Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6-8: Paul's Ethics beyond 'Indicative' and 'Imperative' 316154014X, 9783161540141

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe 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)

407

Samuli Siikavirta

Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6–8 Paul’s Ethics beyond ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’

Mohr Siebeck

Samuli Siikavirta, born 1985; 2005–15 student of theology and religious studies at Cambridge; 2012–14 teacher of New Testament Greek; 2015 PhD in theology (New Testament exegetics) from the University of Cambridge; currently pastor in St Mark’s Lutheran Church in Helsinki, Finland.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154049-3 ISBN 978-3-16-154014-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) 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 systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book is a minimally revised version of my PhD dissertation submitted on 31 October 2014 to the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. Neither the dissertation nor this published version of it would have been possible without the help of numerous individuals, more of whom would deserve to be mentioned than is possible in this short space. First, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Andrew Chester, for his indispensable help with the argument and detail of my dissertation and for his support through times both joyful and difficult. I also thank Dr Peter Head for his meticulous feedback during Dr Chester’s sabbatical and Dr Jim Aitken, Prof Shane Berg and Dr Timo Eskola for their helpful comments at different stages. I am glad to have had Dr Simon Gathercole and Prof David Horrell as PhD examiners who helped me polish several points in my argument. I thank Prof Jörg Frey and the WUNT editors for accepting my dissertation for publication, Simon Schüz, Dr Henning Ziebritzki and Dominika Zgolik for their support in the copy-editing process and Katharina Stichling for her encouragement at SBL meetings to submit my work to Mohr Siebeck. My friend, colleague and choirmate Rev Wille Huuskonen is to be praised for his time and assistance with the formatting of the book for publication. Without the encouragement of Rev Dr Juhana Pohjola to continue on to the PhD I would never have gone so far. My thankfulness to Rev Dr Jari Kekäle is without measure for his spiritual fatherhood and for helping me realise the value of writing first and worrying later. I thank my “PhD sisters”, Sarah Dixon and Ruth Norris, for the moments of sharing along the way and my friend Joel Dixon for bearing with us. I thank Javier Garcia and Rev Johannes Börjesson for their true brotherhood within and without the Faculty. I raise a glass to all the Cambridge theologians (especially Rev Dr Collin Bullard, Dr Ryan Williams and Dr Lorne Zelyck) who were part of the Dinklings on Friday afternoons. Chris Fresch, Paul Rogers, Dr Will Timmins, Dr Ben Wilson and are also to be thanked for their doctoral companionship and Dr Fiona Kao and Dr Yun-hua Lo for their peer support and revitalising laughter. All friends at Resurrection Lutheran Church, Cambridge, and Luther Hall also deserve an appreciative mention, especially Anne Shelton for her friendly kicks in the rear and Jean Ra-

VI

Preface

jaonasy, my next-door neighbour for three years. I thank Rev Dr Jonathan Mumme for his friendship, encouragement and spiritual food and Rachel Mumme for her sympathy and delicious pies. It is humbling to have been blessed with so many dear friends all over the world that I cannot list them all here. Without their support, I would not have made it through the PhD. I am particularly indebted to my American brother Simeon Raddatz for the lifeline of uplifting Bible studies, prayers and discussions in Cambridge and across the Atlantic. I am grateful to my dear friend and colleague Rev Sebastian Grünbaum for the summery weeks spent writing together in Rome and for our meaningful chats about life and our PhD progress. I thank Michael and Emily Knippa, Dr Christopher Barnekov and Betsy Karkan for their hospitality while writing in America and Trond Skinstad for his generosity. I also think humbly on all those relatives and elders who have encouraged me and prayed for me, especially Eeva and Eino Repo, Pentti and Irja Väisänen, Dr Girma Berhanu and my dear aunt Tiina Berhanu, Leena Siikavirta, Sannamari Siikavirta, Kaarina Räsänen, and Mikko and Sirkka Niskanen. I wish to thank the members of St Mark’s Lutheran Church, Helsinki, and my friend and colleague, Rev Esko Murto, for their prayers and call to minister to them. This PhD would not have been financially possible without the provision of The Finnish Cultural Foundation, South Savo Regional Fund; The Finnish Cultural Foundation, North Savo Regional Fund; The Eemil Aaltonen Foundation; The Social Insurance Institution of Finland; and The Luther Foundation Finland, Simo Kiviranta Pastoral Fund. I thank Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and the Cambridge Faculty of Divinity for enabling travel to various inspirational conferences overseas. Also Institutum Romanum Finlandiae in Rome, Italy, Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN, USA and Concordia Seminary in St Louis, MO, USA are worthy of acknowledgement for providing me with alternative and inspirational places to write. I dedicate this book to my parents, Pekka and Tuula Siikavirta, who carried me to be baptised into Christ’s death and raised me in the Christian faith to walk in the newness of life in Him, awaiting His return. For that lifedefining gift, I shall remain forever grateful. Sinun omasi minä olen, pelasta minut. (Ps. 119:94) Soli Deo Gloria Samuli Siikavirta 19 September 2015

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... V! Abbreviations ............................................................................................... XI!

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................... 1! 1. The Thesis and Its Significance .................................................................. 1! 2. Method and Procedure ............................................................................... 5! 3. Definition of Terms ..................................................................................... 7!

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship .......................................................... 12! 1. The Birth of the Problem .......................................................................... 12! Paul Wernle: ‘Indicative’ of Sinlessness and Superfluous ‘Imperative’ ...................................................................... 12! 2. Early Solutions to the Problem ................................................................. 14! Rudolf Bultmann: A Paradoxical Dichotomy Understandable through Faith ...................................................................................................... 14! Günther Bornkamm: Baptismal ‘Imperatives’ Unveiling the Hidden New Life ............................................................ 18! Victor P. Furnish: Gift and Demand in Paul’s Theological Ethics ....... 20! 3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms ...................................... 23! Wolfgang Schrage: Summary Statements of Paul’s Christological Ethics ............................................................................ 23! Søren Agersnap: The Natural ‘Imperative’ in Paul’s Baptismal Paraenesis ............................................................. 24!

VIII

Table of Contents

Rudolf Schnackenburg: Sacramental-Eschatological Ethics as the Solution to a Protestant Problem .......................................................... 26! Anders Klostergaard Petersen: No Dichotomy in Paul’s Contractual Ethics .................................................................................................... 27! John Barclay: Obliging Gift and Imperatival Grace ............................. 31! 4. Re-configurations of the Schema .............................................................. 33! Friedrich W. Horn: A Lutheran Criticism of the New Perspective View of the ‘Imperative’ ...................................................................... 33! Christof Landmesser: The ‘Imperative’ as a Christological Performative ......................................................................................... 35! Troels Engberg-Pedersen: Descriptive ‘Indicative’ and Prescriptive ‘Imperative’ ...................................................................... 37! Udo Schnelle: Transformation and Participation .................................. 39! David G. Horrell: Group Identity Preserved by Ethics ......................... 42! Knut Backhaus: Locative Being in Christ instead of Imperatival Doing ................................................................................. 45! 5. The End of the Problem? .......................................................................... 47! Ruben Zimmermann: A Complete Rejection of the Old Schema ......... 47! 6. Conclusion: The Nature and Relevance of the Debate ............................. 49!

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context .......................................... 53! 1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context .............................................. 53! Ritual and Moral Purity in the Jewish Scriptures ................................. 54! Miqwa’ot and Purity during Second-Temple Judaism .......................... 58! Ritual and Moral Purity at Qumran ...................................................... 60! Ritual and Moral Purity in Rabbinic Texts ........................................... 64! Ritual and Moral Purity according to John the Baptist and Jesus ......... 65! Paul’s Jewish Heritage: Purity through Water ...................................... 67! 2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context .......................................... 68! Why Stoicism? ..................................................................................... 70! Cognitive Similarities between Roman Stoics and Paul ....................... 75! Theological Differences between the Stoics and Paul .......................... 80! Paul’s Stoic Heritage: Cognition of Being in Christ ............................. 83! 3. Paul’s Paraclesis in Light of the New Perspective ................................... 84!

Table of Contents

IX

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context .............................. 86! Galatians 3:27 ....................................................................................... 87! 1 Corinthians 1:13–17; 6:11; 10:2; 12:13 and 15:29 ............................. 90! Colossians 2:11–14 ............................................................................... 94! Ephesians 4:5 ........................................................................................ 96! Titus 3:4–8 ............................................................................................ 99! Some Cognitive Comparisons in the Pauline Corpus ........................... 99! 5. Conclusion.............................................................................................. 100!

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity ................................. 103! 1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification ....... 103! Setting the Scene for Paul’s Baptismal Paraclesis .............................. 103! Baptismal Metaphor or Concrete Rite? ............................................... 104! Insights from Verbal Aspect and Voice .............................................. 111! Baptismal Self-Identification .............................................................. 114! 2. Baptismal Death to the Old Master ........................................................ 117! Death as the Problem .......................................................................... 117! Death as the Solution .......................................................................... 121! 3. Baptismal Life to the New Master .......................................................... 123! Life in Free Slavery under God .......................................................... 123! Life in Us: the Indwelling Christ and His Spirit ................................. 125! Life Now and Not Yet ........................................................................ 129! 4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool ........... 133! Sanctification: Ambiguity of Meaning ............................................... 133! Paul’s OT Background: Ἁγιασµός as Divine Separation .................... 135! From Slavery to Slavery: Ἁγιασµός as a Relationship ........................ 138! The NT Context of εἰς ἁγιασµόν: Holiness as a God-Given Status .... 140! The Significance of the εἰς ................................................................. 141! Holiness as Identity-Forming Tool: Cognition of the Baptismal Identity ............................................................................................... 146! 5. Conclusion.............................................................................................. 149!

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State ............................151! 1. Reminding as a Purpose of Romans ....................................................... 151! 2. Paul’s Cognitive Language .................................................................... 155! Rhetorical Questions as a Cognitive Tool .......................................... 155! Cognitive Imperatives ........................................................................ 160! Knowing, Understanding and their Opposites (γινώσκω, ἀγνοέω, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, οἶδα, συνίηµι) ....................................................... 162! Mind and Mindset (φρονέω, φρόνηµα, νοῦς) ..................................... 165! Reckoning and Reasoning (λογίζοµαι, διαλογισµός) .......................... 167! 3. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 169!

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics ............................................................................171! Bibliography ............................................................................179 Index of References .................................................................193! Index of Modern Authors .........................................................208! Index of Subjects ......................................................................211!

Abbreviations General Abbreviations ASV DSS ESV GW NASB NIV NRSV NT OT RSV

American Standard Version Dead Sea Scrolls English Standard Version GOD’S WORD Translation New American Standard Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version New Testament Old Testament Revised Standard Version

Journals, Major Reference Works, Series etc.1 AB ABG ACCS ANRW ATANT BAG

BDAG

BDB BZNW CC ConBNT 1

Anchor Yale Bible Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edn) Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (und die Kunde der älteren Kirche) Concordia Commentary Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series

For full bibliographical references for the dictionaries, see Bibliography.

XII CBQ CBQMS COQG CTQ CUP DPL GBS GNT GT

JBL JSNTSup JSOT LN LNTS LQ LSJ LTR MTS NSBT NA28 NBC NIB NIDNTTae NT NTS OBC OUP SBG SBLDS SNTSMS TC TDNT TLZ WBC

Abbreviations

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Christian Origins and the Question of God Concordia Theological Quarterly Cambridge University Press Dictionary of Paul and His Letters Grove Biblical Series Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Thayer, Joseph H., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, trans. and rev. by J.H. Thayer) Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Logia Neotestamentaria Library of New Testament Studies Lutheran Quarterly Liddell, H.G., R. Scott and H.S. Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon Lutheran Theological Review Marburger Theologische Studien New Studies in Biblical Theology Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition (‘Nestle-Aland’) New Bible Commentary The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition Novum Testamentum Journal of New Testament Studies Oxford Bible Commentary Oxford University Press Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Word Bible Commentary

Abbreviations

WDNTECLR WUNT ZECNT ZNW

Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (und die Kunde der älteren Kirche)

Non-Christian Greek and Roman Writings Aristot. Nic. Eth. Cass. Hist. Cic. Fin. Ep. Diss. Hom. Iliad Mus. Diss. Ov. Met. Plut. Virt. Mor. Quint. Inst. Sen. Ben. Sen. Ira Sen. Prov. Sen. Ep. Sen. Nat. Suet. Cl. Stob. Anth. Verg. A.

Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae Cicero, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum Epictetus, Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae Homer, Iliad Musonius Rufus, Dissertationes Ovid, Metamorphoses Plutarch, De Virtute Morali Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria Seneca, De Beneficiis Seneca, De Ira Seneca, De Providentia Seneca, Epistulae Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones Suetonius, Divus Claudius Stobaeus, Anthologion Virgil, Aeneid

Jewish Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphal and Other Extrabiblical Writings 2 Bar. Jos. Ant. Jub. Ep. Aris. 2 Macc. 3 Macc. 4 Macc. 1QH a 1QM 1QS 4Q416 4Q417 Philo Spec. Leg.

XIII

2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae Jubilees The Letter of Aristeas 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Thanksgiving Hymns (Qumran Cave 1) War Scroll (Qumran Cave 1) Rule of the Community (Qumran Cave 1) 4QInstructionb (Qumran Cave 4) 4QInstructionc (Qumran Cave 4) Philo, De Specialibus Legibus

XIV Pss. Sol. Sib. Or. Sifre Num. Sir. b. Yebam. Wis.

Abbreviations

Psalms of Solomon Sibylline Oracles Sifre on Numbers (Midrash) Sirach Tractate Yevamot (Babylonian Talmud) Wisdom of Solomon

Early Christian and Reformation Writings Ambr. Sacr. 1 Clem. CA Just. Dial. Just. 1 Apol. LC Orig. Comm. Rom. Oros. Hist. Ps. Dion. Eccl. Sol. Decl. Tert. Marc. Tert. Bapt.

Ambrose, De sacramentiis 1 Clement Confessio Augustana Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Justin Martyr, Apologia prima Martin Luther, Large Catechism Origen, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos Orosius, Historiae adversus paganos Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia Solida Declaratio Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Tertullian, De Baptismo

Chapter 1

Introduction 1. The Thesis and Its Significance This is essential: the Christian ethic is not born from a system of commandments but is a consequence of our friendship with Christ.1

It is perhaps unconventional for a book on Paul to begin with a quotation from a Pope. Nevertheless, Benedict XVI puts his finger on my reason for writing this book. Neither Christian ethics in general nor Pauline ethics in particular can be founded on commandments alone, and to speak in terms that may imply that Paul’s ethical ‘imperatives’ arise from his theological ‘indicatives’ is, for this reason alone, misleading. Thus Paul is not a proponent of moralism, “a morality that tells people what to do without explaining the relationship between who they are in Christ and how they can and ought to act”2. The understanding of that relationship is crucial in Paul’s moral teaching. Despite recent criticisms, the relationship between theology and ethics in Paul’s writings continues often to be explained with the ‘indicativeimperative schema’ somewhat uncritically. Summary statements such as “Paul’s moral imperative (what believers ought to do) is rooted in the indicative of salvation (what God has already done for them in Christ)”3 occur time and time again in Pauline scholarship. As Stanley Porter correctly noted, before the most recent resurgence of criticism of indicative-imperative language, Despite its enshrinement in the secondary literature, indicative/imperative language is potentially misleading, since ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ are strictly speaking grammatical labels for two of the Greek verbal mood forms (it was in this sense that they were originally used in discussion of Pauline ethics). Sometimes they are used in parallel con-

1

Pope Benedict XVI, Saint Paul, San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009, 88. F.J. Matera, ‘Living in Newness of Life: Paul’s Understanding of the Moral Life’, in P. Spitaler (ed.), Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (CBQMS 48), Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011, 168. 3 Matera, ‘Living’, 155. 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

structions, at other times they are not. The indicative-imperative construct is in actual fact a theological paradigm, in which the two grammatical forms play some part.4

According to Porter, Rom. 6 shows the misleading nature of the indicativeimperative terminology well. Despite often being used as the main proof text for the terminology, the passage actually contains just a few grammatical imperatives (mostly in vv. 12 and 13), but it does include for instance future forms, hortatory subjunctives, infinitives and participles that form an exhortation based on Paul’s “description of the Christian”, i.e. “the believer’s condition”.5 Porter’s summary of the problem has obvious similarities with the citation given from Pope Benedict: For Paul, ethical discourse is more than simply an appeal to grammatical forms to establish moral directives, but a set of directives for behavior which derive from description of the believer’s condition in Christ.6

Porter’s suggestion for replacing the “potentially misleading terminology” is to use narrative ethics “to describe the tension in Pauline ethics between Paul’s description of the believer’s current condition (as justified) and his ethical appeal (for sanctification)”, which is what scholars have been doing despite their misleading grammatical terminology.7 Indeed, in spite of the terminology being most often used without implying that Paul’s ethics are a collection of grammatically imperatival expressions detached from their theological foundation,8 what I argue in this book (with Porter and subsequent critics) is that such terminology remains misleading, rigid and oversimplifying. Furthermore, it can be used to drive a wedge between Paul’s theology and ethics in a way that is unfaithful to Paul’s own teaching, where the two are inseparably conjoined.9 Although it is true that abusus non tollit 4

S.E. Porter, ‘Holiness, Sanctification’, in G.F. Hawthorne and R.P. Martin (eds), DPL, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993, 401. 5 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 401. Using such language, Porter abandons Bultmann’s description of the indicative-imperative dichotomy as ethical command proceeding out of statements of theological truth (“Christians should become what they are”; ibid.) and sides more with Käsemann’s reading, according to which the believer is simultaneously in two realms (“obedience is a requirement for maintaining the condition of faith”; ibid.). 6 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 401. 7 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 401. On Paul’s sanctification terminology and my disagreement with Porter’s reading, see Chapter 4, Section 4 below. 8 So e.g. V.P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, Nashville: Abingdon, 1968, 92–98; Matera, ‘Living,’ 158; S. Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6.1–14, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1999, 380; W. Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, (E.D. Green, trans.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 167. 9 For a non-dichotomous use of indicative-imperative terminology that takes the two sides as inseparable parts of Paul’s behaviour-shaping theologising (in other words, his gospel that “proclaims an act of God that grasps us and remakes us”), see R.B. Hays, The

1. The Thesis and Its Significance

3

usum, because of such risks and inherent faults in this terminology that is still often used, a better way of wording, and also approaching, the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics must be found. The distinctive research question of this study is, therefore, whether the core of the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics can be most clearly reached in Rom. 6–8 (and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere) by analysing the substance of Paul’s theological-ethical argument: the relationship between Paul’s baptismal teaching and his cognitive reminders arising from it. In other words, my working hypothesis is that focusing on Paul’s teaching about being in Christ through baptism and his emphatically cognitive instruction “in the elements of Christian living that follow from baptism”10 gives us a clearer and more text-based picture of the relationship than what is attainable through the vague and potentially misleading indicative-imperative terminology. As Benedict implies, Paul’s ethics arise from his teaching on the change of lordships and the baptismal state11 as dead to sin but alive to God in Christ (Rom. 6:11). Paul reminds his addressees of this new state in Christ often by cognitive means.12 This observation does not mean that Paul teaches freedom from moral obligation or instruction,13 but that what very often stands behind his moral instruction is a distinctly cognitive14 reminder to know and understand what it means to have been baptised into Christ and to continue in Christ. Such cognitive renewal, Paul teaches, should lead to the correct use of the body as well. This approach helps us go beyond the old terminology into the subject matter of Paul’s actual argument. Baptism was, as far as we know, a concrete and identity-defining event in every early Christian’s life and conversion. It is significant that in his paraenesis in RoMoral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996, 18f., 39. For an explanation of how commands do not necessarily imply the possibility of compliance with the command, see L. Thurén, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law (WUNT 124), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 87f., 123 fn. 141. 10 G.R. Beasley-Murray, ‘Baptism’, in DPL, 64. 11 Cf. A. Schweitzer (Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus, Tübingen: Mohr, 1930, 288), “Die Ethik Pauli ist also nichts anderes als seine Mystik des Seins in Christo vom Standpunkt des Wollens aus begriffen.” 12 Cf. John Barclay’s observation on Romans, “There are imperatives here (6:11–13; 8:12–13), but the chapters are concerned not so much with norms or practices as with ethic-structuring orientations, allegiances, and dispositions.” (J.M.G. Barclay, ‘Under Grace: The Christ-Gift and the Construction of a Christian Habitus’, in B.R. Gaventa [ed.], Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013, 69.) 13 A point correctly refuted by J.M.G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (J. Riches, ed.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 232 cf. 229. 14 T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000, 5.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

mans and elsewhere, Paul points to baptism and the new baptismal state in Christ, and in doing so, uses this kind of cognitive language that aims at shaping his recipients’ understanding of the gospel, of themselves in light of the gospel and, ultimately, their own behaviour between now and the Parousia. In fact, whenever baptism occurs in Paul’s letters, it is always in an ethical context. Romans 6–8 will act as a good case study to test this hypothesis for two reasons. First, Romans is Paul’s only letter to an early Christian community that he had neither founded nor visited, which made him want to present his recipients with a clear summary of his gospel (Rom. 2:16) in an epistle that was “intended to function as a distinct, persuasive entity”15. It is true, as Stuhlmacher puts it, that “Nowhere in the entirety of Holy Scripture is the nature of the gospel more clearly and exactly worked out than in the letter to the Romans”16. Nonetheless, I do not argue that Paul dictated to Tertius (Rom. 16:22)17 some kind of systematic treatise completely oblivious to the situation in Rome.18 The reason, or reasons, that Paul had for sending the letter to Rome have been and still are debated, and no detailed account of them can or needs to be given in this short space.19 I agree with the general

15

Thurén, Derhetorizing, 97. P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994, 10. 17 I take Rom. 16 to have been an original part of the epistle, with e.g. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 244–246. For further discussion, see Chapter 5, Section 2, ‘Knowing, understanding and their opposites (γινώσκω, ἀγνοέω, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, οἶδα, συνίηµι)’ below. 18 Cf. G. Bornkamm, who calls Romans “Paul’s testament” not because it is “a timeless theological tractate” but because of its mature and developed thought (Paulus, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1969, 103–111; contra S.K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans [SBLDS 57], Chico: Scholars, 1981, 180f.). 19 In its historical context of the Edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2; Suet. Cl. 25.4; Cass. Hist. 60.6.6–7; Oros. Hist. 7.6.15), Rom. 9–11 is no detached appendix but an intrinsic part of the letter; see Stuhlmacher, Romans, 4, 7f.; Thurén, Derhetorizing, 98f.; A.J.M. Wedderburn, ‘The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again’, in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991, 195. For the many uncertainties around the expulsion of possibly up to 50,000 Roman Jews for AD 49–54 and its effect on e.g. the shift of Gentile Christian worship from synagogues to house churches, see J.N. Vorster, ‘The context of the Letter to the Romans: a critique on the present state of research’, Neotestamentica 28 (1994), 129f., 133; A.J.M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991, 31–35. For the view that only the leading Jewish (Christian) figures were expelled, see cf. P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (M. Steinhauser, trans., and M.D. Johnson, ed.), London: Continuum, 2003, 13f., 72–75. It is impossible and unnecessary for our understanding of Romans to know all the details and ramifications of the Jewish expulsion (Thurén, Derhetorizing, 100), and much more could be said about the 16

2. Method and Procedure

5

consensus that Paul wrote the letter some time between AD 55 and 59, after the Edict of Claudius in AD 49 and the return of the Jews to Rome in AD 54.20 Secondly, Rom. 6 is the locus classicus for NT baptismal theology. Even more interestingly, it is in chapters 6–8 of Romans that Paul’s ethical teaching interacts with his baptismal teaching and the Christology intertwined with it at its clearest. It is also a section in which Paul’s ethics can best be seen in interaction with his hamartiology, eschatology and pneumatology – all being intrinsic aspects of Paul’s ethics.

2. Method and Procedure As the title of this study suggests, my main research method is to analyse exegetically the interaction between baptism and cognition in Rom. 6–8 in order to attain the goal of this study: to look for the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics beyond the old indicative-imperative terminology and through Paul’s exhortation to know thoroughly one’s baptismal state in Christ. In order to achieve this main goal, the following steps must be undertaken. Because I argue against the appropriateness of the popular terminology used to conceptualise the relationship between theology and ethics in Paul, it is necessary to provide a review of the different views on the topic – both those that affirm and modify the indicative-imperative schema and those that are critical of it to varying degrees. This review (in Chapter 2) will inevitably purpose and context of the letter than what is relevant for this study. See further Chapter 5, Section 1 below. 20 The date is calculated on the basis of the Edict of Claudius and Paul’s previous missionary visit to Corinth, during which Gallio was the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), serving AD 51–52 according to an inscription at Delphi (Lampe, From Paul, 11–16; M.P. Middendorf, Romans 1–8 [CC], Saint Louis: Concordia, 2013, 7). For the traditional AD 49 date of the edict, see J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A), Waco: Word Books, 1988, xlix, and Lampe, From Paul, 15. Luke mentions the three-month-long period between Paul’s arrival in Greece and departure for Syria after the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:3, 6), which has been traditionally dated to AD 56 (So e.g. P. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 5; F.J. Matera, Romans, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010, 5; Middendorf, Romans 1–8, 7; for a suggestion for the winter of 55–56 or 56–57 see C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 16; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, xliii). Other dates have also been suggested; AD 56–57: B. Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, 7; AD 57–58: R.N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011, 50; AD 59: C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, 1932 (14th edn 1960), xxvi.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

be selective, and limited in scope, in relation to the vast amount of potentially relevant Pauline scholarship. However, in order to understand the often subtle differences, the different approaches will be analysed in substantial detail. In order to see whether the centrality of the baptismal rite and the correct understanding of the baptismal identity-foundation in Paul stand out as distinct or can be seen as being influenced by pre-existing traditions, I shall (in Chapter 3) place Paul’s baptismal-ethical teaching in its religious-historical and cultural context, although again the discussion will have to be selective, and set within clear limits. First, Paul must be placed in his Jewish context. The interaction between the notions of ritual and moral purity will be discussed in light of scholarship on Second Temple Judaism and its archaeology. I shall also provide an analysis of the moral value given to Jewish ritual washings in the Jewish scriptures, Qumran texts, Rabbinic sources and NT traditions associated with John the Baptist and Jesus. Secondly, similarities and differences between Stoicism, the popularised philosophy in the GraecoRoman world of Paul’s time and especially at Rome, will be analysed. I shall compare the rational emphasis in Stoic ethics with the cognitive dimension of Paul’s paraclesis. In addition, the other main baptismal passages in the Pauline corpus must then be discussed with specific focus on how they relate to ethics and, in particular, Paul’s cognitive appeal to understand the baptismal identity. This chapter will also contain a reflection on Paul’s identityreminders in light of the so-called New Perspective and its view of the works of the law as identity-shaping boundary markers. From the perspective of this survey of scholarship and the religioushistorical background, the main part of the exegetical analysis of Rom. 6–8 will be undertaken in Chapters 4 and 5. In Chapter 4, I shall analyse the text thematically from the point of view of baptismal status and identity. This will include dealing with questions such as the ‘truth value’ of the baptismal metaphor, the significance of Paul’s passive voice and aorist imperatives, and the unity of the death-and-life theme in Rom. 6–8. There will also be discussion here of Paul’s view of sin and the law, slavery versus freedom and sonship, the role of the Spirit in ethics, the eschatological tension between the aeons, and holiness or sanctification. The final stage required to complete this study will (in Chapter 5) consist of an analysis of the role of cognition in Paul’s ethics in Rom. 6–8, although reference to this theme will be made throughout the book. The attention in the first part of the chapter will be on reminder as a possible purpose for writing Romans. The second part will consist of an analysis of Paul’s cognitive language in Rom. 6–8, including his rhetorical questions, cognitive imperatives and language about knowing, the mind and reckoning. Attention will be drawn to their connection with Paul’s baptismal teaching. Finally, in Chapter 6, I shall present my conclusions on the basis of the preceding study.

3. Definition of Terms

7

3. Definition of Terms Before proceeding further, some key notions need to be defined more closely. I am aware of the anachronism of the term “Christian” (Χριστιανός),21 in spite of Acts anchoring its origin to Antioch before the beginning of Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts 11:26; cf. 26:28 and 1 Pet. 4:16). “Christianity” or, as Thorsteinsson renders, “Christianism” (Χριστιανισµός) does not occur until the second century with Ignatius.22 Paul does not seem to have adopted either term, but any neutral scholarly terms such as “Christ-believer” or “Jesus-follower” would be equally alien to Paul’s language. One common Pauline term would be οἱ ἅγιοι (cf. Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25f., 31; 16:2, 15), although Paul uses ἀδελφοί and ἐκκλησία more frequently, with οἱ πιστοί and other believer-designations also being prominent. As Paul Trebilco suggests, the term “Christian” may indeed be used alongside other NT selfdesignations, as it very clearly distinguishes the earliest Christians from those who did not believe in Christ.23 Hence it will also be used in this book. By ‘state’ I mean the condition of those baptised into Christ and into his death (Rom. 6:3) as dead to the rule of sin and alive to the rule of God in Christ. In my use, the term refers to one’s status as a living participant in the grace of God in Christ, who is the new Lord of the baptised. For Paul, the baptised person’s status in Christ was seen as a key motivator to lead a morally upright life.24 This baptismal state, then, is closely related to one’s self-understanding and identity. Paul wants his addressees to think of themselves in accordance with their baptismal status in Christ. The term ‘identity’ is, of course, modern, but I maintain with Troels Engberg-Pedersen that the content of this term of self-awareness and a sense of who one is can already be found in antiquity.25 By ‘cognitive’ and ‘cognition’, I simply mean the mental action of knowing, reasoning and understanding and things related to such mental processes. In this study, ‘cognitive’ is not a statement about reality. I do not mean by it something merely imagined on a theoretical level that is more or less di21

Cf. E.D. Freed, The Morality of Paul’s Converts, London: Equinox, 2005, 4, 21–27. R.M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity & Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality, Oxford: OUP, 2010, 76, 86. 23 For an in-depth discussion, see P. Trebilco, Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, Cambridge: CUP, 2012, 3f., 311, 314. 24 See e.g. L. Thurén, ‘Motivation as the Core of Paraenesis – Remarks on Peter and Paul as Persuaders’, in J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005, 354. According to Thurén, this motivation makes early Christian paraenesis stand out from other Graeco-Roman paraenesis. 25 E.g. Cic. Fin. 3.16, quoted in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 55. 22

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

vorced from reality. That would correspond to Schweitzer’s definition of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith as something appropriated cognitively (gedanklich) and as a mere fragment of Paul’s more comprehensive (umfassend) and natural (naturhaft) being-in-Christ mysticism, i.e. dying and rising with Christ.26 Despite disagreeing with Schweitzer’s purely ‘cognitive’ definition of justification in opposition to a more holistic Christ mysticism, I agree with how he anchors the Christian identity in the new baptismal status in Christ and maintains that Paul’s ethics flow from this being-in-Christ as the fruit of the Spirit.27 By ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical’, I do not refer to a systematic ethical theory of norms and foundations of behaviour in the Aristotelian sense,28 but, in the absence of such an account in Paul, to any moral guidance (in whatever form or grammatical mood) given by him to his audience on how to live well. Ever since Dibelius, the most common term used to describe hortatory texts in the NT has been ‘paraenesis’, meaning a rhetorical style of exhortation common in Hellenistic literature.29 The question has been raised, however, whether the term ‘paraclesis’ should be preferred, since it is the word used by Paul and other authors of the NT themselves instead of παραίνησις, which

26 Schweitzer, Mystik, 214–221. Schweitzer takes the former to be incomplete and not independent, which is also shown by how Paul moves on from the sacrificial language of Rom. 3:1–5:21 to the language of the mystical dying and rising with Christ in Rom. 6:1– 8:1, without any reference to the former (221). Schweitzer acknowledges that some may find it hard to accept “daß an Stelle der gedanklichen Aneignung ein naturhafter Prozeß tritt” (218), especially since he maintains that there is no logical way to be found from the doctrine of justification by faith to ethics (any such attempt by those who take justification to be Paul’s central doctrine being bound to fail tragically). This is quite different, Schweitzer claims, in Paul’s mystical being-in-Christ, from which ethics naturally follow (220). It is in the baptismal dying and rising with Christ that Paul teaches that the redemption of the believer has its beginning and the implanting into the body of Christ happens (254f.). Schweitzer claims that in Paul, baptism is explained through the centre of his doctrine, the “Mystik des Seins in Christo”, which redefines the believers’ entire natural existence as no longer Jew or Greek, man or woman, slave or free, but as a new humanity being built in Christ (255f.). A similar relocation of the foundations of Pauline ethics from justification to being-in-Christ is undertaken by E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London: SCM, 1977, 511–515. 27 Schweitzer, Mystik, 286. 28 Cf. R. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer impliziten Ethik des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes’, TLZ 132/3 (2007), 272f. 29 See M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (6th edn), Tübingen: Mohr, 1971, 239; cf. M. Dibelius, ‘Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief’, in G. Bornkamm (ed.), Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Vol. II, Tübingen: Mohr, 1956, 176 (cited in M. Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case’, in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis, 320f.).

3. Definition of Terms

9

was a disputed notion already in antiquity.30 In the NT, παρακαλέω occurs 109 times, of which 54 are in the Pauline corpus, and παράκλησις is used 29 times, of which 20 are in the Pauline corpus, whereas the verb παραινέω only occurs twice (Acts 27:9, 22) and the noun παραίνησις never. In Romans, Paul repeats the phrase παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑµας, ἀδελφοί three times in his exhortation to the Roman Christians (Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17). To complicate this even further, the definitions of paraenesis are varied. According to Anders Klostergaard Petersen, it is an ancient category of particular moral advice in specific circumstances that has been broadened in NT scholarship to denote moral exhortation in general, and as almost synonymous with ‘ethics’.31 That is how Margaret Mitchell defines paraenesis: universally applicable moral exhortation to remain steadfast in one’s present mode of life, as opposed to the ‘deliberative rhetoric’ that she maintains that Paul uses in 1 Cor., giving specific and contextual advice especially through self-exemplification to make the Corinthians follow his example.32 Nevertheless, as Walter Übelacker has noted, paraenesis, if defined as a form of concise exhortation and reminder of right or wrong moral practices that assume a shared worldview but do not anticipate disagreement on the part of the recipients, becomes a problematic term.33 Paul, generally, writes (or dictates) in a polemical context in which disagreements and misunderstandings were not strange phenomena to him, before he came to write Romans.34 He does go into quite a lot of detail on the theological motivation for acting in accordance with his exhortation and on the consequences of obeying or disobeying it; he does not simply remind his addressees of something concisely, but instead wants to deepen their understanding. At the same time, however, Paul assumes that his baptismal-ethical teaching is somewhat familiar to his recipients (albeit most likely not given by Paul himself), and he wants to remind them of it and strengthen their pre-existing knowledge of the significance of the baptismal death-life pattern for their present and future lives. This corresponds to the 30

See e.g. Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 319, 350; R. Jewett, ‘Following the Argument of Romans’, in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1991, 269. 31 A. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis in Pauline Scholarship and Paul – An Intricate Relationship’, in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis, 293, referring to e.g. Wendland’s idea of paraenesis as an unstructured chain of thoughts (P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos: Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Rhetorik: Festschrift für die XLVIII. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Hamburg, Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1905, 82f.). 32 M.M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, Louisville: Westminster, 1992, 51–60. 33 Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 319f, 332. 34 As Übelacker states, “Παραίνησις does not allow for counter-statements…; παράκλησις does.” (‘Paraenesis’, 348).

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

2001 Oslo definition of paraenesis as reminder and actualisation of previous teaching.35 Despite such differences, the definitions of paraenesis and paraclesis have many things in common, such as authoritative teaching, good and bad examples, and reminder of common premises and values.36 However, it may be held that paraclesis, in the NT more generally, encompasses a wider range of admonition, such as consolations, dissuasions, exhortations, scold and praise, together with the desire to give a theologically argued reason for the need to act in a certain way.37 In Übelacker’s words, The special characteristic of the New Testament paraenesis as paraclesis is, on the one hand, the reason given, and on the other hand, the motivations which follow in order to awaken emotions and the will to pursue a certain course or to act in a certain way as intended by the author or speaker. The structure of most exhortations is as follows: (a) admonition; (b) reason (γάρ), with an appeal to the intellect (νοῦς); (c) an appeal to ethos and/or the emotions; (d) a combination of (b) and (c)…38

Because paraenesis is constantly used in Pauline scholarship,39 I shall continue to use the term interchangeably with paraclesis, keeping in mind the possible problems associated with the former term.40 Most importantly, Paul’s paraclesis is not founded on a compulsion to act in a certain way but on the baptised person’s new status in Christ, of which his moral instruction reminds his addressees. Neither is Paul’s paraenesis the same as the OT law, but it modifies and completes the law, using it as an additional source to support his paraenesis, for the goal of the Pauline paraenesis is to make the addressees obey God’s will by way of Spirit-enabled and gospel-motivated exhortation, and this was according to Paul impossible for the law of Moses to accomplish.41 Indeed, to quote Ernst Käsemann, “No categorical impera-

35

Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 326; J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Introduction’, in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, Early Christian Paraenesis, 1, 4. 36 Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 349. 37 So Sen. Ep. 94.11–12, 39; Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 333, 350. Übelacker interestingly suggests that one of the distinct features of NT paraclesis is the lack of emphasis on authoritative/hierarchical prescription (παραινεῖν) and instead a stress on more familial and broader appeal or comfort (παρακαλεῖν; ‘Paraenesis’, 351). This observation may be applicable to the childhood and sonship language of Rom. 8. 38 Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 351f. (original emphasis). 39 One scholar suggests that paraenesis acts for Paul as a substitute for ethics based on the Mosaic law; see Thurén, Derhetorizing, 131–137, 184. 40 See a similar decision in Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 269–271. 41 Thurén, Derhetorizing Paul, 90–92, 131–137. Thurén even goes so far as to say that Paul ‘replaces’ the law with his paraenesis. I am not totally convinced by this.

3. Definition of Terms

11

tive dictates [Christian action], but the voice of child-like freedom and rejoicing is heard in it.”42

42

E. Käsemann, ‘Principles of the Interpretation of Romans’, in E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, (W.J. Montague, trans.), London: SCM, 1969, 198. According to Käsemann, grace and freedom are inseparable from baptism in Paul (199).

Chapter 2

Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship 1. The Birth of the Problem A vibrant discussion of the doctrinal and exhortatory sections in Pauline ethics has been underway for more than a century.1 For instance, it has been seen as problematic that, in certain places, Paul makes statements about Christians’ freedom from sin already in the present, whilst elsewhere he admonishes Christians to fight against sin. What Paul commands in one verse he sometimes speaks of as an already existing state of reality in another (e.g. Gal. 3:27 cf. Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16 cf. Gal. 5:25; Rom. 6:2 cf. Rom. 6:11).2 The interaction and alleged tension between these two aspects of Paul’s teaching has been termed variously as (for instance) ‘gospel’ and ‘law’, ‘faith’ and ‘love’, ‘doctrine’ and ‘ethics’, ‘kerygma’ and ‘didache’, and ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’. The problematising of this relationship and denoting it by these last two terms (‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’) can be traced back to the work of Paul Wernle. Paul Wernle: ‘Indicative’ of Sinlessness and Superfluous ‘Imperative’ In his 1897 book Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus, Wernle uses the terms ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ to describe the two modes of Pauline language.3 According to Wernle, Paul was an enthusiast who expected Christ’s immi-

1 By far the most helpful critical survey of the developments in the study of Pauline ethics until the late 1960s can be found in Furnish, Theology, 242–279. For more recent and more detailed summaries, see e.g. U. Schnelle, ‘Die Begründung und die Gestaltung der Ethik bei Paulus’, in R. Gebauer and M. Meiser (eds), Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums: Festschrift für Otto Merk zum 70. Geburtstag (MTS76), Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 2003, 109–116, and F. Blischke, Die Begründung und die Durchsetzung der Ethik bei Paulus (ABG 25), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, 21–38. 2 M. Parsons, ‘Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing’, repr. in B.S. Rosner, Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 230; cf. Sanders, Paul, 468f. 3 P. Wernle, Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus, Freiburg im Breisgau: Mohr, 1897.

1. The Birth of the Problem

13

nent return.4 He thus takes the ‘indicative’ to represent the realised sinlessness of the baptised in the present time5 that, for the Christian, is no longer characterised by sin but by freedom from sin and defined by the coming Parousia of Christ: “Wir können nicht mehr sündigen, weil wir Zukunftsmenschen sind.”6 Thus Wernle explicitly rejects the Lutheran idea of simul iustus et peccator as un-Pauline in light of his doctrine of justification and baptism that, in his view, bring about sinlessness.7 Wernle holds that the ‘imperative’ in its turn exhorts the Christian’s will to yield to this sinless reality,8 but although its charge (Verpflichtung) may appear useful to us, in Wernle’s words, it is by no means necessary if the ‘indicative of sinlessness’ holds true.9 Wernle sees Paul’s ‘indicative’ as denoting the action of the Spirit in the past, present and future in the lives of Christians as the “ethics of miracle” without any human contribution, while the role of the ‘imperative’ is merely to encourage Christians to let the Spirit have his way in their lives as the “ethics of the will”.10 Wernle sees the apostle’s teaching on the role of the Spirit in both ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ as their connecting element.11 However, the weakness of this connection has left a great deal of scope for later scholars to analyse their interconnectedness. Furthermore, Wernle grants a place in Paul’s theology for the preaching not of morality but only of faith,12 categorising Paul’s teaching on the final judgment on the basis of works as a relic of primitive Christian traditions.13 Whenever Paul exhorts his addressees ethically, according to Wernle, this is simply because of superficial disturbances in the Christian communities, 4

Klostergaard Petersen calls this Wernle’s psychological solution to resolve the tension between the moods (‘Paraenesis’, 277). 5 Wernle, Christ, 23, 105. 6 Wernle, Christ, 103. 7 Wernle, Christ, 93–95. 8 Wernle, Christ, 15f., 24f., 87, 104, 119. Cf. “the new possibility of actual, complete sinlessness”, in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 253, 255. 9 Wernle, Christ, 105. 10 Wernle, Christ, 89. 11 Wernle, Christ, 89. 12 Wernle, Christ, 35. 13 Wernle, Christ, 99. A similar religio-historical explanation was given in the early20th century for the tension between Paul’s ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ in general: they were thought to originate from Paul’s baptismal theology and baptismal paraenesis, both of which had different origins. See H. Windisch, ‘Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs’, ZNW 23 (1924), 268f. For an excellent account of Wernle’s indebtedness to the History of Religions School and its dichotomising of the study of Paul’s heritage (Jewish vs. Hellenistic), ethical motifs (judicial vs. mystic-sacramental), and soteriology (forensically-subjective vs. ethically-dualistic or objectively-real), see Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 274–278.

14

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

which have nothing to do with actual sin, because in Christ, sinlessness has already been realised.14 Wernle’s views were strongly criticised already in his own time for neglecting the Pauline teaching on the real problem of sin. His attempt to resolve the conflict between the Pauline dichotomy by disregarding the reality of sin and reducing Paul’s moral instruction to a meaningless historical tangent can by no means be accepted as satisfactory. It is obvious that Wernle’s reading of Paul as an enthusiast fails in the light of texts such as Rom. 6, which, already at the very start, points to the problem of sin in the lives of Christians after their baptism (Rom. 6:1f.). Despite adapting his own oversimplified views within a few years of the publication of Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus,15 Wernle’s legacy has lived on through the names that he gave to the Pauline dichotomy. However, even these terms, as we shall see, are not as unproblematic as their general scholarly acceptance may make them appear to be.

2. Early Solutions to the Problem Although Wernle’s terminology of the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ has lived on in Pauline scholarship, many later scholars have modified the content of his terms. Rudolf Bultmann brings the notions of ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ together into a very close yet paradoxical relationship. Victor P. Furnish follows the gist of Bultmann’s approach but also lays the foundation for later criticisms of the terminology. Günther Bornkamm focuses on the interaction between baptism and the ‘imperative’. Rudolf Bultmann: A Paradoxical Dichotomy Understandable through Faith Wernle’s ideas were modified and his terms popularised by Bultmann. His definition of the ‘indicative’ does not imply realised sinlessness. Instead, Bultmann believes that Paul needed to resort to the ‘imperative’ in order to exhort Christians towards perfection that, however, would never be reached completely in the present time.16 As one scholar has pointed out, Bultmann can be blamed for inventing the dichotomy between the ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’, as Wernle had not himself placed the latter in direct opposition 14

Wernle, Christ, 45. See P. Wernle, The Beginnings of the Christian Religion, (G.A. Bienemann, trans.), London: Williams & Norgate, 1903. 16 R. Bultmann, ‘The Problem of Ethics in Paul’, (C.W. Stenschke, trans.), repr. in Rosner, Understanding, 199f. Thus for Bultmann, righteousness and sinlessness are eschatological concepts. 15

2. Early Solutions to the Problem

15

with the former.17 According to Wernle’s reading, the imperative was utterly superfluous because of realised sinlessness. To resolve the assumed paradox, Bultmann connects the notions closely through his definition of πίστις as obedience. Despite his thus bringing them so closely together, however, the relationship between the ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ remains paradoxical for Bultmann and, in the eyes of many, he appears to have created a dichotomy. He sees the ‘imperative’ as part of God’s “indicative of righteousness” which, from the Christian’s standpoint, equals obedience to God’s act of salvation.18 On the basis of Rom. 6:14, he notes: Paul bases the imperative on the very fact of justification and derives the imperative from the indicative. Because the Christian is free from sin through justification, he is now to fight against sin.19

Bultmann sees, therefore, no contradiction between the two modes of speech, but a mere paradox understandable through faith.20 It is only through faith that eschatology becomes a present reality for Bultmann. The antinomy, he maintains, should neither be explained away psychologically, making Paul an enthusiast and optimist, nor historically.21 It is also important for Bultmann’s argument to find parallel, non-contradictory antinomies in Hellenistic mysticism between otherworldly salvation (a present and ‘indicative’ reality for the mystic) and ‘imperatives’ that demonstrate the need to erase the concrete, empirical man.22 This is not to say, however, that sinlessness is completely forgotten in Bultmann’s reading: it is inseparably tied up with justification as a past event, which has a strongly miraculous and eschatological aspect.23 The ‘imperative’, then, applies to the justified person’s mode of existence (i.e. “sinlessness” or “righteousness”) but does not realise it – the ‘indicatives’ are not merely “strengthened imperatives” as Wernle had put it.24 This is where Bultmann’s eschatological-existentialist argument is at its most complicated, for he maintains at the same time that “[sinlessness] is the realised mode of existence of the justified”.25 It is a “possibility… of realizing the commandment’s intent to bestow life”26. The faith of the Christian is a “living disposi17

Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 274 fn. 11. Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 211, 213. 19 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 198f. 20 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 196 cf. 216. Cf. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 261. 21 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 196, 198f. 22 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 210. 23 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 200. 24 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 200. 25 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 199f. 26 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. I, (G. Kendrick, trans.), London: SCM, 1952, 332 (italics added). 18

16

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

tion” that must be shown in works that do not, however, bring about righteousness but merely show the Christian’s obedience that places him at God’s disposal (Rom. 6:13).27 Walking in obedience is a daily decision that the Christian must make,28 or in other more existentialist words, “the faithbestowed possibility of ‘living by the Spirit’ must be explicitly laid hold of by ‘walking by the Spirit.’”29 Most crucially, Bultmann sees righteousness or sinlessness as a “mode of existence” and as God’s gift, just as the moral demand of the ‘imperative’ and the attitude of obedience that seizes the demand through the new perspective of faith is God’s gift given by the Spirit.30 This reading is possible because of Bultmann’s definition of faith as life in obedience to the moral imperative and of sinlessness and justification as eschatological categories attainable through faith alone. Despite his being accused of thus seeing the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ as too closely intertwined31 or as not solving the paradox of Wernle’s notions adequately,32 the theocentricity of Bultmann’s approach to not only what he calls the ‘indicative’ but also the ‘imperative’ is faithful to the Pauline text (cf. Rom. 8:9f.; Gal. 5:22–25). For the justified believer, obedience is the “fate” in which the life of Jesus (2 Cor. 4:11) manifests itself (especially in Rom. 1:15; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19, 26; cf. 5:19), which primarily means giving one’s whole body to God’s service (Rom. 6:12–19) and has consequences for one’s moral conduct.33 Furthermore, Bultmann rightly maintains that for Paul, justification is established by the sacramental act of baptism through which the indwelling Spirit is also bestowed upon the Christian34 – in a Lutheran manner, he insists that righteousness is dependent not on human

27

Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 201, 213. Parsons, ‘Being’, 222. 29 Bultmann, Theology, I, 333 (italics added). For a detailed critique of Bultmann’s ethics of “radical obedience” as containing an existentialist view of man and eschatological view of history (thus implicitly rejecting “any ethics that tries to understand man apart from his concrete encounter with the moment”, becoming “an ethic against ethics” that cannot be systematised or generalised outside of the specific demand of the present moment), see T.C. Oden, Radical Obedience: The Ethics of Rudolf Bultmann, London: Epworth, 1965, esp. 40–45. See also John Barclay’s critique in Section 3 below. 30 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 212, 216. 31 Parsons, ‘Being’, 222f. 32 Agersnap, Baptism, 378. 33 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 212–214. 34 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 209. Thus Bultmann acknowledges the existence in Paul of the sacramental elements pointed out by the History of Religions School (with an emphasis on similarities with Hellenistic mysteries), although his Lutheran reading can also be seen as the scholar distancing himself from the view that defended the early Catholicism of Paul (Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 280). 28

2. Early Solutions to the Problem

17

achievements but on God’s act of justification alone.35 Bultmann writes that any human attempts to justify oneself through morally correct living would fail because of fallen humanity’s being, as a matter of fact, determined by sin, as Paul’s strong vocabulary in Rom. 7:18 shows.36 Justification is not simply a moral renewal but the Rechtfertigung of the godless person, who always remains an ἀσεβής justified.37 God-given righteousness is a key term for Bultmann in his solution to the problem of the Pauline indicativeimperative duality.38 Even the ‘imperative’ is, according to Bultmann, God’s χάρις: If, however, the whole existence of the justified person is determined by χάρις, so also the imperative, addressed to him, must be determined likewise. Because being addressed by an imperative belongs to the mode of existence of the justified. The believer can only understand this mode of existence as God’s gift. Just as the moral demand – expressed by the imperative – is God’s command for him, so the attitude of obedience – corresponding to that demand – is at the same time God’s gift, brought about by the πνεῦµα (spirit), so that the demand does not lose its character as an imperative. Thus the paradox is fully understandable through faith: εἰ ζῶµεν πνεύµατι, πνεύµατι καὶ στοιχῶµεν (Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit, Gal 5:25).39

Bultmann, therefore, made a serious attempt at solving the problem presented by Wernle: he held the ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ together by arguing that righteousness does not equal sinlessness and that the ‘imperative’ does not imply moral perfection.40 However, as we shall see below, Bultmann has also been accused of not resolving the conflict between the two moods satisfactorily by emphasising the ‘gracefulness’ of the ‘imperative’, and of oversimplifying the breadth of Pauline ethics into a misleadingly grammar-oriented pattern that does not do justice to Paul’s ethical teaching as a whole. There are indeed many other ways in which Paul instructs his readers ethically besides the imperative mood. Bultmann’s simplistic definition of πίστις as obedience is also subject to reconsideration. Obedience as its content befits Bultmann’s schema perfectly, but aspects of trust and faith ought not to be forgotten. Although Bultmann has influenced the study of Paul’s ethics irrevocably, he by no means has the last word to say about it.

35 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 209; cf. Bultmann’s critique against Juncker’s view of justification as moral renewal in 201–203. 36 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 203. 37 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 201f., 215. 38 Furnish, Theology, 263. 39 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 216. 40 Klostergaard Petersen calls this an “ingenious” solution albeit to a false problem (‘Paraenesis’, 280).

18

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

Günther Bornkamm: Baptismal ‘Imperatives’ Unveiling the Hidden New Life Bornkamm’s understanding of the indicative-imperative schema follows traditional lines with a baptismal emphasis. In his 1939 essay,41 Bornkamm argues for the need for the ‘imperative’ on the basis of the nature of the new life. The ‘imperative’ is not a summons to complement the “modest beginning” of the ‘indicative’,42 but it follows from the ‘indicative’ “with an absolute unconditional necessity – a necessity that is determined by what has happened to us through God’s activity” 43. God has freed the Christian from the power of sin (Rom. 6:1–10).44 What follows from this freedom is a way of being that is based on this indicative fact (as opposed to a duty).45 There is therefore no “painful discrepancy” between theory and practice, or ideal and reality, Bornkamm argues.46 The two sides are closely intertwined, as is shown by the key word “therefore” in Rom. 6:12.47 To further illustrate his point, what Bornkamm finds to be particularly important is what has happened to the Christian at baptism.48 The baptismal event is identical with the Christ event.49 In baptism, Christians are freed from sin and transferred into Christ and his death – “an utmost reality” (Rom. 6:2) – and into a new relationship of servitude (Rom. 7:6).50 The conduct of such freed and transferred (“dead”) persons is where the future resurrection already becomes apparent.51 Therefore, it may be said, “baptism establishes the basis of Christian existence; in it the condition to which we are called is revealed and on it the certainty with which we await eternity is based”52. However, the focus with baptism is not on the rite itself but on the person of Christ with whom the baptised are therein associated. 53 Similarly, Bornkamm defines the new life (Rom. 6:4) as “the life of Christ that already has become revealed and in which the believer is to walk”, as opposed to the 41 G. Bornkamm, ‘Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)’, in G. Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, (P.L. Hammer, trans.), London: SCM, 1969, 71–86. 42 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 71. 43 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 71. 44 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 72. 45 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 73. 46 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 72. 47 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 72. 48 For a reading that grants a similarly central role to baptism as one of Paul’s theological foundations for his ethics, see H.-D. Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (GNT 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970, 52f. 49 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 75f. 50 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 74, 80. 51 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 74. 52 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 77. 53 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 78.

2. Early Solutions to the Problem

19

life of the Christian needing to be realised.54 It is precisely because of the still hidden nature of this new life in the “lowliness and dying” of the present that the ‘imperative’ is needed, Bornkamm rightly holds.55 Paul does not teach that the flesh or the law are destroyed, but that the baptised no longer have to live “according to the flesh” (Rom. 7:5f.) and be subject to the rule of the law (Rom. 6:14; 7:1ff.) – powers that are still effectual and seek to re-establish their rule and entice Christians.56 Because of this threat in the liminal time before the Parousia, Bornkamm maintains with Luther that what has happened in baptism needs to be recalled and explained to Christians so as to call them “repeatedly to the obedience into which they have been taken in baptism and which they have accepted in baptism”57. Put concisely, the Pauline ‘imperatives’ are, at their core, ‘baptismal imperatives’ that focus solely on what has occurred in baptism and whose content “is none other than dyingwith-Christ…[and] living-in-Christ”.58 Thus the hiddenness of the new life is the basis for the necessity of the doctrine of baptism itself and the basis for the impact of the imperative.59 Baptism is the dedication of the new life, and the new life is the appropriation of baptism.60

This is also how the ‘imperative’ “gives and demands in one”, for it does not say, “throw down sin from its throne”, but instead, “do not allow it on its throne any longer” (Rom. 6:12), precisely because sin will have no dominion any more (6:14).61 All that the believers are left to do is to “yield” themselves and their members to God (6:13) and to “crawl under baptism”.62 The Christian existence is to live in the hope of the revelation of the life still hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3f.).63 Bornkamm’s account helpfully shows the close relationship between Pauline theology and ethics and binds it with the Christ event and the baptismal event, which he sees as closely interlinked. The hiddenness of the new life is an interesting reason for Paul’s ethical ‘imperative’ that takes into consideration the on-going death-bound reality of the sinful flesh and existence in it before Christ’s return. However, on the basis of this model, the ‘imperative’ 54

Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 78. Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 78, 80–83. 56 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 80f. 57 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 81. 58 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 82, 84. 59 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 81f. 60 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 84. 61 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 82. 62 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 83f. 63 Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 83. 55

20

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

“hardly needs to be said” at all, as the ‘indicative’ is so overwhelmingly effectual.64 Therefore, Bornkamm’s model offers us a basis for useful insights into the christological and baptismal links in Pauline ethics but cannot be accepted unconditionally. Victor P. Furnish: Gift and Demand in Paul’s Theological Ethics In one of the most influential books on Pauline ethics originally published in English, Furnish affirms Bultmann’s idea of the close connection between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’. Furnish portrays the indicative-imperative division in terms of God’s demand arising from his gift of love in Christ,65 for “just as the exhortations gain their context and some of their content from the apostle’s ‘theological’ affirmations, so the theological declarations may already carry within themselves the moral imperative” 66. Further, he makes his famous claim that the problem of the nature of the inner relationship between the two sides lies at the heart of the study of Pauline ethics67 – so much so that “no interpretation of the Pauline ethic can be judged successful which does not grapple with the problem of the indicative and imperative in Paul’s thought”68. Furnish holds that although Paul lacks any systematic theology and structured ethics, his thoroughly theological and evangelical preaching does not fall short of ethical impulses and dimensions.69 Furnish’s thesis is that “the apostle’s ethical concerns are not secondary but radically integral to his basic theological convictions”70. In this way, Pauline ethics can rightly be called a thoroughly “theological ethic”71. The depth of Pauline ethics can be found, however, only in the relationship between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’: Paul himself does not deliberate on the ways in which his ethical concerns are related to his basic theological convictions, but significant relationships between these do exist, and it is one of the important tasks of the interpreter of Paul to identify and exposit them. Precisely by tracing and understanding these relationships, the character of his ethic may 64

Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 78. Furnish, Theology, 109, cf. 225. 66 Furnish, Theology, 110. Furnish is openly indebted to Käsemann for this realisation; see E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), London: SCM, 1980, 175. Cf. Parsons’ characterisation of ethically correct behaviour as “an appropriation of what has already been assigned in the work of the Lord and of the Spirit” (‘Being’, 229), so that the ‘indicative’ itself, as the power of the Spirit effecting what God demands, “enters into the realization of the imperative” (231). 67 Furnish, Theology, 9. 68 Furnish, Theology, 279. 69 Furnish, Theology, 10f., 13, cf. 91, 211. 70 Furnish, Theology, 13, cf. 68f. 71 Furnish, Theology, 207. 65

2. Early Solutions to the Problem

21

be clarified. It is in this connection that one may indeed speak of a “Pauline ethic.” Never raised to the level of critical examination by the apostle himself, never self-consciously formulated or presented by him, it is present, nonetheless, in the dynamic of indicative and imperative which lies at the center of his thought.72

Furnish rightly notices that the grammatically imperatival mood is by no means Paul’s only way of expressing paraenesis. As well as the direct imperative, Paul exhorts via the imperatival infinitive (Phil. 3:16; Rom. 12:15), adjective (Rom. 12:10f.), participle (e.g. Rom. 12:9ff.), hortatory subjunctive (Rom. 13:12f.; 14:13, 19; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:25f.; 6:9f.; Phil. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:6), hortatory questions such as “do you not know” (e.g. Rom. 6:3), and several verbs of entreaty.73 In addition, Furnish aptly points out Paul’s more subtle ways of exhorting his readers: direct answers such as µὴ γένοιτο (Rom. 6:2, 15), questions that are left to stand by themselves (Rom. 6:2; 14:4; 1 Cor. 4:7; 11:22a; 2 Cor. 6:14f.), reference to the exemplary obedience of other churches (1 Cor. 16:1; Rom. 15:26f.; 2 Cor. 8:1ff.) or to the past obedience of his addressees (Phil. 2:12; 1 Thess. 3:6ff.; Gal. 4:12b), expressions of God’s judgment (Rom. 2:2ff.; 14:10ff.; 1 Cor. 3:10ff.) or of Paul’s confidence in the recipients (Gal. 5:10; 2 Cor. 9:1ff.; Philemon 21), the use of paraenetic thanksgiving (Philemon 4ff.), paraenetic benediction (Rom. 15:5f.; 1 Thess. 3:11ff.; 5:23; 2 Cor. 13:7ff.), hortatory prayers (Phil. 1:9–11; Philemon 6), the first person singular pronoun (1 Cor. 8:13; 13:1f., 11f.; 14:19), hortatory narrative (Rom. 4 cf. Gal. 3; 1 Cor. 10), imperatival autobiographical narrative (Gal. 2:11–14), ironic imperative (1 Cor. 4:8–13) – and hortatory indicative statements, or, “imperatival indicatives”, themselves (Gal. 3:25–29; 4:7, 31; Rom. 5:1f.; 6:4; 7:4; 13:10; 14:8; 1 Cor. 2:14f.; 6:11; 12:27; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Thess. 4:7).74 Furnish thus lays the foundation for further criticisms of the schema, since to use the grammatical terms to describe the Pauline ethical dichotomy is clearly not applicable to the whole of the Pauline corpus. Furnish also rightly criticises the black-and-white division of Pauline text into theological (e.g. Rom. 1–11) and ethical (e.g. Rom. 12–15):75 chapters 12–15 are not merely “an appendix on Christian morals”, as 12:1–2 reiterates and summarises in the imperative mood what has already been said in the preceding “theological” section.76 As is fitting for his theological reading of 72

Furnish, Theology, 211. Furnish, Theology, 92f.; cf. Porter, ‘Holiness’, 401. 74 Furnish, Theology, 93–98. 75 Furnish, Theology, 100f. 76 Furnish, Theology, 106; cf. J.W. Thompson (Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011, 3f., 207) who goes so far as to argue that moral transformation, not theological discourse or the doctrine of justification, was Paul’s “primary concern”. Similarly, Freed, Morality, 36f. 73

22

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

Pauline ethics, Furnish holds that Paul’s gospel finds expression in both theological and ethical explications, of which Rom. 6 is a good example:77 God’s righteousness, revealed in the event of Christ’s coming, death, and resurrection, made real for the Christian in the event of his baptism into Christ, is also revealed in the claim God makes for the believer’s obedience.78

Quite rightly, Furnish takes Rom. 6 to be a prime example of the role of Christology in Pauline ethics. Although the final resurrection lies still in the future, Christ’s resurrection power is already active in the lives of Christians and makes them partakers of a new life and order (Rom. 6:5, 8, 11).79 More precisely, the baptismal death with Christ and the promise of the future rising with him means freedom from the dominion of sin – not from sinning.80 Life and faith in the tension between the past salvation and its future culmination show the tension created by Paul’s eschatology.81 Future sinlessness in eternity, therefore, has implications for life in the present. Faithful obedience is only possible for the Christian because he belongs to the new realm of a righteous Sovereign who gives him both the possibility and the actuality of a new existence, Furnish holds, following Bultmann’s definition of faith as obedience to the new master.82 One of the many merits of Furnish’s work is his attempt at correcting some of the faults in Bultmann’s approach. Bultmann’s definition of righteousness and obedience as eschatological concepts without concrete moral weight in the present is looked at more holistically through Furnish’s correct emphasis on the interrelation of theology and ethics. Contrary to Bultmann, Furnish does not see the ‘indicative’ as creating merely a possibility of salvation, but as declaring God’s eschatological lordship in Christ already in the present.83 Despite Furnish’s more nuanced argument, his position cannot, however, in light of the recent criticisms of the indicative-imperative schema, be accepted without further scrutiny. One may ask, for instance, whether his account of Paul’s ethics requires the ‘imperative’ merely so as to define, with Bultmann, the Christian’s response to God’s grace as obedience.84 Furthermore, since he shows so skilfully how ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ cannot mean what they grammatically imply, one is left to wonder why he did not forsake such language altogether. 77

Furnish, Theology, 106, 110. Furnish, Theology, 106. 79 Furnish, Theology, 216f. 80 Furnish, Theology, 173. 81 Furnish, Theology, 174f. 82 Furnish, Theology, 225f. 83 Furnish, Theology, 169. 84 Cf. Furnish, Theology, 227. 78

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms

23

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms Many scholars have been critical of the Wernlean-Bultmannian dichotomy between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’. Let us now turn to those critics of the dichotomy who nevertheless accept the terminology, although sometimes with reservations. Wolfgang Schrage: Summary Statements of Paul’s Christological Ethics Wolfgang Schrage, too, departs from the conviction that the indicativeimperative schema is “justifiable” so long as it is taken merely as a summary of Paul’s “substantial assurances of salvation and substantial injunctions for action”.85 Schrage does not see inconsistency in Paul’s at times dogmatic, and at others ethical, use of the same statement, but instead, he emphasises the christological nature of Paul’s ethics in which both aspects in the end amount to the Christ event and its implications.86 Schrage rightly suggests as the only possible way to summarise the content of Pauline paraenesis that “God’s saving eschatological act in Jesus Christ is the basis and root of Pauline ethics”87. The inconsistency argument is overruled, Schrage contends, by Paul’s formulations in which he uses both moods at once (for instance, 1 Cor. 5:7 and Gal. 5:25).88 The ‘indicative’ is not an abbreviated ‘imperative’, and the ‘imperative’ is not a disguised ‘indicative’, but both are intertwined with the Christ event that forms the basis for the Christian existence.89 Schrage accepts Bultmann’s basic position as “a substantial step forward”, but finds reason to criticise him for the inability of his summary statement “Become what you are” to explain the relationship between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ sufficiently, and for his neglect of eschatology and Christology that follows from his emphasis on anthropology and existential dialectics.90 Following Bornkamm and Käsemann, Schrage quite legitimately wants to give more space to eschatological dialectics, “which comprises christology and pneumatology as well as anthropology” and in which the gift is inseparable from the giver.91 As the justified and baptised saints are situated between the present wicked aeon and the new creation that they are in Christ, they are

85

Schrage, Ethics, 167. Schrage, Ethics, 168. 87 Schrage, Ethics, 172. 88 Schrage, Ethics, 168. 89 Schrage, Ethics, 168, 172. 90 Schrage, Ethics, 169. 91 Schrage, Ethics, 170f. 86

24

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

“those still tempted who have not yet reached the goal”92. That is the reason why ethics are needed. Schrage’s main contribution to the discussion that is of interest here is his ‘conditional’ use of indicative-imperative language. This only works if taken merely as summary statements of the interaction between theology and ethics in Paul’s texts. That alone, however, is not reason enough to keep using potentially misleading terminology. Søren Agersnap: The Natural ‘Imperative’ in Paul’s Baptismal Paraenesis Søren Agersnap suggests that Bultmann failed to resolve Wernle’s conflict between the ‘indicative’ of realised sinlessness and his superfluous ethical ‘imperative’, because he gave too much attention to the ‘imperative’.93 Although acknowledging that the dichotomy does not refer simply to Paul’s grammar, Agersnap maintains that even to define the ‘imperative’ as admonition and demand more broadly (including grammatically indicative appeals) is too rigid.94 His solution is to present the ‘imperative’ not as a demand to accept salvation and a warning against damnation but more broadly as “guidance” that is “content-determining and inviting, so that no tension arises relative to the promise of salvation”95. Paraenesis is one form of guidance found in the NT among pleas, practical requests, invitation and encouragement to do what is right.96 As Agersnap explains, The most characteristic and universal feature in imperative formulations is therefore not that orders are given and decisions demanded; the most widespread use is the intensive address in which the listener is approached directly. There is thus no necessary tension in the imperative being used towards those who have received the promise of salvation and love. On the contrary, the imperative often expresses confidence and proximity.97 The indicative is God’s promise of life and salvation. The imperative explains what the new life involves. And it is subsequently repeated that only God’s promise of salvation is crucial, so that we have instead an ‘indicative-imperative connection’.98

Therefore, if the ‘salvation indicative’ does not imply the perfection of the justified, and if God and his will continue to be seen as somehow external to the still imperfect human experience, as Agersnap rightly suggests, there is nothing surprising about the moral ‘imperative’.99 On the other hand, Ager92

Schrage, Ethics, 170. Agersnap, Baptism, 378f. 94 Agersnap, Baptism, 380. 95 Agersnap, Baptism, 380. 96 Agersnap, Baptism, 380. 97 Agersnap, Baptism, 381. 98 Agersnap, Baptism, 402. 99 Agersnap, Baptism, 382. 93

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms

25

snap does not view the ‘imperative’ in terms of a task complementing the ‘salvation indicative’ to acquire salvation, because “the imperative is based on the deficiencies of the new life, on eschatological reservations and the fact that the body is still mortal and that salvation is not yet finally assured”.100 He replaces the ‘now and not yet’ characterisation of Paul’s eschatology with his “already/even more”, arguing that for Paul, the crucial eschatological justification had indeed already taken place (Rom. 5:6–10; 8:32), and that more is yet to come.101 This is in line with his stress on salvation being a gift and promise from God and the ‘indicative’ as the “first and the fundamental”, to which the ‘imperative’ is “secondary and subordinate”.102 Agersnap makes this reservation because of the “widespread, narrow interpretation of the imperative as an appeal to acquire salvation” that makes the imperative into a condition – he himself suggests that the designation ‘indicative-imperativeindicative’ might help correctly uphold Paul’s emphasis on “the supreme promise of salvation”.103 What Agersnap means is that still sinful human beings naturally need continued moral guidance. Paul himself had expressed a paradoxical reality in the tension between sin and righteousness, and we need not explain it away.104 Agersnap’s brief survey of Paul’s letters gives a useful snapshot into how the “practical consequences” of “accepted salvation” are constantly taught in them,105 although the order between theological and ethical statements varies (1 Cor. 5:7–8),106 and sometimes the imperative is followed by a comforting indicative (1 Cor. 10:13; Phil. 2:13), underlining that “it is ultimately God himself who ensures that salvation is affirmed”107. All the more importantly for the purposes of this study, Agersnap infers that “the paraenesis in the Pauline Letters must be seen in the context of the instruction that took place at the transition to the new life”108 and that the imperative in Rom. 6:13 must be seen in the context of the paraenesis for the “new righteous life” in Rom. 12–15.109 Although the context may be baptis100

Agersnap, Baptism, 400. Emphases in quotations will be original unless otherwise stated. 101 Agersnap, Baptism, 401. 102 Agersnap, Baptism, 402 n.7. 103 Agersnap, Baptism, 402 n.7; for a similar gospel-law-gospel structure, see W. Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese (3rd edn), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961, 185. 104 Agersnap, Baptism, 23. 105 Agersnap, Baptism, 386. 106 Agersnap, Baptism, 388. 107 Agersnap, Baptism, 389, 391. 108 Agersnap, Baptism, 391. 109 Agersnap, Baptism, 401.

26

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

mal only at times, Agersnap rightly summarises that Paul’s “interest is directed towards the development of the new life that repentance and baptism have brought about” and that this “information about and adjustment to the new conditions” are vitally needed.110 This is all true, although in using his correct analysis to defend the natural connection between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’, he also defends the old terminology. Rudolf Schnackenburg: Sacramental-Eschatological Ethics as the Solution to a Protestant Problem Rudolf Schnackenburg points out that the problem with Paul’s ‘imperative’ appears to be an emphatically Protestant one.111 Schnackenburg sees no such rift between the two moods in Paul himself as has been problematized by many. He holds that the joyful proclamation of salvation in Christ and the moral exhortation of Christian duties are not incompatible with each other, because “the deep rift between the two series of statements does not have its basis in the Pauline thought; it is rooted rather in our attitude to the salvation history, and so it is apprehended by Paul”112. Schnackenburg does not shy away from reading Paul as a teacher of co-operation between the Spirit and “a decision of the will of man” (Willensentschluss des Menschen).113 He stresses that the baptised need to allow themselves to be led by the Spirit, and although this is not a merely human struggle in one’s own strength against sin as it was under the law “but a victory in principle through the power of God” under the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2), it is necessary to “hold it fast by working with the divine powers of salvation and prove it in fresh struggles”.114 From this perspective, Paul’s ethical ‘ought’ in Rom. 6:11 is an unproblematic consequence “of the sacramental salvation-event, and so leads on to the parenesis of v. 12” 115. It belongs to the sacramental “religious-moral” nature of baptism that theology and ethics are inseparable, for baptism creates a personal fellowship with Christ and God and can never be employed for the injury of others.116 Schnackenburg expands on the significance of this external sacrament that is also very internal in the following manner: “you 110

Agersnap, Baptism, 391. R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul: A Study in Pauline Theology, (G.R. Beasley-Murray, trans.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964, 193. 112 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 193. 113 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 192, quoting H. Windisch, ‘Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs’, ZNW 23 (1924), 277f. 114 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 192. 115 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 193. 116 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 189f. 111

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms

27

have died sacramentally to the power of sin, consequently you can no longer ethically live to sin; you have entered into a new, divine sphere of life and must reflect this in your walk of life...[the sacramental event] should effect a stepping out of the old circle of doom and an actual stepping into a new order of existence”117. The primary reason for the need for moral exhortation is, Scnhackenburg rightly acknowledges, Paul’s understanding that this life is lived at a “time between” aeons (cf. Col. 3:1–5): The sacraments, it is true, continually convey to us the blessings and powers of the salvation that belongs to the future aeon; but they do not bring to us the aeon itself. Therefore they necessarily need the moral imperative beside themselves; indeed, it is dangerous to delude oneself into security by a false (magical) conception of the sacraments.118

Further, this “existential-theological tension” of Paul’s (1 Cor. 10:12 cf. 13) gives his theology “its dynamic application to ethics, and his ethics the energizing certainty that with God’s power the victory is to be won”119. Thus sacrament and ethics are directed to each other in this liminal situation, and this “complete – yet incomplete – fellowship with Christ” is the primary motivation and foundation of Paul’s ethics, Schnackenburg claims.120 This Roman Catholic reading, therefore, criticises the alleged antinomy between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ but is happy nevertheless to use the terms that have implied it to many. It must also be asked if Paul really teaches such co-operation that Schnackenburg suggests. Is it really a matter of the will working with God’s Spirit, or is Paul’s emphasis on the deepened, behaviour-shaping cognition of the divine monergism active in Christ and in those who have been baptised into Christ and who have Christ’s Spirit dwelling in them? Anders Klostergaard Petersen: No Dichotomy in Paul’s Contractual Ethics A more recent scholar who has a problem with a Protestant reading of the indicative-imperative schema is Klostergaard Petersen. He holds that there is no contradiction between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ nor any problem to overcome.121 The tension pinpointed by Wernle, he holds, has been dealt with by subsequent scholarship in various ways, but its existence per se has never been questioned.122 “It is only within a particular, but dominant, perspective of research that the relationship appears as a problem”, Klostergaard Petersen 117 118 119 120 121 122

Schnackenburg, Baptism, 191. Schnackenburg, Baptism, 194f. Schnackenburg, Baptism, 195. Schnackenburg, Baptism, 195. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 269, 294. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 277.

28

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

writes, referring to the Lutheran or Protestant perspective.123 He argues that by its focus largely on the Pauline epistles, the scholarly discussion of paraenesis in the NT field has become thwarted by a Reformation “interpretive horizon”124 and “prevented us from developing an understanding that is more in line with the way in which moral exhortation was understood in the ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman world”125. Since Wernle and the History of Religions School, Paul’s ‘indicative’ was seen in light of his ‘sacramental piety’, according to which Christians had become new beings once and for all.126 Bultmann refined this position by arguing that Paul’s ‘indicative’ did not equal sinlessness nor did the ‘imperative’ imply moral fulfilment, and he interpreted both categories as absorbed into one another on the basis of Paul’s doctrine of justification in a very Lutheran way.127 Such “Protestant anxiety” about works-righteousness, Klostergaard Petersen maintains, has led to subsequent scholarship joining Bultmann in his “effort to tone down the independent existence of the imperative”128. Furthermore, he claims, The debate has defeated its own purposes by the complete acceptance of the antithesis against which Bultmann developed his interpretation. The subsequent discussion has not succeeded in freeing itself from the Lutheran filter of interpretation that underlies Bultmann’s solution.129

Even attempts to view the ‘imperatives’ as calls to conversion or return to conversion or baptism “simply repeat the content of the indicatives”, Klostergaard Petersen holds.130 Klostergaard Petersen draws on Engberg-Pedersen’s emphasis on selfunderstanding, seeing the ‘imperatives’ as “benevolent reminders and injunctions that serve to intensify the readers’ sense of ‘being in Christ’”131. Both of them agree that the cognitive component is important to Paul (and not so much ‘sacramental piety’).132 Nevertheless, Klostergaard Petersen views baptism rightly as “the ritual link by which Christ believers are incorporated

123

Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 283: similarly, Thompson, Moral, 4. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 268. 125 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 267 cf. 280, 293f. 126 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 293; Wernle, Christ, 45. 127 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 293. 128 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 280. 129 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 281. 130 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 283 (referring e.g. to Dunn, Romans 1–8, 351). 131 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. 132 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. While agreeing with Engberg-Pedersen’s combination of ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ under the category of self-understanding and identity, however, Klostergaard Petersen does not read Paul as a teacher of realised sinlessness (283). 124

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms

29

into the inclusive destiny of Christ”133. On his reading, baptism is not merely a metaphorical event but one whose cognition is crucial (something that the History of Religion school failed to understand, he argues, in its ‘sacramental’ emphasis on realised sinlessness), because one’s cognitive competence needs to be strengthened by a constant reminder of the shared death and life with Christ in order for one to be able to perform according to the ‘contract’ that they have entered with God:134 “[The imperatives] serve to remind and to strengthen the state of mind of Christ believers about their present conduct.”135 As we shall see, acting in harmony with the baptised existence is crucial for Paul’s ethics. By a ‘contractual understanding’ of Paul’s ethics, Klostergaard Petersen means that the cognitive reminders are so important for Paul because the sinlessness of Christ believers has not yet been fulfilled (although they are walking towards it); Christians need to obey the ‘imperative’ reminders, because it is only if they obey them that the contract will be complied with and completed.136 Knowledge is a key part of being able to actualise the contract: The imperative demands that the audience actualize their presupposed knowledge of the indicative statements in specific conduct. If they understand the impact of the indicative statements (that is, the change that they have already undergone), they simply will – according to the underlying logic – act in compliance with this change.137

Klostergaard Petersen acknowledges that a contractual understanding of Paul’s ethics allows for downplaying the impact of Paul’s ‘indicatives’, because it assumes that the will of the believers is in harmony with their “wish to comply with the contractual objective”, that is, sinlessness.138 He also maintains that, similarly, the ‘imperatives’ should not be seen as commands that imply opposition on the part of Paul’s recipients, but simply consent.139 That is why they are entirely unproblematic. Klostergaard Petersen’s contractual model is an attempt to resolve the assumed dichotomy and conflict between Paul’s ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ by claiming that there is neither dichotomy nor conflict, because both moods “serve to preserve and intensify the readers’ sense of sharing a particular world-view that implies a specific ethos”.140 Both moods remind Paul’s re133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 286. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 289. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 290f. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 291. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294 cf. 269.

30

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

cipients of the new state in Christ and of how to live in harmony with it.141 In other words, Whereas the indicatives underline the irrevocability of the Christ believers’ new mode of existence, the imperatives serve partly to sharpen the readers’ understanding of the need to act in conformity with their new mode of being, partly to spell out its practice in concrete detail.142

While Klostergaard Petersen’s emphases on self-understanding and coherence of action with status in Christ are true, and while the Wernlean terminology of ‘indicatives’ and ‘imperatives’ may often be viewed through ‘Reformation’ lenses, it does not change the fact that such terminology may in and of itself be misleading and that better ways of wording the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics can be found. Additionally, his contractual model and emphasis on compliance of the will seem to be devoid of Paul’s view of sin as an on-going problem for the Christian. The contractual logic assumes full acceptance of the contract on the part of the servant and that this never becomes a problem, which is supposed to solve the alleged tension.143 One must ask, however, whether it merely adds to the debate another interpretive framework alien to Paul. Does Rom. 5 really describe a “virtual” relationship needing to be “actualised” by the Christian (6:2ff.)?144 Does not such a reading put too little emphasis on the new mode of being in Christ and too much on the ability of the Christian to fulfil the contract with God? Does not this reading, in its attempt to defend the ‘imperative’ to its Lutheran critics, end up downplaying the ‘indicative’? If the Spirit enables the fulfilment of the “contractual obligations” and if Spirit-reception fulfils the law, how can it be that the Christians’ “new righteousness, however, depends upon their continuous compliance”?145 If, in his own words, the final phase of the Christians’ salvation is irrevocably in God’s hands and if they have already been given the knowledge and ability to perform well,146 why, then, is the identity-strengthening ‘imperative’ even needed? All these points beg the question whether the alleged dichotomy has really been resolved by Klostergaard Petersen’s contractual model.

141 142 143 144 145 146

Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 292. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 294f. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 285. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 287f. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 287, 290. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 292.

3. Denials of the Dichotomy that Accept the Terms

31

John Barclay: Obliging Gift and Imperatival Grace John Barclay defends the indicative-imperative terminology in his article on the obliging nature of the Christ-gift.147 He emphasises the new allegiance demanded by the gift of God in Christ: “Although not itself an imperative, grace is imperatival: it bears within itself the imperative to obey.”148 In so doing, he argues explicitly against Luther’s law-gospel division upheld by many critics of the terminology, although he rightly adds that even for Luther, obedience and duty were important albeit never instrumental in gaining God’s favour.149 All the more, Barclay attacks the Western notion of the pure gift “wholly disinterested and without strings attached”, owing a lot to Luther’s and his followers’ view of the gospel.150 Barclay calls the separation of gift from its obligations “a danger in the Lutheran understanding of gift”151 that would have been inconceivable to “everyone in antiquity” and to most people in most cultures even today.152 The article focuses on Rom. 6, where Paul’s wording of “under grace”, Barclay maintains, reveals the following: Paul in this chapter encapsulates a theology of the incongruity of grace, grace given without prior conditions of fit or worth. He does not, and does not need to, perfect the notion of grace as ‘gift without return’; when he says that believers are ‘under grace’ he means that grace carries demands.153

147

Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 60. Earlier, Barclay has emphasised the necessity of the Pauline ‘imperative’ on account of the Christian still living in the old aeon, wherein the danger persists of being lured back into the “false human-centred perspective” of the flesh. In Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (J. Riches, ed.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, esp. 212–215, 225–232, Barclay rightly emphasises the continuous nature of God’s work “for the believer” as not just a thing of the past (227) and, compatibly with the continuity of the ‘indicative’, gives the ‘imperative’ the meaning of “preservation of freedom or continual resistance to the flesh” (226); cf. J.M.G. Barclay, ‘‘By the Grace of God I Am What I Am’: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul’, in J.M.G. Barclay and S.J. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment, London: T. & T. Clark, 2006, 151. 148 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 60. 149 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 61. 150 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 61. 151 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 62. 152 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 63. On the relationship between gift and response, see also Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 152f., 155–157, where he argues that Paul teaches a “noncoercive dual agency”: divine grace is first and foremost, but the human “‘response’ continues to be activated by grace” and “energized” by the Spirit (or by Christ operating in the human agent) in a way that can, however, also be rejected. This, Barclay maintains, is distinct from Philo, who teaches the basic inactivity and passivity of the human agent (146–8). 153 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 61; cf. 63f.

32

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

Barclay does rightly acknowledge that for Paul, the Christ-gift has been given to the sinful and ungodly, thus making the obliging gift “unconditioned (based on no prior conditions) but not unconditional (carrying no subsequent demands)”154. The gift of grace in Christ is thus incongruous with the “worth, capacity or work” of the recipients and is given precisely because of “an avalanche of sin (5.12–21)”155. Furthermore, the new competence to obey the obligation of the Christ-gift “is wholly dependent on the life of Christ, present within” and cannot be conceived of “as their own achievement”156. However, the gift does not leave the believer as merely a passive receiver either: the fruit of the Spirit needs to be shown actively towards others.157 Despite emphasising the obliging nature of the Christ-gift and upholding the indicative-imperative language, it is interesting that Barclay also talks about the role of cognition: The ‘law’ that is at work in the members (7:23) is a set of predispositions and orientations too deep to be altered by the instructions of the Torah, however much the mind may approve of them. What is needed is ‘rescue from this body of death’ (7:24) – a new φρόνηµα of cognitive and practical schemas operative in physical deportment, corporeal practice, and bodily appetites.158

Barclay maintains that both cognition and the turning of theory into “embodied habitus” are required.159 Without such bodily obedience, “grace is ineffective and unfulfilled”160. Paul wants his addressees to adopt “a new selfunderstanding” and “discovering oneself to be positioned within a new agency, the life of the Spirit, or of Christ”161. Romans 6–8 depicts, as Barclay rightly holds, the “subversiveness” of this in-Christ experience as dead to sin but alive to God.162 Against Engberg-Pedersen, however, Barclay stresses that Paul's ethical ‘imperatives’ are not simply a matter of understanding and self-identification, as if letting oneself be led by the Spirit were in one’s own control, but for Paul, divine agency is much more primary in this.163 The theological logic of the Pauline imperative is to live the life that has been given. (…) Nor is the imperative the supplement to the indicative in the sense that something incomplete has to be completed in further degrees. (…) In every move they make, believers are 154

Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 64. Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 64f. 156 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 74. 157 Barclay, Obeying, 214f. 158 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 71. 159 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 68–76, following Käsemann’s view of the body as the battleground of the eschatological power struggle (Käsemann, Romans, 177). 160 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 76. 161 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 150. 162 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 150. 163 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 154f. 155

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

33

either living this new life or living according to the flesh (8:13), the latter still possible because, for as long as they live in the realm of mortality they can fall back into the forcefield of sin and death and repudiate the power that tugs them towards life. The imperative is thus to practise (and thereby demonstrate) the new life given, which cannot be said to be active within them unless it is acted out by them.164

All in all, Barclay’s reading demonstrates how the indicative-imperative terminology can be used while still reaching the correct conclusions about the cognitive yet embodied nature of Paul’s ethical exhortation. However, doing so requires defining the terminology very carefully so as to avoid the pitfall of making the ‘imperative’ sound like an added demand to fulfil something incomplete. For this reason alone, finding better ways of wording the relationship remains desirable. Additionally, although Barclay rightly admits that sin remains an on-going problem for the Christian, his view of the new life not being active “unless acted out” risks making the Christian life (of which sin remains an unfortunate part) an on/off kind of life. Is the new life in Christ not active in the Christian even if it simultaneously continues to be tainted with sinful failure until Christ’s return and the redemption of the body of sin?

4. Re-configurations of the Schema It is only in recent years that more scholars have begun to criticise the indicative-imperative division in NT ethics.165 A notable such surge has taken place in German scholarship. The general point of contention is that the indicativeimperative schema is an oversimplification that does not do justice to the complexities of Pauline ethics.166 Many see the terminology as misleading and offer alternative suggestions. Friedrich W. Horn: A Lutheran Criticism of the New Perspective View of the ‘Imperative’ Friedrich W. Horn is concerned with showing how the New Perspective interpretation is usually keen to present Pauline ethics by means of the indica164 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 74f. Earlier, Barclay has rightly criticised Bultmann for weakening the life-transforming force of Paul’s indicative in Gal. 5:25 by interpreting it existentially as a possibility to live by the Spirit that needs to be laid hold of by walking by the Spirit (Obeying, 213f.). Cf. “divine grace calls forth, or takes effect in, human labour”, Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 151. 165 One of the first such critical scholars has already been discussed in Chapter 1 above (see Porter, ‘Holiness’, 401). 166 So e.g. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 284, and Blischke, Begründung, 10f.

34

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

tive-imperative schema. This becomes particularly apparent in James Dunn’s writings, where Horn holds that the dichotomy is detached from its original Lutheran framework and placed in a distinctly Calvinistic one that disregards the former.167 Horn notes aptly that according to Dunn’s model, it is crucial to align one’s life according to the OT commandments and instructions of Jesus.168 Horn points out how the New Perspective tends to rule out the ἔργα νόµου from Jewish ideas of justification as mere “boundary markers”, in order for the ethical instruction of the Torah to be laid bare without this (problematic) context.169 The overall goal of the New Perspective is, in Horn’s view, to depict Paul as tied up with the OT and Jewish tradition and to disregard connections with Graeco-Roman ethics and linguistic or sociological models of interpretation.170 Horn criticises Dunn for seeing the Spirit as the sole difference between Jewish and Christian ethics in his refusal to acknowledge that only the love commandment connected with the Decalogue constitutes the part that still obliges Christians.171 The New Perspective takes for granted the third use of the law and sees the final judgment as targeted towards the ethics of Christians, which Horn condemns.172 The distinctively German Lutheran problem with the third use of the law becomes apparent here in Horn’s argument. Because Horn is not comfortable with seeing the ‘imperative’ as ‘law’ preached to the Christian, he prefers to speak, instead, of statements of the Christian status as holy in Christ.173 All in all, Horn maintains that the New Perspective reading produces a one-sided reconstruction of Pauline ethics that does not match up to the current standards of the debate: it is a theological and literary simplification of Paul’s argument.174 This is an interesting observation that crystallises some of the differences between Reformed and some Lutheran readings of Pauline ethics. At the very least, it stresses the importance of openness about the 167 F.W. Horn, ‘Die Darstellung und Begründung der Ethik des Apostels Paulus in der new perspective,’ in F.W. Horn and R. Zimmermann (eds), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 230f.; cf. T. Eskola’s note on covenantal nomism being born under the influence of “Calvinist principles in general, and the ideas of dispensationalism in particular” (Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology [WUNT II/100], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998, 312). 168 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 213 cf. 227. 169 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 226. 170 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 224, 231, 219. 171 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 227. 172 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 217, 228f. 173 As becomes clear in Chapter 4, Section 4, ‘The Significance of the εἰς’ below, this relates to Horn’s stative view of holiness in general. 174 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 218.

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

35

religious context that may direct the scholar’s reading of Paul. Horn, in his turn, is guided in his reading by the Lutheran law-gospel dichotomy, which makes many a Lutheran (particularly those denying the so-called third use of the law) uncomfortable with the term ‘imperative’. My search for more textbased and less confusing ways to word the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics is not motivated by such theological concerns. Christof Landmesser: The ‘Imperative’ as a Christological Performative Christof Landmesser rightly points out that if we mean by “ethics” a thoroughly formed ethical theory in its Aristotelian sense, we cannot find this in Paul.175 However, if we can speak of a Pauline theology even when we lack an explicit systematic presentation of one, we can surely speak of a Pauline ethics in similarly implicit terms.176 Landmesser holds that Paul gives moral commandments that are interlinked with Christology, soteriology and the entire Christian existence, so much so that in Paul’s thought, ethics and theology become “irresolvably entangled”177. However, a major problem arises: what happens to salvation in the event that the ‘imperative’ remains unfulfilled – is the ‘imperative’ necessary for salvation?178 This is why Landmesser holds that the indicative-imperative schema proves to be unsuitable for capturing the underlying foundational structures of Pauline ethics and that a better definition of the ‘imperative’ is necessary.179 This resonates with my pursuit here. Landmesser stresses that in Paul’s teaching, the eschatological salvation event has a close relationship with the lives of Christians:180 “Glaube und Leben bilden eine unauflösbare Einheit.”181 Christian ethics are necessary despite Paul’s emphasis on the irrevocability of salvation in Christ, because those in Christ are not yet with Christ.182 Christians have already left the domain of sin and eschatological death as symbolised by baptism (Rom. 175

C. Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen paulinischer Ethik’, in Horn and Zimmermann, Jenseits, 177. Similarly Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 284. 176 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 179. 177 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 186; cf. 178f.. 178 C. Landmesser, ‘Der paulinische Imperativ als christologisches Performativ: Eine begründete These zur Einheit von Glaube und Leben im Anschluß an Phil 1,27 – 2,18’, in C. Landmesser, H.-J. Eckstein and H. Lichtenberger, (eds), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (BZNW 86), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997, 546, 572f. 179 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 180. Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 547. 180 Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 548, referring to Phil. 1:27–2:18. 181 Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 571. 182 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 181f; cf. Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 557– 560.

36

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

5:12–6:11), although physical death and sin still affect their lives.183 This is an accurate representation of the eschatological dimension of Paul’s ethics, especially in light of Rom. 6–8. Indeed, moral instruction is needed for this present temporality, lest Christians ignore their finitude.184 Landmesser identifies four foundational structures (Begründungsstrukturen) of Pauline paraenesis: (1) the christological-soteriological Christ-event and the Christian’s relationship to it (i.e. faith and being-inChrist) that forms the basis for their new life in God’s action;185 (2) the localising ecclesiological responsibility towards one another in the new community of the body of Christ that should be characterised by love (1 Cor. 12:12– 31; cf. 1 Cor. 13);186 (3) the medial and central role played by the Spirit in rooting the Christians in the body of Christ and in directing their actions by making them his temples – again, with love as the central fruit of the Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16f.; 6:19f.; Rom. 8:10f.; Gal. 5:22);187 and (4) the futuristiceschatological references to the day of resurrection when salvation will be made perfect, obliging Christians to live in the right way in the present age into which salvation has already broken (1 Cor. 15:12–22; 1 Thess. 5:1–11; Rom. 13:11–14).188 Particularly with the pneumatological foundational structure, Landmesser sees how the Pauline ‘imperative’ is in fact a “christological performative”: when he exhorts Christians to walk by the Spirit and no longer gratify the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16), Paul is not so much asking for a choice as he is reminding them about their existence that they already have.189 The function of the ‘imperative’ is not, therefore, to be a command, but it is in fact God’s creative word that effects what it says (2 Cor. 5:20) – an ‘imperative’ preceded by God’s saving act in Christ and making it accessible.190 Landmesser’s interpretation of the ‘imperative’ is “performative” because it is a form of speech that itself makes the hearer access its topic (Rom. 10:17), just as it is christological because what it makes accessible is the salvation in Christ.191 All in all, Landmesser is right in stressing that despite having strong links with Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, what makes Paul’s ethics distinctly 183

Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 184. Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 183f; cf. Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 562. 185 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 187–189. Landmesser uses Rom. 6:1–11 to claim that Paul’s ethics are defined by the close coexistence with Christ anchored in his Christology and ‘symbolised’ by baptism (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12–20). 186 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 189f. 187 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 190–192. 188 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 192–195. 189 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 191 cf. 180. 190 Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 573f. 191 Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 575. 184

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

37

Christian is faith in Christ that through the Spirit’s work leads to life characterised by love – “the main concept of Pauline ethics”192. To see Paul’s ‘imperative’ as a “christological performative” is an interesting way of explaining why soteriology and ethics are so closely intertwined in Paul’s writings. As Landmesser puts it, both faith in Christ and life in Christ are God’s gifts and part of the gospel.193 I agree with Landmesser, however, that the sacramental foundation of Paul’s ethics in Rom. 6:1–11 would deserve to be addressed more fully,194 and the same could be said about the role of cognition. Troels Engberg-Pedersen: Descriptive ‘Indicative’ and Prescriptive ‘Imperative’ Engberg-Pedersen agrees with Wernle in holding that Paul taught “actual, realized sinlessness”195. He rejects, however, Bultmann’s “‘forensic’ understanding of the indicative” as “declaring Christ-believers righteous” and his “authoritarian understanding of the imperative” as “God’s command ‘from above’ to Christ-believers who remain sinners”196. Rather, in his striving for a strange version of pure historicity that can only find “real options for us” in Paul’s anthropological and ethical ideas (not theological ones due to their cosmology that he finds to be unacceptable to the modern person),197 he sees the ‘imperative’ as part of Paul’s emphatically cognitive paraenesis.198 Instead of understanding the ‘imperative’ as the Christian’s obedience to the righteousness of God, Engberg-Pedersen names the categories as “descriptive” (Rom. 1:18–4:25; 5:1–21, 8:14–39, 15:8–13) and “prescriptive” (or “parenetic”: 6:1–8:13; 9:1–10:13; 11:12; 12:1–15:7), agreeing that often the two are interlinked (e.g. Rom. 11:13–36).199 He wants to go beyond the explanation that these categories exist in Romans simply because Paul wanted both to remind (ἐπαναµιµνῄσκων, Rom. 15:15) and admonish (νουθετεῖν 15:14) his addressees or because the ‘prescriptive’ naturally flows from the 192

Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 186, 196. Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 577; also Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 261. 194 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 196 fn. 51. Bultmann himself was criticised by Windisch (‘Problem’, 272) as early as 1924 for his neglect of the dimension of the Spirit and baptism. 195 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 8; Wernle, Christ, 45. 196 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 29. 197 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 16–31. 198 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 345 n. 23. For a sharp critique of this and other strange aspects of Engberg-Pedersen’s method, see N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (COQG), London: SPCK, 2013, 1386–1406. 199 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 191f. He does not mention, however, that that Romans 6–8 is one such mixed section (187). 193

38

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

‘descriptive’.200 He rejects the strict separation between the two parts, but does not wish to do so in the traditional way by seeing the ‘prescriptive’ parts as mere unimportant practical consequences of the ‘descriptive’. Instead, he emphasises the ‘prescriptive’ as the part where one may find the conclusions of Paul’s thinking and focuses on what premises for those conclusions the ‘descriptive’ contains.201 Despite a somewhat exaggerated tendency to find Stoic influence in almost everything in Paul, Engberg-Pedersen does make many interesting observations. As he notes, Paul relies heavily in his paraenesis on the ancient ethical categories of understanding and self-identification that are very cognitive.202 This, Engberg-Pedersen suggests, stems from Stoicism: It is the radically cognitive…construction of the human mind in Stoicism together with their focus on identity (‘self-cognition’) that constituted the framework for Paul’s thought about the Christ event and its consequences.203

This becomes particularly apparent in light of the Stoic notion of οἰκείωσις and the way in which it can be seen in the background of Paul’s teaching on the change of the Christian identity from self-centredness to Christcentredness.204 Further, Engberg-Pedersen argues that his view of the logic of paraenesis in Paul eliminates the alleged problem between the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ altogether. Indicative and imperative are logically connected in the way that the indicative spells out the content itself of the new state in which Christ-believers already find themselves, a content that the parenesis then urges them to actualize or show in practice. Thus the parenesis logically presupposes the indicative and the latter is logically directed towards the former.205

Engberg-Pedersen is right in defending the inseparability between ‘indicative’ description and ‘imperative’ paraenesis. Despite defining the notions as “descriptive” and “prescriptive”, he continues to use the old terminology alongside, fails to note the problems in it, and does not give due attention to Paul’s baptismal teaching as the anchor for his paraenesis. In addition to such shortcomings, Engberg-Pedersen overemphasises Stoicism everywhere it can (and, indeed cannot) be seen and employs a strange method altogether of 200

Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 192f. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 192f. This may be described as an approach from solution to plight, cf. Parsons, ‘Being’, 247; Eskola, Theodicy, 311f. 202 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, e.g. 225. 203 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 65. 204 See further discussion of his I→X→S model of Stoic descent and οἰκείωσις in Chapter 3, Section 2 below. 205 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 8. 201

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

39

only focusing on Paul’s ethics and anthropology instead of his theology. Nevertheless, his cognitive emphasis on self-understanding in Christ is interesting and resonates with Paul’s moral teaching. Of course, we may also learn from him that emphasising the cognitive does not mean disregarding the role of the Spirit in enabling the recognition of the Christian selfunderstanding (Rom. 8:1–17; cf. 8:26f.).206 Udo Schnelle: Transformation and Participation Udo Schnelle summarises the criticism of the indicative-imperative schema in seven points.207 (1) It is static and arbitrary, as opposed to the broad Pauline context of being and living. (2) The problem of the connection between the ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ has not been solved with the Spirit, because the Spirit cannot be both gift and task. (3) It is yet to be shown how the gift of salvation is to be understood also as a task (e.g. if the newness of life must first be realised). (4) Were the believers and baptised brought to freedom merely “on probation”? (5) Is the soteriological contribution of the ‘imperative’ merely a negative one if salvation is brought by the ‘indicative’ alone? (6) The question about the “can” and the “should” (Können und Sollen) is peripheral in Paul’s ethical argument.208 (7) Is the model “obedient out of thankfulness” a convincing and sustainable ethical pattern of argumentation? Can obedience replace discernment (Einsicht) permanently? It is because of these problems that Schnelle suggests that one needs to distance oneself from the indicative-imperative model and find another that can perceive and apply to each other both the structure of Paul’s ethics and also the structure of his thought as a whole.209 The model Schnelle proposes is that of transformation and participation – a positive alternative to what he finds as a negative concept of the law (‘imperative’).210 These terms are Schnelle’s attempt to find the inner structure of Pauline logic and a centre, indeed, of Pauline theology from which all other ideas can be derived.211 By “transformation”, Schnelle means primarily the transformation of the Son from his pre-existent form of God to taking on the form of a slave and, ulti206

Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 38f.; cf. Parsons, ‘Being’, 232; Peterson, Possessed, 24. U. Schnelle, ‘Paulus und Epiktet – zwei ethische Modelle’, in Horn and Zimmermann, Jenseits, 141. Cf. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 116f. 208 Cf. K. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus’, in U. Schnelle and T. Söding (eds), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, 9–14. 209 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 141. 210 Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 117. Again, the ‘Lutheran’ problem with the ‘imperative’ can be seen here. 211 U. Schnelle, ‘Transformation und Partizipation als Grundgedanken paulinischer Theologie’, NTS 47 (2001), 58–60. 207

40

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

mately, transformation through death on the cross to life and equality with God.212 The cross is the place where Christ’s transformation takes place (2 Cor. 13:4) and where God’s love is revealed to those baptised into Christ:213 Durch den Statuswechsel des Sohnes (vgl. Phil 2,6–11) befinden sich auch die Glaubenden und Getauften in einem neuen Status: der Gnade (vgl. Röm 6,3–7,14b).214

Thus the baptised believer gains a new ontological-soteriological status of grace in Christ, freed from the power of sin. In this universal process of transformation, the Spirit plays a key role by enabling a new way of action (Rom. 8:11).215 By “participation”, Schnelle means the believers’ participation at baptism in the salvation brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection through the gift of the Spirit. Although Paul’s theology of the cross is seen as the foundation of Pauline ethics,216 participation indicates life in the reign of grace and in the power of Christ’s resurrection (Rom. 6:8), freed from sin already in the present.217 Schnelle skilfully shows that Paul’s ethics stem from the entirety of his theology, whose central point is participation in the new existence (Sein) that takes shape in a new kind of action.218 Correctly, Schnelle places a major emphasis on baptism as the foundation of Paul’s ethics, referring especially to Gal. 2:19f. and Rom. 6:219 Die in der Taufe vollzogene Beziehung zwischen dem Getauften und Christus ist die Grundlage aller ethischen Aussagen des Apostels.220

The cross of Christ stands as the focal point of Paul’s teaching on baptismal participation in Christ, too, although in baptism, the powers of Christ’s resurrection are also present.221 Baptism is the place where Christ’s death is made a saving reality for Christians and where justification shows both a forensic and a participationist face.222 Schnelle maintains that the older baptismal traditions in the Pauline corpus contain a “sacramental-ontological doctrine 212

Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 60. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 62f. 214 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 141. 215 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 141f. 216 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 63. 217 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142; cf. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 64, and Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 118. 218 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142; cf. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 131. 219 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 64f. etc. 220 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142. 221 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 65. 222 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 66, 74. The Christian participates in the salvation of Christ in baptism, which is a prerequisite for the “salvation in court” (Rettung im Gericht) where God’s righteousness imparted in baptism is valid (74). 213

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

41

of justification”223. He views Rom. 6–8 as the central text for Pauline hamartiology, in which sin represents not merely human misbehaviour but a realm of an opposing power that Christ has overcome and that thus belongs in the past for those who participate in Christ.224 Put simply, Pauline paraclesis reminds the addressees of the foundations and implementation of the new existence in Christ and aims to make the “believed gospel” also a “lived gospel”225. In the reality of the new existence, there must be coherence between the way of life (Lebenswandel) and one’s relationship with God, lest the latter be dissolved.226 Schnelle stresses that the coherence is never justified by an ‘indicative’ or ‘imperative’ and that the reason for Paul’s paraclesis is to exhort Christians to remain and advance in the ethical direction of life instead of becoming static or going backwards.227 The ‘imperative’ is more than a commandment: it formulates a state of being (Wesenbestimmung) in freedom from sin and ability to fulfil God’s will in the Spirit.228 Schnelle sees the same pattern of transformation and participation also in Pauline pneumatology. Christ’s resurrection is effected by the Spirit (1 Thess. 4:8; 1 Cor. 1:12, 14: 2 Cor. 1:21; 5:5; Gal. 4:6; Rom. 5:5), and Christ works in the world through the Spirit after his ascension (Rom. 1:3b-4a).229 Similarly, Christ and the Spirit work together in baptism, where Christ steps into the space of the “pneumatic Christ”.230 The “newness of life” in Rom. 6:4 is shown in the “newness of the Spirit” in Rom. 7:6.231 This is what being “in Christ” through baptism in the past, present and future means to Paul, Schnelle argues.232 All in all, faith, the gift of the Spirit and baptism have a common result: transformation and participation in the cruciform life of Christ.233 Schnelle concludes correctly that for Paul, Christ himself is the content and continuum of ethics.234 What began at baptism continues in the life of the baptised as the following of Christ on his way to the cross. The crucial theme in Paul’s ethics is, Schnelle holds, the correspondence between one’s exist-

223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 72. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 67. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142, 158. So, earlier, Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 67. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 67f. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 68. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 68. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 68–70. Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 72. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 118f.

42

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

ence (behaviour) and new being in Christ.235 In the present time between the cross and the Parousia, Pauline ethics exhort Christians to uphold, in the strength of the Spirit, this correspondence (Einklang) between the real new life in Christ and behaviour.236 Interestingly, Schnelle attributes the renewal of sinful reason primarily to the Spirit and talks about Paul’s ethics as ‘rational ethics’ and ‘ethics of insight’ (Einsichtsethik) instead of ‘ethics of commandment’ (Gebotsethik).237 In sum, Schnelle succeeds in presenting a plausible model of transformation and participation to replace the indicative-imperative schema that he takes as an oversimplification of the entirety of Pauline ethics into one static formula. He also recognises baptism as the christological basis of the participation and the importance of the renewal of the reason. In doing so, he acknowledges the material similarities between Paul’s ethics and his contemporary environment,238 but rightly and clearly highlights the distinctly christocentric foundations of his ethical thought. However, Schnelle argues against the schema in the German Lutheran context that problematises the third use of the law and therefore finds the ‘imperative’ a problematic concept. He also unnecessarily creates an alternative terminology to replace the old. In these ways, my approach here is distinct from that of Schnelle. David G. Horrell: Group Identity Preserved by Ethics David Horrell reconceptualises Paul’s ethical teaching by bringing it into contact with contemporary ethical theory and the question of group identity.239 Some of Horrell’s points provide interesting insights into how Paul’s ethics can and perhaps should be read. Horrell agrees with Furnish that Paul writes primarily as an apostle who formulates his ethical convictions within the narrative framework “of the whole redemptive event of Christ”240. Horrell views this christological framework as a myth enacted in ritual (baptism and 235

In other words, “Die Christuskonformität des neuen Seins und Handelns”. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 120f. 236 Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 122. 237 Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 127, 131. 238 See Chapter 3, Section 2 on Stoicism below. 239 D.G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics, London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Horrell approaches Paul through contemporary ethical theory and, in particular, the Anglo-American debate between the liberal and communitarian approach to political ethics in order to set a contemporary scene for his reading of Paul (81). He wants to bring Paul back from his allegedly irrelevant world of overly contextualised ancient Judaeo-Hellenistic thought, insisting that the NT is still relevant to modern ethical theory precisely because the Pauline ethical convictions are to such a great extent shared with and derived from the Judaeo-Hellenistic world (32). 240 Horrell, Solidarity, 45. Cf. Furnish, Theology, 89.

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

43

the eucharist in particular), a narrative that forms a community, in which its members’ worldview and ethics are both shaped by it.241 Because of the close interconnectedness of the narrative of Christ and the ethics of the community, Horrell suggests that not only the explicitly paraenetic passages in Paul can be taken as ethical, but that everything in Paul is relevant to ethical discussion.242 This is a bold yet valid claim, emphasising the close connection between Paul’s theology and ethics: Horrell thereby wants to avoid the Bultmannian idea that the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ are self-contradictory and paradoxical. On the basis of 1 Cor. 5, Horrell criticises Bultmann for offering an unsatisfactory solution to the indicative-imperative problem because of his existentialist hermeneutic that led him to understand the ‘indicative’ not as a real, objective change in a person but simply as a new selfunderstanding. Similarly, Bultmann does not take the ‘imperative’ as calling for a distinct behaviour, but merely obedience,243 which Horrell also finds problematic.244 Horrell’s contribution to the indicative-imperative debate is to stress communal identity. Horrell rightly observes that being baptised into Christ and made one body is not merely about sharing in the same salvation but is also concerned with a duty to treat others as members of the same body that transcends social boundaries. The basis for solidarity, for the construction of community, as the central Christian rituals show, is found in Paul’s Christology: as believers make the story of Christ their own, participating in his death and new life, so they leave behind the old world, and become members of one body, in Christ.245

Despite this shared christological foundation, Horrell maintains that what distinguished the Pauline Christian communities from the “world” was not its utterly different understanding of morality and ritual life but its more thorough obedience to the ethical values it shared with the non-Christians.246 Paul had to push transgressors outside the Christian community as he does in 1 Cor. 5, for otherwise there would be no distinction between “us” and the “world” – no group identity.247 Horrell holds that the basic distinction between the “is” and the “ought” is not uniquely Pauline or Christian.248 241

Horrell, Solidarity, 278f. Horrell, Solidarity, 83. Cf. Furnish, Theology, 68, 92, 98. 243 D.G. Horrell, ‘Particular Identity and Common Ethics: Reflections on the Foundations and Content of Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 5’, in Horn and Zimmermann, Jenseits, 197. 244 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 198. 245 Horrell, Solidarity, 132. 246 Horrell, Solidarity, 276f. Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 209f. 247 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 198, 205. 248 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 199. 242

44

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

Therefore, Horrell suggests that the “is” (‘indicative’) should be seen rather as a world-view that maintains the identity of a group. The ‘indicatives’ express, so Horrell holds, “the terms in which the identity of the community is defined, while the imperatives call for action to reflect and sustain the identity”249. Similarly, Horrell sees the ‘imperatives’ as indicating how the norms of the group should be expressed and its characteristics shown in practice. Replacing the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ with “identity” and “ethics” is how Horrell suggests moving beyond the Bultmannian concepts. For support, Horrell points to the community aspects in the case of the incestuous relationship in 1 Cor. 5: “It is the community which is criticised and instructed, not the man himself.”250 All in all, Horrell speaks of the ‘imperative’ in corporate terms: “The ‘metanorms’ of Paul’s ethics are most concisely described as the imperatives of corporate solidarity and other-regard.”251 By detaching these metanorms from “Paul’s mythic discourse”, Horrell seeks to make Pauline ethics more widely applicable.252 Horrell concludes that 1 Cor. 5:7a links closely together the ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ in precisely the way in which Bultmann formulated it: the ‘indicative’ (the community as the new unleavened lump) calls forth the ‘imperative’ (to purge the lump of the old leaven), because a constructed and unsteady identity requires affirmation and sustaining action.253 Similarly, he writes, “it is [the immoral man’s] action which defines his identity”254. On the basis of 1 Cor., it would, however, also be possible to emphasise the positive aspect of the given identity as washed (baptised), sanctified and justified in Christ (1 Cor. 6:11) and to stress how natural it is to remember it and live it out – even if it can never be perfect before the Parousia. Horrell’s observation is right in that Paul does usually address communities instead of individuals and upholds the importance of their communal identity in Christ. Horrell’s emphasis on the shared nature of Paul’s ethical norms with other contemporary ethical systems is also correct, as he rightly maintains at the same time that the foundations and motivations for Pauline ethics are “part of a distinctly scriptural and Christian discourse, focused on the identity of believers as a pure and holy community in Christ”.255 Indeed, 249

Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 207. Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 201. 251 Horrell, Solidarity, 274 252 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 274. The method is interestingly similar to EngbergPedersen’s attempt to find in Paul’s ethics ideas that are “real options for us” postmodern people, since his theology is not (see ‘Troels Engberg-Pedersen: “Descriptive” and “Prescriptive”’ above). 253 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 202, 207. 254 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 208. 255 Horrell, ‘Particular Identity’, 210, cf. 204. 250

4. Re-configurations of the Schema

45

in Paul’s ethics, there is both sharing and difference. The language that Paul uses may be consciously Graeco-Roman (or Jewish), but his christological narrative of redemption and freedom from the power of ἁµαρτία makes his ethics utterly different in the very core of its motivations from that of the non-Christian Hellenistic world. In this way, it may be argued that Paul’s fundamentally Christian motivation for moral living distinguishes the whole of Paul’s ethical teaching from the non-Christian knowledge of good and evil.256 1 Cor. 5 suits the agenda of Horrell’s book, but it cannot necessarily be generalised as an all-encompassing pattern for Pauline ethics elsewhere. Therefore, my focus here on the christological foundation of baptism for the Christian life can hopefully add an important aspect to the discussion, because even if Paul does not focus in 1 Cor. 5 on the reasons why the incestuous relationship is wrong but merely alleges that everyone agrees so, this cannot be seen as detached from his deeply christocentric baptismal statement in 1 Cor. 6:11. In Levitical holiness language, the commandments for holiness, sexual purity and separation from the Gentile immorality stem from Yahweh’s own holiness (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7, 26). This profoundly theological idea is taken up by the author of 1 Peter (1:16), which shows that it was not a foreign concept in the apostolic age, at Rome.257 Paul formulates the same in terms of partaking in Christ’s death to sin and resurrection in baptism (Rom. 6), and in the washing, sanctification and justification in the name of Jesus and in the Spirit of God in baptism (1 Cor. 6:11). Paul’s view of the beginning of the holy, sanctified life of the Christian indeed appears to focus on this Christ-centred rite of initiation. Knut Backhaus: Locative Being in Christ instead of Imperatival Doing Knut Backhaus sees no conflict in the writings of the Apostle between what have been coined as his ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’. Instead, he finds an unproblematic harmony between Pauline Christology and ethics: Christians have not merely been pardoned but also called, sent and entrusted (beauftragt).258 Backhaus holds that in light of, for instance, Phil. 3:16, Gal. 5:25, Rom. 6:1, 10–13 and 8:11–13, it is obvious that there is an inner connection between Sein and Sollen in Paul without the latter necessarily flowing from the former.259 He maintains that one of the main problems with the ‘imperative’ is the threat that it poses to the salvific nature of the ‘indicative’, the gospel.260 Backhaus asks appropriately whether the ‘indicative’ frees the 256 257 258 259 260

Cf. Schrage, Ethics, 199–201. Thorsteinsson, Roman, 105–107. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 9. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 11. This is the ‘Lutheran’ problem whose main critics have been summarised above.

46

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

believer merely “on probation”, depending on the realisation of the ‘imperative’.261 His answer is that the ‘indicative’ is not a gift that then becomes a demand – it is both together, without a logical solution, in the life-long process of simultaneous attention (Zuwendung) and exchange between Kyrios and the believer.262 This process begins at baptism, which, however, Backhaus does not see often (outside of Rom. 6) as the object of Paul’s paraenetic appeal. Instead, Backhaus insists that Spirit-reception (1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21f. etc.), which has taken place in baptism, and his gifts (1 Thess. 5:19; 1 Cor. 12:4–11, 28–30; Rom. 12:6–8) are more often motivators for paraenesis.263 This observation, however, does not negate the fact that baptism stands at the beginning and at the core of the Christian existence, just as Paul’s argument in Rom. 6–8 shows. Most importantly, and quite plausibly, Backhaus finds Christ to be the main term in the relationship between Christology and ethics in Paul – more so than “theological grammar”264. However, his definition of what “Christ” means in Pauline ethics does employ one grammatical term: the ‘locative’. By this, Backhaus means that the Christians’ existence in Christ is not so much about doing (‘imperative’) but being (‘locative’). Paul’s point is thus about the personal closeness of the Κύριος, which he experiences simultaneously as giving (schenkend) and binding (verbindlich) closeness and which he can use interchangeably.265 Backhaus summarises: wer aus der Gnade lebt, lebt aus der Gnade. Christologie ist in sich, nicht erst nachträglich, ethisch, und Ethik ist in der Wahrnehmung des Paulus gar nicht anders zu vollziehen denn als gelebte Treue zur Christologie.266

This relationship between Christology and ethics is seen by Backhaus through the Pauline claim of “eschatological newness” that (1) establishes the new pneumatic mode of being of the inner person, (2) places itself as a new point of reference for moral behaviour in Christ, and (3) has at its disposal a renewed thinking and striving instead of norms and duties.267 On the basis of this argument, Backhaus can state: “Ethik, christologisch betrachtet, wird zur Umgangsform des Glaubens.”268 Backhaus’ observations about the problems of ‘theological grammar’ (despite his suggestion of another grammatical term), the importance of contin261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268

Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 12; cf. Schnelle’s similar question above. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13; cf. Barclay’s discussion of obliging gift above. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 23. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13. Cf. Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 78. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 14. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 14.

5. The End of the Problem?

47

ued existence rather than accomplishing something new, the centrality of baptism in Paul’s argument in Rom. 6 and the close connection between Christology and Christian life are all valuable insights. However, as we shall see, more can be said about the centrality of the intrinsically christological and identity-defining rite of baptism in Paul’s ethics than that for which Backhaus allows.

5. The End of the Problem? While all the approaches described above have been attempts to explain or re-configure the indicative-imperative schema, Ruben Zimmermann’s view recommends its complete rejection. Ruben Zimmermann: A Complete Rejection of the Old Schema Zimmermann criticises the Bultmannian schema on four levels.269 (1) Its textual basis shows this pattern to be too general and inapplicable to letters such as 1 Cor. Paul himself nowhere deduces an ‘imperative’ from the ‘indicative’, and he uses the same phrases in both moods interchangeably (Gal. 3:27 cf. Rom. 13:14). (2) The appropriateness of the schema is diminished by its being an artificial separation of something that in Paul forms an entity, by imposing an arbitrary temporal order between the two modes of speech, by limiting Paul’s dynamic thrust and the varied nature of his language, and by the fact that Können and Sollen do not stand at the centre of Pauline ethics. (3) Theologically, it leads Pauline soteriology to insoluble problems, for, most notably, if salvation needed to be worked out by the ‘imperative’, God’s gift270 of salvation would not be complete in and of itself. Sometimes Pauline ‘imperatives’ do not link up with his ‘salvation indicatives’ (Heils-Indikativ) but simply reflect the conventional moral teaching of surrounding cultures.271 (4) Paul’s language is much more complex and precise than the metaphors of the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’ acknowledge,272 and it would lead to a moral philosophical ‘naturalistic fallacy’ to say that Paul derives from the existence of things (‘indicative’) how things should be (‘imperative’).273 269

Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 264f., closely following Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 9–14. Cf. the views of Furnish, Backhaus and Barclay on the obliging nature of the gift above. 271 As also e.g. Horrell has pointed out (above). 272 Cf. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 276f., 282. 273 N.b. Engberg-Pedersen’s helpful criticism of imposing such separate categories on Paul who did not separate ‘theology’ from ‘ethics’ in the way in which they are often separated in modern secularised societies (Paul, 6). 270

48

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

Zimmermann addresses recent alternative approaches to Pauline ethics, but finds them all unsatisfactory. The tradition-historical approach that sees Paul in light of either his Jewish or Hellenistic context offers little that is new and neglects the theological motivations and foundations of Paul’s ethics.274 The approach that locates the theological foundation of Paul’s ethics in his baptismal theology (e.g. Bornkamm), pneumatology (Horn) or Christology (Backhaus), or arguments that seek to conjoin several theological aspects (Schnelle), only make Zimmermann more convinced of Paul’s ethics being subordinate to his theology and utterly “implicit”.275 Zimmermann criticises the approach that prefers the term paraenesis to ethics or favours sociological explanations for Paul’s moral teaching (such as Horrell) for similar reasons.276 Ultimately, Zimmermann renounces the indicative-imperative schema together with the notion of Pauline “ethics” in its Aristotelian sense.277 He seeks to replace the notion with what he calls “implicit ethics” that can be inferred from Paul’s epistles through focus on eight elements: forms of speech, norms, contexts, logic of values, forms of argumentation, subject of action, community ethos and claim to validity.278 Paul’s ethics are “implicit” because they need to be reconstructed retrospectively on the basis of his concrete ethical arguments and judgments.279 These “implicit ethics” are distinctly Pauline not simply because of their christological motivation and rationale but also because of the ways in which Paul rearranges and reconstructs new maxims (such as the law of Christ in 1 Cor. 9:21) out of old material that he still holds as valid (such as profane ethos, Torah and the words of the Lord).280 Above all, Zimmermann emphasises the Pauline teaching on freedom from slavery to the law and freedom to servitude towards others, whose goal is the gospel that brings salvation to others.281 Thus the ethics that are “implicit” in Paul do not renounce older values but direct them anew teleologically and deontologically toward the neighbour, subjecting them to this altruistic telos.282 Overall, Zimmermann characterises Paul’s “implicit 274

Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 267. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 267f. 276 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 269–272. 277 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 272f. 278 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 274–276. 279 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 273f. 280 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 276–280. Zimmermann uses 1 Cor. as a case study for digging out its distinctly Pauline “implicit ethics”. He finds a plethora of values that make the indicative-imperative division look like an oversimplification: 1 Cor. contains values based on Christ, the Spirit, holiness, Paul as example, duty, words of Jesus, love, conscience, freedom, the Torah, the gospel, affects such as compulsion, desires, God’s glory, nature and morale/customs (276f.). 281 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 281. 282 Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 283. 275

6. Conclusion: The Nature and Relevance of the Debate

49

ethics” as descriptive ethics that would prefer not to give guidance about particular actions prescriptively. To find such guidance for present debates, the reader needs to follow Zimmermann’s eight-step exegesis.283 Zimmermann’s general critique of the indicative-imperative simplification is valid. Paul does, however, sometimes deduce an ethical exhortation from a theological statement (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:19f.), despite not employing this as his only paraenetic method. What has been called the ‘indicative’ does not need to be seen as incomplete in the face of the imperatival exhortations, as Backhaus, Barclay, Bornkamm and Furnish have attempted to show. The exhortations may just as well have an identity-reminding purpose as we shall see below. It is true that Paul lacks ethics in its systematic-Aristotelian form. Exegesis is indeed a necessary tool for exhuming something systematic out of the contextual nature of the Apostle’s letters. However, this does not necessarily mean that the somewhat more general account in Romans of the interaction between Christ and life in Christ should be utterly disregarded. The eightfold method of accessing Paul’s “implicit ethics” helps to show the variety of ways of reasoning in Paul’s ethics, but one is left to ask whether there is no simpler way of going about it.

6. Conclusion: The Nature and Relevance of the Debate This limited yet detailed literature review shows that the indicativeimperative formula can no longer be taken for granted in the study of Pauline ethics. At its core, the terminology was created with the flawed assumption that Paul taught realised sinlessness, for which reason Paul’s ethical ‘imperative’ was seen as a detached and superficial matter in comparison with his gospel (Wernle). Bultmann’s demythologised development of the model – although a step forward – also lacks an emphasis on Christology, sacramentology, pneumatology and eschatology: both the gift and what follows from it are only possible because of Christ, baptism into Christ and the help of the Spirit (Schrage, Backhaus; cf. Landmesser’s ‘christological performative’). With Schnelle and Schrage, I concede that it is easy to see positive aspects about the model insofar as it helps differentiate between divine and human activity (while nevertheless keeping them closely connected) and show the duty that is characteristic of the new life.284 The indicative-imperative schema is an easily graspable simplification of the relationship between Pauline theology and ethics, which partly explains its popularity amongst scholars and preachers alike. Even most critics do not wish to abandon it entirely, but 283 284

Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 283f. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 116; similarly Schrage, Ethics, 167.

50

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

instead make modifications to it or simply define in other words what they mean by it. Because of the multitude of ways in which the schema has been understood, however, definition of these terms is necessary lest one be misunderstood. An interesting observation is that confessional differences play a markedly significant although not definitive role in the sides that scholars take in the debate. On the one hand, many of the supporters of the terminology defend the ‘imperative’ against Lutheran or Protestant apprehensiveness about works-righteousness (Schnackenburg, Klostergaard Petersen and Barclay; cf. Engberg-Pedersen). These scholars share the view that the moral demand is intrinsically bound up with the gift of salvation, and that to say so in no way endangers God’s salvific monergism (especially Barclay, contra Schnackenburg). The notion of gift comes up in the discussion, causing Barclay, Backhaus and Landmesser to emphasise the togetherness of gift and demand. On the other hand, some scholars agree with the Lutheran concern (especially of the anti-tertius-usus-legis kind), which motivates them to find less lawsounding ways in which to describe Paul’s ethics (Horn and Schnelle; cf. also Landmesser, Backhaus and Zimmermann). Between these extremes stand scholars with views that mostly focus on avoiding the false dichotomising of theology and ethics in Paul’s epistles where the two are in fact inseparable from each other (e.g. Horrell and Furnish). In the review above, many references to the role played by baptism were noted. Schnackenburg is right in saying that for Paul, baptism is both ‘sacramental’ and ‘ethical’ in nature (cf. Backhaus). He maintains that the rite ought to lead to a way of life in harmony with it and that Paul does not teach a magical notion of baptism that eliminates the need for the ‘imperative’. Bornkamm talks about ‘baptismal imperatives’ that seek to call out the new life given in baptism that, until the day of the resurrection, remains overshadowed by the imperfections of the present sinful time, standing under constant threat from the old rulers of sin and death. Perhaps because of the centrality of the baptismal state in Paul’s teaching, many of the reformulations share a shift from the imperatival ‘doing’ towards a more stative ‘being’. Backhaus’ term ‘locative’ stresses that Pauline ethics are about a way of living and being in Christ. Similarly, Horrell points out that holiness language is not so much about ethics as it is about a status as baptised, consecrated and set apart. This is true, but it of course does not follow that this new locative status in Christ is void of any ethical implications. In Rom. 6, for instance, Paul’s teaching connects status and life: the lives of Christians who have been consecrated in Christ (1 Cor. 6:11) must also reflect it “for holiness” (Rom. 6:22). The role of sanctification as status

6. Conclusion: The Nature and Relevance of the Debate

51

and relationship must, therefore, not be overlooked (cf. Schnelle).285 The ‘locative’ emphasis, however, does make an important point with which I agree: what Paul maintains to have taken place in baptism is a change of status from the realm of sin and uncleanness to righteousness and consecration (Rom. 6:7, 19) and above all, from living in servitude to sin to living in servitude to God in Christ (6:11, cf. 13, 16). The status brings about the Christian identity. Perhaps Horrell’s notions of ‘identity’ and ‘ethics’ can be utilised with regard to Romans 6–8 in the following manner: Paul depicts the Christians’ new identity in Christ, into whose salvific death they have been baptised; ‘ethics’ are thereafter employed so as to make Christians conform to that ‘identity’. In the context of Romans, the Pauline ethics that flow from his theology do need exegesis to be clearly perceived, but they are not as implicit and removed from the reader as Zimmermann would like them to be. To counterbalance this locative-stative emphasis, it is important not to forget the rational and cognitive side of Paul’s teaching. Schnelle, amidst his emphasis on justification as a sacramental-ontological event and baptism as its appropriation, maintains that Paul’s ethics are rational. This correct observation stands in tune with Bornkamm’s idea of Paul’s ‘baptismal imperatives’. Paul, especially in Rom. 6, clearly appeals to human cognition to make Christians remember their true state in Christ, into whom they were baptised. This cognition then has ethical repercussions in their lives. As Engberg-Pedersen has noted, Paul’s categories of understanding and selfidentification are cognitive and ought to lead Christians to recognise what they are in Christ. This is similar to how Klostergaard Petersen defends the ‘imperative’ as Paul’s way of reminding his recipients of their identity in Christ and strengthening their cognitive competence to act according to the ‘salvation contract’ that they have with God. The actualisation of the said contract depends on the right knowledge of it, he maintains. Against an overemphasis on cognition, Barclay rightly makes the observation that divine agency plays a more crucial role for Paul in leading an ethically upright life than a mere human self-understanding, and that the Christian habitus must be physically embodied. Although it is possible to use the old terminology without meaning that Paul’s ethical exhortations imply some kind of synergism, because Paul’s ethics are not simply composed of grammatical imperatives, because his theological and ethical teaching are much more intertwined than the old terminology easily implies, and because the ‘theological grammar’ that Wernle left behind was faulty from its very beginning and has been subject to endless reinterpretations, it is plausible to argue for its abandonment. It is my task 285

For my discussion of Paul’s view on sanctification, see Chapter 4, Section 4 below.

52

Chapter 2: Paul’s ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’: A Review of Scholarship

here to do so by focusing on the content and substance of the central section of Romans, where Paul’s theological and moral teaching interact most clearly.

Chapter 3

Paul’s Ethics in Context

In this chapter, I explore Paul’s religious and cultural landscape in which his baptismal-ethical teaching arose. In the first section, Paul’s ethically charged baptismal teaching is placed in his Jewish context of ritual washings and the ideas of moral purity associated with it. In the second section, the Roman Stoic setting is analysed as a possible reason for Paul’s use of cognitive vocabulary in his baptismal paraclesis. Section 3 touches on the New Perspective understanding of the law as an identity-reminder. Section 4 sees how baptism and cognition interact in the other main baptismal texts in the Pauline corpus.

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context From the first half of the 19th century until the 1940s, there was a tendency in NT scholarship to see Paul solely as a Greek thinker at the expense of his Jewish background, at times in an explicitly anti-Semitic fashion.1 Later scholars such as E.P. Sanders have again begun to read Paul in comparison with his Jewish contemporaries. While many of these efforts revolve around analysing Paul through the lenses of the Qumran community, for the purposes of this study, it is also important for us to observe the ethical weight carried by the ritual washings of the Second Temple Period. My goal in this section is, first, to summarise the ways in which ancient Judaism viewed the notions of purity and impurity, especially with regard to ritual ablutions, and, secondly, to see how Paul’s baptismal-ethical teaching fits within the framework of the developments in the ancient Jewish notions of purity.

1 J. Murphy-O’Connor and J.H. Charlesworth (eds), Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Crossroad, 1990, x. Before the work of Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism were often seen as mutually incompatible; see e.g. M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (WUNT 10), Tübingen: Mohr, 1969.

54

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

Ritual and Moral Purity in the Jewish Scriptures Is ritual purity connected with moral purity in the Hebrew Scriptures, or are the two categories kept apart? Scholarship remains divided on the issue. It is by no means possible to engage in a detailed analysis of the notion in the Hebrew Bible here, but I wish nevertheless to make a few relevant observations and suggestions to help deepen our understanding of Paul’s scriptural background. Leviticus and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26) are a natural place to begin. Childbirth, skin disease, genital discharges and carcasses of certain animals and human corpses were considered impure in the OT, and ritual ablutions were decreed for the restoration of purity for those engaged in such things or contaminated by contact with them (Lev. 5:1–4; 11:1–47; 12:1–8; 13:1– 14:32; 15:1–33, 16–24; Num. 19:10–22). Jacob Milgrom has helpfully classified the biblical bodily impurities around four phenomena: death, blood, semen and skin disease.2 Ever since Mary Douglas’s seminal work, scholarship has produced various suggestions for a single system on which these notions of purity and impurity are based.3 Milgrom, for instance, maintains that the biblical impurities “serve a larger, overarching purpose”4 whose common denominator “is that impurity is associated with the sphere of death”.5 The impurity-causing bodily fluids contain life and their loss implies death; scaly disease, in its turn, symbolises the bodily death process (Num. 12:12).6 Physical impurity was “inherent in the very nature of impurity”, for instance in the loss of one’s life-giving fluids, and moral impurity was the result of Israel’s violation of God’s prohibitions.7 Cleaving to life (Lev. 18:5) and rejecting death are the 2

J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990, 346. 3 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London: Routledge, 1966. For Douglas, the Jewish preoccupation with the body symbolises anxiety over social boundaries (36, 116). 4 Milgrom, Numbers, 345. 5 Milgrom, Numbers, 345, cf. 346. It is not within the scope of this study to discuss the role of the Jewish dietary laws in any detail. Milgrom, Numbers, 345, suggests that the priestly dietary laws (Lev. 11) are similarly governed by criteria equally meaningless in themselves, serving, however, the larger purpose of the inviolability of animals “except for a few animals that may be eaten – provided they are slaughtered properly and their blood is drained”. J. Klawans (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, Oxford: OUP, 2000, 31f.) sees them located between the notions of ritual and moral purity/impurity, because neither are they comparable to sexual, idolatrous or murderous moral acts nor do they befit the notion of ritual impurity as there is no means to cleanse oneself of them. 6 Milgrom, Numbers, 345. 7 Milgrom, Leviticus, 766f.

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

55

rationale of Milgrom’s interesting, yet not unproblematic, construction of the Hebrew purity system.8 It is impossible to summarise all systematisations of the biblical purity system adequately in this short space, and as Tracy Lemos has recently suggested with exceptional clarity, such attempts may be wholly unfounded considering the variety of ways in which the OT speaks of purity/impurity in different historic contexts.9 What interests us here primarily is the link between ritual and moral purity. According to Michael Newton, scholarship has often employed a “forced dichotomy between ‘ritual’ purity and ethics” in the study of ancient Judaism and, indeed, Paul.10 The most prolific critic of such a separation of “ritual” purity from somehow more “real” or “moral” purity is Jacob Neusner, who argues that purity and impurity in ancient Judaism are first of all cultic matters and may secondly serve as metaphors for moral and religious behaviour.11 What Neusner fails to note, however, is that the Qumran texts are not the only place in the Second Temple Period where it is claimed that sin causes impurity.12 Prophetic passages such as Ezek. 18:5–9, 12, Jer. 2 and 3, Hos. 5:3 and 6:10, Am. 7:17, together with Deut. 21:23, 24:1–4, 1 Kgs 14:24 and 2 Kgs 16:3, show that a clear distinction between immorality and pollution did not always belong to the biblical worldview either.13 The purity of hands

8

Milgrom, Leviticus, 767; cf. J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, Oxford: OUP, 2006, 57. See a critical analysis of the systematisation of Milgrom and all other major purity scholars in T.M. Lemos, ‘Where There is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions’, JSOT 37.3 (2013), 266f. 9 Lemos, ‘Purity Constructions’, 265–294. N.b. the claim underlying Lemos’s critique: P did not invent the purity collection in Lev. 11–15 but built on pre-existing purity notions in surrounding culture (282). She maintains that Lev. should not be prioritised and that there are several inconsistencies between different OT texts, thus disproving the existence of any one biblical purity system (283f., 288f.). 10 M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53), Cambridge: CUP, 1985, 3f., 28. 11 See e.g. J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1, 108, 119. For a critique of Neusner, according to which he attributes to later Jewish sources many things found already in the Bible, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus, Vol. I (AB 3A), New York: Doubleday, 1991, 1003–1009. For a critique of imposing such “insufficient and somewhat anachronistic” categories as ‘literal’ and ‘metaphorical’ on these texts and a preference for ‘inner’ (i.e. ‘spiritualised’ or simply conveying the Jewish idea of morality being located in the body) versus ‘outer’ (i.e. ritual) impurity, see T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (ConBNT 38), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2002, e.g. 205–207, 214f., 219–222. 12 Neusner, Idea, 81. 13 Newton, Concept, 3; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1005; Klawans, Impurity, 35. Interestingly, the Hebrew word in Ezek. 18:12 (‫ )תועבה‬means abomination or physical repugnance,

56

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

and heart is juxtaposed also in Ps. 24:4. Further, the opposite of impurity in the biblical worldview is holiness – a moral concept.14 Thus we may conclude with Jonathan Klawans that moral purity/impurity is no secondary notion in the OT, as it is found in early and late biblical texts.15 It remains to be asked, however, to what extent ritual and moral aspects of purity can in fact be placed in opposition to each other: in Thomas Kazen’s words, does purity cease to be a ritual category “when applied to moral matters”16? According to Lemos, not even Klawans’ two-tier purity system can explain the Jewish purity notions perfectly, because eating prohibited foods defiles ritually rather than morally, and because texts such as Jer. 2:22f. and Ezek. 36:25 seem to combine moral impurity with ritual purification.17 Milgrom clarifies this alleged dichotomy helpfully in arguing that no intrinsic meaning can be found in these sources of impurity themselves, because neither are such functions considered unnatural nor do they form an all-encompassing list of disease or dirty things such as faeces.18 It is not a sin to become unclean but it is a sin to refrain from purification (Lev. 5:2–3; 17:15f.), which is why it would be simplistic to assume that defilement and sin are identical in the Hebrew Bible.19 Purity was “something positively to be desired”20 and “part of godliness”21. The Levitical impurities mostly concerned the individual’s ability to approach the sacred, which also does not mean that they were considered sinful in themselves.22 Thus, as has already been hinted, although ritual impurities were not necessarily considered sinful in themselves, the OT does connect ritual impurity with sin in various ways: leprosy is considered a punishment for sin (Num. 12; 2 Chron. 26), and the defilement of the sanctuary through the refusal to cleanse oneself from corpse impurity (Num. 19:13, 20), or when in a state of other kinds of ritual impurity (Lev. 7:20f.; 15:31; 22:3–7), are considered moral failures that defile the entire Land of Israel, punishable by being cut whilst the LXX renders it in less impure terms as ἀνοµιία.!The Hebrew term is never used of sources of ritual impurity in the OT, as noted by Klawans, Impurity, 26 n. 26. 14 H.K. Harrington, Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism and the Graeco-Roman World, London: Routledge, 2001, 40, 176f. 15 Klawans, Impurity, 10–12, 32–35; contra Kazen, Jesus, 204–207. 16 T. Kazen, Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011, 27. 17 Lemos, ‘Purity Constructions’, 277f., 288. 18 Milgrom, Leviticus, 767. For a defence of the defiling nature of faeces in some OT texts, see Lemos, ‘Purity Constructions,’ 285. 19 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1007;!Klawans, Impurity, 3, 41. 20 E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, London: SCM, 1990, 269. 21 Sanders, Jewish Law, 271. 22 Klawans, Impurity, 5, 23–25, 60; Klawans, Purity, 53–56.

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

57

off from the nation23 or even by exile (Lev. 18:24f.). In Klawans’s system, such grave sins as sexual transgressions, idolatry and bloodshed do defile the land, but what distinguishes them from the category of ritual impurity is that such moral impurities are neither communicable by touch nor cleansable by a washing; only punishment, atonement and the avoidance of them can help.24 As we saw above, Lemos would reject this claim as an oversimplification. Often, however, the opposite of such impurities is not purity but holiness, and it is the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement that deals with them not through purification but forgiveness (Lev. 16).25 Therefore, we may conclude that what are often categorised as ritual and moral impurity do begin to intertwine already in the OT at least on a metaphorical level, even if both categories often still defile in their own distinct way.26 Since a detailed analysis of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha is well beyond the scope of this study, suffice it to say that the phenomenon appears to be generally the same in Jubilees and the Psalms of Solomon.27 Furthermore, if OT impurity was at least sometimes related to death, as Milgrom’s systematisation suggests, it is befitting that life-giving water and the red heifer’s colour of life-containing blood (Num. 19) were used in Israel’s purification rituals.28 What this could add to our understanding of Paul’s baptismal-ethical teaching in Rom. 6 is that there was a precursor in Paul’s own scriptural tradition for an idea of purity that touched on notions of death, life, blood, water, obedience and washing.

23

Klawans, Impurity, 6, 25. Klawans, Impurity, 21, 23, 26, 41. 25 Klawans, Impurity, 7, 13; Milgrom, Leviticus, 256. 26 Klawans, Impurity, 41. 27 Sanders (Paul, 364f., 378, 382.) argues that in Jub. 33:20 (cf. 33:11), uncleanness refers to the moral pollution of sexual transgression but also separation from the Gentiles. Gentile uncleanness reappears as a reference to idolatry and especially sexual transgressions: 1:9; 11:4, 14; 12:2; 16:4–6; 20:3–5, 7; 22:22; 35:14; 36:5; 50:5. In Jub., sin is regarded as something that pollutes and makes unclean, while, conversely, righteousness and obedience denote being clean. Cleanness, in its turn, should denote the entire nation of Israel that is to be holy and without any uncleanness (33:20; cf. 33:11), because in the eschaton, Israel will be cleansed and made sinless (50:5). Similarly in Pss. Sol., “God’s forgiveness is described as his cleansing the repentant transgressor” (9.12 [6]), and God’s chastisements are said to cleanse one from sin (10.1f.). The psalmist looks forward to the time when Israel will be cleansed (18.6 [5]; cf. 17.36 [32]).” (Paul, 397.) For a detailed summary of the way in which the idea of moral impurity (defined as “the defiling force of sin”) continues to develop and, apart from the Temple Scroll, play an ever more significant part alongside the distinct category of ritual impurity in Second Temple Period texts, see Klawans, Impurity, 46–60. 28 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1003. 24

58

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

Miqwa’ot and Purity during Second-Temple Judaism Already before the dramatic increase in the archaeological evidence and ritual baths discovered from the 1990s onwards and the consequent scholarly discussion of these, Sanders rightly argued that the ritual purity laws and the miqwa’ot (ritual immersion pools) were central to the daily life of the ‘common Judaism’ of the Second Temple Period.29 By the Second Temple Period as distinct from Leviticus, bathing had become a prerequisite for purification for both men and women.30 According to Sanders, “The use of immersion pools was common to one and all: aristocrats, priests, the laity, the rich, the poor, the Qumran sectarians, the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”31 This conclusion has been further strengthened by archaeological evidence.32 According to Zissu and Amit, excavations have shown that miqwa’ot were common in the Jewish homes of all social classes in Jerusalem and existed in “every farm, estate, or village” of the Judaean Jewish community from the second half of the second century BC to the destruction of Jerusalem or even until the devastation of the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 AD).33 There, ritual purity was a concern in all aspects of Jewish life, particularly in conjunction with the Temple cult. In Judaea, ritual baths have been found in Jewish homes for everyday impurities, in public places in case the rainwater ran out of domestic miqwa’ot, near synagogues possibly for guests and for those preparing for prayer or Scripture reading, next to wine or olive presses to prevent the contamination of impurity from the producers to the liquidised product, in Jerusalem and along the way to Jerusalem for pilgrims entering the Temple, and near some Jewish graves.34 In the Diaspora synagogues, however, basins or fountains were more common than immersion pools from the second century BC until late antiqui-

29

Sanders, Jewish Law, 29–32; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE, London: SCM, 1992, 76, 222–230. 30 Sanders, Judaism, 220. 31 Sanders, Judaism, 223. 32 B. Zissu and D. Amit, ‘Common Judaism, Common Purity, and the Second Temple Period Judean Miqwa’ot (Ritual Immersion Baths)’, in W.O. McCready and A. Reinhartz (eds), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008, 47f., 62; Cf. J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, 158. We cannot enter into a history of research on the miqwa’ot here, but for a comprehensive account, see Zissu and Amit, ‘Common Judaism’, 48–51. 33 Zissu and Amit, ‘Common Judaism’, 49; cf. Sanders, Judaism, 229. 34 Zissu and Amit, ‘Common Judaism’, 51–61; S. Haber, ‘Common Judaism, Common Synagogue? Purity, Holiness, and Sacred Space at the Turn of the Common Era’, in McCready and Reinhartz, Common Judaism, 75; cf. Aune, ‘Paul’, 314.

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

59

ty.35 For this reason, it has been suggested that the Judaean understanding and practice of purity differed from that of the Diaspora. Whereas in Palestine, ritual purification took the form of immersion in a natural source of water or a miqweh, in the Diaspora, sprinkling, splashing or hand washing were more common.36 It also appears that in the Diaspora, the distinction between ritual and moral purity became more blurred and ablutions became associated with the synagogue, particularly with prayer and the presence and reading of the Torah.37 The synagogue may have been considered a similarly sacred space as the Temple, into which nothing ritually impure was to be brought, but the relatively large size of many synagogues compared with their small miqwa’ot suggests that only those in direct contact with the Torah scrolls would have been required to use them.38 While the archaeological evidence of Diaspora basins remains somewhat contested, 39 the location of many a Diaspora synagogue by a natural source of water (e.g. Acts 16:13) outside of cities is, according to Susan Haber, an indication of the Diaspora interest in moral purity and separation from the impure land of Gentile idolatry.40 The Letter of Aristeas, written about 150 BC in Alexandria, suggests that hand washing (ἀπονιψάµενοι τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς χεῖρας) at the entrance of the synagogue before worship was there a habit concerned with the confirmation of moral purity, or, “evidence that they have done no evil, for all activity takes place through the hands” (µαρτύριόν ἐστι τοῦ µηδὲν εἰργάσθαι κακόν· πᾶσα γὰρ ἐνέργεια διὰ τῶν χειρῶν γίνεται).41 Although the habit of hand washing before prayer may well have been adopted from the Greeks,42 it is impossible to say with certainty that it was commonplace or whether this was simply an Alexandrian Jewish custom.43 A later Alexandrian Jew, Philo (ca. 10 BC-45 AD), makes the allegorical relationship between ritual and moral impurity even clearer: ritual impurity becomes a metaphor for the more real moral impurity, which is non-physical rather than metaphorical, and to which

35

Sanders, Judaism, 223; Haber, ‘Common Judaism’, 71. Haber, ‘Common Judaism’, 65; cf. Sanders, Judaism, 223, referring to Ep. Aris. 305f., Sib. Or. 3.591–3 and Just. Dial. 14.1. Also cf. Lev. 11:36. 37 Haber, ‘Common Judaism,’ 73; cf. Sanders, Jewish Law, 259f. 38 Haber, ‘Common Judaism,’ 66, 68f.; Sanders, Jewish Law, 260f. 39 Sanders, Jewish Law, 259, 261. 40 Haber, ‘Common Judaism’, 70. 41 Ep. Aris. 305–306, cited in H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd edn), Cambridge: CUP, 1914, 603. 42 Cf. Hom. Iliad 24.302–306. 43 Sanders, Jewish Law, 30, 260–271; cf. a much more positive view of the evidence available in Haber, ‘Common Judaism’, 72. Also n.b. the Pharisaic practice of hand washing in Mark 7:3f. 36

60

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

the ritual notion should direct one’s attention.44 Thus it seems that ritual and moral impurity were seen together by at least some Diaspora Jews. If for the Gentiles, washing was an external rite, for these people, it was about the purity of the heart.45 Paul would have been familiar with both the Palestinian ritual miqwa’ot and the possibly more ethically-interpreted Diaspora ablutions. If we follow David Aune’s suggestion, we may even have an account of a Pauline immersion in a miqweh in Acts 21:26 and 24:18.46 As can be seen from his contemporary Philo, Paul lived at a time when some were emphasising the close connection between moral and ritual purity at the very least in Alexandria. Ritual and Moral Purity at Qumran A juxtaposition of ritual and moral purity and impurity, even clearer than that of the Diaspora context, may be found in the Qumran community. The sectarian DSS portray a deep interest in the defiling force of sin, for according to them, all kinds of sins produce impurity, not just the grave idolatrous, sexual and murderous ones.47 Some Pauline ideas have parallels in the DSS, such as universal sinfulness, man’s inability to save himself, reliance on justification by God, and the faith community as a temple, which may be said to distinguish both from “common Judaism”.48 One fascinating parallel between Romans and the DSS is the shared language of service to sin and impurity (Rom. 6:12ff.; 1QHa 1:27; cf. 1QS 7:10; 1QM 13:5), with the flesh as the dominion of sin (Rom. 7:14–8:11; 1QS 4:20f.).49 However, it is impossible to verify whether Paul could have in any way been aware of the particular teachings of the Qumran community, and no direct dependence on it needs thus be implied here.50 It may be that both simply share the same possible 44

Philo Spec. Leg. 1.256–261, 266; Klawans, Impurity, 64–66; Sanders, Jewish Law,

271.

45

Sanders, Jewish Law, 270. D.E. Aune, ‘Paul, Ritual Purity, and Ritual Baths South of the Temple Mount (Acts 21:15–28)’, in Spitaler, Celebrating Paul, 2011, 309–318. 47 Neusner, Idea, 54; Klawans, Impurity, 49, 75, 90. As Klawans (Impurity, 90f.) rightly notes, however, development of this idea can be traced within the DSS not only from the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document but also from the “undoubtedly sectarian” texts. 48 Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth, Paul, xii-xv; contra Eskola (Theodicy, 308), who argues for the prevalence of “synergistic nomism” and “atonement by obedience” at Qumran, despite many fine descriptions of forgiveness in the DSS such as 1QS 11:11–14. 49 U. Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, (M.E. Boring, trans.), Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005, 74. 50 Any commonality does not necessarily imply Paul’s direct dependence on Qumran. Both Paul and Qumran often display ideas common in Palestine at that time. However, it 46

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

61

kind of development from within the Jewish context, particularly with a strong imminent eschatological focus.51 Nevertheless, it is useful to look at these texts as examples of the kind of general religious landscape of the Second Temple Period in which Paul the Pharisee’s thinking took shape. The Jewish notion of purity centred on the Temple, and from here the purity rules extended into Hebrew domestic life.52 Interestingly, both the texts of Qumran and Paul portray the thought of communities that had left the Temple and considered themselves to be the true Temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; 1QS 9:5f.).53 This dissociation from the Jerusalem Temple, however, did not mean the abandonment of the Jewish notion of purity. 54 On the contrary, just as the prerequisite for Temple sacrifices had been purity, at Qumran, the same degree of purity was required to produce the free-will offering of the perfection of way (1QS 9:5; cf. 1QS 1:8 and 8:20).55 It was only the purity of the community that guaranteed the divine presence in it.56 Grave sins morally defiled the sanctuary that the community now formed.57 Sin-committing insiders just as sin-committing outsiders were considered to be ritually defiling, which is why, depending on the severity of the sin, transgressing insiders were also excluded from the “pure food” of the community, had their rations reduced, or both, or were permanently banished.58 Accordhas been suggested that the teachings of Qumran may have been behind the Judaising movements combated in Col. 1:12f. and Eph. 5:6–13; 6:10–17. See Benoit, ‘Qumran’, 1– 6, 17. 51 Paul’s view of universal sinfulness and the human inability to escape the domination of sin and death are in line with the tradition of the DSS, 2 Bar. 54:15 and 4 Ezra 7:118f. but not with the much more positive tradition of Wis. 1:12–16 etc. (Schnelle, Apostle, 74). 52 Newton, Concept, 6f. 53 Klawans, however, sees such readings of the DSS as depicting Christian anti-temple bias and prefers to say that the sectarians saw their community as an “alternate” or a “stand-in” for the Temple, and their temple-free existence as “not only provisional but also as comparatively deficient”, in the expectation of a future, ritually and morally pure temple (Purity, 147–174, esp. 162–168; on the exegesis of 1QS 9, see 164). See also H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBLDS 143), Atlanta: Scholars, 1993, who claims that one of the reasons for the sectarians’ withdrawal from mainstream Jewish society may have been their “inflexible interpretation of Scripture” (264) that was much stricter than that of the Rabbis when it came to e.g. the possible ways of contamination. Contra E. Schüssler Fiorenza (‘Cultic Language in Qumran and the NT’, CBQ 38 [1976], 172), who thinks Paul’s temple metaphor is individualistic and distinct from Qumran. 54 Newton, Concept, 8. 55 Newton, Concept, 39; as Klawans has shown, however, this analogy may easily be overstretched (Purity, 166). 56 Newton, Concept, 43. 57 Klawans, Impurity, 69. 58 Klawans, Impurity, 82; cf. Newton, Concept, 43–45.

62

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

ing to Klawans, the exclusion from pure food, or permanent banishment, show that some moral failures towards other members of the sect were considered ritually defiling at Qumran (1QS 6:24–7:25).59 The words “abomination” and “defilement” are used of all kinds of sin, such as deceit, because at Qumran, sin carried a morally and ritually defiling force (1 QS 4:9–10, 4:21; 7:17f.).60 According to Sanders, repentance and cleansing are two sides of the same coin in many a Qumran text (e.g. 1QHa 3:21; 11:10; cf. 7:30; 1:32).61 Cleansing takes away sin and the moral and cultic impurity “which is attached to it”.62 Thus in 1QS 3:6–8, the passive form of atonement alternates with the passive form of cleansing,63 and in 1QS 11:13f., being drawn near, cleansed and pardoned “are frequently placed in parallel”.64 Despite elsewhere focusing on ritual impurity at the expense of moral impurity as something not all that relevant,65 here Sanders points to the Qumran texts’ emphasis on moral purity and impurity over against simple ritualism: the man who despises the precepts of God (1QS 3:3–6) cannot be purified with water alone, which is why what really cleanses him is the submission of his soul to all the precepts of God (1QS 3:8f.).66 Both, however, were equally vital requirements for the transgressor’s restoration to the community. Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities (…). And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God.67

Newton rightly understands this to mean that “the Qumran sect made little or no distinction between ceremonial and moral transgression”, because both 59

Klawans, Impurity, 83. Klawans, Impurity, 77, 79. 61 Sanders, Paul, 275f.; Klawans, Impurity, 85f. 62 Sanders, Paul, 278f. 63 Sanders, Paul, 299. 64 Sanders, Paul, 309; quite similarly to 1 Cor. 6:11. 65 Sanders, Jewish Law, 133, 137. 66 Sanders, Paul, 313; similarly Newton, Concept, 28f.; Klawans, Impurity, 85; Freed, Morality, 14f. Cf. Fitzmyer’s interpretation of the notion of purity in 1QM 7:5f. as not merely Levitical purity but a notion that includes inner purification of sin, one without the other being meaningless (J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10’, in Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth, Paul, 58f.; orig. in NTS 4 [1957– 58], 48–58). 67 1QS 3:4–9, in D.W. Parry. and E. Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 7. 60

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

63

caused individual and communal impurity and because both body and soul needed cleansing from the impurity of sin.68 According to Klawans, not only impurity and sin became identified at Qumran, but purification and atonement also.69 This is why the sectarians considered the land of Israel to be defiled by sin, and needing to be atoned for, which was a role reserved to the council of the community in Qumran eschatology (1QS 8:6–7).70 It is unlikely that the Qumran ablutions such as that described in 1QS 2 have anything to do with the kind of proselyte baptism known from later Rabbinic sources in the late first or early second century,71 because those joining the Qumran community would have already been Israelites and because no real baptismal initiation can be found in the texts.72 Together with the repeated nature of the Qumran baths, this makes a straightforward connection between them and the early Christian baptismal practice improbable.73 Although novices would have been “baptised” in Qumran, the unique nature of that first ritual bath compared with the other steps up the scale of priestly purity that followed is difficult to prove.74 What remains clear, however, is that at Qumran in general, ritual purity merged with moral purity.75 Paul considered those baptised into Christ as therefore holy and consecrated in Christ. Thus Paul teaches no Qumran-like purity rules in order to ascend towards a higher level of priestly holiness. In juxtaposing baptismal 68

Newton, Concept, 48f.; contra P. Benoit, ‘Qumran and the New Testament’, in Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth, Paul, 7f.; originally published in NTS 7 (1960–61), 276– 96. In less detail, see Newton, Concept, 27. 69 Klawans, Impurity, 86. 70 Klawans, Impurity, 88. Suffice it to say that Paul’s eschatological perspective is also very different from that of the DSS. For Paul, the end time has begun in Christ and the Spirit, though it still awaits final fulfilment, while the Qumran community is still looking forward to this. Furthermore, Paul’s depiction of the Spirit is much more personal than that of the DSS. 71 The earliest reference to Jewish proselyte baptism is found in the b. Yebam. 47a-b, while Sifre Num. is the first to list the tripartite proselyte conversion ritual of circumcision, immersion and sacrifice (quoted in R.M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012, 47). Interestingly, Justin Martyr (born ca. 100) mentions the Jewish ablutions as inferior to Christian baptism, as they merely purify the flesh and body instead of baptising the soul from wrath, covetousness, envy and hatred, which he takes as the content of ‘true’ baptism that has the side-effect of cleansing the body as well (Just. Dial. 14). 72 Newton, Concept, 28; Klawans, Impurity, 142. 73 Newton, Concept, 29; Benoit, ‘Qumran’, 14, 16. 74 Newton, Concept, 27f., 34. The suggestion has also been made that the initiation process at Qumran may have had two stages: an initial ablution cleansing the novice of ritual impurity and a second initiation confirming their inner purity and holiness (Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 46). 75 So also Lemos, ‘Purity Constructions’, 288.

64

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

washing with sanctification and justification (1 Cor. 6:9–11), however, Paul’s baptismal teaching clearly acts as a summons to holy life and an active knowledge of the pure, holy and righteous status of the baptised in Christ.76 Especially in light of the cultic presentation (and righteousness) language of Rom. 6:13, 19 and 12:1, this is somewhat similar to the Qumran idea of communal holiness as a replacement of the Temple sacrifices (1QS 9:4).77 Another similarity between Rom. 6 and Qumran is the contrasting of uncleanness with holiness. Of course for Paul, unlike at Qumran, these are all founded on Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice (Rom. 8:3) and the indwelling of his Spirit in “us” (Rom. 8:9, 11).78 Therefore, these interesting similarities are not here used to imply Paul’s dependence on Qumran thought but, instead, how similar Paul’s thought was to his general Jewish landscape, despite its distinct foundation in Christ. Ritual and Moral Purity in Rabbinic Texts The Rabbinic texts recorded in the Mishnah, brought together in written form in the early third century AD, reflect the debates of the Tannaim (Rabbinic sages), dating from up to three centuries earlier. Hannah Harrington has shown that the Rabbis, just as the Qumran writers, built their purity systems on scriptural foundations,79 but what these two groups concluded about purity developed in different directions. The main interest for the Rabbis was indeed to explain (in conjunction with the biblical text) the halakhah (legal tradition) concerning how to deal with ritual impurity.80 They addressed moral impurity when it occurred in the biblical texts, which they were explaining, mostly as moral lessons of aggadah (exhortation), encouraging the people to observe God’s commandments.81 If in the OT there are some links between sin and impurity, it is the same for the Rabbis. Rituals such as washings became a replacement for the possibility of obtaining “holiness through cult”, but keeping the moral law also remained important.82 As an example of the latter, the land of the Gentiles was impure because of their idolatry, that is, moral impurity.83 76

For the cultic use of ἀπολούω in the LXX, Philo and Josephus as cleansing from impurity, see Newton, Concept, 82f. 77 Newton, Concept, 77. Cf. also Paul’s temple metaphor in 1 Cor. 3:16. 78 The spirit does play an important role also in the Qumran texts, see e.g. 1QS 9:4. 79 Harrington, Impurity, 126–139. 80 Klawans, Impurity, 119, 126. 81 Klawans, Impurity, 92, 107, cf. 116. For instance, women disregarding their menstrual impurity were threatened with death in childbirth. 82 Harrington, Holiness,165f. 83 Harrington, Holiness, 99.

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

65

In contrast to the OT, however, the Rabbis avoided notions such as “defilement” (‫)נדה‬, “pollute” (‫ )חנף‬and “abomination” (‫ )תועבה‬or used them exclusively of ritual impurity, which shows a conscious Rabbinic effort to compartmentalise ritual and moral impurity, therefore safeguarding them as distinct categories.84 This sets the Tannaitic literature apart from Qumran and early Christian texts.85 In Klawans’ words, “For the sectarians, sin as defilement had distinct halakhic ramifications. For the tannaim, however, it was an aggadic concept.”86 Ritual and Moral Purity according to John the Baptist and Jesus While eschewing debates about the potential religious bias and the historical accuracy of the accounts that we have of John the Baptist, it is nonetheless useful to view the baptism of John within the Jewish purity tradition as “a ritual of moral purification, with eschatological overtones”87. John preached βάπτισµα µετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν (Mark 1:4; cf. Luke 3:3), and the people who came to him ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταµῷ ἐξοµολογούµενοι τὰς ἁµαρτίας αὐτῶν (1:5; cf. Matt. 3:6). Josephus’ account of John’s baptism specifies that “They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body [ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώµατος] implying that the soul was thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour [δικαιοσύνῃ]”88. Indeed, most contemporary Jews viewed atonement as composed of repentance and ritual, but John’s baptism appears distinctive, first of all, with his proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2).89 The one-off nature of John’s baptism and apparent lack of a sect demarcated by it distinguish it from the washings of both Qumran and rabbinic sources.90 As distinct from Qumran, where moral and ritual impurity merged, and the Rabbis, who compartmentalised 91 them, John’s baptism appears neither to address the defiling nature of sin nor to have anything to do with ritual purification.92 Because of its emphasis on eschatology and atonement, John’s bap84

Klawans, Impurity, 112f. Klawans, Impurity, 95, 97f., 117, 134. 86 Klawans, Impurity, 134. 87 Klawans, Impurity, 139. 88 Jos. Ant. 18.117–118. 89 Klawans, Impurity, 139. However, out of the Synoptics, this wording in the mouth of John is exclusively Matthean, and it may be that Matthew has made the Baptist’s preaching conform to that of Jesus (cf. Mark 1:15 where Jesus proclaims this). 90 Klawans, Impurity, 139–141. 91 Compartmentalisation may have its seeds already among the Essenes as well as the Pharisees (Kazen, Jesus, 219). 92 Klawans, Impurity, 142f. 85

66

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

tism is not comparable to the Jewish proselyte baptism either.93 It is interesting that a ritual of washing was used by John at the very least to mark the purification from moral defilement.94 Thus it is best viewed as a distinct development in concretising OT metaphors for atonement such as Isa. 1:16 and Ps. 51:9.95 All in all, the baptism of John may be seen in line with the development that combined ethics with ritual, but as a ritual immersion concerning inner impurity only, it is nevertheless a development that stands out.96 The description of baptism in the gospels and Acts seems to build on this foundation, although, in addition to baptismal repentance and forgiveness, they include initiation as a disciple of Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15f.; Acts 2:38; cf., e.g., Acts 1:5, 8 and John 3:5; 13:8–10).97 Jesus uses baptism also metaphorically to refer to his and his disciples’ death (Mark 10:38f. and Luke 12:50). Although these accounts in their written form are later than Paul’s epistles, they tell us how baptism fits into first-century Christian thought.98 The early Christian baptismal teaching took its shape within the framework of the Jewish concept of moral purity. It was, however, a distinct development in anchoring a ritual ablution, in the initiation of the Jesus-follower, to the person of Jesus, in whose name or into whom the baptism was performed. The possibility has even been raised that the forgiveness of sins in John’s baptism began to be seen by the early Christians in light of the only possible foundation for the forgiveness of sins: Christ’s death.99 However and whenever this conclusion was reached in early Christian baptismal teaching (and Paul’s role in vocalising this is unquestionably clear), being washed in the name of the one who died on the cross and was risen became the early Christian means of obtaining moral purity.100

93

Klawans, Impurity, 142. Cf. Klawans, Impurity, 143; cf. Kazen, Jesus, 234, 238. 95 Klawans, Impurity, 142f. 96 Kazen, Jesus, 239. 97 See Chapter 4, Section 3, ‘Life in Us: the Indwelling Christ and His Spirit’ for the interconnectedness between Spirit-reception and baptism. 98 Similarly, the role of baptism in 1 Peter also points to the importance of the rite in early Christian ethics. The explicit mention of the rite in 1 Pet. 3:21 and implicit allusions to connected issues (e.g. rebirth in 1:23) reveal that baptism was seen as a change from the old to the new status that needed to be appreciated, with the intention of motivating the baptised to lead morally good lives (Thurén, ‘Motivation’, 357f.). 99 Agersnap, Baptism, 314, 404. 100 Cf. Klawans, Impurity, 160. 94

1. Ritual and Ethics in Paul’s Jewish Context

67

Paul’s Jewish Heritage: Purity through Water As we have seen, the relationship between impurity and sin was a live question in ancient Judaism and one on which there was a variety of views. As Klawans helpfully notes, “Those New Testament figures – John, Jesus, and Paul – who played a key role in laying the foundations of early Christianity may have agreed with some groups and not others, or they may have paved their own paths with regard to this issue… they must be seen not against this background, but within it.”101 In Romans 6–8, Paul’s purity language and moral exhortation flow naturally from baptism. On the basis of this brief survey, Paul seems to fit as part of the development that brought the notions of ritual and moral purity closer and placed more weight on the latter.102 Although the roots of the moral application of purity language can already be seen in the OT, this development begins to unfold more in the Diaspora context, Qumran, John and Jesus. The Palestinian miqwa’ot clearly existed to deal with ritual impurities, but even there, the neglect of ritual purity was thought to be a sin and a cause for moral impurity. For Paul, the ritual fulfilments of Jewish purity laws were not important in the new Gentile Christian context, so he was only interested in ritual purity when faced with opposition insisting otherwise. Insofar as he saw the Christian community as a temple (like Qumran), he was concerned with the moral defilement of the community on account of grave (often sexual) sin (cf. Rom. 1:21–25)103, but he appears to have lost interest in the traditions of Ἰουδαϊσµός, which for him belonged to the past (Gal. 1:14; cf. Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 8). For the Rabbis, this was altogether different: for them, despite the destruction of the Temple, ritual purity continued to be a real concern, which may be why they safeguarded the division against the trend of the time. Paul’s baptismal teaching does include a ritual aspect, but it is one that is wholly redefined and transformed. Paul talks about baptism as a death by drowning and a reinvigorating newness of life in a way that could have brought to a Jewish mind the descent down the stairs of a miqweh into the full immersion of its cleansing waters and the ascent into a state of ritual 101

Klawans, Impurity, 138. Cf. L.W. Countryman (Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (revised ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, 92–123), who maintains that for Paul, nothing was considered unclean anymore (Rom. 14:20) except when it came to sexual-ethical matters (1 Cor. 6), for which Paul created a specifically Christian purity system, “with baptism as the new dividing line” (100) and with the distinct purpose of keeping the church, the body of Christ, pure. 103 As Klawans, Impurity, 152f., rightly observes, impurity in Paul is often related to sexual sin (cf. Rom. 1:24; Gal. 5:19), which suits very well the Jewish thinking of such grave sins producing moral impurity. 102

68

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

purity. Paul, of course, went beyond the Jewish ablutions. Before him, we have no account of baptism linked with the death and resurrection of Christ.104 The Christian rite of washing gained a drastically Christ-centred, one-off content. Perhaps it was the repeated reminders to know and understand the new life and status given in Christ through baptism that replaced the repetition of the actual rite. Thus for Paul, the baptismal washing was a matter not merely of ritual but also of moral purity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–11). Furthermore, it was a new state and identity given to the baptised in Christ – a state tied up with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3f.), with clear implications for the daily lives of the baptised. For Paul, impurity is something that the baptised are to shun, and instead, they are to present their members as slavish to righteousness for holiness (Rom. 6:19). Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Paul uses a very cognitive present tense imperative in Rom. 6:11 to exhort those who have died with Christ in baptism and, as a result, look forward to also being raised with him, to reckon themselves “to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus”.

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context Cognitive reminder plays an important role in Judaism. The Sabbath ritual serves to remind Israel of the salvation event of the Exodus (Deut. 5:14f.) and of the creation of the world (Ex. 20:10f.), and the tassels on Jewish garments bring to mind the importance of law-obedience (Num. 15:37–41).105 Paul’s cognitive emphasis in his baptismal-ethical teaching, however, has also been influenced by his Graeco-Roman context.106 As Schnelle notes, Paul’s primary cultural context was Hellenistic Judaism, but he lived intrinsically also in Graeco-Roman Hellenism, and this context became decisive with Paul’s westward missionary pursuits.107 Both contexts need to be observed, because “[a]lle zentralen Begriffe des paulinischen Denkens haben eine jüdische und eine griechisch-römische Geschichte, die sich teilweise überlagern und die es gleichermaßen zu erheben und zu berücksichtigen 104

Agersnap, Baptism, 403. Klawans, Impurity, 37. 106 As opposed to seeing Stoicism as Paul’s background ‘against’ which Paul should be read, I consciously use the term ‘context’ here in a way that is similar to Malherbe’s notion of ‘milieu’ (as opposed to ‘context’): Paul participated in the Graeco-Roman discourse as a Hellenistic Jew, and thus taught in a shared context with the Stoics; see A.J. Malherbe, ‘Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9’, in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994, 255. 107 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 137f; Schnelle, Apostle, 70, 75. 105

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

69

gilt”.108 This cultural overlap exists also in Paul’s ethics, the material content of whose paraclesis has similarities with both Jewish and Graeco-Roman contemporaries.109 Schnelle’s suggestion is that Paul is able to incorporate general human wisdom and ethical norms into his Christian ethics (cf. Phil. 4:8) because his ethics are rational ethics, in which the Spirit recalibrates the reason distorted by sin.110 With Volker Rabens, the disclaimer must be added that Paul’s ethics are not merely rational, because knowledge means to him something much deeper and more familiar than simply head knowledge.111 Indeed, Paul emphasises a deep Spirit-inspired knowledge of being in Christ through baptism, and of Christ (and his Spirit) indwelling the Christian.112 There is no space here to enter into discussion of the influence of the Graeco-Roman mystery cults on Paul’s sacramentology, a position that has largely been abandoned since the 1950s.113 Paul’s baptismal teaching and the 108

Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 139; cf. Schnelle, Apostle, 81–83. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142, also 143–147. 4 Macc. and Wis. are clear examples of Hellenistic Jewish texts in which the Graeco-Roman (Stoic) emphasis on reason/wisdom in overcoming the passions converges with the Jewish notion of the Torah as the source of reason/wisdom and with the Jewish wisdom tradition (see Thompson, Moral, 23–34, 39– 41; Blischke, Begründung, 398; cf. M. Goodman [ed.], The Apocrypha [OBC], Oxford: OUP, 2012, 49, 239). 110 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 145. Schnelle interprets Paul’s tendency to remind his readers of something they already know as reflecting Hellenistic friendship ethics (Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 147). 111 V. Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT 283), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 182. See further Chapter 4, Section 3 below. 112 The connection between Paul’s rational ethics and pneumatology in Romans has been clearly analysed and defended by Luke Timothy Johnson, although his approach does not give baptism any central role as the bridge between Paul’s theology and ethics (see Johnson, Luke T., ‘Transformation of the Mind and Moral Discernment in Paul’ in Fitzgerald, John T., Thomas H. Olbricht and L. Michael White [eds], Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 215–236). 113 Great differences between the mysteries and Paul were already hinted at by Bultmann, who emphasised the importance of understanding the relationship between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ over against Paul’s mystery background: unlike in the mysteries, justification for Paul does not mean any change in the concrete or empirical man’s moral qualities but something which can only be believed; neither is there such a discontinuity between the old and the new man as there is in the Hellenistic mysteries, but “[t]he δικαιωθείς (justified man) is the concrete man, who bears the burden of his past, present and future, who is therefore also subject to the moral imperative” (‘Problem’, 213 cf. 204ff. and esp. 210–212). As an example of a more recent claim for mystery influence, see H.D. Betz, ‘Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Romans 6’, in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul in His Hellenistic Context, 84, 118; cf. Harrington, Holiness, 178f., who maintains that the regenerative and sacramental meaning given to baptism is later 109

70

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

mystery cults do share the same Mediterranean cultural landscape, in which it was commonplace for a bath to precede the performance of rituals and, not uncommonly, rituals of initiation.114 Often, however, Graeco-Roman initiation ablutions were one of many secret ceremonies that allowed the initiates to reach higher levels of membership.115 Instead of these, we must focus on a much more viable candidate for an influence from Paul’s Gentile surroundings: Roman Stoicism. Why Stoicism? Troels Engberg-Pedersen describes the transitional period of 100 BC to AD 200 in ancient philosophy as a shift of the philosophical centre from Athens to Rhodes, Alexandria and Rome, and a “victory of Platonism over Stoicism both in Neoplatonism (third century) and in Christian thought”.116 What becomes clear on the basis the period’s history, however, is that before the end of the second century AD, Stoicism may be seen as the primary philosophical influence on the NT and other Christian texts.117 Both Platonism and Stoithan Paul’s purely “symbolic” baptismal teaching, and influenced by Hellenistic mystery cults; similarly, Lampe (From Paul, 55) suggests that Rom. 6:4f. may have resonated with the Roman Christians’ exposure in Trastevere to the Syrian initiation cults that contained a death and resurrection theme. For a critique of the old view, see Agersnap, Baptism, 295– 302, 398, where Paul’s appeal to “the recipients’ insight and understanding” is emphasised over against any Hellenistic ideas of a new divine nature by mystical means. 114 As Jensen rightly observes, the cults of e.g. Demeter and Persephone, Mithras, Isis, and the various practices of ablutions for instance upon entering and exiting temples, were familiar to early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr (Just. 1 Apol. 62) and Tertullian (Tert. Bapt. 5.1–3; Tert. Marc. 1.14), who viewed the pagan purification rites as demonic imitations of the true Christian sacraments (quoted in Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 45f.). A fascinating example of the close co-existence of the cult of Mithras and Christianity can be seen in the Basilica of St Clement in Rome, where underneath the now underground fourth-century basilica (that is believed to have been a Christian place of worship by the second century) lies a second-to-third-century mithraeum. 115 Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 45. 116 T. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy’, in T. Rasimus, T. Engberg-Pedersen and I. Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, 3. 117 Early fundamental works on Paul’s relationship with Stoicism were already divided in their outlook. Bultmann emphasises Paul’s use of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe (R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910; cf. his later article that emphasises the differences, ‘Das religiöse Moment in der ethischen Unterweisung des Epiktet und das Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 [1912], 97–110, 177–191), while Adolf Bonhöffer denies any major influence of Stoicism on Paul on closer observation, apart from some similarities in vocabulary and style (A.F. Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911, esp. 98–180; cf. his later clarification in ‘Epiktet und das Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 [1912],

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

71

cism were instrumental, but Engberg-Pedersen rightly maintains that the latter should be given more attention than it has previously been granted.118 Of course, no early Christian writer was purely a Platonist or a Stoic but adopted such ideas into his own Christocentric worldview.119 Even Plato absorbed outside material into his thinking while remaining loyal to his own philosophical identity, and both Middle- and Neo-Stoicism were open to recycling certain ideas from Platonism; the fact that early Christian writers did the same in borrowing the language of the dominant Graeco-Roman philosophy of the transitional period was, therefore, no exception to a common practice, in which allegiance to an authoritative founding father such as Socrates (or, in the early Christians’ case, Christ120) was what mattered.121 Furthermore, Engberg-Pedersen stresses that “elements from alien philosophies that were absorbed into one’s own need not be understood in exactly the way they were understood as part of the philosophy from which they were taken”.122 This is also true in the early Christians’ use of Stoic philosophy. It is no wonder that Paul, a Roman citizen and a Jew deeply immersed in the cultural milieu of the Graeco-Roman world, also uses Stoic notions in his teaching to the Graeco-Roman Christian communities – especially that in the city of Rome.123 It has been suggested that the best points of comparison for finding Stoic influences in Paul can be found in those first-century Roman Stoics who do 281–305). Bonhöffer does not view Epictetus’ speeches as diatribe (Epiktet, 179). Schweitzer (Mystik, 299f.), in his turn, argues that the reason for the similarity between Paul’s ethics and those of Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius lies in their mysticism: for Paul, being-in-Christ mysticism (from which his ethics flow) and for the Stoic, pantheistic mysticism (surrendering to the divine will through reason and ethics). However, he also notes that the similarity is “eine reine Analogie” and that Paul’s ethics are “keiner anderen vergelichbar als der Jesu”. As M.L. Colish (‘Stoicism and the New Testament: An Essay in Historiography’, in ANRW II.26.1 [1992], 379) has aptly remarked, “the views of the relations between Stoicism and the New Testament have been notably fluid, and the approaches taken to it highly subjective, as each successive group of commentators has reinvented the topic and used it to mirror its own contemporary concerns”. My use here of popularised Stoic thought as a major factor in Paul’s cognitive emphasis in his ethics aims at being truthful to both Stoicism and Paul. 118 Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting’, 5. 119 Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting’, 5. 120 As interpreted to be the case in Rom. 13:14 by Thorsteinsson, Roman, 150–152; cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 67. 121 Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting’, 7. 122 Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Setting’, 8. 123 This conclusion may also be overstated. Thorsteinsson goes so far as to claim that for Paul’s Roman audience, the links between Paul’s proclamation of overcoming evil with love (Rom. 12:21) and Stoicism may have been more direct than that between Paul and Jesus (Roman, 175).

72

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

not simply show what had been written by Stoic authorities in the past but who “express the actual views of first-century AD Stoics”124, i.e. Seneca (ca. AD 1…4–65), Musonius Rufus (ca. AD 25…30–100) and Epictetus (ca. AD 50…55–125…135).125 It is noteworthy that ever since Cicero’s systematic summary of Stoic thought for the Romans in Latin around 50 BC, Stoicism had provided the Romans with “the most prominent teaching on ethics and morality”126. When Paul wrote to Rome around AD 55–59, Seneca was an influential imperial counsellor who wrote extensively on ethics, while Musonius was a teacher of philosophy, whose teachings were recorded by his students. From Epictetus, a former slave and student of Musonius, we have his Discourses that were written down by his student Arrian, when he had been exiled to teach in Nicopolis. The focus here will be on Seneca and Epictetus. It is important to realise that Stoicism was not just the popular philosophy of the great first-century Roman thinkers, but that it penetrated the common Roman morality throughout. While only a small yet powerful minority of contemporary Roman Christians were wealthy and educated, those who were (especially those of them who were Gentiles) would have been well acquainted with Roman customs, morality and teachings of the philosophical schools, notably Stoicism.127 Because of the dense population mostly residing in Roman insulae, where the wealthiest of the “marginally more economically successful”128 lived relatively spaciously downstairs and the poorest much more tightly several flights of stairs up, not even the lower class majority of first-century Christians would have been as detached from the educated part of Roman society as we might think.129 Of course, the eternal city had areas like the Palatine Hill where only the élite resided and Transtiberim (Trasteve-

124

R.M. Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans’, in Rasimus, Engberg-Pedersen and Dunderberg, Stoicism, 17; contra Engberg-Pedersen, who favours Cicero’s summary of early Stoicism in Cic. Fin., because despite late Stoicism representing a return to early Stoics such as Chrysippus (ca. 280–207 BC), it was nevertheless an “applied philosophy” presupposing the Chrysippean theoretical framework (Paul, 46). I am more inclined to favour Thorsteinsson’s approach, because my research question here relates primarily to the similarities between Paul’s cognitive application of his underlying theological conviction and the role of cognition in the application of Stoic ethics. 125 The dating varies, cf. Schnelle, Apostle, 77. 126 Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 19. It goes without saying that the roots of Stoicism are in Zeno (335–263 BC), but that the idea of the goal (telos) of human life being happiness (eudaimonia) was already developed by Aristotle (384–322 BC). To reach that goal requires the use of the reason and “practical deliberation”, not dissimilarly from the Stoics or Paul. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 48–53. 127 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 80. 128 J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998, 63. 129 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 81.

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

73

re) where many lower-class Jews and Christ-believers lived.130 On the whole, however, despite up to 99% of the inhabitants of the Empire and most residents of the capital (and, therefore, most Roman Christians) living in poverty, or near poverty,131 the city of Rome was socially rather mixed, its class divisions were often more vertical than regional, and the city had many venues such as the Forum Romanum and the public baths, where all social classes from slaves to consuls would mix.132 It must not be forgotten that already in the first century, there were Christian slaves even in the emperor’s household (Phil. 4:22; cf. 1 Clem. 63:3; 65:1), and many of those who enjoyed the former slaves’ status of freedmen still worked for their old masters.133 Thorsteinsson thus rightly argues, In light of all this, it seems reasonable to infer that many, if not most, first-century members of the Christ-movement would have been familiar with basic moral values of Roman society. Whether they were conscious of it or not, the moral teaching of Roman Stoicism would thus have had its place in their frames of reference as the most prominent philosophical teaching of the city, a teaching that coincided so well with traditional Roman morality. …In other words, whether they knew it or not, many Christ-believers of the lower classes would have been exposed to Stoic moral teaching in one way or another.134

What is of particular interest here is the similarity between the cognitive emphasis in Stoic ethics and in the moral teaching of Paul.135 In Stoicism, the 130

Lampe, From Paul, 38–40; for a description of Trastevere as the most unpleasant quarter in Rome due to its huge population density and leather tanners stinking of urine, see ibid., 49–55; Thorsteinsson, Roman, 81f. 131 Meggitt, Paul, 50–52, 99. 132 Lampe, From Paul, 58–61. 133 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 84f. 134 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 85 135 It is not within the scope of this book to discuss e.g. the alleged similarities between Paul’s self-denying dedication to the proclamation of the gospel apparent from his peristasis catalogues (1 Thess. 2:1–12; 1 Cor. 4:11f.; 2 Cor. 4:8f.; 2 Cor. 11:23–29 etc.) and those of the Stoic-Cynic wandering philosophers (e.g. Ep. Diss. 1.24.1; 3.22.45–48; Sen. Ep. 41.4–5; see A.J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989, 35–48). On Paul’s use of the Graeco-Roman diatribe style, see Chapter 5, Section 2, ‘Rhetorical Questions as a Cognitive Tool’ below. On similarities between notions of slavery and freedom, see Chapter 4, Sections 2 and 3. Other suggested parallel ideas with Stoic thought include social moderation, imagery of the body as an interdependent whole (Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:14–26), blessing one’s persecutors and not repaying evil with evil (Rom. 12:14, 17), being at peace with all people, viewing earthly authorities as divine instruments (13:1–7), the distinctly Stoic notion of ἀδιάφορα, the emphasis on love (13:8– 10; although the primacy of love as a virtue makes Paul also stand out amongst the philosophers: Wright, Paul, 1374; [as a Jew] Thompson, Moral, 209), and the adaptability of ethics with regard to the strong and the weak (see Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 23–34, 94– 96, 103). My focus here must be limited to the similarities between the rational emphasis

74

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

soul’s governing part (τὸ ἡγεµονικόν)136, or governing reason (λόγος), plays a significant role in reacting to behavioural impulses.137 The goal of the Stoic is to lead a life of ‘apathy’, which means not reacting to impulses so as to be taken over by them and be led into passions (πάθος). Whether or not one succeeds in this depends on the correct value judgment made by the ἡγεµονικόν. Only if one’s intelligence (διάνοια) is perverted or fails, a false judgement (κρίσις / δόξα) takes place and leads from impulse to passion. These impulses, or, pre-emotions, are not morally reprehensible per se, but the passions are. The leading passions in Stoicism are desire (ἐπιθυµία), fear (φόβος), grief (λύπη) and pleasure (ἡδωνή).138 Passions are thus nothing but a dysfunction in the soul’s governing part and an illness contrary to nature; to live a life guided by reason is to live according to nature. Most Stoics adhered to the traditional list of the four cardinal virtues: prudence (φρόνησις / prudentia), moderation or self-control (σωφροσύνη / temperantia), justice (δικαιοσύνη / iustitia) and courage (ἀνδρεία / fortitudo).139 φρόνησις (a notion of great interest here) is closely connected with Aristotle’s list that lacks it,140 for it may be defined as the wisdom and the sufficient insight to judge between actions, that is, the intellectual virtue that makes one’s desire to do good into thoroughly deliberated actions in each particular situation; it is “the practical counterpart of the other, theoretical branch of intellectual virtue, sophia (science)”.141 It is this aspect of the Graeco-Roman ethical tradition that the Roman Stoics stress. As Engberg-Pedersen puts it, The cognitive emphasis is very strong in Stoicism…Everything hangs on coming to see the good, on getting a proper rational grasp of it. Then all ‘passions’ will be blotted out. There of Stoic ethics (inherited from Socrates; Thompson, Moral, 7) and that of the Pauline paraclesis. 136 Cf. e.g. Ep. Diss. 3.21.1–3; Plut. Virt. Mor. 441C-D. 137 See, e.g., Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 23; Roman, 16f. 138 Stob. Anth. 2.7.10; cf. Plut. Virt. Mor. 441C-D. 139 See e.g. Stob. Anth. 2.7.5; 2.31.123; Plut. Virt. Mor. 440E–441D; Mus. Diss., 4.44.10–35; 4.48.1–14; Sen. Ep. 85.2; 90.46; 120.11 (quoted in Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 26). 140 Aristotle lists justice, moderation, courage and magnanimity (µεγαλοψυχία / magnanimitas) in Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1.8; 3.4; 4; 5 (cited in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 50f.). 141 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 51. Further on the same page, “From Aristotle’s whole way of setting up his ethics, we can see that even though he attaches great importance to the moral virtues viewed as so many attitudes of emotion and desire, it is the rational element in them, phronēsis, that has paramount importance. For it is this virtue which articulates the actual content of the end, of eudaimonia.” On the role of prudence in Aristotle’s ethics and its similarity to the logic of Paul’s argument, see further Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’, 220–224. See Aristot. Nic. Eth. 6.3.1, with τέχνη (art or technical skill) followed by the cognitive ἐπιστήµη (scientific knowledge), φρόνησις (prudence), σοφία (wisdom) and νοῦς (intelligence); cf. 6.6.2.

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

75

will be no weakness of the will. And one will always and only act upon one’s (new) insight.142

Cognitive Similarities between Roman Stoics and Paul Because Paul addresses Rom. 12–15 to the situation in Rome, Thorsteinsson argues that Stoicism functions as the hermeneutical key to understanding it: the Romans’ “reasonable143 worship” (12:1) embodies the moral principles presented in those chapters, which is what Paul wants them to understand.144 There is a strong link between both the cognitive and the sacrificial language of Rom. 12 and Rom. 6–8. The language of λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom. 12:1) is particularly significant, for it sums up what Paul teaches in Rom. 6.145 In Stoicism, God is λόγος (ratio) and human beings λογικοί.146 One may hear echoes of Seneca147 in Paul’s use of the transformation of the mind terminology (12:2), which may be “an effort to claim a Graeco-Roman religious ideal for [his] new ethic”148. The φρονεῖν language (8:5f., 27; 12:3, 16; 14:6 and 15:5f.) would also have brought to the Roman audience’s mind φρόνησις that Stoics often considered to be the most important cardinal virtue.149 Paul clearly wants to remind (15:15) his audience of the importance of worshipping God by morally upright thought and action and, similarly to Seneca, exhort them to avoid evil and do good, so that they might discern (δοκιµάζειν, Rom. 12:2 cf. 1:28; 2:18) the will of God.150 The priority of the right kind of action over cultic worship of the gods is also a notion in Stoicism: “Would you win over the gods? Then be a good man! Whoever imitates them, is worshipping them sufficiently.”151 Just as for the Stoics (per142

Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 53. N.b. the misleading translations of λογικός as “spiritual” (ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or even “true and proper” (NIV) and “appropriate for you” (GW). Clearly, Paul is here employing a rational Stoic notion transformed to (Jewish) Christian use (cf. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 127, 131). To translate it as “spiritual” is vague and dualistic. Paul wants to emphasise the connection between the correct use of the mind and the body in the Christian life. 144 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 104; cf. Matera, Romans, 19. 145 See further Section 4, ‘Some Cognitive Comparisons in the Pauline Corpus’, and Chapter 5, Section 1 below. 146 Ep. Diss. 1.3.1–3; 1.16.20–21; 2.8.2–3, 11–14; 3.1.25; Sen. Ep. 66.12; 76.9–19; 92.1–2, 27; 124.23 (“Rationale animal es.”); Nat. 1, Pref. 14. 147 Sen. Ep. 6.1; 94.48. 148 R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, 732. 149 So also Thorsteinsson, Roman, 64, 93f., 142, 148; with regard to Aristotle, cf. Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’, 221-225. 150 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 138, 147f.; Sen. Ep. 94.50; 95.34–35. 151 Sen. Ep. 95.50; cf. Sen. Ep. 95.47; Sen. Ben. 1.6.3. As Thorsteinsson (Roman, 139f.) has pointed out, neither Musonius nor Epictetus criticise traditional cultic worship in such 143

76

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

haps influenced by the Cynics),152 the relationship between theory and bodily practice was an important question for Paul, too. The presentation of the body as a living sacrifice to God’s service is the goal of Paul’s cognitive ethical instruction. It is inseparable from his understanding of the Christian community as a body and a family (12:3–8; 12:9–14:15).153 Many studies focus on the most systematic ethical part of Romans, i.e. Rom. 12:1–15:14.154 In my study, although the early verses of Rom. 12 are relevant, my focus shall be on chapters 6–8 and the cognitive aspect of Paul’s baptismal ethics there. It is there that Paul lays out the foundation of his ethics in the being-in-Christ through baptism; the rest is simply application, although Rom. 12:1–3 does indicate a return to highlighting the cognitive yet also embodied nature of Paul’s ethics.155 The emphatically cognitive element in a morally correct life is clear in Stoicism. The first impulse is often a physical one, or a preparation for the actualisation of a passion, but according to Seneca, the mind has the power either to reject it or surrender to it. Passion [adfectus], consequently, does not consist in being moved by the impressions that are presented to the mind, but in surrendering to these and following up such a chance prompting.156 That you may know, further, how the passions [adfectus] begin, grow, and run riot, I may say that the first prompting is involuntary, a preparation for passion, as it were, and a sort of menace; the next is combined with an act of volition… 157

Likewise for Epictetus, passion (πάθος) such as wrong desire (ἐπιθυµία) is the result of a wrong value judgment, an intellectual lapse. Ignorance or false opinion is always found behind wrongdoing.158 Natural law guides right judgments and deeds.159 For example homosexual relationships are not in harsh terms as Seneca, although they, too, prioritise the imitation of God and moral uprightness over cultic sacrifice. 152 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 145f. 153 Thompson, Moral, 171, noting that the body in Stoicism meant “the body politic”. 154 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 92–104, 138–149. 155 In this way, my approach differs from that of Luke Timothy Johnson, who argues that the link between Paul’s moral and religious modes of discourse (and, therefore, between the agencies of the human mind and the Spirit in morally correct behavour) can be found in the mind of Christ to which the believers are to conform under the direction of the Holy Spirit and enabled by the Spirit (Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’, 235). Johnson’s argument does not view baptism in close connection with Paul’s teaching about the Spirit. 156 Sen. Ira 2.3.1. 157 Sen. Ira 2.4.1. 158 E.g. Sen. Ep. 20.4, 6; 28.9; cf. Rom. 7:14–25. Thorsteinsson, Roman, 169. 159 Ep. Diss. 1.26.1f.

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

77

accordance with nature (κατὰ φύσιν160), as they are not in line with the natural desire (προθυµία) to use one’s organs for the created purpose of intercourse between male and female. In a way that is very similar to Paul’s argument in Rom. 1,161 it is asserted that such practice contains its own punishment: it destroys the manhood (τὸν ἄνδρα) of both the active and passive partner.162 It has thus been suggested that Rom. 1:18–32 should be read as a Stoically adapted narrative of the Gentile lapse.163 Paul uses same-sex relationships in a Stoic-sounding way as an example of a theological lapse (resulting from a darkened understanding of God’s existence, 1:21f.) that leads to idolatrous deeds (1:23) and an ethical lapse (1:24). Idolatrous deeds (1:25) lead the Gentiles to passions (1:26) and shameful deeds (1:26f.), just as an intellectual lapse in theology (1:28) leads to a debased mind (1:28) and more shameful deeds (1:28–31). If false understanding of God and oneself plays a key role in Paul’s Fall narrative, we may expect that correct understanding does the same in his ethical instruction in Rom. 6–8 also (and indeed throughout the epistle, particularly in the summary statement of 12:1f.). The divine λόγος in Stoicism is tied up with the notion of the indwelling of the spirit in people, not dissimilarly from Paul. Seneca believes in the indwelling of God’s holy spirit, who is the custos, tutor and guardian of good and bad deeds – hence, a very ethical force. In Graeco-Roman society, the custos had a similar role in the upbringing of boys as the παιδαγωγός (cf. Gal. 3:24f.). Seneca writes, [A] holy spirit indwells within us [sacer intra nos spiritus sedet], one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian [custos]. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man ‘A god doth dwell, but what god know we not.’164

Furthermore, Seneca writes that reason (ratio) is “nothing else than a portion of the divine spirit [pars divini spiritus] set in a human body”.165 Epictetus writes in strikingly similar terms to Paul in 1 Cor. 6:13–20, But you are a being of primary importance; you are a fragment [ἀπόσπασµα] of God; you have within you a part [µέρος] of Him. Why, then, are you ignorant of your own kinship?

160

Ep. Diss. 1.6.9. This is in line with the Hellenistic Jewish “convergence between the Torah and the law of nature” (Thompson, Moral, 129f.). 162 Ep. Diss. 2.10.17; cf. Rom. 1:24, 27. 163 As N. Huttunen (‘Stoic Law in Paul?’, in Rasimus, Engberg-Pedersen and Dunderberg, Stoicism, 47, 51f.) acknowledges, this is not without Jewish parallels either (e.g. Wis. 13–14); cf. Thompson, Moral, 33, 130f. 164 Sen. Ep. 41.2 (quoting Verg. A. 8.352: “Quis deus incertum est, habitat deus.”). 165 Sen. Ep. 66.12. 161

78

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

Why do you not know the source from which you have sprung? Will you not bear in mind [τί οὐκ οἶδας], whenever you eat, who you are that eat, and whom you are nourishing? Whenever you indulge in intercourse with women, who you are that do this? Whenever you mix in society, whenever you take physical exercise, whenever you converse, do you not know [οὐκ οἶδας] that you are nourishing God, exercising God? You are bearing God about with you, you poor wretch, and know it not [καὶ ἀγνοεῖς]! Do you suppose I am speaking of some external God, made of silver or gold? It is within yourself that you bear Him, and do not perceive that you are defiling Him with impure thoughts [ἀκαθάρτοις µὲν διανοήµασι] and filthy actions. Yet in the presence of even an image of God you would not dare to do anything of the things you are now doing. But when God Himself is present within you, seeing and hearing everything, are you not ashamed to be thinking and doing such things as these, O insensible of your own nature, and object of God’s wrath!166

For Epictetus, the spirit or λόγος is indeed the enabler of ethical behaviour, and goodness the goal and content of ethics,167 in conformity with Zeus’ will.168 In Stoicism, the rational self participates in the rationality of the divine λόγος. Engberg-Pedersen calls this a “cognitivist” conception of God.169 It is no wonder that according to one scholar, “the source of the moral imperative for the Stoic was both within the self and written into the universe.”170 As many have pointed out before, this is not that different from Paul’s thinking. For both Paul and Epictetus, theology and philosophy were a matter not just of thought but of life as well.171 Paul, too, thinks that the indwelling Spirit of God and Christ plays a key role in the establishment and living out of the new life in Christ (Rom. 7:6; 8:2, 4–17, 23, 26–27). The Spirit even intercedes for the baptised when they do not know what to pray (8:26)! Again, perhaps Paul chose to use language that connects the indwelling of the divine Spirit with ethics, because he knew that it would have sounded familiar to most of Rome’s Gentile audience as well as to the Jews who knew of the prophecy of Joel 2:28. In so doing, however, he also transcends traditional Stoic teaching. For Paul, there is no doubt that the spirit is Christ’s Spirit, in whom the baptised have been adopted as God’s children. Whereas the Stoics thought about the indwelling divine spirit in universal terms, for Paul everything is connected to Christ. According to Paul, Christ fully determines the Christian identity, but the Pauline model for self-identification may also have employed and built on Stoic material. Engberg-Pedersen suggests that Paul uses an adapted Stoic 166

Ep. Diss. 2.8.11–14. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 156. 168 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 153–156 169 T. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Divine and Human Agency, 124–126. 170 Oden, Radical, 72 (original emphasis). 171 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 151, 156. 167

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

79

model of the individual’s identifying first with Christ and, through Christ, relating afresh to the Christian community, seeing baptism as “a celebration or sign of the movement of an individual ‘I’ away from identifying with the individual, bodily being that he or she (also) is and from making that the locus of normativity.”172 Engberg-Pedersen is here comparing Paul’s ethical pattern to the Stoic theory of οἰκείωσις, which he translates as “familiarization” and interprets as a change in identity and self-understanding. One’s changed self-understanding alters what value one ascribes to things that now ‘belong’ or are ‘alien’ to oneself, that is, what things are in accordance with one’s own (freshly perceived) nature.173 In Stoicism, god is reason, and it is natural for the rational man to realise that in order to act according to his nature, he ought to align himself with that reason that is apparent in the makeup of the universe. It is reason that belongs to the rational man and unites him with god and other rational human beings. This, EngbergPedersen suggests, helps us understand Paul’s teaching on the change of the Christian’s identity from self-centredness to Christ-centredness (e.g. Gal. 2:19f.).174 This, as he adapts it to Paul’s teaching, forms an I!X!S model, according to which the formerly self-absorbed I (I) becomes one with God and Christ (X) and, self-identifying now as belonging to Christ, reaches a new stage (S) of understanding oneself as one among others who share in participating in X, demarcating a shift from egoism to altruism.175 Contrary to the “modern ‘individualism’ as reflected in Bultmann’s own existentialism”, Engberg-Pedersen argues for an individual’s changed selfunderstanding that leads to a shared, communitarian perspective and practice.176 The Christian self is thus taken up to the new level of selfidentification with “God, Christ, the world and the others”177 without itself vanishing: in a manner comparable to simul iustus et peccator, according to Engberg-Pedersen, “a human being will belong simultaneously at both the Iand the S-levels”178. Further, belonging to the S-level is not just a matter of cognitive self-identification, which leads to a certain set of desires, but also of being led by the Spirit (Paul) or the logos (Stoics).179 Although the new 172

Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 228. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 53–57. 174 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 55. 175 In Stoicism, the X level refers to divine reason (or, sometimes, the sage as a mediator): Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, e.g. 33–44, 166–169, 293–304; similarly on the importance of group ethos as the basis for Paul’s “ought” (contra Bultmann and the “inadequate” indicative-imperative dialectic), Thompson, Moral, 5, 44. 176 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 7. 177 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 7. 178 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 36; cf. 9 where he seems to contradict this statement. 179 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 38f. 173

80

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

existence (S) is “an all or nothing affair”, (that is, one is either taken over by God or Christ or reason or not) it is at the same time still an incomplete “already – but not yet quite” affair,180 which is why Paul resorts to paraenesis in his letters, in harmony with his Stoic contemporaries.181 Just as Stoicism viewed some as having wisdom and others as having a mere basic grasp of it, so does Paul resort to paraenesis precisely because he wishes to advance the progress of those who are in Christ but have not quite yet realised what it means.182 This alleged similarity between Stoic οἰκείωσις and Paul is fascinating. At the same time, however, we must not forget that the similarity does not necessarily imply direct borrowing from Stoicism, let alone dependence on it alone, for the command to love one’s neighbour as oneself was already given in Lev. 19:18,183 and is built upon by the prophets and highlighted by Jesus. Theological Differences between the Stoics and Paul The most obvious differences between the Stoics and Paul are Paul’s monotheism over against Stoic polytheism or even pantheism184, and Paul’s belief in a final end-event over against a cyclical Stoic conflagration.185 Many of the similarities may indeed appear to be identical at first sight, but differences can be found on closer observation. For instance, both Paul and Epictetus encourage people to stay in their divinely given social positions and make the best use of them.186 For Paul, however, it is Christ who “secures the indifference of social positions”187 and grants equality between Christians in different statuses, and not between all people, as Epictetus teaches.

180

Earlier, however, Engberg-Pedersen denies there being any room “for ideas about the relationship between present and future righteousness like the one captured in the phrase ‘already, but also not yet’”, granting that there is “plenty of room” for the idea of moral progression (Paul, 8; cf. 57). 181 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 40. Engberg-Pedersen also maintains that this paraenetic structure of Paul’s letters that borrow much from Stoicism is what brings them the internal coherence that e.g. Heikki Räisänen fails to see in them (4f.). 182 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 72. 183 So also Thompson, Moral, 109. 184 Huttunen (‘Stoic Law’, 48) also rightly notes that Stoicism as well contained some monotheistic elements. 185 See J.A. Harrill, ‘Stoic Physics, the Universal Conflagration, and the Eschatological Destruction of the “Ignorant and Unstable” in 2 Peter’, in Rasimus, Engberg-Pedersen and Dunderberg, Stoicism, 115–140. 186 See my discussion of slavery in Chapter 4, Section 3, ‘Life in Free Slavery under God’ below. 187 Huttunen, ‘Stoic Law’, 46.

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

81

In addition to such differences in the content, the emphases and foundational statements of Paul’s ethics are distinctly Pauline, as Schnelle rightly observes.188 Especially the more exclusive role of the love command as Paul’s leading ethical principle catches Schnelle’s interest: love provides the gift of the relationship with God, a new self-understanding and a renewed relationship with one’s neighbour.189 This is, interestingly, clear even in Rom. 12, which starts with a cognitive (and physical) exhortation but ends up being primarily about love in the Christian community, building even on the teaching of Jesus himself.190 Pauline ethics thus have an independent foundational structure, according to which behaviour is judged in light of the Christ event that frees one from the power of sin, empowers renewed action by the Spirit and enables Christ-like existence in love.191 The focal role of Christ and the freedom from the damning power of sin, eternal death and punishment differ from Stoicism. Love for Paul means the love of Christ, in his fulfilling of the law for those who could not do so themselves, in his death for sinners and in his resurrection and future return to raise all who are in him. Love, as Paul’s supreme ‘virtue’, is what leads to the other virtues such as joy and peace. They all, however, are inseparable from the person of Christ and his significance for those who have been baptised into him. This is fundamentally different from Stoic thought.192 Although the theological basis and motivation of Paul’s ethics are different from Graeco-Roman ethics, it is an overstatement to say that a religious motivation is altogether lacking in the latter, especially in Seneca and Epictetus.193 Theories about God, God’s love, God’s presence in the world, belief in the divine origin of humanity and in everyone’s equal share in the divine λόγος, all motivate their ethics.194 Although these can be taken as representing great similarities between the theological motivation for Stoic and Pauline morality,195 it is nevertheless clear that Paul motivates his recipients to lead morally correct lives not solely as a response to the nature of creation as 188

Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 148, 157. Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 148; cf. Thorsteinsson, who argues that in Stoicism, the ethical scope encompassed universal humanity (loving others as members of “Nature” or “God”), while Roman Christianity focused on loving one’s neighbour within the Christian community (as members of Christ; Roman, 156–175, 190–198; ‘Stoicism’, 32). 190 Especially Rom. 12:14 cf. Matt 5:44. 191 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 148. 192 In the Pastoral Epistles, the more central role of vices and virtues (notably εὐσέβεια/pietas) suggests “an increasing openness to those aspects of Greco-Roman morality that are reconcilable with the traditional Jewish morality” (Thompson, Moral, 211, cf. 181–206, 210), at the expense of the pneumatological motivation. 193 Thorsteinsson, Roman, 140; cf. Horrell, Solidarity, 13f., 24. 194 Sen. Ep. 78.7; cf. Sen. Prov. 2.7; 4.7; Sen. Ben. 2.29.6; 4.7.1. 195 Cf. Thorsteinsson, Roman, 141. 189

82

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

it stands after the Fall (Rom. 1:20–23), but as a response to God’s new creation in Christ.196 We may also speak of “the making real of the new identity already given in baptism”197 as the goal of Paul’s ethics. For Paul, the obedience of faith can only take place for the sake of Christ’s name (Rom. 1:5). It is not simply “self-willed”198 but something that the Spirit wills (Rom. 8:5f).199 Other theological differences between Roman Stoics and Paul have mostly to do with hamartiology and Christology.200 In contrast with the optimistic Epictetus, for instance, who stresses free will and the human ability to discern what is and is not in one’s control and to increase one’s happiness by bettering things that are,201 Paul teaches that the human will has fallen into sin, which disables the human desire for good and ultimately brings about death.202 Most importantly, “[d]ie Destruktivität menschlichen Seins kann der Mensch nicht selbst überwinden”.203 As one scholar has put it, Christian ethics categorically denies the rationalistic optimism that underlies Stoic obedience wherein the natural man is regarded as actually capable of the moral good. The Christian understanding of life can agree with the Stoic in the assertion that when a man does evil he is not really doing what he wants to do (…). But the Stoic attributes disobedience to error (…). Since reason is assumed to be capable of correction of the will, all that is needed for moral action is right reasoning. Christian ethics views man’s wrongdoing, not as a mistake or rational error, but in the more profound sense that man is ‘radically incapable of doing what he wants to do’ because his will is under bondage to sin. It is useless to appeal to reason by telling a man he ought to do his duty.204

In Paul’s mind, Christ is needed not to make the old sinful existence better but to bring about an entire change of rule and existence, which happens in baptism, where the gift of the Spirit is also given.205 While Epictetus writes about a model of ethical self-insight and development, Paul focuses on entry into a relationship with Christ and a break from sin.206 For Paul, baptism

196

Similarly, Wright, Paul, 1371f. Wright, Paul, 1373. 198 Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 76. 199 Wright, Paul, 1374. 200 Blischke (Begründung, 455) rightly points out the similarities between the form of Paul’s argument with philosophers such as Epictetus, but also how different Paul’s christological foundation is from them. 201 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 150f. 202 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 156; Blischke, Begründung, 453. 203 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 157. 204 Oden, Radical, 73. Similarly, Bonhöffer, Epiktet, 178. 205 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 157. 206 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 157. Additionally, (as has been noted by Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 171) the idea of God retaliating in our stead (Rom. 12:19) has no parallel in Stoic 197

2. Cognition and Ethics in Paul’s Stoic Context

83

plays a crucial role in the formation of that relationship. Thus his exhortation to put on Christ (13:14) may with good reason be seen as an incentive to adopt the baptismal identity as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ (6:4– 11), instead of parallelism with Epictetus’s exhortation to imitate Socrates.207 That baptismal identity also aims at forming a communal identity, which makes it stand out from the more individualistic formation of the ancient moralists.208 Paul’s Stoic Heritage: Cognition of Being in Christ What Paul teaches “is not Pure Stoicism but rather a Christian adaptation of it”209. In the words of N.T. Wright, “Even when Paul is saying things which are similar to what one might have heard in the moralism of his day, he regularly adds another dimension which subtly and profoundly changes the whole mood and impact.”210 He views their descriptions of the good way of life as a mirage that can only become a reality in Christ.211 What Paul makes use of and appreciates about pagan philosophy as a valid search for wisdom, he nevertheless views as unattainable without Christ and his Spirit. The same applies to his view of the Torah as well, as may be seen in Rom. 7.212 Wright summarises Paul’s approach well along the lines of 1 Cor. 1:22–25: “allow the gospel to state the terms, and let everything else find a home within it – and there will be not only wisdom but also power”213. Despite all the important differences, a convincing case remains to be made for why Paul’s letter to the Romans contains such a strongly cognitive element in its ethical teaching that in many ways resembles Stoic sources. sources. It would also have seemed out of place for them to give such a positive treatise of joy and grief as Paul does (12:15). 207 Contra Thorsteinsson, ‘Stoicism’, 33; contra Thompson, according to whom Paul assumes that “his readers will keep the commandments” (insofar as they have the Spirit) in line with the Jewish Scriptures (Moral, 6–9, 209). 208 Thompson, Moral, 53; cf. Horrell’s communal reading summarised above. 209 Huttunen, ‘Stoic Law’, 46. 210 Wright, Paul, 1376. 211 Wright, Paul, 1381. 212 Wright (Paul, 1378) takes Rom. 7 to be Paul’s “retrospective theological analysis of the plight of the devout Jew under Torah in terms of the well-known dilemma of the pagan moralists”, with reference to Ovid Met. 7.20f. (“Ah, if I could, I should be more myself. But some strange power draws me on against my will. Desire persuades me one way, reason another. I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse.”) and Arist. Nic. Eth. 7 (who emphasises the role of rational deliberation in the practice of restraint against the passions [οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ µὴ βουλεύσαντο ἄγονται ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους, 7.7.8], although he does acknowledge that those who are unrestrained by nature are more difficult to change than those whose unrestraint is caused by habit [7.10.4]). 213 Wright, Paul, 1383 cf. 1376f.

84

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

Making use of popularised Stoic models familiar to his recipients, but doing so in a distinctly Christ-centred way, Paul wanted his addressees to find motivation for their upright living from reckoning who they were as baptised into Christ, and whose they were as his slaves.

3. Paul’s Paraclesis in Light of the New Perspective The so-called New Perspective on Paul approaches the notion of the law (νόµος) from the angle of identity-establishing boundary markers. According to the New Perspective readings,214 the Judaism of Paul’s time generally taught that fulfilling the law meant remaining in the covenant given by God – not entering it. “The place of obedience [to the law] in the overall scheme is always the same: it is the consequence of being in the covenant and the requirement for remaining in the covenant.”215 In other words, the New Perspective views the significance of Torah-obedience as living out the covenant given by God to the people of Israel and, in so doing, making use of the dietary and sexual-ethical laws as the identity-defining boundary between “us” and “the other”.216 In Barclay’s words, “the covenantal structure of most forms of Judaism always ensured a recognition of the priority of God’s grace, so that even in Judaism the indicative precedes and grounds the imperative”217. Thus, as has already been noted above,218 following the New Per214 For the most seminal works, see Sanders, Paul; E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983; J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, London: SCM, 1990; Romans 1–8; Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B), Waco: Word Books, 1988; The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Cambridge: CUP, 1993; The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998; N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991; Paul. For the most radical New Perspective view, according to which Paul lacks a consistent theology (of the law) almost completely in his self-contradictory and highly contextual writings, see H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983, esp. 16–18 and 264ff. For a summary of the basic differences, see M.B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul (GBS 26), Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002. 215 Sanders, Paul, 319f. 216 As Judith Lieu has shown (‘“Impregnable ramparts and walls of iron”. Boundary and Identity in “Judaism” and “Christianity”’, NTS 48 [2002], 299, 301, 305), the idea of the much later notion of “identity” is already present in the sense of “the self” and “the other” in Jewish canonical and deuterocanonical texts. The idea of ‘boundary markers’ in the construction of identity has been taken up by NT scholars, which has proven fruitful in the study of Paul and the Law. 217 Barclay, Obeying, 227. Cf. M.G. Abegg Jr.’s view that erga nomou concern issues of legal interpretation (doctrine/halakah) rather than ethics (‘Paul and James on the Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in J.J. Collins and C.A. Evans [eds], Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, 67–68).

3. Paul’s Paraclesis in Light of the New Perspective

85

spective appears to make it straightforward to accept the indicativeimperative schema, because it strips the notions of the law and ‘imperative’ of their negative connotations.219 However, according to one scholar who does not believe in the existence of an indicative-imperative problem, Although progress in refining Paul’s imperatives has to some extent been made within the new perspective on Paul, it still remains within Bultmann’s way of casting the problem. This is evident from the fact that the imperatives are interpreted retrospectively as a renewed call to conversion.220

Suffice it to say in this short space that the New Perspective, of course, has its critics who, for instance, defend the view that many texts within Palestinian Judaism did teach the kind of righteousness through the law that Luther and indeed Paul also opposed (e.g. Simon Gathercole), that Paul’s anthropology was more pessimistic than that of mainstream Second Temple Judaism (Timo Laato), or that Paul’s ‘predestination monergism’ differed from the ‘synergistic nomism’ of his Second Temple contemporaries (Timo Eskola).221 Perhaps first-century Judaism had more varied views on the law than what either the “Old Perspective” or the New Perspective allow us to see. As Francis Watson argues, there may be a “false dichotomy between the old Paul and the new one”, and Paul’s particular antithesis between divine and human agency may simply be “one further manifestation of the interpretative difference that is everywhere evident in early Jewish literature”.222 Without, therefore, denying that there probably were groups within Second Temple Judaism teaching Torah-observance as salvific,223 the approach 218

See Chapter 2 on Horn. The same applies to the notion of obedience: see S.J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, 12. 220 Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 283. 221 See e.g. T. Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach, Atlanta: Scholars, 1995; Eskola, Theodicy; D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism, vols 1–2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001–2004; Gathercole, Boasting, esp. chs 1–4; S. Westerholm’s clear survey of the “old” and the New Perspective views and a defence of the traditional reading, without disregarding the new insights, in Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and his Critics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. 222 F. Watson, ‘Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Divine and Human Agency, 100. 223 M. Vogel (‘Ob Tugend lehrbar sei. Stimmen und Gegenstimmen im hellenistischen Judentum mit einem Ausblick auf Paulus’, in Horn and Zimmermann, Jenseits, 159–176) compares Paul with 4 Macc. and 4 Ezra, finding that Paul’s pessimism with regard to the law is close to the latter, but in a more thought-through and exemplified manner. In 4 Macc., Vogel sees the rationally optimistic self-awareness of Hellenistic Judaism, according to which the law of Moses is a model for ethical practice submitted to “godly reason219

86

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

in this book to the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics through the interplay between baptism and cognition has its similarities with the New Perspective method. As Hazel Sherman has pointed out, baptism can be viewed as an event in which the Christian’s allegiances are transferred to the lordship of Christ, quite comparably to the New Perspective view of the law. Like the Jewish law, Sherman claims, baptism is a rite of “getting in and staying in” – incorporation into Christ and working out one’s allegiance to him in every sphere of life.224 Paul’s paraclesis, then, of which grammatical imperatives form merely a part, has the purpose of bringing about and strengthening the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19, 26) or the ‘staying in’ of those who are already in Christ. It exists to remind Paul’s addressees of what Christ has done, who they are in Christ, and whose they are. It is the Spirit-inspired cognition of this reminder that can lead to the newness of life that is characterised by freedom from sin and freedom to serve God and the neighbour in righteousness and love. Indeed, what carries most weight in Paul’s paraclesis is the cognitive reminder of the baptismal identity and not the form, imperative or other, that the exhortation takes.

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context Before coming to a deeper exegetical analysis of Rom. 6–8, I need to sketch a brief outline of the way in which baptism and cognition interact in the rest of the Pauline corpus. Within the limited space available, I consciously focus only on the main baptismal texts.

ing”. 4 Ezra, however, contains a pessimistic post-AD-70 emphasis on the evil heart of man (4 Ezra 3:19–22). There, the human freedom of decision between good and evil is limited to the negative, which is comparable to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 7. For the hamartiologically pessimistic Paul, virtue is not teachable as it is in Platonic (or, indeed, Stoic) optimism, but depends solely on the revelation of the Son (172) and in the reception of the Spirit (173). The law is παιδαγωγός only insofar as it leads the Christian to cry out for help in the words of Romans 7:24 (173), which implies that for Paul, any law-based ‘imperative’ could not suffice to motivate ethically correct living (contra Thompson, Moral, 6). Cf. Eskola, Theodicy, 307 (“Predestinarian theology has further resulted in a synergistic soteriology…soteriological dualism was united with nomism by all groups from the Pharisees and the Qumran community to the community of 4 Ezra.”). 224 H. Sherman, ‘“Getting in and Staying in”: Unexpected Connections between E.P. Sanders on Paul and Expectations of Baptism Today’, in S.E. Porter and A.R. Cross (eds), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (JSNTSup 234), London: Sheffield Academic, 2002, 117–119.

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

87

Galatians 3:27 The structure of Rom. 6–8 is paralleled in the earlier text of Gal. 3:26–5:26: baptism, slavery, law, Spirit, flesh fighting against the Spirit, and the will and knowledge all feature in the argument whose concrete foundation is Christ and baptism into Christ. In fact, Paul seems to reinterpret the baptismal formula of Gal. 3:26–28 in Rom. 5:1–8:39, where he addresses dying and rising with Christ explicitly in conjunction with baptism for the first time, perhaps driven by the Corinthian crisis. 225 In Gal. 2:19f., Paul does, however, join death to the law and life to God with being crucified with Christ and living (or, more precisely, Christ living within) in faith. This is remarkably similar to the into-Christ and in-Christ language associated with baptism in 3:26–28 (cf. Gal. 5:24 and Rom. 6:2–11), where Paul returns to baptism immediately after referring to faith. Gal. 2:19f. may, therefore, itself be a reference to an earlier tradition of baptismal death and life,226 in which case Paul would be arguing in two cyclical layers in the rough sequence of baptismal life in Christ (and Christ in the baptised) – law – Spirit, first in 2:19–3:24 and then from a fresh angle and in more detail in 3:25–5:26. As is the case with any baptismal text in the NT, scholarship is divided on how concrete or symbolic the role played by the baptismal rite is in 3:27.227 Exegetes who take the concrete approach (sometimes characterised as ‘sacramental’) often claim that the Christian state of being in Christ and the new life in Christ are somehow effected by baptism. Richard Longenecker hears in Gal. 3:27 an echo of an early baptismal liturgy (or a baptismal confession) due to its similarity with Col. 3:11 and 1 Cor. 7:17–28 and 12:13,228 and H.D. Betz emphasises how the confession would have communicated to the initiates their new status in Christ that would affect their self-understanding and how Paul’s reference to the baptismal event, of which the Galatians would have had first-hand experience, served as a “reminder” and “the cardinal 225

Betz, ‘Transferring’, 85f., 105, 107, 110; cf. Gal. 2:19; 5:24. R.N. Longenecker speaks of “our spiritual identification with his death” (my italics) in his Galatians (WBC 41), Dallas: Word Books, 1990, 91–94 (although he refers to the Pauline “to die to” and “to live to” language especially in Rom. 6:2, 10f. and 7:2–6 and to the salvific role of Christ’s death e.g. in Rom. 6:1–7, yet with no explicit reference to baptism). Any discussion of baptismal language in these verses is lacking in such recent commentaries as T.S. Schreiner, Galatians (ZECNT), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010, 170–172 (although he compares Gal. 2:20 with Rom. 6:4 and Gal. 2:19 with Rom. 7:4, warning against reading Gal. in light of Rom.) and in A.A. Das, Galatians (CC), Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014, 236f., 267–273. 227 See my discussion of baptism in Rom. 6 in Chapter 4 below. 228 Longenecker, Galatians, 155 (but he does not read baptism as ex opere operato and interprets it as “the outward sign and heavenly seal of that new relationship established by faith”, 156). 226

88

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

proof” for Paul’s argument.229 Heinrich Schlier, for instance, sees in the imagery of putting on Christ a concrete ‘ontological’ change, emphasising entry into the new life in Christ and stepping into a new aeon through baptism.230 According to Betz, this is why Paul uses the ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστόν formula in Rom. 6:3, instead of using the language of being baptised εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα (1 Cor. 1:13, 15).231 Schlier specifies that being in Christ is accomplished in baptism through the new creation (Gal. 6:15f.; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) and birth of the new inner ‘I’, that is, “Christ in me” (Gal. 2:20).232 Similarly, Betz sees baptism εἰς Χριστόν as “being incorporated into the body of Christ and having some form of union with Christ” and as a change of status.233 In light of the imagery of the change of status from slaves to children and heirs in Gal. 4:1–5:1, which forms the background for Paul’s similar language in Rom. 6, such emphasis on a concrete change somehow closely bound up with the baptismal rite appears persuasive. The symbolic reading has been most notably defended by Dunn, who argues that faith and the Spirit are the primary factors in Paul’s soteriology and baptism is merely an aside, “an expression of the more regularly emphasised faith”.234 Because of the central place of baptism in so many Pauline texts, however, Dunn’s reading fails to convince me, as will be explained below. Just as in Rom. 6, so also in Gal. 3, baptism marks a concrete change of lordships, which is God’s doing and becomes a tangible point of initiation for faith to take hold of.235 For Paul, baptism seems to mark the point at which the flesh is crucified (as some have taken the “baptismal aorist” of 5:24 to mean) in order that the life of Christ might become the life of the Christian, an object of imitation and a pattern for holy life (Gal. 2:20; cf. 2 Cor. 4:10ff.).236 229

H.D. Betz, Galatians: a Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, 184f. 230 H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962, 172–174; contra Dunn, Galatians, 129, 132; and J.D.G. Dunn, ‘“Baptized” as Metaphor’, in S.E. Porter and A.R. Cross (eds), Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White (JSNTSup 171), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999, 299f. 231 Betz, ‘Transferring’, 105,111. 232 Schlier, Galater, 173. 233 Betz, ‘Transferring’, 108. 234 Dunn, Galatians, 131; similarly K. Kuula, Paavali: Kristinuskon ensimmäinen teologi, Helsinki: Edita, 2001, 254–256. 235 Cf. B.W. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998, 66. 236 G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow, New York: St Martin’s, 1966, 74f. The Aktionsart vs. verbal aspect approach to the aorist tense will be discussed in Chapter 4, Section 1, ‘Insights from Verbal Aspect and Voice’, showing Beasley-Murray’s

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

89

The purpose of Galatians is for Paul to remind his addressees of the gospel that he represents (Gal. 1:7–9) and to convince them of his Christ-given authority (1:11f.) as the apostle to the uncircumcised (2:7–9) amidst all the confusion and false teaching about the law and circumcision in Galatia. Paul’s ὡς προειρήκαµεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω (1:9a), therefore, sets the scene for the whole epistle. Paul’s many rhetorical questions and emotional appeal (e.g. 4:20; 5:12) are tools for persuasion. We must keep all this in mind when analysing the cognitive element in Paul’s ethics in Galatians. Although Paul’s cognitive vocabulary is much more limited in Galatians than it is in Romans,237 the overall mood of increasing understanding and of reminding is very similar. Since baptism is such a christological rite for Paul, reminder of the gospel that it embodies and concretises is part of Paul’s agenda. If we take, as I suggest, Gal. 2:19f. as a baptismal reference in Paul’s cyclical argument, it is fitting that it should be followed by a reference to the reception of the Spirit (3:2, 5) and the ethical flesh-Spirit dichotomy (3:3). The sequence is the same after the definite baptismal reference at the end of Gal. 3 (4:6; 5:5ff.). In Galatians, Paul’s emphasis is more on the Spirit and the life and lifestyle created by the Spirit (esp. 5:16ff.), to counteract the “works of the law” (3:2, 5) falsely interpreted by the Galatians and their Judaisers.238 Nevertheless, the Spirit is the Spirit of God’s Son “sent out…into our hearts” (4:6) – of the Christ who lives “in me” (2:20), into whom his own have been baptised and clothed (3:27), “whose” they are (3:29; 5:24) and with whom they have been crucified (2:19b; considering the flesh with its passions and desires in 5:24). The Spirit and Christ are inseparable in Galatians. Walking in and being led by Christ’s Spirit (5:16, 18, 25) are inseparable from being in Christ. When Paul exhorts with the hortatory subjunctive, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also march on by the Spirit” (5:25), he is not constructing an indicativeimperative dichotomy. He is simply reminding his recipients of their status in Christ, the source of their new life in Christ and the way of life that is in harmony with this new baptised, believing and ‘Spirit-received’ reality. Therefore, we may conclude by stating that Paul’s ethical exhortation and reminder in Galatians is tied up with his recipients’ already being baptised into Christ, in whom the flesh has been crucified with its passions that have been replaced with the fruit of Christ’s Spirit. That being the case, there is no need to submit to the law and circumcision, for what matters is participation “baptismal aorist” to be less plausible than the way in which the aorist can be taken to summarise something worth knowing that has happened at baptism. 237 Of interest here are γινώσκω in Gal. 3:7 and 4:9, φρονέω in Gal. 5:10, and θέλω in 4:9, 21 and 5:17. 238 For a summary of the different views on what these “works” mean, see Section 3 above.

90

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

in the cross of Jesus, the new creation in him, and the new relationship with the world in him (6:14f.). This should be old news to the Galatians, as Paul passionately reminds them. 1 Corinthians 1:13–17; 6:11; 10:2; 12:13 and 15:29 Ten out of thirteen occurrences of the verb βαπτίζω in the Pauline epistles can be found in 1 Corinthians, and Paul alludes to the rite also elsewhere in the letter without using this technical term. Hence it is worth looking at Paul’s use of baptismal language briefly, focusing mostly on 1 Cor. 6 and 12. Paul’s paraclesis against divisions and quarrelling that begins in 1 Cor. 1:10 makes use of baptism rhetorically. The Corinthians would have known to answer negatively to all of Paul’s questions in 1:13: of course Christ is not divided but one, of course Paul was not crucified on our behalf but Christ was, and of course we were not baptised in the name of Paul but of Christ!239 This is the reaction that Paul wants to cause in the minds of his addressees in order to create unity in Christ and to make them see how utterly incompatible their divisions (1:12) are.240 Verses 14–17 make it clear that Paul is talking about the actual initiation rite of baptism and not simply using βαπτίζω symbolically, detached from its technical meaning. Although the word “baptism” does not occur in 6:11, it is evident that the rite is being alluded to there. According to 1:2, Paul writes to the ἡγιασµένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. This passive use of holiness language denotes separation to belong to Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11, 19; Rom. 15:16).241 In 1 Cor. 6:11, Paul combines washing, sanctification and justification in the aorist passive, all of which share the common denominator of “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”, and hence refer to the same baptismal event.242 That ‘washing’ here refers to baptism seems likely in light of Rom. 6, where righteousness and holiness language are also used in a clearly baptismal context very similarly.243 Also the phrase “in the name of” is clearly baptismal (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13c-16). Paul views baptism in the name of Christ as a conversion ritual that makes initiation one of Paul’s core bap239 N.b. how the cross and baptism are here closely connected, just as in Rom. 6 (see H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, [J.W. Leitch, trans.], Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975, 37 fn. 51). 240 Cf. Conzelmann’s suggestion that Paul may have been refuting a real Corinthian view of baptism as “the ground of a relationship between the baptizer and baptized similar to that established in the mysteries” (1 Corinthians, 35). 241 See the discussion of holiness in Chapter 4, Section 4 below. 242 A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911 (2nd edn 1914, repr. 1929), 119. 243 So also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 107; similarly Freed, Morality, 31.

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

91

tismal themes, developed at its fullest in Romans (1 Cor. 1:13244, 15; 6:11; cf. 10:2).245 Just as in Rom. 6, this initiation is corporate in nature (1 Cor. 12:13). Initiation may be seen to presuppose a lifelong process of being incorporated into the body of Christ, the mere “beginning act” of which is baptism.246 In this process, however, baptism takes place at the crucial moment of initiation at which God washes, consecrates and justifies the baptised “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Christ himself is the sanctification of those who are in him (1:30). He himself is their new status before God and others. The sins that defined people before their initiation into Christ stand in stark contrast with the threefold ἀλλὰ (6:11) in Christ. The difference between identity then and identity now could not be greater. The cognitive force of Paul’s ethical appeal in 1 Cor. 6 is very strong. The chapter is full of provocative rhetorical questions that seek to change the recipients’ mind about their behaviour and the handling of the ethical crisis in the congregation.247 The question οὐκ οἴδατε occurs six times in the chapter, at least the last three occurrences of which represent a direct reference to the baptismal union with Christ and his Spirit, and the incompatibility of such union with fornication (vv. 15, 16 and 19). Very similarly to Rom. 6, in 1 Cor. 6 Paul puts a strong emphasis on the role of the body: τὸ δὲ σῶµα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ κύριος τῷ σώµατι (6:13b). Paul wants his recipients to know that the body of the washed, sanctified and justified Christian is also one with Christ (6:15) and that just as Christ was (physically) raised from the dead, so will they also be (physically) raised (6:14) – and before that moment, the body already contains the Spirit and is the temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19a cf. 3:16f.). In that way, the Lord already is “for the body”. The body thus cannot simply be discarded as irrelevant. What the baptised believers do with their bodies really matters, because the whole Christian person – body and soul – is not their own but bought (another pass. div.) with a price (6:19f.). We may, therefore, confidently say that Paul’s ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε at least in the later half of 1 Cor. 6 is targeted at the most obvious, tangible and personally experienced event in the Corinthians’ Christian experience that should have already made it clear to them whose they were: the

244 Another similarity between Rom. 6 and 1 Cor. is that in 1 Cor. 1:13, baptism is closely equated with death (Agersnap, Baptism, 312). 245 Betz, ‘Transferring’, 105. 246 Betz, ‘Transferring’, 109. 247 By focusing on cognition, my reading differs from that of Conzelmann, where the focus is on “the relation between indicative and imperative, holiness and active sanctification” in order to safeguard “the view of the Sacrament against magical interpretations” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 107).

92

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

baptismal rite that had put the claim not of Paul’s name on them but that of Christ’s (1:13c-16). In 1 Cor. 10:2, Paul renders the Israelites’ crossing of the sea and passing through the cloud typologically into a ‘baptism into Moses’.248 If baptism had already been discussed earlier in the letter with explicit reference to water, Paul’s Corinthian recipients would not have missed this typological reference to the Christian rite either. In a way that is comparable to Paul’s ethical use of baptism into Christ elsewhere, here also he uses ‘baptism into Moses’ ethically so as to warn those who have been baptised into Christ (the ‘we’ in the passage) not to make the same mistakes as most of the Israelites did by engaging in idolatry, sexual immorality, putting Christ249 to the test and grumbling (10:5–13). That only led to death and being scattered in the wilderness. Now these things have become our examples (τύποι ἡµῶν), so that we might not be desirers of evil things just as they desired them…Now these things happened to them by way of example (τυπικῶς), and they were written to be put into our minds (πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡµῶν) on whom the end of ages has come. Thus let he who thinks that he stands watch lest he fall.250

If the Israelites had thus been baptised into Moses, eaten the same spiritual food and drunk the same spiritual drink from the spiritual rock that was, in fact, Christ himself (10:2–4), their situation was clearly analogous to that of the Corinthians. The Israelites enjoyed the same washed, sanctified and justified state that the Corinthians did, because God’s means of bringing about that state were active in their lives. Both, Paul implies, share the risk of endangering the state with their rebellious behaviour.251 Paul addresses the Corinthian divisions and quarrels (chapters 1, 3, 11–14) and idolatry (chapters 8 and 10), and contrasts the spiritual food of Christ in the cup of blessing and the broken bread with idolatry (10:14–22), divisions and social injustice (11:17–34). Everything that Paul teaches in chapters 11–14 about gender roles, the Lord’s supper, spiritual gifts, unity and mutuality in the body of Christ, the supremacy of ἀγάπη as a virtue, and orderly worship, seeks to make the Corinthian Christians again aware of their status and, insofar as they have abandoned it, return safely back to it. It is, therefore, fitting for

248

“[T]he cloud is the sign of the divine presence, and to this the Spirit in baptism corresponds” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 166). 249 Or as in some manuscripts, the Lord (1 Cor. 10:9). 250 1 Cor. 10:6, 11f. 251 “Paul does not say that the sacrament becomes effectual only through obedience, but on the contrary that the effectual sacrament is partaken of to our judgment if we misuse it through disobedience” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 167).

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

93

Paul to make use of baptismal language and typology to remind his addressees of the beginning of their existence in Christ: their baptism into him. This becomes clear once again in 1 Cor. 12, where Paul uses baptismal language in a moral context. In 12:1–3, Paul combines cognition and a strong then-now contrast, in a way that is similar to 6:11 and indeed Rom. 6–8. The old pagan ways of idolatry are contrasted with the new existence in the Spirit. There is no need to interpret the καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι ἡµεῖς πάντες εἰς ἕν σῶµα ἐβαπτίσθηµεν in 1 Cor. 12:13 as a Spirit-baptism rather than the baptism with water into Christ, because the rite and the reception of the Spirit are connected, if not indeed inseparable, for Paul.252 The reference to baptism in conjunction with the theme of unity, despite ethnic and social differences, is very similar to Gal. 3:27, which is clearly baptismal. So is the proto-creed of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς in 1 Cor. 12:3 that is likely to have been said in conjunction with the rite of baptism.253 Although 1 Cor. 15 also contains baptismal language and themes,254 it is here in chapter 12 that the cognitive element in Paul’s baptismal paraclesis once again resurfaces most clearly. Paul does not want the Corinthians to ἀγνοεῖν concerning the spiritual people (πνευµατικοί, 12:1) that they are and, indeed, should be. Paul’s rhetorical οἴδατε in 12:2 refers to his addressees’ knowledge of their past lives in paganism. They are very well aware of it. That is why he wants to make known to them (γνωρίζω, 12:3) that the confession of the faith, Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, can only be said in God’s Holy Spirit and that nobody in the Spirit can curse Jesus. Because they have been baptised in one Spirit into one body in Christ, the Corinthian Christians are in the Spirit.255 It is crucial that they know this, that they remember this and live by this new existence instead of destroying the temple of the Holy Spirit by sinning against the body. It is vital that they know their baptismal unity with Christ and let that affect their view of unity in the body of Christ, the ἐκκλησία. This is no detached moral imperative but a very integrated reminder of the beginning of their Christian existence and its continued relevance.

252

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 166, 212, cf. the Spirit in Gal. 5–6 and Rom. 8. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 206. 254 N.b. the creedal-sounding beginning of 1 Cor. 15, and the theme of the resurrection with Christ for those who are in him that resonates with Rom. 6, accompanied by the notoriously difficult reference to baptism on behalf of the dead as an illustration (1 Cor. 15:29f.). Cf. the ἐνδύω language in 1 Cor. 15:53f. in the context of becoming imperishable in Christ, which echoes the baptismal Gal. 3:27 and Col. 3:10. For discussion of the origin of the “creed”, see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 250–257. 255 Cf. Eph. 4:4–6. 253

94

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

Colossians 2:11–14 In the epistles of the Pauline corpus that are later than Romans, Paul’s baptismal teaching continues to have strong ethical implications.256 Baptism stands at the centre of the moral exhortation in Col. 2–3, which is shown not only by the explicit mentioning of the rite but also by the strongly participatory language of being connected to, or with, or in, Christ.257 Col. 2:11–15, 20 describes baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”, a divine act in which Christians died and were raised with Christ and in which the new life was given (cf. Eph. 2:5–6; Rom. 6:6; also 1 Cor. 6:14). This is a clear echo of Paul’s teaching in Rom. 6, despite it often being noted that in Rom. 6:4, Paul does not exactly describe the baptised as already raised with Christ as the author does here.258 Rom. 6:5, 8 and 8:11, 23f. make it clear that in Romans, the resurrection is a future hope but also a present reality in Christ. In not at all dissimilar fashion, in Col. 2:12, being raised with Christ is already a present reality “through faith in the ἐνέργεια of God”, just as in Rom. 6:4, 11, it is a hope present in the newness of life in Christ, in which the baptised already walk freed from the power of sin and in which they are to reckon themselves dead to sin and alive to God already now. Despite the baptised “having been raised together with Christ” according to Col. 3:1, it is clarified in 3:3f. so that this life is still “hidden with Christ in God” and “will be revealed” when Christ appears (Christ himself being that life). Therefore, the exposition of baptism in Colossians is not all that different from Romans and is equally foundational for the paraenetic section that follows.259 Already Col. 2:6 implies that what has happened in baptism (“as you received Christ Jesus the Lord”) ought to define one’s daily life (“so walk in him”).260 In this new existence, walking along one’s old sinful ways (3:7) is what needs to be stopped – those deeds need to be put to death (3:5) and put away (3:8). The παλαιός ἄνθρωπος, which in Rom. 6:6 was crucified with 256

It is impossible within the scope of this study to enter into the debate on the authorship of the disputed epistles. 257 R.L. Cavin, New Existence and Righteous Living: Colossians and 1 Peter in Conversation with 4QInstruction and the Hodayot (BZNTW 197), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 158. 258 See Matera, ‘Living’, 158 n.14; contra N.T. Wright, Romans (NIB 10), Nashville: Abingdon, 2002, 538. 259 For a helpful survey of different approaches to the centrailty of baptism in Col., see Cavin, Existence, 18. 260 Interestingly, the walking (περιπατέω) language of Rom. 6:4 is also present in Col. 2:6, clearly in the context of initiation (reception of Christ), and so is the death-life dichotomy (Col. 2:12–14) that is reminiscent of Rom. 6. The reference to the rulers and powers in Col. 2:15 may be read as a summary of the power struggle between sin and righteousness in Rom. 6.

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

95

Christ, has in Colossians (along with its practices) been taken off (ἀπεκδυσάµενοι, Col. 3:9) and the new has been put on (ἐνδυσάµενοι, 3:10). What was crucified according to Colossians were the accusations of the law: “He wiped away the handwritten bond (χειρόγραφον261) against us because of its legal demands (τοῖς δόγµασιν262) that were opposed to us, and this he took up from our midst, nailing it to the cross.” (2:14) Despite some dissimilarity in language, the author’s desired outcome of the description is the same as in Romans: now the new ἄνθρωπος, freed from those accusations and from the guilt of trespasses (Col. 2:13), also has a renewed knowledge: “And we have put on the new self which is being renewed into knowledge (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν) according to the image of its Creator.” (3:10) The φρονέω language of Rom. 8:5–7 also has a parallel in Col. 3:2. In fact, φρονέω, clarified by ζητέω (3:1) as not merely thinking but also living differently, plays a more important role than the Spirit in linking Christology with ethics.263 The epistle is full of cognitive vocabulary such as διδάσκω (3x), νουθετέω (2x), σοφία (6x) and ἐπίγνωσις (4x).264 As Cavin rightly points out, “The epistle’s emphasis on study and instruction is also seen through its three uses of the verb διδάσκω (‘teaching’), a concentration greater than any other NT book outside of the Gospels and Acts.”265 The teaching that the author has in mind revolves around understanding the mystery of Christ (Col. 1:27; 2:2; 4:3). This renewed understanding of Christ’s sufferings “for his body, that is the church” (1:24) and “Christ in you” (1:27) enables walking in the right way.266 Furthermore, a constantly renewed cognition267 is needed, because the possibility of being deluded by false teaching remains a real danger (2:4, 8). This knowledge of oneself and of one’s neighbour from the perspective of the cross and new creation acts as the foundation for the unified, harmonious, forgiving, peaceful and thankful life together, to which the author admonishes his recipients in what follows (Col. 3:11–4:1). The section is full of second person plural imperatives because of its communal character,268 but even 261

This word means a handwritten note of indebtedness in Graeco-Roman and Jewish usage, see P.T. O’Brien, Colossians – Philemon (WBC 44), Waco: Word Books, 1982, 124; E. Lohse, TDNT, IX, 435. 262 GT and BAG s.v. δόγµα. 263 Cavin, Existence, 20. 264 Cavin, Existence, 179. 265 Cavin, Existence, 228. 266 Cavin (Existence, 225–228) finds knowledge and understanding of the “mystery” being used very similarly in the DSS and especially 4QInstruction (4Q416:2:iii:9–10; 4Q417:1:i:10–12). 267 N.b. the present passive participle of Col. 3:10. 268 Cavin, Existence, 176.

96

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

then, the focus should not be on the commands but on what they seek to effect: a new way of thinking and living in accordance with one’s baptism into Christ. The new self and new life in Christ should be defined by a mutual attitude of servitude, which is best depicted by the relationship between slaves and masters. This relationship receives the most space in the Haustafeln of Colossians, because it reveals the ultimate attitude of everyone’s slavery – slave and master alike – to Christ in a way that is very similar to Rom. 6: τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε (Col. 3:24b; cf. 4:1). Ephesians 4:5 The main prayer that the author of Ephesians has for his recipients is, as expressed in Eph. 1:15–23, that God would give them an increased knowledge of the gospel of Jesus, or in the author’s words, “the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe…”.269 Similarly, in 3:18f. comprehension of the breadth, length, height and depth of the gospel of Christ and knowledge of the love of Christ surpassing knowledge is Paul’s270 hope in his prayers for the recipients. Paul reminds the Ephesians of their former existence without Christ and their drastically different current state in Christ (µνηµονεύετε, 2:11–13).271 In 5:8, 14, Paul again refers to the past experience of spiritual darkness and death, verse 14 being a baptismal hymn said to the catechumens.272 With such cognitive background in mind, how does baptism feature in the letter? In Eph. 4, Paul resorts to both calling language (calling into the one hope: 4:4) and unity language – with the reference to set at the centre of this sustained formulation the one baptism into the one Lord in the one faith (4:5). According to 4:1, the calling is not just a matter of the past but something in which those who are called ought to continue to walk. The calling has a purpose: through the apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, pastoral and 269

I here prefer the ESV translation to the NRSV. Without attempting to resolve the question of authorship in this short space, I simply refer here to the author as ‘Paul’ as expressed in Eph. 1:1 and 3:1. For a nuanced defence of the continued possibility to uphold the traditional view of authorship, see M. Barth, Ephesians 1–3 (AB), New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008, 36–52. 271 Remembering in the Bible is often more than a mere “mental act moving backward in time”; it calls for repentance and gratitude and can even be described as a cultic-like action that “uses the past as a precedent for the present and future time”. In this passage, the author’s emphasis is on their incorporation into Israel by God. So Barth, Ephesians 1– 3, 147, 255f. 272 So also A.T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42), Dallas: Word Books, 1990, 331. 270

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

97

teaching office, those who are sanctified in the Lord are made ready by the Lord for the ἔργον διακονίας to build up the body of Christ (4:12), the ultimate goal of which is “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” defined as spiritual maturity (4:13) that is not shaken by false teaching (4:14). The Gentiles walk in the futility of the νοῦς (Eph. 4:17), which the Christians should now avoid. The Gentiles have a darkened διάνοια and there is ἄγνοια in them (4:18), which, as a state of a hardened heart and loss of shame, has led to sensuality, greed and impurity (4:19; cf. 2:3). The roots of such behaviour, displeasing to God, are again very much cognitive. Equally cognitive is what the recipients of the epistle are assumed to have: they have learned (ἐµάθετε) Christ thus (4:20), assuming that they were taught (ἐδιδάχθητε) in him (4:21) in the first place. This is very probably a reference to some form of baptismal catechesis; the putting off of the old person and putting on of the new in 4:22, 24 points to this (cf. Gal. 3:27; Col. 3:5–11).273 In this way, the substance of Eph. 4:22–24 is similar to Rom. 6.274 We may, in fact, read the author’s calling language in conjunction not just with the idea of divine election275, but also with this election becoming concrete in the baptismal rite: what else was the baptismal rite except a divine calling to be Christ’s own and an offering of oneself to be a servant of God? The grammatical imperatives of Eph. 4:25–6:9 follow after this; they stem from this learning, relearning and renewed understanding, and they encourage the recipients of this reminder to apply it on a practical level, with examples. They culminate in the warfare exhortations of 6:10–18, where the point is made clear that the present life in Christ is still an on-going battle against evil – a battle in which one may persevere only when dressed in the armour of God, that is, with the tools he gives for the fight. However, amidst these practical imperatives, Eph. 5:17 is extremely cognitive: “Therefore do not become senseless (ἄφρονες), but understand (συνίετε) what the will of the Lord is.” We may therefore infer with Markus Barth (despite his misunderstanding of the Lutheran law-gospel paradigm), Indeed the juxtaposition of preaching and teaching (kerygma and didache), of indicative and imperative, may have had its day. Their undeniable usefulness as hermeneutical tools may be exhausted… Their imposition upon a hymnodic or prayerlike document like Ephesians may be as inappropriate as the attempt to measure the beauty of a symphony with a yardstick or a barometer. The division between Gospel and Law which is maintained in the 273

Lincoln, Ephesians, 272. The same could be said about Eph. 4:17–19 and Rom. 1:21, 24 (Lincoln, Ephesians, 273). Also similar to Rom. 6 in Eph. 4:17–24 are the references to the passions. The seal of the Spirit given until the day of redemption in Eph. 4:30 also strongly echoes Rom. 8:23. 275 Lincoln, Ephesians, 234. 274

98

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

distinction of Preaching and Teaching has so far proven disastrous for the foundation of evangelical ethics. The sequence, God (or Christ) did this for you – now you have to do that for him, is a ridiculous caricature of the relationship between God’s grace and the good works for which man is created, according to Eph 2:5–10.276

Indeed, in light of 2:10, the way of life that the author of Ephesians has in mind here stems from God through Christ. It is founded on the cross, the resurrection, the indwelling of the Spirit (2:14ff.), and the consecrated new creation in Christ. Even in the midst of his paraenesis, the author returns to baptism (at least by allusion), while Eph. 5:25b-27 describes both baptism and sanctification as Christ’s acts. Although sanctification here corresponds to the OT idea of separation in a state of moral purity, the allusion to water would have been taken as a reference to the baptismal rite by Paul’s addressees.277 Again, much more could be said about this epistle and its baptismalethical paraclesis. What this brief outline has shown, however, is that the baptismal state in Christ and the cognition of its significance once again interact closely in this letter, that at the very least belongs within the Pauline tradition. Through the indicative-imperative lenses, the relationship between the author’s theology and ethics would easily remain abstract. By focusing on the references to earlier baptismal catechesis and, one might say, the postbaptismal catechesis that follows and their relationship with the letter’s moral exhortations, we are much more able to reach the core of the matter.

276

Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 54f. In saying this, Barth goes against the usual division of Ephesians into the dogmatic chapters 1–3 and ethical chapters 4–6 (53f.); cf. M. Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6, Garden City: Doubleday, 1974, 426, 453–457, 522, 620. He brings ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ together by seeing both as part of the divine calling of the Christian that includes “a high status and a correspondingly high responsibility and task” (454). Paul’s “very imperatives imply a privilege the saints can enjoy, not a burden they ought to bear”, and they “can be a means of preaching the gospel” as they point to the freedom that is already theirs (455) – the Pauline kerygma is, in Barth’s view, no “legalistic appendix” that limits or revokes the gospel but another form of preaching “the sheer pure gospel”, which contradicts the Lutheran law-gospel dichotomy and is akin to “the praising narration of God’s mighty acts found in the OT historical books and Psalms, and in the NT Gospels and Acts” (456f.). Barth summarises his reading of Paul’s exhortation as “evangelical ethics” and explains: “The ‘way of the Lord’ pointed out by the social and moral teachings of Paul is not a corollary to redemption but is comparable to Israel’s procession out of Egypt and through the wilderness; it is itself the way of salvation, life, and freedom. On this way, God’s saving will is carried out” (457; cf. 522). 277 Lincoln, Ephesians, 375.

4. Romans 6–8 in the Wider Pauline Baptismal Context

99

Titus 3:4–8 Finally, the letter to Titus deserves some attention. According to Tit. 1:16 (explained further in 2:11–14), the claim of knowing (εἰδέναι) God, and the specific deeds that they perform, must not contradict each other. Cognition and behaviour must go hand in hand. Ungodliness and worldly passions (ἐπιθυµίας) must be renounced and Christian lives should be conducted in a self-controlled (σωφρόνως), righteous and godly manner (2:12).278 This is part of what God’s grace is teaching (παιδεύουσα) them to do in this liminal time before the Parousia (2:13). I take God’s mercy in the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit in Tit. 3:3–7 to be another baptismal allusion.279 Although washing can be used as a metaphor for moral purity in the biblical tradition, the parallels between this text and the other baptismal passages in the Pauline corpus are striking. The author contrasts here, too, the old way of life (3:3) with the new (3:4); the idea of the washing is connected here as well with soteriology (justification in particular) and pneumatology (3:5–7); also the language of renewal and new life (3:5) resonates with the old-new dichotomy connected with baptism in Rom., Eph. and Col.; the context here, too, is recounting not simply something that has happened in the past, but something that needs to be asserted confidently (διαβεβαιοῦσθαι) in Titus’ own teaching (cf. 2:15), so that it might lead to good works (3:8). A soteriological, Spirit-related washing in the past that has consequences (or, should do) for the current lifestyles of the believers sounds very much like the Pauline idea of baptism. Because this epistle is directed to Titus and not to a church, the portrayal of the relationship between baptism and baptismal life is not as cognitive as in the letters discussed above. There is no need to exhort Titus to understand, know and remember whose he is and into whom he has been baptised, because he is the one who needs to assert that confidently to his church. Some Cognitive Comparisons in the Pauline Corpus There are various places in the Pauline corpus where baptism does not occur, even by allusion, but the cognitive plays a strong role. As in the case of sanctification with its focus on life in Christ,280 the Pauline theme of the renewal of one’s cognitive faculties is also focused on Christ and the knowledge of the divine will (Rom. 12:1f.; cf. Col. 1:9f., 3:10; Phil. 1:9–11; Eph. 4:23). It is possible to translate τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑµῶν in Rom. 12:1 as “your 278

The Stoic parallels to this kind of language are too many to mention. Contra W.D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46), Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000, 448f. 280 See Chapter 4, Section 4 below. 279

100

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

rational religion”, i.e. an intellectual attitude that echoes Paul’s appeal to the recipients’ cognitive judgment in Rom. 6.281 On the whole, Rom. 12:1–2 seems to function as a summary of Rom. 6–8. The sacrificial language is there put in a context of life in Christ, imitating the death-life dichotomy of Rom. 6 and 8:10–13, 36–37 (cf. 15:15f.).282 In addition, the language of presentation is common to both Rom. 12:1f. and Rom. 6 (cf. Rom. 7:1–6).283 As has been noted, Furnish rightly takes this link to indicate that in Romans, theology and ethics are closely intertwined.284 Paul uses similar language particularly in his baptismal theology and ethical exhortation. Furthermore, these verses make the cognitive nature of Paul’s paraclesis very clear: “Thus it is said quite clearly that God’s will is something external with which the Christians are confronted and towards which they by using their judgment must adopt a position.”285 The Pauline theme of the mind also plays an important part in Philippians. It all comes down to having the same kind of φρόνησις as can be found in Christ (Phil. 2:5; cf. 1 Cor. 2:16). 286 In Phil. 2:5–18, the practical working out of one’s own salvation is juxtaposed with τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν, both of which are initiated by God. Even in 2:12–14, the imperative to work out one’s own salvation is immediately followed by the clarification that it is God who is the agent in both the willing and the working.287 The ‘working out’ in 2:12 is, therefore, a call to embody what first needs be understood. In 3:10ff., the stress lies on pressing on in life with Christ, directing one’s cognitive faculties towards Christ, τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναµιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ. These observations, even though they are inevitably limited, nevertheless clearly lead to the conclusion that the right kind of cognition plays an important role in Paul’s ethics.

5. Conclusion Despite the criticism that the tradition-historical approach sees Paul in light of either his Jewish or Hellenistic context, thus neglecting the Christian mo-

281 Agersnap, Baptism, 394; Käsemann, Romans, 330. On the vast importance of λογικός in Stoicism, see Thorsteinsson, Roman, 138–149. 282 Agersnap, Baptism, 393; Furnish, Theology, 103f. 283 Furnish, Theology, 105f. 284 Furnish, Theology, 100f., 106. 285 Agersnap, Baptism, 394. 286 Cf. Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’, 232f. 287 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 152.

5. Conclusion

101

tivations and foundations of Paul’s ethics,288 that has not been my goal here. The insights gained in this chapter will mostly be used to help show why it was possible for Paul to speak of Christ, and life in Christ, by pointing to the Christian rite of washing and by emphasising the cognitive – why it was that such language was understood by the people of Paul’s time. Hence I have delved into the background of Paul’s religious and cultural context, made some observations on the New Perspective approach, and briefly surveyed the major baptismal (and some cognitive) passages in the Pauline corpus. From Paul’s Jewish heritage, a development was traced in which purity language was increasingly being applied to ethics. Paul’s baptismal teaching, which is not merely theological but also always ethical, fits well within this Jewish tendency that is apparent already in the OT, but still more clearly in Diaspora Judaism, at Qumran, and in the teachings of John and Jesus.289 The baptismal ritual and ethics are inseparable in the Pauline Corpus. The importance of Stoicism, as the popular philosophy in Rome at the time of the writing of Romans, can easily be overemphasised, as indeed is done by Engberg-Pedersen; nevertheless, Paul’s Christian adaptation of Stoic terminology, to drive home his point in the minds of his Roman addressees, does help us understand why cognition plays such an important role in the paraclesis of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Other Hellenistic Jewish texts such as Wis. and 4 Macc. also portray a similar tendency to reconcile the Graeco-Roman emphasis on reason in overcoming the passions with Jewish notions of wisdom and the Torah. Paul’s anthropological pessimism, however, is distinct from the optimism of both Greek and Jewish writers.290 Understanding what the new creation in Christ means, and what it means to be baptised into Christ’s death, is an intrinsic part of Paul’s moral teaching in Romans and elsewhere. The New Perspective does not problematise the indicative-imperative dichotomy, as it views the law and, therefore, ‘imperatives’ in a much more favourable light than traditional ‘Lutheran’ readings. However, its emphasis on the works of the law as identity markers shares similarities with my approach in taking Paul’s ethical exhortation largely as an identity-reminder, irrespective of the grammatical mood. Finally, my brief survey of other baptismal and cognitively charged texts in the Pauline letter collection shows that Romans is no exception to the rule. The Pauline patterns are similar and surprisingly (as some might say) consistent throughout: old and new, death and life, flesh/law and Spirit, being in Christ, and cognition of it, among other things, 288

Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 267. This does not mean, however, that Paul derives his baptismal teaching directly from these predecessors (apart from, of course, the Jesus tradition that is Paul’s primary source for his teaching on baptism into Christ); cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993, 431. 290 Thompson, Moral, 155. 289

102

Chapter 3: Paul’s Ethics in Context

are patterns that repeat themselves in a baptismal-ethical context over and over again. With this background in mind, I can now proceed to analyse the text that is central to this study: Rom. 6–8.

Chapter 4

Baptismal Status and Identity In this chapter, I move on (in Section 1) to establish that baptism is in fact a central topic in Rom. 6–8, and that it must not be reduced to a mere tangential illustration or a symbol for something more real. Sections 2 and 3 emphasise the unity of Paul’s argument in Rom. 6–8 through the themes of baptismal death and life in and with Christ. Finally, Section 4 focuses on the identity-forming force of Paul’s holiness language at the end of Rom. 6.

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification Setting the Scene for Paul’s Baptismal Paraclesis The argument in chapter six starts with a rhetorical question that links Paul’s exposition of the gospel in the previous chapters directly with his teaching on baptism and the new life that follows it:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; ἐπιµένωµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, ἳνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; (Rom. 6:1) The backdrop to this question can be found in Paul’s radical teaching on justification that depends on God’s love in Christ for sinners instead of the sinners’ works (Rom. 3:27ff.; 5:8–10; 18ff.; cf. Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:4–9; 2 Tim. 1:9). Many of the themes of chapter 5 are drawn on in chapters 6–8, as for example Christ’s death and obedient life and their salvific implications for the sinners who are now his (Rom. 5:6, 8, 9–11, 21), the role of the Spirit (5:5), the rule of Adamic sin (5:14, 18ff.), obedience (5:18ff.), and the law (5:13). For Paul, God’s love reconciles people through the weakness of the cross and saves them through the power of the resurrection. In light of this theocentric teaching on God’s righteousness in Christ, the question in 6:1 about the significance of what one does with one’s life after being justified does not come as a surprise. The question is already anticipated in Rom. 3:8 and 3:31: justification in Christ is no excuse to keep on sinning, and by this faith in the God who justifies by faith apart from the works

1

Käsemann, Romans, 165.

104

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

of the law, the law is not overthrown but, on the contrary, upheld.2 The law still guides the reason and choices of those in Christ, even if it does not reconcile them to God.3 One’s way of life and actions still matter, as they show the relationship of servitude that Paul addresses in the latter half of Rom. 6. Paul, therefore, refutes the possibility that his teaching on justification by faith in Christ apart from works leads to an irresponsible way of life: οἵτινες ἀπεθάνοµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσοµεν ἐν αὐτῇ; (6:2) His negative answer has to do with the identity of those baptised into Christ. This identity is built on both death and resurrection. The baptised have died to sin (6:2), as they have been baptised into Christ and his death (6:3) and buried with Christ through baptism into his death (6:4a). Thus, grace is not advanced by remaining in the ways of the old self (ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος),4 for in Christ, this has died. The Christian has died to the rule (βασιλεύω, 6:12) of sin and cannot therefore continue in this state of sin. In the third verse, Paul conjoins this death to sin with the baptismal death:5 ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθηµεν. This death has a purpose: ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωµεν (6:4b). The purpose of being in Christ as reconciled to God and justified in Christ by faith is to be dead to the rule and slavery of sin and alive to God, to belong to God’s holy people (Rom. 9:30; cf. Rom. 9–11) and to walk in a Christ-like newness of life in a new servitude to God (6:22) in conformity with Christ’s death and resurrection,6 expecting the Parousia and the finalisation of God’s adoption and redemption of the body (8:23). As Sanders rightly puts it, “One dies with Christ and lives to God, but will be raised only in the future.”7 Both the death of the old self and the newness of life in Christ at this liminal time are what the baptised ought to realise about themselves (6:11). Baptismal Metaphor or Concrete Rite? When we talk about baptism in Romans 6, however, what is it that we mean by it? Interpretations vary: is the main theme of the chapter, death to sin and 2 Paul may be here correcting the reports and misinterpretations of what he had said earlier in Galatians. 3 Cf. “As the eschatological community, the church still looks to the Torah as its own story.” (Thompson, Moral, 125; cf. 112f.) 4 R. Jewett, ‘Romans’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: CUP, 2003, 96. 5 A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, (C.C. Rasmussen, trans.), London: SCM, 1952, 233f. 6 Cf. D.J. Moo, who thinks that Rom. 6:1–11 assumes an idea of a past spiritual resurrection with Christ (The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, 392f.). 7 Sanders, Paul, 468.

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

105

life in Christ, to be understood independently of the actual act of baptism, in order for baptism to be seen as one metaphor for this death-life dichotomy amongst others,8 or should baptism be seen as the fundamental event, in which this death has taken place and in which the new life has been given to the Christian?9 Moreover, is such an opposition between metaphor and reality a mere misunderstanding? Let us start with the metaphorical view. Nijay Gupta, following the modern conceptual theory of metaphor, divides metaphor into the source domain, “the cognitive field from which we find metaphorical expressions”, and the target domain, i.e. “the cognitive field that needs to be understood better”10. Gupta’s study focuses on Paul’s use of cultic metaphors and shows how they act as a cognitive tool to reshape and transform the perception of Paul’s recipients of themselves and the world in the light of Christ. 11 In emphasizing the cognitive, however, Gupta does not neglect the strongly bodily element in Paul’s paraenesis: the body is under hostile occupation of “Death and Sin”, needing to be repossessed and reclaimed by the lordship of Christ through the pattern of sacrifice and death (Rom. 12:1; 8:10); the body is, for Paul, a vessel for either Christ-worship or the worship of the self and of death, and in Christ, the body is reclaimed to be a vessel of the Spirit and to serve (δουλεύω) and worship God.12 Just as it was important for Israel to remember her new relationship with the God of the Exodus, this new servitude is also important for Paul and his readers to remember (cf. Deut. 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22).13 The new epistemology is given by the Holy Spirit in the new age of Christ, but at the centre of it stands the cross that reshapes one’s worldview.14 This true knowledge, then, also leads to true worship – a pattern that is in line with Jewish thought (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Sir. 1:14; 4 Ezra 14:47).15 This is also shown by Paul’s emphasis on worship in his Fall narrative of Rom. 1:18–2:5.16 Epistemology and ontology are inseparable in Paul’s thought, Gupta rightly concludes (Rom. 8:1f., 6; 12:2).17 Although he

8

So e.g. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 308. So e.g. Schnelle, Apostle, 329. 10 N.K. Gupta, Worship That Makes Sense to Paul: A New Approach to the Theology and Ethics of Paul’s Cultic Metaphors, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010, 33. 11 Gupta, Worship, e.g. 191, 193f., 199, 203f. 12 Gupta, Worship, 180, 183f. 13 Gupta, Worship, 155, 157. 14 Gupta, Worship, 194, 196. 15 Gupta, Worship, 202. 16 Gupta, Worship, 204. 17 Gupta, Worship, 203. 9

106

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

does not focus on baptismal metaphor,18 Gupta’s contribution to the discussion of the rational aspect of metaphor is helpful for our purposes. Additionally, Gupta pays special attention to the lack of anti-ritualistic spiritualisation in Paul’s cultic language.19 This is an observation already made by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: Paul’s use of bodily language in cultic metaphor is important, because it is targeted against Hellenistic spiritualisation, according to which the body was not the essential part of the person.20 For instance, in transferring the notion of temple in 1 Cor. 6:19f. to the body of the individual Christian and not to the community, Paul is going against Hellenistic or Jewish-Hellenistic literature, in which the soul or mind was seen as God’s temple and the body as the prison of the soul.21 Paul is apparently rebuking the “enthusiastic-libertine Christians” in Corinth, who took his gospel of freedom to mean that what they did with their bodies did not matter.22 Since Paul dictated Romans in Corinth, we may ask whether these same anti-spiritualising urges might have been in his mind when appealing to the strongly concrete, bodily and christological baptismal washing in his paraenesis. All in all, [I]n transferring cultic-institutional language to the community, the NT writers do not give in to Hellenistic spiritualizing tendencies, but affirm the concrete, bodily, and missionary character of true Christian worship.23

Dunn, in his turn, interprets Rom. 6:3–10 as an exposition of the spiritual reality of v. 2, in which the actual rite of baptism plays a relatively minor role.24 Dunn notes that “baptism is not the subject of the passage”, while death to sin and life under grace are.25 He holds that Paul “linked the thought of baptism and death because Jesus had done so before him” (Mark 10:38f. and Luke 12:50), which shows the metaphorical nature of baptism already in Jesus’s own teaching as regards death.26 The baptismal language of 6:3–4 is, 18

With regard to 1 Cor. 6:11, Gupta follows Dunn’s symbolical view, according to which the verse is not so much about Christian baptism but about a wider cultic metaphor of purification (Worship, 71). 19 Gupta, Worship, 43. 20 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Cultic’, 172f, 177 (with specific reference to Rom. 12:1 on p. 173). 21 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Cultic’, 172. 22 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Cultic’, 172. 23 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Cultic’, 177. 24 Dunn, Baptism, 140; ‘“Baptized”’, 307; contra Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 130; Moo, Romans, 359 and many others. 25 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 308. 26 Dunn, ‘“Baptized”’, 306f. Jesus’s description of his own death as a baptism can also be seen as a Hellenistic modification of OT water imagery in Ps. 42:7; 69:1; Isa. 43:2; Song 8:7: see A. Oepke, TDNT, I, 538.

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

107

in Dunn’s view, one way amongst others to document the death/life theme of the chapter.27 He separates the dying with Christ in conversion from the rite of baptism which he simply sees as being “itself a metaphor” that is part of the conversion process.28 In Dunn’s view, then, the Christian’s death with Christ is illuminated in Rom. 6:3–6 by three metaphors that “point directly to the spiritual reality” of death with Christ instead of the rite of baptism: the metaphor of baptism (6:3), the agricultural term σύµφυτος (6:5), and being buried together with Christ (6:4).29 In general, Dunn accuses sacramentallyinclined scholars of “de-metaphoring Paul”30, arguing from various NT salvation metaphors that concrete description is no more theological than metaphor, which brings out dimensions lacking in literal expressions.31 Dunn’s examples are not fully convincing with regard to Rom. 6, however, where death to sin and life in Christ are so strongly linked with baptismal language that this must have brought to mind for the Romans the rite of initiation that they themselves had undergone.32 It seems arbitrary and theologically driven to claim that the only reference to real “water baptism” in the chapter is found in the phrase διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσµατος (6:4a), whilst taking βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν as a mere metaphor of death derived from the rite of baptism.33 The verb βαπτίζω and the noun βάπτισµα34 have already become technical terms by this time for the Christian rite of initiation by water immersion35 directed towards (εἰς) Christ and his crucifixion, the goal of baptism.36 Furthermore, both phrases end with clear reference to death. 27

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 308. Dunn, Baptism, 140,142f. 29 Dunn, Baptism, 140–142; Peterson, Possessed, 97; M.J. Gorman more aptly divides the chapter into metaphorical and sacramental descriptions of salvation (Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001, 143). 30 Dunn, ‘“Baptized”’, 299. 31 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 328–33; ‘“Baptized”’, 298. 32 Moo, Romans, 359. 33 Dunn, Baptism, 140f.; ‘“Baptized”’, 308; otherwise, Jewett, Romans, 392. 34 K. Barth, Baptism as the Foundation of the Christian Life (Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV, 4), (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969, 46. Βάπτισµα, Barth, claims, unlike βαπτισµός, was “newly coined in Christianity or the New Testament (…) intended to ascribe to Christian baptism a specific distinctiveness vis-à-vis neighbouring phenomena” known from the Graeco-Roman and Jewish rites. 35 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 311; Moo, Romans, 359; H. Umbach, In Christus getauft – von der Sünde befreit: Die Gemeinde als sündenfreier Raum bei Paulus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, 240. 36 Barth, Baptism, 91. However, Barth sees baptism as merely the confirmation of the preceding death with Christ that has taken place in the historical event of Christ’s crucifixion, not in the rite itself. He has to argue for this Calvinist conclusion in a rather complicated manner: “Baptism is the burial of a dead man” (160); “In this burial with Him they were not crucified and put to death with Him. When they had been crucified and put to 28

108

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

The first refers to the death of the Christian in baptism, and this death is explained as sharing in the death of Christ (vv. 3b, 4b, 5a, 6–10). The same applies to the latter: in baptism, the Christian has been buried together with Christ into death, so that he might walk in the newness of life brought about by the resurrection of Christ (6:4). This does not mean that being baptised into Christ is to be taken as a metaphor for death to sin as opposed to a concrete reference to the baptismal rite.37 It can, in fact, be seen as the concrete point in the life of Christians that Paul saw as the initiation into the sharing of Christ’s death and the new life brought about by his resurrection.38 Similarly, expressions such as ἀπεθάνοµεν σὺν Χριστῷ and συζήσοµεν αὐτῷ (6:8) are not to be taken as merely ethical or metaphorical expressions, but as referring to the real death to sin (6:10) that the Christians have experienced by participating in the real death and resurrection of Christ.39 Just as Christ’s death was an eschatological event, so also is the death of the Christian with Christ in baptism – a death “that frees the Christian from death for the future hope of resurrection (6:5, 8)”40. This strong eschatological connection between Christ’s death and that of the Christian has a concrete point in time, at which the connection has been established. This point, for Paul, seems to be baptism (6:4a), which is an assumption based not on mere “interest in sacramentalism”41 but on a strong connection between what Paul says about participation in Christ and baptism.

death with Him, then, in view of His death in their place, which enclosed within it their own death, they were – in baptism – buried, laid to rest, interred with Him.” (117; cf. “the great change in their situation which is graphically indicated, but not brought about, by their burial with Christ, and hence by their baptism”, 118); “They are to be claimed as men who (not in baptism, but in the history in the light of which they were baptised) have put on Christ” (91). The “sacramental” interpretation of NT baptism is, for Barth, “no more than a possibility” (127). 37 So e.g. Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Paraenesis’, 289. 38 Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 130f., 144; Baptism Today, 71, 73; Betz, ‘Transferring’, 115f.; Fitzmyer, Romans, 434; Käsemann, Romans, 162; Nygren, Romans, 232; M. Väisänen, Pyhä kaste Raamatussa, Hämeenlinna: Karisto, 2000, 109f.; Pyhä evankeliumi Roomalaiskirjeessä, Vol. I, Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2004, 242; cf. Thompson, Moral, 149, who rightly affirms that dying to the “old enslaving power” happens at baptism, but errs in his characterisation of Paul as a teacher of realised sinlessness. 39 Sanders, Paul, 455; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 228f.; cf. Schweitzer’s similarly real (‘naturhaft’) reading in Mystik, 287. 40 Black, ‘Death’, 422. 41 Jewett, Romans, 401.

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

109

Chapter 6 of Romans is full of language that links with Paul’s theology of baptism. 6:4a contains the phrase συνετάφηµεν42 οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσµατος εἰς τὸν θάνατον. The burial imagery is very probably referring to the practice of baptism by immersion,43 which would have been a powerfully tangible metaphor for Paul’s addressees to hear explained as the basis of the state of the baptised Christian. As Betz accurately notes, if Paul elsewhere describes the Christian experience as being crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20) and becoming like Christ in his death (Phil. 3:10), surely baptism is the logical point of origin of this experience in the light of Romans 6.44 Some critical readings have also suggested that the first person plural forms in the first half of Rom. 6, and the non-Pauline language of rising through the glory of the Father (6:4), may even refer to an early baptismal liturgy or confession.45 Paul writes in 6:17 that “you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed”, in which the τύπον διδαχῆς probably means a summary of the gospel given to the converts in conjunction with their pre-baptismal initiation.46 An example of such a summary can be found in the ‘baptismal hymn’ of 1 Cor. 15:3ff.47 There is also a debate on whether βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν here means the same as βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα (1 Cor. 1:13, 15).48 If the phrases are interlinked, this language may be viewed as a concrete reference to the rite of baptism in the name of Jesus. “To the name of someone” was a technical term in Hellenistic commerce meaning “to the account” (of someone): “the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism the name of Christ is pronounced, invoked and confessed (…)”49. Alternatively, βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν may also indicate incorporation into the 42

According to Jewett (Romans, 398), this is the first instance of religious use of this term in Jewish or Hellenistic culture (cf. the phrase ὑπὸ χάριν that only occurs in 6:15f.; Romans, 415). 43 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 314; Fitzmyer, Romans, 434. 44 Betz, ‘Transferring’, 111. 45 See Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 127, fn. 3; contra Käsemann, Romans, 164. 46 So e.g. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 90. 47 Käsemann, Romans, 181; Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today, 77; Baptism in the New Testament, 285. 48 Amongst the proponents of this view, although with variations, see Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 129f., 147; Cranfield, Romans, 301; Jewett, Romans, 397; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 90; for opposing views, see Dunn, Baptism, 141, and ‘“Baptized”’, 308; Käsemann, Romans, 165; Matera, Romans, 148; Moo, Romans, 360. 49 Oepke, TDNT, I, 539f.; cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 433; A.J.M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987, 54f.

110

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

lordship of Christ50 or “into the mystery of Christ’s death”51, or it may be an expression paving the way for the union language in 6:4 and could even be translated as “into union with Christ”52. To be “baptised into his death” may in itself be a deduction from an already accepted form of speech, “baptised into Christ”.53 Nevertheless, εἰς taken locally or as a reference to union or immersion gives equal weight to the argument that Paul means here the rite itself.54 According to this reading, Paul is indeed arguing that Christians have been incorporated into Christ and his salvific realm through the baptismal rite. With Fitzmyer, it must suffice to say that whatever the preposition εἰς here primarily means, it “expresses an aspect of the relationship of the Christian to Christ (…) connoting the initial movement of introduction or incorporation by which one is born to life ‘in Christ’”.55 It is noteworthy that elsewhere in the NT, being baptised εἰς (Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; 19:5; cf. 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) or ἐπί (Acts 2:38) the name of Jesus also always refers to the concrete rite of baptism.56 Therefore, by default, such an expression in the NT would refer to the ritual itself. Writing to a congregation that he did not know from personal experience, Paul appeals in his exhortation to the experience that he knows is shared by all Christians: the rite of baptism into Christ.57 A spiritualising metaphorical reading does not do justice to this evidence. If the explicit reference to baptism in Rom. 6:3 were used in a merely metaphorical way to express the underlying reality of death to sin, would not the baptismal imagery in the chapter be completely tautological?58 Would it not suffice for Paul to keep to the language of dying and rising with Christ in a more abstract moment of repentance or conversion – why implement such ornamental baptismal metaphors that would surely have brought to the recipients’ mind their personal 50

Wedderburn, Baptism, 60. Matera, Romans, 149. 52 Moo, Romans, 360; see also fn. 41 with a fuller list of references. 53 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 308. 54 Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 133; Fitzmyer, Romans, 433; Käsemann, Romans, 165; Moo, Romans, 359f., Nygren, Romans, 233; contra Barth, Baptism, 91f. 55 Fitzmyer, Romans, 433. 56 Also ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Acts 10:48. 57 In his letters to congregations that he knew at first hand, Paul may be seen to appeal more keenly to other experiences that he had personally had with them. E.g. Gal. 3 begins with an appeal to the reception of the Spirit (3:2–3), before concluding with the experience of baptism into Christ and putting on Christ (3:27). Similarly, however, Rom. 5:5 mentions the giving of the Spirit before the baptismal section of chapter 6. This does not make for a convincing argument to downplay the significance of the baptismal rite in Paul’s ethical teaching. 58 Cf. Wedderburn, Baptism, 49,59. 51

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

111

and tangible experience of baptismal initiation?59 If Paul seeks to bring comprehensible concreteness to his argument in the second half of the chapter (6:19a), the introduction of baptism in the first half is something equally tangible, to which his listeners may cling through their assumed personal experience of the rite.60 Insights from Verbal Aspect and Voice The grammatical debates about verbal aspect and the significance of the passive voice in Rom. 6 cannot be bypassed in this discussion. First, I shall focus on the latter point. Beasley-Murray is right in taking especially the aorist passive forms to indicate that, according to Paul’s teaching, the Christian’s transfer from the old existence to the new has taken place in baptism: The Lutherans are quite right in calling attention to the fact that the characteristic voice in Rom. 6.1 ff is the passive: we were baptized, we were buried, we have become planted with the likeness of Christ’s death, we were crucified with Christ – these are all acts of grace and power so surely as our resurrection with Christ is an act of grace and power, deeds which we can simulate but never produce by our own efforts.61

The passive forms thus imply divine activity that Paul links with baptismal language. First his addressees had been slaves to sin and free from righteousness (6:17, 20), but now they have been freed from the power of sin and made slaves of God (6:22) – they are, therefore, slaves who have changed their masters.62 This language of slavery is not an overstatement, as it rightly points out that the power, from which God has freed the Christians, was such that they could not escape from it on their own.63 They needed divine intervention, as a result of which they became dead to the power of sin and alive to God in Christ. This is the shift in their lives that they should now show in their daily existence (6:4, 11).64 It is often the case in the NT that passives refer to divine activity, which is self-evident here especially when Paul talks about Christ “having been raised”.65 Now, as Paul draws a strong parallel 59

Moo, Romans, 359. See discussion of 6:17 below. 61 Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 142f. 62 Nygren, Romans, 257. 63 Schreiner, Paul, 128. 64 Cf. Orig. Comm. Rom. 3:146–150 quoted in G. Bray (ed.), Romans (ACCS, Vol. VI), Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998, 150. 65 What is often called the “divine” or “theological passive” in the New Testament and taken as a Jewish aversion to using the divine name should perhaps, due to the rather frequent mention of God, be seen simply as a way of avoiding the repetition of an obvious divine subject. For this view, see D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 437f.; S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd edn), Sheffield: Continuum, 1992, 65f. For 60

112

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

between the death of Christ and that of the Christian, and between the resurrection of Christ and that of the Christian (especially 6:2–5), his use of the same verbal forms for both implies a similar divine action through baptism as in the dying and rising of Christ.66 The explicit use of βαπτίζω and βάπτισµα in verses 3f., together with the aorist passives, therefore, shows that Paul was not as reluctant to connect such divine action with the rite of baptism as some later exegetes would like to think. He may have avoided using the divine name in conjunction with the resurrection language of Rom. 6, but it is obvious contextually that the agent of that resurrection was God. Secondly, are the aorist tenses to be emphasised as implying a decisive one-off action that would befit the connection between a decisive divine action and the rite of baptism? The first part of Rom. 6 is full of aorists that have been argued to contain baptismal echoes by some proponents of the traditional Aktionsart view:67 ἀπεθάνοµεν / ἀπέθανεν, ἐβαπτίσθηµεν, συνετάφηµεν, συνεσταυρώθη,68 καταργηθῇ, ὑπηκούσατε, παρεδόθητε, ἐλευθερωθέντες, ἐδουλώθητε / δουλωθέντες. In the grammatical debate on the aorist tense especially, the Aktionsart view has been challenged by a focus on the verbal aspect: the aorist is no longer necessarily seen to carry the punctiliar “once-and-for-all” type of action in and of itself, for such Aktionsart can be depicted by different aspects, which means that the type of action depends more on the context and the way in which it is used than on the tense itself; the aorist tense is in and of itself “a-oristic”, i.e. undetermined or undefined, drawing no boundaries of duration, interruption, completion or such like.69 The verbal aspect “reflects the focus or viewpoint of the speaker in regard to the action or condition which the verb describes”70. Stagg’s observation in his seminal 1972 article is worth noting here: If, as indicated by the primitive nature of the stem, the aorist is the oldest Greek tense, it is understandable that it is also the simplest. It simply points to the action without describing it. To stress such matters as duration or state of completion, other tenses were developed.71

Stagg’s criticism undercuts the validity of building a theology on the aorist tense, which he calls a fallacy.72 the older and still popular view, see e.g. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963, 76. 66 Jewett, Romans, 399. 67 Cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 131,145. 68 Gorman takes this “co-crucifixion” to refer to Paul’s in-Christ spirituality (Cruciformity, 32). 69 F. Stagg, ‘The Abused Aorist’, JBL 91 (1972), 222–224, 230. 70 S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1), New York: Peter Lang, 1989, 84. 71 Stagg, ‘Aorist’, 231.

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

113

However, the aorist may still carry some interpretive weight when it comes to its ‘markedness’. Mathewson shows well how the aorist is significantly less ‘marked’ than the present, conveying almost a summarising tone when it comes to the aorist imperatives in Romans 6:12–13. The two present prohibitions of vv. 12–13a (µὴ βασιλευέτω; µηδὲ παριστάνετε) have to do with “forbidding the ongoing reign of sin” whenever it occurs (but not distinctly with “stopping” an already existing process as Moo and Cranfield present it73), whereas when Paul employs the less marked aorist imperative in παραστήσατε (6:13, 19), he “reminds the readers of their positive responsibility using the less heavily marked aorist imperative (παραστήσατε) and appropriate aspect to summarize the complete process”74. Thus, instead of demanding a decisive action for the Roman Christians to begin something new, the aorist imperatives simply summarise “what is required of the Christian”75 without reference to duration, urgency, inception or completion. In contrast, the present imperative λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς of 6:11 indicates that “what is true because of the believer’s union with Christ (vv. 1–10) must be realized in a process of reckoning”76. Despite separating conversion-initiation from the baptismal rite, Dunn makes a similar claim about the cognitive present imperative of 6:11: In this interim period – epochally between Christ’s death and ‘the resurrection of the dead’ (1:4), individually between conversion-initiation and the final resurrection – what is required then is that believers keep their perspective clear, that their attitudes to the relationships and attractions of this world be determined in the light of these epochal and decisive events, that they live in this world as those who do indeed share in Christ’s death, not yet fully liberated from the power of death, but no longer in bondage to sin, as those who draw their vital energies and motivations from God in Christ Jesus (v 11). It is this basic identification with Christ in his death, accepted in the decisive act of conversioninitiation which provides the starting point for the exhortations that follow. 77

72

Stagg, ‘Aorist’, 222. Even Dunn speaks of the “exhortatively emphatic” and “the eschatological or epochal force” of the aorist, which Paul employs “to remind his readers that something decisive has happened to them” when they have died to sin (Romans 1–8, 307f.). However interesting this claim may be, it is not without its problems in the light of the debate between Aktionsart and aspect. 73 Cranfield, Romans, 316f.; Moo, Romans, 399. 74 D. Mathewson, ‘Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions’, LN 18 (1996), 26f., 29f.; contra Dunn’s “deliberate decision…in daily life”, Romans 1–8, 347. 75 Mathewson, ‘Aspect’, 32. “Thus, to interpret the aorist in this way is to assume unjustifiably that the tense shift signals a temporal contrast between action discontinued and action begun.” (‘Aspect’, 28). 76 Mathewson, ‘Aspect’, 25. 77 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 333.

114

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

In line with the present imperative of 6:11, it may be argued, therefore, that Paul uses the aorist imperative in 6:13b because of his desire to summarise and remind his recipients of what belongs to the new status and identity as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ through baptism. Baptismal Self-Identification Engberg-Pedersen offers perhaps the best compromise between the metaphorical and concrete view of baptism in Rom. 6. He quite rightly acknowledges the metaphorical dimension in the text but limits it to the cognitive sphere of self-identification: if the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος were truly dead, there would be no real need for paraenesis, but it is evident from 6:1–13 and 19 that Rom. 6 as a whole is basically paraenetic. Therefore the death of the body of sin in baptism is an analogy (ὁµοίωµα) to Christ’s death (6:5; cf. “as if” in 6:13). Engberg-Pedersen takes this to mean that the intended force of baptism is not in the physical death of the body of sin of the baptised, but in following Christ in his dying to sin and living in the resurrected life exclusively for God (6:10). In baptism, the Christian experiences an analogous, non-physical, death (6:11). So living for something has to do with selfidentification and the question, “To whom do I belong?”78 Along similar lines, Gupta upholds the traditional indicative-imperative division, whilst maintaining rightly that Paul’s ethical ‘imperatives’ have more to do with the Christian’s new identity in Christ than simply “doing”.79 As Stephen Barton describes NT ethics in general, It is not a compendium of systematic reflection on the good. Rather, it represents a variety of attempts to articulate the implications of conversion and baptism.80

It is to these implications of baptism that we shall now turn. NicoletAnderson reads the whole of Romans narratively through the lens of identity formation.81 With regard to baptism in Rom. 6, she summarises: One of the purposes of chapter 6 in relationship to the plot is to explain how sin lost its influence on human beings. First and foremost this happens because human beings participate in Christ’s death, through baptism. This participation changes who human beings are. It marks an end for the old self (6:6) and there is no turning back to this old way of understanding oneself. A new self-understanding is given to human beings through baptism, and this identity involves being alive to God (6:11). It is in fact an identity similar to the iden-

78

Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 230. Gupta, Worship, 73, 117f. 80 S.C. Barton, ‘The epistles and Christian ethics’, in R. Gill (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics, Cambridge: CUP, 63. 81 V. Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing the Self (WUNT 324), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 1. 79

1. Baptism in Romans 6: Metaphor, Real Rite and Self-Identification

115

tity of Christ himself (6:10.11) and thus it needs to reflect Christ’s faithful obedience to God.82

Paul’s use of the metaphor illustrates the same point: Both chapter 6 and chapter 7 indicate that slavery is more than mere obedience; it is a matter of identity. The master decides the identity of the slave. (…) If human beings are possessed by a master who decides their identity, only death can free them from this master (…). A new self-understanding can be given to them only through a new life, lived under a new master.83

This death, we might add, is for Paul the baptismal burial and death with Christ. This new life is, on the one hand, already given in the rising from the baptismal waters, but on the other hand, it remains a future hope yet to be realised in full in the resurrection and redemption of the body (8:23f.). That is why reckoning oneself to be dead and alive in these ways is important in the present post-baptismal life (λογίζοµαι, 6:11). This baptismal death and life pattern shatters the Christian’s former self-identification of slave to sin (6:16) and gives him the new identity of servant of God (6:22) – or even son of God (8:14). This is who Paul wants the Roman Christians now to think they are (6:11).84 Moreover, The change does not just concern what human beings do, it is a matter of the mind; it is a matter of perspective. Their moral orientation, their ēthos is transformed, and this is reflected in their actions.85

Indeed, such transformation of the mind (12:2) is not about following new rules but a new orientation having an impact on the use of the body as well.86 On the basis of the above, we may see that scholars use the word “metaphor” in a variety of ways (Janet Soskice calls this “a terminological imprecision”87). In and of itself, saying that something is metaphorical does not mean it is not real – Paul uses metaphor in “expressions taken from other aspects of reality” such as “eschatological events of epoch-making effect” that cannot be described with common words.88 It is interesting, however, to notice how scholars’ confessional baggage often affects their tendency, on the one hand, to emphasise the metaphorical nature of Paul’s baptismal teaching in order to argue for a view according to which real conversion takes place separately from the symbolic rite of baptism, or, on the other 82

Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing, 78f. Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing, 79. 84 Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing, 81. 85 Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing, 83. 86 Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing, 105. 87 J.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, Oxford: Clarendon, 1985, x. 88 Agersnap, Baptism, 399 n.2. 83

116

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

hand, to shun altogether the use of ‘metaphor’ in the baptismal context, so as not to take away from the efficacy of the sacraments.89 If we define metaphor simply as a word taken from one context and placed in another, without containing any value statement on the reality of the metaphorical expression in itself, this kind of opposition, however, is altogether futile. In my view, it is clear that on the basis of textual and grammatical observations, when Paul talks about baptism in Rom. 6, he really talks about baptism. Of course, the rite of baptism is not without a metaphorical element. On the one hand, baptism does function as the tangible source domain for Paul to employ to illustrate his target domain, life in Christ. On the other hand, one might also argue that Paul wants his addressees to realise all the things that baptism into Christ really means in their past and present, in which case baptism or baptismal life would be the target domain for the source domain of Christ’s death and resurrection. Which way is it then? This is perhaps the wrong question to ask, as it may well be both. The rite of baptism and union with Christ therein is, however, inseparable from life in Christ everywhere it occurs in the Pauline corpus (cf. Gal. 3:27; 1. Cor. 6:9–11; Col. 2:11–14; Eph. 4:5; Tit. 3:4–8). Paul tends to use baptism in a paraenetic way every time the rite comes up. For Paul, the baptismal death with Christ to sin and life with Christ to God are a matter of a new God-given identity that must be cognitively reckoned (λογίζοµαι). Hence we can conclude by stating that it is possible to maintain that baptism is a metaphor for death and life in Christ, and that the baptismal ritual is a “repetition of the community’s story” that “solidifies its common identity”, reinforcing their identity.90 Saying so does not mean, however, that this metaphor is mere symbolism. It does something. To use Pauline language, baptism is a ὁµοίωµα91: in it, the initiate has been tangibly yet mysteriously planted together with Christ into the likeness of his death in the hope of growing together with him in his resurrection as well. As Fitzmyer puts it, through baptism, the Christian is identified with Christ’s

89

Agersnap (Baptism, 406f.) helpfully shows how Paul’s baptismal teaching corresponds neither to the “wholly sacramentalist interpretation” (ex opere operato) nor to the “anti-sacramentalist” one (mere external confession of faith). He adopts a middle view, which is neither merely subjective nor purely objective, but both: baptism is an “eschatological event in which one subsequently pins one’s faith” and in which “the divine force breaks into human existence”. Without calling this a cognitive reading, Agersnap rightly claims that “baptism achieves its full effect only when the baptised realises how crucial a turning point it is”. 90 Thompson, Moral, 45. 91 It is possible that ὁµοίωµα means two things as similar to each other as two eggs or two people who are not related (R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, London: Kegan Paul, 1886, 50).

2. Baptismal Death to the Old Master

117

death, burial and resurrection.92 But because the resurrection and redemption of the body are things yet to come,93 baptism is, above all, a rite that gives the Christian living in the tension between the aeons a drowned yet resuscitated identity.

2. Baptismal Death to the Old Master Having established that baptism is indeed a central topic in Rom. 6, that the divine passives point to divine action in baptism and that the baptismal aorists remind Paul’s recipients of their baptismal identity in Christ, I proceed to focus on the baptismal-ethical theme of death in Rom. 6–8. Death as the Problem First, it becomes obvious to the reader of Romans that death is a problem. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, 15, 17) and reigned (ἐβασίλευσεν) from Adam to Moses (5:14).94 Creation itself is now under the slavery of perishing (τῆς φθορᾶς, 8:21). Within this death-bound creation, an individual’s slavery to sin leads to death as opposed to righteousness and eternal life (6:16, 21–23). Sin works through the law and, in particular, its commandment (ἐντολή), deceives and kills (7:9–11). The divine commandment is not to blame for this, however, for it is holy, righteous and good – the blame belongs to sin that produces death “in me” (7:13). The divine commandment merely brings to light (ἵνα φανῇ) the real nature of sin, that it is indeed excessively sinful (7:13). Paul contrasts the spiritual law with the fleshly “I” who is sold (πεπραµένος) under sin (7:14). This is slavery language and refers originally to someone being sent to a distant land.95 The same directional slavery idea can be seen in 7:23, where Paul plays with the meaning of the word νόµος: “I, however, see another law (ἕτερον νόµον) in my body parts warring against the law (τῷ νόµῳ) of my mind and leading me away captive (αἰχµαλωτίζοντά µε) by the law (ἐν τῷ νόµῳ) of sin that is in 92

Fitzmyer, Romans, 139. Rom. 8:11, 23–25; cf. Paul’s much more expansive account of the future resurrection of the body as the foundation of all Christian faith, hope and life in 1 Cor. 15:12ff. 94 In this context, it would be interesting to talk about Paul’s view of (personified) evil that is often neglected in Pauline scholarship, especially when it conforms to Bultmann’s demythologising programme. For a skilful attempt to bring evil back to discussion of Paul and to see it in its moral context in Romans, see M. Becker, ‘Paul and the Evil One’, in I. Fröhlich and E. Koskenniemi (eds), Evil and the Devil (LNTS 481), London: Bloomsbury, 2013, 127–141; cf. Westerholm, Perspectives, 394 fn. 119, and Fitzmyer, Romans, 430. 95 GT, s.v. πιπράσκω. Eskola (Theodicy, 147) rightly interprets this as Paul’s description of “the all-embracing power of sin”. 93

118

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

my body parts.” (7:23) Prisoners of war often became slaves in the ancient world.96 Sin, therefore, is a master under whose rule sinful people are set, as imprisoned slaves. This is the law (or ‘principle’97) of this fallen world, just as slavery itself and, more broadly, servitude were a ‘principle’ in the Graeco-Roman world of Paul’s time. This relates to some interesting similarities between the Pauline and the Stoic emphasis on inner freedom as opposed to freedom from social structures such as slavery.98 The changing of social structures is, therefore, unimportant, because freedom is something internal.99 For Paul, this appears to be similar, although connected with the person of Christ. In 1 Cor. 7:20–22, Paul emphasises the inner freedom Christians have in Christ even if they are slaves and, conversely, that even free people are slaves of Christ; there is, therefore, no pressing need for emancipation from oppressive social structures. This shows us that it is possible for Paul to talk about slavery in both negative and positive terms. It is also possible for him to speak of slavery and freedom that coexist. After all, freedom is an internal matter even for the slave. In light of this, Paul’s slavery language in chapter 6 and the earlier part of chapter 7 make sense. One is a slave of either sin or Christ. Both are options for the baptised as well. There is no power vacuum in Paul’s worldview. This also applies to Paul’s view of the law: it is controlled and taken over either by sin, in which case its function has been al96

Cf. Thompson, Moral, 147. Räisänen, Paul, 16f., emphasising Paul’s inconsistency with this term in particular. Cf. Thurén, who lists in a more nuanced manner three meanings for νόµος in Romans: primarily the Mosaic legislation, “Holy Writings” (i.e. the Pentateuch or the whole OT), and a metaphorical meaning (Derhetorizing, 109). 98 As summarised by Schnelle, Apostle, 80, Seneca equates external slavery with internal freedom and vice versa (Sen. Ep. 47 [that includes his golden rule, “sic cum inferior vivas, quemadmodum tecum superiorem velis vivere”, motivated by the possibility of one day becoming someone else’s slave: 47.11], esp. 47.17; 90.10). Epictetus, himself an exslave, also characterises freedom as comparable to internal independence, and slavery as allowing oneself to be overcome by the passions (Ep. Diss. 4.4.33). So long as the Stoic’s will conforms to that of God’s and detaches itself from the passions, he is free (Ep. Diss. 4.7.16f.; cf. 1.19.9; 4.1.131). See also N. Denzey’s comparison of Rom. 6–8 with Epictetus (‘Facing the Beast: Justin, Christian Martyrdom, and Freedom of the Will’, in Rasimus, Engberg-Pedersen and Dunderberg, Stoicism, 180f.) that shows well how there was no idea of ontological freedom in late first-century and early second-century Rome: “the only, true choice was whether one would serve one’s master willingly or not”. According to Denzey, everybody was considered to be in servitude to something, which was to be understood in order to “realign oneself into a position of ethical freedom – then to assent to this servitude willingly and joyfully”. 99 Huttunen (‘Stoic Law’, 39) juxtaposes Paul’s teaching on the unimportance of social positions with the Stoic theory of value, according to which external things such as one’s social position are unimportant (ἀδιάφορα), but their use (χρῆσις) is not. This is very similar to Paul. Interestingly, the Stoic technical term χράοµαι occurs in 1 Cor. 7:21. 97

2. Baptismal Death to the Old Master

119

tered completely to become a servant of sin and death,100 or Christ and the Spirit (cf. 8:2). Furthermore, sin is a ruler that “lives in me” (7:17, 20), or, as Paul clarifies, “in my flesh” (7:18), somehow overcoming the function of the “I” at least as far as the cognitive functions of knowledge (γινώσκω) and will (θέλω) are concerned (7:15–17, 19). What the “I” hates and does not want, sin dwelling “in me” is actively working and bringing about (κατεργάζοµαι, 7:17, 20). Thus there is a split in the “I” between “belongingness to the world of flesh, the old epoch” and “belongingness with Christ to the life beyond the resurrection, the new epoch”, rather than a dualistic divide between the “I” and the flesh.101 This is because the Christian has been given the newness of life in Christ but is still part of the fallen world and awaits being resurrected with Christ (Rom. 8:23). The “I”, therefore, is divided in perspective and self-identification, standing between the reality of Christ and that of the world heading towards its destruction. This is why a Christ-centred selfunderstanding is so important to Paul, for it is that which should be in control.102 Suffice it to say that I take the ἐγώ of Rom. 7:14–25 to include Paul and not just the pre-conversion Saul, for “exegetes decided to exclude Paul from Rom 7 only after much theological scrutiny”, which was an option that the first recipients of the letter would not have had.103 The shift from the “I” of 100

Eskola, Theodicy, 310. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 408. 102 Cf. Thurén, Derhetorizing, 123, on Gal. 5:21. 103 Thurén, Derhetorizing, 119. It is impossible to enter here into a large-scale discussion of the identity of the “I” in Rom. 7. For a clear summary of the history of the ‘nonChristian’ interpretation of the ἐγώ and a defence of the ‘Christian’ reading, see Thurén, Derhetorizing, 117–130. The most common objection to the historical reading of Augustine, Luther and Calvin is that Paul is here describing a pre-Christian Adamic experience from a Christian perspective. D.J. Moo’s interpretation is a good example of a reading that fails to be comfortable with Paul’s eschatological tension: it acknowledges the fact that the struggle depicted in 7:15–20 sounds familiar to most Christians, but at the same time insists on the text not making sense in light of the Christian freedom expressed in Rom. 6 and 8:2, without being interpreted as Paul’s “experience as an unregenerate Jew, finding his love for God’s law and desire to obey it constantly frustrated by his failure to obey it” (‘Romans’, in Carson, D.A. et al. [eds], NBC: 21st Century Edition, Leicester: InterVarsity, 1994, 1137). For similar views, see, e.g., Matera, Romans, 179; cf. Käsemann, who reads Rom. 7:14ff. as the Christian view of the situation of every fallen creature (Romans, 210f.). Dunn, however, is commendably comfortable with the believers’ “plight”, “paradox” and “expression of agonized frustration and impotence” amidst the “not-yetness of the salvation process” (Romans 1–8, 492–495). It is also my stance that there is no need to feel uncomfortable with Paul’s description of the Christian state as both freedom from sin in Christ and slavery to sin or, in Thurén’s words, to harmonise it with Galatians without regard to the different battles that Paul is fighting or to explain it away (Derhetorizing, 101

120

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

7:7–13 as the general, fallen Adamic human being and the past tenses of that section to the present tense and strongly emphatic ἐγὼ εἰµί of 7:14 would surely not have been missed by Paul’s addressees.104 Despite what some Fathers such as Origen did, for their own theological reasons, and what modern Western readers might do for theirs, the first hearers of Romans would most likely have included themselves in the “I”. Paul was known for using himself both as a positive example (1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9) and, rather than as a distant holy man, as a sympathetic fellowsufferer who was far from being perfect – a little slave, παῦλος δοῦλος (Rom. 1:1), and a man desiring to be mutually encouraged (συµπαρακληθῆναι) by each other’s faith (1:12).105 Paul explains clearly how sin and death co-operate with each other. Paul talks about the “law of sin and death” (8:2) with a shared preposition. Before Christ, sin reigned in death (βασιλεύω, 5:21). In the whole of Rom. 5, Adam’s sin and the death that it brought about are made almost synonymous. Sin is the cause of death and the ruler that has the potential of dominating people (κυριεύω, 6:9, 14) by reigning in the mortal body (βασιλεύω, 6:12), which leads to shameful deeds and their ultimate end: death (6:21). To use Paul’s military metaphor, sin is the military chief under whose service the 118). Sin causes death, and according to Paul, Christians are not yet immortal in their present situation before the return of Christ and the redemption of their bodies (Rom. 8:23). In Dunn’s words (Romans 1–8, 405), “The trouble is, the old epoch itself has not yet run its full course. So long as the resurrection is not yet, the ‘I’ of the old epoch is still alive, still a factor in the believer’s experience in this body.” Paul assumes the future transformation also in 1 Cor. 15:56, which Thurén has suggested to be the verse whose “extended version” Rom. 7 is (‘Motivation’, 367). Even though Paul is, according to most scholars, not simply talking about himself here, his rhetorical use of the “I” cannot sensibly exclude himself from this description either, as such use of the first person was practically non-existent in antiquity, irrespective of the term scholars would like to use for such a tool (metaskhematismos, koinosis, idiosis or prosopopoiia), and would have required a high level of rhetorical training for Paul and his addressees alike (Thurén, ‘Motivation’, 368; Derhetorizing, 118–120, 122). In light of Rom. 7, Paul definitely does not view himself as sin-free (contra Räisänen, Paul, 118) but even boasts about his faults (2 Cor. 11:23–12:10). Recently, B.R. Gaventa has also interestingly suggested that Paul’s “I” in Rom. 7 is shaped by the “I” of the Psalmist and has the power to shape its hearers (‘The Shape of the “I”: The Psalter, the Gospel, and the Speaker in Romans 7’, in Gaventa, Apocalyptic Paul, 77–91). 104 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 404f. It is easy to agree with Dunn on this point (405): “Even if the ‘I’ of vv 7–13 has no specific self-reference to Paul, the expressions which follow are too sharply poignant and intensely personal to be regarded as simply a figure of style, an artist’s model decked out in artificially contrived emotions. Paul probably intended the universal ‘I’ of Adam to be kept in mind, but the following verses’ character as personal testimony is too firmly impressed upon the language to be ignored.” 105 Thurén, Derhetorizing, 120f.

2. Baptismal Death to the Old Master

121

soldier is paid his due soldier’s wages (τὰ ὀψώνια, 6:23), that is, θάνατος. Death is, therefore, the end that is contrasted with the free gift of eternal life in Christ (6:22f.).106 As we shall see in Section 4, it is crucial for us to understand Paul’s holiness language at the end of Rom. 6 as divine separation of the baptised believers from the realm of sin for a purpose: slavery to God in Christ, bearing fruit in his orchard in harmony with his righteousness. Sin is active in one’s body parts (µέλη). The desperate cry for rescue from such a situation in 7:24 further illustrates Paul’s imagery of the body as battleground: “I am an afflicted man! Who will draft107 me from this body of death?”. In Paul’s view, the body is already dead because of sin (8:10), and God is to be thanked for drafting “me” out of that state “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (7:25a, emphasis added). Christ is the warlord for the baptised even though “I myself, on the one hand, am serving (δουλεύω) the law of God with my mind, but with the flesh, on the other hand, the law of sin.” (7:25b) Despite the various attempts to explain away this clearly on-going conflict and tension between the mind and the flesh in Paul’s teaching, it seems to me to be what is most appropriate to Paul’s overall teaching. The redemption of the body is still a thing of the future and, as such, a future hope for the present life in Christ (8:23). Even while Christ is in the baptised believers, the body is dead because of sin at the same time as the Spirit is life because of righteousness (8:10). The “dead” body continues to be torn in two directions: to be used as an instrument for the service of sin, serving the master of death, or for the service of God’s righteousness (Rom. 6:12ff.), serving the master whose service constitutes a newness of life (6:4). This conflict also affects the mind. That is why, I argue, the bodily rite of baptism and its active cognition are so important to Paul. Interestingly, as we shall soon see, death is also a crucial part of both baptism into the newness of life in Christ and the ultimate solution to the on-going conflict of interest. Death as the Solution If Paul views death as the culmination of the problem of this fallen world, it is also a crucial part of the solution to fix it. The death of Christ brings about justification and reconciliation, and death also plays an important role in Pauline baptismal teaching and its application to the Christian life thereafter. The death of Jesus is clearly the ultimate solution to the problem of sin and death in Paul’s mind. Christ died for the ungodly sinners “while we were still weak”, which shows God’s love “for us” that transcends any form of human self-sacrificial love (5:6, 8). Jesus’s blood brings justification, and his 106

Cf. “For if you live according to the flesh, you are certainly about to die” (8:13). This is one possible translation for ῥύοµαι (rescue). I prefer it because it illustrates the military undertone in Paul’s text (GT, s.v. ῥύοµαι). 107

122

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

death, reconciliation to God (5:9f.), because in him, God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin (ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας) and, in that flesh, dealt with sin (περὶ ἁµαρτίας) by condemning sin, in order to fulfil the righteous requirement (δικαίωµα) of the law “in us”, or, “among us” (8:3f.). This is the christological foundation on which Paul builds both his baptismal teaching and its ethical application. Christ’s death was a death “to sin” (τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ) once and for all (6:10). This dative of respect is difficult to translate into English. Perhaps the offensive idiom, ‘You are dead to me’, sheds some light on this. Although the direction is different between these phrases, both denote an end of a relationship. Sin and Christ no longer had anything to do with each other. Christ’s death for the ungodly sinners (5:6f.) was an act of righteousness (δικαίωµα) and obedience (ὑπακοή) that led to justification for all people (5:18f.). Christ is the opposite of Adam, whose trespass and disobedience brought condemnation and sin to all people. Christ’s crucifixion meant the nullification of the body of sin and a release from slavery to sin (6:6). Death no longer lords it over him (θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει, 6:9). Paul does not view Christ’s death as merely an event in history that somehow reaches people in an abstract way. In his paraclesis, it is connected with the baptismal rite. The death and life language that Paul uses to describe Christ is also used in his description of baptism. An analogous death to that of Christ has taken place in the lives of the “we” in baptism, because ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθηµεν (6:2f.). Baptism takes place into Christ’s death; it is a burial together with Christ into death (6:4), an implanting into the likeness of his death (6:5) and a co-crucifixion of “our old man” with him (6:6). It means dying with Christ (6:8) to sin (6:2, 10f.). The state that Christ acquired as dead to sin is also enjoyed by those who are baptised into Christ. In Christ, all that he has done for the benefit of humankind is accessible to those who have entered into him. Although Paul does not explicitly refer to baptism in Rom. 7, it is clear that “what he writes in 7:4–6 presupposes the baptismal theology he developed in chapter 6”108, because the language of death through Christ’s body is very similar to baptismal death in Rom. 6. In fact, Rom. 7:1–6 explains and expands upon Rom. 6:14ff. What Paul has described in 6:14f. as no longer being under law but under grace is tied to the theme of death. Being freed from the law and from sin, followed by enslavement to God (6:22), is, again, no abstract event. It is connected with the baptismal death. Paul’s marriage metaphor (7:1–3) depicts the importance of death: the death of a husband must take place in order for the married woman to be free from the law of 108

Matera, ‘Living’, 164.

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master

123

marriage to her husband, lest she be called an adulteress. As the death of a spouse grants freedom from marriage, so does the baptismal being-put-todeath (ἐθανατώθητε, aorist passive, 7:4) grant freedom from the law by being a death to the law (τῷ νόµῳ) through the body of Christ. The language is almost identical with the baptismal language of chapter 6. If in 6:16ff. it was a matter of being a slave to someone (obedience/righteousness/purity/God versus sin/impurity), here it is a question of bearing fruit for someone (God versus death). The shared language of passions (ἐπιθυµίαι in 6:12 and παθήµατα in 7:5) and of captivity and slavery (7:6) make the unity of the argument in Rom. 6–7 even clearer. What is at stake here is the baptismal life flowing from the state of death to sin given in being-baptised-into Christ.

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master Of course, death is not the end of the story for Christ as it is not for those who are in Christ. Christ’s resurrection, the baptismal newness of life and the promise of the future resurrection and redemption of the body are where Paul’s christological narrative of baptism next takes us. Life in Free Slavery under God As we have seen above and shall see in Section 4 below, Paul’s use of the slavery metaphor may shock the modern reader. The idea that everyone is in a relationship of slavery or servitude to someone corresponds to the OT use of the term and to the realities of the first-century Graeco-Roman society. Perhaps most surprisingly, slavery is not always a bad thing in Paul’s epistles. Justin Meggitt calls this Paul’s “manipulating socially emotive language”.109 Even the καινότης πνεύµατος that Paul contrasts with the παλαιότης γράµµατος (7:6) means to be a slave (δουλεύειν, 7:6). This corresponds to the use of the slavery terminology in 6:22. The slavery under the newness of the Spirit is, of course, a better kind of slavery than that under the “oldness of the letter”. Nevertheless, it is still a slavery relationship composed of a slave or servant and his master. The opposite of slavery is freedom, and Paul is not shy to use freedom language either in his letter to the Roman church. Before being enslaved to God and his righteousness, the baptised are set free from slavery to sin (6:18, 22). It seems that Paul shifts towards an emphasis on freedom and adoption in Rom. 8 rather than focusing on slavery, which is what he does in the earli109

Meggitt, Paul, 148.

124

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

er chapters. At its clearest, Paul states, “For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and of death.” (8:2) At the end of times, creation will be set free from slavery to destruction into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (8:21). Perhaps this shift is first and foremost due to a change in Paul’s perspective: in chapter 6, Paul focuses mostly on the Romans’ past baptismal initiation experience into Christ and applies it to their daily lives; in chapter 7, Paul moves on, via the theme of the freedom from the law, to his excursus on the Christian plight at a time when the baptised still await and hope for the redemption of their bodies (the battleground of sin and righteousness); in chapter 8, Paul’s focus is already on the future hope of the resurrection and of the coming reality of redemption and adoption. The development of Paul’s salvation narrative in this way indubitably affects his language. Secondly, however, the Roman practices of adoption (of children and adults alike) provide a fascinating backdrop to the structure of Paul’s argument.110 In the three-stage practice of adoptio, the birth father (paterfamilias) first (1) sold the child into slavery, after which (2) the adoptive father bought and manumitted the child and, ultimately, (3) adopted him or her. The practice of adrogatio concerned adopting persons who were under nobody else’s power and transferring them and their possessions under the adoptee’s control into the ownership of the adoptive father. Both types of adoption included release from slavery, cancellation of the adoptee’s debt, renunciation of former ties and family names, and assuming a new name, family and rights to inheritance. Echoes of Roman adoption practices are striking in Paul’s baptismal111 and pneumatological teaching. Everyone is (1) sold (πεπραµένος112) under the slavery of sin (Rom. 7:14113). At baptism (2), Christians have been transferred to a new Master by dying with Christ to the reign and power of sin (6:2–11) and the law “in order for you to be born to another (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑµᾶς ἑτέρῳ), to him who was raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God” (7:4) and by living now with Christ (6:8), as “slavish” to God in Christ and his righteousness (6:11–22). An intrinsic part of that new belonging, servitude, fruit-bearing (6:21f.; 7:4) and Spirit-effected sonship and adoption (8:14–17114), is renouncing the old slavery under sin and reckoning oneself to belong to God in Christ, redemption in Christ, the grace of 110

See Jensen’s description of the following practices in Baptismal Imagery, 59–62. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 61. 112 The meaning of πιπράσκω refers to being sold as a slave (GT and BAG s.v. πιπράσκω). 113 Cf. Paul’s other slavery-related expressions such as παρέδωκεν…εἰς ἀδόκιµον νοῦν (Rom. 1:28), ὑφ᾽ ἁµαρτίαν εἶναι (3:9; cf. Paul’s redemption language in 3:24) and the reigning language of 5:21. 114 Cf. Gal. 4:1–7; 3:18 and Rom. 9:4. 111

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master

125

forgiveness in Christ, and the promise of the future inheritance in him (8:17a). However, because of the on-going reality of suffering (8:17b) on account of sin (7:14ff.), and the incompleteness of the salvation narrative, the final adoption in its full force (3) is still a hope to come, but certainly a secure hope (8:18ff.; cf. 7:24f.). Death and co-suffering with Christ are still a present reality. Christ is already glorified, but personally for those who now live in him, co-glorification with him will only happen after the on-going cosuffering (8:17b). That is why it is so vital to keep in mind the new family identity and servitude to God in Christ, lest one fall back to that from which one has already been bought. Just as the paterfamilias in the Roman practice had the power to sell a child to slavery in order for him to be adopted by a new father, so has God now subjected the whole of creation to the potestas of death-bound futility in the hope of it being likewise freed, redeemed and adopted by God (8:19–23). We may thus see that Paul’s adoption metaphor follows the Roman logic only in part, because in the Christian reality, God is both the one who sells the adopted slaves and the one who redeems them back. Life in Us: the Indwelling Christ and His Spirit A crucial way in which Paul depicts this new internal state of the Christian is the indwelling of Christ and of his Spirit in them. The new state of the baptised does not simply consist in their having come “into” Christ, but Christ having come “into” them. “God’s love has been poured out into [ἐν] our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us [ἡµῖν]”, Paul says (5:5). Just as sin dwells “in me”, that is, “in my flesh” (7:17f., 20) or “in my members” (7:23), in Christ, this old reality and, indeed, on-going possibility, is being replaced with Christ, or the Spirit of God or Christ, who dwells “in you” (8:9–11). In Paul’s teaching, the themes of the life in the Spirit and life as baptised into Christ complement each other in an interwoven manner.115 They ought not to be seen as rivals. According to Schnelle, the “pneumatic Christ” and the Spirit work together at baptism (Gal. 2:20; 4:19; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 11:10; 13:5; Rom. 8:9–11).116 Indeed, baptism and the indwelling of Christ or his Spirit share the same function of granting newness of life or newness of the Spirit (6:4; 7:6); these two sides of Paul’s argument must be read closely together. In Agersnap’s words, “Rom. 5.5; 7.6; 8.1–27 speaks of the Spirit’s crucial sig115 Cf. Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 23 (although he argues that the Spirit is more often the motivating factor in Paul’s ethics than baptism, apart from Rom. 6; see Chapter 2 section 4 on Backhaus). 116 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 68; cf. Johnson who lacks the complementarity between baptism and the Spirit (see Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’).

126

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

nificance at the transition to the new life and its development, and all passages can be related to baptism”117. Quite clearly, Paul’s teaching about the Spirit in Romans 8 occurs amidst language of death, life and slavery, which is the language used in the baptismal context of Rom. 6 as well. Furthermore, in 8:16f., the σύν language is strikingly similar to that of the σύν language in Rom. 6. This becomes particularly clear if it is read in the context of the death-and-life theme of 8:10f. We can now present these similarities between Paul’s teaching in chapters 6 and 8 more clearly in the following table:118

Theme Death with crucified Christ (in baptism)

Life with resurrected Christ

Future hope in resurrected Christ

Rom. 6 ὁ παλαιὸς ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας (6:6a) συνετάφηµεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσµατος εἰς τὸν θάνατον (6:4a) εἰ γὰρ σύµφυτοι γεγόναµεν τῷ ὁµοιώµατι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ (6:5a) ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωµεν. (6:4b)

ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόµεθα. (6:5b) εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνοµεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύοµεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσοµεν αὐτῷ. (6:8)

117

Rom. 8 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν, τὸ µὲν σῶµα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁµαρτίαν (8:10a) τὰ θνητὰ σώµατα ὑµῶν (8:11) (assumed) εἴπερ συµπάσχοµεν (8:17) τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην (8:10b) συγκληρονόµοι δὲ Χριστοῦ, εἴπερ συµπάσχοµεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶµεν (8:17) εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώµατα ὑµῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύµατος ἐν ὑµῖν (8:11)

Agersnap, Baptism, 406 fn. 17. Of course, such thematic breaking down of Paul’s argument in Rom. 6 and 8 is simplistic, and overlaps within the themes cannot be avoided. 118

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master

127

Thus we may see significant overlap in Paul’s death-life theme between the two chapters. Although baptism is not explicitly mentioned in chapter 8, it is assumed, because the language that Paul employs in chapter 6, he then builds upon in chapter 8. It is only if one wants to see baptism as a human act of confession or a symbol of the somehow more real work of the Spirit that Paul’s shared language between baptism and Spirit becomes difficult to comprehend.119 If we take Paul’s passive forms as denoting divine action also in and through the baptismal rite, which is the position defended here, such shared language is no problem at all. In that case, baptism is not a mere symbol for something more real; baptism, Spirit-reception and Spirit-created new life are inseparable parts of one and the same conversion experience in Paul’s teaching.120 As Rabens has clearly pointed out, the Spirit-created intimate relationship to God must not be neglected when we look for the source of the empowering for ethically correct action in Paul’s teaching.121 The importance of this theme becomes ever clearer upon the realisation that chapter 8 does not contain grammatical imperatives at all, even though it is thoroughly ethical.122 In order for us to access the core of Paul’s ethical argument in this chapter, we must, therefore, focus on its material contents. The theme of sonship occurs in Romans in 8:15–17, 21 and 23. “Through being drawn closer to God, Jesus Christ and the community of faith believers are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religious-ethical life”,123 as Rabens aptly puts it. Although he finds the indicative-imperative approach “inadequate to capture the full breadth of Paul’s moral reasoning”, he nevertheless tries to translate his relational model of “Paul’s Spirit-ethics” into the old framework.124 My thesis is an attempt to go beyond such terminology altogether by focusing on baptism and its cognition. The Spirit is here seen within the context of conversion-initiation and as the enabler of the constantly renewed cognition of the Christ into whom Christians have been baptised. Interestingly, both baptism and the Spirit are linked with cognitive language in Rom. 6–8, making it even clearer that Paul uses both in his ethical persuasion. It is here, however, that Rabens’ approach helps us avoid simple rationalism: knowledge is for Paul deeper than mere cognitive knowledge – it means knowing Christ intimately and by direct acquaintance (Phil. 3:8, 2 Cor. 2:14; 4:6 cf. 4:4;

119

Cf. Dunn’s reading criticised above. Cf. Schrage, Ethics, 170. 121 Rabens, Spirit, e.g. 204, 215; cf. Bornkamm, Paulus, 165, and Johnson, ‘Transformation of the Mind’, 230f. 122 Rabens, Spirit, 211; contra Freed, Morality, 38. 123 Rabens, Spirit, 250. 124 Rabens, Spirit, 250, fn. 11 with a reference to Zimmermann. 120

128

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

5:16).125 Likewise, the knowledge of the new identity as sons of God is not merely something cognitive, but is also existential and, therefore, empowering.126 This is most certainly true, but we might add that the intimacy of Christ-knowledge is also inseparably connected with the baptismal experience. After all, what could be more intimate than the knowledge of being baptised into Christ’s death and implanted into it, in the hope of likewise being raised from the dead? In sum, both baptism and Spirit-reception are integral and interwoven parts of coming to belong to the body of Christ. In Romans, Paul does not specify any separate time at which the Roman Christians received the Spirit; he simply assumes that all who are in Christ also have the Spirit (of Christ). In line with the norm within the NT, Paul uses shared language for baptism and the Spirit, not only in Romans but also in 1 Cor. 12:13 (cf. Tit. 3:5).127 Moreover, if a 21st-century Pauline exegete is allowed to infer anything from the Gospels and Acts, it becomes clear at the very least that early on, firstcentury Christians associated the reception of the Holy Spirit with the same conversion event, a part of which was also baptism εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα or ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ Κυρίοῦ Ἰησοῦ.128 Therefore, when Paul teaches about baptism, 125

Rabens, Spirit, 182. Rabens, Spirit, 230. 127 See my discussion of 1 Cor. in Chapter 3, Section 4 above. Note also the baptismal early Christian reception of descriptions of the Spirit as an anointing and seal in 2 Cor. 1:21f.; Eph. 1:13f.; 4:30 (Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 93–96). 128 We must not forget here the example set by one of the prototypes of Christian baptism: Jesus’s own baptism contains the descent of the Spirit, intrinsically bound up with his emerging from the Jordan (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; Joh. 1:32). John the Baptist teaches that he only baptises with water, whereas Jesus will come to baptise with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33), which Jesus confirms according to Acts (Acts 1:5). After the apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost, they extend the gift to others often through baptism. The connection between Christian baptism and Spirit-reception is clear in Acts 2:38–41 and 19:1–7. The Spirit is mentioned more loosely in some other baptismal passages in Acts: when Philip baptises the eunuch, he is immediately carried away by the Spirit (8:36–39); at Paul’s own conversion, Ananias lays hands on him, he receives the Spirit and is immediately baptised (9:17f.; cf. 22:16 where the Paul of Acts only mentions baptism, as if the Spirit-reception were a given). Sometimes baptism is mentioned without any reference to the Spirit (16:15; 16:31–33; 18:18); it appears to be simply assumed. 8:12–17 together with 10:44–48 and 11:15–18, where the reception of the Spirit occurs in greater separation from baptism in the name of Jesus, are best viewed in their narrative context. These events stand at the crossroads between a mostly Jewish Christianity and its expansion into the Gentile world. The Jerusalem apostles needed confirmation of the gospel ‘working’ for the non-Jews also: first, the ‘semi-Jewish’ Samaritans believe the gospel and are baptised by Philip, after which the leading apostles Peter and John must confirm it for themselves, praying for them also to receive the Spirit; secondly, the fully Gentile household of Cornelius receive the Spirit first, because it is 126

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master

129

his teaching on the Spirit is no detached matter, as it is not in Rom. 6–8. Likewise, when Paul teaches about the Spirit, it is natural for him to do so in close connection with baptism, just as he does in Rom. 6–8. Life Now and Not Yet The now-and-not-yet nature of Paul’s soteriology has implications for his ethics. With Agersnap, we might express this tension between salvation in Christ and the future hope of the resurrection as “already and even more”.129 The body of sin is already dead through baptism and from the perspective of the baptismal identity in Christ, and having the newness of life and the newness of the Spirit (Rom. 6:4; 7:6), the baptised are already sons of God (Rom. 8:14, 16). It is also true that Paul’s emphasis in his baptismal teaching is not on eschatology but on ethics and how to live well in the present moment.130 However, Paul wants his addressees to look forward to even more: the inheritance and glorification with Christ in freedom as God’s children (Rom. 8:17, 21), the revelation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19) and the adoption as sons together with the redemption of the body (8:23). This does not have to mean that Paul “downplays” the resurrection in Rom. 6:3f. and corrects the older formula that can be seen (again) in Col. 2:12 and Eph. 2:6. 131 Instead, to his Roman audience, Paul simply explains in more detail what it means that the new life in Christ is breaking into this death-bound world for those who have been baptised into Christ, have the surety of being grafted into his resurrection, and await that happening upon his return. Nor does Paul speak of the baptismal participation in Christ’s death in simply symbolic terms;132 the baptismal death is a real death to the power of sin despite the on-going split only after seeing this that Peter dares baptise them. (See L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. II, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, 7f.; Väisänen, Pyhä kaste Raamatussa, 136–142, 194–200.) Apart from these two narratively important exceptions (after which the gospel really starts to spread to the nations), baptism, the laying on of hands (if mentioned) and Spirit-reception appear to belong inseparably together in the description of the conversion experience in Acts. For a reception-historical account of the rituals of the laying on of hands and chrismation associated with Spirit-reception at baptism from the NT to early Christian teaching, see Jensen, Baptismal Imagery, 91–94. 129 Agersnap, Baptism, 255, 401. 130 As Matera notes about Rom. 6:4, “While we might have expected Paul to write ‘so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we will be raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,’ this is not what he says. Rather, he writes, ‘so that we might live in newness of life’ (…). Instead of drawing out the eschatological implications of baptism, he draws out the ethical consequences of dying with Christ, just as he did in 2 Cor 5:15. By sacramentally dying with Christ, the justified have been set free to live in ‘newness of life’” (Matera, ‘Living’, 161). 131 Contra Thurén, Derhetorizing, 31, 125 fn. 151. 132 Contra Thurén, Derhetorizing, 130, and Freed, Morality, 39.

130

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

in the “I”, and so is the newness of life in Christ a real newness. The old epoch is in control of the “I” if the death to sin and life to God in Christ are not a reality.133 The constant struggle for the Christian is to remember that the new epoch in Christ is the one that should be in control. Within this tension, then, forgetting one’s baptismal identity and slipping back to the old way of life remain a real danger.134 Without this actual possibility, the entire paraenesis of Rom. 6–8 would not make much sense. Although salvation and the future hope of new life depend on divine, not human, action (8:29f.), and although Paul stresses the intercessions of the Spirit (8:26f.) and God and Christ being “for us” (8:31–39) to assure his addressees of how solid this future hope in Christ really is, it is noteworthy that the lists of 8:35 and 38f. focus more on external threats to the lives of the Christians than, for instance, the slavery to sin that he has earlier portrayed in very negative light. Those external dangers cannot do eternal harm to those who have been baptised into Christ and who are indwelled by his Spirit; neglect of one’s baptismal state as dead to sin and alive to God, however, is another matter. In view of this tension amidst the on-going salvation narrative still without its culmination in the Parousia, Rom. 7:14ff. also makes sense. We do not need to view it as Paul’s somewhat surprising excursus into the prebaptismal situation seen from the post-conversion perspective,135 because there is no real contrast between Paul’s teaching in Rom. 7:14ff. and Rom. 8. Paul does not teach that people transferred into Christ and the Spirit are able to resist temptations of the body and flesh,136 at least not perfectly, because the tension between salvation now and its consummation then still remains. Why else would Paul have such a cognitive emphasis in his paraclesis that seeks to strengthen the baptismal identity of his addressees as dead to sin and alive to God? It is only if this identity and, indeed, present reality as a new relationship of a sonship-like slavery, is actively practised and realised that it can be lived out. Yet at the same time, the battle between the mind of the Spirit and the mind of the flesh remains until the very end when Christ rescues his own from this body of death (7:24f.). Until then, despite imperfections, failures and constant temptations, it is crucial to reckon oneself as belonging to Christ as opposed to sin (6:11) and seek to act in accordance with that identity. It is only that identity in Christ which brings a lasting hope amidst the on-going plight with sin. The unity of Paul’s argument between chapters 6–8 becomes even clearer if we compare his use of σῶµα / τὰ µέλη and σάρξ in them: 133 134 135 136

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 405, 408; Thurén, Derhetorizing, 123. Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 80f.; Thompson, Moral, 153. Contra Matera, Romans, 176–179. Contra Rabens, Spirit, 213.

3. Baptismal Life to the New Master

σῶµα / τὰ µέλη

Rom. 6 ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας (6:6) Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁµαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑµῶν σώµατι (6:12) µηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ µέλη ὑµῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡσει ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας καὶ τὰ µέλη ὑµῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ θεῷ (6:13) ὥσπερ γὰρ παρεστήσατε τὰ µέλη ὑµῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνοµίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνοµίαν, οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε τὰ µέλη ὑµῶν δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασµόν (6:19)

σάρξ

Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑµῶν (6:19)

Rom. 7 καὶ ὑµεῖς ἐθανατώτε τῷ νόµῳ διὰ τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑµᾶς ἑτερῳ (7:4) ὅτε γὰρ ἦµεν ἐν σαρκί, τὰ παθήµατα τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόµοῦ ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ἡµῶν, εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ (7:5) βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόµον ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν µου ἀντιστρατευόµεν ον τῷ νόµῳ τοῦ νοός µου καὶ αἰχµαλωτίζοντά µε ἐν τῷ νόµῳ τῆς ἁµαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς µέλεσλίν µου. Ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος· τίς µε ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου; (7:23f.) ὅτε γὰρ ἦµεν ἐν σαρκί, τὰ παθήµατα τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόµοῦ

131 Rom. 8 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν, τὸ µὲν σῶµα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁµαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην (8:10) ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώµατα ὑµῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύµατος ἐν ὑµῖν (8:11) εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε, µέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν· εἰ δὲ πνεύµατι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώµατος θανατοῦτε, ζήσεσθε (8:13) ἡµεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζοµεν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόµενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώµατος ἡµῶν (8:23)

Τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόµου ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός, ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέµψας ἐν

132

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ἡµῶν, εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ (7:5) Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐµοὶ, τοῦτ᾽ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί µου, ἀγαθόν (7:18) Ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ µὲν νοΐ δουλεύω νόµῳ θεοῦ τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόµῳ ἁµαρτίας (7:25)

ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁµαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί… ἐν τοῖς µὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν…οἱ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν… τὸ γὰρ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος… διότι τὸ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν… οἰ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται. ὑµεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύµατι, εἴπερ πνεῦµα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν. (8:3–9) Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὀφειλέται ἐσµὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν, εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε, µέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν (8:12f.)

The reality that Paul describes with ‘body of sin or death’ or ‘flesh’ is comparable to his now-and-not-yet worldview: these things are already such that they should not define those who have been baptised into Christ’s death, but they will be so even more and perfectly at the resurrection.137 For the time being, it continues to be a real possibility to use one’s ‘body parts’ as tools for sin or as tools for righteousness. For the time being, one uses one’s body either to be slavish to God’s righteousness for holiness or to be slavish to 137

Agersnap’s terms in italics (Baptism, 255, 401).

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

133

impurity and lawlessness for lawlessness. It is clear, however, that the flesh is weak and remains part of the person even after their baptism. What the baptised ought to realise, then, is that they are not to live by (ἐν) or according to (κατά) it. They have been given a new law (νόµος) by which and according to which they should conduct their lives: the Spirit of Christ who indwells them. The Spirit is that of sonship, which gives those whom the Spirit indwells a new relationship to their Creator, but its full culmination is yet to come when the Son returns. Already at baptism, the baptised have been given a fundamentally new relationship with God: they are to consider themselves as dead to sin with Christ and present their bodily members (that are perishing because of Adam’s sin) into God’s service as his living slaves. That slave-Master relationship is not like any other, however. It already reflects the sonship that is to be revealed fully upon Christ’s return. It already reflects a newness of life and a newness of the Spirit, but because of the sin that continues to be near and dwells within the unredeemed, perishing body, it is not yet the fullness of the renewed existence. The body, as the vehicle for action, continues to act as the battleground between sinful flesh and the Spirit. The indwelling of sin has been challenged by the indwelling of the Spirit. In the midst of this battle, Paul wants to calm his addressees with the assurance that he knows who the Victor is. This becomes clear on the basis of 7:25 and 8:18ff.138

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool An important aspect of Paul’s ethical exhortation in Rom. 6–8 is holiness. Hence it is worth setting Paul’s holiness language in the context of its OT background, Paul’s baptismal teaching and identity formation. This makes it appear in a much more identity-forming than self-improving light; holiness, in Paul’s use, has more to do with a consecrated state in Christ and staying in it than it does about anything else. Sanctification: Ambiguity of Meaning In its everyday popular Christian use, sanctification denotes a process of becoming holier, more Christ-like, or just a better Christian. However, this 138 Interestingly, !27, one of the earliest remaining fragments of parts of Rom. 8 and 9 (dated to the third century) contains punctuation and markings that were an aid to reading, which indicates that it was probably read publically, perhaps amidst the atmosphere of third-century persecutions; see S. Siikavirta, ‘!27 (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1355): A Fresh Analysis’, TC 18 (2013), 8f.

134

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

does not seem to be the case with the biblical use of the term. There is an acknowledged tension between the biblical and dogmatic use of the word sanctification. According to Käsemann, “The history of exposition has already shown how dangerous this theme is. The danger is all the greater here [in Rom. 6] because it [sanctification] seems to be the goal of the Christian life.”139 David P. Scaer defines sanctification as “the Christian’s life in the world, i.e., good works”, conceding rightly, however, that this is “the definition of dogmatic theology and not the common Biblical use of the word, which describes the entire activity of the Spirit in the Church, e.g., sacraments, conversion, faith, and good works”.140 Scaer also rightly points out that in its biblical core, sanctification is christological, insofar as it is Christ doing good works in the Christian: in this way, Christology, justification and sanctification all belong together (1 Cor. 6:11).141 As Scaer notes, Franz Pieper, an influential Lutheran systematic theologian, defined sanctification in both a wide and narrow sense, the former denoting “all that the Holy Ghost does in separating man from sin and making him again God’s own, so that he may live for God and serve Him” and the latter referring to renewal or “the internal spiritual transformation of the believer or the holiness of life which follows upon justification”.142 Pieper reads Romans 6:22 and the verses that precede it in the narrow sense. The basic distinction between justification that precedes sanctification in this narrow sense can already be found in the Solid Declaration of the Lutheran Confessions.143 This discrepancy can also be seen in how the phrase εἰς ἁγιασµόν in Rom. 6:19, 22 gets translated. In verses 19 to 22, Paul says: 19 I am speaking to you in a human way because of the weakness of your flesh: for just as you presented your members as slavish to uncleanness and lawlessness [τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνοµίᾳ] for lawlessness [εἰς τὴν ἀνοµίαν], so now present your members as slavish to righteousness [τῇ δικαιοσύνῇ] for holiness [εἰς ἁγιασµόν]. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to righteousness [τῇ δικαιοσύνῇ]. 21 So what fruit were you bearing [εἴχετε] then? Those, of which you are now ashamed, for their end is death. 22 But now, as people freed from sin and enslaved to God you are bearing [ἔχετε] your fruit for holiness [εἰς ἁγιασµόν] and the end, eternal life.

Most mainstream English translations take εἰς ἁγιασµόν directionally. The KJV is simplest, translating both phrases literally as “unto holiness”. The NASB explains both more with “resulting in sanctification”. The NIV and 139

Käsemann, Romans, 183 (parentheses added). D.P. Scaer, ‘Sanctification in Lutheran Theology’, CTQ 49 (1985), 181. 141 D.P. Scaer, ‘Sanctification in the Lutheran Confessions’, CTQ 53:3 (1989), 180. 142 F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III, Saint Louis: Concordia, 1983, 3–4. 143 Sol. Decl. III 40f. N.b. that the Lutheran confessional writings view even the narrow sense of sanctification as the work of God’s Spirit in the Christian and not the work of man himself (CA XX 29–34). 140

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

135

ESV are almost identical with “leading to holiness / sanctification” and “leads to holiness / sanctification”. The NRSV follows this tradition in the first instance, rendering “for sanctification”, but paraphrases the fruit-bearing language as “the advantage you get is sanctification”. Some translations really want to emphasise the ethical aspect of εἰς ἁγιασµόν. GW explicates the Greek, “this leads you to live holy lives” (6:19) and “this results in a holy life” (6:22). Similarly, the Good News Translation’s “for holy purposes” and “your gain is a life fully dedicated to him” make εἰς ἁγιασµόν to be all about renewal and transformation. The Voice Bible is unbeatable in this effort: “so you will find yourselves deeper in holy living” and ”you have a different sort of life, a growing holiness”. Paul’s OT Background: Ἁγιασµός as Divine Separation In order for us to be anchored in Paul’s own scriptures, we should begin by looking at the OT use of holiness language. The word ἁγιασµός is not at all a common word in the Bible and very little known outside Judaeo-Christian texts.144 In the OT, including the Apocrypha, this LXX term also lacks a clear Hebrew equivalent.145 However, it clearly always denotes consecration or ritual dedication to God (e.g. Judg. 17:3; 2 Macc. 2:17; 2 Macc. 14:36; 3 Macc. 2:18; Sir. 7:31; Sir. 17:10; Amos 2:11; Ezek. 45:4). Amos 2:11 is the only place outside Rom. 6 in the Greek Scriptures that contains the phrase εἰς ἁγιασµόν, and there it has the meaning of consecration-separation (as Nazirites).146 As the word does not occur often, it is useful to reflect on the OT use of holiness language more broadly. Holiness in the OT is closely linked with the cult: the noun from the root ‫ קדשׁ‬is found, for instance, in conjunction with the holy ground where the burning bush stood (Ex. 3:5), Jerusalem (e.g. Isa. 48:2), the Temple (e.g. Isa. 11:9), the Temple site and everything related to it (e.g. 1 Chr. 29:3), the priests separated to Temple service to Yahweh (e.g. Ex. 28:36; Lev. 21:6f.; 22:12; Num. 16:5), and the Levites (e.g. Num. 18:2– 6).147 Similarly, the adjective from the same root is used to describe God (e.g. Isa. 5:16; Hos. 11:9) and his name (e.g. Ps. 33:21), word (Ps. 105:42), Spirit (e.g. Isa. 63:10) and angels (Job 5:1; 15:15), and it has an ethical dimension as a human predicate.148 The verbal form “to set in a state of holiness” may, 144

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 346. O. Procksch, TDNT, I, 113. 146 The related word ἁγιωσύνη occurs equally rarely in the LXX, always in reference to God’s holiness or the holiness of the Temple (2 Macc. 3:12; LXX Pss. 29:5; 95:6, 96:12; 144:5). 147 Procksch, TDNT, I, 89f., 94. 148 Procksch, TDNT, I, 90f. 145

136

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

in its turn, take as its object God (Ezek. 36:23), the Sabbath (Gen. 2:3) and Israel (e.g. Ezek. 20:12; 37:28; Ex. 19:10), the causative of the verb designating “transfer to the possession of God”149. These uses show lucidly how biblical holiness language has a sense of separation and withdrawal from the quotidian150 into the sphere of God’s election. Similarities with Paul’s use of holiness language are not difficult to find. Holiness is also a relational concept in the OT and therefore linked with the relationship between God and his people: because God dwells amidst Israel, the whole people of Israel is holy.151 The holiness of God is the source of the holiness of the people – a link that is particularly clear in the Levitical Holiness Code (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; 20:7, 26).152 The entire sacrificial system pointed to this relationship as a sign of reconciliation between God and his people.153 David Peterson understands this well: With regard to God himself, holiness implies transcendence, uniqueness and purity. With regard to God’s people, holiness means being set apart for a relationship with the Holy One, to display his character in every sphere of life.154

In addition to the essential holiness of God, the holiness of his people also stems from the salvific Exodus event: set apart and saved by their holy God, Israel is to be a holy people (Ex. 19:16; Deut. 7:6; 14:2).155 In Isaiah, atone149

Procksch, TDNT, I, 90f. BDB, 871. 151 Procksch, TDNT, I, 91. 152 J.W. Kleinig, ‘Sharing in God’s Holiness’, LTR VIII:1/2 (1995/1996), 107, 112; D.G. Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (NSBT), Leicester: Apollos, 1995, 21; Procksch, TDNT, I, 90, 92. 153 Procksch, TDNT, I, 95; Kleinig, ‘Sharing’, 114; Peterson, Possessed, 20. 154 Peterson, Possessed, 24. 155 The ethical obligation derived from the God-given status can also be found in Paul and 1 Pet., as both build on the Jewish idea of belonging to God’s people. Cf. Thurén, who, by focusing merely on the “paraenetical section” of Rom. 12:1–15:13, does not find this to be the case in Paul’s ethical exhortations, apart from loose allusions to Christ and to his motivational teaching on the Spirit and baptism earlier in the epistle. These, however, he does not see as playing a “central role” in the text very often (Thurén, ‘Motivation’, 361–367). Thurén himself asks the right question without, however, finding an answer for it, “How should awareness of baptism as a mystical, but major, theological event in the addressees’ life render them obedient to the Pauline paraenesis? This question definitely deserves more attention.” (365, cf. “The motivation of early Christian paraenesis deserves further investigation”, 371.) Equally correctly, he finds it hard to derive “the old German ‘indicative-imperative’ theology from Paul’s text”, which he calls “the old ‘dogmatizing exegesis’ that has “obscured the questions” (366). It is my conviction here that Rom. 12:1ff. is inseparably linked with its motivational foundation in e.g. Rom. 6–8, and that to say that the motivational foundation does not play a central role in Paul’s more practical moral advice later in the epistle misses the mark. 150

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

137

ment is emphasised (Isa. 6:7) – the Holy one of Israel himself atones for the sins of Israel as their Creator (41:20; 45:11) and Redeemer (41:14 etc.), thus creating a connection between holiness and salvation.156 The holiness of Israel was maintained so long as the people kept on living in the state of being set apart and could thus remain in the sanctifying presence of God.157 The creation of a holy people is, indeed, the goal of the relationship between God and Israel (Isa. 4:3 cf. Rom. 6:22).158 There is also a strong connection between God’s holiness and purity in the OT, which contrasts with what is common and impure (Lev. 10:10; cf. Rom. 6:19).159 Kleinig rightly sees holiness and impurity as the two conflicting powers in the OT, which is likely to be the scriptural background for the opposition between holiness and uncleanness in Rom. 6 as well.160 In Hosea, for instance, the holiness of God does not merely destroy impurity (Hos. 5:3; 6:10; 9:4; cf. Isa. 10:16), but also creates new things (14:8).161 Correspondingly in the Pauline corpus, the new Christian life comes after purification from sin in the cleansing waters of baptism (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; cf. Heb. 10:22; Acts 2:38; 22:16).162 Thus baptism and sanctification are closely intertwined. It is likely that Paul was thinking of Jesus’s own teaching, which combined the notion of purity with ethics already in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:8), when he spoke in similar terms in Rom. 6:19.163 Purification in baptism is God’s action in Christ mediated through humans, as is shown by the tendency to use the passive voice in this context, and it derives its force from the atoning death and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25f.; Tit. 3:4f.; cf. Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 Joh. 5:6; Joh. 19:34).164 Ethically upright life thus stems from this given purity, righteousness and holiness (1 Cor. 6:11, where sanctification acts as the basis of exhortation; Eph. 5:26ff.).165 The new life is not one’s own doing, but life from God and participation in the life, death and resurrection of Christ (Gal. 2:19f; 5:24; 6:14;

156

Procksch, TDNT, I, 93f. Peterson, Possessed, 21. 158 Procksch, TDNT, I, 93f. This background helps the reader of Romans 6 understand that although Paul was concerned with the salvation and sanctification of individuals, he most likely approached the topic of baptism and sanctification more collectively than the modern reader may be inclined to think. 159 Kleinig, ‘Sharing’, 107. 160 Kleinig, ‘Sharing’, 108; Peterson, Possessed, 103; Harrington, Holiness, 177. 161 Procksch, TDNT, I, 93. 162 Oepke, TDNT, I, 540; Kleinig, ‘Sharing’, 115. 163 Procksch, TDNT, I, 108; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3, 7; Eph. 5:26. 164 Oepke, TDNT, I, 540; cf. Romans 6:3–5. 165 Oepke, TDNT, I, 541. 157

138

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

Col. 2:11–15; 3:1ff.)166 – even in his holiness (1 Cor. 1:30).167 The christocentricity of sanctification must, therefore, not be overlooked. From Slavery to Slavery: Ἁγιασµός as a Relationship Paul’s language of slavery in Romans 6:16ff. also echoes its use in the OT. Paul divides slavery into two types. In its negative meaning, one can be a slave (δοῦλος) to sin, impurity and lawlessness. Such slavery results in lawlessness and, ultimately, death. Taken positively, Paul teaches that his addressees should now be slaves to obedience, righteousness and God for the purpose of righteousness and sanctification. The final end (τέλος) of life in Christ in the now is eternal life (Rom. 6:22). The echoes from the Exodus language of the Pentateuch are evident. In the Exodus, the Israelites were freed by God from slavery (‫ מעבדתם‬/ LXX: ἐκ τῆς δουλείας) in Egypt (Ex. 6:6; cf. Ex. 14:5; Deut. 5:6). The same Hebrew root ‫ עבד‬as here can be found in the wording of what awaits Israel in the covenant relationship to Yahweh: “when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve [‫תעבדון‬/ λατρεύσετε] God on this mountain” (Ex. 3:12; cf. Deut. 5:9). The Hebrew verbal form of ‫ עבד‬with the accusative can mean serving someone as a slave,168 which is the case here. The clearest indication of the way in which the Exodus is seen in the Pentateuch as a shift from negative to positive slavery can be found in Deuteronomy 6:12f.: “Take care that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery [‫ מבית עבדים‬/ ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας]. The Lord your God you shall fear; him you shall serve [‫ ואתו תעבד‬/ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις], and by his name alone you shall swear.”169 The LXX often uses δοῦλος and δουλεύω in passages that address worshipping God or being his servant, just as it characterises being a servant of Moses, Joshua, the patriarchs and even Nebuchadnezzar.170 Here, however, the negative slavery is spoken of as δουλεία, whilst the positive servitude ascribed to God is translated with the verb λατρεύω (cf. Deut. 5:6, 9). This divine action of being freed from slavery and of positive enslavement or servitude to God in the Exodus helps us understand the scriptural background to Paul’s use of two kinds of slavery in Romans 6:20, 22a: ὅτε γὰρ δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁµαρτίας (...) νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁµαρτίας

166 167 168 169 170

Oepke, TDNT, I, 541. Kleinig, ‘Sharing’, 106. BDB, 713. NRSV. NIDNTTae, 152.

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

139

δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ.171 Just as the people of Israel were expected to remain faithful in their servitude and worship of one Lord (Ex. 20:2–5; Deut. 5:6–9) – anything less being considered idolatry – so Paul also maintains that one cannot serve and obey two lords (Rom. 6:16), and reminds his addressees of where their loyalties should lie.172 In Rom. 6, Paul combines “rescue from slavery and new-temple theology”173 in a way that makes him view the Church as an “exodus-people”174, or, “the Passover-people”175. Wright has recently crystallised the point I am trying to make here: the whole of Rom. 6–8 may be viewed as Paul’s retelling of the Exodus narrative, in which the slaves who go through the water to find freedom (Rom. 6) are given the Torah (Rom. 7) and inherit the promised new creation (Rom. 8), in which, however, they find the new reality that “in the Messiah and by the spirit the one God has given the ‘life’ which Torah could not, because it was ‘weak because of human flesh’”.176 Thus Paul once again recycles old material while going beyond it in the new reality in Christ.177 The slavery imagery in Exodus, then, corresponds to the divine act of separation also known as sanctification or consecration.178 It is noteworthy that the law and all the detailed commandments, dictating how this separation from the nations as the chosen covenant people of God was to be shown in practice, were given to Israel after their “baptism into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). This, too, reflects the sequence in Rom. 6: first comes God’s act of salvation and sanctification in the sense of separation, from which follows the reminder to live in this relationship as slaves of

171 Interestingly, Nygren focuses solely on the aspect of the freedom from sin in Christ and fails to say anything about the holiness language in his commentary (Romans, 261ff.). 172 Cf. Matt. 6:24; Joh. 8:34; NIDNTTae, 152. Rom. 6 is not the only passage where Paul connects baptismal imagery with the Exodus, however. In 1 Corinthians 10:1–2, Paul explicitly uses the passing of the sea and being guided by the cloud in the Exodus as an allegory for a baptism into Moses. This Exodus baptism of the fathers was known to Rabbi Eleazer and Rabbi Joshua around AD 90–130 in their discussion of the necessity of proselyte baptism. It is more likely that proselyte baptism was practised in Judaism independently of being adopted from Christianity, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem. See: Oepke, TDNT, I, 535f.; Betz, ‘Transferring’, 101; Väisänen, Pyhä kaste Raamatussa, 63. Cf. how 1 Peter uses the Genesis flood narrative similarly in 1 Pet. 3:20f. 173 Wright, Paul, 1373. 174 Wright, Paul, 1374. 175 Wright, Paul, 1377. 176 Wright, Paul, 1377f. 177 Wright calls this “Paul’s Jesus-shaped rethinking of the exodus-narrative” (Paul, 1382); cf. Thompson’s idea of such “elect and holy” identity (similarly to the Torah) as motivation of Paul’s ethics and incorporation into Israel’s identity (Moral, 53f., 112, 208). 178 Peterson, Possessed, 22.

140

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

God’s righteousness in Christ and to abstain from labouring in the orchard of the old master of impurity. The NT Context of εἰς ἁγιασµόν: Holiness as a God-Given Status We have now seen how holiness language is used in the OT to denote a Godgiven state with ethical repercussions. From this, we can move to the NT and Paul’s use of the terminology in particular. The word ἁγιασµός occurs ten times in the NT, and only twice outside the Pauline corpus (Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). It refers most often to the holiness that comes from God in Christ and that those called to live in him reflect in their lives. The christological dimension of the word is particularly clear in 1 Cor. 1:30, where Christ is described as the one “who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification (ἁγιασµός) and redemption”.179 Sometimes the context is no doubt clearly ethical, just as it is in Rom. 6, 1 Thess. 4 and Heb. 12:14. Even then, however, it is obvious that the holiness or sanctification of the Christian is founded on the sanctifying and saving work of God in Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 4:7; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 12:2a), or God’s own holiness (Heb. 12:10a). How does the NT use of ἁγιασµός relate to that of other notions in the same holiness word group? A detailed discussion of the most obvious use of the adjective ἅγιος as an attribute of God, his Spirit, Jesus, the prophets, apostles, scriptures or simply all the saints to whom Paul writes cannot be attempted in this short space.180 The word ἁγιωσύνη, often translated simply as holiness, occurs only thrice in the NT and each time in Paul’s epistles: once as an attribute of the Spirit (Rom. 1:4), and twice as an attribute of Christians. Of the latter, in 1 Thess. 3:13, ἁγιωσύνη is an attribute of Christians but one that is clearly God-given: the Lord is the one who establishes the hearts of his own “blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints”. In 2 Cor. 7:1, ἁγιωσύνη is something to be carried into practice, executed, performed or completed (ἐπιτελέω) in the fear of God, contrasted with the defilement of flesh and spirit. The verb ἁγιάζω, in its turn, occurs nine times in the Pauline corpus (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Cor. 7:14 [x2]; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:21). In all but one of these verses, God is again the one doing the sanctifying work. It is only in 1 Cor. 7:14, where unbelieving spouses or children, thought to be impure due to only having one believing parent, are considered sanctified by people: the believing spouse or parent. 179

Cf. a similar use of the verb ἁγιάζω in 1 Cor. 6:11. Paul describes Christians as οἱ ἅγιοι (cf. Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25f., 31; 16:2, 15); cf. Trebilco, Self-designations, 122–163. 180

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

141

Even there, however, there is no reason to doubt that their source of holiness follows the biblical logic of holiness coming from God.181 To shed even more light on the meaning of ἁγιάζω, the author of Hebrews employs the verb seven times, each time referring to the sanctification brought about by Christ’s sacrificial blood (Heb. 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12).182 The Significance of the εἰς Despite such perceived clarity in the use of holiness language in the NT, the process view of sanctification continues to have its proponents. According to Dunn, justification serves as the point of departure and goal of a process described in turn as sanctification, renewal and transformation.183 He talks about “the not yet accomplished process of being made holy”.184 Although Dunn takes ἁγιασµός to mean “the end result of an act (ἁγιάζω) or process (εἰς ἁγιασµόν)”, because this was what the law looked for (Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:26; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9), Dunn does also seem to equate “consecration” with “dedicated state”, acknowledging that “a firm line between end result and process into cannot be clearly drawn (cf. 6:22; 1 Thess 4:7; 2 Thess 2:13)”.185 Nevertheless, he wants to see the state of holiness as a future state corresponding to total sinlessness and purity.186 Dunn attempts to explain this tension between the end-result and process-meaning of Paul’s holiness language by referring to the now-and-not-yet state of affairs: one’s “conversion-initiation and Spirit’s anointing” is to be lived out daily with deliberate decision (an Aktionsart-type argument based on the aorist tense of παραστήσατε in Rom. 6:19187), and the “maturing process” of sanctification that should already be visible (a reference to the present tense of ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν in Rom. 6:22).188 Moo offers a similar explanation for holiness words as both state and task: 181

I read 2 Tim. 2:21 as also implying divine action behind the sanctification of vessels (Christians) for his own use. Cf. Procksch, TDNT, I, 112. 182 The connection is most striking in Heb. 13:12: Διὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵµατος τὸν λαόν, ἔξω τῆς πὐλης ἔπαθεν. 183 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 355. See 354 for Dunn’s language of the “transfer of slave ownership”; similarly, with regard to παρεδόθητε in Rom. 6:18, Moo, Romans, 401. 184 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 355. 185 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 347. 186 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 349; similarly Freed (Morality, 26–49) interprets Paul’s baptismal teaching as entailing the notion of freedom from pre-baptismal sins and the possibility of post-baptismal realised sinlessness, which leads to his reading of righteousness as the moral quality obtained by obedience – a requirement for salvation. 187 So also e.g. Matera, Romans, 154; cf. Moo, Romans, 385. See Chapter 4, Section 1, ‘Insights from Verbal Aspect and Voice’. 188 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 347, 349.

142

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

They depict the Christian as one who has been singled out, separated from the world, and dedicated to God (a ‘saint’). But ‘holiness’, while achieved in one sense (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26), is a way of living, or a state, that it is the Christian’s duty yet to achieve (cf. 1 Thess. 4:3; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13).189

Appealing to 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7 and 1 Tim. 2:15, Moo claims that “most of Paul’s uses of this word have an active connotation: the process of ‘becoming holy’.”190 Similarly yet less strongly, Porter maintains that sanctification for Paul includes both a “soteriological status” and, “more importantly”, “ethical and eschatological perfection” (even though he does not see the attainment of complete perfection to have been envisioned by Paul); holiness in Paul is “both a condition and a process”.191 Nevertheless, Porter maintains that Paul’s notion of sanctification is complex and must not be reduced to one thing, but that “it may be summarized in the idea that the believer both lives in holiness and grows into holiness”192. Porter does acknowledge that the notions of sanctification and justification have a degree of semantic overlap in Paul (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:30) and that according to Rom. 6:22, sanctification may include initiation, but he then goes on to claim that sanctification is also the τέλος “towards which the justified strive”.193 Although Porter rightly explains that justification for Paul is similarly related to both initiation and the Christian life, and that sanctification is about the “ongoing life of the believer dedicated to serve God”, his characterisation of ἁγιασµός as the τέλος misses the mark. According to Rom. 6:20–22, the τέλος of one’s slavery to sin is death and that of one’s slavery to God, eternal life. A distinction between the purpose or object of one’s slavery relationship (εἰς) and the ultimate goal of that relationship (τέλος) must be made. Sanctification is not the τέλος, but the state, condition and slavery relationship along the way to that ultimate τέλος.194 As an example of a stative reading, Horn doubts whether the Pauline holiness language can be considered as synonymous with ethical life as has been presented in Reformed dogmatics.195 He observes rightly that Paul uses ἅγιος 189

Moo, Romans, 405 fn. 58; cf. Thompson, Moral, 54. Moo, Romans, 405. Earlier than both Dunn and Moo, Cranfield’s rather unsubstantiated defence of ἁγιασµός as the key-word of the section 6:1–23 and as a process of ethical renewal rather than a state should be noted (Romans, 295, 327–329). 191 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 397f. Such an ethical reading of holiness in Paul is possible for Porter, because he argues that Paul detaches holiness language from its OT cultic context. Additionally, he makes a distinction between ἁγιασµός as having a strongly ethical (paraenetic) sense and ἁγιωσύνη as having a status sense (ibid.). 192 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 399. 193 Porter, ‘Holiness’, 399. 194 Contra Freed, Morality, 40. 195 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 229. 190

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

143

language in the context of conversion (Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Thess. 4:7), baptism (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; Rom. 6:19, 22) and separation from the Gentile world (Rom. 6:19; 1 Cor. 7:14; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Thess. 4:7; Rom. 15:16).196 These contexts do, Horn admits, serve as a list of vices of sorts to warn the Christians against falling back to their pre-Christian state. However, Horn insists that they do not act primarily as examples for ethical instruction, but as foundational and underlying statements of the Gentile Christians’ status as holy in Christ (conforming to the OT meaning of holiness).197 Horn rightly maintains that Paul’s anthropology is depicted in Rom. 7 in unflatteringly pessimistic terms, which is why the gift of the Spirit is needed, not to bring about perfect fulfilment of the law, but to establish a new direction of thought in harmony with the righteousness of the law.198 Similarly, Fitzmyer takes sanctification to be not a consequence of justification but simply a synonym for it under a different image – both refer to the transferral of the baptised to the dominion of Christ.199 Jewett, in his turn, takes holiness to refer to the church as a “new, holy temple of God” in which holiness must show in internal social relations.200 Käsemann’s criticism of the sequence from theologically understood justification to ethically understood sanctification is, however, perhaps the sharpest and most helpful. Protestantism also has regarded justification as the beginning of Christian life, which sanctification necessarily must follow and verify. […] Obviously the present text could provide it exemplary support […], since Paul does not limit the event of justification in time and he understands the new walk also as the work of grace in which resurrection power projects itself on earth. The distinction between justification and sanctification and the sequence derived from it were possible only when the gift was separated from the Giver, justification was no longer viewed as its center as transferal to the dominion of Christ, and instead anthropology was made its horizon. Almost inevitably, then, room was created for the idea of an inner development in the Christian life, the more so as Paul speaks of sanctifying and perfecting. The spiritual growth of the believer replaced the question how one remains under the rule of Christ through the changes of times and situations and in face of the provocation of the world and its powers.201

Käsemann views ἁγιασµός as part of baptismal vocabulary (1 Thess. 4:7; 1 Cor. 6:11) that is used cultically in the OT and most often eschatologically

196

Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 229f. Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 230. 198 Horn, ‘Darstellung’, 224f. 199 Fitzmyer, Romans, 445, 451. Despite emphasising ἁγιασµός as a new Christian status of dedication, Fitzmyer translates εἰς ἁγιασµόν as “which leads to holiness”, 444. 200 Jewett, Romans, 421. 201 Käsemann, Romans, 172. 197

144

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

but sometimes ethically in the NT.202 He describes sanctification as “the daily task of the living out of justification” boldly and in face of temptation in the secular world under the lordship of Christ.203 In his analysis, Käsemann points out the tendency in those maintaining the process view of sanctification to read Paul idealistically as teaching present sinlessness, in which “[r]edemption requires moral cooperation”.204 Sinlessness, for Paul, means freedom from the power of sin, which is why, according to Käsemann, Paul “is not concerned with development to perfection but with a constantly new grasping of the once-for-all, eschatological, saving act of justification, since man is always and totally thrown back on grace”205. Instead of “Become what you already are in fact by baptism”, idealistic readings render the summary statement for Paul’s ethical exhortation as “Become what you now can become”.206 In reality, however, sanctification in Rom. 6 means “justification maintained in the field of action and suffering” – salvation gives Christians this responsibility, but their salvation is not based on it.207 Does the εἰς of εἰς ἁγιασµόν resolve the question one way or the other? Is the directional preposition enough for us to believe that here, in these two verses, Paul swims against the overwhelming evidence of the biblical use of holiness language as a divinely given status of separation from what is common and unclean and means by εἰς ἁγιασµόν a process of increased holiness? No. The εἰς must refer to something else: most naturally, it refers to the shift of lordships and slaveries described immediately before.208 What is noteworthy about Paul’s slavery language in Rom. 6 is that he uses terminology that has to do with tools, bearing fruit and wages. The language of bearing (ἔχω) fruit only occurs in Rom. 1:13 and 6:21f. The expected and more usual verb would be φέρετε instead of ἔχετε, which may also imply possession and the keeping of the fruit.209 The word translated as instruments (ὅπλον; 6:13) refers to any tool or instrument used for preparing a thing or weapons in Classical Greek.210 The word ὀψώνιον in 6:23 may 202

Käsemann, Romans, 183. Käsemann, Romans, 183. 204 Käsemann, Romans, 173. 205 Käsemann, Romans, 174. 206 Käsemann, Romans, 173. N.b. also (ibid.): “When being and becoming are dialectically related and opposed in this way, it seems to be enough to speak of the tension between the indicative and the imperative in Paul. Pushed wholly into the background is the question why the apostle not only formulates basic statements and demands in relation to the new life but also why he spends so much time on concrete exhortation […].” 207 Käsemann, Romans, 174. 208 E.g. Fitzmyer, Romans, 430f., 450. 209 Jewett, Romans, 422f. 210 GT, s.v. ὅπλον. 203

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

145

mean one’s pay in general or soldier’s wages in particular. The idea conveyed by this vocabulary together with the repeated servant/slavery imagery becomes clear: the baptised have been transferred from servitude/slavery to impurity and lawlessness to servitude/slavery to holiness and righteousness. As has already been noted above, bearing fruit is the result of service/slavery under either of these lordships but not its end – the τέλος language is reserved for death or life.211 These are lordships in opposition to each other.212 There is a war raging between them, and those baptised into Christ should know on whose side they are. Schnelle helpfully portrays Romans 6–8 as the central text for Pauline hamartiology, in which sin represents not merely human misbehaviour but a realm of power that stands in contrast and opposition to that of God and his righteousness, a realm that Christ has overcome and that thus belongs in the past for those who participate in Christ.213 Käsemann rightly stresses the relationship between lordship and slavery language, saying that “the central concern is not the individual but the lordship of Christ, which is objectively erected over the individual and is to be subjectively grasped and maintained”, and viewing δουλεία as the key word in the passage.214 On the other hand, the agricultural word σύµφυτος of 6:5 means growing together or being planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death, and the promise of the same happening in the future with regard to his resurrection. It may possibly even allude to grafting.215 Those who have been grafted into or grown together with Christ and his holiness also bear fruit 211

Käsemann, Romans, 185. Or “powers” in Moo, Romans, 407; “dominion” in Fitzmyer, Romans 450; “masters” in Cranfield, Romans, 324, and Nygren, Romans, 257, 263 (but also “powers” and “dominion”, 254, 257); “and exchange of lordships” in Jewett, Romans, 414. Käsemann, Romans, 175, 179, 182, rightly pinpoints this change of lordships in baptism. 213 Schnelle, ‘Transformation’, 67. 214 Käsemann, Romans, 182. See also 175f.: “Resistance to [sin’s] power and victory over it depend on Christ remaining Kyrios over us as the One who imparted himself to us in baptism. The so-called imperative is integrated into the indicative and does not stand paradoxically alongside it, since the Kyrios remains Kyrios only for the one who serves him. Gift and task coincide in the fact that both designate standing under Christ’s lordship, which only inadequately, namely, from the truncated anthropological [176] view, can be brought under the idealistic formula: ‘Become what you are’ (Furnish, Theology, 225ff.). The point is that the lordship of the exalted one be declared in the following of the crucified one. Justification and sanctification belong together to the extent that being conformed to Christ is valid in both. They are distinct because this is not effected once and for all but, having begun in baptism, has to be experienced and suffered always afresh in changing situations. Paul’s ethics cannot be independent of either dogmatics or the cultus. It is part of his eschatology […]. More exactly, it is the anthropological reverse side of christology.” 215 C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London: A & C Black, 1957 (2nd edn 1991), 115. 212

146

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

reflecting the trunk of Christ the tree: that fruit is meant for holy purposes, not as food for impurity. 216 When it comes to the actual preposition εἰς, it is best to translate it simply as “for” or “for the purpose of”217, which reflects the nature of those who enjoy the sanctified status in Christ much better than the progressivesounding “leading to” or “which leads to (holiness)”.218 This would be comparable to its use in 6:16 in conjunction with obedience, death and righteousness: bondservants present themselves for obedient work (εἰς ὑπακοήν) either as slaves of sin for death (εἰς θάνατον), i.e. to do the work of death, or as slaves of obedience for righteousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην), i.e. to do the work of righteousness.219 They belong to either lordship. Similarly, one’s body parts are either slavish or servile (δοῦλα) to uncleanness and lawlessness for the work of the lawlessness that Paul has already addressed in the early chapters of Romans, or they can be slavish or servile to righteousness for the work of God’s holiness (6:19). Here in verse 19, Paul clearly links presenting oneself as “slavish to uncleanness and lawlessness” (δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνοµίᾳ) with the purpose (εἰς) of such slavishness: lawlessness. Then, in the latter half of the same verse, he links presenting oneself as “slavish to righteousness” (δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ) with its purpose: sanctification. This reflects the main identity question in the whole chapter: under whose lordship are you (6:14) and whose work should you be doing (6:16)? This is not about achieving justification (6:16) or sanctification (6:19, 22) but about a relationship of servitude for a purpose. This identity shown in the bearing of fruit under either the realm of sin or of righteousness also carries social connotations: Christians as servants of God are to be a physical witness of God’s goodness towards his world to those who are still in the world and not in Christ.220 Holiness as Identity-Forming Tool: Cognition of the Baptismal Identity The context in which ἁγιασµός occurs in Romans 6 is that of baptismal life and Christian identity. Suffice it to say here that in Rom. 6, ἁγιασµός as consecration-separation is intrinsically bound up with the baptismal washing, in 216

Cf. the state in which God has called his own, i.e. holiness (1 Thess. 4:7), which is also God’s will (1 Thess. 4:3). 217 Moo, Romans, 408 fn. 75; Matera, ‘Living’, 163. 218 Moo, Romans, 396, 404; Matera, Romans, 156–158. Despite this translation, Matera rightly emphasises the importance of the moral dimension that should characterise the Christian life in the present. He makes an important distinction between reward and outcome: eternal life is not a reward from holy life, because God is the source of the holiness – however, eternal life is the outcome of such a holy life. 219 Somewhat analogously to the use of εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν in Matt. 26:28. 220 Käsemann, Romans, 184.

4. Sanctification in Romans 6 as Status and Identity-Forming Tool

147

which occurs a death to sin with Christ and at which begins a newness of life dedicated to the δουλεία to God’s righteousness in Christ. Furthermore, as we have seen, holiness is inseparable from the Jewish temple cult. Paul calls the presentation of the body to God as a holy and acceptable living sacrifice “a rational worship” (12:1), because it stems from the God-given understanding of the Christian servant’s identity. However, the new identity that this God-given holiness establishes is no individualistic identity but, as suggested by Jewett, a group identity that transports the holiness language related to the temple cult in the OT to the church as the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16f.).221 Most naturally in the fullness of its biblical context, then, ἁγιασµός refers to a God-given status instead of a process of moral betterment. The scriptural evidence for this is overwhelming. Sanctification is intrinsically bound up with the entirety of salvation vocabulary and is used by Paul of those baptised into Christ’s death to the power of sin (Rom. 6:3f.). This is why Paul calls his addressees saints – their holiness comes from their having been dedicated to God in Christ. How, then, does this state of holiness form the Christian identity? I would argue that the question “Whose are you?” is the primary identity question to be asked on the basis of Rom. 6, instead of “Who are you?”222 The answer, of course, is God’s in Christ. This is the same question with which Paul is dealing in 1 Corinthians: οὐκ οἴδατε ὁτι τὸ σῶµα ὑµῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑµῖν ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν; ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιµῆς (1 Cor. 6:19f.).223 The Christian identity as washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:11) is no individualistic identity but a relational one. In Rom. 6, this relationship is portrayed in terms of slavery or servitude under the realm of God’s righteousness. The language of having fruit for sanctification (εἰς ἁγιασµόν) simply refers to the purpose of this servitude: not to serve in the orchard of the old slave master, from whose realm Christians were redeemed, but in that of the new and merciful one. Paul further explains this with the purpose clause in 7:6: ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡµᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύµατος. The goal (τέλος) of these slaveries reveals their true nature: there are deserved wages for the former slavery to sin and impurity for lawlessness, which is death, but for the δουλεία to obedience and righteousness for justification and sanctification, 221

Jewett, Romans, 421, 424f.; cf. Horrell’s communal emphasis in his Solidarity. Cf. Nygren, Romans, 254: “The only question is which power he serves, the power of sin or the power of righteousness. Freedom from the one means service of the other, and service of the one precludes service of the other.” Similarly, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 230. 223 N.b. the comparable connection here between holiness, temple metaphor and slave trade language, all of which serve as identity-forming tools in 1 Cor. 222

148

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

there is simply a free gift, which is “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:16, 18–23).224 Paul can speak in these drastic terms, because the gospel is equally drastic in battling the power of sin in the world. Of course, he refines the definition of the δουλεία to God as sonship without fear later on in 8:15, but here he talks in a human language that must have caught the attention of the first Christian community in Rome, amongst whom there were slaves and freedmen. Once again, Käsemann explains Paul’s use of the slavery imagery well: Grace established corporal obedience so radically that comparison with slavery is justifiable – did not Christ take the form of a slave according to Phil 2:7? At issue is the total and exclusive obligation of the first commandment, which has to be developed according to both of its sides. Being total, it means bondage. Being exclusive, it creates freedom. Again the relation between sacrament and ethics comes to light. So little does Paul think ‘sacramentally’ in the usual sense that for him only obedience counts as the fruit of baptism. Conversely, he thinks so ‘sacramentally’ that this obedience is made possible only by the address of divine love and orientation to the lordship of grace. The one who is loved empties himself and becomes lowly. Only he can do this.225

Finally, what implications should this have for our use of holiness language? If sanctification is about a God-given status and identity in Christ, so are also justification and baptism. When we wish to conceptualise the present reality of the Christian life in the tension between death to sin (6:10f.; 8:2) and the propensity to continue in slavery to sin (6:16; cf. 8:13, 15), between the law of the mind of the inner man (self) and the law of sin in one’s members (7:22f.), and between the mindset of the flesh and that of the spirit (8:5), we could just as well speak of justified or baptismal life instead of using the word sanctification. They all refer equally to God’s same salvific work in Christ for his people.226 Insofar as this is the case, what is most important about the holiness language in Rom. 6 is the way it, too, just as the so-called imperative, reminds Christians of the relationship that defines them: slavery to Christ and God’s righteousness in him. This cognitive reminder is part of Paul’s agenda in Romans to bring about the obedience of faith in all nations (1:15; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19, 26; cf. 5:19). Because of the on-going war between the two lordships and the redemption of the body still lying ahead (8:23), this reminder of the Christian identity is needed. In Rom. 6, the reminder is aimed at turning all who hear it back to the starting-point of their relationship with 224

As Barclay clearly expresses it, Paul has no “series of ‘graces’ won by increases in sanctification”, although I disagree with his definition of holiness as something towards which believers are drawn, making the originally morally incongruous (i.e. disregarding the recipient’s worth, capacity or work) Christ-gift a morally congruous gift “to those rendered somewhat worthy of the kingdom of God” (‘Under Grace’, 64, 73). 225 Käsemann, Romans, 182f. 226 Cf. Scaer, ‘Sanctification in Lutheran Theology’, 188.

5. Conclusion

149

their new Lord: baptism into Christ’s death that planted them together with Christ in his death and gave them the promise of being resurrected as he was. As Käsemann puts it, Christian ethics is lived-out eschatology… We are certainly on the way to a goal. Yet this has already been given in Christ’s work and is present in our service. Conversely, we have continually to receive afresh the freedom granted in baptism, which will be ours unassailably only in the resurrection.227

If we want to give ἁγιασµός the meaning that it has in the Bible (God’s action in consecrating his people for his possession and purposes), what catchword should we then choose for the quotidian Christian life in the tension between aeons and lordships? Because of the strongly cognitive undertone in Paul’s ethical teaching in Rom. 6–8, terms such as renewal of the mind (ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοὸς; Rom. 12:2) or change of mind i.e. repentance (µετάνοια) might be most suitable.228 Both of them imply a transformation that is anchored in the Christian identity. Following a reminder of the good news and one’s share in it through baptism and faith, God’s favour and kindness in Christ leads one to a change of mind (Rom. 2:4) and the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). It is that same divine truth that tells Christians whose they are: servants of God’s righteousness in Christ, bearing their fruit for holiness.

5. Conclusion We have seen above how baptism, as initiation into the justifying death of Christ and a hope to be raised from the dead like him, is in fact the central topic in Paul’s ethical exhortation of Rom. 6–8. Of course for Paul, baptism into Christ is not merely a human rite of ritual purity. In Rom. 6, the divine passives point to divine action in conjunction with baptism. The baptismal aorist forms, when viewed from the perspective of verbal aspect as opposed to the type-of-action view, do not point to a one-off action in the past (however fitting that might be here). Instead, they contribute to our argument about the importance of Paul’s identity-reminder: he resorts to such aoristic summary statements to remind his Roman recipients of their baptismal state and identity in Christ. In Rom. 6–8, Paul depicts this baptismal identity further with the notions of death and life. Death is both the problem (due to Adam’s sin) and the solution to the problem (due to Christ’s death on behalf of sinners). It is cru227

Käsemann, Romans, 185. In these chapters, notions such as knowledge, reckoning, mindset and mind are strikingly inseparable from Paul’s ethical exhortations. 228

150

Chapter 4: Baptismal Status and Identity

cial in Paul’s teaching, however, that sinners are implanted into Christ’s death in baptism, so that they may also be implanted into a resurrection like his. In Rom. 7 and 8, the notions of death and life build on the baptismal language of Rom. 6 and are applied ethically. This points further to the unity of Paul’s argument in these chapters. Baptism is not merely an aside and a metaphor amongst others to describe the actual topic of death to sin and life to God in Christ. Baptism marks the point in time when the incorporation into Christ’s death happens and the newness of life under his lordship begins. Finally, we have observed how Paul’s use of holiness language at the end of Rom. 6 also has to do with self-identification and the baptismal state in Christ as his δοῦλος. Sanctification in Paul is not so much about a process of transformation as it is about the new state in Christ as separated from the old slave lord and consecrated through baptism, faith and the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit for the service of the new Master. Sanctification is the beginning of one’s initiation and the believer’s current status, but it is not – at least for Paul in Rom. 6 – the τέλος of one’s actions; that language is reserved for death and life. We have also noted how the cognitive element is strong here, too: Paul wants his recipients to understand the purpose and direction of their actions (εἰς ἁγιασµόν) in order to enable them to lead morally upright lives. This leads us to the topic of the next chapter: cognition in Paul’s paraclesis in Rom. 6–8.

Chapter 5

Cognition of the Baptismal State 1. Reminding as a Purpose of Romans As an introduction to the analysis of Paul’s use of cognitive language in Romans 6–8, we must return to the theme of the purpose of the epistle. In Rom. 15:14–16, we find that Paul makes the point that what he has done in the letter is boldly to have refreshed the Roman Christians’ memory (ἐπαναµιµνῄσκω1) of things allegedly already known to them2 through their baptismal catechesis (cf. 6:17).3 His careful choice of word here avoids any hint of teaching something new (despite his preaching a gospel that transcends Jewish cultural barriers and continues to critique the Torah as a means of salvation4), which may be revealing of Paul’s post-Galatian5 agenda to 1

The word in Rom. 15:15 is a hapax legomenon in the NT. Käsemann, Romans, 391f.; Sanders, Paul, 452f., “[Paul] expected his readers to understand and agree with him. (…) Paul does not consider himself as an innovator, but only to be reminding his readers of the implications of their own Christian experience.” Amongst other verses in which Paul assumes his recipients’ knowledge are Rom. 6:3, 16; 7:1, 7, 14. 3 Fitzmyer, Romans, 433, 449f. Stowers calls this the specific reason why Paul sent the letter to Rome: also in light of Rom. 1, Paul wants to introduce himself as a teacher and preacher of the gospel and ethics to those who already know Christ so that they might be strengthened. Stowers also takes Rom. 16 to be an intrinsic part of the letter in which Paul presents his local “students” in “Paul’s school” in Rome (Diatribe, 181–183). 4 Jewett, ‘Argument’, 276f. In Rom. 1:15 Paul mentions his desire to come and “evangelise” in Rome, whilst in 15:20, he may be seen to be talking about his general practice of not doing so where Christ has already been named; see Wedderburn, ‘Purpose’, 198f. 5 I find it difficult to prove on the basis of Rom. 3:8 and 16:17 that in Romans, Paul would chiefly have been concerned with opposing the Judaisers’ teaching that had made its way to Rome with the returning Jewish exiles after the death of Claudius (contra Stuhlmacher, Romans, 6f., 8, 10). It is highly likely that the situation in Rome was less polemical than in Galatia, and that Jewish Christians were already a minority in the Roman churches at this time, as can be seen from the small ratio of Jewish names in Rom. 16 (see Lampe, From Paul, 74f., 153–183; contra F. Blischke, ‘Reminder as an Approach of Pauline Ethics: Paul in an Old Testament and Hellenistic Line of Tradition’, in M. Meiser [ed.], The Torah in the Ethics of Paul [LNTS 473], London: T. & T. Clark, 2012, 41). To the Romans, Paul wants to present himself as a mediator, not giving as harshly a negative view of the law as in Gal. (Thurén, Derhetorizing, 131), possibly because he wants to 2

152

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

establish good relations both in light of the coming visit to Jerusalem and the Spanish mission.6 Certainly, Paul wants his recipients’ lives to conform to the model of the acceptable ‘Gentile offering’ they are meant to be (Rom. 15:16).7 He wants to establish ‘obedience of faith’ among the Gentiles such as those in Rome (1:5 cf. 16:26). He wishes to come to them to strengthen them, so that he can reap some harvest from them (1:10–13, possibly referring to the collection for the saints in Jerusalem in Rom. 15:25–28). He teaches them to present themselves as a living sacrifice acceptable to God (12:1). And he has simply “reminded” the Romans of these things that, as Paul skilfully expresses it, should already be known to them. The connection between Rom. 12:1f. and Rom. 1, which sets the theme for the whole letter, is, indeed, striking:8 just as in Rom. 1, Paul described the cognitive failure of humankind with regard to God that led to false worship, so in 12:1f., Paul exhorts his recipients to the right kind of rational worship through the right kind of self-sacrifice of one’s body to God’s use and to the renewal of their mind in accordance with God’s will. Paul’s teaching in 12:1f. builds on his thinking about the cognitive failure in Rom. 1 and the renewal of the mind in accord with the baptismal state in Rom. 6–8. Such cognitive reminder is the core of Paul’s paraenesis, which, however, does not mean that the “gospel alone” or “faith alone” were not enough.9 Paul’s exhortation is a reminder inseparably anchored in the gospel of Christ and faith in him, and simply aims at aligning the addressees’ life with that already given reality, so that the believed gospel is maintained as a “lived gospel”10. Interestingly, Blischke has suggested that parallels exist between Paul’s reminders to know the ethical implications of God’s past salvation deeds and the use of reminder of the same in Deuteronomy, particularly in the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9), the motivational introduction to the Decalogue (Deut. 5:2–4, 6) and in the calendar of feasts (Deut. 16:1–17). Knowledge of God’s leading the Israelites out of Egypt is fundamental to Jewish identity.11 Repeating and please the Gentile Christians in Rome formerly associated with the synagogue and make them his allies against the opposition in the east (15:30f.; Lampe, From Paul, 71). 6 See Chapter 1 above. Cf. Wedderburn, Reasons, 29–41. Paul’s argument in 1:18– 15:13 may be seen as fully supportive of his unifying agenda for the Roman housechurches and for his Spanish mission; see Jewett, ‘Argument’, 273; similarly, Wedderburn, ‘Purpose’, 195. He also suggests the eschatologically “provoking” role that the collection played in Paul’s plan (cf. 11:14; ibid., 200f.; Reasons, 40). For Paul’s “pleasing” tendency, see Lampe, From Paul, 71. 7 Agersnap, Baptism, 392; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 867. 8 Furnish, Theology, 103. 9 Contra Thurén, Derhetorizing, 135 fn. 186; 136 fn. 189. 10 Schnelle, ‘Paulus’, 142, 158; Backhaus, ‘Evangelium’, 13. 11 Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 49–51.

1. Reminding as a Purpose of Romans

153

‘actualising’ reminder plays an important role also in Hellenistic παιδεία and Cynic-Stoic popular ethics,12 and for the reasons given above, it is no wonder that Paul employs the same tool that is familiar from both Jewish and Graeco-Roman contexts in Romans and elsewhere.13 For Paul, knowledge of the baptised having died to sin with Christ and having been granted newness of life lays the foundation for his paraclesis.14 The dead-and-alive state as baptised into Christ itself carries an ethical weight (Rom. 6:6). We have seen how, in light of Rom. 7 and, indeed, of the question asked in chapter 6, sin still lives in those who are in Christ (7:17, 20). Sight of the eternal reality of death to sin and life to God in Christ can easily be lost in this sinful body of death (7:24). This is why Paul turns in his argumentation to the tool of identity-reminder to make his recipients recall something that they already know and have experienced at baptism.15 What Blischke means by ‘actualising’ reminder is that Paul wants to “stabilize or correct the ethos of the recipient churches” with his reminder of the knowledge that they already have.16 This is exactly what is going on in Rom. 6. Paul’s rhetorical question ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε (6:3) recalls to the recipients the concrete event of baptism that he assumes they have all undergone and the type of baptismal catechesis (τύπον διδαχῆς), to which they were once committed and which they came to obey (6:17). At this point in time before Christ’s return to redeem the mortal bodies (8:23), it is crucial that Christians view themselves not merely in light of the sinful flesh still clinging to them, but first and foremost as they already are in Christ: baptised into his death to sin, sharing in the newness of life in him and trusting that they will one day also be raised from death as he was raised (6:1–11). This is vital because of the real possibility of falling back17 into sin’s bondage and mind-set18 (e.g. Rom. 6:1f., 12f.; 7:14ff.; 8:10, 12f., 15). For now, there are still two ‘ifs’: if, Paul teaches, you live according to the reality of the flesh, you are about to die, but if you put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, you will live (8:13). The mortification of the deeds of 12

Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 41, 57f. For a fuller list of references, see Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 48. 14 Despite his dogmatically motivated anti-sacramental argumentation, K. Barth rightly emphasises the importance of remembering one’s baptism: “Throughout the future they will have to remember that the old man is buried, that they have buried him, that they themselves, following the great decisive divine renunciation which took place and was revealed in Jesus Christ, have renounced him (…) This is the pledge which [the Christian] must always think back on in the days ahead, and of which he must be reminded on specific occasions.” (Baptism, 160f.) 15 Despite his odd contractual understanding, Klostergaard Petersen argues somewhat similarly, ‘Paraenesis’, 294. 16 Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 48. 17 Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 74f.; Furnish, Theology, 173. 18 See the section on φρονέω, φρόνηµα in Rom. 8 below. 13

154

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

the flesh by the Spirit follows the pattern of having been baptised into Christ’s death to sin (6:10), and similarly, the promise of future life conforms to the baptismal promise of being grafted together into a likeness of Christ’s life to God (6:5, 10). The obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19, 26), for the establishment of which Paul believes that his apostleship exists (1:5), is the Christian reality that counters the dangers of this sinful reality. It is a notion closely related to, although also distinct from, faith.19 The obedience of the baptised is modelled on the perfect obedience of Christ (5:18f.), but in light of Paul’s anthropological realism, his main motivating argument for obedience lies elsewhere, in his identity-reminder. In Rom. 1:6f., Paul resorts to calling language: just as Paul has been “called (to be) an apostle” (1:1), the Roman Christians are “called (to be) Jesus Christ’s” and “called holy”. Such language of calling can only be found outside Romans in 1 Cor. 1f. in the Corpus Paulinum. Dunn explains this well as meaning that the Roman Christians have been “called to be set apart, summoned and consecrated to the service of God”20. As we have seen above, Paul’s notion of holiness is not detached from his notion of baptism. It is plausible, therefore, that his agenda is clear already at the beginning of the epistle: to recall to his recipients’ mind who they are and whose they are as baptised into Christ, called holy in Christ and called into the service of Christ. Paul’s paraenesis seeks to make his recipients see, remember and understand the reality of being in Christ and in his Spirit. In so doing, it recalibrates their mind with the reality that is already theirs in their calling to be holy, dead to sin and alive to God, slaves of God’s righteousness, children of God, belonging to Jesus, having his Spirit in them and being on the way to the final redemption on the last day – the first day of the eternal life completely without sin. This, then, leads to obedience by way of submission to the new in-Christ reality of death and life. The deeds of the flesh must be put to death by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:13). Flesh cannot please God, as it can only die, just as the body as the vessel of this sinful existence is going to die (8:7f.). One must not stop in this state of death, however – baptised into Christ’s death and having been implanted into a death like his, Christians have the hope of also being raised with him (6:5, 8); the hope of the freedom of the glory of the children of God exists because of Christ, to be seen even amidst the creation’s current subjection to futility and slavery to decay (8:20f.); salvation has taken place in the hope of this future freedom from death and redemption from the death-bound body (8:23–25) and the revivification of the body by the Spirit (8:11); and while they now expect and hope without seeing, the newness of life is already available to the 19 20

Contra Bultmann, who defines faith as obedience. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 25.

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

155

baptised in Christ and as his Spirit lives in them (6:4; 8:9–11). Paul spends a long time expanding upon these christological, pneumatological, soteriological and eschatological realities for one key reason: to bring about and strengthen his recipients’ obedience of faith in Christ amidst the on-going temptations before the Parousia. He is teaching them so thoroughly about these fundamentals so that they can continue to admonish one another with the same (Rom. 15:14). However, amidst such cognitive reminder in his paraclesis, the central role of the σῶµα must not be forgotten either. As Blischke observes with regard to an analogous Pauline baptismal passage, 1 Cor. 6:12–20: The Pauline concept of σῶµα then leads to the idea of the relationship with Christ, which is crucial for Pauline ethics. The direct context of [1 Cor.] 6.11 shows that after being baptised Christians are in a relationship with Christ which newly defines their bodily existence. There is a constitutive relation between man as σῶµα and the κύριος (6.13b). This new reality of the existence in Christ is known by the Corinthians from the initial preaching of the gospel, the instruction of candidates for baptism, and church letters. Dealing with the bad ethical situation, Paul several times reminds us of this relation between Christian and Christ, each time emphasizing a particular aspect.21

It is precisely because of the concrete familiarity of the issue at hand that the question “or do you not know” (Rom. 6:3) is rhetorically so powerful. As far as Paul is aware, all Christians should know in their mind and body that they have experienced a baptismal drowning with Christ that is no empty ritual but a life-defining initiation into the service of the Lord Christ.

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language I come next to analyse Paul’s rhetoric and cognitive vocabulary in Rom. 6–8, to see how they interact with his view of baptism and the baptismal life.22 Rhetorical Questions as a Cognitive Tool According to Quintilian, the goal of rhetoric is “to lead men by speech to the conclusion desired by the speaker”23. It is, therefore, a persuasive tool seeking either to strengthen an already pre-existing thought or to establish a com21

Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 43. N.b. also the parallelism between οὐκ οἴδατε in 1 Cor. 6:15, 19 and ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε in Rom. 6:3; cf. Barclay’s “embodied habitus” (‘Under Grace’, 68–76). 22 I shall here focus on a selection of clearly cognitive key words in Romans instead of venturing on to etymological uncertainties such as the possible origin of θέλω as meaning ‘having in mind’ or ‘seizing in mind’ (GT, s.v. θέλω). 23 Quint. Inst. 2.15.10 (quoting Plato, Gorgias 452E).

156

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

pletely new one. Paul’s paraenesis, too, aims at persuading his addressees to live in harmony with their baptismal state in Christ. We can now view Paul’s rhetoric more widely in this paraenetic context.24 It has long been recognised that Paul uses the diatribe style of argument, which has a Hellenistic background.25 Stoics such as Seneca and Epictetus also used this “widespread technique of speaking and writing”26. The διατριβή consists of dialogical elements, rhetorical questions, objections raised by the speakers or writers and imaginary conversation partners whose hypothetical arguments are rebutted.27 In Romans, at least 1:18–2:11; 8:31– 39; 11:1–24, but possibly also 2:17–24 and 7:7–15, conform to this style. 28 It makes sense for Paul to use the diatribe more in Romans than in any of his other letters, because he knew less about his recipients’ situation there than about the communities founded by himself,29 and hence needed frequently to resort to this tool of persuasion and increased understanding of his gospel.30 This use of the diatribe strengthens our reading of Romans as a mindchanging letter, whose ethics contains the same character reflected by its

24 It is not within the scope of this book to deal with the details of the rhetorical analysis of Romans. A good division of the epistle into the ancient rhetorical categories of Exordium (Introduction, 1:1–12), Narratio (Narration, 1:13–15), Propositio (Thesis Statement, 1:16f.), Probatio (Proof, 1:18–15:13) and Peroratio (Conclusion, 15:14–16:27) can be found in Jewett, ‘Argument’, esp. 272–276. It is worth noting that his division of the main part of the epistle into Confirmatio (Confirmation, 1:18–4:25), Exornatio (Elaboration, 5:1–8:39), Comparatio (Comparison, 9:1–11:36) and Exhortatio (Exhortation, 12:1–15:13) both integrates chs. 9–11 into the argument of Romans and makes Paul’s ethical exhortation “a climactic proof of the main thesis of the letter” (“the gospel as the powerful embodiment of the righteousness of God”, 272) instead of being a secondary addition to his theology. 25 E.g. Bultmann’s seminal work Diatribe; cf. Stowers’ reassessment of the GraecoRoman sources and comparison with Romans (not, however, chs 6–8) Diatribe; Jewett, ‘Argument’, 273f. 26 Schnelle, Apostle, 77. 27 Schnelle, Apostle, 77; Matera, Romans, 58. 28 Schnelle, Apostle, 77. 29 WDNTECLR, 129. This is second only to 1 Cor., where the reason for the use of the diatribe is the polemical situation. However, Paul’s use of the diatribe cannot, on its own, lead to the conclusion that he is resorting to ‘mere’ rhetoric and an imaginary interlocutor (see, e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 3). 30 Because of Paul’s rhetoric of persuasion, I agree with Thurén that, without playing down Paul’s theological convictions, we should ask “how each expression is designed to affect the addressees” (which is what he calls ‘derhetorisation’), before drawing theoretical or doctrinal conclusions from them. The Pauline text is not as static and conceptual as some modern theologians would like it to be, but much more dynamic, due to its nature as a tool for persuasion (Thurén, Derhetorizing, 181, 184).

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

157

rhetoric.31 As Stowers puts it, “Paul presents himself to the Romans as a teacher... not as a spiritual father and guide, but as a ‘philosophical’ or religious-ethical teacher.”32 As is appropriate with Paul’s use of the diatribe, the rhetorical questions in Rom. 6–8 reveal to us his intention of making the recipients of his letter understand the gulf between sin and righteousness in the world and in their lives. Rom. 6:1; 7:7 and 8:31 contain the rhetorical question Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; Although 8:31 stands out as different, all three occurrences of the question have in common Paul’s desire for them to understand something profound about his teaching concerning sin, the law and the Christian hope. A common denominator in these topics is that they are all crucial parts of the management of the Christian life in the present: how to react to sin’s on-going temptations to enter into its service as a baptised slave of righteousness, how to view the divine law after Christ has fulfilled it for all who are unable to do so themselves, and how to keep one’s eyes on the certainty of the future hope that is founded on what God has done in the past in Christ, amidst adversities such as persecution. Rom. 6:1 and 7:7 both continue with questions; in the case of these it is impossible for us to know with certainty whether they stem from an actual group teaching along those lines, whether they depict an honest misunderstanding anticipated by Paul, or whether they are rhetorical questions expecting to be answered just as negatively as Paul himself does: µὴ γένοιτο (6:2; 7:7).33 It is my contention that their rhetorical function is clear, whether or not they stem from an actual or alleged misunderstanding of the gospel. In Rom. 6:1, the matter concerns remaining in sin so that grace may abound (ἐπιµένωµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ;), which Paul subsequently shows to be incongruous with the baptismal death to sin and the experience of having been grafted into Christ’s own death, trusting that this applies to a future sharing in his resurrection as well. Such an exploitation of grace is incompatible with the call to walk in the newness of life in Christ. In Rom. 7:7, Paul’s “what, then, shall we say”34 has to do with the question, “Is the law sin?” (ὁ νόµος ἁµαρτία;) He further explains this question in 31

Cf. “Paul’s concern for moral transformation” in Rom. (Thompson, Moral, 120). Stowers, Diatribe, 179f. 33 According to Malherbe, µὴ γένοιτο, as it is used in Romans, introduces the theme for the discussion that follows it; Paul’s use is also more similar to the schoolroom teaching style of Epictetus than the pagan or Cynic use of the diatribe in general (Paul, 30, 32). Stowers’s view is similar in emphasising that the purpose of Paul’s diatribe and objections is to expose the addressees false thinking and wrong behaviour (Diatribe, 175–177). This implies that Paul’s µὴ γένοιτο is used as a didactic tool to aid his recipients’ understanding. Cf. Matera, Romans, 148. 34 The Τί οὖν or Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν formula occurs also in Rom. 3:5, 9 (cf. Τί γὰρ 3:3); 6:1, 15 and 9:14. It is often refuted by µὴ γένοιτο, making Bultmann (Diatribe, 10f., 67f.) 32

158

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

7:13f., reasoning that the law is good and spiritual, while the “I” is sold under sin and fleshly. It is here that Paul’s treatise on the on-going struggle with sin even after baptism and Spirit-reception connects with his view of the law.35 The law shows sin to be sin exactly because it is spiritual, whereas the “I” is fleshly, doing and practising what it actually hates and does not want to do, because of the sin that dwells “in me” (7:15–20).36 Paul’s narrative of the liminal situation between baptism and the future redemption of the body is one of a war-like struggle (7:22f.). From a rhetorical perspective, then, Paul poses such questions about the good, spiritual law so as to highlight the complete incompatibility between the Christian ideal and the on-going struggle that, however, will one day come to an end. Assuming Paul’s awareness of the popularity of Stoicism in the Roman context and decision to use Stoicsounding language to convey his Christ-centred message in his letter to the Roman congregation, that may be one clear reason for him to focus on the theme of the on-going plight and impossibility of reasoning one’s way out of the passions. That was, in fact, what the Stoics taught. Although Paul’s ethics have a strongly cognitive element, for him, the ultimate solution to the problem of sinful passions does not rest with the ratio but with Christ (Rom. 7:24f.). Despite the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit, Paul emphasises in the section that begins with the rhetorical question of Rom. 8:31 that life before the return of Christ and the redemption of the sinful body will continue to be a struggle. There, the familiar Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν is embellished with πρὸς ταῦτα. Just before, Paul has for instance mentioned ἀσθένεια and the lack of knowledge of what to pray, with both of which the Spirit helps those whom he indwells (8:26). Before that, the theme of suffering has featured (8:18). These are enclosed by the flesh-Spirit dichotomy and predestination, and at the end of all this, Paul gives his great assurance of the past, present and future hope in Christ (8:31ff.). It is clear that the rhetorical question stands there to highlight once more that something very important ought now to be claim that they represent Paul’s rhetorical absurdities that the apostle himself rejects. Similarly Malherbe, Paul, 27–29. 35 Contra Räisänen’s claim that these positive sayings in Rom. 7:7, 12 contradict Paul’s negative view of the law elsewhere such as in Galatians (Paul, e.g. 128, 152). Dunn interestingly suggests that Paul’s negative statements about the law are targeted against its abuse by sin chiefly amongst his own people, whilst his positive statements reveal his attitude to the law itself (Romans 1–8, 385). Thurén emphasises the rhetorical and dynamic nature of Paul’s negative statements and altogether warns against playing off positive and negative statements rigidly and dogmatically against each other, without regard for what Paul wants to accomplish with his dynamic argument (Derhetorizing, 111f.). 36 As Thurén’s rightly says, “The problem is not the law but the man, who cannot comply with it.” (Derhetorizing, 113, fn. 91).

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

159

realised about the present state as baptised into Christ, having his Spirit, still existing within the sinful and mortal body but, above all, hoping in the future redemption that is surely coming. That hope should empower the baptised to continue safely to exist in the newness of life as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ, granting them a goal of eternal life in Christ (6:23) and an assurance of God’s supremacy over the destructive powers37 that are contrary to his love in Christ (8:38f.). The rhetorical questions in Rom. 8:31b-35 conform to the diatribe style and aim at deepening the understanding of Paul’s audience of the peace that they have in Christ amidst the tumultuous world. All the questions can be summed up in the first one, εἰ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν, τίς καθ᾽ ἡµῶν; (8:31b). God’s being for Paul and his audience can be seen in how he did not spare his own Son but handed him over “for us all” as a gift (χαρίζοµαι, 8:32 cf. 6:23). God’s actions through Christ, therefore, show God’s attitude towards his chosen ones. God is the one who justifies, and Christ the one who died but whom God raised and who sits on the right hand of God interceding “for us” – who, then, is left to bring charges against God’s chosen people or to condemn them (8:33f.)? Paul calls this Christ’s love or God’s love in Christ interchangeably (8:35, 37, 39). He is convinced that no manifestation of evil such as death or persecution can separate “us” from it. It is clear from Paul’s use of the diatribe that he also wishes to persuade his addressees of the same. So also Paul’s questions ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε in Rom. 6:3 and 7:1 and οὐκ οἴδατε in 6:16 (cf. 11:2) conform to the diatribe style. Paul assumes that the Roman Christians know that they were baptised into Christ’s death to sin (6:3f.), that one is the slave of the one whom one obeys (6:16) and that the law lords it over a person however long they should live but not thereafter (7:1f.). By asking, “Or are you ignorant?”, or, “Do you not know?”, he wants them to react instantly with a “No, we are not!” and “Yes, we do!”. Again, Paul wants to instil knowledge of what in fact they already know – that is, a deepened understanding of the things that they have already experienced. In both cases, baptism is in question. The Roman Christians were baptised into Christ and his death; through the body of Christ, “you also were put to death to the law…in order to be born (γενέσθαι) to another, to the one who was raised, so that we might bear fruit for God” (7:4). Death to the law is not detached from death to sin in baptism. In both sections, Paul uses common baptismal death-life language and the themes of slavery, passions, bodily members, slavery, newness, and the νυνὶ δὲ construction (6:22; 7:6) that contrasts the post-baptismal life with the pre-baptismal experience. Once again, the state that the baptised have in Christ is something that Paul wants 37 Becker (‘Paul and the Evil One’, 134f.) rightly calls this the key-text for the Pauline understanding of evil.

160

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

his addressees to know and understand more deeply and precisely, so that their lives will conform to the relationship of slavery to God’s righteousness in Christ instead of to sin. Cognitive Imperatives One of the key criticisms of the indicative-imperative terminology is that it makes Paul’s ethics sound commandment-based. Far more often than imperatives, it is Paul’s cognitive expressions, generally in the indicative mood, that permeate Rom. 6–8 and play a major role in Paul’s ethical teaching. In these central chapters, the verbs that are in the imperative mood all occur in chapter 6. The first imperative form in 6:11, Paul’s ethical summary statement of his theology of baptism, defines what Paul means by the four imperatives that follow: οὕτως καὶ ὑµεις λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺς µὲν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The present middle imperative λογίζεσθε is best translated as “reckon”, for the verb has to do with using one’s logic to come to a conclusion about the present situation as baptised into Christ. Paul clearly teaches that just as Christ was dead to sin, so also those baptised into him have become dead to sin and expect to be raised from the dead like he was. They are already called to live in the newness of life in Christ (6:4). Because the resurrection and redemption of the body are a future hope (8:23f.) and because Christians still have the flesh (7:18), however, it is important in the meanwhile to think correctly about oneself as a baptised slave and child of God. This is especially important because of the continued and real danger of falling into sin, which is apparent in Paul’s paraclesis throughout Rom. 6–8. Therefore, because the baptised are dead to sin and already alive to God with Christ (although not yet with redeemed resurrection bodies), they should reckon themselves to be so (Rom. 6:11), neither letting sin lord it over them in their death-bound bodies and follow sin’s desires (6:12) nor continuing to present their bodily members (µηδὲ παριστάνετε, pres. act. imp.) as tools for unrighteousness for the use of sin, but presenting themselves (ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε) to God “as if (ὡσεὶ) you were alive from the dead”, as tools of righteousness for God (6:13). Following his teaching concerning such presentation of oneself for the use of either power as slavery, Paul once more commands in 6:19, “for just as you presented your members as slavish to uncleanness and lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present (παραστήσατε) your members as slavish to righteousness for holiness.” The presentation language, as 6:13 makes very clear, builds on Paul’s teaching about baptism as both death and life in the first half of Rom. 6: death to the lord (βασιλεύς; cf. 6:12) of sin, and slave-like service to it, but life to God and slavery to him in the newness of life – both only being possible in Christ as baptised into Christ, because of his death to sin and resurrection life to God.

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

161

Because of this tight interconnectedness of the grammatical imperatives in Rom. 6, we may confidently agree with Bornkamm in calling them “baptismal imperatives”38. Paul’s ethical teaching is a matter of self-identification and self-reckoning in line with the gospel of Christ, into whose realm the Christians have been brought in baptism. In Romans, the rite of baptism, that is in and of itself very physical, acts as the springboard for Paul’s cognitive petitions to know (6:3, 16; cf. 7:1, 14, 18) what shift of realms has taken place in baptism, with what Lord Christians should identify themselves (6:11), and according to what reality they should recalibrate their minds (7:23; 8:5–8 cf. 26f.; 12:2). Knowledge of God’s past salvific act in Christ is to become behaviour.39 In the case of Rom. 6, it is knowledge of the baptismal union with Christ’s death to sin that must be allowed to define one’s post-baptismal life as a newness of life in the hope of being also raised with Christ. There is, therefore, no need to divide the chapter into ‘indicative’ teaching about baptism in 6:1–11 and ‘imperative’ consequences of the new life in 6:12ff.40 Rom. 12:1–3 connects with the theme-setting first chapter and sums up the theological-ethical teaching in the preceding chapters and Rom. 6–8 in particular. It is no wonder, therefore, that upon return to paraclesis, after his excursus on the problem of Israel (Rom. 9–11), Paul would speak in highly cognitive terms. The language of presentation (παρίστηµι) of the body (σῶµα), the death-life paradox (θυσία ζῶσα), reason (λογικός), service (λατρεία), mind (νοῦς), thinking (φρονέω, σωφρονέω, ὑπερφρονέω) and renewal (ἀνακαίνωσις) all recall to the reader’s mind the themes of chapters 6–8. The imperative mood in 12:2 (and indicative exhortation in 12:1) is not that on which we should focus. It is the cognitive element to remember, understand and live out one’s identity as baptised into Christ’s death, and living in the newness of life in him, that is that from which all this stems. If the cognition of the baptised identity is so important in Paul’s paraclesis in Rom. 6–8, and again at the beginning of chapter 12, we need not be taken aback by the more frequent imperatives41 in Rom. 12–16 either. Although Paul’s moral instruction there is more practical than in the preceding chapters, it is nevertheless still intrinsically linked with the love of God in Christ (cf. Rom. 8), and with the baptismal incorporation into Christ’s death-life 38

Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 82, 84. Cf. Blischke, ‘Reminder’, 44. 40 Contra Fitzmyer, Romans, 444. 41 Imperative forms with an ethical content can be found at least in Rom. 12:14, 16 (17), 19–21; 13:1, 3, 4, 7, 8, (hort. subj. 12f.), 14; 14:1, 3, 13, 15, 16, (hort. subj. 19), 20, 22; 15:2, 7, (10), 11; 16:17. In addition to imperatives, for instance Rom. 12 also contains many exhortative participles and adjectives, and Rom. 14 several rhetorical questions that play a significant role in Paul’s paraenesis. 39

162

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

pattern. This becomes clear on the basis of the chapters’ numerous references and allusions to these topics. For the sake of brevity, some examples must suffice. Baptismal echoes can be heard in Rom. 13:14, 14:7–9 and perhaps even 13:11. First, in 13:14, Paul exhorts the Romans to put on Jesus Christ and not to make provision for the flesh for the purpose of (εἰς) its desires (ἐπιθυµίας), echoing the ἐνδύω language in the baptismal contexts of Gal. 3:27, Col. 3:9–12 42 and Eph. 4:20–2443. Also the term ὅπλον is used in Rom. 13:12 in a manner that is quite similar to the baptismal paraclesis of 6:13, and the language of ‘being raised’ (ἐγερθῆναι) from sleep brings to mind the resurrection language in 6:4, 9. Secondly, the death-life dichotomy and notion of belonging to Christ in both come in the middle of Paul’s moral instructions in 14:7–9 in a manner strikingly similar to chapter 6 – Paul even reverts back to the first person plural form familiar from 6:1–9 in this section enclosed by the use of other persons: Ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶµεν ἐάν τε ἀποθνῄσκωµεν, τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσµέν (14:8b). Thirdly, in 15:2f., Paul’s exhortation to please and build up one’s neighbour is immediately followed by Christ’s own self-sacrificial example. As baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection, and existing now under his lordship as his slave, it makes sense also to follow the example that his death-life pattern has set to those who are in him. Knowing, Understanding and their Opposites (γινώσκω, ἀγνοέω, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, οἶδα, συνίηµι) On a closer inspection, the notions of knowledge and ignorance play a significant role in Romans. Paul’s Fall narrative in Rom. 1 is centred on the cognitive failure to recognise God for who he is in their mind and actions. Although people knew (γνόντες) God, they failed to glorify and thank God as God, and their thoughts became futile (ἐν τοῖς διαλογισµοῖς αὐτῶν) and their hearts, already without understanding (ἀσύνετος, 1:21), were darkened.44 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, in their worship of creature rather than the Creator (1:25). “And as they did not deem it right to keep God in their recognition45 (ἐν ἐπιγνώσει)”, that is, to recognise him for who they very well knew he was, “God delivered them over to an unworthy mind (εἰς ἀδόκιµον νοῦν)” (1:28). That, in turn, led to immoral actions. Paul, therefore, 42

Cf. the shared language of ἀπεκδύοµαι and of death and renewal (cf. the old personnew person dichotomy) with the explicitly baptismal Col. 2:11–14. 43 The context here is clearly catechetical and looks back to times of initiation and the way of life of the old person vs. the new person that needs now to be put on. The baptismal reference is not far away either in Eph. 4:4. 44 Cf. συνίηµι in Rom. 3:11 quoted from LXX Ps. 13:2. 45 LSJ and BDAG s.v. ἐπίγνωσις (knowledge, recognition; [real] knowledge).

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

163

proclaims that false worship of God leads to futility of thought and reasoning and, ultimately, sin. The knowledge of the existence and power of God (1:20) is not enough. It needs be a deeper knowledge than that, followed by true worship. Knowledge of God’s will must be combined with acting in accordance with it (2:17–21). This is well illustrated by Rom. 10:2–4: For I bear witness to them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to real knowledge (κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν). For, not knowing (ἀγνοοῦντες) the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own, they were not subjected to the righteousness of God, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe.

The right kind of knowledge of God’s righteousness in Christ is, therefore, crucial for Paul’s overall teaching. Only a remnant of Israel has this ἐπίγνωσις, elsewhere defined as faith in God’s grace in Christ instead of works (11:5f.), and that is what separates them from the majority whose hearts have been hardened.46 Paul does not want the Roman Christians to be ignorant (ἀγνοέω) of his plans (1:13) or of the mystery of Gentile inclusion and the hardening of Israel (11:25). Ignorance is a negative thing in the letter, especially when it concerns the kindness of God that is leading “you” (σε) to repentance (2:4). Israel’s not knowing (µὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω;) and lack of understanding (ἀσύνετος, 10:19, quoted from Deut. 32:21) play a major role in her hardening. Paul uses these two notions almost synonymously. Within the Pauline corpus, the adjective ἀσύνετος only occurs in Romans (1:21; 1:31 and 10:19), with just two other uses elsewhere in the NT (Matt. 15:16; Mark 7:18).47 This fits well into Paul’s cognitive agenda in the epistle. If the cognitive theme was significant in the first chapter of Romans, so it is at the very end:48 the mystery of Christ has now been made known 46

The third occurrence of ἐπίγνωσις in Romans can be found in 3:20, where it refers to the knowledge of sin that the law brings, contrasted with the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus by grace (Rom. 3:22, 24). 47 In the LXX, the word occurs twelve times, predominantly within the wisdom tradition (Deut. 32:21; Ps. 75:6; 91:7; Job 13:2; Wis. 1:5; 11:15; Sir. 15:7; 21:18; 22:13; 22:15; 27:12; 34:1). In light of Paul’s praise of the wisdom and knowledge of God in Rom. 11:33, this may be unsurprising. N.b. also Paul’s characterisation of the law as the form of knowledge and truth (Rom. 2:20). 48 As the apparatus of any Greek NT reveals, the authenticity and/or original location of the doxology of 16:25–27 is contested. There is, however, significant external evidence for its current location and authenticity. Most MSS place it there (∏61 å B C D 81. 365. 630. 1739. 2464 ar b vg syp co; Orlat mss Ambst according to NA28), some relocate it after 15:33 (such as ∏46 that confusingly has 16:1–23 before and after the doxology). The internal evidence should not be neglected either. The obedience of faith occurs programmatically in 1:5, and it would be fitting for it to be mentioned in the conclusio as well. The theme of the apocalyptic mystery that Paul sees as his mission to disclose to the nations has significant overlap with the language of 11:25ff. and its doxology. For a summary of the debates concerning the long (chs. 1–16), possibly “catholicised” short (chs. 1–14) and

164

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

(γνωρισθέντος) to all the nations “for the obedience of faith” (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, Rom. 16:26).49 ‘Obedience’ occurs seven times in Romans and only thrice in the other Paulines (2 Cor. 7:15; 10:5f.; Philem. 21). In Romans, it is, as we have seen, an important theme that concerns especially the obedience of the Gentiles as the goal of Paul’s gospel and apostolic office (1:5; 15:18; 16:26). Adam’s disobedience is contrasted with Christ’s obedience (5:19), and just as Christ was obedient, so those baptised into him should be (6:16; cf. the flattering paraclesis of 16:19). Especially on the basis of Rom. 16:26, but also because of the pervasiveness of cognitive themes, knowledge and obedience interact in the epistle. According to Paul, just as mere knowledge of God’s existence, not strengthened by a more intimate knowledge50 of his grace and correct worship of him, leads to sin, the correct kind of knowledge of the love and grace of God in Christ, combined with the rational worship of presenting one’s bodies to God (12:2), leads to obedience. It appears that Paul’s use of οἴδα is somewhat more rhetorical than the γινώσκω word group. Paul uses the verb in the first person plural form to point out things that he assumes his addressees know. Should they be ignorant of those things, the use of the οἴδαµεν form would make them want to know them: God’s judgment on those who sin (Rom. 2:2), the function (3:19; cf. ᾔδειν in 7:7) and the spirituality of the law versus the fleshly “I” (7:14), the whole creation’s groaning expectation of redemption (8:22), and that for all those who love God all things work together for good (8:28). The communal οὐκ οἴδαµεν in Rom. 8:26, concerning what to pray, is contrasted with God’s knowledge of the mind of the Spirit who intercedes for the holy according to God’s will (8:27). Similarly, the participle εἰδότες assumes that both author and recipient share the same knowledge that suffering produces endurance (5:3), and that Christ has been raised and will never die again (6:9).51 In one instance, Paul speaks of himself as an example that also encompasses his audience (7:18).52 With this background in mind, Paul’s use of the language of knowledge or ignorance in Rom. 6–8 falls into place. Paul’s questions, “Do you not know?”, and, “Are you ignorant?”, (6:3, 16; 7:1) are indeed both rhetorical and also assume that his recipients know at least something of what he is about to teach them concerning baptism and the law. The positive participle of γινώσκω in Rom. 6:6 affirms that Paul assumes that the basic theological intermediate (chs. 1–15) forms of the letter, see Longenecker, Introducing, 15–30. For bibliographies on forms with and without the final doxology, see Jewett, Romans, 30, 986– 988, 998–1005; cf. Lampe, From Paul, 154f. 49 Cf. συνίηµι with regard to the Gentiles in Rom. 15:21 (quoted from Isa. 52:15). 50 Cf. Rabens, Spirit, 182. 51 In Rom. 13:11, the plural participle is paired with the second person plural. 52 Cf. Rom. 14:14 and 15:29, where the subject of the οἴδα is clearly only Paul.

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

165

contents of the baptismal dying and rising with Christ are known to Roman Christians (cf. 6:17); its goal is the destruction of the σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας, so that there would be an end to “our” slavery to sin. At the same time, however, even the Christian self stands torn between the aeons of past crucifixion with Christ and the future resurrection with him. “I do not know (οὐ γινώσκω) what work I am doing, for I do not practise what I want but I do what I hate.” (7:15) Similarly, the “we” does not even know (οὐκ οἴδαµεν) what to pray (8:26), which is why Christ is the only rescue from this state (7:25), and why his Spirit’s intercessions are required. Even if the baptised human being continues to be torn between the mind of the Spirit and the mind of the flesh, “he who examines the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is” (8:27). That leads us on to the next cognitive word group. Mind and Mindset (φρονέω, φρόνηµα, νοῦς) The verb φρονέω occurs once in Rom. 6–8 (8:5) and the noun φρόνηµα four times (thrice in 8:6f. and once in 8:27); both have to do with the mind of either the flesh or of the Spirit active in human beings. In the rest of Romans, φρονέω occurs in contexts of thinking highly or proudly (of oneself) as opposed to humbly (11:20; 12:3,53 16b), living in harmony with one another (12:16a; 15:5), and thinking of (observing) one day over others “for the Lord” (14:6). The whole opposition between the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit in Rom. 8 is telling of the fact that how Christians view, understand and identify themselves plays an important role in their ethical successes or failures according to Paul. Walking (περιπατέω) and existing (εἰµί) according to the Spirit as opposed to the flesh, of course, precede any thinking on the things of either (φρονέω; 8:4f.), because the Spirit (of Christ), as Paul stresses, dwells in his recipients (8:9–11). It is noteworthy that Paul is not here commanding the Romans to think (φρονέω) in either way. He is, however, well aware of the state of death to which the body in is bondage “because of sin”, and of the state of life already given through Christ’s indwelling Spirit “because of (Christ’s) righteousness” (8:10). He is very clearly making a stark contrast between the fleshly and spiritual realities, so that he offers his recipients the existence according to the flesh as an alternative that they, first, would be mad to strive for and, secondly, should not and even more so cannot aspire for. τὸ γὰρ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος, τὸ δὲ φρόνηµα τοῦ πνεύµατος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη· διότι τὸ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, τῷ γὰρ νόµῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ γὰρ

53 N.b. here also the compounds ὑπερφρονεῖν and σωφρονεῖν, which together “indicate that ways of thinking determine moral conduct” (Thompson, Moral, 171 cf. 173).

166

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

δύναται· οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται. ὑµεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύµατι...54

The mind of the flesh is death, enmity to God, unable to be subject to the good principles of God’s law, unable to please God, and this is what those who exist in the flesh also reflect. The mind of the Spirit, however, is life and peace, and that is what the indwelling Spirit will, in fact, give to those who are in the Spirit (8:9–11). What Paul seems to highlight here is, once again, his recipients’ identity: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit!” (8:9a) And why is that? Because they have been baptised into Christ’s death to sin, because they have been given the newness of life in him (6:4), and because the Spirit of Christ dwells in them – the Spirit who is life and who will one day revivify the dead or death-bound bodies of those who are in Christ (8:9–11). Thus, although Paul does not explicitly command the Roman Christians to think (φρονέω) the things of the Spirit and have the mind (φρόνηµα) of the Spirit, nevertheless, because of who he reveals them to be, because of their identity in Christ, such exhortation is implicitly included by way of cognitive reminder of this identity. This is especially clear in the context of the other cognitive vocabulary in Rom. 6–8. As is the case with cognition in Paul’s ethics in general, it is never detached from the embodied, physical actualisation of the baptismal φρόνηµα.55 In Paul’s use of νοῦς, the division remains the same: the νοῦς can be debased (Rom. 1:28) or renewed (12:2). This is because of the law of sin that captivates “me” in “my” bodily members and wars against the law of the νοῦς (7:23). Despite Christ already being “our Lord”, “I myself am serving the law of God with the mind (νοῦς), but with the flesh, the law of sin” (7:25). Understandably, then, Paul teaches that one needs to be transformed by the renewal of the νοῦς (12:2), instead of conforming to this evil aeon, for it is only in so doing that one may discern what the good, acceptable and perfect will of God is (cf. 11:34). In Rom. 14:5, Paul even exhorts everyone to be convinced in their own mind (νοῦς) about observing some feast day over others, making such a cognitive state the moral criterion for the decision on such an adiaphoron.56 Additionally, in 15:14 Paul makes what could be called a paraenetic compliment and calls the Roman Christians people full of goodness and filled with all knowledge (γνῶσις), able also to admonish 54

Rom. 8:6–9, emphasis added. Cf. Barclay, ‘Under Grace’, 71f., 75f. 56 In Rom. 14:14, Paul uses πείθω similarly, conveying his being persuaded that nothing is unclean in itself. He contrasts this with others reckoning (λογίζοµαι) something to be unclean. It seems, therefore, that a cognitive state of certainty is important for Paul as a criterion for moving on from the dietary and purity rules that those in Christ no longer need to follow. 55

2. Paul’s Cognitive Language

167

(νουθετεῖν; from νοῦς and τίθηµι) one another.57 Clearly, having the right kind of φρόνηµα and trusting in one’s renewed νοῦς in Christ, while also being open to putting new things into it (νουθετεῖν) that are in accordance with the goodness and knowledge of Christ, are central themes in Paul’s paraclesis in Romans. Reckoning and Reasoning (λογίζοµαι, διαλογισµός) The imperatival form of the verb λογίζοµαι in Rom. 6:11 has already been discussed above, and what is left for scrutiny in this section is to see how its use in 6:11 compares with its use elsewhere in the epistle. In Romans, Paul uses λογίζοµαι in three different ways: to describe human thinking, to denote how God views human beings, and as a word for self-identification.58 We shall see that the last of these, that is, Paul’s exhortation for the baptised Roman Christians to reckon themselves to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ, stands out noticeably from his use of λογίζοµαι earlier on in the letter. The verb has a human subject in Rom. 2:3 (“Do you reckon…that you will escape the judgment of God?”), 3:28 (“For we reckon that man is justified by faith without works of the law.”), 8:18 (“For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to be revealed to us.”), 8:36 (“For your sake we are being killed all the day, we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”) and in 14:14 (about food being unclean to anyone who reckons it to be so). Paul uses the word much more often, however, to describe how God’s regards people: he regards the uncircumcised keeping the law as circumcision (Rom. 2:26), Abraham’s faith in God as righteousness (4:3, 9f., 22f.), the faith of the one who believes in him who justifies the ungodly as righteousness (4:5), the faith of all the uncircumcised (4:11) and of all who believe in him who raised Jesus from the dead (4:2) as righteousness, and he counts the children of the promise as seed (9:8), and wages as due (4:4). At other times, God’s action described with λογίζοµαι takes a direct object: righteousness counted apart from works (4:6) and sin counted against man (4:8). In light of these predominant uses of λογίζοµαι, the self-reckoning that Paul exhorts his addressees to undertake in Rom. 6:11 is striking.59 If God is the one who counts (λογίζοµαι) faith as righteousness, now the baptised are 57

This may refer to the familial setting of a father admonishing his children or siblings each other (Thompson, Moral, 85). 58 Cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 6.1.6, where λογίζεσθαι denotes the calculative part of the two rational faculties and 6.5.2, where the verb is closely connected with the virtue of φρόνησις, “a truth-attaining rational quality” (6.5.6). 59 Cf. Paul’s exhortation in 1 Cor. 4:11, for people to regard him and his fellow workers as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

168

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

to reckon (λογίζοµαι) themselves to be dead to sin and alive to God as baptised into Christ. The faithful enjoy, therefore, the God-given status of righteousness. They also enjoy the state of being in Christ as those who have been baptised into him. God has identified and reckoned them to be righteous and buried and crucified with Christ. What is left for the baptised believers to do is the self-reckoning and self-identification that is in accordance with this God-given state that they already enjoy. This self-reckoning does not add anything to the baptismal state but it is a call to return to it so as to be governed by the mind of the Spirit rather than the mind of the flesh.60 It is a matter of identifying oneself correctly with Christ instead of sin. The ruler of the baptised has changed, and the baptised must know it and live in the new relationship of servitude to which they have been called. Because of the way in which λογίζοµαι summarises Paul’s baptismal teaching in 6:1–11 and acts as the springboard to the paraclesis that follows, this cognitive word shows the link between baptism and cognition at its clearest. It is also worth paying attention to the contrast between λογίζοµαι as a positive term in all its uses and the noun διαλογισµός that shares the same root but that Paul uses as a negative term for godless, futile thinking and human opinions that lead to quarrel (Rom. 1:21; 14:1). 61 To reckon oneself to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ, as baptised into Christ’s death and growing together in his resurrection, protects the Christian from thinking of himself wrongly. Paul wants it to protect the Christian from continuing to serve sin and unrighteousness as regards the use of the Christian’s body privately and communally. False thinking about God, about oneself and about one’s neighbour would simply lead to sin, one embodiment of which would be disputes in the Christian community. The correct kind of thinking about God’s righteousness in Christ and about oneself in Christ, however, ideally leads to the kind of certainty and mindset of persuasion (πείθω62) that Paul describes in Rom. 8:38. Christ is the Lord and King of the baptised, and so long as they stay in him, nothing can separate them from the love of God that is in Christ, their κύριος.

60

Cf. Fitzmyer, “[λογίζεσθε] seeks to elicit the act of faith, which accepts the salvific event embodied in baptism… Ontologically united with Christ through faith and baptism, Christians must deepen their faith continually to become more and more psychologically aware of that union” (Romans, 438, my italics). 61 N.b. the similarly central role of λογίζοµαι and λογισµός in the ethics of Wis. (see Thompson, Moral, 31). 62 Paul is himself persuaded of the gospel and that is what he wants his addressees in Rome also to be. Persuasion and the modification of his recipients’ thought and behaviour are Paul’s target in writing the letter (Thurén, Derhetorizing, 100f.).

3. Conclusion

169

3. Conclusion What I have shown in this chapter is how Paul’s purpose in writing his epistle to the Romans (to remind them of central issues), his rhetoric and his cognitive vocabulary, that are aimed at aiding understanding, all interact with his teaching on the baptismal state in Christ as dead to sin and alive to God. I have argued that Paul’s reason for writing Romans is in itself very much cognitive: to remind the Roman Christians of his gospel already known by them, so that they might be strengthened and have the ‘obedience of faith’ required to be an acceptable Gentile offering. Recalling to one’s mind the gospel of Christ, then, causes one to conform to the reality (insofar as it is possible in this body of sin, flesh and death) that is already theirs in their baptism into Christ and in the Spirit of Christ. This purpose and motivation resonate with the cognitive core of Paul’s paraclesis to the recipients of his letter. The object of their old sinful slavery, service and worship has changed, and they should know it. Instead of being slaves to sin and worshippers of creation, those baptised into Christ now serve the Lord Christ and worship the Creator. Thus the baptised must know and remember whose they now are and renew their minds according to his will and reality. The key concrete event in the conversion and transfer of the Roman Christians to this new Lord has been baptism, which is why Paul focuses so much on the rite, and language that points to the rite, in his most central theological-ethical section of the epistle. Baptism is the concrete salvation event in their lives, whose remembrance is as fundamental to Christian identity as the Exodus was and is in Judaism. By using the language of slavery, worship and bodily members, however, Paul makes it clear that this belonging and its remembrance are not simply matters of the mind. Baptism is a physical grafting into the likeness of Christ’s death, a co-crucifixion of the old self with him, which gives the trust and assurance of being grafted into the likeness of his resurrection also. Being thus one with Christ in such a physical way, continuing to live in the newness of life in Christ also takes place in the physicality of one’s life, in the use of one’s body in the service of Christ. The right kind of knowledge and mind, which ought to lead to the correct use of one’s body, is crucial in Paul’s teaching because of the ‘incompleteness’ of salvation history; the fleshly body has not yet died as it must due to sin, nor has it yet been redeemed and renewed at the second coming of Christ. That is why there remains a real risk of continuing in the old servitude and worship of sin, whose end is death. And that is why Paul’s reminder is constantly needed. From his other letters we know that Paul would have seen the need for continued reminder and exhortation in the Christian communities where he himself had been present, such as Galatia and Corinth. On the basis of the later half of Rom. 7, as I read it, Paul would have seen the need for paraclesis also within himself.

170

Chapter 5: Cognition of the Baptismal State

Paul’s rhetorical style gives added weight to the importance of cognitive reminder and persuasion in Romans. Paul employs the diatribe style with rhetorical questions that highlight the most important things to know, understand and remember. Paul’s Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; in Rom. 6:1; 7:7 and 8:31 highlights his teaching on sin, the law and the Christian hope. Paul’s questions ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε in Rom. 6:3 and 7:1 and οὐκ οἴδατε in 6:16, in their turn, are intended to stir his addressees’ emotions to an emphatic counter-reaction and a realisation of what they actually already know. Finally, my analysis of Paul’s cognitive vocabulary in Rom. 6–8 and more widely shows the importance of the notions of knowledge, ignorance, mind, thinking and reckoning in the ethics of the epistle. It is no wonder, then, that cognitive themes permeate Paul’s ethics in the central chapters as well. Paul’s command λογίζεσθε in 6:11 is especially revealing of his emphasis on cognition and its connection with baptism: reckoning oneself to be, as a person baptised into Christ, dead to sin and alive to God in Christ is crucial amidst the on-going struggle against sin. Paul’s imperatives also show the connection between correct cognition and correct action. His imperative, “So let sin not lord it over you in your mortal bodies” (6:12), takes his argument straight to the bodily realm. His command to present oneself to God “as if you were alive from the dead” and as tools for God’s righteousness, instead of presenting one’s bodily members as tools for unrighteousness (6:13; or as slavish to righteousness instead of uncleanness and lawlessness, 6:19), does the same. In the physical context of the baptismal rite, Paul’s imperatives reflect the importance both of understanding the meaning and consequences of the baptismal existence and also of putting one’s body to correct use. Both the cognitive and the physical elements are equally central and intertwined in the important summary statement of Rom. 12:1–3 as they are in Rom. 6–8. Even in the practical paraclesis that Paul gives in the last chapters of his letter, baptismal echoes can be found, which makes them less detached from chapters 6–8 than is often thought.

Chapter 6

Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics Finally, then, it is important to bring together the main points that have been established in the different sections of this study, and to show clearly the contribution that the thesis makes to the discussion of the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics. At its most basic, the reason why this study is needed is to help correct the way in which this relationship is commonly understood, by bringing baptism and cognition back to its centre. In Paul’s ethical teaching, there certainly are rules, commandments and consequences for transgression. Some sections in the Pauline letters are emphatically ethical and seem to be somewhat (but never completely) separated from his more theological writings. What very often lies in the background of the Pauline paraclesis, however, is an appeal to recall, know or understand one’s state as baptised into Christ and the Christian death-life pattern.1 This is especially true in the most central text for the relationship between theology and ethics (and, therefore, baptism and the Christian life) in Paul: Rom. 6–8. Focus on this adds a new dimension to the picture. In Paul’s ethical pattern, Christians have not simply been saved from the rule of sin and eternal death and told the rules of their new Lord, Christ, and expected to comply with them – instead, they are constantly reminded of how their old way of life used to be, who it was that saved them from it and whose servants they have now become. This reminder of their Saviour’s goodness, which sometimes takes the form of a grammatical imperative and at many other times does not, aims at deepening their understanding of how good it is to have been saved in Christ and how natural it is that they should do their best at living out their new identity in their newly found and undeserved freedom from the oppressing powers. That is the crux of Paul’s ethics in Rom. 6–8 and in many other texts: strengthening the Christian identity by way of reminder to establish a renewed cognition of God’s salvific act in Christ through baptism. The form that this reminder takes is of secondary importance, and that is why the grammatical term ‘imperative’ is misleading and inadequate. The same can be said about the ‘indicative’.

1 As has already been noted, an appeal to reason is an intrinsic part of paraclesis (Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis’, 351f.).

172

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

As has been shown in this study, although the validity of the indicativeimperative schema has been called into question, the terminology continues to be used widely and even defended. For Wernle’s reading of Paul as a teacher of realised sinlessness, it was appropriate to divide his teaching into an ‘indicative of sinlessness’ and a ‘superfluous’ ethical ‘imperative’. The reaction, in scholarly debate, to Wernle’s claims represented valid attempts at correcting his mistakes, but they have ended up cementing the terminology that the criticisms have been trying to recalibrate. Bultmann in particular can be thanked for fixing the dichotomy between Paul’s theology and ethics in place, despite his trying to present the paradox between the ‘indicative’ of justification and the ‘imperative’ of obedience as perfectly intelligible through faith. Many of the early criticisms had already noted that Paul does not only employ grammatical imperatives in his paraenesis. This claim has been repeated by later critics, while others have emphasised the way in which Paul’s ethics are linked with his baptismal teaching; attention has also been drawn to how Paul’s ethics strengthen his addressees’ correct cognition of their Christian identity and state in Christ. Hence my focus here on baptism and cognition, as a way of shifting our attention away from Wernle’s theological grammar, builds upon these earlier works, to this extent at least. An interesting observation that emerged in my survey of scholarship was how some of the critics of the indicative-imperative language have a distinctly German Lutheran problem with the tertius usus legis (the law as a guideline for the Christian), and for them, the terminology of ethical ‘imperatives’ has a nasty smell of this. Many defenders of the terminology have, therefore, claimed that the problematisation of the ‘imperative’ is a ‘Lutheran’ concern. However, not all Lutherans deny the third use of the law, as it has its place in the Book of Concord of 1580,2 and this intra-Lutheran debate is certainly not my motivation for writing this book. In fact, this kind of point of entry into the topic is potentially misleading, and too easily tends to explain away Paul’s moral exhortations, of which grammatical imperatives do form a part, but only a part. Even without such theological qualms about moral exhortation aimed at Christians, it is possible and, indeed, necessary to observe the relationship between Paul’s theological teaching and his ethical instruction, while eschewing discussion of grammatical terms that, theologically, oversimplify the issue and beg questions of definition. This can best be achieved by focusing on the most central themes in the most central text for this topic: 2

Sol. Decl., VI, which shows that the ‘third use’ had already been contested by some Lutherans when the Formula of Concord was written in the 1570s to, in part, affirm it. Many Lutherans, however, did not accept the Formula of Concord, of which Sol. Decl. forms the second part. For the classical work on the subject, see Joest, Gesetz. For a concise explanation of the view that Luther never explicitly taught the third use, see J.A. Garcia, ‘A Critique of Mannermaa on Luther and Galatians’, LQ XXVII (2013), 46–48.

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

173

the baptismal state in Christ and its behaviour-shaping cognition, in Rom. 6– 8. This represents my distinctive and (as I would hope) more nuanced approach in this study. My reading has similarities with the New Perspective approach, as far as viewing Paul’s exhortations as identity-strengthening reminders (with some similarity to the New Perspective view of the works of the law as boundary markers) is concerned. This does not mean, however, that I endorse the New Perspective uncritically: contrary to Horn’s view, for instance, I see no problem in the continued relevance of the Decalogue to Christians in light of Paul’s writings,3 because as well as the law’s accusatory role in relation to continuing human sinfulness, until the Parousia, Christians can, insofar as they are in Christ, also view the law from the perspective of the positive Christian freedom to live by God’s good will (expressed in the law) without fear of punishment and without the need to earn salvation by such obedience.4 I therefore view the so-called third use as a matter of perspective: from the perspective of guilt, the law accuses, whereas from the perspective of the Christian freedom and grace, the law shows itself as good and worthy of being followed. Additionally, to borrow New Perspective language about the law, Paul’s paraclesis can be seen as a reminder of what ‘getting in’ to the grace of Christ has entailed at baptism, so that his addressees would continue to ‘stay in’ it. As I have argued, both Paul’s Jewish context and the Stoic context of firstcentury Rome render Paul’s baptismal and cognitive emphases in his ethics contextually somewhat conventional. In taking both contexts into consideration, I have tried to bring together the all too often separated ‘Jewish’ Paul and the ‘Graeco-Roman’ Paul. Of course, Paul’s anthropological pessimism and his undeniable focus on the person of Christ make his theological-ethical 3 In this way, I see no problem with Thompson’s basic point about the continued role of the Torah (apart from the Jewish ‘boundary markers’) as the primary source of the moral principles of Pauline and Hellenistic Jewish ethics, both of which also made use of the Greek tradition insofar as it was compatible with the Torah (Moral, ix, 15–18, 19–41, 208; cf. Rom. 15:4). 4 Similarly, Joest (Gesetz, 129–133) opposes the tertius usus legis, which, he believes, makes salvation conditional upon fulfilling the law, and instead prefers to characterise obedience as “usus practicus evangelii” (or ‘evangelical encouragement’, i.e. paraclesis), because the same law that accuses the sinner (and also the Christian sinner) undergoes a reversal (Umkehrung) in Christ from necessity to free obedience. This is how Joest reads Luther, arguing that Luther’s view is, in its turn, true to Paul’s moral ‘imperative’ that is “nur eine besondere Form des Imperativs zum Glauben an das Evangelium” (154 cf. 138– 142), a conscious “Ja des Glaubens” and a proclamation of and encouragement towards the already existing eschatological reality of salvation and its power in Christ (150–155); this is not far from Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 216; cf. Übelacker’s familial view of paraclesis (‘Paraenesis’, 351).

174

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

teaching stand out from both. The basic fact, however, that a ritual washing (baptism) carries moral weight in Paul’s teaching fits into the alleged development of the merging of the notions of ritual and moral purity in Judaism that has been traced by many scholars. Although the roots of this development may be found already in the OT at least on a metaphorical level, it becomes much more pronounced later on in the practice of miqweh of the Second Temple Period, especially in the Diaspora (and most clearly in Alexandria), in the way in which the Qumran community viewed sin as ritually defiling and the ritual washings as steps towards higher levels of priestly purity, and in the baptismal practice of John and in the baptism of Jesus that connected baptism with the forgiveness of sins. The Rabbis, however, tended to compartmentalise the notions of moral and ritual purity or impurity, using moral purity or impurity as aggadah (exhortation) to inspire law-obedience (and Paul’s use is not dissimilar from this, for instance in Rom. 6:19). Further, the strongly cognitive dimension in Paul’s ethics has similarities both with the Jewish model of reminding God’s people of their salvation (as with the Shema and the reminder of the salvific Exodus event) and with the rational emphasis of Stoic ethics. Both the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome would, therefore, have been able to relate to Paul’s appeal to understand what has taken place in the formative narrative of their baptismal incorporation into Christ – that they have died through baptism to sin, with Christ, and should likewise reckon themselves to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. The cognitive emphasis is extremely pronounced in Stoic ethics, in which the divine reason (λόγος, ratio) dwelling in human beings, and the virtue of prudential wisdom, to be able to judge between actions (φρόνησις, prudentia), were the only means by which one could lead a life of ‘apathy’. Because of the popularised status of Stoicism in first-century Rome, it is natural that the Apostle, who wanted to become τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος…τοῖς ἀνόµοις ὡς ἄνοµος and τοῖς πᾶσιν…πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω (1 Cor. 9:20–23), would make use of Stoic-sounding language to convey his gospel to the Christians at Rome. In so doing, however, Paul did not become a Stoic. He was and remained a Jewish Christ-believer, who resorted to Stoic language insofar as it was possible to make his Christ-centred teaching intelligible to his audience. Such borrowing and adaptation was commonplace in Hellenistic Judaism, as can be seen for example in the apocryphal 4 Macc. and Wis. In clothing old material in Stoic language, as Paul did for instance with his Fall narrative in Rom. 1 by describing it as a mental lapse that led to idolatry and an ethical lapse, he did not change the message itself. In his desire to emphasise the importance of a correct understanding of the gospel and participation in it at baptism, and in his teaching on the inseparability of the role of the Spirit in enabling this new φρόνηµα, Paul focuses on Christ, his death, his resurrection, his Spirit and his future return. While Epictetus teaches a model of ethical insight and development, Paul focuses

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

175

on deepening his recipients’ understanding of their entry into a relationship with Christ and a break from sin through baptism. Especially in view of the fact that recalling God’s past salvific acts for his people was an intrinsic part of Jewish practice, and because of the prophecy in Joel concerning the indwelling of God’s Spirit, Paul could address the Romans with Stoic notions that would have sounded somewhat similar. However, in each instance, he re-harnessed both traditions by nailing his argument firmly to the cross. In order to be able to grant baptism such a central role in Paul’s paraclesis, I have argued that although the metaphorical aspect of baptism and baptismal language cannot be denied, and although metaphor does not equal ‘not real’, Paul is purposefully talking about the actual rite of baptism as the foundation of his moral instruction in Rom. 6–8, instead of using baptism as just a symbol for something more real. My analysis of the significance of the passive forms in the baptismal verbs and the summarising verbal aspect view of the aorist imperatives in Rom. 6 has attempted to show that Paul is summing up, and reminding his addressees of, God’s action in their lives that concretely began at baptism and continues to define them thereafter. The unity of Paul’s baptismal death-and-life language throughout chapters 6–8 also points to the centrality of the baptismal death to sin and the baptismal beginning of the newness of life in Christ. In the case of the baptismal death, sin’s rule through death stands in contrast with the solution to ending it, that is, Christ’s own death. Paul’s use of baptismal “death to” language refers to the freedom from the damning power of sin and the law. As far as the baptismal life is concerned, slavery and servitude to God in Christ continue (somewhat surprisingly to the modern reader, but appropriately for the Jewish scriptural tradition) to be key parts of the newness of the Spirit, freedom and sonship. The baptismal life, that is, takes place in the eschatological tension between becoming Christ’s own at baptism and Christ’s return to redeem the body of sin, which is the key reason for Paul’s moral exhortation. It is, therefore, needed to strengthen the cognition of one’s baptismal state and identity in Christ amidst on-going temptations of the flesh. The baptismal death also demarcates a separation, which has been made clear in my analysis of Paul’s use of the notions of sanctification and slavery – both of which denote a new state, relationship and identity in Christ. Such identity-forming teaching, as we have seen, crucially relates to the cognitive aspect of Paul’s ethics. This alone makes the ‘imperative’ of sanctification to be concerned not so much with moral improvement as with a constant and renewed realisation and understanding of one’s consecrated baptismal state. It is about looking back and letting the past salvific actions of God in Christ define who one is in the present. As became clear in the final stage of this study, one of Paul’s key reasons for writing Romans was (in his own words) to remind the Roman Christians of things already somewhat familiar to them, to deepen their knowledge and

176

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

strengthen their obedience through persuasion amidst the on-going eschatological tension. Of course, Paul may have chosen to speak of reminding instead of instructing so as to establish his authority as a teacher not of new things but as one of God’s mysteries already announced in the Jewish scriptures and revealed in Christ and through his ministry. More generally, Paul’s rhetorical questions, cognitive imperatives and language about knowing, the mind, and reckoning, all point to the importance of cognition. In their context of Rom. 6–8, they are connected with Paul’s baptismal teaching and the death-and-life pattern that was made concrete at baptism. Although this study concentrates on Rom. 6–8 as Paul’s main text for the interaction of baptism and ethics, I have also provided a summary of how baptism is used ethically elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, even when the reference is clearly typological (cf. 1 Cor. 10). There are strong similarities between Paul’s use of the rite in Rom. 6–8 and in the other Paulines; I merely repeat a few examples here. The death-and-life theme can be found in Gal. 2:19f. and 3:27, Col. 2:11–15, 20, and Tit. 3:5. Slavery or servitude to Christ reoccurs in Col. 3:24 (cf. 4:1). Just as in Rom. 7, the elimination of the law is a prominent theme in the whole of Gal. and in Col. 2:14. The eschatological tension between the aeons is found in Col. 3:3f. Paul uses baptism rhetorically in 1 Cor. 1:10–17 and as a cognitive reminder of what his addressees (should) already know in Gal. 3:27, 1 Cor. 6 and 12, Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:21. Cognition of the pre-baptismal existence and of the baptised state in Christ and its consequences is a key theme in the whole of Eph. There is talk of sanctification in a baptismal context also in 1 Cor. 6 and Eph. 5:25b-27. Paul’s teaching about the correct use of the body after the baptismal incorporation into Christ is similar in 1 Cor. 6. Hence it would seem not at all implausible that the reading of Rom 6–8 that I have argued for here may also be able to be applied to other texts that contain the baptismal tradition that is represented in the Pauline corpus and, as it would seem, given its supreme expression in Rom. 6. However, to test the hypothesis that this approach is fully applicable to these other Pauline texts is something that lies beyond the scope of this thesis, and must be undertaken in due course as a separate study in itself. In general, my approach here has been to bring the often all too polarised sides of scholarly emphasis into a more nuanced dialogue with each other. It also represents an attempt at returning baptism to a central place in scholarly discussion of the kind that it clearly plays in Paul’s letters. The fact that it plays so central a role with Paul is indeed the reason why it continued to do so in Early Church teaching5 and in the Reformation. The continued relevance of baptism in the Christian life as a means of renewed self5

See e.g. Ambr. Sacr. II.23; Ps. Dion. Eccl. 2.III.397A-B.

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

177

identification was of the utmost importance to Luther, who writes about Rom. 6:4: These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued.6

Of course, many scholars, irrespective of their religious affiliation, have, before now, given baptism a proper place in Paul’s ethics.7 However, most of them continue to use the indicative-imperative terminology that, as has been suggested above, is unsuitable for capturing the underlying foundation of Paul’s ethics8 because Paul’s language is much more complex and concrete than such grammatical metaphors imply.9 It is possible to use the Wernlean terminology if one carefully defines them as such: metaphors and simplifying summary statements.10 Nevertheless, it is much better to see what Paul is saying about the event that in his teaching marks the concrete beginning of death to sin and life in Christ to God, and understand how life-defining this Christian baptism, and the associated Spirit-gift, were in the thought and ethics of the Apostle. In so doing, the divide that has often been forced between Paul’s theology and ethics disappears. As Thurén writes, “the paraenesis is an essential part of the Gospel”.11 In this regard, M. Barth’s worry about the misuse of the law/gospel dichotomy is valid: Christ is the key, the touchstone, the scope of all. Proclamation of Christ is made even when imperatives abound. It is beyond dispute that Pauline ethics are based upon, and implicitly contained in, his Christology and soteriology… There is no reason to belittle the relevance of Paul’s ethical teaching in the light of the apostle’s statements on justification by grace alone.12

For Paul, Christ is the Lord who saves people from sin and death, and he is the one whom those baptised into him must and may serve, simply because that is who they now are and whose they now are. Because the bodies of the 6

M. Luther, LC, IV.65 in F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau (trans.), Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, Saint Louis: Concordia, 1921. 7 For instance, Beasley-Murray, ‘Baptism’, 64; Bornkamm, ‘Baptism’, 84; Käsemann, Romans, 163; Wright, Paul, 1373. 8 Landmesser, ‘Begründungsstrukturen’, 180. Landmesser, ‘Performativ’, 547. 9 Cf. Zimmermann, ‘Jenseits’, 276f., 282. 10 As Zimmermann and Schrage have argued. 11 Thurén, ‘Motivation’, 370. 12 Barth, Ephesians 4–6, 457.

178

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Baptismal Foundation of Paul’s Ethics

baptised have become temples of the Spirit, the worship of God means to sacrifice one’s body to his good use (Rom. 6:12ff., 12:1f.). At the same time, however, such “proper way of life cannot be upheld without the proper way of thinking”.13 Schnelle is right in saying that Paul’s ethics are primarily ethics of insight (Einsichtsethik) instead of being based on commandments.14 Evidently, the Pauline insight, reason, understanding or cognition is not detached from the work of the Spirit (of Christ). However, despite cognition being guided by the indwelling Spirit, Paul still resorts to strong, rhetorical and cognition-refreshing reminders and exhortations in his moral teaching. These represent two sides of the same coin, and one must not forget either of them. Overall, then, it needs to be seen that the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics goes well beyond the relatively recent and question-begging terminology of ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’. The active knowledge, remembrance and understanding (‘cognition’) of one’s own death to sin with Christ at baptism and of one’s assured growing together in the likeness of Christ’s resurrection (‘baptismal state’) represent the primary point at which Paul’s theology and ethics come together in Rom. 6–8 and often also elsewhere. The consecrated, dead-and-alive baptismal status in Christ, inseparable from the gift of Christ’s Spirit, is the identity foundation to which Paul cognitively appeals in his moral teaching. To focus on the interplay between baptism and cognition, therefore, roots the relationship between Paul’s theology and ethics firmly in his writings, in a more concrete and text-based way than is possible with the abstract indicative-imperative terminology. Because theologians and other Christians alike have such different views on baptism, it might conceivably be easier to avoid disagreement by setting baptism aside as less important than the meta-level of Paul’s ethical argument, the indicativeimperative schema. For Paul, however, there is no such meta-level apart from the reality of Christ. His ethical exhortation centres on Christ and on being in Christ. Furthermore, baptism is, for Paul, the concrete rite, the “conversioninitiation”15, that witnesses to Christ and transfers the baptised into Christ. If Paul did not shy away from applying the first-century baptismal practice and teaching in such terms in his ethics, neither should we as his students. Hence it is imperative to go beyond unhelpful abstractions and to focus on baptism, and the understanding of baptism, in as concrete a way as Paul himself does.

13

Thorsteinsson, Roman, 143. Schnelle, ‘Begründung’, 127, 131. 15 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 333. 14

Bibliography1 Non-Christian Greek and Roman Writings Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, in Rackham, H. (trans.), Aristotle, Volume XIX (Loeb Classical Library 73), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae, in Cary, Earnest and Herbert B. Foster (trans.), Roman History, Vol. VIII (Loeb Classical Library 176), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Cicero, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, in Rackham, H. (trans.), Cicero, Vol. XVII (Loeb Classical Library 40), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Epictetus, Dissertationes, in Oldfather, W. A. (trans.), Discourses, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 131, 218), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925, 1928. Homer, Iliad, in Murray, A. T. (trans.) and William F. Wyatt (rev.), Iliad, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 170, 171), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924, 1925. Ovid, Metamorphoses, in Miller, Frank J. (trans.) and G. P. Goold (rev.), Metamorphoses, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 42, 43), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. Plutarch, De Virtute Morali, in Helmbold W. C. (trans.), Moralia, Vol. VI: Can Virtue Be Taught? On Moral Virtue. On the Control of Anger. On Tranquility of Mind. On Brotherly Love. On Affection for Offspring. Whether Vice Be Sufficient to Cause Unhappiness. Whether the Affections of the Soul are Worse Than Those of the Body. Concerning Talkativeness. On Being a Busybody (Loeb Classical Library 337), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, in Russell, Donald A. (trans.), The Orator’s Education, 4 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 124–127), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Seneca, De Beneficiis, in Basore, John W. (trans.) Moral Essays, Vol. III: De Beneficiis (Loeb Classical Library 310), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. De Ira in Basore, John W. (trans.) Moral Essays, Vol. I: De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia (Loeb Classical Library 214), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. De Providentia, in Basore, John W. (trans.) Moral Essays, Vol. I: De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia (Loeb Classical Library 214), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Epistulae, in Gummere, Richard M. (trans.), Epistles, 3 Vols, (Loeb Classical Library 75– 77), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917, 1920, 1925.

1

Multiple works by the same author are in alphabetical order.

180

Bibliography

Naturales Quaestiones, in Corcoran, Thomas H. (trans.), Natural Questions, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 450, 457), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, 1972. Suetonius, Divus Claudius, in Rolfe, J. C. (trans.), Lives of the Caesars, Vol. II: Claudius. Nero. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian. Titus, Domitian. Lives of Illustrious Men: Grammarians and Rhetoricians. Poets (Terence. Virgil. Horace. Tibullus. Persius. Lucan). Lives of Pliny the Elder and Passienus Crispus (Loeb Classical Library 38), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Stobaeus, Anthologion, in Wachsmuth, Curtius and Otto H. Wachsmuth, Joannis Stobaei Anthologium, 3 Vols, Berlin: Berolini apud Weidmannos, 1884, 1909, 1912. Virgil, Aeneid, in Fairclough, H. Rushton, Virgil, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 63, 64), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916, 1918.

Jewish Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphal and Other Extrabiblical Writings 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 4 Ezra Flavius Josephus, in Thackeray, H. St. J., Ralph Marcus and Louis H. Feldman (trans.), Antiquitates Judaicae, 9 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 242, 490, 281, 326, 365, 489, 410, 433, 456), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930, 1934, 1937, 1943, 1963, 1965. Jubilees, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (6 vols), Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. The Letter of Aristeas, in Swete, H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd edn), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees 1QHa Thanksgiving Hyms, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 Vols, Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. 1QM War Scroll, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 Vols, Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. 1QS Rule of the Community, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 Vols, Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. 4QInstructionb, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 Vols, Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. 4QInstructionc, in Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 Vols, Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, in Colson, F. H. (trans.), On the Special Laws, 2 Vols (Loeb Classical Library 320, 341), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937, 1939. Psalms of Solomon, in Gray, G. Buchanan (trans.) and R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Sibylline Oracles in Lanchester, H. C. O. (trans.) and R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Sifre on Numbers (Midrash), in Neusner, Jacob (trans.), Sifré to Numbers, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.

Early Christian and Reformation Writings

181

Tractate Yevamot (Babylonian Talmud) in Neusner, Jacob (trans.), A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. Part 1: Yebamot: Translation and Explanation (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 33, Part 1), Leiden: Brill, 1980. Wisdom of Solomon

Early Christian and Reformation Writings Ambrose, De sacramentiis, in Chadwick, Henry (ed.), Saint Ambrose on the Sacraments, London: Mowbray, 1960. 1 Clement, in Holmes, Michael W. (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd edn), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Confessio Augustana, in F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau (trans.), Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, in Falls, Thomas B. (trans.), Writings of Saint Justin Martyr (Fathers of the Church 6), Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1965. Apologia prima, in Falls, Thomas B. (trans.), Writings of Saint Justin Martyr (Fathers of the Church 6), Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1965. Martin Luther, Large Catechism, in F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau (trans.), Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Origen, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos, in Bray, Gerald (ed.), Romans (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. VI), Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1998, 150. Orosius, Historiae adversus paganos, in Fear, A.T. (trans.), Orosius: Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010. Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, in Campbell, Thomas L. (trans.), The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1981. Solid Declaration, in F. Bente and W.H.T. Dau (trans.), Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, in Holmes, Peter (trans.) Tertullianus Against Marcion (Ante-Nicene Christian Library 7), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870. De Baptismo, in Evans, Ernest (trans.), Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism, London: SPCK, 1964.

Reference Works Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (28th edn), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Aune, David E., Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

182

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edn), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs (eds), Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (9th edn), Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin, (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 Vols (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn), Oxford: OUP, 1996. Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 2004. Thayer, Joseph H., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, trans. and rev. by J.H. Thayer), New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1889. Trench, Richard C., Synonyms of the New Testament, London: Kegan Paul, 1886. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. (ed.), New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Zerwick, Maximilian, Biblical Greek, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963.

Commentaries Barrett, Charles K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, A & C Black, London: 1957 (2nd edn 1991). Barth, Markus, Ephesians 1–3 (AB), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. – Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. Betz, H. Dieter, Galatians: a Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984. Bray, Gerald (ed.), Romans (ACCS, Vol. VI), Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1998. Conzelmann, Hans, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (James W. Leitch, trans.), Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975. Cranfield, Charles E.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited, 1975. Das, A. Andrew, Galatians (CC), Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Dodd, Charles H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, 1932 (14th edn 1960). Dunn, James D.G., Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988. – Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988.

Works Cited

183

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993. Goodman, Martin (ed.), The Apocrypha (OBC), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Jewett, Robert, Romans: A Commentary, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. Käsemann, Ernst, Commentary on Romans, (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), London: SCM Press Ltd, 1980. Lincoln, Andrew T., Ephesians (WBC 42), Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Longenecker, Richard N., Galatians (WBC 41), Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Matera, Frank J., Romans, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Middendorf, Michael P., Romans 1–8, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2013. Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus, Vol. I (AB 3A), New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991. – The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996. – ‘Romans’, in Carson, D.A. et al. (eds), New Bible Commentary (21st Century Edition), Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994, pp. 1114–1159. Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans, (C.C. Rasmussen, trans.), London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952. O’Brien, Peter T., Colossians – Philemon (WBC 44), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982, 124. Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911 (2nd edn 1914, repr. 1929), 119. Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Schreiner, Thomas R., Galatians (ZECNT), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Stuhlmacher, Peter, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Väisänen, Matti, Pyhä evankeliumi Roomalaiskirjeessä [Holy Gospel in Romans], Vol. I, Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2004. Witherington, Ben, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2004. Wright, Nicholas T., The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10), Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002.

Works Cited Abegg, Martin G. Jr., ‘Paul and James on the Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Collins, John J. and Craig A. Evans (eds), Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006, pp. 63–74. Agersnap, Søren, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6.1–14, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1999. Aune, David E., ‘Paul, Ritual Purity, and Ritual Baths South of the Temple Mount (Acts 21:15–28)’, in Spitaler, Peter (ed.), Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (CBQMS 48), Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011, pp. 287–320.

184

Bibliography

Backhaus, Knut, ‘Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus’, in Schnelle, Udo and Thomas Söding (eds), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, pp. 9–31. Barclay, John M.G., ‘‘By the Grace of God I Am What I Am’: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul’, in Barclay, John M. G. and Simon J. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment, London: T. & T. Clark, 2006, pp. 140– 157. – Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Riches, John, ed.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. – ‘Under Grace: The Christ-Gift and the Construction of a Christian Habitus’, in Gaventa, Beverly R. (ed.), Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013, pp. 59–76 Barth, Karl, Baptism as the Foundation of the Christian Life (Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV, 4), (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. Barton, Stephen C., ‘The epistles and Christian ethics’, in Gill, Robin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 63–73. Beasley-Murray, George R., ‘Baptism’, in Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, pp. 60–66. – Baptism in the New Testament, New York, NY: St Martin’s Press, 1962. – Baptism Today and Tomorrow, New York, NY: St Martin’s Press, 1966. Becker, Michael, ‘Paul and the Evil One’, in Fröhlich, Ida and Erkki Koskenniemi (eds), Evil and the Devil (LNTS 481), London: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2013, pp. 127– 141. Benedict XVI, Saint Paul, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2009. Benoit, Pierre, ‘Qumran and the New Testament’, in Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome and James H. Charlesworth (eds), Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, NY: Crossroad, 1990, pp. 1–30. Bente, Friedrich, and William H. T. Dau (trans.), Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Betz, H. Dieter, ‘Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Romans 6’, in Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994, pp. 84–116. Black, C. Clifton, ‘Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8’, JBL 103 (1984), pp. 413–433. Blischke, Folker, Die Begründung und die Durchsetzung der Ethik bei Paulus (ABG 25), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. – ‘Reminder as an Approach of Pauline Ethics: Paul in an Old Testament and Hellenistic Line of Tradition’, in Meiser, Martin (ed.), The Torah in the Ethics of Paul (LNTS 473), London: T. & T. Clark International, 2012. Bonhöffer, Adolf F., Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911. – ‘Epiktet und das Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 (1912), pp. 281–305. Bornkamm, Günther, ‘Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)’, (Paul L. Hammer, trans.), in Bornkamm, Günther, Early Christian Experience, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1969, pp. 71–86. – Paulus, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1969.

Works Cited

185

Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘Das religiöse Moment in der ethischen Unterweisung des Epiktet und das Neue Testament’, ZNW 13 (1912), pp. 97–110 and 177–191. – Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. – Theology of the New Testament, Vol. I, (Grobel Kendrick, trans.) London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952. – ‘The Problem of Ethics in Paul’, (Christoph W. Stenschke, trans.), repr. in Rosner, Brian S., Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 195–216. Cavin, Robert L., New Existence and Righteous Living: Colossians and 1 Peter in Conversation with 4QInstruction and the Hodayot (BZNW 197), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. Carson, Donald A., Exegetical Fallacies, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984. Carson, Donald A., Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vols I-II, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001–2004. Countryman, L. William, Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (revised edn), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Denzey, Nicola, ‘Facing the Beast: Justin, Christian Martyrdom, and Freedom of the Will’, in Rasimus, Tuomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, pp. 176–198. Dibelius, Martin, ‘Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief’, in Bornkamm, Günther (ed.), Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Vol. II, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1956, pp. 160–176. – Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (6th edn), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Donfried, Karl P. (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1991. Douglas, Mary, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London: Routledge, 1966. Dunn, James D.G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1970. – ‘“Baptized” as Metaphor’, in Porter, Stanley E., and Anthony R. Cross (eds), Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White (JSNTSup 171), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, pp. 294–310. – Jesus, Paul and the Law, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1990. – The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. – The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, Paul and the Stoics, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. – (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. – ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul’, in Barclay, John M.G. and Simon J. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (LNTS 335), London: T. & T. Clark, 2006, pp. 117–139. – ‘Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy’, in Rasimus, Tuomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, pp. 1– 14. Eskola, Timo, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology (WUNT II/100), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

186

Bibliography

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10’, in Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome and James H. Charlesworth (eds), Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, NY: Crossroad, 1990, pp. 31–68. Originally published in NTS 4 (1957–58), pp. 48–58. Freed, Edwin D., The Morality of Paul’s Converts, London: Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2005. Furnish, Victor P., Theology and Ethics in Paul, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1968. Garcia, Javier A., ‘A Critique of Mannermaa on Luther and Galatians’, LQ XXVII (2013), pp. 33–55. Gathercole, Simon J., Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. Gaventa, Beverly R., ‘The Shape of the “I”: The Psalter, the Gospel, and the Speaker in Romans 7’, in Gaventa, Beverly R. (ed.), Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013, pp. 77–91. Goppelt, Leonhard, Theology of the New Testament, (John Alsup, trans.), Vol. II, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982. Gorman, Michael J., Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001. Gupta, Nijay K., Worship That Makes Sense to Paul: A New Approach to the Theology and Ethics of Paul’s Cultic Metaphors, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Haber, Susan, ‘Common Judaism, Common Synagogue? Purity, Holiness, and Sacred Space at the Turn of the Common Era’, in McCready, Wayne O. and Adele Reinhartz (eds), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008, pp. 63–78. Harrill, J. Albert, ‘Stoic Physics, the Universal Conflagration, and the Eschatological Destruction of the “Ignorant and Unstable” in 2 Peter’, in Rasimus, Tuomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, pp. 115–140. Harrington, Hannah K., Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world, London: Routledge, 2001. – The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBLDS 143), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. Hengel, Martin, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (WUNT 10), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969. Horn, Friedrich W., ‘Die Darstellung und Begründung der Ethik des Apostels Paulus in der new perspective’, in Horn, Friedrich W. and Ruben Zimmermann (eds), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 213–231. Horrell, David G., ‘Particular Identity and Common Ethics: Reflections on the Foundations and Content of Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 5’, in Horn, Friedrich W. and Ruben Zimmermann (eds), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 197–212.

Works Cited

187

– Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics, London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Huttunen, Niko, ‘Stoic Law in Paul?’, in Rasimus, Tuomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, pp. 39–58. Jensen, Robin M., Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Jewett, Robert, ‘Following the Argument of Romans’, in Donfried, Karl P. (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1991, pp. 265–277. – ‘Romans’, in Dunn, James D.G. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 91–104. Joest, Wilfried, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese (3rd edn), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Johnson, Luke T., ‘Transformation of the Mind and Moral Discernment in Paul’ in Fitzgerald, John T., Thomas H. Olbricht and L. Michael White (eds), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 215–236. Käsemann, Ernst, ‘Principles of the Interpretation of Romans’, in Käsemann, Ernst, New Testament Questions of Today, (W.J. Montague, trans.), London: SCM Press Ltd, 1969, pp. 196–216. Kazen, Thomas, Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011. – Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (ConBNT 38), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2002. Klawans, Jonathan, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. – Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Kleinig, John W., ‘Sharing in God’s Holiness’, LTR VIII:1/2 (1995/1996), pp. 105–108. Klostergaard Petersen, Anders, ‘Paraenesis in Pauline Scholarship and Paul – An Intricate Relationship’, in Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 267–295. Kuula, Kari, Paavali: Kristinuskon ensimmäinen teologi [Paul: The First Theologian of Christianity], Helsinki: Edita, 2001. Laato, Timo, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Lampe, Peter, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Michael Steinhauser, trans., and Marshall D. Johnson, ed.), London: Continuum, 2003. Landmesser, Christof, ‘Der paulinische Imperativ als christologisches Performativ: Eine begründete These zur Einheit von Glaube und Leben im Anschluß an Phil 1,27 – 2,18’, in Landmesser, Christof, Hans-Joachim Eckstein and Hermann Lichtenberger (eds), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (BZNW 86), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 543–577. – ‘Begründungsstrukturen paulinischer Ethik’, in Horn, Friedrich W. and Ruben Zimmermann (eds), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 177–196.

188

Bibliography

Lemos, Tracy Maria, ‘Where There is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions’, JSOT 37.3 (2013), pp. 265–294. Lieu, Judith, ‘“Impregnable ramparts and walls of iron”. Boundary and Identity in “Judaism” and “Christianity”’, NTS 48 (2002), pp. 297–313. Lohse, Eduard, ‘χείρ, χειραγωγέω, χειραγωγός, χειρόγραφον, χειροποίητος, ἀχειροποίητος, χειροτονέω’, in Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IX (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 424–437. Longenecker, Bruce W., The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Longenecker, Richard N., Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011. Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9’, in Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994, pp. 231–255. – Paul and the Popular Philosophers, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989. Magness, Jodi, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. Matera, Frank J., ‘Living in Newness of Life: Paul’s Understanding of the Moral Life’, in Spitaler, Peter (ed.), Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (CBQMS 48), Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011, pp. 152–168. Mathewson, David, ‘Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions’, LN 18 (1996), pp. 21–35. McCready, Wayne O., and Adele Reinhartz (eds), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008. Meggitt, Justin J., Paul, Poverty and Survival, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Mitchell, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, and James H. Charlesworth (eds), Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, NY: Crossroad, 1990. Neusner, Jacob, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Leiden: Brill, 1973. Newton, Michael, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Nicolet-Anderson, Valérie, Constructing the Self (WUNT 324), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Oden, Thomas C., Radical Obedience: The Ethics of Rudolf Bultmann, London: The Epworth Press, 1965. Oepke, Albrecht, ‘βάπτω, βαπτίζω, βαπτισµός, βάπτισµα, βαπτιστής’, in Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. I (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 529–546. Parsons, Michael, ‘Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing’, repr. in Rosner, Brian S. (ed.), Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 217–247. Peterson, David, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (NSBT), Leicester: Apollos, 1995. Pieper, Franz, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1983.

Works Cited

189

Porter, Stanley E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd edn), Sheffield: Continuum, 1992. – ‘Holiness, Sanctification’, in Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, pp. 397– 402. – Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek 1, New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1989. Procksch, Otto, ‘ἅγιος – ἁγιάζω – ἁγιασµός – ἁγιότης – ἁγιωσύνη’, in Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. I (G.W. Bromiley, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 88–115. Rabens, Volker, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT 283), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Räisänen, Heikki, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Sanders, Ed P., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1990. – Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1992. – Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1977. Scaer, David P., ‘Sanctification in Lutheran Theology’, CTQ 49 (1985), pp. 181–195. – ‘Sanctification in the Lutheran Confessions’, CTQ 53:3 (1989), pp. 165–182. Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul: A Study in Pauline Theology, (George R. Beasley-Murray, trans.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. Schnelle, Udo, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, (M. Eugene Boring, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. – ‘Die Begründung und die Gestaltung der Ethik bei Paulus’, in Gebauer, Roland and Martin Meiser (eds.), Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums: Festschrift für Otto Merk zum 70. Geburtstag (MTS 76), Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 2003, pp. 109– 131. – ‘Paulus und Epiktet – zwei ethische Modelle’, in Horn, Friedrich W. and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 138–158. – ‘Transformation und Partizipation als Grundgedanken paulinischer Theologie’, NTS 47 (2001), pp. 58–75. Schrage, Wolfgang, The Ethics of the New Testament, (E.D. Green, trans.), Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, ‘Cultic Language in Qumran and the NT’, CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 159–177. Schweitzer, Albert, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus, Tübingen: Mohr, 1930. Sherman, Hazel, ‘“Getting in and Staying in”: Unexpected Connections between E.P. Sanders on Paul and Expectations of Baptism Today’, in Porter, Stanley E. and Anthony R. Cross (eds), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (JSNTSup 234), London: Sheffield Academic, 2002, pp. 110–119. Siikavirta, Samuli, ‘!27 (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1355): A Fresh Analysis’, TC 18 (2013), pp. 1–10. Stagg, Frank, ‘The Abused Aorist’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 222–231. Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Introduction’, in Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 1–10.

190

Bibliography

Stowers, Stanley K., The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Swete, Henry B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd edn), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Thompson, James W., Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Thompson, Michael B., The New Perspective on Paul (GBS 26), Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002. Thorsteinsson, Runar M., Roman Christianity & Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. – ‘Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans’, in Rasimus, Tuomas, Troels EngbergPedersen and Ismo Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, pp. 15–38. Thurén, Lauri, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law (WUNT 124), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. – ‘Motivation as the Core of Paraenesis – Remarks on Peter and Paul as Persuaders’, in Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 353–371. Trebilco, Paul, Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Übelacker, Walter, ‘Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case’, in Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 319–352. Umbach, Helmut, In Christus getauft – von der Sünde befreit: Die Gemeinde als sündenfreier Raum bei Paulus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Väisänen, Matti, Pyhä kaste Raamatussa [Holy Baptism in the Bible], Hämeenlinna: Karisto Oy, 2000. Vogel, Manuel, ‘Ob Tugend lehrbar sei: Stimmend und Gegenstimmen im hellenistischen Judentum mit einem Ausblick auf Paulus’, in Horn, Friedrich W. and Ruben Zimmermann (eds), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ [Beyond the Indicative and Imperative]: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 159–176. Vorster, Johannes N., ‘The context of the Letter to the Romans: a critique on the present state of research’, Neotestamentica 28 (1994), pp. 127–145. Watson, Francis, ‘Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency’, in Barclay, John M.G. and Simon J. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (LNTS 335), London: T. & T. Clark, 2006, pp. 99–116. Wedderburn, Alexander J.M., Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. – ‘The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again’, in Karl P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1991, pp. 195–202. – The Reasons for Romans, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. – ‘The Soteriology of the Mysteries and Pauline Baptismal Theology’, NT 29 (1987), pp. 53–72. Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (GNT 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.

Works Cited

191

Wendland, Paul, Anaximenes von Lampsakos: Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Rhetorik: Festschrift für die XLVIII. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Hamburg, Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1905. Wernle, Paul, Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus, Freiburg im Breisgau: J.C.B. Mohr, 1897. – The Beginnings of the Christian Religion, (Gustav A. Bienemann, trans.), London: Williams & Norgate, 1903. Werrett, Ian C., Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden: Brill, 2007. Westerholm, Stephen, ‘Paul’s Anthropological ‘Pessimism’ in its Jewish Context’, in Barclay, John M.G. and Simon J. Gathercole (eds), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (LNTS 335), London: T. & T. Clark, 2006, pp. 71–98. – Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and his Critics, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2004. Windisch, Hans, ‘Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs’, ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 265– 281. Wright, Nicholas T., Paul and the Faithfulness of God (COQG), London: SPCK, 2013. – The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Zimmermann, Ruben, ‘Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer impliziten Ethik des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes’, TLZ 132/3 (2007), pp. 259–284. Zissu, Boaz and David Amit, ‘Common Judaism, Common Purity, and the Second Temple Period Judean Miqwa’ot (Ritual Immersion Baths)’, in McCready, Wayne O. and Adele Reinhartz (eds), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008, pp. 47–62.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 2:3

136

Exodus 3:5 3:12 6:6 14:5 19:10 19:16 20:2–5 20:10–11 28:36

135 138 138 138 136 136 139 68 135

Leviticus 5:1–4 5:2–3 7:20–21 10:10 11 11–15 11:1–47 11:36 11:44 11:44–45 12:1–8 13:1–14:32 15:1–33 15:16–24 15:31 16 17–26 17:15–16 18:5 18:24–25 19:2 19:18

54 56 56 137 54 55 54 59 45, 141 136, 141 54 54 54 54 56 57 54 56 54 57 45, 136, 141 80

20:7 20:26 21:6–7 22:3–7 22:12

45, 136 45, 136, 141 135 56 135

Numbers 12 12:12 15:37–41 16:5 18:2–6 19 19:10–22 19:13 19:20

56 54 68 135 135 57 54 56 56

Deuteronomy 5:2–4 5:6 5:6–9 5:9 5:14–15 5:15 6:4–9 6:12–13 7:6 14:2 15:15 16:1–17 16:12 21:23 24:1–4 24:18 24:22 26:19 28:9

152 138–139, 152 139 138 68 105 152 138 136, 141 136, 141 105 152 105 55 55 105 105 141 141

194 32:21 Judges 17:3

Index of References 163

135

Job 5:1 13:2 15:15

135 163 135

1 Kings 14:24

55

2 Kings 16:3

55

1 Chronicles 29:3

135

Song of Solomon 8:7

106

Isaiah 1:16 4:3 5:16 6:7 10:16 11:9 41:14 41:20 43:2 45:11 48:2 52:15 63:10

66 137 135 137 137 135 137 137 106 137 135 164 135

Jeremiah 2 2:22–23 3

55 56 55

2 Chronicles 26

56

Psalms 13:2 24:4 29:5 33:21 42:7 51:9 69:1 75:6 91:7 95:6 96:12 105:42 111:10 144:5

162 56 135 135 106 66 106 163 163 135 135 135 105 135

Ezekiel 18:5–9 18:12 20:12 36:23 36:25 37:28 45:4

55 55 136 136 56 136 135

Hosea 5:3 6:10 9:4 11:9 14:8

55, 137 55, 137 137 135 137

Proverbs 1:7 2:7 9:10

105 81 105

Joel 2:28

78

Amos 2:11 7:17

135 55

195

Index of References

New Testament Matthew 3:2 3:6 3:11 3:16 5:8 5:44 6:24 15:16 26:28 28:19

65 65 128 128 137 81 139 163 146 66, 110

Mark 1:4 1:5 1:8 1:10 1:15 7:3–4 7:18 10:38–39 16:15–16

65 65 128 128 65 59 163 106 66

10:44–48 10:48 11:15–18 11:26 16:13 16:15 16:31–33 18:2 18:12 18:18 19:1–7 19:5 20:3 20:6 21:15–28 21:26 22:16 24:18 26:28 27:9 27:22 Romans 1

Luke 3:3 3:16 3:22 12:50

65 128 128 66, 106

John 1:32 1:33 3:5 8:34 13:8–10 19:34

128 128 66 139 66 137

Acts 1:5 1:8 2:38 2:38–41 8:12–17 8:16 8:36–39 9:17–18

66, 128 66 66, 110, 128, 137 128 128 110 128 128

1–11 1–14 1–16 1:1 1:1–12 1:3b–4a 1:4 1:5 1:5–6 1:6–7 1:7 1:10–13 1:12 1:13 1:13–15 1:15 1:16–17 1:18–32 1:18–2:5

128 110 128 7 59 128 128 4 5 128 128 110 5 5 60 60 128, 137 60 7 9 9

77, 151, 152, 162, 174 21 163 163 16, 37, 77, 105, 120, 144, 151, 154 156 41 113, 140 82, 86, 152, 154, 164 82 154 7, 140 152 120 144, 163 156 16, 148, 151 156 77 105

196 1:18–2:11 1:18–4:25 1:18–15:13 1:20 1:20–23 1:21 1:21–22 1:21–25 1:23 1:24 1:24 1:25 1:26 1:26–27 1:27 1:28 1:27–31 1:31 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:16 2:17–21 2:17–24 2:18 2:20 2:26 3:1–5:21 3:5 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:19 3:20 3:22 3:24 3:27–31 3:28 3:31 4 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:8 4:9–10 4:22–23

Index of References 156 37, 156 152, 156 163 82 67, 97, 162–163, 168 77 67 77 67, 77, 97 67, 77 77, 162 77 77 77 75, 77, 124, 162, 166 77 163 21, 163–164, 167 167 149, 163 4 163 156 75 163 167 8 157 103, 151 124, 157 162 164 163 163 124, 163 103 167 103 21 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

5 5:1–2 5:1–21 5:1–8:39 5:3 5:5 5:6 5:6–7 5:6–10 5:8 5:8–10 5:9–10 5:9–11 5:12 5:12–21 5:12–6:11 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:18–19 5:18–21 5:19 5:21 6

6–7 6–8

6:1

30, 120 21 37 87, 156 164 41, 103, 110, 125 103, 121 122 25 103, 121 103 122 103 117 32 36 103 103, 117 117 117 154 103, 122 16, 148, 164 103, 120 2, 5, 22, 40, 45–47, 50–51, 57, 64, 75, 86–88, 90–91, 93– 94, 96–97, 100– 104, 107, 109–112, 114–119, 121–127, 131, 133–144, 146– 150, 153, 160–162, 175–176 123 3, 5–6, 32, 36, 41, 46, 75, 77, 86–87, 93, 100, 102–103, 117–118, 127, 129– 130, 133, 136, 139, 145, 149, 150–152, 155–157, 160–161, 164–166, 170–171, 173, 175–176, 178 3, 8, 12, 15–16, 18– 19, 25–26, 36–37, 45, 60, 64, 68, 87, 103–104, 121–122, 134, 137, 139, 140– 141, 143, 153, 157,

Index of References

6:1–2 6:1–7 6:1–9 6:1–10 6:1–11 6:1–13 6:1–8:1 6:1–8:13 6:2

6:2–5 6:2–11 6:2–23 6:3

6:3b 6:3–4 6:3–5 6:3–6 6:3–10 6:3–7:14b 6:4

6:4a 6:4b 6:4–5 6:4–11 6:5 6:5a 6:5b 6:6 6:6a 6:6–10 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10

160, 167, 170, 174, 178 14, 153 87 162 18, 113 36–37, 104, 153, 161, 168 114 8 37 12, 18, 21, 50, 87, 104, 106, 122, 137– 138, 142, 157 112 87, 124 30 7, 21, 88, 104, 106– 107, 110, 129, 147, 151, 153, 155, 159, 161, 164, 170 108 68, 106, 112, 129, 147 137 107 106 40 18, 21, 41, 87, 94, 107–111, 121, 129, 155, 160, 162, 166, 177 104, 107–109, 126 104, 108, 126 70 83 22, 94, 107, 108, 114, 145, 154 108, 126 126 94, 114, 122, 131, 153, 164 126 108 51 22, 40, 94, 108, 122, 124, 126, 154 120, 162, 164 108, 114, 122, 154

6:10–11 6:10–13 6:11

6:11–13 6:11–22 6:12

6:12–13 6:12–13a 6:12–19 6:12–23 6:13

6:13b 6:14 6:14–15 6:14–23 6:15 6:15–16 6:16

6:16–23 6:17 6:18 6:18–23 6:19

6:19a 6:19–22 6:20 6:20–22 6:21 6:21–22 6:21–23 6:22

197 87, 115, 122, 148 45 3, 12, 22, 26, 51, 68, 94, 104, 111, 113–115, 130, 160– 161, 167, 170 3 124 2, 16, 18–19, 26, 60, 104, 120, 123, 131, 160, 170, 178 113, 153 113 16 60, 121, 161, 178 2, 16, 19, 25, 51, 64, 113–114, 131, 144, 160, 162, 170 114 15, 19, 120, 122, 146 122 122 21, 157 109 16, 51, 86, 115, 117, 139, 146, 148, 151, 154, 159, 161, 164 123, 138 109, 111, 151, 153, 165 123, 141 148 51, 64, 68, 113– 114, 131, 134–135, 137, 140–141, 143, 146, 160, 170, 174 111 134 111, 138 142 120 124, 144 117 50, 104, 111, 115, 122–123, 134–135, 137–138, 140–143, 146, 159

198 6:22a 6:22–23 6:23 7

7:1 7:1–2 7:1–3 7:1–6 7:2–6 7:4 7:4–6 7:5 7:5–6 7:6 7:7 7:7–13 7:7–15 7:9–11 7:12 7:13 7:13–14 7:14

7:14–25 7:14–8:11 7:14–25 7:15 7:15–17 7:15–20 7:17 7:17–18 7:18 7:19 7:20 7:22–23 7:23 7:23–24 7:24 7:24–25

Index of References 138 121 121, 144, 159 83, 86, 115, 118– 120, 122, 124, 131, 139, 143, 150, 153, 169, 176 151, 159, 161, 164, 170 159 122 100, 122 87 21, 87, 123–124, 131, 159 122 123, 131–132 19 18, 41, 78, 123, 125, 129, 147, 159 151, 157–158, 164, 170 120 156 117 158 117 158 60, 76, 117, 119– 120, 124, 130, 151, 161, 164 119, 125, 130, 153 60 76, 119 165 119 119, 158 119, 153 125 17, 119, 132, 160– 161, 164 119 119, 125, 153 148, 158 117–118, 125, 161, 166 131 86, 121, 153 125, 130, 158

7:25 7:25a 7:25b 8

8:1–2 8:1–17 8:1–27 8:2 8:3 8:3–4 8:3–9 8:4–5 8:4–17 8:5 8:5–6 8:5–7 8:5–8 8:6 8:6–7 8:6–9 8:7–8 8:9 8:9a 8:9–10 8:9–11 8:10 8:10a 8:10b 8:10–11 8:10–13 8:11 8:11–13 8:12–13 8:13 8:14 8:14–17 8:14–39 8:15 8:15–17 8:16 8:16–17 8:17 8:17a

132–133, 165–166 121 121 10, 93, 123–127, 130–131, 133, 139, 150, 153, 161, 165 105 39 125 26, 78, 97, 119– 120, 124, 148, 164 64, 158–159, 168 122 132 165 78 148, 165 75 95 161 105 165 166 154 64 166 16 125, 155, 165–166 105, 121, 131, 153, 165 126 126 36, 126 100 40, 64, 94, 117, 126, 131, 154 45 3, 132, 153 33, 121, 131, 148, 153–154 115, 129 124 37 148, 153 127 129 126 126, 129 125

Index of References 8:17b 8:18 8:18–39 8:19 8:19–23 8:20–21 8:21 8:22 8:23

8:23–24 8:23–25 8:26 8:26–27 8:27 8:28 8:29–30 8:31 8:31b 8:31b–35 8:31–39 8:32 8:33–34 8:35 8:36 8:36–37 8:37 8:38 8:38–39 8:39 9 9–11 9:1–10:13 9:1–11:36 9:4 9:14 9:30 10:2–4 10:17 10:19 11:1–24 11:2 11:5–6 11:12 11:13–36 11:14 11:20 11:25–26

125 158, 167 125, 133 129 125 154 117, 124, 127, 129 164 78, 97, 119–121, 127, 129, 131, 148, 153 94, 115, 160 117, 154 78, 158, 164–165 39, 78, 130, 161 7, 75, 140, 164–165 164 130 157–158, 170 159 159 130, 156, 158 25, 159 159 130, 159 167 100 159 168 130, 159 159 133 4, 104, 156, 161 37 156 124 157 104 163 36 163 156 159 163 37 37 152 165 163

11:33 11:34 12 12–15 12–16 12:1

12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–15:7 12:1–15:13 12:1–15:14 12:2 12:3 12:3–8 12:6–8 12:9–21 12:9–14:15 12:10–11 12:13 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:16a 12:16b 12:17 12:19 12:19–21 12:21 13:1 13:1–7 13:3 13:4 13:7 13:8 13:8–10 13:10 13:11 13:11–14 13:12 13:12–13 13:14 14

199 163 166 75–76, 81, 136, 161 21, 25, 75 161 9, 21, 64, 73, 75– 76, 81–82, 99, 105– 106, 136, 147, 152, 161, 170 21, 77, 99, 100, 152, 178 76, 161, 170 37 136, 156 76 71, 75, 105, 115, 149, 161, 164, 166 75, 165 76 46, 73 21 76 21 7, 140 73, 81, 161 21, 83 75, 161 165 165 73, 161 82 161 71 161 73 161 161 161 161 73 21 36, 162, 164 36 21, 162 21, 161 12, 47, 71, 83, 161– 162 161

200 14:1 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6 14:7–9 14:8 14:8b 14:13 14:14 14:15 14:16 14:19 14:20 14:22 15:2 15:2–3 15:4 15:5 15:5–6 15:7 15:10 15:11 15:14 15:14–16 15:14–16:27 15:15 15:15–16 15:16 15:18 15:18–13 15:20 15:21 15:25–26 15:25–28 15:26–27 15:29 15:30 15:30–31 15:31 15:33 16 16:1–23 16:2 16:15 16:17

Index of References 67, 161, 164, 166, 168 161 21 166 75, 165 162 21 162 21, 161 67, 164, 166–167 161 161 21, 161 67, 161 161 161 162 173 75, 165 21, 75 161 161 161 37, 151, 155, 166 151 156 37, 75, 151 100 90, 140, 143, 152 16, 86, 148, 154, 164 37 151 164 7, 140 152 21 164 9 152 140 163 4, 151 163 7, 140 7, 140 9, 151, 161

16:19 16:22 16:25–27 16:26

1 Corinthians 1 1:1–2 1:2 1:10 1:10–17 1:12 1:13 1:13c–16 1:13–17 1:14 1:14–17 1:15 1:22–25 1:30 2:14–15 2:16 3 3:10–23 3:16 3:16–17 4:7 4:8–13 4:11 4:16 5 5:7 5:7–8 6 6:9–11 6:11

6:12–20 6:13b 6:13–20 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:19

16, 86, 148, 154, 164 4 163 16, 86, 148, 152, 154, 164

92 154 83, 90, 140 90, 176 176 41, 90 88, 90–91, 109–110 90, 92 90 41 90 91, 109, 110 83 91, 138, 140, 142– 143 21 100 92 21 61, 64, 125 36, 91, 147 21 21 167 120 43–45 23, 25, 44 25 67, 90–91, 176 64, 68, 116 21, 44–46, 50, 62, 90–91, 93, 106, 134, 137, 140, 142– 143, 147, 155 36, 155 91, 155 77 91, 94 91, 155 91 90–91, 125, 155

201

Index of References 6:19–20 6:19a 7:14 7:17–28 7:20–22 7:21 8 8:13 9:20–23 9:21 10 10:1–2 10:2 10:2–4 10:14–22 10:5–13 10:6 10:9 10:11–12 10:12 10:13 11–14 11:1 11:10 11:17–34 11:22a 12 12:1 12:1–3 12:2 12:3 12:4–11 12:28–30 12:12–31 12:13 12:14–26 12:27 13 13:1–2 13:11–12 14:19 15 15:3–58 15:12–22 15:12–54 15:16 15:29 15:29–30 15:53–54

36, 49, 91, 106, 147 91 140, 143 87 118 118 67, 92 21 174 48 21, 92, 176 139 90–92, 139 92 92 92 92 92 92 27 25, 27 92 120 62 92 21 90, 93, 176 93 93 93 93 46 46 36 87, 90–91, 93, 128 73 21 36 21 21 21 93 109 36 117 90 90 93 93

15:56 16:1

120 21

2 Corinthians 1:21 1:21–22 2:14 4:4 4:6 4:8–9 4:10–18 4:11 4:11–12 5:5 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:20 6:14–15 6:14–7:1 6:16 7:1 7:15 8:1–24 9:1–15 10:5–6 11:10 11:23–29 11:23–12:10 13:4 13:5 13:7–13

41, 46 128 127 127 127 73 88 16 73 41 129 128 88 36 21 61 21 21, 140, 143, 164 164 21 21 164 125 73 120 40 125 21

Galatians 1:7–9 1:9a 1:11–12 1:14 2:7–9 2:11–14 2:16 2:19 2:19b 2:19–20 2:19–3:24 2:20 3 3:2

89 89 89 67 89 21 103 79, 87, 89, 137, 176 89 40, 79, 87, 89, 137, 176 87 87–89, 109, 125 21, 88–89, 110 89

202 3:2–3 3:3 3:5 3:7 3:18 3:24–25 3:25–29 3:26–28 3:26–5:26 3:27

Index of References

5:25–26 6:9–10 6:14 6:14–15 6:15–16

110 89 89 89 124 77 21 87 87 12, 47, 87, 89, 93, 97, 110, 116, 162, 176 89 124 88 41, 89 21 89 21 125 89 89 21 93 89 21, 89 89 12, 36, 89 89 89 89 67 119 16, 36 16 87–89, 137 12, 21, 23, 33, 45, 89 21 21 137 90 88

Ephesians 1–3 1:1 1:15–23 1:21

98 96, 128 96 97

3:29 4:1–7 4:1–5:1 4:6 4:7 4:9 4:12b 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:31 5–6 5:5–26 5:10 5:12 5:16 5:16–26 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:21 5:22 5:22–25 5:24 5:25

1:24 2:3 2:4–9 2:5–6 2:5–10 2:6 2:10 2:11–13 2:14–22 3:1 3:18–19 4 4–6 4:1 4:4 4:4–6 4:5 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:17 4:17–19 4:17–24 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:20–24 4:21 4:22 4:22–24 4:23 4:24 4:25–6:9 4:30 5:6–13 5:8 5:17 5:18 5:25 5:25–26 5:25b–27 5:26 5:26–33 6:10–17 6:10–18

97 97 103 94 98 129 98 96 98 96 96 96 98 96 93, 96, 162 93 96, 116 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97, 162 97, 176 97 97 99 97 97 97 61 96 97 96 98, 137, 176 137 98, 176 137, 140, 142 137 61 97

Philippians 1:9–11 1:27–2:18

21, 99 35

203

Index of References 2:5 2:5–18 2:6–11 2:7 2:12 2:12–14 2:13 3:8 3:10 3:10–21 3:15 3:16 3:17 4:8 4:9 4:22

100 100 40 148 21, 100 100 25 127 109 100 21 21, 45 120 69 120 73

Colossians 1:9–10 1:12–13 1:24 1:27 2–3 2:2 2:4 2:6 2:8 2:11–14 2:11–15 2:12 2:12–14 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:20 3 3:1 3:1–5 3:2 3:3–4 3:5 3:5–11 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9–12 3:10 3:11 3:11–4:1

99 61 95 95 94 95 95 94 95 94, 116, 162 94, 138, 176 94, 129 94 95 95, 176 94 94, 176 138 27, 87, 93–95, 176 27 95–96, 176 19, 94, 176 94 97 94 94 95, 162 162 93, 95, 99, 176 87, 95 95

3:24 3:24b 4:1 4:3 1 Thessalonians 1:6 2:1–12 3:6–13 3:11–13 3:13 4 4:3 4:3–4 4:4 4:7

176 96 96, 176 95

4:8 5:1–11 5:6 5:19 5:23

120 73 21 21 140 140 137, 142, 146 140–142 142 21, 137, 140–143, 146 41 36 21 46 21, 140, 142

2 Thessalonians 2:13

140–142

1 Timothy 2:15 4:5

140, 142 140

2 Timothy 1:9 2:21 2:25

103 140–141 149

Titus 1:16 2:11–14 2:12 2:13 2:15 3:3 3:4 3:4–5 3:5 3:3–7 3:4–5 3:4–8 3:8

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 137 99, 128, 176 99 137 99, 116 99

204

Index of References

Philemon 4–25 6 21

21 21 21, 164

Hebrews 2:11 9:13 10:10 10:14 10:22 10:29 12:2a 12:10a

141 141 141 141 137 141 140 140

12:14 13:12

140 141

1 Peter 1:2 1:16 1:23 3:20–21 3:21 4:16

137, 140 45 66 139 66 7

1 John 5:6

137

Non-Christian Graeco-Roman Literature Aristotle Ethica Nicomachea 1.8 3.4 4 5 6.1.6 6.3.1 6.5.2 6.5.6 6.6.2 7.7.8 7.10.4

74 74 74 74 167 74 167 167 74 83 83

1.19.9 1.24.1 1.26.1–2 1.3.1–3 2.8.2–3 2.8.11–14 2.10.17 3.1.25 3.21.1–3 3.22.45–48 4.1.131 4.4.33 4.7.16–17

118 73 76 75 75 75, 78 77 75 74 73 118 118 118

Homer Cassius Dio Historiae Romanae 60.6.6–7 4

Iliad 24.302–306

59

Musonius Rufus Cicero De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 3.16 7

Dissertationes 4.44.10–35 4.48.1–14

Epictetus

Ovid

Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae 1.16.20–21 75

Metamorphoses 7.20–21

74 74

83

205

Index of References

Plutarch De Virtute Morali 440E–441D 74 Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 2.15.10 155 Seneca De Beneficiis 1.6.3 2.29.6 4.7.1

75 81 81

De Ira 2.3.1 2.4.1

76 76

De Providentia 2.7 4.7

81 81

Epistulae 6.1 20.4 20.6

75 76 76

28.9 41.2 41.4–5 47 47.11 47.17 66.12 76.9–19 78.7 85.2 90.10 90.46 92.1–2 92.27 94.11–12 94.11.39 94.48 94.50 95.34–35 95.47 120.11 124.23

76 77 73 118 118 118 75, 77 75 81 74 118 74 75 75 10 10 75 75 75 75 74 75

Naturales Quaestiones 1, Pref. 14 75 Virgil Aeneid 8.352

77

Early Jewish Literature Apocrypha 2 Maccabees 2:17 3:12 14:36

135 135 135

3 Maccabees 2:18

135

Sirach 1:14 7:31 15:7

105 135 163

17:10 21:18 22:13 22:15 27:12 34:1

135 163 163 163 163 163

Wisdom of Solomon 1:5 163 1:12–16 61 11:15 163 13–14 77

206

Index of References

Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 54:15 61 4 Ezra 3:19–22 7:118–119 14:47

86 61 105

The Letter of Aristeas 305–306 59 Jubilees 1:9 11:4 11:14 12:2 16:4–6 20:3–5 20:7 22:22 33:11 33:20 35:14 36:5 50:5

57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Psalms of Solomon 9:6 9:12 10:1–2 17:32 17:36 18:5 18:6

57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Sibylline Oracles 3.591–593

Rule of the Community (Qumran Cave 1) 1:8 61 2 63 3:3–6 62 3:4–9 62 3:6–8 62 3:8–9 62 4:9–10 62 4:20–21 60 4:21 62 6:24–7:25 62 7:10 60 7:17–18 62 8:6–7 63 8:20 61 9 61 9:4 64 9:5 61 9:5–6 61 11:11–14 60 11:13–14 62 Thanksgiving Hymns (Qumran Cave 1) 1:27 60 1:32 62 3:21 62 7:30 62 11:10 62 War Scroll (Qumran Cave 1) 13:5 60 7:5–6 62 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 18.117–118 65

59 Philo of Alexandria

Dead Sea Scrolls 4QInstructionb (Qumran Cave 4) 2:iii:9–10 95 4QInstructionc (Qumran Cave 4) 1:i:10–12 95

De Specialibus Legibus 1.256–261 60 1.266 60 Rabbinic Writings Tractate Yevamot (Babylonian Talmud) 47a–b 63

207

Index of References

Early Christian and Reformation Literature 1 Clement 63:3 65:1

Orosius 73 73

Historiae adversus paganos 7.6.15 4

Ambrose Pseudo-Dionysius De sacramentiis II.23

176

De ecclesiastica hierarchia 2.III.397A-B 176

Justin Martyr Tertullian Apologia prima 62

70

Adversus Marcionem 1.14 70

Dialogus cum Tryphone 14 63 14.1 59

De Baptismo 5.1–3

Martin Luther

Lutheran Confessions

Large Catechism IV.65

177

Origen Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos 3:146–150 111

70

Confessio Augustana XX 29–34 134 Solida Declaratio III 40–41 VI

134 172

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, M.G. Jr. 84 Agersnap, S. 2, 16, 24–26, 66, 68, 70, 91, 100, 115–116, 125–126, 129, 132, 152 Amit, D. 58 Aune, D.E. 58, 60 Backhaus, K. 39, 41, 45–50, 125, 152 Barclay, J.M.G. 3, 16, 31–33, 46–47, 49–51, 78, 84–85, 100, 148, 153, 155, 166 Barrett, C.K. 145 Barth, K. 96–98, 107, 110, 153, 177 Barth, M. 96, 98, 177 Barton, S.C. 114 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 3, 26, 88, 106, 108–112, 177 Becker, M. 117, 159 Benedict XVI 1 Benoit, P. 61, 63 Betz, H.D. 69, 87–88, 91, 108–109, 139 Black, C.C. 108, 145 Blischke, F. 12, 33, 69, 82, 151–153, 155, 161 Bray, G. 111 Bonhöffer, A.F. 70, 82 Bornkamm, G. 4, 8, 14, 18–20, 23, 46, 48–51, 127, 130, 161, 177 Bultmann, R. 2, 14–17, 20, 22–24, 28, 33, 37, 43–44, 49, 69–70, 79, 85, 117, 154, 156–157, 172–173 Carson, D.A. 85, 119 Cavin, R.L. 94–95 Conzelmann, H. 90–93 Countryman, L.W. 67 Cranfield, C.E.B. 5, 109, 113, 142, 145 Das, A.A. 87

Denzey, N. 118 Dibelius, M. 8 Dodd, C.H. 5 Donfried, K.P. 4, 9 Douglas, M. 54 Dunn, J.D.G. 5, 28, 34, 84, 88, 104– 107, 109–110, 113, 119–120, 127, 130, 135, 141–142, 152, 154, 158, 178 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 3, 7–10, 13, 28, 32, 37–39, 44, 47, 50–51, 68–72, 74–75, 77–80, 82, 101, 108, 114, 118, 147 Eskola, T. 34, 38, 60, 85–86, 117, 119 Fitzmyer, J.A. 1, 62, 101, 108–110, 116–117, 143–145, 151, 161, 168 Freed, E.D. 7, 21, 62, 90, 127, 129, 141–142 Furnish, V.P. 2, 12, 14, 17, 20–22, 42– 43, 47, 49–50, 100, 145, 152–153 Garcia, J.A. 172 Gathercole, S.J. 31, 78, 85 Gaventa, B.R. 3, 120 Goodman, M. 69 Goppelt, L. 129 Gorman, M.J. 107, 112 Gupta, N.K. 105–106, 114 Haber, S. 58–59 Harrill, J.A. 80 Harrington, H.K. 56, 61, 64, 69, 137 Hays, R.B. 2 Hengel, M. 53 Horn, F.W. 33–35, 39, 43, 48, 50, 85, 142–143, 173

Index of Modern Authors Horrell, D.G. 42–44, 47–48, 50–51, 81, 83, 147 Huttunen, N. 77, 80, 83, 118 Jensen, R.M. 63, 70, 124, 128–129 Jewett, R. 9, 75, 104, 107– 109, 112, 143–145, 147, 151–152, 156, 164 Joest, W. 25, 172–173 Johnson, L.T. 4, 69, 74–76, 100, 125, 127 Käsemann, E. 2, 10–11, 20, 23, 32, 100, 103, 108–110, 119, 134, 143–146, 148–149, 151, 177 Kazen, T. 55–56, 65–66 Klawans, J. 54–57, 60–68 Kleinig, J.W. 136–138 Klostergaard Petersen, A. 9–10, 13, 15– 17, 27–30, 50–51, 85, 108, 153 Kuula, K. 88 Laato, T. 85 Lampe, P. 4–5, 70, 73, 151–152, 164 Landmesser, C. 35–37, 49–50, 177 Lemos, T.M. 55–57, 63 Lieu, J. 84 Lincoln, A.T. 96–98 Lohse, E. 95 Longenecker, B.W. 88 Longenecker, R.N. 5, 87, 164 Magness, J. 58 Malherbe, A.J. 68–69, 73, 157–158 Matera, F.J. 1–2, 5, 75, 94, 109–110, 119, 122, 129–130, 141, 146, 156– 157 Mathewson, D. 113 McCready, W. O. 58 Meggitt, J.J. 72–73, 123 Middendorf, M.P. 5 Milgrom, J. 54–57 Mitchell, M.M. 9 Moo, D.J. 104, 106–107, 109–111, 113, 119, 141–142, 145–146 Neusner, J. 55, 60 Newton, M. 55, 61–64 Nicolet-Anderson, V. 114–115

209

Nygren, A. 104, 108, 110–111, 139, 145, 147 O’Brien, P.T. 85, 95 Oden, T.C. 16, 78, 82 Oepke, A. 106, 109, 137–139 Parsons, P. 12, 16, 20, 38–39 Peterson, D. 39, 107, 136–137, 139 Pieper, F. 134 Plummer, A. 90 Porter, S.E. 1–2, 21, 33, 86, 88, 111– 112, 142 Procksch, O. 135–137, 141 Rabens, V. 69, 127–128, 130, 164 Räisänen, H. 80, 84, 118, 120, 158 Robertson, A. 90 Sanders, E.P. 8, 12, 53, 56–60, 62, 84, 86, 104, 108, 151 Scaer, D.P. 134, 148 Schlier, H. 88 Schnackenburg, R. 26–27, 50 Schnelle, U. 12, 39–42, 46, 48–51, 60– 61, 68–69, 72, 75, 78, 81–82, 105, 118, 125, 145, 152, 156, 178 Schrage, W. 2, 23–24, 45, 49, 127, 177 Schreiner, T.R. 87, 111 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 61, 106 Schweitzer, A. 3, 8, 71, 108 Sherman, H. 86 Siikavirta, S. 133 Stagg, F. 112–113 Starr, J. 7–10 Stowers, S.K. 4, 151, 156–157 Stuhlmacher, P. 4–5, 109, 151 Swete, H.B. 59 Thompson, J.W. 21, 28, 69, 73–74, 76– 77, 79–81, 83, 86, 101, 104, 108, 116, 118, 130, 139, 142, 157, 165, 167–168, 173 Thompson, M.B. 84 Thorsteinsson, R.M. 7, 45, 71–76, 81– 83, 100, 178 Thurén, L. 3–4, 7, 10, 66, 118–120, 129–130, 136, 151–152, 156, 158, 168, 177

210

Index of Modern Authors

Trebilco, P. 7, 140 Trench, R.C. 116

Vogel, M. 85 Vorster, J.N. 4

Wendland, H.-D. 18 Wendland, P. 9 Wernle, P. 12–17, 24, 27–28, 37, 49, 51, 172 Werrett, I.C. 191 Westerholm, S. 85, 117 Windisch, H. 13, 26, 37 Witherington, B. 5 Wright, N.T. 37, 73, 82–84, 94, 139, 177

Wallace, D.B. 111 Watson, F. 85 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 4, 109–110, 151– 152

Zerwick, M. 112 Zimmermann, R. 8, 15, 33–35, 37, 39, 43, 47–51, 85, 101, 127, 177 Zissu, B. 58

Übelacker, W. 8–10, 171, 173 Umbach, H. 107 Väisänen, M. 108, 129, 139

Index of Subjects ablution 53–54, 59–60, 63, 66, 68, 70 adoption 104, 123–125, 129 Aktionsart 88, 112–113, 141 apathy (ἀπάθεια) 74, 174 baptism, baptismal 3–9, 11, 13–14, 16, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 28–29, 35–38, 40–42, 45–51, 53, 57, 62–70, 76, 79, 82–83, 86–94, 96–117, 121–130, 133, 136–137, 139, 141, 143–146, 148–162, 164–166, 168–178 body 3, 8, 16, 25, 32, 33, 36, 43, 54–55, 63, 65, 67, 73, 75–77, 79, 88, 91–93, 95, 97, 104–106, 114–115, 117, 120–123, 128–130, 132, 146–148, 152–155, 158–161, 165–166, 168– 170, 175–176, 178 Christology, christological 5, 20, 22–23, 35–37, 42–43, 45–49, 82, 89, 95, 106, 122–123, 134, 140, 155, 177 church 4, 67, 95, 99, 104, 123, 134, 139, 143, 147, 151–153, 155 cognition, cognitive 3–8, 27–29, 32–33, 37–39, 51, 53, 68, 71–76, 79, 81, 83, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95–101, 105, 113– 114, 116, 119, 121, 127–128, 130, 146, 148–152, 155, 158, 160–166, 168–176, 178 conversion 3, 28, 63, 85, 90, 107, 110, 113–115, 119, 127–128, 130, 134, 141, 143, 169, 178 covenant 84, 138–139 Cynic philosophy 70, 73, 76, 153, 157 death 6, 7, 9, 18–19, 22, 29, 32–33, 35, 40, 43, 45, 50–51, 54, 57, 61, 64, 66–67, 70, 81–82, 87, 91–92, 94, 96, 100–101, 103–117, 120–130, 132,

134, 137–138, 142, 145–151, 153– 154, 157, 159–162, 165–166, 168– 169, 171, 174–178 demythologisation 117 desire – sinful, wrong (ἐπιθυµία) 36, 48, 74, 76, 79, 82, 83, 89, 119, 151, 160, 162, 174 – natural (προθυµία) 77 dichotomy 2, 14, 21, 23–24, 29–30, 34– 35, 55–56, 85, 89, 94, 98–101, 105, 158, 162, 172, 177 eschatology 5–6, 14–16, 22–23, 25, 32, 35–36, 46, 49, 61, 63, 65, 104, 108, 113, 115–116, 119, 129, 142, 144– 145, 149, 155, 173, 175–176 ethics, ethical 1–3, 5–6, 8–9, 13, 16–17, 19–21, 23–26, 32–35, 37–39, 41–44, 48–51, 53, 57, 67–68, 74–79, 81–85, 89, 91–92, 94, 98, 100–101, 108, 110, 114, 117–118, 122, 127, 129, 133, 135–136, 140, 142, 144, 149, 152, 155–157, 160–161, 165, 169, 171–174, 177–178 eucharist, the Lord’s supper 43, 92 existentialism 23, 27, 79, 128 faith 2, 8, 12–13, 15, 17, 22, 36–37, 41, 60, 82, 86–88, 93–94, 96, 103, 116– 117, 120, 127, 134, 148–150, 152, 154, 163–164, 167–169, 172 flesh 19, 31, 33, 36, 60, 62–63, 87–89, 101, 119, 121–122, 125, 130, 132, 134, 139–140, 148, 153–154, 158, 160, 162, 165–166, 168–169, 175 freedom 3, 6, 11–13, 18, 22, 31, 39, 41, 45, 48, 73, 81, 86, 98, 106, 118–119,

212

Index of Subjects

123, 129, 139, 141, 144, 148–149, 154, 171, 173, 175 Gentile 4, 45, 57, 59, 67, 70, 77–78, 128, 143, 152, 163, 169, 174 gift 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 31, 32, 39–41, 46–47, 49–50, 81–82, 121, 128, 143, 148, 159, 177–178 governing part (ἡγεµονικόν) 74 grace 7, 11, 22, 31–33, 40, 84, 98–99, 104, 106, 111, 122–124, 143–144, 148, 157, 163–164, 173, 177 Graeco-Roman 6–7, 28, 34, 45, 56, 68– 69, 71, 73–75, 77, 81, 95, 101, 107, 109, 118, 123, 153, 156, 173 Greek 1, 8, 53, 59, 101, 111–112, 135, 144, 163, 173 Hellenistic 8, 13, 15–16, 36, 42, 45, 48, 68, 69, 77, 85, 100, 106, 109, 151, 153, 156, 173, 174 holiness 6, 34, 45, 48, 50, 56–57, 63– 64, 68, 90–91, 103, 121, 132–137, 139–150, 154, 160 Holy Spirit, Spirit 6, 8, 10, 13, 16–17, 20, 26–27, 30–34, 36–37, 39–42, 45–46, 48–49, 63–64, 66, 69, 76, 78–79, 81–83, 86–93, 95–99, 101, 103, 105, 110, 119, 121, 123–130, 133–136, 140–141, 143, 147, (148,) 150, 153–155, 158–159, 164–166, 168–169, 174–175, 177–178 identity 3, 6–8, 28, 30, 38, 42–44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 68, 71, 78, 82–84, 86, 91, 101, 10–104, 114–117, 119, 125, 128–130, 133, 139, 146–149, 152, 154, 161, 166, 169, 171–173, 175, 178 imperative 1–3, 5, 11–39, 41–51, 68– 69, 78–79, 84, 86, 89, 91, 93, 97–98, 100–101, 113–114, 127, 136, 144– 145, 148, 160–161, 170–173, 175, 177–178 indicative 1–3, 5, 12–18, 20–35, 37– 39, 41–45, 47–49, 69, 79, 84, 89, 91, 97–98, 101, 114, 127, 136, 144–145, 160–161, 171–172, 177–178

indicative-imperative schema 1, 5, 18, 22, 23, 27, 33–35, 39, 42, 47–49, 85, 172, 178 Israel 54, 56–57, 63, 68, 84, 96, 98, 105, 136, 138–139, 161, 163 Jewish 4, 6, 13, 28, 34, 36, 45, 48, 53– 69, 75, 77, 81, 83–86, 95, 100, 105– 107, 109, 111, 128, 136, 147, 151– 152, 173–176 Judaism 6, 8, 53–56, 58– 60, 67–68, 84–85, 101, 139, 169, 174 justification 8, 13, 15–17, 21, 25, 28, 34, 40, 45, 51, 60, 64, 69, 90, 99, 103, 121–122, 134, 141–144, 146– 147, 148, 172, 177 law 6, 10, 12, 19, 25–26, 30–32, 34–35, 39, 42, 48, 50, 53, 64, 68, 76–77, 81, 84–87, 89, 95, 97, 98, 101, 103–104, 117, 119–122, 124, 133, 139, 141, 143, 148, 151, 157–159, 163–164, 166–167, 170, 172–177 life 3, 6, 7, 9, 15–16, 18–19, 22, 24–25, 27, 29, 32–34, 36–37, 39–41, 43, 45–47, 49–51, 54, 57–58, 61, 64, 67, 72, 74–76, 78, 82–83, 86–89, 94–95, 97–101, 103, 105–107, 110, 113– 117, 119, 121–123, 125, 127, 129– 130, 133–139, 142–146, 148–150, 152–155, 157–162, 165–166, 169, 171, 174–178 locative 46, 50–51 metaphor 6, 59, 61, 64, 99, 105–107, 109, 115–116, 120, 122–123, 125, 147, 150, 175 mind 6, 10, 29, 32, 38, 67–68, 75–78, 82, 89, 91, 95–96, 98, 100, 102, 106–107, 110, 115, 117, 120–121, 125, 130, 148–149, 152–156, 161– 162, 164–166, 168–170, 176 mindset 148–149, 168 moral progress (προκοπή) 80 morality 1, 13, 43, 55, 72–73, 81 mystery cults 69–70 New Perspective (on Paul) 6, 33–34, 53, 84, 85, 86, 101, 173

Index of Subjects obedience 2, 15–17, 19, 21–22, 31–32, 37, 39, 43, 57, 60, 68, 82, 84–86, 92, 103, 115, 122–123, 138, 141, 146– 148, 152, 154, 163–164, 169, 172– 173, 174, 176 pantheism 71, 80 paraclesis 6, 8, 10, 41, 53, 69, 74, 86, 90, 93, 98, 100–101, 122, 130, 150, 153, 155, 160–161, 164, 167–169, 170–171, 173, 175 paraenesis, paraenetic 3, 7–10, 13, 21, 23, 25, 28, 36–38, 43, 46, 48–49, 80, 94, 98, 105–106, 114, 116, 130, 136, 142, 152, 154, 156, 161, 166, 172, 177 participation 39, 40–42, 89, 108, 114, 129, 137, 174 passion (πάθος) 74, 76, 89 passive voice 6, 111, 137 performative 36–37, 49 philosophy 6, 70, 72, 78, 83, 101 purity – moral 6, 53–55, 59–60, 62, 63, 66–68, 98–99, 174 – ritual 54, 58, 60, 63, 67–68, 149, 174 Qumran 6, 53, 55, 58, 60–65, 67, 86, 101, 174 Rabbinic texts 6, 56, 63–64, 65 rational 6, 42, 51, 69, 73–75, 78–79, 82–83, 100, 106, 147, 152, 164, 167, 174 reason (λόγος, ratio) 1, 4, 10, 19, 23–24, 27, 33, 41–42, 49, 53, 59, 69, 71–72, 74, 75, 77–80, 82–83, 101, 104, 141, 151, 155–156, 158, 161, 169, 171, 174–178 reminder 9, 29, 37, 68–69, 75, 86, 89, 93, 113–114, 117, 149, 169, 175 renewal 3, 17, 42, 99, 134–135, 141– 142, 149, 152, 161–162, 166 resurrection 18, 22, 36, 40–41, 45, 50, 68, 70, 81, 93–94, 98, 103–104, 108, 111–113, 115–117, 119–120, 123– 124, 129, 132, 137, 143, 145, 149– 150, 157, 160, 162, 165, 168–169, 174, 177–178

213

rhetorical question 6, 89, 91, 103, 153, 156–159, 161, 170, 176 rite 6, 18, 45, 47, 50, 60, 66, 68, 86–90, 92–94, 97–98, 101, 103–104, 106– 107–113, 115–117, 121–122, 127, 149, 161, 169–170, 175–176, 178 Rome 4, 6, 45, 70, 72–73, 75, 78, 101– 112, 118, 148, 151–152, 168, 173– 174 sacrament 26, 27, 92, 148 salvation 1, 15, 22–27, 30, 35–36, 39– 40, 43, 47–48, 50–51, 68, 98, 100, 107, 119, 124–125, 129–130, 137, 139, 141, 144, 147, 151–152, 154, 169, 173–174 sanctification 2, 6, 45, 50–51, 64, 90– 91, 98–99, 133–148, 175–176 self-control 74, 99 self-identification 32, 38, 51, 78–79, 114–115, 119, 150, 161, 167–168, 177 self-understanding 7, 28, 30, 32, 39, 43, 51, 79, 81, 87, 114–115, 119 sin 3, 6–7, 12–15, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30, 32–33, 35–36, 40–41, 45, 50–51, 55–57, 60–69, 81–83, 86, 91, 94, 103–111, 113–125, 129–130, 132– 134, 137–139, 141–142, 144–150, 153–154, 157–161, 163–175, 177– 178 sinlessness 13–17, 22, 24, 28–29, 37, 49, 108, 141, 144, 172 slavery 8, 39, 68, 72, 96, 115, 118, 120, 123–124, 132, 134, 138, 141, 146– 148, 150, 157, 159–160, 162, 170 soteriology 13, 35, 37, 47, 86, 88, 99, 129, 177 spirit – (see) Holy Spirit – in the Dead Sea Scrolls 62 – in Stoic philosophy 77–78 state, status 3–5, 7, 12, 29–30, 38, 41, 46–51, 56, 67, 83, 87, 92, 96–98, 104, 109, 112, 119, 121–123, 125, 130, 133, 135, 137, 140–143, 146– 147, 149–150, 152–154, 156, 159, 165–166, 168–169, 171–173, 175– 176, 178

214

Index of Subjects

status, state 6–8, 10, 30, 34, 40, 50–51, 64, 66, 68, 73, 87, 89, 91–92, 98, 114, 136, 142–144, 146–148, 150, 168, 174, 178 Stoicism 6, 38, 53, 68–73, 75, 77–78, 80–83, 86, 99, 101, 118, 153, 158, 173–174 symbol 103, 127, 175

transformation 21, 39–42, 75, 115, 120, 134–135, 141, 149–150, 157 verbal aspect 88, 111–112, 149, 175 virtue 73–75, 81, 86, 92, 167, 174 wisdom tradition 69, 163 worship 4, 59, 70, 75, 92, 105–106, 139, 147, 152, 162, 164, 169, 178