a perfect example of God’s saving work among the exiled nation. God keeps searching for those who live as his enemies. When Paul then has a vision of the enthroned Lord he understands that Christ is the answer to Israel’s crisis. God has entered this world in order to restore his people and to proclaim the good news of reconciliation for all the nations. Paul understood that the kairos had come and the day of renewal had arrived. 3. Christology of royal dominion Paul has further adopted the conception that, at the beginning of restoration, divine enthronement must take place. He has not understood Jesus’ resurrection merely as the resurrection of one person to a heavenly realm.

366

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Instead, like the Christian communities before him, Paul believes that Jesus’ resurrection has been an act of enthronement inaugurating the Davidic kingdom of peace. The Christology of the kingship of God is present in Paul’s letters in different kyrios-statements. He quotes Old Testament passages with the purpose of appropriation. Paul describes Jesus’ work by using expressions that originally spoke of the appearance of God himself. Such eschatological passages can be found for instance in the 1 Thessalonians. There Paul prays for God to sanctify the believers so that they will be perfect when the Lord arrives (1 Thess 3:13). The Old Testament point of reference is in Zechariah. Then the Lord (kyrios) my God will come [into Jerusalem], and all the holy ones with him (Zech 14:5b)

at the coming of our Lord (kyrios) Jesus [coming] with all his saints (1 Thess 3:13)

In Paul’s letters, many of the Old Testament YHWH texts are applied to Jesus. According to Zechariah, for instance, the day of the Lord will be revealed when the kyrios arrives in Jerusalem with all his saints.249 Paul interprets this to mean the parousia, when Jesus returns with his saints and the final judgment takes place. Moreover, as faith in Jesus fulfills the proper Israelite faith, it is Jesus himself who is awaited to arrive from the heavens to save his own. For Paul, Jesus’ action is God’s action. Similarly, in chapter 4 Paul refers to Ps 47 when describing how the Lord will return when the trumpet sounds. For the Lord himself... with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend (1 Thess 4:16) God has gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet (Ps 47:5)

In Psalm 47 the majestic God, “great king over all the earth” (v. 2), enters his temple while songs are sung and trumpets sound. As he steps forward he appears to be the ruler of the whole world. “God is king over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.” (47:9). For Paul this is an image of the day when the Lord returns. As the day of the Lord arrives, Christ will descend from the heavens and step forward as the God and ruler of the whole world. The identification of Israel’s Lord and Jesus Christ explains why Paul interprets the early confession Kyrios Iēsous to mean calling “on the name of the Lord.” In Joel, in one more restoration promise, the prediction goes as follows: “Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32 [3:5]; Rom 10:13). Joel prophesies about the eschatological 249

Bauckham lists several passages where a similar intention is clear and concludes that texts “in which YHWH is taken to be Jesus ,” a “monotheistic assertion” appears as well. Bauckham, Jesus, 193. Therefore, the element of high Christology cannot be missed.

VI. The Christology of enthronement

367

salvation that arrives just before the day of wrath, it will be realized through the return of the Holy Spirit and bring restoration: “among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls” (2:32b [3:5b]). Calling on the name of the Lord, thus, is the sign of conversion.250 Considering the confession Kyrios Iēsous, the name appearing here is the “name above all names.” When a writer in the Old Testament speaks of God’s name he addresses God himself. This is how the theological inference is completed. When Israel turns to her God in penitence, God is allowed to be the king of the nation. This is precisely what Paul means here. When penitent sinners confess Christ’s name “the Lord” they return to the true theocracy, letting Christ be the enthroned King of the nation. For Paul, Jesus is Israel’s Lord, and faith in him fulfills both the Mosaic faith and the eschatological salvation. In 1 Corinthians there is a special passage where Paul parallels God and Christ, Father and Son. In a sequence where Paul needs to settle issues concerning the purity of meat and idolatry, he diminishes the significance of false gods in comparison to the one real God. This is where he quotes another confessional statement, one that presents a bold reinterpretation of the Jewish shema. Old Testament faith focused on one demand: I am the Lord your God. This statement must have been important for Paul when writing against idols: “you shall have no other gods before me” (Deut 5:7). In his new formulation Paul unites the Kyrios Iēsous confession with the shema statement. [T]here 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. (1 Cor 8:6)

The original confession is now given new meaning. One God rules with the One Lord, Jesus Christ. Faith in the Lord means simultaneously faith in Jesus. The binitarian confession grows from the standard monotheistic belief – and there was no sense of mutual exclusion or tension.251 This aspect of creation is interesting: Christ was the firstborn and everything has been created through him. This is how the community of salvation is created. The new kingdom comprises those who confess that Jesus is Lord. Devotion to God is identical with devotion to Jesus.252 A similar view about Christ makes Paul exclaim in Romans: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is 250

Stuhlmacher, Romans, 158–159. See Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 430. They emphasize that this confession must have been known in Antioch where the Jewish-Christian community was based on Jewish tradition and Old Testament teaching. 252 This is one of the main conclusions in Hurtado’s monumental work on Christology, Lord Jesus Christ, 124-125, 153. Cf. Bauckham, Jesus, 141. 251

368

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (Rom 9:5, NIV). This debated passage contains a similar identification as 2 Cor 8 above. This is why there is no need to explain the end of the clause as a mere eulogy to God the Father. 253 There are also trinitarian passages in Paul’s letters, another issue that has aroused much discussion. Paul describes God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit working together in several crucial passages on soteriology. It is through the Spirit of Holiness (the Old Testament expression for the Holy Spirit) that Jesus has been enthroned to heavenly power (Rom 1:4). Through the Holy Spirit God also raised Jesus from the dead. This is why the Holy Spirit is the seal that ensures believers of their own resurrection (Rom 8:11). For Paul, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. We can conclude then that, for Paul, the Holy Spirit is a divine person, one who works independently and helps salvation history forward in this world. It is only the Holy Spirit who knows the mind of God the Father: “So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is the Son’s Spirit: “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6). In the 2 Corinthians, Paul mentions all the persons in one statement: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17). In this context the Lord is simultaneously Moses’ God and the glorified Christ, so the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Interpreting Old Testament teachings, Paul shows that the Holy Spirit acts in this world by making the works of God the Father. The Holy Spirit is a witness for the gospel (Rom. 8:16), prays for believers (Rom 8:26), and gives gifts (1 Cor. 12:11). The Holy Spirit also distributes spiritual gifts to ensure the proclamation of the gospel. “Now there are varieties of gifts, 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.” (1 Cor 12:6–7). The time of salvation, in general, is for Paul a time of the renewal by the Holy Spirit. In this he accepts both the teaching of Jewish apocalyptic and the tradition of the early church. Israel’s restoration becomes real when God sends his Holy Spirit to the renewed community. This is why Paul teaches that the congregation itself is God’s temple and the temple of the Holy Spirit. This is also why it is the triune God who creates the community and brings people to salvation. “But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” (2 Cor 1:21–22). In sum Paul, on the one hand, clings to the exaltation Christology taught by the early church and, on the other, reinterprets it. He too sees that the 253

Even translations differ in their interpretations, cf NRSV: “who is over all, God blessed forever.” For a rather thorough treatment of present discussion, see Jewett, Romans, 566–569. He is right also in pointing out that the participle ōn denotes: “who really is.” So the linguistic argument is heavily weighted toward the NIV version.

VI. The Christology of enthronement

369

traditional focus of salvific faith has changed and the dynamics of theocracy must be seen from another point of view. Enthronement Christology proves that God’s kingship has been restored in Israel. The exile ends, and the divine enthronement results in a real jubilee. When Christ sits at the right hand of the Father on the throne of glory, then faith in him is Israel’s faith in the Lord. 4. Humiliation and exaltation In addition to resurrection Christology in the sense of enthronement, Paul also focuses on kenōsis theology. It builds on a narrative of Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation, a process that leads to heavenly power. This means that Paul’s ideas concerning resurrection are not merely directed by the idea of exaltation. Instead, they comprise the entire passion narrative and Easter message. Sacrificial atonement Christology is thus present in the theological pattern. Christ incarnated adopts the role of the Suffering Servant, brings release and is finally exalted in his heavenly power. This means that the cultic interpretation of Jesus death, deriving from temple service and using temple symbols, was not separate from the idea of exaltation. As noted in the discussion of the Christology of the early church, cultic images gave rise to a priestly interpretation of Jesus’ cosmic role. In his resurrection Jesus has acted as a heavenly high priest. His resurrection can thus be understood both as a sacrificial performance when he takes the offering before God and as exaltation on the throne over which the sacrificial blood is sprinkled. This is how the priestly narrative and enthronement theology merge. One of the essential passages in Paul, the one that has been referred to several times during the analysis, is in Rom 4:25: “[He] was handed over to death for our trespasses.” Raising someone from the dead, then, acquires righteousness on the basis of the substitutional offering. A cultic motif keeps directing the theology focusing on resurrection. What is important in this passage, however, is that the narrative implied is a story about humiliation and exaltation. Therefore, the narrative is not as short as the formulation. Instead, the pattern describes a huge cosmic story about salvation. Further, in Rom 5 Paul first refers to Jesus’ sacrifice: “we have been justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9). This sacrifice secures salvation through Jesus’ life. “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” (5:10). Atonement and exaltation occur together also in the beautiful passage in 2 Corinthians which probably once again builds on previous hymnic material. Such a background is merely an allusion, though, since the structure itself no longer follows no particular rhythm. [O]ne has died for all; therefore all have died.

370

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them. (2 Cor 5:14–15).

The cultic idea of representation is obvious in this passage where Christ takes a substitutional role. Like in Romans 4:25, both Jesus’ death and resurrection make atonement. Therefore, the idea of a priestly role is also present. The unity of such features is then most explicitly expressed in the hymn in Philippians (2:6–11). The motifs of humiliation and exaltation prepare the ground for an bold description of Jesus’ heavenly power. Because it expresses Paul’s ideas so well, we will treat the hymn from a new point of view here.254 The sequence starts with kenōsis, the enigmatic “emptying,” and through the description of Jesus’ execution the story climaxes in enthronement through resurrection.255 Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6–11)

As noted before, this hymn represents high Christology. It becomes clear even in the beginning where three key terms underscore Christ’s unique status. He has the form of God (morfē theou), the likeness (only in this sense equality) of God (isa theō), and the emptying means deprivation of these two (ekenōsen).256 As we address the passage again, we need to focus on the 254

I have chosen to treat this hymn also here as it reflects the purposes of Paul himself. The pattern of humiliation and exaltation that has become important for the apostle, is probably best expressed in this hymnic formulation. See also above, subchapter 3.II.2. This is the locus classicus for arguing both on the early date of preexistence Christology, and high Christology. See already Hengel, Studies, 380: “He who is pre-existent and like God regards his divine form of exitence not as ’a thing to be snatched’, but empties himself, becomes human, and dies the shameful death of a slave on the cross.” 255 See especially Martin, Carmen Christi, 211–215. 256 Gieschen notes that Paul understood “the pre-incarnate angelomorphic Christ” to be “the visible appearance fo God in heaven as an angelomorphic Man.” Gieschen,

VI. The Christology of enthronement

371

issues concerning the structure. This focus will allow us to detect the aspects that express process. The hymn itself is perfect for such an analysis because here the structure itself directs the semantic meaning at several points. “The form of God” is paralleled and strictly speaking opposed by “the form (homoiōma) of a slave.” The word for “form” denotes the essence of an object. In the emptying Christ becomes a real slave, as he has truly been God before. He did not remain in the state where he was in the likeness of God (isa theō) but, instead, was found in human likeness.257 Kenōsis is the most difficult term in this passage. What does it mean when Christ empties himself (heauton ekenōsen)? Could this refer merely to his human nature? Or should one consider the idea of submission? The linguistic counterpoint is “the form of a slave.” Emptying results in slavery. Reading the short passage as a whole, this aspect is important. The opposition between slave and Lord in this hymn suggests that kenōsis is best understood as referring to slavery. The idea of atonement is obvious, especially in v. 8. When Christ humbled (tapeinoō) himself, he did something already known and understood in the Old Testament. In Lev 23:29 the word means to humble oneself by fasting so that Yom Kippur is ushered in correctly. Using this image the author of the hymn has described how Christ has taken up the mission of the Suffering Servant – to the point of death. This is how the eschatological day of atonement can be realized. The same word appears later defining the mission of the Suffering Servant (Isa 53:8 LXX).258 The turning point (dio, v. 9) is clear, and then the description of coronation starts. Here the ideas of exaltation (hyperhypsō), enthronement, the giving of a new name to the one in power, as well as the kneeling of the court, all together express Christ’s extraordinary kingship. Vows of obedience and fidelity are recited: this being now the confession of the congregation stating Kyrios Iēsou (v. 11).259 The Christology of humiliation and exaltation describes the mission of the Davidic figure correctly in the sense of bringing release to the exiled. The Angelomorphic Christology, 329. I can agree with this interpretation as it does not over-emphasize the aspect of angelic figures. 257 High Christology is evident through the crucial terminology. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ 121f., and contra Dunn, according to whom the hymn contrasts the disobedient Adam with Christ and speaks of the self-sacrifice of the human Jesus. Dunn, Paul, 281–288. 258 For the clear parallel with Isa 52–53, and even 45, see Bauckham, Jesus, 43. 259 Gieschen must be also right as he states: “The conclusion that Paul’s understanding of Christ as the Heavenly Man is fundamentally founded upon Ezek 1.26–28 is supported by his explicit identification of Christ as the Glory (2 Cor 3.18; 4.6; 1 Cor 2.8 cf. Eph 1.17).” Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 331. Such a status is obvious also in the hymn. Cf. Bauckham: “The exaltation of Christ to participation in the unique divine sovereignty shows him to be included in the unique divine identity.” Bauckham, Jesus, 45. For the “name,” see Witherington, Narrative Thought World, 183.

372

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

differentiated pattern first proclaims that reconciliation has been impossible without the substitutional action of the Suffering Servant. His obedience has culminated in his enthronement. In the resurrection, the Son of David has been given a heavenly kingship and all the hosts of heaven, as well as the believing community on the earth, worship him. For the author of the hymn, and no doubt for Paul too, this means the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words that predict the future conversion of the deported. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isa 45:22– 23)

For Paul it is thus above all the pattern of humiliation and exaltation that best expresses Christ’s work. He loves the narrative that is able to present Jesus’ cosmic mission in a condensed form. This is Paul’s own Christology, no doubt, even though he constantly uses previous materials and accepted confessions and hymns. This is also the basis for a universalist soteriology. The pilgrimage of the nations can start because all barriers have now been demolished. For Paul, Christology always leads to missionary work. His well-grounded justification for this stems from the fact that the resurrected Lord himself called him to be an apostle of the good news. Summarizing the results of the analysis one can say that, as expected, Paul in his Christology builds on the teaching he has learned in the new community. Christological formulations of the early church have formed the center of early proclamation, directing liturgical developments, confessional formulations, and hymns. In his own work Paul continues the mission, bringing the message of restoration to new lands. He too is convinced that eschatological salvation becomes real as people confess the risen Christ who has been exalted at the right hand of God. Paul is a servant (doulos) of the new Son of David. He preaches atonement and justification to create the obedience of faith in the nations. His message is Christological throughout – and for this reason it cannot be assessed without his understanding of Jesus. Furthermore, it has been personal from the very start: Paul himself has seen the revelation of the Resurrected one.260 He is a witness. He has been commissioned by the heavenly King who has been enthroned in power to rule the kingdom of salvation.

260

Chester is right when remarking that theology must be involved. Even though Paul often refers to the revelations he quite obviously uses previous tradition – and creates his own Christology “applying to Christ traditions of exalted transcendent figures.” Chester, Messiah, 395. I would add that not only the figures but the narratives where different figures have a role were important.

VI. The Christology of enthronement

373

VII. Gathering the new Israel Mission, in a sense, defines Paul. Were there no additional evidence of his use of restoration eschatology on the basis of his other theological themes, his conception concerning the spreading of good news to all nations would bring the issue up. Now that all the other elements have become familiar, it is even more important to focus on this essential issue. Paul’s entire career as Christ’s doulos concerns the proclaiming of Israel’s final renewal. He believes in the God who gathers. Paul walks from village to village and town to town in order to bring the word of salvation to the lost tribes. He always begins by entering synagogues and spends night after night there, meticulously arguing for salvation in Christ. And only then he turns to the Gentiles. He has set out to build an eschatological temple so that also the pilgrimage of the nations, promised by the great exilic prophets, could come true. For Paul, missionary work is above all a work done in the new temple. 1. Service in the new temple New horizons in Pauline soteriology change our understanding of Paul’s premises in his missionary work. He keeps the gathering of Israel in the forefront of his mind so it is not completely correct to depict him merely as an apostle to the Gentiles. He does state in his letters that he has been called and invested with the missionary work among non-Jewish nations (Gal 2:9). Nevertheless, in this thoughts, salvation is always “to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16). He fulfils the principle of gathering quite literally, by attempting to fetch Jews living in the diaspora, one by one, to the renewed basileia. His view is universal, though. He understands that the Son of David is a light for the nations. As Israel is renewed, so other nations shall begin their pilgrimage to the community of salvation. As Jesus did before him, Paul believes that the Lord shall build a new temple that consists of living stones. The new body will be called a temple of the Holy Spirit: “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:19–20). In this passage the community in Corinth is the eschatological temple of God. This is the foundation of Paul’s soteriology and, therefore his parenetic words have the same point of departure. Believers belong to the temple: you are not your own. Temple images are so important to Paul that when he, toward the end of Romans, describes his calling and mission, he takes the metaphors and gives them extended meaning. The apostles are invested with building the temple and, therefore, Paul can depict his own task as participating in a priestly office in the honor of God.

374

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

Nevertheless on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Rom 15:15–16)

Key terms in this passage comprise ministry, priestly service, offering, and sanctification. Paul has developed the idea of Christians serving God in the temple.261 It is true that the idea of the apostle having a priestly role is a metaphor. Nevertheless, the justification for the use of the metaphor is eschatological. This topos can be used in a new context: a minister of Christ works as a priest in the priestly service that has been commissioned by the High Priest himself. Believers, the community of salvation, are brought like a sacrificial (or votive) offering to the Lord.262 The new metaphor completes the first one. As priests in the earthly temple brough offerings to God, they were thankful for God’s good works in their lives. Similarly Paul, showing gratitude for the eschatological restoration, brings saved believers before God as offerings praising God’s powerful gospel. The connection with Jesus’ proclamation could not be clearer. Furthermore, Paul’s missiological view has a trinitarian foundation. When he sets out to define the basic motivation of missionary work, he uses trinitarian expressions. This can be seen in the quotation used above. In his journeys around the known world Paul claims to be “a minister of Christ Jesus.” He brings forward “the priestly service of the gospel of God,” and, finally, the community that is gathered is “sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” This proves that Paul grounds his missionary work in his soteriology. The pattern of salvation history is present here so a narrative can be detected behind Paul’s ideas. The salvation presented by God has its long history in the reality of the exile, and now after Easter, God continues to act in history in order to bring people to the kingdom of salvation. But what about Israel, the first kingdom of God? We have already seen that Paul speaks about the remnant that God has left. In Paul’s lifetime the remnant still exists. But is there any hope for the chosen people in the future? Paul claims that Israel’s fate is intertwined with the Gentile nations. Israel’s hardening is a mystery but, from another perspective, it can be understood in terms of the exile. The exilic condition of the people still prevents most individuals from coming to the Lord. There is a hint of a better future, though. 261

In his monograph on this short passage, the Finnish New Testament professor J. Thurén notes that throughout the presentation to the Romans, similar concepts appear, only in a slightly different context (like thysia in 12:1). Paul, being a leitourgos Khristou in order to bring about hypakoē ethnōn, is parallel to Rom 1:1–5 where Paul is doulos Khristou in order to bring about hypakoē pisteōs. Thurén, Hedningarnas offerliturgi, 20–22. 262 The word Paul uses here, prosfora, is a term for sacrificial offering or votive offering in the Septuagint. Jewett, Romans. 907; cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 158.

VII. Gathering the new Israel

375

Paul is quite rational in concluding that Israel’s fall has been a benefit for other nations. Israel’s hardening heart, therefore, was in the service of universal missiology. It is true that Israel “stumbled over the stumbling stone” (9:32). She was a “disobedient and contrary people” (10:21). Israel killed the prophets sent by God and demolished God’s altars (11:3). The Israelites have stumbled (ptaiō) and are in danger of falling (piptō) outside the scope of salvation: “So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?” (11:11). The members of the fallen people were dry branches which had to be “broken off because of their unbelief” (11:20) and be separated from the true olive tree, the Israel of the promises (11:20).263 The eschatological point is clear, though. As Israel lies scattered on the ground, the gospel will be proclaimed to all the world. There is an original idea in Paul’s soteriology, however, according to which Jews shall later become jealous for pure faith in Christ and then turn to God. Zeal for God gets a new motivation.264 When Israel understands that God has shown his mercy to the Gentiles, she will become jealous for the restoration gospel. “Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (Rom 11:12). The basic principle of salvation never changes, though. Paul speaks of an election by grace: “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace” (“according to the election by grace”, kata eklogēn kharitos, 11:5). In the context of Paul’s soteriology this election by grace can be interpreted as the saving righteousness of God which has now been made known apart from the law (3:21; cf. 11:6). It is justification by faith which is the power of God’s offer of salvation (1:16).265 Paul, therefore, is optimistic about the salvation of Israel. This is an important detail because some scholars have claimed that Paul adopts an antiJudaist attitude. In Romans the case is the opposite. Paul expects the blesssing that comes through Gentile nations to surpass all previous blessings. “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will 263

This may sound harsh but as scholars have noted, a similar thought was in fact a standard Jewish belief. Cf. Westerholm, Mosaic Law, 221–222: “And remnant theology – by which the majority of Jews at given points of history are declared faithless and bound for judgment while the community of survivors, prior to a dramatic turning to God in the ‘last days’, is effectively limited to a minority of Israelites – was no Pauline innovation.” 264 As Dunn notes, this reversal of T. Zeb 9:8 is unique: God “chastises (not rejects) Israel for Israel’s benefit.” Dunn, Romans, 653–654. Cf. Scott, Paul, 132. 265 See also Dinkler, JR 36 (1956) 115. He takes note of the fact that in verse 11:6 Paul opposes “works” to the “call” of God. Wagner, in turn, focuses on the broad outline, according to which the epistle begins with a Christological statement that relates the mission of Christ to God’s chosen people Israel (1:1–4). In 1:16–17 this statement is interpreted soteriologically: for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. In Romans 9–11, then, it becomes clear that “justification, rooted in Christ, has a historical dimension.” Wagner, Eschatology, 99.

376

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

their acceptance be but life from the dead!” Even though the expression “all Israel” has another kind of meaning, as noted in the previous analysis, Israel’s future, according to Paul, is positive. She shall find her Savior, and the days of restoration will be completed.266 In his priestly service of the gospel, Paul adopts the role of a builder of God’s eschatological temple. His intention is to gather the lost tribes of Israel. In doing this, however, Paul is convinced that he has been given a special mission. It is his personal task to take the good news to the Gentiles. He must work so that the eschatologial pilgrimage of the nations can begin. The new temple shall be built with stones from all humanity. It is a mystery that Israel, in her hardening heart, cannot apporach Christ. This is temporary, however. In the future the chosen people, to whom all the promises and metaphors and images have been given, will realize that God’s new temple is an eschatological temple not made by human hands but built by Jesus Christ himself. 2. Paul as the apostle to the nations It is no minor detail that Paul presents himself as an apostle, called by God. He starts almost all his letters by referring to his call. He has been authorized by Jesus Christ and, therefore, his mission is not less important than that of the twelve. The only crucial difference is that Paul presents him usually as an apostle to the nations. This means, firstly, that the other apostles were – as we have seen in the gospels – mainly apostles to the Jewish people. Secondly, one can conclude that Paul had a special vision concerning the salvation of the Gentiles. As noted, the highest authority for Paul’s installation is a vision of Christ. Paul an apostle – sent neither by (ouk ap’) human commission nor (oude di’) for human authorities, but through (alla dia) Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead [...] (Gal 1:1)

In Romans Paul presents himself as Christ’s “slave,” as the word should be translated, “Paul, a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1–2). In 1 Corinthians he is “called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:1). The heavenly vision has such an important role in Paul’s identity for one reason only: he had been one of the worst enemies of the Christian community. “For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (1 Cor 15:9).267 Paul’s role in the Gentile mission, however, was accepted by the other apostles. In Galatians he writes: “when they saw that I had been entrusted 266

Cf. Scott, Paul, 133: “the ultimate goal of the Restoration is that Israel and the nations might worship the Lord together in Zion.” 267 See Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 157–158.

VII. Gathering the new Israel

377

with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised,” the other apostle agreed “that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:7–9). Both of these groups of apostles believed that God will gather the lost into his new kingdom. Paul, however, must have held ferociously to a wide universalist view to support his misson.268 When Paul defines himself as an apostle to the nations he breaks certain rules and demolishes important barriers. The ethnocentric primacy, discussed above in this analysis, did become a problem. The distinction itself (diastolē) becomes impossible (Rom 3:22). In Paul’s universalism God is the Lord of all nations. This should not be offensive considering the universal views presented throughout the Old Testament but, in the Second Temple reality and the context of diaspora Judaism, it apparently became a difficult issue. Why, then, did Paul focus on the Gentiles? The inspiration for his identity can be found in his soteriology. Many different themes unite in the justification of missiology. Since the fallen Israel still lives under the weight of sin, her condition has deteriorated to become like that of other nations. Jews do call the Gentiles “sinners” (ethnē hamartōloi; Gal. 2:15), but this must change.269 This is where we are drawn back to exilic rhetoric. Paul is convinced that hamartia defines not only the Gentile nations but also the present Israel. This is why a salvation that renews the whole of humankind is the same for all (Rom 3:20–26). Even though the claim may sound outrageous, Paul in fact alludes to the texts of the great prophets. Isaiah, for instance, cries out loud: “Ah, sinful nation (ethnos hamartōlon), people laden with iniquity” (Isa 1:4 LXX). And Jeremiah continues: “For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jer 9:25b).270 Paul’s claim, then, is full of irony when he uses the commonly accepted definition of “sinner” in the context of the exilic condition. Paul adopts the exilic tradition that the Gentile nations are given as ransom for Israel. Like God pardons sinful nations, he can also pardon the 268

For Paul’s relation to the other apostles, Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 216–217. 269 For Jews, the Gentiles were sinners not only morally, even though that must have been one element, but rather because of their cultic impurity. There were several rules for avoiding contamination, and these were well known. The argument as such means that Israel itself was considered a holy nation. In Paul’s logic, then, all this has changed, and exilic Israel is no longer holy. This implies that the role of the temple is compromised when cultic impurity defiles the sanctuary. Therefore the eschatological temple can be the only place for salvation. 270 As Paul speaks of Israel’s sins, he “not only flies in the face of what the Jewish believers actually know to be true (v. 16) but also contradicts OT and Jewish tradition. As we have seen, Israel is consistently portrayed not only as having followed after the sinful practices of the nations but also as having gone beyond other nations in doing evil.” Scott, Paul, 131, cf. p. 67.

378

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

fallen Israel. The price for redemption is high, but the result is almost incomprehensible: God forgives the fallen humanity that died in Adam. I would even suggest that ransom theology led Paul to see the depths of how sin corrupts. In that context Adam’s fall and the radical view of hamartia become work together coherently. The final result is mission. God’s gospel, the good news about the divine enthronement that leads to a global jubilee, needs to be proclaimed to all the world. Paul is very much convinced that the risen Christ himself authorized him to work among the Gentiles. Here we need to repeat and build on a previous point. Despite his universal vision, Paul never questions the first principle of restoration, namely that Christ came for the Jews. “Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs.” (Rom 15:8). When he then takes up the promises given through the prophets, the vision of salvation surpasses historical boundaries. Salvation was meant for all the descendants of Adam. For Paul the scribe, the salvation of the nations had been inscribed in the divine word. [A]nd in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name”; and again he says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people”; and again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him.” (Rom 15:9–11)

Royal Christology and resurrection Christology all emphasize that the new kingdom is a universal kingdom. The son of David will have a unique position in the salvation history of the world: as Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope.” (15:12). The idea of the salvation of the Gentiles was not created by Paul, and it was not particularly Christian. Instead, it was a common theme in Second Temple Jewish eschatology. Davidic Christology is thus one of the common denominators for both the mission to Jews and the mission to the Gentiles. In a theological sense, the story about David’s house and his dynasty (2 Sam 7) covers all aspects of the mission. Salvation is about the building of an eschatological temple. The temple will be built by the Son of David who shall be the initiator of the restoration. And the temple will be “a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa 56:7). Thus says the Lord “who gathers,” and this is how “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,” will be brought “to my holy mountain” (Isa 56:6). Paul in his universalism applies precisely this kind of eschatology. For him the ekklēsia he builds is the new temple where the Gentiles too are called to pray to God. In this temple Christ, the root of Jesse, is the Savior who is the “light to the nations” (Isa 49:6; 42:6), and the “mountain of the Lord’s house” is “raised above the hills,” and “all the nations shall stream to it” (Isa 2:2). Paul’s universalist missiology is thus based on the universalist views of the exilic prophets. The view is prominent in Isaiah but well attested also in

VII. Gathering the new Israel

379

several psalms. The nations that have been given as ransom for Israel have been atoned for in Christ’s blood like the chosen people. Paul is convinced that the restoration gospel belongs to all. Christ gathers to himself an eschatological temple from believers coming from the Gentile nations. This is why the good news must brought to all those who have been expelled from the first paradise, Eden, and live now in spiritual exile. 3. Baptism and salvation Paul’s soteriological views can be seen further in his theology concerning baptism. It is quite clear for the apostle that one can become a Christian only by being baptized in Jesus’ name. As Paul speaks about baptism he often emphasizes participation in Christ. He uses metaphors referring to donned vestments, but there is more to it. There is no reason to suspect that he had not expressed his views in ontological terms as well. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27–28)

The first quite logical and natural aspect concerning baptism is washing. It is easy to understand how sin can be identified with dirt that needs to be washed away. The rationale of baptism as a rite is clear. Then, however, Paul does not remain merely in the sphere of repentance and purification. Instead, he holds a view John the Baptist held: baptism of the Spirit. Paul does hold that washing purifies and grants forgiveness of sins but, furthermore, it unites the believer with Christ in the Holy Spirit. When the Messiah baptizes by the Holy Spirit, as John stated, he will move sinners from the realm of spiritual death to the new adoption as children and participation in God.271 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

We know Paul’s views concerning baptism rather well. He has both used confessions that can be connected with the baptismal rite and described the meaning of baptism in some very interesting passages. The most revealing of these can be found in Rom 6, starting with the words: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized,” and continuing: baptized into Christ Jesus [...] were baptized into his death [...] we have been buried with him by baptism [...] just as Christ was raised from the dead [...] 271

Hengel and Schwemer hold that Gal 3:26–28 introduces a baptismal formula that was in use in Antioch, the community where Paul learned most of his Christian tradition. Hengel and Schwemer, Damaskus, 440–441.

380

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

so we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3–4)

The structure of this passage reveals that it is built on the Easter confession appearing in 1 Cor 15 (cf. Phil 3:9–10; Col 2:12).272 Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection form the skeleton on which the theological meaning of baptism is constructed. Paul’s rhetorical device is skillful. He has used the confession that penitents have learned by heart and then, when reminding his readers about the meaning of baptism, he deepens the significance of the event. This passage has several important features. First Paul refers to death and states that believers have died with Christ. His anthropology supports this kind of conclusion. He himself believes that “all die in Adam” (1 Cor 15:22). In baptism this death becomes a spiritual reality, since believers share in Christ’s death. When Jesus died for the sins of humankind, he died as a representative. This substitutional death is now counted to those who approach God and call on the name of Christ. This reveals another feature to which Paul often refers: that death as a power of sin and a destructive, almost personalized power has lost its effectiveness. This death has been conquered by a death (Rom 5:17). This death must be seen as as real as Christ’s death on the cross. He was buried and with him all human hope. The same is true for the spiritual death of the believers. Their death is real, and they also share Christ’s tomb. They have been “buried together,” as the expression goes. Judgment has been put into action. In this situation, new life can be nothing but God’s great miracle. Just as Christ was raised from the dead, believers are raised from their spiritual grave (symbolized in baptism by the person being submerged under water and then raised). God creates both faith and new life by his resurrection. This is life from death. “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Rom 6:5). The Spirit that is given to sinners in baptism is a spirit of adoption as children. This is the Spirit that “bears witness” with our spirit “that we are children of God.” God becomes “Abba” and Jesus’ original mission is completed (Rom 8:14–16). This is how the hyiothesia in Paul’s letters finds its consistent place among the themes of baptism and salvation. Furthermore, the pneumatological principle explains the idea of participation. Believers are “in Christ (en Christō)”. Paul states that converts do not just follow Christ or live in his company. The theology here is ontological by nature. Through participation there is an essential unity with Christ, not deification but participation. Paul teaches that the baptized believer lives “in Christ” and, vice versa, Christ lives in his heart through the Holy Spirit (Col 3:3; Eph 3:17).

272

So already Michel, Römer (1978), 205.

VII. Gathering the new Israel

381

But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Rom 8:9–10)

Paul believes that when people live in faith in the Resurrected one, the power of resurrection creates a seed that will grow into a new creation. “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Cor 5:17). For Paul himself, as noted, this was also a very personal experience: “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). The Spirit of hyiothesia given in baptism, then, also grants future hope. It is guarantee of personal resurrection, the resurrection of the body (Rom 8:11). As Paul’s theology of baptism, linked with his peumatology describing the distribution of the Holy Spirit at the end of days, is part of restoration eschatology, there is one more aspect that needs to be mentioned. In the early Christian community the renewal of the lost, and the pardoning of the condemned, creates superabundant eschatological joy, agalliasis. This term, appearing for instance in Acts 2:46 (and later in Hebr 1:9; Jude 24), refers to the joyous nature of the freedom experienced in the congregation, especially when taking part in the Lord’s Supper. The reality of restoration brings around rejoicing over God’s mercy.273 The biblical backgroud for the theology of agalliasis is in Isa 42: “Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the end of the earth!” (Isa 42:10 LXX).274 In chapter 42 this song was sung to the “Light of the Nations” who would first restore Israel but then become the Savior of humankind. This is the song sung by those rejoicing (agalliasis again) in the release from Babylon (Isa 51:11).275 In Paul the “new song” was above of all the new song, hymn or confessional statement, for the risen Christ. “When you come together, each one has hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” (1 Cor 14:26). The hymn here is described as a fruit of the Spirit, a worship of God for “building up” the congregation. It is paralleled with lessons and revelations. The songs in Colossians serve the same function: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.” (Col 3:16). The new songs, apparently, had a special 273

This is a key feature in Hengel’s study of early Christian hymns, see Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul. 274 Here, following Hengel, I mean the content. The word itself, appearing for instance in Hebr 1:9, derives there from Ps 45:8, defining the joyous role of the Savior. The word itself is common in Psalms referring to the joy experienced in the temple, as well as joy over the restoration (also in 118:15, LXX 117:15). 275 Even though Paul does not use this word, joy appears 17 times in his acknowleged letters. For Paul the kingdom of God is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).

382

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

place in early liturgy, and this explains why New Testament is filled with examples of such formulations (as we have noted in Paul’s text: Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2:6–11; and many shorter texts). The eschatological ekklēsia of Christ which the penitents join through baptism is, for Paul, the place of hyiothesia where renewed people pray to Abba the Father in the Holy Spirit. It is the community that rejoices in Christ’s sacrifice, and the joy of salvation (in Paul: chara) fills the hearts of the people as they sing a new song to the Lord. Baptism, therefore, is an essential element in Paul’s restoration theology both symbolizing the washing away of sins and manifesting the ontological relation to Christ. 4. Eschatology and the creation of the new world If we take a small detour to the great principles of eschatology, it is quite obvious that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection has certain implications that affect the picture of future events. The passion narrative and Easter belief together represent a crucial moment, a kairos, in salvation history. Simultaneously, however, it is clear that the day of wrath has not arrived yet. Therefore, early Christian theologians and Paul with them, have necessarily envisioned an interim period. This is the period when the good news is proclaimed to the nations. Scholars in Lukan studies have called it the time of the church. Paul’s eschatology is mainly directed by the ideas of such an interim where, on the one hand, something new has already begun but, on the other, the tension between kosmos and God is still running high. In his eschatology Paul interprets Jesus’ teaching in the manner of a good apocalyptic theologian. He uses most of the particular themes that Jesus himself uses. In Paul’s text we find what could be called a spiral vision of eschatology. Many effects of the time of tribulation were still present. The preachers of the gospel were constantly in danger and some of the apostles would die as martyrs. As the anti-Christian spirit grew stronger, the opposing forces became even more fierce., Paul consistently proclaimed that the final judgment of the exilic world would come. In his forbearance, God has not punished people but sent his word of gospel to the world, the dikaiosynē theou. God is righteous, though, and he will repay sinners according to their deeds. Therefore the fifth Christological narrative of the early church is important for Paul. All people will be gathered before Christ’s throne as the Son of Man returns for the day of judgment. However Paul maintains the greatest narrative of them all, the restoration of Eden. In his eschatology he describes both the new creation and eternal life with Christ. On the one hand, this is part of his resurrection theology and, on the other, it becomes the final aim of soteriology. The corrupt world will burn in fire, and it will be replaced by a new creation where the purpose of the first creation will be fulfilled.276 276

See for instance Alexander, Eden, 64–65.

VII. Gathering the new Israel

383

In Paul’s early letters the feeling of the nearness of the end is strong. In 1 Thessalonians he greets believers who have “turned to God from idols” and begun to “wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.” (1 Thess 1:9–10). The world has not changed yet. Humanity lives as God’s enemy and God’s wrath will surely beset sinners (Rom 1:18).277 Because of the enmity between the two kingdoms, the followers of Jesus necessarily encounter hardships. Firstly, the believers are continuously tested. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? – unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!” (2 Cor 13:5). Usually this test is a result of thlipsis, the tribulation that constantly threatens Christ’s own people (1 Thess 3:3; 2 Cor 1:4). It comes usually through “distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword” (Rom 8:35). And the scriptural reference to this is desolate: “For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.” (8:36). The people in question are apostles who have been sent like sheep among the wolves. And Paul is convinced: especially those serving the gospel will have to face these hardships (2 Cor 6:4–5).278 It appears to be quite clear for Paul that the events of Jesus’ eschatological apocalypse were to take place in the near future. In 2 Thessalonians, be it Paul’s or a rereading of Pauline tradition, the pattern of eschatology found in the gospels repeats (2 Thess 1:5–2:11). – there will be “rebellion” (apostasy, apostasia) – the lawless one is revealed – the opponent declares himself to be God – he comes in the power of Satan, signs and lying wonders – this is a powerful delusion – the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire – there is a punishment of eternal destruction – he shall destroy the enemy with the breath of his mouth

For Paul the mystery of lawlessness is already at work (2:7). The two kingdoms grow side by side. The spiral of eschatology keeps on course to the end. There is something that prevents – be that any of the altenatives suggested during the centuries – and when it is removed, the time of delusion will arrive. This is a reminiscent of Jesus’ teaching. “And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matt 24:12). There will be an Antichrist who creates a parody of the kingdom of God. His 277

Schreiner, Theology, 536. “Suffering was itself a sign, for Paul in his Jewish context, that one was living between the times, caught between promise and fulfillment, between the passing of sentence on the old world and the final disappearance of evil. Hence the Jewish theme of ‘tribulation’, which Paul recapitulates in a Christian key precisely as part of his ‘not yet’.” Wright, Paul, 1117. 278

384

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

community will have the characteristics of a religion but be directed by violence – filled with action transgressing all God’s precepts. For Christians, however, the future will be glorious. Paul proclaims eschatological hope in resurrection. Even the Lord’s supper proclaimed Christ’s death “until he comes.” (1 Cor 11:26). Paul believed in a dual citizenship with the more important country in the heavenly realm. “But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Phil 3:20). The final proof will be the return of Christ. “For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thess 4:16; cf. Mark 13:26–27). This belief is the foundation of Christian hope. It is a guarantee for the personal salvation that will be realized in the redemption of the body. Paul writes that, “we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence.” (2 Cor 4:14). His views about the future transformation are concrete. “We will not all die,” says Paul, “but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” (1 Cor 15:51–52). Victory over death, for Paul, is the greatest of all God’s gifts. The gospel is not just good news for this earthly life but Jesus Christ has come for a perfect renewal. “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Cor 15:19). Christian hope expects that the Firstborn will raise his own from the dead. Such hope helps to explain one of the most difficult passages in Paul concerning resurrection. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family (among many brothers).” (Rom 8:29).279 Therefore, it is eschatology that solves the problems of interpretation concerning this strong clause filled with meaning. The word for predestined (pro/orizein) has nothing to do with dogmatic ideas of infralapsarian or supralapsarian predestination. Instead, this is resurrection eschatology that concerns all the saved. Paul claims that believers, in their faith in Jesus and their new adoption as children (in baptism, Paul obviously believes), have been predestined, ordered by God’s command, “to be conformed to the image of his Son” (symmorfous tēs eikonos tou hyiou autou). There is nothing to be afraid of because the hardships and persecution of this world (8:18, 35) cannot cancel

279

The interpretation of this passage depends on one’s assessment of the structure. Scholars who speak of five progressive steps from predestination to sanctification (for instance Cranfield, Romans, 432, and Fitzmyer, Romans, 525f.) tend to speak of double predestination (Cranfield more than Fitzmyer). See Eskola, Theodicy, 173– 175.

VII. Gathering the new Israel

385

out God’s predetermined decision. The resurrection of Christ’s own is certain.280 When Paul describes the resurrection in 8:29 he compares Christ to Adam. It is typical of Paul to think that a human being is molded by some kind of image. The descendants of Adam are in his likeness and bear the “image of the man of dust” (1 Cor 15:49; cf. Gen 5:3). Christ, in turn, is the new Adam, the incarnated Son of God who has become the firstborn of the new creation (cf. 1 Cor 15:23). In the resurrection to come, believers shall therefore bear the “image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). It is the new image of the transformed human being. Finally, in the eschatological scheme, the day of wrath comes. The spiral view of eschatology believes that God’s judgment falls on Christ on the cross. Then the day of wrath arrives: “But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Rom 2:5). The basic motivation for Paul’s mission is the same as for Jesus’, namely the inevitable cosmic trial that lies ahead. God is truthful and just. He will “repay according to each one’s deeds” (2:6). In his forbearance God has postponed the realization of the day of trial but, demanded by God’s very essence as just Creator of all, the last judgement cannot be avoided.281 It is the special feature of Paul’s eschatology that in fact Christ takes part in the act of judgment. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil. (2 Cor 5:10)

Again Paul follows both Jesus’ teaching and the Second Temple apocalyptic tradition. God will hold the fallen world responsible for her deeds and the agent for God’s judgment is the Son (cf. Matt 25:31–32). The crucial feature in divine judgment, and the one that answers the ideological accusations made by many later commentators, is that the trial will be just. God’s holy action as the only Lord and Creator of this world is not arbitrary. The assessment of life is juridical, for certain, but there is a perfect motivation for that. The deeds that will be punished have been destroying creation. As Paul says, “you have no excuse, whoever you are.” There is no defence. This is the dreadful nature of the dies irae: “the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done” (1 Cor 3:13; cf. 4:5).282 In a sense the judgment seat of Christ fulfills the great dream of humankind, expressed by dozens of philosophers and authors throughout human history. Perfect justice is possible. The problem of theodicy, which 280

To my understanding, the passage follows the structure from calling to resurrection. The only thing determined here is personal resurrection of the body, and this Paul states as clearly as possible. Eskola, Theodicy, 174–177. 281 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 326–327. 282 Schreiner, Theology, 852.

386

Chapter 4: Paul the theologian

troubled Jewish theologians in the Second Temple period and has agitated many later secular thinkers into launching zealous attacks on God, has posed one persistent question: how could a violent world like this have a good Creator? The day of judgment is the day when love and truth are revealed. All the criteria for the judgment, the details and principles of which Paul has presented in his letters, express the Edenic ideal. For Paul, then, eschatology means the restoration of Eden. He has adopted the large metanarrative where the original garden-temple is now corrupted and needs to be created anew. Paul is quite goal-oriented in his religious life: “I press on toward the goal” (Phil 3:14). Creation itself “will be set free from its bondage” (Rom 8:21), and “glory” will be “revealed to us” (v. 17). Paul speaks of himself as a man who has been “caught up to the third heaven” in a vision and taken “up into Paradise” where he “heard things that are not to be told” (2 Cor 12:3–4). And this is the “commonwealth” in the heavens, (politeuma en ouranois) where believers already hold citizenship. Summarizing Paul’s teachings concerning eschatology one can say that Paul, like his predecessors, believes in the continuation of Israel’s exile. In addition to this we need to speak of the continuation of restoration, as well. Paul describes the two parallel developments of kosmos in its apostasy and the kingdom of God that is the community of salvation. The remnant of the chosen people will be gathered together and the pilgrimage of the Gentiles will start. The Son of David will build an eschatological temple not-made-byhands. Paul’s spiral vision of eschatology implies, however, that also the corruption of the kosmos will develop further. The period of tribulation has not ended completely, even though the spiritual exile is over. The gospel calls people from their state of death into resurrection life. Despite this the world as such will not be renewed before the day of wrath. If this is true, a new question arises. What does restoration mean for Paul, in the end? The apostle proclaims a new creation through the resurrection of the body. As Israel’s restoration is on its way and remains partial until the very last day, the final renewal of the whole creation lies still in the future. It will be revealed in the restoration of the garden-temple Eden. Renewal concerns the whole of humanity, and the corruption of the kosmos will be terminated only when everything is created anew.

Chapter 5

Jewish Christianity I. Jewish Christianity and restoration eschatology The real advantage gained by the new eschatological perspective in biblical theology is that it re-establishes the special role which Jewish Christianity had in the emergence of early Christian theology. Even though one cannot date writings such as the letter to the Hebrews, the Petrine letters, or Revelation very precisely it is apparent that they all stand in a surprisingly uniform early Christian tradition. These writings speak about a spiritual temple and comfort those in the spiritual priesthood that will be oppressed until the day of final liberation. For these believers Israel’s exile has ended – even though the echoes of tribulation can still be heard. They live in a new kingdom that is ruled by the Son of David, the bringer of salvation.1 1. The Letter to the Hebrews: creation of the heavenly temple The letter to the Hebrews is deeply rooted both in Jewish eschatology and Jesus’ teaching. Restoration and liberation, in this letter, are interpreted through the themes of the new temple, atonement, sabbath, jubilee, enthronement of the descendant of David, resurrection, and the new creation.2 The author acts as a teacher who wishes to deepen the understanding of his hearers. He speaks about the high priest and sacrifice. The earthly temple and heavenly temple almost merge into one nevertheless their difference remains important. He is convinced that Christ has come in order to build a temple of salvation, which is how Israel’s restoration begins in the middle of history.

1 The question about “Jewish Christianity” appears for me in a different light in comparison to many scholars in the twentieth century. On the one hand, as Hengel particularly has shown, Judea itself had been Hellenized already centuries before Jesus was born. On the other hand, Paul should be regarded as a very “Jewish” theologian. The Baurian picture about the evolution of early Christian theology can no longer hold. 2 Hebrews has not yet been studied that much from the point of view of restoration eschatology. This is somewhat surprising because the features expressing the adoption and use of the metanarrative are quite clear in the letter. Particular details have been noted, though. See Alexander, Eden, 70–73, 90–94; and Beale, Theology, see especially 727–740.

388

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

In the opening words of the letter the author reminds his readers that the good news presented here reveals God’s intentions: “in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.” He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1:3–4)

Thus even from the very start the author describes how a new spiritual temple is created right after Jesus’ enthronement in resurrection. As the Son of God, the “exact imprint” of God’s being arrives, he brings a perfect sacrifice and a perfect sanctuary. Creation, restoration and new hope are justified by Christ’s sacral offering and heavenly enthronement.3 The temple is important in the letter, of course, and the author is well acquainted with temple customs. He uses the Jerusalem temple as a counterpoint to the eschatological temple in order to explain how the community of restoration fulfills the function of the first temple. Like in Paul, the service of the “old covenant” is Avodat Israel, Israel’s devotional “work” that cannot provide perfection for those following its precepts. Instead, the author calls it a symbol. It does have a function but not one that many earlier devotees assumed. This is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right. (Heb 9:9–10)

The symbol is but a promise. Christ is different because he, according to the author, is the perfect high priest (arkhiereus). This idea is expressed in several ways in the letter. In chapter three Jesus is compared with Moses who in the past gained God’s confidence. Jesus is more because he in his heavenly reality is like Moses who “was faithful in all God’s house [temple]” (3:2). Yet Jesus “is worthy of more glory than Moses,” because he in fact is the creator: “just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.” Christ is no longer a servant. The author states that he is the one who shall build a new temple.4 Christ, however, was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house (oikos) if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope. (Heb 3:6).

The Letter to the Hebrews focuses on a priestly Messiah who has the eschatological role of building a temple that is not made by human hands. 3 For the Christology of Hebrews, see Lane, Hebrews, cxxxix–cxliii; Lindars, Hebrews, 58–101. 4 On Jesus and Moses, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 200–204.

I. Restoration eschatology

389

This temple consists of people who believe in this Messiah. Stones are not mentioned here but the new temple is a community where believers are considered to be priests of Christ’s temple. In the new situation believers have right to approach God as the high priest did before: “Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary [eisodon tōn hagiōn] by the blood of Jesus” (10:19). The new temple is not one “made by human hands” (9:24) but, instead, precisely an eschatological sanctuary not-madeby-hands. In Hebrews, too, we find the idea of God “tabernacling” in the flesh since Christ, “through the greater and perfect tent [tabernacle] (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the the Holy Place” (9:11–12).5 The temple itself is given a metaphoric role in two different senses in Hebrews. First of all, following the Old Testament tradition, the author implies that God’s actual temple is in the heavens (cf. Ps 11:4; 103:19; or Jewish mysticism T. Lev. 3:4). In later Jewish pargod mysticism (Aramaic for curtain), theological speculation concerning the “veil,” God’s heavenly palace was understood as a temple. These ideas are clearly similar.6 The temple veil in Jerusalem not only hides the earthly holy of holies behind it (9:3: katapetasma) but also refers to the transcendent sanctuary in heaven. We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. (6:19–20)

In God’s real temple, therefore, heavenly hosts praise God by worshiping him before the throne of glory. Therefore, it is logical that the author of the Hebrews describes the heavenly hall as a shrine where the priestly office is manifest. Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary [tōn hagiōn] and the true tent [tēs skēnēs tēs alēthinēs] that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. (Hebr 8:1–2)

According to this passage the temple that God himself has made lies in heaven. This is the place where Christ has gone as a high priest. In addition to this, however, the author adapts the idea of the temple representing a microcosm of the whole world. For him the earthly temple in Jerusalem as such represents the first room, the “holy.” It is apparent that in this scheme the courtyards extend to the entire world. The veil remains important here because it starts to represent the boundary between this world and the transcendent. Christ has gone behind that boundary and entered the sanctuary

5 See Beale, Temple, 375–376. The author refers apparently to Christ’s resurrected body here. 6 For the background, see Hofius, Der Vorhang, 4–20; Eskola, Throne, 68–69.

390

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

(skēnē) that can now be called the true (alēthinos) tent. Behind the veil, thus, there is the heavenly Holy of Holies, God’s royal room itself.7 In earlier times God was approached through the first but still outer room because, in the old covenant, he promised that he could be met in the temple. This is where God dwells. As long as this building “made by human hands” remains intact, priests work in the outer room following temple precepts, and the holy area, the holy of holies, maintains its holiness. The great veil cannot be opened, and God cannot be seen. Anyone who even approaches the central room without special permission and blood sacrifice will be destroyed. “By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing.” (9:8). Therefore, there will be a change when God’s eschatological temple will be built. The first tent cannot stand when the restoration begins.8 The author states that Christ can enter the debir because he is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He will not act in the earthly temple, though, since it is merely a picture of the heavenly shrine. Therefore, Christ will make atonement before the throne of glory in the eternal temple in the heavens. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (Heb 9:24)

Christologically, the letter can be read almost as a commentary on Ps 110. This is no minor thing since we saw earlier that this psalm was the most central Old Testament writing for the construction of early Christology. Even the very beginning of the letter describes of Jesus’ eschatological enthronement by referring to this passage.9 But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” (Heb 1:13)

Furthermore, it is significant that the leading theme, namely Christ’s office as high priest, is theologically founded on this same psalm (5:6). These scriptural texts confirm that his ministry has become truly manifest in the 7

The expressions are spatial rather than temporal (referring to the covenants), see Lane who says: “The writer used the terminology of the heavenly sanctuary and the true tabernacle as spatial expressions for the session at God’s right hand,” Lane, Hebrews, 206; cf. also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 402. 8 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 438–439. 9 Psalm 110 is so important for the writer that the letter has been called a midrash on that psalm. Lindars is right in pointing out that the structure of the letter does not support that conclusion. Lindars, Hebrews, 26. Witherington reminds us, however, that from 1:13 onwards the “author goes on to celebrate the exaltation of the Son to God’s right hand, drawing on Psalm 110:1.” Witherington, Letters and Homilies, 62.

I. Restoration eschatology

391

resurrection. According to the author, this is the exaltation that the psalm mentions: “where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (6:20). After this, the new priesthood is treated from different angles in the letter (7:1–28). It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of him, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb 7:15–17)

Using Psalm 110 the author is able to unite the themes of royal enthronement and sacrificial service as a high priest. Like in many early Christian confessions, as we have seen, the Resurrected one is the Son of David who has been exalted “at the right hand of God” on the throne of glory. In his exaltation, however, Christ also performs a priestly service, just as Psalm 110 suggests (Heb 8:1). He becomes a new Melchizedek who rules as a messianic king until the final day of judgment. This is the moment when the final subjection of the enemies, also mentioned in the psalm, will take place (Heb 10:12–13). Finally, towards the end of the letter, the crucified Lord who has been exalted at the right hand of God is presented as the proper object of faith, the true foundation, and one who shall also make faith perfect (12:2). The Christology in Hebrews reminds us of that in Paul’s letters. Jesus is the one who completes the kingship of God in Israel. The enigma of exile and restoration is solved in royal Christology. Israel’s hope is not in the Jerusalem temple. It is not even in some kind of restoration of the temple service as such. Instead, the earthly temple remains the “first room” whose role in God’s plans has ended. Earthly temple shall be destroyed. It shall no longer be remembered when the messianic temple with its living priesthood replaces it. The new community is the garden-temple of the new creation where God himself dwells. It is filled by the Shekinah since the Holy Spirit lives in the hearts of the believers.10 Connection to Jewish mysticism remains strong in the letter. According to the author, the time of liberation begins after the eschatological enthronement of the descendant of David. When Jesus is raised “at the right hand” of God in his resurrection he is praised as the ruler of the kingdom of peace. Believers put their faith in Jesus. He is worthy of all the celebration and worship that had previously been directed to God alone. On the throne of glory Christ reigns as the king of Israel. There is also an interesting link between resurrection Christology and atonement in the letter. Christ, appearing as a new Melchizedek, serves as a priest in the heavenly temple. Stepping behind the great veil (6:19) he enters the heavens (9:24). In the heavenly debir Christ faces the mercy seat 10

The use of Ps 110 in Hebrews is investigated in detail in Hengel, Studies, 151– 171. He also makes interesting comparison with the traditions behind Paul.

392

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

(hilastērion, 9:5), and here he makes atonement for humankind: “who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God” (9:14).11 [H]e entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. (Heb 9:12)

In a pesher on the Yom kippur story (Lev 16:15) the author explains how temple worship teaches about Christ’s office. Sacrifice is the condition sine qua non for any attempt to approach God. Only blood can take sins away and reconcile the tension between the sacred and the profane. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. (9:22–23)

The cover of the ark is depicted as a “mercy seat” because this is the spot where sacrifice gains reconciliation. This is the place of mercy. In Jewish theology the mercy seat had been used in a metaphorical sense to explain the significance of a martyr’s death (4 Macc 17:22). In Hebrews the metaphoric use is different. Jesus himself becomes a mercy seat for any sinner who seeks atonement. Also in the imagery of Hebrews, the Lamb sits on the royal throne and grants forgiveness (4:16). Furthermore, in chapter 12 there is a beautiful description of the gardentemple that can now be attained through the community. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Heb 12:22–24)

The author writes in the tradition of Jewish mysticism describing God’s Eden as Mount Zion. The heavenly Jerusalem is the city of God where the whole of reality appears as the new paradise and where God dwells among his people with heavenly beings who serve him by praising his name forever and ever. This garden is identified with an assembly that the new Adam, God’s firstborn, has founded, an assembly of the firstborn and this, finally, is the place where believers are made perfect. Similarities between this passage and Revelation are striking.12 11 For the character of Melchizedek in the theology of the letter, see Witherington, Letters and Homilies, 227–230. “What is striking about all this high priest language is that our author in this one concept has a way to bridge both the earthly and heavenly work of Christ, for Christ offers the sacrifice on earth, then takes the blood into the heavenly sanctuary and intercedes for us on an ongoing basis and proclaims sins forgiven.” (p. 230). 12 On the relationship between the temple and the holy mountain, see Barker, Gate of Heaven, 64; Alexander, Eden, 46. Cf. Beale, Theology, 321.

I. Restoration eschatology

393

The head of the community is Jesus who is depicted as a sacrifice and a sacrificial priest, which is only natural in this letter. He is a mediator of a new covenant. Once more a reference to exilic times is obvious. A covenant is about a relationship, and Israel’s (or Israel’s and Judah’s) relation to her God has been broken in the two major crises that cast a shadow over the history of the people. A new covenant is necessary. This constellation also has all the needed elements: a mediator and blood of the covenant. Another feature favors the universalism in this passage. Jesus’ sacrifice surpasses that of the first martyr Abel whose blood “is crying out” from the ground (Gen 4:10). As the first victim’s blood cries for justice and reconciliation, the last sacrifice makes atonement for the entire fall of humankind. Clearly Jesus’ new covenant concerns the whole of humanity, all the descendants of Adam.13 Since the concept of covenant as such does not refer to a stable substance but a relationship, the heart of sustaining any covenant is that both parties follow the requirements, usually precepts that have been decreed. In Hebrews, the nature of the covenant is explicated in detail in chapter 8. By referring to Jer 31 the author states: The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concerns for them, says the Lord. (Heb 8:8–9)

In the Old Testament, the object of the confession of the first covenant was the Lord “who has brought us out of the land of Egypt.” As we saw in the analysis, this confession evolved when the exile altered the theological horizon (Jer 16:14–15).14 Keeping the Sinaic covenant meant Israel’s wholehearted service, the Avodat Israel. According to the author, the content of this covenant was not weak as such. The old covenant had grown old because it was broken. This is also the conclusion at the end of chapter 8. “In speaking of ’a new covenant,’ he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear” (8:13). So the letter to the Hebrews has a strong sense of discontinuity with Jewish history.15 The aspect of discontinuity is emphasized especially when we consider the constant threat of tribulation in the letter. The examples taken from the 13

See Lane, Hebrews, 472–474. See chapter 1.I.1. 15 Lane states that due to the use of Jer 31 in 8:8, “the accent falls on discontinuity.” Lane, Hebrews, cxxxiii. Lindars notes that, throughout the letter, the author shows the consequences of apostasy. Lindars, Hebrews, 68. It is justified to assume that both epideictic rhetoric and the hortatory nature of all the admonitions express a similar view (cf. Witherington, Letters and Homilies, 43–46), namely that abandoning the new gospel will result in a relapse to the exilic condition and living with God’s wrath. 14

394

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

scriptures are to be expected in this context: “do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion” (3:8). The eschatological sabbath rest and jubilee was to come (4:9). Believers will “cease from their labors” when the day of relief arrives (4:10). Apostasy, however, remains under God’s wrath (4:3). The Christian community must still live through the time of tribulation, “hard struggle with sufferings,” “abuse and persecution” (10:32–33). The examples of the faithful, from Abraham to the prophets and beyond, prove that terrible abuse has been the fate of true believers from generation to generation. Only a remnant will be saved, and it is saved through suffering. It is no wonder, therefore, that the day of restoration is called a new covenant in this letter. According to Hebrews, it is a “better covenant” and it has a “more excellent ministry than the previous one. In addition to this, the new covenant is the new community, garden-temple, Eden, where the God of the covenant dwells among his people. The better covenant is based on divine atonement, God’s eschatological restoration that promises a renewal in the Spirit.16 According to Hebrews, Christ appears as a Davidic prince who, after his sacrifice is raised to God’s heavenly temple as an eternal high priest. After his eschatological enthronement he inaugurates the era of a true jubilee, the time of peace and reconciliation. He appears as a temple builder who grants restoration to any penitent that comes to him. The new community is a new creation, a true garden-temple where God dwells among his people. In this sanctuary believers glorify the Lord and celebrate the ending of the time of destruction by praising the royal Son of God who sits enthroned at the right hand of God on the throne of glory. 2. The Letter of James: community that celebrates a jubilee The Letter of James has always raised heated theological discussion with its original Jewish Christian nature and individual soteriological emphasis. Even writers other than Lutheran scholars have speculated on its presentation of justification theology since it has been difficult to sort out. In the light of the new perspective, however, the letter appears as a consistent didactic sermon that builds on the central ideas of Jesus’ message.17 Despite all the suspicion cast on the content and aims of the letter, the Letter of James is a true representative of restoration eschatology. The letter is directed to the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion,” and the text starts with an encouragement for believers who “face trials” in their life. The author speaks 16 This letter shares this feature with Paul, as we have seen. Also Paul, when actually using the word covenant, speaks of it as the “new” covenant. 17 Most readers know Luther’s negative position about this topic since the letter does not present justification by faith alone. Instead, the writer appears to oppose it and this feature made the letter an enigma among the letters of the New Testament. For Luther’s views, see Maier, Jakobusbrief, 10–11.

I. Restoration eschatology

395

about an eschatological jubilee where the meek are raised up and the rich “brought low” (Jas 1:9).18 The basic nature of salvific faith, in this letter, is defined in a way similar to any letter in the New Testament. The community of the new tribes is a product of God’s new creation: “In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (1:18). Salvation is based on God’s promise, it is delivered by proclaming the word of truth, and divine mercy bears good fruit. Faith, according to James, is faith in Jesus Christ who is Lord (Kyrios): ekhete tēn pistin tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Khristou tēs doxēs (2:1). Therefore the object of faith is the same as in Pauline tradition. Furthermore, Jesus is depicted as the Lord of glory (doxa). This means that anyone belonging to James’ congregation has adopted the eschatological belief that Jesus, in his resurrection, has been exalted in heavenly power. After his enthronement he sits on his throne as the Lord of the new kingdom. The key elements of early Christology can thus be found also in the letter of James.19 Seen from this perspective, it is no wonder that the community that James describes is the group of people to whom a real jubilee has come. “Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?” (2:5). This is a community where God raises the meek, debts are forgiven and sins are washed away. The author uses Jesus’ words and applies them into the situation of his community. By the help of Gospel tradition he is able to present the opposite alternative in a straightforward way as well.20 Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. (Jas 5:1–4)

These are the people of the spiritual exile: they have “lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure” (5:5) and they have opposed both God’s message and messengers: “you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.” The final argument in this exilic rhetoric focuses on Jesus’ fate in the period of tribulation. “You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.” (5:6). This is the generation that still kills the prophets. A few lines later the author admonishes his readers to make the prophets an “ex-

18

Laato, in turn, reminds us that even the first chapter speaks about God’s eschatological creation that focuses on new birth. Laato, Jakobus, 91. 19 See Marshall, Theology, 634. 20 Beale writes: “God’s people begin to participate in the new creation even before their final physical resurrection at the end of the age.” Beale, Theology 322.

396

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

ample of suffering and patience” because Jesus’ followers are not expected to find an easier way than their predecessors.21 The positive surpasses the negative in the letter, though. Jesus’ enthronement has started the final jubilee and, therefore, these believers live in the era of forgiveness. When God chooses the poor, he also admonishes the heirs of the kingdom to keep the royal law. “You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” (2:8–9). It is not possible for a penitent to join the community and yet live like God’s enemy.22 And yet it is here where the debate on justification finds its solution. James proclaims: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (2:17). Anyone remaining in his or her previous lifestyle, living according to his or her own will and selfishness, still lives in spiritual exile. Such people have not found their way to salvation and they do not yet belong to Israel’s restoration. James describes Christian obedience, not salvation on the basis of Avodat Israel. He just emphasizes that justification cannot remain without works because that would be a sign of spiritual death. Even Abraham who was undoubtedly the patriarch of the promise was not left without works because “faith was active (pistis synērgei) along with his works” (2:22).23 James does not contradict Paul on this issue. Quite the contrary, there is a perfect parallel in Paul’s letters for this kind of theology.24 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Gal 5:13–14)

James is concerned about the danger of “antinomism,” the rejection and abandoning of the precepts of the law altogether. Some of his expressions reflect the suspection cast over Paul in certain debates behind Romans. Some 21

The character of the righteous sufferer appears in many forms in James. First of all, the readers as well as the author live in the period of tribulation. Jesus too was a Suffering Servant who acquired release for his people. Martin, James, xciii–xcviii. See also Marshall, Theology, 630–631. 22 Martin notes that there is an eschatological motif in the letter: “belief in a creator-God who places all things ’in order’,” Martin, James, xcii, 67. 23 Concerning the well-known debate over synergism, we should note that James writes “pistis synērgei,” not that human beings work with God for salvation. Faith is there all along and is active with one’s works. This is a result of justification. So also Maier, Jakobusbrief, 60. 24 For the debate on the issue of faith and works, see the excursus in Martin, James, 82–84. Laato has written a short monograph on the issue and points out that, considering the eschatological and soteriological points of departure, James and Paul teach in a similar way about sin and salvation. Laato, Jakobus, 49ff. See also Isaak, Theology, 202–205.

I. Restoration eschatology

397

theologians assumed that Paul lived his freedom to such a degree that he lived against the divine law. Paul himself refers to such presumptions by saying : “Let us do evil so that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). In his letters, and especially in Romans, Paul answers his accusers. His view on Christian obedience, like in the quotation above, is as strict as that of James’. Neither James nor Paul accepts rigorious nomism. They oppose both legalism and antinomism. They live in the eschatological awareness where believers wait for Christ’s parousia (Jas 5:7). The day of righteousness is at hand: “The Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9). Hence persistence in faith brings salvation. And this is the basic motivation for mutual care: “whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death “ (5:20). Furthermore, when James describes sin, he speaks like Jesus and Paul. The primary source for sin is lust, as Jesus elaborated in the semon on the mount (4:1). This is also Paul’s main target in several passages (Rom 6:12). Both James (4:16) and Paul warn Christians against pride and boasting. Read in the light of restoration eschatology, the Letter of James may be regarded as the most original version of an intertextual reading of Jesus’ sayings – Hebrews excepted. Eschatological liberation starts when Christ is enthroned on the throne of glory. He is the true sacrifice of the community of salvation and all sins are forgiven in his blood. The first event inaugurates the final jubilee where God raises the meek and “chooses the poor.” In this letter, as in all the examples we have studied, God’s power is revealed through weakness. And finally, the letter itself witnesses to an eschatological outreach: these words are directed to those living in the diaspora. God’s gospel will be preaced to every nation and will save people from eternal death. 3. The First Letter of Peter: on heavenly priesthood The letters of Peter no doubt belong to Jewish Christian tradition even though they are usually held to be somewhat earlier than many other letters. They are located in Rome and Babylon, which is mentioned at the end of the first letter. They clearly adhere to Pauline tradition especially in the first letter. First Peter is meant for circulation, probably in Asia Minor, Paul’s previous area. Congregations live under persecution but their hope is strong. The beginning of the first letter provides a small catechism of Christian faith: By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Pet 1:3–5)

Restoration eschatology is expressed in terms of the new creation that continues the transformation of “new birth” into new hope. Believers anticipate an imperishable reality that will become manifest when the time of

398

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

tribulation ends.25 Since eschatological salvation is based on the gospel of redemption that will be “revealed” in the last days, the idea of an eschatological temple is clear in the letter. A new sanctuary needs to be built. According to the writer, the community is the house of God and believers are a holy priesthood. The image of the temple of salvation receives the clearest treatment here among New Testament writings, apart from the gospels.26 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 2:4–5)

Old Testament passages are used here as the author wishes to explain the foundation of the concept of a spiritual temple. The scriptural prooftext is similar to that of Paul’s (Rom 9:33). The first reference is to Isa 28: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious” (as quoted in 1 Pet 2:6). The eschatological temple will be founded on a Messiah with the stability of a cornerstone. Fallen Israel rejects this stone, just as Ps 118:22 predicts (cf. Matt 21:42). For the community of salvation, this rejected stone (the new temple) becomes a cornerstone (1 Pet 2:7). This is the same idea that was seen earlier in a catena that Paul used in his letters. The very same rock will become a stumbling block for many. According to Isaiah this problematic rock is God himself: “He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over – a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Isa 8:14).27 In the Christology of the early Church, Ps 118 has from the very start been connected with the Isaian idea of God as a stumbling block. The messianic king who is rejected will become a cornerstone of the eschatological temple. So also in 1 Peter, Christ himself is the “living stone” and, respectively, the temple itself (hierateuma hagion) will be constructed of believers who also are living stones (lithoi zōntes). In the eschatological temple the members of the congregation are priests and a holy nation (ethnos hagion), a people who live in community with God and among whom God dwells.28

25

Beale, Theology, 325–326. “Having announced that they were redeemed by the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, Christ (1 Pet. 1:18–19), who was slain to accomplish the new and greater exodus, and having called them to gird up the loins of their minds and be holy (1:13– 16), Peter heralds an Isaianic return-from-exile text.” Hamilton, God’s Glory, 524. 27 See Beale, Temple, 332. 28 Witherington comments: “But in fact we have not just one metaphor, but two: the stone and the house, the latter referring to the house of God, which is being composed of living stones and has as its most important stone Christ himself.” Witherington, Indelible Image I, 351–352. 26

I. Restoration eschatology

399

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Pet 2:9–10)

This scriptural text confirms the belief that Israel living in exile has been pardoned and she can once more be God’s holy people. Another quotation from the book of Hosea (1:6–10) reminds us of the severity of the punishment. Hope is there, though, and restoration will come. As God grants his pardoning he sends a precious cornerstone and the converted people will be sanctified to serve as a holy priesthood. It should not be a great surprise that the letters belonging to the Jewish Christian current in early Christianity exhibit clear signs of the use of restoration eschatology. In most of the letters, the metanarrative of exile and restoration is usually adopted as is. The authors believe that the community that is emerging throughout the Roman empire is God’s eschatological temple, the sanctuary that the Son of David himself builds, and it consists of living stones. Christ is depicted as the high priest of the new temple and reconciliation is gained through his heavenly ministry. The spiritual exile is over and believers have been born into a living hope. The anticipated resurrection will renew all Christ’s own and take them into the final temple where God dwells, the recreated garden of Eden.

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology It is to be expected that the Gospel of John works well with the theory of restoration eschatology’s important throughout the New Testament. Temple imagery is significant in John and developed beyond the its appearance in the Pauline letters. I will not delve too deeply here into the relationship between history and tradition in John because my emphasis rests on the role of the narrator. Nevertheless, new findings in the sphere of narrative analysis have helped scholars to locate John with increasing accuracy in the tradition history of early Christianity. 1. Spiritual exile comes to an end The basic story in John builds on the same eschatological pattern as found in the other gospels. From this perspective, the fourth gospel is not that different from the synoptics. The story starts with John the Baptist who steps forward as the forerunner of the Lamb who shall start the eschatological renewal. Unlike other gospel writers John does not call him Elijah, however, but merely uses the expression “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness.” The message remains the same, though, because his task is to

400

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

prepare the way for the Lord (John 1:23).29 In John this expression also refers to the road along which the deported shall return to the promised land, on the day when the agony of the exile is over. The special emphasis in John is that the Baptist will “testify to the light” (1:7). One more motif from Isaiah is brought into the picture. The beginning of John has been a subject of speculation because Jesus’ first miracle at Cana is followed by the demonstration in the temple. This must be intentional, even though this placement creates differs greatly with the other gospels. John clearly wants to present a summary of Jesus’ message as he outlines the story: both the very start and the climax of Jesus’ career at the temple court proclaim the same message.30 The story about the first miracle at Cana reveals the core of Jesus’ mission. The renewal of the Spirit (symbolized by the wine) will be poured into cold stone vessels – vessels (cf. purity laws) that have this far served cold ritualism (John 2:6). This miracle was “the first of his signs (arkhē tōn sēmeiōn)” in a long series that starts here. Signs are important in John because they not only serve as basis for faith but are signs of a new reality, the inauguration of restoration.31 The story of the demonstration as such follows the lines of the synoptic tradition. One difference is that the Old Testament quotations found in the synoptics have been changed into direct speech. “Stop making my Father’s house a market-place.” (John 2:16). Should one think that here, more than in Mark and the other gospels, the focus is in commercial activity? Not necessarily. Money changers are no doubt compared with merchants but, read in the light of the synoptic tradition, the hermeneutical rationale must be in something else other than money. As Jesus drives the sheep out of the temple and pours out the coins, he clearly attacks the sacrificial system. According to John, then, the story hopes to illuminate Israel’s exilic condition. When unrepentant sinners collect the temple tax for the sacrifices, they become nothing but merchants whose work is done in vain. And as Zechariah predicted, when the day of salvation arrives, “there shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord of hosts”

29 One should not put too much weight on John’s denial of being Elijah; the idea is just to deny that he would be the prophet himself who has been revived, as some Jews probably assumed and even expected. His role remains the same here as in the synoptic gospels. 30 Coloe suggests that the reason why the story of the temple demonstation is so early in John is “because this pericope provides the reader with both an explicit hermeneutical key for interpreting the Johannine Jesus as the new ‘Temple,’ and a paradigm for further scenes in the use of Johannine symbolism and misunderstandings.” Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 84. 31 See Thielman, Theology, 162–163. Scholars speak of an entire “Book of Signs” in John that culminates later in chapter 11, just before the long passion narrative starts. See Witherington, Indelible Image I, 579–586. On the question of sources behind John, see Isaak, Theology, 156–157.

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology

401

(Zech 14:21).32 In the narrative of the gospel, the temple incident is accompanied by a debate with Jewish traditionalists. The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. (John 2:18– 21)

The motif of the new temple is so clear in this passage that the opposition to the present temple becomes extreme. Jesus in fact states that the Jews themselves shall destroy the temple. “His words to ‘the Jews’ interpret his deeds, indicating a future time when they would destroy the Temple and he would raise it up (2:19).”33 In this important passage, then, the Herodian temple is identified with the first temple and its fate. When Jews reject the Son of God, their temple shall be demolished just as the Solomonic temple was after the people had abandoned the Lord. The eschatological temple of salvation, in turn, will be the temple that Jesus builds, “in three days,” namely the temple of the resurrection and belief in the resurrection. It is noteworthy that the narrator adds especially that, “he was speaking of the temple of his body.” Jesus thus directly referring to himself as a temple.34 As we analyze the implications of the metanarrative, it becomes quite evident that Israel’s spiritual exile is underscored in several passages in the gospel. The focus of Jesus’ teaching in John is similar to that in the synoptic gospels. Israel lives in sin and cannot attain the salvation that comes from God. Several prominent representatives are held up as examples of spiritual ignorance, and Nicodemus is the first of these. “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?” (3:10). The age of the Spirit is about to start and the expectation of Jewish apocalyptic will be fulfilled. Jesus proclaims the arrival of the kairos and states that only those who are born from above may see the kingdom of God (3:3).35 Jewish scribes do not understand the role of the man who was cured at Bethesda and its tremendous significance in God’s history of salvation (5:16). Jewish teachers debate Jesus’ authority and fail to notice God’s work: “You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.”

32

So also Kerr, Temple, 80–81. Kerr states that John, in his interpretation, deliberately uses the word alluding to Zechariah 14. 33 Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 215. Cf. also Kerr who interprets Jesus’ words, said after the fierce demonstration, so that they express bitter irony and mean: “Finish what you have begun!” – and destroy the temple. Kerr, Temple, 101. 34 See Beale, Theology, 633. 35 “The return-from-exile themes continue in John 3 as Jesus tells Nicodemus of his need to be born of water and spirit in terms reminiscent of Ezekiel 36:25–27.” Hamilton, Theology, 410.

402

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

(5:37–38). They do not recognize that Jesus is Israel’s true Messiah: “when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from” (7:27). A similar attitude is discussed in the debate over Abraham in chapter 8. “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did” (8:39). Fallen Israel does not live according to Abraham’s faith. Instead, it has maintained the tradition of violence so the days of tribulation are inescapable: “but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (8:40). “This is not what Abraham did.” (v. 40b). Like their fathers before them, Jesus’ opponents in the gospel of John persecute God’s messengers and kill the prophets.36 There is a parallel also for the synoptic theme of children of Belial. In John, his opponents suggest that Jesus is an apprentice of the devil: “Now we know that you have a demon.” (8:52). Jesus anwers all the accusations with sharp exilic rhetoric:37 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. (John 8:44–45)

All this proves that, in John’s narrative, Israel lives in exile. She has abandoned the living God and serves the will of God’s enemy, Satan. This explains why Israel still kills the prophets that God sends her. Satan is a murderer and the father of lies. For John, unbelief proves that Israel has gone astray, and the predictions of the prophets have turned out to be true. Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:37–38)

The passage from Isaiah describes the gospel that will be proclaimed to the deported.38 They prepare the ground for the presentation of the Suffering Servant. There was “nothing in his appearance” that would interest the mind of the apostates. The Servant will be despised and rejected. This picture is 36

See Schreiner, Theology, 518; Hamilton, Theology, 411. Alexander links this theological theme to a wider context: “The contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth is striking. Here we encounter the idea that human beings may by their actions be perceived as belonging either to the unrighteous ‘offspring of the serpent‘ or to the righteous ‘offspring of the woman’.” The distinction is evident in John and repeated in 1 John 3:10–12. Alexander, Eden, 107– 108. 38 The Old Testament background proves that echoes of exilic reality can be seen in this gospel. Evans adds that both the good shepherd theme and the true vine discourse (John 15) in John’s gospel contain elements of restoration theology. Evans, Word and Glory, 28–39. 37

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology

403

emphasized in John by quoting another passage from Isaiah (Isa 6:9–10), now only seen from the perspective of God’s work: “He has blinded their eyes.” This passage has Pauline overtones. In John, then, Israel lives in spiritual exile. God has sent the Son for them, but salvation is not easily attained: “for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:43). Those, however, who see and understand, will be taken to the new temple. 2. The eternal word tabernacling in the flesh The theological horizon in John is wide. Even in the prologue, Jesus’ mission is interpreted in terms of his entire cosmic vocation. The subject of creation governs the beginning of the gospel. John’s Christology is presented in a clear way in the prologue’s beautiful hymn. Here Jesus is depicted as the Word of creation. The key term “beginning” (arkhē) unites the description with Genesis. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (theos ēn ho logos). He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. (1:1–3).

It was typical of early Jewish Christianity to present Jesus as the agent of creation. His participation in the first creation prepares the ground for his new creation in the resurrection. In Colossians the presentation is as beautiful as it is here: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created” (Col 1:15–16; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2–3). In John, Christology evolves around incarnation. The word becomes flesh as divine wisdom by the help of which the world was created. According to several scholars, there are echoes of Exodus in John 1:14–18. First, the expression “grace and truth” has given rise to the suggestion that behind the prologue lies the story of the divine epiphany in Exod 33–34.39 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (1:14)

But there is more. As we have noted before, the word expressing that God “dwells” in his temple has been changed to a word that, originally as a substantive, denotes the temple itself. This kind of solution is supported by the Septuagint text of Exod 25:8–9. John thus refers intentionally to Old

39

See Evans, Word and Glory, 79–80; Kerr, Temple, 117–119. Kerr suggests that Exod 34:6 is of special importance here.

404

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

Testament terminology where God is said to “tabernacle” (kataskēnoō) among his people in the temple.40 As noted earlier, John uses the Septuagint when describing Jesus as the real temple of the final restoration. “And the Word became flesh and lived among us (eskēnōsen)” (John 1:14). He uses Old Testament terminology where God is said to “tabernacle” (kataskēnoō) among his people in the temple. There are also other passages where similar terminology occurs. In Ezekiel the new eschatological temple will be the place where God dwells again: “this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside (kataskēnoō) among the people of Israel forever” (Ezek 43:7a). What is important is that the “house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name” (v. 7b). According to John, thus, Jesus the incarnated Word has in his person become a temple on earth. As Hahn says: “John’s Gospel depicts Jesus’ body as the new tabernacle, the new locus of divine presence on earth.”41 The appearance of this temple marks the beginning of the new creation and the restoration of the exiled people. A similar tenet can be found in the Bethelstory in John 1:51. Earlier, when investigating the content of the short teaching in the context of synoptic material, we noted that Jesus’ answer to Nathanael discloses the place of the real Bethel. The Son of Man has become the place of God’s presence in this world.42 Sending (apostellō) is important in John, and it has a soteriologial purpose (3:18). The Word sent to this world was God (theos ēn ho logos ). Later this idea is even more emphasized. “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” (1:18). The strong expression here claims that the “only Son” is in fact “the only begotten God (monogenēs theos)”, who is “in the bosom of the Father” (AV).43 The term monogenēs is somewhat complex. In verse 14 it denotes the Son who is the “One and Only” (< ginomai) and has glory from the Father. Similarly, then, in verse 18 this “One and Only” “has broken the barrier that made it impossible for human beings to see God, and has made him known.”44 In 3:16, the word occurs again, as God “gave his only (monogenēs) Son.” Jesus is Logos and the embodiment of the eternal Torah and, therefore, he is God. This is why the perfect term to describe him is monogenēs. Why is the term the “only son” linked with sacrificial theology? It works very well with the story of the Akedah. God has chosen the sacrifice and handed him over to death for the atonement of sins. Hence God’s own work 40

Kerr, Temple, 122. Hahn, Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 128. 42 See chapter 2.II.5. For the content, Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 215. 43 According to the approved reading, theos, in the oldest manuscripts. See Michaels, John, 91–92; Carson, John, 128. 44 Carson, John, 134. 41

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology

405

and sacrificial love is, in John, the foundation of eschatological salvation. Everyone “who believes in him may not perish” (3:16b). This is one of the reasons why altruistic love is at the core of the gospel. Faith in Jesus’ divinity culminates in Thomas’ confession: “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). Anyone recognizing that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah knows also that he is the Lord and God of the congregation.45 High Christology in John, therefore, focuses on two aspects. First, it is founded on the idea of incarnation. Second, it emphasizes that the incarnated Son is God “tabernacling” in the flesh. Jesus has become the place of divine presence. This reality is quite hidden in the synoptics, but John brings it into the open. These may touch though through the similar confession – usually Peter’s – that appears also in the other gospels. In the twentieth century, Käsemann claimed that John emphasizes Jesus’ glory so much that it turns into a “naive docetism” in the sense of unreflective docetism.46 In the post-Bultmannian vein, Strecker still accepts this view for the most part, saying that John has also ideas that are antidocetic.47 Another adherent of the same school, however, Schnelle stresses the incarnation and moves to the antidocetic direction.48 Later scholars have usually abandoned the docetic interpretation because, in the Christology of the prologue, the Logos becomes flesh and the reality of incarnation need not be questioned. John’s narrative has been called a prolonged passion story and this alone proves that, for the narrator, Jesus’ suffering is real. The theology of the cross is almost as clear as in Paul (1:29, 36; 3:16; 6:51). Even though high Christology permeates the treatment of Jesus throughout the gospel, the theology here is not docetic. Instead, it underscores the belief in the resurrection that is present everywhere. If anything, the treatment of Jesus’ story in John is dogmatic, meaning that each phase of his life is explained in the context of the final outcome.49 Interpreting the Gospel in terms of the investigated metanarrative supports the latter view. Jesus becomes flesh in a world that does not welcome him. The time of tribulation is hard, and John the Baptist, Jesus himself, and his disciples are persecuted at all times. The restoration can start only after severe suffering. There is nothing docetic in this. Instead, John’s presentation implies the adoption of the figure of Suffering Servant, even though the narrator adapts and develops the motif in his theology.

45

Matera, Theology, 287. His view is still supported by Räisänen, Rise, 219. 47 See Strecker, Theology, 482: “his work includes views that do tend in the direction of docetism, as well as ideas that are more antidocetic.” 48 “The incarnation affirms the full participation of Jesus Christ in the creatureliness and historicalness of all being. God himself thereby becomes subject to truly human existence.” Schnelle, Theology, 674. 49 See Hurtado, Lord Jesus, 394–395; cf. Hengel, The Johannine Question, 16, 61. 46

406

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

Throughout the Gospel Jesus is the Son who “gives life to the world” (6:33). God has given him “authority over all people” so that he can grant “eternal life” to sinners (17:2). John lives in the reality where the Son of God is the Lord of the new community. This is why he teaches his readers the greatest secret in the history of humankind: Word becomes flesh. This is how he is able to describe the mission of the incarnated Deity in this world. Jesus is God and man in one person. This shows how John’s theology is basically dependent on the pattern of salvation history. Restoration becomes real through pistis. “Those who believe in him are not condemned” (3:18). Jesus keeps asking people: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (9:35). And finally Martha becomes a paradigmatic confessor: “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (11:27). Temple imagery is thus especially strong in John. The Messiah the narrator wishes to present in his Gospel is the Son of David but, above all, he is a temple builder. This temple is a temple not-made-with-hands in a way even clearer than in the synoptics. Here the Son of God, the eternal Word himself, “tabernacles” in the flesh. The eschatological temple is embodied in his person and, therefore, participation in him makes believers part of the temple as well. 3. From the time of tribulation to the new temple The idea of the tribulation is as important for John as it is for the synoptics. We mentioned the role of John the Baptist above and, in addition to this, the eschatological tone of Jesus’ teaching reminds us of the discussions about sending the word in the Logia-source. In John, even the sheep are sent among the wolves – at least in a spiritual sense. Violence and hate recur as Jesus describes his mission. With his disciples he is forced to work under pressure and in the face of fierce opposition. If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world – therefore the world hates you. (15:18–19)

Persecution is unavoidable as the apostles proclaim the gospel in the middle of this hostile “world” (kosmos).50 Even Israel persecutes God’s messengers. This is why Israel represents “the world.” It is an ungodly power in this reality of human beings. This is the narrator’s conviction from the very start. “He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him” (1:11). Persecution as a term appears in the Gospel as well.51 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘Servants are not greater than their master.’ If they persecuted (diōkō), me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will 50 51

Cf. Schreiner, Theology, 516. Carson, John, 525.

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology

407

keep yours also. But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (15:20–21)

The hatred and violence mentioned here are part of the same phenomenon that was observed during the time of the great prophets. Israel, in fact, hates her own God. Therefore, she still suffers from the consequences of such hostility. “Whoever hates me hates my Father also.” (v. 23). Jesus refers to Ps 69, a cry for God amidst suffering (Ps 69:5), that wains when it encounters irrational wrath. “It was to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause’.” (John 15:25).52 For Jesus’ disciples this will be a time of anguish. His words of consolation remind us of those appearing in the Logia source: “Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy” (16:20). The period of pain is reasonably short, though. Right after in the text, Jesus describes how a woman who “is in labor” and pain experiences a relief: something new is about to be born. As the moment arrives, joy will surpass all the anguish there may have been before. John’s theology reminds us of Paul’s as he comforts persecuted congregations. According to John, every follower of Jesus will experience an eschatological hate similar to what Jesus encountered. The new temple is surrounded by hostile apostates. This is why Jesus prays for the remnant in the same prayer that appears in the Lord’s priestly prayer: “I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one (ek tou ponērou)” (17:15). Not merely the “evil one” but also the evil generation (ponēros) that opposes the mission of the Messiah. Restoration, for John, is inevitable, and atonement will be made manifest. As a high priest Jesus serves his own temple when he prays for sanctification: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (17:17). In the eschatologial restoration, God himself will purify his own of all defilement. This is based on Christ’s work only: “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.” (17:19). Some translations use the expression sanctify as a sacrifice, because this is the theological motivation for the use of the word here.53 Read in the light of the metanarrative of exile and restoration, John’s Gospel does not differ that much from the synoptics. The theology here is based on the same narrative where the Son of David is revealed to be the 52 Schnelle, speaking of John’s “dualizing tendency” in a rather dogmatic sense, is therefore on a wrong track. In my view the answer is historical, as the opposition can be explained in terms of tribulation. See Schnelle, Theology, 683. 53 The exilic condition of the Jews is so clear in John that it has generated a discussion concerning John’s possible anti-Judaist tendency. For the discussion, see Schreiner, Theology, 518–519. Read in the light of the metanarrative, claims concerning Israel’s sin are not at all anti-Judaist. They want to foster Israel’s restoration.

408

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

incarnated Son of God. He ends the period of exile and inaugurates the renewal. Both temple criticism and the proclamation of the new temple of salvation are based on a similar background and, therefore, John’s soteriology builds on a well known foundation. 4. Restoration eschatology in the deep structure of 1 John It is probably not very common to explain 1 John in terms of restoration eschatology but, applying both structural analysis and close reading, we can see this background as a primary motivation for the writing of the letter. It is possible to focus either on the deep structure of the text or investigate the theological motifs and themes appearing in its theology. As regards the deep structure, the letter is filled with examples of binary opposition: darkness and light, lie and truth, hate and love, world and brotherhood, devil and the Son of God. Nevertheless, the presentation of the letter is not solely dependent on such oppositions. In addition to these, there is a metanarrative working behind the teaching and several smaller implied narratives that direct the detailed expressions. The letter has usually been intepreted as an apology for the Christian confession against docetic heresies. This purpose is of course obvious in the text. First John focuses first on the unity of the community – finding its expression in brotherly love – and the prevention of the threatening heresy. When developing theses ideas, the letter discusses the role of sin and speaks of true sinlessness in Christ. The basic motivation for this kind of theology, however, is in a much wider narrative thought world. Both the binary oppositions and the implied narratives build on the idea of Israel’s renewal after the long period of spiritual exile.54 The first sign of this background is the strict contrast that remains between this world and God’s wrath. The world lives in sin and the people living in such an exile “love” the world (2:15). These people suffer “the spirit of error” (4:6). They are guided by “false prophets” (4:1), and they commit sin “that is mortal” (5:16). Those living in darkness belong to the cursed world that is “passing away” as God destroys his enemies (2:17). What is needed is a communal confession like that described by Nehemiah after the exile. “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1:9). This is not a confession that would concern only the people encountered during the Gentile mission but this is a crucial issue for all Jews since the exile continues.55 This becomes evident when we note that, in the letter, the crucial point is in recognizing the Messiahship of Jesus Christ: “Everyone who believes that 54

For the issue of docetism, see Hengel, The Johannine Question, 57–63. On the intentions of the letter, Thielman, Theology, 536–541. 55 Hamilton points out that John depicts the liars as apostates. Hamilton, God’s Glory, 532.

II. The Gospel of John and Johannine theology

409

Jesus is Christ has been born of God” (5:1). Only this can lead to a Christian life on the basis of which one can know that “we have passed from death to life” (3:14). For the Jewish-Christian writer, spiritual death is Israel’s exilic condition revealed in the people’s inability to recognize Jesus the Christ. The author also thinks about the time of tribulation.56 The hate that he detects in the world is rooted in the interfamilial strife that has been around from the days of Cain and Abel (3:12): “All who hate a brother or sister are murderers” (3:15). Love, in turn, can be learned from Jesus’ fate: “he laid down his life for us” (3:16). Jesus became the victim of the tribulation and hence he also became a sacrifice for the people’s sins. This resulted in reconciliation. The writer speaks repeatedly of Christ’s blood that cleanses us from all sin (1:7). The Jewish-Christian character of atonement theology becomes clear through the use of the Akedah motif: God sent his “only Son” to be “the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (4:9–10).57 Release from sin is a another expression of God’s jubilee. The love that Christ creates is not merely a feeling. Instead, it is that love that acts for the benefit of those who suffer the brunt of others’ transgressions. One who “sees a brother or sister in need” must love “in truth and action” (3:17–18). And those who still hate their brothers and sisters “are liars” (4:20). The Christology in 1 John is rich. Jesus is the exalted Christ (1:3) who sits in heavens and serves as an advocate with the Father, “Jesus Christ the righteous” (2:1; cf. Rom. 8:34). He is the Savior (sōtēr) of this world (4:14). He is the “Son” and the “Name” (3:23), the incarnated Christ (4:2; Vulgata: in care venisse), and finally, God: “He is the true God and eternal life” (5:20), namely “the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us” (1:2). This final restoration, grounded on the reconciliation obtained by Jesus’ sacrifice and proclaiming atonement and faith in the resurrected Savior, is also a time of the eschatological adoption as children. The one who believes in Christ is “born of God” (3:9). “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God” (3:1). The seal of the new childhood is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to his own (3:24). The Spirit confesses that Jesus is Christ and witnesses to salvation (4:2), for the Spirit is the truth (5:6). In 1 John, therefore, restoration eschatology finds its most beautiful expression. Its thought world is completely permeated by motifs that derive 56 Beale, who writes his extensive New Testament theology emphasizing the tribulation interpretation, does mention synoptic examples but for some reason does not treat John. Then, however, in 1 John he sees clear signs of eschatology presupposing tribulation. Beale, Theology, 203–204. 57 Thielman notes that the Elder, when referring to Christ’s blood, uses Old Testament images taken from the Day of Atonement ritual. The theology concerning Jesus sacrificial death and substitutionary atonement “cleanses” (katharizei) penitents “from all sin.” Thielman, Theology, 536–541.

410

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

from the proclamation both of Jesus himself and the early Jewish-Christian church. The author skillfully describes the contrast between the exilic condition and the community of the saved. He claims that the world living in sin does not recognize the agent of renewal, Jesus Christ. And he spends much time describing how the adoption as a child of God is both a sign of salvation and a reason for a real jubilee that has started in Christ. This is why he ends his mission by teaching the aim of restoration: “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judg-ment, because as he is, so are we in this world” (4:17). Anguish and inter-familial strife have been replaced by atonement, forgiveness, and brotherly love.

III. The Temple, creation and new Jerusalem in Revelation Revelation has all the features typical of apocalyptic literature. The narrator is given a vision and taken to heaven. All divine secrets are gradually revealed to him, in scene after scene. World history is opened and the future of humankind is predicted through the new knowledge he is given. The setting for this is traditional. There is a temple in the heavens and at the center of the cosmic shrine is God’s throne. Heavenly hosts are gathered around the seat and the visionary too is allowed to gaze upon the place that is normally hidden from humanity. Furthermore, the Jewish nature of the book is confirmed by recurring references to Old Testament teachings and prophetic visions.58 1. Release for the tribes of Israel The book of Revelation is a remarkable example of Christian merkabahmysticism – where the chariot symbolizes the throne of glory. World history is observed from the perspective of God’s heavenly palace and divine omnipotence and, therefore, the entire presentation evolves around God’s throne of glory in the transcendent holy of holies. The basic purpose of the letter is to show God’s righteousness: the Lord is the sole ruler of the world, and he directs world history until the very end, the eschatological climax that will bring justice to all. The problem of theodicy is no longer a burning issue in Revelation, since God hears the cries of the oppressed. He does not reject sinners who approach his throne. Spiritual exile has been a reality but, from the perspective of eternity, it is no longer a problem. The author writes like Paul, stating that God in his forbearance has endured the apostasy of humankind and now, letting the gospel of the Lion of the tribe of Judah be 58

Revelation has been studied from the point of view of restoration eschatology by Alexander, Eden; and Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning (both focusing on the aspect of the new temple) among others. Beale’s commentary on Revelation follows his earlier studies.

III. The temple in Revelation

411

proclaimed all over the world, he gathers the dispersed apostates to the kingdom of the Lamb. The restoration of Israel and the calling of the tribes (fylai; Rev 5:9) is clearly stated in Revelation. In the great restoration described in chapter seven, one hundred forty-four thousand are “sealed out of every tribe.” From the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand sealed, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand sealed [...] (Rev 7:5–8)

The list goes on to mention all the patriarchs, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. By referring to Isaiah the writer presents how the promises given to those who were taken captive are now fulfilled. “They will hunger no more, and thirst no more; the sun will not strike them, nor any scorching heat” (7:16; cf. Isa 49:10).59 The Lamb “at the center of the throne,” who is the Son of David promised by Ezekiel, will be their shepherd, and “he will guide them to springs of the water of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Isa 25:8; Ezek 34:23).60 The story of the history of God’s kingdom is not just a description of God’s victory. As in Jesus’ time, so also later the world hates the community of salvation. Therefore, the aspect of tribulation is still prominent in Revelation. John himself is a “companion in tribulation (thipsis)” (1:9, AV). “This ironic exercise of rule is modeled on that of Christ who revealed his veiled kingship on earth before his exaltation by enduring suffering and death in order to achieve his heavenly rule.”61 There is an already–not yet aspect on which the seer builds his views concerning the final renewal. Like in Jesus’ life, now too the community must suffer before the new Eden will bring peace. It is not only the (temporal or geographical) exile that needs to be ended, but the exilic condition that still prevails in this world. There are several clear signs of the restoration, though. The temple in Jerusalem will be replaced by David’s new temple. The Lion is also the slaughtered Lamb who, on the basis of his sacrifice, gathers a new

59 Why is Judah mentioned first? Beale notes: “Ezek. 37:15–19 develops Gen. 49:8 by asserting that at the time of the restoration all ‘the tribes of Israel’ will be incorporated into the ‘tribe of Judah’ and will have Judah as their representative head.” Beale, Revelation, 417. The priority of Judah, therefore, “emphasizes the precedence of the messianic king from the tribe of Judah.” 60 Simojoki has pointed out, that idea of the future restoration of Israel and the conversion of the Jews was not new in the nineteenth century nor in the history of the interpretation of Revelation. Instead, it was a “mighty tradition in English thought and literature.” For his analysis and examples, Simojoki, Apocalypse Interpreted, 92– 93. 61 So Beale, Theology, 208.

412

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

community. Those believing in Christ become priests who are allowed to live in the spiritual temple and expect the perfect temple that is to come. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. (Rev 1:5–6)

This theme is repeated in Revelation later. Christ has been slaughtered and by his blood he “ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Therefore, a change was to come: “you have made them to be a kindgom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth” (5:9).62 The images overlap. Contemporary faith and heavenly reality are simultaneously true. This is why the idea of spiritual priesthood is put in the context of heavenly service and the liturgy of the heavenly hosts. Those escaping the tribulation on earth have been brought to the heavenly temple so that they can worship their Lord there. “For this reason they are before the throne of God, and worship him day and night within his temple, and the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them.” (7:15). In Revelation one of the grand themes is the establishing of the new covenant. Like for many writers before the narrator of Revelation saw the first covenant as compromised in the exile and, therefore, the prophets expected God to provide a new covenant where renewal would be perfect. “The New Jerusalem in descent is the realization of the New Covenant, a connection rendered unmistakeable by the use of Lev 26:11–12 in Rev 21:3. The agenda of Sinai and hope of Jeremiah meet in the experience of the Bride.”63 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them. (21:2–3)

Restoration theology has been presupposed because such reinterpretation is unnecessary without the questioning of the old covenant. “Thought of a New Covenant did not arise until the threat of imminent exile, for Sinai and nationalism went hand-in-hand.”64 As the writer uses Lev 26, “I will place my dwelling in your midst,” he uses the temple theology that has directed restoration eschatology through the Second Temple period. The original promise delighted in the result of the first Exodus and, therefore, in Revelation the city of God descending from the heavens will be the place where God finally gathers the people of the diaspora.65 62

See Alexander, Eden, 123–127. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning, 78. 64 Dumbrell, ibid. 65 Bauckham calls the element of restoration “eschatological exodus” because many of the images and proof texts concern passages that describe the first Exodus. Bauckham, Revelation, 70. The wings of an eagle is an impressive image in Rev 63

III. The temple in Revelation

413

The cosmic story told in Revelation, therefore, is based entirely on the metanarrative of exile and restoration. The images describing Israel’s exilic condition have been taken directly from relevant passages in the texts of Old Testament prophets. Apostate Israel lives in the diaspora but God brings a jubilee and gathers the tribes from the four courners of the earth. Reconciliation has been accomplished, and the Lamb shall be the agent of restoration because he has redeemed people from the power of evil. 2. Enthronement of the Root of David The Christology in Revelation is quite traditional. The author focuses on the Son of David who has arrived as Israel’s Messiah. According to the text Jesus is a “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and “Root of David” (5:5). The kingship of the new David begins as he is enthroned on his heavenly throne. This is the seat the visionary sees in heaven. “At once I was in the spirit, and there in heaven stood a throne, with one seated on the throne! And the one seated there looks like jasper and carnelian” (4:2–3). This throne belongs to Christ and his Father, and all believers are drawn towards it. To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (Rev 3:21)

From the very start in Revelation the enthroned Christ appears as the authority of the vision. He is a witness who can be trusted, “the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” (1:5). Like in other apocalyptic literature, the Messiah sits on a heavenly throne but there is something special in the description of Revelation. The seat is the throne of glory and Jesus is praised together with God.66 “To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (5:13). Resurrection has a dual role in Revelation, as it does in restoration eschatology in general. On the one hand, it is described as an act of enthronement of the prince of life but, on the other hand, it is the enthronement that precedes the beginning of a jubilee and the inauguration of the kingdom of peace. “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever.” (Rev 11:15). The king is also the Danielic Son of Man, a royal Messiah who will bring release to the people that suffers for her sins.67 12:14, referring to how Israel will escape from the exile (Isa 40:31). Hamilton, God’s Glory, 548. 66 See Bauckham, Revelation, 54–63. “Since the issue of monotheistic worship is so clear in Revelation, it cannot be that the worship of Jesus is represented in Revelation through neglect of this issue. It seems rather that the worship of Jesus must be understood as indicating the inclusion of Jesus in the being of the one God defined by monotheistic worship.” (p. 60). 67 Marshall, Theology, 551.

414

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

[I]n the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, twoedged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force. (Rev 1:13–16)

Daniel’s vision is interpreted via Isaiah’s eschatology. The Servant of the Lord, with a sword in his mouth, enters history: “He made my mouth like a sharp sword” (Isa 49:2). This is the Servant who shall redeem Israel (“to raise up the tribes of Jacob”) with his sword, “restore the survivors of Israel,” and become a light for the nations: “I will give you as a light for the nations that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa 49:6). The passage that has been widely used in other parts of the New Testament is put at the core of the narrative in Revelation. Furthermore, as noted, the Son of David is also a Lamb. The metaphors common in temple theology recur in Revelation almost like in the Letter to the Hebrews. “Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (5:6). Heavenly hosts extol the Lamb who has offered himself for the life of the exiled. Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! (Rev 5:12)

Finally the Son of Man, in Revelation, is the Davidic Messiah who will execute the eschatological judgment. “From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” (19:15). In Revelation, Christ’s heavenly kingship means that he gains victory over God’s enemies. “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’.” (19:16).68 Even this short overview of the Christology of Revelation shows that this vision repeats the main narratives that have been transmitted in early Christian tradition. In this book Jesus is the Son of David who has been enthroned, his kingship in resurrection made manifest. He has conquered death and, therefore, he is now the prince of life. Christ has also suffered as the Lamb, made atonement by his sacrifice, and brought his blood to the heavenly temple. He has been exalted on the throne of glory where he shall rule until the last day, the day of God’s wrath and the opening of the heavenly books. In Revelation, then, the enthroned Christ sits in the heavenly court on the throne where God the Father also sits.

68

“Third, the judging role of Christ is part of the discerning and exposing character of God's kingdom rule.” Isaak, Theology, 181.

III. The temple in Revelation

415

3. Re-establishing the garden-temple While Revelation focuses on the heavenly temple, in good apocalyptic fashion, it also centers on God’s throne. The throne of glory is repeatedly mentioned in the narrative (Rev 4:2; 5:11; 7:9, 15; 11:16; 19:4; 20:11). This is consistent because the sacral images of the ark of the covenant, the heavenly merkabah, and the eschatological judgment seat merge into one in this visionary presentation. The heavenly court of God the King is simultanously a temple – as is any particular place, like Eden, where God dwells.69 The throne is called the ark of the covenant in a very concrete sense. Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peal of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (11:19)

By using familiar psalmic imagery the seer describes God’s dwelling. He sees the throne that is the archetype of the ark. Therefore, in Revelation the holy of holies in the heavens is the place where reconciliation is obtained for humanity. Moreover this is the center of God’s heavenly rule. In chapter eleven John is put in the role of Ezekiel and given the order to measure the temple building. “Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the courts outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.” (11:1–2; cf. Ezek 40–43). The reference to the destruction of the temple is obvious. God’s invisible temple will be saved but Gentile nations shall “trample” over the holy places. However in the vision the power of the pagans is limited to the outer court. Gentiles are allowed to trample over the earthly remains, nothing more. The real temple remains intact, and God’s opponents cannot reach it.70 The author of Revelation makes good use of Jesus’ teaching according to which the Davidic Messiah will build a new temple. Believers shall live as priests of the eschatological temple not-made-with-hands and, when the last day arrives, they will be taken to the newly created garden-temple. Before then, the community of salvation takes part in the heavenly liturgy that is held in front of the throne of glory. “For this reason they are before the

69

Cf. Alexander: “References to the throne of God draw attention to his kingship, one of the major themes in Revelation. By highlighting the divine throne, John’s final vision reveals that the creation of the New Jerusalem consolidates God’s absolute authority over everything that exists upon the earth.” Alexander, Eden, 75. 70 See Aune, Revelation, 604, 630. Measuring is a metaphor for preservation and protection. Cf. Beale: “In Revelation 11 the measuring connotes God’s presence, which is guaranteed to be with the temple community living on earth before the consummation. The faith of his people will be upheld by his presence, since without faith there can be no divine presence.” Beale, Revelation, 559. He continues by saying that the presence begins “with the establishment of the Christian community.”

416

Chapter 5: Jewish Christianity

throne of God, and worship him day and night within his temple, and the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them.” (7:15; cf. Isa 4:5). Here the service before God is reminiscent of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice found at Qumran. They represent priestly devotion and temple mysticism. The task of the earthly congregation is to praise God. These Qumran songs may have derived from the Jerusalem temple and they may well indicate what kind of customs there were among the priestly class taking care of temple service. When the songs were sung on the Sabbath – as one would expect given the nature of the songs – the singers focused on Israel’s King who sits on his holy throne, the merkabah in the heavens. In one of the songs the cherubim praise God as follows: “They bless the image of the merkabah-throne / Above the firmament of the cherubim / And they hymn the splendor of the firmament of light / Beneath the seat of his glory.” (4Q405, 22.8).71 A similar heavenly liturgy appears repeatedly in Revelation. In chapter 11 we find one of the most impressive examples. Then the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshipped God, singing, “We give thanks, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath has come, and the time for judging the dead, for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints and all who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying those who destroy the earth. (Rev 11:16–18)

This will be the place where the garden itself will serve as a temple, and no buildings will be needed. It is surrounded by a “sea of glass” where the the saved ones sing the song of the Lamb, right in front of the “temple of the tent of witness” (15:2–5). Furthermore, there is the “river of the water of life,” flowing from the throne of God, with a tree of life standing on “either side of the river” (22:1–2). The place of salvation is a true Eden where God dwells among his own: “I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). No created light is needed here because the “light of the nations,” the Son of David, provides the light: “its lamp is the Lamb” (21:23).72 The last chapters of Revelation contain a “tale of two cities,” as Alexander calls it. The New Jerusalem is contrasted with Babylon, the city of the diaspora and the symbol for the exilic condition. “The picture of the bride in fine linen contrasts sharply with how Babylon is presented. She is the ‘great prostitute’.”73 The faithfulness of the former is put in strict opposition 71 I follow the translation of Halperin here, Halperin, Chariot, 52. The elements of the heavenly temple are evident in the passage. 72 See Beale, Temple, 365–369. “Consequently, the new creation and Jerusalem are none other than God’s tabernacle, the true temple of God’s special presence portrayed throughout chapter 21.” (p. 368). Cf. Barker, Gate of Heaven, 87–88. 73 Alexander, Eden, 177.

III. The temple in Revelation

417

to the faithlessness of the latter. Here we have one more proof that, in Revelation, the metanarrative of exile and restoration directs the soteriology of the book. Salvation means release from Babylonian slavery. As Revelation ends, the great metanarrative is brought to completion. God’s history of salvation has been a story of the end of the exile – in fact the great exile, the banishment from Eden. The same pattern has repeated throughout history. The created world, or Israel as her representative, has been banished over and over again. This teaches humankind that return to Eden is possible only when God himself steps forward and changes the condition of his fallen creation. And he does: in the time of wrath and tribulation God answers the cries of his people. He makes atonement through the blood of the Lamb. Then he enthrones the Lamb to be the King of the new kingdom. Each tribe is given new hope. In Revelation the Lord is a God who gathers: he gathers the descendants of Adam from all nations to his new creation. “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.” (Rev 22:14).

Chapter 6

Conclusion: From metanarrative to theology As we assess the project and evaluate the results found in the treatment of narrative theology from our chosen point of view, certain essential features emerge. Instead of investigating the loci of presupposed systematic theology, or attempting to cover all essential features of each writer’s theology in the New Testament, the present approach has centered on metanarratives that direct theological thought. The hypothesis – building on ideas that have been borrowed from the “new perspective on Jesus” and presented in several recent works from Meyer to Wright and their followers – claims that the metanarrative of exile and restoration is especially significant both for Jesus and the apostles and other writers of the New Testament. It has been the purpose of the present work to test and assess this hypothesis, as well as explicate its benefits for the study of New Testament theology. This analysis has proven that New Testament theology greatly depends on restoration eschatology. To start with Jesus’ teaching, it is apparent that he attacks the apostates of his day by adopting the rhetoric the great prophets had developed before the exile. For Jesus, the exile is not yet over. His main message is the good news, euangelion, of release. The kairos has come. Israel’s restoration begins as the son of David starts to build himself a new eschatological temple – a temple that is made of renewed believers. There is heuristic value in the metanarrative since it helps scholars to explain several difficult passages that now appear to express different aspects of restoration theology. Above all, Jesus’ opposition to the temple transforms since his claim concerning the exilic condition of the people makes the present service at the temple futile. The place remains a den of robbers. Furthermore, gospel tradition is most clearly explained when it is understood with the eschatological accent. For Jesus, the period starting with John the Baptist is a time of tribulation – an age of interfamilial strife where Israel still kills her prophets. This implies that also the Son of Man must suffer. Reading the prophets taught both Jesus and the first apostles that reconciliation comes through atonement. The Suffering Servant must give his sacrifice in order to bring peace to Israel. Jesus’ resurrection, then, becomes the end time enthronement where God is King and starts his jubilee, the year of mercy and release for those in slavery. Only after that can the triumphant events of eschatology take place and the Heavenly King return in his power. Such views found their way into the post-Easter community. Early Christology, developed by Jesus’ followers, presents him as Christ and the

From metanarrative to theology

419

King of the new kingdom of peace. He grants the fruits of restoration to his followers. Paul, in his letters, builds on the fulfillment of the promises of the great prophets and proclaims the arrival of a new aeon. For him, the new community is Christ’s temple where the Holy Spirit has returned. Justification by grace solves the problem of God’s seeming silence that lasted for over five centuries, because now God has sent the rain that washes the sins of humanity away. We shall return to these issues after summing up several more theoretical consequences. All this shows that the Meyer-Sanders-Wright hypothesis concerning the significance of the metanarrative of “exile and restoration” is on the right track when stating that these ideas directed both the content of Jesus’ mission and the formation of New Testament theology as a whole. It is evidently a matter of opinion how widely different pre-Christian Jewish groups in the Second Temple period adopted the rhetoric of a continuing exile. Many groups did assume that the exile had not yet ended, but the religious elite – like the Sadducees – probably did not. Considered from another perspective, the belief that the final restoration had begun was very rare. Living under Roman rule made such idealism impossible. In this respect, Jesus’ and his disciples’ message was understandable. In addition to this, however, the analysis has shown that the new perspective on Jesus has seldom been applied more widely in the interpretation of New Testament theology. The recent school of thought, developed mainly in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, does bring innovative suggestions to biblical theology but remains somewhat defective in the explanation of the thought world of Second Temple Judaism. The theory needs to be completed and sometimes corrected – as the present work attempts to do – by the findings from the new history-of-religions approach developed by the “new” Tübingen school in Germany. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this study that the metanarrative of exile and restoration becomes even more fruitful in the interpretation of New Testament theology when it is completed by the investigations of Michel, Hengel, Stuhlmacher, Betz, Hofius, and Schwemer, to name a few scholars in the field, as well as Avemarie, Riesner, and Ådna in the younger generation. The third sphere of influence in recent scholarship comes mainly from North America; it should be noted that many of the great findings that help the reconstruction of New Testament theology depend on the work of Scott, Evans, Beale, Perrin, Pitre, Hahn, and Schreiner, to name a few scholars (and the movement is gaining new adherents elsewhere, such as Bauckham, Bryant, Alexander, and Barber). Such adjustments, used in the present work, first of all make the interpretation of Jesus’ message in the context of Second Temple Judaism more precise. Secondly, they bridge the gap between Jesus’ teaching and early Christian soteriology. And thirdly, what can be held to be one of the main contributions of the continental version of the new perspective, they help us understand how deeply the theology, extant in the New Testament letters, is

420

Chapter 6: Conclusion

rooted in Jesus’ message. The letters through Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews, all the way to the Book of Revelation, build on restoration eschatology. They proclaim the birth of a new temple built of living stones, the temple of salvation that is filled by the Holy Spirit. As noted in the introduction, some scholars assume that a narrative approach both to the investigation of the historical Jesus and early Christology may make the historical process behind the extant text too onedimensional. They are afraid that scholars adopting this approach focus on the final version of the New Testament text and neglect the historical processes forming the material. I hope to have proven for my part that such assumptions change when the narrative view of reading history is seen in practice. It is true that a narrative theology is constructive: it is interested in reconstruction. This, of course, is – or should be – the aim of any New Testament theology wishing to explain the thought world of early Christians. But the theory does not end here. With the help of this reconstruction, scholars can use the principle of coherence in order to evaluate which stories or traditions support the general picture. In other words, it has been possible to investigate the gospel tradition mainly by focusing on passages that are usually considered authentic (except by the Jesus-seminar which I count as a representative of the First Quest) among the adherents of the new perspective on Jesus (from Sanders to Wright to Pitre; or from Stuhlmacher to Riesner to Ådna). Secondly, it has been possible to use the abovementioned principle of coherence in order to treat a wider swath of gospel tradition that can now quite easily be interpreted in terms of Jesus’ original mission of restoration eschatology. And thirdly, in the case of redactional or interpretive material – like the Hosannahymn in the story of the triumphant entry – it has been possible to explain the relationship between the original tradition and its theological reception. By no means can such a treatment of gospel tradition be considered one-dimensional or insensitive to historical processes. As we return to the early teaching of the post-Easter church and discuss its views more deeply, it has become evident that, firstly, resurrection Christology intentionally describes Jesus’ exaltation as an eschatological enthronement. The installation of the son of David in heavenly power means more than the fulfillment of promises such as Psalm 110. It also means the divine enthronement in the end of days, when God himself arrives and begins the jubilee that makes manifest Israel’s renewal. Secondly, the investigation of early hymnic traditions proves that early Christology grows from the theology present in synagogal traditions, liturgies, and the Amidah. Jesus’ appearance is clearly depicted as the anticipated arrival of a Davidic Messiah who will bring Israel’s restoration. Considered from this perspective, the metanarrative directing the emergence of theological ideas is not merely a narrow segment of a much wider theological movement where other segments had little to do with the one mentioned above. Instead, through this study it has become clear that the

From metanarrative to theology

421

thought world of the first Christians and followers of Jesus was based on a wide network of ideas consistently related to the main metanarratives. This means that knowing the narrative structure helps the reader understand several other theological themes that previously may have looked like independent and separate elements. Some scholars have spoken about a syntax of theological thought and this might be a useful tool as well, would it not bring overly-mechanical facets into the process. Ancient presentations are essentially all about narratives, therefore, it is useful to focus on metanarratives from the very start. This analysis has proven that the great story of exile and restoration influences theological thought and helps readers to explain theological issues in the area of New Testament research. It has shed light on essential features in Second Temple nomism and Pauline conceptions about the law, as well as different solutions in soteriology. Furthermore, it has been quite illuminating for the nature of justification, and it has proven invaluable when interpreting the descriptions of an eschatological temple. Clearly metanarratives open up helpful paths when explaining early Christology. There are many uniting elements in biblical theology but one of these surpasses all others. Both in the Old and New Testaments, crucial descriptions of God revolve around his heavenly throne. The throne becomes a topos that is used in narratives that are interrelated especially in the eschatological tradition. In the temple the throne is the center of the cult as the ark of the covenanant. Cherubim hold the invisible throne in their hands and protect it with their wings. This throne symbolizes God’s kingship and grants forgiveness through atonement blood that is sprinkled over the ark. In the eschatology of the great prophets the throne of glory maintains its role. The prophets anticipate an end-time enthronement where God will be Israel’s king and inaugurate a jubilee for the exiled people. New Testament Christology builds on Jesus’ enthronement in the resurrection. Images merge together. As the heavenly high priest, Jesus takes his blood to the heavenly temple and, after the atoning service, sits at the right hand of God on the throne of glory. This is how theocratic Shema faithfulness is maintained in the new covenant: faith in Jesus Christ establishes faith in God who rules as the King of Israel. The metanarrative has proven to be an indispensable tool especially in the interpretation of Paul’s thinking. This analysis has made it clear that using the findings of the new Tübingen school just to correct the new perspective on Jesus and restoration eschatology is insufficient. It is even more important to rethink the relationship between Jesus and Paul and reinterpret the premises on which Paul constructs his soteriology. This work has not been done thoroughly yet, even though scholars like Scott and Wright have done good preliminary work. Many of the ideas presented thus far – like the conclusions of Wright himself in his monumental work on Paul – for some reason do not appear to make full use of the theory. The aspect of discontinuity prominent in Jesus’ exilic rhetoric has no place in Wright’s

422

Chapter 6: Conclusion

covenantalist Pauline reading (see below). There is more to be done, and the analysis in the present work wishes to make a contribution by revealing the close affinity that exists between Paul and the theology of renewal of his predecessors. First of all, Paul uses large strokes when sketching his eschatology. He speaks of aeons and treats Israel’s history as God’s history where promises and divine acts have a crucial role. Israel is corrupt, as is the whole of humanity after Adam and, therefore, only God’s unique act can bring salvation. Paul describes this salvation in terms of restoration eschatology. God has sent the new David, his own Son, to make atonement for the people. This is why the salvific gospel can be expressed by using restoration discourse developed by the prophets: redemption, enthronement, klēsis, justification, and faith. Paul’s grand vision on justification builds on Isa 40-55, and focuses finally on Isa 53. The exilic condition manifests God’s wrath toward Israel, and it cannot be removed before the Suffering Servant, God’s lamb, arrives and makes atonement for the sins of the people. This sacrifice brings redemption, apolytrōsis, and serves as a basis for the justification of sinners. Therefore, Christ’s blood becomes the sin offering (or even the place of atonement), hilastērion, from where sinners will be counted as righteous. God has not been silent, and Paul solves the problem of theodicy by proclaiming the justification of the ungodly in a situation where the Messiah has started Israel’s restoration. Also for Paul, the community of salvation is the eschatological temple not-made-with-hands. It is the sanctuary where the Spirit of God dwells. Believers have attained the status of priests and, with their high priest, they also attend the priestly meal participating in the only sacrifice there is for their sins: Christ’s body and blood. Covenantal terminology is present only in the sense of a new covenant where God’s faithfulness is revealed in Jesus’ work. This research shows that, when the findings of the new perspective on Jesus are applied to Pauline interpretation, many debated problems – developed by the new perspecive on Paul – find a solution. There is a reason why Paul attacks the works of the law, the good Avodat Israel that originally was considered an essential value for any believing person. Religious service became defective through the exilic condition, and therefore only a divine initiative, God’s salvific act, can help sinners. Our conclusion is that the new perspective on Paul appears to have adopted hastily made interpretations concerning the works of the law as well as justification. Paul’s soteriology is permeated by restoration eschatology, and this can be seen in other subjects, too. He defines justification in terms of the great debates that are typical of Second Temple Judaism. Instead of clinging to some kind of unproblematic covenental nomism, Jewish theologians pondered Israel’s situation under the endless line of oppressors. Exilic theology is often presented in the form of theodicy: why does it seem that

From metanarrative to theology

423

God does not help his people? Paul answers by touching the heart of Jewish belief. God has been faithful, and in his divine forbearance he has deferred his final judgment. Israel’s renewal arrives when the Son of God is handed over as a sacrifice for the sins of humankind. This is why justification by faith, God’s unconditional grace, solves the problem of theodicy and inaugurates Israel’s restoration. Jews, at least most of them – Paul states – find themselves in a difficult situation. Since they do not welcome God’s own Son, they continue on the path of apostasy. They do not submit to God’s righteousness, God’s saving acts that bring renewal. This is why, in this phase of history, only a remnant will be saved. God’s basic aim, however, is both to restore the twelve tribes (all Israel) and to start the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to the kingdom of God. Justification by faith, for the scholars who adhere to the covenantal nomism interpretation, has been a difficult issue though. Many scholars belittle the juridical nature both of Paul’s terminology and his thinking. Covenantalists tend to emphasize collective soteriology instead of the more personal approach that the judicial treatment allegedly brings. This, however, has been done against the simple exegetical data within Paul’s letters. The entire word group of dik-words denotes a juridical context and, therefore, neglecting this aspect in Paul’s soteriology does not do justice to his thinking. The new narrative perspective, however, explains why the image of the court of law appears in restoration eschatology. The exile means punishment, and the wrath of God rests on the people. When Christ is made a sacrifice for sinners, the punishment rests on him. Therefore, justification (promised by the prophets 500 years earlier) implies accusation since the people, the vessels of wrath, need to be pardoned. This view is only completed when Paul states that the new relationship to the Lord is ontological and means participation in him through the Holy Spirit. These two aspects should not be seen as opposites. These elements bring the basic difference between this narrative reading and the Sandersian new perspective on Paul to the surface. As we briefly noted above, covenental nomism, by its very nature, tends to emphasize continuity in Second Temple Jewish theology. Therefore, the covenantalist interpretation – adopted by a good number of contemporary Pauline scholars – necessarily tries to explain Paul’s view of the law, as well as salvation, in accord with Jewish covenantal nomism. This creates problems. When such a positive continuity is presupposed, it is not easy to explain why Paul still attacks his adversaries. Some scholars suggest that Paul is merely an inconsistent thinker who wrote his letters precisely to give a distorted picture of Judaism. Such a conclusion is a reductio ad absurdum of the theory. The new narrative reading, in turn, focuses on discontinuity. Paul attacks the righteousness according to the law, be it positive Sadducean covenantal nomism, or the “work of Israel” in general, and opposes it with the only

424

Chapter 6: Conclusion

possible restoration eschatology there is for the cursed people: the righteousness that Christ has acquired. Such tensions in scholarship show that this issue will continue to provoke debates well into the future. Even though interpreting Paul’s theology through the lens of restoration eschatology does help to explain many of the debated issues in his soteriology, it is this precise topic that scholars tend to disagree on vehemently. The theological themes that rise to the surface are so crucial that interpreters begin to be directed by their confession or denomination. Lutheran theology in particular has become a target, especially because of its doctrine and an alleged “justification theory” that is believed to affect the interpretation of Paul’s theology. This is not a dead end, though. The horizon of restoration eschatology challenges scholars from different backgrounds to find new answers in Pauline interpretation even on the issues where larger confessional beliefs and doctrines collide. I personally hope that this study of the influential metanarrative can make a contribution and help scholars take this next step. The unexpected bonus gained by the examination of the metanarrative, already noted above, is a new perspective on the relation between Jesus and Paul. It seems quite evident that Paul has followed Jesus’ mission in most of its particular themes. A short list of examples proves this quite quickly: (1) the fulfillment of time, (2) gospel, (3) tribulation, (4) suffering, (5) substitutional sacrifice, (6) resurrection from the dead, (7) enthronement on the throne of glory, (8) realization of restoration, (9) gathering the tribes and mission to the nations, (10) parousia, (11) last judgment, and (12) the final restoration of Eden. And finally, the letters deriving mainly from Jewish Christianity follow suit. The Letter to the Hebrews centers on Christ’s priestly office and the building of the eschatological temple. Even though it has not been investigated much from the perspective of the metanarrative, it is one of the clearest examples in all of the New Testament writings. The same is true for 1 Peter, although the aspect of the heavenly priesthood has always been noted by scholars. It may be a bit of a surprise that the Gospel of John, and especially the theology of the narrator, underscores different aspects of restoration eschatology. Furthermore, it has been possible to prove that 1 John, too, builds on similar theology. James, in turn, provides a perfect example of eschatology proclaiming the jubilee that was to come. And finally in Revelation the story of exile and restoration is transferred to a cosmic stage where poetic narration proclaims the restoration of Eden. All in all, the hypothesis concerning the metanarrative of exile and restoration has proven useful. For two decades now, it has enriched the study of the historical Jesus. This line of investigation is still developing, and new discoveries are made constantly. The interpretation of early Christology gains much from this since the assumed gap between Jesus and the post-Easter congregation is bridged anew. Paul’s theology, too, can be seen in a new light. While the problem of the unity and diversity of the New Testament has

From metanarrative to theology

425

been one of biblical studies’ most difficult issues, narratological analysis suggests that these elements can foster solutions that are quite different from anything considered before. It is possible indeed to write a New Testament theology based on this metanarrative. The outcome appears to have explanatory force and brings forth new thoughts.

Bibliography A. Sources, texts Allegro. J.H. (ed.), Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon. 1968. Baillet, M. (ed.), Qumrân Grotte 4: III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon. 1982. Barthélemy, D./Milik, J.T. (eds.), Qumrân Cave 1. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon. 1955. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Ediderunt K. Elliger et W. Rudolph. Textum Masoreticum curavit H.P. Rüger. Masoram elaboravit G.E. Weil. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1977. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit Robertus Weber osb. Tomus II. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt. 1969. Charlesworth, James H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. New York: Doubleday. 1983. – The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 2. Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. New York: Doubleday. 1985. Fischer, J.A., Die Apostolischen Väter. Griechisch und Deutsch. 9., durchgesehene Auflage. München: Kösel. 1986. Geffcken, J., Die Oracula Sibyllina. GCS 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1902. Hennecke, E./Schneemelcher, W. (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha I–II. Philadelphia: Westmister. 1963. Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. AThD 2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget. 1960. Jonge, M. de (ed.), Testamenta XII Patriarcharum. Edited According to Cambridge University Library MS Ff I.24 fol. 203a–262b. With Short Notes. PVTG 1. Leiden: Brill. 1964. Kurfess, A., Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Berlin: Heimeran. 1951. Neusner, J., The Mishnah. A New Translation. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. 1988. Maier, J., The Temple Scroll. An Introduction, Translation & Commentary. JSOTS 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1985. Martinez, F.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. English translation W.G.E. Watson. Leiden: Brill. 1994 Novum Testamentum Graece. Post Eberhard et Erwin Nestle communiter ediderunt B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger. 27. revidierte Auflage. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1993. Newsom, C., Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edition. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta:Scholars Press. 1985.

428

Bibliography

Qimron, E./Strugnell, J. (eds.), Qumran cave 4. V. Miqsat maca´se ha-torah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon. 1994. Rahlfs, A. (ed.), Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1979. Sanders, J.A. (ed.), The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon. 1965. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimers. 1906. Thackeray, H.St.J., Josephus. The Jewish War. LCL. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press. Repr. 1989. Thackeray, H.St.J./Marcus, R./Wikgren, A./Feldman, L.H., Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. LCL. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press. Repr. 1991. Tov, E. (ed.), The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr). DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon. 1990. Vaux, R. de/Milik, J.T. (eds.), Qumrân Grotte 4: II. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157). DJD 6. Oxford: Clarendon. 1977. Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised and Extended Fourth Edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1995. Violet, B., Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra). GCS 18. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1910. Whiston, W., The Works of Josephus. Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Edition. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. 1987.

B. Subsidia Aland, K./Werner, H., Computer–Konkordanz: Zum Novum Testamentum Graece von Nestle–Aland, 26. Aufl. und zum Greek New Testament 3rd Edition. Herausgegeben vom Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung und vom Rechenzentrum der Universität Münster, unter besonderer Mitwirkung von H. Bachmann, W.A. Slaby. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1980. Balz, H./Schneider, G. (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1980/1981/1983. Bauer, Walter, Griechisch–deutsches Wörterbuch. 6., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Hrsg. K. Aland und B. Aland. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1988. Bauer, Walter, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament adn Other Early Christian Literature. Second edition. Edited and revised by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press. 1979. Blass, F./Debrunner, A./Rehkopf, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 15. durchgesehene Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1979. Botterweck, G.J./Ringgren, H. (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1970ff. Brown, F./Driver, S.R./Briggs, C.A./Gesenius, W., The New Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. 1979. Fitzmyer, J.A., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. SBLSBS 8. Missoula: Scholars. 1975. Hatch, E./Redpath, H.A., A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions to the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. 1897/Grand Rapids: Baker 1987.

Bibliography

429

Kittel, G./Fiedrich, G. (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1933–1979. Kuhn, K.G., (ed.) Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1960. Koehler, L./Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. Dritte Auflage. 2. vols. Leiden: Brill. 1967/1974. Koehler, L./Baumgartner, W., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I–II. Rev. by W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm. Leiden: Brill. 1994/1995. Liddell, H.G./Scott R., A Greek–English Lexicon. Revised and Augmented throughout by H.S. Jones. With a Supplement. New (ninth) edition. Reprinted. Oxford. 1973. Reicke, B./Rost. L. (eds.), Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch. 4 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1962–1979. Roth, C./Wigoder, G. (eds. in chief), Encyclopaedia Judaica 1–16. Jerusalem: Keter. 1971–. Stemberger, G., Der Talmud. Einführung – Texte – Erläuterungen. München: Beck. 1982. Strack, H.L./Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 1–6. München: Beck. 61986.

C. General bibliography Acroyd, Peter R., Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1968. Albright, W.F., and Mann, C.S., Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 26. New York: Doubleday. 1971. Alexander, T. Desmond, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel. 2008. Allen, Leslie C., “The Old Testament Background of (pro)horizein in the New Testament.” NTS 17 (1971) 104–108. Allison, Dale C.Jr., “Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E.P. Sanders.” JSNT 29 (1987) 57–78. – Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1998. – Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2010. Anderson, G.A., “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings.” ABD V (1992) 87 – 886. Aune, David E., Revelation 1–15, 6–16. WBC 52a, 52b. Nashville: Nelson. 1998. Auvinen, Ville, Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. 2003. Avemarie, Friedrich, Tora und Leben. Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur. TSAJ 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996. – Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Hrsg. J Frey und A. Standhartinger. WUNT 316. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2013. Avemarie, F./Lichtenberger, H. (eds.), Auferstehung – Resurrection: Fourth DurhamTübingen Research Symposium. Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2001. Back, Sven-Olav, “Jesus and the Sabbath.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2597–2633. Eds. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011.

430

Bibliography

Badenas, Robert, Christ the End of the Law. Romans 10.4. in Pauline Perspective. JSNTS 10. Trowbridge: JSOT Press. 1985. Bailey, Kenneth E., Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15. Concordia Scholarship Today. St. Louis: Concordia. 1992. – Jacob and the Prodigal: A Study of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the Light of the Saga of Jacob. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. 2003. Bal, Mieke, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1997. Barber, Michael P., The Historical Jesus and Cultic Restoration Eschatology: The New Temple, the New Priesthood and the New Cult. Diss. Fuller, 2010. http://udini. proquest.com/view/the-historical-jesus-and-cultic-god. Cop. 29.11.2013. Barker, Margaret, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. 2008. Bauckham, Richard J., “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” – Law and Religion. 72– 89. Ed. B. Lindars. Cambridge: Clarke. 1988. – The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology (Cambridge Series), General Editor J.D.G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. – “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts.” – Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. 435–487. Ed. Scott, James M. JSJS 72. Leiden: Brill. 2001. – Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006. – Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2008. Beale, G.K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999. – The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. NSBT. Downer’s Grove: IVP. 2004. – “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost.” TyndB 56 (2005) 63–83. – A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2011. Beasley-Murray, George R., Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1986. Becker, Jürgen, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 8. Leiden: Brill. 1970. – Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr. 1989. – Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi nach dem Neuen Testament: Ostererfahrung und Osterverständnis im Urchristentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007. Beker, J. Chr., Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh. 1980. – Paul’s Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent? NTS 34 (1988) 364–377. – “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In: The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Ed. K.P. Donfried. Peabody, Massachusetts. 327–332. 1991. Bergsma, John S., The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation. VT.S. 115. Leiden: Brill. 2007. Betz, Hans D., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1979. – “Hellenism.” ABD III (1992) 127–135.

Bibliography

431

– “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15–18): A Comparative Religion Approach.” JBL 116 (1997) 455–472. Betz, Otto, Was wissen wir von Jesus. Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verlag. 1967. – Jesus Der Messias Israels. Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie. WUNT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1987. – “Jesus and the Temple Scroll.” Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 75–103. Ed. J.H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. 1992. Blomberg, Craig L., Interpreting the Parables. Leicester: Apollos. 1990. Bock, Darrell L., Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61–64. WUNT 2. Reihe 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998. – “What Did Jesus Do that Got Him into Trouble? Jesus in the Continuum of Early Judaism—Early Christianity. – Jesus in Continuum. 171–210. Ed. T. Holmén. WUNT 289. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2012. Bockmuehl, Markus, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. Downer’s Grove: IVP. 1994. Bovon, François, Luke 1: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Transl. C.M. Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2002. Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Figurae: reading medieval culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1999. Brandon, Samuel G.F., Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1967. Branscomb, B. Harvie, The Gospel of Mark. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1952. Brettler, Marc Zvi, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOTS 76. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1989. Brooke, George J., “Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community.” – Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation der Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. 285–302. Hrsg. B. Ego, A. Lange und P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999. Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1964. – The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982. – The Book of the Acts. Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1988. Bryan, Steven M., Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration. SNTS.MS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. – “Jesus and Israel’s Eschatological Constitution.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2835–2853. Ed. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 9. Auflage. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1979. – Theologie des Neuen Testaments. UTB 630. 8., durchgesehene, um Vorwort und Nachträge wesentlich erweiterete Auflage, hrsg. O. Merk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1980. – Theology of the New Testament. Vols. 1–2. ET K. Grobel. London: SCM. 1983. Burger, Chr., Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1970. Böttrich, Christfried, “´Ihr seid der Temple Gottes´: Tempelmetaphorik und Gemeinde bei Paulus.” – Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Community without Temple. Zur Substituie-

432

Bibliography

rung und Transformation der Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. 411–425. Hrsg. B. Ego, A. Lange und P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999. Caird, George, New Testament Theology. Completed and Edited by L.D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon. 1995. Campbell, Douglas A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2009. – “An Apocalyptic Rereading of ‘Justification’ in Paul: Or, an overview of the argument of Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God—by Douglas Campbell.” ExpT 123 (2012), 382–393. Carr, David: “Narrative and the Real World: An Argument for Continuity.” – History and Theory: Contemporary Readings. 137–152. Eds. B. Fay, P. Pomper, and R.T. Vann. Oxford: Blackwell. 1998. Carroll, Robert P., “Israel, History of, Post-Monarchic Period.” ABD III (1992) 567– 576. Carroll, Robert P./Green, Joel B. (eds.), The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity. With R.E. Van Voorst, J. Marcus, and D. Senior. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1995. Carson, D.A., The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1991. Casey, P. Maurice, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Cambridge: Clarke. 1991. Catchpole, David R., “The ‘triumphal’ entry.” – Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Ed. E. Bammel and D.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1984. – Jesus People. The Historical Jesus and the Beginnings of Community. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2006. Chance, J. Bradley, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon: Mercer University Press. 1988. Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1978. Chester, Andrew, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007. – “High Christology – Whence, When and Why?” Early Christianity 2 (2011) 22–50. Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1974. – Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. London: SCM. 1992. – Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster. 2001. Chilton, Bruce, The Temple of Jesus. His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1992. – “Purity.” – Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000) 874–882. Ciampa, Roy E., and Rosner, Brian S., The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2010. Clements, Ronald E., God and Temple. Oxford: Blackwell. 1965. Colapietro, V.M./Olschewsky, Th.M. (eds.), Peirce’s Doctrine of Signs: Theory, Applications, and Connections. Approaches to Semiotics 123. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1996. Collins, John J., Apocalyptic literature. – Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. 345–370. Ed. R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1986. – Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad. 1992.

Bibliography

433

– Dead Sea Scrolls. ABD II (1992) 85–101. – Early Jewish Apocalypticism. ABD I (1992) 282–288. – Daniel: A Commentary of the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993. – The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. 1995. Coloe, Mary L., God Dwells With Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. 2001. Congar, Yves, Le mystère du temple: Ou l’Économie de la présence de Dieu à sa créature, de la Genèse à l’Apocalypse. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. 1958. Cook, John Granger, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2014. Corbett, Joey, “New Synagogue Excavations.” BAR 37 (2011) 52–59. Cranfield, C.E.B., The Epistle to the Romans. Volume I (With corrections). ICC. Edinburgh: Clark. 1982. Crenshaw, James L., “Theodicy.” ABD VI (1992) 444–447. Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: Harper. 1991. – Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperCollins. 1995. Cullmann, Oscar, Heil als Geschichte. Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1965. – Die ersten christlichen Glaubensbekenntnisse. Theologische Studien 15. Zürich: Zollikon. Zweite Auflage. 1949. – Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. 2. Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1958. Davids, Peter H., “The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty years after Gerhardsson.” – Gospel Perspectives I: Studies on History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. 75– 99. Ed. R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT. 1983. Davies, William D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. London 1948. Davies, William D./Allison, Dale C., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew II. CEC. Edinburgh: Clark. 1991. Deely, John, Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1990. Deledalle, G., Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs. Essays in Comparative Semiotics. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2000. Dempster, Stephen G., Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. NSBT 15. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press. 2003. Dinkler, Erich, “The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans chapters 9–11: A Contribution to the Problem of Predestination and Individual Responsibility.” JR 36 (1956) 109–127. Dodd, Charles H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1947. Duff, Paul B., “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992) 55–71. Duling, Dennis C., “The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis.” NTS 19 (1973) 55–77. Dumbrell, William J., The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. 2001.

434

Bibliography

Dunn, James D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. Trowbridge: SCM. 1977. – Romans 1–8, 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38a, 38b. Dallas: Word Books. 1988. – Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/ John Knox Press. 1990. – The Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM / Philadelphia: TPI. 1991. – “The Formal and Theological Coherence of Romans.” – The Romans Debate. 245– 250. Revised and Expanded Edition. Ed. K.P. Donfried. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. 1991. – “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran” – Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 254–272. Anchor Bible Reference Library. Ed. J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. 1992. – The Epistle to the Galatians. Black. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1993. – The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998. – The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2005. – New Testament Theology: An Introduction. Library of Biblical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon. 2009. Dülmen, Andrea van, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. SBM 5. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1968. Elbogen, Ismar, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Transl. R.P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1993. Elgvin, Torleif, “The Messiah Who Ws Cursed on the Tree.” Themelios 22 (1997) 14– 21. Ellingworth, Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1993. Eskenazi, Tamara C., “From Exile and Restoration to Exile and Reconstruction.” – Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. 78–93. Ed. by Knoppers, Gary N. and Grabbe, Lester L., with Fulton, Deidre. Library of Second Temple Studies 73. London: Continuum. 2009. Eskola, Timo, Messias ja Jumalan Poika. Traditiokriittinen tutkimus kristologisesta jaksosta Room. 1:3,4. [Messiah and Son of God. A Tradition-Critical Study of the Christological Clauses in Romans 1:3,4. English Summary.] SESJ 56. Helsinki: Suomen eksegeettinen seura. 1992. – Uuden testamentin hermeneutiikka. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. 1995. – “Paul, Predestination and ’Covenantal Nomism.’ Re-assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” JSJ 28 (1997) 390–412. – Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998. – Messiah and the Throne. Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2001. – Evankeliumi Paavalin mukaan: Roomalaiskirje kaikelle kansalle. Kauniainen: Perussanoma. 2003. – Kielen vallankumous. Kielellinen käänne ja teologian postmodernismit. Suomalaisen teologisen kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 258. Helsinki: STKS. 2008. – Evil Gods and Reckless Saviours: Adaptation and Appropriation in Late Twentieth Century Jesus-novels. Eugene: Pickwick. 2011. – Beyond Biblical Theology: Sacralized Culturalism in Heikki Räisänen’s Hermeneutics. BINS 123. Leiden: Brill. 2013.

Bibliography

435

Esler, Philip, New Testament Theology: Communion and Community. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2005. Evans, Craig, A., “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the FirstCentury Temple.” SBL Seminar Papers: Annual Meeting 1989. 522–539. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1989. – “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action.” BBR (1993) 93–110. – Word and Glory: on the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue. SJNTS 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1993. – “From ‘House of Prayer’ to ‘Cave of Robbers’: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment.” – The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A Sanders. 417–442. Leiden: Brill. 1997. – “The Twelve Thrones of Israel. Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24–30.” – Jesus in Context. Temple, Purity, and Restoration. 455–479. Eds. B. Chilton, C.A. Evans. AGAJU 39. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill. 1997. – “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels.” – Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. 299–328. Ed. Scott, James M. JSJS 56. Leiden: Brill. 1997. – “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel.” – Newman, Carey C., (ed.) Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God.” 77–100. Downers Grove: InverVarsity (Paternoster). 1999. – Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 2001. – “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4 (2006) 35–54. – “Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2: The Study of Jesus. 1217–1243. Ed. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Ed. Scott, James M. JSJS 56. Leiden: Brill. 1997. Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. Ed. by Knoppers, Gary N. and Grabbe, Lester L., with Fulton, Deidre. Library of Second Temple Studies 73. London: Continuum. 2009. Feld, Helmut, Das Verständnis des Abendmahls. Erträge der Forschung 50. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1976. Finegan, Jack, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church. Revised Edition. Princeton: Princeton University. 1992. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. Introduction, Translation and Notes. AncB 28. New York: Doubleday. 1981. – The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV. Introduction, Translation and Notes. AncB 28A. New York: Doubleday. 1985. – Romans. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 33. New York: Doubleday. 1993. – The Semitic Background of the New Testament. Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and A Wandering Aramena: Collected Aramaic Essays. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997. – The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 31. New York: Doubleday. 1998.

436

Bibliography

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T., Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology WUNT 2. Reihe 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1997. – “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2.” JSHJ 5 (2007) 57–79. Flynn, Shawn W., YHWH is King: the Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel. VTS 159. Leiden: Brill. 2014. Foster, Raymond S., The Restoration of Israel: A Study in Exile and Return. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1970. France, Richard T., “The Worship of Jesus: A Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?” – Christ the Lord. 17–36. FS D. Guthrie, ed. H.H. Rowdon. Leicester: Inter-Varsity. 1982. – The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002. Frey, Jörg, “Zum Problem der Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments.” – Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 3–53. Eds. C. Breytenbach and J. Frey. WUNT 205. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007. Freyne, Sean, Jesus, A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-story. London: T&T Clark/Continuum. 2004. Friedrich, Gerhard, “euangelizomai ktl.” TDNT II (1964) 707–737. Gathercole, Simon J., Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002. – “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals.” – Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. 219–242. Ed. B.L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2006. Garnet, Paul, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. WUNT 2. Reihe 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1977. – “Jesus and the Exilic Soteriology.” — Studia Biblica 1978 II. Papers on the Gospels. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies: Oxford 3–7 April 1978. 111–114. Ed. E.A. Livingstone. JTNTS.S. 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1980. – “The Parable of the Sower: How the Multitudes Understood It.” – Spirit Within Structure. Essays in Honor of George Johnston on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. 39–54. Ed. E.J. Furcha. Pittsburgh Theological Monographs 3. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. 1983 Gaventa, Beverly R., and Hays, Richard B., Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2008. Gärtner, Bertil, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and in the New Testament. SNTS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1965. Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Eds. B. Ego, A. Lange und P. Pilhofer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999. Gerhardsson, Birger, “Liknelsen om fyrahanda sädesåker och dess uttydning.” SEÅ 31 (1966) 80–113. [printed also in “Hör Israel!” Om Jesus och den gamla bekännelsen. 12–45. Lund: LiberLäromedel. 1979.] – The Testing of God’s Son (Matt 4;1–11 & par): An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash. CBNT 2:1. Lund: Gleerup. 1966. Gese, Hartmut, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. BevTh 64. München: Kaiser. 1990. Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGAJU 42. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill. 1998. Gnilka, Joachim, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Suppl. 5. Freiburgim Breisgau: Herder. 1994.

Bibliography

437

Goldstein, Jonathan A., II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 41a. New York: Doubleday. 1984. Gorman, Michael J., Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004. Grabbe, Lester L./Knoppers, Gary N., “Introduction.” – Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. 1–30. Ed. by Knoppers, Gary N. and Grabbe, Lester L., with Fulton, Deidre. Library of Second Temple Studies 73. London: Continuum. 2009. Gupta, Nijay K., “Douglas Campbell’s Startling Alternative to Traditional Paradigms of Pauline Soteriology.” RRT 17 (2010) 248–255 Günther, W.,/Krienke, H., “Remnant.” – The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 3. 247–253. Ed. C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1986. Haacker, Klaus, Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Eine Einführung in Fragestellungen und Methoden. TVG, Wuppertal. 1981. Hadidian, Dikran Y., “The Meaning of epiousios and the Codices Sergii.” NTS 5 (1958– 9) 75–81. Hagner, Donald A., Hebrews. NIBC 14. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1990. – Matthew 1–13. WBC 33a. Dallas: Word Books. 1995. – Matthew 14–28. WBC 33b. Dallas: Word Books. 1995. Hahn, Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1963. – “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief.” ZNW 67 (1976) 29–63. – “Ruhm.” TBLNT II (21979) 1051–1053. – Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1–2. Bd. 1: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 2: Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2011. Hahn, H.-Chr., “ergon.” TBLNT II (21979) 1386–1390. Hahn, Scott W., “Worship in the Word: Toward a Liturgical Hermeneutic.” Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 101–136. – “Christ, Kingdom and Creation in Luke-Acts.” – Creazione e salvezza nella Bibbia. 167–190. Roma: Pontifica Universita della Santa Croce. 2008. Halperin, D.J., The Faces of the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. TSAJ 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1988. Halpern-Amary, Betsy, “Exile and return in Jubilees.” – Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. 127–144. Ed. Scott, James M. JSJS 56. Leiden: Brill. 1997. Hamilton, James M., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway. 2010. Hanson, P.D., “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6– 11”. JBL 96 (1977) 195–233. Harrington, Hannah K., The Impurity System of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations. SBL.DS 143. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1993. Harris, Murray J., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2005. Harvey, Anthony E., Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1982. Hauerwas, Stanley, Matthew. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos. 2006. Hays, Richard B., “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4.” – Paul and the Mosaic Law. 151–164. Ed. J.D.G. Dunn. The Third Durham-Tübingen Research

438

Bibliography

Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism. (Durham, September, 1994). WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996. Hengel, Martin, War Jesus Revolutionär? Calwer Hefte 110. Stuttgart: Calwer. 1970. – Der Sohn Gottes. Die Entstehung der Christologie und die jüdisch-hellenistische Religionsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1975. – Crucifixion: In the ancient world and the folly of the message of the cross. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1977. – Qumran und der Hellenismus. – Qumrân. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Ed. M. Delcor. BEThL XLVI. Paris-Gembloux: Duculot/Leuven University Press. 1978. – Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Calwer. 1979. – Studies in the Gospel of Mark. ET J. Bowden. London: SCM. 1985. – Judentum und Hellenismus. 3., durchgesehene Auflage. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1988. – The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. ET D. Smith. Edinburgh: Clark. 1989. – The Johannine Question. London: SCM. 1989. – “Psalm 110 und die Erhöhung des Auferstandenen zur rechten Gottes.” – Anfänge der Christologie. FS F. Hahn. Hrsg. Breytenbach und Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 43–73. 1991. – “Der vorchristliche Paulus.” – Paulus und das antike Judentum. Hrsg. M. Hengel, U. Heckel. Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 177–293. 1991. – The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM. 1991. – Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: Clark. 1995. Hengel, Martin/Schwemer, Anna Maria, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannte Jahre des Apostels. WUNT 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998. Hengel, Martin/Schwemer, Anna Maria, Jesus und das Judentum: Geschichte des frühen Christentums I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007. Hengel, Martin/Schwemer, Anna Maria (hrsg.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt. WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1991. Herzog, William R. II, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 2000. Hoehner, Harold, W., Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1980. Hofius, Otfried, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. WUNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1972. – Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6–11. Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage eines urchristlichen Psalms. WUNT 17. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1976. – Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1989. – “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied in den Briefen des Neuen Testamentes.” – Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte. 107–127. Hrsg. B. Janowski und P. Stuhlmacher. FAT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996. Hogeterp, Albert L.A., Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence. Biblical Tools and Studies 2. Leuven: Peeters. 2006. Hollenbach, Paul W., “John the Baptist.” ABD III (1992) 887–899. Holmén, Tom, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. BIS 55. Leiden: Brill. 2001. – “Jesus and the Purity Pradigm” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2709–2744. Eds. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011.

Bibliography

439

Horsley, Richard, A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1993. Hurtado, Larry W., New Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset’s Influence. TS 40 (1979) 306–317. – One God, one Lord: early Christian devotion and ancient Jewish monotheism. London: SCM. 1988. – Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003. Hübner, Hans, Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: Clark. 1984. Irons, Charles Lee, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the CovenantFaithfulness Interpretation. WUNT 2. Reihe 386. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2015. Isaak, Jon M., New Testament Theology: Extending the Table. Eugene: Cascade. 2011. Jeremias, Joachim, Jesus als Weltvollender. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 33:4. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. 1930. – Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1989. – New Testament Theology. London: SCM. 1987. – The Parables of Jesus. Revised Edition. London: SCM. 1989. – The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London: SCM. 1987. Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Eds. N. Perrin and R.B. Hays. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2011. Jesus & the Restoration of Israel. A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Ed. C.C. Newman. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1999. Jewett, Robert, ‘The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4’. – The Living Text. 99–122. FS E.W. Saunders. Eds. D.E. Groh and R. Jewett. Lanham/New York: University Press of America. 1985. – Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2007. Juel, Donald, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula: SBL/Scholar’s Press. 1977. Kaiser, W.C., “cabôdâ.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 2. 640–641. Eds. R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, B.K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody. 1980. Käsemann, Ernst, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1964. – An die Römer. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1973. Keen, Ralph, Exile and Restoration in Jewish Thought: An Essay in Interpretation. Continuum Studies in Jewish Thought. London: Continuum. 2009. Kerr, Alan R., The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. JSNTS 220. London: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Eds. Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009. Kim, Seyoon, The ’Son of Man’ as the Son of God. WUNT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1983. – The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 2. Reihe 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1984 – Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002. Kinman, Brent, “Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem.” – Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. 383–427. Eds. Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009.

440

Bibliography

Kirk, J.R. Daniel, “Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12–25.” CBQ 74 (2012) 509–527. Klein, Ralph W., Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1979. Knibb, Michael A., The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987. Koskenniemi, Erkki, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. WUNT 2. Reihe 61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1994. – Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. WUNT 2. Reihe 206. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2005. Kramer, Werner, Christos Kyrios Gottessohn. AThANT 44. Zürich: Zwingli. 1963. Kreitzer, Larry J., Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTS 19. Worcester: Sheffield Academic Press. 1987. Kreplin, Matthias, “The Self-Understanding of Jesus.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2473–2516. Ed. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Kugel, James L., A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of its Creation. JSJS 156. Leiden: Brill. 2012. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, “Did Jesus Stay at Bethsaida? Arguments from Ancient Texts and Archaeology for Bethsaida and Et-Tell.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4: The Historical Jesus. 2972–3021. Ed. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Kuhn, Karl G., “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran.” – The Scrolls and the New Testament. Ed. K. Stendahl. With a new Introduction by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad. 65–93. 1992. Kuula, Kari, The Law the Covenant and God’s Plan: Volume 1. Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians. Helsinki: FES/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1999. Kümmel, Werner G., The New Testament. The History of the Investigation of its Problems. London: SCM. 1978. Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt. Hrsg. Martin Hengel und Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1991. Laato, Antti, The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40–55. CB.OT 35. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1992. – A Star is Rising. The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997. – Uhri ja anteeksiantamus: Sovitus Vanhassa testamentissa, juutalaisuudessa ja Uudessa testamentissa. Iustitia 16. Helsinki: Suomen teologinen instituutti. 2002. – Who Is the Servant of the Lord? Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Studies in Rewritten Bible 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns/Åbo Akademi University. 2012. Laato, Timo, Rechtfertigung bei Jakobus: Ein Vergleich mit Paulus. Saarijärvi: Gummerus. 2003. Lane, William L., Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47a. Dallas: Word. 1991. – Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47b. Dallas: Word. 1991. Lang, B., “kipper” (etc.). TDOT 7 (1995) 288–303.

Bibliography

441

Lange, Armin, Weisheit & Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung & Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. StTDJ 18. Leiden: Brill. 1995. Levenson, Jon D., “The Temple and the World.” JR 64 (1984) 275–298. – Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2006. Lindars, Barnabas, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press. 1991. Linnemann, Eta, “Tradition und Interpretation in Röm. 1,3f.” EvT 31 (1971) 264–275. Loffreda, Stanislao, “Machaerus.” ABD IV (1992) 457–458. Lohmeyer, Ernst, Probleme paulinischer Theologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. (n.d.) Longenecker, Bruce W., Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1991. Longenecker, Richard N., Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas, Texas: Word Books. 1990. Losie, Lynn A., “Triumphal Entry.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 854–859. Eds. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, I.H. Marshall. Downers Grove: IVP. 1992. Maier, Gerhard, Jakobusbrief. In: Maier, G., and Holland, M., Jakobusbrief, Judas-brief. Bibelkommentar 23. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler. 1988. Maier, Johann, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation & Commentary. JSOTS 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1985. Marböck, J., Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. BBB 37. Bonn: Hanstein. 1971. Marcus, Joel, “Mark, 9,11–13: ’As It Has Been Written.” ZNW 80 (1989) 42–63. – The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Edinburgh: Clark. 1993. – “Identity and Ambiguity in Markan Christology.” – Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage. 133–147. Eds. B.R. Gaventa and R.B. Hayes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2008. Marshall, I. Howard, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1986. – New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP. 2004. – “The Last Supper.” – Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. 481–588. Eds. Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009. Martin, Brice L., Christ and the Law in Paul. NT.S. 62. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Martin, Ralph P., Carmen Christi: Philippians II.5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Getting of Early Christian Worship. SNTSM 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1967. – 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco: Word books. 1986. – James. WBC 48. Waco: Word books. 1988. Martyn, J. Louis, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 33A. New York: Doubleday. 1997. Matera, Frank J., New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Lousiville: John Knox. 2007. Matlock, R. Barry, “Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on ‘Justification Theory’.” JSNT 34 (2011) 116–149. McKnight, Scot, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999. Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historiacal Jesus. Vol. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles. AncBibRefLib. New York: Doubleday. 1994.

442

Bibliography

– “Jesus, the Twelve and the Restoration of Israel.” – Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. 365–404. Ed. J.M. Scott. Leiden: Brill. 2001 Merkel, Helmut, “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu.” – Königsherrschaft Gottes, 119-162. Meyer, Ben F., The Aims of Jesus. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 48. Eugene: Pickwick. 2002. Michaels, J. Ramsay, The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2010. Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Römer. KEK IV. 10. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1955. – Der Brief an die Römer. KEK IV. 14. Auflage. 5., bearb. Aufl. dieser Auslegung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1978. Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1996. Moore, Anne, Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible Through Metaphor. StBL 99. New York: Lang. 2009. Moore, Ernest, “BIAZW, ARPAZW and Cognates in Josephus.” NTS 21 (1976) 519– 543. Mundle, Wilhelm, “epiousios.” – The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1. 251–252. Ed. C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1986. Murphy, Roland E., The Tree of Life. An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. AncB Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. 1990. Myllykoski, Matti, Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus und Johannes, ihre Traditionen und die historische Frage. Band I. AASF.B.256. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. 1991. Neufeld, Vernon H., The Earliest Christian Confessions. NTTS 5. Leiden: Brill. 1963. Neusner, Jacob, “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation.” NTS 35 (1989) 289-290. – Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return in the History of Judaism. Boston: Beacon. 1987. Newman, Carey C., (ed.) Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God.” Downers Grove: InverVarsity (Paternoster). 1999. Nickelsburg, Georg W.E., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction. London: SCM. 1981. Nolland, John, Luke 1–9:20. WBC. Dallas: Word Books. 1989. – The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2005. Notley, R. Steven, “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances.” – The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition. Ed. C.A. Evans. 279–311. London: T&T Clark. 2000. Oakman, Douglas E., “Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens: Pronouncement Stories Within Social-Systemic Perspective Mark 11:12–25 and Parallels.” Semeia 64 (1993) 253–272. O’Brien, Peter T., The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1991. Ollilainen, Vesa, Jesus and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Åbo: Åbo Akademi. 2008. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der, Gott und Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. StUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1969. Paesler, Kurt, Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament. FRLANT 184. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1999.

Bibliography

443

Pao, David W., Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT 2. Reihe, 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2000. Peirce, Charles S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. (CP). 1–6 ed. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss. 7–8 ed. A.W. Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1931–1958. – Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A Chronological Edition. Volume I 1857–1866. Eds. H. Fisch et. al. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1982. – The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 1 (1867–1893). Ed. N Houser et. al. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1992. – The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 2 (1893–1913). Ed. N Houser et. al. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1998. Perrin, Nicholas, Jesus The Temple. SPCK. Grand Rapids, Baker. 2010. – “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet.” – Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. 92–112. Eds. N. Perrin and R.B. Hays. Downer’s Grove: IVP. 2011. Perrin, Norman, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation. NTL. London: SCM. 1976. Pervo, Richard I., Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2009. Piper, John, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton: Crossway. 2007. Pitre, Brant, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the origin of the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2005. – “The ‘Ransom for Many,’ the New Exodus, and the End of the Exile: Redemption as the Restoration of All Israel (Mark 10:35–45).” Letter & Spirit 1 (2005) 47. – “Jesus, the New Temple, and the New priesthood.” Letter & Spirit 4 (2008) 41–68. – Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper. New York: Doubleday. 2011. Ravens, David, Luke and the Restoration of Israel. JSNTS 119. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1995. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Ed. James M. Scott. JSJS 72. Leiden: Brill. 2001. Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Eds. R. Bieringer, V. Koperski, and B. Lataire. BEtL 165. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 2002. Reventlow, Henning G., History of Biblical Interpretation 4: From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century. Transl. L.G. Perdue. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: SBL. 2010. Riesner, Rainer, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge. 1997. Ringgren, Helmer, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Expanded Edition with a New Introduction by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad. 1995. Rowe, C. Kavin, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2006. Runnalls, Donna, “The King as Temple Builder: A Messianic Typology.” – Spirit Within Structure. Essays in Honor of George Johnston on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. 15–37. Ed. E.J. Furcha. Pittsburgh Theological Monographs 3. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. 1983. Räisänen, Heikki, Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1986.

444

Bibliography

– Paul and the Law. 2nd Edition, revised and enlarged. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1987. – The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2010. Röhser, Günter, Prädestination und Verstockung. Untersuchungen zur frühjüdischen, paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie. TANZ 14. Tübingen: Francke. 1994. Saldarini, A.J., “E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” (Review). JBL 98 (1979) 299–303. Samuelsson, Gunnar, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. Skrifter utgivna vid Institutionen för litteratur, idéhistoria och religion 36. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. 2010. Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1977. – Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1985. – Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Second printing. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1989. – Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE. London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. 1992. Schmithals, Walter, The Theology of the First Christians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1997. Schnabel, Eckhard J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2. Reihe 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1985. – Jesus and the Twelve. Early Christian Mission Vol. 1. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2004. – Paul and the Early Church. Early Christian Mission Vol. 2. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2004. Schnelle, Udo, Theology of the New Testament. Trans. M.E. Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2009. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, Paulus. Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1959. Scholem, Gershom G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. First Schocken Paperback Edition. Reprinted from the Third Revised Edition. New York. 1961. Schreiner, Thomas R., The Law and its Fulfillment. A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1993. – Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. A Pauline Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2001. – New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2008. Schrenk, Gottlob, “biazomai, biastees.” TDNT 1 (1964) 609–614. Schröter, Jens, Das Abendmahl: frühchristliche Deutungen und Impulse für die Gegenwart. StB 210. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. 2006. Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). I–III. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1987. Schweitzer, Albert, Paul and His Interpreters. A Critical History. New York: Macmillan. 1951. – Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 21954. – The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. 1998. Schweizer, Eduard, “Röm. 1,3f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus.” EvTh 15 (1955) 563–571. Scobie, Charles H.H., John the Baptist. London: SCM. 1964.

Bibliography

445

– The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003. Scott, James M., Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of hyiothesia in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2. Reihe 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1992. – “Paul’s use of Deuteronomic Tradition.” JBL 112 (1993) 645–665. – Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. WUNT 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1995. – “Exile and the self-understanding of diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman period.” – Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. 173–218. Ed. J.M. Scott. JSJS 56. Leiden: Brill. 1997. – Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Ed. J.M. Scott. JSJS 72. Leiden: Brill. 2001. Scott, J. Julius Jr., “Crisis and Reaction: Roots of Diversity in Intertestamental Judaism.” EQ 64 (1992) 197–212. – Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1995. – New Testament Theology: A New Study of the Thematic Structure of the New Testament. Fearn/Ross-shire: Mentor. 2008. Seeberg, Alfred, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit. TB 26. München: Kaiser. 1966. Selden, R./Widdowson, P./Brooker, P., A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Fourth Edition. London et al.: Prentice Hall/ Harvester Wheatsheaf. 1997. Simojoki, Anssi, Apocalypse Interpreted: The Types of Interpretation of the Book of Revelation in Finland 1944-1995, From the Second World War to the Post-Cold War World. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. 1997. Skehan, Patrick W./Di Lella, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AncB 39. New York: Doubleday. 1987. Snell, D.C., “Taxes and taxation.” ABD VI (1992) 338–340. Snodgrass, Klyne R., The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation. WUNT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1983. – Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2008. – “The Temple Incident.” – Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collabrative Exploration of Context and Coherence. 429–480. Ed. D.L. Bock and R.L. Webb. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009. Spanje, T.E. van, Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen. WUNT 2 Reihe 110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999. Sternberg, Meir: The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. 1987. Stickert, Fred, Philip’s City: From Bethsaida to Julias. Collegeville: Glazier. 2011. Still, Todd D. (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007. Stowers, S.K., “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3:1–9.” CBQ 46 (1984) 707–722. Strecker, Georg, Theology of the New Testament. German Edition by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Westminster: John Knox. 2000. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Angel Veneration and Christology. A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christologoy of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT 2. Reihe 70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1995.

446

Bibliography

Stuhlmacher, Peter, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1965. – Das paulinische Evangelium. I Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1968. – “Das paulinische Evangelium.” – Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982. 157–182. Hrsg. P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1983. – Der Brief and die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1989. – Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1992. – Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark. 1994. – “Jes 53 in den Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte.” – Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte. 93–105. Hrsg. B. Janowski und P. Stuhlmacher. FAT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996. Sweet, J.P.M., “A House Not Made with Hands.” – Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel. 368–390. Ed. William Horbury. JSNTS 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1991. Tan, Kim Huat, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. MSSNTS 91. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. 1997. – “The Shema and Early Christianity.” TyndB 59 (2008) 181–206. – “Jesus and the Shema.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2678–2707. Ed. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011. Taylor, Joan E., The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997. Telford, William R., The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A redaction-critical analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree pericope in Mark’s Gospel and its relation to the Cleansing of the Temple tradition. JSNTS 1. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. 1980. Theissen, Gerd, The Religion of The Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1999. Thielman, Frank, From Plight to Solution. A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NT.S 61. Leiden: Brill. 1989. – Paul and the Law. A Contextual Approach. Downers Growe: IVP. 1994. – Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2005. Thiselton, Anthony C., “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation.” – New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Principles and Methods. 75–104. Ed. I.H. Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster. 1979. – The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007. – The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2000. Thurén, Jukka, Hedningarnas offerliturgi. MESJ 18. Helsinki: Missiologian ja ekumeniikan seura. 1970. Thurén, Lauri, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law. WUNT 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2000. Tyson, J.B., “Works of the Law in Galatians.” JBL 92 (1973) 423–431. VanderKam, James C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/SPCK. 1994. – “Messianism in the Scrolls.” – The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre

Bibliography

447

Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. 211–234. Ed. by E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam. CJAS 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1994. – From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJ supplements 62. Leiden: Brill. 2000. Wagner, G., “The Future of Israel: Reflections on Romans 9–11.” – Eschatology and the New Testament. Essays in Honor of G.R. Beasley-Murray. Ed. W. Hulitt Gloer. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson. 77–112. 1988. Watson, Francis, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2013. Webb, Robert L., John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. JSNTS 62. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1991. Wedderburn, Alexander J.M., The Death of Jesus: Some Reflections on Jesus-Tradition and Paul. WUNT 299. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2013. Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 5. New York: Doubleday. 1991. Wenham, David, The Parables of Jesus. The Jesus Library. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. 1989. Westerholm, Stephen, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Paul and his Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1988. – “Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11.” – Paul and the Mosaic Law. 215–237. Ed. J.D.G. Dunn. The Third Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism. (Durham, September, 1994). WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996. – Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004. – “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five.” – Justification and Variegated Nomism II: The Paradoxes of Paul. 1–38. Eds. D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien, and M.A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2004. White, Hayden: “The Historical Text as Literary Artifact.” – History and Theory: Contemporary Readings. 15–33. Eds. B. Fay, P. Pomper, and R.T. Vann. Oxford: Blackwell. 1998. Wilckens, Ulrich, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. Form- und Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. WMANT 5. Neukirchen: Neukirchener. 1961. – Der Brief an die Römer. 1. Teilband. Röm 1–5. 2., verbesserte Auflage. EKK VI/1. Neukirchen – Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener. 1987. – Der Brief an die Römer. 2. Teilband. Röm 6–11. 2., verbesserte Auflage. EKK VI/2. Neukirchen – Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener. 1987. – Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 2002–2009. Winger, Michael, By What Law? The Meaning of Nomos in the Letters of Paul. SBL.DS. 128. Atlanta: Scholars. 1992. Wink, Walter, John the Baptist in Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1968. Witherington (III), Ben, The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1990. – Paul’s Narrative Thought World. The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. 1994. – The Jesus-Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Carlisle: Paternoster. 1995. – Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James, and Jude. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2007.

448

Bibliography

– The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament. Volume One: The Individual Witnesses. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2009. – The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament. Volume Two: The Collective Witness. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2010. – The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998. Wright, Benjamin G. III, “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism.” – Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. 190–214. Eds. N.A. Silberman and S. Small. JSOTS 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1997. Wright, N. Thomas, The Climax of the Covenant. Christ and Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: Clark. 1991. – The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 1. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1997 Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992. – Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1997. – The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2003. – Paul: Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK. 2005. – “New Perspectives on Paul.” – Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. 243–264. Ed. B.L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2006. – Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove: IVP. 2009. – Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2013. Yadin, Yigael, The Message of the Scrolls. With a new Introduction by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad. 1992. Yamasaki, Gary, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew’s Narrative. JSNTS 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1998. Zuck, Roy/Bock, Darrell, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody. 1994. Ådna, Jostein, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17): The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by his Atoning Death.” – Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation der Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. 461–476. Hrsg. B. Ego, A. Lange und P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999. – Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 25. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 1999. – Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Die Tempelaktion und das Templewort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. WUNT 2. Reiche 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2000. – “Jesus and the Temple.” – Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3: The Historical Jesus. 2635–2675. Eds. T. Holmén and S.E. Porter. Leiden: Brill. 2011.

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Old Testament Genesis 4:10 5:3 14:18 15:1 15:6 15:16 15:17 17:5 21:1 21:12 22:2 22:7-8 22:12 22:16 26:28-31 28:17 30:13 31:44-54

393 362, 385 166 234 313 258 270 234 239, 298 250 298 298 298 224, 299 162 72 241 162

Exodus 4:3 9:16 12:21-22 12:24-26 15:17-18 18:5 20:3 20:3-5 24:6-8 24:9-11 25:8-9 25:22 25:30 28:9 29:38 29:38-42 29:45 30:11-14 30:15 30:16 33-34

239 343 295 255 125, 126 358 143 279 162 162 403 206 167 50 292 56 265 55 292 56 403

33:19 34:6 34:29 34:33 34:34 39:17 39:36 40:23 40:34-35

343 403 286 286 287 167 166, 167 167 190

Leviticus 1:1 1:4 3:1-7 4:32-35 5:6-25 7:12-13 16:2-14 16:7-10 16:9-10 16:10 16:15 16:21 16:22 18:13-16 19:2 19:11-16 19:18 21:1 21:18-19 21:22 21:23 23:29 24:5-9 25 25:2 25:8-28 25:10 26 26:1-2 26:6 26:11

56 56 168 292 321 168 226 293 292 137 293, 392 293, 294 294 84 147 147 147, 282 151 151 164 151 371 164 24 107 107 117 115 266 266 267

450 26:11-12 26:14-16 26:31-33 26:34-35. 29:20-21 Numbers 4:7 6:24 15:1-10 15:25 15:37-41 Deuteronomy 4:27 4:29 5:7 6-8 6:4-9 6:5 6:16 10:12 11:13-21 11:26 18:15 18:15-19 21:22-23 23:2 27:9 27:12-13 27:19 28 28:1 28:4 28:15 28:18 28:58-68 28:64 29:22-29 30 30:1-4 30:2 30:3 30:4-14 30:6 30:14 30:15-17 30:15-20 32:9 33:21 33:29 Joshua 4:7 7:19

Index of Ancient Sources 412 24 24 24, 117 295 166, 167 234 56 56 132, 234 52 132 367 137 131, 132 234 138 148 132, 234 136 243 212 301 127 358 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 18, 64 52 18, 64 301, 302, 313, 346, 349 300 132 359 349 194 194, 361 300 277 64 329 234 50 169

8:31 9:11-15 22:27

70 162 255

1 Samuel 1:11 2 2:10 2:7-8 12:7 21:7 22:51

240 240 241 241 329 167 241

2 Samuel 3:20-21 7 7:8 7:10 7:10-14 7:11-14 7:12 7:12-14 7:14 8:15 10:17 22 22:3 22:44 22:48-49

162 378 270 125, 270 37 124 201 200, 216 143, 218, 269 358 358 237 237, 239, 240 237 237

1 Kings 1:38-39 4:1 6:7 7:23 8:10-11 8:33-36 8:65 12:29 19:14 21:1-16

45 358 70 27 190, 191 107 358 17 79 64

2 Kings 9:13 19:15 20:3 25:7 25:10 25:12 25:21 25:23

45 206 132 17 17 17 17 17

1 Chron 1 9:1 17

358 358 269

Index of Ancient Sources 17:25 18:8

125 27

2 Chron 4:19 7:1-2 9:32 13:11 23:29 24:21 28:16 29:18 33:16 36:15-16 36:20-21 36:21

167 190, 191 167 167 167 81 167 167 168 18 24 21

Ezra 3 Nehemiah 9:26 9:36

28 18, 81, 356 35

Job 1:5

56

Psalms 2:1-2 2:7 5:12 11:4 14:1-3 14:7 16 16:8-11 17 17:15 18 18:35 20:6 22 22:6 22:27 23:5 24 24:3-4 32:11 37 37:11 40 40:5 41 41:4 41:5 42 42:2

212, 218 200 276 389 38 38 200 212 120 121 237 202 202 115, 168, 182 178 178 163 120 121 276 120 121 120 120 120 238 121 120 121

42:23 44:12 45:8 47 47:2 47:5 47:8 47:9 48:3 48:10 51 52:3 69:5 72:18 74:1-2 74:10 78:54 79:1 79:5 80:17 81:9-17 89 89:3-4 89:17 89:18 92-93 93:1 93:2 94:3 95:2-3 96:10 97:1 97:2-4 98:1 99:1-3 99:1-5 103:6 103:13 103:19 103:19-21 106:4 106:48 108:6 109:31 110 110:1 113:2 116 116:13 118 118:15 118:16

451 121 52 381 115 366 366 113, 206 366 113 202 318 276 407 238 38 38 202 38 38 202 163 200, 218 201 329 276 26 26 113 276 113 113 113 113 202 113 206 329 342 389 206 239 238 202 202 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 213, 225, 361, 390, 391 212 233 168, 318 169 45, 48, 49, 51, 65, 66, 67, 73, 84, 128, 129, 130, 175, 183 381 202

452

Index of Ancient Sources

118:17-18 118:22 118:26 119:14 119:105 126 132 136:7 138:7 146:7-8 147

128 50, 128, 212, 398 49 276 275 120 200, 210 233 202 119 236

Proverbs 8:22 8:27 8:32 12

278 278 278 120

Isaiah 1:4 1:9 1:13 1:27 2:2 4:5 5 5:1-2 5:5 6:1 6:1-2 6:4 6:10 8:4 8:11 8:14 8:14-15 9 9:1-2 10:27 24:1 24:21 24:23 25:6-8 25:8 26:19 28 28:15-16 29:13 29:18-19 35:5-6 35:9 38:3 40-55 40:1-2 40:3 40:9-10

377 251 25 329 378 416 63 96 64 184 73, 113, 206 233 139, 140, 141 398 271 73 65 239 238, 240 250 52 113 113 158 411 119, 153 398 128 20 119, 153 119, 153 89 132 304 23 78, 240 114

40:31 42:6 42:6-7 42:7 42:10 43 43:1-3 43:6-7 43:11 43:25 44-46 44-55 44:3 44:6 44:20 44:22 45 45:7 45:8 45:14 45:22 45:22-23 45:23 45:24 45:25 49:2 49:6 46:9 46:12-13 49:6 49:10 51:1 51:3 51:9-11 51:11 52 52-53 52:2 52:3 52:5 52:7 52:7-8 52:9-11 52:11 53 53:3 53:4-5 53:5-9 53:7-8 53:8 53:10 53:11 53:12 54:7-10 55

413 116, 304, 378 275 119 114, 381 110 303 270 270 23 120 321 105, 123 114 132 23, 105 371 233 106, 121, 330 303 304, 330 372 223, 330 330 330 414 414 94 105 29, 95, 378 411 127 169 19 381 114 371 268 268 316 229, 268, 361 114, 115, 116, 118, 360 268 268 292 212 296 321 212 222, 371 296, 321, 322 296, 297, 321, 322 198, 212, 297 305 120

453

Index of Ancient Sources 55:1 56 56:1,3,5 56:2 56:6 56:7 56:8 58:13 61 61:1 61:1-2 61:3 61:10 61:10-62:5 61:11 62:10-12 65:17-18 66:1 66:3 66:18-22 66:23 Jeremiah 2:27 2:30 3:17 4:1-4 4:4 5:21-22 5:23 7:4 7:4-5 7:8-10 7:11 7:25 8:13 9:16 9:25 9:26 10:6-7 13:24 16:14-15 17:5 17:14 17:21-27 17:22 23:5 23:7-8 23:15 24 25:4 24:7 25:12 26:5

121 23 58 24 378 57, 378 24, 57 24 116, 119, 120 23, 25, 117, 118, 119, 187 24, 116, 153, 212, 243 121 158 158 121 94 26 29, 30, 73 244 73 24 20 18, 81 29 140 250 20 20, 132 20 59 59 58 18 52 52 377 132, 250 113 52 19, 267, 393 132 276 25 24 201 19 33 110 18 132 21 18

26:8 29:19 31 31:4 31:31 31:33 33:6-8 33:14-16 33:31-34 35:15 36:26 38:4 44:2-3 44:4-5 44:4-6 52:17

18 18 393 21 262 265 23 28 107 18 132 18 18 18 64 27

Lamentations 2:7 4:14 4:22

17 33 106

Ezekiel 1:26-28 4:5 4:6 4:13 7:2 8 10 12:15 20 20:9 20:13 20:23 20:30-31 20:33 20:34 20:38 20:40 22:8 23:38 34 34:23 36:8 36:21 36:24-26 36:25-27 36:27 36:33 37 37:14 37:15-19 37:21-22 37:22 37:24

371 21 21 316 46 18 46 52 24 19 25 52 269 113, 269 19, 269 269 269 24 25 110 201, 411 265 316 23, 155 401 122 155 97 122 411 268 21 268

454 37:24-26 37:27 37:27-28 37:28 38-39 40-42 40-43 43:4-7 43:7 44:7 46:1

Index of Ancient Sources 28 267 28 155 358 47 415 187 404 132 24

Daniel 2:20 2:34 2:35 2:44-45 7:7 7:13 8:5-21 9:24 9:26 11:3 12:1 12:1-2 12:11 21:27

233 65, 70 70 70 39 72, 212 39 21, 80, 177 80 38 100 79 100 212

Hosea 1:6-10 6:1 6:2 6:6

399 197 197 71

Joel 2:12 2:23 2:28 2:28-32 2:32

132 106 106 190, 212 106, 366, 367

Amos 9:11

37

Micah 2:5 2:13 4:1-2 7:1-2 7:2 7:4 7:5 7:6-7

127 82 94 51 90 52 90 87, 90

7:12 7:14 7:16

90 90 90

Habakkuk 1:2-3 1:6 1:12 1:13 2

38 343 34 38 96, 331

Haggai 2:7 2:9

30 28, 47

Zechariah 2 2:6 6:12 6:13 7:2 8:3 9:9 11:16 12:8 12:10 13:1 13:7 14 14:5 14:21

23 24, 90 28, 45 29, 46 17 46 28, 46 343 46 46, 178 46, 60 178 46 366 57, 401

Malachi 1:4-7 1:10 3:23 3:23-24 4:5-6

342 22, 57, 62 78 86 79, 86

8HevXIIgr 17.29-30

332

455

Index of Ancient Sources

2. Jewish Literature A. Apocrypha Tobit 13:5 13:6 13:9 13:10 14:5

24, 32 33 32 36 36

Wisdom of Solomon 1:12-15 1:15 1:15-2:1 6:3-4 8:4 9:10 11:15 12:4 12:19 12:24 13:1-2 14:12 14:22 14:25-27 15:1-5 15:3

279 41 40 255 255 184 279 255 255 279 281 279 279 279 313 313

Sirach 1:26 5:5-6 9:16 7:30-31 10:6 11:20-21 15:12 15:13-15 15:17 15:19 16:12 16:26-27 17:11 21:2 24:23-30 27:10 33:14-15 36:10-19 36:17-19 39:8 40:3 44:19-20 46:23-24 47:11 48:10

279 315 313 133 255 255 40 149 279 255 255 278 275 316 313 316 40 32 36 276 184 334 348 184 78, 86

48:15 51

79 200, 235, 236

Baruch 2:7-10 3:32 4:1 4:37

33 279 279 24

1 Maccabees 1:2-3 1:22 1:37 1:54 1:64 2:49-50 2:52

39 167 33 100 76 134 334

2 Maccabees 1:27 6:2 6:6 6:9 7:37 10:3

24 33 131 77 178, 322 167

4 Maccabees 6:26 17:22

178 226, 392

B. Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 20 39:2 Joseph and Aseneth 8:11 15:5

315 316 165 166

Assumptio Mosis/ Testament of Moses 3:7-8 4:8-9 5:1 5:3-4 7:1

40 35 76 33, 35 76

Testament of Isaac 2:7

207

Ascension of Isaiah 7:21

231

456

Index of Ancient Sources

2 Baruch/Apocalypse of Baruch 51:1,3 316 54:5 316 54:15,21 316 68:5-6 37 1 Enoch 6-11 9:3-5 10:2-4 14:18-20 50:1 83-90 89:73-75 90:2 90:28-29 100:1-2 Exodus of Ezekiel 6.15

39 39 39 207 316 32 32 39 36 86

4:80-90

39

TLevi 3:4 5:1-2 14:2-3 14:5-8 15:1 16:5 17:8 18:11

389 207 40 35 36 36 33 123, 191, 342

TJudah 23:1 23:3 24:3

40 35, 40 123, 191, 342

TBenjamin 10:6

207

207 Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers 6.1 47

1 Esdra (LXX) 1:58 8:80-83

24 33

4 Ezra 1:29 7:122-125 13:6-7

123 316 70

Jubilees 1:15-17 1:17 1:23-25 1:29 8-9 23 23:17 23:19 23:19-21 23:20 23:21 23:28-29 50:5

90 267 123, 342 36 358 117 40 85 40 85 33 86 117

Psalms of Solomon 9:3 9:4 9:5 11:1-3 17:21 17:30-31

255 256 256 114 50 359

Sibylline Oracles 3:286-294 4:11

37 70

C. Dead Sea Scrolls CD I.4 I.5-12 I.12 III.2 III.20 V.20 VI.11-15 XIII.11 XIX.16-18 XX.13-16 1QH I.27 II.2 IV.29-30 XI. XVIII.14 1QM II.1-6 XIII.8-12 XIV.4 XV. XVII.8-9 1QS I.11-12 III-IV III.1-6 III.17-19 III.20-21

34 22 34 334 316 22 22, 62 134 86 35 316 271 316 77 115 165 34 238 77 35 134 77 153 41 41

457

Index of Ancient Sources IV.23 V.8-10 VI.4-6 VIII.4-7 VIII.5-9 XI

316 315 164 71 126 313

4-5 16

117 115

11QtgHiob 38.2.

178

D. Josephus

1QSa II II.2-3 II.4 II.3-9 II.11-12 II.17-21

120 164 127 152 164 165

1QpHab V.3-4 VIII. VIII.1-3 VIII.9-11

34 22 331 34

4QpNah, 3-4

34

4Q141

22

4Q171 4Q174

77 37, 200

4Q177

270

4Q246

77

4Q405

207,

4Q504 V.11-9 XX.8

35 416

4Q521

86, 119

4QFlor

35, 50, 72, 126, 210, 256, 268, 270

4QTest.

270

4QMMT b, 2ff. c, 27

256 256

11QTemple XIX.64 XXIX.8-9 XLV 11QMelch 1-5

Antiquities 3.123 5.9.4 15.2.5 15.411-416 18.116-119 18.117 18.312

27 35 304 54 84 87 55

Jewish War (BJ) 2.8.7 3.10 4.3 5.214 6.5.3 7:325 7.378-379

315 199 199 27 97 134 134

E. Philo Vita Mosis 2.88 2:18

70 27

Her. 45.221-228

27

F. Rabbinic Eighteen Benedictions/ Shemoneh Esreh 1 2-10 14 14-15 14-17

234 235 47 236 235

mAboth

272

mSotah 9:15

80

301 37, 72 120, 152

mSeqal. 1:13

55

24, 26 25

mKelim 1:1

152

458

Index of Ancient Sources

mBerakhot 1:1-4 2:1-2 5 9:5

132, 233 132 234 133, 155

mPesahim 5:6-7 10:3

162 161

10:5

161

GenRabb 43:6

166

Sifre Deut.

64

Targum Onkelos Deut 6:5

133

3. New Testament Matthew 3:2 3:8 3:11 4:1-11 4:4 4:10 5 5:3-10 5:6 5:10 5:17 5:18 5:20 5:21-22 5:27-29 5:28 5:39 5:43-45 5:44-45 5:48 6:11 6:11-13 6:12 6:19 6:21 6:24 6:25 6:27 6:30 7:12 8:11 9:12-13 9:19-20 10:5-8 10:9-10 10:16 10:17 10:21

87 87 87 137 137 138 127 120 105 121 144, 147 146 147 144, 146, 186 147 135 146 146 135 135, 147 166, 167 145 107, 122 136 136 136 136 136 136 147 172 158 122 89 155 91 91 87, 91

10:22 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:28 10:34 10:35-36 10:38 10:39 11:4-6 11:5 11:5-6 11:7-8 11:9-10 11:12 11:13 11:14 11:18-19 11:25 11:27 12 12:6 12:24 12:26 13:1-9 13:11 13:15 13:16 13:19 13:20-21 13:23 13:38 14:1-12 14:2 15:19 16:16 16:17-18 18 19:28

91 91, 92 98 91 91 88, 91, 92 87, 91, 92 96 91, 96 107 106 153 76 76 82 76 76 159 144 143 44 71 98 98 139 141 140, 141 141 82, 139 140 141 97 84 80, 186 135, 146 126 127 110 183, 205

459

Index of Ancient Sources 20:21 20:23 21:9 21:23 21:24 21:32 21:42 21:43 21:44 22 22:9 22:31 22:44 23:13-36 23:14 23:15 23:25 23:26 23:29 23:29-33 23:34-36 23:37-39 24:12 24:14 25:31-32 25:27 25:40 25:41-43 26:28 26:64 26:18-19 28:18-20

205 205 49 63 67 63 398 66 65 110 110 186 199 96 97 97 97 101 97 80 81 84 383 94 184, 227, 385 55 148 148 160, 162 199 232 95

Mark 1:15 1:23-27 2:5 2:10 2:18 2:19 2:23-24 2:25 2:25-28 2:28 3:4 4:1-9 4:11 4:18-19 5:9 5:41 6:14 6:24-28 7:3-4 7:5 7:6-7 7:14

89, 104 98 111 111 157 157 156 167 156 157 156 139 144 116 98 142 80 84 154 154 154 52

7:14-15 7:20-22 7:21-23 8:31 8:38 9:12 9:12-13 9:31 9:35 10:33 10:45 12:29-31 11 11:1 11:9-10 11:12-14 11:15 11:17 11:21 11:27 12:1 12:1-11 12:1-12 12:2-8 12:9 12:10-11 12:13 12:18 12:35-37 13 13:1-2 13:2 13:7-8 13:10 13:12 13:13 13:14 13:19 13:24-27 13:26-27 13:28 13:30 13:32 14:22 14:22-25 14:24 14:25 14:34 14:36 14:47 14:58 15:29 15:29-30

154 146 154 175 183 86 77, 175 175, 176 175 175 172, 176, 178, 183 131, 147 50 44 48 51 55 57, 58, 304 85 66 64 62 175 64 65 65 66 66 77 89 69 100 99 94 99 100 100 100 102 90, 384 101 101 101 130 160 130, 262 172 54 142 53 69, 97, 176 97, 176 70

Luke 1:17

86

460

Index of Ancient Sources

1:46-56 1:48 1:52-53 1:54-55 1:67-69 1:68-79 1:69-75 4:18-19 4:21 4:25-26 6:45 7 7:11 7:22 7:24-28 7:47 8:4-8 8:32-33 9:31 9:35 10:19 10:21 10:30-37 11:2 11:20 13:16 13:32 13:33 13:34-35 14:14 15 15:10 15:11-32 15:24 15:29 16:16 19:8 19:38 20:17 20:18 20:36 20:42-43 22:17 22:19 22:20 22:37 22:69 24:34

240 240, 241 241 242 304 238 239 212 118 212 135 111 186 212 76 111 139 212 212 212 98 144 148 142 98 98 97, 175 98 83 186 110 108 108 108 108 83 111 49 212 65 186 212 169 169 169 212 212 196

John 1:1-3 1:5 1:7 1:11 1:14 1:14-18

403 233 400 406 73, 403, 404 403

1:18 1:23 1:26 1:29 1:51 2:6 2:16 2:18-21 2:19 3:3 3:10 3:16 3:18 4:14 5:29 5:37-38 6:33 6:51 7:27 7:37 8:38 8:39 8:40 8:44-45 8:52 11:1 11:24 11:25 11:27 11:30 12:13 12:37-38 12:43 12:49 14:10 15 15:10 15:18-19 15:20-21 15:23 15:25 16:20 17:2 17:6 17:8 17:15 17:17 17:18-21 17:19 18:3 19:33-37 19:36 20:28

404 400 405 137, 405 72, 404 400 400 401 69, 401 401 401 224, 404, 405 404, 406 121 186 402 406 405 402 121 143 402 402 402 402 186 186 186 406 63 49 402 403 144 144 402 144 406 407 407 407 407 406 144 144 407 407 144 407 54 161 161 405

Acts 1:12-26

90

Index of Ancient Sources 2 2:5 2:17-21 2:21 2:22 2:25 2:25-28 2:26 2:31 2:32-33 2:34 2:36 2:38 2:44-45 2:46 3:11 3:13 3:15 3:21 3:22 3:22-23 4:10 4:11 5:12 5:17 5:25 5:30 5:31 7 7:27 7:37 7:38-39 7:43 7:48 7:51-52 7:55-56 7:56 8:3 8:37 9:3 10:36 10:42 13:22 13:23 13:35 13:34 17:2 17:31 20:30-31 22:6 26:12 26:23

106, 199, 211 190 212 205, 214 196 202 212 196 201, 212, 218 202 202, 212 202, 203, 209 214 191 381 190 196 194, 221 183 243 212 194, 196 212 190 55 191 196, 212 199, 209 73, 242 243 212, 243, 244 243 243 243 244, 245 199, 209, 21 244 364 195 363 196 216 196 200 212 212 196 216, 228 200 363 363 217, 220

Romans 1-4 1:1-2

335, 337, 338, 339 376

1:1-4 1:1-5 1:2 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:16 1:16-17 1:18 1:18-23 1:20 1:20-27 1:23 1:29-31 2:5 2:6 2:10 2:12 2:16 2:17 2:17-20 2:24 2:26 2:28-29 2:29 3 3-4 3:3-5 3:8 3:9 3:19 3:19-20 3:20 3:20-26 3:21 3:21-22 3:22 3:23 3:23-25 3:24 3:24-25 3:25 3:25-26 3:27 3:29 3:30 3:31 4:1-3 4:2-3 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:16 4:17 4:19

461 375 374 274 319 203, 209, 211, 216, 218, 265, 360, 382 368 332, 361, 373, 375 331 383 315 280 274 280, 316 280 385 385 341 316 228, 316 276 275 316 325, 326 316 250, 326, 346 322 260 318 397 304, 316, 324 277 277 277 377 375 329 304, 345, 377 315, 316, 339 226, 295 304, 327 197, 226 304, 323, 344, 361 320 276 305 323 260, 275 258 332 274 258 258, 259, 333 323 334 334

462 4:24 4:25 5-8 5:1 5:8 5:9 5:9-10 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:12-14 5:12-18 5:15 5:17 5:18 5:20 6:1 6:2-4 6:3 6:3-4 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:8 6:10 6:11-13 6:12 7 7:1 7:7 7:9 7:9-10 7:9-12 7:12 7:14 7:15 7:15-23 8 8:3 8:3-4 8:9-10 8:10 8:11 8:14-16 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:21 8:26 8:29 8:30 8:32 8:34

Index of Ancient Sources 334 194, 198, 224, 226, 296, 297, 357, 361, 369 338, 339 296 225 225, 297, 369 297 369 323 315, 324 316 252 277 277, 361, 380 327 285 338 316 327 196, 308, 380 307 307, 380 311 335 311 311 397 350 338 338 287 260 285 260, 275, 285 285, 324 284 285 328 311 253, 293 381 335 194, 368, 381 261, 380 269 368 386 384 183, 316, 386 368 385, 345, 384 333 224, 225, 298 199, 204, 361, 409

8:35 9-11 9:3 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:13 9:14 9:14-16 9:17 9:18 9:22-23 9:25 9:25-29 9:27-28 9:30-32 9:31-32 9:32 9:33 10:2-3 10:3 10:4 10:5-13 10:6 10:7 10:8 10:8-11 10:9 10:9-13 10:12 10:13 10:15 10:21 11 11:2-5 11:3 11:5 11:6 11:11 11:12 11:20 11:25 11:25-26 11:32 12:1 12:4 13:1-3 13:4-7 13:8-10 13:10 13:13 14:10-12 14:17 14:23

140, 383, 384 251, 252, 341, 342, 346, 358, 375 252 368 250, 338, 348 250, 348 251, 348 342 338 343 343 343 344 345 346 251 323 351 348, 375 398 347 366 348 346 323 274 194, 349, 361 193 361 350 345 214 361 375 265 252 375 346, 375 375 375 359, 375 375 262 358 324, 357 374 310 283 282 282, 282 285 283 228 253, 381 323

463

Index of Ancient Sources 15 15:3-4 15:8 15:9 15:9-11 15:12 15:15-16 15:24

265 291, 360 378 356 378 378 374 253

1 Corinthians 1:1 1:18 1:20 1:21 1:22-24 1:27 1:31 2:2 2:7 2:8 2:11 3:10-11 3:13 3:16-17 4:5 5:7 6:9 6:9-10 6:14 6:16 6:19 6:19-20 8:6 9:13 10 10:4 10:11 10:16 10:16-17 10:17 10:16-20 10:17 10:18 10:21 11:16 11:23-26 11:24 11:24-25 11:26 12:3 12:6-7 12:11 12:13 14:26 15 15:3-5

378 306 306 281 305 306 278 291 362 371 368 264 264, 385 264 385 224, 296, 361 253 288 194 264 264 373 195, 403, 362, 367 170 169 362 249 169, 307 310 307 170 171 310 171, 310 295 161 169 160, 171 169, 384 195 368 368 310, 379 381 380 196, 223

15:9 15:12 15:19 15:20 15:20-21 15:22 15:23 15:26 15:40-48 15:49 15:51-52 15:53 16:22 2 Corinthians 1:4 1:6 1:7 1:21-22 2:17 3:6 3:7 3:7-8 3:12-14 3:14 3:15 3:15-18 3:17 3:18 4 4:1-5 4:3 4:6 4:8 4:14 4:18 5:1 5:10 5:14-15 5:17 5:21 6 6:3-5 6:4-5 6:14-18 6:16-18 7:1 8 8:9 11:23 11:23-27 12:3-4 12:9 13:5

346, 376 194 384 194, 220 362 380 220, 385 361 316 362,385 384 183 195 383 309 307 368 352 262 260 286 286 262 260 287 368 371 312 309 358 233, 363, 371 309 183, 194, 384 140 265 228, 362, 385 370 258, 276, 335, 381 292, 293, 301, 302, 304, 322, 361 265, 271 365 383 265 266 270, 272 368 362 309 365 386 309, 365 383

464

Index of Ancient Sources

Galatians 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:12 1:13 1:13-14 1:16 1:23 2 2:7-9 2:9 2:15 2:15-16 2:16 2:19-20 2:20 3 3:6 3:6-4:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:13 3:17 3:22 3:23 3:26 3:27-28 4:2-3 4:4 4:4-5 4:6 4:21-31 4:29 5:14 5:21 5:24 6:2 6:13-14

194, 250, 376 249 259 363 364 356 250 364 312 377 272, 307 377 254, 355 256, 307 308 335, 381 301 332 259 302 302 259, 274, 302 303 302 285, 333 324 259 379 379 249 262 362 368 343 312 281 287 311 147 276

Ephesians 1:7 1:10 1:17 1:20 2:11 2:14 3:17 4 5:14

295 183 371 199 265 304 380 310 234

Philippians 2

209, 211, 223, 265, 266

2:11 2:6-11 2:8 2:9 2:11 3:4-6 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:9-10 3:10 3:14 3:20 4:5

195, 209 222, 360, 362, 370, 382 371 371 371 356 256, 347, 364 327, 357 348, 357 380 307, 310 386 384 194

Colossians 1:15-16 1:16 1:24 2:11 2:12 3:1 3:3 3:16

403 362 309, 365 265 380 199 380 381

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 1:10 2:12 3:3 3:13 4:16

383 194, 362 253 383 366 366, 384

2 Thessalonians 1:5-2:11 1:7-10 2:7

383 229 383

2 Timothy 2:8

194

Hebrews 1 1:2-3 1:3 1:3-4 1:5 1:9 1:13 3:2 3:6 3:8 3:14 4:3 4:6

211 403 199 388 200 381 199, 390 388 388 394 307 26, 394 26

465

Index of Ancient Sources 4:9 4:9-10 4:10 4:16 5:6 5:8 5:9 5:10 6:19 6:19-20 6:20 7:1-28 7:15-17 7:25 8:1 8:1-2 8:8-9 8:13 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:8 9:9-10 9:11 9:11-12 9:12 9:14 9:15 9:20 9:22 9:22-23 9:23-24 9:24 10:12 10:12-13 10:19 10:29 10:32-33 11:17-19 12:2 12:22-24 12:24 13:10 13:20

394 26 394 392 390 294 295 295 226 389 391 391 391 204 199, 391 389 393 393 389 262 226, 294, 295, 392 390 388 265, 304 389 226, 294, 392 226, 294, 392 262 262 295 392 265 226, 389, 390, 391 199 391 389 262 394 299 199, 391 392 262 194 262

James 1:9 1:18 2:1 2:5 2:8-9 2:17 2:22 4:1 4:16 5:1-4

395 395 195, 395 395 396 396 396 397 397 395

5:5 5:6 5:7 5:9 5:13-14 5:20

395 395 397 397 396 397

1 Peter 1:3-5 1:13-16 1:18-19 1:21 2:4-5 2:6 2:7 2:9-10 3:22

397 398 398 194 397 398 398 399 199

2 Peter 3:13

183

1 John 1:3 1:9 2:1 2:15 2:17 2:22 3:1 3:9 3:10-12 3:12 3:14 3:15 3:17-18 3:23 3:24 4:1 4:2 4:6 4:9-10 4:14 4:17 5:1 5:6 5:16 5:20

409 408 409 408 408 195 409 409 402 409 409 409 409 409 409 408 409 408 409 409 410 409 409 408 409

Jude 4 24

195 381

Revelation 1:5 1:5-6 1:9

413 412 411

466 1:13-16 3:12 3:21 4:2 4:2-3 5:5 5:6 5:9 5:11 5:12 5:13 7:5-8 7:9 7:15 7:16 11:1-2 11:15 11:16

Index of Ancient Sources 414 272 413 415 413 413 414 411, 412 415 414 413 411 415 412, 415, 416 411 415 413 415

11:16-18 11:19 12:14 15:2-5 19:4 19:15 19:16 20:11 21:1 21:2-3 21:3 21:22 21:23 22:1-2 22:14 22:20

4. Early Christian Polycarp 2:1

205

2 Clemens 5:2-4

91

Apos. Constit. 7.37.1

47

Gospel of Thomas 16

88

Justinos Apol. 1:13

306

Irenaeus Haer. 1.25.1-3

203

416 262, 415 413 416 415 414 414 415 183 412 412 416 416 416 416 195

Index of Authors Acroyd, Peter R., 8, 12, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, 30, 42 Albright, W.F./Mann, C.S., 98, 127 Alexander, T. Desmond, 7, 13, 26, 28, 43, 67, 68, 118, 125, 159, 169, 190, 191, 223, 382, 387, 392, 402, 410, 412, 415, 416 Allen, Leslie C., 217 Allison, Dale C.Jr., 10, 75, 81, 83, 183 Anderson, G.A., 56 Aune, David E., 415 Auvinen, Ville, 145 Avemarie, Friedrich, 133, 135, 149, 151, 155, 276, 289 Back, Sven-Olav, 156, 157. Badenas, Robert, 351 Bailey, Kenneth E., 109 Bal, Mieke, 4. Barber, Michael P., 12, 160, 168, 182 Barker, Margaret, 27, 68, 218, 223, 392, 416 Bauckham, Richard J., 4, 53, 59, 86, 190, 211, 212, 230, 231, 362, 366, 367, 371, 412, 413 Beale, G.K., 11, 13, 25, 27, 68, 70, 73, 118, 125, 190, 191, 251, 252, 314, 387, 389, 392, 395, 398, 401, 409, 410, 411, 415, 416 Beasley-Murray, George R., 83 Becker, Jürgen, 185 Beker, J. Chr., 247 Bergsma, John S., 24, 25, 115, 117 Betz, Hans D., 355 Betz, Otto, 53, 72, 83, 160, 170, 171, 201, 217 Blomberg, Craig L., 64, 108 Bock, Darrell L., 11, 31, 159, 175, 206 Bockmuehl, Markus, 182 Bovon, François, 238, 239 Boyarin, Daniel, 133, 135 Brandon, Samuel G.F., 53 Branscomb, B. Harvie, 58 Brettler, Marc Zvi, 112, 113 Brooke, George J., 72 Bruce, F.F., 190, 243, 282

Bryan, Steven M., 10, 68, 90, 91, 101, 182 Bultmann, Rudolf, 7, 11, 94, 104, 175, 176, 185, 276 Burger, Chr., 49 Böttrich, Christfried, 264 Caird, George, 11 Campbell, Douglas A., 248, 328, 329, 335, 337-341 Carr, David, 2 Carroll, Robert P., 17 Carroll, Robert P./Green, Joel B., 302 Carson, D.A., 404, 406 Casey, P.M., 192 Catchpole, David R., 12, 44, 45, 48, 50, 70, 90 Chance, J. Bradley, 191, 239 Chatman, Seymour, 4 Chester, Andrew, 5, 10, 193, 195, 201, 208, 213, 231, 361, 372 Childs, Brevard S., 11, 19, 23, 163, 224, 298, 299, 321, 322 Chilton, Bruce, 12, 53, 151, 155 Ciampa, Roy E./Rosner, Brian S., 170, 292 Clements, Ronald E., 125, 126 Colapietro, V.M., 6 Collins, John J., 289 Coloe, Mary L., 12, 400, 401, 404 Congar, Yves, 10 Cook, John Granger, 291, 301 Corbett, Joey, 233 Cranfield, C.E.B., 328, 384 Crenshaw, James L., 40 Crossan, John Dominic, 56, 185 Cullmann, Oscar, 195, 212 Davids, Peter H., 133 Davies, William D., 246, 248, 335 Davies, William D./Allison, Dale C., 82, 83, 92, 127 Deely, John, 5 Deledalle, G., 6 Dempster, Stephen G., 43 Dinkler, Erich, 375 Dodd, Charles H., 215, 318

468

Index of Authors

Duff, Paul B., 44, 45, 46 Duling, Dennis C., 201 Dumbrell, William J., 410, 412 Dunn, James D.G., 119, 192, 195, 203, 226, 246-248, 253, 261, 263, 276, 280, 282, 284, 290, 295, 299, 304, 308, 312, 313, 319, 325, 328, 342, 343, 348, 353, 371, 375 Dülmen, Andrea van, 325 Elbogen, Ismar, 233, 235 Elgvin, Torleif, 299, 302 Ellingworth, Paul, 388, 390 Eskenazi, Tamara C., 21 Eskola, Timo, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 38, 192, 196, 201, 202-204, 206, 208, 210, 218, 230, 255, 289, 313, 318, 320, 331, 336, 342, 347, 349, 250, 384, 385, 389 Esler, Philip, 11 Evans, Craig, A., 10, 24, 31-33, 35, 37, 4850, 52, 59, 60, 65, 66, 90, 100, 123, 174, 180-182, 186, 187, 402, 403 Feld, Helmut, 160 Finegan, Jack, 304 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 196, 241, 264-266, 271, 384 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T., 153, 181, 192, 231 Flynn, Shawn W., 112, 113 Foster, Raymond S., 8, 12 France, Richard T., 51, 101, 105, 138, 195 Frey, Jörg, 11 Freyne, Sean, 85 Friedrich, Gerhard, 104, 114 Gathercole, Simon J., 13, 276, 320, 333 Garnet, Paul, 30, 76, 111, 139, 141, 142, 179, 182, 315, 348 Gaventa, Beverly R./Hays, Richard B., 174 Gärtner, Bertil, 264, 266-268, 270 Gerhardsson, Birger, 132, 133, 135, 137139 Gese, Hartmut, 169 Gieschen, Charles A., 210, 230, 370, 371 Gnilka, Joachim, 11 Goldstein, Jonathan A., 77, 131 Gorman, Michael J., 250 Grabbe, Lester L./Knoppers, Gary N., 19 Gupta, Nijay K., 340 Günther, W./Krienke, H., 251 Haacker, Klaus, 4 Hadidian, Dikran Y., 167

Hagner, Donald A., 81, 88, 89, 91, 93, 98, 105, 127, 128, 135, 138, 139, 144, 145, 161, 166, 227 Hahn, Ferdinand, 11, 192, 213, 215, 254, 275, 276 Hahn, H.-Chr., 255 Hahn, Scott W., 169, 180, 190, 231, 404 Halperin, D.J., 207, 416 Halpern-Amary, Betsy, 22, 117 Hamilton, James M., 7, 10, 11, 13, 43, 67, 89, 120, 169, 398, 401, 402, 408, 413 Hanson, P.D., 39 Harrington, Hannah K., 152, 154 Harris, Murray J., 266, 267, 269, 270, 287, 292, 322, 362 Harvey, Anthony E., 44, 45 Hauerwas, Stanley, 127 Hays, Richard B., 260, 261 Hengel, Martin, 9, 39, 100, 117, 149, 179, 184, 192, 193, 199, 201, 202, 204-206, 208, 217, 230, 247, 263, 278, 290, 301, 306, 315, 324, 348, 361, 364, 370, 381, 387, 390, 405, 408 Hengel, Martin/Schwemer, Anna Maria, 112, 131, 146, 148, 161, 302, 367, 374, 376, 377, 379 Herzog, William R. II, 53 Hoehner, Harold, W., 77 Hofius, Otfried, 247, 296, 389 Hogeterp, Albert L.A., 13 Hollenbach, Paul W., 76 Holmén, Tom, 59, 151, 153 Hooker, Morna, 79 Horsley, Richard, 181 Hurtado, Larry W., 192, 193, 195, 196, 201, 204, 213, 220, 230, 231, 362, 367, 371, 405 Hübner, Hans, 11, 276, 325 Irons, Ch. L., 289, 329 Isaak, Jon M., 11, 396, 400, 414 Jauhiainen, Pekka, 307 Jeremias, Joachim, 9, 10, 92, 97, 98, 101, 108, 140, 143, 160, 165, 175, 176, 188 Jewett, Robert, 149, 198, 216, 217, 251, 252, 257, 258, 261, 280, 285, 293, 326, 343, 361, 368, 374 Juel, Donald, 265 Kaiser, W.C., 255 Käsemann, Ernst, 7, 185, 215, 276, 326, 329, 352 Keen, Ralph, 12, 41 Kerr, Alan R., 401, 403, 404 Kim, Seyoon, 248, 329, 364

Index of Authors Kinman, Brent, 44-46 Kirk, J.R. Daniel, 53, 68 Klein, Ralph W., 8, 16 Knibb, Michael A., 154 Knoppers, Gary N., 12, 19 Koskenniemi, Erkki, 305 Kramer, Werner,195 Kreitzer, Larry J., 193 Kreplin, Matthias, 89, 104, 105 Kugel, James L., 115, 117 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, 85 Kuhn, Karl G., 164, 166 Kuula, Kari, 290, 330 Kümmel, Werner G., 92, 247 Laato, Antti, 200, 292, 294, 296, 322 Laato, Timo, 395, 396 Lane, William L., 388, 390, 393 Lang, B., 294 Lange, Armin, 12, 38, 324 Levenson, Jon D., 12, 25, 26, 29, 30, 68, 118, 186 Liljeqvist, Matti, 167 Lindars, Barnabas, 388, 390, 393 Linnemann, Eta, 216 Loffreda, Stanislao, 84 Lohmeyer, Ernst, 49, 51, 254, 255, 257 Longenecker, Bruce W., 353 Longenecker, Richard N., 355 Losie, Lynn A., 44, 48 Maier, Gerhard, 394, 396 Maier, Johann, 71 Marböck, J., 149 Marcus, Joel, 77, 78, 181 Marshall, I. Howard, 11, 160, 176, 239, 241 Martin, Brice L., 351 Martin, Ralph P., 222, 223, 267, 269, 270, 370, 396 Martyn, J. Louis, 249, 259, 300 Matera, Frank J., 7, 11, 129, 137, 222, 405 Matlock, R. Barry, 339 McKnight, Scot, 179 Meier, John P., 91, 98, 158 Merkel, Helmut, 104 Meyer, Ben F., 8, 11, 12, 57, 69, 114, 115, 120, 124, 184, 248 Michaels, J. Ramsay, 404 Michel, Otto, 217, 251, 332, 343, 345, 349, 380 Moo, Douglas J., 285, 344, 345 Moore, Anne, 112 Moore, Ernest, 82, 83 Mundle, Wilhelm, 116 Murphy, Roland E., 149, 279 Myllykoski, Matti, 185

469

Neufeld, Vernon H., 194, 195 Neusner, Jacob, 52, 54, 56, 337 Newman, Carey C., 10, 31, 206 Nickelsburg, Georg W.E., 9, 32 Nolland, John, 65, 66, 83, 97, 98, 120, 128, 135, 138, 142, 146, 159, 238, 240 Notley, R. Steven, 82 Oakman, Douglas E., 51 O’Brien, Peter T., 222 Ollilainen, Vesa, 108 Osten-Sacken, Peter von der, 324 Paesler, Kurt, 12 Pao, David W., 12, 90, 190 Peirce, Charles S., 6 Perrin, Nicholas, 10, 68, 122, 125, 177 Perrin, Norman, 83 Pervo, Richard I., 190 Piper, John, 332, 334 Pitre, Brant, 12, 25, 27-29, 35, 60, 61, 67, 68, 70-72, 75-80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 94, 96, 100, 107, 129, 145, 157, 160, 164-166, 168, 169, 175, 177, 181, 182, 187, 188, 222 Ravens, David, 12, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244 Reventlow, Henning G., 3 Riesner, Rainer, 228, 247, 309, 363 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith, 4 Ringgren, Helmer, 164 Rowe, C. Kavin, 221, 241 Runnalls, Donna, 12, 44, 48, 50, 52, 61 Räisänen, Heikki, 11, 42, 246, 263, 290, 313, 325, 330, 336, 352, 405 Röhser, Günter, 328 Saldarini, A.J., 289 Samuelsson, Gunnar, 291, 301 Sanders, E.P., 4, 8-11, 31, 53, 54, 57, 75, 91, 149, 150, 175, 183, 246-248, 259, 261, 262, 288-290, 307, 312, 313, 330, 334-337, 341, 347, 352, 356 Schmithals, Walter, 11 Schnabel, Eckhard J., 89, 274, 309 Schnelle, Udo, 11, 94, 104, 176, 185, 405, 407 Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, 246 Scholem, Gershom G., 115, 206 Schreiner, Thomas R., 10, 11, 64, 98, 104, 176, 248, 277, 286, 294, 297, 310, 316, 320, 328, 335, 383, 385, 402, 406, 407 Schrenk, Gottlob, 81, 82 Schröter, Jens, 160 Schürer, Emil, 47, 56, 132, 233, 234 Schweitzer, Albert, 8, 51, 75, 96, 290, 335

470

Index of Authors

Schweizer, Eduard, 215 Scobie, Charles H.H., 107 Scott, James M., 12, 13, 18, 33, 68, 300, 304, 314, 316, 337, 342, 346, 358, 359, 375, 375-377 Scott, J. Julius Jr., 11, 39, 40, 314 Seeberg, Alfred, 195 Simojoki, Anssi, 411 Skehan, Patrick W./Di Lella, Alexander A., 78 Snell, D.C., 55 Snodgrass, Klyne R., 31, 32, 34, 50, 52, 54, 61, 63, 64, 108-110, 126, 142 Spanje, T.E. van, 352 Sternberg, Meir, 2 Stickert, Fred, 85 Still, Todd D., 247 Stowers, S.K., 319 Strecker, Georg, 11, 178, 185, 316, 405 Stuckenbruck, Loren T., 192, 231 Stuhlmacher, Peter, 11, 104, 112, 114-116, 143, 147, 160, 169, 176, 178, 179, 182, 184, 188, 194, 197, 198, 204, 224, 247, 248, 250, 251, 258, 261, 275, 278, 284, 286, 287, 292, 293, 295, 297, 299, 302, 317, 321, 325, 329, 332, 333, 334, 349, 361, 363, 367, 385 Sweet, J.P.M., 70, 124, 264, 265, 272 Tan, Kim Huat, 44, 48, 50, 53, 68, 131, 132, 137 Taylor, Joan E., 76, 81 Telford, William R., 51 Theissen, Gerd, 11 Thielman, Frank, 11, 137, 277, 294, 400, 408, 409 Thiselton, Anthony C., 170, 196, 197, 224, 292, 294, 311 Thurén, Jukka, 374 Thurén, Lauri, 326 Tyson, J.B., 254, 257, 356 VanderKam, James C., 22 Wagner, G., 375 Watson, Francis, 4 Webb, Robert L., 76, 78, 86, 87, 105 Wedderburn, Alexander J.M., 308, 312 Weinfeld, Moshe, 131, 133, 134 Wenham, David, 108 Westerholm, Stephen, 247, 253, 254, 288, 323, 336, 337, 348, 352, 353, 375 White, Hayden, 2 Wilckens, Ulrich, 11, 318, 320 Winger, Michael, 274, 277 Wink, Walter, 76

Witherington (III), Ben, 3, 7, 11, 46, 67, 98, 136, 143, 147, 158, 174, 175, 190, 199, 221, 223, 226, 238, 242, 243, 247, 248, 251, 283, 316, 362, 371, 390, 392, 393, 398, 400 Wright, Benjamin G. III, 152 Wright, N. Thomas, 7, 9-13, 31, 37, 43, 50, 52, 57, 59-61, 67-70, 75, 91, 93, 96, 102, 106, 109, 110, 129, 141, 142, 145, 177, 179, 180, 184, 185, 187, 188, 197, 220, 246, 248-250, 252, 259, 262, 263, 285, 301, 314, 328, 332-335, 340-342, 346, 349, 351, 353, 361, 383 Yadin, Yigael, 134 Yamasaki, Gary, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83 Zuck, Roy/Bock, Darrell, 11 Ådna, Jostein, 12, 31, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 68, 130, 182, 188

Index of Subjects Abba, 142–145, 173, 261, 269, 272, 380 Abraham, – promises, 234, 250, 302, 333–334, 342, 354 – and Isaac, 224, 298 – exaltation, 207 Adam–typology, 252, 257, 259, 290, 297, 302– 303, 306, 315–317, 320, 324–325, 327–328, 340, 350, 354, 362–363, 378, 385 Adoption as sons, 123–129, 249, 269, 342, 380, 381, 409 Adoptionist Christology, 203 Akedah, 224, 298–299, 404, 409 Alexander the Great, 314 Amidah (see: Eighteen Benedictions) Angel Christology, 212–213 Angelic interpretation, 192, 210, 213 Angelomorphic Christology, 210 Antichrist, 382–383 Antinomism, 260, 262, 396 Antipas (Herod), 77, 80, 84 Apokatastasis, 183 Aristobulos, 84 Ark (of the Covenant), 73, 115, 198, 214, 294, 392 Atonement, 30, 56, 129, 172, 177, 181, 224– 225, 260, 272, 291–295, 297–298, 303–305, 307–308, 312, 320–321, 338, 357, 361, 363, 369–372, 392, 404, 407 Atonement money, 56 Atonement and resurrection, 396, 372 Avodat Israel, 253–257, 260–263, 313, 330, 333, 350, 355, 357, 388, 393 Azazel, 293–294 Baal, 98, 252 Babylon, 16–17, 22, 32, 39, 59, 107, 243, 267, 359, 381, 397, 416 Baptism, 379–381 Beelzebul–dispute, 91, 98 Belial, 271 Benedictus, 238–240 Bethel, 72, 404 Bethsaida, 84 Birth pains, 100 Blessings, 120–123, 127, 300

Blood of the covenant, 160 Boasting, 275–276, 355 Body as a temple, 264, 265, 271–273, 335, 401, 404 Boundary, see: Identity markers Bread of Presence, 163–168 Burnt offering, 56 Canonical theology, 19 Cherubim, 94, 206, 208, 416 Cherubim–throne, 205–209 Children of the flesh, 342 Children of the promise, 342 Christos (espec.), 196, 202, 204, 212 Christ, – resurrection, see: Christology, resurrection – enthronement, 199–204, 213–214 – as a curse, 299–303 – parousia, 383–384 Christ as the object of faith, 214 Christ’s heavenly journey, 210 Christology – formulas, 192–193, 202, 204, 218, 291 – emergence of, 191–194, 212–214, 237 – pre–existence, 362 – resurrection, 194, 200–201, 218 – exaltation, 192, 199–205, 208, 222 – Jesus’ deity, 203–204, 214 – sacrifice for sins, 197, 224–226 – judge, 228–229 – High Priest, 204, 225–227 – titles, 213 – typological interpretation, 212–213 – worship of Jesus, 203, 214, 230 – “missing link”, 214 – enthroned figures, 207, 211 Christological narratives, 215–217, 219–221. 223–226, 228–230 Christian merkabah tradition, 208–209, 410 Circumcision, 250–251, 263, 265, 316, 325– 326, 342, 350, 357 Circumcision of the heart, 362, 342 Community (Christian) – as temple, 123, 263–266, 368, 373, 389, 391, 394, 398–399, 401, 406, 415

472

Index of Subjects

– see also: Church Confession, – bibitarian, 195, 367 – trinitarian, 202, 368, 374 Continuing exile, 30–37, 41–43 Cornerstone, 50, 66, 128, 175, 398 Counting as loss, 327, 354–357 Covenant, 22, 28, 37, 40, 67, 72, 79, 81, 86, 118, 128, 130–131, 135–136, 150, 162–164, 173 179, 181, 261–262, 267, 276, 286, 289– 290, 304, 314, 328, 333–334, 342, 347, 349, 353–355 Covenant of blood, 160–163 Covenantal nomism – general, 31, 42, 74, 307, 317 – Christological premise, – criticism of, 289–290, 311, 314, 317, 341, 347, 350, 352 – and diversity, 289 – “getting in” and “staying in”, 288–289, 314 – participation, 308 – pattern of religion, 149, 261 – and Paul, 247, 260–262 – and sociology, 288–290 Cross, 290–291, 299–302, 305–306, 308–309, 311, 364–365 Cultic purity, 155 Cultic soteriology, 312 Cup of blessing, 165, 169, 170, 295 Curse (OT), 300, 319 Daily offering (tamid), 54, 56–57, 60–62, 292 David’s horn, 237, 239 Davidic Messiah, see: Messiah Day of atonement, 292–293, 371 Day of Wrath, 385 Debir, (see: Holy of Holies), Deification, 203 Demons, 97–98 Den of robbers, 53, 58–59, 150, 273, 292 Deportation, 16, 17, 21, 24, 149, 353 Disciple, 95 Distinction (diastole), 345, 354, 377 Divine coercion, 323–327 Divine hardening (see: hardening) Docetism, 408 Ebionites, – and Qumran, 37 – and Gnosticism, 203 Eden, 25–26, 95, 249, 306, 316, 386, 394, 411 Eighteen Benedictions, 200, 233–238, 242 Election by grace, 343 Elijah, 75–78, 79–80, 83, 85, 86, 98, 175–176, 183, 239, 252, 273, 346, 399 Elisha, 45

Empty tomb, 185 Enthronement, 184, 200, 209, 215, 365, 391 Enthronement and the deity of Christ, 213–214 Enthronement and resurrection, 200–202, 209, 211, 214, 216, 231, 361, 365–366, 387, 413 Enthronement discourse, 211 Enthronement of the patriarchs, 207, 211 Erasmus, 82, 339–340 Eschatological joy, 381 Eschatological woes, 80, 96–97 Ethnocentricism, 353, 355 Eucharist, (see: Lord’s Supper) Exaltation and atonement, 184, 227 Exaltation Christology, 184, 213–214, 361 Exalted patriarchs (see: Enthronement of the patriarchs) Exile, – in history, 16–18, 20, 46, 303 – the end of, 78, 79, 93, 99, 103, 107, 115, 119, 122, 172, 187, 189, 205, 231–232, 235, 244, 314, 386, 391, 408 – in Jesus’ teaching, 43–46, 76, 109, 173 – in Pauline theology, 249, 255, 259, 349, 353, 358 Exile and restoration, – metanarrative, 13–14, 41, 43, 57, 85, 95, 103, 142, 175, 197, 253, 271, 407 – theological pattern, 9, 11, 20–22, 26, 46, 178, 205, 231, 255, 267, 374 – theory, 7–9 – and tribulation, 76, 85, 93, 138, 140, 173 Exilic condition, 25, 31, 35, 52, 66, 74, 85, 90, 100, 139, 150, 263, 350, 400, 409 Exilic rhetorics, 16, 23, 32, 37, 43, 61, 77, 96– 97, 148, 158, 142, 155, 259, 297, 395, 402 Exodus (see: New Exodus) Expiation, 262, 292, 297, 302, 337, 341 Faithfulness (human beings), 136, 235, 256– 257, 315, 318–320, 331–332, 416 Fasting, 157–159 Forbearance, 320, 322–323, 344 Forensically retributive God, 337 Forgiveness of sins, 67, 106, 107, 111, 122, 159–160, 252, 289, 294–295, 297, 300, 312, 315, 321, 378–379, 392, 396, 410 Free will, 323–3324, 338 Garden–temple, 25–26, 29–30, 95, 173, 386, 392, 415–416 Gentiles/Nations, 250, 254, 276, 302–305, 316, 325–326, 344–346, 355, 357–359, 365, 373–378, 386 God, – king, 111–114, 162 – judge, 60, 112, 228, 317

Index of Subjects – shepherd, 112 – Father, 123, 143 – eschatological enthronement, 112, 114–115, 118 God who gathers, 57–58, 60, 74, 88, 95, 231, 235, 269, 378 God’s kingdom, 104, 111–112, 132, 183, 209, 373 Golden rule, 147–148, 281 Good news (euangelion), 23, 25, 88, 95, 103, 105, 115, 116, 118, 120, 143, 198, 229, 249, 360 Gospel, 83, 87, 92, 94–95, 103–106, 110–111, 114, 116, 121, 130, 136, 143, 149, 173 Great Commission, 132, 232 Guilt offering, 321 Hades, 127–128 Hannah’s song, 237, 241 Hallel–psalms, 162, 233 Hardening – divine hardening, 287, 344–345, 358, 374– 375 – Pharaoh, 343–344 Heavenly court of law, 228–229 Heavenly Temple, 214, 389 Heavenly thrones, 206 Hebrews, letter to the – and Jewish apocalyptic, 387–388 – enthronement Christology, 388, 391, 394– 395, 397 – cultic Christology, 392 – High–priest, 388, 390 – Temple symbolism, 387–388 – atonement, 387 Hell, 97 Herod the Great, 77 Herodias, 84 High Christology, 192, 404–405 Hilasterion, 198, 225–226, 262, 294–295, 304, 321, 322 Historical criticism, 2–4, 6 Historicism, 2–4 History–of–religions school, 192 Holy of Holies, 80, 115, 126, 209, 214, 226, 293, 390 Holy Spirit, – and temple, 30, 168, 190, 264 – return, 63, 122–123, 190–191 – and restoration, 60, 95, 106, 122, 154, 159, 173, 191, 245, 272, 379, 391 – and resurrection, 202, 211, 217, 368 Homologies, – Christological, 192–195, 360 – and acclamations, 195 Hosannah–song, 45, 48–50

473

House of David, 28 Humiliation and exaltation, 222–223, 369–372 Identity markers, 263 Idolatry, 18, 20, 25, 266, 269, 271, 279, 280, 303, 310–311, 318, 333, 367 Imputation, 332–333 Incarnation, 73, 220–221, 362, 369–370, 385, 403–406, 408–409 Interfamilial peace, 85–88 Interfamilial strife, 85–86, 90, 99, 409 Interpretant, 6, 60 Intertextuality, 6, 45 Irenaeus, 203 Isaac, – promises, 250, 342 – sacrifice, 224, 298–299 – exaltation, 207 Israel, – Lord’s vineyard, 64, 66 – corruption, 34–35, 51, 69, 75, 139, 142, 150, 180, 243, 316, 318–319, 375, 393 – deportation, 16, 17, 21, 24, 94, 124, 149 – restoration, 25, 31, 45, 76–77, 89–90, 94, 111, 115, 128, 144, 173, 179–180, 190, 209, 235, 251, 268, 269, 342, 358–360, 373, 375, 411, 414 – see also: Return of the tribes Jerusalem, – destruction of, 99, 101–103 Jesusalem confession, 197 Jesus, – triumphant entry, 44, 48–50 – and the temple, 51–52, 61, 128–129, 157, 401 – eschatology, 44, 63, 74, 95–97 – and law, 146–150, 154 – and Israel’s restoration, 77, 89–90, 141 – missionary program, 60, 91–93, 98, 183 – identity, 174 – death, 174–177, 180, 187, 197, 291, 296, 311, 369 – historical Jesus, 2, 4, 6 – see also: Christ Jesus and Paul, 253, 263–264, 363 Jesus as the temple, 71–73, 403–404 Jesus’ deeds, – fig tree, 51–52, 59, 101 – riding, 44–45, 48 – healings, 111, 119 – temptations, 137–139 – friend of sinners, 158 – final sacrifice, 181–182 Jezebel, 45, 79 John the Baptist,

474

Index of Subjects

– prophet, 63, 75–76, 81, 87, 107, 110, 118, 174, 239, 240, 306, 379, 399, 406 – and tribulation, 75–77, 82, 172, 405 – death, 64, 77–78, 83–84, 87, 102, 175, 187 Jubilee (year), – OT, 24–25, 30, 117–118 – eschatological, 24, 394–396 – in Jesus’ teaching, 74, 108, 115–116, 118– 119, 120–123, 189, 231 Judgment – eschatological, 65, 101, 319 – final judgment, 99, 385 Judgment seat, 102, 227–228 Judicial discourse, 227–229, 333 Juridical metaphors, 228 Justification – in Judaism, 105–106, 330 – in early Christology, 198, 225–226 – by faith, 258, 328–336 (espec. 321–322), 340, 347, 354, 396 – by works, 256, 333, 348, 351 – forensic, 334–335 – favor and donum, 333–335 – and restoration, 331 – in Paul, 322–341 – of the ungodly, 307 Justification theory, – general, 336–341 – contractual justification, 338 Kenosis, 222, 232, 369–371 Kingship–of–Yahweh psalms, 112–114 Kyrios Christos (espec.), 195, 199, 202, 204, 212, 214, 219, 350, 361, 367, 371, 395 Last Supper (see: Lord’s Supper) Law – Christ the end of, 348–349 – keeping of, 134–135, 275 – obedience, 253–255 – and works, 255 – and Gentiles, 325–326 – and righteousness, 275, 329, 349, 351 – and creation, 278–280, 283 – and love, 281, 284 – a positive view, 275–277, 283 – and sin, 277, 279–280, 285 – curse of, 302 – and death, 284–288 – and judgment, 287–288 Legalism, 246, 253, 256, 259–260, 262, 276, 339, 347, 353–354, 356, 397 Living stones, 398 Lord (Kyrios; espec.), 240, 366 Lord of restoration, 223, 229, 357 Lord’s Prayer, 107

Lord’s Supper, 158, 159–174, 182 Low Christology, 191 Luther, 82, 339–340 Lutheran interpretation, 333, 341 Lutheran Paul, 332–335, 337–338 Machaerus, 84 Magnificat, 240–242 Mammon, 133, 135–136 Martyr, – Jewish, 134–135, 179 – Jesus, 91, 136, 174–175, 177 – Paul, 310, 382 Melchizedek, 166, 225, 227, 390–391 Mercy seat, 226, 293–295, 392 Merkabah (throne), 207–208 Merkabah literature, 207 Merkabah mysticism, 162, 206–209, 211, 416 Merkabah visions, 207, 415–416 Messiah, – eschatological atonement, 197 – exaltation of, 196, 210 – priestly Messiah, 388, 390, 396, 407 – king, 366, 411 – temple builder, 69, 70, 124, 129, 388, 401, 415 – new David, 28–29, 45–46, 48–49, 65–66, 68–69, 77, 95, 104, 150, 153, 184, 204, 210, 215–219, 221, 227, 232, 236, 237, 239, 241, 268, 331, 361, 372, 387, 411, 413 – see also: Son of Man Messias designatus, 221 Metanarrative, 2, 7, 27 Metanoia, 104–105, 177, 319 Metaphor, 7, 209 Methodology, 3–5 Ministratio mortis, 284–288 Mikvah, 153–154 Money changers, 55, 59 Monotheism, 195 Moses–typology, 244–245 Nabopolassar, 17 Nabuchadnezzar, 17 Narrative, 2–4 Narratology, 2 Nathan’s prophecy, 124, 200–201, 205, 270 Nehemiah’s confession, 18 New covenant, 106–107, 159, 163, 169, 170– 171, 261–262, 290, 393, 412 New Exodus, 173, 212, 224 New Perspective on Paul, 247 New priesthood, 398 Nomistic service, 254

Index of Subjects Obedience (Jewish), 248, 252–253, 255–257, 262–263, 272–273, 277, 282, 330, 333–334, 350, 354, 362 Observance, 130–132, 254, 276 Parables, – wicked tenants, 62–67, 78, 83 – prodigal son, 108 – the sower, 139–142, 245 Paradoxical polarization, 350, 356 Pargod speculation, 389 Participation, 290, 307–308, 312, 335 Participation in Christ’s crucifixion, 311, 364– 365 Participation in suffering, 309 Participation in the altar, 310 Participationist eschatology, 290, 307 Participationist soteriology, 307–312, 335 Passover meal, 160–161 Passover sacrifice, 224, 296, 361 Paul – Apostle, 250, 263, 309, 364–365, 372–373, 376–377, 383 – and his mission, 376 – Christology, 360–363 – and Judaism, 246–247 – justification, 256, 295–296, 357–358 – righteousness (espec.), 256–257, 346–354 – and Israel, 249–251, 341–346 – and Jewish theology, 248, 255, 274 – and merkabah mysticism, – visionary experience, 249–250, 363–364, 386 – theology of the law, 253–255, 258–260, 262, 273–274, 284–286 – boasting, 274–276 – restoration eschatology, 248, 250, 263, 271, 297, 353 – tribulation, 249 – spiral vision of eschatology, 382–383 Paul’s heavenly journey, 386 Pentecost, 189–191 Persecution, 83, 91, 100, 121, 140, 145, 176, 364, 376, 406–407 Peter’s confession, 126–127 Pharisees, 66, 83, 87, 109, 148, 154, 158, 314, 355 Philip the tetrarch, 84 Pilgrimage of the nations, 359, 386 Plight and solution debate, 42, 312, 328, 336– 337 Pollution (spiritual), 32–33, 35 Post–liberal reading, 7 Predestination, 323–324, 384–385 Priestly meal, 163–169, 170–171, 173 Prince of life, 221

475

Purity regulations, 97, 151–153 Qumran community – apocalyptic, 119 – eschatology, 24, 34, 86, 114–115, 117 – ascetism, 134 – priesthood, 151–152 – priestly meal, 164–165 – salvation, 34, 41, 270 – jubilee, 24–25 – Teacher of Righteousness, 313, 315, 331 – Wicked priest, 34 – Temple, 119–120, 125 – Temple symbolism, 71, 72, 126, 270 – works of the law, 256, 331 – dualism, 41, 111, 315, 324 – predestination, 324 – atonement, 71 – Melchizedek, 25 Ransom, 176–177, 183, 303–304, 377 Reconciliation (espec.), 255, 290, 293, 295, 297, 303–304, 365, 372, 375 Redemption (espec.), 198, 238, 260, 294–295, 302–305, 321, 314, 317, 325, 327, 363, 378, 384 Regula fidei, 361 Remnant, 34, 87, 90, 92, 110, 141–142, 250– 253, 269, 273, 342, 345–346, 349, 359, 374–375, 386 Renewal of hearts, 132 Repentance, 105 Resurrection, – Jesus, 185–188, 193–194, 220 – appearances, 197, 363 – of the dead, 185–187, 217, 219 – of the body, 217 – exaltation/enthronement, 222, 368, 413 – see also: Christology Resurrection discourse, 215–219 Restoration (special cases), – general, 77 – in early Christianity, 205, 229–232 – and resurrection, 186 – of all things, 86 – Elijah and, 87–88 – universalism, 94, 118 – and mission, 373–374 – covenantalism, 179–180 – eschatological joy, 158 – see also: Exile and restoration Restoration eschatology, – general, 9, 12, 26, 29, 159, 182, 189, 300, 402 – Judaism, 23–28, 30, 35–36, 47, 74, 90, 104 – Jesus, 173, 189

476

Index of Subjects

– early Christianity, 205, 229–232 – Paul, 248, 253, 263, 267, 272, 301, 321, 359, 382, 386 – Letters, 388, 394, 397–398, 408 Retribution, 282, 337–339 Return of the tribes, 47, 58, 89, 190, 270, 273, 314, 358–359, 363, 373, 376, 411 Revelation, book of, – Lamb, 411–414, 416–417 – Lion, 410, 413 – enthronement, 413–414 – heavenly Temple, 415–416 – cultic soteriology, 412 – and Jewish apocalyptic, 415–416 Righteousness, – Judaism, 105, 121, 148, 313 – Paul, 317–323, 328–329 Righteousness of God, 105, 106, 329, 342, 348, 359 Ritual purity, 152, 154 Sabbath, 24–26, 30, 40, 156–157, 159 Sacrifice, – handing over, 172, 197–198, 296, 357, 369 – temple, 129, 294, 310, 390, 392 – vicarious, 180–182, 224, 226, 292, 298, 321, 412 Sadducees, 109, 149, 336 Sanhedrin, 54, 66 Sapiential theology, 256, 276, 278–279, 283, 314 Secondary rationalization, 336 Self–righteousness, 259, 346–348, 354 Semiosis, 6 Semiotics, 5–7 Shema, 130–133, 135–136, 137–138, 141, 145–147, 194–195, 233–234, 287, 316, 351, 356, 367 Shemoneh Esreh (see: Eighteen Benedictions) Signification process, 5–7 Sin – Judaism, 18–19, 21–23, 27, 30, 33–35, 40, 46, 52, 60, 67, 79, 105–107, 134, 149–150, 177–179 – Jesus, 10, 31, 75, 78, 85, 87, 96, 106 111, 115, 137, 147–148, 154–155, 160, 168, 171, 180–183, 188 – Paul, 304, 315, 318, 322 Sin offering, 223, 225, 291–293, 295–297, 306, 308, 412 Social justice, 283 Solomon, 45, 228 Solomon’s portico, 54–55, 190 Son of David (see: Messiah), Son of God (espec.), 203, 218, 249

Son of Man, 72, 81, 85, 87, 90, 92, 98, 174– 176, 182–184, 186 Songs (OT), 237, 240 Soteriological dualism, 40, 314–315, 355 Soteriological participation, 308 Spiritual exile, 21–22, 52, 62, 66, 70, 83, 96, 100, 103, 110, 172, 239, 253, 257, 328, 357, 386, 395, 399, 410 Stephen, 242–245 Substitution, 197, 223–224, 226, 291–297, 299, 301, 308, 327, 360–370, 372, 380, 392 Suffering Servant, 175–176, 178, 181, 222– 225, 229, 296, 304, 306, 321, 357, 361, 405 Symbolum Apostolicum, 205 Synagogue, 91, 93, 232–233, 235 Synagogue liturgy, 232–238 Synergistic nomism, 111, 149 Table of demons, 311 Table of nations, 358–359 Targum (espec.), 242 Temple – Jerusalem, 94, 253, 263–264, 266, 304, 311, 331, 388–389, 391, 411, 416 – not made with hands, 70, 73, 88, 125, 157, 181, 271–272, 389, 398, 415 – as a microcosm, 26–27, 95 – cosmic, 28, 172, 208, 410 – criticism, 54–57, 59, 63, 173, 243, 263 – cult, 293 – destruction, 27–28, 47, 65, 68–69, 71 – rebuilding of, 27–29, 31, 36–37, 45, 68, 128, 387, 415 – and creation, 73, 187 – eschatological, 67–70, 73, 124, 263–264, 267, 374 – tax, 55–57 – community as (see: community) Temple structured universe, 389–390 Temptations, 137–139 Testimony (martyrion), 94 Thanksgiving sacrifice (toda), 168–169 Theocracy, 112, 214, 230 Theodicy – in apocalyptic, 39, 255 – problem of, 37–42, 255, 318–323, 347 Theologia crucis, 290–291 Theology of crisis, 37, 42, 250, 313–314, 318, 347 Throne, – place for the atonement, 198, 226 – judgment seat, 227–228 Throne of Glory, 113, 115, 162, 184, 201–202, 205, 208, 213, 243, 262, 272, 363, 369, 389, 410 Throne visions, 206–208

Index of Subjects Tora–ontologie, 278 Tribes, 57, 88, 90, 273, 358–359, 394, 411 Tribulation, 75–83, 90, 92, 99–100, 140, 145, 172, 175, 178, 183, 187, 244, 273, 364–365, 382.383, 395, 405–407, 411 True Israel, 250–251, 253, 271–272, 341–342, 345–346, 375, Universalistic soteriology, 252–253, 305, 313, 328, 340, 359, 372, 377–378 Veil (temple), 227, 260, 286–287, 289 Vessels of mercy, 344 Vessels of wrath, 344 Vice–lists, 279–280 Victory over death, 223 Virtue–lists, 282 Voluntarist soteriology, 338 Wedding, 107, 110, 157 Wisdom theology, 279–288 Word of faith, 193 Words of institution, 160, 172, 262 Works of the Law, 253–260, 262–263, 271, 273–274, 328, 332–333, 336, 339, 348, 350–352, 354–355 Wrath of God, see: God Yahweh, see: God Yom Kippur, 293–294, 371, 392 Zadok, 45, 315 Zeal, 134, 256, 347 Zealots, 179, 347–348 Zerubbabel, 45, 47, 67

477