Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) 9783161577017, 9783161577024, 3161577019

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor

Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

435

Scott J. Hafemann

Paul: Servant of the New Covenant Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

Mohr Siebeck

Scott J. Hafemann, born 1954. 1976 B. A. (Bethel College [MN]); 1978 M. A. (Fuller Theological Seminary); 1985 Dr.theol. (Tübingen); 1985–1987 Asst. Prof. N. T., Taylor University; 1987– 1995 Assoc. Prof. N. T., Gordon-​Conwell Theological Seminary; 1995–2004 Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor N. T. Greek and Exegesis, Wheaton College; 2004–2011 Mary F. Rockefeller Distinguished Professor N. T., Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary; 2011–2018 Reader in N. T., St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews; 2018 to present, Honorary Reader in N. T., St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews.

ISBN 978-3-16-157701-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-157702-4 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019  Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com 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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Garamond typeface, printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

To Gin M. Hafemann, who prays and studies

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Preface: A Paradigm for Reading Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Appendix One: Pauline Polarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix Two: The “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 . . . . . . . . . . 21

Part One

The New Covenant’s Present Reality Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective (Galatians 3:6–14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology (Galatians 3–4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix Three: The Question of the Exile in Paul’s Theology . . . . . . . 86 Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life (2 Corinthians 3:6–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective (Galatians 4:12–20; 2 Corinthians 4:7–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Appendix Four: The Meaning of θριαμβεύειν in 2 Corinthians 2:14 . . . . . 162 Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs (Philippians 3:8–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Appendix Five: A Syntactical Diagram of Philippians 3:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . 204

VIII

Table of Contents

Part Two

The New Covenant’s Future Hope Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment by Works(Romans 2:12–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant(Romans 11:25–32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations (Romans 15:1–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant (Galatians 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison . 344 Bibliography of Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Ancient Text Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Modern Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

Acknowledgements This volume owes its genesis to the initiative of Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, to the approval of Prof. Jörg Frey as editor, and to the patience of both. Over ten years ago Dr. Ziebritzki invited me to consider supplementing a related series of my past studies with new investigations of those key Pauline passages still to be treated, Prof. Frey approved the original conception and its final form, even greeting the latter with an encouraging word, and neither expressed dismay over the long time it took me to complete the work. I am very aware of my limitations in this regard and so I am exceedingly grateful for their support through this long gestation period. I am also thankful to Ilse König, Production Manager at Mohr Siebeck, for her corresponding competence and forbearance through the final stages of the project. Working with her and her team has been a pleasure. It is an honor, once again, to experience the quality that is Mohr Siebeck. With a project like this that develops over a substantial period of time, especially when this period encompasses the end of one’s teaching career, there are so many people through the years who should be acknowledged, but simply cannot be at this distance. Among them I would like to mention those students from Wheaton College, Gordon-​Conwell Theological Seminary, and St Mary’s College at the University of St Andrews who took such an active interest in my teaching, out of which these essays grew. I trust they will know who they are and accept my thanks. Among these I would like to mention in particular my Undergraduate Research Assistants at St Mary’s, Kirsty Parratt and Joel Butcher, and my doctoral student, Dr. Timothy Fox, who all worked so diligently during the final editorial and bibliographical stages of the project. I am also thankful to the pastors of the Spurgeon Sabbatical, who over fifteen years vetted my ideas with their questions and counter-​proposals. Here special thanks goes to Rev. Lucky Arnold for his friendship and his many biblical-​theological insights and questions through the years, and to Rev. Randy Johnson for his challenging example of what it means to study the Scriptures seriously. Moreover, I always read Paul’s writings with one eye on the insights and perspectives of my beloved Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Peter Stuhlmacher (emeritus, University of Tübingen), who has remained a mentor now for 39 years. His generation-​long support is a gift seldom received in the world of scholarship. Though he will no doubt not agree with everything in these essays, everything in them owes something to his life and learning.

X

Acknowledgements

Finally, I am blessed that my family and friends have continued to provide the foundation for my life and work, which is all the more evident as I look back over the decades. Pride of place goes, as always, to Debara, who has remained my faithful partner and encourager for over 40 years. Among those friends who have also influenced my exegetical-​theological thinking, I am especially indebted to Rev. Dori Little, who has wrestled with these ideas sermonically for 29 years, and to Dr. Paul House, whose friendship and biblical-​theological insights have been my solid companion for 33 years. Our sons and their wives, John and Tara and Eric and Lindsey, and our grandchildren, Levi, Jack, and the baby on the way, enrich us constantly. My in-​laws, Harley and Nancy Jones, have always supported us in every way they could without question. The memory of my father’s support (Jack L. Hafemann, d. Feb 4, 2014) also remains important. Finally, this book is lovingly dedicated to my mother, who reads what I write and has prayed faithfully for me and my “Paul book” countless times without fail for these past ten years. Thank you, mom.

Preface

A Paradigm for Reading Paul But how Jewish was Paul, really? … so one might say that he tackles Jewish problems in a Jewish way. Jörg Frey, “Paul’s Jewish Identity”1

My 1995 study of the relationship between the “old” and “new covenant” as set forth in 2 Cor 3:4–18 led to several surprising conclusions concerning the eschatological and history-of-salvation nature of Paul’s theology.2 Informed by a contextual interpretation of the veil of Moses in Exod 34:29–35, Paul argued that Moses’s “ministry of death” and “condemnation” was not the result of some qualitative or quantitative inadequacy in the Torah itself. The problem that plagued Moses’s ministry was not his message, but the people to whom he ministered. Although the law came in a revelation of God’s glory, Israel’s “stiff neck,” manifest in her sin with the golden calf, rendered her unable to encounter the life-transforming presence of God without being destroyed (cf. Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9 with Exod 34:30, Deut 29:2–4, and 2 Cor 3:7, 13). Moreover, in accord with the witness of the law and the prophets, Israel’s hard-hearted condition, apart from a remnant of believers, persisted throughout Israel’s history under the “old covenant” and into Paul’s own day (cf. 2 Cor 3:14–15 with Rom 11:7–10). For in a mystery of God’s providence, Israel’s “minds were hardened” at Sinai, a reality further instantiated by her having been given the law without the Spirit so that, without the divine power to obey, “the γράμμα kills” (2 Cor 3:6, 14; cf. 1 Cor 10:1–14, with its reference to Israel’s idolatry with the golden calf in 1 Cor 10:7–8). The problem throughout Israel’s history, therefore, was not the 1  Jörg Frey, “Paul’s Jewish Identity,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, eds. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog, AGJU 71 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 289, 310. Frey lays out a compelling case for the fact that “Paul never abandoned ‘Judaism’ in order to join ‘Christianity’ ” (p. 291, pointing, p. 291 n. 32, to the fact that “the first time  Ἰου­ δαϊσμός is used in contrast with Χριστιανισμός is more than 50 years later, in Ignatius [Magn. 10:3 and Philad. 6:1]”). 2  See my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), especially pp. 429–459, where these conclusions are presented in detail and in dialogue with the OT, Second Temple Judaism, and the main lines of contemporary scholarship. These opening paragraphs are taken from these pages.

XII

Preface

character of the covenant made with Israel, but the character of the Israel with whom the covenant was made. In response, Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit” and “righteousness,” as a mediation of “the glory of God … on the face of Christ” (cf. 2 Cor 3:18 with 4:4, 6), was bringing about the long-promised, Torah-fulfilling transformation of the eschatological people of God made possible by the new covenant provision of the forgiveness of her sins (Jer 31:31–34).3 Unlike Israel, the people of the new covenant thus experience the law with the Spirit, which, as a result of the law being written on the heart, “makes alive” (cf. the reference to Jer 31:31–34 in 2 Cor 3:6 with the allusions to the new covenant promise of the Spirit from Ezek 36:26–27 in 2 Cor 3:3). Moreover, the link between the transformation pictured in 2 Cor 3:18 and the new life portrayed in 2 Cor 5:14–17, 21 demonstrates that Paul conceives of the new covenant to be of one piece with the inauguration of the new age of the new creation for those now “in Christ.” For Paul, the “old” (with its covenant) has already passed away and the “new” (with its covenant) has arrived (2 Cor 5:17).4 Through Paul’s “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18–20) this “unveiled” encounter with the glory of the Lord is extending the “new creation” inaugurated by Christ throughout the world, in which God’s new covenant will be kept by those whom God is saving from among Israel and the nations (cf. 2 Cor 2:14–17). Paul’s letter/Spirit contrast and his understanding of the distinct ministries defined by it thus explicate the consequences of not encountering and encountering the glory of God within a “salvation-history,” sin-judgment-restoration framework. Paul’s contrast between the old and new covenants is not a material, theological contrast between two distinct means of redemption. Rather, it is an eschatological, two-age contrast between the era of Israel, during which the nation, separated from the presence of God, consistently broke the covenant, and the era of the church, in which God’s eschatological people made up of Jews and gentiles, transformed by the power of God’s presence, now keep the covenant. So Paul had no “problem” with the Torah/old covenant/commands of God per se; nor did he import into the Scriptures foreign, Christian presuppositions in the service of his polemic on behalf of the gospel. The argument of 2 Cor 3 points in a different direction for understanding the polarities in Paul’s thinking, namely, to eschatology and salvation history. To comprehend Paul, therefore, we must look to his self-understanding as an apostle of Christ called by God to be a “servant

3  For a summary of my exegesis of Jer 31:31–34/38:31–34LXX, see Appendix Two below; for a summary of my exegesis of 2 Cor 3:4–18, see chapters two and three. 4 See Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 434–436, for Paul’s corresponding conviction that his ministry of the Spirit was the means by which God was reversing the effects both of Israel’s “fall” with the golden calf and of mankind’s “fall” into sin in Gen 3 (cf. Rom 1:18–23 with Rom 3:21–26; 5:12–19 and 2 Cor 4:6).

Preface

XIII

of the new covenant” that had been established by the Messiah and empowered by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:3–6). In the years since I reached these conclusions I have been testing and working out their implications through a close reading of other key passages in which Paul’s new covenant perspectives inform the polarities that occupy the generative center of his thought.5 Though written over a long stretch of time, the essays collected in this volume all consequently follow and find their coherence in the trajectory set forth in my 1995 work. The whole is nevertheless greater than the sum of its parts in that these essays represent an ongoing development of an eschatological paradigm for reading the Pauline Hauptbriefe.6 Accordingly, their approach is not thematic but discourse-focused, not comparative but local in its field of vision, and not deductive but inductive in its orientation. At the same time, the texts are read with an eye toward their larger theological (not primarily political or social), salvific (not primarily rhetorical or polemic), and conceptual (not primarily historical) significance. These studies represent steps along a path toward mapping out the coherence of Paul’s thought. Working out a synthesized statement of Paul’s “new covenant theology” is the next step forward for which these studies are intended to have paved the way. Such a theology will center around the still relevant and related questions concerning Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s messianic identity as the Son of God and Lord of the Nations (salvation and life “in Christ”), his understanding of redemption, reconciliation, and purity-holiness as they encompass the establishment of the new covenant (Christ, the Passover lamb, 1 Cor 5:7; 11:23–26) and its maintenance (Christ, the “mercy seat” and intercessor at God’s right hand, Rom 3:25; 8:34), his view of the nature, content, and role of the Torahhalakha in the Church (the “law of Christ” and the “law of the Spirit of life,” Gal 6:2; Rom 8:2), and his confidence concerning the present and future justification of God’s people (the “death” and “life of Christ” and “the ἀρραβών of the Spirit of Sonship,” Rom 5:9–11; 8:14–17; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). The trajectory established in 2 Cor 3 and confirmed by the present studies indicates that the answers to these larger questions must take their bearings from Paul’s inaugurated eschatology, 5  In this regard there are three principle lacunae that still require more substantial study: 1 Cor 10:1–13, Rom 3:27–31, and Rom 10:5–13. Regarding the former, the starting point is Carla Swafford Works, The Church in the Wilderness: Paul’s Use of Exodus Traditions in 1 Corinthians, WUNT 2/379 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); for the latter, see Per Jarle Bekken, The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context, BZNW 144 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012). 6  In what follows, the introduction and chapters six, seven, and ten, though developed for various venues in recent years, are published here for the first time. The arguments of the other chapters have been slightly updated and clarified (their original publication is cited at the beginning of each essay and all are used here with permission). The current volume complements my other collection of essays on these themes, which were intended for a broader audience and brought together at the kind initiative of Robin Parry at Cascade Books, Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective: Selected Essays (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015).

XIV

Preface

anchored as it was in his hope in the future consummation of God’s redemption of his people and the world (Rom 8:22–25; Phil 3:20–21). More specifically, the above questions are to be informed by Paul’s Scripturally-based conviction that Jesus, as the Messiah, will be the salvific mediator of a final, universal judgment according to works that, within the context of the new covenant, will be normed by the criteria of the Torah (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:16; 14:10).7 The exegetical and theological discussion must continue in dialogue with the ongoing, specialized work represented in the bibliographical addendum below. In pursuing these questions, it will also be important to engage the recent, comprehensive treatments of Paul’s theology; one thinks, for example, of the works of Baumert, Beale, Bird, Das, Dunn, Fredriksen, Gorman, Hahn, Holland, Pate, E. P. Sanders, Schnelle, Schreiner, Stuhlmacher, Thielman, Westerholm, Wilckens, Witherington, Wolters, and Wright. Moreover, of special interest is the growing emphasis on anchoring Paul’s thought ever more firmly “within Judaism” than previously advocated, even by various proponents of the “new perspective(s) on Paul.”8 It is my hope that the following studies will make a modest contribution to this endeavor. There is still much to be done. Inasmuch as these essays came into being over a considerable span of time, I am very much aware of the need to engage with the recent scholarship related to the studies presented here. By virtue of its nature and my own limitations, not being able to take into account the current work of my colleagues is the major weakness in the present work. Though I have clarified my own thinking throughout these essays and updated the older ones where possible, I look forward to retracing my steps once again in order to redirect my path as necessary. Nevertheless, I still affirm the proposals presented here, which stand or fall on their own merits. Yet, as with all our work, they remain provisional on the way to a better understanding of Paul, the biblical-theological genius and apostle of Christ to the nations.

7  The starting point for this discussion will be the comprehensive studies of Christian Stettler, Das letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis ­Jesus, WUNT 2/299 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) and Das Endgericht bei Paulus: Frame­ semantische und exegetische Studien zur paulinischen Eschatologie und Soterologie, WUNT 371 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). See too Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment according to Deeds, SNTSMS 105 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 8  See now the thesis-statement, state of the question, and some of the diverse examples of this partially new approach as set out in Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). As Nanos describes this nascent and still developing movement, its assumption is “that the writing and community building of the apostle Paul took place within late Second Temple Judaism, within which he remained a representative after his change of conviction about Jesus being the Messiah (Christ)” (p. 9, emphasis his).

Preface

XV

A Bibliographical Addendum Harold W. Attridge, “Making Scents of Paul: The Background and Sense of 2 Cor 2:14– 17,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. John Fitzgerald, Thomas Olbricht, and L. Michael White, NovTSup 110 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 71–88; John M. G. Barclay, “ ‘I Will Have Mercy on Whom I Have Mercy’: The Golden Calf and Divine Mercy in Romans 9–11 and Second Temple Judaism,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 82–106; John M. G. Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, WUNT 275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, SBLDS 175 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Hans Dieter Betz, Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, WUNT 343 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015); Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, LNTS 463 (London: T&T Clark, 2012); Reimund Bieringer, Emmanuel Nathan, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson, eds., Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism, CRINT 14 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014); Thomas R. Blanton, Constructing a New Covenant: discursive strategies in the Damascus Document and Second Corinthians, WUNT  2/​233 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Thomas R. Blanton IV, “Spirit and Covenant Renewal: A Theologoumenon of Paul’s Opponents in 2 Corinthians,” JBL 129 (2010): 129–151; Trevor J. Burke and Brain S. Rosner, Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice, LNTS 420 (London: T&T Clark, 2011); Douglas A. Campbell, “Galatians 5:11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?,” NTS 57 (2011): 325–347; William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, T&T Clark Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2008); Stephen C. Carlson, “ ‘For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia’: A Note on the Text of Galatians 4:25,” ZNW 105 (2014): 80–101; James H. Charlesworth, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volumes 1–3 (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006); Ellen Juhl Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries As Identity Markers (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Nina L. Collins, “Observations on the Jewish Background of 2 Corinthians 3:9, 3:7–8 and 3:11,” in Paul and the Corinthians – Studies on a Community in Conflict: Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, eds. Trevor J. Burke and J. K. Elliott, NovTSup 109 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014): 75–92; Michael Benjamin Cover, Lifting the Veil: 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 in Light of Jewish Homiletic and Commentary Traditions, BZNW 210 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015); A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016); Martinus De Boer, “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4:27,” NTS 50 (2004): 370–389; Paul B. Duff, “Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor. 3:6–18,” NovT 46 (2004): 313–337; Paul B. Duff, “Transformed ‘From Glory to Glory’: Paul’s Appeal to the Experience of his Readers in 2 Corinthians 3:18,” JBL (2008): 759–780; Paul B. Duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apolo­getic Context of 2 Corinthians 3, NovTSup 159 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015); James D. G. Dunn, “ ‘The Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life’ (2 Cor. 3:6),” Pneuma 35 (2013): 163–179; Susan Grove Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9–11,” NTS 56 (2010): 367–395; Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Christof Landmesser, and Hermann Lichtenberger, eds., Eschatologie – Eschatology: The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Eschatology in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, WUNT 272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Mark Adam Elliott, The Survivors

XVI

Preface

of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Matthew Y. Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31,” BTB 43 (2013): 14–22; Peter W. Flint, ed., The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Volume 1 Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Jersusalem: Magnes Press, 2007); Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010): 232–252; Jörg Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2013): 237–260; Pablo T. Gadenz, Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11, WUNT 2/267 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Joshua D. Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” JSNT 34 (2012): 303–322; John K. Goodrich, “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4:1–2,” JSNT 32 (2010): 251–284; John K Goodrich, “ ‘As Long as the Heir Is a Child’: The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1–2 and P.Ryl. 2.153,” NovT 55 (2013): 61–76; Michael J. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014); A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002); Sigurd Grindheim, “Not Salvation History, but Salvation Territory: The Main Subject Matter of Galatians,” NTS 59 (2013): 91–108; George H. Guthrie, “Paul’s Triumphal Procession Imagery (2 Cor 2:14– 16a): Neglected Points of Background,” NTS 61 (2015): 79–91; Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW 168 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010); Jane Heath, “Moses’ End and the Succession: Deuteronomy 31 and 2 Corinthians 3,” NTS 60 (2014): 37–60; Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird, eds., God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline ­Theology of N. T. Wright, WUNT 2/413 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); David Hellholm, “Moses as Διάκονος of the Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη – Paul as Διάκονος of the Καινὴ Διαθήκη: Argumenta Amplificationis in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6,” ZNW 99 (2008): 247–289; Albert L. A. Hogeterp, “The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation: A Re-Reading of Romans 11:25–32 in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcîa Martinez, ed. A. T. Hilhorst, E. Puech, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup 122 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 653–666; Stephen Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 66 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007); Debbie Hunn, “Does the Law Condemn the World? Law, Sin, and Faith in Galatians 3:22–23,” ZNW 106 (2015): 245–261; James A Kelhoffer, “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74 (2009): 127–143; James A. Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament, WUNT 270 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Jennifer L. Koosed, “Moses: The Face of Fear,” Biblical Interpretation 22 (2014): 414–429; Kar Yong Lim, “The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us” (2 Corinthians 1:5): A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Suffering in 2 Corinthians, LNTS 399 (London: T&T Clark, 2009); R. Barry Matlock, “The Rhetoric of Pistis in Paul: Galatians 2:16, 3:22, Romans 3:22, and Philippians 3:9,” JSNT 30 (2007): 173–203; A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters, eds., Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Benjamin L Merkle, “Romans 11 and the Future of E ­ thnic Israel,” JETS 43 (2000): 709–721; Ari Mermelstein, Creation, Covenant, and the Begin-

Preface

XVII

nings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period, JSJSup 168 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014); James C. Miller, The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God, and the Purpose of Romans, SBL 177 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Emergence of Christian Textuality: Early Christian Literary Culture in Context, Collected Essays Volume 1, WUNT 393 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Mark D. Nanos, ed., The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002); Stefan Nordgaard, “Paul and the Provenance of the Law: The Case of Galatians 3:19–20,” ZNW 105 (2014): 64–79; V. Henry T. Nguyen, “The Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 4:9,” NTS 53 (2007): 489–501; Marianne Otte, Der Begriff berît in der jüngeren alttestamentlichen Forschung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der semantischen Fragestellung bei Ernst Kutsch, Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XXIII Bd. 803 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2005); Nicholas G. Piotrowski, “The Concept of Exile in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Review of Recent Scholarship,” CBR 15 (2017): 214–247; Tyson L. Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology: The Malleable Self and the Presence of God, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016); Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen, eds., The SoCalled Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016); James M. Scott, ed., Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright (Downers Grove: IVP, 2017); Philip C. Smith, “God’s New Covenant Faithfulness in Romans,” Restoration Quarterly 50 (2008): 235–248; Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: the interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in early Judaism and in Paul, WUNT 241 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); David Starling, “Justifying Allegory: Scripture, Rhetoric, and Reason in Galatians 4:21–5:1,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 9 (2015): 227–245; Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, eds., “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, WUNT 2/384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); A. Chadwick Thornhill, “ ‘Spheres of Influence’ in the Epistle to the Galatians,” HBT 36 (2014): 21–41; Bradley Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise, NovTSup 169 (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2016); Martin Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen, WUNT 230 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Zion Ben Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary, STDJ 56 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007); Alexander Weiß, “Christus Jesus als Weihegeschenk oder Sühnmal? Anmerkungen zu einer neueren Deutung von hilasterion (Röm 3:25) samt einer Liste der epigraphischen Belege,” ZNW 105 (2014): 294–302; Kyle Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart, NovTSup 157 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014); Stephen Westerholm, Law and Ethics in Early Judaism and the New Testament, WUNT 383 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); Joel R. White, Die Erstlingsgabe im Neuen Testament, TANZ 45 (Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2007); Joel R. White, “Recent Challenges to the communis opinio on 1 Corinthians 15.29,” CBR 10 (2012): 379–395; Florian Wilk, J. Ross Wagner, and Frank Schleritt, eds., Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11, WUNT 257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); William N. Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Galatians 5:18, Studies

XVIII

Preface

in Biblical Literature 23 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001); Joel Willitts, “Context Matters: Paul’s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” TynB 54 (2003): 105–122; Joel Willitts, “Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:24b–27: Reading Genesis in Light of Isaiah,” ZNW 96 (2005): 188–210; Todd A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians,” NTS 50 (2004): 550–571; Michael Winger, “The Meaning of Πνεῦμα in the Letters of Paul: A Linguistic Analysis of Sense and Reference,” CBQ 78 (2016): 706–725; Ben Witherington, III, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994); Benjamin G. Wold, “ ‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ in Qumran Sapiential Literature as the Background to the Use in Pauline Epistles,” ZNW 106 (2015): 262–279; Michael Wolter, “Das Israelproblem Nach Gal 4,21–31 und Röm 9–11,” ZTK 107 (2010): 1–30; Siu Fung Wu, “Participating in God’s Purpose by Following the Cruciform Pattern of Christ: The Use of Psalm 69:9b in Romans 15:3,” JSPL 5 (2015): 1–19; Christopher Zoccali, “What’s the Problem with the Law?: Jews, Gentiles, and Covenant Identity in Galatians 3:10–12,” Neotestamentica 49 (2016): 377–415.

Introduction

Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective Thinking of the world as a collection of events, of processes, is the way that allows us to better grasp, comprehend and describe it. It is the only way that is compatible with relativity. The world is not a collection of things, it is a collection of events. Carlo Rovelli, The Order of Time1

The apostle Paul, who elsewhere describes himself to the Corinthians as “a servant (διάκονος) of God” (2 Cor 6:4) and “a servant (διάκονος) of the Messiah” (2 Cor 11:23; cf. Phil 1:1), described himself in 2 Cor 3:6 as a “servant of the new covenant” (διάκονος καινῆς διαθήκης).2 The persuasion driving this study is that this last appellation is as formative for understanding Paul’s ministry as his relationship to God and Christ is for understanding his apostolic calling.3 In 1 Carlo Rovelli, The Order of Time, trans. by Erica Segre and Simon Carnell (New York: Allen Lane/Penguin Random House, 2018), 87. As Rovelli goes on to explain, “If we find a sufficient number of variables that remain synchronized enough in relation to each other, it is convenient to use them in order to speak of when … The fundamental theory of the world must be constructed in this way; it does not need a time variable: it needs to tell us only how the things that we see in the world vary with respect to each other. That is to say, what the relations may be between these variables” (p. 103). 2  Cf. Paul as “a servant (διάκονος) of the gospel” (Eph 3:7; Col 1:23) and “a servant (διάκονος) of the church” (Col 1:24–25), likewise derivative from his apostolic calling. The plural forms of διάκονος in these texts are best construed as “apostolic plurals” referring to Paul in his office as an apostle. Διάκονος for Paul is not a technical designation for his apostolic ministry, but can be used more generally to describe others who serve someone or something in the status of a slave. The fact that it was used by the “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13, 23) reflects its common and standardized use in the early church. For the other Pauline uses, see Rom 13:4 (the power of the rulers as a servant of God); Rom 15:8 (Christ as a servant of the circumcision); Rom 16:1 (Phoebe as a servant of the church at Cenchreae); 1 Cor 3:5 (Paul and Apollo as servants of the Lord); 2 Cor 11:15 (Paul’s opponents as servants of Satan); Gal 2:17 (Christ as a hypothetical servant of sin); Eph 6:21; Col 4:7 (Tychicus as a [fellow‑]servant “in the Lord”); Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12 (the servants of/in the church); Col 1:7 (Epaphras as a servant of Christ); and 1 Tim 4:6 (Timothy as a servant of Christ Jesus). For the “new covenant” in the NT, see 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6 (and, by implication, 2 Cor 3:14; Gal 4:24); Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6–13 (quoting Jer 31:31–34); 9:15; 12:24 (here: διαθήκη νέα; and, by implication, Heb 7:22; 8:6; 10:16; 10:29; 13:20); Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24. 3 For Paul’s use of the διακον-terminology to describe his apostolic ministry, see too 2 Cor 3:3, 8–9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3–4; 11:8; 1 Tim 1:12 and John N. Collins, DIAKONIA: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), esp. 195–215 on Paul. Collins concludes

2

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

this regard I have argued earlier that Paul’s self-conception in 3:4–6 reflects his conviction that God had called him just as he had Moses and the prophets, but with a distinctively different ministry corresponding to the fulfillment of Jer 31:31–34, which had now been brought about by Christ (cf. 1 Cor 11:25). As a “servant (διάκονος) of the new covenant,” Paul’s “ministry (ἡ διακονία) of the Spirit” and “righteousness” (cf. 3:6 with 3:8, 9) is thus the eschatological counterpart to Moses’s “ministry (ἡ διακονία) of death” and “condemnation” under the “old covenant” (ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη; cf. 3:6 with 3:7, 9, 14).4 I have also argued that Paul’s identity and ministry in 3:6–18 are the corollary to his self-understanding in 3:1–3. There Paul presents himself as the one who, in fulfillment of Ezek 36:26–27 (cf. Ezek 11:19–20), the other most prominent “new covenant” passage from the Scriptures, now mediates “the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on tablets consisting of fleshly [i. e., receptive] hearts” (3:3). In so doing, Paul “serves” to bring into existence the eschatological people of God (cf. διακονέω in 3:3 with διάκονος/διακονία in 3:6–9; 4:1). The Corinthians as “the epistle of Paul” in 3:1 can therefore be equated with their identity as “the epistle of Christ” in 3:3.5 This eschatological perspective on his ministry of the Spirit, which for Paul derives from the new covenant passages of Jer 31 and Ezek 36, provides the foundation for the following studies.6 that Paul uses the terminology in regard to himself not to refer to general Christian service, but to the specific function of being a “spokesman” for the gospel and a “medium” of God’s glory (cf. pp. 197–198, 203–205). This accords with its more general meaning in the NT as “messengers on assignment from God or Christ” (p. 195). For a survey of the use of διάκονος in the LXX, post-biblical Judaism, and Paul, see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995; reprinted by Hendrickson, Paternoster, and Wipf and Stock publishers), 110–119. Against this biblical and Jewish background, “servant” (διάκονος) refers not primarily to one’s identity, but to the servant’s role as a representative agent or messenger and the corresponding activity of mediating on behalf of the one represented, with the connotation of the constraint and duty (but not lowliness) associated with being a slave. 4  For this point and its implications for understanding the relationship between the ministries of Moses and Paul in relationship to Israel and the church, see the main lines of my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 5 For these points as the referent of the images employed in 2 Cor 2:14–3:3, see my Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), republished in a slightly abridged form as Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990; reprinted by Paternoster and Wipf and Stock publishers). 6 See too now the work of Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). In support of the eschatological perspective to be argued in this volume, Morales offers a detailed survey of the connection between the Spirit and restoration eschatology in the OT (esp. Isa 11:1–16; 48:17–19; 59:15–21; Ezek 11:14–21; 18:30–32; 36:26–27; 37:6LXX, 14; 39:29, seen to be a response to the curses of Deut 28, p. 40), in 2TJ (esp. Jub 1:1–26; Pss. Sol. 17:30–32; 1 Enoch 49:2–3; and 4Q504 frgs. 1–2, 2.13–14 [which draws on Jer 31:33 to overcome curses of Deut 28:27–28], 5.3–4, 6b–8, 9b–12a; 4Q521 frag. 2, 2.1–7, 11), and in Galatians (with its use of

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

3

Eschatology Following Paul’s lead in 2 Cor 2:14–3:18, the studies collected in this volume are the result of my attempt over the past 30 years to develop a consistently eschatological, covenantal reading of Paul’s theology. In them I argue that Paul’s conviction that with the coming of the Messiah the new age of the new creation has dawned decisively informs his view of the old and new covenants, and hence his theology. Conversely, Paul’s understanding of the nature of the covenant relationship between God and his people, both “old” and “new,” and of the two ages within history to which they belong as constitutive realities, decisively informs his eschatology, and hence his theology. This emphasis on Paul’s two-age conception, of course, is not novel. It is widely acknowledged that Paul shared the common Jewish conception central to a biblically-based eschatology that history comprises two, sequential “ages” or “eras” separated by a divine act of cosmic redemption, which often became identified with the coming of the Messiah. It is also commonly recognized that Paul’s view of history, in shocking contrast to the majority of his kinsmen, was decisively altered by his conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the crucified, risen, and ascended Messiah of Israel and Lord of the nations. As a result, the long-awaited “new age to come” of the “new creation,” with its “new covenant,” had already dawned in the midst of the “old, evil age,” without bringing it to an end! In short, the eschatological hope of Israel had been inaugurated, but not-yet consummated. For Paul, the “kingdom of God” is here, but not-yet in its fullness (cf. Rom 14:17 and 1 Cor 4:20 with Gal 5:21 and 1 Cor 6:9–11). The “end of the Isaiah). In doing so Morales demonstrates that the outpouring of the Spirit as an eschatological sign comes to be viewed in some key texts from 2TJ and Paul as the solution to Israel’s status under the curses of the law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For in these texts “…  the reception of the Spirit signals the redemption of Israel from the curse and the empowerment of believers to order their lives rightly before God” (p. 5; cf. pp. 150–151). “So, when Paul describes the result of Christ’s redemptive death as the reception of the Spirit and the blessing, he is thinking in the categories of restoration eschatology” (p. 166). But in contrast to my understanding of the role of the Spirit (the covenant provision) as empowering obedience to the commandments of the law (the covenant stipulations), thereby making it possible to inherit the eschatological promises of life (the covenant blessing), Morales concludes that, for Paul, and in contrast to the OT and 2TJ traditions he traces, the Spirit, in effect, actually replaces the law, since the law failed to bring life throughout Israel’s history (see, e. g., his pp. 162–163, 166–168, 171–172). Morales admits, however, that “one question to which the present study has not found a satisfactory answer concerns the relationship between the outpouring of the Spirit and obeying the commandments of God … This part of Jewish eschatological expectation seems not to have influenced Paul’s ministry – on the contrary, Paul is adamant that his churches should not practice the ‘works of the Law’ … Nevertheless, Paul’s stance against his congregations doing the works of the Law remains a puzzle in need of a solution, especially since other aspects of his pneumatology depend on texts that combine the sending of the Spirit with obedience to the commandments” (p. 172). I am attempting to solve this puzzle in light of the fact that this “Jewish eschatological expectation” did in fact decisively influence Paul’s ministry.

4

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

ages” has come upon believers (1 Cor 10:11; cf. Gal 1:4), but “the god of this age” is still malevolently and deceptively active in the lives of both believers and unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4; cf. 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; Eph 2:2). This means that those who now “belong to the Messiah” (for this designation, cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 15:23; Gal 3:29; 5:24; Rom 16:16) must reckon with what it means to live patiently and faithfully during this “over-lapping of the ages” (cf. Rom 12:2), during which time they are being “saved by hope” in the final redemption yet to come (Rom 8:23–25).7 Indeed, Paul himself, though called to be an apostle of the risen Christ, was also called to suffer like Christ on behalf of his churches (1 Cor 2:1–5; 4:8–13; 2 Cor 1:3–7; 2:14–17; 4:7–12; 12:7–10, etc.). In sum, Paul’s life and theology, like that of the church as a whole, encapsulate an “inaugurated eschatology” that longs for its consummation. The studies that follow seek to show that the key to understanding the wellknown polarities that characterize Paul’s thought is therefore to be found in Paul’s reckoning with this unexpected, eschatological reality. More specifically, I endeavor to demonstrate that Paul’s messianically-determined experience and convictions regarding the “overlapping of the ages” informed his interpretation of the history-of-salvation contrasts that were already becoming apparent in the early church between this age and the age to come, the old covenant and the new, the law and the gospel, Israel and the church, the church and the nations, and the flesh and the Spirit.8 The comprehensive explanatory power of this paradigm 7  Here I am following the pervasively influential study of Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964/1975), with its now famous WWII analogy: although the eschatological “D-Day” has taken place, the final “V-Day” is still to come (see pp. 3, 10, 141–142, 145). Thus, Cullmann argues throughout his programmatic work, Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 147, that in considering the eschatological relationship between the present and future we must recognize “die heilsgeschichtliche Spannung zwischen ‘schon’ und ‘noch nicht’ als Schlüssel zum Verständnis der neutestamentlichen Heilsgeschichte” (emphasis removed). For as Cullmann rightly observes, “To anyone who does not take clear account of this tension, the entire New Testament is a book with seven seals, for this tension is the silent presupposition that lies behind all that it says” (Christ and Time, 145–146). In the English-speaking world this perspective was set forth in the same period of time in studies such as that of C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962), 105: “The basic terms in which Christian existence must be understood are eschatological. It rests upon Christ’s own resurrection and victory over the powers brought forward from the time of the End, and upon the verdict of acquittal brought forward from the last judgment. It is thus a unique eschatology, since it asserts that, notwithstanding appearances, the End has already come, and further that, notwithstanding this confident assertion, the End is not yet. Out of this formula ‘Already–Not yet,’ which is the fundamental pattern of the Christian life, we see evolving in Paul the more developed maxim of ‘As if not’ (ὡς μή),” pointing to Rom 6:11 and 1 Cor 7:29–31. 8  Oscar Cullmann’s conclusion concerning Paul’s theology, Heil als Geschichte, 233, is trenchant here: “Die Spannung zwischen ‘schon’ und ‘noch nicht,’ die wir bei Jesus als das Hauptmerkmal dessen, was man seine ‘Eschatologie’ nennt, herausgestellt haben, steht nun auch bei Paulus im Vordergrund und bildet das wichtigste heilsgeschichtliche Bindeglied zwischen ihm

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

5

will be its validation. For any attempt to see Paul as an integrated thinker must establish a heuristic model that can elucidate and encompass the meaning and interrelated nature of the many polarities that come to the fore in Paul’s delineation and defense of his apostolic message and ministry.9 The present studies also underscore the fact that scholarship has once again rightly prioritized eschatology in its study of Paul’s epistles. As de Boer reminds us, we owe this refocusing to Käsemann’s reintroduction of “apocalyptic” into the study of early Christianity in general and of Paul in particular as the needed corrective to the Bultmannian demythologizing of Paul’s theology in terms of an individualistic, anthropologically-centered Selbstbewußtsein.10 In de Boer’s words, “Paul’s cosmological language about Sin and Death as malevolent powers represents an attempt to account for anthropological realities and experiences. Behind human sinning and human dying, Paul discerns cosmological powers at work which he calls Sin and Death. He thus mythologizes with what Käsemann called ‘anthropological relevance.’ ”11 Moreover, although for Paul the historical realization of God’s victory in the world is still penultimate, Paul nevertheless proclaimed that in Christ God had already liberated his people from their enslavement to these cosmic powers of Sin and Death. There can be no doubt that Paul’s eschatological “gospel” is “apocalyptic” in its character and consequence. Paul’s introduction to his letter to the Romans, among many passages, makes this abundantly clear. The salvific realities inaugurated and sustained by the Messiah and the Spirit are clearly “apocalyptic” in their divine initiative in accordance with God’s promises and in their nature as God’s powerful acts of grace (Rom 1:1–7). They are also “apocalyptic” in their und Jesus. Die Theologie des Paulus wird von dieser Spannung, die sich keineswegs nur auf die Existenz des einzelnen, sondern auf die ganze zwischenzeitliche Heilsgeschichte bezieht, die Grund und Voraussetzung aller Existenz ist, beherrscht: seine Auffassung vom Heiligen Geist, von der Kirche, seine Sakramentauffassung und seine Ethik.”  9 These polarities entail, among still others, the following Pauline contrasts: Law/Christ, Law/Grace, Law of Sin and Death/Law of Spirit and Life, Works/Faith, Sin/Grace, Adam/ Christ; Old Man/New Man; Death/Life; Jew/Gentile, Weak/Strong, Suffering/Glory, Peter/ Paul, ministry of condemnation/ministry of righteousness, and justification by faith/judgment by works. For a representative delineation of these eschatological contrasts in Paul’s own language and their related anthropological manifestations, taking Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as examples, see Appendix One below. 10 See Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul’s Mythologizing Program in Romans 5–8,” in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013), 3, 7. Thus, as de Boer points out, “With respect to Paul, then, Bultmann’s demythologization of Paul came down to a deapocalypticized Paul, a Paul with no future eschatology and no cosmological powers” (p. 5). In contrast, Käsemann argued that the world is a “ ‘battlefield, and everyone is a combatant. Anthropology must then eo ipso be cosmology’ … since a human being’s life is ‘from the beginning a stake in the confrontation between God and the principalities and the world,’ it ‘can only be understood apocalyptically,’ ” leading to a “ ‘cosmological-apocalyptic reading of Paul’ ” (pp. 5–6, quoting Käsemann). 11 Ibid., 13–14.

6

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

era-changing, new creation power in the lives of God’s people. The good news is that God has acted decisively through the Son to deliver his people from their enemies and to justify them before God’s coming judgment in fulfillment of the eschatological promises mapped out in Isa 40:9–11, 52:7, and 61:1–2 (Rom 1:16). Finally, the salvific realities announced in Paul’s gospel are equally “apocalyptic” in their consistently future focus. The establishment of the new covenant community is the “last” pre-consummation revelation of God’s righteousness in the world (Rom 1:5–8). As such, the Messiah’s salvific deliverance displays God’s continuing trustworthiness to save those who trust in him, i. e., Paul’s “apocalyptic” gospel is the “revelation of God’s righteousness from faith to faith” (Rom 1:17). Romans 1:1–17 thus demonstrate that the “apocalyptic” nature of Paul’s inaugurated eschatology cannot be over-stated. To quote de Boer again, Because “the righteousness of God” refers first and foremost to God’s own saving action, effective in the lordship of the crucified Christ, the justifying action on behalf of the ungodly not only “declares righteous” (is not simply a forensic-eschatological pronouncement, as it is for Bultmann) but also actually “makes righteous.” It does so by coming on the human scene to liberate human beings from cosmological forces and powers that have enslaved them.12

Read in this way, the “apocalyptic” deliverance of God’s people is the context for understanding Paul’s complementary, not contradictory, understanding of the redeeming significance of Christ’s cross, resurrection, and ascension for the “forensic” justification of God’s people. Such an integrated understanding of the “apocalyptic” and “forensic” aspects of Paul’s theology, held together by Paul’s OT-configured salvation-history framework, has been championed above all in recent scholarship by Peter Stuhlmacher, whose perceptions run throughout these studies. In his words, Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ bezeichnet bei Paulus das Heil und Wohlordnung schaffende Wirken

Gottes, und zwar so, daß mit ein und demselben Begriff Gottes eigene Wirksamkeit und das Resultat dieser Wirksamkeit benannt werden können … Der berühmte Begriff Gottesgerechtigkeit läßt sich also bei Paulus weder rein theozentrisch noch rein soteriologisch fassen, sondern umfaßt beide Aspekte des schöpferischen Heilshandelns Gottes: Gott, der Schöpfer und Richter aller Kreatur, entreißt die an Christus Glaubenden durch den Sühnetod seines Sohnes der Herrschaft der Sünde und nimmt sie neu in seine Gemeinschaft auf.13  “Paul’s Mythologizing Program,” 6–7. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 334, 336, original emphasis removed. In drawing this exegetical conclusion (cf. his survey of Paul’s key texts on pp. 332–347), Stuhlmacher follows Käsemann’s (and Schlatter’s) reading of Rom 1:17, based on the OT and early Jewish “Apokalyptik,” that the “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 is the “Inbegriff der ‘sich eschatologisch in Christus offenbarenden Herrschaft Gottes …” (p. 334). For Stuhlmacher’s survey of the OT and early Jewish tradition regarding the righteousness of God in the context of the eschatological end of the age, see pp. 325–331. It is not clear, however, 12

13 Peter

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

7

Nevertheless, I avoid using the term “apocalyptic” throughout these studies for two reasons. First, there is a widespread lack of clarity in current scholarship concerning the referent of the term itself.14 The admixture of its uses to refer to a genre and its various characteristics, to a disputed body of literature in search of an agreed upon membership, to an “apocalyptic” (as an adjective) theology/ eschatology and/or worldview that is only partially and selectively related to the genre’s defining markers, and/or to a mode of thinking about history that may or may not itself have historical representatives renders its use difficult at best without an extensive delineation of its various contexts.15 My purpose here, however, is not to clarify this terminology. Second, in the contemporary debate over the nature of Paul’s theology, “apocalyptic” has also come to signify a particular “perspective” on Paul with a varying relationship to the above genre, literature, worldview and/or their defining categories. This “apocalyptic” reading of Paul is often characterized by a disavowal of the category of “covenant,” given the how this squares with his reading of the righteousness of God in Rom 1:17, 3:22, and 2 Cor 5:21 as a reference to “die von Gott gewirkte Gabe der (Glaubens‑)Gerechtigkeit,” which is also Bultmann’s position (cf. p. 335). In my view of Rom 1:16–17, the gospel reveals the “right­ eousness of God” because it declares that God has fulfilled his promise to save his people by creating in them with his power the very righteousness required by his own judgment – i. e., God’s righteous character is made known in that God has remained faithful in his commitment to bring about the faithfulness of his people. 14 See now the opening statement of Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, “Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction,” in their Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 3–4: “As Barry Matlock acknowledged (in fact, protested) some years ago, ‘“Apocalyptic” interpretation of Paul is, if not a consensus, then certainly a commonplace.”’ Beyond this basic affirmation, however, there is little consensus regarding what the label ‘apocalyptic’ actually suggests about Paul’s theological perspective. Indeed, lying conspicuously behind the employment of common language are many different definitions, and even competing interpretations of Paul’s letters” (quoting Matlock from 1996 – nothing has changed in the last 22 years). The authors seek to clarify this confusion by categorizing various viewpoints into two broad approaches, “Eschatological Invasion” and “Unveiled Fulfillment,” in regard to three axes, spatial, temporal, and epistemological, though, adding to the confusion, even these are acknowledged to be overlapping concepts (cf. pp. 6–17). 15  The scholarly use of the adjective, “apocalyptic,” is usually only selectively related to the contours of the literature belonging to this genre. For the defining statement of the issues involved in defining and analyzing “apocalyptic” literature and themes, for the 13 characteristics pertaining to the genre of the “Jewish apocalypse,” and for a listing of the 15 commonly recognized Jewish apocalypses, see still John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards a Morphology of a Genre” and “The Jewish Apocalypses,” both in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. John J. Collins, Semeia 14 (1979): 1–20 and 21–59. Collins details the two main views of apocalypticism: 1) the “historical” view that emphasizes a temporal eschatology, whether having to do with historical events, cosmic and/or political realities, or merely a personal eschatology (all with and without a heavenly journey involved); and 2) the “vertical” view that emphasizes the spatial symbolism of the heavenly world (pp. 21–23). He combines them both in his definition of an “apocalypse” as “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world” (p. 22).

8

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

latter’s implications of continuity and fulfillment within a history of redemption, no matter how theocentric, dramatic, or decisive the establishment of the “new covenant” of the new creation of the new age is conceived to be. Such readings privilege general theological concepts to the neglect of the historical orientation of much apocalyptic literature itself.16 As a result, it also often leads to a radical, law/gospel dichotomy, interpreted materially as signifying two distinct modes of salvation. This is unfortunate inasmuch as the current “apocalyptic” readings of Paul consequently tend toward a present-focused spiritualization of Paul’s theology that is cut off from the past and only tangentially related to the future. One of the implications of my studies is that we must avoid bringing such an ahistorical, over-realized eschatology to our reading of Paul. Nor should we make the Torah itself the villain. Paul’s eschatology, both inaugurated and consummated, is history-altering and transforming, but nevertheless historically located and covenantally defined.17 In making this case, I am therefore intentionally using “eschatology” without the adjectival modification “apocalyptic” in order to highlight the historicallyoriented and future-focused nature of Paul’s soteriology. Used in this absolute way, “eschatology” refers to the “end time” as the “last time” and/or to the “last

16 For a helpful discussion of the historical orientation of the genre of apocalyptic literature, pointing to historical summaries and the periodization of history as regular features of many apocalypses (cf. Dan 7–12; 1 En. 83–90; 91:12–17; 4 Ezra 3:1–27; 11–12; Syr. Bar. 35–40; 53–74; Apoc. Abr. 21–32; cf. Sib. Or. 3:97–161), see Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought, SNTSMS 119 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 28–36. Indeed, even “the motif of new creation occurs almost exclusively in the eschatological material of the historical apocalypses” (p. 33 n. 33). For as Hubbard points out, the intent of the eschatological material in apocalypses is “to offer hope to the present generation through the promise of ultimate deliverance and vindication” (p. 35). Christopher Rowland’s observations in this regard are thus worthy of quoting at length: “Thus apocalyptic, whose main concern was the revelation of the divine mysteries, could in no sense be complete without offering some kind of total view of history. An orientation towards the future alone would have given a theological picture which minimized divine control of history in the present. The extent of apocalyptic’s debt to the past is manifested in the way in which the divine activity through history is so consistently portrayed in the historical reviews contained in the apocalypses. To that extent the mantle of earlier historiography has fallen on the apocalypticists” (quoted by Hubbard, pp. 28–29, emphasis mine). 17 The current debate would do well therefore to take its bearings, positive and negative, from the analysis of the theme “apocalyptic” and the treatment of its major proponents by N. T. Wright, “Part II: Re-Enter Apocalyptic,” in his Paul and his Recent Interpreters (London: SPCK, 2015), 135–218. Here I am agreeing with Wright’s conclusion that “… Paul really was an ‘apocalyptic’ theologian, who believed that God had done a radical new thing, a fresh gift of grace, in the sending, and the dying and rising, of Jesus the Messiah, and that he had indeed thereby liberated Israel from its plight and the world from the powers of evil. But this, Paul argues again and again, was the original purpose of the divine covenant with Israel. This was where the strange, dark, non-immanent salvation history had been going all along” (p. 186). This definition, of course, uses “apocalyptic” to refer to the content, character, and consequence of God’s actions in Christ, not to its literary or genre referents.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

9

things” in time and space that God will do to usher in the “eschaton.”18 The studies presented here take up fundamental aspects of Paul’s understanding of both the inaugurated and consummated expressions of this eschatological, salvific reality. Various other “last things,” such as the resurrection of the dead, the “intermediate state,” the character of the new heavens and earth in which faith, hope, and love continue to exist, and the question of universalism, though important themes, are specific facets of Paul’s eschatology and, as such, lie outside the parameters of this present study. My focus is on the implication of inaugurated eschatology for Paul’s understanding of the present habitus of the church in relationship to the past history of Israel, upon which it is based, and for his future hope for final redemption, toward which both the past and present are moving. Paul’s eschatologically determined history of redemption, while incorporating Israel’s past and the church’s present, thus also preserves eschatology’s focus on redemption’s future consummation. This threefold, temporal interrelationship corresponds to the threefold covenant structure of Paul’s thought as a whole (see below). So “eschatology” remains lexically preferable as a description of the generating center of Paul’s theology because it can include the apocalyptic character and significance of Paul’s gospel within a historical nexus that entails a decisive break and its consequences between the two ages of the old and new covenants. For as I will argue, the polarities in Paul’s thinking, viewed eschatologically, presuppose a continuity in the structure of God’s covenant relationship with his people throughout salvation history while at the same time reflecting the discontinuity that exists between the character of his people within the two eras of this same history.19 As Jackson puts it, quoting Stuhlmacher’s essential insight, “Paul’s soteriology has to do with a history of election which cannot be separated from a 18  Again following Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte, 60–61, who argues for the meaning of “eschatology,” likely based on the use of τὰ ἔσχατα in Sir 7:36, as the “end-time” (“Endzeit”) in the sense of the “last-time” (“letzte Zeit”). See Cullmann’s corresponding critique, pp. 60–61, of the a-temporal re-interpretation of “eschatology” to refer to one’s self-awareness of always standing in a position of existence-determining decision. In his words, “Die Worte ‘Eschatologie’ und ‘eschatologisch’ beziehen sich auf die Endzeit, nicht auf die Entscheidungszeit. Gewiß ist die Endzeit Entscheidungszeit, aber nicht jede Entscheidungszeit ist Endzeit. Wir werden daher die Ausdrücke ‘Eschatologie’ und ‘eschatologisch’ in ihrem etymologischen Sinn von ‘Endzeit’ verwenden” (p. 61, emphasis his). Cullmann then stresses that in view of the NT concept of inaugurated eschatology, it is typical that “die Endzeit [ist] zugleich Zukunft und Gegenwart” (p. 61, emphasis his). 19 On the “apocalyptic” nature of the new covenant, see now Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTSMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 92, commenting on Rom 12:2: Via the death and resurrection of Christ and the work of the Spirit, “a radical discontinuity in the human condition has come about for those in Christ, and this is inextricably linked with the status of the covenant relationship.” That Paul may be thinking of the same new covenant context in Rom 12:2 that is in view in 2 Cor 3:6–18 is made possible by the use of μεταμορφόω in both texts (cf. Rom 12:2 with 2 Cor 3:18); see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 218, and now Whittle, Covenant Renewal, 94–95. As

10

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

“ ‘cosmological-eschatological horizon.’ ”20 Indeed, Stuhlmacher’s interpretation of Paul in this regard is pivotal in that, as Käsemann’s student, he brought together the latter’s emphasis on Paul’s apocalyptic conceptuality with his own recognition of Paul’s biblically-derived salvation-history. And once an apocalyptic deliverance is integrated into the broad scope of Paul’s biblically-informed history of redemption, his inaugurated eschatology can be seen to be era-changing in character and covenantal in context and content. Here too, in emphasizing a biblically-based “salvation history” or “history of redemption” approach to reading Paul, I am standing in the tradition that in modern scholarship received a programmatic statement by Oscar Cullmann.21 Cullmann recognized already in 1967 that for many the concept of “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte) had taken on a certain offensive character since it brought with it an apologetic or positivistic “aftertaste” (Beigeschmack), especially since it had been associated with a Hegelian view of history. The concept was also suspect because it is not a biblical term and can hence be identified with alien characteristics of “history” (Geschichte) (pp. 56–57). Regarding the latter critique, Cullmann associates the concept with the use of οἰκονομία in Col 1:25 and Eph 1:10; 3:2, 9 (cf. too 1 Tim 1:4; Ignatius, Eph. 19:2; 20:1), which he relates to Paul’s references to she concludes, “Although Paul does not specify the goal of the transformation in Romans 12:2, there is every indication that 2 Corinthians 3:18 provides the answer” (pp. 100–101). 20 T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept, WUNT 2/272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 133, emphasis mine. An important implication of Jackson’s study is the compatibility of apocalyptic and salvation historical perspectives in Paul’s theology (see pp. 182–183): Paul “sustained historical concerns even if he adopted apocalyptic categories of thought” (p. 183). 21  See his Heil als Geschichte. The references in this paragraph are all to this work. For the history and analysis of the salvation-history school, usually overlooked in contemporary scholarship due to the hegemony of the Baur-Wrede-Bultmann tradition within academic scholarship, see Robert Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology (Leiden: Deo, 2004) and my review in Trinity Journal 29 (2008): 153–156. Yarbrough’s history focuses on the work, interrelationships, and trajectory of J. C .K. von Hofmann (1810–1877), A. Schlatter (1852–1938), M. Albertz (1992–1956), L. Goppelt (1911–1973), and O. Cullmann (1902–1998). In the English-speaking world, see already the 1943 statement by Archibald M. Hunter, The Unity of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1943), 9, 19, who observed that the concept that best describes “the manifold wisdom of God” displayed both in the gospel of the kingdom and in the church it creates (pointing to Eph 3:8–12) must be borrowed from the Germans, namely, “the Heilsgeschichte” that “treats of a Saviour, a Saved (and saving) People, and the means of Salvation … . For the ‘story’ is of the consummation of God’s saving purpose for his People (Ecclesiology) through the sending of his Messiah (Christology) and of the means of Salvation (Soteriology) … all of these are so closely connected that one implies the other – and all lead to the one centre, the Heilsgeschichte.” For an insightful statement of a biblically-based salvation history organized around a CSER-structure (Creation/ Covenant – Sin – Exile/Death – Restoration) and inaugurated eschatology, see Roy E. Ciampa, “The History of Redemption,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 254–308. And for representative, extensive treatments of NT theology from the perspective of inaugurated eschatology, see Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) and G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

11

the revelation of the “mystery” of God’s plan of salvation (Heilsplan) now being fulfilled in Christ (cf. Rom 11:25; 1 Cor 4:1; 9:17; 15:51) (pp. 57–58). Rather than opting for the terminology “the economy of salvation” (Heilsökonomie), however, Cullmann retains “salvation history” because it calls direct attention to that which he considers fundamental to NT thought, “daß nämlich Gott seinen Plan in einem Zusammenhang bestimmter zeitlicher Ereignisse ausführt” (p. 58). Regarding the former objection, Cullmann is careful not to identify “salvation history” with a universal, philosophical principle that can then be used to regulate events in accord with a “Gesetz der Kontinuität”; instead, he defines it in terms of a divine revelation concerning the particular historical events in view (“eine Offenbarung über Geschichte”), thereby distinguishing salvation history from history per se, though the two are analogous (pp. 58–59). For like “history” in general, “salvation history” consists of a contextually related series of events, allows for a humanly-related contingency that incorporates “Unheilsgeschichte,” and recounts events that are viewed as belonging to the wider history of which it is a part (pp. 59–60).

Covenant In view of these conclusions, the following essays seek to show in what ways Paul’s “inaugurated eschatology” becomes the interpretive key to the polarities in Paul’s “new covenant” theology. We will consider Paul’s conception of the Torah and the history of Israel under what he came to call the “old covenant,” his conclusions about the related identity and character of the church and Torah under the “new covenant,” the role Paul’s suffering plays in his ministry of the Spirit, his conception of justification by works on the day of final judgment, his continuing confidence in God’s promise to save Israel and the gentiles when the reign of Christ is consummated, and the nature of the new creation now experienced by those “in Christ.” In developing my understanding of the Pauline polarities inherent in these themes, I am again unpacking the implications of Stuhlmacher’s paradigmatic conclusion regarding the salvation-historical depth and history of election contours of Paul’s gospel (though not always in ways he himself would endorse!): Während 1 Kor 15:1–11 und Röm 10:14–17 der Einsetzung des Evangeliums heilsgeschichtliche Tiefe geben, erhält sie von 2 Kor 3:4–18 und 5:18–21 her erwählungsgeschichtliche Kontur. Paulus sieht in der Einsetzung des Evangeliums ein buchstäblich epochales Ereignis: Gott löst mit der Aufrichtung des “Wortes von der Versöhnung” die am Sinai erlassene alte “Verpflichtung” ab und bringt Jer 31:31–34 zur Erfüllung. Gesetz und Evangelium stehen sich darum gegenüber wie παλαιὰ διαθήκη und καινὴ διαθήκη.22 22  Biblische Theologie, 315, emphasis mine; original emphasis removed. See now the extensive evaluation and further development of history-of-salvation perspectives in Heil und Geschichte: Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heilsgeschichte in der biblischen Tradition and in der theologischen Deutung, eds. Jörg Frey, Stefan Krauter, and Herman Lichtenberger, WUNT 248 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Of special relevance for our study is the foundational statement by Martin Hengel, “Heilsgeschichte,” pp. 3–34, in which,

12

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

In the studies that follow I will thus employ the term “covenant” in two concrete senses. First, I use “covenant” as a noun to refer to the various biblical covenants and their specific Scriptural content as signaled by Paul’s discussion. This contrasts with the common, abstract use of “covenant” in contemporary scholarship as an equivalent simply to God’s “promise(s)” as part of a general promise-fulfillment reading of Paul’s eschatology. Of course, the promise-fulfillment framework is a central aspect of Paul’s understanding of salvation history. And from the Pauline perspective the biblical covenants, by definition, all include divine promises (see Eph 2:12). Hence, for example, Paul references God’s “promise to Abraham” in Rom 4:13, 20, which the quotations from Gen 15:6 and 17:5 in the context make clear is a reference to the significance of this particular aspect of the “covenant” made with Abraham (cf. Rom 4:9, 17, 18, 22; for the same use of “promise” as a reference to this aspect of the Abrahamic covenant see Rom 9:4, 7–9 [Gen 21:12; 18:10, 14]; Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 7:1; Gal 3:14, 16, etc.). But a covenant entails more than the promises it contains (see below). Hence, when Paul speaks of “covenant,” either explicitly or by way of metonymy, my working assumption is that he has in view the content and role within salvation history of one of the specific biblical covenants, either the covenant with Abraham/the Patriarchs (often by the metonymy, Promise), with Israel (often by the metonymy, Moses, Sinai, or Torah), or with the eschatological people of God (often by the metonymy, Christ or Faith). In terms of his two-age, epochal eschatology, Paul can also interpret these covenants historically as the “old covenant,” stretching from Abraham to Christ, in contrast to the “new,” beginning from Christ onward (2 Cor 3:6–18), or theologically as the temporally after surveying the modern critiques of “salvation history” as an interpretive approach, Hengel supports Cullmann against Bultmann’s blistering critiques (see p. 22) and then lays out a sustained argument for “die Unverzichtbarkeit der Heilsgeschichte,” without which there would have been no proclamation of the crucified and resurrected Jesus of Nazareth (see pp. 22–34). Theologically, although other concepts such as “Wort-Gottes-, Zeugnis-, Erwählungs-, Bundes-, oder Glaubensgeschichte” could also be utilized, Hengel argues that “Heilsgeschichte” is to be preferred since it underscores, over against the equally valid and rather easier to perceive “Unheilsgeschichte,” God’s “erwählenden, richtenden und rettenden Heilswillen,” centering above all in the forgiveness of sins effected by Christ (pp. 24, 26; emphasis his). As such, Heilsgeschichte concerns “die Treue des Schöpfers zu sich selbst” (p. 24; emphasis his). In terms of the related question of its historicity, which is beyond our current purview, Hengel again emphasizes that the salvation-history hermeneutic focuses on the events and their interpretations as presented by the biblical texts themselves as a “Wort-Gottes-Geschichte” and “Glaubensgeschichte” that, when viewed as a whole, “stehen bei allen Gegensätzen, Brüchen und Lücken in einem inneren geschichtlichen Zusammenhang  …” (p. 26, emphasis his; see his strong rejection on pp. 32–33 of the fundamentalist view of biblical inspiration and inerrancy on the one hand, and even more of “eine Verteufelung der Geschichte oder um ihre Auflösung in das gegenwärtige subjective religiöse Bewusstsein” on the other hand). Indeed, “Wir können den Reichtum der in ihnen bezeugten ‘Geschichte’ und ‘Geschichten’ gar nicht ausschöpfen” (p. 26). As the editors point out, Prof. Hengel’s essay, presented at the volume’s conference in 2007 and published just after his death on July 2, 2009, stands as a “wissenschaftliches Vermächtnis” (“Vorwort,” p. v).

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

13

over-lapping covenants of “Hagar/Sinai” in contrast to that of “Sarah/the Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:21–31). Moreover, in order to delineate the eschatological perspective informing Paul’s theology the present work focuses on the specific content and argument of the one passage in the Old Testament that explicitly mentions the “new covenant,” namely, Jer 31(38LXX):31–34, to which both the Jesus-tradition cited by Paul in 1 Cor 11:25 and his own self-designation in 2 Cor 3:6 refer (cf. too its link with Ezek 36:26–27 in 2 Cor 3:3). By way of introduction, it will thus be helpful to recount the main lines of my analysis of this pivotal Pauline source since it encapsulates the conceptual foundation for Paul’s new covenant eschatology (see Appendix Two below). Second, I use “covenant” as an adjective to refer to the specific way of presenting the realities of redemptive history and/or of forming an argument that derives from the threefold covenant structure widely recognized to be constitutive of the relationship between God and his people as expressed throughout the various Scriptural covenants.23 In what follows we will be alert to the ways in which this threefold covenant structure, though implicit, informed Paul’s own “biblical” way of thinking as a “servant of the new covenant.” In summary, this “covenant” structure and consequent way of thinking consists in 1) declaring the covenant-creating deliverance brought about by God’s unconditional grace in the past, 2) delineating the covenant-defining stipulations being brought about by God’s empowering grace in the present, 3) declaiming the covenant-completing promises to be brought about by God’s salvific grace in the future.

The threefold covenant structure can thus be outlined as follows: Covenant Prologue as Covenant Establishment (The Past Indicatives of Redemption) Covenant Stipulations as Covenant Maintenance (The Present Imperatives of Redemption) Covenant Blessings or Curses as Covenant Consummation (The Future Indicatives of Redemption) 23 For this point and an earlier expression of my understanding of the biblical, threefold covenant structure implicit in Paul’s arguments, see my Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective: Selected E ­ ssays (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), x–xii. For an explication of this threefold covenant relationship in regard to the successive biblical covenants against their ANE backdrop and its implications for recognizing the one covenant structure inherent in all biblical covenants, including the “new covenant,” see my essay, “The Covenant Relationship,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology, 20–65. I thus reject the common attempts to distinguish between conditional and unconditional covenants in the biblical material, often wrongly associated with a supposed distinction between suzerain-vassal and royal-land-grant covenants respectively. Mapping out the relationship between the old and new covenants was the burden of my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel.

14

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

This threefold covenant “argument” at the heart of the relationship between God and his people throughout redemptive history may then be set forth as follows: God’s “Unconditional” Provisions by which the covenant relationship is established (The Redemptive Foundation of the Covenant) which inextricably entails The Faith-Obedience of God’s People through which the covenant relationship is kept (The Redemptive Commands of the Covenant) which inextricably entails God’s “Conditional” Promises in which the covenant relationship is consummated (The Redemptive Consummation of the Covenant)

All three elements of the covenant structure play a significant role in Paul’s “new covenant” theology. But given my focus here on the polarities in Paul’s thought, the emphasis in the following studies falls on the reality and role of covenant keeping as that which most directly reveals the distinctive character of the new covenant between God and his eschatological people. For in Paul’s view, the saving significance of the Messiah on the one hand, and the transforming power of the Spirit on the other, both gifts of God’s elective grace, constitute the provisions of the covenant prologue that not only establish and sustain God’s new covenant with his people, but also necessitate and effect the consequent keeping of the new covenant stipulations. In turn, this “obedience of faith” leads to inheriting the new covenant promises of final restoration on the day of eschatological judgment, when the Messiah himself serves as God’s agent of blessing and wrath. Within the covenant structure, the commands of the covenant are therefore sandwiched between God’s provisions in the past and his promises for the future, so that keeping the covenant stipulations is brought about by the former and motivated by the latter. The divine provisions in the past, their continuing reality in the present, and the promise of their consummation in the eschatological future together create and inspire the covenant stipulations that define the contours of the believer’s life of faith.24 24  For representative Pauline statements of the divine provisions in the past, above all of Christ’s death on the cross, see Gal 2:20–21; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Rom 5:6–8; 6:8, etc. For the corresponding and inextricably linked provisions in the present, above all the powerful presence of the Spirit, see Gal 4:6; 5:5, 16, 22, 25; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:11; 12–14; 2 Cor 1:22; 3:3, 6, 17; 5:5; Rom 1:4; 5:5; 7:6; 8:2–4; 8:11–13, 26; 14:17; 15:13, etc., and the intercession of Christ: Rom 4:25; 8:34; 14:9. And for the divine promises for the future, above all the promises of justification on the day of judgment and of resurrection in the kingdom of God, see 1 Thess 2:12; 4:14–18; Gal 2:16; 5:5, 21; 1 Cor 6:9–10, 14; 15:12–28, 50; 2 Cor 4:14, 17–18; 5:6–10; Phil 3:11, 20–21; Rom 2:15–16; 5:9–10; 6:5; 8:23, 30, etc.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

15

Within the structure of the covenant relationship, whether “old” or “new,” the promises of God are therefore both unconditional in origin and conditional in realization. However, inasmuch as the ability to keep the new covenant is just as much a matter of God’s “apocalyptic” provisions of grace as its establishment, the commands of God do not become for Paul add-ons of secondary importance, contractual obligations between equal partners, or subsequent steps in a process of salvation, much less a call for self-actualization in accord with the pursuit of a new Christian “ethic.”25 In other words, the covenant relationship, as a dynamic, mutual relationship initiated and sustained by God’s sovereign election, is one of unconditional conditionality.26 To put it yet another way, the elements within the threefold covenant relationship are organically and inextricably interrelated (for just one example of this threefold structure in Paul’s argument, see 1 Cor 25  Cf. the insight of Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 103, who rightly observes that many new perspective advocates of “covenantal nomism” consider law-keeping to be a distinct, independent response to God’s gracious election. Such a separation of God’s foundational, saving work (the covenant prologue) from its subsequent human counterpart (the covenant stipulations) creates a synergism between the segregated spheres of the divine and human covenant activity that once again leads to a sense of merit or pride on the part of the faithful. In doing so, it simply shifts the salvific location of “legalism” from “getting in” to “staying in.” For as Campbell points out, in Sanders’s view the giving of the covenant in the past only establishes the “possibility of salvation,” i. e., establishing the covenant is “a moment of divine, if contractually limited generosity” (p. 103). There is therefore not a great deal that separates covenantal nomism from legalism “in strictly theoretical terms” (p. 104). “In short, it seems that the essential theoretical differences between covenantal nomism and legalism have effectively collapsed,” since both are contractual (i. e., conditional) (p. 104). However, in my view, the existence of covenant stipulations per se does not render the covenant “contractual” if the divine provisions that established the covenant continue on in bringing about the maintenance of the covenant. 26 Though beyond the scope of this study, it is my contention that the covenant relationship, the nature and structure of which Paul inherited from the Scriptures, provides the determinative context for understanding the meaning and referents of χάρις and πίστις in Paul’s thought, which he developed in ways that both corresponded to and challenged their Hellenistic usage. Hence, χάρις (cf. χαρίζομαι/χάρισμα) in Pauline usage refers to an undeserved gift that establishes, entails, and effects obligations. Its bestowal thus creates and reflects a relationship of mutuality. Πίστις (cf. πιστεύω/πιστός), as the human response elicited by God’s grace and secured by God’s own faithfulness, is, for Paul, an active, volitional dependence/faithfulness within a relationship of mutual interdependence. As such, πίστις is organically and inextricably linked to inherently corresponding behaviors and general orientations of life. In regard to my construal of “grace” and “faith,” I look forward to thinking through the defining works of John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) and James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, WUNT 2/172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) on the one hand, and of Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), Thomas Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις, BBB 168 (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2012), and the extensive collection of essays in Glaube: Das Verständnis des Glaubens im frühen Christentum und in seiner jüdischen und hellenistisch-römischen Umwelt, eds. Jörg Frey, Benjamin Schliesser, and Nadine Ueberschaer, with the assistance of Kathrin Hager, WUNT 373 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), on the other.

16

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

6:9–11). So, from Paul’s biblically-informed perspective, a divine-human synergism within the covenant relationship is impossible. Nor are there for Paul two distinct ways of relating to God, as if trust or dependence on God’s provisions (faith) could somehow be kept distinct from keeping God’s commands (obedience). Within the threefold covenant structure that informs Paul’s thought, “Getting In,” “Staying In,” and “Remaining In” are all brought about by God’s era-changing, life-transforming, elective grace, now manifest in the inauguration of the new covenant of the new creation of the new age.

Covenant Eschatology The purpose of the following studies is to trace out how this fundamental, eschatological perspective, which centered on the relationship between the old and new covenants, is expressed and developed in the polarities that populate Paul’s thinking. The thesis to be defended is that, once put in their eschatological, covenant context, the Pauline polarities should not be construed as material contrasts between two different ways of relating to God (e. g., a Law-way vs. a Gospel-way, a Torah-way vs. a Promise-way, a works-way vs. a faith-way, a sin-way vs. a grace-way, a Moses-way vs. an Abraham‑ or Christ-way, or an Israel-way vs. a church-way, etc.). Rather, these polarities, both individually and when taken together, represent an eschatological contrast between the purposes of God within the two historical epochs that frame the history of redemption. Furthermore, although for Paul the “old” and “new covenants” correspond to the old and new ages respectively, the structure of the covenant relationship itself has remained the same in both eras. The provisions, stipulations, and blessings/ curses established under the old covenant are not replaced or reconfigured under the new, but further inaugurated and ultimately consummated. For as Jer 31:31– 34 and Ezek 36:26–27 make clear, and Paul will confirm, the inadequacy with the old covenant was not in the structure of the covenant itself, but in the character of all but a faithful remnant of its covenant members. The contrast between the covenants is eschatological in relationship to the redemption and restoration of God’s people, not material in regard to the covenants’ respective structure, expectations, or promises.27 The new covenant does not contain a new covenant 27  For an extensive presentation of the contrary view, see A. Andrew Das, Paul, The Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001) and my review of his work in Trinity Journal 25 (2004) 264–267, from which what follows is taken. Das argues that both post-70 apocalyptic Judaism and Paul had abandoned the “gracious framework” of covenantal nomism, so that stripped of their covenant context the commands of the Law “come to the fore” as demands that must be kept perfectly (or nearly so) to be saved. Unable to be kept, they “emerge as problematic” in their call for obedience and the corresponding threat of God’s curse for failing to do so (p. 7). Without its covenant context, all that remains for Paul is the Law’s rigorous and difficult demand for perfect obedience (as Sanders himself put it, a “ ‘legalistic perfectionism,’ ”

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

17

structure, but instead ratifies and renews the long-standing covenant relationship with God, which has been created anew by the long-awaited, eschatological deliverance of God’s people “from this present evil age” (Gal 1:4). Paul thus serves this new covenant reality, in which the new covenant prologue, stipulations, and promises have been inaugurated on the way to their consummation.28 p. 53 n. 38) and the glaring reality of Israel’s (and humanity’s) utter failure to meet it (Gal 3:10; Rom 1:18–2:29; pp. 8, 9, 53 and 53 n. 38, 140, 144, 162, 164, 168–171, 181–182, 187–190, 228). This thoroughgoing negative view of the Law’s demands, together with Paul’s solution of replacing both the old covenant and the covenant structure as such with Christ, means that Paul’s own experience and theological creativity is the source for conceptualizing both the problem with the Law and its solution. “While first-century Judaism was certainly not legalistic in its understanding of the law, Paul’s own perspective led, nevertheless, to an understanding of the works of the Mosaic law as a merely human endeavor in contrast to God’s own saving activity in Christ” (p. 11, emphasis mine; cf. p. 209). Like Sanders before him, Das admits that few Jews would recognize this opposition between works of the Law and grace, but Paul creates this contrast due to his Christology – because Christ saves and not the law, the law becomes human works (Rom 4:4–5) and “nothing more” (p. 213 n. 75). Following Sanders, Das too therefore emphasizes that for Paul “the problem runs in the opposite direction; it is not worksrighteousness driving Paul’s thought, but Christology emptying the law of its gracious significance” (p. 242 n. 29). Again following Sanders’s lead, Das thus concludes that “Paul seems to be demolishing a ‘straw man’ when he claims that the Jews are pursuing the law on the basis of its works … The problem is that Paul views the matter from a radically christological perspective … In the Pauline framework of understanding, the law without Christ is a merely human endeavor … It is not that Jewish theology was a theology driven by human achievement of the law. It is just that human achievement of the law is all that is left of Jewish theology once its gracious framework has been torn down and reconstructed in Christ” (p. 251 and 251 n. 70, emphasis his). Regarding Das’s positon, see too, p. 209 n. 2 and p. 225 n. 39 below. 28 For a clarifying contrast to the line of argument being proposed here, presented in the context of the main lines of contemporary Pauline scholarship and their most well-known proponents, see now Francis Watson’s, “The Apostle Who Reads: In Dialogue with My Critics,” as the introduction to his Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, rev. ed., Cornerstones Series (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), xix–lxi. Watson views “Paul’s faith/works antithesis as rooted in scripture, not just in the polemical contingencies of the moment” (p. liii) and outlines a nine point argument for distinguishing both in Scripture and in Paul’s thought between the certain, “unconditional” promise to Abraham and the “conditional” promises of the law (pp. liv–lv). Hence, in line with the unconditional promise to Abraham, Christian “salvation is ‘unconditional’ insofar as the promise of salvation has already been fulfilled in the Christevent” (p. liv). In response to the unconditional, salvific promise to Abraham, now fulfilled in Christ, Watson must thus also conclude that faith “is not a ‘condition’ of (future) salvation, as though divine and human agency could be set over against one another, each occupying a distinct sphere of its own” (pp. liv–lv). Rather, “ ‘Faith’ is the human life-act that corresponds to and participates in the divine act in Christ (cf. Gal 2:20)” (pp. liv). Moreover, “the conditional, law-like statements” that Paul makes “about salvation in its individual and future aspects” must be read in the context of the reality of the Spirit, so that here too “human conduct does not fall outside the sphere of the divine act (cf. Gal 6:7–8; Rom 8:13)” (p. lv). Watson’s view, shared by many, thus collapses the threefold covenant structure with regard to Abraham by equating the covenant prologue with the covenant promises and eliminating the covenant stipulations altogether, thereby downsizing faith as somehow free from and in contrast to obedience to “lawlike statements” (p. iv). He also identifies the unconditional nature of covenant prologues, true also of the Mosaic covenant (see, e. g., the transition from Exod 19:4 to 19:5–6 and 20:2 to 20:3), with the stipulation-based covenant promises, though he is right to emphasize the Spirit’s work

18

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

Appendix One: Pauline Polarities I. Romans A. History of Salvation, Eschatological Contrasts Old Age

New Age

ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ  Ἰουδαῖος

ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ  Ἰουδαῖος (Rom 2:28–29)

ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτοµή (γράµµατι)

περιτοµὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύµατι οὐ γράµµατι (Rom 2:28–29)

ὁ ἔπαινος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων

ὁ ἔπαινος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom 2:29)

µαρτυρουµένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόµου

νυνὶ χωρὶς νόµου (Rom 3:21)

διὰ νόµου τῶν ἔργων

διὰ νόµου πίστεως (Rom 3:27)

ἐν τῇ σαρκί, διὰ τοῦ νόµου,

ὑµεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόµῳ, γενέσθαι τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι, νυνὶ κατηργήθηµεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόµεθα (Rom 7:4, 6)

ὁ νόµος τῆς ἁµαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόµου διὰ τῆς σαρκός

ὁ νόµος τοῦ πνεύµατος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ

 Ἰσραὴλ διώκων νόµον δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόµον οὐκ ἔφθασεν ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων

ἔθνη τὰ µὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως

(ὁ νόµος)

(Rom 8:2–3)

(Rom 9:30–32)

τέλος νόµου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Rom 10:4)

B. The Related Anthropological Contrasts Negative

Positive

———

ὑποκοὴ πίστεως (Rom 1:5)

οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόµου

οἱ ποιηταὶ νόµου (Rom 2:13)

µὴ ἔχοντες νόµον

τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόµου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις (Rom 2:15)

in bringing about faith-obedience. One must question, however, the consequent downsizing of human agency in Watson’s construal. He likewise fails to recognize that statements like that found in Lev 18:5 contain two-thirds of the covenant structure (stipulation and promise), which must always be related to their often presupposed covenant prologues. Finally, as we will argue below, the views represented by Watson fail to recognize the eschatological nature of Paul’s contrast between the “works of the law” and the “faith of Christ” (Gal 2:16), in which the contrasting designations are not materially distinct, but metonymies for their respective covenants and salvation-historical eras.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

19

Negative

Positive

καυχᾶσαι ἐν νόµῳ, παραβάσις τοῦ νόµου

περιτοµὴ ὠφελεῖ, πράσσω νόµον

παραβάτης νόµου

περιτοµὴ ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν (Rom 2:25)

ἡ ἀκροβυστία

φυλάσσω τὰ δικαιώµατα τοῦ νόµου ἡ ἀκροβυστία εἰς περιτοµὴν λογισθήσεται (Rom 2:26)

ὁ διὰ γράµµατος καὶ περιτοµῆς παραβάτην νόµου

ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόµον τελοῦσα (Rom 2:27)

(ἔργα νόµου)

δικαιόω πίστει χωρὶς ἔργων νόµου (Rom 3:28)

ἐργάζοµαι

πιστεύω (Rom 4:3–5)

ὁ µισθὸς κατὰ ὀφείληµα

ὁ µισθὸς κατὰ χάριν (Rom 4:4)

καρποφορήσαι τῷ θανάτῳ

καρποφορήσαι τῷ θεῷ (Rom 7:4–5)

δουλεύειν παλαιότητι γράµµατος

δουλεύειν ἡµᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύµατος

τὸ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς τῷ νόµῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ δύναται

τὸ δικαίωµα τοῦ νόµου πληροῖ ἐν ἡµῖν τοῖς περιπατοῦσιν κατὰ πνεῦµα

(Rom 2:23, 25)

(Rom 7:6)

(Rom 8:4–7)

II. 2 Corinthians A. History of Salvation, Eschatological Contrasts Old Age

New Age

ἐγγεγραµµένη µέλανι

πνεύµατι θεοῦ ζῶντος (2 Cor 3:3)

ἐγγεγραµµένη ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις

ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις (2 Cor 3:3)

παλαιὰ διαθήκη

καινὴ διαθήκη (2 Cor 3:6, 14)

γράµµα (ἀποκτέννει)

πνεῦµα (ζῳοποιεῖ) (2 Cor 3:6)

ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράµµασιν ἐντετυπωµένη λίθοις

ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύµατος

ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως

ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης (2 Cor 3:9)

τὸ καταργούµενον

τὸ µένον (2 Cor 3:11)

(2 Cor 3:7–8)

B. The Related Anthropological Contrasts Negative

Positive

ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήµατα αὐτῶν τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυµµα … µένει κάλυµµα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται

οὗ τὸ πνεῦµα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία ἡµεῖς πάντες ἀνακεκαλυµµένῳ προσώπῳ … καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύµατος (2 Cor 3:14–18)

20

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

III. Galatians A. History of Salvation, Eschatological Contrasts Old Age

New Age

δικαιοῦµαι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου

δικαιοῦµαι διὰ (ἐκ) πίστεως  Ἰ. Χ. (Gal 2:16)

δικαιοσύνη (οὐ) διὰ νόµου

Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν, χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (Gal 2:21)

τὸ πνεῦµα (οὐκ) ἐλάβετε ἐξ ἔργων νόµου

τὸ πνεῦµα ἐλάβετε ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως (Gal 3:2, 5)

ἐξ ἔργων νόµου = ὑπὸ κατάραν οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται ἐν νόµῳ

ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (Gal 3:10–11)

ὁ νόµος

ἐκ πίστεως (Gal 3:12)

ἡ κατάρα τοῦ νόµου

ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ  Ἀβραὰµ ἐν Χ. Ἰ. ἡ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ πνεύµατος διὰ πίστεως

ἡ κληρονοµία (οὐ) ἐκ νόµου

ἡ κληρονοµία ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας τῷ  Ἀβραάµ

πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὑπὸ νόμον

πίστις ἀπεκαλύφθη

ὁ νόµος παιδαγωγὸς ἡµῶν εἰς Χριστόν

δικαιοῦµαι ἐκ πίστεως

νήπιος, δοῦλος, ὑπὸ νόµον, στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου ἤµεθα δεδουλωµένοι (cf. Gal 4:9–10!)

τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ χρόνου ἦλθεν, υἱοί, υἱοθεσία, τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡµῶν, κληρονόµος διὰ θεοῦ

(Gal 3:13–14) (Gal 3:18) (Gal 3:23) (Gal 3:24)

(Gal 4:1–7)

εἷς υἱὸς ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης

εἷς υἱὸς ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας (Gal 4:22)

ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται

ὁ δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας γεγέννηται

µία διαθήκη ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα

ἡ ἄνω  Ἰερουσαλὴµ ἐστὶν ἐλευθέρα, ἥτις ἐστιν µήτηρ ἡµῶν (Gal 4:24–26)

ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθείς

ὁ κατὰ πνεῦµα γεννηθείς, κατὰ  Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα (Gal 4:28–29)

ὑπὸ νόµον

ἄγω πνεύµατι (Gal 5:18)

(Gal 4:23; cf. 4:30–31)

B. The Related Anthropological Contrasts Negative

Positive

διὰ νόµου νόµῳ ἀπέθανον

ζήσω θεῷ (Gal 2:19)

σάρξ

πνεῦµα (Gal 3:3)

περιτέµνησθε, ζυγὸς δουλείας ὀφειλέτης ποιῆσαι ὅλον τὸν νόµον

Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν ἡµᾶς ἐλευθερίᾳ (Gal 5:1–3)

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

Negative

Positive

δικαιοῦσθε ἐν νόµῳ ἐξεπέσατε τῆς χάριτος

Χριστός (χάρις), πνεῦµα, ἐκ πίστεως (Gal 5:4)

ἔργα τῆς σαρκός

ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύµατος (Gal 5:19, 22)

περιτοµὴ οὔτε ἀκροβυστία

πίστις δι� ἀγάπης ἐνεργουµένη (Gal 5:6)

περιτοµὴ οὔτε ἀκροβυστία

καινὴ κτίσις (Gal 6:15)

21

Appendix Two: The “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 The first thing to note concerning the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31–34 is its purpose.29 The establishment of a “new” covenant is the divinely promised solution to the perennial problem of Israel’s hard-hearted rebellion against YHWH, which, according to Jeremiah, continues to characterize the people as a whole. In Jeremiah’s present situation, therefore, not even the intercession of a Moses, not to mention Jeremiah himself, can avert God’s wrath in the looming judgment of the exile (Jer 15:1; cf. 9:12–16; 11:14; 14:11). For as Jer 7:25–26 declares,

29 This summary of the meaning of the new covenant reproduces, with minor modifications, clarifications, and abridgment, my study in Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 129–135. For a detailed examination of the promise of the new covenant from Jer 31:31–34 within its canonical context (and its relationship to Ezek 11 and 36), in which it is maintained that this promise occupies the very center of the OT canon, representing as it does the “perspektivische Fluchtpunkt” of the OT (a point of departure which lies in the future!), see still Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). Levin’s central thesis is that the promise of the new covenant combines with YHWH’s fundamental promise to Israel that “I am the Lord, your God” to encompasses and expound all of the promises of the OT (p. 12). Furthermore, the Torah functions in Jer 31:31–34 as the concretizing of the covenant relationship and is therefore re-applied to Israel’s history in the light of her previous breaking of that covenant (cf. p. 132). Hence, the promise of Jer 31:31–34 is to bring the Torah back to its original purpose, namely, to renew the relationship of Israel and Judah to YHWH, which has been destroyed (p. 132). Finally, Levin stresses the importance of the promise of forgiveness in Jer 31:34 as that which makes the new covenant presence of God and consequent relationship with his people possible (pp. 134, 138). Levin therefore concludes that it is impossible to read the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31 as something qualitatively new in contrast to the past; it is rather a renewal of what God had already revealed and promised concerning his intended relationship with Israel, but which had been lost due to Israel’s history of unfaithfulness (cf. pp. 138–141 for Levin’s word study of ‫ חדשׁה‬and conclusions in this regard). The covenant promised in Jer 31 is “new” in the sense that it is a radical break with the past, but it is not new in its structure, content, or purpose. In this latter case it is a “renewal” (cf. pp. 140–141). These central points of Levin’s work undergird the position argued here.

22

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all my servants, the prophets, daily rising early and sending them. Yet they did not listen to me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did evil more than their fathers.30

Despite the opportunity to repent offered to the nation (Jer 26:1–3; 36:1–3, 7, etc.), there is therefore no longer any hope for the people in their present condition. As their responses and the responses of their leaders demonstrate (Jer 26:8–11; 36:23–25), they will not, indeed in view of their hardened condition cannot repent so that God might forgive them (Jer 36:31). What is needed is nothing less than a “new covenant” provision in which Israel will be decisively changed in her relationship to God. As the wider context confirms, the adjective “new” in Jer 31:31 thus points to an eschatological reality yet to be fulfilled, which Jeremiah holds forth as Israel’s only ultimate hope after the destruction of the exile (Jer 31:1–30, 35–40).31 Jeremiah 31:31–34 consequently looks to a future in which Israel’s present state of rebellious “stubbornness” will no longer determine her covenantal relationship. Jeremiah’s twofold call in 1:10 to break down and destroy as well as to plant and build up is therefore fulfilled in his preaching of destruction on the one hand, and in his promise of a “new covenant” restoration of God’s people on the other (cf. Jer 1:10 with its promised fulfillment in Jer 24:6–7 and 31:28). Second, the nature of this “new covenant” is described in Jer 31:32–33 by contrasting it to the Mosaic/Sinai covenant established at the exodus with the fathers.32 This former covenant is rehearsed in Jer 11:3–5, followed by the grim news that both the fathers “in the day that I brought them up from the land of Egypt” (Jer 11:7) and the Israel and Judah of Jeremiah’s own day (Jer 11:9–10; cf. 22:9–10) have broken this covenant “in the stubbornness of their evil heart” (Jer 11:8). As a result, they stand under the wrath and judgment of God (Jer 11:11). According to Jer 31:32 the essential difference between the new covenant and the Sinai covenant is therefore not the establishment of a new type of covenant, but the fact that the new covenant will not be broken, even though, as a “father” to them under the Sinai covenant, God had remained faithful to his covenant

30  For the motif of the “stubbornness” (‫ )שׁררות‬of Israel’s evil heart in relationship to the perpetual disobedience of the people, see Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 13:10; 16:12; 17:23; 18:12; 19:15; 23:17. 31  Cf. Rudolf Schrieber, Der Neue Bund im Spätjudentum und Urchristentum, Diss. Tübingen, 1954, 8–9, who also points out that “new” in this context is eschatological, as the word “behold” (‫ )הנה‬in v. 31 indicates, which is used to introduce warnings or promises for the future. 32  Though scholars such as S. Herrmann and L. Perlitt have argued that the former covenant in view in Jer 31:32–33 is some pre-exodus covenant, the reference to the exodus in Jer 31:32 seems decisive for seeing it as the Sinai covenant, especially in view of the parallel passage in 11:1–6, in which the “fathers” are specifically identified as those of the exodus generation. Cf. the helpful article by Helga Weippert, “Das Wort vom Neuen Bund in Jeremia xxxi 31–34,” VT 29 (1979): 336–337 for this latter position.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

23

commitments. In short, the new covenant is an “everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten” (Jer 50:5).33 The reason for this confidence concerning the new covenant is then given in v. 33 (note the ‫ כי‬in v. 33a; ὅτι in LXX 38:33a). Unlike the Sinai covenant, the new covenant will not be broken because God declares that in this new covenant he will place his law “within them” (‫ )בקרבם‬or “in their mind” (εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν34) and “write it on their heart” (‫ ;על לבם אכתבנה‬ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς). The preferred LXX MS tradition of Jer 38:33 reads the plural, “laws” (νόμους μου … αὐτούς), thus recognizing that it is obedience to the covenant stipulations of the Torah, not the covenant per se, that is in view. Such a writing of the (commands of the) Torah on the people’s hearts is the counterpart and reversal of the present situation in which the sin of Judah is “written down with an iron stylus; with a diamond point it is engraved upon the tablet of their heart” (Jer. 17:1). In the context of Israel’s stubborn rebellion from the exodus onward, a motif repeated throughout Jeremiah,35 this can only mean that under the new covenant Israel’s rebellious nature will be fundamentally transformed so that her hardened disobedience is replaced with an open obedience to God’s covenant stipulations.36 When read against the backdrop of Jeremiah as a whole, this is the point of God’s declaration in v. 33 that he will “put (his) law within them” and its synonymous expression in v. 33 that he will “write it on their heart.”37 The law “within” and “written on the heart” are images for a people who accept God’s law as their own and obey it willingly, rather than repulse it as foreign to them and obey it either grudgingly or not at all.38 33 As William J. Dumbrell observes, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 90, “What is ‘new’ is the avoidance of the fallibility of the old covenant … Yahweh had maintained his fidelity to that earlier commitment in spite of Israel’s unceasing provocations. In the new arrangement both parties would be loyal.” Dumbrell points to Deut 6:4–5; 10:16; 11:18 to show that the law was always intended to be in the heart, and to Ps 40:8; Isa 51:7 to show that doing the will of God depends on the placing of the law in the heart (pp. 91–92). Hence, “Jer 31:33 may plausibly be viewed as simply saying Yahweh is returning to the idealism of the Sinai period in the New Covenant relationship” (p. 92). 34  This translation corresponds to the predominant OT use of the “heart” as representing one’s intellectual and rational functions; cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 46, 51. 35  For the point that the covenant people and their leaders have continued to break the covenant, see Jer 2:8; 5:31; 6:13, 17; 10:21; 14:18; 23:13–14; 27:16; 28:2, etc. 36  See again Wolff, Anthropology, 43–46, 51–54, where he outlines the use of the “heart” as the inward place where one’s vital decisions of the will are made and as that which represents one’s driving desires and longings. 37  For the development of this theme, see Weippert, “Wort vom Neuen Bund,” 339–346, where she develops the theme of Israel’s hardened condition and lack of knowledge throughout Jeremiah in order to demonstrate that the new covenant promise is the answer to this need for a change in Israel’s condition (see Jer 2:21–22; 5:20–25; 8:7; 13:23; 14:22; 17:1; 18:13–15a, etc.). Weippert concludes: “das ins Herz geschriebene Gesetz bedeutet eine grundlegende Veränderung des Menschen” (p. 339). 38 So too William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet

24

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

The promise of the “new covenant” provision in Jer 31:31–34 is thus the divine response to Israel’s inability and failure to heed his call that they “circumcise (themselves) to the Lord and remove the foreskins of (their) heart” (Jer 4:4). Apart from the divine work of transforming Israel’s heart, Israel will suffer God’s punishment against “all those who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised,” since “all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart” (Jer 9:25–26; cf. 4:4b and Deut 10:16). Indeed, Weippert argues that against the backdrop of Israel’s hardness as portrayed throughout Jeremiah the promise of the new covenant indicates such a “thoroughgoing change of the person, that one may speak of a new creation.” Hence, unlike the consequence of the covenant at Sinai, the “new covenant” will be characterized by the eschatological realization of the covenantal relationship between God and his people in which God declares, in the covenant formulary signaling this restoration, “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Jer 31:33c).39 Third, the movement of thought from Jer 31:32 to 33 reveals that in the new covenant, as in the Sinai covenant, it is keeping the (commands of the) Torah in response to God’s prior act of redemption (cf. Jer 31:1–30) that maintains the covenant relationship between God and his people. Rather than declaring that the law is somehow negated or done away with in the new covenant, Jer 31:31–33 emphasizes just the opposite. There is no indication in this text, or in Jeremiah as a whole, that the future eschatological restoration will entail the giving of a new Torah or that the commandments of the law are now being conceived of only in an abstract sense as a revelation of the general will of God.40 The “law written on the heart” is the Sinai Torah itself. The contrast between the Sinai covenant and the new covenant is not between a covenant with and without stipulations; nor is it a contrast between two different kinds of stipulations. The contrast between the two covenants is between the two different conditions of the people who are Jeremiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 198, who points out that the law in the heart “is commonly understood as Yahweh’s move to plant his law within the interior intentionality of the people, so that obedience becomes natural,” which “is certainly a strong emphasis in the passage.” 39  On the significance of this full version of the “covenant formula” (i. e., “I will be God for you” and “You shall be a people for me”), see Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 11 n. 4; 13, 46, 50, 58–59, 68, 83, 89–90, who points out that the full form occurs in only two contexts: either in regard to the establishment of the covenant (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; 26:17, 19; 29:12[13]) or in regard to its restoration (Jer 24:7; 31:31–34; 32:38–40; Ezek 11:20; 36:26–28; 37:21–23; 34:24). 40 Again, the LXX tradition that reads the plural νόμους in Jer 38:33 underscores this point. Cf. too Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 217 n. 22, who follows the work of H. W. Wolf and R. P. Carroll in pointing out that, “In Jeremiah’s prophecy, the problem with the old covenant lies in the disobedience of the people, not in some inherent deficiency of the Mosaic Law.” Hays observes that in Jer 31 even the terminology of “new covenant” indicates “a positive correlation” between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

25

brought into these covenants and their correspondingly different responses to the same law, which is given to both as their respective covenant stipulations.41 Finally, v. 34 indicates both the result of this new covenant transformation of God’s people and its ultimate ground. Regarding the former, the new heart which is promised as essential to the new covenant provides the conceptual transition from v. 33 to v. 34 since in OT anthropology the “heart” (‫ )לב‬is not only the seat of volition and desire, but also the organ most often associated with the function of understanding and intellectual knowledge. In Wolff’s words, … there is an easy transition in the use of the word from the functions of the understanding to the activity of the will. The Israelite finds it difficult to distinguish linguistically between “perceiving” and “choosing,” between “hearing” and “obeying” … Thus the heart is at once the organ of understanding and of will.42

Thus, since God’s law will be written on their hearts, the people of the new covenant will no longer need to be taught by their fellow Israelite to “know” the Lord in that they will all know him directly. Reflecting the unity between “perceiving” and “obeying,” the consequence of having their “hearts” transformed, therefore, will be the overturning of the lack of trust and deceit that once characterized relationships between brothers and neighbors within the covenant community, in which they did not teach the truth but spoke lies to one another and, through their deceit, “refuse to know” the Lord (Jer 9:4–6). Moreover, under the new covenant there will no longer be any distinction within the community between those who do and do not have a transformed heart: they will all know the Lord. By definition, all those who belong to the new covenant community do so by virtue of their transformed heart. The new covenant community will be a community of covenant-keepers. Unlike the role performed by the prophets and the faithful remnant within Israel during the era of the Sinai covenant, there will thus be no need to admonish one’s “neighbor” within the new covenant community to know the Lord. Here too, as with the “Torah written on the heart,” it is not as if the knowledge of God made known 41 Contra Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 197, who maintains that the new covenant implies that YHWH “had learned something from the failure of the old covenant,” referring to Jer 2:5, since the new covenant does not have “the defects of the old one” and YHWH “could improve on the old one.” But Jer 2:5–8, like Jer 31:32, points to YHWH’s covenant faithfulness and faultlessness, thus emphasizing that the problem lies clearly with the people. 42  Wolf, Anthropology, 51. Cf. pp. 46–47, where he points to passages like Deut 29:3 to illustrate that the heart is “destined for understanding” and Prov 15:14 and Ps 90:12 to show that the “essential business” of the heart is to seek knowledge and wisdom. It is understandable, then, that references to the “heart” occur most often in the Wisdom literature (99 times in Proverbs; 42 times in Ecclesiastes), and second in the “strongly didactic Deuteronomy” (51 times) (p. 47). As that which describes “the seat and function of reason,” the “heart” “includes everything that we ascribe to the head and the brain – power of perception, reason, understanding, insight, consciousness, memory, knowledge, reflection, judgment, sense of direction, discernment. These things circumscribe the real core of meaning of the word ‫( ”לב‬p. 51).

26

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

in the new covenant has been altered or intensified or made more real or easier to comprehend. Instead, God will renew the people’s moral ability to encounter God directly, whereas under the Sinai covenant, beginning with the sin of the golden calf, the glory of God had to be veiled from the people due to their sinful, “stiff-necked” state in order to protect them from destruction (cf. Jer 7:26 and 19:15 with Exod 32:9–10; 33:3, 5; 34:9, 29–35; Deut 9:6, 13 on the one hand, and the many parallels between Deut 32 and Jeremiah on the other).43 Holladay even suggests that the emphasis on the law’s being placed “within (‫ )קרב‬them” recalls the emphasis on Jerusalem within the land in Jer 6:1 and on the temple within the city in Jer 6:6, so that this aspect of the new covenant promise also suggests a renewed worship of the Lord within the temple of the holy city.44 If so, then the emphasis on the direct knowledge of God would take on the connotation of approaching God’s presence in worship without fear of judgment. This renewed relationship with God and access to his presence is why the foundation of the new covenant is the fact that, despite Israel’s past rebellion, God will “remember their sin no more” (cf. the ‫ כי‬in v. 34b).45 The changed condition of God’s people, with its resultant obedience to the covenant, together with their renewed access to the knowledge and worship of God, are based upon the divine forgiveness that makes the new covenant possible. By way of summary, the argument of Jer 31:31–34 can be separated into its constituent propositions, with the logic between them made explicit in italics, as follows: v. 31

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

v. 32a

Specifically, I will not make it like the covenant which I made with their fathers …

v. 32b since they broke this covenant of mine v. 32c

even though I was a husband to them,” declaresthe Lord.

v. 33a

“The reason the new covenant will be different in this regard (‫)כי‬ is that this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their heart.

v. 33b The result of this new covenant will be that I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 43  See Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 39, who argues that the phrase “stiffen the neck” in Jer 7:26; 19:15 is an adaptation of the description of Moses’s generation from Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:6, 13; on pp. 54–56 Holladay also lists the nine persuasive and eight suggestive parallels to Deut 32 from throughout Jeremiah in support of the conclusion that the terminology of Israel’s hardness and rejection of YHWH derives from these prior biblical traditions (p. 55). 44  Jeremiah 2, 198, pointing to Ps 46:5–6 and 55:11–12. 45  Weippert, “Wort vom Neuen Bund,” 338 emphasizes that this ‫ כי‬is the supposition upon which everything else in the argument rests.

Introduction: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective

v. 34a

The ultimate consequence of this new covenant relationship in which I am their God and they are my people is that they shall not teach again each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’

v. 34b because (‫ )כי‬they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord. v. 34c

“The basis for all of this (‫ )כי‬is that I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

27

Part One

The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Chapter One

“Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective (Galatians 3:6–14) Scripture is filled with antitheses. It belongs to a clever person to discern the antitheses in the ­Scriptures and through them to be enabled to interpret the Scriptures. Luther, Lectures and Commentary on ­Galatians 1531/15351

Luther was a very “clever person.” And his views of the antitheses in Scripture did become programmatic hermeneutically. We thus begin our own study of the Pauline contrasts between the old and new covenants by comparing our respective readings of Gal 3:6–14, a paramount passage in this regard that was central to Luther’s law/gospel paradigm. The framework for this comparison will be Tim Wengert’s analysis of Luther’s exegesis of this pivotal text.2 Wengert’s insightful study reminds us that to understand such a formative thinker we must suspend disbelief in order not to impose our own critical judgments on a deceased “saint” who cannot defend himself (p. 91). Unfortunately, the sustained critique of the “Lutheran” paradigm since 1977 has often rendered “Luther” merely an exegetical-theological foil, the contemporary equivalent of Marcion.3 At the 1  Luther, Lectures and Commentary on Galatians 1531/1535; WA 40/1:391.17–19, quoted by Timothy Wengert, “Martin Luther on Galatians 3:6–14: Justification by Curses and Blessings,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 107. 2 “Martin Luther on Galatians 3:6–14,” in Galatians and Christian Theology, 91–116. An earlier version of this present chapter appeared originally in that same volume as “Yaein: Yes and No to Luther’s Reading of Galatians 3:6–14,” 117–131. “Yaein” is a phonetic contraction of the German ya und nein, “yes and no.” All quotations from Wengert’s essay will be given in the body of the text. 3  As is well known, this critique takes its impetus from the criticism of Luther’s perspective on Paul levied by the Lutheran bishop, Krister Stendahl, in his Paul Among Jews and Gentiles And Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976 [part of which is based on lectures delivered in 1963–1964]), esp. pp. 12–13, 79–80, 85–88. This criticism was subsequently brought to the fore in a way impossible to ignore by E. P. Sanders’s work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), though Sanders prefers to speak of Reformation-influenced misunderstandings of both Judaism and Paul and mentions Luther only five times (according to the index). N. T. Wright was then the first to see the significance of Sanders’s work for

32

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

same time, and in view of the Gadamarian “melting of the horizons” (Horizontverschmelzung), the opposite is true as well. Since within the Reformation tradition Luther’s works are considered by many to be virtually sacred, we must also strive to suspend our belief in order to avoid being unduly swayed by the power of our heritage or the peer pressure of our contemporary communities, which often lionize Luther as the Protestant church Father.4 Consequently, for many, quoting Luther’s view of the law/gospel contrast is functionally often on a par with quoting Scripture.5 Faced with having to navigate between such a rock and a hard place, Wengert helps us to hear Luther himself.

Luther’s Reading of Galatians 3:6–14 Wengert’s analysis spans from Luther’s 1519 Argumentum regarding Galatians, with its blend of university-trained exegetical skills and a new “theological mode of speaking” (modus loquendi theologicus), to the monastery-like “homiletical style” of the 1535 Galatians commentary, in which the exposition of a text reached its goal when it directly impacted its readers through “the living voice of the gospel” (viva vox evangelii) (pp. 92, 97, 104). By spanning this corpus, Wengert’s exegesis of Luther’s exegesis underscores afresh that the interpretive key to Luther’s 1519 exegetical-theological reading of Gal 3:6–14, as well as its later meditative applications in 1535, was Luther’s antithetical and offering a “new perspective on … Pauline problems,” in his essay, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynB 29 (1978) 61–88, esp. pp. 64, 77–84 (now in Wright’s, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 3–20), as acknowledged by J. D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What, Whither?,” in his The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, WUNT 185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 6–7 n. 24. 4  Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 290. In his words, p. 279, “Die Stellung zwischen Fremdheit und Vertrautheit, die die Überlieferung für uns hat, ist das Zwischen zwischen der historisch gemeinten, abständigen Gegenständlichkeit und der Zugehörigkeit zu einer Tradition. In diesem Zwischen ist der wahre Ort der Hermeneutik” (emphasis his). 5 See, e. g., the “Editors’ Preface” to the Lutheran Concordia Commentary series in A. Andrew Das, Galatians, Concordia Commentary (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014), x–xii: “To be sure, the authors and editors do not feel bound to agree with every detail of the exegesis of our Lutheran forefathers” (p. xii); on the other hand, the convictions of the commentary series “describe the theological heritage of Martin Luther and of the confessors who subscribe to the Book of Concord (1580) … The editors and authors forthrightly confess their subscription to the doctrinal exposition of Scripture in the Book of Concord … (being) bound to doctrinal agreement with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions …” (p. xi, emphasis mine). Hence, “these commentaries expound Law and Gospel,” as “the overarching doctrines of the Bible itself,” which are viewed as a material “dialectic” that can also be “labeled” as the Scriptural dialectic between fallen creation and new creation, darkness and light, death and life, exile and return, Babylon and the new Jerusalem, ignorance and wisdom, guilt and righteousness, fear and joy, flesh and Spirit, being lost and found, etc., and even demon possession and the Kingdom of God (p. x).

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

33

anthropological understanding of Paul’s law/gospel contrasts. Accordingly, the significance of Luther’s interpretive legacy is not to be found in the specific details of his exegesis, but in his overall theological construction of these contrasts as that which became determinative not only for his biblical exposition, but also for his understanding of the Christian life. The law, for Luther, was a metonymy for any and all attempts to secure one’s righteousness before God through a reliance on one’s own active “ ‘works,’ ” which, by definition, were actions done “ ‘“from our own natural powers,” as the sophists call it, or even from God’s gift (for these kinds of righteousness of works are also God’s gift, as are all of our possessions)’ ”; the gospel, in contrast, represented the “ ‘completely passive righteousness,’ ” identified by Luther as “ ‘the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness … which God imputes to us through Christ apart from our works’ ” (pp. 95–96, quoting WA 40/1:40.28–30, 41.12–26).6 This antithesis between the effective, passive righteousness of faith, in which “ ‘we do nothing and render nothing to God, but we only receive and suffer another, namely God, to work in us,’ ” and the attempted, but failed, active righteousness of human works, is the key to understanding the many contrasting statements of Gal 3:6–14 (WA 41.12–26; pp. 95, 96).7 In Luther’s 1535 application of Gal 3:6–14 to human experience the law/gospel contrast between active works and passive faith was intended to produce “law that condemns and puts to death, and gospel that forgives and brings to life” (p. 104). This could lead to what Wengert calls Luther’s “delightful absurdity”: “ ‘If you have fulfilled the law [by works], you have not fulfilled it [by faith]; if you have not fulfilled it [by works], you have fulfilled it [by faith]’ ” 6  Cf. Wengert’s conclusion, p. 96, regarding Luther’s contrast between active/passive righteousness: “Thus, nearly twenty years after complaining about Erasmus’s approach to Paul and the law, Luther continues to view Galatians in light of the unconditional grace and mercy of God in Christ alone and not simply as a discussion of Jewish ceremonies.” 7  E. g., see Luther’s declaration in response to Gal 3:3: “ ‘The apostle is referring not only to ceremonial law but also to absolutely every law; for since faith alone justifies and does good works, it follows that absolutely no works of any law whatsoever justify, nor are the works of any law good, only those of faith’ ” (WA 2:508.12–15, quoted on p. 96). Luther thus took Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10 to refer to works-righteousness: “ ‘You hear from Moses that that one is cursed who does not do what has been written [in the law], and I at the same time have assumed that such are those who live from works’ ” (WA 2:514.39–40, from Galatians [1519]; quoted on p. 101). Wengert therefore concludes concerning Luther’s view of Gal 3:10–12: “Performing works of the law and keeping the law are, in Luther’s view of Paul, two separate things. The keeping of the law occurs only by faith, as Paul’s citation of Habakkuk 2:4 proves. Without faith the works of the law are death and unrighteous and thus do not ‘fulfill what is written’ (Deuteronomy 27:26)” (p. 101). So Gal 3:12 teaches that the law and faith are not the same: “ ‘Neither [the law] itself nor its works are from faith or with faith’ ” (WA 2:515.13–14, quoted, p. 101). Hence, Lev 18:5, quoted in Gal 3:12, was referring to keeping the law by outward appearances that seemed to fulfill the law in order to avoid punishment, while in reality the person was “dead toward God,” lacking true righteousness by faith (p. 101). For in Luther’s words, “ ‘That is, if we believe in [Christ], then the law is already fulfilled, and we are freed from the curse of the law’ ” (WA 2:516.33–36, quoted on p. 103).

34

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

(WA 40/1:397.31; p. 109). So the very claim to have kept the law meant that one was breaking it, since such a claim was an expression of relying on one’s own works, of trusting in one’s self and not in God (p. 109). As Wengert observes, “For Luther, it all comes down to the words ‘to do’ (as in the one who ‘does’ the law). Keeping the law, he argues, is not simply a matter of doing what is commanded but instead is a matter of the heart and thus keeping it completely … For him the verb ‘to do’ includes faith. ‘Therefore, when clearly and properly defined, the term ‘to do’ simply means to believe in Jesus Christ and, given that the Holy Spirit is received through faith in Christ, to do the things that are in the law,’ ” since the Spirit brings about obedience to God in the life of the believer (p. 109, emphasis Wengert, quoting WA 40/1:401.20–22). Central to Luther’s reading of Gal 3:10–14, therefore, was his rejection of the attempt, from Jerome to Erasmus, to downsize ἔργα νόμου in Paul’s writings to refer merely to an ancient Jewish or ceremonial subset of the Torah. To do so would domesticate Paul’s argument, separate it from all subsequent generations, and open the door to a moralistic view of the rest of the law which could then wrongly be considered to be Paul’s own understanding of the pathway to righteousness (p. 96). Instead, “works of the law” referred to “ ‘the deeds/works of the entire Decalogue’ ”; moreover, Luther took these works to be merely one expression of a righteousness based on works, whether Torah-based or not, so that Paul’s rejection of the “works of the law” was a rejection of any righteousness based on deeds (WA 1:70.25–32, quoted on p. 94). Read in this way, Paul’s polemic against the law as a basis for righteousness before God consequently remains relevant in eve­ ry age (p. 94). When placed in antithesis to the gospel, the active demands of the law were intended to force a person at all times to rely passively on a grace outside of him or herself, since to be without faith’s grace is to be under the law’s curse (p. 102, citing WA 2:516.21–22). In a stark departure from the tradition’s view of the law, “This insight – that the law was supposed to drive a person to Christ and to grace, so that each one could be stripped of works and merit and have only faith – drives Luther’s entire approach to the law in Paul” (p. 102). Luther’s law/gospel antithesis makes clear that in addition to its view of the law, he also rejected the medieval, scholastic understanding of faith. For the scholastics, faith was separated from the obedience of good works, so that faith, as the material component of righteousness, must be subsequently formed by love in order to be genuine (fides caritate formata). In contrast, faith, for Luther, was itself already a “formal righteousness” (iustitia formalis), so that there was no need to complete it by works of love (p. 111). “Instead, whatever is lacking in faith – now understood as trust in God (giving God his own) – is made up for in the divine imputation of Christ’s righteousness, where both are gifts from God, not human works” (p. 111). Proper interpretation of Paul consequently required a proper definition of Paul’s understanding of the “righteousness” that comes from God: iustitia was composed of two parts, faith in God and God’s

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

35

reckoning of faith as perfect righteousness, i. e., faith and imputation (pp. 111– 112). “Faith weakly attributes glory to God; God shores up this God-given faith with Christ’s righteousness” (p. 112). It is this necessary combination of an always weak faith and divine imputation that is reflected in Luther’s famous simul iustus et peccator. So Wengert: “Precisely in this situation ‘is the Christian person at the same time [simul] righteous and sinner, holy and profane, an enemy and son of God’ ” (p. 112, quoting WA 40/1:369.13). As the “point of proper exegesis,” this simul is the good news that consoles the afflicted (p. 112). Finally, and strikingly, Luther’s equation of “works of the law” with the law as a whole did not lead him to reject the latter, as often assumed, though for Luther the law was no longer needed as the sole or primary arbiter of good works. Rather, as referenced above regarding the Holy Spirit’s role in creating obedience in the life of the believer, Luther’s law/gospel contrast led him to conclude that “ ‘righteous people … by being made and being [righteous], do righteous deeds. First it is necessary for a person to be changed, then [come] works’ ” (from WA 1:70.25–32, quoted on p. 94).8 “ ‘But therefore,’ ” according to Gal 3:10, “ ‘the work of any law whatsoever is a sin and curse, if it is done outside of faith, that is, outside the purity of heart, innocence and righteousness’ ” (WA 2:514.22– 24, quoted on p. 101). “For Luther, what is written in the law is faith, and ‘this [faith] alone performs all things of the law’ ” (WA 2:514.36, quoted on p. 101). Or again, in Galatians (1535), Luther maintains that deeds are the fruit of a tree made good by faith: “First there must be a tree, then the fruit. For apples do not make a tree, but a tree makes apples. So faith first makes the person who afterwards ‘makes’ works” (p. 109, quoting WA 40/1:402.13–17). In this way, Luther too teaches “the legal righteousness of the Decalogue,” but only “ ‘after teaching about faith’ ” (p. 95, quoting WA 40/1:40).

“Yes” (but “No”) to Luther Hearing Luther again reminds us that most, if not the majority of the exegetical and theological questions being raised in contemporary scholarship on the theme of justification by faith in Galatians, find their genesis in the series of interpretive moves first made by Luther. For this reason, our questions concerning Luther’s reading of Galatians become, at the same time, questions about Galatians. 8  Cf. Wengert, “Luther on Galatians,” 103, regarding one of Luther’s “key insights into Christian life: good works do not make people good, but good people do good works. Or here, [Luther] opined, ‘the gentiles will be Abraham’s sons, not because they imitate him but because they were given a promise. Therefore they will also imitate him because they have become sons as a result of God’s promising and fulfilling, not as a result of their doing and imitating. For imitation does not make sons, but sonship makes imitators’ ” (Galatians [1519]; WA 2:518.13–16).

36

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

First, the history of interpretation has proved Luther right in his focus on the referent of ἔργα νόμου as decisive for understanding Paul’s thought both exegetically and theologically. In Galatians and Romans, “works of the law” are clearly the negative counter pole to Paul’s positive formulation of justification. What then is the referent of ἔργα νόμου and what, for Paul, is wrong with them? Are the “works of the law,” as Luther argued, to be equated with what the Torah itself taught in its entirety as part of a divine, dialectical strategy designed to drive people to “faith” as its antithesis? If so, do they perform this function because they are impossible to keep and/or because they teach a different way of securing righteousness altogether, so that the very attempt to keep them is itself sin, as Bultmann concluded based on Gal 2:16, 3:10, and 5:4?9 As we have seen, Luther seemed to teach both. In Luther’s reading of Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10, “Paul turns Moses on his head and again speaks absurdly … Moses cursed those who did not do what was in the law; Paul curses those who perform the works of the law” (p. 100, emphasis Wengert). Indeed, “those who seem to fulfill the law are merely pretending” (p. 100). For to Luther, works done outside faith do not fulfill the law (WA 2:513.32–33). So Moses placed all people under a curse because no one fulfilled any part of the law, so that everyone needs a redeemer, namely, the Christ. As is well known, with the rise of the influence of the “new perspective on Paul,” most scholars now rightly agree that Luther’s view of the nature and role of the “works of the law” no longer holds. Paul did not believe that the Torah itself taught an ill-fated works-righteousness, the goal of which was to drive one to faith. Nevertheless, does the Pauline expression “works of the law” still refer to such a “works-righteousness,” albeit now as the result of a second-Temple, Jewish perversion of the Torah into a legalism it never intended? Hence, Luther’s reading of Paul’s thought was essentially correct, though the object of his polemic was no longer the Torah per se.10 Or do the “works of the law” refer in fact to the very thing that Luther rejected, namely, to a Jewish, ethnocentric emphasis on a selective subset of Torah-based “boundary markers” which effectively

 9 Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 8th ed., expanded by Otto Merk (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 263–265. In Bultmann’s words, works of the law are the opposite of grace and faith, “weil das Bemühen des Menschen, durch Erfüllung des Gesetzes sein Heil zu gewinnen, ihn nur in die Sünde hineinführt, ja im Grunde selber schon die Sünde ist” (pp. 264–265, emphasis his). 10  For the programmatic statements of this position, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “St Paul and the Law,” SJT 17 (1964): 43–68, C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. F. Farmer, C. F. D. Moune and R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 389–406, and Ragnar Bring, “Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the ideas of Election, Faith and Law in Paul, with special reference to Romans 9:30–10:30,” Studia Theologica 23 (1971): 21–60.

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

37

functioned to preserve her identity and salvific status as God’s covenant people in distinction from the nations?11 11  See, e. g., J. D. G.  Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (London: Blackwells, 1993), 172–173, who reads Gal 3:10 to mean that Paul pronounces a curse on this attitude and corresponding stress on Jewish boundary markers by using the wider context of the law itself against the “works of the law,” i. e., by stressing instead the law’s more fundamental call for faith and love (cf., e. g., Micah 6:8). For a definitive statement of this view as developed within the “new perspective,” see now Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What, Whither?,” p. 8, pointing to the Letter of Aristeas 139–142 as exemplary, and p. 23 n. 98, pointing to 4QMMT C, in which “works of the law” were the grounds for separation from “the multitude of the people” (cf. pp. 14–15). For Dunn, the point of comparison to Paul is not that the term “works of the law” has a restricted meaning, but that specific halakhic requirements became test-cases of one’s covenant identity and acceptability to God. For the development of this view, see esp. pp. 7, 15, 17–33. For Dunn, the terminology of “works of law,” within the context of a covenantal nomism, thus refers to Jewish believers’ “insisting on certain works as indispensable to their own (and others?) standing within the covenant, and therefore as indispensable to salvation” (p. 15, emphasis mine). In retrospect, Dunn’s view was therefore often misunderstood to entail a limiting of “works of the law” to the boundary markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, purity and dietary prescriptions, etc., due to his initial formulation of the issue; he now states clearly that the expression ἔργα νόμου refers to “whatever the law requires to be done;” “works of the law” are “ ‘doing’ the law, as a work of the law,” citing as examples, Exod 18:20 and Josephus, Ap. 2.169, 172 (p. 22 and 22 n. 94). Thus, “… the phrase ‘works of the law’ is a way of describing the law observance required of all covenant members, and could be regarded as an appropriate way of filling out the second half of the Sanders’s formula – ‘covenantal nomism’ ” (p. 23). In sum: “I do not want to narrow ‘the works of the law’ to boundary issues. But it is fairly obvious that any view that insists that all works of the law are to be observed will naturally insist that any works of the law which are at all contentious must therefore and nevertheless be observed. And the fact remains that the issue which caused the first recorded statement of the great principle of justification by faith alone were the works of the law [in Gal: laws of clean and unclean and food laws, so that works of law also denote the Jewish way of life; Gal 2:14; 5:3] by which Judaism distinguished itself and kept itself separate from the (other) nations” (pp. 25–26, emphasis his). So “works of the law” are not only the obligations of covenant membership (covenantal nomism), but also, as such, “the Jewish way of life” (cf. Gal 5:3) (pp. 24–25). Dunn also clarifies that the “new perspective on Paul” is not a critique of Luther directly, but of the way in which Luther has been perceived and used in the modern period (“The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What, Whither?,” p. 17). The problem with the Lutheran approach is that the law/gospel distinction “was too completely focused on the danger of self-achieved works-righteousness and too quickly transposed into an antithesis between Christianity and Judaism” (p. 20). Specifically, Dunn rejects the way the traditional view led to the corollary that Paul affirmed his doctrine “against a degenerate Jewish legalism,” when in fact justification by faith for Paul was a protest against Jewish ethnic presumption seen in its concern to maintain Israel’s separateness, an aspect that has been ignored in explicating the doctrine of justification (p. 20). The “new perspective” is not a rejection of justification by grace through faith, but an affirmation that Luther’s view and Protestantism in general have “neglected important aspects particularly of Paul’s original formulation in the context of his mission” (p. 19; cf. p. 21: “The point I am trying to make is simply that there is another dimension [or other dimensions] of the biblical doctrine of God’s justice and Paul’s teaching on justification which have been overlooked and neglected … .”). In particular, the Pauline mystery revealed in the gospel is the inclusion of the gentiles (Rom 11:25; 16:25–27; Eph 1:9–10; 2:14–16; 3:3–6; Col 1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3) (p. 30, 30 n. 124). The surmounting in the church of the ancient Jew/gentile hostility (Eph 2:17–22) “was not merely a by-product of the gospel, far less a distraction from the true meaning of the gospel,

38

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

My own reading of Galatians, and of Paul elsewhere in the essays that follow, does not support either of these subsequent approaches either, though naturally Paul’s gospel would combat legalism wherever found and the inclusion of the gentiles was, for Paul, a central aspect of the eschatological reality brought about by the gospel. Instead, I take as my starting point that Luther was right in stressing that ἔργα νόμου refers not to a perversion of the law into legalism or to an overemphasis on Jewish identity per se as represented by some subset of the law, but rather to what the Torah itself commanded, taken as a whole.12 Within the construction ἔργα νόμου, this is the most natural reading of νόμου as a genitive of source or possession, which is supported by the mutually interpreting parallels between ἔργα νόμου in Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10a on the one hand, and the absolute use of νόμος in Gal 2:19, 21 and 3:10b, 11–13 on the other. The corresponding reference from Deut 27:26 in 3:10 to “doing all things written in the book of the law” simply decodes ἔργα νόμου in the rest of Paul’s argument. Moreover, Paul’s quote of Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10 indicates that the expectation of keeping the law and its corresponding curse for failing to do so are both in accord with the testimony of the Scriptures themselves (cf. Rom 3:9–21).13 but the climactic achievement of the gospel, the completion of God’s purposes from the beginning of time” (p. 31, emphasis his). In short, “the issue of whether and how Gentiles can be accepted by God is at the heart of Paul’s theology …” (p. 27; cf. Rom 1:16–17). Thus, “in highlighting the importance of the inclusion of the Gentiles for Paul’s gospel, Stendahl is effectively the father of the new perspective …” (p. 26 n. 108). Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith means God’s acceptance of all who believe, and on no other condition … this is what the new perspective “is all about for me” (p. 33). Dunn thus concludes regarding Rom 3:29–30 that to boast in the works of the law is to affirm that God is the God of Jews only in that “works of the law somehow function to reinforce Israel’s exclusive claim on God” (p. 9). So the focus of Jewish boasting is on “a status (covenant) given exclusively to Israel, setting Israel apart from and privileging Israel against the (other) nations, a status affirmed and maintained by the works of the law which demonstrated and constituted Israel’s set-apartness to God; Paul now saw this attitude as a failure to grasp the character and ‘to all-ness’ of faith” (p. 11). Conversely, “justification by faith is a way of saying that God is not God of Jews only but also of Gentiles, since he justifies both by faith apart from the works of the law (3:28) that are possible only for Jews” (p. 10 n. 38). Against the consequent charge that the “new perspective” views justification as merely a sociological doctrine regarding how Jews and gentiles can stand in each other’s presence, Dunn’s reply is emphatic: “No! The issue was whether and on what terms Gentiles could stand with Jews in God’s presence. The misperception highlights the danger of setting ‘social’ and ‘theological’ interpretations in antithesis …” (p. 27 n. 109; emphasis his). Dunn, in representing the “new perspective,” does not seek to over-emphasize a social and national dynamic behind Paul’s justification language, so that Paul’s analysis of “the radical helplessness of the human situation” and concern for salvation of individual is “underplayed” (pp. 26–27). The issue, instead, was to bring to the center of Paul’s theology his mission to the gentiles and the subsequent rejection of Paul’s gospel by fellow Jews (p. 27). 12  For a summary of the ways in which “Torah” is used in the majority of its instances to designate its commands, both in the OT and NT, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Commands of God,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity, ed. Scott Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 66–101. 13 Cf. Gal 3:10 (Deut 27:26) with the parallel in Dan 9:11LXX, where it is said that “all Israel” (πᾶς Ισραηλ) forsook God’s law, so that “the curse and the oath” (ἡ κατάρα καὶ ὁ ὅρκος), which is

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

39

Second, Luther was right in regarding Paul’s contrasts to be a metonymy for a larger set of realities. For Luther, the law/gospel contrast represented a personal, perhaps even private antithesis between two materially different ways of relating to God, an active way of righteous deeds (law) versus a passive way of receiving grace (gospel). Contemporary “participationist” and/or “apocalyptic” readings of Paul have followed Luther’s lead in taking the law/gospel contrast to represent a larger set of anthropological realities centered on being “in Christ” and/or “in the Spirit.” These realities and identity are essentially taken to be synonymous with sharing in Christ’s own cruciform life of faithfulness (gospel) over against the enslaved and enslaving Torah (law).14 Though recent participationist and/or apocalyptic readings of Paul’s “in Christ” language, usually taken to be the center of his theology, are often presented as an alternative to the traditional Lutheran paradigm, they are in effect another version of the same existential reading of Paul, albeit with a different referent for the “gospel” element of the metonymy.15 As raised in the introduction to this volume, the more fundamental question, however, is whether such an essentially a-historical, anthropological contrast between two different ways of relating to God, whether the contrast is conceived of in Lutheran or participationist-apocalyptic terms, accurately maps the salvific, eschatological significance of Paul’s understanding of the gospel in the first place. identified as the servant (of God) “that has been written in the law of Moses” (γεγραμμένος ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆ), came upon Israel. Then, in Dan 9:13 the point regarding God’s curse is restated as

having come upon Israel “according to the things having been written in the covenant of Moses” (κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν διαθήκῃ Μωσῆ). For positive statements, see Josh 23:6, where the people are called “to keep and to do all things which have been written in the book of the law of Moses” (φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου Μωυσῆ). For references to keeping that which is “written in the book of the law,” see too Josh 8:31 [Josh 8:31LXX has only “it has been written in the law of Moses”]; Josh 8:32 (only: “he wrote … the law of Moses”); 1 Kgs 2:3 (only “written in the law of Moses”); 2 Kgs 14:6; 2 Chron 23:18 (only: “written in the law of Moses”); Ezra 3:2 (only: “written in the law of Moses”); Neh 8:1 (only: “the book of the law of Moses”). For the shorter reference simply to “all the law of Moses,” see 2 Kgs 23:25; for simply, “the law of Moses,” see Ezra 7:6; 2 Chron 30:16 (LXX: ἐντολὴ Μωυσῆ). 14  See the programmatic essays of J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), esp. pp. 64, 75, 77–84, 119–121, 134–135, 143–155, for whom the law can be equated with “religion” per se, in contrast to the gospel, which is equated with an apocalyptic “revelation,” and Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), esp. his treatment of the meaning of “faith” as “co-crucifixion,” i. e., as a Spirit-enabled participation in the faithfulness of Christ maintained to the point of death and in his cruciform resurrection, which is a “faithfulness that expresses itself in love” (Gal 5:6; pp. 95–154). For its application to justification, see Gorman’s Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), esp. the thesis statements on pp. 79–86. 15  For all aspects of this approach to Paul, see now Michael Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, eds., “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, WUNT 2/ 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). For this same move regarding Luther himself, see Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) and Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).

40

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

In my reading of Galatians, the deliverance declared in Gal 1:3–5 is not to be understood in terms of a radically new relationship with a newly constituted humanity coram deo as a result of a de novo “apocalyptic” encounter “in Christ” between God and the individual. It points instead to a scripturally anticipated restoration of God’s covenant people as a result of the historical in-breaking “in time and space” of God’s reign through the Messiah.16 For Paul, the locus of eschatological deliverance is not the human heart, but “this present, evil age,” and the rescue itself comes about through an act of new creation in the midst of the old (Gal 1:4 with 6:15; cf. 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:19; 7:31; 2 Cor 4:4 in contrast to 5:17; Rom 12:2; Eph 1:21; 2:2). Hence, rather than reading Paul’s law/gospel contrast in Galatians anthropologically, as Luther and his followers advocate, it should be read historically and eschatologically against the Scriptural narrative of Israel’s Abrahamic and Sinai covenants, eventual exile, and promised redemption, the “outline” and significance of which can be seen in Gal 3:5–29 and 4:21–31. In both passages the explanatory concept is the eschatological contrast between the “covenant” at “Sinai,” represented by the Mosaic law as the defining entity of this old age, and the “covenant” of the “Jerusalem from above,” represented by the gospel preached in advance to Abraham as the defining reality of the new age of the new creation (see Gal 3:8–9, 15–17 and 4:24–25; cf. 2 Cor 3:6, 14; 1 Cor 11:25; Rom 11:27). The metonymy Luther correctly framed in terms of the law/gospel antithesis as expressed in the contrast between ἔργα νόμου and πίστις ( Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ set forth in Gal 2:16 therefore points not to distinct expressions of human attitudes and their corresponding actions, but to their respective covenants and the eras they represent. This eschatological, covenantal contrast is then repeated in the absolute contrasts between νόμος and Χριστός in 2:21 and between νόμος and πίστις in 3:12 (for the contrast between ἔργα νόμου and ἀκοὴ πίστεως in 3:2 and 5 see below). Finally, in Gal 3:21 νόμος alone can be contrasted with the full expression, πίστις  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.17 16 See the essay by N. T. Wright, “Messiahship in Galatians?,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 23, who convincingly argues, now supported by the work of Novenson, that “throughout Galatians Paul really does mean ‘Messiah’ when he calls Jesus Christos, and that with that meaning he has specifically in mind … the Messiah’s bringing of Israel’s long story to its strange, revolutionary and indeed ‘apocalyptic’ climax … .” However, the second half of Wright’s conclusion that the “Messiah” also entails an accompanying incorporative and participatory meaning, so that Χριστός for Paul refers as well to “a collective, an incorporative whole” (p. 17), leading to his reading of Gal. 3:16 in which Χριστός, as the σπέρ­ μα, interpreted by Wright to signify “family,” means “the people of God” (p. 16; cf. Wright’s statement: “Paul has given the single Abrahamic family a name: Christos” [p. 16]), remains unconvincing to me. 17 In support of this conclusion, set forth within a survey of the debate over the rhetorical structure and genre of Galatians as a whole, see already Robert G. Hall, “Arguing like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos outside the Greco-Roman Rhetorical Tradition,” NTS 42 (1996): 434–453. Though I would evaluate certain sections of Paul’s letter differently, Hall’s overall thesis that Galatians exhibits a coherent logical structure in which Paul establishes

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

41

Paul’s contrast between the Torah and the Messiah further indicates that his “law/gospel” antithesis is not a reference to contrasting theological principles or to materially different ways of relating to God, i. e., to a “works way” versus a “faith way.”18 If read in this way, how is it that the covenant entity, Torah, can be contrasted with the person of the Messiah, since the former is the source of the “works,” while the latter is the object of “faith”? Instead, Paul’s contrast is between the old epoch of the old covenant, represented by the Sinai Torah’s stipulations, and the new epoch of the new covenant, represented by the Messiah’s faithfulness, to whom God’s promises originally made to Abraham were also declared (3:15–20). These same promises are now also granted to those who, through their own life of faith, belong to Christ’s new covenant people as part of Christ’s one covenant “seed” (σπέρμα, Gal 3:15–16, and taking the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως in 3:7 and 9 to refer to the faith of the Christian in parallel to ἡ πίστις ᾽Αβραάμ in v. 9). Within this context, the use of πίστις in 2:16 and 3:2, 5, 12 clearly signals a juridical argument in accordance with the pattern often found in Jewish apocalyptic writings is persuasive. According to Hall (p. 436), like many apocalypses, Paul first claims inspiration, then reveals that “in Christ God has inaugurated a righteous sphere, urges the Galatians to stand fast in this righteous sphere, and shows how standing in the righteous sphere entails cleaving to himself [i. e., Paul] and to his gospel and repudiating the gospel of circumcision and those who preach it.” Hence, “Paul, who had unequivocally claimed inspiration, now reveals two spheres and exacts a choice between them” (p. 444). For Paul, these “spheres” or “realms” do not merely reflect cosmic orders based on “opposed spheres of heavenly judgment,” they also correspond to two periods within redemptive history (pp. 439, 445). Specifically, the two “realms” may be equated with the epoch of Israel’s experience under the Sinai covenant (which Hall terms “the sphere of the Law governing wickedness” or “of the works and curse of the Law [3:10–12]”) and the epoch of the covenant now inaugurated by Christ’s death (cf. 1:4; 4:4, 26) (pp. 444, 445). And for the idea that “faith” in Galatians is both the means for receiving the gospel and a metonymy for the eschatological reality of the gospel itself, see Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), 55–57. Hence, as a metonymy for the gospel, πίστις can designate the soteriological reality in Christ that embraces “both the opening up of an eschatological reality from the divine side (‘the promise that comes from Jesus-Christ-Faith might be given’) and the grasping of eschatological life in faith by believers (‘to those who believe’)” (p. 57). Moreover, “it is not the existential but the eschatological nature of Christ-Faith that receives the stress in Galatians” (pp. 57–58). 18  So too Ardel B. Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 185–205, who argues that the meaning of being justified διὰ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in Gal 2:16 must be interpreted in contrast to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου as this latter phrase is used throughout Gal 3. This explains why it does not work to say “works of the law” refers to “human activity” vs. the “faithfulness of Christ,” as Hays argues, nor why we cannot argue, as Campbell does, that ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ is to be determined by Paul’s quote of Hab 2:4 (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:12), since both views extract these expressions from their contextual referents. Nor can we follow Matlock in arguing that the ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ construction derives from ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, since, as Ardel points out, πίστις Χριστοῦ occurs in Phil 3:9, but the expression “works of the law” does not occur in Philippians, while in Rom 3:21–22 πίστις ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ occurs opposite χωρὶς νόμου and in Gal 3:22 opposite simply νόμος.

42

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

that “faith(fulness)” is the characteristic feature of the new covenant age, both for the Messiah and his people. For Paul, πίστις thus becomes a metonymy for the new age of the new covenant because it characterizes both the Messiah who brought it about (see below on πίστις Χριστοῦ) and the life of faith of those who belong to him in it (see esp. 3:29 as the climactic main point of 3:25–29 and the designation of Christians as οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 5:24). This historical, eschatological, two-covenant reading of the law/gospel contrast is confirmed by 3:17, where the Abrahamic promise is identified with a covenant (διαθήκη) that came 430 years before the law and where this sequence of the covenants is the key to Paul’s meaning (cf. the same sequence of faith/Christ to the law in 3:23–24). In the same way, in 3:8–9 the fact that God preached the gospel in advance to Abraham is essential to Paul’s argument regarding the blessing of justification to come to the gentiles ἐκ πίστεως when πίστις, identified with Christ, subsequently arrives in history (3:24–25). This historical sequence of the covenants, from Abraham to Sinai to the Messiah, represented by faith, the Torah, and faith respectively, leads to the conclusion in 3:14 that the blessing associated with this promise to Abraham was said to come to the gentiles not “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον [3:23]; cf. ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν in 3:25), but ἐν Χριστῷ, i. e., by means of the Messiah, in order that “we” (both Jews and gentiles) might receive the promise of the Spirit διὰ τῆς πίστεως (here a reference to the faithfulness of both the Messiah and the Christian?). Accordingly, Paul coins the phrase “under the law” to stand for the period after Abraham and before Christ, while “through faith,” in fulfillment of the promise made to and trusted by Abraham, stands for the messianic period after the law.19 In 3:21–25, πίστις can consequently be personified as the signature of the new covenant epoch. This explains why in 3:23 and 25 Paul can say that “faith came” as the culmination of the law’s role in history (cf. πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν in 3:23 with ἐλθούσης τῆς πίστεως in 3:25), even though Paul emphasized that Abraham had trusted God beforehand (quoting Gen 15:6 in 3:6 and referring to the πίστις  Ἀβραάμ in 3:9) and that those “in Christ” trust in him afterward (cf. πιστεύω in 2:16; 3:6, 22). Given this periodization of history into two epochs, with “faith/Christ” personified as a metonymy for the new age of the new creation (cf. Gal 1:4 and 5:6 with 6:15), the coming of faith after the period of the law in 3:23, 25 corresponds to the coming of Christ as the goal of the law’s pedagogy in 3:24. 19  Joel Marcus, “ ‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression,” CBQ 63 (2001) 72–73, points out that, apart from its eight occurrences in the Pauline corpus (Gal 3:23; 4:4–5, 21; 5:18; Rom 6:14–15; 1 Cor 9:20), the expression ὑπὸ νόμον does not occur in this exact form in the LXX or any non-Jewish text apart from Pseudo-Plato, Definitiones 415.c 3 and Longinus, De sublimitate 33.5.4 (p. 72 n. 2), and that it has no equivalent in ancient Jewish literature in Hebrew or Aramaic. Hence, it is a distinctly “Pauline expression.” Marcus suggests, moreover, “that Paul picked up the phrase ‘under the Law’ from his opponents in Galatia, who included Exod 19:17 and/or Deut 4:11 in their arsenal of scriptural weapons for persuading the Galatians of the necessity of accepting the Torah” (p. 80).

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

43

Within this context, the reference to οἱ ἐκ πίστεως in 3:7 and 9 (cf. 5:24: οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ) refers not to a new way of relating to God, but to one’s identity as

“those who are from or belong to the new covenant epoch characterized by faith.” As such, it becomes the counterpart in 2:16 to ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, which refers not to the posture of works-righteousness or to a subset or perversion of the law into legalism, but to “a person who is from or belongs to the old covenant epoch characterized by the Torah’s works.” This reading construes ἐξ ἔργων νόμου adjectively with ἄνθρωπος in line with its customary syntactical position in 2:16 and elsewhere in Galatians, rather than adverbially with δικαιοῦται (cf. 2:12: οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς; 2:15: ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί; 3:10: ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου; and the related contrast in 4:23 between ὁ ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης and ὁ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας).20 Hence, “those from the circumcision” and “those from the works of the law” are not pejorative descriptions per se, but historical, eschatological descriptions of a Jew whose life is defined by the law as a reference to the old covenant.21 Hence, according to 2:16, the great danger is not material or theological, but eschatological. Tracing descent from “the eclipsed covenant instead of from Christ, now that Messiah has come, leaves one exposed before God … [To do so, is an] “inherent repudiation of Christ, through whom alone the Torah’s curse is removed and the blessing of Abraham comes.”22

“No” (but “Yes”) to Luther In contrast to Luther’s reading, an eschatological construal of the law/gospel antithesis in Galatians (and elsewhere in Paul) supports the subjective rendering of πίστις [᾽Ιησοῦ] Χριστοῦ throughout 2:16–21 and 3:22–29 as a reference to the Messiah’s faithfulness.23 In particular, it refers to Christ’s faithfulness in going to the cross as the sole ground of justification, since the Messiah’s death on the cross 20 I owe this insight, which opens up so much of Paul’s argument in 2:16–21, to Caneday, “Faithfulness,” 194–195, who then goes on to posit that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in 2:16, οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς in 2:12, and ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί in 2:15 all consequently function idiomatically to denote origin or pedigree, not an attempt at “works-righteousness.” So too, ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in 3:10 does not mean, “as many as rely on works of the law,” but “as many as are identified with the old covenant law expressed in its commands” (my interpretation, following his point on p. 195 n. 39, emphasis mine). Thus, Paul’s focus is not on “one’s act of believing but one’s spiritual origin, one’s spiritual lineage,” as seen in 3:7 (p. 199, emphasis his). “The question of spiritual lineage is the central cord that runs through Paul’s entire argument (cf. 4:28–29)” (p. 199). 21 Following Caneday, “Faithfulness,” 194 n. 38. 22  Caneday, “Faithfulness,” 195, emphasis mine. In 3:7 and 9, οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (for Caneday this is a reference to the faith of Christ) is again “an idiom of origin” that grounds the conclusion “that Christ is the exceptional one whose πίστις defines those who truly are Abraham’s sons” (p. 199). 23  Caneday, “Faithfulness,” 187, is again helpful. As he queries, if 3:22 is subjective, why not translate the subsequent five uses of “faith” in 3:23–26, which are anaphoric (four have the article), also as references to the faithfulness of Christ?

44

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

is the basis upon which the eschatological life of faith under the new covenant is established (Gal 1:4; 2:19–20; 3:13; cf. Jer 31:34). In Paul’s words, the promises were spoken to Abraham, who trusted them (πιστεύω; cf. Gen 15:6 in Gal 3:6), and to his seed, the Messiah (cf. Gen 22:17–18 in Gal 3:16), who is also repeatedly characterized by his faith (πίστις Χριστοῦ). As a result, those of faith (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως; 3:7), who trust in the faithfulness of the Messiah (2:16: διὰ πίστεως ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ … εἰς Χριστὸν  Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν … ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ; 3:22: ἐκ πίστεως ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ … τοῖς πιστεύουσιν; cf. Rom 3:22), are being blessed together with the faithfulness of Abraham (πίστις  Ἀβραάμ; 3:9). Such an eschatological reading of the subjective genitive, πίστις [᾽Ιησοῦ] Χριστοῦ, best explains its uses throughout Paul’s letters.24 The subjective reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ does not diminish Luther’s decisive emphasis on the need for faith in Christ. But it does further transpose Paul’s law/gospel contrast into a new, eschatological key. When Paul declares in 3:12a, ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, he is not asserting that the law does not teach one to trust in God’s covenant provisions and promises. Rather, Paul is declaring the eschatological divide that separates the old and new covenant epochs given that, according to Deut 27:26, the former was the era of God’s curse on Israel’s disobedience (3:10).25 So, in short, [the era of] the law is not [the era] of faith (3:12a), even though (ἀλλά) Lev 18:5 (the law!) pronounces that those who do what the law requires will live (3:12b). Contrary to the agenda of the agitators in Galatia, the old covenant and its era must therefore not be equated with or amalgamated into the new. To maintain the ongoing validity of the old covenant now that the new has been inaugurated is to misunderstand the nature of the old covenant epoch itself. Under the old covenant Israel was granted the Torah, but the majority of the people were not granted the Spirit, by whose presence and power they would be able to keep the law and live (cf. 3:12b and 14 with Gal 5:4–5 and 2 Cor 3:6–14). Despite their deliverance from Egyptian slavery, they remained “slave-like children” rather than “sons” and “heirs” (4:1–7). In other words, they were children of Hagar rather than of Sarah, who again represent two covenants (δύο διαθῆκαι), this time associated with the “flesh-” and “Spirit-character” of their respective “children” (4:21–31). It is the children of Sarah, as the descendants of Abraham, not Hagar, who receive with Isaac the inheritance of Abraham as free children of the promise born according to the Spirit (cf. 3:14, 18 and 29 with 4:23, 28–29). And again, this promised inheritance reaches its fulfillment and is made possible by the eschaton-creating “faithfulness of Jesus as the Messiah,” who is also the 24 See Rom 3:22; 3:14 (?); 3:26; Gal 2:16 (2×s); 3:22; Phil 3:9. Contrast πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ in Gal 3:26 (so too Eph 1:15; Col 1:4) and εἰς Χριστὸν πίστις ὑμῶν in Col 2:5. 25  So again Caneday, “Faithfulness,” 196: Therefore the polarity is not “works” versus “faith” but “Torah” versus “Christ,” which represent two distinct covenants: the one bounded by the law, the other by Christ. Hence, “… ἡ πίστις Χριστοῦ has ended Torah’s jurisdiction” (p. 196).

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

45

seed of Abraham (3:16). To insist on the continuing validity of the old covenant by requiring that gentiles live like a Jew in accordance with the works of the law now that the new has arrived (2:14; 4:21) is therefore tantamount to rejecting the sole sufficiency of the cross for justification (2:21; cf. 5:4). And this is no minor miscalculation. Adding the old covenant to the new, Hagar to Sarah, would thus maintain that epoch of “slavery” in which Israel, as slave-children born “after the flesh” (4:23, 29), suffered the curses of Torah as a result of not having kept the covenant (Deut 27:26 in 3:10). Luther is right, therefore, that there is an anthropological corollary to Paul’s eschatological law/gospel contrast. In this regard Luther rightly stressed that there is a missing minor premise in the argument of Gal 3:5–6, namely, that exercising faith, which is reckoned as righteousness, is the result of having received the Spirit. Contra Luther, however, Paul’s logic was not poor. Paul makes his premise clear in Gal 3:14 when he identifies the promise to Abraham with the Spirit, so that it is the life-creating power of the Spirit in the lives of the faithful gentiles, together with faithful Jews, that in the eschatological era of faith makes them fellow heirs of Abraham (cf. 3:14 with 3:7, 9, therefore taking the “we” of 3:14 to refer to the double-reference contained in οἱ ἐκ πίστεως). The problem with the “works of the law” is not that they were impossible to keep or wrongheaded. Rather, Israel was intended to keep the covenant stipulations, but did not. The history-of-redemption fact, displayed tragically in the exile, is that Israel, apart from an Isaac-like remnant (4:28), did not keep the Sinai covenant and thereby suffered its curses. But now, in fulfillment of God’s promise of the Spirit to Abraham (3:14), made possible by the reality of the Christ’s cross-shaped sovereignty in their lives (cf. 3:13 with 2:20), God’s people, Jew and gentile alike, will live by fulfilling the law, just as Lev 18:5 promised (Gal 3:12b; cf. 5:5–6, 14, 24–25).26 Believers are delivered from the curse of the law (Gal 3:10) by virtue of their obedience to the law, which has been made possible because the cross (Gal 3:13) and the Spirit (Gal 3:14) have freed them from both the penalty and power of sin in their lives.27 This cannot be conceived of as a return to a legalistic 26 Despite his strong arguments for the subjective reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ, Caneday does not follow his eschatological reading to its corresponding conclusion: Why should “Torah” in 3:6, 8 be read as “a designed impediment to the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham” (“Faithfulness,” 199–200), which leads once again to a deeds/faith dichotomy in the end? Thus, for Caneday, Jesus accomplishes what Torah could not, since “Torah requires deeds; Christ’s faithfulness elicits faith in him. Life is not within Torah’s power to give; life comes through death to Torah, which entails being crucified with Christ. Works required by the Law condemn; Christ’s faithfulness justifies. Torah curses; Christ blesses” (pp. 203–204). If read eschatologically, however, the contrast is between the Torah unfulfilled by Israel and the Torah fulfilled by those who are a new creation of the new age (Gal 6:15). 27 This reading finds biblical-theological support in Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 97, 101–103, who points out the way in which Ezek 20:11, 13b, 21a interpret Lev 18:5 as offering the covenant blessing of life in response to keeping the

46

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

or synergistic works-righteousness, since the believers’ keeping of the law is the direct consequence not of their own initiative or strength, nor of their being circumcised or uncircumcised, but of the Spirit-created and Spirit-led life of the new creation. As such, this obedience can be characterized as faith organically expressing itself or working in love, which is the fulfillment of the Torah (cf. Gal 5:6 and 14–16 with 6:14–15). This is why in Gal 3:2 and 3:5 Paul can interpret the eschatological contrast between the works of the law and the faith of Christ in terms of an experiential contrast between ἔργα νόμου and ἀκοὴ πίστεως, in which the latter is used to encompass both the faithfulness of Christ (πίστεως) and the Christian’s faithful new life of obedience (ἀκοή as “obedience” according to its OT usage) that Christ brings about as part of the new age of the new creation under the new covenant.28 In 3:3, Paul identifies this experiential contrast with his characteristic antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, to which he will return at length in 5:16–26. The experiential parallels in 3:1–6 reflect that, for Paul, an anthropological divide runs through the human heart that is just as eschatological as that which runs through history. On the one side are “the works of the law,” an epoch characterized by Israel’s failure to keep the covenant because she remained in the “flesh”; on the other side is the “hearing (=  obedience) of faith,” an epoch characterized by Spirit-endowed Jews and gentiles who keep the great command of Deut 6:4–5 commandments (cf. too Ezek 18:5–9). Morales points out that despite this promise Israel was under God’s curse for disobedience even before the exodus due to their idolatry, a condition that was not altered by her deliverance from Egypt. Nevertheless, for the sake of maintaining his own reputation of faithfulness to the covenant established at the exodus God restrained his wrath until the exile and promised to restore Israel thereafter (cf. Ezek 20:8 with 20:13, 16, 21, 24, 28, 30–32). Concerning this restoration of his people, Ezek 36:26–27 makes it clear that only the pouring out of God’s Spirit on a purified people can bring about the obedience to God’s commands that will result in this eschatological life. Morales, p. 113, therefore suggests that Ezek 36 lies behind Gal 3:13–14 due to the link between 3:13–14 and Gal 4:4–6. 28  For a helpful survey of the various proposed understandings of the phrase, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως in Gal 3:5, see Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2011), 173–177, who takes it to mean, “on the basis of what was heard of faith.” The debate is whether ἀκοή refers to “the act of hearing” or to “the proclamation/message that is heard,” whether πίστις refers to “the human act of faith” or to “the faith/gospel message that is believed,” and how one is to construe the force of the genitive. My view follows that of Lightfoot, who took it to mean, “a hearing that comes of faith” (see de Boer, p. 174): I take ἀκοή to be a verbal noun referring to the act of hearing which, against its OT backdrop, connotes obedience, and πίστις to be a subjective genitive referring to the faithfulness of Jesus from 2:16–21, which, against its new covenant backdrop, is the source of this hearing/obedience. In this way, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως provides an exact counterpart to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in 3:2 and 5, with the “hearing” of faithful obedience paralleling “works,” and with “faith” as a metonymy for the new covenant paralleling “law” as a metonymy for the old. The strongest argument adduced against this reading is the use of ἀκοή in 1 Thess 2:13 (λόγον ἀκοῆς) and Rom 10:16–17 (τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ), where it is said to refer clearly to the message/ proclamation of the gospel (cf. de Boer, p. 175). In both cases, however, the expression is not the same as in Gal 3:5 and in the case of 1 Thess 2:13 ἀκοή may also refer to the act of hearing/ obedience brought about by the word of God.

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

47

to “hear” the one God who is sovereign over all.29 This new-epoch obedience is the result of the law having been written on the heart of God’s people, which was commanded in Deut 6:6, promised in Jer 31:31–34, and is now being fulfilled in the new covenant era of faith. Picking up his argument from 3:1–5, Paul describes this Spirit-created hearing or obedience of faith as a “walking by the Spirit” (5:16), against whose fruit in the life of the believer there is no (curse of the) law (Gal 5:23). Paul’s mutually interpreting ὑπό-statements throughout Galatians explicate why this is the case. Those fulfilling the law (cf. 5:14) are no longer “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον; 5:18), i. e., “under (its) curse” (ὑπὸ κατάραν; 3:10; cf. 3:13) as a result of having been “under sin” (ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, 3:22), because they no longer belong to the era in which Israel is “under (the law’s) custodianship” (ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν, 3:25; cf. 4:2) due to her being enslaved to sin “under the elements of the world” (ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, 4:3).30 In contrast, those who continue to do “the works of the flesh” (5:19), since they are still under the curse of the law, will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). Hence, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision pull any weight when it comes to being justified before God, being distinctions appropriate only to the old era of the law when the symbol of circumcision was fundamental to the identity of God’s covenant people. The symbolic aspects of the law were essential markers of God’s elect when the realities which they represent had not yet been actualized – thus, under the new covenant a “circumcised 29  In the LXX of Deut 6:4–5 the laws to be written on the heart are construed as τὰ δικαιώματα (καὶ τὰ κρίματα), which Paul picks up in Rom 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4; in 2:26 and 8:4 the δικαίωμα is kept by the believer who lives/walks according to the Spirit. 30  That Paul’s use of “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον) is “rhetorical shorthand” for being “under the curse of the law” (ὑπὸ κατάραν τοῦ νόμου; see Gal 3:10, 13) has been argued by Todd A. Wilson, “ ‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation,” JTS 56 (2006): 362–392; for its incorporation into the argument of Galatians, see his, The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia, WUNT 2/225 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Paul’s use of “under the law” to refer to the law’s judgment on those who do not keep it, characteristic of its function in the old covenant era, is also in line with Marcus’s hypothesis that this imagery may derive from the picture of being under a lifted up Mount Sinai in Exod 19:17 and Deut 4:11, which in rabbinic texts not only had a positive significance as the means of experiencing a vision of God, but also had “a more threatening aspect …,” i. e., “to threaten the people with destruction if they refuse to accept the Torah,” which of course also had a salutary effect of motivating obedience (Marcus, “ ‘Under the Law,’ ” 77–78, 80, 82, pointing to b Shab 88a and the covenant curses of Deut 27–28, as well as the threats by Paul’s opponents as reflected in Gal 1:7; 4:17; 5:10, 12). Given the opponents’ preaching of the continuing, salvific necessity of the Sinai covenant in the new covenant era, Paul, however, emphasizes only the negative threat of being “under Mount Sinai … ignoring the covenantal aspect of their nomism … ὑπὸ νόμον loses its double edge and becomes a term exclusively associated with sin, oppression, slavery, and the curse” (p. 82). But, contra Marcus, p. 82, this negative emphasis is not a rejection of the opponents’ “covenantal nomism,” in which “curse and blessing, threat and promise, divine wrath and divine love were held together in a delicate tension”; rather, it affirms it: for Paul, the covenant curse was experienced because under the old covenant the covenant stipulations were not kept (Gal 3:10). For a development of the covenantal significance of Paul’s use of “under the law,” see pp. 41–42, 58–60, 64–71.

48

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

heart” removes the necessity of a circumcised body (see chapter seven on Rom 2:12–16 and chapter ten on Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19). What marks out God’s people under the new covenant is neither being circumcised nor uncircumcised, but the reality of the faith of Christ and the faith in Christ that works outwardly in love as the fulfillment of the law (cf. 5:6 with 5:14). For this reason (note the γάρ in 5:6a), Paul concludes in 5:5 that, rather than falling from the grace of God in Christ by returning to the law (= old covenant; cf. 5:4), “we are awaiting the hope of righteousness by the Spirit (πνεύματι) from faith (ἐκ πίστεως),” in which the inclusive use of πνεῦμα and πίστις most likely refers to the reality of the new covenant as a whole. In short, the key to the historical and anthropological antitheses in Paul’s theology is not material (two different ways of relating to God) but eschatological (two different epochs, with two contrasting consequences). Paul’s theology is built on the eschatological divide and contrasts between the two ages, realities brought about by God’s acts in the Son (2:20; 4:5) and the Spirit (3:1–5; 4:6) and characterized by the two covenants constitutive of them (4:21–31), with their respective ways of life (5:16–26).

“Yes” and “No” to Luther Finally, Luther was right that any full-orbed exegetical and theological treatment of Paul will have to explicate the relationship between faith and good works in the light of the Pauline distinction between faith and works of the law. The current scholarly focus on Gal 5 reflects today’s renewed interest in grappling with the age-old, purported Pauline bifurcations between indicative and imperative, imputed and imparted righteousness, justification and sanctification, salvation by grace and judgment by works.31 The importance of this discussion is also highlighted by Campbell’s observation that the “new perspective” on Paul has often simply shifted the location of “legalism” from “getting in” to “staying in,” so that we are still faced with a synergistic view of Paul’s theology that comes down to a justifying-faith-plus-sanctifying-works, two-step approach to life before God.32 But, for Paul, do “believers” ever start with faith and then progress on to something else in their relationship with God? 31  See, e. g., the essays in Part Three of Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 271–363, which came about serendipitously as planning for the conference and its volume unfolded. 32 Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 103. Theologically, then, “in strictly theoretical terms,” there is not a great deal that separates covenantal nomism from legalism. For Sanders, the giving of the covenant in the past establishes only the “possibility of salvation,” i. e., establishing the covenant is “a moment of divine, if contractually limited generosity” (Campbell,

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

49

Here we can do no better than to return to Luther. In his magisterial work on Luther’s theology Oswald Bayer insists that Luther’s rejection of a dualistic contrast between theory-contemplation and practice-action led him to a unique “third way” of describing faith as the vita passiva (the nature of faith as a “passive” way of life): “Faith is not knowledge and not action, neither metaphysical nor moral, neither vita activa nor vita contemplativa, but vita passiva.”33 For Luther, “the decisive aspect of the vita passiva is that it is linked to a specific experience: to an experience for which I am not the prime initiator, but which instead I suffer.”34 As Luther put it in his Treatise on Good Works, the righteousness of faith is passive “ ‘in that we allow God alone to work in us and we ourselves, with all our powers, do not do anything.’ ”35 Moreover, since for Luther faith was already a “formal righteousness” (iustitia formalis), there was no need for separately conceived “works of love” to complete it [the scholastic articulation of the fides caritate formata], or for a third use of the law (contra Melanchthon), since faith itself acts according to its own nature in love (Wengert, p. 111 and p. 101 on Gal 3:10). Hence, though for Luther “the righteousness of faith” is passive in the sense of being initiated and given solely as a gift by God, faith itself is active and always acts according to its own nature in love. This is why Luther does not arrange faith and love in a sequential hierarchy. As Luther put it, love is “there at the same time with faith.”36 In Bayer’s words, “Love does not get added to faith at a later time, in order to make it complete [the scholastic articulation of the fides caritate formata]. Much rather – which is how the Greek phraseology of Gal 5:6 can be translated – the faith goes forth in love with the energy that is its own and that is within itself; as faith it is active in love.”37 For Luther, faith, by its very nature as trust in God’s promises of provision for oneself, reaches out to meet the needs of others. Bayer drives home the point that since faith, for Luther, is the “mover” of action, faith as trust in God’s promise is “the opus operum (the ‘work of all p. 103). With covenantal nomism, legalism still exists in the present and future, in which salvation remains dependent on fulfilling the conditions and evaluating the individual performance of them. “In short, it seems that the essential theoretical differences between covenantal nomism and legalism have effectively collapsed,” since both are “contractual” (i. e., conditional) (p. 104). 33 Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 43. 34  Ibid., 42. 35 Ibid., 43, quoting WA 6:244.3–6. As Bayer puts it, “that which alone is passive, the right­ eousness of faith (iustitia passiva), which can only be suffered, … happens when all thinking that one can justify oneself, in a metaphysical sense, as well as when all acting, in a moral sense, together with the desire to unite the two efforts, are radically destroyed” (p. 43). 36 Ibid., 286, quoting Luther’s Treatise on Good Works, WA 6:210.5–9. 37  Ibid., 287 and 287 n. 27 (first two emphases mine), referring to On the Freedom of a Christian, WA 7:34.32–33; 7:64.35–37; De veste nuptial, WA 39/1:265–333; and his commentary on Gal 5:6, LW 27:28–31.

50

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

works’),” i. e., “that work of God (opus Dei) that makes human works (opera hominum) good; as Luther says, it is the ‘master worker and the chief in charge.’ ”38 Luther can consequently illustrate his view of faith from the Ten Commandments themselves: faith is the fulfillment of the first commandment since it trusts God’s promise, “I am the Lord your God!,” which declares that God is committed to meet his people’s needs as an expression of his goodness and mercy.39 So the fulfillment of the first commandment as a call for faith must be given priority over all other commandments as their foundation and as the matrix for their interpretation.40 Viewed from the perspective of the first commandment, all of God’s commandments are thus calls to trust God to meet one’s own needs, the manifestation of which is seen in meeting the needs of others: “To conceptualize faith now as fulfilling the first commandment, as ‘faithfulness,’ ” apart from which no other commandments can be fulfilled, “is absolutely one of the most important theological insights of Luther, the foundational significance of which can hardly be valued too highly.”41 Using the fifth commandment as an example, Luther says, “ ‘We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help him and care [for him] in all bodily needs.’ ”42 Note that Luther uses a result clause (“so that”), indicating an automatic consequence, to bind together loving God and loving neighbor. Bayer comments that this is intentional for Luther. Love as the fulfillment of the law, according to Luther, is not a moral obligation of faith, that is, it is not a purpose clause to be fulfilled based on faith. “Faith – with an inner necessity – cannot help but be active in love; all good works spring from and ‘flow’ from faith. Thus the fulfilling of the faith in works is not a temporal or psychological consequence, but is a consequence that proceeds logically from the nature of faith.”43 Luther’s understanding of the organic bond between faith and works is one more example of the way in which he relentlessly drove home the reality of God’s non-synergistic, grace‑ and mercy-determined relationship with his people. Luther’s uncompromising focus on God’s sovereignty and its implications for understanding the life of faith remain vitally important both in the history of interpretation and for the ongoing formation of biblical theology. For as Wengert points out, Luther’s theological speech in the voice of the gospel made it clear that faith justifies because it is faith that glorifies God by giving God his due (p. 110). Wengert also reminds us that Luther presents a “radical theology and hermeneutic” that are “very much foreign to present-day Protestant and Roman  Ibid., 283, quoting Luther, “Treatise on Good Works,” WA 6:213.14. 283, pointing to Luther’s Large Catechism, BSLK 560.40–41. 40 Ibid., 283, 285. 41  Ibid., 285, quoting Luther’s Treatise on Good Works, WA 6:209.33–35. 42  Ibid., 286, quoting Luther’s BSLK 508.31–34; emphasis mine. 43 Ibid., 286. 38

39 Ibid.,

Chapter One: “Yaein” to Luther: Paul’s Eschatological Perspective

51

Catholic approaches to Scripture” (p. 92). I suspect that Wengert may think they are foreign to my own reading of Paul. But once Paul’s law/gospel contrast is understood eschatologically, rather than materially or existentially, Paul’s theology, based on his two-epoch, twocovenant hermeneutic, becomes even more radical. An eschatological reading of Pauline polarities makes it possible to conceptualize the relationship between faith and obedience in the life of the righteous as part of a single, organic, indivisible, and persistent whole.44 Such a “hearing/obedience of faith” is the conditional stipulation of a covenant relationship that is both created and sustained unconditionally by God’s election, by the redeeming cross Christ, and by the transforming presence of the Spirit. Hence, only those who exercise faith in the faithfulness of Christ will be justified, inasmuch as this faith works out in the love that fulfills the Torah. And as we will see in chapters 3–5, Paul offers himself as exemplary evidence of this new covenant reality. The Torah belongs, however, not only to the new covenant people of God, but also to those Jews who still find their identity in old covenant Israel. Paul’s eschatological perspective therefore brings us to the pressing question of the significance of the salvific realities “in Christ” for those Jews who remain on the “pre-faith” side of the eschatological divide between the era of the Torah and the new age inaugurated by the Messiah.

44  Cf. the helpful summary of this active view of πίστις by Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005 [1992]), 345: “Πίστις und πιστεύειν umschließen bei Paulus nicht nur die einmalige gehorsame Antwort auf die ἀκοὴ πίστεως, sondern auch ein Leben in Geduld, Hoffnung und Liebe … Im Evangelium wird Christus als Retter und Herr ausgerufen, und diesem Ruf gehorchen die Glaubenden, indem sie ihr Leben auf die Tat und Person des Κύριος  Ἰησοῦς Χριστός grunden. Dies geschieht nicht nur einmal, sondern immer aufs neue, so daß Glaube(n) zum Ausdruck für eine bestimmte Lebensweise und Lebenshaltung vor Gott wird” (emphasis mine).

Chapter Two

Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology (Galatians 3–4)1 Omission of an idea does not mean its absence. Gloss on H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel 2

There is no longer any consensus among scholars concerning the center of Paul’s thinking, or whether such a generating principle even existed.3 There remains, however, an agreed upon question. Students of Paul continue to be convinced that, in order to defend his gospel and to validate his ministry as the Jewish apostle to the gentiles, Paul had to confront the question of Israel’s current status as God’s covenant people in view of her large-scale rejection of Jesus as the Messiah (cf. 1 Thess 2:14–16; , 31–10:4; 1 Cor 1:22–23; 10:1–10; 2 Cor 3:13–15;  A slightly revised and updated version of “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 329–371. 2 An unattributed gloss in my notes on H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought (London: SCM Press, 1956), 192. In commenting on the fact that not all of the features of the motif of the “Day of the Lord” occur in every instance, Rowley, p. 192, observes, “This no more indicates that the unmentioned features would be repudiated by the authors than an artist’s painting of a man’s head and shoulders implies an intention to suggest that he had no legs and feet.” Rowley is specifically concerned with the lack of references to a Davidic or messianic figure in the new creation and new covenant passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (cf. pp. 192–193). 3  The contours of the current debate were established by the end of the twentieth-century. For the Reformation emphasis that the righteousness of God expressed in justification by faith is still the generating principle of Paul’s thinking, see, e. g., Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005 [1992]), esp. 310–347; for the revived emphasis on Paul’s own personal experience of being “in Christ,” now usually conceived of either as an expression of his “participationist eschatology” or as some sort of Jewish “apocalyptic mysticism,” see, e. g., E. P. Sanders, Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) and Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), esp. 34–47; for the view that the apocalyptic expectation of the imminent cosmic triumph of God, now proleptically fulfilled in and through Christ, is the “core” of Paul’s thought, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980); and for an expression of skepticism concerning the existence of any central, driving force to Paul’s overall thought, see Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), esp. his “concluding reflections” on pp. 264–269. 1

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

53

Rom 9:27–29; 10:21; 11:7–10, etc.). Moreover, Paul had to address the future of Israel in the light of his conviction that it was only those Jews “in Christ” who, together with believing gentiles, constitute the eschatological people of God (see below, chapter eight). As E. P. Sanders put it, “Paul’s thought contains one overarching difficulty, and he himself was aware of it: how does God’s recent revelation in Christ relate to his former revelations to Israel?”4 For as J. Christiaan Beker observed, “If Israel has a salvation-historical advantage, an urgent dilemma arises. How can Paul maintain such a position in the face of his basic theological claim that undergirds his apostolate to the Gentiles, that is, the equality of Jew and Greek in Christ on the basis of justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28–31)?”5 Indeed, Paul’s “theologische Leistung,” according to Peter Stuhlmacher, resides in the fact, “daß er den einen Gott, der die Welt erschaffen und Israel zu seinem Eigentumsvolk erwählt hat, die Sendung Jesu Christi zu Israel und den Völkern und die christliche Heilsgemeinde aus Juden und Heiden theologisch prinzipiell aufeinander bezogen hat. Damit hat er der Kirche ihre theologische Existenzgrundlage gegeben.”6 Even Heikki Räisänen, who saw inconsistencies in Paul’s thought at almost every turn, considers “the problem of Jews and Gentiles” to be the distinguishing mark of Paul’s view of the law over against the perspective found within the Pastorals, considered by him to be deutero-Pauline writings.7 In raising the issue of unbelieving Israel’s covenant status in Paul’s thinking we find ourselves once again facing Paul’s eschatological conviction that in Jesus as the Messiah “the end of the ages has arrived” and, with it, the eschatological deliverance of God’s people (1 Cor 10:11; Gal 1:4) and the establishment of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6).8 As with the rest of this theology, this is the lens through which Paul now looks at Israel’s history. For Paul, the eschatological present informs the historical past. However, the opposite is just as true. At the three places where Paul addressed the relationship between Israel and the church most directly – Gal 4:1–7, 21–31; 2 Cor 3:4–18, and Rom 11:1–26 – Paul turned 4  Sanders, Paul, 44. This, for Sanders, was “Paul’s fundamental theological problem” (cf. p. 117). 5 Beker, Paul the Apostle, 331. The urgency of the dilemma derives from the fact that, in Beker’s estimation, “among all the New Testament writers Paul is most passionately concerned with Israel (cf. Rom 9:1–5; 10:1–2)” (p. 328). 6 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 221–222 (emphasis mine). 7  Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 206. 8  For the question of Paul’s view of Israel’s future within the history of redemption in relationship to that of the gentiles, see chapter nine below. On the covenant context of Paul’s argument, see Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18,” CBQ 67 (2005), 86: Given the role of covenants in extending kinship relationships to outsiders and the role of blessings and curses within a covenant relationship, the themes in Galatians 3–4 of sonship and blessing for Gentiles (cf. Gal 3:7, 26–29; 4:17, 21–31) as a result of the covenant curses experienced by Israel and Jesus (cf. Gal 3:10–14) indicates that “Paul’s thinking throughout chaps. 3 and 4 is deeply shaped by the institution of the covenant, such that one could describe it as ‘covenant logic’ ” (quoting Witherington).

54

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

to Israel’s past in order to explain her present rejection of Jesus and its implications for Israel’s future restoration as God’s people. Israel’s past, for Paul, was not only a “history” to be interpreted, but also a heuristic paradigm for understanding both her present and her future. The epistolary occasion determined which time-period was in focus. Hence, Gal 4 deals primarily with the question of Israel’s past, whereas 2 Cor 3 is concerned principally with the present, while Rom 11 explicitly raises the question of Israel’s future. Though these three eras certainly overlap in all three passages, the significance of Israel’s past for understanding her present status in redemptive history as mapped out in Gal 4 is the primary subject of our present investigation.9 The importance of this focus on Gal 4 is confirmed by its role within the epistle as a whole, in which it presents the climactic restatement of the issue now facing the Galatians (4:1–11), together with Paul’s initial full-length arguments for rejecting the message of the Galatian agitators (4:12–30).

Israel’s Past and the Present Status of Believing Jews (Gal 4:1–3) It is important that we first gain our contextual bearings by recognizing that the structure of Gal 4 falls into three sections: 1) a statement of the status of Jews in Christ (4:1–7) and the consequent problem now facing the gentile Christians in Galatia (4:8–11), which is then followed by 2) an appeal from Paul’s own apostolic suffering on behalf of the Galatians (4:12–20), and 3) an appeal from the Law and the Prophets (4:21–30).10

 9  For the explicit references to Israel and the Jews within the Pauline corpus, see:  Ἰσραήλ (Rom 9:6, 27, 31; 10:19; 11:2, 7, 25, 26; 1 Cor 10:18; 2 Cor 3:7; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:12; Phil 3:5);  Ἰσ­ ραηλῖτης (Rom 9:4; 11:11; 2 Cor 11:22);  Ἰουδαῖος (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28, 29; 3:1, 9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:22, 23, 24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 2:13, 14, 15, 3:28; 1 Thess 2:14);  Ἰου­ δαϊσμός (Gal 1:13, 14); ἰουδαΐζειν (Gal 2:14);  Ἰουδαϊκῶς (Gal 2:14); and  Ἰουδαϊκός (Titus 1:14). 10  Unless indicated otherwise, all text references in this chapter are to Galatians. Note the indicative introduction of the analogy in 4:1 (λέγω δέ), together with the indicative statements throughout 4:1–11, followed by the imperatives γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ and λέγετέ μοι in 4:12 and 4:21 respectively. Thus, the inferential διό of 4:31 (or the variant ἄρα), introducing the two indicative statements of 4:31–5:1a, followed by the οὖν of 5:1b, with its imperative στήκετε, mark out the transition to the next unit of Paul’s argument. The traditional chapter break between 4:31 and 5:1 is therefore misplaced. For the view that already at 4:12 Paul turns from the “rebuke” of 3:1–4:11 to a “request” or “appeal” aimed at the Galatians (i. e., from “forensic” to “deliberative rhetoric”), see G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 141–154.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

55

Moreover, the reader must also pay close attention to the parallel thematic links that precede and prepare for this discussion. It is what Paul has just said that clued his original listeners into the intent of what he is now saying. In 4:1–7 Paul continues his treatment of God’s promised inheritance and its heirs in relationship to the contrast between the covenants of Abraham and Sinai that he previously introduced in 3:15–29 (cf. κληρονομία in 3:18 and κληρονόμοι in 3:29 with κληρονόμος in 4:1). Paul’s understanding of this contrast led him to the conclusion that those who belong to Christ, i. e., “the seed (singular) of Abraham” (3:16), are the true “seed (plural) of Abraham” and, as such, the rightful heirs of the covenant-promise first made to their ancestor (3:29). This is true not only for believing Jews, but also for those gentiles who exercise faith in Jesus as the Messiah and are incorporated into his inheritance by baptism (cf. the clearly instrumental διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ in 3:26 and the second person plurals of 3:26–29). In a word, “in Christ” they are all υἱοὶ θεοῦ (3:26). Paul’s conviction in 3:16 and 3:29 is not some exegetical slight of hand, but is built upon the Old Testament and Jewish understanding that the Messiah fulfills the Abrahamic promise, which Paul identifies in Gal 3:8 with God’s promise to justify the gentiles from faith, a gospel reality that the Scriptures preached beforehand to Abraham in the declarations of Gen 12:3 and 18:18. Indeed, Paul states explicitly in Rom 15:8–9 that the Christ’s ministry to the Jews for the sake of the gentiles fulfills the promises made to the patriarchs.11 As has often been observed, though without an explanation for its motivation, Paul’s identification of God’s pledge to Abraham as a fulfilled “promise” (ἐπαγ­ γελία) is remarkable given that there is no single Hebrew term for “promise.” Moreover, the LXX of those texts represented in the MT uses ἐπαγγελία only two times to refer to a divine pledge, neither of which comes from the Genesis narrative or otherwise provides a source for Paul’s usage (see Ps 55:9 and Amos 9:6; for its other two uses in the LXX/MT, see Prov 13:12; Esther 4:7). So Paul’s renderings of God’s pledge to Abraham as a “promise,” though conceptually accurate, find no linguistic support in the biblical narrative (cf. Rom 4:20; 9:9; Gal 3:14–18, 29; 4:23, 28). Indeed, an extensive study of classical and Hellenistic literature, both Jewish and non-Jewish, demonstrates “that Paul is … quite unique in his exclusive use of one term – the ἐπαγγελία word group – for the divine pledge, as well as in the focus of the contents of the promise, which almost always refers to the promises God made to Abraham.12 11 Cf., e. g., the link between Gen 15:8; 17:7–8 and 2 Sam 7:12 and the association of Gen 12:3 [cf. Gen 18:18] with Ps 72[71]:17, Sir 44:21. For these points and their support, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕ­ ΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 180–182, based esp. on the works of O. Betz, D. Daube, N. Dahl, R. P. Gordon, R. E. Clements, and M. Weinfield. 12  For the details of this paragraph, see Kevin P. Conway, The Promises of God: The Background of Paul’s Exclusive Use of epangelia for the Divine Pledge, BZNW 211 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), 78–82, 140–141, and quote from p. 4, emphasis mine. In the Pauline corpus,

56

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

In answer to this striking state of affairs, Conway has convincingly postulated that Paul’s almost exclusive and frequent use of ἐπαγγελία, being without precedent, “was an intentional rhetorical choice, which served his communicative purpose better than any other word group in the Greek language of his milieu.”13 It did so “because of its close conceptual and linguistic correspondence with εὐ­ αγγέλιον … Paul uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise due to its [assonantal] association and fulfillment in another ‑αγγελ term – the εὐαγ­ γέλιον of God.”14 More specifically, and of significance for my study, “the two concepts demonstrate a line of continuity between each other within God’s plan of Heilsgeschichte.”15 As Conway concludes, “what Paul envisions as having ἐπαγγελία and its verbal cognates are used 33×s, 24×s in undisputed writings: 10×s in Romans, 11×s in Galatians; 3×s in 2 Corinthians (p. 2). Conway’s careful and exhaustive study examines the ἐπαγγελία-word group when used with a divine source and other synonymous divine pledge terms, including the related ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes (several thousand occurrences in classical and Hellenistic writings!). He demonstrates that there are three main divine pledge-term pairings in classical and Hellenistic non-Jewish Greek literature: ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, ἐπαγγελία/ ἐπαγγέλλομαι, ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι, though the ἐπαγγελία word group is quite rare, being used only 6×s by five writers throughout nine centuries (pp. 40–41). As for the LXX of the canonical books represented by the MT, the ἐπαγγελία word group occurs only 5×s (in 4 verses) (Esther 4:7; Prov 13:12; Ps 55:9; Amos 9:6), two of which refer to a divine promise to his people and are not related to Paul’s usage (Ps 55:9 and Amos 9:6) (pp. 78–82). Instead, in the LXX (with MT equivalents), besides the very common use of general terms for God’s speech (i. e. λέγω, λαλέω), ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι predominate (171 total occurences, 74 of which are divine pledges), while ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι do not occur (p. 45). So only 2 of 76 instances of divine pledge terms are rendered with ἐπαγγελία, with 97 % of the divine pledges using the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes (p. 82). In the LXX texts without MT counterparts and in other pseudepigrapha, the ἐπαγγελία word group is used 16×s, so that, like Paul, ἐπαγγελία becomes “the term of choice for the divine pledge in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and other LXX writings,” being used twice as much as ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι (p. 108, 108 n. 94). Philo uses only ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις; Josephus uses ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία “in an almost interchangeable manner,” with a slight preference for the former (pp. 4, 137, 140). Hence, though Paul is not the first to use the ἐπαγγελία-word group for the divine pledge, Paul stands out among all ancient authors both in the frequency of its use by one author and in the fact that he is “unique in his [almost] exclusive employment of this formal pledge term for the divine promise” (p. 83, emphasis mine; the one exception is the use of the related verb, ἐνορκίζω, in 1 Thess 5:27, p. 82). 13  Ibid., 1. 14 Ibid., 1, 4. 15 Ibid., 146. See too the important work of Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3:8–10, WUNT 2/133 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 139–147, who explicates, against its OT and 2TJ developments, Paul’s foundational use of Gen 12:3/18:18 in Gal 3:8 in order to set up its central role in the argument of Gal 3:15–4:31 as derived from 3:6–14. For as Wisdom points out, scholars have not “fully appreciated in Paul’s argument … his use of Gen 12:3/18:18 in Gal 3:8, in which the connection between the gospel and the promise to Abraham is clear … the gospel itself was proclaimed to Abraham. And the specific content of the gospel to which Paul points is the promise to bless all nations in his offspring … Paul’s gospel was not his invention, but had been prophetically foreshadowed in scripture” (pp. 140–143). Wisdom points out that the parallel between εὐλογία and ἐπαγγελία in the related text of Gal 3:14 indicates that Paul viewed the blessing of 3:8 as a promise from God (p. 143). Wisdom, like Conway, also stressed the lack of biblical warrant for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία in this way and its rare use in Hellenistic Judaism in relation to

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

57

been promised before (see Rom 1:2 for the use of προεπαγγέλλω) to Abraham and his descendants corresponds with Paul’s notion of the gospel being preached beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham (Gal 3:8).”16 For, “again, a key notion of this thesis is that Paul is employing another ‑αγγελ term, the ἐπαγγελία word group, to draw attention to the perception that the εὐαγγέλιον is not a new idea, but, rather, part of God’s heilsgeschichtlich action going back to at least the time of Abraham.”17 In view of this salvation-historical affirmation implicitly related to the eschatological “good news,” Paul’s purpose in 4:1–7 is to explicate the significance of this change in status or “sphere” for these descendants of Abraham now that the epoch of “faith” has dawned with the sending of God’s son in the “fullness of time” (4:4; cf. 1:4 and 3:23–29, which also refer to the oneness of all those baptized “in Christ” and the inheritance they consequently share as the “seed” of Abraham). The use of “faith” as a marker for the eschatological age within the history of redemption can be seen thematically in the parallel between ὅτε ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in 4:4 and the personification of πίστις in 3:23–25 (cf. again the correspondence between ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα in 3:19, πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν in 3:23, and ἐλθούσης τῆς πίστεως in 3:25).18 That Paul has in view the significance of this change in the ages for the inheritance of the promises made to Abraham is evident in the two ἵνα-clauses of 4:5 and in the implication of the Abraham, rightfully concluding that “ἐπαγγελία is Paul’s interpretive term” (p. 144). Hence, “in light of the close connection between the gospel and the promise in this text to bless the nations ἐκ πίστεως, for anyone to attempt to require ἔργα νόμου of the gentiles is to change God’s promise to Abraham and thus to oppose his purpose in fulfilling the promise to Abraham … those who required ἔργα νόμου for complete membership in the people of God were, in effect, disloyal to this covenant and thus came under the curse of the covenant. The significance of the juxtaposition of blessing in 3:8 and the curse in 3:10 cannot be overemphasized. This same juxtaposition occurs in the promise itself (Gen 12:1–3)” (pp. 145–146; on this point, see below, pp. 278–279 n. 30). 16 Ibid., 154; cf. pp. 156–157, 172, 200, 231. In line with my argument, Conway thus goes on to affirm that the relationship between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον points to the fact that, for Paul, “though the gospel is in the same line of salvation history extending back to God’s promises to Abraham, the Christ event has inaugurated a new era characterized by the outpouring of the Spirit – resulting in a new creation” (p. 164). 17  Ibid., 172. Again, Conway stresses in this regard how unusual Paul’s focus on the Abrahamic covenantal promises actually is (p. 110). In 2TJ, “much of the promise contents do not, in fact, hearken back to the Abrahamic promises, as is the case with Paul …” (p. 109). Unlike the position taken here, Conway also posits that another difference between Paul and his tradition “lies in the conditional nature of the divine promises in this Second Temple literature. Almost all of the promises are tied to stipulations of piety, repentance, prayer in the temple, and so forth. Thus, there seems to be greater inclination toward the Mosaic covenant in this literature than the promissory Abrahamic covenant, which Paul adheres most closely to in his teaching” (p. 109; cf. p. 201). One of the major purposes of my studies is to question this material contrast between conditional and unconditional promises associated with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants on the one hand, or with the Mosaic and new covenants on the other. 18 For “faith” in Galatians as the means for receiving the gospel, as well as a metonymy for the eschatological reality of the gospel itself, see chapter one.

58

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

ὥστε-clause in 4:7, which detail the two outcomes of God’s sending the Son (4:4),

and the Spirit of the Son (4:6), respectively. In terms of Paul’s “salvation history,” it is also significant that this change in the ages is mapped out in Gal 4:4–5 by alluding to the fulfillment of the promise to David regarding the sending of the Messianic “Son,” who is God’s Son in relation to the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (“the fullness of time”), to Eve/creation (“born of a woman”), to Sinai (“born under the law”), to the judgment of the law as seen above all in the exile (“redemption of those under the law”), and to the church (those who “receive the sonship”). Paul’s eschatological framework is clearly linear. Hence, if Paul’s intention in 4:1–7 is to draw out the theological significance of being Abraham’s “in Christ-descendants” in the epoch of “faith” (cf. υἱοθεσία in 4:5 with υἱοί/υἱός in 4:6–7), his context for doing so is consistently a historyrelated eschatology. This has been confirmed by the important and extensive work of James Scott.19 In the conventional reading of this passage as an application drawn from the legal practice of testamentary guardianship, Paul’s illustration is commonly posited to be problematic since it does not correspond completely with either Hellenistic or Roman law. Furthermore, the application itself is viewed to be misguided in that 1) the “father” in vv. 3–7 (i. e., God) actively sends and adopts others, while the father in v. 2 is posthumously concerned with his own son; 2) the guardianship of a minor in vv. 1–2 is suddenly transposed into an adoption in v. 5; and 3) the equation of the role of the heir with that of a slave is seen to be a confusion of categories.20 But as Scott has demonstrated, Gal 4:1–7 is not an idiosyncratic “illustration” of a timeless principle, i. e., that in regard to one’s inheritance a minor (i. e., the νήπιος) is functionally no better off than a slave (4:1–2), that is then misapplied to God’s adoptive relationship with Israel. Rather, the explanatory backdrop to Paul’s thought in 4:1–7 is the first exodus/second exodus typology used in both the OT and Second Temple Judaism to picture Israel’s future restoration from her “slavery” in exile.21 When 19 Scott, Adoption, 121–186. Because I regard Scott’s work to be a turning point in the exegesis of the argument and Cosgrove’s reconstruction to set the stage for reading the occasion of the letter (see below, note 37), in what follows I am indebted to and will interact most directly with their work. 20  For these problems and others, with varying attempts to solve them within the traditional paradigm, see the literature surveyed by Scott, Adoption, 123–125, especially the commentary of Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 202–204. Indeed, J. C. O’Neill could even conclude that the images employed in verses 1–7 were so “strictly incompatible” because the section had been glossed by two different hands (quoted by Scott, Adoption, 124–125, emphasis Scott’s). In contrast, Scott’s reading brings an intrinsic harmony to Paul’s images that corresponds to the carefully structured nature of the passage itself. 21  For the six lexical arguments in support of this reading, see Scott, Adoption, 126–145, on the referents of ἐπίτροπος (taken to mean “guardian of an orphan” as used in Jewish papyri from Nahal Hever), ὁ κληρονόμος (taken to refer to “the seed of Abraham” from 3:29, rather than as a general reference), νήπιος (taken as a general designation referring to those needing instruction and moral development, not as a technical term referring to a “minor” [ἀφῆλιξ] in a legal

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

59

read from this perspective, Paul’s argument evinces a “basic harmony between the ‘type’ – Israel’s redemption to divine adoptive sonship (υἱοθεσία [cf. Rom 9:4]) at the foreordained time of the exodus from Egypt (vv. 1–2) – and the ‘antitype’ – believers’ redemption to divine adoptive sonship (υἱοθεσία) at the foreordained time of the second exodus (vv. 3–7).”22 Although Scott’s analysis of the traditionsgeschichtliche background and lexical referents for 4:1–7 presents a breakthrough in the conundrum surrounding this passage, his application of them to 4:1–2 needs to be refined. This refinement will then lead to a reassessment of the first element of Paul’s first exodus/second exodus typology. As Scott himself points out, the only key term found in 4:1–2 that occurs explicitly in the OT or post-biblical accounts of the exodus from Egypt is the use of νήπιος in Hosea 11:1 to refer to Israel as “young” at the time God called her out of Egypt.23 Scott is able to apply the other terminology of 4:1–2 to the exodus from Egypt only by pointing to general conceptual parallels24 and by reading προθεσμία τοῦ πατρός in 4:2 (i. e., the predetermined “date” set by God as the “Father”) as a reference back to the 430 years of 3:17, since this is the nearest relevant time reference. Hence, rather than taking προθεσμία τοῦ πατρός to refer to the period of the ἐπίτροποι καὶ οἰκονόμοι as expressed in 4:2 itself (i. e., to the period of the law, see below), it is now interpreted in view of Gen 15:13 and Exod 12:40 to refer to the foreordained time period of Israel’s bondage in sense), κύπιος πάντων (a Hoheitstitel of universal sovereignty used to refer to the rule over and inheritance of the world promised to Abraham’s descendants [cf. Rom 4:13], not a reference to the minor’s legal, though not yet realized possession of the inheritance), the collocation of ἐπίτροπος καὶ οἰκονόμος (used together as official titles of subordinate state administrators, not guardians of a minor), and προθεσμία (a set date or predetermined time limit, not a date set by a father for the termination of guardianship). On the connection between Israel’s “slavery” and her exile, see James C. VanderKam’s discussion of T. Mos. 3:10–14 in his essay on “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 89–109. 22  Scott, Adoption, 186; cf. 149–151. For the concept of Israel’s adoption as God’s son at the exodus, Scott, 130, points to Exod 4:22; Deut 1:31; 14:1; Hos 11:1; Isa 63:16; Wis 18:13; m. Abot 3:14. For his helpful summary of exodus-typology in the OT, Judaism, and the NT, see 151–155. 23 Ibid., 129. 24  Ibid., 134–135, 144–145, where Scott argues that (1) κύριος πάντων is related to Israel as the heirs of the Abrahamic promises (cf. ὁ κληρονόμος in 4:1 and see Rom 4:13 for this singular use for the plural seed of Abraham) inasmuch as the Abrahamic promise of the land led to the eschatological hope that Israel would rule over and inherit the world (cf. Rom 4:13; Jub. 22:11b, 13–14; 32:19; Sir 44:19–23); and that (2) even though ἐπίτροπος καὶ οἰκονόμος are never employed among the wide variety of titles used in the LXX, Philo, and Josephus to refer to Israel’s overseers in Egypt (cf., e. g., ἄρχων, ἀρχιστράτηγος, ἑκατόναρχος, ἡγούμενος, ἐπιστάτης, ἐργοδιῶκται, ἐφε­ στῶτες [Philo, Mos. 1:40, 43], ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν  Ἑβραίων τεταγμένος [Josephus, Ant. 2.288], etc.), they nevertheless do so in 4:2. For the ἐπίτροπος καὶ οἰκονόμος of Paul’s day carried out similar functions as these overseers and the wide variety of terms used in the literature indicates that in Paul’s day the exact title of the Egyptian taskmasters was not fixed. This is then confirmed by the later use of the rabbinic loanword ‫ אפטרופין‬in Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 41:35 to refer to Pharaoh’s officials and by the fact that two kinds of overseers are mentioned in the Mekilta to Exod 14:5.

60

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Egypt.25 Further, Scott admits that his reading of 4:1–2 as a direct reference to Israel in Egypt cannot explain the transition in 4:3 to an enslavement ὑπὸ τὰ στοι­ χεῖα τοῦ κόσμου during this same time period.26 Finally, if 4:1–2 refers to Israel’s past enslavement in Egypt, it is striking that Paul’s discussion in 4:1–2 is stated in the present tense, which is then restated in the imperfect tense in 4:3 from the standpoint of Paul himself no longer being in the status of the νήπιοι. Though it is sometimes difficult to determine precisely the time, aspect, and Aktionsart of the present tense, the change in tense from 4:1–2 to 4:3 and Paul’s self-identification with the period in view in 4:1–2, when taken together, point either to an “Extending-from-Past” or “durative” use of the present in 4:1–2, in which a state of being or act that began in the past (here, Israel’s “child”/“slave” status) is described as continuing into the present.”27 As such, the present tense of 4:1–2 carries the same sense as the present of 3:17 (cf. ἀκυροῖ), which, in contrast to Scott’s suggestion, should not be taken to be a historical present either.28 Rather, ἀκυροῖ in 3:17 is likewise best taken to be a “durative” present in reference to the fact that the law still does not annul the Abrahamic covenant with its promise, just as 3:18a is certainly to be taken in the same way. After all, the problem is that Israel still finds herself “under the law” (cf. 3:23–25; 4:5, 21). So Scott is correct that the allusion to Hos 11:1 and the use of δοῦλος in 4:1 (cf. Gen 15:13, where δουλόω is used to refer to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt), together with the “adoption” and “redemption” motifs in 4:5 (see below), establish an exodus typology as the basis of Paul’s comparison. But, contra Scott’s reading, in 4:1–2 Paul does not refer specifically to the exodus event itself, despite the wide variety of exodus-terminology available for doing so. The reason is that Paul  Ibid., 141–142. Cf. Acts 7:6–7, 17 for this same period of fixed time between Abraham and the exodus. 26  Ibid., 160; Scott, p. 160, must therefore conclude that no interpretation of this phrase offered to date “seems to satisfy the context.” For my reading, see below. 27 For the former category, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 519; for the latter, see James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1978), 77. As Wallace observes, pp. 519–520, this use differs from the “progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this post-referring element,” pointing to Luke 15:29; 2 Pet 3:4; 1 John 3:8; Acts 15:21, etc., as examples. Brooks and Winbery too emphasize the presence of a temporal adverbial modification and for examples point to Luke 13:7; 15:29; John 5:58; 15:27. Here that adverbial indication would be ἐφ᾿ ὅσον χρόνον in 4:1 and ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός in 4:2. For the three components of verbal tense, see the still paradigmatic work of Buist M. Fanning, “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTSupS 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993 [reprint: Bloomsbury, 2015]), 46–62. 28  Scott, Adoption, 146. Scott also points to Paul’s ability to recount OT events in the present under his conviction that the Scripture still speaks (cf. Rom 11:2). But in Gal 4:1–2 we have no parallel Scriptural citation. 25

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

61

does view Israel as an “heir” during the period of her sojourn in Egypt, who would gain her inheritance at the exodus event, but with her status as a “child,” who, as such, is no better off than a “slave.” Moreover, the qualification ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον is not used demonstratively to refer to specific periods of time (like the definite 430 years of 3:17), but is employed here to signify “incorporation” regarding whatever period of time is being considered in the context, i. e., “for the whole time in view.”29 As such, rather than referring solely to the time of Israel’s first captivity, the images of Israel’s first captivity provide a framework for describing Israel’s status as a “child” in terms of one long period of slavery for as long as it may exist (ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον). In other words, Israel is under governmental authorities ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός. Within the context of 4:1–2 this latter designation is therefore best taken not to refer to the specific time of 3:17, but to that set period of Israel’s childhood until God, as her “father,” enables her to come into her inheritance. According to 3:22–29 this time span refers explicitly to the period that extends from the granting of the promise of inheritance to Abraham to its realization with the coming of Christ. Thus, the point of mentioning the 430 years in 3:17 is to stress that the establishment of the Torah-covenant was not the time when Israel stopped being a child/slave and inherited the Abrahamic promise (see, explicitly, 3:21–22, 24). So throughout the period of the law the promise to Abraham remained in effect, but unfulfilled until the Christ came (3:25–26; 4:4–5). Paul’s point in 4:1–2, therefore, is that Israel’s “childhood,” i. e., her “slavery in Egypt,” which according to Gen 15:13–14 was also declared to Abraham as part of the covenant promise, must be seen as extending over Israel’s entire experience “as a slave,” i. e., from the time of Abraham to Christ.30

29  For this classification of its use in Gal 4:1 and the other categories of usage for the 108 occurrences of the relative pronoun ὅσος in the NT, see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 732–733, who points out that its use with an antecedent is not common apart from a few stereotypical constructions (such as πάντες ὅσοι). 30 For a confirmation of my reading in relationship to the insights of Scott, see now Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 117 n. 140, 118 n. 143, 119–123. Morales too points to the parallel between Gal 4:1–7 and 3:23–29. In addition, Morales helpfully corrects my related references to νεότης in the LXX, suggesting instead the related νηπιότης in Hos 2:17; 11:1; Ezek 16:22, 43, 60, pointing to the association of Israel’s status as an infant with her sin and punishment, but eventual reception of mercy (p. 119). He also argues therefore that both Scott’s view of 4:1–2 as a type and mine as an analogy are “hardly adequate” given the specific reference to her sin and idolatry (p. 121). The point to be stressed is that the force of Paul’s analogy is not that of a minor to an adult, but that of a slave to a son: Christ has set Israel free from her slave-like status under the old covenant by her adoption to sonship, as a result of which Israel takes possession of her identity as an heir of Abraham (cf. 3:26, 29; 4:6–7). Morales thus rightly observes that the “set time” of 4:2 corresponds to the “fullness of time” in 4:4 when God, the “father” of 4:2, delivers Israel from her slavery to sin under the law (pp. 119–120).

62

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

To view Israel’s period of “slavery” as extending throughout Israel’s history accords with the use of the exodus typology within the OT, in which Israel’s exile is viewed as an enslavement comparable to her time in Egypt.31 Indeed, Hos 11:1 pictures Israel as a νήπιος at the time she was called from Egypt in order to establish the drastic nature of Israel’s subsequent rebellion in view of the fact that she had been “adopted” and cared for by God (cf. Hos 11:2–4). The point of Hos 11:1–4 is that in judgment for her sin Israel will experience a second enslavement like her first in Egypt, but this time in Assyria (Hos 11:5). Hosea’s view of Israel as a “minor” is part of a wider prophetic motif which pictures Israel as still a “youth” during her time of rebellion leading up to the Exile.32 The only difference between the prophets and Paul in this regard is that, given Paul’s historical and eschatological vantage point, God’s judgment for Israel’s rebellion associated with the exilic period of slavery is now seen as stretching until “Christ/faith came” in the “fullness of time” (3:19, 23, 25, 4:4). Rhetorically, Paul’s intention in 4:1–2 is to remind his readers that, in contrast to the Galatian gentiles who are already heirs (cf. 3:29), the one who is the heir, i. e., collective Israel (cf. Rom 4:13),33 will remain functionally as a “slave,” i. e., without the inheritance, for as long as she remains a “child.” And Israel will remain a “child”/“slave” as long as she remains unbelieving and therefore continues to live “under the [judgment of the] law” as those outside the redemption from slavery brought about by Christ (4:5). This is true even though, by covenant status, Israel, and not the gentiles, is the eventual “lord” (κύριος), i. e., rightful owner, of the “earth” as her “estate” (contextually, ὤν in 4:1 is to be taken concessively).34 Hence, even though the “child” is the future heir of “all things,” Israel’s ongoing status of rebellion requires that she continue to be under the judgment of being ruled by others until God should end her period of slavery (4:2). This is the import of ἀλλά in 4:2, which is “rhetorically ascensive” to the main assertion of verse 1, indicating “not only this, but also … .”35 As a child, 31  Cf., e. g., Lev 26:13; Isa 10:24–27; 11:11; 35:9–10; 43:1–7; 48:10; 51:9–10; 63:7–64:12; Zech 10:8–11; Jer 11:4, etc. 32 Jer 3:24–25; 22:21; 31:19; 32:30; Ezek 16:22, 43, 60; 23:3, 8, 19, 21; Mal 2:14–15. Cf. too Ps 129:1–2 and the more general concept of one’s “youth” as a period of time associated with sin in Job 13:26; Ps 25:7. Consequently, Isa 54:4 looks forward to the time when Israel will be redeemed from her “youth,” since her youth is here understood to be a period of abandonment and shame paralleled to that of widowhood. Jeremiah 2:2–3 and Hos 2:15–17 are usually given as exceptions to this pattern, though they too may be read in a similar light; see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 235 n. 148. 33  Following Scott, Adoption, 128, in taking the article in ὁ κληρονόμος to be anaphoric, not generic. 34  Even Scott, Adoption, 133 n. 45, 134, must acknowledge that the Hoheitstitel κύριος πάν­ των, though often used of rulers and in political contexts of a ruling body of people, can also be used “under the figure of a household (cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.12; Aristotle, Pol. 3.1285b.30).” 35  Following BDAG, 45, meaning 4b.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

63

not only is the heir in no way different from the slave (οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου), but also (ἀλλά) she is ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός.  Ἀλλά in 4:2 thereby heightens the contrast between Israel’s status as the heir and her current treatment like a slave by emphasizing that as a “child”/“slave” she is presently under the authority of others. The main point of the analogy is consequently clear even under the traditional reading, though its heilsgeschichtliche implication would then be missed.36 In terms of actualizing his inheritance, the “child” (= Israel) is no better off than the slave for as long as this status remains. In either case, we must be careful to carry Paul’s central point through to its comparison in 4:3–7. Here too, as I argued in regard to 3:10–14 and 3:23–29, Paul’s contrast is not material and his emphasis is not existential, as these texts are so often interpreted, but eschatological and ecclesial.37 Receiving the “inheritance” in view does not depend on two distinct ways of life (i. e., “works” versus “faith,” “law” versus “grace,” or “acting” versus “receiving,” etc.), but on two distinct periods of time: Israel’s period of “childhood”/“slavery” in anticipation of the inheritance and the time of inheritance itself in accordance with the unalterable will of the Father (cf. 4:2 with 1:1 and 1:4). By comparison (cf. 36 E. g., see the traditional reading of this text by Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2:15–4:7, WUNT 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 225–228. Eckstein rightly concludes, 228 n. 271, “Auf die Details der Bildhälfte geht Paulus allerdings sowenig ein wie auf mögliche Mißverständnisse seines Vergleichs auf der Sachebene. Vielmehr konzentriert er sich ganz auf das eine tertium comparationis: den Kontrast zwischen früherer ‘Versklavung’ und jetziger Freiheit und Würde.” 37 For 3:10–14, 23–29, see chapter one. Here and throughout these two chapters I continue to follow the understanding of the epistolary “problem” addressed by Galatians set forth by Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), 186. Cosgrove has shown that the central issue in Galatians was not the proper conditions for justification before God per se (as if 2:15–21 were the center of the debate), or the proper foundation for ethics in the age of the Spirit (as if 4:31–5:25 were the heart of the letter), or the proper entrance requirements for membership within the people of God (as if the references to circumcision, ritual purity, and the calendar represented Paul’s fundamental concern) – i. e., the three most influential theories in the history of interpretation. Rather, an analysis of the structure of the letter shows that the Galatian problem is first addressed directly in 3:1–14, within which 3:1–5 present the crux of the dispute (cf. Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, viii, 8–15, 32–35, 38–42, 49–51, 86). In short, “Galatians is not about whether justification is by ‘works’ or by ‘faith,’ but about whether believers can promote their ongoing experience of the Spirit by doing the law” (ibid., 2, emphasis mine). In the categories now made famous by E. P. Sanders, and contra his own reading of the letter, Galatians is not about “getting in,” but about “staying in” the people of God (cf. Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 12, 44). In terms of the covenant structure I have set forth in the Introduction to this volume, it is therefore not about covenant inauguration (the covenant prologue), but covenant maintenance (i. e., the covenant stipulations). The controversy addressed by 3:2b is thus a disagreement over the relationship between keeping the law and experiencing life in the Spirit. The answers to the rhetorical questions in 3:2b and 5, based on the Galatians’ own experience, are therefore meant to settle the argument: the source of the Galatians’ continuing life in the Spirit is the same as their initial reception of the Spirit, i. e., ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως (as seen in their experience of justification), and not ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. For my understanding of the meaning of this contrast, see below.

64

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

the οὕτως καί of 4:338), these same two periods of time apply to those Jews who, like Paul as their prime example, have now experienced both periods of Israel’s history (4:3–5).39 Like all the children of Abraham who were destined to inherit the promises granted to Israel’s patriarch, Paul too had a period of childhood/ enslavement during which he did not receive his inheritance (4:3: ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι … ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι). This comparison in verses 1–2 and 3–5 between Israel as a child/slave and Paul’s own prototypical experience on both sides of the eschatological divide further underscores the continuing enslavement of Israel during Paul’s own day for those Jews who have not experienced the redemption brought about through the sending of the Son as described in 4:4–5. Read in this way, being ὑπὸ ἐπιτρό­ πους καὶ οἰκονόμους during Israel’s period of slavery in 4:2 parallels being ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in 4:3 and ὑπὸ νόμον in 4:5 as mutually interpretive descriptions of that which ruled over Israel “until the fullness of time came” (4:4). It is only the coming of the Son and faith in him that, in accordance with the will of God (i. e., the πατήρ of 4:2), brings this “period of time” (i. e., the χρόνος of 4:1) to an end for Israelites. Paul’s reference to Israel being ὑπὸ νόμον in 4:4–5 picks up his earlier reference in 3:23 to the fact that “before faith came [i. e., during the period of Israel’s “childhood” without the inheritance], Israel was being held under custody ὑπὸ νόμον.” To be ὑπὸ νόμον is the particular application to Israel of the universal statement in 3:22 that during this period “Scripture confined all things ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν.”40 Israel’s 38  For the use of οὕτως in typological arguments, cf. Matt 12:40; 24:37, 39; John 3:14; Rom 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Cor 15:22; pointed out by Scott, Adoption, 150–151 n. 102. 39  But the analogy to the child does not apply to the gentiles. The change from the first person plurals of verses 3–5 (ἡμεῖς … ἦμεν … ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι … ἀπολάμβωμεν) to the second person of verses 6–7 (ἐστε … εἶ) is to be read in the same way as the pronoun contrasts in the other two sections dealing with redemption, 2:15–17 and 3:23–29, i. e., as contrasts between Jews and gentiles. This is reinforced by the explicit qualification in 4:5a that those who receive adoption are those ὑπὸ νόμον, which can only refer to Jews. In our present context the one exception to this contrast between Jews and gentiles may be εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμων in 4:6, which may be an inclusive reference employed to stress the unity of Jew and gentile as a result of their common reception of the Spirit. But it is not until 4:31 that Paul consistently uses ἐσμέν in an inclusive sense, where he indicates this by way of the vocative ἀδελφοί. This corresponds to the common use of the first person plural in admonitions (cf. 5:1, 25–26). For the attempt to read the first person plurals of 3:23–25 and 4:3–5 to refer to “Jews and Gentiles” and “mankind,” see Scott, Adoption, 155–157, and the literature cited there. Scott’s central argument is that in 4:6–7, as elsewhere in the epistle, “Paul bases a statement about ‘us’ on a statement about ‘you’ and then oscillates suddenly between ‘we’ (v. 6b) and ‘you’ (v. 7)” (p. 157). In contrast to this reading, in each of these cases Paul’s oscillation is to be explained on the basis of his heilsgeschichtliche understanding of the interrelationship between the redemption of Israel and that of the gentiles and vice versa. 40  Contra those who, like F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 180–181, rightly see that the reference to the “Scripture” here, as in 3:8 and Rom 11:32, is “practically equivalent to ‘God,’ ” and that the general use of the neuter τὰ πάντα embraces “the whole human situation … in the aeon which the gospel age has displaced,” but who then miss the distinction between 3:22 and 23. For

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

65

experience “under the law,” i. e., her experience of God’s judgment in accordance with the Torah for her covenant-breaking rebellion against YHWH during her “childhood” as a “slave,” is determined by the fact that God confined all things, Israel included, “under sin.” In addition, the temporal distinction between the coming of “faith” and a period “under law,” together with the contrast between the law and the “promise” associated with the Abrahamic covenant, demonstrates that, like πίστις, νόμος too is being used as a metonymy, in its case for the Sinai covenant (cf. 3:17 and 4:24). Hence, Israel’s being “held in custody by the law” is descriptive of her particular experience in the pre-redemptive period of time (i. e., the period of the Sinai covenant) in which all things are “under” or “ruled by sin” until the epoch of “faith” is revealed with the coming of Christ (3:23b; cf. 3:19, 24). Though a matter of much debate, the conceptual link between Israel’s being “under the law” (3:23; 4:5) as a consequence of all things being “under sin” (3:22) is therefore best explained when the former is seen to be a shorthand reference back to Paul’s explication in 3:10–13. There Paul reminded his readers that those who are ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, i. e., those who are living according to the stipulations of the law as the embodiment of the Sinai covenant,41 are in fact ὑπὸ κατάραν (3:10; Bruce, “The sense of v. 22 is here repeated in different terms … a distinction without much of a difference … . As Gentiles and Jews alike are ‘confined under sin’ in v. 22, so Gentiles and Jews alike are ‘confined under law’ here” (pp. 181–182). For this same view in the continental tradition, see Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 5th ed., KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 164. But for the recognition of the distinction between mankind and the Jews in 3:22–23, see Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, THKNT 9 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 160–161. 41  As set forth in chapter one, Paul’s much debated reference to τὰ ἒργα νόμου (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 27–28; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32) is here taken as a subjective genitive to refer to what the law itself commanded or enjoined as a whole in its positive role as setting forth the stipulations of the Sinai covenant that flow naturally from and express Israel’s election. The phrase therefore carries no necessary negative connotations. However, this covenantal reading of Paul’s references to τὰ ἒργα νόμου underscores the fact that maintaining allegiance to the old covenant and its particular stipulations once the new has arrived not only denies the saving efficacy of Christ’s work, but also may lead to a false boasting in one’s heritage as a by-product. Indeed, at times this may have been its very appeal (cf. Gal 6:13; Rom 2:17–24; 3:27; 4:2; 1 Cor 1:26–29). For the various understandings of this term, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “Works of the Law,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 975–979. The interpretation of “works of the law” taken here is now confirmed by the possible use of the parallel phrase ‫ מעשי תורה‬in 4QFlor (4Q174) frag. 1 I, 21, 7 and the certain reading ‫ מעשי התורה‬in 4QMMT (4Q398) frag. 14–17 II 3. For the arguments surrounding the former text and a positive reading of the parallels between Qumran and Paul, see the conclusion to this study. For a rejection of the reading ‫ תורה‬in favor of ‫תודה‬ (“thanksgiving”) in 4QFlor, and for a rejection of a parallel between 4QMMT and Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, see Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. George J. Brooke, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 173–175, 202–213. The jury is still out on the former text, but the rejection of the parallel between Paul and 4QMMT is based, of course, on one’s reading of Paul. Of significance for our present study is

66

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

cf. 3:10 with 3:13 and 5:18, 23; see too Rom 2:12 with Rom 3:19).42 In support of this reading, James Scott has demonstrated that Paul’s combination of Deut 27:26 with Deut 29:19b (or 28:58) in Gal 3:10, together with the formulaic expression γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου (cf. Deut 28:58, 61; 29:19, 20, 26; 30:10), shows that Paul’s understanding of this “curse of the law” is to be taken from Deuteronomy 27–32 as a conceptual whole. Hence, the “curse” in view is the law’s pronouncement that those who fail to keep the covenant stipulations as set out in the “book of the law” will suffer the judgment of God, a judgment which Moses declares will eventuate in the exile of the nation (cf. Deut 29:20–30:1; 31:16–18).43 Indeed, the “Song of Moses” is intended to serve as a witness against the fact that 4QMMT also uses this phrase in reference to the curses and blessings of Deut 27–30 in a way that is “quite similar to Paul’s own Israel-reflection in Gal 3:8–14;” for this point and further support for the translation “deeds/works of the law” offered above, see James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” NTS 43 (1997): 148, 150 (in reference to 4QMMT C13–22). Dunn himself recognizes that 4QMMT thus “shared a more widespread fascination with this section of Deuteronomy as a way of making sense of the ups and downs of Israel’s history,” but he questions whether this means that its authors thought that they were still in exile, since they themselves were experiencing a type of inaugurated eschatology similar to the Christian self-understanding (p. 149). This objection overlooks the concept of the remnant in the thought of both Qumran and Paul (see below, pp. 85–86, 253–270, 347–352). On Dunn’s further thesis that in both 4QMMT and Galatians the phrase “works of the law” refers to a subset of the law’s commands that were used in their respective disputes as boundary markers, see note 43. Furthermore, the purpose of my work is to question the material, qualitative contrast that is often seen between “faith” in Paul and “obedience” or “covenant faithfulness” in this text and others like it (cf. Dunn, “4QMMT,” 150–152). 42  See below, pp. 68–71. 43  See James M. Scott, “ ‘For as Many as are of Works of the Law are Under a Curse’ (Galatians 3:10),” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans, eds., JSNTSup 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 187–221, esp. 194–195. For substantial support of Scott’s view, see now Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 13, 80, 88–89, 92–93. Galatians 5:3 and 6:13 do not assert the impossibility of obeying the law or that no one ever does so, but that those who preach circumcision are in fact not doing so, pointing to Phil 3:6 as well as that which “seriously undercuts this interpretation” (p. 88). In contrast to Scott and Wright, however, Morales posits that for Paul the curse is more fundamentally about death rather than exile (pp. 79–80, 86–87, 92, 166). In support, Morales points to Deut 28:21, 48, 63, which combine the curse of the exile with that of death, and 30:19, in which the covenant blessing and curse are used synonymously with life and death (pp. 93 n. 44, 95, 107). Moreover, within Deuteronomy 28 the curse of utterly perishing/death is referenced 11×s and that of the exile 9×s (p. 107 n. 96). I remain undecided regarding Morales’s proposal that, although both death and exile are the fundamental curses in Deut 28, Paul preferred the former over the latter or interpreted the latter in terms of the former. Morales’s point depends on arguing that Paul’s experience of Christ “transformed [Paul’s] understanding of the curse’s content (as a reference to exile in Deuteronomy) … Paul interpreted the curse through the controlling metaphor of life and death – or rather, through the actual phenomenon of life and death,” which explains why exile language “does not feature prominently, if at all, in Paul’s thought” (pp. 106, 106 n. 90; 107). Thus, “by speaking of death rather than exile as the curse, Paul has in a sense taken a metaphor that once referred to exile and made it the true referent of the curse” (p. 107). In pointing to death as the problem with the law in 1 Cor 15:56; 2 Cor 3:6; Rom 5:20–21; 7:5–6, 9–11; 8:2, Morales thus concludes that these texts “suggest that for Paul death has replaced exile as the ultimate curse of the Law” (p. 108, 108 n. 104). However, though Paul clearly focuses primarily on the

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

67

Israel when she falls under the exilic judgment of God for her idolatry (Deut 31:19–21, 26; 32:5, 15–42). Against this backdrop, Paul’s point is that under the Sinai covenant Israel continued to remain in the sin that rules “all things” and as a result continued to transgress the commandments laid down in “the book of the law,” thus incurring God’s judgment (Gal 3:10, 19, 23). The corresponding purpose of the comparison between the covenants of Abraham and Sinai in 3:15–18 is to reassure Paul’s readers that Israel’s transgressions against the Sinai covenant have not overthrown the covenant promises granted to Abraham.44 Although the Sinai covenant is broken curse of death and its reversal in his eschatological thinking, I think Morales overstates his case in contrasting exile with death (cf., e. g., “death rather than exile,” and “not exile and restoration, but death and resurrection,” pp. 107, 109), despite his own caution not to press this distinction “too far” (p. 107). If the curse of exile and death are in fact both in view, Paul can look to the resurrection as the restoration of the latter and to the final salvation of Israel as the restoration of the former (see chapters eight and nine below). Though James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (London: Blackwells, 1993), 170, 172, agrees that the phrase “written in the book of the law” “simply underlines the extent to which Paul was recalling the whole of that concluding section of Deuteronomy, indeed ‘the book of the law’ itself,” Dunn objects to this view in favor of taking ἒργα νόμου to be Paul’s own “code” for that subset of the law which was used to form “boundary markers” between Jews and gentiles (here, above all, circumcision and food laws; cf. 1:6–8; 2:4, 12). In 3:10, Paul thus pronounces a curse on this attitude and practice by using the wider context of the law against them, i. e., its more fundamental call for faith and love (cf. p. 173). For Dunn, therefore, Paul’s argument in 3:10 is based on an “idiosyncratic reading of Deut 27:26” (p. 171). In defense of his view, Dunn points to “deeds of the law” in CD 1:5–8 and 4QMMT as expressing confidence in a reestablished and sustained covenant, not to a sense of being in judgment under exile. Moreover, “certainly the attitude within Judaism attested by Paul from his own experience in such passages as Rom 2:17–20; 10:2–3; Gal 2:13–14; and Phil 3:6 evinces no sense of being still under the curse of exile” (p. 172). But Dunn fails to take into account that both Qumran and Paul viewed themselves as representatives of a faithful remnant within disobedient Israel as a whole. For both Qumran and Paul the point is precisely the contrast between Paul (both as a Pharisee and as a Christian) and the Qumran community on the one hand, as those who keep the covenant and are consequently not cursed by God, and the hardened nation as a whole on the other, which needs to be called to repentance. For this point, see Paul’s understanding of himself as part of the remnant in Rom 11:1–5 in comparison to the Qumran self-understanding as developed below in chapter eight and in my conclusion. The strength of the reading followed here is that it need not conclude that Paul’s use of ἒργα νόμου and the OT is idiosyncratic or that Paul employs the law against itself to make his argument. 44  For a covenantal reading of Gal 3:15–18, see Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah,” pp. 80–88, who argues against the common, but problematic reading of διαθήκη in 3:15 as a legal reference to a “will” or “testament” by which one disposes of property after his or her death; Hahn contends persuasively for its consistently LXX-based meaning, “covenant,” which is also consistent with Paul’s use of the term throughout his writings, the rest of the NT, and the Apostolic Fathers (the only possible exception is Heb 9:16–17). Indeed, unlike a “will,” which in Paul’s day could be annulled or supplemented by its testator, “since a covenant was irrevocable even by its maker … Paul’s statement οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται rings true without nuance” (p. 83; cf. the examples of this point in Josh 9:3–27; 2 Sam 21:1–14; Ezek 17:11–18; Mal 2:14–15, pp. 84, 88 n. 46, and of the inviolable nature of a covenant as expressed in its divinely sanctioned ratification by an oath, pp. 85–86). Furthermore, in order for the a-fortiori argument from human justice in v. 15 to the divine standard when God himself ratifies his own covenant in v. 17 to work, “the central term, διαθήκη, must bear the same meaning (i. e., covenant) in each analogy

68

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

and Israel as a people still remain under the (exilic-death) “curse of the law,” the promises granted to Abraham, which climaxed with the blessing of Abraham being extended to the gentiles, stand firm because it is the Messiah (the one seed and those who belong to him), not Israel under the Torah (the many seeds), who is the true heir of Abraham (3:16). Accordingly, those who inherit the promise as the “seed of Abraham” do so not because they submit to the Sinai covenant, but because they are baptized εἰς Χριστόν, are one people ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ, and hence now find their identity as those who are Χριστοῦ (3:27–29).45 The parallels between 3:10, 22, 23 and 4:1–5 therefore reflect Paul’s conception of the flow of biblical history in which, from the time of her sin with the golden calf onward, Israel lived under the judgment of God proclaimed in the law (i. e., “the curse of the law” of 3:10) because of her transgressions against the covenant as detailed by that same law (3:19). Furthermore, the Deuteronomic backdrop to 3:10 makes clear that the curse of the law climaxed in Israel’s eventual exile. As such, Paul states explicitly that the law’s purpose was “to shut (Israel) up to the faith which was later to be revealed” (3:23b) at the time when Christ would redeem (Israel) from “the curse of the law” (3:13; n.b., not from the law itself). In other words, when put in the terms of 4:1–5, the purpose of the law was to teach Israel that “under the law” she was still a sinful “child” awaiting her inheritance. Read in this light, Paul’s reflections on the function of the law and its curse are part of an extensive post-biblical tradition in which Israel’s rebellious nature is stressed as evidence of the need for a restoration of the people through a renewed, eschatological manifestation of the power of God.46 This two-epoch perspective may also cast new light on Paul’s corresponding description in 4:3 of Israel’s pre-redemptive enslavement under τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (cf. Col 2:8, 20). Though its precise denotation remains disputed, the most natural reading is to take the phrase here in accordance with its only attested … (p. 88; cf. p. 95). More speculatively, Hahn then identifies the covenant in view in Gal 3:15–18 to be the Abrahamic covenant in its final form as ratified by God with an oath in Gen 22:15–18, rather than that in Gen 15:17–21 or 17:1–27, since the latter passages do not refer to a blessing to the gentiles (pp. 88–94). The three key elements from Gal 3:15–18 occur only in Gen 22:15–18: ratification by God with an oath containing a promise; given to Abraham and to his “seed”; a blessing of the gentiles (p. 91). 45  The argument of 3:15–18 thus naturally raises the question of 3:19a and its answer in 3:19b–21, 24–25. The vexed question of the role of the law under the Sinai covenant in relationship to its role under the new covenant as promised in Jer 31:31–34, and Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27 cannot be pursued here. For my understanding of the these latter texts and their implications for understanding Paul’s view of the role of the law “in Christ,” see my Paul, Moses, 119–173. 46 For this point and a listing of many of the key texts, see my Paul, Moses, 378. For a helpful study of the motif of Israel’s hard-heartedness in the LXX and post-biblical literature, see still Klaus Berger, “Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz: Die Vorgeschichte des antijüdischen Vorwurfs in Mc 10:5,” ZNW 61 (1970): 1–47; and for the thesis that the biblical and post-biblical view of the sinful plight of Israel and the world preceded Paul’s solution, see Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, NovTSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1989).

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

69

meaning outside of Paul, where it consistently refers to the basic physical “elements” of the created world as it was then known (usually earth, air, fire, water, and sometimes ether). Certainly this must be attempted before concluding that it is a technical term unique to Paul designating the stars or the ruling demonic or cosmic powers of this age.47 Moreover, Paul does not subordinate the law to the “elements of the world” or vice versa, so that the common attempt to speak of the law in service to the demonic powers or of the demonic (angelic) powers expressing themselves through the law is without textual support. Instead, the functional parallel between ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in 4:3 and ὑπὸ νόμον in 4:5 reflects the fact that, for Paul, the “elements,” like the Torah, rule Israel’s life while she is a “child.”48 In her life of rebellion under the epoch of the old covenant, Israel is related to both the law and the elements in the same way, i. e., she is “under (ὑπó) them.” Like the Torah, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου is therefore not a negative term in and of itself, but only takes on a negative connotation in this context because of its present historical/eschatological placement and function.49 Paul’s point is that Israel’s life under the curse of the law is being lived 47 For a listing of the 26 attested relevant uses of the phrase (all of which refer to the physical elements) and the important secondary literature, see Cosgrove, Cross and Spirit, 75 n. 63; 76 n. 64–65, and Scott, Adoption, 157–161. Cosgrove himself, however, follows those who, like Vielhauer and Delling, take it to refer to spiritual powers (cf. 18 n. 34, 75–76). Scott follows those who read it as a reference to the non-deities of 4:8. It is significant, however, that the στοι­ χεῖα-terminology does not occur in the passages usually adduced as parallels (see, e. g., 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 8:5; 15:24; Rom 8:38) and that in 4:8–9 the idols in view are seen to be false extensions of the created order. In neither case do the “elements” themselves exercise any power over the Jews or gentiles, and, as Scott points out, “the attempt to interpret στοιχεῖα in terms of demonic forces … seems to be ruled out by the late date of the source material” (159 n. 136). For contextual arguments against the attempts to render the phrase in some way unique to Paul, see Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 231–233. 48 See too Linda Belleville, “Under Law: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3:21–4:11,” JSNT 26 (1986): 64–69, for the governing function of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in parallel to, but not identical with, the law, as well as for the contrast between Jew and gentile in 4:1–5 and 4:6–7. Belleville, however, argues that the phrase itself refers to “elementary” or “rudimentary principles” or “rules” that govern life, thereby referring to the problem among Jews and gentiles of subjecting “every aspect of their lives to strict regulation and close supervision” in a way suitable only for minors. In addition to following the traditional reading of 4:1–3, this view treats στοιχεῖα in isolation from its technical meaning in the phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. Moreover, part of the problem in Galatia was not that believers were overly concerned about rules and regulations as such, but that they were overly concerned with the wrong ones. For a comparison of 4:8–11 with 5:6–26 and 6:12–15 makes it clear that the “different gospel” of the agitators did not necessarily lead to moral transformation. 49 This may explain why Paul chose the “scientific” term τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, rather than simply using κόσμος, since for Paul the latter commonly carried a negative theological nuance as the realm and power of sin. On this point, see still Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 8th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 256–260. For the contrary reading in which the phrase itself is seen to represent “die von der Sünde gezeichnete Schöpfung,” 4:3, 5b are taken to refer to both Jews and gentiles, and the law is paralleled with the idols of the gentiles as a futile means of salvation that is orientated on this “alten Weltzeit,” see Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 230–231, 238.

70

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

out in this age in accordance with the current created order that is also under a curse because of humanity’s sin (cf. Gen 3:17–18; Rom 8:18–22; see chapter 10 for Paul’s corresponding development of the “new creation” inaugurated under the new covenant). Paul’s reference to Israel’s being “under the elements of the world” reflects his understanding that Scripture has consigned all things, now said to include the created order as well as the law, under sin (3:22). For this reason, in 4:8–9 Paul can also describe gentiles in their idolatry, together with Jews (4:3), as enslaved to this same creation, whereas, by definition, in 4:5 only Jews are described as being “under the law” since they are the chosen people of the Sinai covenant.50 Paul refers to his fellow Jews as enslaved ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in 4:3 to make it plain that Israel’s life under the curse of the law is part and parcel of greater humanity’s existence in this world as lived out in accordance with the cursed elements of “this present evil age” (1:4).51 At the same time, the careful contrast between the Jews in 4:1–5 and the gentiles in 4:6–11 reflects Paul’s insight that being “shut up under sin” (3:22) has worked itself out differently for Jews and gentiles. On the one hand, Adam’s fall in the garden has led to the direct idolatry of the gentiles as they respond to the created order by worshipping it (4:8–9; cf. Rom 1:18–23; 5:12–14, 15a, 17a, 18a, 19a). On the other hand, Israel’s subsequent, second “fall” in the wilderness has led to a history of idolatrous syncretism in which they fail to keep the covenant (3:10, 22, 23, and 4:1–5; cf. 1 Cor 10:5–10; 2 Cor 3:7–15).52 This similarity and yet distinction between Jews and gentiles is confirmed by the fact that when Paul turns his attention to the salvation of the gentiles in 4:6–7 he is careful to make a contrast between their past, pre-inheritance status and that of the Jews, even though their present status as heirs is the same. Unlike the Jews, who go from being God’s νήπιος, who is no different than a slave (4:1), to being adopted as heirs (4:5), the gentiles go from being actual “slaves” to being “sons” and “heirs” 50 Cf. Scott, Adoption, 158 (and the literature in 158 n. 133), for the prevailing view of the implication of this parallel: “In effect, therefore, Paul classes Judaism with polytheism as enslavement under the στοιχεῖα.” Scott, however, sees the references in 4:3 and 5 to include both Jews and gentiles, even though he recognizes “the fact that the only other occurrence of οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον in the Corpus Paulinum [i. e., 1 Cor 9:20–21] refers unequivocally to the Jews and that the Jews – of all people – deserve the title” (p. 173). Hence, in 4:21, the Galatian gentiles who want to join the “Judaizers” are described as οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, not as being “under the law” φύσει (cf. 2:15). 51  So too Cosgrove’s understanding of the implication of Paul’s argument (Cross and the Spirit, 77): “Now those who belong to the present (old) cosmos have no recourse but to order themselves by it … . But under whatever forms or conceptions ‘serving the στοιχεῖα’ appears, it represents activity fitted only to the present order rather than to that of the new creation in Christ (Gal 6:14–15).” Conversely, the Spirit is the power of the new creation and is already establishing its realities in anticipation of the final transformation of the earth (ix). 52  For the role of the golden calf as Israel’s “fall” after her “creation” at Sinai (without the implications Ferdinand Weber drew from this for viewing Judaism as an inferior religion of “works”), see my Paul, Moses, 228–229.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

71

(4:6–7). These parallels and contrasts between the Jews and gentiles in 4:1–7 indicate clearly that, in spite of Paul’s own personal zeal for and righteousness under the Torah and its traditions as part of the remnant of the faithful (1:13–14; cf. the treatment of Phil 3:4–6 in chapter six), Paul still saw his own life prior to his faith in Christ as part of the period of Israel’s unfulfilled inheritance as a people in which she was still ruled by the impact of sin in the world. By way of summary, Paul defined Israel’s existence as a people “until faith came” by the following mutually interpreting concepts, now arranged according to their logical interrelationships: During the period of the Sinai covenant between Abraham and Christ, Israel, like the rest of the world, remained

ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν (3:22). As a result, she transgressed the law (3:19), i. e., broke the covenant, and hence was

ὑπὸ τὴν κατὰραν τοῦ νόμου (3:10, 13). In other words, Israel was

ὑπὸ νόμον (4:5; 3:23) in its divinely appointed role at that time of preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. Metaphorically speaking, in her sinful state Israel was

ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν (3:24–25). Since Israel was therefore still part of this fallen creation in anticipation of her eschatological redemption, she too lived “under the (curse of the) law” as part of being

ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (4:3). Thus, in its most general terms, Israel’s life as a “child” can be described as a time

ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους (4:2).

The Eschatological Problem in Galatia (Gal 4:4–11) Galatians 4:4–7 indicates clearly that, for Paul, the turning point in Israel’s history, and consequently in the history of the world, took place with the sending of Christ and the Spirit. The redemption brought about by Christ inaugurates the new age, which in turn results in a relationship with God as Father maintained by the Spirit (1:4; 4:4–5a). As a result, Jewish believers in the Messiah no longer live under the curse of the law, thereby being freed, together with the gentiles, from living according to the cursed “elements” of this created order (3:13, 23–25; 4:4–5; cf. 6:14 and the move from “we [Jews]” in 4:3–5 to “you [gentiles]” in 4:6).

72

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

By implication, the inauguration of the messianic age in the “fullness of time”53 is the proleptic inauguration of the new creation (cf. 6:15 and the parallel between the deliverance from this evil age κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν in 1:4 and Israel’s time under guardians and managers ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός in 4:2). Moreover, Paul’s technical, eschatological use of ἐξαγοράζειν (“to redeem [out of slavery]”)54 and υἱοθεσία (“adoption as sons”)55 in 4:5 makes it evident that the inauguration of the messianic age/new creation is to be viewed as the beginning of the final “second exodus-restoration” of Israel from her exile first begun in the days of Ezra-Nehemiah. In other words, as evidenced by the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon his people, the “new covenant” entails the “adoption” of Israel as God’s “son.”56 The corollary of this restoration is that those gentiles who believe in the Son have also been adopted as “sons” (υἱοί), so that “in Christ” they too, as gentiles, now share in Israel’s inheritance as Abraham’s heirs (κληρονόμος; 4:6–7; cf. 3:16, 22, 26, 29). For in both cases, Jew and gentile alike have received the Spirit as the promised “blessing of Abraham” or “inheritance” as a result of having become “sons of Abraham” ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χρι­ στῷ  Ἰησοῦ (3:2–5, 7–9; 3:14, 16–18, 26–29; 4:6). The argument of Gal 4:1–6 reflects the fact once again that it is this common ground experience of the Spirit by both Jews and gentiles in accordance with the 53  On the motif of the “fullness” of a time as the completion of a divinely ordained period that corresponds with the appearance of the Messiah, see the discussion and texts in Scott, Adoption, 161–162. Of special interest is Jer 36:10LXX, where this fullness is associated with bringing back the exiles. 54 For Paul’s use of ἐξαγοράζω, cf. Gal 3:13; Col. 4:5; Eph 5:16. The consensus view that in Paul’s writings it means “to redeem (from slavery),” employing an exodus typology, rather than simply “to buy (something),” is confirmed by Scott’s extensive study; cf. ibid., 173. 55 For the meaning of υἱοθεσία as “adoption as a son” rather than “sonship,” see the full-length lexical study of its semantic field in ibid., 1–57, 175–176. In the NT it occurs only in Paul (cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5) and is not found in the LXX or other Jewish sources. Though Paul’s transferred religious use of the term is unparalleled (cf. p. 55), Deut 14:1–2, Philo, Sobr. 56, and Jos. Asen. 12 reflect the concept of a two-stage adoption in which God, as the Father of all, subsequently adopts his people in a more particular and realized sense (pp. 96–97, 176 n. 195). Of special significance for Gal 4:6–9 is the fact that in Philo, Sobr. 56, Abraham is the prototypical example of the adopted son of God as a result of his conversion to monotheism from polytheism. 56  The traditionsgeschichtliche support for this confluence of ideas has now been elucidated by Scott as a central contribution of his study; cf. esp. Adoption, 106–116, 176–179. Scott demonstrates that the eschatological role of the Spirit, the fulfillment of the law, the advent of the Messiah as the “adopted Son,” and the establishment of the new covenant are all associated with or expressed by the adoption-formula from 2 Sam 7:14a as it is taken up and developed in the contexts of 4QFlor (4Q174) 1:11, Jub. 1:24, and T. Jud. 24:3 to describe the postexilic restoration of Israel. For a detailed study of the related promise of the final, eschatological adoption of God’s people from 2 Sam 7:14 within the covenant structure represented in the composite citation of 2 Cor 6:16–18, see now Euichang Kim, The Fear of God in 2 Corinthians 7:1: Its Salvation-Historical, Literary, and Eschatological Contexts, LNTS 605 (London: T&T Clark, 2019), who details the threefold covenant structure of Paul’s thinking, each element of which is derived from the Scriptures: covenant prologue (2 Cor 6:16bc); covenant stipulations (6:17ab; 7:1bc); covenant promises (6:17c–18; 7:1a). For the expansion of this point, see below, pp. 369–370.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

73

Abrahamic promise, and not the status of sonship per se (cf. the ὅτι in 4:6a), that provides the foundation of Paul’s polemic in Gal 3–4 (cf. 3:1–5).57 The reason is immediately evident: the presence of the Spirit is the mark of the new age of the new creation under the (new) covenant identified with the Jerusalem “above” (see 4:26, 28–29). Paul’s focus on the status of Abraham’s heirs in 3:26–29 and 4:1–7 is therefore not for its own sake. Paul introduces the issue of status-transfer for Jews and gentiles in order to raise the issue of inheritance (cf. 3:29; 4:5, 7), which in turn points to the eschatological transition from “the present evil age” (1:4) to the age of what Cosgrove calls “realized heirship.”58 Hence, for the Galatians to adopt the Sinai covenant now would be to go back in eschatological time. In turn, “to live like a Jew” (ἰουδαΐζω) as a requirement for continuing on with Christ would be to import life “under the law” into the new age of the Spirit.59 Such a move would deny that the faithfulness of Christ and faith in him, in fulfillment of the covenantal promise to Abraham, were the all-sufficient foundation for life according to the Spirit (cf. 4:8–10 and 5:1, 16, 24–25 with 3:1–5). For requiring the old covenant in the midst of the new would imply a radical denial of the eschatological significance of Christ’s death both anthropologically, as that which frees one from the power of sin, and historically, as that which brings about the turn of the ages (1:4; 2:19–21; 3:13; 4:5; 5:2; 6:14; cf. Rom 6:14–15 for the explicit link between living as a slave to sin and being ὑπὸ νόμον).60 At the root of the controversy in Galatia, therefore, was a failure on the part of the agitators to recognize the Christological and related eschatological implications of their demands. This is made evident by the temporal contrast in 4:8 and 9 between “then” (τότε) and “now” (νῦν), which reflects the same history of redemption contrast established in 4:1–5. The death of Christ accomplishes for the gentiles in 4:6–7 the same thing it does for the Jews in verse 4:5. In terms of 57 So too Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 32: “If we take seriously the identification of the inheritance with the Spirit, via the medial terms ‘blessing of Abraham’ and ‘promise’ (3:14), then we may view all of 3:1–4:7 as thematically unified: the Spirit (3:2; 3:3; 3:5; 3:14) =  the blessing (3:8; 3:9; 3:14) =  the content of the promise (3:14; 3:16; 3:17: 3:18; 3:19; 3:21; 3:29) = the inheritance/‘realized heirship’ (3:18; 3:29; 4:7). In Rom 4:13 the content of the promise to Abraham ‘is inheriting the world.’ In Galatians the content of the promise is ‘inheriting the Spirit’ ” (p. 86). 58  Ibid., 51–52, 69. “Inheritance in Galatians means ‘realized heirship’ as life in the Spirit” (p. 52). Because of the inextricable link between the status of sonship and the reception of the Spirit, Paul can also argue in Rom 8:16 from the reception of the Spirit to one’s status, just as he argues from one’s status to the reception of the Spirit throughout Galatians; for this point, see ibid., p. 51. 59 Cf. 1 Cor 9:20 for the explicit link between living like a Jew and being ὑπὸ νόμον, which Paul himself could still do in accordance with his Jewish identity and practice and for the sake of his mission, without attaching to it ongoing salvific significance, i. e., he could live ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον κερδήσω. 60  See too the conclusion from ibid., 69: “In both sections (3:23–29 and 4:1–7) an implication for Paul’s readers is that a move ‘under the law’ amounts to a return to their pre-Christian situation, a thought spelled out explicitly in 4:8–11.”

74

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Paul’s typology, this means that while Israel was “adopted as sons” at the first exodus, the gentiles were “adopted” at the second exodus now brought about by the coming of Christ. But given Israel’s history of rebellion and judgment during her “childhood,” at which time she was treated no better than a “slave” in regard to her inheritance (4:1–2), both Jews and gentiles are now receiving their inheritance simultaneously.61 Moreover, given the parallels between 4:1–5 and 4:6–8, the τότε/νῦν temporal contrast in 4:8–9 indicates that for Paul this redemption signals not merely a personal transition in the life of an individual, but also a corporate transition for the nations that corresponds to these same periods of time within Israel’s history. In the past, while Israel was a “child,” the nations were excluded from the covenant. Now, in the period of believing Israel’s inheritance, a believing remnant from among the nations is also being incorporated into the covenant people of God. In other words, the age of the Sinai covenant is the age of this world, during which the gentiles, sinners by definition, are excluded from the people of God (2:15). Conversely, the age of the new covenant is the new age of the new creation in which believing gentiles, as gentiles, are incorporated into Gods people (2:2–5; 3:1–5, 26–29; 4:28; 6:15; cf. Eph 2:11–22). This explains why in verse 4:9b Paul expresses incredulity over the Galatians’ desire to submit to the demands of the agitators.62 Though the Galatians are not contemplating a return to paganism, they are being tempted to adopt the Mount Sinai-Hagar covenant, which is equally characteristic of the enslaved, created order of this present evil age (cf. 4:21–25 with 1:4). For as we have seen, a reference to the στοιχεῖα is a reference to the status quo of this present created order, now specifically qualified in 4:9b as ἀσθενῆ and πτωχά in terms of their ability to redeem the gentiles. The argument in 4:8–10 is therefore an adversative one: 61 This accords with the OT expectation of the incorporation of the gentiles into the people of God, usually associated with the restoration of Israel from exile (cf. Isa 2:2–5 [Mic 4:1–4]; 25:6–8; 56:3–8; 60:3–4; 66:18–24, 23; Zech 2:10–13; 8:20–23; Zeph 3:9–10; Jer 16:19–21, etc.). For these texts and the development of this theme in the OT and post-biblical Judaism, see Wolfgang Kraus, Das Volk Gottes: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus, WUNT 85 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 16–107. Against this OT backdrop, the startling aspect of Paul’s theology is that this present incorporation of Jews and gentiles into the eschatologically restored people of God remains only a proleptic restoration of a remnant of both peoples (see below and chapters eight and nine). 62 On this point, see the contrary reading of Troy Martin, “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy,” JBL 114 (1995): 437–461, who takes seriously the rhetorical function of the two accusations of 1:6–9 and 4:8–11 and argues that the latter one, which accuses the Galatians of apostatizing to paganism, is actually the primary one within the epistle. Martin argues that the Galatians were therefore not contemplating circumcision, but, having now accepted that circumcision and the Jewish law were indeed requirements of the true gospel (to which they would not submit), were using the message of the agitators as the reason for their returning to paganism. Though this reading is open to question (cf., e. g., his reading of 4:21 and 5:1–6 as addressing the proponents of the circumcision gospel, not the Galatians, pp. 450–456), Martin’s rightful emphasis on the centrality of 4:8–11 must be taken into account in reconstructing the Galatian controversy.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

75

although their earlier life in paganism was understandable (v. 8), Paul cannot fathom that the Galatians would desire to return to calendar practices that correspond to life in this world (cf. Gen 1:14) since he considers such practices to be irrelevant now that God has rescued them (v. 9a) and the new creation has dawned (vv. 9b– 10).63 This is because, as shocking at it sounds at first, from Paul’s eschatological perspective the period of Israel’s slavery under the Sinai covenant corresponds to the time of the Galatians’ prior slavery to idols. But here too Paul is in line with the Scripture’s prophetic critique of Israel’s propensity throughout her history to fall prey to the idolatry of the nations.64

The Eschatological Implications of Paul’s Suffering (Gal 4:12–20) Having stated his case in 4:1–11, Paul turns to support it in 4:12–30. He does so first by recourse in 4:12–20 to his own suffering and to the initial response of the Galatians, and then in 4:21–30 by reference to the Law and the Prophets. Though I will pursue Paul’s argument in 4:12–20 in more detail in chapter five, three things may be said already here regarding its significance in view of Paul’s argument from eschatology in Gal 4:1–11. First, Paul’s appeal to his suffering and to the Galatians’ previous response to his sickness is not an aside in his argument, but an essential aspect of his polemic. Both demonstrate that the new age of the inheritance of the Spirit has in fact dawned and that the Galatians’ previous experience of God’s covenant blessing was legitimate (cf. 4:14–15 with 3:1–5). From Paul’s perspective, nothing else can adequately explain either his own suffering (4:13–14; cf. 1:10; 5:11; 6:17) and willingness to live like a gentile (4:12; cf. 1 Cor 63 The Galatians’ temptation to return to the way of life that corresponds to the old creation leads Paul to fear that his labor for them may have been “in vain” (εἰκῇ; cf. 3:4). Could it be, then, that Paul’s reference in 4:11 to his having “labored in vain” (εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα; cf. 3:4) recalls Israel’s empty labor as God’s “servant” in Isa 49:4 (κενῶς ἐκοπίασα)? If so, 4:11 would express Paul’s fear that the Galatians were not participating in the promise that God would one day indeed make Israel to be “a light for the gentiles” (Isa 43:6), which is given as the rationale for Paul’s ministry to the gentiles in Acts 13:47 and is the backdrop for his appeal to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 6:1–2 (quoting Isa 49:8). That Paul viewed himself in this light is confirmed by his use of Isa 49:1 to describe his call in Gal 1:15. Against this backdrop, Paul’s point in 4:11 is that he fears that in the end the Galatians may not be part of God’s people since their rejection of the gospel will mean that his role as a remnant of eschatological Israel has not been fulfilled toward them. Conversely, Paul’s confidence that his ministry will prevail among those who are God’s people may have been based on the corresponding promise of Isa 65:23 that God’s elect “will not labor in vain” (οὐ κοπιάσουσιν εἰς κενόν) in the new creation (cf. the related motif in Isa 63:13). In other words, it is not Paul’s legitimacy that is on the line here, but the Galatians’. Hence, in 4:11, as in 3:3–4, the evidence of their genuine reception of the inheritance is their refusal not to turn back to the laws and ordinances that pertain to the time in which the gentiles as gentiles were still disenfranchised. 64  See, e. g., Lev 19:4; 26:1, 30; Deut 32:21; 1 Kngs 16:13, 26; 2 Kngs 17:12–15; 23:1–15, 24; Hosea 4:12–14; 11:2; 13:2; Isa 2:6–8, 17–18; 10:10–11; 57:1–13; Jer 8:19; Ezek 6:1–14; 20:7–32; 36:18; 44:10–12.

76

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

9:21), or the previous loving response of the Galatians in return (4:14; cf. 5:6, 13–23; 6:15). On the other hand, the agitators’ exclusion of the Galatians until they conform to the practices of the Sinai covenant reveals the impurity of their motives (4:17–18; cf. 2:13; 6:12). As a result, if the Galatians were to follow them, they would be denying the reality of their previous “blessing” (4:15a; cf. 3:1–5). Second, Ernst Baasland has insightfully pointed out the conceptual link between Paul’s suffering in 4:14 and the OT “curse” tradition based on the connection between sin and suffering/persecution, of which “the most convincing evidence is found in the ‫ ארוּר‬catalogue in Deut 27:15–26; 28:16–19,” based on the use of Deut 27:26; 28:15.65 Against this Scriptural backdrop the polemical significance of Paul’s statement in 4:14 becomes readily apparent. Paul’s reference in 3:10 to Deut 27:26 (28:15) in his dispute with the agitators points to the likely inference that they were using this same tradition against Paul, arguing from his suffering that he was the one who was still under the curse of the law (cf. his fivefold punishment as a transgressor by the synagogue in accordance with Deut 25:1–3 [2 Cor 11:24]). Under their influence Paul’s suffering had posed a “temptation” (πειρασμός) to the Galatians (4:14a). But the Galatians’ earlier acceptance of Paul in spite of his suffering indicated their former approval of Paul’s gospel and of his apostleship ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ … ὡς Χριστὸν  Ἰησοῦν (4:14b), to which Paul now calls them back.66 “Paul insists that his sufferings are not the result of a curse, but they show that he belongs to Christ,”67 who redeemed him from that very curse (3:13; 4:5). 65  See Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38/2 (1984): 141. In addition, Baasland points to Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11. This link to the “curse” tradition would further establish an intertextual connection within the Torah between the fall of Adam and Eve and the “fall” of Israel with the golden calf. See too Jer 11:3, Mal 2:2, and Gen 12:3 (p. 142). Of more direct significance here is Baasland’s observation that “it is really only in Deut 28:20 ff. and in the passio iusti tradition that the persecution theme plays any important role in the Old Testament.” Thus, Gal 6:1 too ought to be read as a call to restore the fallen brother back to covenant faithfulness and as a warning to do so in a way that keeps one from falling under the same “curse of the law,” i. e., μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς. 66  Though these points are now widely accepted as essential to understanding Paul’s polemic in 2 Corinthians, Baasland, “Persecution,” 142–147, posits that in Galatians as well “Paul’s misfortune was used against him” (p. 142). As he argues, the central placement and development of the theme of persecution and suffering in Galatians shows that “the problem was not that (Paul) himself had been a persecutor (thus, e. g., Mussner) but the fact that he was being persecuted (cf. 1:13–14, 23; 3:4; 4:29; 5:1–12; 6:12 ff.). It is very easy to imagine that many Jews used this argument against Paul” (p. 142). From their perspective, Paul’s suffering and persecution could be viewed as God’s judgment/curse for his apparent failure to keep the law (p. 145). Conversely, the Judaizers are merely trying to help the Galatians avoid a similar fate (cf. 6:12). After all, Gen 12:3 pronounces a curse on those who curse Abraham, which Paul must surely be doing in his disregard of circumcision (p. 142). Against this, Paul argues that his suffering both embodies and mediates the message of the gospel and the power of the Spirit as an extension of the sufferings of Christ (cf. 2:20; 3:1; 6:14, 17). For this last point as developed from Galatians, see now Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 169–194. 67 Baasland, “Persecution,” 146. Hence, Gal 1:8 stands as Paul’s counter-inference.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

77

Finally, it is striking in this regard that Paul’s argument in Gal 4 follows the same structure and content exhibited in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6, where Paul is fighting a similar challenge to his apostleship and to the nature of the gospel. In both passages Paul supports the legitimacy of his apostleship by pointing to the mediatorial role played by his suffering in the preaching of the gospel (cf. 2 Cor 2:14–17 with Gal 4:13).68 In both texts he then turns to his readers’ prior response to his suffering as offering evidence not only of his own legitimacy, but also of their past experience of the Spirit/“blessing” (cf. 2 Cor 3:1–3 with Gal 4:14–15). And in both passages Paul subsequently offers an argument from Scripture in order to fortify the appeal from his own personal experience and that of his readers (cf. 2 Cor 3:4–18 with 4:21–20, esp. 3:14–15 with 4:21–25). In Gal 4:12–30 Paul is therefore establishing the same twofold argument from experience and Scripture that he employed elsewhere when the gospel was on the line.

The Present State of Israel (Gal 4:21–25) As in 3:1–5 and 4:9, Paul’s incredulity over those Galatians who desire to return to the Sinai covenant is again expressed in 4:21: such a desire can only mean that they must not understand the teaching of the law itself (τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;). Thus, as in 3:6–20, Paul returns to the law to drive home his point. But this time, rather than turning his attention to Israel’s history “under the law” in relationship to the promise granted to Abraham (3:6–16), Paul recalls the well-known beginning of Israel’s covenant history. Paul reminds his readers in 4:22–25 that from the very beginning of Israel’s history not all of Abraham’s descendants can be considered members of the covenant community (cf. Rom 9:6 for this same point: οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ  Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι  Ἰσραήλ). According to Gen 16–21, Paul recounts that Abraham had two sons by two women of different status in regard to membership within the covenant people, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης (i. e., Ishmael from Hagar) καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας (i. e., Isaac from Sarah). Moreover, the son born of the servant was born κατὰ σάρκα, while the son born of the free-woman was born δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας (v. 23). This contrast corresponds to the Genesis narrative, where Ishmael was the result of Abraham’s own initiative in view of Sarah’s barrenness (cf. Gen 16:1–4), whereas Isaac comes about by divine intervention in fulfillment 68  For 2 Cor 2:14–3:3 as a reference to Paul’s apostolic suffering as the vehicle through which the Spirit is mediated in fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant, see my Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) = Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); for the development of this theme, see too Jens Schröter, Der versöhnte Versöhner: Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2 Kor 2:14–7:4, TANZ 10 (Tübingen: Francke, 1993), though Schröter rejects my reading of 2:14 as a reference to Paul’s suffering under the image of “being led to death in the triumphal procession.”

78

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

of God’s word (cf. Gen 17:16–21; 18:10–14; 21:1–2). Consequently, Ishmael is rejected, made clear by the dictum that he must now live “over against all his brothers” (Gen 16:12; cf. 21:8–21; 25:18). Already in the Genesis narrative the slave-status of Hagar is associated with the unbelief expressed in giving birth to those descendants of Abraham who, despite their common father, are nevertheless outside the covenant people. In stark contrast, Sarah’s “freedom” is matched with the granting of the covenant promise through Isaac. For Paul too, as in the original context of Genesis, the contrast between the sons of Hagar and Sarah points to the distinction between being outside and inside the covenant people of God in accordance with the promise to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:4–5; 18:18, 22:17; 26:4 [granted to Isaac, not Ishmael]; 28:14 [granted to Jacob, not Esau]). From Paul’s eschatological perspective, this distinction also corresponds to the difference between being left to one’s own devices under the power of sin, i. e., being born κατὰ σάρκα, and receiving the Spirit in accordance with the promise to Abraham, i. e., being born κατὰ πνεῦμα (4:29; cf. 3:1–5, 14; 5:16–26; 6:8; esp. the summary in 5:26 in comparison to the description of Ishmael in Gen 16:12). In 4:24–25 Paul elucidates the significance of this contrast for understanding the history of Israel. To bring out their relevance, the “things” outlined in 4:22–23, referred to by the ἅτινα of 4:24a, “are being expressed in allegory” (ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα). However we understand Paul’s definition of ἀλληγορέω and its application in 4:24–25, it is enough for our purposes to recognize the point Paul draws from the Genesis narrative: the mothers and sons of Abraham embody from the very beginning “two covenants” (4:24), the first of which is introduced immediately in 4:24b–25.69 By now Paul’s readers should be prepared for the shocking announcement of 4:24: this first covenant, associated with Hagar, is the Sinai covenant, which, like Hagar, has given birth to children for slavery (εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα).70 69 Our purpose here is not to analyze in any detail how Paul actually derived his points from the biblical account. All that can be done is to pose the question of whether Paul’s reading is as farfetched as usually supposed. For a forceful statement of this approach, see Richard B. Hays’s central thesis, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 86–87, 111–121, that what Paul characteristically saw when he read the Scriptures was “a prefiguration of the church as the people of God,” an “ecclesiocentric hermeneutic” for which Gal 4:21–31 offers central support as “a fancifully subversive ecclesiocentric reading of Genesis 21” (p. 111). Thus, for Hays, in 4:21–31 Paul practices “hermeneutical jujitsu” (p. 112) in presenting a “hermeneutical miracle” that deflects Gen 21:1–10 back against his opponents. Moreover, Paul’s “miracle” is based on his earlier rereading of the Abrahamic promise in 3:1–14, which also “has no discernible warrant in the text” (p. 110). In the end, Paul’s association of Hagar with the law is a “strong misreading” of the OT narrative based on the Christian community’s experience of the Spirit (p. 115). The validity of such an evaluation needs to be challenged. 70  Cf. Hays, Echoes, 114–115, and Ben Witherington III’s reminder, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Abingdon, 1994), 48, that H. D. Betz’s reading of Gal 3–4, i. e., that since Hagar represents the old covenant and Sarah the new, the contrast eventually becomes one of Judaism and Christianity, is not to be followed. As

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

79

Once again, as in 3:17–4:5, Paul is careful to indicate that the Sinai covenant did not fulfill the promises granted to Abraham, but instead adjudicated a people who, like Ishmael, stood outside the covenant blessing, having been circumcised in the flesh (cf. Gen 17:23–27!), but not according to the promise. Like the son of the slave woman, the children of the Sinai covenant are born into “slavery,” i. e., into a status characterized by not inheriting the promise (cf. 4:1–2 with 4:22–25). In view of Paul’s argument in 3:22–24, this can only mean that Israel under the Sinai covenant was born into a slavery to sin, from which the law apart from Christ and the Spirit could not redeem her (cf. Rom 8:3–4). At the exodus, Israel was rescued from circumstantial slavery in Egypt, but not from the hardness of her heart that characterized her time as a “child”/“slave” (3:10, 19; 4:1–2; cf. 1 Cor 10:1–10; 2 Cor 3:6–7, 9a, 13–14a). Thus, 4:22–24 restates the point of 4:1–5: under the Sinai covenant Israel as a whole, apart from a remnant, did not inherit the promise to Abraham, remaining instead under the “curse of the law” pronounced against those enslaved “under sin.” In short, Israel remained a son of Hagar κατὰ σάρκα, physically descendant from Abraham, but outside the line of the promise as determined by the sovereign election of God. What the reader is not prepared to hear, however, is the even more shocking point of 4:25. In spite of the Messiah’s having come to redeem Israel from being under the curse of the law (Gal 3:13; 4:5), Paul declares that “the present Jerusalem” (ἡ νῦν  Ἰερουσαλήμ) still belongs to the lineage of the Hagar-born people of the Sinai covenant. Although the covenant of the free woman has been fulfilled in Christ as the seed of Abraham, it has not brought the covenant of the slave woman finally to an end. The two covenants, slave and free, flesh and Spirit, represented by the two Jerusalems, continue to remain simultaneously in force, just as they always have (4:29). In other words, although the Messiah has come, Israel as a people, here represented by the Jerusalem of the now-age, remains unredeemed. As Cosgrove puts it, “the law has given Sarah no children.”71 In Paul’s words, Jerusalem “is in slavery with her children” (4:25b). In Paul’s understanding of Israel’s history, this can only mean that the curse of the law remains over the nation as a whole and that, outside of Christ, the people therefore still find themselves under God’s judgment. In terms of Paul’s analogy from 4:1–5, unbelieving Israel is still a “child” awaiting her inheritance since God’s righteousness and the corresponding righteousness of his people do not Witherington points out, “The argument is about which form of Judaism is the legitimate one – the Christian form with its link to the Abrahamic covenant, or the Mosaic form as maintained by the Judaizers and elsewhere by non-Christian Jews” (emphasis mine). To make Witherington’s point more precise, the argument seems to be whether the “Christian form” is indeed the long-awaited fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (with its promise of the inclusion of the gentiles, cf. 3:14a), and, if so, what becomes of the “Mosaic form” now that the Messiah has come, since in its own epoch Paul sees the Sinai covenant as the legitimate extension of the Abrahamic covenant, albeit not its fulfillment (cf. Gal 3:21–24). 71 Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 83.

80

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

come through the law, i. e., the Sinai covenant, but through the death of Christ, which inaugurates the new covenant (2:21). Within the context of Paul’s argument this helps to explain two things. First, it explains in part why Paul’s nonChristian Jewish contemporaries continue to reject Jesus and to persecute those who now live for him, including Paul (cf. 1:13; 2:20; 6:17). Second, it explains in part why the Christian Judaizers seek to bring gentile converts back to the Sinai covenant. In both cases, they view the covenant which is emblematically identified with Jerusalem still to be in force as essential to the identity of God’s people now and to Israel’s eschatological restoration in the future.72 That such a reading of Gal 4:21–25 is justified can be seen by its close conceptual parallels to Paul’s statements in 2 Cor 3:14–15. There Paul argues that “the sons of Israel” continue to reject the gospel in spite of its bold proclamation by Paul and its “unveiled” nature (cf. 2 Cor 3:12–13; 4:2, 5) because, from the very beginning of her “old covenant” history, “their minds were hardened” (2 Cor 3:14; cf. 2 Cor 4:4).73 In short, Israel is not responding to the gospel in Paul’s day for the same reason she did not respond to Moses: Israel has been hardened to the revelation of God’s glory not only at Sinai, but also from then on (taking the aorist ἐπωρώθη in 3:14a to be gnomic74 and a divine passive; Satan’s blinding of the unbelievers’ minds in 2 Cor 4:2, 5 appears to be the instrument of God’s act). The evidence for this evaluation is then given in 3:14b–15: 3:14b: For (γάρ) until this very day (ἄρχι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας) the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant 3:14c: because75 it is not being unveiled, 3:14d: since (ὅτι) it (i. e., the veil) is being rendered inoperative in Christ, 3:15a: nevertheless (ἀλλά) until today (ἕως σήμερον) a veil has been laid upon their hearts, 3:15b: whenever (ἡνίκα ἄν) Moses is being read. 72  Even if the Jewish Christian agitators were motivated “politically” by the desire to avoid the persecution that might come about by the loss of their status as a legal religion due to the incorporation of gentiles as gentiles into their communities, for Paul this remains a secondary concern. The issue remains the truth and implication of the gospel itself as centered on the allsufficiency of Christ and the reality of the Spirit for the full-fledged membership in the people of God of all those who belong to the Messiah (Gal 3:28). 73  Paul’s use of πωρόω in 3:14a, rather than the terminology of the MT or LXX from Exod 32–34, the passage which undergirds the argument of 2 Cor 3:7–18, corresponds to the early Christian use of this same term to depict Israel’s ongoing hardened condition as derived from Isa 6:9–10; 29:10–12, Jer 5:21–24, and Ezek 2:3–8; 12:2 as reflected in Mark 4:12; 6:52; 8:17–18; John 9:39; 12:40 (cf. my Paul, Moses, 366–367). 74 I.e., the use of the aorist to represent “an act which is valid for all time … because (originally at least) the author had a specific case in mind in which the act had been realized,” BDF §333. The specific case in mind here is Israel’s sin with the golden calf. 75 Taking the participle μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον to be either a predicate participle modifying τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα or an accusative absolute, with the ὅτι then being taken as causal, rather than taking it to introduce an additional thought defined by a ὅτι of content (e. g., “it being revealed that”) or to be a negative purpose clause (e. g., “lest it be revealed that”); cf. Paul, Moses, 380.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

81

Here, rather than establishing a type based on Hagar and Sarah, Paul uses the veil of Moses from Exod 34:29–35 as a metonymy for the hardness of Israel’s heart and her consequent exclusion from the inheritance of the covenant. This rhetorical move is based on the fact that it was Israel’s “stiff-necked” nature that originally necessitated Moses’s veiling himself in order to prevent Israel from being destroyed by the presence of God’s glory in her midst after her covenant-breaking sin with the golden calf (cf. Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9 with 2 Cor 3:7, 13). Paul thus uses Moses’s veil as a metonymy in which one thing (i. e., Israel’s hardened nature as manifested in her sin with the golden calf) is called by the name of that with which it is intimately associated (i. e., Moses’s veil in 3:7, 3), here employing the consequence for its underlying cause.76 Decoded, Paul’s point is clear. Because Israel’s hardened condition can only be taken away “in Christ” (2 Cor 3:14d), it is evident that Israel’s large-scale rejection of the gospel indicates that she remains in the same hardened condition that has characterized the nation’s history ever since its “fall” in the wilderness with the golden calf (2 Cor 3:14c and 15a). And since Israel’s hardened condition means that she will fall under the judgment of God, Renwick is correct in concluding that “in Christ” in 3:14 refers to “the new covenantal sphere within which … the death penalty (integrally related to the curse of Gal 3:13) is being abolished (καταργέω).”77 Hence, even though Paul’s new covenant ministry is one of the Spirit and righteousness (3:6, 8, 9), Israel’s hard-heartedness was destined (by God) to continue throughout the dawning of the new age (cf. ἄρχι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας in 3:14b and ἕως σήμερον in 3:15a), since the very one whom they reject is the only one who can remove their blindness. As in the days of Moses and the prophets, only a small remnant has turned to the Lord, having had the veil over their hearts taken away (2 Cor 3:16–18 and 4:1–6; see too, Rom 10:27–33; 11:7–10). This description of Israel’s condition is intended to support Paul’s assertion that Israel’s rejection of Christ does not call into question the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry or the validity of his gospel as the inextricably-linked revelation of the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:7–13). In order to support this assertion, Paul picks up the widespread Scriptural pattern of pointing to Israel’s current rejection of God’s work as evidence, not of the inadequacy of the prophetic message, but of the fact that Israel remains in the same hardened state that has 76  For a discussion of this use of metonymy, see George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 136–137, with many biblical examples. 77 Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 381, quoting David Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God, BJS 224 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 148–149, emphasis mine. Renwick’s further point is equally insightful, i. e., that for Paul the abolition of the veil is a “declaration that the ‘death penalty’ of the old covenant has been removed” (p. 150). But since the removal of this penalty takes place only in Christ, Paul’s point in v.15 is that any attempt to continue to look to Moses/ old covenant for God’s glory is misplaced (cf. pp. 150–151). For this same point in regard to the restoration from the curse of the law in Christ as portrayed in Gal 3:10, see now Scott, “Works of the Law,” 213–221.

82

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

characterized her from the beginning.78 Indeed, as Carroll has concluded concerning the biblical narrative, “rebellion was endemic in ancient Israel at the level of a theological interpretation of history.”79 The support for this reading from the wider context of 2 Cor 3:6–18 will be developed in chapter three. In turning our attention back to Gal 4:21–30, we can now see more clearly that there too Paul makes the same argument regarding Israel’s history of ongoing hard-heartedness, once again based on the Law (i. e., his argument from Hagar and Sarah as the interpretative key for understanding the Sinai covenant) and the Prophets (cf. his argument from Isa 54:1 in 4:27 as his key for understanding the eschatological inauguration of the new covenant). But whereas in 2 Cor 3:14–15 and Rom 11:7–10 Paul elucidates Israel’s hardening by pointing to her “fall” in the wilderness with the golden calf, in Gal 4:22–25, as in Rom 9:6–13, he traces it even farther back to God’s original election of only a remnant from within Abraham’s descendants. Paul’s point, however, remains constant: the Israel of Paul’s day remains “under sin”/“veiled”/“hardened”/“in slavery”/“under the [curse of the] law”/“under the elemental things of the world,” in spite of the fact that the Messiah has come and the eschatological renewal of the Spirit promised to Abraham has begun. The consequence for Paul was also clear: the one born κατὰ σάρκα still persecutes the one born κατὰ πνεῦμα (4:29). This means that the “two covenants” in view in Gal 4:24–30 are the “Hagarcovenant” identified with Sinai and the “Sarah-covenant” identified with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of the promises originally made to Abraham. Furthermore, given Paul’s understanding of the fleshly nature of “the present Jerusalem,” the promise embodied in the son of Abraham who is identified with the Sarah-covenant (see the reference to Isaac in 4:28) is viewed in 4:26 as being fulfilled in the Jerusalem “above,” i. e., in the Jerusalem characterized by the Spirit from above, rather than the flesh (Gal 3:5; 4:6; Rom 8:2–15; 2 Cor 78 Cf. ἄρχι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας in 3:14b and ἕως σήμερον in 3:15a with Deut 29:3LXX (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης); Jer 3:25 (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης); 7:25 (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης); 11:7 (MT); 32:20–21 (MT); 44:10 (MT), and Ezek 2:3 (ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας). For the extensive biblical and post-

biblical development of the theme from Exod 32–34 that Israel was “stiff-necked” from the very beginning of her history, in spite of the circumstantial deliverance brought about in the exodus, and the corresponding emphasis on Israel’s continuing hardened nature, often pictured in the terms of Exod 32–34 itself, see my Paul, Moses, 230–236; for the specific pattern of arguing from Israel’s current rebellion (and consequent judgment in the exile) to her being hardened from the beginning, see, e. g., Isa 63:7–19; 65:2–7; Jer 3:25; 7:18–26; 11:7–10; 15:1 (where not even Moses himself could prevent the ensuing judgment of God); 16:11–13; 17:23; 19:15; 44:9–10; Ezek 2:3; 20:36; Amos 2:4; Zech 1:2–4; 7:11–14; Lam 5:7; Mal 3:7; Neh 9:16–31; and Pss 78:5–8, 54–64; 106:6–39. One of the strongest evidences that this line of argument was common is Paul’s own mixed citation of Deut 29:3 and Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8, where the prophetic text concerning Israel’s hardening in Isaiah’s day is explicated in terms of the continuing hardening during the days of Moses. 79 Robert P. Carroll, “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society,” ZAW 89 (1977): 197.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

83

1:22; 5:5), which is therefore “free” from the curse of the law and the power of Sin (Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13; cf. Rom 6:18, 22 and, again, 8:2–15).80 In 4:27 this eschatologically-freed Jerusalem is then equated with the restoration of Jerusalem from her “slavery” in exile as promised in Isa 54:1. Paul thus uses the Isaianic “second exodus” motif to portray the Messianic redemption of the “children of promise” (4:28) from their slavery to this present creation and its exilic curse under the law (4:3–6).81 The transition in Paul’s thought from the current state of Israel under the Sinai covenant in Gal 4:21–25 to those who are inheriting the promise of Abraham in 4:26–28, now pictured in terms of the postexilic restoration of Jerusalem, further supports Paul’s view that the Israel of his day, as a nation, had not yet begun to experience the promised restoration from the curse of the law under the Sinai covenant that had earlier culminated in their exile. Still under the Hagar-Sinai covenant, the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day, though children of Abraham “according to the flesh” (like Ishmael!), had not yet become descendants of Abraham “according to the [promise of the] Spirit” (like Isaac!) (4:23–24, 29). Paul can therefore find Scriptural warrant in Genesis 21:10 for his admonition to the Galatians, as the “Israel of God” (6:16), to separate themselves from those agitators and their followers who wish to bring them back to the created order and its covenant as they existed before the inauguration of the eschaton (cf. 4:30–31). Like Ishmael before them, those who still live under the Sinai covenant of the present Jerusalem are not God’s heirs (4:30). To join them would be to give up one’s inheritance as “children of the free woman” (4:31). In the same way, Paul’s contrast in 2 Cor 3:12–14a between his own boldness and the divine hardening of Israel not only supported his own legitimacy as an apostle, but also contained an implicit warning. A rejection of Paul’s ministry is sure evidence of the blinding influence of Satan among those who, like Israel under the “old covenant,” have been hardened according to God’s sovereign will (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 with 2 Cor 3:14a). This same warning may be implicit in Paul’s 80  See Hays, Echoes, 119, who insightfully points to Isa 51:1–3, where Sarah is represented as the mother of Jerusalem (the only OT development of the Genesis narrative), as the wider context for understanding Paul’s use of Isa 54:1, by which Paul establishes a link between Sarah and the redeemed Jerusalem. Hence, “Isaiah’s description in 54:1 of Jerusalem as a ‘barren one’ creates an internal echo hinting at the correspondence between the city in its exilic desolation and the condition of Sarah before Isaac’s birth, a correspondence that also implies the promise of subsequent blessing” (pp. 119–120). In turn, “It is Isaiah’s metaphorical linkage of Abraham and Sarah with an eschatologically restored Jerusalem that warrants Paul’s use of Isa 54:1” (p. 120). 81  For the Isaianic “second exodus” motif, see Isa 4:2–6; 10:24–26; 11:11, 15–16; 35:5–10; 40:3–5; 41:17–20; 42:14–16; 43:1–3, 14–21; 48:20–21; 49:8–12; 51:9–10; 52:11–12; 55:12–13; 58:8; 60:2, 19, etc. For these texts and the development of this motif as the “controlling theme” of Isa 40–55, see Gordon Paul Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess, and G. J. Wenham, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 105–139, esp. 122–138.

84

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

“fear” in Gal 4:11. It is also implied in the contrast in Gal 3:1–5 and 4:21–30 between the covenant of the “free woman,” with its inheritance of the Spirit, and the agitators’ demand that they return to the “yoke of slavery” (cf. 5:1) of the Sinai covenant. To capitulate to their desires is to be satanically “bewitched” (3:1; cf. 5:8) by those who preach a “different gospel” (1:6) and, as a result, to “fall from grace” back under the judgment of God that still resides over Israel (5:4) and the world (4:8–11).

Conclusion: A Future for Israel? Given Paul’s conviction that Israel as a whole remains under the ongoing judgment of God that has characterized her history, it is striking that Paul never mentions Israel’s exile directly. Indeed, the Septuagintal vocabulary for the exile never occurs within the Pauline corpus in reference to the exile itself.82 However, to deduce from this lack that Paul did not reflect on the exile of Israel and its significance for understanding his own day would be to misinterpret Paul’s terminological silence. Post-biblical Judaism reflected on and felt seriously the implications of Israel’s diaspora, especially the loss of the ten northern tribes, the failure of the Hasmonean kingdom, and the significance of her continuing domination by foreign nations.83 There is no reason to doubt that these realities impacted Paul as well. But Paul’s concern was not to reflect on Israel’s fortunes per se. His allegiance to Jesus as the Messiah caused him to focus instead on making clear the significance of the eschatological divide that now exists between the two epochs of redemptive history, of which the events of the exile and its inaugurated sixth-century b.c. return constitute aspects of the epoch of the “Hagar-Sinaicovenant” that stretches from Abraham to Christ. For to Paul, the import of 82  See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) (Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 1:38–39: αἰχμαλωσία (“captivity,” “body of captives”), αἰμαλω­ τεύειν (“to capture”), αἰμαλωτίζειν (“to take prisoner”), αἰμάλωτος (“captive,” “prisoner”); 130– 131: ἀποικεῖν (“to emigrate,” “dwell far off”), ἀποικεσία (the “captivity”), ἀποικία (“colony,” “settlement far from home”), ἀποικίζειν (“to send away from home,” “to banish”), ἀποικισμός (“settlement of a colony”); and 2:917–918: μετοικεῖν (“change ones abode,” “be a settler”), μετοι­ κεσία (“captivity,” used esp. of Israel’s captivity), μετοικία (“change of abode,” “removal,” “migration”), μετοικίζειν (“lead settlers to another abode”). For the other more descriptive designations (e. g., αἰχμάλωτος ἄγειν in Amos 7:11), cf. 2:227 to ‫גלה‬. The only occurrences in the Pauline corpus are the use of αἰχμαλωσία and αἰχμαλωτεύω in the quotation of Ps 68:19 in Eph 4:8 and the figurative use of αἰχμαλωτίζω in Rom 7:23; 2 Cor 10:5; and 2 Tim 3:6. The one exception may be Rom 7:23, where αἰχμαλωτίζω could possibly be an allusion to the exile, though there too it is most likely a general, metaphorical reference. 83  The scholarly response to these fundamental realities has been the ongoing debate over attitudes toward the exile in Second Temple Judaism, especially whether Israel was still experiencing and looking for redemption from the judgment of the exile after the sixth-century “return” under Cyrus. For my own perspective, see below, Appendix Three.

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

85

this history is its implications for understanding why the Jews of his day, except for a small remnant (cf. Gal 4:3; Rom 11:1–5), were rejecting Christ.84 But here too Paul’s interest is not with the hardened character of the Jewish people and current “exilic” state of the nation as such. His ultimate concern is to make clear that the time of eschatological restoration has now dawned in Christ, bringing to an end the “pre-inheritance” age of the Sinai covenant. At the same (eschatological) time, the current restoration has begun only for the remnant of those Jews and gentiles who, “in Christ,” has now proleptically 84 For a criticism of the basic thesis proposed here, see Mark A. Seifrid, “Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History,” TynB 45 (1994): 86–92. Seifrid’s critique of Wright’s position that Israel’s history of exile came to an end in Christ (ibid., 75, 91) and his caution that the Jewish tradition concerning the theme of the exile is often more complicated than recent studies have implied (ibid., 87) are well-taken. Seifrid himself admits, however, that “the outworking of covenantal threats and promises in exile and restoration provides a generally consistent pattern through most early Jewish writings” (ibid., 87). But he objects that many authors and their communities in this period who picture Israel in this way also “assume the role of the prophetic voice, implicitly excluding themselves … from the envisioned waywardness and decline of the people” (ibid., 87–88). Therefore, “all” Israel was not consistently viewed as under the exilic curse of God, and for some writers the exile was already over for their group (ibid., 88). Yet such a distinction between the nation of Israel as a whole and the remnant of believers within it is precisely what is to be expected not only from the biblical narrative, with its emphasis on God’s election and faithfulness to his covenant despite Israel’s rebellion (cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 31:31–34), but also from those who, like Paul and the Qumran writers, viewed themselves as the remnant of the new covenant whose role it was to call the nation as a whole to repentance (cf. this same distinction within Israel under the old covenant as portrayed in Jer 31:34 and the conclusion to this series of studies below). It is this exception that proves the rule. Hence, Paul’s use of ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and πᾶς ὅς in Gal 3:10 to qualify those under the curse of the law does not mean that Paul did not view Israel as a people as under such a curse (contra ibid., 90 n. 53). The two expressions reflect Paul’s conviction that not all Israel was in fact under God’s curse; from Moses onward there had always been a faithful remnant within the nation who had fulfilled the covenant stipulations. Likewise, Paul’s confidence in his own standing before God in Phil 3:4–6 and Gal 1:14 is not a reflection of his confidence in the state of all his people as his “contemporaries” (contra ibid., 90). Instead, it reflects Paul’s confidence in his own standing as a righteous Pharisee under the old covenant, whose identity as the truly pious, like that of the Qumran community, was formed in contradistinction to the nation as a whole (see chapter six below). Finally, in Rom 11:5 Paul is not saying that “in the present time … there has come to be a remnant” (ibid., 91), but that there continues to be a remnant of faithful Israelites in the present in continuity with the remnant that has always existed, as seen in Elijah’s experience. Hence, the existence of a remnant of believing Jews in Paul’s day too is evidence that God has not rejected his people (Rom 11:1–4; see chapter eight). Seifrid is correct to emphasize, contra Wright, that for Paul, Jesus, as the Messiah, did not bring Israel’s “exile” to an end. Wright’s view in this respect represents an “over-realized eschatology.” But, contra Seifrid, this does not mean that Paul did not conceive of Israel as a nation as being under the exilic judgment of God. For Paul, Israel’s rejection of Jesus demonstrates that, apart from a remnant, the nation remains under the same judgment of God that earlier initiated the exile. Indeed, this divine judgment has been intensified. Seifrid’s conclusion that “Paul’s judgment on Israel is derived from the cross, and does not represent a continuation of a pre-conversion belief” does not find support in this present study. The “plight” Paul fought against as a Pharisee when he strove for the purity of his people, even to the point of persecuting Christians, is the “plight” he still fights as an apostle to the gentiles for Israel’s sake (cf. Rom 11:11, 14).

86

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

received the inheritance of sonship that was first promised to Abraham (Gal 3:16, 26; 4:5–6; cf. Rom 8:9, 14–17; 11:1–10). Shockingly, the “overlap” of the covenants that has existed ever since the birth of Abraham’s two sons by Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:22–23) continues on in the “overlapping of the ages” in which the two Jerusalems now co-exist this side of the cross and the Spirit (Gal 4:25–26). The unexpected outcome of the proleptic dawning of God’s kingdom is that the “two covenants,” the one of the “flesh” and the other of the “Spirit,” will continue to coexist until the consummation of “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4).85 Paul’s own “Mosaic” anguish over his people thus poignantly reflects the reality that even though Paul himself is part of the believing remnant, Israel as a whole still remains outside the restoration of the new covenant community, the church, which Paul can equate with “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16; cf. Rom 9:1–5; 11:1–6; Exod 32:31–32). The promise of restoration for the rest of Israel and, with her redemption, for the rest of the world as well, is still awaiting fulfillment (Rom 11:12, 15, 24–32; 15:7–13 and below, chapters eight and nine).86 Israel’s return from exile is still to come. Eschatology has only reached its ante-climax.

Appendix Three: The Question of the Exile in Paul’s Theology A central scholarly response to the issues raised by Paul’s eschatology has been the ongoing debate over attitudes toward the exile in Second Temple Judaism, especially whether Israel was still experiencing and looking for redemption from the judgment of the exile after the sixth-century “return” under Cyrus.  This emphasis on an inauguration of the age to come, short of its consummation, separates Paul’s view of Israel’s restoration from that found in most of post-biblical Judaism on the one hand, and from that represented in the Qumran writings on the other. Compare, e. g., Paul’s emphasis on the present inauguration of Israel’s new covenant restoration with the same theme in Tob 12–13 as outlined by Steven Weitzman, “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit,” JBL 115 (1996): 49–61. Weitzman concludes, 61, that “the evocation of the [‘Song of Moses’ from Deut 31–32] in Tobit 12–13 hints that Jews presently living in exile have reached a similar turning point in their history – that their sojourn in exile is almost over and their life in the land is about to resume” (emphasis mine). 86  See John M. G. Barclay, “Paul: An Anomalous Diaspora Jew,” in his Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 387–388, who points out that what made Paul so anomalous in contrast to his contemporaries was the fact that, in spite of many years of intimate association with gentiles, Paul nevertheless maintained “the traditional categories by which Jews had demarcated themselves from the rest of humanity” (“a strongly antagonistic cultural stance” against Hellenism), while at the same time forming “multiethnic communities” (“a radical redefinition of traditional Jewish categories”). Such a seemingly contradictory stance makes perfect sense in the light of Paul’s conviction that the present reality of God’s new covenant people “in Christ” is made up of a remnant of Jews from Israel and a remnant of gentiles from the nations, while at the same time holding out the hope that the promise of Israel’s future restoration, as Israel, with its implications for the salvation of the nations, will be fulfilled. 85

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

87

This debate was launched by the programmatic work of N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. One (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), which sets forth the main points of his subsequent works, now culminating in his Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Parts III and IV, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 2013). For a concise introduction to the contours of the debate and its key primary and secondary literature, see now James M. Scott’s introductory essay, “N. T. Wright’s Hypothesis of an ‘Ongoing Exile’: Issues and Answers,” in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright, ed. James M. Scott (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017), 1–16, together with Wright’s own summary essays and the other evaluations of his work in this volume. As is well known, Wright argues strongly that according to the dominant first-century Jewish view the exile was still ongoing, but that the early Christians viewed it as coming to an end in Christ, though Wright himself says that among first-century Jews and Christians there was a “puzzlement as to whether the exile was really over or not” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 150). Scott, “Hypothesis,” 8 n. 8, lists the dozens of references to the issue throughout Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. For Wright’s corresponding view that, according to Paul, since Christ had finally redeemed Israel from her continuing exile, Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel in his person, now “encapsulates her destiny in himself,” see “Christ, the Law and the People of God: The Problem of Romans 9–11,” in his The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 231–257, quote from p. 237. The central issue is whether the concept of “exile” in the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature was extended concretely and/or metaphorically to refer to “a chronic spiritual condition that the partial return under Cyrus did not remedy” and/or to Israel’s continual domination by foreign powers (Scott, “Hypothesis, 6). Yet regardless of how one evaluates the post-biblical evidence regarding the concept of Israel’s exile, Wright is doubtlessly correct to emphasize in The New Testament and the People of God, 149, that the [a?] main feature of first-century Judaism was “a sense of longing and expectation, of recognition that the present state of affairs had not yet (to put it mildly) seen the full realization of the purposes of the covenant god for his people.” In this sense the Scriptures were “a story in search of a conclusion” regarding the full liberation and redemption of Israel (ibid., 217). For Israel’s monotheism and belief in her divine election had led to a “restoration eschatology” that was “ubiquitous,” in which Israel “herself needs restoration. The god of creation and covenant must act to redeem Israel from,” what Wright views as, “her continuing exile” (ibid., 272 and 272 n. 116, following E. P. Sanders’s terminology of “restoration eschatology”). For my review of Wright’s fundamental volume, see JETS 40 (1997): 305–308. For a helpful, recent treatment of this issue by examining the actual prophecy of Jer 25:11–12 (cf. Jer 29:10–14; 2 Chron 36:20–21; Dan 9:2) and its reception

88

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

in post-biblical Judaism, see Steven M. Bryan, “The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah’s Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile,” JBL 137 (2018): 107–126. Bryan argues, contra Wright, that in the biblical and post-biblical reception of Jer 25:11–12 the “70 years” of exile had ended in the past, since “exile” refers specifically only to a geographical displacement outside of one’s homeland, not to “ ‘a political and theological state rather than a geographical one’ ” (p. 109, quoting Wright, emphasis mine). But “in complete agreement” with Wright, Bryan too emphasizes that Israel’s “full restoration had not followed” this geographical “end” of exile (p. 108). Hence, the sixth-century return from exile in Babylon fostered the hope that God would once again act in the future in an “ultimate restoration that would far outstrip the initial jubilee (Dan 9:25), ‘the brief moment of favor’ (Ezra 9:8) that had brought the exile to an end” (p. 107; cf. pp. 125–126). “What God had already done to end the exile after seventy years was not reinterpreted but was made the basis for hope of restoration yet to come” (p. 126). In the current debate, therefore, much depends on how narrowly one defines the concepts of “exile” and “return” and on what one deems to be the divine promises associated with Israel’s return from geographical exile. My own view, which takes a middle path between that of Wright and Bryan, is that “exile” was viewed to be both a geographical and a theological state that entailed political ramifications both within and outside the land. Hence, Judah’s “exile” in Babylon had indeed “ended” with the geographical return of a portion of Judah from Babylon in the sixth-century B. C., but that with it the “exile” of Israel had “ended” only partially: though many had returned physically, the spiritual restoration of Israel as a nation had not taken place apart from a remnant, the ten northern tribes were still viewed as outside the land, Israel’s final, eschatological theocracy had not been established, and the nations had not followed restored Israel in her worship of YHWH, all of which I understand to be essential aspects of God’s promises regarding Israel’s post-exilic “return” that distinguished it from earlier expressions of divine judgment and rescue (contra Bryan). This means as well that, for Paul, Israel’s “exile” continues on even after the first coming of the Messiah in that God’s judgment against Israel as a nation continues, with only a remnant of Israel being restored to the Messiah, so that the spiritual and theocratic restoration of Israel has still not taken place (cf. Dan 9:24–27; contra Wright). In line with my emphasis on “inaugurated eschatology,” Bryan thus rightly stresses that “far more formative for Second Temple Judaism was the dissonance created by the fact that the pattern of sin-exile-restoration had not unfolded as expected” (p. 108). Hence, in my view, this dissonance continued on for Paul after the establishment of the new covenant. Israel’s “exile” will be brought to an end only when the Messiah himself returns to consummate the kingdom of God, at which time “all Israel will be saved” (my reading of the contested text of Rom 11:26). For the apostle Paul, Israel’s “exile,” in the sense of God’s continued historical judgment on Israel’s hard-heartedness,” was and, contra Wright, still is

Chapter Two: Israel’s Judgment and the Ante-Climax of Eschatology

89

ongoing! As Bryan observes, “Under the influence of the historical return from exile and the perceived delay in much of what (Second Temple Jews) expected in the promised restoration, they revised the historical narrative, splitting the hope of restoration in two” (p. 126). For my treatment of this “split,” see chapters eight and nine below. Scott’s conclusion concerning the concept of an ongoing “exile” is therefore my own: “The fundamental conception (in various texts in the Second Temple period such as 2 Baruch) is that Israel’s exile, at least theologically speaking, will not come to an end until the eschaton, when God intervenes in this world and establishes his rule” (“Hypothesis,” 8, following the work of Matthias Henze, emphasis his).

Chapter Three

Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life (2 Corinthians 3:6–18)1 Das adäquate ethische Verhalten wird nicht als Konsequenz formuliert, sondern als Indiz für den Glauben. Kurt Erlemann, “Das ‘letzte Gericht’ – ein erledigtes Mythologumenon?”2

Our first two studies of Paul’s polemic in Galatians illustrate that the eschatological perspective being advocated in this volume derives from Paul’s biblically-focused redemptive-historical framework as the key to understanding the polarities in his theology. In turning our attention to 1–2 Corinthians, it will become clear that these polarities, understood eschatologically, are in turn the key to uncovering Paul’s conception of his apostleship as a “servant of the new covenant” and of the corresponding “Spirit-created life” of the new covenant community (2 Cor 3:6). This marks a distinctive turn away from the historical approaches of the last century, which took Paul’s historical context, especially the opposition he faced in Galatia and Corinth, as the key to his polarities and self-defense as an apostle. To illustrate this turning point, this chapter summarizes central aspects of the salvation-history contrasts in 2 Cor 3:6–18 between the ministries of Moses (the “letter”) and Paul (the “Spirit”) as the key to understanding the polarity between 1  Taken from “Paul’s Argument from the Old Testament and Christology in 2 Cor 1–9: The Salvation-History/Restoration Structure of Paul’s Apologetic,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. Reimund Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 277–303. 2  Kurt Erlemann, “Das ‘letzte Gericht’ – ein erledigtes Mythologumenon?,” ZNT 9 (2002): 50, speaking directly of 1 John 2, which he rightly takes to be a parallel consequence of Paul’s thought regarding Christ, “als himmlischem Anwalt der Menschen (Röm 8:34) und zusätzlich vom Geist als Sprachrohr der Menschen vor Gott (Röm 8:26).” For as Erlemann, pp. 50–51, observes regarding Rom 3:21–31, “… Gott selbst sorgt also für die Erfüllung seines Anspruchs, den er als Anwalt der Gerechtigkei an den Menschen hat. Und Röm 5:5 macht deutlich, worin die gerecht machende Gnade besteht: Die Tora wird zwar nicht suspendiert, aber der Mensch befähigt, sie im eigentlichen Sinn zu erfüllen, aus dem Herzen heraus, mithilfe des Geistes als Manifestation der Liebe Gottes … Der nunmehr pneumabegabte Mensch ist befähigt, die pneumatische Tora zu erfüllen – im Sinne des Liebesgebotes, dessen Forderung nach Rom 13:8 niemals endet … .”

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

91

the old and new covenants. In so doing, rather than employing a reconstructed portrait of Paul’s opponents in order to explain the shape of his thought, the Scriptures and Christology rise to the surface as the material basis of Paul’s apologetic and ecclesiology in 2 Cor 1–9.

The History of Research on 2 Corinthians 1–93 Throughout most of the twentieth-century, the influence of Hans Windisch’s paradigm for approaching Paul’s letter as set forth in the nine editions of his 1924 commentary, Der Zweite Korintherbrief,4 the history of religions school which used it, and the attempts to reconstruct the nature of Paul’s opponents that came about as a result dominated research on 2 Cor 1–9. Windisch’s influence becomes clear when compared to its counterpart in the English-speaking world, Alfred Plummer’s A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.5 Plummer’s work, though filled with detailed linguistic observations, lacked Windisch’s overall midrashic conception of Paul’s apologetic in 2 Cor 3 and his religionsgeschichtliche methodology, both of which proved so determinative for future studies. In regard to 2 Cor 3, the apologetic and theological heart of chapters 1–9, Windisch argued that Paul’s reading of Exod 34 was based on a pre-formed midrash, now controlled by his own Christian presuppositions and employed here due to the polemical situation in Corinth. As such, Paul incorporates this reinterpretation of the OT text into his argument not only to support his own dogmatic assertions, but also “to slay his opponents with their own weapons.”6 Moreover, as a “Christian midrash,” 2 Cor 3:17–18 stands out from its immediate context in regard to both its style and purpose. Unlike the specific apologetic motif found in 2:16b–3:6, the midrash in 3:7–18 replaced the polemic polarity between “Paulinismus und Judaismus” with a more general contrast between “Christentum” and “Judentum.”7 Thus, although 3:7–18 functioned to support the axiomatic statement of 3:6, it was only loosely connected with it.8 In fact, according to Windisch, vv. 7–18 could be removed from the passage without doing harm to its context.9 3 For this history, see my work, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). What follows is an abbreviated and adapted form of that discussion. 4  Now edited by Georg Strecker, 9th ed., KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). 5  ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1925). 6  Windisch, Korintherbrief, 120. 7 Ibid., 112. 8  Ibid. 9  Ibid., 112–113. Hence, thirty-five years later, Johannes Munck could take the alleged independent nature of 3:7–18 to support his own thesis that, contrary to the position of the Tübingen

92

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

But what was the origin of this midrash, if it was not originally part of Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 3? Since the nature of Paul’s reinterpretation of the tradition seemed settled as a result of Windisch’s commentary, it was this question, and not the meaning of 2 Cor 3 itself, which stimulated the next decades of research as scholars began to reconstruct a pre-Pauline tradition (and the theology of those who created it) as the source and basis for Paul’s argument in 3:7–18. Soon this approach spread to 6:14–7:1, and eventually to 2 Cor 1–9 as a whole whenever Paul appeared to be alluding to the views either of his opponents or of the Corinthians themselves (cf., e. g., 2:17; 4:1–12; 5:11–15; 6:3–13, etc.). Ironically, Hans Windisch’s legacy was to divert the attention of scholars away from the text he had so carefully analyzed and to plunge them into a debate concerning its prehistory and the nature of the opponents against whom Paul employed it (and/or from whom he adapted it!). This approach reached its apex in the 1964 work of Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike.10 Here Georgi offered the most extensive analysis of 2 Corinthians from the standpoint of the identity and theology of Paul’s opponents since F. C. Baur. Like those before him, Georgi once again took as his starting point those “Stichworte” from 2 Cor 10–13, in particular those found in 11:22–23, which he felt represented the characteristics of Paul’s opponents.11 But in contrast to the thesis of F. C. Baur on the one hand (i. e., Paul’s opponents were Judaizers12),

school, 2 Cor 3 does not contain any allusions to the position of the Judaizers; cf. his Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1959), 58, 171–187 (trans. of Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte [Copenhagen: University of Aarhus Press, 1954]). But this is certainly not what Windisch intended to imply! For just two examples of the influence of Windisch’s position a half-century later, see Jan Lambrecht, “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Cor. 2:14–4:6,” Bib 64 (1983): 346, who takes as his starting point the distinctive nature of 3:7–18 as a contrast between “Christentum und Judentum,” so that, unlike 2:14–3:6 and 4:1–6, here “Paul is no longer defending himself … rather he gives us a theoretical comparison between the old and new dispensations” and Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 322, who argues that 3:7–18 was written by Paul, though earlier and independently of the present context. Since then, Koch has informed me in private conversation that he no longer holds 3:7–18 to be an “Einlage.” 10  WMANT 11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964); trans.: The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). 11  For the continuing use of this same starting point, see Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Abraham und Mose im Streit der Meinungen: Beobachtungen und Hypothesen zur Debatte zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern in 2 Kor 11:22–23 und 3:7–18,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. Reimund Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 305–324. 12 For this conclusion concerning Paul’s opponents in Galatia, Corinth, and Rome, and its role within Baur’s influential conflict theory regarding the development of early Christianity, see my “Ferdinand Christian Baur,” in the Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 285–289.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

93

or W. Lütgert on the other (i. e., Paul’s opponents were gnostics13), Georgi concludes that Paul’s opponents were Jewish-Christian missionaries and apostles of Palestinian origin who, as “Jewish pneumatics,” utilized the propaganda methods of Hellenistic Jewish apologists. Specifically, they modeled their activity and self-conception on the θεῖος ἀνήρ-­ tradition within Hellenistic Judaism,14 especially as this tradition focused on Moses in Exod 33–34 as the paradigm of such a “divine man.”15 According to Georgi, in 2 Cor 3:7–18 Paul countered his opponents by picking up the key terminology and themes of his opponents’ midrash of Exod 33–34 and effectively using their own ideas against them by quoting them in the context of his own exposition.16 To demonstrate this, Georgi was able to separate out the genuine Pauline additions from the pre-Pauline tradition of his opponents in a detailed source-critical analysis of 3:17–18 since, in Georgi’s view, all of the critical assessments of Moses must belong to Paul, while all of the positive statements can be traced back to Paul’s opponents.17 Hence, in reworking his opponents’ position, Paul also reversed the original intention of the OT texts.18 Georgi’s work confronted Baur’s thesis concerning Paul’s opponents with an equally systematic and comprehensive antithesis, which led to its early acceptance among scholars. In contrast, the gnostic hypothesis, so popular in previous generations, died for lack of contemporaneous evidence.19 Yet despite its widespread acceptance, Georgi’s work was severely criticized.20 Moreover, 13  Cf. Wilhelm Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, BFCT 12/3 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1908). 14 Georgi, Gegner, 60, 145–167. 15  Ibid., 220–300. 16  Ibid., 258–273. 17 Ibid., 274–282. 18  Ibid., 259. 19  The last serious attempt to argue from a Religionsgeschichte model that Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians were gnostics was Rudolf Bultmann’s, Exegetische Probleme des Zweiten Korintherbriefes zu 2 Kor 5:1–5; 5:11–6:10; 10–13; 12:21, SymBU 9 (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet 1947), written in response to Ernst Käsemann’s influential article, “Die Legitimität des Apostels: Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10–13,” ZNW 41 (1942): 33–71 (for my own response to the latter, see below, chapter four). By again analyzing the “Stichworte” used in Paul’s reply in 2 Cor 10–13, Käsemann had concluded that Paul’s opponents were pneumatics who belonged to an association of Palestinians in the diaspora and had emphasized themselves in their preaching (pp. 37–49). In Käsemann’s view, to say anything more than this could not be supported from the text (cf. pp. 37 and 41). 20  See Erhardt Güttgemann’s review of Georgi’s work in ZKG 77 (1966): 126–131 for still one of the most severe criticisms of Georgi to date. For two additional and telling criticisms of Georgi’s methodology and use of the sources, cf. John N. Collins, “Georgi’s ‘Envoys’ in 2 Cor 11:23,” JBL 93 (1974): 88–96 and Paul Bowers, “Paul and Religious Propaganda in the First Century,” NovT 22 (1980): 316–323. And for the thesis that Second Temple Judaism did not have a missionary character, not to mention “Jewish missionaries,” see Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).

94

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

the new surge of optimism created by Georgi’s work was premature since the position of F. C. Baur was still very much alive. For example, in a striking rolereversal, two significant scholars from outside Germany rose up to defend Baur’s classic thesis, Derk Oostendorp, in his 1967 work, Another Jesus: A Gospel of Jewish-Christian Superiority in 2 Corinthians,21 and C. K. Barrett, in his various contributions concerning 1 and 2 Corinthians from 1953 to 1973.22 Indeed, by 1973 it had become clear to Barrett that the basic alternative was between the Bornkamm-Georgi hypothesis on the one hand, and his own position on the other. Consequently, Barrett’s main concern in the introduction to his commentary on 2 Corinthians was to argue against the view that Paul’s opponents were Hellenistic Jews who imitated the style of propaganda used by the θεῖος ἀνήρ of the Hellenistic world.23 In view of this deadlock at the end of the last century, Jerry L. Sumney’s proposal of a methodology based upon a “minimalist approach” to identifying Paul’s opponents was to be welcomed. His emphasis on the priority of exegesis in a “text-focused method,” his insistence on a sound evaluation and use of proper sources, together with a “stringently” limited application of the “mirror technique,” and his rejection of attempts to approach the text with a previously determined, externally based reconstruction remain necessary course corrections.24 However, when applied to 2 Corinthians, Sumney’s method and own work offered no new insights into the identity of Paul’s opponents.25 Despite the vast amount of scholarship that has been devoted in the last century to ascertaining the identity and nature of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians, Käsemann’s recognition in 1942 of the impossibility of offering a fundamentally new solution still stands,26

 Kampen: Kok.  Cf. Ralph P. Martin, “The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians: An Old Issue Revisited,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 279–289, esp. p. 281, who also adduces Oostendorp and Barrett as the two central contemporary representatives of Baur’s basic position. 23 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 29–31. 24  Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians, JSNTSup 40 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990). Cf. his conclusion concerning the goal and focus of this method, pp. 115–119 and 187–190 (quotes from pp. 119, 187, 189) and my review of Sumney’s work in JBL 111 (1992): 347–350. 25 Cf. Identifying Paul’s Opponents, 145–147, 162–163, 169–172, and his final conclusion concerning their identity on pp. 177–179, 184–185, in which he agrees with Käsemann’s proposal that the opponents behind 2 Cor 10–13 were pneumatics, rather than Judaizers, gnostics, or Georgi’s “divine men.” Sumney then argues that although they may not be the same persons and that change and development may have taken place, Paul is nevertheless facing the same “kind of opponent” in 2 Cor 1–9; indeed, the short time span between these letter fragments leads one “reasonably [to] conclude” that they were part of the same group (p. 183). 26 Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 33. 21 22

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

95

confirmed by John J. Gunther’s 1973 catalog of no less than thirteen variations on the theses of Baur, Lütgert, and Georgi.27

A Return to the Text The history of research on 2 Cor 1–9 demonstrates that the exegetical question concerning the meaning of Paul’s argument was eclipsed by the seemingly more pressing historical debate over the nature of Paul’s opposition. The shadow was cast by the common conviction that the key to Paul’s thought was to be found outside the text. But due to the lack of consensus concerning where to go when leaving the text and how to get there, the debate concerning the identity and theology of Paul’s opponents ground to a halt. With its demise, the attempts to understand 2 Cor 1–9 in the light of an a priori decision concerning the nature of Paul’s opposition also collapsed. The resulting deadlock illustrated how easily Paul’s discussion can be made to fit into two competing pictures of Paul’s opponents, neither of which has won general acceptance. We must therefore resist the temptation to reconstruct a grand hypothesis concerning Paul’s opposition, based on isolated fragments from Paul’s epistles, which is then filled out by recourse to distant parallels and brought back to the text as its “key.” The history of the debate ought to make us highly suspicious of all such a priori approaches to Paul’s letters since such reconstructions cannot deliver on what they promise. We must begin with the text we have before attempting to reconstruct the traditions we lack. Although inextricable partners, the historical task of reconstruction must always be subservient to the exegetical task of description. For as Klaus Berger has proposed, “Hypothesen [concerning Paul’s opponents] sind nur insoweit zulässig, als sie für die Interpretation unabdingbar sind.”28 Only in this way will we minimize the dangers of an uncontrollable circularity. Methodologically, then, C. K. Barrett’s admonition is sound: we should “take a number of vital and difficult passages, and establish for them, as firmly as possible, exegetical results,” in the conviction that on the basis of these results “a picture will emerge with reasonably clear outlines, however vague some of the details may remain.”29 All of this is to suggest that the interpretive keys to Paul’s thought must be sought in the material and structural elements of Paul’s text itself. Moreover, when approached from “within,” it becomes evident that Paul primarily refers to three complementary sources of authority for his arguments: the Scriptures, 27  John J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, NovTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 1. 28 Klaus Berger, “Die impliziten Gegner: Zur Methode des Erschließens von ‘Gegnern’ in neutestamentlichen Texten,” in Kirche, ed. Dieter Lührmann and Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 394 (emphasis mine). 29 C. K. Barrett, “Paul’s Opponents in II Corinthians,” NTS 17 (1971): 237.

96

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Christology, and his own experience as an apostle, which are then confirmed by the experience of the church. There is a hierarchy within this triad, however. First Corinthians 4:6 and 14–15 state explicitly, and the structure of Paul’s arguments throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians illustrate implicitly, that Paul’s experience is informed, interpreted, and becomes authoritative only in light of the Scriptures and his Christology, rather than the other way around.30 In analyzing Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 1–9, the following questions thus become our guide: 1. What thematic pattern(s) emerge(s) from the content of the OT quotes and allusions within 2 Cor 1–9? 2. What is the logical and apologetic function of the quotes and allusions within the arguments of 2 Cor 1–9? 3. What thematic pattern(s) emerge(s) from the content of the Christological statements within 2 Cor 1–9? 4. What is the logical and apologetic function of the Christological statements within the arguments of 2 Cor 1–9? 5. What thematic pattern(s) emerge(s) from a comparison of the OT quotes and allusions with their corresponding Christological statements as they appear in the arguments of 2 Cor 1–9?

Finally, a survey of Paul’s appeal to the Scriptures and Christology in 2 Cor 1–9 yields the following data as the basis and starting point for such a return to the text. According to NA28 there are thirteen or fourteen OT quotes in 2 Cor 1–9 (depending on the analysis of 6:11; these quotes are marked with an * below) and 39 or 40 allusions.31 There are forty-three unmistakable references to Christ in these same chapters, with an additional seven ambiguous references (i. e., 3:16, 17, 18; 5:6, 8, 9, 11). When these are arranged in parallel to one another in the order in which they occur within their respective units of thought (following the standard paragraph divisions of the text), these eight complexes of tradition emerge: a. Within 1:12–2:11: OT: 1:18 (Deut 7:9) [According to NA26; removed in NA28] Christology: 1:14, 19–20 (3×s), 21; 2:10 b. Within 3:1–18: OT: 3:3 (Exod 31:18; 32:15; Deut 9:10–11; Prov 7:3; Ezek 11:19; 36:26) 3:6 (Jer 31:33) 3:7 (Exod 34:30) 3:9 (Deut 27:26) [According to NA26; removed in NA28] 30  Though we may still disagree, I owe this point of clarification to my seminar discussion with Brian J. Dodd and his helpful questions. At this point, however, this perspective can only be put forth as a proposal in need of further substantiation, the first part of which is the present chapter. 31  In order to establish common ground, the OT quotations and allusions have been taken from the editorial work of NA28. It is realized that these may be questioned and other important passages added, as evidenced by the secondary literature surveyed below.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

3:10 (Exod 34:29–30, 35) 3:13 (Exod 34:33, 35) 3:16 (Exod 34:34*) [According to NA26; considered an allusion in NA28] 3:18 (Exod 16:7, 10; 24:17) Christology: 3:3, 4, 14 (perhaps vv. 16, 17, 18) c. Within 4:1–6: OT: 4:6 (Gen 1:3; Ps 112:4; Job 37:15LXX; Isa 9:1) Christology: 4:4, 5 (2×s), 6 d. Within 4:7–15: OT: 4:7 (Lam 4:2) 4:13 (Ps 115:1LXX*) Christology: 4:10 (2×s), 11, 14 e. Within 4:16–5:10: OT: 5:1 (Job 4:19; Isa 38:12) 5:10 (Eccl 12:14) [perhaps: 5:1 (Wis 9:15); 5:4 (Wis 9:15)] Christology: 5:10 (perhaps 5:6, 8, 9) f. Within 5:11–6:2: OT: 5:12 (1 Sam 16:7) 5:17 (Isa 43:18) 6:2 (Isa 49:8*) Christology: 5:14, 15 (2×s) (perhaps 5:11) 5:16–6:2 (the heaviest concentration of Christological references in 2 Cor: ten references in these eight verses) g. Within 6:14–7:1: OT: 6:14 (Deut 22:10) 6:15 (1 Kgs 18:21) 6:16 (Lev 26:11–12*; Ezek 37:27*) 6:17 (Isa 52:4, 11*; Ezek 20:34*, 41) [According to NA26; Isa 52:4 removed in NA28] 6:18 (2 Sam 7:14*; Jer 31:9; Isa 43:6; 2 Sam 7:8*) [According to NA26; Amos 3:13 added in NA28] Christology: 6:15 h. Within 8:1–15: OT: 8:15 (Exod 16:18*) Christology: 8:5, 9, 23 The following OT quotes and allusions appear in units of thought in which there are no corresponding Christological statements: a. Within 6:3–12: 6:9 (Ps 118:17–18) 6:11 (Ps 118:32LXX) b. Within 7:2–15: 7:6 (Isa 49:13) 7:15 (Ps 2:11) [According to NA26; Exod 15:16 added in NA28] c. Within 8:16–24: 8:21 (Prov 3:4) d. Within 9:1–15: 9:6 (Prov 11:24)

97

98

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

9:7 (Deut 15:10) 9:7 (Prov 22:8aLXX*) [According to NA26; Sir 35:8 added in NA28] 9:9 (Ps 111:9LXX*) 9:10 (Isa 55:10*) 9:10 (Hos 10:12LXX) [According to NA26; Prov 3:9LXX added in NA28] The following Christological statements appear in units of thought in which there are no corresponding OT quotes or allusions: a. Within 1:1–2: 1:1 1:2 b. Within 1:3–11: 1:3 1:5 c. Within 2:12–17: 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:17 d. Within 9:1–15: 9:13 When the OT quotations and allusions are tabulated according to their biblical book, including those found in 2 Cor 10–13, the following distribution occurs: Genesis: 1:3 in 4:6 3:1 in 11:3 Exodus: 15:16 in 7:15 16:7, 10 in 3:18 16:18* in 8:15 24:17 in 3:18 31:18 in 3:3 32:15 in 3:3 34:29 in 3:10 34:30 in 3:7 34:33 in 3:13 34:34* in 3:16 [According to NA26; considered an allusion in NA28] 34:35 in 3:10, 13 Leviticus: 26:11–12* in 6:16 Numbers: 33:55 in 12:7 Deuteronomy: 7:9 in 1:18 [According to NA26; removed in NA28] 9:10–11 in 3:3 15:10 in 9:7 19:15* in 13:1

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

25:3 in 11:24 27:26 in 3:9 [According to NA26; removed in NA28] 32:10 in 6:14 Historical Books: 1 Sam 16:7 in 5:12 2 Sam 7:8* in 6:16 2 Sam 7:14* in 6:18 1 Kgs 18:21 in 6:15 Job: 4:19 in 5:1 37:15 in 4:6 Psalms: 2:11 in 7:15 53:5 in 11:20 111:9* in 9:9 112:4 in 4:6 112:9* in 9:9 116:10* in 4:13 118:17–18 in 6:9 119:32* in 6:11 Proverbs: 3:4 in 8:21 3:9 in 9:10 7:3 in 3:3 11:24 in 9:6 21:22 in 10:4 22:8a* in 9:7 Ecclesiastes: 12:14 in 5:10 Isaiah: 9:1 in 4:6 38:12 in 5:1 43:6 in 6:18 43:18–19 in 5:17 49:8* in 6:2 49:13 in 7:6 52:4* in 6:17 [According to NA26; removed in NA28] 52:11* in 6:17 55:10* in 9:10 Jeremiah: 9:22, 23* in 10:17 24:6 in 10:8 31:9 in 6:18 31:33 in 3:6 Lamentations: 4:2 in 4:7 Ezekiel: 11:19 in 3:3

99

100

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

20:34* in 6:17 20:41 in 6:17 28:34 in 12:7 36:26 in 3:3 37:27* in 6:16 Hosea: 10:12 in 9:10 Amos: 3:13 in 6:18 Wisdom of Solomon: 9:15 in 5:1, 4 10:16 in 12:12 Sirach: 35:8 in 9:7

This survey highlights the amazing breadth of Paul’s use of the Scriptures; note too the clustering of references from the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Writings), as well as his use of the historical books. It also calls attention to the two centers of gravity around which Paul’s thinking revolves, i. e., the traditions associated with the exodus on the one hand (cf. in particular the use of Exodus and Deuteronomy), and the prophetic hope of the new covenant/ second exodus/new creation on the other (cf. in particular the use of Isaiah and Jeremiah).32 Moreover, this survey suggests that the focus of attention regarding the structure of Paul’s thought should be on the four passages in which Paul’s use of the OT and his Christological statements come together most significantly: 3:1–18; 4:1–6; 5:11–6:2 and 6:14–7:1. Of these, 3:7–18, as part of 2:14–4:6, has long been recognized to be the theological and apologetic center of chs. 1–9 since it offers Paul’s most explicit and extended treatment within the letter of both the OT and Christology.33 As such, it provides the focus of our discussion. The Argument of 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 Due to its significance and the severity of the problems it presents, 2 Cor 3:7–18 has continued to receive renewed attention among scholars.34 My own 1995  For the relationship of Paul’s use of the Psalms to these two configurations, see below, n. 51. 5:16–6:1 is the most densely Christological passage, but it does not have a sustained treatment of the OT; 6:14–7:1 has a sustained use of the OT, but it contains only a single Christological application. For an understanding of the centrality of 2:14–4:6 within 2 Cor 1–9 and a detailed study of 2:14–3:3 as its thematic introduction, see my Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 34  For studies particularly interested in Paul’s use of the OT in 2 Cor 3, prior to my own and considered by it, see Linda L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the MosesDoxa Tradition in 2 Cor 3:1–18, JSNTSup 52 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); William J. Dumbrell, “Paul’s Use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3,” in God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr. D. B. Knox, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 32

33 2 Cor

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

101

study of this passage has led to the following conclusions, here given in an abbreviated form since they proved pivotal for the progressive development of my 179–194; Richard B. Hays, “A Letter from Christ,” in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 122–153; David A. Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God, BJS 224 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991); Carol Kern Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant, AnBib 116 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989); and N. T. Wright, “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3,” in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 175–192. For the most thoroughgoing presentation of 3:6–18 as an expression of the Reformation’s understanding of the law/gospel contrast, see Otfried Hofius, “Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther,” in Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 75–120; his, “ ‘Gesetz’ als Thema Biblischer Theologie” JBT 4 (1989): 105–149; and Peter von der Osten-Sacken, “Die Decke des Moses: Zur Exegese und Hermeneutik von Geist und Buchstabe in 2 Korinther 3,” in Die Heiligkeit der Tora: Studien zum Gesetz bei Paulus (Munich: Kaiser, 1989), 87–115. But unlike Hofius, von der Osten-Sacken argues that we must reject Paul’s negative understanding of the law as normative for our own understanding of Judaism, past and present, cf. pp. 108–115. For an interpretation of 2 Cor 3 from within the new perspective on Paul, see Reinhold Liebers, “2 Kor 3,” in Das Gesetz als Evangelium: Untersuchungen zur Gesetzeskritik des Paulus, ATANT 75 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989), 96–123; for an interpretation from the perspective of Cranfield et al., see Thomas E. Provence, “Who is Sufficient for these Things?: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 2:15–3:18,” NovT 24 (1982): 54–81, esp. 62–68; and for the attempt to counter the traditional view from the standpoint of Paul’s interpretation of Exod 34, see Ekkehard W. Stegemann, “Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zum Schriftverständnis des Paulus in II Kor 3,” TZ 42 (1986): 97–114. For subsequent studies not able to be incorporated into the present work, see the evaluation of Timothy L. Fox, Restoration and Repentance: An Exegetical Investigation of 2 Corinthians 7:2–16 in Its Literary and Scriptural Contexts, Ph.D. diss., University of St Andrews (St Andrews, UK, 2016), 27–28 n. 12. Fox points out that my thesis that Paul’s contextual use of Exod 34 in 2 Cor 3:7–18 concerns the respective ministries of the old and new covenants, rather than alternate means of salvation or alternate hermeneutical principles, is “broadly reflected, though with some variation, in the later analyses of Jeffrey W. Aernie, Is Paul Also Among the Prophets?: An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians, LNTS 467 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 114–133; W. J. Dumbrell, ‘The Newness of the New Covenant: The Logic of the Argument in 2 Corinthians 3,’ RTR 61 (2002): 69; James D. G.  Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 147–150; Harris, 2 Corinthians, 280 ; Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, NACSBT 6 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 62–114; Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 134–135, 264–265; and Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 724, 980–984.” For those who have challenged my argument that for Paul the problem was with Israel, and not with the law per se, Fox lists “Paul B. Duff, ‘Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor 3:6–18,’ NovT 46 (2004): 313–337, who argues that the problem is the law’s condemnation of gentiles. See also Stephan K. Davis, The Antithesis of the Ages: Paul’s Reconfiguration of Torah, CBQMS 33 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002), 182–214, who locates the problem in a ‘cosmic’ understanding of Torah; Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, 210–213, who pins the problem more on the ‘host of laws that were attended by penalties’ (213) than on the Israelites themselves; Jens Schröter, ‘Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik in 2 Korinther 3: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Schriftbenutzung des Paulus,’ NovT 40 (1998): 231–275, who reads 2 Cor 3:6 as the hermeneutical contrast that allows Paul to reinterpret Exod 34 radically; and Watson, Hermeneutics, 258–274, who, while agreeing that Paul reads Exod 34 in its original context (270), argues that the problem is the law’s own deceptive

102

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

understanding of the eschatological nature of the polarities in Paul’s thinking. Since then the scholarly discussion has of course progressed (see the Preface and the note below), though I remain convinced of my reading. The Argument from Exodus 34:29–35 in 2 Corinthians 3:7c The argument in 2 Cor 3:7–18 centers on Paul’s understanding of the function of Moses’ veil in Exod 34:29–35. The crux interpretum of this understanding is Paul’s use of the verb καταργέω in 3:7, 11, 13, 14. A study of καταργέω throughout the Pauline corpus, apart from 2 Cor 3, presents a narrow semantic field for its meaning and a uniform context for its use. Its context is consistently eschatological and its meaning is best translated, “to render (something) inoperative, ineffective, powerless,” or “to nullify (something) in terms of its effects.”35 The consistency of this usage is striking. Indeed, Paul’s use of καταργέω warrants its consideration as a Pauline terminus technicus that expresses the eschatological significance of the coming and return of Christ for the structures of this world.36 Paul employs the term to signify that which is and is not abolished eschatologically and that which as​a result does and does not continue to be in effect. An examination of Paul’s characteristic use of καταργέω therefore provides an insight into his conception of the continuity and discontinuity between this age and the age to come. In no case, however, does καταργέω refer to the gradual “fading away” of some aspect of reality, despite this common rendering in translations and interpretations of 2 Cor 3:7–14 in which Moses’s veiling of his face is taken to hide the fact that the glory was fading away. The lexica and scholars who adopt this idiosyncratic meaning for the verb in 2 Cor 3:7–14 can therefore rely only on a particular reading of 2 Cor 3 itself for its support. In this view, Paul’s intentional suggestion that it is ‘definitive and unsurpassable,’ shrouded in a ‘veil of seeming permanence’ (272); however, Watson admits that the ultimate problem may be Israel’s hardness of heart (271). Hays, Echoes, 149–153, while distancing himself from the classic hermeneutical contrast, still argues that Paul is describing a ‘new covenant hermeneutic’ built upon ‘moral transformation’ (152) in contrast to a ‘letter’ hermeneutic that scrupulously focuses on the text as an end in itself; similarly, Dierk Starnitzke, ‘Der Dienst des Paulus: Zur Interpretation von Ex 34 in 2 Kor 3,’ WD 25 (1999): 193–207.” 35  The verb occurs 27 times in the NT, 25 of which are in the Pauline corpus (the exceptions are Luke 13:7 and Heb 2:14). There are less than 20 occurrences of the verb in literature outside of the NT and its circle of influence, including its four uses in 2 Esd 4:21, 23; 5:5; 6:8. For an exhaustive study of καταργέω, upon which these lexical conclusions are based, see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 300 ff., and the summary in my “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the OT – A Proposal,” HBT 14 (1992): 37–40. Though of course not all remain convinced of my reading, Fox, Restoration and Repentance, 30 n. 17, points out that my analysis of καταργέω “is echoed by Aernie, Prophets?, 123 n. 37; William R. Baker, ‘Did the Glory of Moses’ Face Fade?: A Reexamination of katargeō in 2 Corinthians 3:7–18,’ BBR 10 (2000): 3–15; Dumbrell, ‘Newness,’ 74–78; Matera, II Corinthians, 88; and Schreiner, Paul, 265.” 36  Besides the four occurrences in 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13, 14, cf. esp. Rom 3:3, 31; 7:6; 1 Cor 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 13:11; 15:24, 26; Gal 3:17.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

103

misconstrual of the Exodus account is deemed to denigrate the ministry of Moses and to diminish its glory for his own polemic purposes: Moses’s veiling his face is a duplicitous act designed to keep the truth of the inferior, fading glory of the old covenant Torah from Israel in order to maintain his own authority. In contrast, Paul is open and bold in his unveiled proclamation of the superior, permanent glory of the new covenant ministry of the Spirit (cf. 3:10–13). But if the referent of καταργέω attested everywhere else is also assigned to 3:7c, the meaning of Paul’s result clause coheres fully with the function of the veil in Exod 34:29–35: Moses veiled his face “so that the sons of Israel were not able to gaze intently into the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was being rendered inoperative [with special regard for the effects of such an action].” Rather than reading into the biblical narrative the foreign concept of a fading glory, Paul’s point is that the Exodus narrative itself recounts that the veil brought the glory on Moses’s face to an end in regard to its effects. Like Paul’s other use of the passive participle of καταργέω in 1 Cor 2:6, that which is being rendered inoperative still exists (i. e., the glory on Moses’s face did not fade away), but the effect it would otherwise have had has been abolished. Within the context of Exod 32–34, the glory on Moses’s face, if left unveiled, would have destroyed Israel due to her “stiff-necked” condition (cf. Exod 33:3, 5). This explains Aaron’s fear and that of the people when they first encountered the glory of God shining forth from Moses’s face (Exod 34:30). In 3:7c Paul is therefore indicating precisely the function of the veil in Exod 34:29–35, i. e., that although the glory of God was once again in the midst of Israel, it was now being kept from destroying the people. Far from demeaning the glory on Moses’s face as a fading reality, for which there is no evidence in either the MT or LXX, Paul recognizes that it was the power of God’s glory itself that necessitated the veil. Rather than calling the glory of Moses’s ministry into question, the need for the “continual bringing to an end” of that glory is an attestation of its permanent significance (cf. the present tense of τὴν καταργουμένην). In view of Paul’s adaptation of the Exodus narrative, the most important point concerning the participle καταργουμένην in 3:7 is consequently not its attributive function or its position in the sentence, but the fact that it is passive. As such, the most natural question to ask is the identity of the unexpressed agent of the action. Who or what is bringing about the action described by καταργέω in v. 7c? Both within the context of Exod 32–34 referred to in 3:7, and within the larger context of 2 Cor 3:7–14 itself, the answer must be Moses’s veil. Paul’s interpretation of Exod 34:29–35 in 3:7 thus remains faithful to its original context, including his interpretation that the glory of Moses’s face was continuously “being rendered inoperative” by the repeated veiling of Moses’s face (cf. Exod 34:34–35). Read in this way, there is no indication in 2 Cor 3:7 that Paul is leaving the time frame of the original narrative by reconfiguring its meaning within a new, Christologically-determined, polemically-driven context. The glory in view is

104

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

the glory of God as mediated on the face of Moses. For this very reason, according to both Exod 32–34 and 2 Cor 3:7, the veil of Moses underscores the point that due to Israel’s hardened nature as manifested in her sin with the golden calf, Moses’s mediation of the glory of God is now a ministry of death (cf. Exod 32:25–28, 34 with 2 Cor 3:6b). The veil of Moses, as an act of mercy designed to make it possible for God’s presence to continue among his people, is necessitated by YHWH’s judgment against his rebellious people (Exod 33:3, 5). Moreover, Paul’s contextual reading of Exod 34:29–35 stands at the end of a long line of canonical interpretations of Exod 32–34 in which Moses’s ministry was interpreted not only as an act of divine mercy and grace, but also as a ministry of judgment upon a rebellious people (cf., e. g., Num 14:26–35; Deut 1:3, 34–46; 2:14–16; 9:6–8; 29:4; Pss 78:21–22; 95:10; 106:23, 26; Jer 7:24–26; Ezek 20:21–26). As an explication of this divine judgment, Paul’s interpretation of Exod 32–34 in the result clause of 3:7bc provides the point of comparison upon which his argument turns in 3:8. The Glory of the Ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:8) The qal wahomer mode of argumentation throughout 3:7–11 presupposes that the point of similarity between the Mosaic ministry of death and the Pauline ministry of the Spirit is their respective glory. Throughout 3:7–18 the two ministries can be compared because the same divine glory attends both ministries. The comparison itself, however, is not between the two manifestations of glory since the glory of Moses’s ministry is not the element of comparison in verse 7; rather, its main point and hence the element of comparison in Paul’s argument is the function of the glory as that which brought death. This is reflected in the syntax of verse 7, where the ὥστε-clause is the main point logically. It is also stated programmatically in the description of the law under the old covenant in 3:6b as the γράμμα that kills. The comparison of verse 8 is thus based not on the fact that Moses’s ministry came in glory, but on the result of that ministry, i. e., on the fact that the sons of Israel could not gaze into the glory of Moses’s face, which due to their hardened condition had to be veiled to prevent them from being destroyed. The result clause of verse 7 provides the evidence needed to support the propriety of Paul’s description of Moses’s ministry as a ministry of death; it is this dissimilarity between the two covenants that gives the comparative argument its strength. Once the structure of Paul’s argument is kept in view the compelling nature of Paul’s conclusion in verse 8 becomes evident. Unlike the revelation of God’s glory attending Moses’s “ministry of death,” which would have consumed Israel had it not been veiled, Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit” makes it possible to encounter the glory of God without being destroyed. If the old covenant ministry which brought death came in glory, so that Israel could not endure it but had

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

105

to have it repeatedly veiled from their view, “then certainly the ministry of the Spirit will exist that much more in glory.” The emphatic, a-fortiori comparison, πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον, thus establishes the certainty of Paul’s statement in 3:8. Since Paul’s new covenant ministry of the Spirit brings life and not death (3:6), it must be characterized by an “unveiled” mediation of the glory of God. It is now evident that the rhetorical force of Paul’s assertions in 3:7–8 derives from two sources of uncontested validity. Paul’s description of Moses’s ministry as a “ministry of death” due to its glorious nature depends on the scriptural account of Israel’s experience of death in response to the second giving of the law as recorded in Exod 34:29–35, which in 3:13–15 Paul will call the “old covenant” identified with Moses’ ministry and his writings. Paul’s contrasting description of his own “ministry of the Spirit” as even more certainly characterized by God’s glory depends on the Corinthians’ experience of life in response to Paul’s ministry of the new covenant brought about by Christ (cf. 2:14–17; 3:3–4, 14).37 Paul’s understanding of the past is based on the OT account; his understanding of the present is informed by the reality being experienced through his own apostolic ministry. And in both cases Paul’s focus is on his audience, who cannot deny either one of these sources of authority. It must also be kept in view that Paul’s point in making this argument is not to demonstrate the salvific superiority of the new covenant over the old per se, though this is certainly implied in his argument. His goal is to demonstrate his own qualifications and consequent legitimacy to be a minister of the new covenant (for this same goal in regard to the theme of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians, see chapter four below). For this reason Paul’s argument in 3:7–8 does not focus on a comparison of two covenants as expressed in their respective ministries, but on two ministries as an expression of their respective covenants. The ministries and their results are themselves the issue, not the relative value of the two covenants, since what is at stake is Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle as testified to by the reality of the glory of the new covenant which he mediates. The Surpassing Glory of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:10) Verse 9 restates in different terms the point of verse 8: a comparison to the old covenant “ministry of condemnation” establishes with certainty that the new covenant “ministry of righteousness” also abounds in glory (cf. again the comparative πολλῷ μᾶλλον in v. 9b). Paul then supports this assertion by explaining in verse 10 the meaning of this comparison. In examining this supporting 37  It is at this point that Paul’s role as an apostolic mediator of the Spirit leads to the other pillar of Paul’s argument, i. e., to the foundational work and role of Christ in establishing the new covenant. For this point in 2 Cor, see, e. g., 1:4, 6; 1:19; 2:14–17; 3:3–4, 14; 4:10–12; 5:20–6:2, my earlier work, Suffering and the Spirit, 177 ff., and Jens Schröter, Der versöhnte Versöhner: Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2. Kor 2:14–7:4, TANZ 10 (Tübingen: Francke, 1993).

106

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

statement it is again important to remember that for Paul the glory of God revealed in the ministry of Moses was and remains fully the glory of God. The fact that the law’s function, when received apart from the Spirit, was to kill (3:6) does not diminish this conviction. On the contrary, as we have seen in 3:7, the law’s ability to kill reflects the potent reality of God’s glory revealed in the ministry of Moses. Moreover, God continues to reveal his glory in judgment upon those who suppress the truth of the gospel because of their hardened hearts or blinded eyes (2 Cor 2:15–16a; 4:1–6). So the character, quality, and potential killing-function of God’s glory remain the same whether revealed in connection with the law or with the gospel. Hence, in verses 9–10 the reason the glory of the “ministry of righteousness” must “surpass” (ὑπερβάλλω) that of the “ministry of condemnation” is not because the latter glory is of an inferior quality or quantity. It is not as if the glory of God in the new covenant ministry is better, or stronger, or more brilliant, or more effective than the revelation of the glory of God on the face of Moses. Rather, the point of Paul’s thinking in verse 10 is found in his choice of the summarizing neuter designation τὸ δεδοξασμένον, together with the perfect form of the same verb, δεδόξασται. The gender of the substantival participle denotes that Paul is not referring to the law (the masculine ὁ νόμος), or to the glory of the old covenant itself (the feminine ἡ δόξα), or even to the ministry of the glory as such (the feminine ἡ διακονία). The abstract or collective use of the neuter indicates that Paul’s reference is to the ministry of the old covenant as a whole, especially its theological purpose (v. 9a) and results (v. 7). Contextually, the use of the neuter thus picks up the description of the law’s function under the old covenant ministry as τὸ γράμμα (3:6) and/or the fact that in the renewal of the old covenant after Israel’s sin with the golden calf τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως (3:7) was glorified. So Paul’s point in verse 10 is that when one compares the results and purposes of the two covenant ministries, in this respect (ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει) the former has not been glorified at all (οὐ δεδόξασται)! Paul’s negation of the perfect tense in 2 Cor 3:10 indicates that the old covenant, with its purpose and results, does not carry forward into the new. In regard to God’s distinctive purposes within the two eras of redemptive history represented by the ministries of Moses and Paul respectively, the eschatological era of the Spirit and righteousness has now replaced the era of death and condemnation (3:7–9). In this respect it is not as if the old covenant and its effects have no glory. In view of the new covenant, they have none! The old covenant is no longer the locus of the revelation of God’s glory in the world; the new covenant of the new age has arrived. And as the prophets promised, and the cross of Christ reveals, and the pouring out of the Spirit through Paul’s apostolic ministry confirms, God’s primary purpose in the new covenant is no longer to reveal his glory in the judgment of death, but in the life of the Spirit. Hence, Paul’s point is not that “that which has been glorified” is now finally seen to be less glorious in view of the greater glory that has arrived, as so often

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

107

represented in the application of the sun and moon analogy to this text. Instead, as in 2 Cor 3:3 and 6, the contrast in verse 10 is once again eschatological, not material, just as it was in Paul’s argument throughout Gal 3–4 (see chapters one and two). The ministry of Moses came in the same glory now attending Paul’s ministry. The comparison is one of divine purpose, not of quality or quantity: like the glory attending the previous era of condemnation, the eschatological manifestation of righteousness certainly also came in glory (v. 9b) since (γάρ) the new covenant realities surpass (ὑπερβάλλω) the purpose of the old and hence must also manifest the same divine δόξα (v. 10). Indeed, as we will see below in chapter six, this same comparative, eschatological argument enables Paul to refer even to his own past life of righteousness under the old covenant as “garbage” when measured against what he has gained in Christ (cf. Phil 3:7–11). This interpretation of verse 10 as a reference to the eschatological manifestation of the “surpassing” glory of God is confirmed by Paul’s use of the related noun ὑπερβολή in 2 Cor 4:6–7 to describe the present “light of the knowledge of the glory of God (ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ) on the face of Christ,” and by its use in 2 Cor 4:17 to refer to the future “eternal weight of glory” (αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης). There too, as in 2 Cor 3:10, the revelation of the glory of God is not only “surpassing,” but also explicitly tied to Paul’s ministry (διακονία) of suffering and the Spirit (cf. 4:1, 7, 13 with 2:14–3:3). Moreover, Paul’s ministry of the grace of God, which is “increasing” (πλεονάζω) through its impact on others, consequently “abounds” (περισσεύω) in thanksgiving to the glory of God (cf. 4:15b). These same themes are again developed in 2 Cor 9:12–15, this time in relationship to the ministry of the Corinthians. In 2 Cor 9:14 Paul uses ὑπερβάλλω to refer to the “surpassing grace of God” which has been given to the Corinthians (cf. τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ) and its parallel in 9:13 demonstrates that this divine grace is a reference to the Corinthians’ “obedience to [their] confession of the gospel of Christ” as manifested in their generous giving. For as 9:8–11a and 15 make clear, such obedience is a gift from God. Moreover, in 2 Cor 9:12 this “surpassing grace” toward the Corinthians is further described in terms of the Corinthians’ own “ministry of service” (ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας), which, like Paul’s own διακονία in 4:15 (cf. 4:1), not only meets the needs of the saints, but also is abounding “through many thanksgivings to God” (ἡ διακονία … περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ). “Through the proof of this ministry” (διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης), others will glorify God (δοξάζω τὸν θεόν; 2 Cor 9:13). As in 2 Cor 3:10, in 9:12 Paul once again pictures the function of the salvific “ministry” (διακονία) of the new covenant era as that which “abounds” (περισσεύω) in its manifestation of the “glory of God” (δοξάζω τὸν θεόν) because the grace of God which it reveals is “surpassing” (ὑπερβάλλω), not in terms of its character, but in its consequences. In short, to describe something as “surpassing” is, for Paul, tantamount to describing it as part of the new covenant reality.

108

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

The Eternal Nature of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:11) In verse 11 Paul brings this section of his argument to a close by introducing a third qal wahomer, eschatological comparison. The point of the comparison is the same as that in verses 7–8, since its elided verbs are most naturally those from Paul’s initial argument. When in verse 9 Paul wanted to deviate from them, he did so explicitly. The present participle, καταργούμενον, should therefore be taken as contemporaneous with the past time instituted in verse 7 and reflected in verse 10, while the participle μένον agrees with the present time established in the logical future of verse 8 and picked up with περισσεύει in verse 9. It should also be noted that in verse 11 Paul continues his use of the neuter form of the substantival participle introduced in verse 10. Paul’s focus is still on the purpose and results of the old and new covenants respectively, so that the neuter participles in verse 11 refer in a broad, encompassing sense to “that which was being rendered inoperative” (τὸ καταργούμενον) over against “that which is remaining” (τὸ μένον). In verse 11 Paul maintains the same basis of comparison (i. e., the similarity between the δόξα of the respective ministries), together with the same distinctive point around which the comparison is formed (i. e., the dissimilarity between their respective functions), as that established in verses 7–10. But verse 11 does not merely restate verses 7–8 and 9–10; it serves to support the point just made in verse 10. The introduction of verse 11 with yet another γάρ follows Paul’s stylistic tendency of stringing together grounding assertions, all introduced by γάρ, in order to undergird his main point with a step by step series of supports.38 How then does verse 11 support Paul’s assertion that his ministry as an apostle is the vehicle through which the surpassing glory of the new covenant is now being revealed (3:10)? The answer is found in the two, new, interrelated elements in verse 11, upon which the force of the qal wahomer argument is established. First, Paul transfers the καταργέω-terminology from its specific use in verse 7 as a direct reference to the glory on Moses’s face to a more general reference to the old covenant ministry conceived as a whole. Again, although the referent has been changed, there is no contextual reason to interpret the meaning of καταργέω in verse 11 differently than in verse 7, i. e., as denoting the act of rendering something inoperative or ineffective in terms of its impact. What is changed is that, like its counterpart in verse 10, τὸ δεδοξασμένον, Paul now applies τὸ καταργούμενον to the old covenant as a whole, including not only its glory, but also its results and theological purpose. In doing so, the veiling of Moses’s glory in Exod 34:29–35 becomes a metonymy for the old covenant of which it was a part.39 The veiling 38  See, e. g., the chains of γάρ in Rom 1:16–21; 2:11–14; 4:1–3, 13–15; 5:6–7; 7:14–15, 18–19; 8:1–6, 12–15, 18–24, etc.; 1 Cor 1:18–21; 3:2–4; 9:16–17; 12:12–14 (with καὶ γάρ), etc.; 2 Cor 5:1–4; 13:4 (with καὶ γάρ), etc. 39  For the literary device of metonymy, in which one thing is called by the name of something typically associated with it, together with many biblical examples, see again George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 136–137.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

109

of Moses’s face in order to bring the glory to an end in terms of its effects is a demonstration of the fact that the Sinai covenant, from its very beginning, was continually hindered from accomplishing its desired, original purpose. It could neither establish God’s immediate and abiding presence among a sanctified people (cf. Exod 19:5, 9; 20:20), nor, in view of her breaking the covenant with the golden calf, destroy Israel in her stiff-necked state (cf. Exod 32:9–10, 34–35; 33:3, 5; 34:7, 9). Thus, Moses’s veiled mediation of the glory of God was, from the very beginning, destined to be replaced by a “new” covenant ministry. The second way in which 3:11 provides the ground to 3:10 is found in Paul’s positive description of the new covenant and its ministry as that which “remains,” “lasts,” or “persists” (μένω). Paul’s choice of this terminology is not coincidental. His return to this verb recalls its earlier use in 1 Cor 3:14, where it referred to that work which “remains” beyond the eschatological judgment, and in 1 Cor 13:13, where it referred to faith, hope, and love as the three things which “remain” in the future eschatological era when the “perfect” has come. In this latter context, as in 2 Cor 3:11, καταργέω forms the counterpart to μένω as a description of those things whose effects do not “remain” eschatologically (cf. 1 Cor 13:8, 10, 11). Furthermore, the quote from Ps 111:9LXX in 2 Cor 9:9 indicates that the eschatological connotation in Paul’s use of μένω finds a theological foundation in the psalmist’s declaration that the Lord’s “righteousness remains into the [eschatological] age” (ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), even as Paul’s own ministry of God’s righteousness in 2 Cor 3:9 is said to “remain” in 3:11. For only those things based on God’s own δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) can stand the test of his eschatological δικαιοκρισία (“righteous judgment”; Rom 2:5; cf. 2 Thess 1:5; Rom 3:4–5; 2 Cor 5:10). Hence, Paul can describe that which lasts eschatologically in 1 Cor 3 and 13 as that which “remains” precisely because it corresponds to the “righteousness” which “remains.” This same correlation between δικαιοσύνη and μένω is borne out in Rom 9:11 as well, Paul’s only other use of the verb with a nonpersonal referent.40 The description of the new covenant and its ministry in 3:11 as τὸ μένον, in support of the eschatological comparison of verse 10, consequently carries with it a pronounced eschatological connotation consistent with Paul’s use throughout the Corinthian correspondence. This eschatological connotation is the natural theological corollary to the presence of God’s righteousness now being manifest in the ministry of the Spirit (3:8–9; cf. too 2 Cor 9:9 and Rom 9:11–18). As such, it provides the antonym to καταργέω. Unlike Moses’s old covenant ministry, Paul’s new covenant ministry does not announce its own eventual replacement by having to be continually rendered inoperative in its mediation of the glory of God. In stark contrast to the need for Moses’s veil under the “old” covenant, 40 Cf. 1 Cor 7:11, 20, 24; 15:6; Phil 1:25; and 2 Tim 2:13; 3:14 for its use in reference to persons, where it conveys the meaning of the verb without eschatological connotations.

110

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

the new covenant ministry of glory need not be “veiled” from those to whom Paul preaches because, in fulfillment of Ezek 36:26–27 (cf. Ezek 11:19–20) and Jer 31:33, the Spirit is now at work transforming their “hard hearts of stone” into “receptive hearts of flesh” on which the law is written (cf. 3:2–3, 6b, 8–9 with 3:12–13). In other words, the new covenant “remains” in force (τὸ μένον) since it reveals the salvific righteousness of God that will last forever (cf. 3:9 with Rom 1:16–17).41 Viewed from this perspective, Paul’s description of the ministry of the Spirit as that which “remains” corresponds to the eschatological reality of the everlasting, new covenant, which is made explicit in Jer 32:37–40 (39:38–40LXX). In sum, Paul’s assertion in 3:11a that “that which remains” (τὸ μένον) certainly exists ἐν δόξῃ supports his prior assertion concerning the abolishment of the old covenant by drawing specific attention to the new covenant as the beginning of the eschatological consummation. The eschatological reality which is portrayed as “remaining” in the future in 1 Cor 3 and 13 is now pictured as already “remaining” in the present in 2 Cor 3:11. It is this proleptic fulfillment of the new covenant in the apostolic ministry of the Spirit that supports Paul’s point that the Sinai covenant is now over. If the “new” has come, the former is now “old.” The Main Point of 2 Cor 3:7–11 The main point of 3:7–11 is the assertion in verse 8 that the “ministry of the Spirit certainly exists in glory.” Having already argued for this point in verse 7 on the basis of Exod 32–34, Paul further supports it in verses 9–11 by a stair-step series of three assertions, each of which is introduced by γάρ (cf. 9a, 10a, 11a). At the base of Paul’s qal wahomer arguments is the contrast between τὸ καταργούμενον and τὸ μένον in 3:11, which simply restates the well-known “two age” conception common to the Old Testament and early Judaism. But Paul has brought to this fundamental, eschatological framework the distinctive, early Christian conviction that with the coming of the Messiah the anticipatory fulfillment of the new covenant promises of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, to which Paul alludes in 3:3 and 6, has already begun. Throughout 3:7–11 this eschatologically-determined perspective is repeated in Paul’s descriptions of his new covenant ministry (3:6) as a “ministry of the Spirit” (3:8), “of righteousness” (3:9), and “of surpassing glory” (3:10); as such, it is the ministry “that remains” (3:11). What stands out about 3:7–11, therefore, is not its positive affirmations concerning the ministry of the new covenant as an extension of his thesis-like 41  See Friedrich Hauck, “μένω, κτλ.,” TDNT 4:574–576, for the use of the verb in Jewish and non-Jewish religious texts, where in both cases “μένειν is a mark of God and what is commensurate with Him” (p. 574). Hauck also outlines the OT, eschatological background of the word (cf. Isa 40:8; 66:22; Ps 101:12; Dan 4:26; 11:6; Zech 14:10; Wis 7:27; Sir 44:13; 4 Esd 9:37) and points out how in John the eschatological promise of that which remains is realized in that God “remains” in Christ, Christ “remains” in believers, and believers “remain” in Christ (cf. John 6:56; 8:35; 15:4–7, 9–10; 14:10; 1 John 2:26–28; 3:6, 24; 4:16, etc.).

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

111

statement in 3:6. What is striking is the way in which Paul turns from his own apostolic experience of suffering and ministry of the Spirit (2:14–3:6) to the scriptural account of the second giving of the law from Exod 32–34 (3:7–18) in order to lend additional support to his eschatological maxim that the “letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive.” If the Corinthians’ experience of the Spirit testifies to the truth of the latter affirmation (3:1–3; cf. Gal 3:1–5 for the same mode of argument), it is the events surrounding the second giving of the law after Israel’s covenant-breaking sin with the golden calf that should convince his church that “the letter kills,” with its corollary that the dawning of the “new covenant” (3:6) brings the “old covenant” to an end (3:10–11, 14). The legitimacy of Paul’s apostolic διάκονος of the new covenant, whose διακονία reveals through his own suffering the glory of God as manifested in the death of Christ (cf. 2:14–17; 4:1, 6–15), is thus based not only on the experiential reality of the Spirit and righteousness being mediated through his ministry (3:8–9), but also on the biblical history of Moses’ ministry of death and condemnation in response to Israel’s sin with the golden calf. The Argument of 2 Corinthians 3:12–18 and 4:1–6 On the basis of the eschatological perspective outlined in verses 7–11, the final stage of Paul’s argument in support of his boldness as an apostle, in contrast to the ministry of Moses, can be construed as follows: 3:12a: Because we have this hope,42 3:12b: Therefore we behave with boldness. (-) 3:13a: That is to say, we do not behave 3:13b: as Moses was placing a veil upon his face 3:13bb: in order that the sons of Israel might not gaze43 into the outcome [namely, Israel’s destruction]44 of that which was being rendered inoperative [i. e., the old covenant]. (+) 3:14a: But their minds were hardened.45

42 I.e., the confident certainty expressed in v. 8 that the new covenant ministry of the Spirit makes it possible for God’s people to encounter his glory without being destroyed. 43  Paul’s careful choice of ἀτενίσαι reflects his awareness that in Exod 34:34–35 the people did in fact see the glory on Moses’s face during those brief periods when, after emerging from the tent of meeting, Moses declared to them God’s word. But this encounter could not last because of Israel’s hardened condition, i. e., they could not “gaze” into the glory for a sustained period of time without being destroyed (Exod 33:3, 5). 44 Taking τέλος here not to mean “end” in the sense of termination, or “goal” in the sense of intended purpose, but to refer to the consequence of an action. This rendering corresponds to Paul’s undisputed use of τέλος with this same meaning in Rom 6:21–22; 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19. Cf. too 1 Tim 1:5; James 5:11; 1 Pet 1:9; 4:17. 45  The long-standing problem of how to construe the meaning of ἀλλά in v. 14a is solved once v. 13b is seen to be parenthetical, so that a negative-positive contrast is established between 13a and 14a, rather than between 14a and 13b.

112

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality



3:14b: F  or until this very day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant, 3:14c: because it is not being unveiled, 3:14d: since it [i. e., the veil] is being rendered inoperative in Christ, 3:15a: nevertheless until today a veil has been laid upon their hearts, 3:15b: whenever Moses is being read. 3:16b: On the other hand, the veil is being removed, 3:16a: whenever “he” [like Moses!] returns to the Lord [YHWH] 3:17a: because the Lord [YHWH] is the Spirit, 3:17b: so that as a result there is freedom [from the veil] 3:17c: where the Spirit of the Lord is. 3:18a: As a result of the work of the Spirit, we all [like Moses!] are being transformed into the same image, 3:18b: that is to say, to the result of glory (εἰς δόξαν). 3:18c: The transformation takes place by means of an unveiled face 3:18d: and by means of beholding the glory of the Lord; 3:18e: that is to say, on the basis of glory (ἀπὸ δόξης), 3:18f: just as this is accomplished from the Lord who is the Spirit.

In 3:12 Paul draws the conclusion to which 3:7–11 naturally leads, which he supports in 3:13–18 by relating it to Israel’s experience under the old covenant, past and present. The focus of attention throughout 3:12–18 thus switches from Israel’s past at the time of the second giving of the law to Israel’s current rejection of the gospel and the challenge this presented to Paul’s apostolic ministry. That Paul’s ministry otherwise brings about the spiritual and moral transformation pictured in 3:18 thus becomes the final support for Paul’s prior assertion that Israel continues to be hardened “until this very day” (3:14a, 15b), which in turn supports the validity of Paul’s boldness in spite of its lack of success among his fellow Jews (3:12–13). For if Paul’s fellow Jews, like their “fathers” before them, had not been hardened to the revelation of God’s glory in the world, they too would be able to behold and be transformed by the glory of God on the face of Christ (cf. 3:18 with 4:4–6). In order to support his conviction that Israel’s rejection of Christ does not call into question the legitimacy of his own apostolic ministry or the validity of his gospel as the revelation of the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:7–13), Paul thus picks up the widespread Scriptural pattern of pointing to Israel’s current hardened rejection of God’s work as evidence, not of the inadequacy of the prophetic message, but of the fact that Israel remains in the same hardened state that has characterized her from the beginning of her circumstantial deliverance from Egypt. Indeed, to quote Carroll again concerning the biblical view of Israel’s narrative, “rebellion was endemic in ancient Israel at the level of theological interpretation of history.”46 That Paul shares this interpretation of Israel’s history is reflected 46 Robert P. Carroll, “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society,” ZAW 89 (1977): 197. See above, pp. 24, 80–82.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

113

in Paul’s use in 3:14–15 of the phrases ἄρχι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας and ἕως σήμερον, which recall the parallel designation in Deut 29:3 (LXX; MT: 29:4), where Moses declares that, despite the Lords deliverance, “the Lord has not given (Israel) a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear until this day (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύ­ της).” Within its original context God’s divine prerogative as explicated in Deut 29:3(4) not only explains Israel’s past disobedience, but also undergirds Moses’s proclamation that, despite God’s warnings (cf. Deut 29:18), Israel will continue to break the covenant in the future. Consequently, she will not escape the coming exilic judgment, which, as we have seen in chapter one in regard to Gal 3:10, was predicted as the culmination of the curses of the law (Deut 29:20–30:1; 31:16–18). The corollary motif found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel of Israel’s rebellion continuing on from the days of the fathers “[even] to this [very] day” provides further confirmation of this interpretation.47 Hence, for Paul, as for Moses and the prophets before him, Israel’s continuing hard-heartedness under the Sinai covenant up until the present, now seen in her rejection of Christ (cf. Rom 9:30–10:4!), is sure evidence of her hardened condition from the beginning. Rather than calling his apostleship and message into question, Paul views Israel’s rejection of the gospel in his own day to be evidence that Israel remains in the same hardened state that Moses encountered and predicted would continue and that the prophets met throughout their own ministries. In making this argument in 3:14–15, Paul therefore establishes through the introduction of the metonymy of the veil the same point that he makes and supports in Rom 11:7–10. There too Paul explains the fact that only a remnant of Israel has responded to the gospel by pointing to Gods elective grace (11:5–6; cf. Rom 9:11). Using the same vocabulary as in 2 Cor 3:14a, Paul can once again consequently conclude in Rom 11:7 that “those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened” (ἐπωρώθησαν). As in 2 Cor 3:14a, this gnomic characterization in Rom 11:7 is the inference to be drawn from Israel’s history of rebellion, which in 2 Cor 3:7–15 is pictured in terms of Exod 32–34, whereas in Rom 10:21 it is stated directly from Isa 65:2. Moreover, just as in 2 Cor 3:14b, in Rom 11:8–10 Paul supports this assertion by describing Israel’s continuing hardness, this time not in symbolic terms derived from the Scriptures, but by introducing a combination of Isa 29:10 and Deut 29:3(4), with a secondary allusion to Isa 6:9–10 (cf. the use of πωρόω in 11:7). Paul’s point from these texts is clear: God has given Israel “a spirit of stupor (Isa 29:10) until this very day” (ἕως τῆς σήμερον 47  See again Jer 3:25 (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης); 7:25 (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης); 11:7 (MT); 32:20–21 (MT); 44:10 (MT) and Ezek 2:3 (ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας). For Paul’s corresponding understanding that Israel’s hardening in Isaiah’s day was the ongoing continuation of her hardening during the days of Moses (cf. the mixed citation of Deut 29:3 and Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8) and the related biblical and post-biblical development of this theme from Exod 32–34, together with the specific pattern of arguing from Israel’s current rebellion (and consequent judgment in the exile) to her being hardened from the beginning, see above, chapter two, n. 78 and below.

114

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

ἡμέρας, Deut 29:3; cf. the almost direct parallel to 3:14b, 15), which can then be described as eyes which have been darkened not to see and backs which have always been bent (διὰ παντός, Ps 68:23).48 Against this biblical backdrop, Paul’s reference in 2 Cor 3:14–15 to Israel’s hardened minds and veiled hearts when reading the old covenant mediated by Moses may recall that in Isa 29:10 the inability of Israel and her false prophets “to see” the things of the true prophet’s vision because they are “asleep” is then interpreted in Isa 29:11 in terms of their inability to read the words of a sealed book. In Isaiah too this inability is not intellectual, but moral, as indicated in Isa 29:13a, where the people who cannot see the words of the book are described as those who “draw near to the Lord with their mouths and honor him with their lips, but their heart (καρδία) is far away from me.” For Isaiah, the people cannot respond to YHWH correctly because, like a book that cannot be read because it is sealed (cf. the ὡς οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦ ἐσφραγισμένου τούτου), their hearts are hardened to the presence of God, even in their worship of him (Isa 29:13b).49 The same combined argument from the Law and Prophets that is implicit in 2 Cor 3:14–15 and explicit in Gal 3:10–11 is thus made explicit once again in Rom 11:7–10. In all three passages Paul’s thought is consequently not new or novel, but part of a long, canonical tradition in which Israel’s present rejection of God’s word is seen to be the outworking of a continuing recalcitrant condition that can be traced back to the beginning of her history. In Gal 3:10–22 Israel remains “under the curse of the law” because she remains “under sin”; in 2 Cor 3:6–15 she continues to live under the “letter [that] kills” because she reads Moses with “hardened minds” and “veiled hearts”; in Rom 11:7–10 only the chosen remnant has obtained grace in Christ, while the rest “were hardened.” Ironically, Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 3:14–15, like his objection to the agitators in Galatia, rests further on the fact that the proof of Israel’s continued hardening is her persistent, albeit “veiled” adherence to the Sinai covenant in spite of the fact that the eschatological renewal by the Spirit has dawned (cf. 2 Cor 3:1–11). In other words, as Paul puts it for the first time in Christian literature, they continue to subscribe 48  These parallels speak against the attempts of those who deny this biblical backdrop to 2 Cor 3:14. See, e. g., Linda L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the MosesDoxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:1–18, JSNTSup 52 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 226–227. Belleville notes that Deut 29:3(4) and Isa 29:10 provide the background to Rom 11:8, but then denies that Deut 29:3(4) is also in view in 2 Cor 3:14 since the correspondence is not exact. She takes ἄρχι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας to be merely a common idiomatic phrase found in all types of literature. She also rejects Deut 29:3(4) as behind 3:15a. But the structural parallels between the arguments of Rom 11:7–10 and 2 Cor 3:14–15 are too close for the same background to be denied to 2 Cor 3:14–15, while the conceptual identity between Paul’s choice of ἄρχι and the use of ἕως in the LXX of Deut 29:3, Jer 3:25, etc. is so close as to make the allusion unmistakable, esp. in view of Paul’s subsequent and synonymous use of ἕως in 3:15a. 49  Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 357–358. For substantiation of these points over against contrary readings, see pp. 375–376, notes 128–131.

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

115

to what is now the “old covenant,” even though the “new covenant” has been established (2 Cor 3:6, 14). Clearly, Paul’s introduction of the terminology “old covenant” is a reflection of his eschatology. Paul can refer to the Sinai covenant as “old” only because he is convinced that Jesus as the Christ has inaugurated the “new covenant” of Ezek 36:26–27 and Jer 31:31–34 (2 Cor 3:3, 6 respectively). The designation “old” is therefore not a pejorative evaluation of the character of the Sinai covenant, but an eschatological designation of its fulfillment.50 Having made this point in 3:14–16 and supported it in 3:17–18, Paul restates his conclusion from 3:12–13 in 4:1–2. Despite Israel’s rejection, Paul is bold in his ministry (3:12), i. e., he does not lose heart (4:1–2), because of the transformation that is taking place through his διακονία. So if Paul’s gospel is being rejected, this is not a strike against the genuine nature of his call (4:1, 6), or against the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord which he preaches and which is embodied in his suffering as their “slave” (4:2, 5; cf. 2:17). Rather, as in 3:14–15, “even if (Paul’s) gospel is being veiled, it is being veiled among those who are perishing” (4:3a). Given the eschatological reality that the gospel announces and effects, its rejection must mean that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who are not believing in order that,” just like Israel in 3:13 and in contrast to the church in 3:18, “they might not see (εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι) the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (4:3–4). For the knowledge of the glory of God has been revealed in the face of Christ as the means and goal of the “new creation” (cf. Gen 1:3 and Isa 9:1 with 2 Cor 4:6). This same glory of God is now being mediated to others via Paul’s ministry, not in spite of his suffering, but through it (4:5, 7–12; cf. 2:14–17; 6:3–10). The testimony to this reality is the eschatological life of the Spirit being created among the Corinthians as they encounter the glory of God revealed in Paul’s ministry (3:1–3, 6, 18). In contrast, those among Israel who continue to reject Paul’s ministry are giving evidence that they continue to experience the law of Moses as the “letter that kills” (3:6). Their ongoing condemnation under the law is confirmed by the gospel, which also leads to the “death” of those who are perishing (4:3; cf. 2:15–16).

The Eschatological Context of Paul’s Argument The outline above of Paul’s thought in 2 Cor 3 and the studies of 2 Cor 1–9 listed below demonstrate that Paul’s argument throughout 2 Cor 1–9 appears best understood within a salvation-history, eschatological framework. The focus of this framework is on the eschatological restoration of God’s people beginning to take place under the new covenant inaugurated by the coming of the Messiah. More 50 For the supporting interpretation of Jer 31:31–34 and Ezek 36:25–26, see Paul, Moses, 119–173; for my interpretation of the former, see Appendix Two above.

116

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

specifically, this eschatological restoration is expressed in the fact that Moses’s unveiled experience of the glory of God, in contrast to the veiled experience of Israel in her stiff-necked condition (3:14–15), provides a type of the church’s experience (3:16–17). For the Moses/church parallel demonstrates that the transforming experience of the glory of God in the face of Christ is the beginning of the eschatological fulfillment of the restoration of Israel promised in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in which God will dwell in the midst of his people. The glory experienced as the result of the work of the Spirit (3:18) is therefore affirmed to be the revelation of the glory of God himself (cf. 3:17a), now “seen” on the face of Christ (2 Cor 4:6). Paul’s argument, being redemptive-historical in nature, is emphatically theocentric. It is the “glory of God” which is being revealed in “the glory of Christ” as “the image of God.” And it is this glory which is proclaimed in the gospel (2 Cor 4:4 in view of 4:6; 5:11–6:2; cf. Phil 4:19), revealed through the suffering of Paul (2 Cor 1:3–11; 2:14 in view of 2 Cor 4:6; 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 7:2–16), and experienced in the church (3:18; 4:13–18; 6:14–7:1). The present experience of the glory of the Lord through Paul’s ministry is thus the means to the proleptic fulfillment of the “incomparable eternal weight of glory” now being prepared for the people of God, who must likewise patiently endure “the same sufferings which Paul also suffers” (2 Cor 1:6; 4:17; cf. Phil 3:11, 20–21; Col 1:27; 3:3–4; Rom 5:2; and esp. 8:18–21).51 It is not saying too much, therefore, to conclude that the transformation pictured in 3:18 is the evidential foundation for Paul’s subsequent assertion in 2 Cor 5:14–17 that the death and resurrection of Christ has inaugurated the eschatological “new creation,” with all that this implies for the covenant community both salvifically (cf. 4:7–18; 5:11–6:2) and ethically (cf. 6:14–7:1).52 In short, the key to 51 For the source of Paul’s material understanding of his suffering, see still Karl T. Kleinknecht, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom “leidenden Gerechten” und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus, WUNT 2/13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 242–284. Though not concerned with Paul’s restoration theology per se, Kleinknecht points to the corresponding OT tradition of the suffering of the righteous, interpreted Christologically, as the backdrop to Paul’s thought in 2 Cor 1:3–11 (cf. Pss 71:20–21; 94:19; 23:4–5; 69:33–34; Isa 66:11; Jer 16:7); 4:7–18 (cf. Isa 30:13; Jer 19:11; Ps 2:9; esp. Pss 31:13; 37:28; 4 Ezra 4:11; 7:88–89; T. Jos. 1:3 ff.; 2:3 ff., in addition to Ps 115:6–7); 6:1–10 (cf. 2 En. 66:6; Pss 139; 118; Isa 49:8a; in addition to Ps 118:17–18) and 8:9 (cf. Isa 53:5). However, once seen to be an expression of the suffering of the righteous, the suffering of Paul and those who follow in his footsteps naturally points to the OT expectation of their final “new creation” restoration and vindication. 52  See G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” NTS 35 (1989): 550–581. Beale argues that the OT motif of the second exodus restoration/new creation is the basis of Paul’s argument in chs. 5–7, in which this motif is the foundation of Paul’s understanding of the new creation and reconciliation (5:17, based on Isa 43:18–19 within 43:1–21, where the restoration from exile is described with new creation language in vv. 1, 7, 15, 17, 21 and as a second exodus in vv.  2, 16–17; and on 65:17 within 65:17–25). In view of the extensive development of the theme of Israel’s restoration as a new creation and second exodus throughout Isa 40–66, Beale concludes that “it is plausible to suggest that ‘reconciliation’ in Christ is Paul’s way of explaining

Chapter Three: Paul’s New Covenant Ministry of Eschatological Life

117

Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 1–9 is his conviction that the new creation entails the inauguration of the eschatological new covenant.53 Furthermore, Paul is convinced that this “new creation” takes place due to the reality of the gospel as proclaimed and embodied in Paul’s own ministry and in the community of the Spirit that it creates. As a mediation of the glory of God on the face of Christ (3:18; 4:4, 6), Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit” (3:6, 8) is the means by which the prophetic expectation of the new creation is being realized.54 As Paul puts it in 2 Cor 5:17, the “old” (with its covenant) has already passed away and been replaced by the “new” (with its covenant). As “new creatures” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) under the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6; 6:16–1855), the Corinthians consequently (must) testify by their obedience and separation from evil that the effects of the fall for all humankind in Gen 3, and for Israel in Exod 32–34, are now being reversed through Paul’s apostolic ministry!56 It is this new covenant transformation of humanity that Isaiah’s promises of ‘restoration’ from the alienation of exile have begun to be fulfilled by the atonement and forgiveness of sins in Christ” (p. 556), with reconciliation and new creation being explicitly linked in 5:18a. Beale’s thesis has found confirmation in the work of William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1, JSNTSup 85 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). Webb too views the OT traditions behind Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 2:14–7:4 “under the broader rubric of ‘new covenant and second exodus/return theology’ ” (p. 28). 53 For the key OT and 2TJ texts concerning the eschatological new creation, see below, chapter ten, p. 301 n. 3 and Ulrich Mell, Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie, BZNW 56 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 327–388. Though not in complete agreement with the above thesis, Mell investigates the new creation motif in 5:14–17 in view of its history of interpretation. 54  Cf. Isa 2:2–3; 24:23; 25:6–9; 43:21; 56:6–8; 60:1–3; 65:19–24; 66:18–21, 23, etc. for the revelation of the glory of God in the midst of Israel and among the nations, and Isa 43:19–20; 65:25, etc. for its revelation among the beasts and created order. 55  See James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 187–220. Scott’s study of the covenant formula in 2 Cor 6:16, as references to Israel’s protology (Lev 26:11–12) and eschatology (Ezek 37:27; cf. the exact same variation of the covenant formula in Jer 31:33 MT!), shows it to be an integral part and fitting conclusion to the argument of 2 Cor 1–7, thus establishing a new covenant context for 6:14–7:1. Hence, Scott demonstrates that this passage stands firmly within Paul’s (!) larger “second exodus/restoration/new covenant” theology, together with its ethical/cultic consequences (cf. the use of Isa 52:11 in 6:17, where in the context of the second-exodus restoration the exiles are to separate themselves). In 6:17d–18b, Paul then quotes a mixed citation of Ezek 20:34b + 2 Sam 7:14 + Isa 43:6 as a formal and material parallel to the previously cited covenant formula. Paul’s use reflects the tradition in which, based on 2 Sam 7:14, 24, the regathered people of God (Ezek 20:34) come to be seen as the adopted sons and daughters (Isa 43:6) of God. This is also reflected in the use of 2 Sam 7:14 in Jub. 1:17, 24, where, within the context of the new covenant (cf. Hos 2:1 in Jub. 1:24–25), it is applied to the Israel of the Return. For an evaluation of Scott’s work and a detailed study of the related promise of the final, eschatological adoption of God’s people from 2 Sam 7:14 within the threefold covenant structure represented in the composite citation of 2 Cor 6:16–18, see again Euichang Kim, The Fear of God in 2 Corinthians 7:1: Its Salvation-Historical, Literary, and Eschatological Contexts, LNTS 605 (London: T&T Clark, 2019). 56  Cf. 2 Cor 2:9–11; 3:3, 18; 5:9–10; 6:14–16a; 7:1; 8:11–15 (note Exod 16:18 in v. 15); 9:5–7 (a reference to the tenth commandment in v. 5?, note Deut 15:10 in v. 7 and Isa 55:10 in v. 10), etc.

118

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

now being realized in the church that, in contrast to the veiled reading of Moses, can be known and read by all men (cf. 3:2 with 3:14–15). As such, this “letter written by Christ” supports Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle, so that he needs no “letter of recommendation” in Corinth beyond the Corinthians themselves (2 Cor 3:1–3). This brings us then in the next chapter to consider the heart of Paul’s “self-commendation” as a “servant of the new covenant.”

This framework may even explain many of the unanswered questions concerning Paul’s argument in 5:1–10. See, e. g., C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991). Pate argues that Gen 1–3 presents the backdrop to both 4:4–6 (esp. here Gen 1:26–27) and 5:1–10, thus providing the overarching structure for the entire section. Pate therefore posits that Paul’s Adam-Christology forms the foundation for 4:7–5:21 in that Paul sees the lost, primeval glory of Adam being restored to the righteous who suffer via the righteous suffering of Christ as the last Adam (cf. Apoc. Mos. 20:1–3; 1 En. 32:3–6; 3 Bar. 6:16, and by implication the many texts which describe the glory of the righteous as equal to that possessed by Adam before the fall, i. e., Dan 12:3; Sir 49:16; 4 Ezra 8:51; 1 En. 39:9; 50:1; 58:2–3; 62:15–16; 103:2–3; 108:12–13; 2 Bar. 15:8; 54:15, 21, etc.; see his pp. 22, 35, 107, 126, 137). The allusion to Wis 9:15 in 2 Cor 5:1 is related to the restoration of the lost glory of Adam as seen in Wis 1:16, 23; 2:1–24; 3:4–7; 8:10, 13; 5:15–16 (pp. 41–43), while γυμνός in 5:3–4 recalls Gen 3:7, στενάζομεν in 5:2, 4 recalls Gen 3:16, and ἐνδύω in 5:2–4 refers to Gen 3:21 (pp. 115–120). These references correspond to the description of the future glory of the righteous in terms of a glorious building/temple and a glorious garment (body) as found in 1 En. 32:3–6; 62:15–16; 108:12–13; 90:28–36; 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 48:46–50; 51:3–11; 56:5–59:12; 4 Ezra 3:4–7; 4:11; 7:11–12, 88–98; 10:25–55, etc. Moreover, 1QS 4:22–25; CD 3:20; 1QHa 15:18 demonstrate that Qumran also regarded itself as the true people of God to whom the restored glory of Adam belonged as part of the eternal/new covenant and new creation (Isa 43:19; 65:17; 66:22; 1 En. 45:4; 72:1; 91:15) (pp. 36–37). On this parallel to Qumran, see my conclusion to this present series of studies. For an evaluation of Pate’s work, see my review in JBL 113 (1994): 346–349.

Chapter Four

The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)1 So all the language about the “necessity” of good works is more or less beside the point. It is of the nature of faith to do good works just as it is of the nature of love to love and care to care, of the ­parent to pick up and comfort that hurt child. To say that is not naïve; it is the expression of ­confidence and hope. Gerhard O. Forde, Justification by Faith2

In the previous chapters I argued that the contrast between the epochs of the old and new covenants undergirding Paul’s arguments in Gal 3–4 and 2 Cor 1–9 was eschatological, not material. This contrast rests for its validity in large part on Paul’s insistence that it is “the fruit of the Spirit” characterizing the transformed lives of “new covenant” believers that actually fulfills the commands of the Torah, not a continuing observance of the “old covenant,” associated as it was with Israel’s judgment for her continuing hard-hearted disobedience (Gal 3:10; 5:14, 16, 22, 25; 6:8; 2 Cor 3:6–11, 16–4:6). Paul’s opponents in Galatia and Corinth, however, contested these claims. Moreover, because Paul claimed to be the Messiah’s apostolic servant of the new covenant sent to the nations with this gospel (Gal 1:1, 10, 15–16; 2 Cor 1:1; 3:6), these controversies thrust Paul himself into the center of the debate. The dispute became whether Paul himself was a legitimate apostle. Paul’s apologetic in Gal 3:1–5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5 and 2 Cor 3:1–18 thus makes it clear that an integral aspect of Paul’s defense also depended on the reality of the Spirit being mediated through Paul’s ministry, which Paul adduced as the divine attestation of the legitimacy of his apostolic calling. In support of the readings of Gal 3–4 and 2 Cor 1–9 offered above, we now turn to the related themes in 2 Cor 10:12–18. For nowhere is the link in Paul’s apology between the reality of the Spirit being mediated through Paul’s ministry 1 From “ ‘Self-Commendation’ and Apostolic Legitimacy in 2 Corinthians: A Pauline Dialectic?” NTS 36 (1990): 66–88. 2  Gerhard O. Forde, Justification by Faith – A Matter of Life and Death (Mifflintown: Sigler Press, 1999 [1990]), 56.

120

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

and the truth of Paul’s message more evident than in Paul’s self-defense in 2 Cor 10–13 as encapsulated in 10:12–18, where Paul confidently points to his own behavior as the divine attestation of his apostolic authority (see 2 Cor 3:2–3; 4:2; 5:10–11; 6:3–10; 10:12–18, etc.). Yet this passage poses a serious challenge to my reading of Paul. Scholars have often argued that Paul’s self-defense throughout 2 Corinthians in general, especially as this crystalizes in 10:12–18, far from being a convincing answer to his opponents, is actually an essential part of the problem itself. Among contemporary scholars, this perspective was paradigmatically set forth by Ernst Käsemann in his still programmatic article, “Die Legitimität des Apostels.”3 In it, Käsemann drew attention to the fact that the issue at stake in 2 Corinthians was Paul himself and that, of all the accusations being leveled against him, Paul was especially being blamed for his supposed “Selbstlob.” From his opponents’ perspective, Paul’s μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος (10:12–18) and his δοκιμή (13:3, 6) appeared questionable, lacking the obvious and objective power and authority associated with apostleship. His boasting was thus viewed to be irresponsible, illegitimate, and deceitful (5:12; 11:16; 12:16). Specifically, Paul lacked an appropriate “fixed μέτρον,” i. e., an objective evidence for his legitimacy that was “controllable.” For in contrast to the Jerusalem apostles, Paul could not point to a commissioning from the earthly Jesus, the miraculous signs of an apostle, or financial support from churches to support his claims. Instead, personal weakness and suffering characterized Paul’s life (2 Cor 10:10; 11:6, 21, 29). Hence, “seinem Apostolat fehlt die nachprüfbare Eindeutigkeit.”4 According to these objective criteria Paul was, indeed, an illegitimate usurper of apostolic authority. Käsemann’s understanding of Paul’s inadequate defense of his apostolic legitimacy likewise centered on the criteria of evaluation which Paul did present in response to his opponents. As Käsemann insightfully pointed out, in response to his opponents Paul defended himself in 2 Cor 10:18 by refashioning the rules of the game and thereby redefining those eligible to play it: “the one who is commending himself (ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων) is not approved (δόκιμος), but the one whom the Lord commends (ὁ κύριος συνίστησιν).” In Käsemann’s view, therefore, Paul responded to his opponents by insisting on a non-objective, “heavenly criterion” consisting of dependence upon the crucified, risen Lord, which in turn required a Spirit-inspired discernment for its evaluation. Measured and evaluated in this way, Paul’s weakness did not call his legitimacy into question; it merely cloaked it so that only those with true spiritual insight could see it (2 Cor 10:12b). Paul could thus refuse to be compared to his opponents on the one hand (10:12a), while at the same time boasting in his weakness and suffering on the other, the 3  Ernst Käsemann, “Die Legitimität des Apostels: Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10– 13,” ZNW 41 (1942): 36. 4 Ibid., 50.

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

121

very things his adversaries argued disqualified him as an apostle (11:1–21). But even more importantly, Paul could conclude, by definition, that those who opposed him did not know Christ and were themselves “false apostles” (11:13), since all who did possess the Spirit would recognize the validity of his claims (cf. 12:11–13 and 13:5–6 in the light of 1 Cor 2:11–16).5

The Anomaly within the Paradigm Käsemann’s basic understanding of Paul’s polemic in 2 Cor 10–13 has won many followers.6 But it has also confronted these interpreters of Paul with a serious problem. As Käsemann himself pointed out, Paul seems to contradict his own emphasis on the nonobjective, spiritually discerned nature of the “evidence” for his legitimacy by his accompanying insistence in 2 Cor 3:2–3 and 10:13 that the very existence of the Corinthian church as a result of God’s “konkret geschichtlichen Führung” provides “objektiv kontrollierbaren Merkmalen” in support of his standing as an apostle.7 In short, as Haupt observed earlier, Paul appears to justify his office by his “‘Leistungen.’”8 Ιn regard to our present studies, it is significant that here too Paul’s argument, with its objectivity, is eschatological. Paul’s reference in 2 Cor 3:2–5 to the reality of the Corinthian church in support of his confidence regarding the God-granted “sufficiency” (ἡ ἱκανότης/ἱκανός) of his ministry is grounded by the fact that the Spirit characterizes the new covenant of which God “made Paul sufficient” (ἱκα­ νόω) as a minister “since the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive” (3:6). And as I have argued in detail elsewhere, the “sufficiency” motif here, in conjunction with the delineation of the contrasts between the ministries of Moses and Paul under the old and new covenants in 3:6–18, alludes to the ἱκανός-motif in the call of Moses in Exod 4:10LXX. As a servant of the new covenant, Paul has been called 5 Ibid.,

56–57, 58–60.  See, e. g., Rudolf Bultmann, “Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes,” Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, ed. Erich Dinkler (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 1967), 313–314; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 296–302; Walter Klaiber, Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Kirchenverständnis, FRLANT 127 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 209–211 and the literature cited there; Georg Eichholz, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss, 2nd ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 37; C. K.  Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 269; Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 246–247, 354, 482–483; Hans Lietzmann and Werner Georg Kümmel, An die Korinther I/II, 5th ed., HNT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965), 209; and Gerhard Barth, “Die Eignung des Verkündigers in 2 Kor 2:14–3:6,” in Kirche, ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 259–260, 268–269a. 7  Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 59. 8 Quoted by Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 59. 6

122

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

like Moses (and the prophets), being made sufficient in spite of his insufficiency. But unlike Moses’s ministry of the “letter,” which in the context of 2 Cor 3 refers to the giving of the commands of the law without the power to obey them, Paul’s ministry is now a ministry “of the Spirit.” Hence, beginning with Israel’s sin in making the golden calf, Moses’s ministry became a “ministry of death” and “condemnation” (2 Cor 3:6, 7, 9), whereas the very existence of the Corinthian church demonstrates that Paul’s ministry brought righteousness and life as a result of the eschatological reality of the new age of the new covenant (3:6, 9). But, again, to draw such a conclusion would mean that Paul justifies his very existence as a servant of the new covenant and the truth of the message he preaches by pointing to his achievements. Käsemann’s solution to what he deems to be a contradiction in Paul’s apologetic is to offer an interpretation of 2 Cor 10:12–18 and the “signs of an apostle” in 12:12 which brings them back into line with Käsemann’s understanding of the nonobjective nature of Paul’s evidence for his legitimacy.9 For in Käsemann’s view, Paul’s appeal in 2 Cor 10:18 to the “Lord’s recommendation” as the only valid commendation demands that the apologetic use of the Corinthian church be seen, in reality, as yet another example that Paul’s apostleship is not subject to human evaluation (“Menschenurteil”) inasmuch as the church, like apostleship, is a spiritual reality.10 Hence, although it is “objective” at one level, the evidence of the Corinthian church would only be persuasive to those within it.11 In fact, the signs of an apostle, being “objective” displays of power, are powerless to persuade even the Corinthians. Instead, Paul points to the patience, weakness, sensibility, and love with which he carried out his ministry as the true signs of an apostle. Such “signs” can only be spiritually discerned.12 In spite of the fact that Käsemann’s understanding of the nature of Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 10–13 is shared by many, is it possible that Paul’s apparent rejection of objective evidence to support his legitimacy and his simultaneous use of it points in a different direction, namely, to the inadequacy of Käsemann’s fundamental premise? Did Paul in fact reject or reinterpret “objektiv kontrollierbare Merkmale” in favor of a subjective “recommendation from the Lord” that could only be spiritually discerned by those “in the Lord”? Or has Käsemann himself created the dialectic by his own interpretation of Paul’s apologetic? On the other hand, if Paul did argue for the legitimacy of his office by pointing to his achievements and way of life, as others have suggested,13 how does Paul’s  9 See Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 59–62, 68–71 and his “Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 1:224–236. 10 Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 59–61, quote from p. 61. 11  Ibid., 60. 12  Ibid., 71. 13  See, e. g., H. J.  Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 81; Gerd Theissen, “Legitimation und

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

123

argument from evidence relate to his fundamental assertion in 2 Cor 10:18 that only the one whom “the Lord commends” is in fact “approved”?

The Centrality of Paul’s Self-Commendation in 2 Corinthians Käsemann’s study not only raises these fundamental questions, but also points us in the right direction for answering them. Käsemann rightly calls attention to the contrast between “self-commendation” and “the Lord’s commendation” in 2 Cor 10:18 as central to Paul’s self-defense, especially as developed within the difficult context of 10:12–18.14 Surprisingly, however, in spite of Käsemann’s groundbreaking work, the importance of the theme of “self-commendation” (συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν) in 2 Corinthians has not often been adequately emphasized or treated. Rather than being a mere subset of the closely related theme of “boasting,” which is commonly viewed to be dominant in Paul’s apologetic,15 it is the theme of “self-commendation” which ought to be considered the focus of Paul’s self-defense in 2 Corinthians. While the theme of “boasting” does not occur at all in 2 Cor 2:14–6:13, Paul’s defense of his apostolic authority is both initiated and concluded with references to “self-commendation” (see 3:1 and 6:4). Moreover, the theme of self-commendation occupies two key transitions within the argument as well (see 4:1–2 and 5:11–12).16 Similarly, the body of Paul’s apology in 2 Cor 10–13 is framed by the theme of self-commendation, where it functions as the programmatic introduction and conclusion to the “fool’s speech” of 11:1–12:10 (see 10:12–18 and 12:11). Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare,” in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, WUNT 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 223–226, who in speaking of Paul’s “Funktionale Legitimation” states, “wo immer Paulus angegriffen wird, verweist er auf sein ‘Werk’ ” (p. 223). 14 See too, Christopher Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986): 1, who points to 10:12–18 as “the key to the whole ‘boasting’ passage in 2 Corinthians.” 15 See, e. g., Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 36; Karl Prümm, Diakonia Pneumatos: Der Zweite Korintherbrief als Zugang zur Apostolischen Botschaft; Auslegung und Theologie (Rome: Herder, 1960–1967), 2.2:347, 1:593; Bultmann, “Exegetische Probleme,” 320–321, where the theme of self-commendation is completely subsumed under that of “boasting”; Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner “Apologie” 2 Korinther 10–13, BHT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), 18, 100, 122 n. 576, 132 in comparison with the extensive development of the theme of boasting on 74–100; and David Alan Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and its Cognates in the Pauline Literature, AUS 7/3 (New York: Lang, 1984), 130–131, who on the basis of the number of times the theme of boasting recurs in chapters 10–13 concludes that “καυχᾶσθαι is the main concept of these chapters” (p. 131). For a more balanced treatment of the two themes, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 475–483. 16  On the place of 4:1 and 5:11–12 within the overall logical structure of 2 Cor 2:14–6:13, see the helpful analysis by Furnish, II Corinthians, 226, 245, 321.

124

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

The importance of “self-commendation” in 2 Corinthians is strengthened all the more by Malherbe’s argument that 2 Cor 10:1–6 does not reflect an “intellectual confrontation” between Paul and his opponents, but rather represents their opposition to Paul’s “voluntary self-humiliation” and suffering as a result of his decision to support himself in Corinth.17 As Malherbe points out, the closest parallel to 2 Cor 10:3–6 is thus 2 Cor 2:14–16, which also has Paul’s apostolic lifestyle of suffering in view, especially as brought about by his refusal to be “like the many who sell the word of God as if they were peddlers in the market” (cf. 2:17).18 Structurally, therefore, just as Paul’s reference to his suffering in 2:14–17 introduces the theme of self-commendation in 3:1, so too Paul’s discussion of his weakness as an apostle in 2 Cor 10:1–6 leads to his introduction of this same theme in 10:12. Given its pivotal role in the two major apologetic sections of 2 Corinthians, 2:14–6:13 and chapters 10–13, it is therefore not asserting too much to suggest that the issue of self-commendation stands squarely in the center of the conflict between Paul and his opponents in Corinth.19 If literary structure rather than statistics be our guide, Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians takes its bearing from the theme of self-commendation more than from any other single motif.

The Apparent Inconsistency of Self-Commendation in 2 Corinthians To assert the centrality of self-commendation in the apologetic of 2 Corinthians is not to escape the central problem of the seemingly dialectical nature of Paul’s apologetic. While Paul’s apologetic in 3:1–6:13 seems to be offered as an explanation of his inherent denial in 3:1 of the allegation that he is commending himself, he nevertheless ends this section with an explicit “self-commendation” in 6:3–10 (see συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς in 6:4). Moreover, within the argument itself Paul explicitly denies that he is commending himself in 5:12, having just explicitly done so in 4:2 (compare συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς in 4:2 with οὐ πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν in 5:12).

17  Abraham J. Malherbe, “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War,” HTR 76 (1983): 168, 172. 18  For the former point, see ibid., 166 n. 131; for the latter, see my, Suffering and the Spirit, 18–39, 51–64. 19  See Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur Religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike, WMANT 11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964), 242, who concludes from the statistics concerning its use in 2 Corinthians alone that “συνιστάνειν ist also Schlagwort in der korinthischen Auseinandersetzung.” But as Georgi goes on to point out, it is actually the concept of συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν that provides the “weiteren Begriff der konkurrierenden Propaganda der Gegner in Korinth” (p. 242).

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

125

This same tension is found in chapters 10–13. Paul’s denial of the legitimacy of self-commendation in 10:18 (οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν δόκιμος) and his criticism of his opponents for doing so in 10:12 (οὐ γὰρ τολμῶμεν ἐγκρῖναι ἢ συγκρῖναι ἑαυτούς τισιν τῶν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστανόντων) are counterbalanced by his own self-commendation implied in the protest of 12:11, which no doubt refers to what Paul has just said in 11:1–12:10. As a result of the explicitly positive uses of συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν throughout the epistle, 2 Corinthians as a whole thus becomes a self-commendation despite Paul’s equally explicit rejection of allegations that he engages in such a practice.20 Even the genre of the epistle21 seems to underscore this fundamental tension and serves to raise the central question of how the apparent contradiction in Paul’s self-defense between what he asserts and what he denies supports his legitimacy as an apostle. The difficulty in understanding the force of Paul’s argument is further heightened by the fact that each side of the controversy appears to have accused the other of this potentially reprobate practice. Paul not only denies the charge that he is commending himself on two occasions (3:1 and 5:12), he also counters this charge by criticizing his opponents for commending themselves in 10:12, stating categorically in 10:18 that the one who does so is not “approved” (δόκιμος). Clearly, like the closely related theme of “foolish boasting” in 2 Cor 11–12, the expression “to commend oneself” (συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν) consequently takes on the character of a polemical catchphrase which Paul can use to characterize a type of behavior that casts suspicion upon the credibility of those who engage in it.22 Yet inasmuch as Paul also explicitly commends himself on at least two occasions without apology or disqualification (see 4:2; 6:3–10; cf. 12:11),23 and even seems to have constructed the letter as a whole in the form of an apologetic selfcommendation, it is highly unlikely that the goal of the conflict was simply to 20 So too, e. g., C. K. Barrett, Second Corinthians, 185, comments on 6:4: “How does a servant of God commend himself? The answer is in the epistle as a whole.” Likewise, Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, ed. Georg Strecker, 9th ed., KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 102, refers to 2 Cor 10–13 as “die umfassendste, herausforderndste und überzeugendste ‘Selbstempfehlung’ oder ‘Selbstberühmung’ ” that we have from Paul. 21 So Linda L. Belleville, “A Letter of Apologetic Self-Commendation: 2 Cor. 1:8–7:16,” NovT 31 (1989): 142–163. 22  On the meaning of συνίστημι/συνιστάνω in the NT, see W. Kasch, “συνίστημι, συνιστάνω,” TDNT 7:896–898, who points out that “Paul uses the trans. συνίστημι primarily in the good classical sense ‘to commend’ ” (p. 897). I am indebted to my student Robert F. Lay for pointing out a similar use of συνιστάνω in polemical contexts “as a key verb in the description of the actions … of an antagonist whose purpose is treacherous or deceptive” (unpublished manuscript). See, e. g., Polybius, Histories, 4.5.6; Diodorus of Sicily 13.91.4; Josephus, Ant. 7.49 and 1 Macc 12:39–49. 23  Barrett, Second Corinthians, 129, and Furnish, II Corinthians, 219, distinguish what Paul does in 4:2 from the negative practice of self-commendation because of its association in 4:2 with ἡ ἀλήθεια and ἡ συνείδησις and its practice ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. But these qualifications all relate to the means and audience of Paul’s self-commendation and are not an apology or disqualification of the practice itself such as we find in 2 Cor 11:1–12:12 concerning boasting – which is disqualified as “foolish.”

126

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

determine who, in fact, had engaged in such a “self-commendation,” with the guilty party automatically eliminated as illegitimate.24 If this were the case, Paul becomes his own worst enemy at the most inopportune moments.25 The same could be said for Paul’s boasting in 2 Cor 1:12; 10:8, 13–18 and 11:10 in view of 2 Cor 10:17 and 11:16–33. The other related and more probable solution often suggested to this seemingly fatal inconsistency in Paul’s apologetic has been to posit that Paul engaged in a subtle switch in semantics when it came to the pivotal points in the controversy. Paul’s “self-commendation” is not always self-commendation and his “boasting” not always boasting because both have been transformed by virtue of their distinctive objects.26 Paul’s play on words is then said to be grounded either in his theological convictions27 or in some rhetorical technique he has employed.28 Paul’s opponents certainly did boast in their religious pedigrees and supposedly superior displays of spiritual power, while Paul boasted in his weakness (cf. 2 Cor 11:16–33; 12:5, 9–10). But Paul too boasts, without qualification, in the purity of his motives and actions in 2 Cor 1:12, in his authority and power in 10:7–11, and in his practice of preaching the gospel free of charge in 11:7–11 (cf. 2:17). Likewise, while Paul’s opponents commend themselves by measuring and comparing themselves with themselves (10:12), Paul’s “self-commendation” in 4:2 and 6:3–10 also appears subjective or “ingrown,” since it is based on the assumption that Paul’s gospel is true (4:2) and that his apostolic lifestyle is 24  For this point, see too Derk Oostendorp, Another Jesus, A Gospel of Jewish-Christian Superiority in II Corinthians (Kampen: Kok, 1967), 33, who points to 4:2 and 6:4 as evidence of the fact that “there is a proper kind of self-recommendation, so that in itself is not the issue!” Oostendorp understands the charge against Paul to be the fact that what Paul said in recommending himself was simply not true, so that he had to praise himself in order to cover up the “real flaws” in his work (p. 34). But, as I will argue, the issue actually centers on two different criteria for commendation as such, since what Paul asserts concerning his own ministry could hardly be disputed, i. e., that he preached without pay, founded the church in Corinth, served in weakness and suffering, and performed signs and wonders in Corinth. 25  It is the existence of these positive “self-commendations” in 4:2 and 6:3–10 (cf. 12:11?) that speak against those who, like Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1925), 76; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 85; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 106; Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 109; and Schoeps, Paul, 79, argue that the issue in 2 Cor 3:1 is “self-commendation” itself, since selfcommendation is to be equated with a negative type of boasting, pride, or an attempt to praise oneself. This is not to deny that the idea of boasting in 2 Cor 10–13 is closely related to the opponents’ practice of self-commendation, but to maintain that the nature of this practice cannot be assumed to be the same. 26  To give just one more example, see A. T. Lincoln, “ ‘Paul the Visionary’: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII. 1–10,” NTS 25 (1979): 208: “The apostle’s boasting is not to be taken in a straightforward sense” (cf. p. 209). 27  See the position of Käsemann outlined above. 28 The groundbreaking work using this approach to Paul’s apologetic is that of Betz, Apostel Paulus. See too that of Forbes, “Comparison.”

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

127

legitimate (6:3). Furthermore, Paul’s commendation in 12:11–12 includes the same types of “signs and wonders” usually assumed to be an important part of his opponents’ “self-commendation.” Finally, even if we can discern some distinctive difference in content between Paul’s self-commendation and boasting and that of his opponents, as I hope to do below, it is difficult to see how this would alter the practices of “self-commendation” and “boasting” themselves. The focus or object of the activities may change, but this does not change the practices in and of themselves. The attempt to postulate a difference in Paul’s behavior in this regard, based on its distinctive content, is merely a variation of the more direct attempt to deny that he commended himself or boasted at all. Paul’s own self-commendations and boasts, in spite of his rejection of the former in 3:1, 5:12, and 10:18, and of the latter in 11:1, 16–17, 21, and 12:1, call into question this understanding of Paul’s apologetic. Either Paul was hopelessly inconsistent at this point, or the reconciliation of the discrepancy between Paul’s rejection of self-commendation and boasting and his own practice of them must be sought elsewhere.

The Principle of 2 Corinthians 10:18 As Käsemann pointed out, the starting place for dealing with this problem is the principle established by Paul in 2 Cor 10:18. Here we encounter not only the negative disclaimer, οὐ ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν δόκιμος, but also Paul’s positive criterion for determining who is, in fact, “approved,” namely, ὃν ὁ κύριος συνίστησιν. Any evaluation of the dialectic concerning self-commendation and boasting in 2 Corinthians must therefore take seriously this Pauline principle as the crux for understanding how Paul himself judged his own apologetic, as well as that of his opponents. Within its context the principle in 10:18 is introduced to ground the admonition of Jer 9:22–23 quoted in 10:17 (note the γάρ of 10:18a).29 The one who “boasts” ought to “boast in the Lord” because it is the Lord’s “commendation” which renders one approved. Taken together, 10:17–18 are the last assertions in the argument of 10:12–18, which functions to support Paul’s ability and willingness to “boast” concerning his own authority (cf. 10:8); it does not support, as is often argued, why one ought not to boast or commend oneself at all!30 Paul is 29  For a detailed exposition of 2 Cor 10:17 against the backdrop of Jer 9:22–23, see Josef S­ chreiner, “Jeremia 9:22, 23 als Hintergrund des paulinischen ‘Sich-Rühmens,’ ” Neues Testament und Kirche, ed. Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 530–542. 30 Cf., e. g., Windisch, Zweiter Korintherbrief, 314–315; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 269; Rudolf Bultmann, Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther, KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 199, and his Exegetische Probleme des Zweiten Korintherbriefes zu 2 Kor 5:1–5; 5:11–6:10; 10–13; 12:21, SymBU 9 (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1947), 21; and Käsemann,

128

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

not rejecting the practice of commending oneself or boasting per se. The issue in 10:7–18 is how Paul can legitimately boast of his authority over the Corinthians in spite of his weak and unimpressive personal appearance and past performances (cf. the conclusion Paul draws in 10:8 from his boasting in spite of the dissonance described in 10:10–11: οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι). The subject at stake in 2 Cor 10:7–18, therefore, is Paul’s honor. For as Bruce Malina has pointed out, one’s honor is called into question when the grounds upon which one claims such honor are not met with a “grant of reputation” by his or her social group.31 Or as A. Dewey has put it, one is dishonored when “the individual has not balanced his verbal claims with socially understood reality.”32 Moreover, as Dewey reminds us, “one should keep in mind that there were ‘objective criteria’ for determining the validity of such claims to authority: letters of recommendation, ecstasy, wonder-working, rhetorical and interpretive competence,” which Paul “evidently did not meet.”33 Paul’s task is further complicated in that he could not simply point to his present activities and status as support for his claim to authority over the Corinthians. Even Paul’s very identity as a Christian was seemingly being called into question (cf. 10:7) precisely because his bold “boasting” in the past, which resulted in his “terrifying letters” (cf. 10:1, 9), seemed to be contradicted by the weakness of his personal appearance (cf. 10:10). In response, on the basis of their own experience in Christ (cf. ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ), Paul commands34 the Corinthians in 10:7 to recognize that he too belongs to the Lord. Therefore,35 if Paul should continue to boast of his authority, he would not be ashamed, since it would be a proper expression of his apostolic relationship to Christ. But to do so would simply avoid the question at hand regarding the legitimacy of his apostleship. Instead, Paul must defend the appropriateness of his boast concerning his authority over the Corinthians, while at the same time affirming the legitimacy of his apostolic suffering. That is to say, Paul must uphold both sides of this apparent contradiction in order to defend himself against the criticism of his opponents.

“Legitimität,” 57–59 (though Bultmann and Käsemann disagree over who is accusing whom of such boasting!). 31  Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 27–29. 32  Arthur J. Dewey, “A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10,” HTR 78 (1985): 210. 33 Dewey, “Matter of Honor,” 212–213. 34  Taking βλέπετε as an imperative in 10:7a, with the conditional statement in 10:7b construed to be supporting this admonition. Paul is not simply describing what the Corinthians are doing but commanding what he wishes they would do, supported by his conviction that his apostolic lifestyle of suffering is ample proof of his legitimacy once it is properly interpreted. I have argued for this at length in my work, Suffering and the Spirit, 41–87, 103–176. 35  Taking the γάρ of 10:8 to be inferential in a statement of exclamation or strong affirmation, cf. BDAG, 190.

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

129

As we have seen, Paul has already dealt with this latter point in 10:1–6 by reminding the Corinthians of his previous arguments concerning the legitimacy of his suffering as found in passages such as 1 Cor 4:9–13; 2 Cor 1:3–11; 2:14–17; 4:7–12; and 6:4–10 (for a detailed exposition of the role of suffering in Paul’s ministry of the Spirit, see below, chapter five). Now he must give clear evidence that his boast concerning his authority is an appropriate counterpart to the “Lord’s commendation” upon which one’s approval ultimately rests. In order to see how Paul accomplishes this, it becomes necessary to trace the flow of Paul’s argument in 10:12–18 in some detail.

The Canon of Apostolic Authority The burden of Paul’s defense of his legitimacy as an apostle in 2 Cor 10:12–18 is twofold. First, he endeavors to define what is, in fact, a proper boast or claim to authority by establishing the divine criterion for establishing such a claim. Having done so, Paul then demonstrates that his boast, rather than that of his opponents, meets this criterion. Hence, when Paul boasts, he is indeed “boasting in the Lord” as the recipient of the “Lord’s commendation.” Paul accomplishes his first goal by once again introducing in 10:12 a negative comparison between his practice and that of his opponents (cf. 2 Cor 2:17 and the subsequent negative comparisons in 10:13, 15 and 11:12). This time, however, the comparison is ironic.36 For in spite of all the “boldness” being attributed to him by his adversaries (cf. 10:1–2, 10–11), Paul does not “dare” to engage in the type of self-commendation practiced by his opponents (cf. 11:19–21 for this same irony).37 The point of the irony is clear. Paul’s “timidity” in this respect is his virtue, since the method of self-commendation practiced by his opponents is faulty; in Paul’s words: αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες καὶ συγκρίνοντες ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς οὐ συνιᾶσιν (10:12b). Paul’s emphasis in 10:12b on the nature of how his opponents are commending themselves as the reason for his own refusal to enter into such an activity reveals that Paul’s objection is to the manner in which his opponents justify their claims to authority. That someone would make such a claim and then back it up with a self-commendation is, in and of itself, not problematic. Paul himself does so with utmost seriousness and without a hint of irony or embarrassment (see 2 Cor 2:17–4:2; 6:3–10; and 10:14–16).38 Rather, as 10:8 and the subsequent context of 10:13–18 will make clear, the problem with the opponents’ self-commendation  So too Betz, Apostel Paulus, 67 ff. and Forbes, “Comparison,” 16. Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 43. But, as will become evident below, I depart from Käsemann in my understanding of wherein this difference lies. 38  Contra those who, like Barrett, Second Corinthians, 262, argue that “Paul has no time for self-commendation” as such. 36

37 See

130

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

is not that they attempt to substantiate their claims, but that the criteria they employ to establish their apostolic authority in Corinth is irrelevant.39 The opponents’ attempt to substantiate their claim to apostolic authority by pointing to their own abilities, spiritual attainments, and style of ministry is, from Paul’s perspective, “without understanding” because such an attempt simply begs the question currently in dispute, namely, whether these aspects of their ministries are the appropriate measure or criteria for determining who has a valid claim to apostolic authority in Corinth. Whether the opponents’ ministry itself was an appropriate expression of the true gospel is, of course, an even more fundamental issue (cf. 2 Cor 11:1–6, 13–15). This question revolves around the issues of Paul’s self-support and suffering as an apostle in relationship to the content of the gospel, issues which Paul does not address in detail until chapter 11. At this juncture Paul is concerned to justify his own claim to apostolic authority in Corinth before taking up the more fundamental question of apostolic legitimacy as such. For as Paul’s argument in 10:13–18 will make clear, regardless of whatever personal qualifications his opponents may possess (granting for the sake of argument their validity), they nevertheless still lack the proper divine commendation from the Lord for authority over the Corinthians. Thus, when Paul’s opponents claim authority in Corinth, they are merely “boasting” in something which cannot be measured or established by the criteria they are employing, i. e., by their own spiritual abilities, nature, attainments, performances, etc. (10:12b). Paul is not “bold enough” to join in such foolishness (cf. 10:12a with 11:16–21). That the issue is the question of employing the appropriate criteria for boasting is made explicit in 10:13. Here Paul explicates the basis for his ironic timidity in verse 12a with another negative comparison between himself and his opponents, but this time without a hint of irony. Paul’s opponents are “boasting” εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα, while Paul, in strong contrast (cf. ἀλλά in 13b), is “boasting” κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος οὗ ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς μέτρου. Given what Paul assumes is the appropriate μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος, the comparison therefore turns on whether the objects of his opponents’ boasting are, in fact, ἄμετρα. This statement and those that follow in 10:14–15 are notoriously hard to exegete because of the difficulty of determining the specific meaning of ἄμετρος and its relationship to κανών and μέτρον. Concerning the meaning of μέτρον, C. E. B. Cranfield has clarified the lexical possibilities. He observes that the idea of “limitation” is prominent in Paul’s use of μέτρον in 2 Cor 10:13–16, and that 39  Contra those who, like John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, SNTSMS 26 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 211, have suggested that the error of Paul’s opponents was the fact that they pointed to themselves, thus evoking a “human standard” rather than the approval of God; or, contra Käsemann, “Legitimität,” 56–57, 60 and Georgi, Gegner, 230–231, 230 n. 1, that the opponents simply believed they had such a standard to begin with, when no such external standard or criterion is possible “in the Lord.”

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

131

the issue for Paul in this passage is establishing a correct means of measurement.40 But this does not mean that we ought to render μέτρον itself in 10:13 to refer to a “means of measurement” or “standard,” with τοῦ κανόνος taken to be a genitive of apposition, as he suggests. If “κανών” is a restatement of what Paul means here by μέτρον, the repetition of μέτρον in the following relative pronoun clause would render this explanatory statement a tautology. Though this reading is not impossible, Paul’s repetition of μέτρον seems to suggest that in this text he is differentiating between the two concepts. Thus, although μέτρον can mean “measuring rod,” “standard,” or “norm,” Deissner and Beyer are correct in pointing out that, like its usage elsewhere in Paul, its general figurative meaning, “what is measured as the result of measuring” or “the measured part,” is also to be preferred in this context.41 Construed in this way, κανών can then retain its customary, concrete meaning of a “standard of judgment” or “norm”42 and ἄμετρος can be rendered as the simple negation of μέτρον, which taken figuratively would represent the idea of “extravagance,” i. e., of something measured which goes beyond the norm.43 Literally, εἰς τὰ ἄμετρος could thus be translated “things without a measure” or “beyond proper limits,” or figuratively as “extravagantly.”44 Taking these lexical decisions into account, Paul’s argument in 10:12–13 can be rendered as follows: in contrast to his opponents, who are “measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves to themselves” (10:12b), Paul will not be so “bold” as to “boast beyond proper limits.” Instead, Paul will boast according to the “measure determined by the norm,45 which measure God 40  C. E. B.  Cranfield, “ΜΕΤΡΟΝ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ in Romans XII. 3,” NTS 8 (1960): 348, 350. For the other uses in Paul, see Rom 12:3; Eph 4:7, 13, 16. 41 K. Deissner, “μέτρον, κτλ,” TDNT 4:632 and H. W. Beyer, “κανών,” TDNT 3:599 n. 12; see too Furnish, II Corinthians, 465, 471. 42  Beyer, TDNT 3:599 n. 20, points out that κανών never bears the sense of an “assigned (geographical) sphere,” so that the attempts of commentators to understand 2 Cor 10:13 to be a reference to the sphere or space God allotted to Paul for his ministry cannot be supported lexically. James F. Strange’s apparent overthrow of Beyer’s conclusion in his article, “2 Corinthians 10:13–16 Illuminated by a Recently Published Inscription,” BA 46 (1983): 167–168, actually further supports Beyer’s point. The fact that part of the content of the “canon” in this inscription happened to be a territorial commitment is coincidental to this particular situation and not part of the semantic range of κανών itself. The other passage usually pointed to in this regard, 1 Clem. 41:1, also offers no exception to Beyer’s conclusion. Upon close examination, κανών in this passage also refers to a standard or criterion for determining behavior that must then be filled with the appropriate content (in this context with certain appointed places, persons, and times; cf. 1 Clem. 40:2–3). 43 So, too, Deissner, TDNT 4:633, and most commentaries. 44  For the first translation, cf. LSJ, s. v. “ἄμετρος,” 82; for the second, Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 2:555 and Furnish, II Corinthians, 465, 471. 45  So Beyer, TDNT 3:599 n. 12. See too Adolf Schlatter, Paulus, Der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969), 624, who takes the phrase to mean, “durch den Maßstab, κανών, wird das Maß, μέτρον, abgemessen.”

132

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

apportioned to him as his allotment, namely, that he reached even as far as the Corinthians.” The contrast between Paul’s boast and the boast of his opponents is therefore based on the unexpressed premise that this “founding function” is the only appropriate, divinely appointed “canon” according to which apostolic authority in a particular church can be determined.46 So Paul does not boast “beyond proper limits” because he boasts κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος οὗ ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς μέτρου, ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν (taking μέτρον to be the antecedent of οὗ, not κανόνος).47 The “standard of judgment” or “norm” (=  κανών) according to which Paul’s apostolic authority in Corinth (= the μέτρον here in view) is determined is the simple fact that he was the one through whom the gospel came to Corinth and by whom the church was founded (=  ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν). Furthermore, the relative clause in 2 Cor 10:13 indicates that Paul’s divinely established role in founding the church means that God had delegated apostolic authority in respect to the Corinthians to Paul alone (cf. 1 Cor 4:15). Accordingly, Paul’s authority (10:8) and the validity of his “boast” (10:13) are authenticated by this κανών, but they are not the content of it. The canon stands over against Paul’s boast as that by which it is determined. It is at this point that Paul’s case gains its force. In fact, Hans Dieter Betz has observed that the common ground power of Paul’s reference to his founding function in Corinth is self-evident: “Diese Tatsache kann nicht geleugnet werden und wird auch von keinem geleugnet.”48 Granted his premise, Paul’s arrival in Corinth and the ensuing birth of the church are the divinely appointed, objective evidence that Paul’s claim to authority in Corinth is valid. Paul alone can boast in this divine accreditation.49 Hence, in stark contrast to his opponents, Paul does not boast εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα.

46  This understanding of the canon of 10:12–13 has also been suggested by James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1975), 274. Dunn emphasizes that 2 Cor 10–13 is the key text for this Pauline perspective (cf. pp. 274–275), though Dunn does not develop this point in detail (cf. pp. 276–277). 47 So, too, Beyer, TDNT 3:599. 48  Apostel Paulus, 130–131. 49  Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium I: Vorgeschichte, FRLANT 95 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 87 n. 5, who emphasizes that κανών here “ist in Analogie zu hebräischem ‫ קו‬zu interpretieren (vgl. 1QHa 9:31; 11:28; 23:12; T. Naph. 2:3; 1 En. 61:lff.) und meint das die Schöpfung von Gott her prägende Gerichtsmaß, ist also wesentlich mehr als bloß ein ‘Maßstab.’ ”

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

133

The Nature of Divine Commendation The rest of Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 10:14–18, despite its complicated mode of expression, now falls into place. In verse 14 Paul continues to support the appropriateness of his boast according to the criterion established in verse 13 by reminding the Corinthians that, unlike his opponents, Paul is not “overextending himself” (οὐ … ὑπερεκτείνομεν ἑαυτούς) since his claim does not go beyond the evidence. He was indeed the first to reach Corinth.50 Given the “canon” in view, Paul’s use of ὑπερεκτείνω no doubt alludes to the attempt of Paul’s opponents to “stretch beyond” their proper sphere of influence into his realm of authority. Their attempt to claim authority in Corinth is to boast in something for which they have no evidence, or in Paul’s terminology, to boast εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα (10:13, 15a), since it is a boast in someone else’s apostolic labors (ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις κόποις; 10:15a). In contrast, Paul’s third negative comparison in this section reiterates that when he claims authority over the Corinthians (10:8) Paul is not boasting beyond what God’s canon has established: οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχώμενοι ἐν ἀλλοτρί­ οις κόποις (10:15a). Paul confirms this point in verses 15b–16 by expressing his hope (= confidence for the future!) that his boast will be greatly enlarged [by God] (taking μεγαλυνθῆ­ ναι to be a divine passive). “According to our canon” (κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν), this boast will entail that God will have granted him increasing missionary success in regions beyond Corinth (10:16a: εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν εὐαγγελίσασθαι). Paul’s hope also includes the boast that the expansion of Paul’s own ministry will take place ἐν ὑμῖν as the church in Corinth grows in its faith. Paul’s hope signals in addition that he anticipates winning back those in Corinth who are still under the sway of his opponents. However, it is unclear whether Paul means by this that he hopes to use Corinth as a base of operation for further missionary trips into areas yet to be reached (i. e., ἐν ὑμῖν as instrumental), or whether, as Beyer suggests, Paul has “the right to extend his work further only when the faith of the Corinthians has become strong” (i. e., ἐν ὑμῖν as indicating sphere).51 Whichever the case, since Paul’s goal was to continue to missionize, his ongoing claims to authority, once again recognized by the Corinthians, will not be boasting ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα (10:16b; cf. Rom 15:15–21 and 1 Cor 1:17). In view of Paul’s argument in 10:12–16, Paul’s adaptation of Jer 9:22–23 (cf. 1 Sam 2:10LXX) in verse 17 is intended to be the positive counterpart (cf. the δὲ in 17a) to the negative point made in 10:14–16. Instead of boasting in the labors of others, as exemplified in the self-deceived practice engaged in by his opponents, Paul asserts in the words of the prophet that the one who boasts may only 50 Whether the verb φθάνω in verse 14 itself implies priority, as Barrett, Second Corinthians, 267, suggests, or not, as Furnish, II Corinthians, 472, concludes, Furnish himself points out that the context makes this meaning implicitly clear. 51 Beyer, TDNT 3:599.

134

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

legitimately boast ἐν κυρίῳ. In the context of 2 Cor 10:12–18, as well as that of Jer 9:22–24, this admonition must refer to boasting in what one has accomplished as the result of the grace of God; it cannot refer to refraining from “boasting” as such. For as Josef Schreiner has pointed out, Jer 9:22–23 (par. 1 Sam 2:10) declares that God is known by the mercy, judgment, and righteousness he exercises on earth. So too, understanding and knowing God manifests itself, “daß man Recht und Gerechtigkeit übt inmitten des Landes (1 Sam 2:10LXX).”52 Thus, in commenting on what pleases God in Jer 9:23, Schreiner observes that, “man … den Eindruck [hat], als beziehe sich diese Motivierung nicht nur auf die Gotteserkenntnis, sondern mehr noch auf das rechtliche Tun des Menschen.”53 This organic link between boasting in the Lord and living righteously in the land is, of course, not unique to Jer 9:22–23; it picks up the common Old Testament theme that there are “Dinge, Sachverhalte oder Qualitäten, die ein Volk oder einen Menschen auszeichnen; sie sind, objektiv betrachtet, sein Ruhm.”54 Hence, for those who fear the Lord this boast in one’s own “qualities” becomes at the same time a boast in what the Lord has accomplished in and through his people.55 This reading of 2 Cor 10:17 is borne out by Paul’s other use of Jer 9:22–23 in 1 Cor 1:31. Negatively, Paul stresses that the Corinthians’ call is based solely on their election by God, so that no one may “boast” before God that his/her status as a Christian is a result of one’s own wisdom or might (cf. 1 Cor 1:4–9, 24, 26–29; 7:17–24; 12:3). Positively, the “boast” that one does have before God is in what God himself has accomplished by granting believers their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption “in Christ Jesus” (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). For as Jer 9:22–23LXX itself clearly indicates, YHWH is the one who exercises the “mercy, judgment and righteousness” in which he delights, while the wisdom of the wise, the riches of the rich, and the strength of the strong all fall before God’s judgment (cf. Jer 9:25–26). The “boast in the Lord” in 1 Cor 1:31, therefore, is not an absence of boasting, but a boasting in what Christ has “become” for the believer (1:30). The call to boast “in the Lord” indicates that the issue at stake in 2 Cor 10:12– 18 is not that of an improper attitude or mode of behavior, but rather of an improper application of what, in and of itself, is not only on occasion valid, but in this case necessary, i. e., a “boasting to commend oneself.” There is no indication that Paul’s boast is of a different ontological quality than that of his opponents or that “Paul refuses to boast about his own apostolic work. To do that would 52 Schreiner,

“Jeremia 9,22.23,” 532.  Ibid. 54  Ibid., 537. As examples, Schreiner points to Deut 10:21; 26:19; Judg 4:9; Ps 89:18; Lam 2:1; Jer 13:20; Isa 4:2; 13:19; 20:5, etc. 55  So ibid., 541, in commenting on this point in the book of Sirach: “Die Gottesfurcht wirkt sich in einem rechtschaffenen Leben aus, das in der Erfüllung des Willens Gottes besteht.” Schreiner points to Sir 31(34):9–10; 44:6–7; Prov 16:31; 17:6–7 as examples. 53

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

135

be to lower himself to the same level as the ‘pseudo-apostles.’ ”56 Paul’s boast is just as objective and “controllable” as that of his opponents. Given the polemical situation in which Paul found himself, it had to be for his argument to be convincing. The difference is simply that Paul’s opponents are attempting to boast in something for which they have no divine attestation, namely, a claim to authority over the Corinthians. Instead, they have introduced irrelevant achievements and qualities to support their claims. Nor is there any hint that when Paul boasts in 2 Cor 10:12–18 he is “obsessed with his own achievements and importance” and caught in “an utter contradiction of his Hebrew-Christian rejection of all self-boasting.”57 Again, to point to his own achievements in bringing the gospel to Corinth, as the Old Testament and Wisdom tradition admonishes, is to boast in the Lord, since God is the one who enabled and determined that Paul would have this missionary success (cf. 10:13b with 10:17). To boast in the Lord is not to cease from boasting,58 nor is it to engage in another mode of argumentation altogether; it is simply to boast only in what God has actually accomplished in one’s own life and ministry. For as Victor Hasler has shown, “Die positive Aufnahme seines Evangeliums versteht Paulus als Erweis der Gnade Gottes und als Wirkung des Heiligen Geistes (1 Thess 1:5; 1 Cor 2:4–5).”59 Against the backdrop of the admonition of 10:17, the referent of the maximlike statement in 10:18 thus becomes very concrete and specific. To “commend oneself” in the negative sense is to make a claim for which one has no divinely granted evidence of the appropriate kind. In contrast, to be “commended by the Lord” is to be able to adduce the appropriate, God-determined evidence for the claim being made. Unlike his opponents, who can only “commend themselves” (10:12), Paul can “boast” in what the Lord has done to establish his claim in Corinth, which means that only Paul enjoys the Lord’s commendation So, for Paul, “boasting in the Lord” (10:17) is the human counterpart to being “commended by the Lord” (10:18). Paul’s argument is now complete. Since God is the one who brought Paul to Corinth and gave his gospel success there (10:13), the Lord is the one who 56 Christopher Forbes, “ ‘Unaccustomed as I am’: St Paul the Public Speaker in Corinth,” BurH 19 (1983): 14. 57 Stephen H. Travis, “Paul’s Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12,” Studia Evangelica, Vol. VI, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Berlin: Akademie, 1973), 527, 528. Of course, as Travis, 527, points out, the OT and Paul (elsewhere) both condemn the kind of boasting which expresses self-confidence (cf. Gal 6:14; Eph 2:9; Phil 3:3; and Rom 3:2). But, contra Travis, following Dodd, there is no reason to think that Paul violates this perspective in 2 Cor 10–13. 58  For yet another presentation of this pervasive view, cf. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 140–141, and Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 8th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 242–243. 59  Victor Hasler, “Das Evangelium des Paulus in Korinth: Erwägungen zur Hermeneutik,” NTS 30 (1984): 111. For this same point, see Rom 15:15–21 (cf. Ulrich Wilckens, Röm 12–16, vol. 3 of Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT 6 [Zurich: Benzinger, 1982], 119).

136

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

commends Paul’s authority in Corinth, since this divine activity is the only objective evidence that meets the canon of apostolic authority in a given church. From Paul’s perspective, anyone who claims apostolic authority in Corinth on any other basis is “without understanding” (10:12b). Paul’s opponents may be able to point to great displays of spiritual power and rhetorical expertise when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves (10:12a), but all such personally-measured qualities remain irrelevant for the question at hand: who has the Lord commended for apostolic authority in Corinth? In 2 Cor 10:12–18 Paul does not introduce a new manner of self-commendation or boasting. Nor does he refuse to commend himself at all. Instead, he argues that the κανών being used by his opponents to measure their claim (and his!) to apostolic authority is simply illegitimate. Thus, by definition, their claims become deceptive self-commendations void of the Lord’s approval. Paul, on the other hand, need not commend himself to the Corinthians, since the Lord has already objectively and incontrovertibly done so through the missionary work that Paul has accomplished in Corinth.

Self-Commendation in 2 Corinthians On the basis of the canon of legitimacy established in 10:13 and its application in 10:17–18, Paul’s seemingly contradictory attitudes towards “self-commendation” throughout 2 Corinthians can now be reconciled. Given Paul’s understanding of what constitutes a proper self-commendation, in 2 Cor 5:12 Paul must deny that he is commending himself in the sense of trying to seek his approval from the Corinthians (note the ὑμῖν in 5:12a) since his work itself already confirms that he has been called by God and is “pleasing to the Lord” (2 Cor 5:9). As Paul puts it, θεῷ πεφανερώμεθα (2 Cor 5:11b). In the context of 5:10, this can only refer to the judgment according to τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον. Hence, 2 Cor 5:11b is a statement of Paul’s confidence based on the objective evidence of his ministry, i. e., on the good things which he has accomplished “in his body.”60 Assured of his own standing before the Lord, Paul’s apologetic is not intended to vindicate himself, but to strengthen the Corinthians’ confidence in their apostle in the face of those who criticize him on the basis of his weak appearance and practice of self-support (compare 2 Cor 5:12b with 2 Cor 2:17 and 10:7). 60 Contra, e. g., Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme, 13–15, and Furnish, II Corinthians, 323– 325, who agree with the majority that Paul is refusing to boast in external evidence. For a discussion of ἐν καρδίᾳ (cf. 2 Cor 3:2; 5:12) as a reference to Paul’s concern for the Corinthians as evidenced in his willingness to suffer on their behalf, rather than as a reference to inward, invisible attributes, see my Suffering and the Spirit, 188–192.

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

137

Similarly, I have tried to show elsewhere that in 2 Cor 3:1 Paul denies that he is merely “commending himself” and rejects any need for letters of recommendation in support of his apostleship because he can point to the concrete evidence of his suffering on the one hand (2:14–17), and to his spiritual fatherhood regarding the Corinthians on the other (3:2–3).61 Precisely because Paul has such evidence, he has no need to “commend himself,” since the Lord has already done so by pouring out his Spirit in Corinth through Paul’s new covenant ministry (cf. Ezek 36:26–27; 11:19 and Jer 31:31–34 with 2 Cor 3:3, 6, 8, 17–18). Given this divine commendation “written” on the hearts of the Corinthians, Paul has no need for the corroboratory evidence that human letters of recommendation could provide. Paul rejects the suggestion that he would now need such letters for the same reason that he has not needed to “commend himself” in the past – the Lord has recommended Paul. In 2 Cor 4:2 and 6:3–10 Paul then points to the external characteristics of his apostolic ministry as divine attestations of his apostolic calling. Paul’s explicit “self-commendation” in these two passages does not contradict his rejection of “self-commendation” in 2 Cor 3:1; 5:12; 10:12, and 10:18, since in both cases Paul points to the appropriate external indications of what is being asserted, namely, that Paul’s ministry (διακονία) is genuine (4:1–2) and that as a minister (διάκονος) of the new covenant (3:6) Paul is an accredited διάκονος θεοῦ (6:4). The crucial distinction between the two sets of passages is that the issue at stake in both 2 Cor 4:2 and 6:4–10 is not Paul’s specific claim to authority over the Corinthians in particular, as it is in 2 Cor 5:12, 10:12, and 10:18, for which another “canon” of divine attestation would be appropriate. Rather, the concern here is the genuine nature of Paul’s gospel and apostolic ministry in general. The respective evidence pointed to in these passages indicates that the two issues, although closely related, are distinct. This focus on adducing in each case the appropriate divine attestation is confirmed by 2 Cor 7:11, where once again Paul uses the “self-commendation” theme positively, this time in respect to the Corinthians. In 2 Cor 7:11 the Corinthians are said to have now “commended themselves,” or perhaps better, “demonstrated themselves”62 to be “innocent” regarding the opposition against Paul stirred up by the offender, in that they have repented and consequently “avenged the wrong” inflicted on Paul (cf. 7:8–11). Moreover, since their repentant action on Paul’s behalf was a result of their sorrow κατὰ θεόν (2×s in 7:9–10), Paul sees 61 Suffering

and the Spirit, 219–221.  This latter rendering reflects the close semantic relationship between the meaning of συν­ ίστημι with and without the reflexive pronoun. See Kasch, TDNT 7:897–898. Kasch observes concerning this relationship that the two ideas are related “to the degree that the basis of genuine commendation is for (Paul) the achievement which is publicly evident, cf. 2 Cor 3:lff.” See too Rom 3:5; 5:8; Gal 2:18 and Kasch’s conclusion that “for Paul it is acts which are determinative in the judgment of God, the apostle, and men generally … this fact … decisively controls the anthropology of the apostle” (p. 898, emphasis mine). 62

138

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

in it the divine attestation of their continuing “right relationship” with God, i. e., what they are is made known to them ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (7:12). Indeed, as Fox has now pointed out, “Paul repeatedly uses divine passives in [7:9] to highlight the divine origin of this grief and repentance … even their response to Paul described in verse 11 is framed as something ‘produced’ (κατεργάζομαι) by this ‘God-willed being-grieved.’ In this way, Paul interprets their λύπη theologically, while also closely linking their repentance with their lack of eschatological penalty … .”63 For as Fox observes, “God’s purpose (ἵνα) in bringing about this λύπη – that is, in also bringing about its corollary, repentance – is that the Corinthians would not be penalized (ἐν μηδενὶ ζημιωθῆτε) on account of Paul.”64 Hence, “using the emphatic ἰδού in 7:11, Paul points the Corinthians to their own response as evidence (γάρ) of their claim to this eschatological salvation. For Paul again highlights the agency of God behind their grief and repentant response, combining both a divine passive and κατὰ θεόν into one phrase: τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι.”65 Furthermore, in line with our present studies, Fox’s overall thesis has elucidated the eschatological context and covenantal backdrop of Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 7:2–16, including Paul’s emphasis in 7:9–12 on the fact that “the root of their repentance-bringing λύπη is God himself (κατὰ θεόν) … .”66 “For,” as Fox concludes, “Paul’s distinction in 2 Cor 7:9–10 between ‘the grief according to God’ (ἡ γὰρ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη) and ‘the grief of the world’ (ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου λύπη) is fundamentally about God’s eschatological work, whether for salvation or judgment.”67

63 Timothy L. Fox, Restoration and Repentance: An Exegetical Investigation of 2 Corinthians 7:2–16 in Its Literary and Scriptural Contexts, Ph.D. diss., University of St Andrews (St Andrews, UK, 2016), 140, emphasis his. Fox, p. 140 n. 34, points to the threefold use of ἐλυπήθητε in 7:9 in contrast to its active use in 7:8 to refer to Paul’s agency: Paul “clearly shifts to the agency of God (whether explicitly or implicitly), in terms of God’s direct hand in the Corinthians’ grief, repentance, (non‑)penalty, salvation, and obedience.” 64 Ibid., 139. For the eschatological and judicial meaning of ζημιόω in 7:9 (“to be penalized”), Fox, p. 141 and 141 n. 37, points to the references to their salvation rather than death in 7:10 against the backdrop of 2 Cor 1:6, 9–10, 14; 2:15–16; 6:2 and Paul’s eschatological use of σῷζω­ -language elsewhere in, e. g., Rom 1:16; 5:9–10; 10:1; 11:11; 13:11; 1 Cor 1:18; 3:15; 5:5; 15:2; Phil 2:12, etc. On p. 145, he cites its OT backdrop in texts regarding the eschatological penalty of death (e. g., Isa 49:25–26; 50:7–8, 11; 51:22–23; Jer 30:10–17) over against eschatological salvation (e. g., Isa 49:25–26; 51:5–8; 52:7–10; Jer 30:10–15). 65 Ibid., 146. 66  Ibid., 139–146, quote from p. 139. Note his conclusion in this regard, p. 162, emphasis his: “Paul has interpreted the Corinthians’ response through the thematic lens of the prophetic texts that he has already used to defend himself throughout the letter. The prophets promised that God would cause his people to repent by unilaterally transforming them (e. g., Jer 32:38–41; Ezek 36:26–27). In the same way, by repeatedly using divine passives (ἐλυπήθητε, 7:9, 11, 12), alongside the phrase κατὰ θεόν (‘according to God’s will’; 7:9–11), Paul emphasizes how their grief, repentance, and salvation all derive from God, who has already ushered in the ‘day of salvation’ (2 Cor 6:2; Isa 49:8) through the work of Christ (2 Cor 5:11–21) and the transformation of his people’s hearts by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:3–6).” 67  Ibid., 234.

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

139

Finally, our interpretation of 2 Cor 10:12–18 helps to explain the nature of the “foolishness” in which Paul himself engages in 2 Cor 11–12. In the light of what we have seen above, Paul’s forced “foolishness” in response to the boasting of his opponents does not consist in the fact that he boasts per se (cf. 11:1, 16–19, 21; 12:6, 11). Instead, Paul is foolish in that the content of this boast is useless for establishing the validity not only of his ministry, but also of the apostolic ministry in general. It is simply boasting κατὰ σάρκα (cf. 11:18). By implication, Paul’s opponents, who purposely engage in such boasting, are the real fools. So after having matched the foolish boast of his opponents in 11:22–23a (cf. the qualification of 11:23a: παραφρονῶν λαλῶ), Paul continues in 11:23b by boasting in that personal qualification which is valid, namely, his “weakness.” For as 12:9 makes clear, it is through Paul’s weakness that the power of God is perfected. Paul thereby not only calls into question his opponents’ claim to apostolic authority in Corinth by boasting in the fact that he was the one who founded the church, he also disputes their claim to be apostles at all by boasting in his weakness and suffering, the true signs of apostolic authority per se. Paul therefore draws an important distinction within chapters 11–12 between the foolish boast, which is irrelevant for supporting one’s apostolic claims (cf. 11:21–23a; 12:1–5), and the boast in his weakness, which is the appropriate evidence for determining the validity of one’s apostolic calling (cf. 11:23b–33; 12:5b, 9–10). When Paul concludes in 12:11–12 that he has become foolish, he is thus referring to the two times in which he felt compelled to engage in boasting in his “strength,” i. e., in the strength of his spiritual heritage in 11:21–22 and in the strength of his spiritual experiences in 12:1–5. Although both are true (cf. 12:6), neither is an appropriate criterion for determining one’s apostolic standing.68 In addition, Paul attributes the attempt to boast in such things to a desire to “exalt oneself” (cf. 11:20), or to dishonesty (cf. 12:6a), since it seeks to be credited with more than one can see or hear in the person for him/herself (cf. 12:6b). In order to avoid this danger, Paul refuses to boast even in those things which are true but cannot be seen in his life (12:6), while on his part God himself has given Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him from exalting himself (12:7). Paul’s concluding point in 12:11–12 is that his foolish boasting, though compelled by that of his opponents, should have been unnecessary. Paul’s “boasting in the Lord” and the Lord’s corresponding commendation of Paul’s authority in Corinth and of his apostolic ministry in general should have been sufficient to ward off Paul’s opponents. When they began to boast in their “strength” 68  This point has been well made by A. T. Lincoln, “Paul the Visionary,” 208–210. In his words, “What is … specifically at issue in II Corinthians xii is what is to count as evidence for the legitimacy of claims to apostleship” (p. 207). Paul refrains from citing other visions because they are not the sort of evidence that can be verified since they are “removed from the realm of that which others can perceive through seeing or hearing … . Paul will rely on the evidence that is plainly before the Corinthians’ eyes (cf. also 10:7; 11:6)” (p. 210).

140

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

and to criticize Paul for his “weakness,” the Corinthians should have come to Paul’s defense. Paul’s heritage is just as “strong” as the “super apostles” (12:11), while he too had performed the σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου … σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν that accompany, but do not in and of themselves verify the apostolic ministry (12:12). That they did not do so was clear evidence that the Corinthians had not yet learned the “signs of a true apostle” or the proper canon of apostolic authority (12:12). In contrast to that of his opponents, Paul’s “commendation of himself” was not a “self-commendation,” but the Lord’s commendation of his legitimate authority in Corinth and of his rightful status as an apostle of Jesus Christ. To bring out this distinction, it is striking that in those texts where Paul speaks negatively of “commendation” (i. e., 3:1; 5:12; 10:12, 18) he uses the frontloaded, marked expression ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνειν – self-commendation – (reflexive pronoun preceding verb), while in those texts where he speaks of it approvingly (i. e., 4:2; 6:4, cf. 7:11 and 12:11) he uses the unmarked expression συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν – commending oneself – (reflexive pronoun following verb).69

Implications When compared with our study of Paul’s eschatology in the chapters above, the theme of “self-commendation” in 2 Corinthians confirms that the canon of appropriate, objective evidence that Paul posits as the ground for the legitimacy of his apostleship (including weakness and suffering “with Christ”!) also holds true as the canon of Christian identity in general.70 Throughout his letters Paul argues from the transforming power of the Spirit to the genuineness of one’s faith, just as he can argue from the evidence of his apostolic work and suffering to the legitimacy of his apostolic authority and ministry. In both cases, the two are inextricably linked and inseparable. But inasmuch as Paul’s “boast” remains at every point a “boast in the Lord,” his approval never degenerates into a “boasting in oneself.” And again, what is true for Paul as an apostle in 2 Cor 10:12–18 is true for all believers in 1 Cor 1:26–31. In terms of the theme of “commendation” which Paul develops throughout 2 Corinthians, the Lord’s “commendation of oneself” (συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν) can never become a “self-commendation” (ἑαυτόν συνιστάνειν).

69  For this distinction, see J. H. Bernard, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The Expositor’s Greek Testament 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 52. 70 See still the extensive work of Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum, WUNT 2/9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), and the very insightful article by Charles H. Cosgrove, “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection,” JBL 106 (1987): 653–670.

Chapter Four: The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostleship (2 Corinthians 10:12–18)

141

Paul’s divine self-commendation through the power of the Spirit, however, also raises concomitant questions that cut to the core of his experience as an apostle. If Paul is a minister of the new covenant marked by the mediation of the Spirit’s presence, then why does he suffer so much? How can Paul’s “boast in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; cf. Rom 15:17) and in his own “authority” (2 Cor 10:8) be reconciled with his “boast in his weaknesses” (2 Cor 12:9–10; cf.11:30)? Indeed, does Paul not suffer too much to be able to claim that the saving and judging power of the kingdom of God is being unleashed in and through his ministry (cf. 1 Cor 2:3–5; 4:19–20; 5:3–5; 2 Cor 4:7; 6:7; 10:1–6; Rom 1:15–16; 15:18–19)? It is to these questions that we now turn our attention.

Chapter Five

Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective1 (Galatians 4:12–20; 2 Corinthians 4:7–12) Ausgangspunkt dieses Vortrags ist die Behauptung, die ich einst gelesen habe: “Paulus war kein Theologe; er war Missionar” – eine Behauptung, zugleich prinzipiell und sachlich falsch. Prinzipiell falsch, weil es keine christliche Theologie gibt, die nicht im breiten Sinne kerygmatische Theologie ist; sachlich falsch, weil der historische Paulus als Theologe geschrieben und als Missionar gearbeitet hat. C. K. Barrett, “Paulus als Missionar und Theologe”2

C. K. Barrett’s starting point is my own. And this unity between Paul’s kerygmatically driven theology and his theologically driven mission is nowhere more apparent than in those passages where Paul delineates the significance of his suffering for his proclamation of the gospel and mediation of the Spirit. But these passages also demonstrate that Barrett’s point must be taken even further. Just as it is no longer adequate to speak of Paul as either a theologian or a missionary, it is also not appropriate to speak of him as both a theologian and a missionary. Paul’s perseverance in suffering for the sake of his churches and his gospel of the crucified and resurrected Christ were an organic, inseparable unity. The former embodied the latter. Hence, as Peter T. O’Brien has observed, although since the 1960s … there has been a paradigm shift and the notion that Paul was both a missionary and a theologian has gained ground among biblical scholars … yet Paul’s theology and mission do not simply relate to each other as ‘theory’ to ‘practice.’ It is not as though his mission is the practical outworking of his theology. Rather, his mission is “integrally related to his identity and thought,” so that Paul’s theology is “a missionary theology.”3 1  From “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein, WUNT 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 165–184. 2  C. K. Barrett, “Paulus als Missionar und Theologe,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel, WUNT 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 1. 3 Peter T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), xi–xii, quoting A. J. Hultgren. The following section on Gal 4:12–20 incorporates an essay originally written in honor of Professor O’Brien, “ ‘Because

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

143

Paul’s “ministry (διακονία) of the Spirit,” mediated through his call to suffer in his “ministry” (διακονία) as an apostle to the gentiles, was the hallmark of Paul’s identity as a “servant (διάκονος) of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:8; Rom 11:13; 2 Cor 3:6).

The Pauline Gospel: Become Like Paul! The unity of Paul’s proclamation and his person comes to the fore in Paul’s sudden shift from his direct theological arguments in Gal 2:15–4:10 to the implications of his suffering as an apostle in 4:12–20, and then back again to theology in the narrow sense in 4:21–5:26. So it is surprising that Paul’s recounting of his suffering in Gal 4:13–14 and the argument he builds from it in 4:12–20, as well as his references to his persecution in 5:11, 6:12, and 17, have long been a neglected feature of his apologetic in Galatians.4 Such neglect is likely due to the dominance of the law/gospel contrast in the church’s engagement with this letter ever since the Reformation. This lack of attention is especially striking in regard to the reference to Paul’s “weakness” in 4:13–14, since it supports the letter’s first direct command (4:12a), which rhetorically signals a (the?) key turning point in the epistle. The letter’s other commands are all specific explications of the general admonition in 4:12a (cf. Gal 5:1, 13, 16, 25–26). Far from being simply an emotional aside in Paul’s argument,5 Paul’s reference to his suffering in 4:13–14 of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission, ed. Peter G. Bolt and Mark D. Thompson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 131–146 (now in my Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective: Selected Essays [Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015], 116–132). 4 This was pointed out 35 years ago by Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38 (1984): 135–150. See now the studies of A. J. Goddard and S. A. Cummins, “Ill or Ill-Treated? Conflict and Persecution as the Context of Paul’s Original Ministry in Galatia,” JSNT 52 (1993): 93–126, Troy W. Martin, “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4:13–14),” JSNT 74 (1999): 65–91, and John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, WUNT 2/454 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). Dunne argues that Paul introduces the theme of being persecuted for the sake of Christ already in 3:4 (taking πάσχω to mean “to suffer”) as the validating sign of the Galatians’ participation in the cross of Christ. Dunne, p. 162, also rejects my reading of Gal 4:13 as a reference to Paul’s chronic weakness, physically and circumstantially derived, as the basis upon which he always conducted his ministry, esp. his preaching (see below); instead, Dunne takes τὸ πρότερον in 4:13 to refer to the former, specific occasion of Paul’s ministry among the Galatians. As such, δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρ­ κός refers to the unexpected incident of persecution that caused Paul to change his plans, which eventuated in his preaching the gospel in Galatia while he recovered from his injuries (cf. 5:11 and 6:17 in view of 3:1; pp. 164–165). It is hard to see, however, how Paul’s persecution, even if deemed legitimate, would be associated with a demonic curse (cf. 4:14). In taking this position, Dunne is following the work of Goddard and Cummins. For a response to their positions, see below, nn. 7, 12, 22, 25, 36. 5  So, e. g., David Alan Black, “Weakness Language in Galatians,” GTJ 4 (1983): 26. Black suggests that “the obscurity of this passage perhaps cannot be explained in a purely logical way; it is

144

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

supplies evidential support for his leading admonition to the Galatians. As such, it presupposes a theological perspective and follows an apologetic pattern that is pervasive throughout Paul’s letters. Rather than rendering it less important than the more overtly “theological” arguments that surround it, the distinctly personal nature of the “highly enigmatic paragraph” of 4:12–206 thus actually calls more attention to its importance. The personal nature of Paul’s argument in 4:12–20 is evident already in the imperative of 4:12a, which is the main point of Paul’s argument in this paragraph: Paul begs the Galatians to become like he is because he too has become like they were (the ὅτι-clause and ὡς-clause are naturally present‑ and past-time references respectively).7 Paul’s command to imitate him is therefore best taken to refer to the consequence of Paul’s own conversion-call as outlined in Gal 1:13–24: “The one who was once persecuting us is now preaching the good news (εὐαγγελίζομαι) of the faith which he was once trying to destroy” (Gal 1:23; cf. 4:13). Here too, as in 3:23–25 (see chapter one), “faith” is a metonymy for the eschatological gospel that Paul “received through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12) and preached to the Galatians (Gal 1:8–9, 11), and that they had previously received (Gal 1:6, 9). This is the same gospel that was being called into question by the “Judaizers,” who argued that one had to keep the stipulations of both the old and new covenants in order to be a full-fledged, Spirit-filled member of God’s eschatological people (Gal 1:6–9; 2:21; 5:2–4). Against this backdrop, Paul begs the Galatians in 4:12 to resist the Judaizers by again becoming like him in the freedom of inheriting God’s promises of redemption as an adopted son of God under the new covenant (cf. Gal 4:1–7; 5:1 and chapter two above). And rather than returning possible that Paul was so overwhelmed by emotion at this point in writing that he simply lost his train of thought. For this reason many scholars are of the opinion that Paul has ceased argumentation and has turned to emotional begging and appealing” (referring to Lagrange, A. Oepke, Burton, and Mussner as examples). Black himself rightly cautions that such psychological interpretations fail to recognize the rhetorical character of this passage, pointing to H. D. Betz’s analysis of the unit as a Hellenistic “friendship” topos (pp. 26–27; for Betz’s analysis, see his commentary, cited below, n. 15). But even if Betz’s analysis holds, this still means that Paul’s appeal is primarily personal in nature, based on earlier bonds of friendship, rather than theological. 6 So Black, “Weakness,” 25. 7  Goddard and Cummins, “Conflict,” 97–99, reject this common reading as “a convoluted and inexplicable shift from that which Paul has in view in the first clause (the Galatians as Judaizers or about to Judaize) to that in view in the second clause (the Galatians as Gentiles)” (p. 97). In their view this shift is impossible since, according to Gal 4:8–11, the Galatians’ former state was “a negative existence in pagan enslavement” (p. 98). But as Paul’s argument in 4:12–20 itself makes clear, Paul is referring to their conversion, not their pre-conversion state (cf. 4:9). Certainly Paul is not saying that in Christ he became a pagan idolater. Goddard and Cummins argue that we should simply leave the verbs omitted and take the comparison to be a general one to “the whole history … of his relationship with the Galatians and to their shared identity within that relationship” (p. 99). But the dependent clauses require verbs (their omission does not signal their actual absence) and Goddard and Cummins in effect presuppose two present tense verbs. In my view, Paul’s argument rides on a comparison between the Galatians’ present attitude toward Paul and his gospel and their response to him in the past (cf. 4:8–9 with 14–16).

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

145

to the symbolic, ritual stipulations of the old covenant in the midst of the new, Paul desires that they continue to join him in the Spirit-empowered obedience that fulfills the law as a result of having been freed from slavery to this evil age (Gal 4:8–11; 6:8; cf. the imperatives of Gal 5:1, 13, 16, 25–26 and chapters seven and ten below). In 4:12 Paul therefore calls the Galatians to the redemptive and ethical freedom that characterizes Paul’s own life as a consequence of Jesus’s death on the cross. For the cross of Christ that initially caused Paul to persecute the church had now become the centerpiece of his own life and apostolic ministry (2:20–21; 3:13–14; 6:14). Indeed, the persecutor had now joined the ranks of those being persecuted for their faith in the crucified Messiah (cf. 5:11; 6:17). The Galatians should be like Paul in this cross-centered life of faith, no matter what the cost.

Paul’s Apostolic Suffering This brings us to the question of the relationship between Paul’s suffering and his ministry of the Spirit. Within Gal 4:12–20 this question surfaces in Gal 4:13 when Paul reminds the Galatians that it was “because of a weakness of the flesh” (δι᾿8 ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός) that he first preached the gospel to them (cf. εὐηγγελι­ σάμην9). The significance of Paul’s reference to his suffering in support of his preaching the gospel becomes clear in view of the way in which earlier in Galatians Paul grounded the authority of his gospel. In Gal 1:11–17, 23 Paul pointed to his conversion-call on the road to Damascus to establish the validity of his preaching and in Gal 2:15–16 Paul recalled his Jewish identity as a member of the covenant people to undergird the necessity of trusting in Christ for justification. At the level of the rhetoric Paul used to support his gospel, there is thus a functional parallel between Paul’s former identity as a Pharisee who persecuted the church, his subsequent call to Christ, and his consequent “weakness” as an apostle. Moreover, as David Black has argued, the general consensus is correct that in Gal 4:13 “ἀσθένεια refers to a physical condition of the apostle, and not to an unimpressive appearance, timidity, the emotional scars from persecution, 8 The most natural reading of διά + accusative here is causal, since a telic meaning does not fit the context, though the meaning, “by force of,” suggested for Rev 12:11; 13:14 may also fit here; cf. BDF §222, 223 (3). Cf. Martin, “Flesh,” 73–74, for a rejection of the modal reading of this prepositional phrase as well (as if it were διά + genitive), which is sometimes suggested by commentators because they desire a “more noble reason” for Paul’s preaching than his suffering! Martin too seeks such a reason, but finds it by denying that 4:13 refers to Paul at all (see below). However, once Paul’s suffering is seen to be a missiological corollary to the cross of Christ, this cause for his preaching is certainly “noble” enough. 9  That Paul’s 21 uses of εὐαγγελίζομαι usually refer not to preaching in general, but specifically to preaching the gospel, even when the cognate noun is not present as in Gal 4:13, has been persuasively argued by Ο’Brien, Consumed, 62.

146

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

sexual desires, human frailty in general, or some other figurative meaning.”10 Paul’s “weakness” in 4:13 is best seen as a sickness, with the genitive τῆς σαρκός most likely descriptive, i. e., a “bodily infirmity.” As such, Paul coined a phrase that would locate his weakness in his “body” (σάρξ).11 He did so in order to call special attention to the fact that he was sick with regard to his “flesh,” rather 10 Black,

“Weakness,” 29; cf. his arguments, 29–31, in favor of this consensus against its few detractors. For uses of the word group to refer to physical sickness within the Pauline corpus, he points to Phil 2:26–27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20. 11 Following Martin, “Flesh,” 69. Martin’s extensive survey of the use of σάρξ in relationship to ἀσθένεια uncovers the fact that “the phrase ‘weakness of the flesh’ (ἀσθένεια τοῦ [sic] σαρκός) as a reference to illness does not occur in ancient non-Christian Greek authors before the seventhcentury CE. Nor do these authors refer to sickness with the adjectival construction ‘weak flesh’ (σὰρξ ἀσθενής).” Instead, the references all speak of the “weakness of the flesh,” whether in a healthy or sick body, in terms of its “weak” nature as porous or susceptible to the influences of fluids and temperature, etc. (“Flesh,” 67–69). Thus, the evidence points to the fact that Paul probably coined this phrase, throwing us back on Paul’s own argument for its meaning. Martin himself rejects the consensus view that ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός refers to Paul’s illness. He takes it to be a reference to the Galatians’ pre-gospel fleshly condition and their consequent need for the gospel as that which drove Paul to evangelize them (pp. 78–79, 82–86). In support of his position, Martin points to Jerome’s view that the Galatians were the referent of the phrase and to Gal 2:16, 20; 5:24 and Rom 5:6–8; 6:19; 15:20–21. However, the noun being modified in 4:13 is ἀσθένεια, not σάρξ, so that σάρξ carries the adjectival function, not ἀσθένεια. Martin’s lexicography is helpful, but in itself could be misleading, since in the relevant texts outside of Paul ἀσθένεια is being used adjectivally, rather than as the lead noun. So in comparing these texts at the conceptual level we are, in fact, comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, in terms of the evidence itself, the sample is small. Martin observes that only eight non-Christian passages before the seventh-century even connect the two nouns, of which only four use σάρξ as a genitive modifier. Of these four, two use the plural of σάρξ (i. e., fleshly parts) and another a derivative of ἀσθένεια (i. e., “weak thing” [ἀσθενές]; Martin, “Flesh,” 66–68). In the only other use, Eustratius refers to “the soul’s being fettered on account of the weakness of the flesh (δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός) if the soul does not do praiseworthy things” (Martin, “Flesh,” 68), which is clearly not a parallel to Paul. Therefore, even at the linguistic level, these parallels are of little relevance for determining the meaning of Paul’s phrase, and they certainly do not rule out interpreting ἀσθένεια as illness in 4:13 in accordance with one of its common meanings. It is overstating the case to conclude, as Martin does, 71 n. 25, that “since no authors before Paul and no non-Christian authors after him use this phrase to refer to illness, exegetes would probably not have either were it not for the link with 2 Cor 12:7.” Martin suggests that if Paul were referring to his illness in 4:13 this new modification “would have confused the Galatians, who viewed illness as a problem of the body, not of the flesh. They would have found Paul’s newly coined phrase a strange and unusual reference to illness” (p. 70). But to be “strange” and “unusual,” or even idiosyncratic, is far from being incomprehensible, especially if Paul were following the common linguistic convention in his use of ἀσθένεια as a reference to sickness (Martin himself, p. 66, admits that the absolute use of ἀσθένεια is a frequent way to designate illness). Evidently such confusion did not exist in the early church, since from the beginning Christian tradition readily took Gal 4:13 as a parallel to 2 Cor 12:7 and understood both as a reference to Paul’s illness (Martin finds 154 such uses in Christian literature!). By demonstrating the unusual nature of Paul’s construction, Martin’s lexicography merely highlights Paul’s theologically-motivated description of his sickness as that which is located in his flesh. Moreover, the close parallel between δι᾿ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός in 4:13 and ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου in 4:14 makes it difficult to accept Martin’s thesis that the former refers to the Galatians, not to Paul, so that v. 13 “no longer informs the interpretation of the succeeding phrase ‘your temptation in my flesh’ in v. 14” (“Flesh,” 86; see below).

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

147

than being sick because of his “flesh” (cf. Gal 3:3; 4:29; 5:13, 16–17, 19–21, 24; 6:8). Attempts to interpret it as a reference to Paul’s persecutions (cf. Acts 13:50; 14:19; 2 Tim 3:11) fail to account adequately for this descriptive use of σάρξ and for the fact that Paul’s being persecuted was a result of his preaching, not its underlying cause (cf. 5:11 and 6:12, 17).12 In Galatians, Paul’s weakness grounds his preaching, whereas persecution is its consequence. In addition, Heckel has demonstrated that Paul’s parallel reference in 2 Cor 12:7, 9–10 to his “thorn in the flesh” (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) or “weakness” (ἀσθένεια) is also best understood not as a reference to his own inner temptations (as in the Latin tradition), or to persecution by his opponents (first found among the Fathers beginning in the fourth-century), but to Paul’s personal sickness.13 Heckel has also convincingly argued that Paul’s silence in 2 Cor 12:7 concerning the nature of his sickness is intentional. Paul is not interested in the medical diagnosis of his weakness, but in 12 Contra

Goddard and Cummins, who argue that Paul’s “weakness” is a reference to some kind of “bodily weakness due to the trauma of persecution” (“Conflict,” 95), or some kind of “bodily trauma due to persecution which attended his original ministry in Galatia” (p. 125). In their view, Paul is calling the Galatians once again to follow Paul’s example of faithfulness in suffering for the sake of the gospel, as they did in the past, rather than join the Judaizers in order to avoid persecution (cf. Gal. 6:11; pp. 99, 103, 107). Thus, they too argue strongly that διά + accusative must provide the ground or reason for Paul’s preaching, not its state or condition. Yet in order to make their thesis work they must posit that this reference includes not only attendant circumstances, but also the consequences of Paul’s preaching (cf. p. 103 n. 29). Though there is no doubt that Paul suffered as a regular consequence of his preaching, this is simply not Paul’s point here. Moreover, even if Paul had his persecution, not his sickness, in view here, Paul’s persecution cannot be equated with his weakness itself, but must be seen as another source for it. In reality, Goddard and Cummins are not offering another interpretation of 4:13, but another hypothesis for the cause of Paul’s weakness, which unfortunately is hidden in history. The point of 4:13 remains that Paul formerly preached the gospel in Galatia because he was weak (whatever its cause), not that he was weak because he preached the gospel (which may also be true). In turn, Paul is not calling the Galatians to suffer persecution (though that might become necessary), but to return to the gospel Paul preached and embodied in his life. Goddard and Cummins ultimately reject a reference to illness in 4:13 as unconnected to Paul’s appeal in 4:12 because they fail to see the significance of Paul’s suffering as that which embodies and reveals the gospel (cf. pp. 101, 116; for my view of this significance, see below). 13  Ulrich Heckel, “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des Paulus in 2 Kor 12:7 und Gal 4:13f,” ZNW 84 (1993): 66–77, 83–85. Heckel, p. 84, points out that Paul could have already been suffering under the same illness mentioned in 2 Cor 12:7 at the time of his preaching in Galatia since the “thorn in the flesh” was given to Paul fourteen years earlier, ca. AD 42. This presupposes the traditional dating and sequencing of the letters, now challenged dramatically by Douglas A. Campbell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), who puts Galatians after 1–2 Corinthians and before Philippians and Romans, all written in AD 51–52 (see his conclusion, pp. 409–410). If Campbell’s new reading wins the day, then Paul’s suffering still predates both Galatians and the Corinthian correspondence. Contra Martin, “Flesh,” 71–73, who, rejecting that 4:13 refers to Paul’s weakness, denies the link between Gal 4:13 and 2 Cor 12:7. In addition to his view of 4:13, Martin does so because in 2 Cor 12:7 the messenger of Satan affects Paul, whereas in 4:13 the temptation affects the Galatians, in 2 Cor 12:7 the explanatory phrase refers to the sickness itself, whereas in 4:14 it refers to the effect, and in 2 Cor 12:7 the sickness is a messenger of Satan, whereas the Galatians accept Paul as a messenger of God. For my own analysis of the reason for these differences, see below.

148

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

its theological origin, cause, and purpose.14 So too, Paul’s silence in Gal 4:13–14 places the focus not on the nature of his “weakness of the flesh” as such, but on its very existence and function. In line with this focus, the front-loading of δι᾿ ἀσθέ­ νειαν τῆς σαρκός in 4:13 is most likely not merely stylistic, but emphatic (cf. the corresponding front-loaded position of τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου in 4:14). Nevertheless, in spite of Paul’s theological evaluation of his “weakness” in 2 Cor 12:7 and the corresponding development of this theme elsewhere in his letters (see below), most have argued that Gal 4:13 is a reference only to the occasion that led to Paul’s being in Galatia. The assumption is that Paul’s suffering had either forced Paul into Galatia or caused him to remain in this region longer than originally planned, during which time he preached the gospel to the Galatians.15 In this view, Paul’s “weakness” was merely the circumstantial means by which God, in his providence, brought the gospel to the Galatians logistically. Black even speaks of Paul’s “physical condition that stranded him in Galatia,” but “proved to be a blessing in disguise.”16 To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence in Paul’s letters or Acts that Paul’s sickness or personal suffering ever influenced his chronology or travel plans. When Paul’s plans change it is due either to the needs of others (cf. 2 Cor 1:15–2:4; 2:12–13; Rom 15:22–29), to persecution (cf. 2 Cor 11:32–33; Rom 15:30–33; 1 Thess 2:18), or to divine intervention (cf. 1 Cor 16:9). Furthermore, the apologetic function of Paul’s suffering elsewhere in his letters speaks against Gal 4:13 being a reference solely to the providential circumstances of his preaching. Rather, as in 2 Cor 12:7–10, Paul’s reference to his suffering in Gal 4:13 functions as a theological affirmation and interpretation. But whereas in 2 Cor 12:7–10 Paul relates his weakness to his personal character as a means to an end (see the purpose-clause inclusio in 12:7: ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι … ἵνα μὴ ὑπερ­ αίρωμαι), in Gal 4:13–14 he relates it to the preaching of the gospel as a cause to its consequence (δι᾿ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον). In 2 Cor 12:7–10, the subject is the implication of Paul’s weakness for himself, since as an apostle he had been entrusted with private revelations in heaven (cf. 2 Cor 12:7a). In Gal 4:13–14, it is the implication of Paul’s weakness for the Galatians, since as an apostle he also had been entrusted with a public revelation of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus (cf. Gal 1:12, 16). In the former case, Paul’s weakness was a 14  “Dorn,” 80. In view of Paul’s silence in 2 Cor 12:7 and elsewhere, all attempts to determine the nature of Paul’s sickness remain purely speculative. The main suggestions have been: epilepsy, an eye sickness, a speech impediment, malaria, leprosy, hysteria, or depression (cf. “Dorn,” 80–83, for the sources, and 84–92 for his evaluation). 15  Cf., e. g., Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 5th ed., KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 210; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 84; Black, “Weakness,” 29, 35. Surprisingly, Heckel, “Dorn,” 84–85, 91–92, also opts for a circumstantial reading of Gal 4:13–14 in which Paul’s sickness held him up in Galatia. 16 Black, “Weakness,” 35–36.

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

149

private matter that he discussed only when forced to do so by the circumstances in Corinth. In the latter case, Paul’s weakness was a public affair well known to the Galatians, as it was everywhere Paul went (cf. 1 Thess 2:1; 1 Cor 4:9–13; Phil 1:12–14, 30; 2 Tim 1:11; 3:11). Hence, in regard to the gospel, Paul’s “weakness” was not an unusual circumstance that happened to occasion his preaching in Galatia; it was the foundation upon which Paul preached everywhere he was sent by God. Far from being a recourse to special pleading, Paul’s suffering is an essential aspect of his polemic in 4:12–20. The contrast established in Gal 4:14 between scorning and receiving Paul due to his weakness confirms that Paul’s ἀσθένεια was not merely the circumstance that brought the gospel to Galatia. More importantly, Paul’s suffering was the divinely ordained means by which the gospel itself was made clear to the Galatians. Given the assumption of Paul’s day that a deity’s approval meant earthly blessing, and inasmuch as the driving motive for much of the participation in the Greco-Roman civic cults was the desire for health, wealth, and status, Paul’s suffering posed an immense cultural barrier to his gospel.17 At the theological level, Baasland has pointed out as well the conceptual link between Paul’s suffering as a “temptation” (πειρασμός) to despise Paul in 4:14 and the OT “curse” tradition that often identified sin and suffering.18 The allusion to this tradition in 4:14 no doubt reflects Paul’s having earlier taught it to the Galatians. In Paul’s scriptural arsenal the curse tradition from Deuteronomy functions to explain the role of Christ’s suffering on the cross (cf. 3:10–13), as well as Paul’s own willingness to suffer as an apostle as a display of the sufferings of Christ (4:13–14; cf. 3:1). 17 For an investigation of the broad cultural values current in first-century Graeco-Roman society, see Timothy B. Savage, Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians, SNTSMS 86 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 19–53. Contra Martin, “Flesh,” 78, 87–90, who, in view of Gal 6:13, construes the temptation in 4:14 to be that Paul himself was circumcised, since gentiles disdained this practice. It is difficult to see how this could have tempted the Galatians to reject Paul since a hallmark of his gospel was its explicit exclusion of the necessity of such “works of the law” (Gal 2:3–5, 16, 18; 3:2–5; 5:3–6; 6:12–15). Martin’s reading of 4:14 does not fit as well with the argument of 4:12 and 15: if the Galatians were tempted to disdain Paul as a circumcised male, then in what sense are they to become like him (to be circumcised but to ignore its significance?)? If what potentially offended the Galatians was Paul’s circumcision, was this also the stumbling block with Christ, not the cross, since Paul equates accepting him with accepting Christ? And would not Paul’s emphasis here on their acceptance of Paul and Jesus as circumcised males play into the hands of the Judaizers? Martin’s position entails viewing the problem to be the Galatians’ desire to return to paganism, rather than their submitting to the Judaizers’ demand for circumcision, which they presented as a legitimate part of the Christian message (cf. too his “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy,” JBL 114 [1995]: 437–461). Finally, such a reading finds no thematic support in the immediate context, which is based on the curse-tradition from Deuteronomy, not on the issue of circumcision. 18  Baasland, “Persecution,” 141. In support, Baasland points to the ‫ ארוּר‬catalogue in Deut 27:15–26; 28:16–19, based on the use of Deut 27:26; 28:15. Baasland, p. 141, observes that “it is really only in Deut 28:20 ff. and in the passio iusti tradition that the persecution theme plays any important role in the Old Testament.” See above, pp. 38, 44–45, 66, 76.

150

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Neither Christ nor Paul (in this regard) are suffering for their own sins, but for the sake of others. For Christ, his suffering was at the center of his calling as the messianic Son of God who was sent to redeem God’s people (Gal 1:4; 2:21; cf. Rom 3:21–26). For Paul, his suffering was at the center of his calling as an apostle, through which Paul mediated the gospel of Christ to the gentiles (see below). Paul’s reminder in 4:14 therefore takes on great polemic significance within its contemporary context. As I posited above (see p. 76), the reference in 3:10 to Deut 27:26 (28:15) points to the likely inference that the Judaizers were probably using this same tradition against Paul, arguing from Paul’s own physical suffering that he was the one who was still under the curse of the law, not they. From their perspective, Paul’s sickness was evidence that God was judging Paul for his failing to keep the Sinai covenant. After all, in accordance with Deut 25:1–3, the synagogue authorities will come to punish Paul with thirty-nine lashes on five different occasions (!), the maximum penalty possible for breaking the law (2 Cor 11:24; cf. Matt 10:17).19 As in Corinth, so too in Galatia, Paul’s suffering, including his suffering at the hands of the “Torah,” was therefore likely being used to call the legitimacy of his ministry and message into question. In this case, Paul’s sickness and suffering were not viewed as the context of his ministry or as the result of persecution for his faithfulness to Christ. Instead, like Christ’s death on the cross (also a punishment according to the Torah), it was a punishment for his faithlessness to God. As Harvey suggests, “Suppose … that his ‘weakness’ was the evident result of a maximum scourging. It would have been clear proof of the danger of holding this new variant of the Jewish religion in close proximity to the Jews … perhaps indeed it was this that Paul called the stigmata of Jesus which he bore in his body (6:17).”20 Nevertheless, although Paul’s weakness had initially posed a cultural and theological temptation to the Galatians, the Corinthians had not rejected Paul out of contempt (ἐξουθενέω), nor disdained him (ἐκπτύω21), but had received Paul as “an angel of God” (ἄγγελος θεοῦ; Gal 4:14). Given the context, Paul’s use 19  So too ibid., 142. As Baasland points out, Paul’s failure to require circumcision of his converts could be taken as “cursing Abraham,” which results in falling under the curse of God (cf. Gen 12:3). A. E. Harvey, “Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy,” in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. idem (London: SPCK, 1985), 84, argues that Paul’s “crime” was probably a serious offence against Jewish customs, the Sabbath, or ritual purity, etc., which would have come about through his ministry among gentiles, though it could have been simply his confession of Christ, which was in itself considered blasphemous. 20  “Forty Strokes,” 88. 21  Cf. s. v. ἐκπτύω, BDAG, 309: literally, “spit (out) as an expression of contempt … or to ward off hostile spirits … hence disdain”; and s. v. ἐξουθενέω, BDAG, 352, which suggests that, since the meaning “reject something” is well-attested for both διαπτύω and περιπτύω, Gal 4:14 may be translated, “You neither treated me with contempt nor did you turn away from the temptation that my physical appearance might have become to you.” They also suggest: “My physical weakness did indeed distress you …you did not despise me because of it,” and “During your time of trial in connection with my physical disability, you showed no disdain.”

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

151

of ἐκπτύω most likely signifies more than simply the metaphorical meaning of “disdain.”22 It is best taken as a reference to the practice of the “spitting out” that signaled the repulsion of sickness as a demonic threat.23 If read this way, Paul states that, upon his first arrival, the Galatians did not attribute Paul’s weakness to demonic activity, i. e., they did not conclude that he was an ἄγγελος σατανᾶ disguised as an ἄγγελος φωτός (cf. 2 Cor 11:14). To the contrary, they accepted Paul as a messenger sent from God. The contrast between 2 Cor 12:7 and Gal 4:13 is once again maintained here as well. Whereas in 2 Cor 12:7 Paul’s weakness is explicitly attributed to Satan’s “angel” (ἄγγελος), and hence may be resisted and prayed against, in Gal 4:14 Paul’s weakness was the ground on which God was speaking through Paul as if he were an “angel” (ἄγγελος) sent to do God’s bidding. Instead of falling prey to the temptation to reject Paul and his message because of his suffering, the Galatians saw the essential link between the two. Accordingly, they had accepted Paul’s life as an embodiment of the divinely authorized gospel that he preached. To quote Baasland again, “Paul insists that his sufferings are not the result of a curse, but they show that he belongs to Christ,”24 who redeemed him from that very curse (3:13; 4:5). The reason for the Galatians’ earlier acceptance of Paul in spite of his weakness is then given in the second apposition of v. 14c: ὡς Χριστὸν  Ἰησοῦν. When Paul preached the gospel because of his suffering not only did the Galatians welcome Paul as if he were a messenger sent from God, they also received him as if he were Christ Jesus himself! This identification of the suffering Paul with the crucified Messiah is best explained in view of the missiological function, not ontological identity, between Paul’s own suffering as an apostle and the cross of Christ that he preached. Paul’s suffering on behalf of the church was the instrument by which he “publicly portrayed” the crucified Christ “before (the Galatians’) eyes” (Gal 3:1).25

22 Contra Goddard and Cummins, “Conflict,” 105–107. In line with their view that 4:12–20 refers to Paul’s persecution for the gospel, rather than sickness, they take ἐκπτύω and ἐξουθενέω simply to be synonyms for scorn and disdain (cf. their use in Mark 9:12; 10:34; 14:65; Matt 26:27; Luke 18:32; 23:11; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 1:28; 6:4; 16:11; Rom 14:3, 10, etc.). 23 Cf. Heinrich Schlier, “ἐκπτύω,” TDNT 2:448–449, who is quite certain that this is its meaning here. So too Heckel, “Dorn,” 84: “Für die Galater muß daher die Versuchung nahegelegen haben, in Paulus wegen seiner Schwäche einen dämonisch Befallenen zu sehen.” Cf. Mark 7:33; 8:23; T. Sol. 7:3; and the references in Heckel, “Dorn,” 85–86 nn. 121–127. 24  Baasland, “Persecution,” 146. The implication of this identification had already been given in the counter-curse of 1:8! 25 Here I am more emphatic than Goddard and Cummins, “Conflict,” 110 n. 62, who suggest that “the vivid and visual (rather than aural) language” of Gal 3:1 “might possibly suggest that Paul himself tangibly represented the crucified Christ before the Galatians – not least in the marks of persecution upon his body (cf. 6:17)” (emphasis theirs).

152

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Paul’s Apostolic Calling: “Led to Death” as a “Jar of Clay” In Gal 3:1 and 4:14 Paul is alluding to a complex of ideas that he explicates in 1 Cor 4:6–16; 2 Cor 1:3–11; 2:14–17; and 4:7–12. I have argued elsewhere in detail that in these passages Paul portrays his apostolic suffering as the revelatory vehicle through which the knowledge of God made manifest in the cross of Christ and in the power of the Spirit is being disclosed in the world.26 The clearest statements of this point are found in the thesis-like affirmations of 1 Cor 4:9, 2 Cor 4:11, and, by way of metaphor, 2 Cor 2:14. There is no question that in the first two passages Paul is referring to his suffering. And today scholars also grant that in 2 Cor 2:14 Paul is picturing himself as being led in a Roman triumphal procession. Yet not all agree with me that in 2 Cor 2:14 the metaphor of “leading one in a triumphal procession” (θριαμβεύω) should be decoded to picture Paul as a captured slave of Christ whom God is leading to death, hereby functioning as a metonymy for Paul’s call to suffer as an apostle on behalf of the church. Nor do they share my conclusion that in 2 Cor 2:14 this “being led to death in a triumphal procession” is the means by which the knowledge of God is being made known in the world (for the recent scholarship on the significance of in 2 Cor 2:14 see Appendix Four below). I nonetheless remain convinced that the structural and semantic parallels between 1 Cor 4:9, 2 Cor 4:11, and 2 Cor 2:14 continue to support this reading (see below). Furthermore, it is evident that for Paul “death” is a metonymy for suffering (1 Cor 4:8–13 [cf. 4:9]; 2 Cor 1:3–11 [cf. 1:9]; 4:7–12 [cf. 4:10]; 6:3–10 [cf. 6:9]). And in all of these passages Paul’s suffering, as the corollary to his message of the cross, is the means God uses to display his power (cf. too 1 Cor 2:2–5; 1 Thess 1:5). This revelation takes place in two ways. At times, God rescues Paul from adversity when it is too much to bear as a sign of the future consummation of God’s resurrection-deliverance (cf. 2 Cor 1:8–11; Phil 2:25–30). Most often, however, as a testimony to the present reality of God’s kingdom, God strengthens Paul that he might endure his suffering on behalf of the church, which is an even more glorious display of God’s resurrection power in the midst of this evil age (cf. 2 Cor 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 12:9; 2 Tim 2:10). Paul’s suffering can thus become the subject of his thanksgiving (2 Cor 2:14a)! Here too, therefore, inaugurated eschatology is the key to understanding the polarity in Paul’s thinking between his suffering and his ministry of the Spirit. In 2 Cor 4:7 Paul reflects this eschatological reality by reminding the Corinthians that he carried his gospel “treasure,” i. e., “the knowledge of the glory of 26  For this thesis, with 2 Cor 2:14 as its centerpiece, see my Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), abridged as Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). For the similarities and differences between 1 Cor 4:8–13 and 2 Cor 4:7–12 as these reflect the essential difference between the situations behind the two letters, together with the parallels between 1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 2:14; and 4:11 outlined below, see my Suffering and Ministry, 59–71.

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

153

God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6), in a “jar of clay,” namely, in his sick and persecution-plagued body.27 This is God’s design in order to make it evident that the power of the gospel did not reside in Paul, but belonged to the God who was at work in and through Paul to deliver his people (4:7). For although the purpose clause in 4:7b is often translated with the idea of “making manifest” or “demonstrating,” formally it reads, “in order that the all-surpassing power might be (ᾖ) from God and not from us.” And as Savage points out, if we take the verb “to be” seriously, then Paul’s point is even more striking: “it is only in weakness that the power may be of God, that (Paul’s) weakness in some sense actually serves as the grounds for divine power.”28 Conversely, the power of the gospel is so great and its glory so profound that it must be carried in a “pot,” lest people put their trust in Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5). Read in this way, the interrelationship between 2 Cor 4:7 on the one side and 2 Cor 12:1–10 and Gal 4:13 on the other becomes clear. In the first case, Paul’s weakness is applied to Paul himself (Paul’s “earthen vessel” keeps him humbly dependent on God in order that God’s power may be perfected and trusted). In the latter, this same weakness is applied to his public ministry (Paul’s earthen vessel is a platform for preaching the gospel of God’s power to others). This dual function of Paul’s suffering is possible because Paul understands that his own experience of suffering and sustenance for himself and for the sake of the church as outlined in 2 Cor 4:8–9 are to be interpreted in terms of Jesus’s death and resurrection in 2 Cor 4:10–11. As a consequence, Paul’s weakness and suffering not only form his own character (cf., e. g., 2 Cor 1:8–11), but also mediate to the world the knowledge of God revealed in Christ (see the purpose clauses of 4:10b and 11b): the death of Jesus hard pressed perplexed persecuted struck down

the life of Jesus but not crushed but not in despair but not abandoned but not destroyed

27 As Savage has pointed out, Power through Weakness, 165, it was common in the ancient world, including in the Qumran writings, to picture humans as “jars of clay” (“earthen vessels”) as a metaphor for human weakness (cf. the references to clay pots as weak and prone to break in Ps 30:13LXX; Isa 30:14LXX; 1QS 11:22; 1QHa 9:23–24; 11:21–22; and 12:30). Against this backdrop, Paul’s image points to a contrast between his suffering and the power of God. Others see it as metaphor of “cheapness,” based on Lam 4:2LXX, thereby establishing a contrast between Paul’s lack of significance or worth and the surpassing value of the treasure. Still others argue that the ideas of being “weak” and “inferior” are both present here (as in Lev 6:21; 15:12LXX), so that 4:7 provides a contrast to both the “treasure” and the “power of God.” In Savage’s words, p. 166, “the glorious gospel is borne about by those who are comparatively inferior, the powerful gospel by those who are weak.” Though this reading is possible, the purpose clause in v. 7b seems to indicate that the point of contrast is with God’s power, so that the intention of the image is to highlight the weakness of Paul. 28  Power through Weakness, 166 (emphasis mine).

154

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

The reference in 4:9 to “not being abandoned” (οὐκ ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι) is particularly significant in this context because its background in the LXX underscores that this is a “divine passive” which speaks of not being abandoned by God (cf. Gen 28:15; Deut 31:6, 8; 1 Chron 28:20; Ps. 15:10; 36:25, 28; Sir 2:10).29 Just as God did not abandon Jesus in the grave, so too Paul experiences God’s resurrection power sustaining him in his own experiences of “death.” Moreover, the adversative contrasts of 4:8–9 underscore that it is perseverance in the midst of suffering, not the immediate, miraculous deliverance from it, that during the current overlapping of the ages reveals most profoundly the resurrection power of God. In other words, Paul’s eschatology is expressed in his endurance in the midst of the ongoing adversity of this evil age. Paul testified in 2 Cor 1:8–10 that he learned from his experience in the past of divine deliverance from “the sentence of death (τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου)” to place (his) confidence for his future deliverance “on the God who raises the dead (οἱ νεκροί).” The contrast between ἐξαπορηθῆναι in 1:8 and οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι in 4:8 underscores that this lesson of faith leads to the present endurance pictured in 2 Cor 4:8–9. This focus on endurance in the present (a covenant stipulation) as a consequence of hope for the future (a covenant promise) because of God’s faithengendering deliverance in the past (a covenant prologue) is confirmed by Paul’s use in 2 Cor 4:10 of νέκρωσις (dying), rather than θάνατος (death). The former refers to the process of dying, which Paul endures, while the latter refers to the final condition of being dead, from which Paul hopes to be delivered (cf. 2 Cor 1:9, 10; 2:16; 3:7; 4:12; 7:10; 11:23). Here too, then, dying, as a being led to death, represents Paul’s life of suffering as an apostle. Paul’s focus in this passage on endurance in the midst of his ongoing adversity may also explain the emphasis on “Jesus” in 2 Cor 4:10–11, which refers to his earthly life of faith culminating in the cross, rather than on his messianic title, “Christ,” which points forward to his resurrection and exaltation.30 Paul carries around “the dying of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10) as he is given over to “death” (2 Cor 4:11). Finally, the use of present tense participles in 4:8–9, together with the emphasis on “always” in 4:10, puts the aspectual emphasis on the continual process of “dying” that is now taking place in Paul’s life as an apostle. In 2 Cor 4:11 Paul gives the theological basis for his conviction that his suffering, like the “death of Jesus,” mediates the resurrection power of God, i. e., the “life of Jesus” (cf. the γάρ in 4:11). By using the divine passive, “we are always being given over to death” by God (παραδιδόμεθα), Paul again asserts that his sufferings are not merely coincidental but part of the divine plan for the spread 29 I

owe this insight to Savage, Power through Weakness, 169 n. 36. uses “Jesus” by itself (i. e., apart from the expression “Jesus Christ” or with the title “the Lord”) 6×s in this passage (4:5, 10[2×s], 11[2×s], 14), whereas in the rest of Paul’s writings combined it is used by itself only 9×s (cf. Rom 3:26; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 6:17; Eph 4:21; Phil 2:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14 [2×s]). 30 Paul

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

155

of the gospel. In Paul’s words, he is given over “because of Jesus” (διὰ  Ἰησοῦν). Like Jesus, Paul’s suffering means that he too is being delivered over to death (cf. Rom 4:25; 6:17; 8:32; Mark 10:33; Luke 4:6). Moreover, in 4:11a Paul’s suffering and being rescued, which were interpreted in 4:10 as the “death” and “life” of Jesus respectively, are here identified as Paul’s own death and life. In verse 10 Paul “carries” the death of Jesus in his own body; in verse 11a Paul himself is the living one who is given over to death by God. Nevertheless, this does not lead Paul to the conclusion that the “life” he mediates is his own; it remains the “life of Jesus” (4:11b). As in 1 Cor 4:12–13 and 2 Cor 12:9–10, here too God’s power is said to be expressed through Paul’s weakness.31 And as in 1 Cor 4:9 and 2 Cor 2:14, Paul’s suffering is again portrayed in 2 Cor 4:11 under the image of “death.” In the first two passages this was done by means of a metaphor (1 Cor 4:9: being sentenced to death in the arena; 2 Cor 2:14: being led to death in the triumphal procession). In 2 Cor 4:10 and 11 Paul explicitly identifies his suffering/death with the dying and death of Jesus. In each case Paul views his suffering to be a divinely orchestrated “death” that, like the cross of Christ, performs a revelatory function. The exact parallels between 1 Cor 4:9, 2 Cor 2:14, and 2 Cor 4:11 thus demonstrate not only that our interpretation of the “triumphal procession” in 2:14 is accurate, but also that it is part of a thematic key to Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle: 2 Cor 4:11a

2 Cor 2:14a

1 Cor 4:9a

1. Divine Passive 2. Constantly (cf. “always” in v. 10a)

1. Thanks be to God 2. always

3. we the living 4. are being handed over to death 5. on account of Christ

3. us 4 leads us in a triumphal procession to death 5. in Christ

1. God 2. (cf. “until the present hour,” v. 11, and “until now,” v. 13) 3. us apostles 4. exhibited last of all as those sentenced to death 5. (cf. “on account of Christ,” v. 10)

31  In this regard, I agree with Jan Lambrecht, “The Nekrōsis of Jesus: Ministry and Suffering in 2 Cor 4:7–15,” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, ed. Albert Vanhoye (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 129–130, that Güttgemanns’s basic thesis is correct, but overstated. Paul’s weakness is the vehicle through which Jesus reveals himself in an “epiphany,” but Güttgemanns overstates the case when he argues that this epiphany of Christ’s power takes place in the “paradox” of Paul’s suffering, thereby equating the former with the latter. See Erhardt Güttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr, FRLANT 90 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 94–126. Rather, as Lambrecht rightly argues, the paradox is not absolute; the cross is not itself glory, nor death itself life, nor weakness, power (cf. 4:8–11, 16–18). Instead, Paul posits a “solution” in that God’s deliverance and power and renewal exist in and through and after the suffering itself (p. 131). Paul’s suffering is not the glory of Christ; Christ’s glory is mediated through Paul’s suffering.

156

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

2 Cor 4:11b

2 Cor 2:14b

1 Cor 4:9b

1. in order that the life of Jesus might be revealed 2. in our mortal flesh 3. —

1. and reveals the fragrance of the knowledge of him 2. through us 3. in every place

1. because we became a spectacle 2. — 3. to the world, that is, to angels and to men

Paul’s “Death” for the “Life” of the Church In 2 Cor 4:12 Paul draws the consequence for the Corinthians of the revelatory function of his endurance in the midst of adversity: Paul is given over to “death” and “resurrection” so that they too might trust in God’s resurrection power in their lives. It is important to note that the relationship between Paul and his church is not reciprocal when it comes to Paul’s call to share in the sufferings of Christ. As an apostle, Paul is called to suffer for the sake of his churches; they are not called to suffer for him (cf. 2 Cor 1:3–6, 10–11; 4:15; 5:13; 1 Thess 2:8–9; Phil 1:24–26; Eph 3:1, 13; 6:19–20). Instead, they are to follow Paul by trusting in God to sustain them in their own life of faith, especially when they too are led into situations of suffering as believers (cf. 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; 2 Cor 1:6–7; 1 Thess 1:6–8; 2:13–14; 3:1–10; Phil 1:3–11, 29–30; Eph 4:1). Furthermore, Paul’s suffering and experience of God’s deliverance are always derivative, since Jesus’s death and resurrection, not Paul’s own love and fortitude, provide the pattern for Paul’s experience and the content of what is mediated to others. Paul’s endurance of faith in the midst of suffering is not a “second atonement,” but a mediation of the reality of the death (cross) and life (resurrection) of Jesus. Paul stands between the glory of God and the life of his congregation as an instrument in the hand of God to model and sustain the life of faith among God’s people. As such, Paul’s sufferings are not coincidental, but part of the divine plan for the spread of the gospel (cf. the divine passive in 4:11). Christ died for his people’s sins and was raised to secure their forgiveness, faith, and future hope in their own resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–4, 14, 17–19). So too, Paul is called as an apostle to “die every day” (1 Cor 15:31) and to commend himself “by great endurance” (2 Cor 6:4) as the means by which the significance of Christ’s cross and resurrection is made real to those to whom the gospel is preached. The clear parallel in 1 Cor 15:30–31 between Paul’s dying “every day” (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν) and his being in danger “every hour” (πᾶσαν ὥραν; cf. 2 Cor 11:26), together with the equally metaphorical reference to fighting “wild beasts” in 15:32a,32 32  Following Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 770–771. Fee stresses that the use of this metaphor in the moralistic literature of the day and the fact of Paul’s Roman citizenship, which would have excluded such a

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

157

indicates that here too Paul is using “death” as a metonymy for his life of suffering as an apostle. In 1 Cor 15:31–32 Paul’s “dying every day” as a testimony to the reality of the resurrection is then validated with an oath (cf. νή) and certified by his boast in the Corinthians, which he has in Christ Jesus as their common Lord. The reference to Paul’s boast in the Corinthians reflects Paul’s recurring emphasis throughout the Corinthian correspondence on his willingness to suffer for the sake of his churches as a reflection of his pride in and love for them as their spiritual “father” (cf. 1 Cor 9:15–19; 2 Cor 1:14; 3:2–3; 4:5; 7:4; 8:24; 11:10–11; 12:14–15).33 But only the reality of the resurrection can motivate such a willingness to suffer for others (1 Cor 15:29b, 32b). The reality of the resurrection as revealed through Paul’s voluntary suffering for the gospel and his churches is therefore clear to the believer who is in his/her “right mind” (1 Cor 15:34). To the deceived unbeliever, however, Paul’s life of constant suffering looks like a foolish waste (1 Cor 15:32b–33). Accordingly, Paul’s suffering, as the “aroma of Christ” (2 Cor 2:15), elicits the same twofold effect brought about by the cross of Christ itself. This is confirmed by the parallels between 1 Cor 1:17–18 and 2 Cor 2:14–16a: 1. Paul is sent to preach in a mode that corresponds to the cross of Christ (1:17; cf. 2:1, 4) 2. For (γάρ) (18a) 3. the word of the cross 4. is foolishness to those who are perishing (18a) 5. to us who are being saved it is the power of God (18c)

1. Paul is “being led to death,” which is a mode of existence that reveals the cross of Christ (2:14) 2. For (ὅτι) (15a) 3. we are an aroma of Christ to God (15a) 4. among those who are perishing … to those a fragrance from death to death (15c, 16a) 5. among those who are being saved … to those a fragrance from life to life (15b, 16b)

Christ’s cross and resurrection consequently determined both the content of Paul’s message and the manner of his life. As a result, Paul’s ministry furthered the process of salvation (“life”) and judgment (“death”) in the lives of others. To reject Paul and his message as “foolishness” confirmed that one was already “perishing.” To accept Paul and his message demonstrated that the power of God was already at work to save. Paul’s ministry and message were one; what Paul death sentence, not to mention that Paul is still alive (!), speaks against taking this reference to “fighting beasts” either hypothetically or literally. Instead, it refers to Paul’s struggles with his opponents, which also involved severe physical danger. 33  See again Fee, First Corinthians, 769–770, who takes the possessive adjective ὑμετέραν in 1 Cor 15:31 to be objective, referring to “their very existence as the result of his apostolic labors.”

158

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

could say about the cross of Christ in 1 Cor 1:17–18 he could reaffirm about his own life as an apostle in 2 Cor 2:14–16.34 34 The mediatorial role of Paul’s life and message is also the key to understanding the much contested summary statement in Col 1:24, as confirmed by the almost exact parallels between Col 1:24 on the one hand and 1 Cor 16:17–18 and Phil 2:30 on the other. In each case we have a form of ἀναπληρόω + ὑστέρημα + a possessive of the person who is “lacking,” in addition to a third party who is benefitted:

Col 1:24

Phil 2:30

1 Cor 16:17–18

ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ

ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑστέρημα ὑμῶν τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας

ἀνεπλήρωσαν τὸ ὑστέρημα ὑμέτερον … τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὑμῶν

According to Phil 2:27 and 30, although Epaphroditus “was weak/sick” (ἠσθένησεν; cf. Gal 4:13!) to the point of dying, he still risked his life to carry the Philippians’ money to Paul in order to minister to Paul’s need (cf. Phil 2:25). He did so ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα in regard to the Philippians’ ministry toward Paul (Phil 2:30). Here the sense of ἀναπληρόω τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα clearly signifies “to represent one who is absent” (see s. v. ἀναπληρόω, BDAG, 70). So too Roy Yates, “A Note on Colossians 1:24,” EvQ 42 (1970): 89, who offers as the meaning of ὑστέρημα in 1 Cor 16:17 and Phil 2:30, “to make up for or represent a person in his absence.” Epaphroditus risked his life in order to represent the Philippians in their absence with regard to their service or ministry to Paul. What was lacking was not the quality or quantity of the Philippians’ gift, which was recognized by Paul in Phil 4:14–18, but their ability to transport it to Paul themselves. Epaphroditus was present in the Philippians’ absence. Likewise, in 1 Cor 16:17 the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus as representatives of the church at Corinth is said to make up for the Corinthians’ absence from Paul (τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα οὗτοι ἀνεπλήρωσαν), bringing about the refreshment of both Paul and the Corinthians. Moreover, the additional compound ἀντί (“instead of,” “in place of”) added to ἀναπληρόω in Col 1:24 signifies that Paul’s sufferings do not continue those of Christ as part of a mystical union or corporate personality with Christ. That the force of this additional compound is to be felt can be seen by comparing it to προσαναπληρόω (“complete toward”) in 2 Cor 9:12 and 11:9. Paul does not say that he adds to the number of sufferings needed, but that he actually “fills up” or “completes” what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings, namely, its missionary transport (Col 1:23b). Here too the issue in Col 1:24 is not the quality or quantity of Christ’s suffering, the effectiveness of which is acknowledged in Col 1:14, 20, 22; 2:14–15, but its portrayal to those for whom it is intended (1:25–29; 4:3–4). According to 1:24 Paul does this “in his flesh” (ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου) and “on behalf of his [= Christ’s] body, which is the church,” taking both prepositional phrases adverbially. See Andrew Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10–11,” TynBul 42 (1991): 65–66, who rightly argues that both prepositional phrases, “in my flesh” and “on behalf of his body,” must be taken in the same way. As such, the two phrases designate the sphere or means of Paul’s filling up Christs sufferings (i. e., in or by means of his own experience of suffering) and those who benefit from it (i. e., Christ’s church). Colossians 1:24 is therefore best rendered: “In his flesh and on behalf of Christ’s body, the church, Paul completes what is lacking concerning the sufferings of Christ.” Paul’s point is missiological. Paul rejoices because, though he has not ministered in Colossae himself, he is now able to fulfill his mandate as an apostle in regard to them as well (2:1–5). In his own sufferings on behalf of the Colossians (cf. Col 2:1–2), and in his prayers and writing to them (Col 1:3, 9–12; 2:5–7), Paul is making up for Christ’s absence by being a conduit to them of the significance of Christ’s cross (i. e., via Paul’s own suffering) and resurrection (i. e., via Paul’s endurance in the ministry; Col 2:8–14). Here too, then, it is Christ’s power (1:29) and glory (1:27) in the midst of Paul’s suffering (1:24) that embodies the message he proclaims (1:28). Colossians 1:24 is Paul’s manifesto

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

159

The Apologetic Function of Paul’s Suffering It is now apparent why in Gal 4:12–20 Paul suddenly shifted from the theological and scriptural arguments in favor of his gospel to the personal circumstances of his suffering. The latter provided a foundation for his past preaching in Galatia and for his present polemic against those who would preach a different gospel (cf. 1:6–9). Like Christ on the cross, Paul’s coming to Galatia in the “weakness of the flesh” portrayed Christ’s own participation in this evil age (Gal 3:1; 4:4). At the same time, Paul’s endurance in giving himself to the Galatians demonstrated that already in this age the Spirit is powerfully transforming the lives of believers both individually and corporately as a consequence of the “new creation” inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection (cf. Gal 5:2–6, 16–26; 6:8, 15). Reflecting these Christ-formed realities, the recounting in 4:13–14 of the Galatians’ prior, positive response to Paul’s previous preaching, in spite of his weakness, serves a bridging function between 4:12 and 4:15–16. Looking back, it supports Paul’s assertion in 4:12c that the Galatians had done Paul no injustice in the past (οὐδεν με ἠδικήσατε). They had accepted his suffering as the ground of his preaching since it was the means by which the significance of the cross was made evident in their midst. Looking forward, it supports Paul’s rhetorical questions in 4:15a and 16 concerning the present. In view of their past acceptance of him “as an angel of God” who brought the message of “Christ Jesus,” Paul is perplexed (cf. 1:6; 4:20) that their past “blessing” (μακαρισμός), which they received from doing so, has apparently disappeared (4:15a; cf. 1:6; 4:9–11; 5:4, 7–8).35 Surprisingly, Paul has now become their “enemy” for telling them the truth about those who are seeking to exclude the Galatians from being full-fledged members of the people of God (4:17). Though the Galatians are already Paul’s children in the faith, he has therefore once again become like a woman in the pain of childbirth, striving to give them life in the gospel so that they can resist such temptations (cf. τέκνα μου … ὠδίνω in 4:19; cf. 1:6–9; 5:7–8). Thus, the structure of Paul’s argument in 4:12–16 makes it unlikely that Paul’s reference in 4:15b to the Galatians’ past willingness to pluck out their own eyes in order to give them to Paul indicates that Paul’s “weakness” entailed some sort of eye infirmity. It is best taken as a proverbial reference to the Galatians’ for his mission: his apostolic suffering functions “to fulfill/complete (πληρόω) the word of God” among the gentile saints (Col 1:25–27; cf. Eph 3:2–6; 2 Tim 1:11–12). 35 By this “blessing” Paul is most likely referring to their earlier experience of forgiveness, righteousness, and the power of the Spirit as mediated through Paul’s ministry (2:16; 3:1–5, 14, 29; 4:28). For the link between this blessing and the gospel of God’s righteousness and forgiveness in accordance with the experience of Abraham’s faith, cf. Rom 4:6–9. There Paul refers to David’s pronouncing the blessing of forgiveness found in Ps 31:1–2LXX, which Paul applies to the person to whom, like Abraham, God reckons righteousness apart from works. For the other uses of μακάριος/μακαρισμός in the Pauline corpus, see Rom 4:9; 14:22; 1 Cor 7:40; 1 Tim 1:11; Titus 2:13.

160

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

former willingness to do whatever was necessary, no matter the cost, to support Paul’s ministry. The Galatians had been so convinced of Paul’s gospel, and had so esteemed their consequent participation in the Spirit as the mark of the new age of the new creation (cf. Gal 1:6a; 3:3a, 4a; 4:6–7, 9a; 5:5, 7a), that they would have been willing to give even their most precious possession for it and its “angel.”36 The Galatians’ willingness to give their all for Paul because of his message of the crucified Christ as embodied in his own life of suffering on their behalf is an example of precisely the kind of saving “faith that works out, with regard to itself, through love,” which can only be attributed to the Spirit’s work of bringing about a new creation (cf. 5:6 with 6:15 and chapter ten below). Paul’s love for the Galatians, manifested in his suffering, and the Galatians’ love for Paul, manifested in their acceptance of his suffering, are both expressions of that Spirit-induced freedom that willingly serves one another as slaves (5:13; cf. Rom 15:7–9). In stark contrast, the Judaizers’ attempt to exclude the Galatians reveals their own rejection of the gospel, lack of participation in the Spirit, and corresponding impure motives (4:17; cf. 2:13; 6:12). The Judaizers make much of the Galatians, only to exclude them, so that the Galatians will feel the loss of having been rejected by those who claimed special privilege and experience of the Spirit as God’s “chosen people” (4:17). But if the Galatians capitulate to their demands in order to be welcomed back under the Judaizers’ terms, they will be denying the reality of their prior experience as the children of Abraham (4:15a; cf. 3:1–5; 5:2–5). Paul’s labor among them will then have been in vain (4:11; cf. 2:2). So Paul too is making much of the Galatians, even from a distance, but for a “good purpose,” just as he sought to strengthen the faithfulness of the rest of his churches through his epistles (4:18; cf. Gal 1:20; Rom 15:14–16; 1 Cor 4:14; 14:37; 2 Cor 1:12–14; 2:3–4, 9; 7:8–12; 13:1–5; Phil 3:1). Paul’s suffering as an embodiment of his gospel characterized his missionary efforts, just as one’s response to it provided the criterion for evaluating the reality of his labors in the lives of those to whom he was sent (cf. 2 Cor 2:15–16; 5:20–6:13; 13:1–5). 36  Cf. already J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885), 301, who followed Theodore of Mopsuestia in arguing that the reference to writing with “large letters” in Gal 6:11 is not a consequence of Paul’s bad eyesight, but a way of emphasizing “the force of the apostle’s convictions” in that they will “arrest the attention of his readers in spite of themselves.” For the biblical backdrop for using the “eye” as a metaphor for that which is precious, cf. Deut 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prov 7:2; Zech 2:8; Horace, Sat. ii.5, 33, as pointed out by Black, “Weakness,” 32–33 (following the commentaries of Eadie and André Viard) and Goddard and Cummins, “Conflict,” 111 n. 67. However, Goddard and Cummins argue that this is a reference to the gouging out of the eyes as one of the cruelest tortures inflicted on the persecuted (cf. the experience of the martyrs in 4 Macc 5:29–30) (pp. 112–113). Paul would then be speaking of the Corinthians’ earlier willingness to suffer with Paul and for the gospel. The problem with this view is that the Galatians were willing to pluck out their own eyes for Paul’s sake, which can hardly mean a willingness to persecute themselves.

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

161

Paul’s Suffering as the Sum of the Matter Paul was a theologically driven missionary and a missiologically driven theologian. His theology was missiological and his missionary endeavors were theological. The glue that bound Paul’s life together with the message he preached and the mission he conducted was his suffering as an apostle of Jesus Christ. And here too we encounter Paul’s eschatology. The kingdom of God is already powerfully present through the Spirit (Paul’s endurance), albeit in the midst of the ongoing evil age (Paul’s suffering), whose reign of death as “the last enemy” will one day be destroyed at the return of Christ (Paul’s hope; 1 Cor 15:21–26). Within this eschatological framework, Paul’s suffering was the vehicle through which the saving, resurrection power of God, first revealed in Christ, was now being made known in the world (1 Cor 4:9b; 2 Cor 2:14b; 4:11b). To respond to the gospel preached by Paul thus meant being identified with Paul himself. To reject the suffering Paul was to reject Christ; to identify with Paul in his suffering and weakness was a sure sign that one was being saved by the power of God displayed in the “foolishness” and “stumbling block” of the cross (1 Cor 1:18–2:5; 2 Cor 2:15–16). In other words, to be baptized in Christ also meant being identified with those who preached Christ and suffered for his people (cf. 1 Cor 15:28–31; 2 Cor 4:5). To underscore this point, Joel White has demonstrated that “to be baptized on behalf of the dead” (1 Cor 15:29) is not an allusion to some long-lost, cultic ritual.37 Rather, it refers to the convert’s identification with Paul’s ministry as an apostle, once again pictured in terms of “death” as a metonymy for the daily suffering that Paul endures in hope of the resurrection and final reign of God through Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:28, 30–32). In Paul’s words, “For what will those do who are being baptized on account of the ‘dead’ [i. e., in response to the ministry of the apostles who suffer for the sake of the gospel]? If the truly dead are not being raised, why then are people being baptized on account of them [i. e., on account of the apostles, since their gospel offers no hope]?” (1 Cor 15:29).38 Paul would not willingly suffer, and the Corinthian believers would not have accepted his suffering as legitimate, being baptized as a result, were it not for the truth of Paul’s gospel. To do so otherwise would be ludicrous (1 Cor 15:12–19). The Corinthians, like the Galatians, cannot deny that Paul, in and through his suffering, was their father in the faith (1 Cor 3:5; 4:15). So they should not waver concerning Paul’s gospel. Thus, 1 Cor 15:29 represents the same argument

37 Joel R. White, “Baptized on account of the Dead: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context,” JBL 116 (1997): 488–491. 38  See ibid., 493–499, who argues that οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι is to be taken literally, ὑπέρ is to be understood in its causal sense, τῶν νεκρῶν is to be taken metaphorically as a reference to the apostles, and νεκροί refers to the literal dead, modified by ὅλως (i. e., “truly dead persons”).

162

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

set forth in Gal 4:13–14. Paul’s suffering is not an addendum to his preaching. Nor is it merely a consequence of it. Rather, Paul’s suffering is constitutive of it.

Appendix Four: The Meaning of θριαμβεύειν in 2 Corinthians 2:14 For the most thorough investigation of the lexical and historical meaning of the Roman triumphal procession (θριαμβεύειν), of Paul’s use of this image in 2 Cor 2:14, and of the scholarly debate over its meaning, see now Christoph Heilig, Paul’s Triumph: Reassessing 2 Corinthians 2:14 in its Literary and Historical Context, BTS 27 (Leuven  – Paris  – Bristol: Peeters, 2017). Heilig’s extensive lexical and historical study supports my conclusion that, as the direct object of θριαμβεύειν in 2:14 (cf. ἡμᾶς), Paul pictures himself as being led as a captive prisoner in a triumphal procession, which becomes the means for making known the knowledge of God in every place. Heilig thus rejects the earlier critiques of my view by Breytenbach and Schröter, who argued, as a “partial shift within the discussion,” that the image merely portrays Paul’s ministry as a result of God’s victory over the apostle, but without his being a participant in the procession; such a view is unsubstantiated due to the use of the direct object in 2:14 (pp. 241–242; Heilig considers the view of Scott, see below, also to be an impossible alternative due to its similar inability to deal with the language of 2:14). Though Heilig also agrees that the metaphorical meaning of the image in 2:14 is dependent on its context, he too argues, with Breytenbach and Schröter, against my view that “Paul’s display in the triumphal procession” is “a metonymy of death that refers to his apostolic suffering” (p. 243). Instead, Heilig concludes that the probability that the metaphor itself refers here to “figurative death language is low” and that “the immediate literary context does not indicate that ‘suffering’ is the issue” (p. 243). Rather, in view of 2:12–13, the image is less specific and refers only to thanking God for his having led Paul and his co-workers in the “movement” of their ministry despite the “hint at the chaotic impression of Paul’s movements” and in view of God’s blessing of them nonetheless (p. 244). Hence, in response to the “implicit accusation” behind 2:12–13, Paul’s point in 2:14 is simply that “God causes the movement of Paul and his colleagues” (p. 247). For in Heilig’s view, “2:12–13 is not a plausible candidate for triggering an excursus on apostolic suffering” in that these verses already point to God’s blessing of Paul’s spreading of the word in Troas (p. 243). Hence, although the connotation of the “shame” associated with prisoners led in triumphal procession is in view in the use of the metaphor, the reference to their being led to death is not, since such an end to the parade was not always the case (pp. 248–249). So the issue, in the end, comes down to whether such a specific referent within the metaphor is in view in the context. I remain convinced that the related letter opening in 2 Cor 1:3–11, the conceptual parallel between the event of 2:12–13 and Paul’s evaluation of such

Chapter Five: Paul’s Apostolic Suffering in Eschatological Perspective

163

experiences in 2 Cor 11:28–29, and, above all, the close parallels between 2 Cor 2:14–16a, 1 Cor 1:17–18, 4:9, and 2 Cor 4:11 indicate together that the more specific referent to Paul’s “being led to death in a triumphal procession” is in fact in view. Having seen that captives were often led to death in the procession, and having seen how this referent fit the context of 2:12–13 in view of 1:3–11, the other parallels perform “the task of identifying the aspects of the imagery that Paul was focusing on” (p. 249). Indeed, I worked from the near to far contexts in establishing my reading. Heilig recognizes this himself in quoting my conclusion that these parallels would “ ‘further confirm our exegetical hypothesis concerning the meaning of θριαμβεύειν’ ” (p. 249). For Heilig’s own careful evaluation of these parallels, which he finds unconvincing, see his pp. 250–254. In the end, then, Heilig concludes that in interpreting the metaphor “it seems advisable … to restrict the perception of the watching crowd in Paul’s triumph metaphor to the humiliation of the captives and not to extend it to their execution” (p. 254). Prior to Heilig there have been two other substantial criticisms of my proposal. On the one hand, Jens Schröter, Der versöhnte Versöhner: Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2. Kor 2:14–7:4, TANZ 10 (Tübingen: Francke, 1993), developing Breytenbach’s perspective, has argued that I make too much of the metaphor. Schröter posits that Paul’s reference is only to the revelation of the glory of the victor in the procession, not specifically to the “death” of those led in triumph. By extension, Paul is referring not to his suffering as the vehicle of that revelation, but only to his ministry as an apostolic mediator of the knowledge of God in a general sense. For Schröter, the background to Paul’s image is therefore not the direct context of 2 Cor 2:12–13 and the parallels to the catalogs of suffering in 1 Cor 4 and 2 Cor 1, 4, 6, and 11. Instead, he points to passages where Paul simply talks about his role of revealing the gospel without reference to his suffering, such as 2 Cor 4:6, 1 Cor 15:9–10, 2 Cor 5:16–18, Phil 3:5–11, and Gal 1:10–24. Schröter thus suggests the translation, “God triumphs in relation to Paul” (p. 21). On the other hand, James M. Scott, “The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2:14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul,” NTS 42 (1996): 260–281, criticized me for making too little of the metaphor. Scott argues that central to the procession and hence to Paul’s metaphor is the chariot being used by the one leading the procession, who in the Roman triumphs often symbolized a god. As one being led in the procession, Paul is therefore looking at the chariot in front of him. This is then equated with the chariot-vision of God’s glory from Ezek 1, which was the biblical basis for the widespread development of Jewish mysticism in the ancient world. Hence, in 2 Cor 2:14 Paul is not speaking primarily of his suffering, though that may be included. More importantly, Paul is speaking of being led into mystical experiences of God’s glory. For Scott, Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 2:14 should therefore be read in light of those texts that speak of Paul’s

164

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

visions of Christ and God, like 1 Cor 9:1 and the reference to Paul’s visionary trip to paradise in 2 Cor 12:1–5. As stated above, what Heilig, Schröter, and Scott do not account for adequately are the parallels between 1 Cor 4:9, 2 Cor 2:14, and 2 Cor 4:11. What is significant about these texts is that in 1 Cor 4:9 and 2 Cor 4:11 Paul is explicitly discussing the role of his suffering as an apostle, not merely his shame in general (Heilig), his role in preaching the gospel per se (Schröter), or his mystical experiences (Scott). Moreover, my view does most justice to the transition from Paul’s concern over Titus and his church in 2:12–13, as an example of perhaps the greatest of Paul’s sufferings (cf. 2 Cor 11:28), to his praise for God in 2:14, in which Paul thanks God for using such suffering to make himself known “in every place.” Finally, one must ask what the metaphor contributes materially to the discussion at hand. In Schröter’s view the metaphor becomes redundant since the motif of revelation is explicitly mentioned in the verse (cf. φανεροῦντι). In Scott’s view the metaphor contributes something unique to the text since there is no other reference in the context to Paul’s visionary experiences as the basis of his revelatory function. In fact, in 2 Cor 12:1–9 Paul explicitly denies that such personal and ecstatic visions are the basis or subject of what he communicates to others. Moreover, the triumphal procession is not about chariots and visions, not to mention visions in the form of chariots. It is a Roman institution about the revelation of the glory of the victor through his triumphal procession. If the chariot image were the determining motif of the metaphor, we would expect Paul to have mentioned it explicitly or to be speaking of a related theme contextually, rather than leaving us to intuit that as the one led in triumph Paul was fixated on the chariot in front of him. In the first case, the views of Schröter and Heilig say too little. In the latter case, Scott’s view says too much. Finally, this is not the place to offer a detailed rebuttal to Heilig’s extensive work, especially his view of what I consider to be the key parallels to Paul’s thought in 2:14, which I still deem decisive confirmation for my reading. Suffice it to say that Heilig’s careful and definitive lexical and historical study brings us back to Paul’s own arguments, which is the place once again to begin. I look forward to taking up his arguments in detail. But if Heilig’s work stands, we must still ask whether, for Paul, the “shame” and “humiliation” of those led in triumph are not essential aspects of his suffering as an apostle.

Chapter Six

The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs (Philippians 3:8–9) Though the Gospel is capable of doctrinal exposition, though it is eminently fertile in moral results, yet its substance is neither a dogmatic system nor an ethical code, but a Person and a Life. J. B. Lightfoot, Preface, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 1868

In his letter to the Philippians Paul need not defend his apostolic legitimacy, as he did throughout Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Nevertheless, although his polemic against his opponents in Phil 3:2–11 is not central to the argument of Philippians, Paul does reflect on his own life as an apostle in response to the potential threat posed by the “dogs,” those “evil workers” whose boasting in their “flesh” renders their circumcision a “mutilation” (Phil 3:2–3). In so doing, Paul’s brief resume once again encapsulates the eschatological contrasts between the old and new covenants, which are embodied in his own apostolic identity and central to all his epistles. Within this resume the relevance of the densely packed formulation in Phil 3:8–9 for understanding Paul’s “law/gospel contrast” is readily apparent. The text reads: (8) … καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι …



καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω (9) καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

Even at first glance it becomes clear that the conceptual crux of Paul’s self-understanding is expressed in the contrast in verse 8 between the “garbage” Paul leaves behind and the Christ he gains and “in whom” he is found. This contrast is then supported in verse 9 by the contrast between a righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) ἐκ νόμου and one διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, the latter of which is then equated with a

166

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

righteousness ἐκ θεοῦ … ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Moreover, given the clarity of the contrasts and the specificity of its prepositions, Phil 3:8–9 is often taken to be the hermeneutical key to the equally programmatic, yet more ambiguous reference to the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:16–17. Furthermore, many see Phil 3:8–9 as evidence for the organic unity of the “forensic” and “participatory” aspects of Paul’s “doctrine” of justification.1 As a result of its heavy theological freight, Phil 3:8–9 thus also becomes a parade example of the fact that every translation is an interpretation in disguise. And these translations, being a direct representation of the text, carry with them an implicit claim to authority. Hence, in a programmatic text like Phil 3:8–9, every turn of phrase in the translation-tradition becomes fraught with theological significance. A new (and presumably better) reading of such a pivotal text must therefore overcome not only the prevailing exegetical “orthodoxy,” but also the manner in which the exegetical consensus has been entrenched in the tradition of its translation. In our case, the text has been rendered in essentially congruent ways, the key elements of which are put in italics: ASV: and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith NASB: and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith RSV: and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith NRSV: and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith ESV: and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith – NIV: I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith 1  To give just one programmatic statement from almost 50 years ago of this still predominant reading, see Joachim Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief, HTKNT 10:3 (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1968), 195: “Wenn Paulus hier ἐκ θεοῦ sagt, liegt ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes’ zugrunde; die Formel wird hier dem Kontext (ἐκ νόμου) angepaßt … Diese Einsicht [i. e., “daß sich für Paulus ‘juridische und mystische Erlösungslehre nicht trennen lassen’ ”] ist richtig und dahingehend näher zu bestimmen, daß das Sein in Christus gegründet ist auf die δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Die Charakterisierung ‘mystisch’ allerdings, die mißverständlich ist, sollte lieber durch ‘pneumatisch’ ersetzt werden.” Thus, in the “knappe Parenthese” of 3:9, we see “das große Thema seiner Rechtfertigungsbotschaft” (p. 195).

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

167

TNIV: I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith Luther (rev. 1898): und achte es für Rot, auf daß ich Christum gewinne und in ihm erfunden werde, daß ich nicht habe meine Gerechtigkeit, die aus dem Gesetz, sondern die durch den Glauben an Christum kommt, nämlich die Gerechtigkeit, die von Gott dem Glauben zugerechnet wird Einheitsübersetzung: und halte es für Unrat, um Christus zu gewinnen und in ihm zu sein. Nicht meine eigene Gerechtigkeit suche ich, die aus dem Gesetz hervorgeht, sondern jene, die durch den Glauben an Christus kommt, die Gerechtigkeit, die Gott aufgrund des Glauben schenkt

The translation tradition consistently construes Phil 3:9 as establishing a stark contrast between two distinctive modes of being righteous in accordance with two contrasting sources or agencies of that righteousness. On the one hand, the righteousness that is associated with “garbage” is a self-generated righteousness “of my own,” or “meine (eigene) Gerechtigkeit” (cf. ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην) that comes from seeking to keep the demands of the law (τὴν ἐκ νόμου). But such a pursuit of what the Torah requires is viewed as a failed or misguided attempt. Over against such a righteousness (ἀλλά) there is the good news of a righteousness that comes “through faith in Christ/Glaube an Christus” (τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ).2 This righteousness through faith in Christ is then identified with the righteousness that comes from God based on this faith in Christ (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει). The translation tradition has been matched by the scholarly. In what is still the most comprehensive study of this passage Koperski has documented that virtually all commentators who discuss Phil 3:9 agree that in this verse two kinds of righteousness are being opposed, namely my own righteousness, that which is from law and that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based upon faith; nonetheless, considerable disagreement exists in regard to precisely what is characteristic of each of these two kinds of righteousness.3

Koperski classifies the various views into three major categories: those who take the contrast to be between 1) a righteousness derived from “Human Effort vs. Gift of God,” 2) a righteousness that comes “Not through Christ vs. through Christ,” or 3) a righteousness related to the law that is “Particular vs. 2  The marginal notes of the NRSV and TNIV suggest as an alternative a subjective genitive reading for διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in 3:9: “through the faith of Christ” and “through the faithfulness of Christ” respectively. The CEB (2010) opts for the translation, “from the faithfulness of Christ,” for the main text. 3 Veronica Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus My Lord: The High Christology of Philippians 3:7–11, CBET 16 (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996), 191 (emphasis hers; change in capitalization mine), based on her extensive survey of the exegetical tradition regarding “righteousness” in Phil 3:9 (pp. 191–238). Koperski’s detailed study provides an important discussion partner for our study.

168

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Universal.”4 Thus, “each of the three groups provides a different answer to the question, ‘What is wrong with the law?’ ”5 Yet despite these differences regarding the negative side of the contrast, a large-scale agreement exists regarding the positive side, since the gift of God clearly comes through Christ, which makes the universal availability of this righteousness possible as a gift of God based on faith in Christ. Read in these ways, Phil 3:8–9 is taken to pit Paul’s former life as a Pharisee against his new life “in Christ” (cf. ἐν αὐτῷ) as two different ways of relating to God, based on two different sources of righteousness, which results in two different valuations of the “righteousness” attained respectively as loss and rubbish (ζημία, σκύβαλα) vs. gain (cf. ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω). In short, the contrast in Phil 3:8–9 is understood to be a material contrast between two different “kinds” of righteousness in relationship to God.6 This is the case whether interpreters take νόμος (“law”) in this passage to refer to the Torah as a whole, to some “boundary marker” subset of the Torah, or even to a principle of works-righteousness, or whether one takes πίστις Χριστοῦ to be an objective or subjective genitive. So, for example, for Bockmuehl the contrast in this passage is still between two different 4 Koperski,

Knowledge, 191–192. 192. In the first view, the law is seen to foster an attitude of self-aggrandizement and pride due to the belief that salvation is a moral achievement that can be accomplished by one’s own efforts: “What is wrong with righteousness from Law is that it is ‘mine’ ” (p. 202). Representatives of this view include Bultmann, Käsemann, Ziesler, Hawthorne, Silva, Beare, and O’Brien. In the second view, there is nothing inherently wrong with the law; rather, Paul’s critique of the law is Christological: “Paul’s criticism of his former life is not that he had a selfrighteous attitude, but that he put confidence in something other than Christ” (p. 206). Representatives of this view include, above all, E. P. Sanders: Paul “ ‘boasted in things that were gain. They became loss because, in his black and white world, there is no second best’ ” (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983], 44 [emphasis his], quoted on p. 206); but see too Andrea van Dülmen, U. Wilckens, W. Schenk, and H. Räisänen. In the third view, once again “the problem is not that there is something wrong with the law; rather, what Paul criticizes is the wrong attitude toward the law, an attitude that leads toward exclusivism” (p. 214). Representatives of this view include, above all, Dunn; but see too Thielman, J. J. Collins, Rowland, Sloan, and Schreiner, who focus in different ways on the role of the law under the old covenant as limited to Israel, usually as her “boundary markers,” versus a “universal” keeping of the law by virtue of the Spirit within the dawning of the messianic age. Koperski’s own view falls within this third perspective: “The aspect of singularity that Paul rejects is that … exclusiveness which results from regarding salvation as restricted to those who obey the law … (as in Rom 10:3) the root error is ignorance, not arrogance” (p. 231). Paul is not rejecting the law or the desire to be blameless, but he is “claiming his heritage at a deeper level” (p. 236). Paul’s former ignorance was that the messianic age had dawned in Christ (p. 236). Indeed, “the kind of effort to which Paul encourages the Philippians, as well as the accompanying attitude of loving reverence for God, is a carryover from Paul’s Jewish heritage” (p. 238). To this view may be added the commentary of Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), see esp. the summary on p. 310. 6  This point is made explicit in the more dynamically equivalent translation of the JB: “and I look on everything as so much rubbish if only I can have Christ and be given a place in him. I am no longer trying for perfection on my own efforts, the perfection that comes from the Law, 5 Ibid.,

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

169

modes of justification: “ ‘my own, through the Law’ vs. ‘Christ’s,’ through his faithfulness … from legalism to Christ-mysticism.”7 Bockmuehl’s reading illustrates that the material construal of the passage dominates the exegetical literature despite the now well-established “new perspective on Paul.”8 Even postSanders, Paul’s self-description in 3:5 as a Pharisee with regard to the seriousness but I want only the perfection that comes through faith in Christ, and is from God and based on faith.” To give just one influential example from the commentary tradition, see Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerd­mans, 1991), 368, who sees 3:4 as pointing “in a most emphatic way to the central problem with which Paul has to deal, namely arrogant boasting in one’s own achievements as a basis for a saving relationship with God,” which is then reflected in Paul’s “blamelessness with reference to legalistic righteousness” (emphasis mine). In contrast, Paul states in 3:9 that he now knows that he “does not have a righteousness of his own, gained by obeying the law and intended to establish a claim upon God. This would be nothing other than self-righteousness” (p. 392). The phrase ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου in 3:9 refers to “attitudinal self-righteousness” (p. 395). Hence, Paul’s righteousness is now “of a different order,” a gift (Rom 3:21) based on Christ’s faithfulness – his unflinching obedience to the Father’s will (p. 392). Thus, in 3:9 Paul is speaking of “two sharply contrasting kinds of righteousness” (p. 378, emphasis mine), “a righteousness of his own, gained by obeying the law,” versus “a God-given righteous status, based on Christ’s faithfulness and received by faith” (pp. 382–383). Given this contrast in 3:9, the “implication … is that the former righteousness is not of God, something that Paul now clearly knows,” which according to 3:6 he did not know in his former life (p. 395 n. 73, emphasis his). The law and its righteousness are now divorced from the God who established them. In its place this new righteousness is different in its origin (from God), its basis or ground (through the faithfulness of Christ) and the means by which it is received (on faith) (p. 396). 7 Markus Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed., BNTC (London: A & C Black, 4th. ed., 1997), 213. Bockmuehl agrees with Sanders that the Pharisees assumed that the law’s own provisions for purification and atonement made leading a righteous life possible and that “… for most faithful Jews it would have been absurd to think that God had given a revelation that could not in fact be lived out” (p. 202). But when it comes to the blamelessness and righteousness of Christians, Bockmuehl argues that, “What has changed is the nature of the righteousness which makes it possible, and the fact that it is granted and sustained by God (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; Phil 2:13; 3:9)” (p. 203; emphasis his). What Paul has pre-Christ is a “type of externally measured and nationalistically appropriated righteousness in the Law,” which turns out to be “wholly inadequate” (p. 203). Still, Paul was not wrong to excel in it; rather, encountering Christ led Paul to reject the former Jewish nationalism of his “earlier life” (Gal 1:13–14) because “he discovered that the way of narrow national exclusiveness is not the one that God has chosen in Christ – and, perhaps, that the example of Abraham (Rom 4; Gal 3) shows this to have been God’s intention all along” (p. 203). In Bockmuehl’s view, once Paul comes to faith in Christ, these two kinds of righteousness thus become clear to Paul in the same way that a luxury tour bus [= righteousness under the law] would be “a non-performing investment” for an aircraft manufacturer [= righteousness by faith in Christ] (p. 204). Hence, for Bockmuehl, the list in v. 7, “which seemed to be gains have been written off as losses on account of Christ … Faith in [Christ] has showed up self-righteous pride in his achievements for what it is: not profit but loss, not asset but liability, not light but darkness. On becoming a Christian, his previous balance sheet suddenly looked alarming” (pp. 204–205, emphasis mine). In 3:8, what Paul considers loss is therefore “self-righteousness and human pedigrees” and “human merit and achievement,” which are “supposed assets” (pp. 207–208, emphasis mine). 8  To give just one more example, see James D. G. Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14 and the New Perspective on Paul,” in his The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, WUNT 185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 463–484.

170

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

of his Torah observance is often taken to reflect a former, arrogant self-deception, since many scholars still conceive of the Pharisees, by their practice if not by definition, as an ethno-centric and/or self-confident Jewish sect. In support, many new perspective advocates of “covenantal nomism” as the descriptor of postbiblical Judaism consider law-keeping to be a distinct, independent response to God’s gracious election. Such a conception simply shifts the salvific location of “legalism” from “getting in” to “staying in.”9 The conceptual separation of God’s foundational, saving work (the covenant prologue as the basis of “getting in”) from its subsequent human counterpart (the covenant stipulations as the basis of “staying in”) creates a synergism between these segregated spheres of the divine and human covenant activity that once again leads to a sense of merit or pride on the part of the faithful.

Rethinking the Dominant Tradition Such anthropologically-focused, material approaches to the contrasts in Phil 3:8–9, by their very nature, should cause us pause. As Ben Meyer argued so persuasively in his classic work, The Aims of Jesus, the determinative context for understanding early Christianity, including Paul’s gospel, is not anthropology but, following Dalman, “the ‘kingly sovereignty’ of God” as “the decisive element in the salvation of the community of revelation.”10 Or, in the words of Fuchs, “ ‘the starting point of Jesus’ proclamation … is [his] full authority to gather a people for God under the banner of the rule of God ….’ ”11 The recognition of the centrality of God’s sovereignty as expressed in the establishment of the kingdom of God thus also entails understanding the church as “the seed of messianic restoration” brought about by the resurrection.12 Such a starting point for reading Paul is confirmed by Matthew Novenson’s demonstration that when Paul says “Christ” he means “Messiah,” even in the honorific appellation “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”; this messianic-emphasis is striking in that Paul refers to “Christ,” “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” at least 269×s, vastly more than any other ancient Jewish author ever used the term.13 Clearly, the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah permeates Paul’s thinking, even to the point of converting it into a shorthand confession. The context for understanding Paul’s gospel is consequently  See the Introduction above, p. 15 n. 25. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), 21. 11  Ibid., 21. 12  Ibid., 60. 13 Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), esp. 57–58, 99–102, 111–114, limiting his survey to Paul’s seven undisputed letters. For my review of Novenson’s work, see “From Christ to Christ: Matthew Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism,” ExposT 125 (2014): 179–181.  9

10 Ben

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

171

not a material contrast focused on anthropology, but the eschatology implied in the Messiah’s coming, which, for Paul, is oriented toward the future consummation of God’s present redemptive work at “the day of Jesus, the Messiah” (Phil 1:6; cf. 1:9–11; 2:9–11, 16; 3:11–14, 20–21). Indeed, Paul understands himself to be a “slave of the Messiah, Jesus” (Phil 1:1). The goal of this chapter, therefore, is to read Phil 3:8–9 through the same eschatological lens attested to in his other epistles.14 Placing the contrasts of 3:8–9 into this eschatological rather than anthropological framework will open up space for re-examining the syntax, meaning, and significance of this interpretative crux. To focus on the eschatological context of Paul’s contrasts in Phil 3:8–9 is not to deny that Paul begins his argument in 3:2–3 with an implied warning regarding those Jews who, despite their claim to follow Jesus as the Christ, falsely presume to be God’s chosen people.15 With biting irony, Paul declares that his opponents, despite their professed fidelity to Torah, actually have the ritual purity of “dogs,” the righteous obedience of “evil workers,” and the covenant sign of “mutilation” (3:2; on these designations, see below). Given their true identity, the pristine has been perverted. On the contrary, and in a surprising, even shocking reversal, Paul and his predominantly gentile community are in reality the (true) “circumcision” (cf. ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν in 3:3, the first time in the letter that Paul speaks in the first person plural of himself and the congregation16). As H. C. G. Moule put it in 1936 regarding the consequence of Paul’s argument, “the Judaist, and not the simple believer who comes direct from paganism to Messiah, is the real outcast from Messiah’s covenant.”17 For in Paul’s words, it is the Philippians, not Paul’s 14 I treat Philippians as a unity and consider the arguments David E. Garland marshaled for it in his, “The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors,” NovT 27 (1985): 141–173, to be decisive; see esp. the inclusions listed on pp. 159–162 and his argument on p. 163 for 3:1–21 as a deliberate digression. For the recent scholarly discussion of this issue and the other historical focal points and thematic issues raised by Philippians, see Jörg Frey, “Der Philipperbrief im Rahmen der Paulusforschung,” in Der Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, eds. Jörg Frey and Benjamin Schliesser, with the assistance of Veronika Niederhofer, WUNT 353 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 1–31. My essay is in large part a response to the fact that the “Kontrastschema” in Phil 3:4–9 “hat oft Anlass geboten, Paulus eine Verwerfung seines jüdischen Erbes zu unterstellen” (p. 10). Frey himself rejects this conclusion and posits instead that the stark contrast is an argumentum ad hominem due to the potential threat of the opponents introduced in 3:2 (p. 11); i. e., Paul’s warning is “eher prophylaktisch formuliert” (p. 12). 15  With O’Brien, Philippians, 354 and Fee, Philippians, 293 n. 36, over against those who rightly read βλέπω + acc. to mean “to consider” or “to take notice of,” but then deny any connotation of a warning, construing Paul to be holding up the Jews merely as a “cautionary” or “admonitory example.” But if the purpose of this consideration is to safeguard the Philippians from losing their present joy in the Lord (3:1), with its expression in humble love to others (see 1:27–30; 2:1–5, 12–13; 4:2–9, etc.), then such cautions imply warnings. 16 I owe this observation to Ernst Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper, 14th ed., KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 127. 17   H. C. G.  Moule, ed., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 57.

172

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

opponents, “who are serving by means of the Spirit of God,” “who are boasting in the Messiah Jesus,” and “who have not placed confidence in the flesh” (3:3).18 This threefold characterization of what now constitutes the “circumcision” of the (new) covenant people of God means that in their case the unholy has now become holy. As such, the stark juxtaposition between the two circumcisions demarcates the distinctives of those whom Paul considers to be “saints in the Messiah Jesus” (Phil 1:1; cf. 4:21–22), his own “beloved brothers” in the Lord (Phil 4:1; cf. 2:12; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:8). The contrasts in 3:2–3 highlight that the difficulty Paul was facing was not primarily one of conflicting human dispositions, as if the problem were merely that of pride. Paul’s focus is not on defining a particular human attitude, but on a threefold delineation of what it means to be the (true) circumcision. Rather than representing an abstract, human characteristic, it should be kept in view that circumcision was the concrete sign par excellence of covenant membership.19 As such, here, as elsewhere in Paul’s letters, circumcision serves as a metonymy for being a member of God’s elect. Paul’s endeavor to define the character of those who are truly “circumcised” thus makes it clear that the central issue at stake in 3:2–11 was who constitutes the people of God now that the Messiah has come.

The Covenant Context of the Eschatological Contrasts In Phil 3:3 the fundamental characteristic of those who belong to the eschatological “circumcision” is that they “are serving by means of the Spirit of God” (οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες). This “identity marker” is not unique to Philippians. The programmatic “letter/Spirit” contrasts of 2 Cor 3:4–18 and Rom 2:13–29 likewise establish that, for Paul, new covenant “circumcision” refers to the Spirit-transformed life of Torah-fulfilling obedience brought about by the Messiah (cf. “boasting in Messiah Jesus” in Phil 3:3 and chapters two and seven in this volume). In the Philippian context this “new covenant” circumcision is delineated in 3:3 in terms of a cultically-colored service to God made possible by the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Cor 10:14–22; Rom 1:9, 25; 9:4; 12:1–2; 2 Tim 1:3).20 These are the new covenant realities to which the old covenant symbols pointed 18  Note that the three substantival participles of 3:3, οἱ λατρεύοντες … καυχώμενοι … πεποιθό­ τες, are in apposition to the emphatic pronoun ἡμεῖς and function modally to define further the

nature of true “circumcision.” 19 So too Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 465, 467, who observes that circumcision was so distinctive that it could be used by Paul as a metonymy to characterize Jewish identity as such; for this reason, Paul refers not to “the circumcised,” but to “the circumcision” (Rom 2:16–27; 3:30; 4:9; Gal 2:7–9, 12; Eph 2:11). 20  On λατρεύω in the LXX as denoting “the service rendered to God by Israel as his peculiar people” (Exod 23:25; Deut 6:12; 10:12, 20; cf. Acts 26:7; Rom 9:4), see O’Brien, Philippians, 360, 360 n. 84.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

173

and in which they are now fulfilled. Hence, even those who are not circumcised physically can be considered circumcised if characterized by this reality (cf. Phil 3:3 with Rom 2:26). Dunn is therefore right to emphasize that Paul is appropriating circumcision for gentile converts as “still the sine qua non of the covenant people, but now … the real circumcision is of the heart! … Paul therefore chose to spike their main gun by claiming the identity marker of circumcision for his own mission’s success.”21 Against this backdrop, “having confidence in the flesh (σάρξ)” in Phil 3:3, as the antipode to “boasting in Messiah Jesus,” refers not to an attitude of sinful self-confidence, but to continuing to derive the surety of one’s covenant identity from the external, symbolic aspects, like circumcision, that marked out the people of God under the old covenant (cf. Rom 2:28–29). Paul himself becomes the archetype of his definition of those who now belong within the covenant people of God inasmuch as he has lived an exemplary life on both sides of the eschatological divide between the old and new eras. Regarding his former, “pre-Christ” life, Paul too once placed his confidence ἐν σαρκί (3:4), i. e., in the realities of his covenant membership under the Torah, beginning with his circumcision in the flesh (for the meaning of σάρξ in this context, see below).22 In fact, Paul had grounds for greater confidence ἐν σαρκί than his fellow Jews. Paul’s inherited identity as a Hebrew-speaking, circumcised Benjamite from the nation of Israel, together with his serious devotion to Torah-observance as a Pharisee and his zeal as a former persecutor of the church, led to the uncontested self-evaluation that, “according to the righteousness which is found by means of the law,” Paul was “blameless” (3:6). Paul’s subsequent stress in 3:7–8 on the value of his former identity and character “pre-Christ” can already be seen in this resume in that his being “blameless” under the Torah is the only aspect of Paul’s self-description in 3:4b–6 not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters.23 As perhaps a further indication of the value of Paul’s former life under the old covenant, it is conspicuous that Paul lists seven items in his description of his 21 Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 466. For the recognition that physical circumcision pointed to a circumcision of the heart as that which was “deeply rooted in Jewish religious thought,” Dunn points to Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26; Ezek 44:7, 9; Jub. 1:23; 1QpHab 11.13; 1QS 5.5; 1QHa 10(=2).18; 23(=18).20; Philo, Spec. 1.305 (p. 466, 466 n. 17). 22  Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 468, makes the astute observation that in delineating Paul’s confidence in the flesh he begins with his circumcision on the eighth day even before referencing his birth because circumcision was “a (if not the) defining characteristic of the member of the covenant people” and a sign of distinctiveness over against the non-Jewish environment, and hence encapsulated the issue at stake with the opponents. Circumcision was not the rite of entry into the covenant, that was given with descent from Abraham; rather, circumcision was the first act of “covenant-keeping by the new-born member of the covenant people.” 23  I owe this last observation to Fee, Philippians, 305 n. 4. If Bockmuehl, Philippians, 186, is right that Paul’s reference to his heritage in 3:5 intimates that the Judaizers in view are likely to be Jewish by conversion, having been convinced that “only full Jews can be full Christians,” then this further supports the positive nature of Paul’s catalogue of virtues; otherwise, these Judaizers would not experience any “convert resentment at being told their costly decision was pointless and unnecessary.” There is no way, however, to adjudicate Bockmuehl’s supposition.

174

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

“pedigree and performance,” which may be an enumeratio intended to connote completion or fullness.24 Still goes on to point out the “striking and significant” correlation between the list of Paul’s attributes in 3:5–6 and that of Israel’s privileges in Rom 9:4–5, albeit with a very different understanding of the significance of the fullness of Jewish identity and zeal in the two passages: In both passages Paul sets forth a sevenfold “catalog of boasting” with respect to Jewish pedigree and past performance only to devalue such in light of the person and pursuit of Christ. Such ethnic confidence became (primarily) past tense for Paul; he ceased to view his identity (primarily) along ethnic lines. Furthermore, in both instances Paul employs a seven-item list to bespeak of completion in Judaism, a completion that he came to regard as illusory subsequent to his conversion/call … Paul brings his sevenfold description of his life in Judaism to a crescendo at the close of v. 6 by declaring that with respect to right­ eousness under the law he was (ἄμεμπτος). While Paul does not claim to be sinless, neither does he depict himself as plagued with a guilt-ridden conscience, as Krister Stendahl astutely noted some fifty years ago now. Whereas believers in Christ are to strive to be blameless (note Phil 2:15), this was an achievement/condition of the “pre-Christian” Paul. He was – as the term ἄμεμπτος suggests and the seven-item list signals – pure, complete, whole, mature, without fault.25

In contrast to Still and the dominant reading, however, it is crucial to Paul’s ongoing argument that his pre-Christ, blameless life of righteousness as a Pharisee not be read as inherently sinful, a sham, illusory, or as an example of a severe over-confidence. Otherwise Paul’s “completion” ἐν σαρκί becomes a pride-filled

24 So Todd D. Still, “(Im)Perfection: Reading Philippians 3:5–6 in Light of the Number Seven,” NTS 60 (2014): 139–148, 143, 145, following Robert Jewett’s definition of enumeratio as “a coordinated series of terms listed next to each other, often with culturally significant numbers of references” (quoted, p. 140 n. 3) and Jewett’s examples of Paul’s sevenfold lists in Rom 3:10–18 (seven OT citations), Rom 6:2–13 (seven references to “life” or “live”), 6:16–22 (seven references to “slave”), 8:31a–35b (seven rhetorical questions), 8:35 (seven afflictions), 9:30–10:4 (seven references to “righteousness”), 11:33–36 (seven affirmations), 12:6–8 (seven gifts) (p. 143 n. 16). See Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 32, 36. To these Still adds Rom 9:4–5 (seven benefits or boasts of Israel); Phil 1:27–2:18 (seven imperatives) and the seven descriptions in 3:2–3, together with a survey of the use of “seven” in Judaism, in the New Testament as a whole, and in Paul’s writings, as well as pointing out the careful literary structure surrounding Phil 3:5–6. 25 Still, “(Im)Perfection,” 145–146 (emphasis mine). Thus, for Still, “Although Paul previously regarded himself as complete under the law, he came to see himself as a person in Christ who was yet to be made perfect (… 3:12a)” (pp. 146–147), pointing out that τελειόω occurs in Paul’s writings only in 3:12 (pp. 146 and 147 n. 27). Yet Still admits that 3:15 seems to grant the claim that Christians too can be mature and complete, though only tongue-in-cheek: “However, were Paul addressing the grandiose, yet mistaken, notion of spiritual perfection held by certain Philippians in 3:12–16, then it seems best to read 3:15a as an instance where Paul employs ‘a touch of reproachful, though loving, almost whimsical, irony’ ” (following Martin and Hawthorne) (p. 147). But 3:12–16 (cf. 1:6; 2:12–13!) clearly emphasizes that the hallmark of being “mature” or “complete” is perseverance, not perfection, which Paul’s Pharisaic keeping of the Torah would certainly have emphasized as well.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

175

self-delusion, a self-mocking irony, or a recognized failure.26 If so read, the exemplary value of Paul’s argument as a whole evaporates, as does the rhetorical force of the comparison in 3:7–8 upon which the argument itself turns (see below).

The Reality of Paul’s Pre-Christ Righteousness The loss of Paul’s pre-Christ life as a positive example would be especially counter-productive within the context of the dominant Roman culture of the first-century Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis, which within its Macedonian milieu strove to be a poster-child of Roman society, “ ‘the most status-symbolconscious culture of the ancient world.’ ”27 For as Pilhofer has observed, Paul’s self-portrayal in 3:5 parallels the standard “I. D.” of people-tribe-family that was common in Roman culture and would therefore be heard as a very normal mode of self-identification: toga (virilis) civis Romanus tribu Voltinia Cai filius

περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος ἐκ γένους  Ἰσραήλ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν  Ἑβραῖος ἐξ  Ἑβραίων.28

Hence, although the content of Paul’s “autobiography” in 3:5–6 is thoroughly Jewish in content, Hellerman has argued that the rhetorical framework of Paul’s status and achievements would have given Paul’s “boasting in the flesh” “a

26 See, e. g., Lohmeyer, an die Philipper, 128–131, who asserts that Paul’s statements in vv. 4–6 must be understood in the sense of a “Meinen und Scheinen” because one can be blameless and blameworthy at the same time; although the possibility of fulfilling the law exists, it remains unreachable (unerreichbar). At the human level, therefore, Paul is “blameless,” which from the Jewish point of view becomes the ground “of a limitless pride” (des … grenzenlosen Stoltzes). That righteousness can come from the law, however, is only an illusion (p. 137). Of note in this regard is the position of Fee, Philippians, 286–287, who rightly sees that the warning of 3:2 is against “those who would entice them to submit to Jewish ‘boundary markers’ and thus be identified with Israel’s former covenant while they also identify with Christ”; Fee nevertheless reads the description of 3:4–9 to indicate that Paul is “living evidence of the failure of righteousness based on Torah observance.” In support of not taking Paul’s statement to be “ironisch,” but “echt,” see already Joachim Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 190–191, 191 n. 35, following the 1934 work of M. Goguel. 27  Meyer Reinhold, quoted by Peter Pilhofer, Philippi. Bd 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas, WUNT 87 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 140. On the Romanization of Philippi in the first–second centuries, while still maintaining its participation in the veneration of both Thracian and Greek deities, see pp. 48–49, 77, 91–92, 116–121, supporting Paul Collart’s point that Philippi in this time was a “ ‘foyer de culture latine en Macédoine’ ” (quoted, p. 91). 28  Pilhofer, Philippi, 126–127. Note that the Vulgate translates φυλῆς Βενιαμίν as “de tribu Beniamin” (p. 125 n. 20).

176

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

trans-Jewish resonance for the first Gentile hearers of the letter.”29 In a manner familiar in Roman Philippi from “the multitude of inscriptions that confronted them on a daily basis with the honors and achievements of their fellow-colonists,” Paul “appropriates Roman cursus ideology in order to present specifically Jewish reasons for boasting in a decidedly Roman framework. Philippians 3:5–6 constitutes Paul’s pre-Christian cursus honorum.”30 Whether or not the honor invested in a Roman official was in fact justified, the existence of such a public honor assumes that its grounds were not to be considered an illusion. To the Romans, their identity, offices, and social status were not a sham. Indeed, Hellerman points out that in contrast to the apologetic function of Paul’s autobiographical statements in Gal 1:13–14 and 2 Cor 11:22–29, here Paul presents himself “as a paradigm for his readers to follow,”31 which could hardly be the case if his self-description were illusory. Indeed, Hellerman stresses that “for Paul to dismiss his indisputably impressive Jewish cursus as ‘rubbish’ (σκύβαλα, v. 8) would have profoundly challenged the social sensibilities of those steeped in the values of the dominant culture of Roman Philippi.”32 Nevertheless, to both Paul and the Philippians, their new identity as followers of the Messiah meant giving up their past identity and status, which for the Philippians also likely included their social standing in Philippi. The positive character of Paul’s impressive Jewish cursus is reflected in the structural and conceptual parallels between the three κατά-phrases in 3:5–6, which mark out the contours of Paul’s devotion to his old covenant identity: κατὰ νόμον

Φαρισσαῖος

κατὰ ζῆλος

διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

κατὰ δικαιοσύνην   τὴν ἐν νόμῳ

γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος

The parallel structure between the two κατά-phrases modified respectively by the participles διώκων and γενόμενος indicates that Paul’s having become “blameless” 29 Joseph H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum, SNTSMS 132 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 123. Hellerman, p. 124, argues for a “cursus structure” to Phil 3:5–6 over against its surrounding context and in comparison to Gal 1:13–14 and 2 Cor 11:22–29. In line with this structure, it consists of both “ascribed honor [birth status] and acquired honor [virtuous deeds, etc.],” in support of which Hellerman points to the move from the ἐκ-phrases for the former to the κατά-phrases for the latter, which corresponds “precisely to the typical structure of honor inscriptions found in the colony …” (pp. 124–125, 127). 30  Ibid., 123, supported by his discussion on pp. 123–128. As Hellerman defines it, “The cursus honorum, or ‘Honors Race,’ was a sequence of offices that marked the standard career for the Roman senatorial class … the basic track to glory” (pp. 51–52). 31  Ibid., 127, following the work of Oakes. 32  Ibid., 127 (emphasis mine). But contra Hellerman, I do not think that Paul’s example included a false pride or self-confidence in his Jewish identity.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

177

was in accordance with the righteousness revealed in the Torah in the same way that his persecuting the church was in accordance with the zeal it manifested. In turn, both unpack the significance of Paul’s identity as a Pharisee κατὰ νόμον (cf. Gal 1:13–14; Acts 22:3–5; 26:4–11). Paul’s “righteousness in the Torah” must therefore be just as real as his “zeal” certainly was, while his having become blameless must likewise be just as real as his having persecuted the church. Paul’s zeal could not be seen in a persecution of the church that never took place; conversely, persecuting the church would not be significant if it manifested only a presumed zeal.33 So too, Paul’s righteousness “in the law” could not be confirmed if it produced only a pseudo-blamelessness, just as a genuine blamelessness would not comport with a counterfeit righteousness. If Paul’s real persecution of the church took place in accord with a real zeal, then Paul’s real blamelessness derived from a real righteousness in the law. If this were not the case, Paul’s being a Pharisee according to the Torah would be nothing worth boasting about, especially as the climax of Paul’s argument in 3:4–6 for his confidence “in the flesh.”34 Clearly, then, no pejorative nuance is explicitly associated with Paul’s former zeal or his righteousness ἐν νόμῳ. Nor should we read such a pejorative nuance into the text implicitly. On the contrary, for Paul the “Torah” is “spiritual” and “holy” and was intended to bring about life (Rom 7:10, 14), while “zeal,” when directed toward positive objects, is a virtue (see Rom 10:2; 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 12, 39; 2 Cor 7:7, 11; 9:2; 11:2; Gal 1:14; 4:18; Titus 2:14). Equally, that Paul had “confidence” as a Pharisee regarding his blamelessness (3:3–4: πείθω; 3:4: πεποί­ θησις) is in itself not a negative posture since, as a Christian, Paul has the same  As Bockmuehl, Philippians, 200, points out, Paul’s zeal as manifested in his persecution of the church is to be viewed in the context of his concern for the purity of Israel, the validity of the law, the sanctity of the temple, the danger of a false, crucified Messiah, and the inclusion of the gentiles; cf. the zeal attributed to Phinehas (Num 25:6–11; Ps 106:31; Sir 45:23), Jesus (John 2:17), and Jewish believers (Acts 21:20–21). 34  This threefold structure regarding Paul’s own commitments matches the threefold delineation of Paul’s heritage in v. 5, all of which are marked out with ἐκ and move toward a climax in the third element; so O’Brien, Philippians, 369. O’Brien also surveys the various views of the nature of Paul’s blamelessness in 3:6 and argues strongly that it was “an objective fact, as incontestable as his circumcision, his membership in the tribe of Benjamin, and his persecution of the church” (p. 380). Yet O’Brien qualifies this status as Paul’s “earlier acknowledged success as a Pharisee, when he was required to offer outward obedience to certain specific moral and ritual regulations,” so that Paul had “a right perception of his standing before others, at least in a quantifiable sense” (p. 380, emphasis mine). Thus, for O’Brien, following Mitton and Espy, Paul’s blamelessness is to be qualified as merely a Pharisaic identity known before others as a result of his outward, quantifiable moral and ritual acts (p. 380, emphasis mine). Such blamelessness, though real, was therefore inferior. In contrast, “In Rom 7, speaking as one at God’s judgment seat where motives and hidden thoughts are read, Paul presents a right perception of his standing before God. Phil. 3:6 describes mankind under the law from the viewpoint of the flesh, an incomplete perspective; Rom. 7 shows the law’s judgment on the same situation” (p. 380, emphasis mine). 33

178

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

confidence in God/Christ (see the use of πείθω in Phil 1:6, 14; 2:24; cf. Rom 14:14; 2 Cor 1:9; 2 Tim 1:12). In 2 Cor 10:7 Paul can even speak of being confident in oneself that one belongs to Christ (πείθω ἑαυτῷ … ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ), just as in Rom 15:14 Paul is confident (πείθω) of the Romans’ goodness and knowledge, in 2 Cor 2:3 of the Corinthians’ disposition toward Paul, in Gal 5:10 of the Galatians’ eventual, positive response to Paul’s point of view, in 2 Thess 3:4 of the church’s compliance with Paul’s commands, in 2 Tim 1:5 of Timothy’s faith, and in Phlm 21 of Philemon’s obedience. Finally, that Paul is speaking in 3:6 of a real righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and an actual blamelessness (ἄμεμπτος) in his own, pre-Christ life as a Pharisee “in [the realm of] the Torah,” and that this was in itself not a negative or inferior status, are further confirmed by Paul’s desire for the Philippians as declaimed in 1:10–11 and 2:15–16. There Paul expresses his hope that the Philippians too, as Christians, would be found blameless (ἄμεμπτοι) “at the day of the Messiah” as a result of their “fruit of righteousness” (καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, an epexegetical genitive in which the fruit is their righteousness), which is being brought about by Jesus the Messiah (cf. too 1 Thess 2:10 with 3:13 and 5:23). What is surprising, however, is that Paul attributes the same blameless righteousness that is to characterize God’s people as a result of their (new) covenant identity as the (true) circumcision (cf. again 3:3) to his own pre-Christ life as a Pharisee (3:5–6). The striking nature of this equation is heightened by Paul’s affirmation in 2:14–15 that the Philippians’ blameless righteousness consists in their doing all things “without grumbling and arguing … in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.” The Christian’s righteousness is thus the eschatological reversal of Israel’s perverse and crooked murmuring in the wilderness, for which she was condemned (2:14–15; cf. Deut 31:24–29; 32:5; Exod 16:7–8; 16:7–9, 12; Num 17:25 [cf. 17:5, 10 MT]; Isa 58:9; Sir 46:7; Wis 1:11). The link between 2:12–18 and 3:1–11 is further established by the recapitulation of the theme of rejoicing over this eschatological restoration from 2:18 in 3:1. Moreover, the allusion in 2:14–15 reveals that, in speaking of his own righteousness as a Pharisee and of that of the Philippians as Christians, Paul is acutely aware of Israel’s contrasting failure to keep the law under the old covenant. In the light of this awareness, Paul’s confidence in his own blameless righteousness in his pre-Christ life must be taken as a serious self-assessment in which he can equate the righteous life of the faithful remnant under the old covenant with that of the “seed of messianic restoration” under the new (cf. Rom 9:27–29; 11:1–6 and chapter eight below).35 35  That Paul is actualizing an old covenant backdrop in 2:12–18 to picture the salvation of believers (cf. 2:12–13) is confirmed by the occurrence in this context of cultic terminology to describe both the Philippians and his own ministry; cf. ἄμωμος, σπένδω, θυσία, λειτουργία, and the allusion to “the day of the Lord” as now “the day of the Messiah.”

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

179

The “blameless righteousness” of new covenant believers, like that of the old covenant remnant, thus corresponds to and fulfills God’s covenant call to Abraham in Gen 17:1LXX that he “be blameless” (cf. γίνου ἄμεμπτος in Gen 17:1 with ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι in Phil 2:15).36 Such “blamelessness” renders believers “children of God” in that, as Abraham’s truly “circumcised” descendants, they share the righteous life of faith that characterized the life of the Patriarch (Phil 2:15; Gen 15:6).37 As Abraham’s descendants by virtue of the work of the Spirit in their lives, new covenant believers consequently inherit the promises made to Abraham (cf. Rom 4:13; 8:16–17, 21; 9:8; Gal 3:7–9, 14; 3:21–4:7).

The Comparative Gain Found in the Messiah In 3:7–11, against the backdrop of his former, Torah-based life of blameless righteousness, Paul turns to his present (new) covenant status as the exemplar of (true) circumcision. In terms of the structure of the discourse itself, the three main verbs of 3:7–11 are all indicative forms of ἡγέομαι (“to consider”; cf. ἥγημαι in v. 7b and ἡγοῦμαι in vv. 8a and 8c). Paul’s first act of consideration in 3:7 underscores the reading of 3:5–6 as a positive description of what was true about Paul before he encountered the Messiah. Using the language of economic accounting, Paul asserts in 3:7a that all of the distinctives listed in 3:5–6, and any others of his pre-Christian life (cf. ἅτινα), were in fact “gains” (ἦν μοι κέρδη).38 In view of the “gain” (κέρδος) Paul anticipates at death (Phil 1:21), and in light of his goal “to gain Christ” (ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω), both now and at the resurrection (3:8–11), this “profit” must be nothing less than eschatological deliverance on the day of judgment, an outcome Paul already anticipated as a faithful Pharisee. Nevertheless (cf. the probable reading, ἀλλά, in 3:7a), Paul considered (ἥγημαι) his previous gains to be a “loss” (ζημία) “because of [the arrival or reality of] the Messiah” (διὰ τὸν Χριστόν; 3:7b).  Ἥγημαι in 3:7b is best taken to be an “extensive” or “consummative perfect” emphasizing “the completed action of a past action or process from which a present state emerges.”39 It no doubt refers back 36 I owe the observation of the parallel between Phil 2:15 and Gen 17:1LXX to Fee, Philippians, 244, 244 n. 16. 37 The parallel between the call of Abraham and Paul’s desire for the Philippians is striking in view of the fact that ἄμεμπτος occurs only 16×s in the LXX, 11 of which are in Job. For the association of being “blameless” (ἄμεμπτος) with being “righteous” (δίκαιος), see the LXX of Job 1:1; 9:20; 12:4; 15:14; 22:19 (cf. Job 1:8; 2:3; 4:17; 11:4; 22:3; 33:9); Wis 10:5 (cf. Wis 10:15; 18:21). 38 The use in 3:7a of the possessive dative with the imperfect indicative signifies that Paul’s former life was in fact a gain to Paul, contra those who, like O’Brien, Philippians, 381, 383, render the clause, “which/that I formerly regarded as gains” (emphasis mine). But Paul’s act of “reckoning” does not begin until v. 7b: ταῦτα ἥγημαι …, which represents his post-Christ perspective. 39  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 577.

180

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

to Paul’s Damascus-Road encounter with Jesus as the resurrected Messiah and Lord, which initiated Paul’s re-consideration of his past. The switch to the present tense of ἡγέομαι in 3:8a (ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι) then unpacks the ongoing aspect of the previous perfect verb, ἥγημαι, in v. 7b. In so doing, it stresses in strongly emphatic terms (ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καί: “but, indeed, also”) that, although the Damascus-Road experience was decisive for Paul’s turning away from his past, a corresponding consideration of other things also to be a loss because of the Messiah continues unabated. For Paul considers all things to be a loss “because of that which is exceeding in value” (διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον), namely, knowing the Messiah Jesus as his Lord (3:8a). Koperski’s close analysis of 3:8 shows that Paul’s reference to “all things” (πάντα) cannot be restricted merely to Paul’s past boasting: “the syntax and logic of v. 8 seem to require that the all things Paul considers to be loss, the all things he actually lost, and the all things he considers trash all have the same meaning: all things other than Christ.”40 Against the, in and of itself, positive counter pole of Paul’s pre-DamascusRoad-life under the old covenant (cf. his zeal manifest in persecuting the church when he thought it was a heretical sect, 3:6), the strength of Paul’s argument therefore lies in the substantival participle, τὸ ὑπερέχον (“the surpassing reality”), used to describe the knowledge of Christ Jesus in v. 8a, whose present tense also signals a continuing reality. The comparative argument of 3:7–8 established by this participle makes clear that the juxtaposition of Paul’s former and present life is not a “negative-positive” contrast, as if Paul were saying, “not the old, sub-par righteousness, but the new, true righteousness.” More precisely, the contrast is an a-fortiori one: given the positive reality of the old righteousness, then how much more the value of the new.41 The rhetorical force of an a-fortiori comparison resides in the strength of the point of comparison: in an “argument from strength” the stronger the known reality, the stronger the affirmed reality. So knowing Christ must be of such an exceedingly great value because of the enormous value of all that Paul now considered to be loss when measured against

40 Koperski,

Knowledge, 145 n. 31 (emphasis original).  So too Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 475: “the sharpness of the contrast is not so much to denigrate what he had previously counted as gain, as to enhance to the highest degree the value he now attributes to Christ, to the knowledge of Christ, and to the prospect of gaining Christ” (original all emphasized). Contra, e. g., Joachim Gnilka, “Die Kehre des Paulus zu Christus (Phil 3:2–21),” in Per Me Il Vivere È Cristo (Filippesi 1:1–3:21), ed. Paolo Lunardon, SMB 14 (Rome: “Benedictina” Abbazia di S. Paolo, 2001), 143, for whom the contrast expresses “die Umwertung der Werte,” so that “die Dinge, die er bisher für Gewinn ansah, ihm in Wirklichkeit geschadet hatten. Er bemerkte seinen Irrtum” (emphasis mine). Verse 8 is therefore “ein sarkastisches Urteil” (p. 146) and v. 9 contrasts Paul’s own righteousness with that from God (p. 150). Regarding the former, Gnilka must therefore wonder if between Phil 3 and Rom 9–11 Paul has contradicted or later corrected himself (p. 146), whereas regarding the latter he sees a parallel to Rom 10:3 (pp. 147, 150). This leads him to a classic “Leistung” vs. “Glaube” reading of 3:9 (pp. 150–151; also laid out in his Philipperbrief, 194–195). 41

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

181

it.42 The Messiah himself thus divides Paul’s life between what once was “gain” and is now considered “loss.” Though the exact nature of what makes knowing Christ of such greater value is not yet spelled out, the shock of this comparative evaluation, given the positive, eschatological value of Paul’s former life as a Pharisee, cannot be overestimated. The third use of ἡγέομαι in 3:8b–d continues Paul’s crescendo of emphasis by restating his consideration in even more shocking terms. He does so in order to draw out the intended consequence of this new evaluation: because of the Messiah (δι᾽ ὃν), Paul suffered the loss of all things (τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην), and hence he continues to consider (ἡγοῦμαι) all things to be “garbage” (σκύβαλα) in order to gain the Messiah (ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω).43 So great is the comparative value of knowing Christ that the blameless righteousness that already existed as eschatological gain under the old covenant is now viewed as “garbage” (σκύβαλα). As a reference to the refuse scraped from plates, Lightfoot linked σκύβαλα in 3:8 to the “dogs” of 3:2, which ate such scraps – Paul now considers his former life “in the Torah” as dog-worthy garbage fit only for those outside the covenant.44 Paul’s shockingly strong language further supports the incomparable value of knowing Christ. As Chrysostom recognized regarding this passage, Paul only counts the law as rubbish for the sake of Christ; it is not a loss by nature (εἰ διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐ φύσει ζημία): the law is a loss solely because “the grace is the much greater,” like gold is greater than silver, so that the thing called a loss is not itself a loss, but is so because of Christ (οὐκ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ζημίαν τὸ πρᾶγμα καλεῖ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν Χριστόν).45 Here too Paul’s own experience provides an example to the Philippians. Now it exemplifies what it means for their love to abound in knowledge and every insight, “so that [they] might approve the superior things (τὰ διαφέ­ ροντα) in order that [they] might be pure and faultless on the day of Christ …” (1:9–10).46 Paul’s letter functions as a means of answering his own prayer for the church (1:9). 42 So already Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 12.124: “So the loss comes from juxtaposition, from the superiority of the other entity,” but only because “what’s superior is superior to something of the same kind as itself”; quoted from John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, Introduced, translated, and annotated by Pauline Allen, Writings from the GrecoRoman World 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2013), 235. 43  So too Koperski, Knowledge, 141 n. 29; cf. pp. 152–163 for her analysis of the many ways in which vv. 8–11 intensify v. 7. 44  As quoted by Moule, Philippians, 63. 45  Chrysostom Hom. Phil. 12.123–125 (Allen, Homilies, 232–237). Chrysostom therefore argues against the “heretics” who reject the law based on Phil 3:7–9 (probably Marcionites; see Allen, p. xxiii n. 33) by positing that here Paul is luring them into a net like one does in catching fish. The law would be a loss only if it leads us away from Christ, but Christ is both the fulfillment (πλήρωμα) and the end (τέλος) of the law (on the latter, quoting Rom 10:4). 46  I owe this point to Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy, SNTSMS 112 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 130–131, who argues that in 3:1–4:1 Paul is developing “the thesis of 1:10a that the Philippians must learn to identify the things that matter most” by moving to a treatment of what he considers to be

182

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

The comparative gain now found in the Messiah is further underscored in 3:7– 8c rhetorically by the threefold repetition both of Paul’s consideration (ἥγημαι … ἡγοῦμαι … ἥγοῦμαι) and of Paul’s loss (ζημίαν … ζημίαν … ἐζημιώθην), all of which are grounded by the threefold prepositional phrases used in reference to the Messiah (διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν … διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ  Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου … δι᾽ ὅν). Paul wants to make it abundantly clear that he is making a comparative deduction, not a critique of his former way of life as such. Moreover, Tim Fox has pointed out that the language used for “loss” in 3:7–8, ζημία and ζημιόω, occurs 13×s in the LXX, always in reference to a loss or penalty judicially.47 Read against this backdrop, Paul’s choice of this lexeme highlights yet again the eschatological framework of Paul’s argument regarding the “loss” and “gain” experienced in knowing Christ (cf. its introduction in 1:9–10). While knowing Christ brings “loss” now, any insistence on the continuing validity of the old covenant as if the new had not arrived would incur a penalty or “loss” at the judgment (cf. the use of ζημιόω in 1 Cor 3:15, its use in 2 Cor 7:9 in parallel to κατάκρισις in 7:3, and the use of κατάκρισις in 2 Cor 3:9). The “loss” (and “gain”) in view in Phil 3:7–8 are not emotional states as part of an anthropological reading of the passage, but juridical designations from an eschatological perspective. The goal of Paul’s threefold re-consideration of his past is given in the twofold purpose clause regarding his present in 3:8d–9a: ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ. The coordinate purpose clauses of 3:8d–9a are most naturally read within the same time frame. And in this context the purpose clauses should not be taken as references to a temporal future, but as statements of Paul’s intention for the present in having turned away from his past identity under the old covenant.48 “ultimate concerns,” i. e., “the ‘one thing’ (ἕν [3:13]) that matters most: ‘the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ’ in comparison to which all else is ‘refuse.’ ” For Holloway, p. 132, this “revaluation of values” is reflected in the command of 3:1 to “rejoice in the Lord,” which is “analogous” to Seneca’s Stoic perspective that one must learn above all else to rejoice in the things that truly matter, since “for both Paul and Seneca ‘joy’ is an indication of one’s real values …” (citing Seneca, Ep. 23.1–4). Though analogous to the Stoic ideal (and thus pertinent cross-culturally), Paul’s exhortation and its importance may derive from the common Scriptural theme of rejoicing in the Lord’s salvation (cf., e. g., χαίρω in the LXX of Exod 4:31; Hab 3:18; Zech 10:7; Tob 14:7 [where the gentiles join Israel in so doing]; for parallel expressions, cf., e. g., the LXX of Ps 34:9; 63:11; 96:12; 103:34; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23). 47  Related in a personal conversation, St Andrews, Scotland, March 8, 2014. 48 Following Alexander N. Kirk, The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered, WUNT 2/406 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 207–210. Kirk, pp. 208–209, points for confirmation of a present-time reading to 1 Clem. 9.3–10.1; 35.4; Ign. Eph. 11.1; 14.2; Rom. 3.2; 4.1–2; Smyrn. 3.2, etc.; 1 Cor 4:2 (cf. ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ; cf. 2 Cor 4:2; 5:11; 1 Thess 2:4) and to the work of Randall E. Otto, “ ‘If Possible I May Attain the Resurrection from the Dead’ (Philippians 3:11),” CBQ 57 (1995): 333. Otto supports Kirk’s overall thesis that in Phil 3:10–11, as in 2 Cor 1:9, Paul has in view his conviction that he would die prior to the Parousia. So Phil 3:9 is “an expression of Paul’s desire to be found – by God and potentially by all others – enacting righteousness for the remainder of his earthly life” (Kirk, Departure, 210). In contrast, most commentators take “to be found in him” in 3:9 to refer to God’s judicial act of “finding” Paul on the last day, as if it were synonymous with δικαιόω (e. g., Collange, Hawthorne, Martin, O’Brien,

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

183

This is confirmed by the telic infinitive-clause of v. 10a (τοῦ γνῶναι …) and by the adverbial participle-clause of v. 10b (συμμορφιζόμενος …), both of which point to Paul’s present life of Christ-like suffering.49 Here too Paul’s argument reflects the interlocking time relationships inherent within the covenant relationship between God and his people. Having encountered the eschatological significance of the “surpassing knowledge of the Messiah Jesus my Lord” in the past (the “covenant prologue”), Paul’s goal is to be granted the eschatological status that comes from gaining Christ and being found in him in the present (the “covenant stipulation”), which will be eschatological gain when Paul is resurrected from the dead on the future “day of Christ” (the “covenant promise” of 3:11; cf. 1:10; 2:9–11; 3:11; 3:20–31).50 Structurally, then, the emphasis in 3:7–9 on knowing Christ in the past and on the desire to gain and be found in the Messiah in the present, because of its future significance, functions as both the supporting ground and motivating goal of Paul’s re-consideration of his status under the old covenant. The coming of the Messiah, both historically and in Paul’s own life, necessitated this radical reevaluation of his heritage and previous life under the Torah; not to do so would be to deny the truth and value of the gospel he preached and to disqualify him from its reality (1:3, 7, 12, 15–18, 27; 2:22; 4:3). Accordingly, the passive voice of Paul’s statement in 3:8b, “because of [the Christ] I suffered the loss (ἐζημιώθην) with regard to all things,” is again best seen to reflect Paul’s conviction that the turning of the ages brought about by the Messiah and made personal to Paul on the road to Damascus led to this radical re-evaluation. The change of epoch Koperski, Bockmuehl; for a future reading, see too Lohmeyer, an die Philipper, 135–136). Fee, Philippians, 320, also takes the purpose clauses of vv. 8d–9a as “firstly future” as well, but then reads the ensuing participles in v. 9 as oriented toward the present and v. 10 as “very ‘present’ sounding,” so that he opts for an “already-not yet eschatology” as “the basic framework for all of this theological thinking.” Against this future-reading is the fact that the participles, being present tense, are contemporaneous in time with their lead verbs and, as such, do not indicate any absolute time of their own. In addition to those listed above, Fee lists Plummer, Michael, Gnilka, Gundry, and Volf as taking vv. 8c–11 to be exclusively future (p. 320 n. 30), though Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 193–195, actually agrees with Fee that Χριστὸν κερδήσω is a reference to both the present and the future. 49  So too now Kirk, Departure, 211, who takes the infinitive to be “essentially restating his desire to gain Christ and to be found in him in the present,” as confirmed by Paul’s reference in v. 10c to knowing “the partnership of [Christ’s] sufferings” (emphasis his). “Knowing the power of Christ’s resurrection” is thus a reference to knowing “the present and transformative power of being united to Christ’s resurrection,” as in Rom 6:4–5. 50 In support, see Gnilka, “Kehre,” 138–139, who points out the way in which the switch in relative time references from an emphasis on the past in 3:4–7, which is brought to an end by his conversion to Christ, to the present in 3:8–9 (and 3:12–14, 17–18), with its call to imitate Paul in 3:17, to the future transformation in 3:20–21, is instructive for understanding the passage. Hence, “Wenn wir unter dem Aspekt des Tempus das Kapitel 3 überschauen, ergibt sich, daß ein die ganze paulinische Existenz umfassender Bogen geschlagen wird, von der jüdischen Vergangenheit über die ganz durch Christus bestimmte Gegenwart bis hin zur eschatologischen Vollendung im Gericht” (p. 139).

184

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

inaugurated by Christ’s life, death and resurrection best explains how that which was already eschatological gain in Paul’s previous life could now become eschatological loss (cf. 1:6; 2:7–11; 2:16; 3:10–11, 18, 20–21). Paul’s previous life was not given up because Paul outgrew it, became disillusioned with it, or made a mid-life decision to change his way of life. Paul considered and continues to consider his previously blameless life to be “loss” because it was taken from him by the era-ending arrival of the Messiah. This eschatological event consequently divides both redemptive history and Paul’s own history into the epochs of the old and new covenant as defined by an old and new “circumcision” respectively (cf. again Phil 3:3 with Rom 2:25–29 and 2 Cor 3:6, 14). The eschatological divide between Paul’s past and present life also explains the fundamental difference between Paul’s threefold reconsideration of his former “gains” listed in 3:4–6 and Paul’s threefold characterization of his opponents in 3:2. On the one hand, Paul’s former gains are still positive in themselves, though now considered to be loss due to the dawning of the new eschatological age; on the other hand, the opponents’ former gains have been perverted and disgraced due to their refusal to re-consider their “old covenant” lives in view of the coming of the Christ. Though the opponents still view themselves as God’s purified people, they are now “dogs,” a Jewish term of derision for ritually unclean gentiles.51 Thus, in a statement of full-scale irony, those confidently thinking themselves to be faithful Jews are, in reality, “dirty” gentiles. Fully cognizant that such a designation implies exclusion from the eschatological people of God, Paul nonetheless applies it to those Jews who claim to be followers of Christ while still advocating an obligatory allegiance to the old covenant. In Paul’s view, to insist on the old is to deny the new. So the irony continues. Though they consider themselves to be “workers of righteousness,” they are in reality “evil workers,” a reference not to the immoral character of their lives, but to their continued propagation of the old covenant even as they preach the gospel (cf. κακοὶ ἐργά­ ται in 3:2 with ἐργάται δόλιοι in 2 Cor 11:13; cf. too 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 2:15).52 As a result, their circumcision (περιτομή), formerly a sign of covenant fidelity, has now become a pagan “mutilation” (κατατομή), a point underscored rhetorically 51  So Garland, “Composition,” 166: dogs were “well-known for feeding on carrion, filth and garbage” and hence were an apt, derogatory description for gentiles or lapsed Jews who did not keep ritual purity (cf. Matt 7:6; 15:26–27; 2 Pet 2:22; for the extensive post-biblical and early rabbinic evidence, see pp. 167–168 n. 92); so too O’Brien, Philippians, 355, pointing to Matt 7:6; 15:26–27; m.Šabb. 24:4; m.Pes. 2:3; m.Ned. 4:3; m.Bek. 5:6, etc. 52  For this point, see Bockmuehl, Philippians, 187–188, who also observes that the LXX references to this concept in Ps 5:5; 6:8; 14:4; 28:3 (cf. Prov 10:29; Hos 6:8; Job 31:3; 34:8, 22) and Luke 13:27 (cf. ἐργάται ἀδικίας) do not parallel Paul’s and that the present context is not that of moral wickedness. In the light of Matt 9:37–38 // Luke 10:2 and Matt 10:10 // Luke 10:7, the designation “worker” (ἐργάτης) likely refers to their self-understanding as those sent out in the mission of the true gospel, contra Lohmeyer, an die Philipper, 126, who sees them as Jewish missionaries on behalf of Judaism.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

185

by the paronomasia of 3:2.53 In other words, “their greatest source of pride is interpreted by the apostle as a sure sign that they have no part in God’s people at all.”54 The scathing irony is palpable. On the other hand, those Jews and gentiles who worship by means of the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus are the (true) “circumcision,” i. e., they constitute God’s new covenant people (3:3).55 Nothing less than the eschatological redemption of God’s people as the realization of Israel’s hope for the age to come is thus at stake in these contrasts. Again, in Dunn’s words, “It is fulfilled hope that (Paul) had in mind, not superseded hope.”56 Whereas formerly Israel was to boast in YHWH (Deut 10:21; Jer 9:23–24), now the (true, eschatological) “circumcision” created by the Spirit boasts in Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Rom 2:29; Gal 3:29; 4:29; 6:16; Col 2:11–13; and especially Phil 1:26, where this boasting “in Christ Jesus” [ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ] is also anticipated to come about “in Paul” [ἐν ἐμοί] through his expected presence with them once again). That the comparison here is a historical one was already emphasized by John Chrysostom, who noted that inasmuch as circumcision under the old covenant was a type (ὁ τύπος), it no longer pertained under the new as such; Paul does not say that circumcision exists among Christians, but rather that Christians are the circumcision, while mutilation now exists among the Jews, “for from then on they are in a state of loss and evil.”57 The identity of God’s people under the Torah now encompasses only those Jews and gentiles who, as those who worship by the Spirit and depend on Christ, share this identity as the eschatologically restored “children of God” (cf. 2:15 with the ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή in 3:3).58 53 So too, e. g., from J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 6th. ed. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 144, to O’Brien, Philippians, 357, who point to the way in which Paul equates their circumcision with the pagan cutting of the body forbidden by the Torah (Lev 19:28; 21:5; Deut 14:1; cf. 1 Kgs 18:28; Isa 15:2; Hos 7:14). 54  O’Brien, Philippians, 357. 55  See, rightly, Fee, Philippians, 301, who takes “boasting in Christ Jesus” to refer to putting one’s full confidence in Christ as a member of “God’s new covenant people,” pointing to Jer 9:23–24 as the source of the concept (cf. 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17). Fee rightly concludes that “this OT usage calls into serious question all other suggestions as to the meaning of ‘in Christ Jesus’ in the present passage (e. g., GNB [Loh-Nida], ‘rejoice in our life in union with Christ Jesus,’ which sounds far more like Deissmann and Bousset than it does like Paul)” (p. 301 n. 65, emphasis his). 56  Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 467. 57 Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 11, 113–114 (Allen, Homilies, 216–217). 58  We must again be careful here. The contrasts in 3:2–3 are not between two kinds or qualities of worship or boasting, as if the worship established by God under the old covenant was an inferior, external, false piety, whereas for the “(true) circumcision” it is a superior, internal, spiritual one. In Rom 9:4 Paul views the worship granted to Israel to be among her unparalleled privileges, together with her covenants and reception of the law. Contra, e. g., Lightfoot, Beare, Hawthorne; rightly rejected by O’Brien, Philippians, 361; as he points out, the contrast is “of a more radical kind: just as ἡ περιτομή applies to Christians as the covenant people of God and no longer to Israel, so ἡ λατρεία, ‘the service of God,’ is performed by that same covenant community … Those who are in Christ Jesus are part of a new order ushered in by his coming (2 Cor 5:17), the new age of salvation.” O’Brien, however, does not apply the implications of

186

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Because Paul’s opponents contested this eschatological reality, not to mention those Jews who denied outright that Jesus was the Messiah, the present-time reference to the Spirit in 3:3 indicates that the overlap of the two epochs creates a contrast between two “Israels” in the present: those who now worship by the Spirit and boast in the Messiah versus those who still place their confidence “in the flesh” (ἐν σαρκί). Within this eschatological context, to label the realities of election and devotion under the Torah as σάρξ is not to describe them as part of an inferior, earthly, bodily existence, whether of a person or other created being (e. g., Rom 1:3–4; 3:20; Gal 2:16; 1 Cor 1:29; 7:28; 15:39–40; 2 Cor 4:11; 7:5). Nor are they to be equated with that powerful source of sin-producing action or attitude characteristic of this world (e. g., 1 Cor 3:3; Gal 5:13, 16–17; Rom 8:6, 8–9; Eph 2:3).59 Rather, to contrast worship by means of the Spirit with confidence in the σάρξ is to re-frame eschatologically what used to constitute essential aspects of old covenant identity and life as represented by the act of circumcision “in the flesh.” Thus, in Rom 2:28 Paul can make a parallel eschatological declaration: οὐ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ  Ἰουδαῖος ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή (cf. the contrast in Eph 2:11 between gentiles ἐν σαρκί, who are called ἀκροβυστία, and Jews who are circumcised ἐν σαρκί in that their circumcision is done by hand [χειροποίητος], the latter being identified in 2:12 with “the commonwealth of Israel” and “the covenants of promise”). To clarify Paul’s point further, we can restate the eschatological Spirit/flesh contrast of Phil 3:3 in the terms Paul uses in Rom 9:3–5: even though Christ has come and worship by the Spirit is a reality, there are those Jews who still place their confidence in their identity as old covenant “Israelites,” from whom, “according to the flesh” (τὸ κατὰ σάρκα), comes the Messiah himself, and for whom, since they are his brothers and kinsmen “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα), Paul would even be willing to be cut off from Christ if it would bring about their salvation (see too Rom 9:8; 11:14; 1 Cor 10:18 for the same use of σάρξ to refer to Paul’s ethnic, old covenant kinsmen). Thus, in Phil 3:3–4 Paul uses σάρξ non-pejoratively to refer to the continuing existence of “Israel” as an ethnic-religious identity established by the “old covenant.” In Phil 3:3–4, Paul’s threefold reference to being confident ἐν σαρκί is therefore a reference to the sphere of old covenant life in which, prior to the coming of Christ, confidence could take place. For as E. Schweitzer has pointed out regarding Paul’s usage, ἐν σαρκί, as found in Phil 3:3–4, often denotes earthly life in its totality and is not disparaged in any way, while κατὰ σάρκα, used 17×s this insight to the nature of the contrasts in 3:3–9. Instead, he reads them as a contrast between the boasting of “the (new) covenant people of God” in Christ Jesus and Jewish “self-confidence before God, convinced that his keeping of the law would bring honour to himself. As Paul attacked the doctrine of justification by works, so he opposed all boasting based on self-trust” (p. 362). 59  Due to its wide semantic range in the NT, σάρξ is notoriously difficult to translate conceptually. The 1984 NIV uses 48 different English words or expressions to translate it, the NRSV uses 22, and the NASB 15, while even the NKJV uses five.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

187

by Paul, “always denotes a wrong orientation of life” (cf. ἐν σαρκί in 2 Cor 10:2–3 and Gal 2:20 with κατὰ σάρκα in 2 Cor 1:17; 5:16; 11:18; Rom 8:4, 12–13).60 This is why in 3:4 Paul, as the “Israelite” par excellence (3:5), could refer to his own even greater basis for having confidence “in (the) flesh” (ἐν σαρκί) than that of other Jews (cf. 2 Cor 11:16–23, where for apologetic purposes Paul’s “boastful confidence” [ὑπόστασις τῆς καυχήσεως] in his Jewish identity did in fact become necessary). This non-pejorative, historical use of σάρξ also explains why in 3:5–6 Paul can go on to unpack the “flesh” in terms of the once positive characteristics of his life under the old covenant.61 The realities of the “flesh” listed in 3:5–6 are not inherently negative in their proper place and time, just as Paul’s earlier use of σάρξ in Phil 1:22, 24 to refer to life in this world is merely descriptive (cf. too 2 Cor 10:3; Gal 2:20). Hence, as Fee rightly concludes, “ ‘Spirit’ and ‘flesh’ stand juxtaposed as eschatological realities that describe existence in the overlap of the ages … (The two designations are) primarily eschatological realities.”62 For this reason, σάρξ takes on a highly pejorative nuance whenever Paul uses σάρξ to refer to any attempt to rely on old covenant distinctives as determinative in one’s relationship with God once the new eschatological reality brought about by Christ and the Spirit has arrived (cf. Gal 3:3, 5; Col 2:20–23; Eph 2:11–22).63 60  Eduard Schweitzer, “σάρξ,” TDNT 7:123–151, 130 n. 257. Schweitzer, p. 132, also points out that in Phil 3:3, as in Rom 8:13–14 and Gal 4:23; 5:18, Paul refers to the Spirit or to promise of God in an instrumental sense but avoids this sense regarding the antithetical reference to σάρξ, so that σάρξ, “then, is not a power which works in the same way as the πνεῦμα.” 61  So already, Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 187, who takes “flesh” here not in its far-reaching sense as a reference to earthly existence as a whole, but in a limited sense as a reference to the specific “Vorzüge” of 3:4–6. 62  Fee, Philippians, 302, 302 n. 67; see too his, God’s Empowering Presence: the Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 816–822. Despite this insight, Fee interprets Paul’s reference to the “flesh” in 3:4 as that which “carries all the theological overtones of trying to have grounds for boasting before God on the basis of human achievement, the ultimate ‘self-centered’ expression of life” (Philippians, 303). However, the attempt to turn circumcision, etc., into a human achievement worthy of boasting before God, though sometimes a negative by-product of old covenant identity among those circumcised only “in the flesh,” must be carefully distinguished from Paul’s self-evaluation in 3:4–6 and from Paul’s insistence on the necessity of the Torah’s eschatological fulfillment by the followers of Jesus (cf., e. g., the well known texts of Rom 2:13–29; 9:4–5; 13:8–10; 1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6, 13–14; and chapters one, two, seven, and ten in this volume). 63 Contra those who, even when they emphasize the positive nature of Paul’s zeal under the old covenant, still revert to seeing a negative nuance in Paul’s self-description by the time it climaxes in v. 6. E. g., Dunn, “Philippians 3:2–14,” 472, emphasizes that it was Paul’s zeal for his ethnic identity and religious standing and for the purity of God’s people that motivated him to persecute the church, not personal achievement; but he then asserts, p. 474, that there is still “at least an element of self-achievement and of pride in self-achievement in both Gal 1:14 and by implication in Phil 3:6.” Hence, in my view, Dunn wrongly modifies his earlier position as referenced on p. 474 n. 45 that the last three elements of Paul’s self-description in Phil 3:6 were not expressions of self-achievement but further examples of faithful old covenant identity; see his The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 370. He now concludes: “In short, if the first half of the list of Paul’s pre-Christian grounds for confidence before God

188

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

This is why Paul offers himself as proof of this decisive, eschatological switch in the ground of confidence before God. He, more than anyone else, had great reason to be confident in the σάρξ of the old covenant era (3:4–6). Yet, with the coming of the Messiah, Paul re-conceived the significance of the place (i. e., within Israel) and time (i. e., within this evil age) of his former distinctives (3:7–8a). As Schweitzer thus pointed out regarding this use of σάρξ for Paul, Phil 3:3–4 is especially important. Here again σάρξ embraces in the first instance the natural descent of the Israelites, but also Pharisaism, zeal for the Law, legal righteousness, and hence the intellectual and religious functions of men in particular. These things are not bad in themselves, but trust in them is wrong. Hence the direct opposite of σάρξ here is Χρι­ στὸς  Ἰησοῦς. The revelation of the righteousness which is of God in Christ makes all other things ζημία, vv. 7–9. They are not bad, but they can no longer be considered as objects of confidence, as the foundation of life. Even the new trust is God’s act.64

To safeguard the Philippians’ salvation Paul consequently admonishes the Philippians in 3:1 “to rejoice in the Lord” for all that the Lord has done to deliver them (cf. too the promise of 1:6 with the command and promise of 2:12–13). It is not surprising, therefore, that the motif of rejoicing and joy, both Paul’s and the Philippians’, is one of the themes that ties the letter together (cf. 1:18, 25; 2:17–18, 28–29; 3:1; 4:4). Here too Paul himself is a prime example (cf. esp. 2:17–18): the parallel between rejoicing “in the Lord” in 3:1 and boasting “in Christ Jesus” in 3:3 indicates that Paul’s reconsideration of his past in 3:4–11 is itself an expression of this joy. Paul’s example also makes clear that not to rejoice in the Lord would be to reject the reality of the present eschatological redemption de facto by following the “evil workers” back to the old covenant of the old age.65 There is thus no change in tone or argument from 3:1 to 3:2, as often maintained. Rather, “On this reading 3:1a forms a natural introduction to the rest of ch. 3, where Paul

gives substance to the insight and emphasis of the new perspective, then it could equally be said that the second half of the list gives as much substance to the emphasis of the old perspective” (p. 474). 64 Schweitzer, TDNT 7:130, emphasis mine. 65  On the call in 3:1 to rejoice in the Lord’s salvation as a call to identify what matters most, i. e., “the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ,” as a “revaluation of values,” see again Holloway’s insights in n. 46 above. Read in this way, the warnings and their support in 3:2–3 give the reason why Paul once again calls them to rejoice in 3:1; cf. Fee, Philippians, 291 n. 24, who supports Caird’s analysis that 3:2–4:1 offers the “theological justification for rejoicing in the Lord,” and Holloway, Consolation, 15–19, who argues that the command in 3:1 must be taken seriously within its context as part of Paul’s call to behave “worthy of the gospel” (p. 17; cf. 1:25; 2:18; 4:1, 4). This answers those who, like O’Brien, Philippians, 351–352, reject the most natural reading contextually that “the same things” in 3:1 refers to the repeated theme of rejoicing within the letter itself (cf. 1:18, 25; 2:18, 28, 29; 4:4). Most do so because it is difficult to see in what way rejoicing could be a safeguard for the Philippians. O’Brien himself opts for a reference to “the same things” that Paul had spoken about in his previous ministry among the Philippians, now restated in 3:2–11.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

189

develops at length τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ  Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου (3:8).”66 Construed in this way, Philippians 3:7–9a represent a “startling ‘re-evaluation of values’ ” based on an eschatological re-evaluation of epochs, with their corresponding covenants marked by their respective circumcisions.67

The Grammar of Eschatology in 3:9b–c For Paul, it is only because the new era has arrived that the old era is over; but because the new era has arrived, the old must be over. The comparison Paul makes in 3:8–9a between the two epochs reflects his corresponding conviction that, in reality, no overlap can exist between the two. Paul’s eschatologically-determined comparison consequently leads to the programmatic negative-positive contrast in 3:9bc, which is the primary focus of our study. To set the stage, the first observations to be made about 3:9bc are syntactical (for an overview of my reading of the syntax, see Appendix Five below). The text reads: 9b: μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου 9c: ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ

First, in order to complete the sense of the μὴ-ἀλλά contrast, the participle of the first clause, ἔχων, is to be supplied in the second. The “negative-positive” contrast thereby established in 3:9 is between what Paul does not have and what he does possess. To fill out the verbal assertion, just as the participle, ἔχων, is implied in the clause elided after ἀλλά, so too the entire phrase ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην is to be repeated as its direct object. The contrasts of 3:9b–c may therefore be structured as follows: μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ (ἔχων) (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην) τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ

Second, this parallel structure indicates that the operative question becomes identifying the referent of the repeated attributive definite article, τὴν, underlined above: does τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ refer only to δικαιοσύνην, as it is usually understood (i. e., “a [righteousness] through the faith of Christ”), or does it refer back 66  Holloway, Consolation, 19, attested to already by the 1859 work of Bernard Weiss. Thus, 3:2–3 is “a stern warning against those who would teach otherwise” (p. 133). Indeed, Paul’s opponents in 3:2 “constitute an extreme violation of the exhortation of 3:1a to ‘rejoice in the Lord’ ” (p. 135, pointing to the connection between “boasting” and “rejoicing” in 1:25–26, p. 135 n. 30). 67 Quote from O’Brien, Philippians, 382, 383, following Gnilka’s expression. For Gnilka’s view, see n. 41 above and his Philipperbrief, 194, where he argues that Paul presents his past blamelessness under the law “eindeutig als falsch,” but without offering a negative interpretation of Paul’s previous values – it is rather a re-evaluation of their relative value. For a similar point, see Holloway, Consolation, 132 (see again above, n. 46).

190

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

to the entire nominal phrase, ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην (i. e., “my righteousness through the faith of Christ”), in the same way that the previous τὴν ἐκ νόμου picked up its entire referent (i. e., “my righteousness from the law”)? If the latter, what is the significance of Paul’s having modified “my righteousness” by associating it first with “the law” and then with “the faith of Christ”? The possessive adjective ἐμός occurs in the New Testament 76×s in 66 verses, 27 of which are found with an article in an attributive or substantival position.68 The articular, attributive use of ἐμός is therefore common, so that implying it after τήν in Phil 3:9 would not go against syntactical convention.69 It is used in a double article attributive position 24×s.70 As the opposite of the construction found in Phil 3:9, in John 14:27 it is used with an article modifying an anarthrous noun: εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι. In parallel to what we find in Phil 3:9, ἐμός is used nine times without an article, though all uses are with εἰμι or γίνομαι.71 Even more relevant for reading Phil 3:9 is 2 Cor 8:23, where the initial, anarthrous use of ἐμός is clearly implied in the second phrase: εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου, κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς συνεργός. Here Paul declares regarding Titus that he is both “my partner and (my) fellow worker on your behalf.” There are also many examples of a double-article attributive construction in which the second modification applies to the entire previous phrase, including a possessive in the first phrase (see, e. g., 2 Cor 1:8: ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν τῆς γε­ νομένης ἐν τῇ  Ἀσίᾳ; 2 Cor 1:18: ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ὁ πρὸς ὑμᾶς).72 Conversely, when the second modification is attributed to only part of the initial phrase, an explicit replacement is given for the excluded aspect of the lead phrase (see Rom 1:26: τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν; 1 Cor 10:33: τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν). Contrast this with Phil 3:9, where in the second phrase διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ replaces ἐκ νόμου but the reference to “my righteousness” is not altered. Finally, the conceptual and grammatical parallel within Philippians itself between 1:11 and 3:9 illustrates that in both cases a modified, anarthrous reference to righteousness can be further modified in its entirety by a prepositional phrase governed by an attributive article: 68 See Matt 18:20; 20:15; 25:27; Mark 8:38 // Luke 9:26; Luke 15:31; 22:19; John 5:47; 7:8, 16; 8:51; 10:14; 16:14, 15; 17:10; Rom 3:7; 10:1; 1 Cor 1:15; 5:4; 7:40; 9:3; 11:24–25 [3×s]; 2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:13; Phil 1:26. 69 For corresponding examples of the use of an anarthrous noun recapitulated by an article governing modifications, see Gal 2:20 (ἐν πίστει τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ); Gal 3:21 (νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι); Rom 5:15 (ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου); Rom 9:30 (ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην … δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως); 1 Thess 2:1, 4 (θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν). 70  See John 3:29: ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται; John 5:30 (2×s): ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμή; τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμόν; cf. 6:38; 7:6; 8:16; 8:31: ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ; 8:37; 8:43 (2×s): τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμήν; τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν; 8:56; 10:26, 27; 12:26; 14:15; 15:9, 11, 12; 17:13, 24; 18:36 (4×s). 71  Without an article and with εἰμι in Matt 20:23 // Mark 10:40; John 4:34; 7:16; 13:35; 14:24; 16:15; 17:10 (with implied εἰμι); John 15:8 (with γίνομαι). 72 Cf., e. g., Rom 1:3, 4, 26; 3:24; 4:11; 7:23; 1 Cor 1:4; 3:10; 11:24; 15:10; 2 Cor 1:1; 2:6; 5:2; 7:14; 8:1, 19–20; 9:3; Gal 1:22; 1 Thess 2:14.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

1:11: πεπληρωμένοι 3:9: μὴ

191

καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην ἀλλὰ

τὴν ἐκ νόμου τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ

These comparisons demonstrate that there is no syntactical reason for changing the antecedent of the second attributive phrase, τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, from that of the first, τὴν ἐκ νόμου. In both cases they modify Paul’s reference to ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην. The contrast is not between two kinds of righteousness, each with its own distinct source, but between Paul’s own, actual righteousness “from the law” and Paul’s own, actual righteousness “through the faith of Christ.”73 Paul’s reference to “my righteousness through the faith of Christ” correlates with his previous reference in 3:8 to Christ Jesus as “my Lord” (cf. τοῦ κυρίου μου), which is often recognized to be the only place in his writings where Paul uses “my” to qualify κύριος (two of the three references to “my God” are also in Philippians; see Rom 1:8 and Phil 1:3; 4:19).74 This reading of 3:9 is not new; it too was already advocated by Chrysostom, who argued that what made the comparison in 3:9 compelling to gentiles was that Paul was referring to a righteousness in both cases that he actually possessed: “And he did well to say, ‘my righteousness’ (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην), meaning not the one we acquire through work and sweat but the one that comes from grace. So, then, if the one who was successful is saved by grace, how much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) will you be.”75

One Righteousness, Two Epochs Despite these considerations, scholars have consistently posited a contrast in meaning between “my righteousness,” read as a negatively nuanced reference to Paul’s prior, self-generated, presumed righteousness “from the law,” and a distinctively different kind of actual righteousness76 that is not Paul’s own, but 73  For a conceptually parallel reference to “our righteousness” as identified with Christ, see Pol. Phil. 8:1:  Ἀδιαλείπτως οὖν προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν καὶ τῷ ἀρραβῶνι τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς  Ἰησοῦς, ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ· ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπέμεινεν. Here the parallel references to the plural pronoun indicate that the possession of righteousness in view is a real one, just as “our hope” and “our sin” are also real qualities. 74  As an example of this observation, see Koperski, Knowledge, 157, which she then adduces as further evidence for her main point that the confession “Jesus Christ is my Lord” is the “core of consistency in Paul’s thought” (p. 163). 75  Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 12.125 (Allen, Homilies, 236–237). However, Chrysostom then takes ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει in 3:9 with τοῦ γνῶναι in 3:10, which leads him to posit that knowledge comes through faith (Hom. Phil. 12.126; Allen, Homilies, 238–239). Chrysostom also operates with a material law/gospel dichotomy. 76  So, e. g., Lohmeyer, an die Philipper, 137: “eine ‘andere Gerechtigkeit,’ ” and Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 194, who views Paul’s blamelessness under the law to be clearly false in that it

192

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

derives “through faith in/of Christ,” depending on how one reads πίστις Χρι­ στοῦ.77 As we have seen, this construal is based largely on assigning a negative nuance to ἐμός in 3:9 so that it cannot be associated with the “positive” right­ eousness Paul now has διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ. The flat meaning of the possessive

pronoun and the syntax of the sentence, however, provide no support for this reading. Nevertheless, the assigning of a negative nuance to Phil 3:9b is often supported by a common interpretation of Rom 9:30–10:4, which sees in this text a material contrast between two kinds of righteousness or ways of relating to God: a law/works/works-righteousness way versus a Christ/faith/faith-righteousness way, with the latter bringing the former to an “end” (τέλος, 10:4). Read from this perspective, Paul’s former “zeal” in Phil 3:6 corresponds to Israel’s ignorant “zeal” in 10:2: (9:30) What therefore shall we say? That Gentiles who were not pursuing righteousness attained it, that is, righteousness from faith (δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως); (31) but that Israel, in spite of pursuing the law of righteousness (νόμον δικαιοσύνης), did not arrive at the purpose of the law (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν).

(32) Why? Because (they did not pursue it) from faith (ἐκ πίστεως), but as if it were from works (ὡς ἐξ ἔργων). They have stumbled at the stone of stumbling, (33) as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and the one who believes on it will not be put to shame” … (10:2) For I bear witness regarding them that they have a zeal for God (ζῆλον θεοῦ), but (it is) not according to knowledge. (10:3) For, being ignorant of God’s righteousness (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην), and seeking to establish their own (τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην]), they did not submit to God’s righteousness (τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ

was an expression of Paul’s “eigene Gerechtigkeit (ἐμήν)” that would not see him through the final judgment (see n. 41 above). 77  Bockmuehl, Philippians, 211, is instructive here since he takes πίστις Χριστοῦ in 3:9 to be a subjective genitive and yet, for him, “The contrast is merely between my own righteousness and the kind that derives from God and rests on faith. One is unacceptable, the other is to be adopted” (p. 209, emphasis mine). Thus, “my own” and “derived from the Torah” are both “paralleled by a contrasting quality of the second righteousness” – “my own” contrasted with “through the faith of Christ” and “derived from Torah” with “derived from God on the basis of faith” (p. 209). For Bockmuehl, Paul’s former righteousness is “his own” (cf. Rom 10:3) “in the sense that he acquired it; it is his own achievement, as verse 6 showed,” but it was still faultless in its own right: the “self-righteousness” of v. 6 “is inadequate not because it is impossible, but because God neither desires nor accepts it” and Paul’s “being busy establishing ‘his own’ righteousness had caused Paul both to fail to recognize the Messiah and to persecute the Messiah’s people” (p. 209, following Koperski). So “my righteousness” refers to a “self-made righteousness derived from the Torah,” a righteousness from the law “attained by human achievement” versus “a gift from God” (p. 210). Bockmuehl qualifies this contrast somewhat by maintaining that Paul does not reject faithful Torah observance per se, but only the attitude of legalism which finds in this observance grounds for self-confidence before God and for exclusion of others; still, for Bockmuehl, the contrast remains between “zealous works of law” and “faith and trust in God” (pp. 209–210, 212, 213).

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

193

θεοῦ). For Christ is the goal (τέλος) of the law for the purpose of righteousness (εἰς δικαιο­ σύνην) to everyone who is believing.78

Yet an eschatological reading of Rom 9:30–10:4, in which the references to “faith/ stone of stumbling” and “law/works” are metonymies for their respective covenant eras, makes equally coherent sense. From this perspective, Israel’s zeal to continue to seek her own righteousness (τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην]) under the old covenant, as if God’s righteousness would be ultimately revealed under the epoch of Torah as expressed in its commands (i. e., ὡς ἐξ ἔργων), led her to trip over the unexpected coming of the crucified Messiah. Israel “stumbled at the stone of stumbling” because she did not understand that Jesus, as the Messiah, is the eschatological manifestation of God’s righteousness in fulfillment of the Torah itself. Despite her zeal, like Paul’s before he met the Messiah (Phil 3:6), Israel failed to understand that “Christ is the goal of the law (τέλος νόμου) for the purpose of righteousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) to everyone who is believing” (Rom 10:4). Now, however, having come to know the Messiah on the road to Damascus, Paul has turned from his former zeal for righteousness under the law in order to gain his righteous standing in and through the Messiah Jesus as his Lord (Phil 3:8). Furthermore, Paul’s frequent use of ἴδιος elsewhere demonstrates that it too, like ἐμός, is not in itself pejorative. It simply refers to what one possesses.79 Of its five occurrences in Romans, the use of ἴδιος just prior to Rom 10:3 in 8:32 refers to God’s “own” son, while its next use in Rom 11:24 refers to an olive tree’s “own” branches. In Rom 14:4–5, ἴδιος refers to one’s “own” Lord and one’s “own” mind. The same lack of an inherently negative nuance is evident in the 319 uses of the related pronoun ἑαυτοῦ in the NT (approx. 115×s in the Pauline corpus). When it is negatively colored, the context indicates so, as in Phil 2:21. Accordingly, Paul’s admonition to the Philippians in 2:12 to “work out your own salvation (τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν) with fear and trembling,” grounded in God’s working “in/among you” (ἐν ὑμῖν) to bring it about, cannot be a negative reference to the pursuit of “self-righteousness.”80 78  See, e. g., Garland’s summary of the common reading of this text in relationship to Phil 3:5–11, “Composition,” 169 n. 98: “As Paul interprets the situation as a Christian, Israel pursued righteousness based on law and failed to attain it, οὐκ ἔφθασεν. They zealously sought to establish their own righteousness and did not submit to the righteousness that comes from God which is through faith. The recognition of the parallels between the two passages in vocabulary and thought leads to the realization that 3:5–11 is not a discussion about external opponents but a contrast between Jews, who rely on nomistic service that ultimately leads to exclusivism and boasting, and Christians, who rely on faith that should lead to acceptance and humility.” 79 Among its 108 uses in the NT, see 1 Cor 3:8 [2×s]; 4:12; 6:18; 7:2, 4, 7, 37; 9:7; 14:35; Rom 8:32; 11:24; 14:4–5; 1 Thess 2:14; 4:11. 80  Cf., e. g., the tension in Koperski’s work, Knowledge, 234 n. 164, representative of many commentators, in which she takes ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην in 3:9 to refer to Paul’s own righteousness as distinct from a righteousness from God, but concludes regarding 2:12 that “here your own cannot be seen in opposition to something coming from God; it is immediately specified as resulting from the action of God.” She rightly makes the same point regarding 1:6; 1:27–29; 4:1, 4–6, so

194

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Hence, since the possessive adjective, ἐμός, in 3:9 does not carry the negative connotation of a “self-derived” possession, and inasmuch as the oft-repeated reference to the parallel in Rom 9:30–10:4 also does not necessitate this reading, such a theologically loaded, anthropological rendering should not override the more natural syntactical construal of the text. The syntax of Phil 3:9 suggests that here too, as in Rom 9:30–10:4, Paul is modifying “righteousness” in two ways: his righteousness, positively construed, in accordance with his way of life derived “from the Torah,” and his righteousness, positively construed, in accordance with his way of life derived “through the faith of Christ.” This reading is supported by Kirk’s observations regarding Paul’s rare use of δικαιοσύνη as the direct object of the verb ἔχω in 3:9: Though one might suppose that δικαιοσύνη is frequently the object of ἔχω, I could find only one other instance of this in the entire NT and LXX, in Prov 1:22. In that verse Wisdom personified boldly proclaims, “As long as the innocent are having righteousness, they will not be ashamed.” In this case to “have” righteousness seems synonymous with the more common concepts of “walking” (περιπατέω) in the ways of righteousness, “sowing” (σπείρω) righteousness, speaking righteousness, or “pursuing” (διώκω) righteousness – concepts found repeatedly in the book of Proverbs. Thus “having righteousness” in Prov 1:22 almost certainly refers to the everyday conduct of an upright life. It is possible that “having righteousness” means much the same in Phil 3:9 … So in Phil 3:9 it seems eminently possible that the contrast between the two types of righteousness is simply the contrast between the righteousness of Phil 3:6 and that of Phil 1:11. One is a righteousness lived in obedience to the Law and one is a righteousness that is engendered by Jesus (cf. Phil 2:12–13). In each case the righteousness is Paul’s own in the sense that he is the one embodying it, but it is only the righteousness τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ that is “from God” in the sense that God is directly actualizing it in Paul through the Holy Spirit.81

Moreover, although the expression “my righteousness” is not a common phrase in the OT, occurring only seven times, the reading being argued for here is confirmed in all seven texts. Thus, in Deut 9:4 the designation refers to faith-expressing acts of obedience, which constitute a “righteous” standing before God: Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, “It is because of my [acts of] righteousness (LXX: διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας μου) that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land”; whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you.

In the context of Deut 9:4 the problem in view is not that it is impossible to possess righteousness, but that Israel, being a “stubborn people,” does not in fact that Paul consistently associates his admonitions to effort with a “reminder of the divine initiative,” thereby removing all pride from the believer’s pursuit of righteousness (p. 235). To these statements of divine initiative and empowerment in Philippians we could add 3:12 and 4:13. 81 Kirk, Departure, 209–210, pointing to a parallel in Josephus, Ant. 6.290 and the reference in Phil 2:2 to “having love” (τὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες). Contra Kirk, however, in Paul’s view, as in the OT itself, God also engenders the righteousness of living in obedience to the law that characterized the faithful remnant (cf., e. g., Rom 9:24–29; 11:4–7a).

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

195

have the requisite righteousness she should possess (see Deut 9:6; within 9:7–29, Israel’s lack of righteousness is evidenced by her rebellion in the wilderness, culminating in the covenant-breaking sin with the golden calf; cf. too Deut 10:16). Therefore, in accordance with God’s promise to the patriarchs, the nations are being driven out not in response to the faithfulness of Israel, but due to their own wickedness (Deut 9:5). In the rest of the OT references the phrase “my righteousness” likewise refers positively to covenant keeping as the ground for God’s blessing, but in these cases to a righteousness that is, in fact, one’s own: 2 Sam 22:21: The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness (LXX: κατὰ τὴν

δικαιοσύνην μου); according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.

2 Sam 22:25: Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness (LXX: κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου), according to my cleanness in his sight. Job 27:6: I hold fast my righteousness (‫ ;בצדקתי‬LXX distinct), and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days. Ps 7:8 (LXX: 7:9): The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness (LXX: κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου) and according to the integrity that is in me. Ps 18:20 (LXX: 17:21): The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness (LXX: κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου); according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. Ps 18:24 (LXX: 17:25): Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my right­ eousness (LXX: κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου), according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.82

This OT backdrop confirms the reading proposed above, in which the contrasts established in Phil 3:2–7, now recapitulated in the contrast in 3:9bc, are best taken to be a juxtaposition between the two “covenantal epochs” divided by the coming of the Messiah. The juxtaposition is not between two timeless, theologicalanthropological principles, but between the righteousness Paul once had from the Torah and the same righteousness that he now has διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ.83 Once 82  Of interest here is the 1st-2nd cent A. D. Testament of Abraham (Recension A) 17:7–8, where, as in Phil 3:9–11, the context is also the death of the righteous. There we read that initially death comes to Abraham with beauty and very quietly, rather than in decay, ferocity, great bitterness, and without mercy, because, as death says of Abraham, “your righteous deeds (αἱ δικαιοσύναι σου) … have become a crown upon my head.” 83  Contra the now (in)famous conclusion of E. P. Sanders that, “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patters of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 552, italics removed). Thus, Sanders too takes it to be a contrast between two kinds of righteousness – the only thing wrong with the former, which was good in and of itself, is that it is not the new one (Paul, the Law and Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988], 43–45, 139–140; cf. p. 140: “It is this concrete fact of Heilsgeschichte which makes the other righteousness wrong”). But Heilsgeschichte does not make Paul’s former life “wrong”; it makes it comparatively obsolete. In the same way, Dunn’s study of our passage from within the “new perspective” stresses the positive nature of the old covenant per se, but then incongruously concludes that Paul’s discovery of God’s righteousness

196

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

again, as we have seen in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans, the contrast is not material, but eschatological. As Fee nicely summarized it, “There is No Future to the Past,” since “the Future lies with the Present – Knowing Christ” and “the Future lies with the Future – Attaining Christ.”84 Once the righteousness on both sides of the contrast is recognized to be the same, we need not draw a major semantic distinction in Paul’s thinking between the instrument of Paul’s former righteousness “by means of the law” (δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐν νόμῷ) in 3:6 and the source of his righteousness “from the law” (δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμου) in 3:9. Nor should we distinguish sharply in 3:9 between the source of Paul’s present righteousness “through the faith of Christ” (δικαιοσύνη ἡ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ) and Paul’s righteousness “from God” (ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη). Despite their different nuances, the semantic force of these prepositional phrases is simply to characterize their respective epochs in terms of their distinctive means and sources for Paul’s righteous behavior and standing.85 The eschatological nature of the contrasts throughout 3:2–9 indicates as well that the content of the contrast in 3:9 is not between a righteousness by means of and from God’s law and a righteousness through a person’s faith in Christ, construing πίστις Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive. This would create a conceptual mismatch between a divinely established entity, the Torah, and the human activity of faith, with the latter actually being effective in the establishment of one’s in Christ led to seeing his past righteousness as a devout and zealous Jew (i. e., “my righteousness”) to be, in comparison, “a valueless and entirely unsatisfactory understanding of the right­ eousness required by God” (“Philippians 3:2–14,” 483). However, it was not Paul’s understanding of God’s righteousness that changed, but Paul’s understanding of where and by what means in history that righteousness was now being revealed (cf. Rom 1:16–17). 84  From the headings to Fee’s treatment of 3:4b–6 (the past), 3:7–11 (the present) and 3:12–14 (the future), Philippians, 305–337 (with a removal of some capitalization). 85  Conversely, those who, like O’Brien, Philippians, 379–381, distinguish two distinct kinds of righteousness in this passage must draw a sharp distinction between ἐν νόμῳ in 3:6 and ἐκ νόμου in 3:9, with the latter representing the law as the source of making a self-righteous claim upon God. Cf. too those who, like Fee, Philippians, 323–324, read “my righteousness” ἐκ νόμου to refer to Paul’s own righteousness “based on observance of the law,” while the righteousness ἐκ θεοῦ refers to the source of Paul’s true righteousness. Fee does this because, despite his emphasis on an eschatological contrast within 3:4–9, he nevertheless reads 3:4–6 as outlining a boast in human achievement based on observance of the Torah (pp. 323, 323–324 n. 39, pointing to Rom 10:3; Ps 71:16; Isa 64:6 [LXX 64:5]). Hence, Paul now evaluates his past “from a radically different theological perspective,” viewing his former blamelessness as related to “the performance of religious trivia” (p. 323 n. 38, following Sanders, and 324), so that even blameless Torah observance still lacked the power of the Spirit to bring life (p. 327). Thus, Paul’s righteousness in Christ is “absolutely antithetical to that promoted by those who belong to the past …,” a righteousness “of a radically different kind” (pp. 323, 324). But to avoid attributing such a negative self-boasting directly to the law itself, Fee distinguishes between a righteousness based on observance of the law (ἐκ νόμου) and a righteousness derived from God (ἐκ θεοῦ). The formal equivalent of the two phrases within Paul’s same sentence makes this reading extremely difficult. Moreover, in 3:4–6 Paul is not making a statement about all of Israel under the old covenant, but only about himself as part of the faithful remnant.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

197

righteousness. For, as Bockmuehl observes, “human faith is not itself the means of bringing about the righteousness ‘derived from God,’ but merely the mode of its reception. It is certainly only the work of Christ which is in any theologically significant sense instrumental to the righteousness of God.”86 Hence, here too, as elsewhere in Paul, πίστις Χριστοῦ is best construed to be a subjective genitive referring to the faithfulness of the Messiah as the means by which Paul’s right­ eousness is established. The reference in 3:9 to “Christ’s faithfulness” picks up Paul’s earlier emphasis on the obedience of Christ and its significance in 2:8–11. Read in this way, ἐκ νόμου and διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in 3:9 once again represent the two epochs and covenants in which they are the central provisions (cf. Gal 3:21–25 and chapter one). The righteousness that Paul formerly derived from his life under the law (ἐκ νόμου) has now given way eschatologically to deriving that same righteousness through the faithfulness of the Messiah (διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ). Finally, the two present-tense, adverbial participle clauses, “not having my righteousness …, but having my righteousness …” (μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην … ἀλλὰ [ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην] …), serve together to elaborate the twofold purpose stated in 3:8d and 9a: ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ.87 In accord with its relative time as contemporaneous with the main verbs and its syntactical position after them, ἔχων further defines “gaining Christ” and “being found in Christ.”88 Specifically, given the new eschatological reality brought about by the coming of the Messiah, the contrast between the two participles indicates the means by which gaining Christ and being found in him are appropriated. The focus of the participles is consequently on what constitutes the necessary qualification for securing a relationship with and approval by the Messiah in the present in anticipation of the judgment to come. The verb-participle construction in vv. 8d–9c 86 Bockmuehl, Philippians, 211. O’Brien, Philippians, 398–399, also argues for the subjective genitive in 3:9 on the basis of its use in Hellenistic Judaism and in line with the 24×s that Paul uses the genitive of πίστις with other proper nouns, which in every instance is a subjective genitive in reference to the faith of Christians, God, or Abraham; cf. esp. the exact parallel between ἐκ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ in Rom 3:26 (cf. Gal 3:22) and ἐκ πίστεως  Ἀβραάμ in Rom 4:16. For my own support for the subjective reading, see above, chapter one. 87 The καί linking the two ἵνα-clauses may be epexegetical, creating a hendiadys in which “to be found in him” defines what it means “to gain Christ”; for this reading, see Fee, Philippians, 320 n. 28. The precise relationship between the two purposes need not be determined here, but I incline toward taking εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ to be a divine passive indicating the consequence of gaining Christ. For the options, see Koperski, Knowledge, 165–166, who sides against a divine passive and sees the two verbs as describing the same reality from different perspectives, with the latter providing “somewhat” of a corrective to the former, as in 4:18–19. For our purposes, due to their close relationship syntactically and semantically, I designate them simply as a “twofold purpose.” 88  For the placement of adverbial participles before their main verb as providing background (typically indicating support in didactic contexts) and after their main verb as supplying elaboration (typically indicating means or manner), see Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 129.

198

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

therefore describes the status which Paul desires both at his death (1:21, 23) and at the parousia (1:6, 10 and 3:11 with 3:21) and the eschatological means of attaining it.89 Having righteousness through the faithfulness of Christ is the means to gaining and being found in Christ, gaining and being found in Christ are not the means to having righteousness through the faithfulness of Christ. Christ is thus both the beginning and end point of the believer’s righteousness.

One Faith, Two Covenants In 3:9d Paul concludes the eschatological contrast by making a third reference to righteousness in order to define it further in distinction from its first two modifications (cf. ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν … τὴν … τὴν …). That this third appositional reference to righteousness is intended to be distinct from its first two attributive modifications is reflected in its discrete structure. Now Paul explicitly repeats δι­ καιοσύνη and modifies it with two adjectival prepositional phrases, the first being embedded in an unambiguously attributive position, while the second remains outside of the article-noun construction: τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. The similarities and differences between the first two elements of the contrast and the third designation are clear: μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ (ἔχων) (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην) τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ   τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην   ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

The rhetorical function of the third reference to righteousness is not to establish yet another contrast, but to define further the righteousness διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ to which it is immediately related. By so doing, this final statement removes any doubt that the righteousness being brought about through Christ’s faithfulness (διά + gen) is inferior to the righteousness formerly derived from God’s Torah (ἐκ νόμου). Just as his righteousness was formerly ἐκ νόμου, Paul’s eschatological righteousness being brought about by the Messiah is ἐκ θεοῦ. This last assertion is necessary since, as Bockmuehl has pointed out, διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ is a reference to a secondary agent, while ἐκ θεοῦ is its primary agent: Paul’s righteousness derives from God through the faithfulness of Christ.90 So just as righteousness “from the [divinely granted] law” was assumed to be equivalent to righteousness “from God,” so too the righteousness brought about through the Messiah is equally a righteousness ἐκ θεοῦ, that is, a righteousness with God as its source. Now, however, it is also a righteousness ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Here too, as in Gal 3:15–25, and perhaps also in the adaptation of the quote from Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17, the absolute use of πίστις functions as a personified metonymy for the new  So Koperski, Knowledge, 165 n. 74, 167. his Philippians, 309–312.

89

90 See

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

199

covenant (cf. esp. its absolute use in Phil 1:25 and the references in Gal 3:23, 25 to “faith’s coming” subsequent to the era of the Torah; see chapter one). As such, πίστις in Phil 3:9d encapsulates both the character of the Messiah through whom righteousness now comes and the life of those who know him, with an accent likely on the latter in line with the emphasis in 1:29; 2:12, 17 on the call for faithobedience among Christ’s followers.91 This link between the faithful obedience of the Messiah and that of his people is unpacked in 3:10–11. The infinitive clause in v. 10, τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν … παθη­ μάτων αῦτοῦ, is usually construed to refer to a subsequent purpose beyond the previous purposes in 3:8–9a of gaining and being found in Christ: “I am considering all [previous] things to be garbage in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him … in order that I might know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings.” The subsequent participle clause, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ (“being conformed to his death”), is then taken modally to describe how one comes to know Christ in this further, extended sense. However, συμμορφιζόμενος, being nominative in case, should not be taken to modify the infinitive, τοῦ γνῶναι, since adverbial participles modifying infinitives are normally in the accusative case.92 Like ἔχων, it too should therefore be taken to modify the previous finite verbs, κερδήσω καὶ εὑρεθῶ. Συμμορφιζόμενος thus provides a third adverbial modification of Paul’s desire to gain Christ and be found in him by indicating the manner or mode by which gaining Christ and being found in him comes about: μὴ ἔχων … ἀλλὰ (ἔχων) … συμμορφιζόμενος. Paul is aligned with the exalted Messiah by “being conformed to his death.”93 This 91 In Phil 1:27 the referent of πίστις and whether the genitive τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is objective or subjective in the clause συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου are unclear; cf. 4:3, without the reference to faith, and the similar constructions in 1:7, 12, 16; 4:15; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 2:5, 14; Eph 1:13; 6:15, 19; Col 1:5, 23; Phlm 13. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 211, reads ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει in 3:9 as an exclusive reference to the “responding faithfulness of the believer” (pointing to Rom 3:22 and Gal 2:16), so that 3:9 speaks both of the objective ground of righteousness, i. e., Christ’s “self-humbling on the Cross” (διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), and of the subjective mode of its acceptance (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει). But what indicates contextually that the latter is an exclusive reference to the faith of the Christian? 92  Contra, e. g., Koperski, Knowledge, 147–149, who relates συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ primarily to the last of what Paul knows in the infinitive clause, i. e., the fellowship of his suffering, which is to prioritize semantics over syntax. 93  Contra Peter Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter, SNTSMS 110 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 116, 118–119, who rightly opposes O’Brien, Philippians, 400, 405–406, 410, in O’Brien’s denial of a parallel between 3:10 and 2:5–11, but then argues that, although Paul’s example in 3:4–14 “broadly mirrors that of Christ,” it functions differently inasmuch as Jesus “abandons his privileges for the sake of others,” while Paul does so “because he sees something better that he himself can gain, namely, knowing Christ. In fact, concern for others has no direct part in any of Paul’s autobiography here.” But the modal participle, συμ­ μορφιζόμενος, indicates that the way to gain and to know Christ is via being conformed to his death for the sake of others. Here too it is important to see that both Timothy (2:20–21; cf. 1 Cor 16:9–10; 2 Tim 2:24; 4:5) and Epaphroditus (2:25, 30) also serve as examples precisely because of the suffering they endured as a result of their commitment to meet the needs of others, in their cases of the Philippians and Paul, respectively.

200

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

accords with Paul’s descriptions in his other letters of his embodying the death of Christ in his apostolic sufferings on behalf of his churches.94 Within Philippians itself, “being conformed to Christ’s death” in 3:10 expresses Paul’s own “thinking like Christ” as described in Phil 2:5–8, who took on the form of a slave and was obedient unto death (cf. συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ in 3:10 with μορφὴ δούλου … ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου in 2:7–8).95 Syntactically, the purpose infinitive in 3:10, τοῦ γνῶναι, like the two previous purpose clauses, is dependent on the main assertion, ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα. It too expresses an intended consequence of Paul’s “new covenant” evaluation of his former life under the old.96 As such, it unpacks the two previous purpose clauses in vv. 8–9.97 In so doing it functions rhetorically to aid the listener’s comprehension by restating Paul’s main point after the intervening participle clauses: “I am considering all [previous] things to be garbage in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him … that is to say, in order that I might know him, that is, the

94 Cf. 1 Cor 4:9, 12; 15:31; 2 Cor 1:9; 2:14; 4:7–12; 6:9; 12:10; Gal 4:13–14; 6:17; 1 Thess 3:3–4, 7; 2 Tim 1:12,16; 2:9–12; 3:10–12; 4:6–7, 17, etc., and chapter five. 95  See now Kirk, Departure, 211: “In my view ‘conforming’ (συμμορφίζω) to Christ’s death must relate to the μορφή of Christ in Phil 2:7. What is essential to the form of Christ’s death is not the instrument of death … but that Christ died as a humble servant and one who was obedient all the way to death (ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου; 2:8). God exalted Christ (2:9) … because he was obedient unto death, looking out for the interests of others (2:4). Therefore Paul will be conformed to Christ’s death by dying in the way that Christ did: in obedience to God and in the service of others (cf. Bockmuehl 1997: 216).” I would expand Kirk’s focus on Paul’s final death to include the entire pattern of Paul’s life, taking Paul’s reference to “death” in 3:10 and elsewhere to be a metonymy for Paul’s suffering on behalf of his churches that also includes his death. 96 See Koperski, Knowledge, 166–167, 171–175 for further syntactical and conceptual arguments in favor of taking τοῦ γνῶναι with ἡγοῦμαι, and pp. 144 n. 30, 162–163 for the centrality of 3:10 in Koperski’s study. Romans 6:6 is the only other example in Paul’s letters of a purpose ἵνα-clause followed by an articular, purpose infinitive (cf. ἵνα καταργηθῇ … τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν). Similarly, Col 1:9–10 has a ἵνα-clause followed by an anarthrous, purpose infinitive. In both cases the infinitive indicates a further purpose based on and beyond that expressed by the ἵνα-clause. In Rom 6:6, however, the subjunctive verb of the purpose-clause is aorist passive, while the infinitive is present active, whereas in Phil 3:9–10 the two subjunctive verbs and the infinitive are all aorist active or stative. In Col 1:9–10, as in Phil 3:9–10, the subjunctive verb and infinitive are both in the aorist tense, though the former is passive and the latter is active; furthermore, in Col 1:9–10 the move from being filled with knowledge to growing in knowledge indicates conceptually that the latter is a further purpose of the former. Moreover, as Koperski points out, pp. 173–174, Paul uses a variety of constructions when linking a ἵνα-clause with an infinitive or other indications of purpose (cf. Phil 1:9–10; 1:25–26; 2:14–16) so that there seems to be no formal rule to determine whether the two are parallel or subordinate to one another. 97  So too Barth, Gnilka, Hawthorne, Silva, and O’Brien; contra, e. g., Fee, Philippians, 327, who relates the infinitive to the two previous purpose clauses of vv. 8d–9a as the ultimate purpose derived from these penultimate ones. For the list of scholars reading it as I do, see Fee, p. 327 n. 50. Cf. too Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 192, 194, who takes the two participle clauses of v. 9bc to be a parenthesis between the ἵνα-clauses of vv. 8d–9a and the infinitive of v. 10, τοῦ γνῶναι, which he rightly relates back to the ἵνα-clauses.

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

201

power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death … .”98 This reading is confirmed conceptually by the difficulty of conceiving in what way gaining and being found in Christ (3:8d–9a) leads to a subsequent knowledge of the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering (3:10a). Surely, the latter is included in the former. The twofold knowledge of v. 10 thus provides a natural delineation of what it means to gain Christ and to be found in him. Moreover, whereas v. 8a described the transition in Paul’s thinking regarding his past, v. 10a describes the transition in Paul’s thinking regarding his present. In looking back, Paul’s conclusion was negative. The surpassing nature of the knowledge (γνῶσις) of Christ Jesus led Paul to consider (ἡγοῦμαι) all things pertaining to his status under the Torah to be “loss.” In looking forward, Paul’s conclusion is positive. Paul considers (ἡγοῦμαι) those things to be “garbage” in order that he might know (γινώσκω) the power of Christ’s resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings. The surpassing knowledge of Christ is thereby evident not only in Paul’s decisive turning away from his former life under the Torah (cf. κατὰ νόμον … ἐν νόμῳ … ἐκ νόμου in 3:5, 6, 9), but also by his willingness in his present life to endure, by the power of Christ’s resurrection, the fellowship of Christ’s suffering (cf. τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν … in 3:10). Hence, “to know Christ in the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings” delineates the character of the transformed way of thinking and life that “gains Christ and is found in him.”99 The fact that the infinitive-clause of 3:10 describes the present experience of God’s resurrection power in the midst of suffering is signaled by the sequence, resurrection and suffering, rather than, suffering and resurrection. This sequence corresponds with Paul’s emphasis elsewhere that it is the resurrection power of Christ via the Spirit which enables one to endure suffering or to die to sin (cf., e. g., Rom 5:3; 6:1–14; 8:11–25; 2 Cor 4:7–12, 16–18; 6:3–10; 12:9–10; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 3:11; 4:17). The sequence of moving from resurrection to suffering also corresponds to the repeated theme within Philippians itself of Paul’s rejoicing and persevering in the midst of his afflictions (cf. Phil 1:7, 12, 18, 20–26; 2:17–18; 98  As commonly construed, taking the καί in v. 10a as epexegetical (cf. τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν …). So too, now, and independently, Kirk, Departure, 211: “When Paul continues his thought in Phil 3:10a with an articular infinitive of purpose, ‘so that I might know him’ (τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν), he is essentially restating his desire to gain Christ and to be found in him in the present” (emphasis his). Kirk, however, takes the participial phrase in 3:10c, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, to refer to the infinitive, though still modal in force: “Paul will know partnership

in the sufferings of Christ by being conformed to Christ’s death” (p. 211). 99 Although Koperski, Knowledge, 180–183, takes the two purpose clauses and the infinitive as all primarily pointing to the eschatological future, she stresses that there is also a past and present aspect to Paul’s assertions, since “all the ways in which Paul depicts the goal towards which he strives (3:8–10) are in terms of an intensification of what is already occurring” (p. 184, emphasis mine). In contrast, I see Paul’s focus to be exclusively present until 3:11 (cf. 3:20–21).

202

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

3:12–16; 4:10–13; cf. 1 Thess 2:2!). If Paul were referring in Phil 3:10 to knowing Christ at the eschatological judgment, his focus would not be on the power of the resurrection enabling a fellowship of suffering, but on the bodily resurrection as a deliverance from suffering, as it is in the transition from Phil 2:8 to 2:9 and in the statement of Paul’s hope in 3:20–21 (cf. Rom 8:23–25; 1 Cor 15:35–49; 2 Cor 4:13–17; 5:4, etc.). This is why the lead noun in the genitive construction in 3:10 is δύναμις, which places Paul’s emphasis on the power manifest in the resurrection, not on the resurrection per se. In the present it is the power of Christ’s resurrection that Paul experiences in his own ability as a believer to live like Christ ethically (1:19; 4:13; cf. Rom 6:4–14; 8:1–11, etc.) and in his calling as an apostle to endure suffering like Christ vocationally (see the texts listed in note 94; cf. Gal 4:12–20; 2 Cor 2:14–17; 11:23–12:10; Col 1:24–26 and chapter five). In contrast, in 3:11 Paul refers to attaining “to the resurrection from out of the dead ones” (εἰς τὴν ἐξανά­ στασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν). This unique expression is a clear reference to Paul’s final rescue from this evil age. Within the argument of 3:1–11, an explicit focus on the future resurrection as the final outcome and vindication of Paul’s righteousness therefore first comes to the fore in 3:11.100 In closing his argument, Paul declares in 3:11 that the goal of the righteous life of faith expressed in the three purpose clauses in 3:8d–10 is to attain to the resurrection from “out of the (realm of the) dead” at the final, eschatological judgment. Only then will the inauguration of the eschatological deliverance depicted in 3:3–10 reach its consummation (cf. 1:19–20).101

Paul, the Example of Righteousness In sum, Koperski and Oakes rightly point out that in Philippians Paul offers two interrelated examples for the church to follow, Christ (2:6–11) and Paul himself (3:7–11, 17; 4:9), since Paul too, in his own imitation of Christ, likewise gave up his former status in obedience to God (cf. 3:7 with 2:6).102 But if Paul’s 100  Contra Holloway, Consolation, 139–140, who rightly argues that the emphasis in 3:10 is on the lead noun δύναμις, thereby speaking against a chiasm in 3:10–11, only then to associate Paul’s present ability to endure suffering, as in 2 Cor 4:7–11, not to the power of the resurrection in 3:10, but to the reference to the resurrection in 3:11. Holloway thereby rejects the virtually universal consensus that 3:11 refers to the future, eschatological resurrection. 101 Cf. Oakes, Philippians, 107–108, who rightfully argues that σωτηρία in 1:19, which will come whether Paul lives or dies (1:20–21), “could mean something like preservation of character as a faithful follower of Christ, together with the consequent hope of life after death”; moreover, if “the direct echo of Job 13:16” is taken into consideration, “then the consequent hope ought also to include vindication” (pointing to Rom 5:9 and Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.163–167). 102  Koperski, Knowledge, 134, 150 and Oakes, Philippians, 103–128, esp. 116–119, 121. Oakes offers an important treatment of Paul as a “model” for the Philippians in their own suffering

Chapter Six: The One Righteousness of the Two Covenant Epochs

203

renunciation of his past as delineated in 3:4–6 parallels the Messiah’s giving up his previous status with God as stated in 2:6, then for Paul’s example to carry any weight his former life must be cast in an equally unqualified, positive light. Like the Messiah, who did not “consider” (ἡγήσατο, 2:6) his status with God something to be kept secure, Paul did not consider (ἥγημαι, 3:7) his former life a gain to be maintained. So too, the Philippians are to consider (ἡγούμενοι, 2:3) giving up their own importance for the sake of others in the same way that Paul considered (ἡγησάμην) it necessary to send Epaphroditus back to the Philippians both for their sake and his own, despite Epaphroditus’ present position of safety (cf. 2:28–29). The opening of Paul’s argument in 3:1–2 makes it clear that what Paul says about himself in 3:3–11 is to be considered exemplary for his church (cf. 1:27–29; 3:17; 4:9). Paul’s righteousness, now brought about through the faithfulness of Christ, expressed itself in Paul’s desire to gain and be found in Christ, i. e., to know Christ through Paul’s own willingness to suffer on behalf of the Philippians. So too, Paul exhorted the Philippians to think about their own lives in accordance with the way Christ thought about his (2:3–5). As an application of this Christ-like mind, Paul will exhort Euodia and Syntyche to think in the same way toward one another (4:2). For the essential character of the righteousness based on the faithfulness of Christ and faith in Christ that come from God (3:9d) consists in considering the needs of others more important than one’s own in order to conform to Christ’s own faithful obedience unto death as a “slave” (cf. Phil 2:1–4 and 5–8). The motive in doing so is the hope of sharing in the Messiah’s own resurrection-vindication; here too, Paul is the Philippians’ example just as Christ is Paul’s (cf. 3:11 with Phil 2:9–11). To this eschatological end, Paul called the Philippians “to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling” because God is at work in their lives to accomplish this very thing (2:12–13), just as Paul too could declare about himself, “I am able to do all things through the one who strengthens me” (4:13).

(and I would add, in their call to the service of love; see 1:9; 2:2–5 with 4:1), with Christ as a “prior model.” In 2:19–30 Epaphroditus and Timothy also function as examples for the Philippians of what it means to imitate Christ and Paul (Oakes, Philippians, 104, 110–111).

204

Part One: The New Covenant’s Present Reality

Appendix Five: A Syntactical Diagram of Philippians 3:8–11 Phil. 3:8

ἡγοῦμαι (πάντα) σκύβαλα Phil. 3:10

κερδήσω Χριστόν

ἵνα

καὶ Phil. 3:9

εὑρεθῶ

αὐτόν δύναμιν κοινωνίαν

γνῶναι τοῦ

=

ἐν αὐτῷ

ἔχων δικαιοσύνην =  μὴ ἐμὴν

τὴν ἐκ νόμου

ἀλλὰ (ἔχων)



(δικαιοσύνην) τὴν = (ἐμὴν)

=

διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ

δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ

ἐπὶ πίστει τῇ

Phil. 3:11

εἴ

συμμορφιζόμενος θανάτῳ τῷ καταντήσω πως

αὐτοῦ

εἰς ἐξανάστασιν τὴν

=

τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν

Part Two

The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Chapter Seven

New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgmentby Works(Romans 2:12–16) τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλὰ πρόδηλα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα κρυβῆναι οὐ δύνανται.

1 Timothy 5:25

… the ultimate (and unanswered) problem for a reading of Paul that still sees the doing of the law’s requirements as a problem or “plight” … is that it was not a plight for the Jew or for Paul (Phil 3:2–9). A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant1

The studies of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Philippians in Part One have each sought to rethink the polarities in Paul’s theology by reexamining Paul’s arguments regarding the eschatological arrival of “faith” within the covenantal history of redemption (Gal 3:23, 25; cf. Phil 3:9; 2 Cor 13:5). Particular attention has been paid to Paul’s understanding of the corresponding, experiential reality of the Spirit in the life of the church (2 Cor 3:2–3, 6; cf. Gal 3:1–5; Phil 3:3). In doing so, they have indirectly raised the question of the relationship between Paul’s new covenant “ministry of the Spirit” and the “ministry of righteousness” it creates on the one hand (2 Cor 3:8–9; cf. Gal 5:5; Phil 3:3, 9), and the reality of a future judgment by works on the other (1 Cor 6:9–11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:18–23; 6:7–10; Phil 1:9–11, etc.). It is now time to take up this question directly in what is perhaps the most forthright and, for this reason, most fought-over passage regarding this relationship, Rom 2:12–16. I approach this passage having argued that the law/gospel distinction in Paul’s theology is not material, but eschatological. The resulting polarities in Paul’s theology do not represent two different ways of relating to God, i. e., a “doing” way versus a “believing” way, but rather express various aspects of Paul’s understanding of the contrast between the two eras of redemptive history. In developing this contrast, Paul thus uses metonymies not to represent two principles of salvation, but two covenants, the “old covenant” established with Israel 1  A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 11.

208

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

at Sinai in continuation of the covenant with Abraham (τὰ ἔργα νόμου/ὁ νόμος) and the “new covenant” established with the community of the faithful who trust in the faithfulness of the Messiah (ἡ πίστις Χριστοῦ/πίστις/πιστεύω). The latter is now being extended to the gentiles through Paul’s own faithfulness as a “servant of the new covenant,” which is characterized not by the “letter,” which brought death to disobedient Israel, but by the “Spirit,” which brings life to God’s eschatological people (2 Cor 3:6 with Rom 2:29). This brings us to a consideration of Paul’s gospel itself, upon which the eschatological polarities that informed his ministry were based.

The Pauline Gospel and the Question of God’s Judgment The delineation of Paul’s gospel has usually focused on its climactic presentation in the programmatic statements of Rom 1:16–17, 3:21–26, 4:1–25, and 10:5–13. The inherent difficulty in doing so, however, is that these passages do not define the gospel itself. Rather, they presuppose it. Instead, they declare that as a result of the gospel the power of God that brings about salvation παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, i. e., to both believing Jews and gentiles, has now invaded history (1:16). The truth of the gospel brings this about because through its proclamation (cf. ἐν αὐτῷ in 1:17) it becomes clear that the righteousness of God is now being revealed eschatologically ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (1:17; 3:21–22; 4:1–25; 10:5–13). But the character, consequence, and condition of the gospel are not yet the gospel. The structure and sources of Paul’s argument in Romans reveal that for Paul the “gospel” itself is the good news of the establishment of the messianic rule of God through the resurrection of his crucified, Davidic Son “in power,” which, as the eschatological demonstration of God’s righteousness, takes place in fulfillment of the Scriptures (see esp. Rom 1:1–4, 17; 10:4–13; cf. 1 Cor 15:1–5). The eschatological revelation of God’s righteousness in the establishment of his kingdom is thus already being brought about powerfully in the midst of this evil age through the redemption and justification of his people, which is accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross, resurrection from the dead, and continuing intercession at the right hand of God (3:24–26; 4:25; 5:9; 8:34). The inextricable implications of the cross, resurrection, and ascension of Christ can consequently be summarized in the principle of Rom 14:17–18: “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy by means of the Holy Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), for the one who, like a slave, is serving Christ by means of this reality (ἐν τούτῳ; i. e., in the righteousness, peace, and joy brought about by the Spirit) is pleasing to God and acceptable to men” (cf. Rom 8:6–8). For Paul, then, the gospel is the declaration that God’s rule is being inaugurated through the redemptive events and ongoing salvific activity of the Son of God, which is manifest in the resultant transforming presence of the Spirit of God in

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

209

and among God’s people. The implications of this “salvation” (1:16) are then detailed throughout the letter. Where, then, if at all, does God’s judgment of the world according to its works, including believers, fit into Paul’s gospel and its salvific implications? Indeed, when the Torah/faith divide in Paul’s theology is not read covenantally and eschatologically, but materially, Paul’s statements regarding justification by faith and judgment by works are often presumed to be an irreconcilable polarity.2 Romans 14:17–18 itself illustrates the long-standing conundrum that answering this question poses for students of Paul’s implicitly “trinitarian” gospel. On the one hand, the gospel of the kingdom explicates the way in which God’s righteousness ([ἡ] δικαιοσύνη [τοῦ] θεοῦ) is revealed in bringing it about (Phil 3:9; Rom 1:16–17). In the words of Rom 14:17–18, God is shown to be righteous in that his kingdom comes about “by means of the Spirit” among “those who are serving the Messiah” (ὁ δουλεύων τῷ Χριστῷ). The kingdom of God thus displays God’s faithful, just, and merciful character in that, in fulfillment of his promises, he establishes his reign by bringing about, through the Son and the Spirit, the salvific redemption and eschatological justification of those who come to place 2 To give just one example, see Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, who argues that both post-70 apocalyptic Judaism (e. g., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, 2 Enoch, T. Abraham) and Paul had abandoned the “gracious framework” of covenantal nomism by denying the saving efficacy of Israel’s election in favor of a judgment by works (pp. 8, 10, 47, 50, 52–53, 55–56, 60, 62, 67–69, 186 n. 52). Thus, what texts like 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch concluded about Israel and the covenant based on the events of A. D. 70, Paul concluded on the basis of her rejection of Jesus. Hence, for Paul, “The Mosaic law has been severed from its context and forced to function as an empty series of demands requiring obedience with no solution for failure – hence, Paul’s negative view of the law …” (p. 144). As a result, like apocalyptic Judaism, “Paul disrupts the irreconcilable tension between the two poles of Jewish thought by weighing judgment over mercy” (p. 187). And because Jews too will be judged by their works, just like Gentiles, “Paul therefore compromises the gracious framework of covenantal nomism in favor of a universal judgment according to one’s deeds” (p. 191). My reading both of post-biblical Judaism and of Paul argues against this disavowal of the covenant context for their thought, as well as rejecting the existence of an inherent dichotomy between God’s elective grace and a universal judgment by works. As I posited in my review of his work, Trinity Journal 25 (2004) 264–267, Das fails to see the integrated, organic nature of the covenant relationship. Within the covenant structure in the OT, in important strands of Judaism (e. g., Qumran) and in Paul, the stipulations and God’s judgment were not added in “logical tension” to their framework to be “balanced” by election and the mercy of forgiveness; they were expressions of them. In covenant thinking, whether old or new, the commands of the law cannot exist apart from their covenant framework – they are inextricably tied together. Moreover, as set forth above, unconditional election brings with it the conditions of keeping the covenant, since keeping the commands (including the command to repent and rely on God’s mercy in atonement, forgiveness and renewal!) is what the grace of God and the provision of God’s presence effect in the lives of God’s people. To be saved by grace and judged by works (not by perfection!) is not a contradiction in terms if God’s gifts of grace, displayed in the very first step of faith, includes deliverance not only from the penalty of sin but also from its power. Paul’s new insight was not that the old covenant law now existed apart from its gracious framework but that, because Jesus was the Messiah, the old covenant as a whole was over. On Das, see too above, pp. 16–17 n. 27, and p. 225 n. 39 below.

210

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

their faith in him (see esp. the reference to future justification in the sequence of Rom 8:303 and cf. θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν in Rom 8:33 with Rom 1:17; 3:22, 26; 4:3–6; 10:9–11). The gospel therefore proclaims that this “kingdom,” as the promised, eschatological manifestation of God’s righteous character, is now a reality. On the other hand, Paul also explicates the gospel in terms of the Christian’s faithfully obedient life of righteousness created by the power of the Spirit (Rom 8:9). In terms of Rom 14:17–18, the gospel of the kingdom consists in the right­ eousness, peace, and joy of those who, by virtue of this expressions of their transformed lives, are serving the Messiah (ὁ ἐν τούτῳ δουλεύων τῷ Χριστῷ), and in so doing are pleasing to God (cf. Rom 8:8–10). According to Rom 6:7, such a life comes about as a result of having died with Christ to sin, for “the one having died [with Christ to the power of sin – vv. 1–6] has been justified/not held culpable (δεδικαίωται) from [the accusation/penalty of] sin” (Rom 6:7; see esp. Rom 2:13 and 6:23; cf. Rom 8:1–16, 33–34; 12:1–13:14; and the corresponding use in Acts 13:38–39).4 In short, the gospel declares the way in which God has now 3 So Alexander N. Kirk, “Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8,” in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul, ed. Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House, WUNT 2/450 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 107–128, who has convincingly demonstrated that ἐδικαίωσεν in Rom 8:30, as part of the argument of Rom 8:1–39 regarding how believers can persevere in the midst of suffering, refers to the future justification of the faithful against the accusations of their enemies and in view of the suffering of the righteous in this world (cf. Isa 50:7–9LXX with Rom 8:33–34, in which “Paul’s allusion to Isa 50:7–9 in Rom 8:33–34 taps into the theme of God’s ultimate vindication of the faithful over against their enemies,” pp. 114–117, quote from p. 115). Hence, “ἐδικαίωσεν in 8:30 should be read in the same time frame as δικαιωθήσονται in 2:13,” so that 8:28–39 also has a “future forensic time frame” (pp. 118, 121). Kirk’s point is that “the string of verbs in Rom 8:29–30 [is] intended as a chain of logical sequencing, even if there is not a strict chronological sequencing”: ἐδικαίωσεν, like ἐδόξασεν, refers to a future reality, i. e., to justification on the day of judgment, while the first three verbs (“foreknew,” “predestined,” “called”) are past/present soteriological realities (pp. 110–111, quote from p. 113). Hence, “Paul employs the aorist tense of δικαιόω in 8:30 for the same reason he employs the aorist tense of δοξάζω: to communicate that final justification and final glorification are as sure as the sovereign purpose of God” (p. 127). This surety serves to advance the goal of Rom 8 to exhort Christians to live according to the Spirit (8:12) in the midst of adversity (8:31–36) (p. 127). For according to Rom 8:30, the hope of the faithful does not disappoint or shame them (Rom 5:5; cf. 8:24–25) “because God will vindicate those who love him before a world that would seek to shame or condemn them … God will justify those whom are called according to his purpose” (p. 114, emphasis his). 4  Cf. Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 663 on Rom 6:7: “The sense of this claim can be completed smoothly if it is read in a forensic-liberative sense: ‘the one who has died has been released from Sin.’ ” Campbell follows Scroggs in taking this to refer “in the first instance” to Christ (p. 663; see too Prothro below). In response, see my earlier point in “Reading Paul’s ΔΙ­ ΚΑΙΟ-Language: A Response to Douglas Campbell’s ‘Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language,’ now slightly revised in my Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective: Selected Essays (Eugene: Cascade, 2015), 39–40 (slightly adapted here): Within my paradigm for reading Paul, there is no need to construe δικαιόω in Rom 2:13 differently than in Rom 6:7, since in both cases it evaluates and effects that the life of the righteous, having been set free from the power of sin over his/her life (6:6), is justified, having been freed by virtue of their obedience from the claims and consequences of sin both personally and forensically. For as I will argue below,

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

211

made known his salvific righteousness by bringing about the righteousness of his people, who please God by means of their righteous lives. Romans 14:17–18 therefore places the question of the role of judgment by works in relation to justification by faith within the larger framework of the revelation of God’s eschatological righteousness as manifest in both divine and human faithfulness. This well-known tension is increased all the more once Paul’s statements concerning the role of obedience in future justification are taken into account. How is it that according to Rom 2:6–7 God will render to each person according to his/her works, repaying eternal life to those seeking glory and honor and immortality by virtue of their endurance in good work (τοῖς καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ … ζητοῦσιν; see too Rom 14:10–12), when just a few paragraphs later he asserts in 3:11 that there is no one who seeks God (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν, quoting Ps 14:2)? How can Paul affirm in Rom 2:10 that God will grant eschatological glory and honor and peace (= eternal life, Rom 2:7) “to every one who works the good (παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν),” when in Rom 4:4–5 the one reckoned to be righteous is the one who is believing in contrast to the one who works (τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ) and in 4:6 the person who is blessed is the one to whom God reckons righteousness “apart from works” (χωρὶς ἔργων)? How does Paul’s principle in Rom 2:13 that “the doers of the law will be justified” (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθή­ σονται) fit with his declarations in 3:10–12 that “there is not one who is just” (οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς), “there is not one who does what is right” (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα; quoting Ps 14:3:), so that Paul can conclude in 3:20 that “from works

Rom 2:25–29 anticipates Rom 8:4 by stating that the righteous are not condemned in the final judgment precisely because, by Christ and through the power of the Spirit of Christ, they keep the just requirements of the law. In both contexts Paul emphasizes that it is not merely the possession of the law or a valiant effort to keep it in one’s own strength that counts, but actually keeping the law by the power of the Spirit (cf. the reference to keeping τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου in Rom 2:26 with keeping τὸ δικαίωμα τοὺ νόμου in Rom 8:4). Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 404–405, points to the helpful parallel formulations in Sir 26:29 and T Sim. 6:1, both of which support the sense being argued here rather than taking it to mean that a person’s own death justifies; Jewett’s own rejection of my preferred reading is therefore not necessary. Nor, contra Jewett, does this reading render v. 7 a “redundant restatement” of v. 6 (p. 405). Romans 6:6 declares co-crucifixion with Christ to be the means of one’s having died to sin in order that one need no longer serve it as a slave, while 6:7 declares the forensic consequence of this liberation. In support of my reading, James B. Prothro has pointed to the additional parallels in Acts 13:38–39; 20:26 and Wis 1:6, only to reject this reading in favor of arguing that the referent of ὁ ἀποθανών in 6:7 is Christ, who is vindicated over against sin by his resurrection (cf. Rom 8:3); for Prothro’s detailed argument in favor of reading Christ as the subject of 6:7, see his Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2/461 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 186–198. Though not impossible, and though the theological logic it would establish is attested elsewhere in Paul, I find such sudden, unmarked changes in subject from 6:6 to 6:7, and then back again in 6:8, unpersuasive.

212

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) no flesh will be justified” (δικαιωθήσεται) since the law brings the knowledge of sin (cf. Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16a)?5 In regard to a text like Rom 14:17–18, the Christian’s righteousness, peace, and joy by which one serves Christ are usually taken to describe a post-conversion sanctification by the Spirit that remains conceptually distinct from and experientially subsequent to a past justification by faith. As a matter of theological necessity, the faith that justifies in Rom 3:21–4:25 subsequently becomes the obedience that sanctifies in Rom 5–8 and 12–14. In regard to the passages from Rom 2, the response has largely been to construe the positive role of obedience within future justification to be the hypothetically possible, but unsuccessful, pre-conversion foil that creates the existential need for a justification by faith apart from moral works in general, or from the works of the Torah in particular.6 In view of Rom 1:18–32 and 3:10–12, 19–20, and without the reality of justification by faith “apart from works,” one is left with the futility of attempting to meet an unattainable standard of sinless perfection, whether expressed by nature in the conscience, or declared in the commands of the Sinai covenant. The “law” of nature or of Sinai thereby drives one to the “gospel”; the despair of “doing” leads one to the freedom of “believing.” Douglas Campbell’s detailed history of scholarship in this regard has shown the conceptual and exegetical difficulties such traditional, “justification theory” readings of Paul have faced in moving from Rom 1–4 to 5–8.7 His critique is telling at many points, especially regarding the attempt to derive a Pauline doctrine of judgment by works from a universal natural-law or wisdom-based theology (reading Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–16 against the backdrop of Wis 11–16) that is then displaced by a faith-based justification derived from the particular revelation of Christ (1:16–17; 3:21–26; 5:6–11).8 Hence, over against the traditional paradigm, many scholars, represented by the now programmatic works of E. P. Sanders and Heiki Räisänen, have concluded that Paul, moved by the exigencies of his 5 Cf., e. g., Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 356–357, who pits the four texts in Rom 2 that “seem to espouse a theology of salvation by works or by obedience to the Mosaic law” (i. e., 2:7, 10; 2:13; 2:14–15; 2:25–27) against Paul’s “clear” statements, such as 3:19–20 and 21–23; 7:14–25; 9:30–11:12, etc., and Paul’s arguments in Gal 2:15–16; 3:6–14, etc. Besides assuming that there is an unresolved tension in Paul’s thinking at this point, who has the right to decide which passages are clear and which are problematically obscure? 6  For this view, associated with Luther and established in modern scholarship by Hans Lietzmann, see the works listed by Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 358 n. 15, including, e. g., Kuss, Wilckens, Bruce, Moo, Bornkamm, and Longenecker himself in his earlier work. Though he is now willing to “relinquish the designation ‘hypothetical,’ ” he still holds 1:18–3:20 to be preparatory for 3:21–4:25 (p. 361). 7 See the sevenfold critique of this traditional reading of Rom 1–4 and its fourteenfold tension with Rom 5–8 as put forth by Campbell, The Deliverance, 38–51, 63–76, 81–83, 88; cf. 338–404, 528–529, 903. 8 Ibid., 15–16, 19, 30–31, 316–317, 324–325, 359–364, 528–530, 1144 n. 14.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

213

polemic, simply contradicts himself. Campbell’s solution is to ascribe this apparent contradiction in Paul’s thinking not to Paul himself, but to the failure of subsequent readers to recognize that the overall argument of Rom 1:18–3:20 was not Paul’s own view but that of one of his opponents, which Paul mimics or impersonates, “ ‘playacting’ ” in an extended, diatribal “ ‘speech-in-character’ (προσωποποιία).”9 According to Campbell, Paul himself did not teach a future judgment by works in Romans, not even hypothetically. Rather, Paul took on the persona of his opponent in order to expose the ludicrous nature of “the Teacher’s” doctrine of eschatological retribution. For Campbell too, therefore, the proposition that there is a future justification by doing good or by doing the law, now attributed solely to Paul’s opponent, becomes a foil for Paul’s own gospel of justification by the faithfulness of Christ (see below). Paul opposes his opponent both by showing the conceptual absurdity and anthropological impossibility of being justified by one’s moral actions, with or without the law, and by announcing in response his own message of eschatological participation in Christ. In Campbell’s reading of Paul’s gospel concerning God’s compassion, this leaves only the “positive” reality of a transformed life, brought about by an “apocalyptic” participation in Christ via the Spirit, which is described as “faith” itself.10 So whether in the traditional readings of Paul, or in the more recent “contradictory” and/or “participatory” proposals, the relevance of Rom 2:1–16 for the believer is effectively muted, if not done away with altogether. My goal, in stark contrast, is to restore Paul’s voice regarding a universal, future, eschatological judgment and justification by works, which in relation to the believer is itself an expression of the good news of the gospel.

The “One who Judges” in 2:1 and the Role of Works in 2:1–11 There is no question that the crux interpretum for the discussion of the role of judgment by works in Paul’s theology is Rom 2:12–16, which in its context  9  Ibid., 528–529; see too 531–532, 534, 538, 541–547. Hence, Rom 1:18–3:20 “is essentially a reduction to absurdity of the alternative gospel of the Teacher, especially in terms of the Teacher’s typical rhetorical opening with ‘fire and brimstone’ ” (p. 528). Similarly, John O’Neill saw all of Rom 1:18–2:29 to be contradictory to Paul’s thought, being an interpolation from a Hellenistic Jewish missionary tract; see Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 359. 10 So, for Campbell, Deliverance, 543, the “essential content of the Teacher’s position,” put forth “in a suitably pompous manner,” is “a vision of the future wrath of God – of God as retributively just. And Paul does not think that this is the essential nature of the God of Jesus Christ” (emphasis mine). In response, Paul “contrasts the Teacher’s programmatic theological claim quite deliberately with the initial disclosure of his own position – his gospel – which speaks of the saving intervention of God and hence of the divine compassion (vv. 16–17). Paul is stating here compactly that fundamentally different conceptions of God are at stake in these two gospels” (p. 543, emphasis his).

214

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

functions to support Paul’s argument in 2:1–11 (note the γάρ in 2:12). In his programmatic article on this passage, N. T. Wright has observed, however, that because its singular character makes it difficult to fit into Paul’s thought, this text is “the joker in the pack.”11 But even though the joker is seldom ever played, yet when it is, it becomes decisive. For this reason, Rom 2 is usually judged to be irrelevant or subsidiary to Paul’s portrayal of justification by faith, being taken either as part of Paul’s documentation that all people are sinners or as a Jewish foil for Paul’s own position (see above). Whether within the traditional view or someplace along the E. P. Sanders to James Dunn to Douglas Campbell spectrum of new perspectives on Paul, most scholars therefore relegate the “seemingly non-Pauline statements in Romans 2” advocating a future justification by doing the good/law (cf. 2:7, 10a, 13b) to the realm of an unrealized (im)possibility that drives one to the gospel implications of Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–22.12 In this reading, and in accord with an analogy of faith hermeneutic, the apparently clear statements of Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–22 provide the interpretative key for understanding the apparent obscurities of Rom 2:12–16. But what if, for Paul, both sets of texts were equally clear in affirming the same means of justification? The first step in answering this question is to recall the manner by which the twofold divine self-revelation is now taking place within the context of Paul’s gospel (for a delineation of the gospel, see above). In Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–22 Paul’s gospel declares how it is that God’s righteousness (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) is now being revealed or manifest (ἀποκαλύπτεται/πεφανέρωται) “from [God’s/Christ’s] faithfulness (ἐκ πίστεως/διὰ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) to [the believer’s] faithfulness” (εἰς πίστιν) apart from the old covenant epoch of the Torah (χωρὶς νόμου);13 this display of God’s faithfulness in bringing about the faithfulness of the believer testifies to the fact that the gospel unleashes the power of God that brings about deliverance “to everyone/all who trust(s)” (παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι/εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας) in the gospel’s proclamation of God’s faithfulness. In Rom 1:18, the manner of the corresponding revelation of God’s wrath (ὀργὴ θεοῦ) is equally 11  N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 131. In addition to Wright, see S. J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49 for another detailed treatment of this passage in support of several of the main point of my reading below (above all regarding the syntactical function of φύσις in 2:14 and the allusion to Jer 31:33/38:33LXX in 2:15a), together with a sustained evaluation of its history of scholarship, which therefore need not be repeated here. 12  So, again, Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 357. 13 It is beyond the purpose of this study to argue for my reading of the difficult phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν in Rom 1:17, in which I hold to the fifth of the ten different interpretations catalogued by Charles L. Quarles, “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,” NovT 45 (2003): 1–21: “from God’s faithfulness to man’s faith.” As the interrelated and dependent response to the prior reference to God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises, I take εἰς πίστιν to refer to the active, covenant faithfulness of the righteous, which is the goal of Paul’s apostleship among the gentiles according to Rom 1:5 (cf. εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως).

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

215

clear: it is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται) against “all the godlessness and unrighteousness (πᾶσα ἀδικία)” of those who suppress God’s truth “by means of [their] unrighteousness” (ἐν ἀδικίᾳ). The godless unrighteousness that comes about as a result of such foolish idolatry (1:21–23), which manifests God’s wrath in their lives, is then detailed in the actions of 1:24–31. Paul thus contrasts the faithfulness of those who trust in God’s faithfulness with the godless unrighteousness of those who suppress the truth of God’s right­ eousness by means of their unrighteous lives. The contrasts between 1:17 and 1:18 indicate that, for Paul, faithfulness is to be equated with a pattern of right­ eous acts, whether it be the faithful acts of the believer or of God. As we saw in Rom 14:17–18, the righteous manifest God’s righteousness in their salvation; in contrast, the unrighteous reveal (God’s righteousness displayed in) his wrath, taking the γάρ of Rom 1:18 seriously as the ground for Rom 1:16–17. The complicity of those who suppress the truth by their unrighteous actions is confirmed in 1:32 by the fact that, although they know “the righteous requirement of God” (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ), namely, that “the ones practicing (πράσσω) these things are worthy of death,” nevertheless, “they are not only doing (ποιέω) them, but also (publicly) approving those practicing (πράσσω) them” (cf. πράσσω in 2:1–3, 25; ποιέω in 2:3, 14). Paul uses parallel formulations in Rom 5:8–10 and 8:3–4 to those found in 1:18 and 1:32 in order to express God’s response of love to the universality of divine wrath (ὀργή) that would otherwise be meted out in death (θάνατος) against all evil doers. In Rom 5:8–10 Paul declares that while they were still God’s “enemies” God acted to save “sinners” from his eschatological wrath (ὀργή) by reconciling them to himself through the death (θάνατος) of his Son (cf. 5:8: Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν). Paul unpacks this declaration in 8:3: to overcome divine judgment, God condemned sin in the realm of the flesh as a result of having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας) and as a sin-offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας). In 8:4 Paul then fills out God’s salvific act in Christ by describing its redemptive purpose: “in order that the righteous requirement of the law (τὸ δι­ καίωμα τοῦ νόμου) might be fulfilled among us (ἐν ἡμῖν), who walk not according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα) but according to the Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα).” The reconciliation brought about through the atoning death of God’s messianic Son thus delivers sinners from God’s wrath by enabling them, through their Spirit-empowered life, to keep “the righteous requirement of the law” (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου; cf. 2:26!). By no longer practicing or publicly approving the godless unrighteousness outlined in Rom 1:18–32, the faithful thereby escape “the righteous requirement of God” (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 1:32) in force against all those who practice unrighteousness (ἀδικία; 1:18). Having condemned (κατα­ κρίνω) sin in the flesh (8:3), there is therefore now no condemnation (κατάκριμα) for those who live in the realm of Christ Jesus (8:1), because, by the power of the Spirit, they keep the commands of the law (see the γάρ introducing 8:3).

216

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

In Rom 2:1–3 Paul continues the point made in 1:32 that those who practice unrighteous ways of life are “worthy” of God’s judgment of death by putting forth a contrasting scenario. Whereas in 1:32 those who practiced unrighteousness also approved the same evil acts when done by others, now Paul directly addresses the “man” (ὦ ἄνθρωπε) who publicly judges (κρίνω) those who practice the ungodly things of 1:18–32 and yet still practices the same things himself (cf. πράσσω in 1:32 with its use in 2:1 and with the use of [ἐπὶ] τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσ­ σοντας in 2:2–3)! By his ability to render this judgment, he condemns himself (κατακρίνεις σεαυτόν, 2:1). For even if humanity at large suppresses “the truth” (ἡ ἀλήθεια) by their unrighteous deeds (1:18), the ability to judge the sin of others exposes an individual’s knowledge that, “according to the truth (κατὰ ἀλήθειαν), the judgment of God (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ) exists against those who are practicing such things” (2:2). The one judging the other knows by his own actions that he stands condemned and hence will not escape the judgment of God (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2:3). The verbal links between 2:1–3 and 1:18 and 32 therefore lead the majority of commentators to regard the figure in view in 2:1 to be the same as in 1:32. Indeed, Campbell declares that “this in fact could not be clearer.”14 Questions remain, however. In contrast to “every one who judges (πᾶς ὁ κρίνων) the other” in 2:1, those (plural!) pictured in 1:32 do not condemn the behavior of others detailed in 1:18–32, they approve it! If the figure of 2:1 is the same as 1:32, then he would be explicitly both approving and judging the others who do such things, a clear self-contradiction in the flow of the argument. And in doing so he would also be both approving and judging himself. But the critique in 2:1–3 holds true only if this person judges others, not himself, for what he himself does, thereby placing himself under divine judgment. Thus, with the introduction in 2:1 of the selfcondemning judgment of others, it is best to see a change in addressee from those described in 1:18–32. In 1:32 those who suppress the truth of God flaunt God’s “righteous requirement” not only by their own actions, but also by their public approval of the same unrighteous actions of others. In 2:1–3, by contrast, the person who confirms the truth of God and his “righteous requirement” by publicly condemning those who practice unrighteousness thinks he will thereby escape God’s judgment even though he too practices the same things. In 1:32 the actions and public attitudes of those in view are consistent. In 2:1–3 the actions and attitudes of the person in view are inconsistent. In both cases, however, they stand condemned for their unrighteous deeds. These differences are best explained if in 1:32 Paul is describing the general practice of pagan unbelievers, while in 2:1–3 he is speaking directly to a Jewish proponent of the Torah as outlined in 2:17–24. Moreover, also contrary to the majority reading, the self-condemnation in 2:1–3 is not true of everyone who makes a moral judgment, as if the universal 14

 Campbell, Deliverance, 548.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

217

sinfulness of humanity, in which of course the one judging participates (3:9–18), renders all judgment void. This would render Paul’s own judgments within 1:18–32 and 2:1–5 themselves pointless, not to mention Paul’s ethical condemnations throughout his letters. Indeed, in the move from 1:32 to 2:1–5 Paul freely condemns both the pagan doers of evil in 1:18–32, who know the evil deeds are wrong and yet practice and approve them anyway, and the Jewish hypocrite of 2:1–5,15 who also knows they are wrong, condemns those who do them, including those of 1:32, and yet refuses to repent from the evil himself. So while Paul is speaking as judge of both gentiles in 1:18–32 and Jews in 2:1–5, he does not identify himself with either case! Instead, as we will see, Paul is the positive example of the law-keeping Jew of 2:4 who knows such evil is wrong and repents in response to God’s kindness and patience, even as law-keeping gentiles represent the same positive example in 2:14–16 and 2:27. This construal of a change in referent in 2:1 is, of course, highly debated. Nonetheless, regardless of the referent of the vocative, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, in Rom 2:1 and 2:3 in relationship to the subject of 1:32 and to the  Ἰουδαῖος of 2:17, the ground and object of God’s wrath remain the same throughout Rom 1:18–2:11. God judges those who do the things outlined in 1:18–32 (and later in 2:22–23), as well as those who either approve or condemn them, since all three categories of people are doing the same things (cf. οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες … αὐτὰ ποιοῦ­ σιν in 1:32 with τὰ αὐτὰ πράσσεις … τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας … τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά in 2:1–3). The problem in 2:1–3 is therefore not the attitude of hypocrisy as such, though of course hypocrisy is a vice. In the parallel passages of 1:18–20 and 32 hypocrisy is not in view at all, but suppressing the knowledge of the truth of God’s righteous wrath against all ungodliness. So too, in 2:1–3 hypocrisy renders one without excuse not because hypocrisy itself is being condemned, nor because in this case it reflects a hidden prideful or legalistic character, but because here it reveals that the “man” who judges is also acting contrary to what he knows to be true. Thus, in both cases, the judgment of God falls “according to truth” (2:2b: κατὰ ἀλήθειαν) on all those “who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (1:18b: τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων) by acting contrary to the knowledge of God and his ways (1:32a: ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι …; 2:2a: οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι …; cf. 1:19a, 21, 23, 25a). Such a straightforward reading of the text in which disobedience to God’s truth is the problem for both gentiles and Jews (cf. 2:8–9) commends itself for its simplicity. It does not require bringing any “momentous additions”16 to 2:1–5 in order to make sense of it. This is the case, of course, only if we do not assume from the start that Paul could not have been asserting such a thing. Without 15 The degree to which 1:18–32 echoes the Hellenistic Jewish polemic against idolatry and its outworking confirms that it is probably a Jewish interlocutor whom Paul has primarily in mind; see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 79. 16 Campbell’s critique of the conventional reading, Deliverance, 548.

218

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the assumption that Paul’s gospel does not entail a divine judgment according to works, we need not “to insinuate legalistic Jews, or judgmental, moralizing Christians, or Paul himself into the ongoing argument,” as in the conventional reading, to make sense of it. But neither must one bring to the text Campbell’s own insinuation that the speaker of 1:18–3:20 is not Paul himself, but a “hypercritical Teacher” who is “arrogant and pretentious,” a specific representative of an elite group of literate Jewish teachers who is a Christian in some sense, but who represents everyone who judges another. Campbell’s drastic solution to the assumed incongruity between Rom 1:18–3:20 and Paul’s gospel, as, in effect, an extension of the conventional readings, is driven by his conviction that Paul’s gospel does not judge anyone, least of all according to one’s works!17 In my reading, by contrast, Paul is consistent throughout 1:18–2:5 in establishing the principle of 2:6–11 that God will “repay to each according to his works” (2:6), whether Jew or gentile, “for there is no partiality with God” (2:11; cf. Deut 10:17), a biblical principle foundational to his own gospel (Rom 3:21–24, 27–31; 10:10–13; cf. Eph 6:9; Col 3:25).18 As the corollary to this point, Paul is equally consistent in arguing in 2:4, 12– 16 that the answer to the problem of the disobedience of 1:18–2:5 is the repentant obedience brought about by the power of the Spirit in fulfillment of the promise of a new covenant (see below). God’s impartiality (2:11) is thus supported by the principle of God’s universal, works-based judgment of both Jews and gentiles (see the γάρ of 2:12a), which is grounded by the principle of 2:13 that, even for the Jews, “the hearers of the law are not righteous before God,” i. e., those who know God’s law but do not do it (cf. 1:32–2:3; cf. 2:17–24), “but the doers of the law will be justified” (see the γάρ of 2:13a). Hence, 2:11–13 do not propose “the ultimately rather embarrassing principle of desert” that leads nowhere,19 but, according to Paul’s gospel, proclaim the underlying reality of the new covenant that leads to praise from God (2:16, 29).

 For these points and quotes, see ibid., 549, 550–551, 560.  That God judges Israel and all humanity according to its works is a common Scriptural theme; cf., e. g., Deut 28; Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Isa 3:14–15; Jer 7:8–11; Ezek 22:6–12; Mal 3:5; Wis 15:1–6; Sir 16:14. For the most recent, extensive development of this theme in both the prophets and early Judaism, see Christian Stettler, Das letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis Jesus, WUNT 2/299 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 19 Campbell, Deliverance, 554. For Campbell, the consequent redefinition in 2:25–29 of the law-obedient gentile as the “true Jew” is therefore not Paul’s own application of the promise of Jer 31:31–34 and Ezek 36:26–27, but “a shameful argumentative implication on the Teacher’s part” (p. 565). 17 18

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

219

The Law-Free Nature of the Law-Keeping Gentiles Within his response to his Jewish interlocutor in 2:1–16, Paul grounds the positive principle of 2:13b that only the “doers of the law will be (eschatologically) justified” in a closely-argued series of assertions that make up the single, complex sentence of 2:14–16 (cf. the γάρ of 2:14a).20 The main point of the sentence, supported by everything else in it, is the assertion concerning the gentiles initiated at the beginning of 2:14: ἔθνη … οὗτοι … εἰσιν νόμος. Paul’s main point that certain gentiles can be equated with the law itself is subsequently modified adverbially by the two prepositional phrases that make up the end of the sentence in 2:16 (ἐν

ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου διὰ Χριστοῦ  Ἰη­ σοῦ). Rhetorically, Paul’s main point thus frames its intervening subordinate

statements. This frame also serves to orient the entire sentence to the future day of eschatological judgment as the occasion at which those gentiles who do the things of the law (2:14b) are equated with the law (2:14c). In turn, this reference to the day of final judgment in verse 16 picks up Paul’s emphasis on future justification according to the law from verse 13. Inasmuch as virtually every clause of 2:14–16 in support of Paul’s main point, not to mention his main point itself, is a matter of debate, it becomes necessary to unpack his propositions one by one. To begin with, the sense in which on the day of eschatological judgment law-obedient gentiles can be equated with the law itself is dependent conceptually on the implied condition of the ὅταν-clause in 2:14a, which also focuses on the law (… νόμον … τὰ τοῦ νόμου). And the meaning of the ὅταν-clause itself depends on the meaning and function within it of the instrumental use of φύσις (“nature”), which therefore becomes the crux of Paul’s argument.21 Recent discussions, however, have highlighted its ambiguous syntactical function within the subjunctive modification of 2:14a. It is usually construed to be the emphatically front-loaded modification of the verb that follows, ποιῶσιν, so that the clause reads, “for whenever gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature are doing the things of the law (φύσει … ποιῶσιν) … .” But it could also be a normally positioned adverb modifying the substantival participle, τὰ … μὴ ἔχοντα, in which case the clause would read, “for whenever gentiles, who do not have the law by nature (μὴ ἔχοντα φύσει …), are doing the things of the

20 So rightly, Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 33–34, who argues that the γάρ of 2:14 connects it back to 2:13 as explanatory: “the parallel between οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου (2:13) and τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν (2:14) is surely unmistakable on the grounds of proximity, syntactical/logical connection, and verbal similarity.” Gathercole, however, splits 2:14–16 into two sentences (v. 14 and vv. 15–16) for thematic reasons (p. 40). But according to the syntax there is only one finite verb in an independent clause, ἐστιν, and hence only one complex sentence. 21  Wright, “Romans 2,” 144: φύσει is “the little rudder around which the whole ship of Paul’s argument here will turn.”

220

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

law … .”22 There remains a strong consensus that the former is correct: Paul is emphasizing that there may be a time when pagan gentiles, who, by definition, do not have the law, nevertheless do the law instinctively by virtue of some sort of natural law or innate possession of a moral compass or ethical code that is reflected in their conscience, as Paul seems to say in the next verse.23 Given the universal sinfulness of humanity (1:18–32; 3:9–18), such moral gentiles are either a hypothetical, but never realized reality, an exception that somehow proves the rule, or “a thorn in the flesh … for any reading of Romans 1–3.”24 If the latter reading is preferred, Paul’s point would be that pagan gentiles, who, in accord with being non-Israelites, do not have the law, nevertheless do the law, without specifying at this point how they do so. The tipping point in the debate, against the dominant reading, is the clear conceptual parallel between 2:14a and 2:27. In 2:27 Paul unambiguously places φύσις in the attributive position to modify “uncircumcision” as a metonymy for the gentiles, rather than employing it to modify fulfilling (τελέω) the law. As such, it supports taking φύσει with the prior clause in 2:14a as well: 2:14a ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν 2:27a ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα

Read in this way, Paul’s description in 2:14 of gentiles as those who do not have the law “by nature” (φύσει) is picked up in the circumlocution of 2:27 in which he describes gentiles as the uncircumcision “from nature” (ἐκ φύσεως).25 So too, the gentiles’ “doing the law” in 2:14 is restated in terms of their “fulfilling the law” in 22 As

ibid., 145, and Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 35–36 demonstrate, grammatically

φύσει need not be placed within the participle clause in order to modify ἔχοντα, as often wrongly argued by those who take it with ποιῶσιν; Wright points to Rom 14:1 and the examples listed

by C. E. B.  Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 157 n. 2; Gathercole points to this same structure in Wis 13:1; Ign, Eph. 1:1 and Josephus, Ant. 8.152 (from Bergmeier). Unfortunately, the reference to Rom 2:14 in Apoc. Sedr. 14:5 (as well as its parallel in Apoc. Sedr. 15:4) does not help us here, since it omits φύσις from its quotation: οἶδας, Ζεδράχ, ὅτι εἰσὶν ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα [καὶ τὰ] τοῦ νόμου ποιοῦσιν· ὅτι [εἴ] εἰσιν ἀβάπτιστοι καὶ

ἐνέβη τὸ θεῖόν μου πνεῦμα εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπιστρέφονται πρὸς τὸ ἐμὸν βάπτισμα, καὶ δέχομαι αὐτοὺς μετὰ τῶν δικαίων μου ἐν κόλποις  Ἀβραάμ. On the other hand, it supports my reading by decoding “do-

ing the law” in terms of a repentance (cf. Rom 2:4!) brought about by the Spirit. 23  For this view, see, e. g., the commentaries of Käsemann, Fitzmyer, Dunn, Schreiner, Schlier, and now Campbell, Deliverance, 552, 556–557, 559, 565. Campbell, 556, suggests that there is no significant difference for Paul’s argument in either reading, but he can do so only because he seems to misconstrue the point of 2:14: “it matters little whether pagans possess a law ‘by nature,’ going on to do it … or whether they ‘do’ those good deeds ‘by nature’ (φύσει functioning adverbially in both readings but in relation to different verbs).” The text, however, if read in the usual way, says, “not having a law φύσει.” 24  Campbell, Deliverance, 565, parentheses removed. 25 So too Wright, “Romans 2,” 145, and Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 36–37, but with special thanks to Andrew Cowan, who, after I waivered concerning my previous commitment to this interpretation, pressed home to me the force of this unavoidable parallel during a research seminar in the Spring Semester 2012 at the University of St Andrews.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

221

2:27. The statements are striking for their apparent role reversal: gentiles, who do not have the law “by nature,” are doing the things of the law, which is to say, the uncircumcision “from nature” are the ones who, in fact, are fulfilling the law.26 This reading is confirmed by the meaning in this context of φύσις itself, which by the time of the first-century has a wide semantic range.27 Although in specific contexts φύσις could be employed as a cognate to οὐσία (“being,” “essence,” “substance”),28 its more common use was not as an abstract noun referring to a stative aspect of existence. Most often φύσις was a verbal noun (nomen actionis) related to the verb φύω (“to grow,” “to bring forth,” “to put forth,” “to become,” etc.). As such, it was used concretely of that which grows from the earth and metaphorically of anything that is produced.29 Thus, φύσις “bezeichnet zunächst den Zustand, der aus der spontanen Entwicklung eines Lebewesens resultiert … So steht φύσις … im Gegensatz zu … τέχνη … Darüber hinaus bezeichnet φύσις eine erste und ursprüngliche Seinsweise.”30 Used in this way, φύσις can designate “nature” in the sense of the character (Zustand) that is produced by a life or power (Lebewesen), as well as signifying the fundamental way of being (Seinsweise) that is seen in what it produces. So, as a verbal noun, φύσις designates “nature” in the  For a rebuttal of the objection that such a contrast is impossible since Paul never contrasts gentile Christians with Jews elsewhere (so, e. g., Bornkamm and Richard Bell), see Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 31–32, who points to exactly this same contrast in Rom 9:30 and 11:11–14, and esp. to the parallel language in 9:30–32 as established by Bergmeier. 27  See the helpful overview of Luc Brisson, “Natur, Naturphilosophie,” DNP 8: 728–736 for what follows. See too John W. Martens, who summarizes the “major strands of Greek thought on φύσις” to include “the power of life and growth … the particular characteristic of any thing or being … and φύσις as the inherent order and reason of the cosmos, seen par excellence in the νόμος φύσεως, but manifesting itself in every living thing” (One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law, Studies in Philo of Alexandria 2 [Boston: Brill, 2003], 67). 28  See LSJ, s. v. “οὐσία,” 1274, II and John R. Lenz, “Deification of the Philosopher in Classical Greece,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007), 50, 63 n. 13. But see Brisson, “Natur,” 728: only under certain viewpoints, which were taken up primarily in philosophical discussions, can it refer to Being (das Sein) as such (τὸ ὄν, ἡ οὐσία). See, e. g., a passage like Philo, Fug. 164–165, where Philo reflects on the difference between “nature” (φύσις) and “being” or “essence” (οὐσία). For a similar distinction between nature and essence, see Philo, Abr. 162–163; Spec. 1.32, 36, 39–41, where the question of the “essence” (οὐσία) of “the deity” (τὸ θεῖον) is posed for the genuine philosopher. 29  Cf. LSJ, “φύω,” 1966–1967; “πεφύκω/πεφυκότως,” 1398; “φύσις,” 1964–1965. Instructive is Philo, Spec. 1.30, where φύω is used to describe God, since “stability and fixity and lordship are by nature vested (πέφυκε) in Him alone” (texts according to F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo, Vol. II, LCL [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958]); as an expression of his nature, God is “the Framer and Maker of all things,” “the Lord of created beings” (κτίστης καὶ ποιηστὴς τῶν ὅλων, κύριος τῶν γεγονότων). In short, the divine nature is seen in what God does. Walter T. Wilson comments on Ps.-Phoc., Sent. 59–62 that φύω with the dative (“to fall to one by nature”) expressed “a generally held truth in Hellenistic culture about the human condition,” namely, that “nature” expressed itself determinately, so that “people must respect the ‘natural’ limits imposed on their existence” (The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, CEJL [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005], 119). 30 Brisson, “Natur,” 728. 26

222

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

sense of a “way of being/acting” that expresses itself in what it “grows.” In short, φύσις is either the expression of activity or that which expresses itself in activity, i. e., the character produced or the character that produces.31 Hence, although translated “nature” in English (cf. natura in the Vulgate of Rom 2:14, albeit taken with the subsequent clause), φύσις usually does not refer to a static or ontological “nature,” “essence,” “state of being,” or “status,” as if it were a simple synonym for οὐσία.32 Unless indicated otherwise contextually, φύσις typically refers to the dynamic character of something or someone that expresses itself in or produces actions or attitudes commensurate with its character.33 In this sense it is much closer to the contemporary American expression, “mother nature.” With this meaning of φύσις in view, Paul’s point in Rom 2:14 is not that the “essence” of being a gentile is not having the law, so that some gentiles are doing that which does not pertain to them ontologically. Rather, the character (φύσις) of the gentiles, qua gentiles, expresses itself in not “having (ἔχω) the Torah” as the governing reality of one’s manner of life, since to be a gentile is to be outside of the Sinai covenant. To sum it up by way of metonymy, to be a gentile, by definition, is to be “the uncircumcision” (2:27). Nevertheless, Paul affirms that there

31 See too ἐκφύω in Mark 13:29par.Matt 24:32. Given this dynamic understanding of “nature,” the important connection between φύσις and δύναμις is already apparent in Hippocrates (5th/4th cent B. C.), de vetere medicina, for whom the power of a being was the perceptible Ausprägung of the φύσις (Brisson, “Natur,” 729). It is by virtue of one’s power that the inner φύσις can be recognized on the basis of the effect (Wirkung; ἔργον) that it expresses (Brisson, “Natur,” 729). For the continuation of these two uses of φύσις through the NT era, see Barn. 10:7 for “nature” as that which is produced and Diogn. 9:6 for “nature” as that which produces (see too, Ign. Trall. 1:1). 32  Cf. Wright, “Romans 2,” 145, who renders the meaning of 2:14a to be that “their φύσις, their ‘natural state,’ is that they are uncircumcised,” but then suggests that this is not a reference to an “abstract ‘nature,’ ” but instead “refers to the status people have by birth or race” (p. 145 n. 9). A “status by birth or race,” however, is just as abstract, as can be seen by Wright’s gloss on its meaning: “they are ‘lesser breeds outside the law’ ” (p. 145). Moreover, Wright wrongly follows Achtemeier in asserting that “every time Paul uses φύσει, it is adjectival rather than adverbial” (p. 145 n. 9). In 2:14, however, even if φύσει modified ἔθνη, it would have to do so adverbially, together with an implied verb “to be.” This is confirmed by the other uses of φύσει in Gal 2:15 (where it modifies an implied ἐσμεν), Gal 4:8 (where it modifies the substantival participle τοῖς οὖσιν) and Eph 2:3 (where it modifies ἤμεθα); cf. James 3:7, where it is used adverbially modifying δεδάμασται and is itself modified in an attributive position (τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀν­ θρωπίνῃ). Similarly, Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 36, follows Achtemeier and Maertens’ assertion that φύσει in Paul’s letters is not used to describe behavior but the identity of a group (pointing to Rom 2:27; 11:21, 24; Gal 2:15; 4:8; Eph 2:3–4). Gathercole thus translates φύσει as “by birthright” in both 2:14 and 2:27 (pp. 36–37). 33  For more data in support of this conclusion and its significance for the programmatic text of 2 Pet 1:4, see my, “ ‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1:4 within its Eschatological Context,” Bib 94 (2013): 80–99. There I argue that being a fellow participant in the “divine nature” (θεία φύσις) does not refer to sharing in some way in God’s essence, but to participating in the character of God as expressed in the eschatological fulfillment of his promises at the return of Christ (cf. τὰ … ἐπαγγέλματα in 2 Pet 1:4 with κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ in 3:13).

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

223

are gentiles who, despite “not having the law by nature,” are now “doing the things of the Torah” in fulfillment of the criterion of justification stated in 2:13. Paul’s use of the typical meaning of φύσις in 2:14 underscores that “to have (ἔχω) the law” conveys the more active sense of actually living by it in accordance with one’s character, rather than simply “possessing it” as part of one’s interior essence, natural law, or ethnic heritage.34 A focus on obeying the law in 2:14 is confirmed by the unqualified reference in 2:13 to “the doers of the law” (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου), now repeated in 2:14b (τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν). In addition, Gathercole has demonstrated by examining the τὰ τοῦ‑ and οἱ τοῦ-constructions in Greek usage that these expressions in 2:13 and 2:14 must refer to those who obey God’s law in an inclusive and comprehensive sense that meets the standard of eschatological justification.35 Gathercole therefore concludes that … the reference is to the fundamental knowledge of God and orientation to his will that is lacking in the Jewish contemporaries of these Gentiles. The Jewish nation is unrepentant (2:5) and guilty of infraction of Torah (2:23, 25, 27). By contrast, those who ‘do the business of the Law’ are characterized by obedience, an obedience that is neither “vague” nor “partial,” nor utterly perfect.36

Hence, Rom 2:14 is wrongly understood when it is taken to condemn this gentile obedience as inadequate when measured against a presumed criterion of sinless perfection. Just the opposite is being asserted: these gentiles are actually doing what the Torah requires. As a result, the law-keeping gentiles, though they are “the uncircumcision by nature,” have nevertheless become “Jews.” When in 2:17a Paul directs his attention back to the one who is by nature a “Jew” (εἰ δὲ σὺ  Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζη), the opposite is also true. For those Jews who possess the law but transgress it in the ways described in 2:17b–25a, their “circumcision,” i. e., the expression of their character in having the Torah, has become “uncircumcision” (2:25b). Such “Jews” are no longer Jews, i. e., members of God’s elect, covenant people, since the example of the gentiles who now keep the law demonstrates that mere possession and knowledge of the law holds 34 That “to have (ἔχω) the law” implicitly entails the obligation to obey it can be seen in the use of the same expression in John 19:7 (to have the law is to be obligated to enact its penalty); cf. too Heb 7:5 (where to have a command is to act accordingly); 7:28 (the law is personified as that which appoints high priests). See too Herm. Sim. 50:5, where to have the law means that one is obligated to act accordingly (σὺ οὖν τί μέλλεις ποιεῖν, ἔχων νόμον ἐν τῇ σῇ πόλει;) or, if this obligation is not taken up, to adopt another law. This same point is made with other expressions of “possessing the law” (cf., e. g., Num 9:14; 15:15–16, 29; Jer 8:8; Let. Aris. 39, 46). 35 See “A Law unto Themselves,” 34, in which Gathercole points to the τὰ τοῦ‑ and οἱ τοῦ-​ constructions as indicating general, unlimited spheres in Matt 16:23; 22:21; Mk 8:33; 12:17; Luke 20:25; Rom 8:5; 14:19; 1 Cor 2:11, 14; 7:32–34; 13:11; and 2 Cor 11:30 for the former; Gal 3:9; Rom 4:14 for the latter. 36  Ibid., 35, countering the views of the majority of scholars, who see the obedience in view to be “vague” and “partial” as an expression of unregenerate gentiles, and Cranfield, who sees it as still undeserving of God’s favor.

224

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

no eschatological advantage.37 Hence, in 2:26 (note the οὖν) Paul can establish an eschatological maxim from these role reversals based on whether one obeys the law or not (note its third-class, future more probable condition): “the uncircumcision” that “keeps the righteous requirements of the law” (τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ; cf. 1:32–2:3!) is to be “reckoned as circumcision” (εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται), i. e., as justified members of God’s elect, (new) covenant people. Strikingly, then, to be “reckoned as circumcised” (λογίζομαι εἰς περιτομήν) due to keeping the Torah in Rom 2:26 can be equated conceptually with being “reckoned as righteous” (λογίζομαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην) due to trusting in God’s promises in Rom 4:3–6, 9–11, 22–23 (cf. Rom 9:8; Gal 3:6). Hence, the former, no less than the latter, clearly represents Paul’s understanding of the eschatological status of believing gentiles. In 2:27 Paul uses the genitive of source, ἐκ φύσεως (“from [one’s] nature”), to describe “the uncircumcision” since a gentile’s character outside of the covenant community determines the non-observance of this fundamental covenant sign. Conversely, from his eschatological perspective, Paul also maintains that to keep the Torah signifies, by definition, that one is now part of the (new) covenant people, whether physically circumcised or not (cf. Gal 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:19; and chapter ten)! He can do so since being an “eschatological Jew” is no longer a matter of “the circumcision that appears outwardly in the flesh” (ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή), but a matter of a “circumcised heart by the Spirit, not by the letter” (περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι) (2:28–29). By implication, such “gentiles” who do the law are therefore no longer “gentiles” ἐκ φύσεως. Their φύ­ σις has been transformed. In other words, they have a new, “hidden Jewish” character (ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ  Ἰουδαῖος, 2:29a) which expresses itself in a new way of life, namely, in “doing the law,” by which one will be justified in the final judgment. This same contrast between gentiles who do the law, leading to justification, and Jews who do not, is repeated later in the epistle in the contrast of Rom 9:30– 31, where it is expressed in terms of δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”):38

37  This reading of the problem described in 2:17–24 is widely agreed upon. Campbell, Deliverance, 560, 562–564, also accepts this reading, though he argues that the “Jew” in view is not a generic Jew representing Judaism, but once again the Jewish Teacher whom Paul is parodying, which Campbell distinguishes from “any sensible reconstruction or critique of Judaism in general …” (p. 561). But Campbell himself points out, pp. 561, 564, that the mere possession of the law was thought in certain strands of Hellenistic Judaism to bestow ethical and hence eschatological advantages on the Jews (e. g., in the common Jewish “rationalistic anthropology” of “self-mastery” evidenced in 2 Maccabees and Philo, following Stowers) and can even be illustrated with an example from Rome in A. D. 19 (see the incident of the Jewish sages who were in fact “con artists” recounted in Josephus, Ant. 18.81–84, which centered on theft, adultery, and temple robbery!). 38  I owe the parallel between 2:14 and 9:30 to Bergmeier, as presented by Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 31–32. The extension of the parallel to 9:31–32 is my own.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

2:14a ὅταν  ἔθνη 9:30a ὅτι  ἔθνη 9:31 Ἰσραὴλ

τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης

225

τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν

In these parallels the fact that the gentiles do not have the law “by nature” (2:14a) corresponds to their “not seeking righteousness” (9:30a), which again reflects the active, verbal character of φύσις. The gentile φύσις, absent of the law, expresses itself in not seeking righteousness. In contrast, Israel, as those to whom the law was given, seeks the righteousness given in the law (9:31). This, for Paul, leads to the tragic irony of redemptive history. The gentiles, who do not have the law by nature but now nevertheless do it, were formerly not pursuing righteousness but nevertheless attained it, since it is a righteousness ἐκ πίστεως (9:30b). Here too, as I have argued throughout these essays, the reference to “faith” ought not to be construed as the material opposite of “doing the things of the law” in 2:14a, but as the eschatological reality in which obedience is now made possible (on Rom 9:30–10:4 in particular, see above, pp. 192–193). The reference in 9:30b to a righteousness based on faith (ἐκ πίστεως), which alludes back to the use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:16–17, thus provides the eschatological context for the matching declaration of Isa 28:16LXX quoted in 9:33 that “the one who is trusting (πιστεύω) on him will not be put to shame” in the final judgment. In contrast, Israel, though seeking to live in accordance with the Torah, which was to lead to righteousness (cf. νόμος δικαιοσύνης in 9:31), did not attain it because she did not see that the epoch of the law was aiming toward being kept ἐκ πίστεως (9:32a; cf. 10:4). Instead, Israel continued to view the Torah ὡς ἐξ ἔργων, i. e., as if the righteousness set forth in the law were still to be sought under the old covenant (9:32b).39 As a result, in accord with Isa 8:14 and 28:16, Israel stumbled over and took offense at the stone of stumbling, the Messiah, when he came (9:32b–33; for the other 39  For a programmatic example of the opposing position in which Paul’s argument in 9:30–32 is read as part of Paul’s ongoing material contrasts between faith and obedience, Christ and the law, see A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001). Das argues that according to Rom 9:32 Israel therefore missed the true goal of the law in Christ because she was concerned with its requirements, which is a “false path … the human pursuit of the law is in principle opposed to God’s action on the basis of election” (pp. 246 n. 44, 247, emphasis mine). “It is because they were involved in the doing of the law that they failed to believe” (p. 247, emphasis his). As a result, Israel missed the “inner meaning” of the law “because of their rush to pursue the law’s demands” (p. 247; cf. p. 257 n. 95). For Das, the traditional view of Paul and the law was therefore “not entirely off the mark in its analysis” (p. 273). It was simply misled regarding the source of the problem with the law in Paul’s thinking due to “a critical error: first-century Judaism was never the culprit. The error was to foist on first-century Judaism what was an essential step in Paul’s own reasoning corresponding to his transition from a law-observant Jew to the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul’s newfound faith in Christ forced him to place the law’s requirements into a new framework of understanding. This created an artificial problem for Paul with the law, a problem that a Jew (or Jewish Christian!) subscribing to a system of covenantal nomism would not have recognized. But for the apostle, it was a problem that should have been clear to anyone in Christ” (p. 273, first emphasis his, second mine).

226

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

uses of ἐκ πίστεως in Romans, all of which likewise refer to new covenant realities brought about by Jesus as the Messiah and/or the life of faith they engender, see 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 10:6; 14:23).

The New “Nature” of New Covenant “Gentiles” In 2:14b Paul draws the conclusion warranted whenever gentiles are keeping the law. Here too syntactical parallels play a determinative role semantically. The use of the dative φύσει in its customary position modifying its preceding verbal in 2:14a is paralleled by the same construction regarding the dative ἑαυτοῖς in 2:14b, thereby establishing a conceptual parallel between the two clauses: 2:14a   ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα   φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος. 2:14b οὗτοι  νόμον μὴ

Read in this way, ἑαυτοῖς does not modify εἰσιν reflexively (“these [gentiles who do the law] are a law to themselves”), as if Paul’s point once again was that, in spite of gentiles not having the Torah (taking the adverbial participle, ἔχοντες, concessively), these [gentiles who do what the Torah requires] possess an interior, moral law. Instead, Paul’s point is that, even though they do not have the law with regard to themselves as gentiles (taking ἑαυτοῖς reflexively with ἔχοντες in parallel to ἔχοντα φύσει), “these [gentiles who do what the Torah requires] are the Torah.” But on what basis can Paul posit the existence of such Torah-keeping, Torahidentified gentiles? Who are these strange new gentiles? By the time Paul’s argument ends in vv. 28–29, readers of Paul as diverse as Barth, Black, Bultmann, Käsemann, König, Cranfield, Ito, Dunn, and Wright all agree that there exist Christian gentiles who are “true Jews” by virtue of Christ and the Spirit, even though most commentators argue that 2:14 refers to equally moral, pagan gentiles.40 There is no internal evidence within this passage, however, of any such transition in Paul’s thinking between v. 14 and vv. 28–29. Moreover, Paul himself explicitly answers the question of the identity of these Torah-keeping gentiles who will be justified by their works. The indefinite relative pronoun clause introduced by οἵτινες in 2:15 serves to define further the referents of the demonstrative pronoun, οὕτοι, in 2:14b, which designated the law-obedient “gentiles” of 2:14a. As Alex Kirk has helpfully pointed out, this identification in 2:15 is thus simply 40  Cf. Wright, “Romans 2,” 134–139 and the bibliography in Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 357 n. 5 and 358 n. 12. The difficulty of understanding this passage is reflected already by Augustine’s change of mind concerning it, from taking 2:14–15 as a reference to natural law to seeing it as a reference to gentile Christians, though he still saw it as a proof text for natural law; for this point, see Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 28. What is clear, however, is that Gathercole is right, contra Engberg Pedersen, that the question of whether the gentiles of 2:14–15 are Christians or “non-Christ believing” pagans is far from settled in favor of the latter (pp. 28–29).

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

227

the final link in a consistent chain of descriptors from 2:6 to 2:15: those who seek for glory (2:6) = those who do good (2:10) = those who do the law (2:13) = those who do the things of the law (2:14) = those who have the law written on their hearts (2:15a).41 Forming the last link in this chain, v. 15 explicates how it is that such doers of the law are, as it were, the Torah itself. Paul’s answer in 2:15 is straightforward, though from our distance it requires some significant elucidation: whenever gentiles do the things required by the Torah they embody the Torah in that, by this obedience, “they show forth publicly (ἐνδείκνυνται) the work of the law written [by God] on their hearts.” The key to Paul’s definition of these Torah-equated, Torah-keeping gentiles is to recognize that 2:15 is best taken to be a reference not to an innate moral law, but to the fulfillment of the new covenant promise of Jer 31:33/38:33LXX.42 Paul can therefore identify Torah-observant gentiles with the Torah itself because their obedience evidences that God has replaced the sin engraved on their hearts (cf. Jer 17:1) with an obedience to his law. Only such a divine work can transform those who do not have the law φύσει and ἑαυτοῖς, and are consequently uncircumcised ἐκ φύσεως, into Torah-obedient gentiles who are circumcised in heart (cf. 2:26, 29). Indeed, for both Jews and gentiles, only such a transformation of the human heart pictured in this new covenant promise can bring about “doing the law” rather than merely hearing it (2:13). Paul’s use of φύσις and ἑαυτοῦ in 2:14 has already prepared the way for this strong allusion to Jeremiah’s declaration of the promise of the new covenant. That Paul is alluding to the new covenant in 2:15 is made even more probable by the fact that the unusual idiom of “writing the Torah on the heart” occurs in the Scriptures only in the promise of Jer 31:31–34. There is no other viable source for this unusual expression. The new covenant context of 2:15 is further confirmed by the corresponding collocation of motifs in Rom 2:26 and 29. As we have seen, whereas in 2:14–15 Paul speaks of the gentiles who “do the things of the law,” in 2:26 Paul posits that if an uncircumcised believer “keeps the just things of the law” (φυλάσσω τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου) his uncircumcision is reckoned as circumcision. N. T. Wright has pointed out that this keeping of God’s  Pointed out in an email, August 22, 2012.  Cf. ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς (Jer 38:33) with τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (Rom 2:15). For the methodological criteria in support of identifying 2:15 as a strong allusion and hence reference to Jer 31:33/38:33LXX, see now the insightful work of Joel White, “Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul: Methodological Considerations and a Test Case (1 Corinthians 6:5),” in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul, ed. Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House, WUNT 2/450 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 175–178. Based on a development of his earlier studies and an analysis of the previous work of Hays, Berkley, and Heilig, White develops six refined criteria for determining allusions in regard to the two categories of “explanatory potential” and “background plausibility” (pp. 175, 178). Rom 2:15 meets the criteria of semantic agreement, recurrence in Paul, lucidity, and illuminatory potency. White, following Stanley, also shows the complete inadequacy of audience competency as a criteria for determining allusions in Paul’s writings (pp. 176–177). 41 42

228

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

just requirements most likely alludes to the fulfillment of the corresponding new covenant promise of Ezek 36:26–27LXX.43 Here too, then, Paul is building his argument on his conviction that this new covenant promise is now being fulfilled in and through the apostolic ministry. As the implication of this fulfillment, this obedience to the Torah is taken in 2:29 to mean that the law-keeping gentile becomes an inward Jew (ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ  Ἰουδαῖος) by means of a circumcised heart brought about by the Spirit (περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι). Paul’s description thus picks up the promise in Ezek 36:26–27LXX of God’s eschatological gift to his people of “a new heart and new spirit” (καρδία καινὴ καὶ πνεῦμα καινόν) and of the corresponding agency of God’s Spirit (cf. τὸ πνεῦμά μου δώσω ἐν ὑμῖν) in causing his restored, new covenant people to keep his “righteous requirements” (δικαιώ­ ματα). In so doing, Paul ties the fulfillment of this promise to Israel’s need for a circumcised heart as declared in Deut 16:16, 30:6, and Jer 4:4. This conceptual link in Paul’s argument between 2:15 and 2:26–29 cements the new covenant connection between the emphasis in Rom 2:15 on obedience to the Torah from Jer 31:31–34 and the statement in Rom 2:29 regarding the agency of the Spirit in bringing it about from Ezek 36:26–27 (for the additional parallel in Rom 8:4, see below; cf. too 1:32). These allusions to the new covenant promises from Jeremiah and Ezekiel in Rom 2:14–15 and 26–29 should not be surprising. In 2 Cor 3:6 Paul had already identified himself as a “servant of the new covenant” from Jer 31(38LXX):31, which he also brought together with the other central new covenant passage of Ezek 36:26–27 (cf. 2 Cor 3:3 with 3:6), thereby establishing the same γράμμα/πνεῦμα, old covenant/new covenant contrast found in Rom 2:29 and Rom 7:6. Indeed, the use of the motifs of 2 Cor 3:6 in Rom 2 and 7 is not surprising when we remember that Paul wrote Romans in the shadow of his last writing and visit to Corinth. The new covenant gentiles of 2:14–15, who will be eschatologically justified due the law’s work written “in their hearts” (ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν), are thus the positive counterpart to the (Jewish) “man” of 2:1–5, who will not escape the judgment of God due to his “stiff and impenitent heart” (ἡ σκληρότης καὶ ἀμετα­ νόητος καρδία).44 Rather than being justified by one’s works as a “doer of the law” 43  Following Wright, “Romans 2,” 136; cf. the linguistic and conceptual parallels to the promise of Ezek 36:27: καὶ ποιήσω ἵνα ἐν τοῖς δικαιώμασίν μου πορεύησθε καὶ τὰ κρίματά μου φυλάξησθε καὶ ποιήσητε. Contra Wright, 135, 135 n. 4, however, I do not think that Paul’s explicit reference to Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 ought to be attributed to Ezek 36:20 as well. The LXX of Isa 52:5 had already used Ezek 36:20 to translate the MT (importing into Isa 52:5 the stress on ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν from Ezek 36:20–23), so that the collage belongs to an earlier stage, the awareness of which we cannot be sure of here; see J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 177 n. 172. For a detailed argument that Ezek 36 is playing an explicit role in Paul’s argument here, see Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, SBLDS 175 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). 44  See the description of the people of Israel as “stiff necked” (ὁ λαὸς σκληροτράχηλος) at the sin with the golden calf in Exod 33:3, 5; 34:9 (cf. Deut 9:6, 13; 2 Chron 30:8; Neh 9:16–17; Jer

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

229

(2:6, 13), the continuing, golden-calf-like-disobedience of such a person “stores up wrath” for the eschatological “day of wrath” when the “righteous judgment of God” (δικαιοκρισία τοῦ θεοῦ) will be revealed (2:5; cf. ἀδικία in 2:8 and δίκαιος and δικαιόω in 2:13). In the same way, the law-keeping gentiles of 2:14–15 are also the counter-pole to the disobedient gentiles of 1:18–32. The description in 2:5 of “hard hearted, impenitent” disobedience picks up the earlier reference in 1:21 to those unbelieving gentiles who, though knowing God, “were given over to futility in their reasonings,” so that “their heart, which lacked understanding (ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία), was darkened.” The gentiles’ resultant idolatry is then described in 1:23 in terms taken from the portrayal of Israel’s idolatry with the golden calf in Ps 106(105LXX):20. Such a move indicates that Paul considers Israel’s stiff heart and the idolatry it creates to be a microcosm for the idolatry of the whole world. As a result, as with Israel, God “gave them over in the lust of their hearts (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν καρδιῶν) to uncleanness” in order that their bodies might be dishonored (1:24). In contrast, the gentiles who have the law written on their hearts are faithful members of the new covenant community who, as such, keep God’s Torah (2:14–15; cf. Rom 2:29; 8:4; and the conceptual parallel in 10:9–10 regarding “the one who trusts in/by the heart for righteousness” [πιστεύω ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ/ καρδίᾳ εἰς δικαιοσύνην]). Though still a minority opinion, the conclusion that the gentiles of 2:14 are Christians must therefore be taken seriously.45 The reference in 2:15 to “the law written on the heart” from Jer 31:33 as a description of the transformed life of the believer is then picked up in Rom 6:17. There Paul thanks God that the Roman believers, who were once slaves of sin, “have become obedient from the heart” (ὑπηκούσατε ἐκ καρδίας) to the “form/ pattern of teaching” (τύπος διδαχῆς), “to which they are given over as a matter of authoritative tradition” (εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε). Moreover, this change in their life-determining identity in Rom 6:17 is linked conceptually to a change in “character” in Rom 6:5, just as it is in 2:13–15. In Rom 6:1–4 Paul calls those who have died to sin, having been baptized into Christ’s death, not to live any longer in sin, but to walk in the “newness of life” that corresponds to Christ’s resurrection. In 6:5 he grounds (cf. the γάρ) this reality and consequent command with a summarizing statement regarding their changed “nature” as a result of being identified with Christ’s death and resurrection: “For if we have become ‘fellow natures’ (σύμ-φυτοι) with the likeness of his death, then we will certainly also be ‘fellow 7:26; 17:23; Baruch 2:30), Moses’ description of Israel as σκληρότης in her wickedness and sin in Deut 9:27, his prediction of Israel’s ongoing rebelliousness and “hard” (σκληρός) neck after his death in Deut 31:27, Israel’s σκληροκαρδία and her consequent need for a “circumcised heart” in Deut 16:16 and Jer 4:4, and Ezekiel’s pronouncement that Israel is still σκληροκάρδιος in Ezek 3:7. 45  Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 29–30, lists in support of this view, Ambrosiaster, Augustine’s later view, Mundle, Karl Barth, F. Flückiger, J. B. Soucek, R. Bergmeier, Cranfield, and N. T. Wright.

230

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

natures’ (σύμ-φυτοι implied) with the likeness of his resurrection.”46 This conditional argument makes clear that sharing the new “nature” or “character” of the crucified and resurrected Christ means, by definition, taking up Christ’s obedient way of life ἐκ καρδίας as a result of having been set free by his death from slavery to sin (6:17; cf. 6:6). The gentile believers’ identification with Christ’s death and resurrection transforms their previous φύσις so that a new, active σύμ-φυτος now expresses itself in an obedience from the heart that they formerly did not possess. The Torah-obedient character of new covenant gentiles again surfaces when Paul describes the believers’ keeping the Torah in Rom 8:4, which once more is said to eventuate in eschatological justification (cf. 8:1). Here Paul employs the same formulation found in 2:26, this time in the singular: as a result of the condemnation of sin by the death of Christ (8:3), believers fulfill “the just requirement of the law” (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου) by no longer living according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦ­ μα). In Rom 8:4–8, as in Rom 2:29, it is once again the Spirit who brings about the fulfillment of the law among those who now possess “the mind belonging to the Spirit” (τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεῦματος). “The mind belonging to the flesh” (τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός), on the other hand, is not able to submit to God’s law (τῷ νόμῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, 8:6–7).47 As in Rom 2:6–12, the former brings life and peace; the latter, death (8:6). As a condensed summary of this complex of ideas, Paul’s reference in 8:2 to “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ) is best construed not to refer to a spiritual, life-giving principle found in Christ, but to the Torah now being fulfilled by believers under the power of the Spirit, which gives life “in Christ,” i. e., in the realm of Christ’s authority. The Torah within the new covenant consequently sets the believer free from the Torah’s condemning role under the power of sin that brought death during the old covenant era (ὁ νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου). For Paul, therefore, the Torah itself has been “redeemed” in the eschatological era brought about ἐν Χριστῷ (cf. Rom 3:31; Gal 6:2).48 46 I owe this parallel to Alex Kirk, in private correspondence, April 9, 2012. As part of the semantic field of φύσις, σύμφυτος is a NT hapax; cf. its use in Amos 9:13; Zech 11:2 (both coincidentally in eschatological passages); and 3 Macc 3:22, where in each case it refers to sharing in the same nature or likeness as something else. It does not occur in the Greek pseudepigrapha or apostolic fathers. 47  Wright, “Romans 2,” 135, also adds the parallel passage from Phil 3:3. 48 I am indebted for the perspective presented here regarding the freeing of the Torah itself from the power of sin in tandem to the corresponding freedom of the believer from the “Herrschaft der Sünde,” with the latter now empowered by the Spirit to fulfill the former, to Peter Stuhlmacher’s many works; see his summary of Paul’s thought in Rom 8:2–4 within the context of Paul’s view of the Torah in Rom 7:7–8:11 in his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 264–267. Of special interest for our study is Stuhlmacher’s emphasis that Rom 8:2 picks

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

231

The “Work of the Law” on the Heart: Paul’s “Covenant Theology” Given Paul’s emphasis in 2:14 on the identification of Torah-keeping gentiles with the Torah, it is striking that in 2:15 it is not specifically the law that is written on their hearts, but “the work of the law” (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου). This adaptation of the Jer 31(38):33 text picks up Paul’s earlier reference in 2:7 to those who seek eternal life by exercising an “endurance of good work” (καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγα­ θοῦ), singular, and anticipates the next time the terminology occurs in 3:20, where it initiates Paul’s polemic against “the works of the law” (τὰ ἔργα [τοῦ] νόμου), plural, as a source of justification (cf. 3:27–28; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). These parallels and the ones adduced below, as well as the reference in 2:13–14 to doing what the Torah requires (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου … τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν), lead to construing the genitive construction in 2:15, τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου, like its plural counterpart, as a subjective genitive referring to the “work” which the Torah itself commands.49 Paul’s alteration between the singular and plural uses of ἔργον in relation to judgment and justification is not uniform, so that its referent must be determined contextually.50 When modified by the Torah, and in the moves from 2:6 to 2:14– 15 to 2:26–29 to 3:20 to 3:27–28, the emphasis is clearly on one’s behavior and its source in the Torah. In these moves Paul contrasts one’s behavior according to the law as vivified by means of the πνεῦμα, which is rendered by the terminology ἔργον νόμου, with one’s behavior according to the law merely as γράμμα, i. e., apart from the Spirit, which is rendered by the terminology ἔργα νόμου. In view of the grace of God granted in and through the Messiah, to continue to rely on or insist on the “works of the law” as a condition for justification is therefore to deny the necessity and all-sufficient nature of the “the work of God” (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ up Paul’s reference to νόμος πνευματικός in Rom 7:14 and thereby recalls both Ezek 37:5–6 and Jer 31:31–34 (p. 265). 49  For substantiation of this point, in agreement with Luther, see chapter one. Contra Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 41, who follows Dunn and Morris in taking it as an objective genitive meaning “accomplishment of Torah.” For the subjective, Gathercole points to Fitzmyer, Cranfield, Käsemann, Leenhardt, and a variation (“effect of the Law”) advocated by Barrett and Maertens. 50 In Rom 2:6 Paul uses ἔργα as the criterion of divine judgment (quoting Prov 24:12; Ps 62:13), as he does in 2 Cor 11:15 and 2 Tim 4:14, while in Rom 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32; 11:6 Paul denies ἔργα as a source of justification or divine calling. In 1 Cor 3:13–15 and Gal 6:4 ἔργον is used of a person’s work to be judged eschatologically; in Eph 2:9 ἔργα is denied as a source of being saved by grace (cf. 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5), while in Eph 2:10 ἔργα ἀγαθά are the goal of being created in Christ (cf. 1 Tim 2:10; and with ἔργα καλά, Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14); in Phil 1:6 this same goal is pictured as God’s ἔργον ἀγαθόν in the life of the believer (for the same point, see 2 Thess 1:11; 2:17; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 3:1). In 1 Tim 5:24–25 αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, which lead to judgment, are contrasted with τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλά, which do not (for the latter, cf. 1 Tim 6:18). Titus 1:16 refers to the ἔργα that exposes a false confession in that such people, being disobedient, lack πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν. Cf. Rom 14:20 (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ); 1 Cor 15:58; 16:10 (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ κυρίου); Phil 2:30 (τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ).

232

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

θεοῦ) accomplished by the death of Christ on behalf of his people (Rom 14:15, 20)

and the consequent reality of the life-transforming “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” that constitutes “the kingdom of God” (Rom 14:17).51 The use of this same distinction between singular and plural to signal Paul’s value judgments in reference to eschatological judgment occurs in the contrast between Paul’s use of the plural, τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, in Gal 5:19, with their plural delineations in 5:20–21, and the singular, ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος in Gal 5:22, with its singular delineations in 5:22–23. In Eph 5:9–11, ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτός is likewise set against τὰ ἔργα τὰ ἄκαρπα τοῦ σκότους, again in the context of eschatological judgment (cf. Eph 5:6). And in Col 1:10 the ἔργον ἀγαθόν of those who have been transferred into the kingdom of God’s son is juxtaposed in Col 1:21 to τὰ ἔργα τὰ πονηρά as that which characterized their former lives as enemies of God.

51  My argument that fulfilling the Torah, for Paul, entails obedience to specific, divine commands as these are received from Scripture and interpreted under the Lordship of the Messiah as his halakha, which may also entail keeping essential aspects of the old covenant stipulations as well, counters those who abstract the Torah-stipulations into “love” or define obedience in contrast to a notional or attitudinal view of “faith.” For a recent example, see Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTSMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 111, 122–132. Whittle views the Christian’s relationship to the Torah as fundamentally different than that of the Jew since the “hermeneutical key” to understanding how love fulfills the law is “Paul’s rewriting of the covenant-renewal text of Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in Romans 10:6–8, where Torah obedience is transposed to a confession of faith in Christ” (p. 111; cf. p. 188). As a result, in Rom 10:5–8 Paul “redefines ‘doing’ as an act of faith in what God has done in Christ … Obedience is now a matter of hearing and confessing faith in Christ” (p. 128). Whittle therefore posits that “Paul’s use of ‘fulfil’ (πληρόω) and ‘do’ (ποιέω) suggests that he differentiates between those who do the law and those in whom the law is fulfilled” as a result of their faith in Christ (p. 111). Hence, when Paul speaks of believing gentiles as included in “God’s eschatological, holy people … [o]f course, Paul has in view not those who do the law, but those in whom law is fulfilled” (p. 130). Here she follows, e. g., Westerholm, who argues that, apart from Rom 2:14, for Paul Christians are never said to “do” the law, since “ ‘the law itself, in Paul’s mind, rests on the principle of “doing” as opposed to “believing” ’ ” (quoted on p. 124). Whittle thus argues that Rom 10:6–8 renders it impossible to read Rom 2:14 as referring to the Christian’s doing the law in line with what Exodus and Deuteronomy anticipated (p. 120), so that 2:14 “may suggest merely that those without the law may do deeds which comply with some of law’s commands” (p. 124). My reading of Rom 2, the list of commands which consistently surround Paul’s discussion of love (cf. esp. the use of Exod 20:13–17 and Deut 5:17–19, 21b as the unpacking of Lev 19:18 in Rom 13:8–10), the active nature of πίστις itself, a reading of Rom 10:6–8 that does not necessitate pitting one Scripture against another or positing a transposition of the OT text itself (the substantiation of which is beyond the present scope of this project), and the present studies as a whole seek to call such a material distinction into question. The “doing” is the “fulfilling,” as Whittle herself seems to indicate when she states that “the Gentiles’ consecration fits the Sinai covenant-making tradition because faith’s obedience, demonstrated in love of the other, means law is fulfilled” (p. 111).

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

233

The “Torah-Gentiles” on the Day of Judgment If the relative clause of 2:15a delineates why it is that these gentiles can be equated with the “law,” i. e., because their transformed lives show forth publicly the work of the law, the two genitive absolutes of 2:15b and 15c describe more precisely how it is that their new lives of obedience show forth that the work of the law is now “written on their hearts.” On the one hand, Torah-keeping gentiles show forth the law-written-on-their-hearts publicly in that their conscience testifies to their own resultant, eschatological standing. On the other hand, they do so in that their corresponding thoughts condemn or also defend others on that same day of eschatological judgment. As Eckstein has demonstrated, in the “conscience” (συνείδησις), for Paul, is the neutral faculty of evaluation that adjudicates the actions of oneself or others on the basis of presupposed norms and in so doing testifies to the character of one’s own or another’s public actions before God (cf. Rom 13:5; 2 Cor 4:2; 5:11; 1 Cor 10:25–29; 2 Tim 1:3).52 A “conscience” can therefore be “weak” (ἀσθενής) if its criterion of judgment is not yet fully formed (1 Cor 8:7–12), or “defiled” (μιαίνω) if its criterion is not informed by faith, so that it lacks “every good work” (πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν; Titus 1:13–16). Conversely, the conscience may properly validate a person’s actions if God’s grace by the Spirit is at work in one’s life (cf. Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Tim 1:5; 3:9). Thus, new covenant gentiles show forth that they are the embodied law in that their conscience testifies, along with (συμ-μαρ­ τυρέω) the work of the law manifest in their lives, to their transformed hearts as the source of their obedience. The content of this witness also involves the consequent surety of their future justification (2:13, 16). Hence, the conscience of new covenant gentiles, informed by their conforming to God’s law, should not be viewed as ambiguous or opaque, as if for formerly Torah-free gentiles the law “has a sufficiently ambiguous relation to them for them still to be concerned that the eventual issue might be in doubt.”53 Such an ambiguity or “inner 52  For this main point and its implication for reading Paul, see Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus: Eine neutestamentlien-exegetische Untersuchung zum Gewissenbegriff, WUNT 2/10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983). Alex Kirk has pointed out to me, personal correspondence, September 5, 2012, that Eckstein’s work finds a complement in that of Philip Bosman, Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group, WUNT 2/166 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 237: “The testimony of the συνείδησις derives from its knowledge of inner motives and processes. It functions as a monitor of ulterior motives, inner tension and the like. The inner court of law does not operate only in respect of the individual’s own inner being, but also of the inner condition of another person. This is done by evaluating the other person’s visible conduct, especially whether he displays παρρησία or not.” Hence, Bosman, p. 271: “With one’s own conduct, the συνείδησις has direct access to the inner state. When another person’s inner state is in question, the συνείδησις must draw its conclusions from that person’s visible conduct. As monitor of what is concealed in the heart, the συνείδησις complements God, from whom nothing is hidden (1 Cor. 4:5).” I am indebted to Kirk for these references from Bosman’s work. 53  Wright, “Romans 2,” 146. For Wright such gentiles are “a strange category of people”

234

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

conflict”54 would call into question not only the quality of obedience brought about under the new covenant, but also the reality of the forgiveness of sins and power of the Spirit upon which the new life of the new covenant is based. For Paul, the reality of the law written on the heart under the new covenant and its eschatological consequences are not hypothetical or equivocal. Paul then states in 2:15 that the thoughts associated with the conscience take place “in the midst of one another” (μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων). The preposition μεταξύ + the genitive, being used as a synonym to μέσος, indicates the spatial relation of being “between” or “in the midst of” two things (see Judg 5:27; cf. Wis 16:19; Matt 18:15; 23:35; Luke 16:26; Acts 12:6; 15:9). In Wis 4:10 it is used in a context similar to Rom 2:15, where it refers to Enoch, who pleased God and was loved by God, and “while living in the midst of sinners (μεταξὺ ἁμαρτωλῶν) was changed.” Even more important is the parallel with Wis 2:12, where the right­ eous man performs the same function as Paul’s Torah-keeping gentiles and is resented by the nominal Jews around him as a result: “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our works (ἔργοις); he reproaches us for sins against the law (ἁμαρτήματα νόμου), and accuses us of sins against our training.” Likewise, when in 2:15 Paul refers to the thoughts (λογισμοί) associated with the conscience he is not referring to the considerations of moral guilt, or perhaps pardon, that take place within oneself (note that he does not use the reflexive, ἑαυ­ τῶν).55 Rather, he is referencing the positive, public, judicial role such evaluative thoughts play in the midst of those being judged. As such, their “thoughts,” used as a muster, either “accuse” (κατηγορέω), “or even defend” (ἢ καὶ ἀπολογέομαι), the lives of others. As a middle-voiced verb (not reflexive!), ἀπολογέομαι can refer to defending oneself when so indicated contextually (2 Macc 13:26; Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 25:8; 2 Cor 12:19; see esp. Acts 24:10 [τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι]; 26:1–2, 24 [in 26:1, Paul is given permission to speak περὶ σεαυτοῦ]). But it can also refer to defending others, as clearly indicated in the narrative of Alexander’s “defense” of Paul and his companions in Ephesus (cf. ἀπολογέομαι in Acts 19:33 within Acts 19:28–41; see too, e. g., T.Sol. 5:6 [to defend oneself]; Let.Aris. 170 [to defend another]). Of special interest is Jer 12:1, where the prophet defends (cf. ἀπολογήσομαι) himself before God as righteous, even though he is suffering, while at the same time speaking judgments against the wicked, who nevertheless whose vindication would be “surprising” to them (p. 148).For another statement of this surety, see T. Joseph 11:1: Καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἔχετε ἐν πάσῃ πράξει ὑμῶν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φόβον καὶ τιμᾶτε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν· πᾶς γὰρ ὁ ποιῶν νόμον κυρίου ἀγαπηθήσεται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 54  Ibid., 146. 55  Contra most, including Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 45, who must then attribute the “condemning thoughts,” which are in the majority, to the continuing reality of sin in the life of the believer, though not so absolute as to lead to condemnation. Such an emphasis on being vindicated by God despite one’s “copious ‘accusing thoughts’ ” goes against the confident tenor of the text, as well as the meaning of μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

235

prosper. In Paul’s case, his acknowledgement in 2:15 that such a defense of others is the exception and not the rule (cf. ἢ καί) reflects his awareness of the continuing hard-heartedness of Israel despite the dawn of the new covenant, a reality reflected in 2:17–24. As pointed out above, the gentiles pictured in 2:14–15 thus become the counterpart to those described in 1:21, who, in refusing to honor God, were given over to futility “in their reasonings” (ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν). Here it is important to note that for Paul such futile thinking does not remain an internal reality – the futile way of thinking detailed in 1:18–23 expresses itself inextricably in the immoral actions cataloged in 1:24–32 (cf. τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες in 1:32). The same assumption is at work in 2:15, where the contrasting, positive “thoughts” (λογι­ σμοί) of 2:15 are embodied in the keeping of the Torah of 2:13–14. “Thoughts,” in Paul’s view, like the “work of the law on the heart” and the “testimony of the conscience,” are always manifest publicly, even as judgment will be.56 That Paul uses λογισμοί in Rom 2:15 to refer to the thinking that expresses itself in actions is also clear from its other use in 2 Cor 10:4–6. In that context Paul’s own apostolic suffering as an ironic, but true embodiment of the powerful acts of God is said to destroy the “thoughts” (λογισμοί) of his opponents, which are also embodied in their pseudo-displays of power (10:4). Destroying their “thoughts” can therefore be equated with punishing the “disobedience” (παρακοή) of Paul’s Jewish opponents, a judgment that will take place when the obedience (ὑπακοή) of the gentile Corinthians, as its counter-reality, is complete (2 Cor 10:6). In this way, “every thought” is taken captive “to obey Christ” (πᾶν νόημα εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 2 Cor 10:5). The link between λογισμοί (“thoughts”) and ὑπακοή (“obedience”) in 2 Cor 10:4–6 anticipates this same link between λογισμοί (“thoughts”) in Rom 2:15 and the theme of ὑπακοή (“obedience”) in Romans, in which “the obedience of faith (ὑπακοὴ πίστεως) among all the gentiles for the sake of his name” is the goal of Paul’s apostolic ministry (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26). The parallel between λογισμός and νόημα in 2 Cor 10:4–5 also reflects the same semantic field found in Romans, in which (δια) λογισμός (“thought”) belongs together with νοῦς (“thought,” “mind”) and φρόνημα (“mind”) as determinative sources of behavior (Rom 7:23, 25; 8:6–7; 14:5; cf. 1 Cor 15:34; cf. Phil 2:5).57 Of special significance conceptually is the move in Rom 1:28 from the gentiles, who do not acknowledge God and are given over to a corrupt mind (νοῦς) that acts unlawfully, to those believers in Rom 12:2, who prove the will of God as a result of the renewal of their mind (νοῦς), a transition already signaled in 2:15 (cf. Eph 56  Contra again a main emphasis of Gathercole’s work, “A Law unto Themselves,” 40–46, in which he argues that the three witnesses of 2:15 “are crucially all internal … What we have here is a tripartite … internal anthropology, where the inner workings of the gentile are divided into heart, conscience, and thoughts” (pp. 46–47, emphasis his). 57  Cf. too διάνοια in Eph 2:3; 4:18; Col 1:21, where it too is used as the source of action, esp. the actions characterizing the hard-heartedness of those separated from God.

236

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

4:17 with Eph 4:23 for this same transition from the vanity of the mind to the renewal of the mind). By way of summary, to identify Torah-obedient “gentiles” with the Torah itself is Paul’s shorthand way of declaring that they, as the embodiment of the law, will be the criterion of final, eschatological judgment both positively and, as emphasized in 2:12–13 and 15, negatively.58 New covenant gentiles are the public means of witness that God will use to judge those who sin “without the law” (ἀνόμως) and those who sin “in the law” (ἐν νόμῳ) (see again the γάρ of 2:14a, which indicates that 2:14–16 supports 2:12–13). They perform this function as the fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant from Jer 31(38):33, a fulfillment to which the witness of their conscience and the twofold function of their thoughts on the day of eschatological judgment testifies. As such, 2:14–15 puts flesh on the argument of 2:6–13: Torah-obedient “gentiles,” who are now in reality the true “circumcision” (cf. 2:25–29 with Phil 3:3), are the measurement God will use in judging the works (2:6) of both gentiles and Jews (2:12) according to the standard of the law (2:13). The absolute use of νόμος in 2:14 as shorthand for the role of the law in judgment also appears in Gal 5:23, where Paul affirmed that “there is no law” (οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος) against the way of life represented by the “fruit of the Spirit” (κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων). In Gal 5:23 the context makes clear that νόμος refers to the law applied in its condemnatory role, whereas in Rom 2:2–15 the law embodied in the lives of Torah-obedient “gentiles” both condemns and approves, though the emphasis resides on the former.

Eschatological Gentiles as the Instruments of God’s Judgment Since God alone is the impartial judge of humanity, the thoughts of those gentiles who are the law “in person” can only “accuse” (κατηγορέω) or “defend” (ἀπο­ λογέομαι) those in whose midst they will stand as instruments of eschatological adjudication. This point is emphasized by the syntactical structure of 2:14–16 itself, in which the dependent clauses that delineate the ground and function of these law-keeping gentiles are sandwiched between the main assertion of Paul’s argument in 2:14b regarding the new covenant gentiles and its temporal modification in 2:16 regarding God’s action of eschatological judgment. Paul’s detailed declaration concerning new covenant gentiles thus climaxes with a focus on the “day” of the coming judgment: οὗτοι … εἰσιν νόμος … ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Read without its intervening dependent clauses, Paul’s main point is straightforward: on that eschatological day God’s Torah, embodied 58  So too the conclusion of Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves,” 37–38: Paul’s point is that “these Gentiles incarnate the Torah in their persons,” though he takes this simply to be another reference to the law written on their hearts by the Spirit, rather than recognizing their judicial function at the eschatological judgment.

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

237

in the publicly evident, transformed lives of the gentiles, whom God himself therefore praises (cf. 2:29), will judge the “hidden things” of all people. The parallel between 2:16a and 2:27 confirms once more that this reading continues to track with Paul’s argument: 2:16a ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 2:27a καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία [τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα] σε

Paul’s assertion in 2:16a that the gentiles, who are the law “on the (eschatological) day” when God judges (κρίνει ὁ θεὸς) humanity, parallels the point of 2:27 that the uncircumcised, in that they are keeping the Torah (rendering the adverbial participle, τελοῦσα, modally59), will judge (κρινεῖ ἡ ἀκροβυστία) those who do not! The reference in 2:16 to the eschatological “day” (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ) also recalls the previous reference in 2:5 to “the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment” (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ). As God’s instrument on the day of judgment, the new covenant gentiles who “publicly display” (ἐνδείκνυμι) the law written on their hearts (2:15) will expose “the hidden things (τὰ κρυπτά) of humanity” (2:16a). In this role, “the law-keeping gentile who accuses others while rightly exonerating himself (2:15) is the reversal of the law-breaking Jew who accuses others while wrongly exonerating himself (2:1).”60 Moreover, such Torah-keeping gentiles are key evidence for God’s impartial condemnation of sin according to the law and for his justification of those who do the law as stated in 2:6–13. That gentiles who do the law will judge Jews who do not keep the law demonstrates that the criterion of judgment is not ethnicity, but the Torah applied equally to Jew and gentile. As such, the law-keeping gentile, as “the Torah,” performs the same judicial function in 2:14 and 27 that the law itself does regarding Jews in 2:12: ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται.61 For eschatological judgment always takes place in accord with the law. The parallel between 2:16 and 2:5 indicates as well that the “hidden things” in 2:16 are the true character of a person, the hardened, impenitent heart that is “storing up for itself, like a treasure, God’s wrath on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (cf. 1 Cor 4:5). In this age, such an unrepentant heart, which reduces the “Shema” to a mere “hearing” of the law apart from doing it (2:13), can be hidden underneath a condemnation of others (2:1–3) or masked by the claim to keep the law by virtue of teaching its precepts and holding fast to its ritual, symbolic requirements (2:17–25). Accordingly, Paul 59  See Daniel B. Wallace, “Romans 2:27 in the NET Bible,” bible.org/article/romans-227-bible, who rightly points out its anarthrous, adverbial nature, despite the common rendering of τελοῦσα as adjectival (“the uncircumcised who keeps the law;” cf., e. g., RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NAB, etc.) even though ἀκροβυστία is articular. For an adverbial rendering, see, e. g., KJV, ASV, NKJV, TEV. Wallace also opts for a modal reading: the uncircumcised man, “by keeping the law, will judge you.” 60  Alex Kirk, private correspondence, Aug 22, 2012. 61 So too Alex Kirk, private correspondence, Aug 22, 2012.

238

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

can characterize this character of a person as “hidden” inasmuch as mere intellectual knowledge of the Torah and the practice of circumcision in itself may be mistaken for true law-observance in the same way that one’s personal power and rhetorical performance could be taken as evidence of the Spirit’s presence. Just as in 2 Corinthians Paul put forth his own life of suffering and avoidance of “sophisticated speech” as evidence of the new covenant reality of the Spirit (3:6–11; cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 4:13; 10:10; 11:6–33; 12:10–13; 13:4; and chapter five), so too here he puts forth the believing gentiles’ life of obedience as evidence of the new covenant reality of the Spirit (2:15, 28–29). In both cases, their praise is from God, not others (1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:9; Rom 2:29; Phil 4:8). In the ironic play on words in Rom 2:28–29, taken from 2:16 (see τὰ κρυπτά), “the one who is [known] outwardly” (ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ) is therefore not the Jew, since his circumcision is “outward in the flesh” (ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκί περιτομή). Instead, “the one who is hidden” (ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ), known by his obedience to the Torah, is the [true] Jew, whose “circumcision of the heart is by means of the Spirit, not (merely) by means of the letter.” So “the hidden [true] Jew,” manifest in his outward obedience to the law, will judge the “hidden things” of those who profess to be Jews outwardly, but whose disobedience reveals that they are not. In the surprising reversal of 2:16 and 27, the uncircumcised law keeper will judge the circumcised transgressor of the law.62 Of course, grasping Paul’s point here entails understanding that, for Paul, love is the fulfillment (πληρόω, πλήρωμα) of the law (Rom 13:8–10), a point perhaps already intimated by his choice of τελέω (“to fulfill”) in Rom 2:27 as the parallel to ποιέω (“to do”) from 2:14. Nevertheless, Paul’s definition of the true Jew as the “inward” one whose circumcision is of the “heart” and his stress that love fulfills the law do not lead him to a spiritualized, docetic view of obedience. The examples of law-breaking in 2:21–23, like the concrete behaviors of 1:24–32, caution against reducing lawkeeping in 2:13–14 to an abstraction (Torah always includes its particular halakha63) or to a mere shorthand for covenant status.64 For Paul, love, as the new creation fulfillment of the law, expresses itself in obedience to concrete commandments, which the mutually interpretive parallels between Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19 make clear (see chapter ten). The argument of 2:17–25 is thus essentially the same as that of 2:1–3: those who are able to teach others because they are instructed by the law are judged because they are doing the same things against which they teach. Although they boast in God (2:17) and in the law (2:23a), they dishonor God by breaking the law (2:23b). In 2:24 Paul then places this Jewish 62  Romans 2:14–16 states in principle what is exemplified in Phil 1:28 and Eph 5:11–13, where the obedience of the believer becomes the means for exposing and judging the immoral life of the unbeliever. 63  For this point and its implications see the work of Willitts below, p. 354 n. 28. 64  Though Wright, “Romans 2,” 138, recognizes an “ethical ‘fulfilment’ ” of the law in Rom 13:8, he views Rom 2:26–27 as referring simply to “a matter of status.”

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

239

disobedience within the context of the history of redemption by grounding his indictment with the quote of Isa 52:5LXX (γὰρ … καθὼς), so that the Jews’ disobedience in Paul’s day is of one piece with the blasphemous disobedience of Israel that led to her exile.65 Paul’s contemporizing application of this text signals that, for him, this exilic judgment must still be in effect for those who find themselves outside of the reality of the new covenant now established by the Messiah.66 In short, they hear the law, but they do not do it (2:13), which is what Israel’s prophets, beginning with Moses, had said was evident regarding Israel ever since the golden calf (cf. above, pp. 80–82, 113–114, on Paul’s use of the corresponding critique from Deut 29:3–4 and Isa 29:10 in 2 Cor 3:14 and Rom 11:7–8). Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in 2:24 points forward to his corresponding use of Isa 52:7 in 10:15, the paradigmatic Scriptural text for defining the “gospel” (cf. εὐαγγελίζομαι from Isa 52:7 with Paul’s use of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in Rom 10:15). This is the first time he has mentioned the “gospel” explicitly since 2:16, thus forging an arc in his argument from 1:9 to 1:16 to 2:16 to 10:15. In Rom 10:15, as in 2:24, Paul’s point is that the gospel of God’s exile-ending reign (Isa 52:7), now being announced, heard, and believed under the apostolic preaching of the Messiah (Rom 10:16–17), had not been obeyed under the epoch of the old covenant, and is still not being believed by the great majority of the Jews of Paul’s day (Rom 10:18–21; 11:1–6). What is shocking, therefore, is that the era-transforming reality of the kingdom of God expressed in the new covenant relationship between God and his people has been established in the midst of the continuing hard heartedness of the Jews as a whole who, contrary to the eschatological expectation of Isa 52:1–10 itself, have not yet been redeemed. Once again we are confronted by Paul’s inaugurated eschatology: the kingdom is here, but not yet here in its fullness. Romans 9–11 is Paul’s response to the apparent problem inaugurated eschatology raises regarding God’s faithfulness to his promises (cf. Rom 9:6 and chapter eight). 65  See now Wagner, Heralds, 177: “It is crucial to see that in the context of 52:1–10, the words Paul quotes in Romans 2:24 stand as a word of judgment on Israel, laying the blame for their exile squarely on their shoulders: God is dishonored ‘because of you’ … The LXX translator further intensifies the sense of blame and accusation in 52:5 by addressing Israel directly … and reading a phrase absent from MT: ‘on account of you’ (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς),” though “Paul actually appears to soften the blow slightly by eliminating ‘continually’ (διὰ παντός)” (emphasis his). 66  Cf. Wright, “Romans 2,” who helpfully interprets the fundamental problem in 2:17–24 to be the Jews’ boasting in their mere possession of the law “as the covenant badge which would keep membership within that covenant limited to Jews and Jews only,” so that, “quite irrespective of her keeping it,” Israel “is inalienably the people of the one true god” (p. 139, emphasis mine). The problem, therefore, is “that they seek to claim for themselves the status of being the true, final people of God, while they are in fact still in exile” (p. 140, emphasis removed). Paul’s direct point is that Israel is still under the judgment of God precisely because she continues to reject God’s law, as Isa 52:5 declares. Thus, “according to Romans 2:17–24, it left ethnic Israel making an ethnic boast, and using the Torah to support that boast, while the Torah itself in fact rendered that boast null and void” (p. 142, emphasis his).

240

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

The New Covenant “Jews” Foundationally, then, in terms of the logic of the text, gentiles are the law on the eschatological day when God judges humanity “in accord with Paul’s gospel, through the Messiah Jesus” (2:16b). In the context of Rom 2, this last prepositional phrase must refer to the good news of God’s final, eschatological deliverance brought about by Christ, by which God consummates his redemptive rule through the justification and vindication of his people. Once more the parallel between 2:16 and 2:27 is instructive, this time regarding the eschatological significance of Paul’s gospel as reflected in the contrast between the realities of the new and old covenant eras respectively: 2:16b (οὗτοι εἰσιν νόμος) κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου διὰ Χριστοῦ  Ἰησοῦ. 2:27b (κρινεῖ σε) τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου.

On the one hand, law-free but law-obedient gentiles manifest the good news of the new covenant (= the law written on the heart) brought about by the Messiah, Jesus. On the other hand, law-possessing but law-transgressing Jews reflect the old covenant reality of having the law merely as “letter and circumcision.”67 The former, under God through Christ, will judge the latter. Here too, the link between Rom 2:14–16 and 25–29 (cf. 2 Cor 3:6; 7:6) makes it clear that this comparison is not a material contrast between the law and the gospel. The contrast between the two “Jews” in relationship to the one Torah is a contrast between the law itself with and without the power of the Spirit, who transforms hearts in accordance with the good news of the Messiah. Far from being a hypothetical reality, much less a gloss that in effect transforms the position of Paul’s opponent by denying a judgment by works,68 Paul’s attribution of a judgment by works to his gospel, now embodied in the lives of Torah-obedient gentiles, is to be taken at face value. Paul’s goal as a “priestly minister (λειτουργός) of Christ Jesus to the gentiles” was “to serve as a priest this gospel of God” (ἱερουγέω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ) in order to bring about “obedience” among the nations “by the power of the Spirit [of God]” (15:16, 18–19; cf. its fuller, modified form, “the obedience of faith,” in 1:5 and 16:26). By virtue of this obedience wrought by “the gospel of Christ” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), “the offering of the nations” will be “pleasing/ritually acceptable” to God, “having 67  Here contra Wallace, “Romans 2:27,” who takes διά + genitive in 2:17b to have a concessive force, which he translates as, “even though you have the letter and circumcision” (pointing to BDAG, 224 s. v. “διά,” A.3.c). But the negative nuance assigned to γράμμα in Rom 2:29 and 2 Cor 3:6 and to περιτομή apart from the heart in Rom 2:28 speaks against this positive rendering. 68 Contra Campbell, Deliverance, 558, who takes the two final prepositional phrases to be Paul’s addition to and re-interpretation of the “Teacher’s gospel,” an addition in which Christ plays no role in the final judgment according to works. By this addition, Paul “substantially shift(s) the tenor and criteria of that event” by effectively denying a judgment of works and replacing it with a judgment according to the faith of Jesus (emphasis removed).

Chapter Seven: New Covenant Obedience and Paul’s Gospel of Judgment

241

been sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (15:16, 19). As the apostle to the gentiles, Paul was set apart “for this gospel concerning God” (εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ; Rom 1:1), whom he served in a priestly manner (λατρέυω) “in the gospel concerning [God’s] son” (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ; Rom 1:9), in order to bring about “the obedience of faith among all the nations on behalf of [Christ’s] name” (Rom 1:5). For as Paul’s argument in Rom 2 makes clear, “the eschaton is ethical.”69

69 Ibid., 563. Campbell of course attributes this point to the false gospel of the Teacher; I think it represents Paul’s own understanding.

Chapter Eight

Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant(Romans 11:25–32)1 The Jewish Christian Hellenists could use ἐκκλησία to claim theological continuity with the OT people of God, without thereby saying that other Jews were not the OT people of God … the use by the Hellenists of the term that was not currently in use in Jerusalem as a name for a Jewish community (as far as we can tell) was a way of distinguishing themselves from ἡ συναγωγή without claiming to replace “the synagogue” as “the people of God,” either textually or historically … Paul Trebilco, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?”2

Any study of new covenant themes in Paul’s writings must come to terms with the fact that both the content and context of Jer 31:31–34 concern the promised restoration of the nation of Israel (cf. Jer 31:31–33 with 31:1–29, 35–40). The present studies have illustrated in various ways, however, that to speak about Paul’s new covenant ministry is to speak about the eschatological significance of the church made up of a remnant of Jews and gentiles. To speak about the church, however, is to raise the pressing question of Paul’s understanding of the identity and status of “Israel” within the ongoing history of salvation. And to raise the question of Israel’s salvific status is to turn ultimately to Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11, especially to its climax regarding Israel in 11:25–32. The focus of this chapter, therefore, is on this pivotal passage in order to examine its significance 1 From “The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25–32: A Response to Krister Stendahl,” ExAud 4 (1988): 38–58. 2  Paul Trebilco, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?” NTS 57 (2011): 458–459, emphasis his. Though there is no significant semantic difference between the two terms in the LXX, Trebilco argues in detail that the early Christians chose ἐκκλησία in order to distinguish themselves from the non-messianic Jewish congregations, who were consistently using the more common designation, ἡ συναγωγή (cf. Acts 6:9; 24:12; 26:11). At the same time, its use affirmed that they too were “part of and in continuity with Israel,” i. e., with the LXX ἐκκλησία κυρίου (“assembly of Yahweh”) and ἐκκλησία  Ἰσραηλ/τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“assembly of Israel/of the people of God”) (pp. 444, 447, 455–458; quote from p. 454).

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

243

for understanding the fundamental aspects of Paul’s eschatology at play in his understanding of Israel and her future. To this end, the lead question is not, “Given Paul’s inaugurated, but not-yet consummated eschatology, with its recognition of Israel’s ongoing hard-heartedness and resulting rejection of the Messiah, what must he think about the salvation of Israel in Rom 11:25–32?” Rather, the question is, “Given his understanding of the salvation of Israel in Rom 11:25–32, what implications does this have for understanding Paul’s inaugurated eschatology?” The beginning point is exegetical, not theological; the mode of argument is inductive, not deductive. In view of the hermeneutical circle between the whole and its parts, it is always better, methodologically, to begin with the parts. Moreover, “Iron sharpens iron” (Prov 27:17). This aphorism is never more true than when applied to the task of interpretation. Since the work of Krister Stendahl, the father of the new perspectives on Paul, remains one of the most influential construals of the apostle’s conviction concerning the salvation of Israel in Rom 11, we will reexamine Rom 11:25–36 against the backdrop of Stendahl’s programmatic thesis in order to pose the question once again of the meaning and means of “Israel’s” salvation within Paul’s eschatology. To begin, it will be helpful to recap the main tenets of Stendhal’s seminal essays on the topic, which have proved so formative in contemporary Pauline studies, whether as friend or foe!3

Stendahl’s Paradigm for Understanding Paul Stendahl’s interpretation of Rom 11:25–36 cannot be appreciated apart from his interpretation of Paul’s self-conception as an apostle and of the consequent driving force of Paul’s thought. When Stendahl first pointed out the need for a radical reinvestigation of Paul’s understanding of the salvation of Israel almost sixty years ago, his goal was the same as his purpose in rethinking Paul’s apostolic self-understanding and its relationship to the center of Paul’s theology. In all three cases Stendahl wanted to restore what he considered the crucial crux from which Paul’s self-conception and theology must be interpreted, namely, “the lost centrality of Jews and gentiles” (pp. 3, 7, 12, 15, 127, 130–131). Stendahl’s concern grew out of his persuasion that under the influence of Reformation dogmatics Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith had been “removed from its setting within the relationship between Jew and Gentile” and had 3  Stendahl’s programmatic essays, “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles” and “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” were originally presented in 1963 and 1960 (in Swedish) respectively. The latter was first published in English in HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. References from these two articles are taken from K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 1–77 and 78–96, and will be indicated in the body of the text along with other quotes from this collection of essays.

244

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

become inappropriately transposed into the very center of his “teaching about salvation” (p. 5). For in Stendahl’s view, the theological context of justification by faith, for Paul, is the relation between Jews and gentiles, not the problem of how a person is to be saved, or of how one’s deeds are to be accounted, or of how the free will of individuals is to be asserted or checked (p. 26; cf. pp. 27, 37, 40, 68). To posit that “justification by faith alone” is the center of Paul’s theology thus “blocks our access both to the original thought and the original intention of Paul” (p. 3). In particular, it obscures the “specificity of Paul’s arguments” within his various letters, making it possible “to homogenize Pauline theology since the common denominator could easily be found in generalized theological issues” (p. 5). The ultimate result of this misappropriation is that the Pauline problem of the relationship between Jews and gentiles becomes captive to the Western problem of the introspective conscience (cf. pp. 87, 93). Rather than speaking to the concrete status of gentiles within God’s plan for the world, “justification by faith” becomes the abstract doctrinal response either to the despair provoked by humankind’s failed attempts to live up to the moral demands of God’s law, or to the pride caused by humanity’s self-deceived attempts to justify itself (pp. 87–88, 91–92). As a corollary to this misguided analysis of Paul’s theology, interpreters have wrongly universalized Paul’s Damascus Road experience into an abstract conception of “that inner experience of conversion which Western theology has taken for granted” (p. 12). In this reading, the “I” of Paul’s writings has been equated with the experience of “the Christian,” now interpreted through the lenses of persons like Luther or Calvin, rather than with Paul himself in his specific role as “the Apostle to the Gentiles” (p. 12; cf. p. 5). Paul’s Damascus Road experience consequently becomes the archetype of the modern conception of a conversion from one religious system to another undergone in order to escape the sinfulness and guilt of the human predicament. In order to counter these false conclusions Stendahl contends that “Paul’s argument about justification by faith neither grows out of his ‘dissatisfaction’ with Judaism, nor is intended as a frontal attack on ‘legalism’ ”; instead, it “was hammered out by Paul for the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel. Their rights were based solely on faith in Jesus Christ” (pp. 130, 2). Hence, for Stendahl, Paul’s view of justification by faith served merely as that apologetic doctrine which “ ‘justified’ the status of Gentile Christians as honorary Jews” (p. 5, cf. p. 130). Moreover, it was Paul’s “call” to be the apostle to the gentiles, not some deep-seated moral or theological problem with the law, that provided the impetus for the development of this doctrine. Rather than being “the pervasive, organizing doctrinal principle or insight of Paul … the doctrine of justification originates in Paul’s theological mind from his grappling with the problem of how to defend the place of Gentiles in the Kingdom – the task with

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

245

which he was charged in his call” (p. 27). Paul’s ministry was to bring the “Good News” to the gentiles that, justified by faith, they “will become part of the people of God without having to pass thought the law. This is Paul’s secret revelation and knowledge” (p. 9). This perspective on Paul’s purpose as an apostle derives from the conviction that Paul’s Damascus Road experience was not a conversion to a new religious persuasion, but a “new and special calling in God’s service. God’s Messiah asks him a Jew to bring God’s message to the Gentiles … . Rather than being ‘converted,’ Paul was called to the specific task – made clear to him by his experience of the risen Lord – of apostleship to the Gentiles” (p. 7). Stendahl supports this view by emphasizing that Paul’s “call rather than conversion” as reported in Gal 1:13–16 (cf. Acts 9:15; 22:14–15, 21; 26:16–18) is patterned after the prophetic calls of Isaiah and Jeremiah, according to which Paul too is commissioned for service, this time to go to the gentiles with the message of salvation (cf. Jer 1:5; Isa 35:5; 42:7, 16; 49:1, 6; 61:1) (pp. 8–10). Paul has been called as a faithful Jew not to preach a new message of a new religion, but to undertake a new mission as a Jew, based on “a new understanding of the law which is otherwise an obstacle to the Gentiles” (p. 9). From beginning to end, therefore, Paul’s self-conception, inculcated in his theology, centers on his identity as a Jewish apostle called to the gentiles. For Paul, to be a Christian is to be an apostle and vice versa (p. 12). “There is not – as we usually think – first a conversion, and then a call to apostleship; there is only the call to work among the Gentiles” (pp. 84–85). Our corresponding call as Paul’s interpreters is to avoid making Paul a prisoner of our own concerns by not transforming the Pauline problem of the relationship between Jews and gentiles into the Western problem of the introspective conscience. Justification by faith must not be moved into the center of Paul’s thinking. A supposed conversion from helplessness and guilt must be prevented from becoming the focal point of Paul’s self-understanding. Instead, we should allow Paul once again to be the first-century Jewish Apostle to the gentiles, who, as such, found himself between Jews and gentiles both personally and theologically. Once Paul regains his place, the real issues of Paul’s theology and life will come back into focus: (1) What happens to the law, i. e., the Torah, the actual law of Moses, not the principle of legalism, when the Messiah has come? (2) What are the ramifications of the Messiah’s arrival for the relation between Jews and gentiles (p. 84)? Stendahl argues that these are the perspectives and questions that ought to guide any interpretation of Paul’s letters today, especially Paul’s epistle to the Romans, with its explicit treatment of these themes in Rom 9–11. For “the lost centrality of ‘Jews and Gentiles’ is most clearly to be felt in a study of Romans” (p. 3). Indeed, as this volume has demonstrated, these questions have guided my own “eschatological” interpretation of Paul’s call to be a “servant of the new covenant,” albeit leading to different conclusions regarding the role of the Torah in

246

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the life of gentile believers. It now remains to take up the specific question of the salvific relationship between Jews and gentiles put forward by Paul in Rom 9–11.

Implications for Reading Romans 9–11 It is generative for Stendahl’s interpretation that Romans is not an abstract theological treatise on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Nor is it Paul’s polemic defense of his law-free gospel against the criticisms of a group of gentile or Jewish-Christian “Judaizers.” In fact, Stendahl sees no attempt in any of Paul’s writings to draw out the implications of his doctrine of justification by faith for Jewish Christians (p. 2). Rather, Romans is Paul’s attempt to introduce his apostleship to the church in Rome in the hope of making clear how his mission to the gentiles fits into God’s plan for the world (pp. 3, 27). Specifically, “Paul’s reference to God’s mysterious plan is an affirmation of a God-willed coexistence between Judaism and Christianity in which the missionary urge to convert Israel is held in check” (p. 4). Paul has come to see that, in spite of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, “God has mysterious and special plans for the salvation of Israel” (p. 4). So Paul’s burden in Romans is to argue for the inclusion of both gentiles and Jews within God’s people, the former in Christ, the latter outside of him. Within this rhetorical context Paul outlines his doctrine of justification not only to defend the right of the gentiles to be members of the people of God without keeping the law, but also to counter the gentiles’ propensity to pride in view of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus (pp. 4–5, 132). Accordingly, Stendahl argues for a different evaluation of the center of gravity of Romans itself. Viewed from the new perspective on Paul “among Jews and Gentiles,” Rom 9–11, with its crescendo in 11:25–36, is no longer to be read as an appendix to Rom 1–8, nor even as a secondary digression in the development of Paul’s central thesis on justification by faith in Rom 1–8 and 12–15. Thematically it is the very climax of the letter (pp. 4, 28, 85, 132). In Rom 9–11 Paul addresses the nature of the relationship between Jews and gentiles in order to bring the reality of the inclusion of the gentiles to bear directly on the question of the future of Israel. To this end, the “mystery” of God in regard to Israel’s salvation apart from Christ finds its explicit expression in 11:25 so that the pride of the gentiles can be decisively denounced (cf. 11:25 with 11:18–24). Stendahl’s argument that in Rom 9–11 Paul teaches the separate coexistence of Jews and gentiles within the salvific plan of God is based on five exegetical observations. First, Paul is silent concerning the means of Israel’s salvation in 11:26. Paul does not say that at the consummation of God’s Kingdom Israel will accept Jesus as Messiah. He says only that the time will come when “all Israel will be saved” (p. 4). Second, once Paul turns his attention to the future of Israel in 10:17–11:36 there is no more mention of Jesus Christ (p. 4). Third, the absence of

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

247

any mention of Jesus Christ after 10:17 is accentuated by the fact that Rom 9–11 ends with the only Pauline doxology without a Christological element (p. 4). Fourth, Paul’s theological doxology in 11:33–36 indicates that the issue at stake in Rom 9–11, especially 11:11–36, is not the future of Israel per se, but the pride of the gentiles as expressed in 11:18, 20, 25 (p. 132). As Stendahl puts it elsewhere, the purpose of this “striking absence of overt Christology,” and of the only doxology in Paul “which is totally in ‘God language,’ i. e. without any reference to Jesus or Christ,” was “to upbraid Gentile Christians for their haughty attitude toward the Jews.”4 “Why?,” Stendahl asks. “Presumably for the reason that he had found something unnerving in the missionary zeal of his bragging Gentile converts over against the Jewish people … . He reminds them that the consummation is a mystery – not we winning over them – ‘lest you be wise in your own conceits’ (11:25) … Paul, the missionary, actually puts brakes on the missionary urge and instinct. He unmasks it as a secularized style of thinking, soiled by hubris on the part of Gentiles.”5 Fifth, Stendahl suggests that Paul’s reference to the “mystery” (μυστήριον) in 11:25 is meant to convey that its future fulfillment is unknown or “mysterious” so that no one can predict its details (cf. pp. 4, 132).6 One thing is clear, however: “The expression ‘And so the whole of Israel will be saved,’ σωθήσεται, does not indicate any acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.”7 Two reasons account for this rather lengthy restatement of Stendahl’s position. First, the continuing influence of his views requires that they be taken seriously. Second, and even more importantly, the interrelationship between Stendahl’s general paradigm for understanding Paul and his specific interpretation of Rom 11:25–36 is crucial for understanding Paul’s train of thought. In tracing Stendahl’s position it becomes readily apparent that his reading of Rom 11:25–36 derives from his larger views concerning Paul’s conversion and the role of justification in Paul’s thought. On the one hand, Paul’s message of justification by faith in Jesus cannot be intended for Israel if Paul was never “converted” from 4 Idem, “ ‘In No Other Name,’ ” in Christian Witness and the Jewish People, ed. Arne Sovik, 2nd. ed. (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1977), 52–53. 5  Ibid., 53. 6 For a concise summary of Stendahl’s basic thesis, cf. his essay “Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism,” now in idem, Meanings: The Bible as Document and As Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 233–244, esp. 243–244. 7  Stendahl, “Judaism and Christianity I: Then and Now,” in Meanings, 215 n. 1. This view is a reversal of his earlier position as originally published in this 1963 essay, in which he argued that Paul “goes as far as to consider the mission of the gentiles and the success of that mission in the name of the Messiah Jesus only as a detour which ultimately must lead to the point where the Jews accept this same Jesus as their Messiah. To him this is necessary; otherwise God would not be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob … without such an end the gospel could not be the gospel, and Jesus could not be the Messiah” (p. 213). But even there Stendahl argued that this return of the Jews to the Messiah would not come about as the result of a mission by the gentiles, but would result from “a mystery that lies in God’s hands … in God’s own time” (p. 213). For this same point see “Judaism and Christianity II: A Plea for a New Relationship,” in Meanings, 223.

248

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

his Jewish faith when he met Christ on the road to Damascus. On the other hand, Paul cannot condone a gentile Christian mission to the Jews if the role of justification was merely to support the inclusion of the gentiles as “honorary Jews.” Instead, “the central issue claiming Paul’s attention was that of the inclusion both of Gentiles and Jews” in God’s plan of salvation, each in their own, independent way (p. 28). Unfortunately, according to Stendahl, Paul’s original intent was lost when his gospel was taken captive by Western theology and psychology. Once this happened, Paul’s message for the gentiles could be misapplied to the Jews since the “introspective conscience of the West” universalized the Pauline gospel by misinterpreting it to refer to the modern dilemma of guilt-ridden failure, a dilemma which did not exist in Paul’s day.

Romans 11:25–36 within the Context of Romans 9–11 Many of Stendahl’s observations have rightly become programmatic for rereading Paul’s letters. And certainly Rom 11:25–36 must be so read if Stendahl’s overall thesis concerning Jew/gentile relations in Paul’s thought is to stand without modification. In that Rom 11:25–36, presupposed in Rom 15:8–13 (see below, chapter nine), is the only explicit treatment of the question of the future of Israel,8 an alternative interpretation of this key text would create an anomaly for Stendahl’s paradigm too great to be ignored. So does this passage, in fact, support Stendahl’s thesis? And if not, what necessary adjustment(s) must be made to his paradigm? In order to answer these questions, we must examine the argument of Rom 9–11 itself. Students of Paul are generally agreed that the impetus for Paul’s argument in these chapters is the extreme anguish Paul himself feels over the fact that his own people are rejecting Jesus as the Messiah (cf. 9:2–3 in view of 9:31–33; cf. 10:1–3). Stendahl himself has emphasized that the “genetic center” of all that Paul says about Jesus is that he is the Messiah and that the messianic age has dawned.9 Paul’s pain is thereby increased by his realization that, of all peoples, it is the “Israelites” who seemingly should have responded to Jesus, since they are the ones to whom the covenant blessings and promises have been given and from whom the Messiah has now come (9:4–5). Only some of the Jews of Paul’s day, however, are following Jesus as the Christ (cf. Rom 9:3; 10:16; 11:14). The focus on Paul’s anguish over his countrymen, however, does not go far enough in explaining Paul’s concern. The switch in focus in 9:6 from Paul’s 8 Nils A. Dahl, “The Future of Israel,” in Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 137, argues convincingly against taking the only other two possibilities, 1 Thess 2:14–16 and 2 Cor 3:16, as referring to the future of Israel as a people. 9  Stendahl, “Judaism and Christianity I,” 210, 211–213. For my concurrence with this starting point for understanding Paul’s view of Jesus, see above, chapter six.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

249

feelings and wish and the Israelites’ privileges to the question of God’s word indicates that even more important for Paul is the theological question that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah raises for God himself. As Hans Hübner has pointed out once again, the ultimate issue for Paul in Rom 9–11, introduced in 9:6, is not the rejection of Jesus by Paul’s contemporaries as such, but the problem this rejection creates for the character of God.10 Israel’s rejection of the Messiah seems to call into question God’s faithfulness to the very covenant promises and privileges outlined in 9:4–5, promises and privileges that entail and imply the eschatological redemption of Israel.11 For Paul it is thus God’s word and consequently his trustworthiness that are ultimately at stake in Israel’s continuing hardness of heart (Rom 11:7–10; cf. 2 Cor 3:14). John Piper states the issue well: “Rom 9:1–5 states the problem: it appears that what God has guaranteed is in fact not happening – the end-time salvation of Israel. Has then the word – the reliability – of God fallen, and with it the Christian hope as well?”12 The main theme of Rom 9–11, therefore, is not the relationship between Jews and gentiles, the nature of Paul’s mission in the plan of God, the future of Israel, the scheme of salvation history, the identity of true Israel, nor even the nature of God’s election and predestination per se.13 These are all penultimate concerns. The central issue in Rom 9–11 is whether God’s faithfulness to himself and to his promised redemptive activity can be maintained in spite of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.14 Paul’s answer to this question is clear. In spite of the fact that most of Israel are rejecting the Messiah, God’s word has nevertheless not failed (9:6a). In spite of Israel’s large-scale rejection of Jesus, God remains faithful to his covenant promises to national Israel (9:4–5).15 This is the main point of the argument of Rom 9–11, not Paul’s assertion in 9:6b that “not all those who are from Israel are Israel,” nor any other assertion or sub-section in these chapters.16 The chain of argumentation introduced with the γάρ in 9:6b indicates that everything from 9:6b onward is designed to support Paul’s declaration in 9:6a, with the possible exception of 10 Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11, ­FRLANT 136 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 14–17, 20. 11  For an interpretation of 9:4–5 which demonstrates the salvific implications of these benefits, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 5–30. 12  Ibid., 30. 13  Cf. James W. Aageson, “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11,” CBQ 48 (1986): 265–266, for a review of the attempts to find the center of Rom 9–11 in these various theological concepts. 14  See also J. Christiaan Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HTR 79 (1986): 15. 15  See Günther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 150; Dahl, “The Future of Israel,” 143; and Hübner, Gottes Ich, 60, for this same conclusion. 16 This point has been argued by Mary Ann Getty, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11,” CBQ 50 (1988): 464–465, though I am not convinced by her apparent interpretation of the meaning of 9:6b itself as a reference to the inclusion of the gentiles into the people of God.

250

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the doxology in 11:33–36, where Paul’s argument in support of 9:6a has ceased and his concluding personal response to the faithfulness of God’s word begins. For Paul, theology naturally evolves into doxology.17 The implication of this structural observation for understanding 11:25–32 is clear. Rather than providing the climax of Rom 9–11 (or for that matter of Romans as a whole),18 or offering a summary of these chapters,19 the argument of 11:25–32 functions to support Paul’s a-fortiori statement in 11:24 that the “natural branches” of Israel who come to faith (cf. 11:23) will be grafted back into the “olive tree” of her covenant identity and salvific heritage (cf. the γάρ of 11:25). In so doing, vv. 25–32 establish the last and perhaps most important support for the point of 9:6a. God’s word has not failed because, just as God pledged in the eschatological, new covenant promises of Isa 59:20 and Jer 31:33/Isa 27:9 (11:26b–27), “all Israel shall be saved” (11:26).20 But before Paul can draw this conclusion, he must first explain why, given the dawning of the gospel of the kingdom, Israel’s current rejection of the Messiah has not already overthrown God’s word. It is one thing to declaim a future salvation of Israel that will fulfill God’s word; it is quite another to demonstrate that God is being faithful now to his promises to Israel in spite of the fact that most of those who belong to Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3) have rejected the Messiah. In regard to the 17 Cf. the same doxological response in Rom 9:5 and in Rom 6:17; 7:25; 16:27; 1 Cor 15:57; 2 Cor 1:3; 2:14; 8:16; 9:15; Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20. For a recent defense of 9:6 as the main point of Rom 9–11 and the key insight that Paul adduces Scripture and its authors 19×s throughout chs. 9–11, alongside God himself and Paul, as witnesses in its support, introduced 16×s with a form of λέγω, see Douglas C. Mohrmann, “Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest. Literature in the Second Degree,” in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul, ed. Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House, WUNT 2/450 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 129–150. See esp. the chart on pp. 136–137 and 139 n. 42. Mohrmann concludes: “It appears that Paul has imagined a collection of witnesses who may come forward and support his propositio that ‘God’s word has not failed.’ On numerous occasions Paul calls God himself, or Scripture as a circumlocution for God, as a witness (9:15, 17, 25; 10:11; 11:2, 4) … At other points, Moses offers witness (10:19; cf. 10:5 where he ‘writes,’ γράφει) along with Isaiah (9:27, 29; 10:16, 20, 21) and even David (11:9). Perhaps it is not a coincidence that these three personae are resurrected as representatives for the Law, Prophets, and Psalms (cf. 4QMMT ii.95–96; Luke 24:44). In other words, as author and audience test the case about God’s word, Scripture itself is given an opportunity to testify, along with three key spokespersons who stand in for major components of Scripture” (p. 137). Furthermore, Mohrmann uncovers the past, present, and future structure of the implied narrative in chs. 9–11, thereby showing the intentionality of Paul’s theologically driven, eschatological reading of Israel’s history (see his other helpful summary chart on pp. 142–143). 18  So, e. g., Beker, “The Faithfulness of God.” For my own understanding of 15:7–13 as the rhetorical climax of the letter, see chapter nine. 19 So, e. g., Getty, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel,” 457 ff. 20  See Ulrich Wilckens, Röm 6–11, Bd. 2 in Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT 6 (Zurich: Benzinger, 1980), 263–267 for an insightful analysis of 11:25–36 as the final answer to the “problem of Israel from the standpoint of salvation-history” first raised in 9:1 and already anticipated in Rom 3:1–6.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

251

trustworthiness of God’s character, faithfulness in the future is worthless without faithfulness in the present. Unless we decide that Paul is hopelessly inconsistent at this point, any interpretation of Israel’s future in 11:25–36 must be related to his view of Israel in the present.

The Identity of Covenant Israel in Rom 9:6b–13 Paul’s solution to the problem posed by Israel’s present rejection of Jesus is first given in short compass in 9:6b–7 and then interpreted and supported in 9:8–13. God’s word has not failed because God’s covenant promise to Abraham never included a promise of salvation to his descendants as determined solely by their ethnic or national identity. This is the point of Paul’s play on the word “Israel” in 9:6b: “All those ἐξ [national]  Ἰσραήλ, these are not [covenant]  Ἰσραήλ.” In 9:7 Paul makes the same point with a different play on words, this time using “seed” (σπέρμα) in the sense of descendants: “that is, all are not [covenant] children (τέκ­ να) because (ὅτι) they are the [physical] seed of Abraham (σπέρμα  Ἀβραάμ), but [only] ‘through Isaac shall [Abraham’s] seed (σπέρμα) be called,’ ” the latter of which Paul identifies in 9:8 as “the children of God” (τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ). In making this distinction Paul cites the declaration of Gen 21:12, in which God reaffirms his election of Isaac, rather than Abraham’s son with Hagar, as the heir of his covenant with Abraham. Of interest too is the fact that in the related passage of Gal 4:21–29 Paul likewise distinguishes between two covenant peoples, both descending from Abraham, only one of which has been born “according to the Spirit” (4:29). On the one hand, as we have seen in chapter two, Paul identifies “the slave girl,” Hagar, together with her “children” (τέκνα) born “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα), with unbelieving, enslaved Israel under the Sinai covenant, who continue on into Paul’s own day! In contrast stand the children of the free woman, born “through the promise” (δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας), whom Paul identifies with “the children of promise according to Isaac” (κατὰ  Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα) and equates with the believing Galatians. In the same way, Rom 9:8 offers an interpretation of the promise to Abraham quoted from Gen 21:12: “the children of the flesh” (τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός) are not the children of God, but only “the children of promise” (τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) will be Abraham’s legitimate “seed.” That is, only those children of Abraham who have also been given the promise of redemption can be considered Abraham’s descendant. As Paul reads Genesis, God therefore has no covenant commitment to save all of Abraham’s physical descendants, but only those whom, according solely to his own sovereign call (9:7), he has elected to be part of his spiritual people (9:11). The examples from the patriarchs in 9:9–13 are given to support this distinction between Israel “according to the flesh” and Israel “according to the promise” as paradigms of how God preserves his purpose of

252

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

election (9:11b).21 God’s word stands because God is the one who has determined who from within Israel will respond to his call in Christ, just as he chose which one of Rebekah’s twins would be the child of promise (9:11). Paul’s point is poignant. Since God never promised to save all Israelites, their large-scale rejection of Jesus in Paul’s day caused no problem for the integrity of God’s word. The themes of God’s call, promise, and election in 9:7–13 as the solution to the problem of the rejection of the Messiah in 9:3 indicates that, for Paul, those Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah show themselves to be outside the redeemed lineage of the people of God as defined by the Abrahamic covenant (9:7–8; cf. Rom 2:25–29; 2 Cor 3:12–4:6). In contrast, those Jews who are “Abraham’s seed” will continue within the covenant people by accepting the Messiah in fulfillment of God’s call and promise in their lives. Hence, if Paul draws a line from the elect within Israel to those who follow Jesus as the Messiah, then the contrast between Israel nationally and Israel as Abraham’s seed in 9:6b–13 must be equivalent to that between the non-Christian Jew and the Jewish-Christian of Paul’s day.22 In each case, one’s identity is determined by God’s unconditional, sovereign election (9:11). God did not promise to elect all or any from within Israel simply because they are Israelites. Yet God did promise Abraham to elect his people from within Abraham’s descendants. As long as God acts accordingly, both negatively and positively, so that those who are spiritual heirs of Abraham are always children of God by promise (9:8), God’s word to Abraham stands.

The Questions of Romans 9–11 Paul anticipates that his solution to the problem presented by Israel’s rejection of the Messiah will spawn a series of objections. Thus, in typical diatribe style, he proceeds to take up these objections by anticipating step by step where his argument will lead and then posing the next logical question himself in order to answer it. In this way, each of these queries marks a turning point in Paul’s argument so that Rom 9:13–11:32 can be structured around these pivotal questions. 21 For an interpretation of God’s purpose in his election “by which God aims to preserve his complete freedom in determining who will be the beneficiaries of his saving promises, who will be the ‘Israel’ within Israel (9:6),” see Piper, Justification, 34–54. 22 So too Hübner, Gottes Ich, 17–19 and the literature cited there. Hübner points to 1QS 5:5f; 6:13–14; 8:5, 9; 9:5; and 1QM 10:9 as examples from Qumran of the ability to make the distinction between “true” and ethnic Israel so that Paul’s way of thinking was already present in the Jewish thinking of his day (cf. 19–20 n. 23a). Otfried Hofius, “Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11,” ZTK 83 (1986): 305, makes the same point and adds 1QHa 2:12–13; 7:10, 12; 14:15; 4Q171 (=4QpPsa) 2, 5; 3, 5; 4, 11–12; 1QpHab 5:4; 10:13; 1QS 8:6; for Hofius’s own view on the distinction between Paul and Qumran on the issue of the remnant, see below.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

253

Moreover, the major breaks in Paul’s thought can be distinguished from the minor moves in his argument by the different style of rhetorical question he employs. The first two major breaks in 9:14 and 9:30 are signaled by Paul’s use of the same question, “What therefore shall we say?”, in distinction to the various other types of questions Paul used to move the argument along within these sections (cf. 9:19, 20–21, 22–23, 32; 10:14–15, 18–19). Similarly, the second two sections of Paul’s argument are marked off in 11:1 and 11:11 by a diatribal question introduced with the same phrase, “I say, therefore …,” in contrast to the rhetorical question in 11:7 and possibly 11:24. As a further distinguishing mark, three of the four of these major thesis-like questions are denied with the characteristic phrase μὴ γένοιτο (9:14; 11:1, 11), while none of the interior questions within the larger demarcated sections are negated. The argument of Rom 9:14–11:32 is therefore built around these four main sections, with each section leading to the next by virtue of the diatribal question it poses: (1) Paul’s support for the integrity of God’s word in 9:6b–13, which leads to the question of 9:14a: “Is God unjust?” (2) The justice of God in 9:14–29, which leads to the question of 9:30–32a: “Why did the gentiles attain righteousness while Israel did not?” (3) The failure of the Jews in 9:30–10:21, which leads to the question of 11:1a: “Has God therefore rejected his people?” (4) The role of the remnant as a sign of the faithfulness of God in 11:1–10, which leads to the question of 11:11a: “Has Israel stumbled so that they have fallen?”

Through these stylistically linked stages in his argument Paul bridges the gap between his final answer concerning the future of Israel in 11:11–32 and his first answer concerning present day Israel in 9:1–13. He does so by means of a stepby-step argument regarding the nature of God’s relationship to Israel during the interim period within redemptive history between the promise to Abraham (9:7) and the consummation of this age (11:26–27). To lay the groundwork for Paul’s strong negation to the rhetorical question of 11:11a and its support in 11:11b–32 it will thus be necessary to trace the development of Paul’s argument as it crystallizes around the four major rhetorical questions of Rom 9–11. For Paul’s answer in 11:11b–32 regarding in what sense he can assert that “all Israel will be saved” in the future (11:26) is based on his answer in 9:6b–10:21 to the question regarding the nature of God’s commitment to Israel in the present, when “not all Israel is Israel.” However, ongoing attempts to solve this problem by interpreting “Israel” in 11:26 to refer to the “true” or “spiritual Israel” throughout time as an extension of the principle of 9:6b, or to the church as a new “Israel” comprised of both Jews and gentiles in view of 9:22–26 and 11:25, rather than to national Israel, will prove unconvincing (see

254

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

below).23 The solution lies instead in bridging the gap between the integrity of God’s word to national Israel in the present (9:6b–13), when God has not promised to save “all Israel,” and its integrity in the future (11:11–32), when he has.

The Integrity of God’s Word in Romans 9:14–11:10 Paul’s distinction within national Israel between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of God” on the basis of God’s sovereign election naturally raises the question of God’s justice (cf. 9:8 with 9:14a). How can God be just if he elects without regard for human distinctives by choosing “the children of promise” even before they are born? Paul’s answer hinges on the definition of God’s glory found in Exod 33:19 and quoted in Rom 9:15.24 According to this text, God’s glory consists in his sovereign ability to bestow his kindness freely as an act of unconstrained mercy. In thinking of God’s justice in doing so, this definition recalls the corresponding biblical testimony that “the most fundamental characteristic of God’s righteousness is his allegiance to his own name, that is, to his honor and glory.”25 Hence, for God to be just he must preserve the honor of his name by maintaining his sovereignty and faithfully keeping his word (cf. 9:6 with 9:11). In the context of Rom 9:6b–29 this means that God is therefore just in electing his people apart from their human distinctives (good or bad) since, by so doing, he is displaying the glory of his sovereignty as revealed in his free acts of mercy in accordance with his promises to Abraham (cf. 9:7 [Gen 21:12], 9 [Gen 18:10, 14], 12–13 [Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2–3]). The example of Pharaoh in 9:17–18 demonstrates that this also means that God is just when he “hardens whom he wills.” Conversely, it is unjust for humankind to protest God’s election and call since God has the sovereign right (ἐξουσία) to use his vessels as instruments and/ or objects of wrath as he pleases (9:11–13, 20–21). Yet, despite its twofold nature, God’s justice is predominantly characterized by mercy since the vessels of wrath serve the penultimate purpose of providing the means to display God’s glory on the vessels of mercy (9:17b, 22–23). In 9:14–23 Paul’s reader is consequently encouraged not only to accept God’s sovereign election as an expression of his justice, but also to acknowledge the good and merciful goal of God’s “purpose 23  For an outline of these three most common views of “all Israel” in 11:26 see Charles M. Home, “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’ (Romans 11:26),” JETS 21 (1978): 329–334, and for their persistence and further development see Christopher Zoccali, “ ‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship,” JSNT 30 (2008): 289–318. 24 For this view I am indebted to Piper, Justification, 55–101. 25  Ibid., 90. Piper argues for this view on the basis of passages such as Pss 23:3; 31:1–3; 79:9; 143:1–2, 11; Dan 9:7, 13–19; Isa 43:6–7, 21, 25; 44:23; 46:13; Jer 13:11; 14:7, 9, 20–21; Ezek 16:59–63; 20:9, 14, 22, 44, etc.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

255

according to election” (9:11), even though this entails God’s enduring the existence of “the vessels of wrath” for the sake of “the vessels of mercy” (9:22–23). Paul’s point in 9:22–23 prepares us for his conclusions in 11:12, 15, 30–32. This becomes especially apparent when we realize that in defining the current vessels of mercy Paul introduces a chiasm in 9:24–29 in order to stress the salvation of a remnant of Jews as recipients of God’s salvific call (cf. Jews [24a]/Gentiles [24b]// Gentiles as an extension of God’s redemption of wayward Jews [25–26]/Jews [27–29]). Indeed, Dahl sees the emphasis in 9:24–29 to be on the inclusion of the Jews to such a degree that “Paul adds almost as an aside that there are Gentiles among these vessels of mercy.”26 This latter reality is supported in 9:25–26a by a quotation taken from Hos 2:25 and 2:1 (LXX). In their original context these texts refer not to the redemption of gentiles, but to the salvation of disobedient Israel at the time of her restoration. For this reason commentators often conclude that Paul used these texts without regard for their original sense.27 It is more probable that Paul was drawing a comparison between the calling of the gentiles from unbelief and the restoration of Israel from exile and judgment. Just as God can one day bring back Israel from the dead, God can call gentiles to new life. Such a reading of the analogous function of the quotes in 9:25–26 is supported by the use of the introductory formula “as” (ὡς) in v. 25a and by the absence of a reference to Israel in the introductory formula in contrast to the explicit referent “concerning Israel” found in 9:27. If this reading can be sustained, then here too Paul is preparing us for chapter 11, where he will again compare the promise of a future salvation of Israel to the present salvation of the gentiles, just as he now compares the present salvation of the gentiles to the promise of a future salvation of Israel (cf. 9:24–26 with 11:17, 23, 26–28). In addition to the chiastic structure of the passage, the subsequent point of 9:30–32 concerning Israel’s current failure to attain what she was seeking (not the gentiles’ success) likewise indicates that Paul’s focus of attention in 9:24–29 is on the mixed quotes from Isa 10:22–23, Hos 2:1, and Isa 1:9 in vv. 27–29. Paul’s discussion of the justice of God in electing some to mercy and some to destruction therefore closes with the realization that the current salvation of the gentiles is to be balanced by the salvation of only a meager remnant of Israelites. Romans 9:27 is thus the key to both the nature of God’s righteousness in 9:14–29 and the integrity of God’s word in 9:6a. In regard to God’s righteousness, God’s actions toward present day Israel are just because “he hardens whom he wills” for the sake of showing mercy to others, even if this means hardening the majority of Israel in order to save the gentiles (9:18, 23, 25). In regard to the integrity of God’s word, Isaiah foretold that at the time of the exile God’s judgment of Israel would be so severe that only a remnant would be saved (9:27, 29). Isaiah’s  “The Future of Israel,” 146. e. g., Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 274.

26

27 So,

256

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

emphasis is thus the same as Paul’s: “for the Lord will do [his] word (λόγος) … upon the earth” (Isa 10:23LXX in 9:28). Romans 9:27–29 thus encapsulates what Martin Rese called the overall thesis of Rom 9–11, namely, that God’s word remains valid and true in spite of the unbelief of Israel.28 Here too Paul prepares us for his argument in chapter 11, this time by introducing the concept of God’s election of a remnant within the hardening of Israel as a whole, which will play such an important role in 11:1–10. Before Paul returns in chapter 11 to the salvific significance of the remnant, he must first deal with one last question about Israel’s current divine hardening and God’s consequent judgment. An unexpected reversal in the plan of redemptive history, in which the inclusion of many gentiles is taking the place of the restoration of ethnic Israel as part of God’s faithfulness to his word, was certainly shocking.29 It required scriptural justification, all the more so given the seemingly hopeless prospect in the Isaianic texts cited in 9:27–29 for the salvation of much of Israel. There is no hint of a future salvation for Israel in 9:27–29. The stress on Israel’s judgment in vv. 27–29 is so shocking, in fact, that it leads to the anticipated question of 9:30–32a.

The Gentiles’ Faith and Israel’s Failure Why, with the coming of the Messiah, did the gentiles attain righteousness while Israel did not (9:30–32a)? However we understand Paul’s view of the law in 9:30–10:13, in answer to this question it is enough to observe, first, that for Paul what Israel did not obtain after the Messiah came was the righteousness expressed in the law (9:31: νόμος δικαιοσύνης). Second, the reason Israel did not attain to this “Torah of righteousness” was because she continued to pursue it “as from works” (ὡς ἐξ ἔργων), even though the righteousness that now derives from faith (ἐκ πίστεως) had arrived (9:30, 32). In other words, Israel failed to attain to the righteousness first revealed under the old covenant because she held on to the old covenant even though the new had come.30 Crucial for our present purpose is to note what Paul considers the result of this failure on Israel’s part to reach her goal: “They stumbled over the (stone of) stumbling,” just as Isaiah once again  “Israel und Kirche in Römer 9,” NTS 34 (1988): 212.  Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur Interpretation von Römer 11:25–32,” Probleme biblischer Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 561 n. 29, who points to Isa 2:2–3; Mic 4:2; Isa 56:7; 60:3; and Ps. Sol. 17:30–34 as examples of the expectation that the gentiles would come to Zion after Israel had been restored. Of special significance is Ps. Sol. 17:32–44, which attributes this redemption of Israel and then of the nations to the coming of the Messiah; for Paul’s own incorporation of this tradition and its biblical sequence in regard to the future redemption of both Israel and the nations in Rom 15:1–13, see below, chapter nine. 30  For my eschatological reading of the “law,” “works of the law,” and “faith” in this passage as metonymies for the old and new covenant eras, see above, pp. 113, 192–194, 224–226. 28 29

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

257

predicted they would (9:32–33). In the context of Rom 9–10, this “stumbling” can only be a reference to Israel’s large-scale rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.31 Once again, therefore, God’s word is upheld in Israel’s failure. It is equally clear in this context that for Israel to reject the stone of stumbling is for her to be excluded from the salvation (σωτηρία) Paul so desperately wishes she would enjoy (10:1; cf. 9:2). Israel’s lack of faith in the faithfulness of God (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) is a denial of God’s righteousness revealed through the gospel as the power of God for salvation (σωτηρία; cf. Rom 1:16–17 with 9:30–32 and 10:1). That Israel is not experiencing God’s eschatological deliverance as a result of this denial is indicated not only explicitly by the content of Paul’s prayer in 10:1, but also implicitly by the way Paul distances himself from Israel in expressing it. In 10:1 Paul addresses his fellow Christians as “brothers” but refers to Israel in the third person without any personal attachment. Romans 10:1 thus hearkens back to Paul’s earlier, careful qualification in 9:3 that unbelieving Israelites are his “kinsmen” only by race, that is, only “according to the flesh.” The rest of 9:30–10:21 details why the vast majority of Israel were led astray from the Messiah through her eschatologically outdated pursuit of the “law of righteousness” (cf. 10:2–13) and why she should have known better (cf. 10:14– 21). Under the umbrella of God’s hardening activity (11:7–8), Israel is fully responsible for her rejection of the Messiah (10:18–20). Yet, once again, Paul’s eye is on the future as he describes the present, this time through Scriptural references to the jealousy-provoking role that the conversion of the gentiles plays in the future salvation of Israel (cf. Deut 32:21LXX and Isa 65:1LXX in 10:19–20 with 11:13–14). But at this point in Paul’s argument Israel’s salvation is just an intimation waiting to be developed. The section ends like it began, with the Scripture’s testimony to Israel’s disobedient and obstinate character (cf. Isa 65:2LXX in 10:21), thereby reiterating yet again that God’s word has not failed.

The Remnant’s Faith and Israel’s Future Against the backdrop of the severe judgment pronounced in 9:27–29 and 10:18– 21 it is no wonder that Paul begins his transition in 11:1 to declaring Israel’s future redemption by making explicit the question which was implicit behind 9:6: Because of the sinful disobedience of Israel “according to the flesh” at the coming of the Messiah, “has God rejected his people?” Paul’s answer is definitive: God has emphatically not rejected his people because Paul himself trusts in the Messiah and he too is “an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1b). Paul’s own experience is proof that, despite Israel’s disobedience 31 So too Hofius, “Das Evangelium und Israel,” 298–299. Cf. Gal 5:11; 1 Cor 1:23; Luke 2:34; 1 Pet 2:5–8.

258

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

and rebellion (10:21), the Lord is still calling “children of the promise” from within Israel to be the elect “seed of Abraham,” just as he declared in Gen 21:12 (9:7–8). This means that Paul belongs to the chosen “remnant” referred to by Isaiah and Hosea as quoted in 9:27 (cf. 9:24; 11:5). Therefore, since Paul himself is living proof that a remnant continues to exist, he can be confident that “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (11:2, taking v. 2a to be an implied inference from 11:1b). It is not readily apparent how Paul’s thought at this point should be construed. Many have argued that Paul’s confidence simply means that since some Jews, like Paul, are presently being saved God has not stopped working within Israel as a nation. In this view, the remnant to which Paul belongs is understood to replace disobedient Israel, so that the same contrast found in 9:6b and 8 is also at work here. “God’s people” in 11:1, like those “from Israel” in 9:6 and “the children of the flesh” in 9:8, are not to be identified with the “Israel” of 9:6 and “the children of God” of 9:8, who now continue on as those who recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. Paul’s point in 11:1–7 is thus still the same as it has been in 9:6b–10:21 and Paul’s focus is still on the present salvation of those few Jews who make up the remnant.32 Paul’s point is simply that God has not rejected Israel as a people because he is still saving some of them. Such a view fails to take into consideration both the significance of the remnant motif itself as set forth in the Elijah-narrative in 1 Kgs 19:9–18 and the import of Paul’s own interpretation of its significance in 11:2b and 11:5–11. Once these two passages are taken into account it becomes apparent that in 11:1–10 Paul has switched his focus from the present salvation of a remnant within Israel to the future salvation of Israel as a whole (cf. the reference to “Israel” in 11:7, where it must refer to the nation as a whole, and the repetition of the question of 11:1 in 11:11, where it clearly refers back to Israel as a nation). In 11:2 Paul grounds his conclusion that God has not rejected his people by calling attention to Elijah’s response when confronted with Israel’s apostasy (cf. Rom 10:21). Paul’s first point is that Elijah pleaded with the Lord “against Israel,” i. e., Elijah pleaded for Israel’s condemnation! At first glance, Paul’s reaction as one of the elect might be to follow Elijah in viewing himself as a substitute for faithless Israel, who rightly deserves God’s judgment. Indeed, one cannot help wondering if Paul sees his own suffering and rejection on behalf of the gospel mirrored in Elijah’s complaint against Israel from 1 Kgs 19:10, 14, quoted in 11:3 (cf., especially in this context, 1 Thess 2:14–16; Gal 5:11; 2 Cor 11:24). Nevertheless, in 11:4 Paul follows the biblical narrative in emphasizing God’s adversative response to Elijah’s lament from 1 Kgs 19:18: despite Elijah’s 32  E. g., Home, “ ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved,’ ” 330, and O. Palmer Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology: Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 210.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

259

declaration to the contrary, Elijah is not alone! God has called out for himself a larger remnant of the faithful. The narrative in 1 Kgs 19:17–18 makes clear, moreover, that this remnant of 7,000 will be kept from the coming judgment on the rebellious. The significance of the parallel to Elijah is the corresponding promise to the remnant of Paul’s day that, like Elijah, their experience points forward to the salvation of a greater number who will join them in being saved from the coming judgment. Rather than indicating God’s final judgment on the nation as a whole, the small, persecuted remnant of Paul’s day is a symbol and pledge of hope for the future salvation of the people. In support of this reading of 11:1–5, Dan Johnson has called attention to the fact that the remnant in the OT can function either as a word of divine judgment (Isa 10:22) or as a word of hope (Gen 7:23; 2 Kgs 19:30–31; Isa 11:11–12, 16; 37:31–32; Mic 2:12; 4:7; 5:7–8; Zech 8:12).33 In line with the former, in Rom 9:27 Paul employed the reference to the remnant from Isa 10:22 in order to stress Israel’s current rejection and hardening. Now in 11:1–5 he sees in the faithful remnant a sign of hope for the future salvation of Israel as a testimony to the faithfulness of God.34 Johnson therefore concludes that in 11:1 Paul is introducing the “overriding theme” of Rom 11, namely, that “all Israel will be saved” (11:25).35 The future salvation of greater Israel is thus implicit both in the remnant motif of 11:1–6 and in the temporary hardening referred to in 11:7–16. It then becomes explicit in the references to the full inclusion of Israel in 11:12, 15, and 24.36 Otfried Hofius has made this same point by contrasting Paul’s argument in Rom 11 to the Qumran community’s conception of themselves as the remnant of God, whose salvation as the “true Israel” takes the place of God’s promises to the rest of Israel both now and in the future. Hofius’s point is that it is precisely the hope for the future of “all Israel” in Rom 11:11–32 as an extension of the remnant concept from 11:1–10 that marks Paul’s thought as distinct.37 This reading of Rom 11:1–5 is also undergirded by Gerhard Hasel’s extensive study of the remnant motif in the ancient Near East and OT traditions.38 Hasel concludes that “in the Abraham-Lot story the remnant motif is used in connection with revolutionary reflections about God’s righteousness: for the sake of divine righteousness the minority of a righteous remnant has a preserving function for the wicked majority.”39 In the same way, YHWH’s theophanic reply to Elijah’s complaint that he “alone is left” climaxes in the assurance that YHWH  Dan G. Johnson, “The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11,” CBQ 46 (1984): 93.  Ibid., 96. 35 Ibid., 92. 36  Ibid., 101. 37  Cf. Hofius, “Das Evangelium und Israel,” 305–306, and 1QHa 14:11; CD 1:4–5; 2:1 ff.; 1QM 13:7 ff.; 14:8–9; 1QS 1:8, 10. 38  Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1972). 39 Ibid., 389. 33 34

260

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

will preserve a remnant of 7,000 in the future judgment. Israel’s apostasy will be punished by the sword from within and without, but this judgment will not lead to her complete annihilation.40 It is precisely these two “remnant” traditions that Paul uses to frame his argument in Rom 9–11. Paul moves from the remnant within Abraham’s descendants and its implications for understanding God’s present relationship to Israel in 9:6b–13 to the experience of Elijah as a type of this remnant and its implications for God’s future relationship to Israel in 11:1–32. Such a switch in perspective in Rom 11:1–32 is corroborated structurally by the change in the rhetorical style of the question with which Paul introduces the last two sections of his argument. The prior sections dealing with the present salvation of a remnant within Israel were both introduced with the first person plural query, “What therefore shall we say?” (9:14, 30), whereas the last two sections dealing with the future salvation of “all Israel” are introduced with the first person singular question, “I say (ask) therefore …” (11:1, 11). Both the content and structure of 11:1 and 11:11 thus support taking them to be explicit introductions to the question of the future salvation of Israel. Hence, it is the role of the remnant as a sign of God’s faithfulness to his people in 11:1–5 that bridges the gap between the integrity of God’s word in the present, when the majority of Israel are being judged (9:6b–13), and its integrity in the future, when God’s judgment of Israel turns to redemption (11:11–32).

The Future of Israel in Romans 11:11–24 If my reading of the future perspective of Rom 11:1–32 is correct, then the present hardening of the “rest” of Israel declared in the collage of Scripture in 11:7–10 formed from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings is God’s penultimate word to Israel. Although this divine judgment is in itself faithful to God’s word, the continuing existence of a remnant is evidence that God has not rejected his people as a people. This is the point of 11:1–2. The final declaration of Rom 9–11 is consequently implied in the rhetorical question of 11:11a: Israel has not stumbled due to their unbelief in the Messiah to such a degree that she is no longer linked to the salvific promise of a greater salvation to come. This hope for her future redemption is contained in the present existence of a faithful remnant from within the people (cf. 11:11a with 9:32–33). Stendahl is right in emphasizing that Paul raises the question of Israel’s future salvation not for the sake of the Jews, but for the sake of the gentiles whom he is addressing from the perspective of his own ministry as their apostle (cf. 11:13, 17–21). Paul’s answer regarding the relationship between present day Israel and  Ibid., 391 (emphasis his).

40

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

261

the salvation of the gentiles, when placed against the backdrop of 9:22–24 and 11:7–10, is clear. According to 11:11b, 12a, 15a, 17a, 19–20a the majority of Israel have now been hardened and have therefore “stumbled” for the penultimate purpose of bringing mercy to the gentiles, who like the remnant from within Israel have also been elected only by grace (cf. 9:11, 24, 27, and 11:5). Stendahl is therefore also right in emphasizing that the problem Paul has in mind in addressing the believing gentiles is their potential arrogance over the Jews. The threefold warning against gentile arrogance in 11:18, 20, and 25 is the main point rhetorically of the passage. However, although addressed to gentiles within the church to confront a potential gentile problem, the question of 11:1 itself indicates, contra Stendahl, that the emphasis in 11:11–12 on the salvation of the gentiles is not Paul’s main theological point. The salvation of the gentiles, their response to it, and even Paul’s own ministry are all of penultimate importance as secondary supports for Paul’s warning against gentile arrogance. Of primary support is Paul’s extended argument regarding the future salvation of Israel in 11:7–24. Even though Israel as a whole is now hardened for the sake of the gentiles, there is nevertheless still a future for Israel, as testified to by the existence of a Jewish Christian remnant, while no such divine commitment exists for any specific gentile people. Only this realization, and not the nature of the salvation of the gentiles or the role of Paul’s ministry per se, can keep the nations humble in relation to Israel as God’s elect. Paul makes this point in 11:16 by using two analogies, the first fruits of the dough and the root of the olive tree. In both cases the reference can either be to the patriarchs (as in 11:28) or to the remnant (as in 11:14–15). On the basis of the parallel usage in Rom 16:5 and 1 Cor 16:15, and since the latter fits better in the immediate context, a reference to the remnant is to be preferred.41 The contrast in meaning is not dramatic, however, since the remnant is itself an expression of God’s prior commitment to the patriarchs. So the theological principle remains the same in either case. In offering the first fruits of the dough as that which represents the whole lump (cf. Num 15:20–21), and in the relationship between a root and its branches, the quality of the former determines and even guarantees the nature of the latter.42 Since the remnant (or the patriarchs) is already “holy,” so too the rest of their people. The present salvation of the remnant thus guarantees the future blessing of the nation it represents. What is implicit in the role of the remnant in 11:1–5 is made explicit in the analogies of 11:16.

 So too Dahl, “The Future of Israel,” 151, and Johnson, “Structure,” 98–99. this point and a treatment of these two analogies in Rom 11 in the context of their development within Jewish tradition, see Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Das Ölbaum-Gleichnis in Röm 11:16ff: Versuch einer weiterführenden Deutung,” in Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honor of David Daube, ed. Ernst Bammel, C. K. Barrett, and W. D. Davies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 127–164, esp. 129, 135–136. 41

42 For

262

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

This link between “the remnant” (11:5) and “the rest” of Israel (11:7) explains the purpose of Paul’s ministry in 11:13–14. It is often suggested that Paul conceived of his ministry as a beginning fulfillment of the prophetic hope for the pilgrimage of the gentiles to Zion, which in a strange twist of events now precedes the restoration of Israel rather than following it.43 As the apostle to the gentiles, and in the light of this unexpected, eschatological reversal in God’s plan, Paul consequently “magnifies (his) ministry” in order to make Israel jealous and as a result “save some of them” (11:14). But 11:14 explicitly says that Paul’s aim is not to bring in the fullness of Israel (cf. v. 12), but only “some” of them, i. e., more of the remnant.44 It therefore seems more accurate to posit that the purpose of Paul’s ministry is to secure the elect in the present from among both gentiles and Jews. Paul’s ministry aims at saving gentiles in order that he might cause Israel, his people according to the “flesh” (cf. μου σάρξ in 11:13 with 9:3), to be jealous and in so doing save the remnant (11:11b, 14). The hardened rest will simply be further alienated by their jealousy, as Paul has already indicated in 10:20–21. In acknowledging that his ministry will have a salvific affect on only a minority of Israel, Paul is not forgetting the future of his people. Paul recognizes that the remnant is God’s “down payment” on the future salvation of his people. Just as the present “transgression” of Israel means salvation for gentiles from among the nations, i. e., “riches” and “reconciliation for the world” in the present (11:12a, 15a), so too the remnant’s present “acceptance” means “life from the dead” for Israel in the future (11:15). In turn, Israel’s eventual “fullness” will mean eschatological riches for the gentiles as well, namely, their final, full inclusion in the people of God (11:12).45 Paul’s ministry is an essential link in this chain of events, the culmination of which he will outline in Rom 15:1–13 (see below, chapter nine). The essential connection between the present remnant, the “root,” and the future salvation of Israel, the “branches,” destroys the possibility of any gentile hubris as a result of their own salvation, present or future (cf. 11:17–24). Both the gentiles’ present salvation and the future redemption of the nations as a whole are tied to God’s ways with Israel as his elect, both in Israel’s present hardening and in Israel’s future redemption. The gentiles must realize that they owe their salvation, present and future, to God’s prior commitment to Abraham, to the  For the biblical references, see note 29 above.  So too Johnson, “Structure,” 97–98. 45 Contrary those who, like H. Hübner and Robertson, argue that “fullness” in 11:12 refers to the gradual ingathering over time of the present day remnant until their full number is reached. For the former, see Hübner, Gottes Ich, 107, and the literature cited there; for the latter, see Robertson, “Ethnic Israel,” 214–215. But the remnant is, by definition, small and partial (cf. 9:27 and 11:3, 5), and the superior nature of the “riches” to come as a result of this fullness implied in the a-fortiori argument of v. 12 speaks against this view. In addition, the “fullness of the gentiles” in 11:25 clearly does not represent a small, minority status within the new covenant people of God. 43 44

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

263

promises and covenants granted to Israel, and to Israel’s Messiah (9:4–5). It is Israel as the “root” which supports the gentiles and not the other way around (11:17–18). The gospel is to the “Jew first” both temporally and theologically (Rom 1:16; 15:8–9). To be a gentile Christian is to derive one’s existence from Israel and to find the earthly purpose of one’s existence in relationship to Israel. Moreover, it should be manifest to the gentiles from the history of Israel and from the existence of the remnant that salvation is always a matter of hubris-destroying, faith-engendering, elective grace (cf. 11:5 with 9:11 and 18, the contrast between faith and arrogance in 11:19–22, and Paul’s doxology-causing conclusion in 11:32). As a “wild olive shoot” grafted into the remnant-root of Israel (11:17), the gentile believer must realize that salvation itself is a matter of faith in response to the unmerited and unconditional grace of God now being expressed in Christ (11:20; cf. 9:18, 30–32; 10:9; 11:5–6). The danger pride poses to faith is patent, and the danger of unbelief is equally real for the gentile (11:20b–22). So fear, not arrogance, together with a continuing reliance on God’s kindness, is the watchword of the faithful, since salvation does not derive from human distinctives, but from God’s sovereign election (11:20, 22). This means that at any time God may graft unfaithful Israel back into the olive tree of God’s covenant people (11:23). In fact, Paul is confident that one day God will save such a great number of Israelites that the hope of the remnant will be fulfilled. This is the implicit point of the a-fortiori argument of 11:24: if gentiles, who “according to nature” are not part of Israel and thus have had no hope anchored in a remnant, have nevertheless been grafted into the people of God, how much more will those who are part of the root “according to nature” be grafted back in?46 This conclusion, made rhetorically in v. 24, is the explicit point of the last section of Paul’s argument.

The Future of Israel in Rom 11:25–36 The function of 11:25–32 is to offer support for the assertion of 11:24b that the Israel “according to nature” will one day be grafted back into the “cultivated olive tree” of true, faithful Israel. Paul’s purpose in making this point is to warn the gentiles once again against becoming arrogant over their having already been grafted in (cf. 11:18, 20–22 with 11:25a). Paul’s view concerning Israel’s hardening in 11:25 is thus essentially the same as the one he has just set forth in 11:11–24. The redemptive-historical mystery now having been made known is that Israel has been partially hardened in the present in order to allow for the grafting in of the gentiles, both of whom belong in the “olive tree” only by virtue of their 46 Cf. Rom 5:9–10 for this same rhetorical use of an a-fortiori argument with a future passive verb in which the focus is clearly on a temporal future in relation to the supporting clause.

264

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

faith (11:20, 23). Thus, as Cosgrove has helpfully pointed out, if the reading I am advocating is correct, then Paul has given an extraordinary twist to traditional Jewish messianic nationalism. He appears to affirm a nonethnocentric and ironic brand of messianic Jewish nationalism – messianic nationalism because Paul’s vision casts the people of Israel in a role of saving service to the world; nonethnocentric because Israel cannot claim credit for this service; and ironic because Israel is an unwitting instrument in God’s plan. Israel has a messianic role but not a messianic intent.47

What is equally new about 11:25 is Paul’s assertion not only that Israel’s present hardening is tied to the present grafting in of the gentiles, but also that its removal is tied to the time when God will cease grafting in gentiles. Coming to grips with this sobering reality will keep the gentiles from being “wise in their own estimation” (11:25). The gentiles are not currently being saved because they are gentiles, any more than the remnant is being saved because they are Israelites. In accordance with God’s sovereignty, God’s mercy to the gentiles will therefore also be limited. So the “mystery” of 11:25, now revealed to Paul’s addressees, is that the time of Israel’s hardening and that of the gentile’s salvation are both limited for the sake of each other. At this future point in redemptive history the parallel between Israel and the gentiles ends. In contrast to the gentiles, God has a “remnant promise” to keep to Israel. Thus, on the one hand, once the “fullness of the gentiles” has come in during this “remnant period” of salvation history, God’s present work among the nations is finished (11:25). On the other hand, the salvation of the remnant of Israelites within this same period, brought about through the jealousy of the mission to the gentiles, does not bring to an end God’s commitment to Israel. Instead, it necessitates that the corresponding “fullness” of Israel be brought in. This is the second half of the mystery as proclaimed in 11:26–27 and then summarized in 11:28–32. Once we give proper attention to the temporal designation in 11:25, “until (ἄχρις οὗ) the fullness of the gentiles comes in,” the debate over the meaning and 47 Charles H. Cosgrove, “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” CBQ 68 (2006), 288. By “messianic nationalism” Cosgrove means the belief found among the ancient Jews, Greeks, and Romans “that one’s own people is benefactor to the world through its own superiority,” though such nationalism could turn from peaceful service to others (e. g., in the Jewish notion of their exemplary keeping of the law) to violence for one’s own sake (e. g., in the Jewish wars against Rome; p. 287). The conclusion that Paul transforms the Jewish notion of their messianic nationalism fits with the reading of Rom 11:11–32 I advocate: by virtue of God’s hardening of Israel to the gospel while God “brings in” the gentile believers, Israel becomes “an unwitting servant to the nations (Rom 11:12, 15, 30) … In spite of itself and in a negative way, Israel ends up serving humanity, thanks to the hidden workings of God’s providence” (p. 288). Cosgrove does not commit himself to this reading or to any other; he views my reading as merely “plausible and widely embraced” (p. 288). In regard to Israel’s peaceful nationalism, Cosgrove also sees Rom 2:17–24 as apparently challenging the view that, in practice but not in calling, Israel was a light to the nations (p. 288).

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

265

significance of the introductory phrase in 11:26, καὶ οὕτως, takes on a different light. In view of my interpretation of 11:1–24, the “until” of 11:25 is itself enough to posit the future salvation of Israel!48 Hence, the weight of interpreting 11:26 as a future reality does not rest on whether καὶ οὕτως or καί by itself (with οὕτως referring forward to v. 26b) can be rendered consecutively,49 or on whether the “deliverer” in view is God himself or Christ. Even if 11:26 is best taken to describe the manner of Israel’s salvation (καὶ οὕτως rendered as “and in this way”) and the deliverer cannot be identified with Christ, the two readings which I prefer, the Israel in view is still national Israel and the salvation in view is still future. Furthermore, in view of Paul’s eschatological perspective derived from the Messiah’s inauguration of the new covenant, it is striking that Israel’s future salvation is secured by the promises of restoration from Isa 59:20–21 and 27:9, the latter of which declares the taking away or cutting off (ἀφαιρέω) of Israel’s sins50 in accord with God’s (new) covenant promise. The parallel to Jer 31(38LXX):31, 34 is unmistakable and the reference to the “covenant” in 11:26 most likely alludes to Jer 31(38):33. And so once again, in accord with Paul’s declaration in 9:6, the integrity of God’s word is maintained. Romans 11:28 is especially important in this regard. It establishes that the “Israel” of 11:26 must be national Israel and not a reference to the remnant as depicted in Rom 9:6–8 since in 11:28a it is clearly unfaithful Israel that are now “enemies according to the gospel” and “on account of the gentiles.” In 11:28b it is thereby equally clear that it is the Israelites who are “beloved according to election” and “on account of the fathers.” In 9:11 and 11:5 this same reference to God’s election was applied to the remnant, which once again establishes the link between the promise to the patriarchs of a chosen seed that would also encompass many nations (cf. Rom 4:17–18; 9:5, 10; 15:8), its ratification through the ongoing salvation of a remnant of faithful Israel, and its fulfillment in the future redemption of the nation (11:26–27; 15:9–12). God elected Israel in Abraham as the people from whom he would draw the remnant of his children of promise. In turn, his preservation of the remnant throughout Israel’s history, even after Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, is evidence that God has not forsaken them (11:1, 11; and now 11:28). Why then, for Paul, has God not abandoned his people? “Because the gifts and calling are irrevocable,” gifts and calling which were initiated in Abraham and confirmed in the remnant (11:29; cf. with 9:6a). Inasmuch as Paul reads the history of Israel as a history of judgment and redemption for 48 So

too, Stuhlmacher, “Zur Interpretation,” 560, 562.  Ibid., for this latter view, 560. 50  Cf. the use of ἀφαιρέω in Exod 34:7 to describe the declaration of God’s faithfulness to remove the sins of those he will redeem, which he proclaims after Israel’s sin with the golden calf (cf. Rom 1:23), and its corresponding use in Moses’s prayer in 34:9 for God to do just that. In the context of Exod 34:7–9 this promise is directed to a remnant of the faithful, while God’s judgment is meted out on the rest. Now, in Isa 27:9, this promise is extended to all Israel. 49

266

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

both Israel and the nations, the future salvation of Israel in 11:25–32 is thus the last step in God’s demonstration of his own righteousness and glory. With the end of the redemption of the remnant of Israel and the ingathering of the gentiles, the consequent salvation of “all Israel” alive at that time will reveal once again, despite Israel’s history of covenant-breaking, that God’s faithfulness to his word to the fathers has not failed (9:6a; cf. Rom 3:1–4; 15:8) because salvation has always been a matter of God’s sovereign, electing grace (11:32).51 Paul’s closing doxology in 11:33–36 is therefore a theological doxology, rather than a Christological one, since the issue driving Paul’s discussion throughout Rom 9–11 has been the question of God’s character and faithfulness (9:6a). In response, Paul’s burden has been to show that from beginning to end redemptive history has been and will be carried out in accord with God’s covenant promises (cf. 9:4–5 with 11:26–29). Appropriately, then, God’s word regarding the final salvation of Israel causes Paul to extol the One who has worked throughout redemptive history to reveal his mercy and power as the riches of his glory (cf. 9:16–17, 22–23 with 11:30–32). Furthermore, since Paul has been thinking of the future ever since 11:1, and specifically of the consummation of redemptive history since 11:11–32 (cf. 11:12, 24, 26–27), it also seems appropriate that he would close this section with a doxology that reflects the theocentric goal of history that will ultimately be reached with the future salvation of Israel. For to Paul, in accord with God’s own righteous judgment and ways, “God has locked up all to disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all” (11:32).

51  The future of national Israel in relationship to the eschatological ἐκκλησία currently consisting of Jews and gentiles is a much debated question. In support of the view represented here, see especially the extensive work of Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 670–739. For the view that the πλήρωμα of Rom 11:12 and the πᾶς  Ἰσ­ ραήλ of Rom 11:26 refer to the gradual ingathering of the full number of the ethnic remnant of Israel to Christ between the first and second comings, see Robertson, “Distinctive Future,” 209–227. For the view that this “full number” also includes gentile believers, who together with believing Jews constitute a newly defined ecclesial “Israel,” see now the extensive treatment by N. T.  Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Parts III and IV. Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 2013), 1156–1265, who stresses that his view does not entail the idea of the church as a “ ‘replacement’ ” for Israel (p. 1159 n. 472). For a recent treatment of these three positions and their scholarly representatives, see Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTSMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), esp. 58–72. In support of the view taken here, Whittle, 62, points out that in Rom 11:26–27 the conflation of Isa 59:20–21 and 27:9, and possibly Isa 2:3 (cf. ἐκ Ζιών), deals with Israel’s redemption and renewal of the covenant after her judgment, including the blessing of the nations that will accompany Israel’s restoration (cf. Isa 2:2–4; 27:12–13; 60:3). For representatives of the view argued here, in addition to Moo, she lists Jewett, Stuhlmacher, Käsemann, Dunn, Fitzmyer, and Byrne (p. 71 nn. 72–73).

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

267

Implications for Understanding Paul: A Response to Krister Stendahl My reconstruction of Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11 is in large measure a general response to the position of Krister Stendahl. If my understanding of Paul’s thought in Rom 9–11 is correct, then certain specific things may also be said by way of a more direct reply. First, Paul is not silent about the character of Israel’s salvation. In 11:16 the “holy” nature of Israel in the future corresponds to the “holy” nature of the remnant in the present since the former is inextricably tied to the latter. In defining this holiness it is also clear that the “remnant” is comprised of those who have not stumbled over the gospel of Jesus Christ (see 11:11 in view of 9:30–10:4 and Paul’s own protest to be one of the remnant in 11:1). The future salvation of Israel will thus entail overcoming her present enmity to the gospel, which for Paul cannot be understood apart from Jesus’s salvific work as Messiah and Lord (cf. 11:28 with 10:4–17). That eschatological salvation, present and future, is defined by the gospel is confirmed by Paul’s impossible wish in 9:3 to be cut off from Christ for Israel’s sake and by the basic conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, which Stendahl himself recognizes undergirds all of Paul’s thinking (cf. 9:5). The fact that Paul does not mention the name of Jesus after 10:17 is therefore more than made up for by his references to the remnant in 11:1–5, 14, 15 as an extension of this motif in 9:27, where it is clearly in a christologically focused section. Second, as E. P. Sanders has pointed out in response to Stendahl, “a place in the kingdom” always implies for Paul a human means of salvation based only on faith in Jesus Christ; accordingly, Paul applies the requirement of faith to both Jew and gentile, explicitly with regard to the present and, by implication, after his discussion of the future in 11:26–27 (cf. 11:30–32 with its emphasis on mercy!).52 And it is “beyond objection” that “faith” for Paul is never merely a general attitude, but “always means ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ … If this is granted, Rom 10:17–11:36 is not so non-christological as Stendahl’s observation about the appearance of the name ‘Jesus Christ’ would at first lead one to think.”53 Indeed, if “no faith” (ἀπιστία) leads to being cast out of God’s people in 11:20 and 23, then in these same texts “faith” (πίστις) [in Jesus Christ] is explicitly referred to as the human instrument for being (re‑)incorporated into God’s eschatological people for both Jews and gentiles. So by the time Paul gets to 11:25–26, “the condition of faith in Christ has been so often repeated that he does not need to repeat it again.”54

 E. P. Sanders, “Paul’s Attitude toward the Jewish People,” USQR 33 (1978): 182–183.  Ibid., 182. 54 Ibid., 183. 52 53

268

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Third, Stendahl’s understanding of the manner of Paul’s argument, if not Paul’s goal, must also be modified. Here Stendahl’s main point is that the culmination of Paul’s argument against the pride of the gentiles in 11:25–32 could not be referring to the same way of salvation pertaining to the gentiles without undercutting his own purpose. Since Paul is a “pastoral theologian,” not a systematic theologian, we must read his argument from that perspective.55 If the gentiles are saved by their faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Jews are saved apart from an allegiance to the Messiah, it would be natural for the gentiles to argue that their way is in fact superior since it recognizes God’s anointed King as Lord. Surely those who confess God’s Messiah are better off than those who do not, even if the latter would also be saved! Hence, contrary to Stendahl’s reading, the strength of Paul’s argument against the pride of the gentiles does not derive from a salvation-historical conviction that they are to place their faith in a separate object (which could lead to the pride of the “better way”), namely, in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Rather, Paul stresses that they are to recognize that their own standing in faith is dependent on the glory, covenants, promises, and Messiah of Israel (9:4–5). Both the future salvation of Israel and the present salvation of gentiles grow out of the same root and lead to being grafted into the same tree (11:24). And both salvific acts require the same faith (11:20–23). In this light, it is the promise of the future salvation of Israel through Christ that deflates the gentile’s pride since it makes clear that gentiles too stand in faith only as a result of God’s mercy and grace (9:16; 11:5–6). This mercy is not their private possession, but a gift from God that ought to stir them up to fear rather than conceit (11:20). Paul’s God-centered doxology is not designed to downplay gentile allegiance to Jesus for the sake of Israel, but to show the gentiles that all, both Jews and gentiles, will one day be worshipping the same Father together for the same reason, namely, his electing mercy made possible by Christ (cf. the parallel between 11:35 and 9:16). Fourth, as elsewhere in Paul, τὸ μυστήριον in 11:25 does not refer to some undisclosed and “mysterious” idea or series of events. Rather, “the mystery” entails that which was once hidden, but has now become clear in the eschatological light of the Messiah and given to the church to proclaim.56 The point of 11:25–32 is to do precisely that, i. e., to state clearly the answer to the question originally asked in Rom 3:1 regarding the advantage of being a circumcised member of Israel. In this context the mystery in view is the fact that at the consummation of redemptive history a great number of Israel will place their faith in Jesus as the Messiah

55 This is Stendahl’s main response to Sanders’s critique of his position as found in an epilogue to Sanders, “Paul’s Attitude,” 190. 56  See Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:3–4, 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3.

Chapter Eight: Paul’s Hope for Israel as the Consummation of the Covenant

269

and as a result the Kingdom of God will be ushered in fully.57 Stendahl’s earlier view was therefore correct and should not have been recast.58 What then can be said about Stendahl’s paradigm for reading Paul in view of our discussion of Rom 9–11? There is no reason in Rom 9–11 for calling into question Stendahl’s critique of the “introspective conscience of the West” and its implications for rethinking Paul’s view of the law/gospel contrast. This project is well underway by Pauline scholars and ought to be continued. The studies in this volume are intended to contribute to this rethinking. There is reason, however, to doubt Stendahl’s thesis that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith applied only to gentiles and that Paul never attempted to draw out the implications of this doctrine for unbelieving Jews or Jewish Christians. However we may understand the polarities between “faith” and the “law” and between “grace” and “works” in these texts, the parallel between 9:30–33 and 11:5–7 indicates that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith through grace is to be applied equally to both gentiles and Jews. Justification by faith thus occupies a decisive role in the eschatological present and future of both Jews and gentiles (cf. 11:20–23, 30–31). Arguments may differ concerning how close to the center of Paul’s theology his doctrine of justification by faith actually is, but Stendahl has moved it too far away. If the results of my exegesis hold up under further scrutiny, Stendahl’s stark dichotomy between Paul’s “call” and “conversion” will need to be softened. Certainly Paul was called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles when on the road to Damascus he encountered the resurrected Jesus as the Messiah. There can therefore be no separation between Paul’s call to acknowledge Christ and his call to take the gospel to the gentiles. The twofold, inextricable nature of Paul’s “call” does not mean, however, that Paul did not undergo a radical change in his religious convictions as a result of his Damascus Road experience. Paul was called to the gentiles precisely because he did undergo a “conversion” from rejecting Christ and persecuting his people to following Jesus as Messiah and Lord and being persecuted willingly as an apostle. Paul did not just change “job descriptions,” he changed dependencies, from God’s will as revealed in the old covenants of the Torah, to God’s will as revealed in the new covenant established by the Messiah. Stendahl is right to emphasize that Paul did not change “religions.” The contrast between the eras is not a material one. But Paul did change his place in redemptive history; in short, Paul went through an eschatological conversion, and the impact was life-changing. The degree of continuity and discontinuity between these allegiances can be debated. That Paul’s call was also a conversion and his conversion also a call, however, must not be denied. In conclusion, what is the role of the church today in relationship to Israel on the basis of Rom 9–11? Stendahl correctly insists that nowhere in Rom 9–11 does  See, in addition to the texts referred to above in note 50, Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1 and T. Dan 5:3–7. above, note 7.

57

58 See

270

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Paul say that the church should have an organized mission to Israel. Stendahl also rightly emphasizes that Paul’s ministry was to the gentiles. But if even the basic outline of my reconstruction can stand, then there is every reason to believe that Paul was also in full agreement with Peter’s mission to the Jews (Gal 2:7–8) and that he entertained the hope that his own mission to the gentiles would reach Jews as well (Rom 11:13–14). For we have seen that, from Paul’s perspective, the ongoing redemption of a faithful remnant not only maintains the integrity of God’s word in the present, but also secures God’s covenant promises for the future. Stendahl did not think that Paul supported a mission to the Jews and would thus cast his vote against it. E. P. Sanders, who rejects Stendahl’s view in this regard and argues strongly for Paul’s “exclusivist Christian soteriology,” would nevertheless for other reasons also cast his vote against any proposal that said, “the only way to be saved was through Christ Jesus.”59 One cannot treat a theme like the salvation of Israel in Rom 9–11 without dealing with this question. Nor can one refuse to give his or her opinion. In sharing Paul’s conviction that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and the Lord of the nations, together with the eschatological implications surrounding it, I must cast my vote for Paul’s soteriology and support such a mission, and then pray for humility and the fear of God (Rom 11:20).

 “Paul’s Attitude,” 185.

59

Chapter Nine

The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations(Romans 15:1–13)1 Mit der Tatsache, daß die Wahl Gottes zwar völlig frei erfolgt – es ist ja historisch nicht einzusehen, warum gerade Israel erwählt wurde und Christus nicht in einem anderen Volk erschien –, aber doch auf ein Ziel hin: zum Heil der ganzen Menschheit, ist von Anfang an ein inneres Band zwischen Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte gegeben. Oscar Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte2

In chapter eight I examined Paul’s eschatological hope for Israel as set forth in Rom 9–11. In this chapter I look at his corresponding hope for the nations as outlined in Rom 15:7–13. Inasmuch as Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, it is fitting that this passage is not only the climax of 14:1–15:13, but also the “climax of the entire epistle.”3 Nevertheless, scholarship has often overlooked this text, most likely because of its location in the “merely” hortatory section of Paul’s epistle. In spite of the fact that Paul “clearly has saved his clinchers for the end,”4 the benign neglect of this passage has also been bolstered by the reigning conviction that 15:1–13 makes one, fairly obvious point, with what is considered to be one, even more obvious Scriptural support. Scholars have therefore focused simply on Paul’s call for the “strong” and “weak” to accept one another because of the unity that Christ has created in the church in fulfillment of the Scriptures’ vision of the gentiles’ joining Israel in the worship of the one true God. 1 The core of this essay was given as the Tyndale Lecture, Tyndale House, Cambridge, 6 July 1999. I am especially grateful to Brett Burrowes for his serious interaction with my paper, which helped clarify my thinking. The lecture was further developed and subsequently published as “Eschatology and Ethics: The Future of Israel and the Nations in Romans 15:1–13,” TynB 51 (2000): 161–192. 2  Oscar Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 140, emphasis his. 3  See J. Ross Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9,” JBL 116 (1997): 473 nn. 2–3, who in support of this analysis points to the various verbal and conceptual links between 15:7–9 and the rest of Romans. 4  Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 71. Hays views 15:7–13 to be the letter’s peroratio.

272

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Read in this way, Paul’s fashioning of the Scripture-chain in 15:9–12, taken to be based on the catch-word ἔθνη,5 is seen to be controlled by his conviction that the “climax of the covenant” with Israel had taken place in Christ (cf. 15:3–4, 7–9).6 As a result, and in line with an “ecclesiocentric” hermeneutic, the church, made up of Jews and gentiles, is taken to be the final fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological hopes.7 Paul’s use of Scripture in 15:9b–12 was thus part of what Hays calls Paul’s “revisionary reading” in accordance with his “christological ventriloquism.”8 The purpose of this chapter is to test this powerful paradigm by asking a different question from a different starting point. What if the connection that held these texts together was not a reconfigured meaning tied together with the catchword ἔθνη, but the content of the Scriptures themselves as read within their own 5 Hays, Echoes, 71, adds to this their common reference to “mercy,” although this theme actually occurs only in the wider contexts of the Psalm quotes (Pss 17:51 and 116:2LXX). 6  The main point of N. T. Wright’s work. According to Wright, Paul therefore “subverts the Jewish story from within”; for his early, programmatic statements of this point see, e. g., N. T.  Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 235 and The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 403–409. For Wright, Paul does so by having “forcibly rejected” the traditional Jewish eschatological expectations (Climax, 20–21, 26, 28–29, 35–37, 40, 251, 261–264). According to Wright, Paul’s climax of the covenant in Christ must therefore be described as “paradoxical” and as God’s “strange covenant faithfulness and justice, in Jesus” (Climax, 26, 236, 244, 255). For an evaluation of Wright’s broader program, see my review of his The New Testament and the People of God in JETS 40 (1997): 305–308. 7  The view most cogently put forward by Hays. According to him, Echoes, 73, 90, 169, Paul’s understanding of the church is “an anomaly that Paul must explain,” a great “ironic,” “eschatological reversal,” and “a new reading of Scripture,” since, contrary to the Scriptures and to Paul’s own statement in Rom 1:16, the gentiles are coming into God’s people ahead of the Jews. Nevertheless, when “Scripture is refracted through the hermeneutical lens provided by God’s action in the crucified Messiah and in forming his eschatological community, it acquires a profound new symbolic coherence” (p. 169, italics mine). Thus, in the dialectic between Paul and the Scriptures, when the latter speak on their own, it is to “answer back” to Paul and “to contend against him” (Echoes, 177). 8  Richard B. Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention,” in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck, ed. A. J.  Malherbe and W. A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 124, 125, referring specifically to Paul’s reading of Pss 69 and 18 in 15:3, 9. See too Hays’s expression of this perspective in his “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 45 (1999): 391–412. There too Hays argues that in 1 Cor the meaning of Scripture is “reconfigured” to such a degree that Paul’s interpretation of Scripture results in “an imaginative paradigm shift so comprehensive that it can only be described as a ‘conversion of the imagination’ ” (395). The central feature of this “conversion” is Paul’s portrayal of the gentile church as now playing the role originally assigned to eschatologically restored Israel (pp. 395–396). Consequently, Paul cannot be construed to be “promulgating a linear Heilsgeschichte in which Gentiles were simply absorbed into a Torah-observant Jewish Christianity” (p. 395). I have tried in this volume to counter this reading of Paul. Hays himself recognizes that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5:13, based on Deut 22:22–23:1, shows that “Paul thinks of his Gentile Corinthian readers as having been taken up into Israel in such a way that they now share in Israel’s covenant privileges and obligations” as expressed in Deut 5:1 (p. 411). Was Paul’s conversion not complete?

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

273

literary contexts? What then would be their contribution to Paul’s conclusion to his epistle, the striking significance of which was “suggested by the greater attention paid to Scripture” in the first place?9 Indeed, Koch has demonstrated that the more Paul is concerned to clarify his own theological position, the more intensively he uses the biblical text.10 In answering these questions, I will argue that, as Paul himself asserts in 15:4, the ultimate significance of Israel’s Heilsgeschichte is not its ironic fulfillment in the present, but the hope it still fosters for the future. For to Paul, the ultimate foundation of ethics is not ecclesiology, but inaugurated eschatology.

The Purpose of the Scriptures (Romans 15:1–6) In 15:1–2, Paul summarizes his discussion in chapter 14 by admonishing the “strong” (οἱ δυνατοί), himself included, to bear (βαστάζειν) the “weaknesses” of those without such ability (οἱ ἀδύνατοι), rather than to please themselves, and in so doing to please their “neighbor” for the good of building them up (cf. Lev 19:18).11 Paul even stresses that they are “obligated” or “indebted” to do so. Since social “obligation” was the basis of the Roman patronage system and, as such,  9  Perceptively asked by Leander E. Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John; In Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 85, who concludes that “the horizon of 15:7–13 is nothing short of the entire argument.” Keck rightly argues against the theories of Pallis, O’Neill, and Schmithals that 15:7–13 is a Pauline interpolation or later editorial addition. Keck’s own hypothesis that Paul himself inserted vv. 9–11 into a Hellenistic Jewish tradition represented by vv. 8, 12 is based on his assumption that a tension exists between the first three quotes, with their emphasis on the gentiles, and the last one, with its emphasis on the Davidic Messiah. My study attempts to show that such a tension does not exist. 10  Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 101. Koch, Schrift, 277–285, points to Paul’s pattern of bringing major sections of his letters to a close by quoting Scriptures that summarize his argument (see 1 Cor 1:26–31; 5:1–13; 15:54–55; 2 Cor 5:16–6:2; Rom 3:10–18; 9:25–33; 10:18–21; 11:33–36). 11 For a helpful overview of the five views on the identity of the “weak” in Rom 14 see M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context, SNTSMS 103 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1–23. For our purposes, the exact identity of the “weak” need not detain us; it is important merely to emphasize that they were Christians, whether Jewish or gentile, who were committed to the observance of the Jewish dietary laws and calendar as a matter of sincere service to the Lord (cf. 14:5–6, 14, 20). Reasoner has demonstrated that these practices also found support in the pagan values, philosophies, superstitions, and concern for social status that existed in the Rome of Paul’s day. Against the theory of M. D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), that the weak were pious, non-Christian Jews, see Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews,” CBQ 62 (2000): 64–82, esp. his treatment of Rom 14:15 (cf. 1 Cor 8:11) and his demonstration that Paul’s use of “brother” to refer to the weak in faith (cf. 14:10, 13, 15, 21) must be a reference to the Christian brotherhood, as it is elsewhere in its 128 unqualified uses within the Pauline corpus (cf. 1 Cor 8:11–13).

274

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

one of the most powerful Roman cultural values, this reference to “obligation” was one of the strongest “cultural bullets” Paul could fire against the Romans.12 For his part, Paul too pays his debt (cf. ὀφειλέτης εἰμί) to the “civilized and uncivilized, wise and the ignorant” as an expression of the power of God unleashed in the gospel (cf. Rom 1:14–17). The necessity of fulfilling the Torah principle of pleasing one’s neighbor in fulfillment of Lev 19:18 is further based on the Messiah’s bearing his people’s sins as the Servant of the Lord, first by way of allusion to Isa 53:4 in 15:1, and then explicitly in 15:3a (cf. Gal 6:2 and Paul’s other uses of πλησίον in Rom 13:9–10; Gal 5:14).13 In turn, Christ’s actions are grounded in 15:3b by a comparison to Ps 68:10LXX14: Christ did not please himself just as the suffering righteous of the psalm did not please himself but God when he experienced the rebellion of the unrighteous that was aimed at God himself.15 Initially, however, Paul’s logic in 15:1–3 is not immediately clear. The parallel between Christ’s taking on suffering from others because of their rebellion against God and the strong’s bearing with the weaknesses of others because of the latter’s desire to please the Lord (cf. 14:6) is not direct. Thus, the common attempt to argue for the direct imitation of Christ in this passage cannot be easily sustained. Nor is it an a fortiori argument, as often assumed, since the point of contrast between Christ and the “strong” needed to make such arguments is missing. That is to say, Paul does not argue, “If Christ suffered to the point of death at the hands of the unrighteous, how much more should the ‘strong’ be willing to suffer mere self-limitation for the sake of God’s people.” The difficulty in understanding Paul’s argument is further compounded by his reference to 12  So Bruce W. Winter, “Roman Society and Roman Law in Romans 12–15” (paper presented at the Tyndale Fellowship NT Study Group, Cambridge, 6 July 1999). On the role of “obligation” as that which held Roman culture together and its consequent strategic place in Paul’s argument, see Reasoner, The Strong, 175–199, who defines the Roman practice of “obligation” as “the ethic of reciprocity” (p. 176) and “patronage” as “a reciprocal exchange of material items or service” (p. 184). For its place in Romans, see 1:14, 21; 8:12; 11:35; 13:8; 15:1; 16:2. 13  Following Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1–15:13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 210–211, 221–225, who points to, among others, Isa 53:4 in Matt 8:17 as the only extant text that links βαστάζειν with ἀσθενείαι, and James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 837–838. On Christ’s not pleasing himself, cf. Rom 5:6, 19; 14:15; Mark 10:42–45; John 8:29; Phil 2:5–8; 2 Cor 8:9. 14  Contra those who, like Thompson, Clothed, 222–223, see Christ himself as the speaker of the psalm, pointing to the widespread Christological use of Ps 69 in the early church (see John 2:17; 15:25; 19:28; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:9–10; Phil 4:3; Heb 11:26; Matt 27:34, 48; Mark 3:21; 15:23, 36; Luke 13:35; 23:36; Rev 3:5; 16:1). 15 Again with Dunn, Romans, 839, who argues, contra Hanson’s suggestion that the speaker of the psalm in 15:3 is the preexistent Christ, that a typological interpretation is the most natural reading. Contra too Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 122, who argues that here and in 15:9b Paul uncharacteristically “attributes the words of the psalm directly to Christ.” Hays admits that such an identification is “anomalous in Paul” (p. 123). Indeed, Hays sees this Christological interpretation to be such a departure from Paul’s customary “ecclesiocentric” reading of the OT that he attributes it to Paul’s adaptation of a pre-Pauline tradition or hermeneutical convention.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

275

“obligation,” since in hearing this the Romans would naturally ask what Paul envisaged to be the reciprocity of exchange that is to take place between the strong and the weak or between Christ and those from whom he suffered.16 Paul remains conspicuously silent concerning what the weak could do, in return, for the strong, or what the rebellious could do for Christ, or, for that matter, what the Greek and Barbarian, or the wise and uneducated, could do for Paul (Rom 1:14).17 The force of Paul’s argument only becomes clear in view of the maxim in 15:4, which explicates his use of this particular Scripture and of Scripture in general (cf. 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11; Rom 4:23–24). Far from being an interpolation,18 the dictum of 15:4 is therefore the essential key to Paul’s argument since it makes explicit Paul’s rationale for moving from Scripture to Christology to Christian ethics.19 Paul’s point in quoting this psalm is not that the strong, like Christ, are to suffer the insults of the ungodly. The weak too are sincere believers. Nor is Paul fixing a Scriptural foundation for the necessity of Christ’s suffering.20 The cross of Christ is not at issue here. Rather, in 15:4 Paul explains that all Scripture (cf. ὅσα), including Ps 68:10, was written for the sake of teaching those who now confess Jesus to be Messiah and Lord (15:6) in order that, through the encouragement that comes from reading the holy writings, they might have hope (cf. the close 16  Cf. Reasoner, The Strong, 179: “There is no relationship of obligation that involves only the unilateral extension of goods or services between members. No matter how different in status the two members of the relationship are, if obligation is present in their relationship there is an expectation that goods or services must be extended from each side to the other in a continuing relationship.” 17 Here I again follow the view of Roman “obligation” put forth by Reasoner, The Strong, 181, who points to the standard legal definition of obligatio at the interpersonal level found in Justinian, Digest 44.7.3: “The essence of obligations does not consist in that it makes some property or a servitude ours, but that it binds another person to give, do, or perform something for us” (trans. Alan Watson). 18  Contra Leander E. Keck, “Romans 15:4  – An Interpolation?,” Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer, ed. J. T. Carroll, C. H. Cosgrove, and E. E. Johnson (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 125–136. Like others before him, Keck is troubled by the fact that 15:3 seems to characterize the entire life of Christ as one of suffering, whereas 15:4, although presented as a ground for this assertion, speaks about the Scripture’s function of instructing Christians to have hope (cf. p. 126). The link between vv. 3 and 4 becomes clear, however, once Ps 68:10, read in its own context, is seen to present the reason why Christ’s experience of suffering, like that of the psalmist, leads to hope. 19 That 15:4 was seen to be the focus of Paul’s argument is reflected in its textual history in that, as Keck, “Interpolation,” 128, points out, there are more textual variants for this one verse than for all five surrounding verses put together. In Keck’s words, “Copyists too seem to have regarded v. 4 as an important precept; that is why they made sure that the text’s wording was ‘right’ by repeatedly ‘correcting’ their predecessors” (p. 128). 20  Contra, e. g., Koch, Schrift, 324–326, who sees no meaning for the quote other than referencing Christ’s passion as even possible, though he denies, contra Wilckens, that the use of the psalm includes a reference to the atoning significance of Christ’s death. Rather, its purpose is simply to show that in his suffering Christ did not please himself. This minimalist reading misses Paul’s explicit reference to the hope-producing function of the psalm.

276

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

parallel in 1 Macc 12:9).21 Hence, believers are to learn from the experience of the psalmist (v. 3b), now replayed in that of the Messiah (v. 3a): those who join the righteous in enduring in the midst of suffering (cf. οἱ ὑπομένοντες in Ps 68:7LXX = 69:7MT) in the hope of God’s deliverance (cf. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν μου in 68:4) will not be put to shame (cf. αἰσχυνθείησαν in 68:7 with Rom 1:16; 5:5; 9:33; 10:11), but will be comforted by God (cf. the contrast in 68:21).22 So Paul’s point in 15:3b is not simply, “please others like Christ did,” as often argued. Rather, in accordance with the principle of 15:4, Paul’s call is to “be motivated by the hope that motivated Christ, even as he was motivated by the experience of the psalmist.”23 The Scriptures and the experience of the Christ teach us that God’s final redemptive triumph at the end point of history, not merely following the moral example of Christ per se, is the ultimate foundation and motivating force of Paul’s social ethic of “obligation.”24 Here too, as we have seen in the other passages studied in this volume, Paul’s eschatological perspective is formative in his understanding of the motivation for keeping the Torah. Those who persevere in pleasing others in the present God will please in the end. Within this eschatological perspective the only thing the  Taking διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς and διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν in 15:4 to be independent phrases; cf. Thompson, Clothed, 225 n. 2, who supports this position by pointing to the repetition of διά and the fact that “the Scriptures offer comfort but not endurance, and the latter is always a characteristic of persons in Paul.” Thompson, 225–227, then argues that the endurance in view could be that of Christ at his passion, though more likely a reference to the experience of the believer as an extension of the endurance of Christ. 22  I owe these links to Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 131, and to Thompson, Clothed, 224 n. 4. In Hays’ view, “the connection between the exhortation and its warrant is a bit imprecise” (p. 131), suggesting that Paul’s point is that the strong should take up the prayer of Ps 69:6, which Hays suggests is now identified with Christ’s own prayer. Hence, the strong should say, “ ‘Do not let one for whom Christ died be put to shame because of me’ (cf. Rom 14:15)” (p. 132). This application is two steps removed from the original meaning of the psalm itself, but, according to Hays, Paul “was not deterred by such constraints” (p. 132). In contrast, I am suggesting that it is precisely the “constraints” of the psalm’s original meaning that provide the key to Paul’s argument. Thus, Thompson, Clothed, 224 n. 4, moves in the right direction when he observes that in the context of the psalm the verse Paul quotes is “part of a larger picture of the attitude and experience of Christ” (p. 223). Thompson, however, does not carry this through to the interpretation of Rom 15:3 itself, suggesting instead an a fortiori understanding of Paul’s argument (p. 223). 23  Cf. Ulrich Wilckens, Röm 12–16, Bd. 3 of Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6 (Zurich: Benziger, 1982), 103, who rightly relates Christ’s experience to the encouragement of the believer, “nämlich in der Gewißheit, daß kein Mittragen von Schwachheiten in diesen Schwachheiten verenden muß, weil die Liebe des Gekreuzigten in seiner Auferweckung zu eschatologischem Sieg gekommen ist.” In contrast to the view taken here, Wilckens suggests that Paul is arguing from the impact of the atonement as the basis of the believer’s hope, rather than from the psalmist’s and Christ’s own experience of endurance and vindication. 24 So also Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 132–33, Gerbern S. Oegema, Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlich-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie, NovTSup 95 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 206–207, and Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 749, though they do not take this emphasis on eschatological triumph as decisive for Paul’s subsequent use of Scripture in 15:9–12. 21

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

277

weak and the strong owe each other in their obligation as fellow believers is love (cf. 13:8 with 15:1). For in pleasing one’s neighbor in accordance with the love command (15:5), God is the one to whom the faithful are, in fact, “obligated,” since he is the “father” of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom they are accountable in their new family relationship (15:6). In fulfilling their “obligation” to love one another as neighbors, God will fulfill his obligation to them, though God’s “reciprocity” is a matter of mercy because he is obligated to no one (cf. 11:34–36). Those who fulfill the Torah in regard to the “weak” do so since they too, like Christ, are empowered not by what the “weak” can do for them in return, but by their confidence in God’s ultimate vindication of their giving of self for the sake of others.25 By arguing eschatologically for his ethics, Paul transforms the Roman cultural value of obligation theocentrically. Instead of grounding his command in verse 2 by referring to Christ’s regard for others, as we might expect, Paul pointed to Christ’s regard for God.26 For from Paul’s heilsgeschichtliche perspective the goal of history is the glorification of God in the new creation as the reversal of unright­eous mankind’s refusal to honor God via thanksgiving (cf. 1:18–21, 23 and 3:23 with 8:18–25, 11:33–36, and 15:5–6). Paul’s use of Psalm 68, when viewed in the light of 15:4, thereby also establishes that the means to the fulfillment of Paul’s corresponding prayer in 15:5–6 for the glorification of God is the hope that comes from the Scripture’s message of God’s ultimate deliverance of his people. Reasoner therefore rightly emphasizes that, from Paul’s perspective, “the means of ensuring that present obligations of social harmony in the church are fulfilled is by remembering the eschatological obligation to glorify God.”27 As the inauguration of this eschatological telos, believers, whether “weak” or “strong,” are to fulfill God’s saving purposes by already offering thanksgiving for their respective “days” and “food,” thereby rendering them clean as part of the new creation; in so doing they are beyond the purview of the other’s condemnation (cf. 14:6, 14, 20). By glorifying God through “thanksgiving” believers fulfill their “obligation” in response to God’s provision (1:21; 14:6; cf. 1 Cor 10:30; 2 Cor 1:11; 4:15; 9:11). Paul’s eschatology thus undergirds the Roman cultural value of obligation, while at the same time transforming it by placing it within a new social history, namely, that of the ongoing history of the people of God. 25  The striking nature of Paul’s argument is evident when compared to Herm. Sim. 2.5–6, where the rich give money to the poor in the expectation that, by way of obligation, the poor will reciprocate by praying for the rich. In this way, both the rich and the poor give of their respective “wealth” to one another, thereby fulfilling their obligation by meeting each other’s needs. I am indebted to Douglas Mohrman for reminding me of this parallel. 26 So Wilhelm Thüsing, Per Christum in Deum: Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (NTAbh nF 1; Munster: Aschendorff, 1965), 40. 27 The Strong, 191.

278

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

The Structure and Implications of Romans 15:7–13 With Paul’s argument from eschatology as its backdrop, the same pattern introduced in 15:1–6 is recapitulated in 15:7–13. Once again Paul moves from an admonition in verse 7a (cf. vv. 1–2), to its Christological support in verses 7b–9a (cf. v. 3a), to its Scriptural grounding in verses 9b–12 (cf. vv. 3b–4), to its corresponding prayer in verse 13 (cf. vv. 5–6). Given these parallels, it is striking that as Paul closes his letter to the Romans the obligation aimed at the strong in 15:2 is broadened out in 15:7 to encompass both the strong and the weak (cf. προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους). These same parallels indicate that Christ’s not pleasing himself from 15:3 is unpacked in 15:8–9a by the fact that “Christ became a servant (διάκονος) of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might establish the promises of the fathers” (15:8).28 In accordance with its use in profane literature and in Judaism, this reference to Christ as a “servant” (διάκονος), unique in Paul’s writing, refers not primarily to Christ’s identity, but to his activity of mediation and role as a representative agent, with the connotation of the constraint and duty (but not necessarily lowliness) associated with being a slave (cf. Phil 2:7).29 As such, Christ is entrusted with taking on a task for another, in this case that of confirming God’s promises to the patriarchs on behalf of God and as a mediator of God’s glory.30 It is striking that Christ’s role as a “servant” (διάκονος) 28  For these promises, see Rom 4:13–16, 20–21; 9:4, 8–9. Given this explicit reference to the promises granted to the Fathers, Keck’s view, “Christology,” 90, that it is unlikely that Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς “means more than that Christ became a servant who belongs to the Jewish people” cannot be maintained. Contra Keck, 90–91, the truthfulness of God that is now at stake given Israel’s history of rebellion and exile is not that the Messiah would be Jewish, but that the Messiah would preserve Abraham’s descendants and bring about the restoration and final establishment of Israel as a great nation (cf. Rom 3:3–4; 11:1, 11 and chapter eight). 29  For the meaning of διάκονος see above, pp. 1–2 nn. 2–3. 30 On the reference to the patriarchs in the plural, Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTSMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 144–145, helpfully points to Von Rad’s observation that in the Genesis narrative the promise to Abraham is subsequently renewed for every patriarch (see Gen 13:14–16; 15:5, 7; 18:10, 18; 22:17; 26:24; 28:13–15; 32:12; 35:9–12; 48:16 (p. 143 n. 44). Deuteronomy also presents the Abrahamic covenant as being made with all three major patriarchs (Deut 1:8, 11; 4:31; 6:10; 7:12; 8:18; 9:5, 27; 11:9 (p. 144–145 and 145 n. 52). Of special interest for our study is Whittle’s underscoring the recognition in Deuteronomy that the conditions for the patriarchal covenant are the laws given at Horeb and Moab, thus presenting “an amalgamation of the promises to the fathers with the Horeb covenant” (p. 145; cf. Deut 4:31; 7:9, 12; 8:18; 29:12). As Clements thus points out, in Deuteronomy the Sinai covenant is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham as a covenant of election (p. 145). “Israel, then, is elect through the fathers, but nationhood awaits Horeb,” where Israel actually becomes the people of God (p. 145). For the same link between Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3:8–10, in which “the Deuteronomy covenant-renewal text” is “the interpretive framework for the climax of the promises made to Abraham,” see Whittle, pp. 153–154. In my view, this link between the covenant promises to the patriarchs and their intended (but not realized!) fulfillment in the Sinai covenant supports Paul’s own emphasis

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

279

whose task is to establish God’s promises to the Jews parallels Paul’s call to be a “servant” (διάκονος) of the new covenant among the gentiles (2 Cor 3:6). In all likelihood, Paul’s self-understanding in this respect in regard to the new covenant derived from his understanding of Christ’s role in regard to the promises made under the old (see esp. Rom 11:25–32 and chapter eight above). Paul serves the new covenant that Christ inaugurated and continues to serve as he brings about the fulfillment of the old. Paul’s service overlaps with and is based on Christ’s. In relating Paul’s covenantal “servanthood” to that of Christ’s, it is thus important to keep in view the observation often made, but not often developed, that Paul’s use of the perfect tense γεγενῆσθαι in verse 8, over against the simple aorist γενέ­ σθαι, indicates Christ’s continuing to be a servant to the circumcision in order to establish the covenant promises given to the patriarchs. As we will see, the argument from Scripture that follows makes this emphasis central to Paul’s argument. Here the clarity in understanding Paul’s syntax in 15:8–9a ends. The question of the relationship between verses 8 and 9 has long been recognized to be a vexed one, centering on the meaning of δέ as the linking conjunction between the two infinitive clauses and on the syntactical function of τὰ ἔθνη and δοξάσαι in verse 9. Of the four competing answers to this question, the consensus view remains the most persuasive.31 The majority of scholars argue that τὰ ἔθνη is the subject of the infinitive δοξάσαι and that together they form a second purpose clause in parallel once again in Rom 15:14–21 that the purpose of his apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel in fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs (15:19) is to bring about the “obedience of the gentiles” called forth by the new covenant stipulations established by Christ (15:18: εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν, without having to mention “faith”; cf. 1:5; 16:26). As such, the gentiles’ “obedience of faith” under the new covenant in fulfillment of the Torah is the inaugurated, eschatological realization of the covenant promises to the patriarchs. Note the conceptual and linguistic link between ἐπαγγελία in 15:8 and εὐαγγέλλιον and εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in 15:19–20, leading to Paul’s use of the former in light of the latter; for this link and its significance for Paul’s covenantal understanding of the “gospel,” see again the work of Kevin P. Conway, The Promises of God: The Background of Paul’s Exclusive Use of epangelia for the Divine Pledge, BZNW 211 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014) as outlined above, pp. 56–57 n. 15. This covenant-inference seems to be supported by Whittle’s own conclusion that just as the representative curses of Deuteronomy are used by Paul in his argument that Israel is under a curse, “so too the representative blessing for obedience of Deuteronomy 28:9 seems also to be in Paul’s sight” (p. 155). For according to Deuteronomy, beyond the exile Israel will be restored according to the Lord’s oath to the fathers of Israel, and now those gentiles who are also being incorporated into his eschatological people hear God’s voice and walk in his ways (cf. p. 155). So Christ’s curse-bearing (cf. Gal 3:13) enables inheriting both the blessings of Abraham and “the blessings of Deuteronomy in Sinai-covenant making tradition” (p. 155). Whittle does not take the next step of concluding explicitly that the death of the Messiah must bring about obedience in order to inherit the covenant promises, as I do. But she does conclude that the gentiles are included in “this climactic constitution of a holy people beyond the curses of the covenant” in that, via Christ’s death, the Spirit “consecrates the Gentiles” since, by “the gift of the eschatological Spirit,” they are made Abraham’s children (Rom 8:14) and made holy (Rom 15:16) in confirmation of the promise to the patriarchs (p. 155). 31 For the relevant bibliography and a detailed exposition of each of the four views, see Wagner, “The Christ,” 477–484.

280

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

to βεβαιῶσαι, both being governed by the εἰς τό of v. 8, with δέ carrying a simple coordinate meaning.32 Construed in this way, Paul’s point is that the Messiah has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God in order to confirm or guarantee (βεβαιόω)33 the covenant promises of the fathers and [as a consequence] in order that the gentiles might glorify God on behalf of [his] mercy.34 As my rendering suggests, the only adjustment to the majority view is the need to take δέ not merely as coordinate, but also as sequential.35 The purpose clause of v. 9 builds on the purpose of v. 8b, thereby removing the apparent lack of syntactical balance between the two verses, the difficulty of trying to take ὑπὲρ

32 So, e. g., Barrett, C. H. Dodd, Hays, Keck, Käsemann, Lietzmann, Michel, Murray, Schlatter, Schlier, Zahn, and most English translations (see the survey of scholarship in Wagner, “The Christ”). 33 Cf. 4:16; 11:29; 2 Cor 1:20–21. For this meaning of βεβαιόω, see 1 Cor 1:6 and Dunn, Romans, 847, et al., and Thüsing, Per Christum, 44. “Fulfilled” (so Michel and Käsemann) is too strong, given that the perfect tense infinitive, γεγενῆσθαι, signifies that Christ is still in service to the circumcision and that Paul’s argument from Scripture in vv. 9b–12 will show that these promises, though having been confirmed, are still to be fulfilled. Thus, correctly, Schreiner, Romans, 755: “The verb … is a legal term, denoting the certainty with which the promises would be fulfilled (MM 108),” referring to Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; cf. Acts 3:25 and Mic 7:20LXX. 34  Perceiving the switch in subject in vv. 8–9a from Christ to the gentiles as too harsh and out of context, Wagner, “The Christ,” offers a new reading of v. 9 in order to maintain a uniform subject from vv. 7b through v. 9. He construes τὰ ἔθνη as an accusative of reference to διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι, parallel in function to περιτομῆς, and δοξάσαι as a purpose clause in parallel to εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι: “For I say that the Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, in order to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, and [a servant] with respect to the Gentiles on behalf of the mercy [of God] in order to glorify God” (pp. 481– 482). Read in this way, Christ is the servant to both Jew and gentile, on behalf of the truthfulness and mercy of God respectively, and Christ both confirms the promises to the patriarchs and glorifies God. The strength of Wagner’s view is the parallel it creates between ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους as both modifying γεγενῆσθαι, thereby avoiding having to take ὑπὲρ ἐλέους with δοξάζω, which is otherwise unattested in the Greek of this period (cf. p. 482). But Wagner’s view is not without its own problems. If, in parallel to περιτομῆς, τὰ ἔθνη were the second modification of Christ’s having become a servant, we would expect the genitive ἀκροβυστίας (cf. 3:30 and 4:11–12), not the accusative ἔθνη. Wagner, 482, offers no rationale for this mismatch in vocabulary, and his explanation that Paul chose the accusative of reference instead of the expected genitive in order to avoid a possible confusion with the immediately preceding τῶν πατέρων is not persuasive given the clear use of δέ to demarcate the new clause. Moreover, Wagner himself points out, 479 n. 30, that Paul may have chosen ὑπὲρ ἐλέους, instead of the usual διά or ἐπί, because of a desire to balance it with ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας, just as ὑπέρ is used with the close synonym εὐχαριστέω to indicate the reason for giving thanks (cf. 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 1:16). Finally, Wagner’s concern over the apparently non-contextual switch in subject in vv. 8–9a is dependent on seeing Christ as the subject of Ps 17:50, which need not be the case (see below). 35 Nor can it be taken as establishing a contrast between the two purposes or two motives, i. e., truth and promises versus mercy and glory, since the promises to the patriarchs envision the inclusion of the gentiles on the one hand (cf. 4:13–25), and God’s mercy to Israel on the other (cf. 11:31–32), all to the glory of God (11:33–36; 15:7b). Indeed, the granting of the promises to the fathers is itself an act of God’s mercy.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

281

ἀληθείας with both purpose clauses,36 and the seemingly “harsh” switch in subject in v. 9.37 In fact, Paul’s choice of δέ in 15:3 may serve to alert his readers to the

change in subject that is coming on the semantic horizon.38 Moreover, if Christ is not the immediate subject of Ps 17:50 in v. 9b, as will be argued below, then the switch in subject in v. 9a is not harsh at all, but the natural transition into the argument that follows. This fits with the fact that Paul’s chain of Scripture clearly focuses on the purpose of redemptive history with regard to the gentiles, rather than on the inclusion of Jews and gentiles equally. There are several important implications of this reading. First, Paul’s point in 15:8–9a is of one piece with the sequence established in 1:16. As such, it also recognizes the parallel between 15:8–9a and Paul’s earlier emphasis in 4:16–17, where, in accordance with God’s promise from Gen 17:5, Abraham becomes the father of all those Jews and gentiles who likewise hope in the pledge of one day inheriting the world (cf. 4:11–13). Moreover, a sequential reading of the purpose clauses in 15:8–9a construes the gentiles’ glorification of God in v. 9a as the ultimate purpose of Christ’s becoming a servant to the circumcision, which parallels the purpose of Christ’s having accepted the Romans “to the glory of God” in v. 7b. Finally, this reading of Paul’s thought is in line with the parallel use of δέ in 15:13, where it likewise indicates a consequential continuation of the argument. Second, ὁ Χριστός in 15:3 and 7–8 is titular and serves to emphasize Jesus’s messianic identity and role, thereby calling attention to the inaugurated fulfillment of the history of redemption that comes about with the coming of Jesus. Furthermore, in fulfillment of the pattern established in Abraham himself (cf. 4:20), Jesus’s role as the Messiah serves a doxological purpose: Christ accepted the Romans, both strong and weak, εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (15:6, 7b),39 because (γάρ) Christ’s servanthood to the circumcision leads, in turn, to the gentiles’ glorifying God (δοξάσαι) for his mercy (15:8, 9a). 36  As Wagner, “The Christ,” 478, points out, in Romans the truthfulness of God is related to the promises to Israel, not to the inclusion of the gentiles (cf. 3:4; 9:4–6; 11:1, 11). 37  For these objections, see Wagner, “The Christ,” 478–479. 38  I owe this suggestion to Stephanie L. Black, “What Do Καί and Δέ ‘Mean’?: A Procedural Approach to the Semantics of Intersentential Conjunctions” (paper presented at the Roehampton Institute, London, Dec 1998), 1–25. Though no comparable study has been done on Paul’s writings, Black has demonstrated that within the narrative framework of Matthew’s Gospel when the “theme” or first element in a clause or sentence is an explicit subject, “the presence of δέ following the newly introduced (or reintroduced) word serves to reinforce that the grammaticalised subject which has just been processed is indeed to some degree discontinuous with discourse immediately previous” (p. 22). Specifically, in 90 % of the sentences in Matthew in which δέ occurs, the subject changes (235 of the 257 sentences in his narrative framework), although in general only 70 % of the narrative sentences in Matt involve such a change in subject (cf. p. 22). 39  So too the majority of modern commentaries, which take εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ with προσελάβετο, its closest predicate, rather than with προσλαμβάνεσθε. The prepositional phrase then indicates the intended purpose of the Messiah’s ministry. For this view and the secondary literature pro and con, see Wagner, “The Christ,” 475, esp. note 13. As he points out, this reading “is reinforced by the consideration that Christ’s actions remain the focus of the following sentence” (p. 475).

282

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Third, what Christ confirms, according to Paul, is specifically the promises to the Fathers. But as “promises,” they are not yet fulfilled. Paul’s eschatology is inaugurated, not consummated. This promise-confirming character of Christ’s servanthood in 15:8–9a thus corresponds to Paul’s emphasis throughout the letter on the future orientation of salvation. Like Abraham, the believer is saved in hope of that which is promised, but not yet fully realized (cf. Rom 1:17; 2:5–16; 4:17–25; 5:1–10; 8:24–25; and climactically, 13:11–12).40 And 15:8 makes clear that within the “promises” of God to the patriarchs Paul includes the prophetic hope in which the central role of Israel as the people of God is everywhere assumed and used as a basis for depicting the future … It is … the belief that Israel’s election must mean something, both for Israel itself and for the nations which would be blessed through it, that lies at the heart of these convictions. In calling Abraham, God had begun a task which he had not completed … [and] God would bring to fruition that which he had begun.41

As a result, the gentiles glorify God for what he has promised to the patriarchs since the future redemption of the nations is tied to God’s faithfulness to “the circumcision.” The current experience of Jews and gentiles in the church therefore takes on importance precisely because it is a foretaste of the consummation yet to come for both Israel and the nations. Fourth, the commonplace observation that the reference in 15:4 to “all that was written before” is then unpacked in 15:9b–12 with a series of quotes from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings is important as an indication of the wide canonical sweep from which Paul draws his argument (cf. καθὼς γέγραπται in 15:9b42). In analyzing the function of these quotes it will be even more important to recognize that they establish a sequence of thought, rather than simply presenting a fourfold reiteration of the same basic point. Though this judgment must be substantiated from the substance of the quotes themselves, the conclusion that 40 Contra the common conviction that in 15:8–9a Paul is talking about the fulfillment of these promises in the church. Typical is the position of Wilckens, Römer, 102. Moreover, part of the reason why Keck, “Interpolation,” 132, sees 15:4 to be so foreign to Paul’s argument is that he fails to recognize that Paul’s use of Gen 15–17 in Rom 4:17–21 shows that the structure of Abraham’s faith was a future-focused hope in the promises of God, just like that of the believer who follows in his footsteps (Rom 4:12, 16; cf. Rom 5:1–5; 8:24–25). 41 R. E. Clements, “On Law and Promise,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–1990, ed. Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 228. In line with the argument of chapter eight above, Clements goes on to say, “Indeed the intransigence of the old Israel and its resort to idolatry were regarded as having frustrated this purpose. Yet the purpose itself had not, and could not, be abandoned” (p. 228). 42  Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 253, argues that καθὼς γέγραπται is the only fixed citation formula used by Paul, being used eighteen out of the sixty-six places where various formulae occur, though the words γράφειν or λέγειν appear in almost every introduction.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

283

Paul is building a continuous, sequential argument from vv. 9b–12 is supported by the switch in verbs from γράφω in v. 9b to λέγω in vv. 10–12, by the subsequent threefold repetition of καὶ πάλιν λέγει in verses 10–12, and by the unpacking of the perfect tense in v. 9b (γέγραπται) with the present tense (λέγει) in the introductory clauses of verses 10–12. Structurally, the chain of Scripture in verses 9b–12 sets forth one long argument in four stages, the last three introduced with καὶ πάλιν λέγει (cf. the similar use of πάλιν in 1 Cor 3:20). It is to this argument that we now turn our attention.

Psalm 17:50LXX In 15:9b Paul begins his support for the gentiles’ glorifying God in fulfillment of the promises to the Fathers by quoting Ps 17:50LXX (18:49MT = 2 Sam 22:5043). As one of the undisputed “royal” thanksgiving-psalms, the primary speaker is David himself, who praises God for having delivered him from his enemies, including Saul (cf. 17:1 with 2 Sam 22:1, and Ps 17:33–49), as well as from death and Sheol (Ps 17:4–6).44 The significance of this simple observation for our present purposes is twofold. First, David speaks in verse 51 as God’s “anointed” king (see τῷ χριστῷ αὐτοῦ in 17:51) who is expressing his individual thanksgiving to the Lord for having delivered him in response to David’s righteousness (cf. Rom 4:6–8). God is praised since even David’s righteousness is born of David’s hope in God’s saving power (cf. ἐλπίζω in Ps 17:3, 31; cf. 17:21, 25). Because God has so delivered and exalted him (17:49, cf. 17:4), for this reason (Greek of 17:50: διὰ τοῦτο) David will worship him “among the gentiles” (Greek ἐν ἔθνεσιν).45 43 Against the majority, Schreiner, Romans, 757, following Reasoner, takes the quote to be from 2 Sam 22:50 because of the latter’s inclusion of a reference to Jesse (2 Sam 23:1) and its use of ἀνίστημι, thereby linking it to Isa 11:10 in v. 12. But in contrast to Ps 17:50 and Paul’s quotation, the best attested reading of 2 Sam 22:50 reads ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν and ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι; cf. Koch, Schrift, 34–35. Conversely, the only difference between Ps 17:50LXX and Rom 15:9b is that Paul omits the vocative address, κύριε. The reason for this omission is not clear. Koch suggests (Schrift, 87, 121) that Paul does so to avoid the impression that Ps 17:50 is speaking about Christ, rather than YHWH. Wagner and Hays (“The Christ,” 476 n. 17) posit that it is omitted because Paul takes Ps 17:50 to be Christ himself speaking. Against these views, Stanley, Paul, 180, observes that Paul has retained κύριος in v. 11, where the referent is still YHWH. 44  On the question of identifying the royal psalms, see Steven J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, JSNTSup 44 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), esp. pp. 37, 76 on Ps 18. 45 As early as Calvin, David’s praise “among the nations” has been taken as a reference to the nations’ conversion to YHWH as a consequence of witnessing the Lord’s victory through his king. This interpretation is possible for three reasons (though here judged not probable): the use of worship terminology in 17:50 itself, David’s declaration in 17:44–45 that “people whom I had not known served me,” etc., which is distinct from those enemies over whom David triumphs directly (cf. 17:46–48), and Paul’s own use of the psalm in relationship to the gentiles’ glorifying God.

284

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Specifically, David praises God for the “second-exodus” deliverance he has experienced which, like the Exodus-tradition itself, becomes a testimony among the nations to God’s faithfulness and sovereign glory (cf. the portrayal of David’s deliverance in 17:8–20 with Exod 15:1–8 and the Sinai theophany46). The portrayal of God as David’s “rock” in the MT of Ps 18:3, 32 likewise parallels the song of Moses in Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, though a link in specific terminology between the traditions is missing in the LXX. In the LXX, unlike the MT, the metaphor is decoded in both passages in terms of God himself or his strength, while the reference to God’s causing David to walk on his “high places” in Ps 18:33 parallels Deut 32:13 (cf. 33:29; Hab 3:19).47 Strikingly, these similarities between the songs of Moses and David’s psalm, especially the parallels between Deut 32 and Ps 18, anticipate Paul’s own transition from David’s psalm to the song of Moses. Second, since David is God’s anointed king, more is at stake in his rescue than simply his personal safety. In spite of Israel’s history of disobedience, David’s deliverance entails God’s commitment to establish David’s dynasty in accord with God’s covenant promise in 2 Sam 7:14.48 Hence, David’s being able to praise the Lord in the midst of the nations because of his own deliverance (vv. 4–49) leads the psalmist to reaffirm God’s mercy (ἔλεος) “to his seed forever” (note the switch to the third person in 17:51LXX: τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος). This link between the vindication of David and God’s covenant promises to David’s seed “forever” allowed Ps 17:50 to be taken as looking forward to the time in which Israel will be vindicated with and by her Messiah.49 Hays is certainly correct that the early  So Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Waco: Word, 1983), 173–174. already Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms: Vol. I, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860), 284–286, 290–321, 314, who also points to a possible parallel between the superscription to Ps 18 and the introduction to the songs of Moses in Exod 15:1 and Deut 31:30, as well as to Exod 18:10, concluding, p. 286, that David’s “deliverance was for him the same as the redemption out of Egypt was for Israel.” 48  See G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico: Scholars, 1985), who argues, 155, 209–214, that every psalm in Book One of the Psalter (Pss 2–41) is attributed to David, either explicitly or by implied combination with its predecessor (cf. Pss 10, 33); furthermore, Ps 2:7–9, in alluding to 2 Sam 7:14, introduces the book by providing the covenant promise from YHWH which undergirds God’s commitment to establish David’s throne, while Ps 41:1–2, 11–12 concludes the book by providing the king’s corresponding assurance of God’s protection and preservation. This promise is then extended to the king’s son in Ps 72 (the end of book two of the Psalter) and to David’s descendants forever in Ps 89:3–36 (the end of book three). Though this covenant has been broken through the disobedience of Israel and her kings (cf. Ps 89:38–39, 44), the psalmist’s hope is that YHWH, in his love and faithfulness, will still remember his covenant, keep his promise to David, and restore the Davidic kingdom (Ps 89:1, 29–37, 46, 49–50). 49  Such an Israel-specific and/or messianic understanding of Ps 17 (18 MT) is reflected in 4Q381 f24; in Luke 1:71 (in response to the promises to the fathers, cf. Luke 1:72–74); by the use of the imagery of Ps 18:7 and 18:15 to describe God’s eschatological judgment in Sib. Or. 3:675 and 4 Ezra 16:12 respectively; and in Midr. Ps 18:35, which combines Ps 18:49 with Isa 12:4, just as Paul combines Ps 17:50LXX with Isa 11:10 (I owe the reference to Midr. Ps 18 to G. Kish, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 15:7–13” [Th.M. thesis, Gordon-Conwell 46

47 So

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

285

Christians, following the lead of their Jewish contemporaries, therefore “read all the promises of an eternal kingdom for David and his seed typologically,” inasmuch as Israel’s historical experience of oppression meant that these promises had to have an eschatological fulfillment.50 “Thus ‘David’ in these psalms becomes a symbol for the whole people and, at the same time, a prefiguration of the future Anointed One  (ὁ Χριστός) who, as David’s seed, will be the heir of the promises and restorer of the throne.”51 Nevertheless, this typological reading is no warrant for taking the next step and positing that, from Paul’s perspective, Christ himself is consequently speaking in the psalm. The principle established in 15:4 and the reference to Christ’s confirming the promises in 15:8 make the opposite point. It also becomes important for Paul’s continuing argument that as part of the testimony of the Scriptures the speaker of the psalm is still David as the one to whom the promise of the eternal kingdom had been made.52 Paul’s point in quoting Ps 17:50LXX is that the Messiah’s role as διάκονος to Israel confirms not only the promises made to the Fathers, but also as their continuation the promise God made to David and then subsequently confirmed by rescuing David from his enemies and death. According to Ps 17:50LXX, it is this deliverance of the anointed one that establishes God’s continuing commitment to David’s seed “forever,” for which David will praise God in the midst of the nations. The parallel to Christ is immediately evident. Like David, Jesus too, as the messianic son of David, has been delivered from death and vindicated over his enemies. Hence, just as the suffering of the righteous in Ps 69:10LXX quoted in 15:3 prefigured Christ’s death, so too David’s praise in Ps 17:50 for his deliverance from “the birth-pains of death” (cf. Ps 17:5: ὠδῖνες θανάτου) becomes a harbinger of Christ’s resurrection. Against this backdrop, God’s initial victory over these messianic “birth pains” through the resurrection-enthronement of the Davidic Messiah as God’s Son also reaffirms, like it did in David’s case, God’s ongoing commitment to Israel (cf. Rom 1:4; cf. Acts 2:24; Matt 24:8; Mark 13:8). As a result, Jesus too, as Israel’s messianic King, will join the psalmist and all God’s people in praising him among the nations.53 In this way, the Messiah inaugurates Theological Seminary, 1993], 24). But whereas the midrash refers only to the messianic restoration of Israel, Paul’s combining it with Isa 11:10 leads to the messianic redemption of the nations by the “root of Jesse,” thereby reflecting Paul’s emphasis on the ultimate purpose of redemptive history as stated in 15:9a (see below). 50  Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 130. 51  Ibid. 52 Contra those who, like Wagner, Cranfield, Hays, Keck, Lagrange, Michel, Wilckens, etc., take the speaker to be Christ directly (cf. Wagner, “The Christ,” 475, esp. note 16). Nor is it David as one who foreshadows Jewish Christians, as Dunn, Romans, 849, suggests, or Paul himself, as Käsemann argues, now followed by Koch, Scrift, 282 n. 24. 53  Cf. 15:7b, 9b with 1 Cor 3:23; 10:11; 11:3; 15:24, 28; 2 Cor 6:2, 16–18; Eph 5:27; Phil 2:11; Col 3:4, etc. Against this conclusion it is sometimes objected that Christ cannot be seen as praising God along with the church (see, e. g., Schreiner, Romans, 758, following Koch and Keck; Schreiner himself takes it as fulfilled in the Jewish Christians who now praise God among the

286

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

and provides the model for the theocentric, doxological focus of God’s designs throughout redemptive history (cf. 15:9b with 15:9a and with thinking κατὰ Χρι­ στὸν  Ἰησοῦν to the glory of God in 15:5–6b).54 We must be careful here. Psalm 17:50LXX is about David’s praise of God in the midst of the nations – it is not about the salvation of or praise from the nations themselves. This holds true for its eschatological application to the Christ as well. Psalm 17:50 supports Paul’s point in 15:8, not 15:9a.55 To relate everything Paul says in 15:8–9a to each of his quotes is to obscure the careful sequencing of Paul’s argument. Psalm 17:50LXX functions only as the initial step in Paul’s argument from Scripture by indicating the way in which Jesus’s διάκονος established the truthfulness of God in regard to the promises to the Fathers. The Messiah’s vindication at his resurrection, for which he will (and already does) praise God among the nations, points forward to that day when Israel too will share in the Messiah’s triumph as a result of having experienced the same steadfast love already experienced by her king. In the light of Israel’s continuing rejection of the Messiah, which seems to call this word of God into question (cf. Rom 3:3; 9:4–6), such reassurance is absolutely crucial, not only for Israel, but also for the nations. For as Paul’s next quotation reminds his readers, the eventual salvation of the nations is wrapped up with the deliverance of Israel from her history of hard-heartedness.

Deuteronomy 32:43LXX In view of the significance of the Christ’s vindication for the future restoration of Israel (Ps 17:50), the quotation of Deut 32:43LXX in Rom 15:10 draws out its implication for the nations: they are to rejoice with God’s people.56 gentiles). But this focus on the present misses the eschatological typology of the psalm in which the focus is on the future. But even now, by virtue of his resurrection and ascension, Christ has already inaugurated his final role of honoring God as the exalted Son who will one day join all creation in glorifying God (cf. Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:24–25). On this entire problem, see Thüsing, Per Christum, esp. pp. 8–60, who argues that just as Christ’s suffering was to the glory of God in 15:3–6, so too the exalted Christ glorifies God in 15:7, 9. Thüsing’s point holds, even if Christ himself is not the direct speaker in v. 9 or the “choir director of the nations,” as Thüsing, 43, argues. 54 So too Thüsing, Per Christum, 41. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 871, points out that, given Paul’s insistence that the “strong” and “weak” respect each other’s views, “thinking the same thing according to the Messiah Jesus” in 15:5 cannot refer to having the same opinion, but rather to sharing “a common perspective and purpose.” In my view, that purpose and perspective entail praising God in the present in anticipation of his promised, future eschatological deliverance under the Lordship of Christ (cf. the reintroduction of κύριος in 15:6). In contrast, most commentators, Moo included, stress the believer’s current responsibility to serve one another in service to Christ. 55  Contra the majority view. 56  Here, as in 15:11 and 12, καὶ πάλιν [λέγει] simply introduces a series of elements, the relationship between which must be determined by their content.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

287

Deuteronomy 32:43 is the climactic verse of Moses’ prophetic song on behalf of YHWH as Israel’s “rock” (cf. Deut 32:4 with Ps 18:2).57 The song presents YHWH’s final testimony against Israel for her faithlessness to the covenant and pronounces God’s exilic judgment upon her (Deut 32:1–25; cf. Deut 31:29). Nevertheless, despite Israel’s history of idolatry, God’s last word will not be his divine judgment against Israel, but his eventual mercy toward Israel and judgment against Israel’s enemies, lest the gentiles conclude from their oppression of Israel that they have triumphed in their own strength over Israel and her God (Deut 32:26–27).58 The nations should not presume from God’s present wrath against Israel that God has rejected her, or that the nations have gained God’s favor despite their own pagan ways (cf. Deut 32:20–21, 36, 39 with Rom 11:11a, 15). Rather, as John Sailhammer has observed, “The emphasis on God’s judgment of Israel raises the question of God’s judgment of all the nations (Deut 32:34–38). The vengeance stored up against Israel (v. 34) is grounded in God’s righteous vindication of the iniquity of all peoples (32:35–42).”59 The present judgment against Israel at the hands of the nations is therefore a foretaste of the coming judgment against the nations at the hand of God himself (Deut 32:40–42). In turn, the coming judgment against the nations will be the means by which God brings about the ultimate “atonement” for “his land and his people” (Deut 32:43bMT), which in the LXX becomes the Lord’s cleansing “the land of his people” (καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ). In view of this eschatological judgment (cf. the ὅτι in Deut 32:43eLXX; ‫ כי‬in Deut 32:43bMT; cf. 32:26–42), the call for the nations themselves to “rejoice with God’s people” is best seen as a call for the nations to repent of their own idolatry in order to escape the wrath to come while they still have the opportunity.60 The supposition here is that Moses’s call for the nations to rejoice implies that the post-exilic restoration of Israel will encompass those gentiles who join the 57  The relationship between Deut 32:43LXX, with its eight lines, and the four lines of the MT is difficult to determine. The LXX apparently represents “a longer and different parent Hebrew from MT” that seems to be preserved in part in the Qumran text of Deut 32:43, 4Q44 (= 4QDeutq), which contains six cola to the MT’s four; so J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, SBLSCS 39 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 533. The line Paul quotes is also found in the first line of the MT version. Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, OTS 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 249, argues that the LXX, being aware of both the MT and Qumran versions, “decided to combine them.” 58 This principle is explicated in Sib. Or. 3:265–345, where Deut 28–32 is used as a framework for setting out the exile of Israel, her restoration, and the final judgment of the nations who oppressed her (cf. the allusion to Deut 32:43 in Sib. Or. 3:310). 59 The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 475–476. 60  So already Rashbam, who saw Deut 32:43 as an implicit “invitation to the nations to revere the Lord as Israel does and a promise that if they do so, He will treat them as He does Israel (when it is meritorious),” J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996), 314. Tigay points out that Deut 32:43 is thus the fulfillment of Israel’s original mandate in Exod 19:6.

288

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

faithful remnant in praising YHWH, the true “rock” of their salvation, rather than trusting in their idols (cf. Deut 32:31, 37). The judgment and restoration of Israel make it clear that only YHWH, as the one, true God (cf. Deut 32:31, 37– 38), can “put to death and give life” (Deut 32:39), a confession that Paul now sees affirmed by the death and resurrection of the Messiah (Ps 17:50). In recognition of this fact, to rejoice in the Lord “with God’s people” is to join God’s people.61 As Sailhammer again points out, “In the end … God’s judgment of Israel and the nations leads to a broader understanding of the concept of the people of God – not just Israel but the nations as well are called to praise God as ‘his people’ (Deut 32:43).”62 And since the context for this redemption of Israel and of the nations who join her in rejoicing is eschatological, the “rejoicing” in Deut 32:43 is clearly a foretaste of “eschatological rejoicing.”63 Deuteronomy 32:43 provides for Paul the counterpart to Ps 17:50. The latter established that Christ’s resurrection confirmed the ongoing validity of God’s promises to the “circumcised,” despite their rebellion, because of his covenant with both the Fathers and David (15:8, 9b). That Paul has in view Israel’s hardened state in 15:8 is confirmed by his earlier use of the designation “circumcision” in 2:25–3:30 to refer to Israel’s mere physical descendancy over against those who are “circumcised” in the heart by the Spirit (cf. its more neutral use in 4:12 and chapter seven). It is Israel’s history as merely “circumcised” in the flesh in accordance with the letter of the Torah (cf. 2:28–29; 9:8) that calls God’s truthfulness into question (cf. 3:3–4; 9:6) and leads Paul to affirm in 15:8 and 9b that the Christ’s vindication has validated the promises to the patriarchs and David. Deuteronomy 32:43, the history-of-redemption counterpart to Ps 17:20, Paul follows the LXX here, which clearly distinguishes the nations from Israel, whereas Deut 32:43MT reads, “Rejoice, O nations, his people (‫)הרנינו גוים עמו‬, which can be read as identifying the nations as God’s people. The rendering of the RSV, “Praise his people, O you nations,” followed by Dunn, Romans, 849, and Hays, Echoes, 72, and now the JPS, is unlikely, since in context the object of the praise is most likely YHWH. Cf. the translation of Aquila, αἰνοποιήσατε ἔθνη λαὸς αὐτοῦ, and Theodotion, ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ἔθνη λαὸς αὐτοῦ (Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum [Oxford: Clarendon, 1875], 323). Wevers, Notes, 534, suggests that the LXX is apparently based on a play on the Hebrew ‫עמו‬, which can mean either “with him” or “his people.” 4Q44 reads “rejoice you heavens, with him (‫ ”)הרנינו שׁמים עמו‬where the MT reads “rejoice you nations.” Both Sanders, Provenance, 250, and Arie van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43,” Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. F. García Martínez et al., VTSup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93–100 argue for the primacy of the Qumran version. 62 Pentateuch, 476, based on the MT. But the LXX can be read in this way as well. Interestingly, Tg. Neof. Deut 32:43 also distinguishes the nations from Israel, but equates their praise, reading, “Acclaim before him, O you nations; praise him O you his people, the house of Israel” (Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Aramaic Bible 5a [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1997], 160). 63  Dunn, Romans, 849, pointing to the parallels in Ps 96:11; Isa 44:23; 49:13; Rev 12:12; 18:20. Dunn, however, follows the common pattern of then arguing that Paul’s point is that these “final events are being fulfilled in the conversion of the Gentiles (cf. TDNT 2:774–775).” 61 

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

289

therefore points to the Christ’s “second coming” as that which will bring these promises, now inaugurated, to their consummation. If Ps 17:50 points to the significance of the Messiah’s first coming, Deut 32:43 points to the implications of his second. Specifically, Deut 32:43 indicates that the Messiah, whose vindication secured God’s promises to Israel, must come again to judge the nations as the final step in his redemptive work on behalf of Israel. Indeed, Paul’s earlier use of Deut 32:35 in Rom 12:19 reflects his conviction that those who trust in Christ base their own actions with regard to injustice on the certainty of this coming judgment. Once again, for Paul, eschatology drives ethics. Paul’s use of Deut 32:43 in Rom 15:10 corresponds to his earlier use of Deut 32:21 in Rom 10:19.64 There Paul reminded the church in Rome that the present salvation of those gentiles who do “rejoice with his people” was not intended to bolster their pride, but to make Israel culpable and jealous in her rejection of the gospel (cf. Rom 11:13–14). Rather than becoming arrogant, God’s present judgment against Israel should lead the gentiles to persevere in faith because of the corresponding reality of God’s coming judgment against the nations for the sake of Israel. Hence, instead of becoming arrogant, they should fear God’s wrath and continue to rejoice in God alone (Rom 11:17–22).

Psalm 116:1LXX By linking Ps 17:50 with Deut 32:43 Paul made clear the tie between Christ’s reaffirmation of God’s ongoing commitment to Israel and the gentiles’ call to glorify God. Christ’s confirmation of God’s promises to Israel in his resurrection 64 See now Whittle, Covenant Renewal, 5–6 and 5 n. 22, who follows Hays in recognizing that it was “ ‘hardly coincidental’ ” that Paul quotes both Deut 32:21 and 32:43 and concludes that these texts represent Paul’s “careful reading of Moses’ Song,” which sets out the failure of the law, inclusion of the gentiles, the gentiles’ provocation of Israel to jealousy, and Israel’s final covenant renewal and restoration by God after the exile (cf. Deut 30:11–14 in Rom 10:6–8). In my view, the link between Deut 32:21 and 32:43 in Rom 10:19 and 15:10 represents in Romans what Paul maintains under the rubric of the “new covenant” in 2 Cor 3:3–18 and in terms of the covenant with Sarah, the free woman, in Gal 4:21–31. This corresponds to the proposals of Abasciano and Barclay that the pattern of apostasy and covenant renewal in Rom 9–11 is based on Exod 32–34 (cf. Rom 9:1–3 with Exod 32:32; Rom 9:15 with Exod 33:19) rather than (Abasciano) or together with (Barclay) Deuteronomy; for this discussion, see Whittle, 7–8, who concludes that both “covenant renewal texts” are in view, though their interrelationship, esp. in Paul, remains unexplored. It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate Whittle’s support of the view that only Deut 32:21 is used “ ‘legitimately,’ ” whereas otherwise in Rom 9–11 Paul takes Scriptural texts that originally referred to Israel and the Torah-commandment and reapplies them to gentiles, Christ, and faith (pp. 25, 40–41, 44–45, 50–57, 91, 120, 125). Hence, in Whittle’s view, taking Deuteronomy’s concept of covenant renewal as his “literary paradigm,” “Paul can cite Scripture that in its context is only tangentially related, if at all, to the new meaning with which it is invested” (pp. 9, 21; cf. p. 12). I am not convinced this is the case in Rom 9–11; for just one example of my counter reading, see above, pp. 254–256 on the use of Scripture in Rom 9:22–29.

290

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

underscores the certainty of God’s final judgment of the nations at his Parousia, the prospect of which should lead the gentiles to rejoice in God alone. By turning next to Ps 116LXX (117):1, one of the “Hallel” psalms in praise of God for his deliverance (Pss 111–118MT), Paul now unpacks the specific content of the nations’ necessary response to the confirmation (Ps 17:50) and consummation (Deut 32:43) of God’s promises to Israel. In fulfilling this purpose in Paul’s argument, it is striking that Ps 116LXX, as part of the canonical response to the previous “Davidic” section of the Psalter (Pss 108–110MT),65 is the one Hallel psalm that is explicitly directed to the nations. Paul too, by means of the very syntax of the quotation itself, highlights this emphasis on the nations’ response to YHWH’s faithfulness to Israel in view of God’s ongoing commitment to the Davidic line. For Stanley rightly argues that Paul’s front-loading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη over against its position in the LXX (αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) is not simply stylistic, but calls “attention to what was for him the most important part of the citation, its reference to the Gentiles offering praise to the true God (τὸν κύριον).”66 In terms of its content, Ps 116:1 commands the nations to praise the Lord specifically because (ὅτι) God’s “mercy” (ἔλεος) and “truth” (ἀλήθεια) remain into the age to come (116:2). It thereby provides the explicit scriptural support for Paul’s own introduction of this covenant couplet in 15:8–9. Canonically, these references to God’s mercy and truth in relationship to the glorification of God recall the theophany of Exod 34:6, in which YHWH, “the Lord God of compassions and mercies, who is … true” (Κύριος ὁ θεὸς οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων … ἀληθινός), manifests his glory to Moses.67 By definition, this revelation of God’s glory entails making his “name” known as the one who shows mercy to whomever he desires (ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ; Exod 33:19). The quotation of Exod 33:19 in Rom 9:15 indicates that, from Paul’s perspective, these recipients include those gentiles who, by entrusting their lives to the Messiah, have now joined the remnant of the elect within Israel’s history (cf. Rom 9:18–26). Αgainst the backdrop of Exod 33:19 in 9:15, the allusion to Exod 34:6 in 15:8–9 thus indicates that the first (Ps 17:50) and second (Deut 32:43) comings of Christ confirms God’s covenant-making character as revealed at Sinai. Specifically, the Messiah’s coming and coming again should instruct the nations according to the Scriptural testimony of the faithful  Following Wilson, Editing, 187–188, 220–221.  Paul, 181–182. Paul’s addition of καί within the quote corresponds to variations within the LXX textual tradition itself, but finds no certain explanation, while ἐπαινεσάτωσαν apparently follows the LXX Vorlage represented by S LaR A 55 bo (see Stanley, Paul, 182; Koch, Schrift, 111 n. 2). 67 For the use of Exod 34:6 as part of the Leitmotif for the Hallel psalms, beginning already in Ps 107:1 (cf. Pss 111:4; 112:4), see Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter IV, JSOTSup 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 178, 181. In his view, p. 192, Exod 34:6 is “constantly in mind” throughout Pss 107–118. 65 66

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

291

remnant in Ps 116LXX:1–2 (cf. διδασκαλία in 15:4) that God remains “true” to his covenant promises and that God is to be glorified for his “mercy” since election is by grace, not works (cf. 15:6 with 9:6–13; 11:1–6). It is God’s faithful and merciful character as revealed in his covenant with Israel, together with their own steadfast, grace-created covenant-keeping, that grounds the “hope” (ἐλπίς) of God’s eschatological people (15:4). This “encouragement” to hope derived from God’s work in their lives and the testimony of the Scriptures (cf. παράκλησις in 15:4) is confirmed by the canonical location of Ps 116LXX (117MT).68 On the one side, the righteous one within Israel (or perhaps the faithful within exilic Israel, here personified), like Κing David, has also been rescued from the “birth pains of death” in response to his cry for help (cf. Ps 114:3–4LXX with Ps 17:4–5LXX). The speaker in the psalm consequently concludes that the Lord is “merciful” (114:5: ἐλεήμων ὁ κύριος), whereby he commits to fulfill his corresponding vows of praise in the temple (Ps 115LXX = 116:10–19). On the other side, the Lord’s “mercy” (ἔλε­ ος, Ps 117:1LXX) is declared to remain into the age to come, again manifest in God’s faithfulness in rescuing the one who hopes in him (117:1–18). Here too the psalmist consequently praises God in the midst of Israel (117:2–4, 19–29), especially for the fact that “the stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner” (Ps 117:22).69 For the psalmist’s experience testifies that “it is better to hope (ἐλπίζειν) in the Lord than to hope (ἐλπίζειν) in rulers” (117:9LXX). The call to the nations in Ps 116LXX to join the psalmist in praising God for his faithfulness to the remnant is the canonical response to the nations’ questioning in Ps 113:10LXX (115:2MT) whether God is still present and active on behalf of his covenant people. In line with Exod 33:19 and 34:6 the psalmist’s answer is that God has glorified his “name” by mercifully preserving a remnant within Israel so that he remains truthful in regard to his covenant promises (cf. the parallel between God’s “name” and his “mercy” and “truth” in Ps 113:9LXX and the emphasis on ἐλπίζειν in Ps 113:17–19LXX). In this respect, the Hallel Psalms present the same argument concerning the remnant found in Rom 9:6–29 and 11:1–6, where Paul developed it primarily from the prophets.70 But whereas earlier Paul’s focus was on the implications of the remnant for the nation of Israel (cf. 11:11–29), in 15:11 his focus is on its implications for the gentiles.

68 Paul’s awareness of this entire complex of psalms is reflected in his quote of Ps 115:1LXX in 2 Cor 4:13 and the probable allusions to Ps 115:2LXX in Rom 3:4, Ps 117:6LXX in Rom 8:31, and 117:17–18LXX in 2 Cor 6:9. 69 The messianic applications of this passage in the NT are well-known; cf. Ps 118:22–23 MT in Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7; and Ps 118:25–26 in Matt 11:3; 21:9, 15; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 7:19; 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13. 70 For the role of the remnant in Paul’s earlier argument, see chapter eight.

292

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Isaiah 11:10LXX Paul’s chain of quotes culminates in 15:12 with Isa 11:10LXX, a text commonly recognized within both Second Temple Judaism and the early church to be messianic.71 Its function here is usually interpreted as setting forth the foundation of Paul’s argument in 15:9–11 by pointing to Jesus as the one who in his resurrection has already fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel and as a result is now bringing about the inclusion of the gentiles. Within its original context, however, this verse provides the transition between the coming of the Davidic king in Isa 11:1–9 and the restoration of Israel in 11:11–16. As the hinge between these two sections, the king’s rising up to rule over the nations with justice (Isa 11:10) in order to rescue the poor and afflicted by slaying the wicked (cf. Isa 11:4–5) is the instrument God will use to bring about Israel’s restoration. Like David’s own deliverance in Ps 17, Israel’s future salvation is pictured in terms of a “second exodus,” now from her exile among the nations, in which Israel despoils her former oppressors just as she did in leaving Egypt. Assyria, the false hope of Ahaz, will be destroyed for her arrogance, together with all those idolaters in Israel and Judah who trust in kings other than YHWH (cf. 10:1–23 with Isa 5:3–30; 8:12–15). But rather than signaling an end to the nations, in Isa 11:12 the Davidic king’s judgment and rule over them becomes the “sign for the gentiles” (καὶ ἀρεῖ σημεῖον εἰς τὰ ἔθνη) of their own ultimate redemption.72 Israel’s eschatological redemption and the consequent rule of David’s descendant over the nations will lead to the establishment of the reign of peace on the earth: “For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, As the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:9). As its corollary, the king’s victorious rest will be his “glory” (MT: ‫ )כבוד‬or “honor” (LXX: τιμή) in that the promises of God’s presence among his people will be fulfilled in the

71 Cf. Richard Schultz, “The King in the Book of Isaiah,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordan J. Wenham (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 142. The messianic interpretation of Isa 11 is confirmed by its use in 1Q28b (=1QSb) 5:20–29; 4Q161 (=4QpIsaa) f8–10; and 4Q285 (=4QMg) f5 (see Michael Owen Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999], 149, 211, 293). See too Jer 23:5; 33:15; Sir 47:22; Rev 5:5; 22:16. 72  Cf. Isa 11:11–12LXX with the tradition of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Zion that was often a part of Jewish restoration eschatology; see Isa 2:2–4; 25:6–10; 42:1–9; 49:6; 51:4–6; 56:6–8; 66:18–21; and the helpful survey of this tradition in post-biblical Judaism by Terence L. Donaldson, “Proselytes or ‘Righteous Gentiles’?: The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological Pilgrimage Patterns of Thought,” JSP 4 (1990): 3–27. Donaldson emphasizes that although the tendency in these texts is to anticipate the inclusion of the gentiles as gentiles, not as converts to Judaism (p. 27), their central concern is not the precise status of the gentiles in regard to the specific injunctions of the Torah, but “the vindication of Israel and of Israel’s view of its place in the world … . Wherever the Gentiles appear in this tradition, their treatment, positive or negative, is subservient to this central theme” (p. 26).

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

293

king’s reign from Zion over Israel and the nations (11:10; cf. Isa 11:9 with Isa 2:2–4; 4:2–6; 66:18–19).73 At the climax of his letter to the Romans Paul turns to Scripture in 15:9–12 in order to return to Jesus’s role as the Davidic Messiah, whose identity as the διάκονος to the circumcision climaxes with restoring Israel in fulfillment of the promises to the fathers (Rom 15:8) and in accordance with the gospel declared beforehand by the prophets (Rom 1:3–4).74 In making this argument, Paul’s eye, however, is still on the gentiles. If Isa 11:10 is taken in Rom 15:12 in accordance with its original context, Paul’s use does not point to Christ’s resurrection in the past, but to the future coming in glory of the “shoot of Jesse”75 as “the one having risen up (ὁ ἀνιστάμενος) to rule the gentiles” so that, in response to the eschatological salvation of Israel, the nations too will set their hope (ἐλπιοῦσιν) upon him (15:12 again pointing back to 15:4). Thus, if Ps 17:50 grounded the call for the nations to join Israel in praising God by establishing the “das” of Christ’s final victory, Isa 11:10 does so by establishing the “was” of that victory. Taken together, the references to Davidic kingship in Ps 17:50 and Isa 11:10 provide the indicative bookends to the imperatives from Deut 32:43 and Ps 116:1. The gentiles’ hope in Isa 11:10 is the doxological climax to the history of redemption to be brought about by Jesus as the “shoot of Jesse” in fulfillment of the promise that according to Ps 17:50 was established by David’s own vindication. Paul closes his chain of quotes by reminding his readers that their hope, already confirmed and anticipated by Christ’s resurrection, to which ὁ ἀνιστάμενος from Isa 11:10 most likely alludes by way of double entendre (cf. 4:23–25),76 is Christ’s universal reign of peace over the nations in accordance with his promises to Israel. At that time the nations, having joined with Israel, will glorify God for his mercy to the gentiles as an extension of his truthfulness to Israel. Until then, 73 I owe this point to Kish, “Paul’s Use,” 63–65, 68, who also points to the parallels between Isa 11:10b and Isa 28:12; 32:15–18, the development of the theme of “rest” in Josh 21:43–45; Deut 12:9; Ps 95:11; 1 Kgs 8:56; 1 Chr 22:9, and its messianic interpretation in T. Jud. 25–25 [A] and Midr. Ps 21:1. 74  Cf. this future orientation of 15:7–13 with Wright’s conclusion, Climax, 264–265, that “the resurrection of Jesus was, for Paul, the sure and certain sign, unmistakable if unexpected, that Israel’s consolation had been given to her, that the Age to Come had therefore arrived.” In contrast, Paul’s point seems to be that the resurrection, as the inauguration of the end of the ages, confirms God’s promises concerning the consolation of Israel still to come. 75 Though there is no way to confirm it, Paul probably omitted ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ found in the LXX of Isa 11:10 because the clear eschatological meaning of the text and his own introductory formula made it superfluous. Stanley, Paul, 183, counters that this is not sufficient explanation for Paul’s omission. Dunn, Romans, 850, suggests that Paul may have omitted it because he prefers to reserve its use for referring explicitly to the final day of judgment (pointing to 2:5, 16; 13:12; 1 Cor 1:8; 3:13; 5:5, etc.). Yet in these cases Paul is referring to “the day” of judgment without quoting a text from Scripture, whereas his quotation of Isa 11:10 in 15:12 makes an additional reference to “the day” superfluous. 76  Cf. Dunn, Romans, 850, who points to the use of ἀνίστημι in the Gospels, Acts 3:22, 26; 7:37; 17:3, and 1 Thess 4:14.

294

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the church, made up of a remnant of Jews and those gentiles who join them in already glorifying God, live under the lordship of the Messiah in both life and death (cf. 14:7–9). For both Deut 32:43 and Ps 116:1 affirm that this hope for the future expresses itself in the present through the gentiles’ joining Israel in living lives of praise to the one, true “God of hope” (15:13). In anticipation of the judgment and restoration to come, those who so hope in God’s promises glorify God by their faith and are thereby already reckoned as righteous (cf. 15:13 with 4:18–22).

Conclusion I have argued that there is both a logical and chronological progression in the pattern of Paul’s quotes in Rom 15:9b–13. Jointly they create a chiasm in which the two outer indicatives having to do with David’s seed, past and future, support the two inner imperatives to the gentiles regarding the present, which together support Christ’s ongoing ministry to Israel for the sake of the gentiles (and Paul’s intermediate ministry to the gentiles for the sake of Israel):77 – because David’s past vindication establishes God’s promise to David’s seed (v. 9b), – therefore the gentiles should not give up hope, but learn from the experience of disobedient Israel to rejoice in God alone (in the midst of the false security that comes from the nations’ current reign in the world) (v. 10); – specifically, the gentiles should not give up hope, but also learn from the experience of the faithful remnant to praise God for his truthfulness and mercy (in the midst of the adversity that comes from being part of God’s elect in the world) (v. 11), – because the future vindication of David’s seed in fulfillment of God’s promise is the hope of the nations (v. 12).

This argument takes on all the more force in light of Christ’s having confirmed these promises and undergirded these commands by his own vindication as the seed of David who is now enthroned as the Son of God (Rom 1:3–4).78 The argument from Scripture in 15:9b–12, with its doxological climax in 15:13, unpacks 77  Though often overlooked by commentators, Keck, “Christology,” 88, rightly observes that only the second and third quotes actually summon the gentiles to praise God. But I have argued that his conclusion, p. 91, that the catchword ἔθνη “poorly conceals the lack of a coherent rationale governing either the sequence or the substance of all four quotations” cannot be maintained. Keck suggests an internal coherence to the first three quotes only in a general sense based on the surface affirmations of the text. Especially problematic for his view is the integration of the emphasis in Isa 11:10 on the gentiles’ hope in the Davidic Messiah with the emphasis of the first three citations on the gentiles’ praise of God. 78 Contra the common view represented by Koch, Schrift, 286: “Themen, die in einen spezifisch (hellenistisch‑)judenchristlichen Raum weisen, wie Davidssohnschaft (Jes 11:10), Erfüllung der Zionsverheißungen (Jes 28:16; 59:20–21), aber auch Bund (Jes 59:20ff; in christologischem Zusammenhang in 1 Kor 11:23–25), spielen bei Paulus entweder keine Rolle mehr (Davidssohnschaft, Zionsverheißungen) oder erscheinen in transformierter Gestalt (Bund; vgl. 2 Kor 3!).”

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

295

the doxological significance of Christ’s ministry in 15:8–9a, which in turn supports the doxological purpose of Christ’s having accepted both Jew and gentile (15:7b). The eschatological hope of the gentiles, inextricably linked with the redemption of Israel (15:12) and engendered by God through his Spirit (15:13), fulfills Christ’s purpose of bringing the gentiles to glorify God for his mercy (15:9a), which Christ himself accomplished by welcoming both Jew and gentile “to the glory of God” (15:7b). One cannot help but notice the “trinitarian” structure of Paul’s doxological argument from the history-of-redemption. As its application, Christ’s acceptance of Jew and gentile within the people of God supports the admonition to the Romans to do likewise for the same doxological purpose (15:5–7). The Romans are to accept one another (15:7a) since in doing so they live out proleptically Christ’s own eschatological acceptance of Jew and gentile to the glory of God (15:7b). The implications of this study are at least fourfold. First, far from being merely a catch-word compilation of texts loosely tied together ad hoc, the careful combination of these texts in this order lends support to Stanley’s thesis that Paul had “compiled his own anthology of potentially useful verses in the course of his own personal study of Scripture.”79 Structurally, this compilation likely reflects early synagogue, “proem” sermons, in which some other portion of Scripture not from the seder or the haftarah of the day (i. e., the proem or introductory text, in our case Ps 17:50) was chosen as a bridge between the two, based on a linguistic link to the haftarah, in this case, ἔθνη. The sermon then proceeded by explaining the proem text by means of a chain of thematically related passages that aimed at and climaxed with a final, concluding text (here Deut 32, Ps 117, and Isa 11).80 Moreover, in view of the content of the quotes themselves, the thesis of Stanley and Koch may be extended to suggest that this carefully structured 79  Paul, 257. For this same conclusion, see Koch, Schrift, 98–99, 101, 183–184, 253. Since the programmatic work of E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 49–50, this text has been viewed as an example of the “chain” or “string” (‫)חרז‬ method of citing Scripture associated with synagogue preaching. But Ellis’s own caution, p. 50, has not always been heeded: “Although a number of Pauline citations appear to be united under a Stichwort, the significance is far deeper than a verbal congruence … . Certainly it is the sense element that is basic for Paul.” Technically speaking, though 15:9b–12 may be such a “chain,” it functions like a “combined citation” in which “several verses are adduced in support of a single proposition, but the individual verses have been melded together into a tightly knit, coherent unit with its own internal logic and carefully balanced rhetorical structure” (Stanley, Paul, 258). As examples of this procedure, Stanley adduces Rom 3:10–18; 9:25–26; 1 Cor 15:54– 55; 2 Cor 6:16–18. However, Stanley, p. 258, rejects Rom 15:9–12 as such an example, viewing it simply as a string of quotations with “a measure of physical coherence.” 80  I am indebted to David Instone-Brewer for this suggestion and for reference to the work of John W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14 (1967): 96–111, who details this structure (cf. esp. p. 100). If it is in view here (cf. Luke 4:16–21; Acts 13:14–15; m. Meg. 4:2–6; t. Meg. 3[4]:1–4, 17–19), it is difficult to posit whether Isa 11:10 is the climax of the sermon or also part of the haftarah reading itself, since the haftarah was often quoted in the course of the sermon. If it is not, other possibilities include Isa 49:18; Jer 22:24;

296

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

compilation was at times organized according to a history of redemption scheme which will reach its climax with the return of Christ. To fulfill his role as the Davidic Messiah Jesus must return to justify the remnant of Jews and gentiles, to restore Israel, to judge and redeem the nations, and to establish the glory of God as the sovereign ruler of the world. If this sermonic framework is indeed in place here, it supplies an additional, structural focus on the eschatological consummation in Isa 11:10 as the climax of Paul’s argument. In doing so, it further supports adding a history-of-salvation framework to Koch’s helpful observation that the Schwerpunkt of Paul’s explicit appeals to Scripture is found in the interrelated themes of the righteousness of God, the law, and the calling of the gentiles in relationship to the election of Israel.81 It would also fortify the conclusion that Paul’s framework for understanding the significance of Jesus as the Messiah in the light of Scripture was not “doctrinal” as such, whether that be Christology, ecclesiology, or even a realized eschatological theology. Instead, Paul’s framework was an ongoing history of salvation that will consummate in the final redemption of Israel and the nations as an essential aspect of the ultimate redemption of the created order, all to the glory of God.82 Second, Paul’s purpose in adducing this Scriptural summary, as he himself says in 15:4, was to foster “hope.” This Scriptural summary also indicates that “hope” for Paul has a concrete, historical foundation and object. Those within the church, both Jew and gentile, must not give up their confidence in the future consummation of God’s promises to Israel and the nations, which have now been confirmed once again by Christ and his resurrection (15:4, 13). Paul does not have a realized eschatology in which either Jesus’s first coming (Wright’s “climax of the covenant”), the life of the church (Hay’s “ecclesiocentric” hermeneutic), or a present, apocalyptic deliverance (the “apocalyptic Paul”) become Ezek 5:11; or esp. Isa 45:23, with its use of ἐξομολογήσεται (cf. Rom 14:12). The seder from the Torah was most likely Gen 12, 15, or 17 (cf. Rom 4). 81  Schrift, 288. There Koch points out that the three large Scripture chains of Rom 9:25–29, 10:18–21, and 15:9b–12 all revolve around the question of Israel and the nations. But contra Koch (and Stanley, Paul, 257 n. 22, who follows him at this point), Paul’s answer need not be seen to be in conflict with Jewish exegetical tradition (Koch, 289: Paul’s view leads “zu einer fundamentalen Umwertung jüdischer Grundpositionen”), apart, of course, from Paul’s conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. 82  Cf. Oegema, Für Israel, 205, who, on the basis of Rom 5, argues that Paul’s “heilsgeschichtlich bestimmende ‘Perioden’ ” are Adam to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the Parousia, with Adam standing at the beginning of history (Rom 5:14) and Christ, the second Adam, standing at the end of history (Rom 5:12–21). For the opposite reading of Rom 15:7–12 to that proposed here, in which the salvation of the gentiles is distanced from the promises to Abraham, the δέ in 15:9a is taken to be a strong contrast, the dependence of the gentiles on the salvation of Israel is reduced to the fact that Jesus was a Jew, and the inclusion of the gentiles into Israel is denied, see Dieter Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief, FB 1 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), 218–223.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

297

the culminating fulfillment of Scripture’s expectation for the salvation of Israel and the gentiles.83 In contrast to such evaluations of Paul’s reading of Scripture, Rom 15:1–13 give no grounds for seeing Israel’s identity and eschatological hopes reconfigured into Christ and/or the church, having been transformed into exclusively present realities. The eschatological nature of redemptive history does not become abstracted into the “Christ-event” or personalized into an eschatological “community,” but continues on after Christ’s coming and the establishment of the church just as concretely and historically as it did before. The “not yet” of Paul’s eschatology includes Israel too. The “climax of the covenant” remains Israel’s future restoration for the sake of the nations in tandem with Christ’s second coming. It is the certainty of this future climax to the covenant that secures the believer’s present hope in the return of Christ; in light of the promises of God to the Fathers (15:8) the Messiah must come again to judge the nations in order to restore Israel and save the gentiles (15:12; cf. 11:29). To undergird the believer’s hope in order to bring about their “obedience of faith” expressed in accepting one another to the glory of God (cf. 1:5; 15:18; 16:25–26 with 15:1–7), Paul therefore ends his letter to the Romans where he began, with the “evocation of Davidic messianic themes.”84 By doing so he creates “an effective inclusio with the epistle’s opening christological confession (1:2–4),”85 including the historical and eschatological sequence of the gospel: to the Jew first and then to the gentile (1:16). Third, the force of Paul’s argument in 15:7–13, which climaxes in v. 13 with Paul’s prayer-wish that the Romans would abound in hope, is dependent on this 83  So too J. Christiaan Beker, “Echoes and Intertextuality: On the Roles of Scripture in Paul’s Theology,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 69. Though Hays answers well the force of Beker’s other criticisms of his work in his, “On the Rebound: A Response to Critiques of Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 94, Hays acknowledges that this response “precisely skewers my work … . By identifying the apocalyptic context of Paul’s ecclesiocentric hermeneutic, I intended to locate his interpretative activity within the “already/ not yet” dialectic that pervades his thought, but in fact my discussion fails to do justice to the ‘not yet’ pole.” This imbalance has now been corrected in part in Hays’s study, “The Conversion of the Imagination,” 401, though not yet carried through to the key question of the relationship between Israel and the church or to the nature of Paul’s hermeneutic. Although Wright, Climax, 264, finds Hays’s ecclesiological perspective “leaving Paul looking more arbitrary in his handling of the Jewish Bible than … exegesis actually suggests,” Wright’s own collapse of Israel’s future into Christ and the Spirit raises the same concern. The “not yet” of Paul’s eschatology is apparently reduced, for Wright, to the new creation. With Hays and Wright, this reinterpretation of Israel’s future in terms of the present experience of the church is also part of the program of G. K. Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in “The Reader Must Understand”: Eschatology in Bible and Theology (ed. K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliot; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997), 16–17. 84  Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 135. 85  Ibid., 135. Hays rightly comments that “the Davidic messiahship of Jesus is the crucial hermeneutical emphasis of the rhetorical climax of Paul’s peroratio” (p. 135 n. 43).

298

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

same eschatological future as an essential aspect of Paul’s history-of-redemption understanding of the Scriptures. Paul’s argument from Scripture in 15:8–12 serves as a bilateral hinge to support both 15:8–9a, which in turn support 15:7, and the concluding benediction in v. 13, which is itself the inclusio to the benediction of 15:5–6. Accordingly, Paul’s history-of-salvation argument from Scripture is not only the ultimate ground for Paul’s imperative in 15:7, but also the means experientially by which God will fulfill Paul’s prayers for the Romans. The two benedictions in 15:5–6 and 13 are parallel both structurally and conceptually. The latter benediction, with its focus on hope as the result of learning from the Scriptures (15:13 based on 15:9b–12), decodes and fulfills the former, with its emphasis on the encouragement and endurance that likewise come from the hope contained in the Scriptures (cf. 15:4). The intended result of this twofold argument from Scripture is that believers, by their trust-induced hope, might glorify “the God of endurance and comfort” who is “the God of hope” (15:5, 13).86 Such a faith-induced hope expresses itself in love of neighbor, which here focuses on the mutual acceptance and bearing of the other’s weaknesses that fulfills the Torah (cf. 15:1, 5, 7 with Rom 13:8–10 and Gal 5:13–14 and 6:2). Finally, Paul’s argument thus reflects his conviction that eschatology and ethics are inextricably linked. In the chronology of praise established in our passage, Paul finds himself somewhere between the first and last stages of that Heilsgeschichte: the Christ has come and a remnant of Jews and gentiles are now being saved to the glory of God (15:7b; Ps 17:50; Ps 116:1; Deut 32:43). But the final redemption of all Israel and the nations, as the consummation of this display of God’s glory, is still to come (Isa 11:10). As we have seen, this eschatological hope, both in its inauguration and consummation, is the basis of Paul’s admonitions to unity and mutual acceptance in the church among Jews and gentiles. It is their hope in the promises of God, confirmed by Christ (15:8) and secured by the Spirit as their down payment (15:13), that enables the strong in faith to bear the proclivities of the weak, and vice versa (cf. 15:1–2, 7 with 14:4, 10–12). Hence, as yet another expression of the covenant structure of Paul’s eschatologically-informed thinking, it is hope for the future consummation of redemptive history, based on God’s salvific acts in the past, that motivates the obedience of faith in the present. Moreover, such a hope-driven, steadfast life of mutual acceptance to the praise of God witnesses, together with the Scriptures, to the final redemption and doxology still to come (15:4). Hence, Paul’s missiological concern, in the end, is theological and soteriological, not sociological or ecclesiological. Not to praise God in unity, having failed to accept one another in love despite Christ’s acceptance, would expose the Romans’ hope for salvation 86  These parallels become transparent when the two benedictions are analyzed according to their parallel structure as presented by Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings, JSNTSup 101 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 102.

Chapter Nine: The Future of Israel and Paul’s Hope for the Nations

299

to be merely wishful thinking. It is therefore not simply a religious reflex that the imperatives of verses 1–2 and 5–7 are both grounded in Scripture (vv. 3–4, 8–12). As the double use of γάρ in vv. 3 and 8 indicates, the Scriptures support the commands to love by nourishing the Spirit-induced hope in Christ that glorifies God for his truth and mercy.

Chapter Ten

New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant(Galatians 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17) The Christian doctrine of the Resurrection shaped Christian understanding of the human person and in turn formed the culture of the West. What Christian tradition bequeathed to our civilization was not, as some suppose, gnosticism or shame over the body, but the psychosomatic unity of the human being. There is no self that is not embodied. Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought1

In 2 Cor 5:17 Paul declared that the “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) has now dawned in the midst of the old. Paul did so as “a servant of the new covenant” (cf. 2 Cor 3:1–2 and 6 with 5:11–12 and 18). The two are inextricably related. Just as the old covenant belongs to this created order, the new covenant belongs to the new creation of the age to come. For Paul, the one cannot exist without the other. So although its appearance in 2 Cor 5:17 seems somewhat abrupt, the motif of “new creation” does not suddenly appear ex nihilo. To speak of the new covenant eventuates inevitably in speaking about new creation (and vice versa). So, too, after Paul’s discussion of the relationship between the covenants throughout Gal 2–4 (cf. esp. Gal 3:15–20 with 4:21–31), Paul addressed the significance of the present reality of the new creation in 6:15. Nor did the concept of “new creation” itself originate with Paul, though he is the one who most likely introduced the motif into Christian vocabulary.2 The exact terminology “new creation” does not occur in the MT or LXX, but the concept and later the term itself have significant roots both in the Old Testament

1  Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 161. 2 So Peter Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus,” Evangelische Theologie 27 (1967): 1–35. See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 319–320 n. 79, for the extensive studies in support of this view.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

301

and in the varied literature of Second Temple Judaism.3 There is, however, no corresponding consensus concerning the way in which Paul appropriated these diverse OT-Jewish traditions. Scholars divide over whether Paul’s primary referent for the reality of the new creation is anthropological, as famously argued by Bultmann and now reasserted by Moyer, or cosmological, as programmatically argued by Käsemann and Mell and now found in the wide-spread “apocalyptic” readings of Paul, or whether the two perspectives can be fused, as Jackson has argued.4 Against this backdrop, the purpose of this chapter is to re-examine the conceptual interrelationships between Gal 6:15 and 2 Cor 5:17 as a means of placing Paul’s understanding of new creation within its covenant context. Despite their shared vocabulary, however, the conceptual relationship between these two texts is not immediately evident. The concrete, specific contrast of Gal 6:15 appears to give way to an abstract statement of principle in 2 Cor 5:17.5 In the former, the reality of the new creation brought about by the cross of Christ is contrasted to the “unreality” of both circumcision and uncircumcision. In the latter, the 3 For its OT roots conceptually and by circumlocution, see primarily Isa 65:16b–25 (cf. 42:9; 43:16–21; 48:6–7; 54:10; 66:22–23). For “new creation” in Second Temple Judaism, see its four explicit uses in 1 En. 72:1 (cf. 45:4–5; 90:28–29; 91:15–16); 44:12 (cf. 21:17; 36:2; 40:3; 57:2); and Jub. 1:29; 4:26. Conceptually, see too, esp., LAB 3:10; 16:3; 32:17; 2 En. 70:9–10; 4 Ezra 6:25; 7:31, 75; As. Mos. 10:1–10; 2 Bar. 32:6; 44:12; 57:2; Jos. Asen. 8:9–11; 1QS 4:23b–26; 1QHa 3:19–34; 5:13–18, 28–29; 7:26–30a; 11:9–14, 20–24b; 13:11–12; 15:13–17a; 16:4–27; 19:12–17; 11QTa 29:7b–10. For a discussion of these texts, see the detailed treatment of Ulrich Mell, Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie, BZNW 56 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989) and the reference above, chapter three, p. 117 n. 53. Summary lists of key texts are also found in Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought, SNTSMS 119 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 35 n. 43 and T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept, WUNT 2/272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 39 n. 34. The fundamental perspectives presented in these three extensive studies provide the context for my discussion. 4 For the current debate over the meaning of “new creation” in Paul against its OT/Jewish backdrop, see Mell, Neue Schöpfung (the cosmic view), Hubbard, New Creation (the anthropological view), and Jackson, New Creation (both cosmic and anthropological dimensions). As a significant addition to the discussion, Jackson also surveys the concept of new creation in Roman imperial ideology as a clue to the ways in which Paul’s message would have been heard in its context (pp. 60–80). For an evaluation of this debate, see below, pp. 315–319, 331–335. 5 For internal evidence tipping the scales in the debate over the relative dating of Galatians and the Corinthian correspondence in favor of Galatian priority, see J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 161 n. 1, and now his Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 19–20, 222 ff., who points to a comparison of Gal 2:10 with 1 Cor 16:1–2 as determinative. For a thorough presentation of the arguments for and against Galatian priority and a conclusion in support of it, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Rapid City: Zondervan, 2005), 458– 465. However, if Galatians is dated subsequent to the Corinthian correspondence, my argument regarding the mutually interpretive function of these texts still stands. In this case, the programmatic statement in 2 Cor 5:17 would then be further unpacked in Gal 5:6 and 6:15 in view of Paul’s earlier establishment of the eschatological contrasts in 1 Cor 7:19.

302

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

new creation is declared to be the consequence of being ἐν Χριστῷ, which in turn brings about eschatological “new things” (ἰδοὺ … καινά) over against the “old things” (τὰ ἀρχαῖα) of this age, which have passed away. Galatians 6:15 is Paul’s climactic answer to the Galatian crisis surrounding circumcision; 2 Cor 5:17 is a statement of principle in a letter in which circumcision is not mentioned. In the former, the polemic is direct and on the surface; in the latter, if it exists, it is indirect and implicit. Such general comparisons, however, are not sufficient to explain the relationship between these two texts.6 More specific conceptual links between Gal 6:15 and 2 Cor 5:17 may be forged once 2 Cor 5:17 is recognized to be the final deposit of a threefold development in Paul’s thinking regarding the character of the new creation and its implications as reflected in the structural and conceptual parallels between Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19. Far from speaking in 2 Cor 5:17 of a “new creation” de novo, here Paul is applying in a new context a framework of understanding developed in a previous series of eschatological-covenantal contrasts between the old age and the new. When taken together, these mutually interpretive contrasts form a conceptual bridge that spans the gap between Paul’s references to the new creation in the letters to Galatia and Corinth. Unfortunately, since the “new creation” terminology does not appear in Gal 5:6 and 1 Cor 7:19, these texts, though structurally and to a large degree semantically identical to Gal 6:15,7 are often left out of the exegetical discussion. These pivotal texts also demonstrate that the concept of “new creation,” like its corollary, the “new covenant,” is not tangential to Paul’s thinking, but is an integral part of the theological center of his thought. For as Jackson rightly maintains, “new creation” is “a kind of theological shorthand which encapsulates (Paul’s) eschatological soteriology.”8 The motif of “new creation” thus provides yet another window into Paul’s understanding of the significance of the new covenant within an eschatological view of the history of redemption that is predicated on an old age/new age distinction.

6 E. g., Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 314, references “new creation” in Gal 6:15 grammatically to support reading καινὴ κτίσις in 2 Cor 5:17 as its own clause (“there is a new creation”), but makes no material connection to it; on pp. 332–333, while discussing 2 Cor 5:17, Furnish mentions in passing that Gal 6:15 also occurs in a context in which boasting in externals (Gal 6:12–13) is contrasted with boasting in the cross (Gal 6:14). Conversely, Betz, Galatians, 320 n. 82, makes only a passing reference to 2 Cor 5:17 as a parallel to Gal 6:15. For the most part they are treated discretely, even in the monographlength treatments of Hubbard, New Creation, and Jackson, New Creation. 7  Cf. Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Vol. I, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 423, who argues that the formal structure and correspondence between Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19 represent Paul’s “own favourite speech-structures.” 8  Jackson, New Creation, 115; cf. p. 6: “new creation” is “an encapsulated expression” of Paul’s “eschatologically infused soteriology.”

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

303

The Eschatological, Covenantal Contrasts The reference to new creation in Gal 6:15, as the precursor to (or development of) 2 Cor 5:17, is one of three structurally and conceptually parallel passages regarding a fundamental Pauline polarity (cf. Gal 5:6 and 1 Cor 7:19). Each of them pivots on a radical repudiation of the identity-determining, old-covenant-, this age-distinction between Jew and non-Jew now that the Messiah has brought about the new covenant of the new age: Gal 5:6a

οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία

Gal 6:15a

οὔτε περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία

1 Cor 7:19a ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν

ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν

J. Louis Martyn has rightly emphasized that these negations of both circumcision and uncircumcision nevertheless make up only one pole of a radical anti­ thesis since Paul does not choose one over the other, or dissolve one into the other; rather, he rejects both circumcision and uncircumcision as playing any role in constituting or signifying the people of God established by Christ and the Spirit.9 Martyn is also right to emphasize that from our distance we often  Cf. his Theological Issues, 115: In response to his opponents “Paul should say, ‘Neither circumcision, nor the food laws, nor the keeping of the Sabbath is anything.’ As is so often the case, however, Paul says the unexpected. He surprises his readers by negating not merely Law observance, but also its opposite, non-Law observance. In a word, that to which Paul denies real existence is, in the technical sense of the expression, a pair of opposites … what I will refer to as an antinomy.” Martyn rightly points out, p. 115 n. 13, that in negating both realities Paul is therefore negating “a pair of opposites so fundamental to the cosmos, being one of its elements as to make the cosmos what it is … ,” – i. e., Paul is denying for the “Israel of God” the determining reality of this age! Hence, “Paul is concerned with Teachers’ failure to announce the termination of these oppositional pairs, because the result of that failure is the falsification of the gospel in the sense that it hides from the Galatians the real world” (p. 119 n. 17, emphasis his). Paul’s opponents are presupposing the very antinomies Paul knows to be gone and then explicating “their unreal cosmos” by developing their own opposites (p. 119 n. 17). For Martyn, Paul then counters by introducing his own, new set of antinomies, a central one of which is the death of Christ and the Spirit vs. the law, the latter of which Martyn equates with “all religion,” pointing to Gal 4:8–11, 5:11, and 6:12–14 (pp. 88–89, 119–120; for his definition of “religion” as a “human enterprise” over against “God’s apocalyptic act in Christ,” see pp. 78–79). In accordance with my arguments throughout this volume, however, it is not Torah-observance that is at stake in Paul’s denial; in fact, Paul offers an eschatologically-determined redefinition of what constitutes God’s people in the new creation that entails keeping the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19)! Moreover, though being a Jew or gentile no longer determines one’s identity “in Christ,” this does not mean for Paul that one’s new identity is no longer expressed in regard to being Jewish or gentile, any more than being male and female, married or single disappears as if the Christian becomes an abstract, androgynous “person” (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 7:1–40), even in worship (1 Cor 11:2–16). Indeed, being slave or free, though abolished at a soteriological and ecclesiastical level, can still be significant as the divinely-determined social and 9

304

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

miss the shock of this twofold rejection: to deny the “cosmic polarity” made up of these two “pairs of opposites” is to declaim nothing less than that “the old cosmos has suffered its death.”10 For Paul, as the Pharisee among Pharisees (Gal 1:14; cf. Phil 3:5–6; 2 Cor 11:22), the distinction between Jew and gentile, having been determined by divine election and demarcated in the Abrahamic-Sinai covenant, had been the most fundamental reality of life (cf. Gal 2:15). In fact, in Paul’s tradition, maintaining this distinction was often more important than life itself (cf., e. g., the stories of the martyrs recounted in 1 Macc 1:41–64; 2:15–38, 49–64; 2 Macc 6:10–31; 7:1–42)! Yet given the eschatological reality in which God’s people now live ἐν Χριστῷ (Gal 5:6a), being a Jew or a gentile no longer defines the world or one’s membership in God’s people; conversely, membership in God’s people no longer creates a Jew/gentile distinction.11 What, then, according to Paul, is “effective” or what does “exist” now that the crucified, exalted Christ rules over his people in the new age (cf. τι ἰσχύει in Gal 5:6 with τί ἐστιν in Gal 6:15 and its negative expression, οὐδέν ἐστιν, in 1 Cor history-of-salvation context for expressing one’s new identity (see, e. g., Paul’s dealing with the slave-master relationship in Philemon, the treatment of 1 Cor 7:19 below, and chapter nine on Rom 15:1–13). Eschatological realities are still only inaugurated and must be lived out in the midst of the ongoing, present, evil age. 10 Theological Issues, 117. I.e., if Paul were a Pythagorean, this twofold denial would be like proclaiming that “Neither limit nor unlimited is anything; straight is not the opposite of crooked; and odd and even do not really exist … Mutatis mutandis for Paul the Pharisee to say that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything is for him to make a cosmic statement no less radical. In making that statement, Paul speaks in specific terms about the horrifying death of the cosmos” (p. 117). 11 The radical nature of Paul’s disavowal of both circumcision and uncircumcision can be seen in its contrast with the main point of Joseph and Aseneth, in which the conversion of Aseneth is also portrayed in terms of a new creation that lasts into the ages to come (Jos. Asen. 8:3, 9; 15:5; 16:14; 19:5; 21:4, 21; 27:10; and compare 8:3, 9; 12:1 with 20:7). But now this conversion as new creation leads not to the disavowal of the divide between Jew and gentile, but to its strengthening. For as Hubbard, New Creation, 74, points out, “the primary reason for presenting conversion as new creation was to address … the relation of the convert to the ethnic Jewish community” (emphasis his). Thus, in Jos. Asen. 20–21, the culmination of the Spirit’s work in bringing about her conversion/new creation was to make the Egyptian Aseneth acceptable to Joseph. In Jos. Asen. 8:9 Joseph consequently calls upon the God who makes all things alive (ζωοποιέω; cf. 2 Cor 3:6!) to renew her by his Spirit (ἀνακαινίζω; cf. 2 Cor 4:17 [!]; Rom 12:2), to refashion her (ἀναπλάσσω; cf. πλάσσω in Gen 2:7LXX), and to make her alive again (ἀναζωοποιέω) in order that she might become Jewish and overcome the Jew/gentile divide (cf. 7:5, 8; 8:5–6; 15:5–6; 16:16; 19:11; 21:5). As Hubbard, 73, again observes, Aseneth thus becomes the “Matriarch for the Gentiles,” the prototype and first fruits of the proselytes to come as an expression of a “realized eschatology” and the “ ‘paradigmatic convert’ ” (quoting Barclay). But since new creation is related only to gentiles, Aseneth is “das Zion der Proselyten” (Hubbard, 73, quoting Burchard). In stark contrast, for Paul the matriarch of the gentiles is not an Egyptian, but the Jewish “free woman,” Sarah, the mother from the Jerusalem above who gives “new creation” birth to children of the Spirit from both Jews and gentiles, apart from circumcision (Gal 4:21–31 with Gal 6:15). For a detailed analysis of Jos. Asen. 8:9 and a treatment of these others texts, see Hubbard, New Creation, 57–58, 63–65, 68, 72, 74; the emphasis on the contrast between Joseph and Aseneth and Paul is my own.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

305

7:19)? The positive counterparts to Paul’s negation of both circumcision and uncircumcision answer this fundamental question and in so doing bear the weight of Paul’s argument in their respective contexts: Gal 5:6a

οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία Gal 6:15a οὔτε περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία 1 Cor 7:19a ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν. Gal 5:6b ἀλλὰ πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη Gal 6:15b ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις 1 Cor 7:19b ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ.

Given the threefold, “this age-destroying” denials, the stark antitheses between what is denied and what is affirmed in these passages establish a threefold set of eschatological contrasts. And inasmuch as the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision was established by the old covenant, the eschatological contrasts are also covenantal. Moreover, the rhetorical parallels between these three passages indicate that Paul’s statement concerning the “new creation” in Gal 6:15b occupies the same position conceptually as the parallel expressions in Gal 5:6b and 1 Cor 7:19b regarding “faith” and the “commandments of God.” Paul therefore equates “faith working out, with regard to itself, through love” (Gal 5:6b)12 with the new covenant reality of the “new creation” (Gal 6:15b), which in turn can be framed in terms of “keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 12  This awkward translation reflects the middle voice of ἐνεργέω, which indicates that the faith that works is also impacted by its own activity, being “directly and personally involved in the process;” for this description of the force of the middle, see Bernard A. Taylor, “Deponency and Greek Lexicography,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 174. Betz, Galatians, 263 n. 97, suggests translating the middle voice, “become effective,” “come to expression,” pointing to the “fruit of the Spirit” in 5:22–23 as its referent. Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 887, renders it as faith being “active in relation to itself – putting itself into effect” – by means of “love.” On the understanding that dispositions such as “faith” are necessarily embodied in one’s way of life, individually and communally, and on its application to the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith,” see Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 19–61 and 347–354. For the working out of other Christian dispositions, see 2 Cor 1:6 (comfort in endurance), 1 Thess 2:13 (the word of God in believers), Col 1:29 (Christ’s ἐνέργεια in Paul’s life), and Eph 3:20 (God’s power in believers). See Rom 7:5 for, negatively, the “passions of sins” (τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν) working out (ἐνηργεῖτο) in one’s life in the “flesh” (σάρξ) and 2 Cor 4:12 for both death and life working out (ἐνεργεῖται) in one’s life. Betz, Galatians, 264, therefore rightly concludes that it is impossible for Paul to separate faith and love into “theory” and “practice”; for this same point, see already J. B.  Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 10th rev. ed. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1890 [1865]), 205, who sees faith here, as in James, as “a principle of practical energy, as opposed to a barren, inactive theory.”

306

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

7:19b), and vice versa.13 In order to determine the significance of these equations it will be instructive to examine each of these contrasts individually.

“Faith through Love” (Gal 5:6) In its own context, the radical contrast in Gal 5:6 between circumcision and uncircumcision on the one hand, and “faith” (πίστις) and “love” (ἀγάπη) on the other, supports why believers, by means of the power of the Spirit (cf. the instrumental dative, πνεύματι, in 5:5), now await the “hope” (ἐλπίς) of righteousness “from faith” (ἐκ πίστεως), rather than seeking to be justified within the realm of the Torah (ἐν νόμῳ). That is, Paul’s statement in 5:6 supports 5:5, which in turn supports 5:4 (cf. the twofold use of γάρ in 5:6 and 5:5).14 In Gal 5:5, ἐκ πίστεως picks up the same phrase from the quote of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11, where πίστις, though anarthrous as is common with abstract nouns and in prepositional phrases, is nevertheless a “qualitative-definite” noun.15 There, as here, ἐκ πίστεως forms the eschatological counterpart to life in the realm of the Torah under the old age (cf. 3:11–12: … ἐν νόμῳ … ὁ νόμος … with ἐν νόμῳ in 5:4; see too the designation of the two ages under the rubric of “law” and “faith” in 3:24–25: … ὁ νόμος … ἐκ πίστεως … ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως …).16 This eschatological reading is supported by the preferred construal of the syntax of Gal 3:11 in which δῆλον is taken with the following ὅτι-clause, not the previous one, thereby producing the translation: 13  For the conviction that “a comparison of the second members in the three passages is instructive,” see already Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1977 [1920]), 356. Burton, p. 356, sees πίστις and ἀγάπη in Gal 5:6 as “purely ethical terms, descriptive of the fundamental moral attitude of the Christian,” while “keeping the commandments” in 1 Cor 7:19 is “a more external characterization of the Christian life and more formal.” Over against both, “new creation” in Gal 6:15 is “less definite as to the moral character of the new life than either of the other expressions,” though it “directs attention to the radical change involved rather than to the external expression or the moral quality of the life thus produced.” The deposit of these contrasts in 2 Cor 5:7 will demonstrate that such distinctions are only apparent. 14 Contra those who, like Jackson, New Creation, 107, take 5:5 and 5:6 to be “independent explanatory clauses” for 5:4. 15  So Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 243, 247, 249, who quotes Robertson in concluding that, “for the most part, ‘no vital difference was felt between articular and anarthrous abstract nouns’ ” (p. 249). 16  For this point and the following translation see Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 96–98, following Wakefield, Wright, and Hays, who also stresses that here Hab 2:4 is referring to eschatological life, not to daily conduct (pointing to Gal 3:21b; 5:25; 6:8 as well). Morales, p. 98, thus quotes Cosgrove with approval: “ ‘Faith is conceived here as an eschatological reality, which enters the world with God’s action in Christ’ ” and concludes that in this context the outpouring of the Spirit is the eschatological sign of the inauguration of the new creation that comes about through the proclamation of this message of faith.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

307

“and because no one is righteous before God in the law (restating 3:10), it is evident that ‘the righteous will live from faith,’ ” i. e., from God’s faithful covenant commitment to deliver eschatologically those who trust in him. Just as Christ redeemed his people after the period of the Torah (Gal 3:17, 24; 4:4), so too πί­ στις, personified in its metonymic role representing the new age, “came” at the eschatological turning point in history (Gal 3:23, 25).17 Against this backdrop, the reference to ἐκ πίστεως in 5:5 as the counterpart to ἐν νόμῳ in 5:4 should also be taken as a metonymy for the new covenant era.18 In terms of the main point of my thesis, the contrast between “faith” and the “Torah” in Gal 5:4–5 is therefore not a material contrast between two different ways of relating to God, but an eschatological contrast between the two epochs of redemptive history. Furthermore, in contrast to both the MT and LXX traditions of Hab 2:4, ἐκ πίστεως in Gal 3:11 and 5:5 is unspecified as to the one exercising this faith (cf. too Gal 3:24 and the quote from Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 and Heb 10:38). As such, ἐκ πίστεως in 3:11 can encapsulate both the faithfulness of Christ as the means of justification (in Gal 2:16 justification is διὰ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ; in 3:22 the promise is given ἐκ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and the corresponding call to trust in Christ for one’s justification (cf. Gal 2:16: ἐπιστεύσαμεν ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ; cf. 3:22: the promise ἐκ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is given τοῖς πιστεύουσιν).19 In the same way, the unspecified ἐκ πίστεως in 5:5 encapsulates both the justification accomplished by Christ’s faithfulness as the expression of God’s grace (5:2, 4) and the faithfulness of the one awaiting right­ eousness (5:5–6). In the contexts of both Gal 3 and 5, believers now anticipate God’s vindication of their lives at the final judgment on the basis of what Christ  For my eschatological reading of Gal 3:7–25, see chapter one. Gal 3:11–12 and 23–25, see above, pp. 41–43, 57, 144. For Paul’s other uses of ἐκ πίστε­ ως, see Rom 3:30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:16; 14:29. What is equally of interest is its absence in those letters in which Hab 2:4 and the debate with the “Judaizers” is not as prominent. 19 With Martyn, Galatians, 314 and contra Campbell, Deliverance, 862–864, 890, who convincingly links 5:5 with 3:11 and reads 3:12 as a reference to eschatological life, but then limits the reference of πίστις in 3:12 solely to Christ’s faithfulness seen in his death and resurrection, though he takes 5:5 to refer to the faith of Christians: in Gal 5:5 the Galatians are not being called “to have faith and hope in terms of their own pious resources; rather … to live in the unshakeable and irresistible faith and hope that Christ has already established for them … The Galatians’ faith is resourced from elsewhere, and its end, in the glories of life at the eschaton, is already certain, as long as they do not forcefully abandon this location” (p. 891, second emphasis mine, pointing to Campbell’s own version of the contractual soteriology he otherwise critiques). For the tension in Campbell’s view at this point, compare esp. pp. 101–104, 108, 116, 163–164, 179, 617, 705, 975 n. 13 and 712–713, 817–821 on faith as a “marker of salvation” rather than “a solitary condition” in “fulfillment of a contractual condition” with Campbell’s portrayals of Paul’s soteriology, which “continually creates room for the human rejection of God’s constitutive initiative” (p. 161) based on human freedom (p. 162, cf. p. 908). However, as with the more traditional view, Campbell too posits that believers can nevertheless have assurance since their faith and its ethical expression are God’s apocalyptic (in his sense) work by the Spirit (cf. p. 892)! This tension in Campbell’s work is not resolved. 17

18 On

308

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

has faithfully accomplished in the cross, in which they now trust by the power of the Spirit, all of which is an eschatological fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:1–14, 18–19; 5:5; for this same point, see Phil 3:8–9 and chapter six). Within Gal 5:4–5, since being justified (δικαιόω) ἐν νόμῷ in v. 4 is contrasted to awaiting the hope of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) ἐκ πίστεως in v. 5, falling away from χάρις in v. 4 becomes the opposite of awaiting righteousness by the πνεῦμα in v. 5. It thus follows that, if “law” and “faith” are best taken to represent their respective covenantal epochs, then “grace” and the “Spirit” represent the divine realities that make the inheritance of the Abrahamic promise under the new covenant possible (cf. Gal 1:6, 15; 2:21; 3:2–5, 18; 4:6, 29; 5:16–26; 6:8). In Gal 5:5 this inheritance ultimately entails justification at the final judgment (cf. Paul’s other uses of ἀπεκδέχομαι in Rom 8:19, 23, 25; 1 Cor 1:7; Phil 3:20, which always refer to the future, eschatological redemption). In the context of the believers’ awaiting their future justification, it is therefore striking that here “hope” (ἐλπίς) is the object of what is awaited, rather than being the act of “hoping for” future redemption or righteousness (for this latter use, see Rom 5:2, 5; 8:20, 24–25; 15:12; 1 Cor 15:19; 2 Cor 1:10; 1 Tim 4:10). Far from being an expression of wishful longing, the believer’s ἐλπίς refers to the divinely ensured certainty of future righteousness when sought πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως. As we have seen, Paul’s contrast in Gal 5:6 supports the surety of the believer’s waiting in 5:5 (note again the γάρ in 5:6a). The believer’s firm confidence (ἐλπίς) in his/her final salvation is not based on maintaining the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision emblematic of Hagar’s covenant of slavery derived from Mount Sinai, which Paul argued was κατὰ σάρκα in its identification with the “now” Jerusalem of this age (Gal 4:23–26). In stark contrast (ἀλλά), the believer’s hope is based on the eschatological reality of faithfulness to God (πίστις) emblematic of Sarah’s covenant of freedom derived from God’s promise to the patriarchs (cf. κατὰ  Ἰσαὰκ), which Paul characterized as κατὰ πνεῦμα in its identification with the “above” Jerusalem of the age to come (4:22–31; cf. Rom 15:8–9 and 13).20 In Paul’s conception, this is because faith, which is focused on the eschatological hope of righteousness, organically expresses itself in love, which is the fulfillment of the Torah that inherits the age to come (cf. 5:6 with 5:14). For Paul, faith-love is thus the Spirit-created covenant-keeping that confidently leads to justification on the last day. In short, to keep the covenant by keeping the Torah is to be saved in accordance with “grace,” “by the Spirit,” “from faith” (cf. Gal 5:4–5, 14 with Eph 2:8–10).21  Contra those who, like Betz, Galatians, 262, construe 5:6 to be the consequence of 5:5. those who, like Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 144–145, take Paul’s use of πληρόω in Gal 5:14 and 6:2, instead of ποιέω as in Gal 3:10, to indicate a contrast between Christian and Jewish observance of the law (pp. 145, 160–161, following here Barclay, Betz, Westerholm). Contra too the view of Morales and others who take the passive form to refer to Christ as the one who has fulfilled the law “in one word” (p. 145, following Hays and 20

21 Contra

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

309

Clearly, then, eschatological righteousness is never an immanent human development or accomplishment. “Faith working out, with regard to itself, through love” is inextricably linked in Gal 5:5 to the decisive, determinative power of the Spirit, who brings it about as a matter of grace under the new covenant of the new age (cf. Gal 3:1–6 with 4:21–31 as summarized in 5:1, with Rom 3:24; 5:5; 7:6; 8:2–4, 11–16; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 1:22; 3:1–6, 8, 17–18; Eph 2:8–10; 1 Thess 1:5, etc.). This “circumcision” of the new covenant of the new age is thus not performed in the flesh under the Torah, but in the heart by the Spirit (cf. Rom 2:28–29, Phil 3:3, and chapters six and seven above, as well as Col 2:11, where true circumcision is the consequence of the cross). This circumcision of the heart stands in stark contrast to those circumcised in the flesh under the previous epoch of the law, during which Israel, except for the remnant, remained devoid of the Spirit’s power, failed to keep the covenant, and suffered the curse of the exile as a result (see Gal 3:10; Rom 9:6, 27; 11:1–10; 2 Cor 3:7–15, etc.). So the eschatological contrast of Gal 5:6 grounds the confident expectation of eschatological righteousness in 5:5 because, ἐν Χριστῷ,22 neither the old covenant Martyn). Morales is insightful, however, in taking ἀγαπάω in the quote from Lev 18:5 to hearken back to Christ’s death in Gal 2:20b as “an incarnate example of the love described in Lev 19:18 as understood by Paul” (p. 145). Thus, as an example (but not the point of 5:14!), Lev 19:18 has been “fulfilled and redefined by Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross. This cross-shaped love represents the first and foundational fruit of the Spirit brought forth in believers (Gal 5:22)” (p. 167). But it is not precise to speak of the “law of Christ” in 6:2 as Christ’s redefining the law in some way since the definition of the law as love comes from Lev 19:18 (cf. Morales, pp. 145, 161, following Hays and Martyn). For this same attempt to distinguish between “doing” and “fulfilling” as a key to Paul’s view of the law, this time in relation to Rom 2:14 and 10:5–8, see Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTSMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 111, 122–132 and my response above, p. 232 n. 51. I take “keeping” and “doing” and “fulfilling the law” to be synonymous. 22 I take ἐν Χριστῷ in Gal 5:6 instrumentally (i. e., “by means of Christ”) signifying, “by means of what God has accomplished eschatologically through the coming of the Messiah.” For an eschatological interpretation of “in Christ” in this context as a reference not to “mysticism” or to “ecclesiastical institutions,” but to “a transference by faith in Christ … from the present age into the age to come” as an act of new creation, “since the only conceivable analogy to God’s act in inaugurating the new age is his creation of the world at the beginning …,” see C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 173 on the related text of 2 Cor 5:17, with reference to Gal 6:15 as well. Barrett, 173, also cites Bultmann’s dictum that “ ‘ἐν Χριστῷ is not a mystical but an eschatological formula.’ ” Cf. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 159, who suggests that ἐν + dative as applied to Christ is best taken in Paul in a spherical sense (“one is in the sphere of Christ’s control;” cf. 1 Cor 15:52). Although this reading is appropriate in certain contexts, especially with stative verbs, here an instrumental reading (“by means of Christ”) as the other possible meaning seems more contextually appropriate. In either case it does not refer to some kind of mystical, corporate, or participatory union. Over against the consensus reading of the “in Christ” language as referring to some sort of “union” with Christ, the impulses set forth in the programmatic work of A. J. M. Wedderburn still need to be developed; see his “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘In Christ’ and ‘With Christ,’ ” JSNT 25 (1985): 83–97. For support of a spherical and instrumental reading of the ἐν Χριστῷ language in Paul, building on Wedderburn’s work,

310

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

identity of “circumcision,” nor the identity of being “uncircumcised,” which was also determined in relationship to the old covenant, no longer accomplish anything (τι ἰσχύει) regarding the hope of being found righteous on the day of judgment.23 Under the new covenant, Jews, qua Jews, and gentiles, qua gentiles, are now being incorporated into the people of God without either having to become the other (cf. the case of Titus in Gal 2:3 with the charge against Peter in 2:14). It is not too much to say, therefore, with Bengel, that on the positive contrast of Gal 5:6 stat totus Christianismus.24 The rejection in Gal 5:6 of both circumcision and uncircumcision over against faith corresponds to the principle later enunciated in Rom 3:30: God “will justify the circumcision from faith (ἐκ πίστεως) and the uncircumcision through faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως).” Since this equalizing of Jew and gentile before God derives from the central Torah-confession of the oneness of God (cf. εἷς ὁ θεὸς in Rom 3:30 with κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν in Deut 6:4LXX), Paul draws the same conclusion in Rom 3:31 as in Gal 5:14: Paul’s gospel of πίστις in no way brings the Torah to an end in terms of its impact (cf. his use of καταργέω in Rom 3:30 with its use in Gal 5:4);25 instead, Paul establishes the law (cf. ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν) both in terms of its goal and in terms of its fulfillment in the life of the believer (cf. Rom 3:30 with Rom 10:4). The righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ to all those who are faithful without distinction has now been revealed “apart from (the epoch of the) law,” though it is being witnessed to “by the law and the prophets,” i. e., by the Scriptures of the old covenant (Rom 3:21–22; cf. the chain of Scripture in 3:10–18 and, e. g., Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10, Ezek 36:26–27 and Jer 31:31–34 in 2 Cor 3:3, 6, and Ps 98:1–3 in Rom 1:16–17 for Paul’s use of the threefold canon). In short, in Rom 3:31 the “establishment of the law” is once again a see Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 117–122. 23  Contra Campbell, Deliverance, 888, who translates Gal 5:6, “rather, only ‘(are we capable) in Christ Jesus … faith putting itself into effect through love.’ ” But the more natural word order of the sentence (only in extreme syntactical-contextual cases should one violate the clausebreak created by ἀλλά), the parallel to the consequence of Christ’s death in 6:14, and the role of God’s call as the ground for the parallel in 1 Cor 7:19 support taking “in Christ” in 5:6 as the means by which the circumcision/uncircumcision distinction is destroyed, rather than as the motive for faith. On the other hand, Campbell, p. 887, sees clearly the implication of Paul’s use of the middle voice in 5:6: The traditional reading cannot account for “Paul’s unavoidably ethical use of language here – in terms of capacity and generation, here most specifically of love” (pp. 887–888). Thus, for Campbell, this text conveys the sense in which Christians access the new eschatological reality created by Christ’s resurrection: “by indwelling Christ’s own journey” (p. 890). The Christian indwells “the fidelity of Christ’s passion … Christ’s story figures forth in their lives in terms of love (or it ought to)” (p. 890). 24  Quoted by Lightfoot, Galatians, 204. 25 On the passive use of καταργέω as a technical term meaning “to be made ineffective, powerless, idle,” “to be nullified,” see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 301–309.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

311

matter of eschatological fulfillment. It is simply a false dichotomy, therefore, to pit the concept of covenant “fulfillment” within a history of redemption against an “apocalyptic” inbreaking of God’s kingdom, when the former points to, longs for, and eventuates in the age-changing, identity-changing reality of the latter. Just as Gal 5:6 grounds 5:5, the eschatological reality marked out πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως in Gal 5:5 grounds Paul’s absolute statement in 5:4a (cf. γάρ in 5:5a): those who deny the eschatological turn of the epochs by still attempting to be justified in the realm of the Torah (ἐν νόμῳ) are cut off from the decisive salvific impact Christ has brought about (κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ).26 In other words, according to the restatement of this point in 5:4b, to go back on the eschatological reality that is effective ἐν Χριστῷ by submitting to circumcision is to return to the ineffective reality of life ἐν νόμῳ (cf. 5:1–3 with 5:6). To do so is to be removed ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, which is to fall away from the χάρις which has been repeatedly identified throughout Galatians as now coming from both God and Christ in the era of faith (see Gal 1:3, 6, 15; 2:21; 6:8). To confess Christ and still maintain the necessity of living under the old covenant is a self-contradiction that renders the former meaningless and the latter powerless. As Paul put it programmatically in Gal 2:21, “I do not reject the grace (χάρις) of God, for if righteousness is by means of the (era of) Torah (διὰ νόμου), then Christ died for nothing” (cf. 3:21; cf. Acts 13:38–39). It will be helpful at this juncture to reiterate my basic point concerning this polarity yet again: Paul’s reason for his radical renunciation of the ongoing validity of the Torah is not material (the law demands too much or too little), or anthropological (humanity is too sinful or too prideful), but eschatological (Gal 3:12: the [covenant era of the] law is not from [the covenant era of] faith). The complementary points of Gal 2:21 and 5:4 support the parallel points of Gal 3:1–12 and 5:2–3: taking on circumcision as the covenant sign of the old covenant era ties one to the reality of that era, which was characterized by God’s covenant curse in Deut 27:26 on those who did not keep “all” that the Torah prescribed (cf. πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά in 3:10 with ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι in 5:3). It is also crucial to keep in mind that the curse is pronounced not because it is impossible to keep all that is written in the Torah, but because it is possible to do so, thus legitimizing the previous warning for failing to do so.27 Indeed, in Gal 5:21 Paul levies this same warning to those who follow the desire and works of the flesh. 26 Taking δικαιοῦσθε in 5:4 to be a conative present in view of the fact that, for Paul, being justified by means of the Torah, now that the Messiah has come, is an actual impossibility (Gal 2:16–21; 3:10–12), a point reiterated in 5:4 itself. For the conative present, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 534. 27 For the important conclusion, based on an examination of Deut 27:26 within Deuteronomy and related texts (cf. esp. Jer 11:3–4), that “covenant loyalty, not sinless perfection, is the primary and fundamental issue in Deuteronomy,” see Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal

312

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

In response to these covenant stipulations, the new covenant era brings about the faith expressed “though love” that fulfills “all” the Torah as encapsulated in Lev 19:18 (cf. ὁ πᾶς νόμος in 5:14 and the quote from Lev 18:5 in 3:12 with 3:10 and 5:3).28 Whereas those living under the old covenant did not and do not keep “all” that is written (3:10) in the “whole Torah” (5:3), those empowered by the Spirit under the new covenant do just that (5:14). Paul therefore summons the Galatians, as “children of promise” who are “born of the Spirit” (Gal 4:21–31), to use their freedom from the era of the law and its curse to serve one another “through the love” born of faith that fulfills the law (cf. the reference of the anaphoric διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης in 5:13 to δι᾽ ἀγάπης in 5:6). Indeed, “love” is the first of the “fruit of the Spirit,” against which the law can bring no accusation (5:22–23). Paul’s call in 5:13–14 “to serve” one another “as slaves” (cf. δουλεύετε in 5:13) by the power of the Spirit is therefore an ironic reversal of the “slavery” under the flesh that characterizes those still “under the [curse of the]

3:8–10, WUNT 2/133 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 61. Wisdom argues that the “failure to do the whole law functions in Deuteronomy as an idiomatic expression which means to abandon the covenant with Yahweh and to serve other gods” (pp. 61–62; cf. pp. 176–177). Thus, “in Deuteronomy the curse of the covenant will fall on an idolatrous nation. The effort required from Israel to keep all of the law, therefore, has nothing to do with striving for perfection or attempting to be justified by legalistic means, but rather it negatively involves the avoidance of idolatry and positively involves faithfulness to Yahweh. The curse falls on those who abandon covenant relationship with Yahweh by neglecting all the things written in the book of the law in order to serve other gods” (p. 46 n. 20). For Paul, then, compromising the gospel is tantamount to the disloyalty to the covenant that is tantamount to idolatry since this gospel, first proclaimed with the establishment and promise of the covenant with Abraham, was linked to the curse levied under the Sinai covenant for breaking the old covenant. Wisdom himself, however, does not stress this unity between Abraham and Sinai since he combines his eschatological reading with a material contrast between the law and faith. Wisdom therefore concludes that Paul’s opponents were disloyal to the covenant in a way tantamount to idolatry because they were extending the function of the law, especially as expressed in the “works of the law” as distinct from and after the promise to Abraham to justify the gentiles by faith, beyond the period of time for which it was intended (pp. 180–181). In contrast to the position taken here, Wisdom also follows Dunn and Cranfield, et al., in equating the “works of the law” with a narrower subset of the law, i. e., “with something less than obedience and faithfulness to the law” (p. 179). 28  It is of interest for the comparison of Paul with James that James 2:8 therefore makes the same point as Gal 5:6–14: over against those who break the law through their favoritism (cf. James 2:1–7, 9 with Gal 4:17), the law under the authority of God as King (νόμος βασιλικός) is likewise said to be fulfilled (τελέω) by Lev 19:18. Hence, those who do not keep the “whole law” (cf. ὅλον τὸν νόμον in James 2:10) will be judged “by means of the law of freedom” as kept by those of genuine faith (cf. δὶα νόμου ἐλευθερίας in James 2:12 with doing the law of freedom [νόμος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας] in James 1:25 and the argument of James 2:18–26). In this latter context, compare the one who perseveres as a ποιητὴς ἔργου in James 1:25 with the rejection of πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων in 2:20, 26. James’s view of genuine faith as embodied in its works thus correlates with the “freedom” of the Galatians as manifest in their fulfillment of the law through faith-love (Gal 5:1, 6, 13–14). Of course, the contrast in James 1:22–25 between hearing and doing the word/ law recalls Rom 2:13.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

313

law” as children of “Hagar” (cf. δουλεία and δουλεύω in 4:24, 25; 5:1).29 The freedom of the new covenant slave finds its expression in the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22–24) that can be summarized in the commitment of “the spiritual” (οἱ πνευματικοί) to bear one another’s burdens, especially in the call to restore the transgressor (Gal 6:1–2a). In Gal 6:2b Paul designates this fulfillment of Lev 19:18, “the law of [the] Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Like the Galatians themselves, who in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham are “of [the] Christ” (cf. ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ in Gal 3:29; cf. 1 Cor 3:23), the “law of [the] Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) is best taken as short-hand for the way in which the Torah itself now belongs to the Messiah. As such, it corresponds to the way in which the Torah is said in Rom 8:2 to belong to the Spirit who brings life (ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς). So interpreted, “the Torah of Christ” is the same as the “Torah of Moses,” albeit now under the new covenant (cf. 1 Cor 9:9).30 In its new eschatological “location” under the rule of the Messiah, the “law of Christ” was not an unexpected or unique configuration of halakha, nor was it a reference to an abstract principle of love that replaces the Torah as a new law. The Torah of “freedom,” like the Sinai covenant of “slavery” before it, was derived from and preached in advance to Abraham (cf. Gal 3:6–9; 4:22)!31 Indeed, in marshaling the figures of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac as precursors to the Galatians, Paul is insisting that the righteousness of the believer has always been established only in relationship to “faith working out with regard to itself through love” (cf. Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac as being of one piece with those of “faith” in Gal 3:6–9, 14, 29; 4:22–23, 28, 31; cf. too the references to Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac in Rom 9:6–10, based on Gen 18:10, 14; 21:12).

29  Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 144, considers the reference to becoming a slave to one another through love as a paradox in view of Paul’s earlier reference to slavery to the law. But this paradox dissipates once we see that the issue, for Paul, is not the law itself, but whether one in fact fulfills the law or not. Whereas Morales thinks “it seems strange” that Paul should now speak of fulfilling the Law “given the apparently negative picture of the Law that he has presented thus far in the epistle,” Morales himself maintains that Gal 3:21 and 4:21 “imply positive things about the Law,” so that “Paul’s view of the Law might not be as negative as many suggest;” indeed, 4:21 “indicates that in Galatians the Law does not have an unequivocally negative connotation” (p. 144). 30 For the OT references to the “law of Moses,” see pp. 38–39 n. 13 above. For related examples from 2TJ, see CD 15:2, 9, 12; 1QS 5:8; 4Q266 11:6; 4 Ezra 14:22; Aristob. 2:4, 9; Eup. 1:1. For the other NT references to the “law of Moses,” see Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; 15:5 (explicitly associated with circumcision); 28:23; Heb 10:28. 31  Contra, e. g., Betz, Galatians, 263, 320, who sees Paul’s development of the new creation motif in relationship to “Gentile Christianity” to be the implicit, “de facto,” “establishment of a new religion.”

314

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

The Reality of the New Creation (Gal 6:15) The widely attested textual variant in Gal 6:15 indicates that the conceptual link between Gal 5:6 and 6:15 was recognized early on. By adding ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ and replacing ἐστιν with ἰσχύει in the latter text early church scholars sought to conform the terminology of 6:15 to that of 5:6.32 The two texts were clearly being read together, and rightfully so. If 5:6 spoke about what is now eschatologically “effective” in anticipation of one’s future justification (cf. τι ἰσχύει), 6:15 speaks about what now “exists” in anticipation of that future righteousness (τί ἐστιν), namely, καινὴ κτίσις. In moving conceptually from the contrast of 5:6 to that of 6:15 Paul thereby underscores the eschatological reality at the core of his gospel by explicitly declaring its significance: the faith-love brought about by the Spirit means that the new creation has dawned. The converse is also true. The nonexistence of circumcision and uncircumcision as determinative for “reaping” the life of the age to come (6:8–10) must entail the corresponding destruction of the present κόσμος as it relates to these identities (6:14b; cf. Gal 3:28). For only in this world is the Jew/gentile covenant contrast constitutive for defining God’s people. Hence, as Jackson has pointed out, the contrast between the Judaizers’ compelling circumcision as a sign of fidelity to God, as if this world were still determinative for believers, and Paul’s relativizing circumcision and uncircumcision altogether since the cross has inaugurated the new creation, reflects a “soteriological divide” between the two positions.33 In Jackson’s words, “The eradication of circumcision as the most fundamental identity marker of the people of God reverberates with the eschatologically infused soteriology which has been at play throughout this letter …;” since the Jew/gentile distinction is part of the old cosmos, “to receive circumcision was to return to the κόσμος from which they had been rescued.”34 The γάρ of 6:15a therefore indicates that the contrast in 6:15 explains why it is that the agitators boast in the circumcision of the flesh (i. e., foreskin) of gentile believers (6:12a, 13): they are still living under the old covenant in the old age of this world. In contrast, Paul boasts only in the cross of the sovereign Lord, Jesus the Messiah, by which the κόσμος has been crucified to Paul (ἐμοί) and Paul (κἀγώ) to the κόσμος (6:14a; cf. 2:19–20).35 The cross of Christ has killed the reality of the world in relationship to Paul and, as a result, 32  See the secondary, but strongly attested textual tradition created by the harmonization of the two passages. For this point, see too Jackson, New Creation, 106. 33  Ibid., 87. 34  Ibid., 87, 95, pointing to Gal 4:3–4; 6:15a. 35 With, e. g., Burton, Galatians, 355 and contra Betz, Galatians, 319, 319 n. 76, who argues that the γάρ of 6:15 is ambiguous, indicating that v. 15 is the reason for v. 14, but at the same time also the consequence of v. 14. Materially this is true, but rhetorically it is doubtful that Paul intends a double entendre here.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

315

killed Paul’s subservience to it in return. Paul’s crucifixion to the world is his liberation from the world. Paul’s statement in 6:14–15 regarding his “crucifixion to the world,” the significance of which is interpreted by the non-existence of circumcision and uncircumcision, parallels Paul’s declaration in Gal 2:19 regarding his “crucifixion with Christ,” the significance of which is interpreted by his “death to the law” (cf. too Rom 7:4). In these texts, the corresponding realities of the crucifixion of the world and of Paul, of death to the law as it functioned to condemn (cf. Gal 3:10–13), and of the circumcision/uncircumcision divide are all coterminous metonymies of the old covenant of the “the present evil age” (cf. Gal 1:4; 4:3, 9). The cross-created demarcation between the present evil age and the inauguration of the new creation therefore represents the same demarcation as that between Paul’s “former (ποτέ) way of life in Judaism” and his life “when” (ὅτε) God revealed his Son to Paul (Gal 1:13–17), which Paul can describe as the contrast between dying to the law and living to God (Gal 2:19). Theologically and rhetorically, then, as Lyons rightly comments, these polarities constitute “ ‘a contrast of redemptive history personalized in Paul’s self-description and made paradigmatic for the experience of every Christian.’ ”36 Given its eschatological and soteriological connotations, the contrast between the “new creation” in 6:15 and “the world” in 6:14 also takes us to the center of the debate over whether “new creation” for Paul is fundamentally cosmic and/ or anthropological in nature.37 It must first be noted that the letter’s conclusion in 6:11–18 recalls its introduction in 1:1–5, as well as Paul’s earlier discussion of the κόσμος in 4:1–11 (on the latter, see chapter two above). Jackson is therefore right to emphasize that Paul’s declaration in 6:14 of his deliverance from the world in which he lived “involved rescue from ‘the present evil age’ (1:4) and the enslaving elements of the cosmos, including the law (4:3, 9) … .”38 The present evil “age” (αἰών) of 1:4 is thus unpacked in terms of the “world” (κόσμος) in 36  Quoted by Hubbard, New Creation, 192 (cf. p. 200 as well). Contra Hubbard, p. 193, I do not include Gal 1:10 as part of the contrast between this age and the inaugurated age to come, taking it instead to be a description of the opponents’ critique of Paul’s apostolic ministry; nor do I think that Paul’s former life in Judaism can be described as “people pleasing” or “merely human religiosity” (Hubbard, pp. 214, 217, 226). Indeed, for Hubbard, in Paul’s “ ‘biography of reversal’ ” he “deliberately aligned the law and ‘his former way of life in Judaism’ with a merely human, sarkic, perspective” (p. 209). Hence, for Hubbard, Paul equated the flesh with the law (cf. Gal 3:3; 5:16–18) since Hubbard takes the phrase “under the law” to be a reference to submission to the law itself, which “is tantamount to continuing in the flesh” and results in “works of the flesh” (p. 208). Accordingly, for Paul, “the Spirit renders the law obsolete” (p. 201, emphasized in the original). In stark contrast, I argue that for Paul the Spirit brings about the fulfillment of the law under the new covenant, with the designation “under law” referring not to the law itself, but to being under the curse of the law for disobedience (see above to Gal 5:6, pp. 45–50, and chapter ten in this volume). 37  See above, p. 301 n. 4. 38 Jackson, New Creation, 88 n. 30.

316

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

4:3–9 and 6:14–15.39 Salvation is certainly a deliverance from the dominance of the powers of the world. Indeed, the church is an outpost of the kingdom of God in the midst of Satan’s current reign over this world (1 Thess 2:18; 1 Cor 5:5; 15:24–25; see below). Yet Jackson goes too far in concluding from this that the “world’s” crucifixion to Paul and vice versa entails more than merely Paul’s own personal freedom from its reality and dominance, it required a cosmological defeat of the enslaving power of this age itself. The focus on Paul himself in 6:14 and the contrast in human identity in 6:15 both point to the personal deliverance of the believer from this evil age, not to a cosmological deliverance of this age itself from its enslavement to evil (cf. ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ … in 1:4).40 In 2 Cor 5:17 it is those “in Christ” who are a new creation. So too, as Thrall points out, the new creation in Gal 6:15 does not have a “strictly cosmic sense” since in 6:14 “it is in (Paul’s) own personal case (ἐμοί) that the world has been destroyed, and it is his own previous relationship to the cosmos (κἀγὼ κόσμῳ) that has ceased to exist.”41 Moreover, it is hard to conceive of how, for Paul, this evil age has already been overcome in any universal, cosmological sense. Though the new creation has dawned and the life-dominating reality of the old age no longer determines the lives of those who have been crucified with Christ, those outside of Christ, both Jews and gentiles, remain blinded by the god(s) of this world and enslaved to the life of the flesh devoid of the Spirit (cf. Gal 4:3 and 8 with 2 Cor 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Rom 7:5; 8:5–9; Eph 2:1–3; 6:12). Indeed, to fall prey to the evil age is still a deadly danger (1 Thess 3:5; 2 Cor 11:1–3; Rom 8:12–13; 13:14; Gal 5:13–19; 6:8). The anthropological new creation in the present will be matched by a cosmological new creation only with the future resurrection of believers and the concomitant redemption of the creation (cf. 1 Cor 15:23–28, 51–55 and Phil 3:20–21 with Rom

39  With Jackson, New Creation, 98–100, who demonstrates their conceptual parallels and also points to the way in which αἰών can be used interchangeably with κόσμος in 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18–19 (p. 98). Contra Hubbard, New Creation, 216, who thinks 1:4 is too far away from the context of 6:15 to be related; but see below, pp. 320–321, regarding the corresponding conceptual link between 1:6–9 and 6:16. For the association of the “new creation” with the “new age,” see too Jub. 1:29; 4:26; 1 En. 72:1; cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; Rev 21:1; 2 Pet 3:13; 1 En. 91:16–17; 4 Ezra 7:75; 2 Bar. 32:6; 44:11–12 (as listed by Jackson, p. 100 n. 99). 40 With Jackson, New Creation, against Hubbard, New Creation, the link between Paul’s reference in Gal 1:4 to being rescued “from/out of this present, evil age” (ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ) and his statements in Gal 4:3 and 6:14 regarding being set free from and crucified to the “world” (κόσμος), together with the admonition in 1 Cor 7:29, 31 to live “as if” (ὡς μή) the end of this age was already here, supports reading “new creation” as a “cosmologically” significant reality (see Jackson, Creation, 91). However, the new age of the new creation is a life-defining reality only for the believer. For with Hubbard against Jackson, the ongoing reality of the old age, which is still present (Gal 1:4!) and still passing away (1 Cor 7:29!), together with the contextual referents within the key texts themselves, indicates that this cosmological reality is being experienced in the present only anthropologically and only partially at that. 41 Thrall, Second Corinthians, 423.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

317

8:18–25). The former “crucifixion to the world” is a foretaste of the latter resurrection with Christ (2 Cor 4:13–18).42 Second, Jackson also rightly observes that when speaking about the death of the world and the reality of the new creation in 6:14–15 Paul does not have in view merely his own experience of personal transformation.43 Paul relativizes both circumcision and uncircumcision. Even if others, including the Judaizers, do not acknowledge it, the identity and status of all humanity have now been changed, which does signal a transformation that is cosmological in significance, if not scope (cf. 2 Cor 5:16). To deliver the individual believer from this evil age, God had to bring to naught the reality of an identity defined by circumcision and uncircumcision, which is constitutive of the world in which the Christian formerly lived. The change brought about by the cross regarding human identity in this world is thus universal in relevance, so that Paul can preach it universally as an implication of the gospel. In this regard as well, relativizing both circumcision and uncircumcision thus requires an action of cosmic power and eschatological significance. Indeed, only the power of God’s own Spirit can achieve it (Gal 3:1–4; 4:6–7, 29; 5:5, 16, 18, 22; 6:8). This reality too, however, is anthropologically centered and inaugurated only for “those [Jews and gentiles] from faith (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως) who together, as equal “sons of Abraham,” have received the promise of the Spirit “through faith” (διὰ τῆς πίστεως; Gal 3:7, 14). Third, at the same (eschatological) time this death of and to the world is not universally recognized, accepted, or experienced by either Jew or gentile. In Paul’s words, the “present evil age” still exists (Gal 1:4). As stressed above, the impact of the “new creation” takes place only within the community of the elect who have been rescued from the ongoing world around them (see again Paul’s use of the pronouns in 6:14: ἐμοί … ἐμοί … κἀγώ and compare it with Gal 4:3; 1 Cor 1:20–21, 26–31; 2:12; 2 Cor 3:14; 4:3–6; Rom 1:21–32; 2:17–24; Phil 2:15; Col 1:6; 2:20; Eph 2:2–3, 11–13). Hence, just as Paul declares his own crucifixion (σταυρόω) to the world in Gal 6:14, in Gal 5:24 Paul can also describe all “those who belong to the Messiah” (οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ) as having “crucified the flesh (τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν) with its passions and desires.” In contrast, “those who do [the 42  Within Galatians itself, the believers’ hope is for the establishment of their righteousness in conjunction with their future inheritance of the life of the age to come (cf. Gal 2:16; 5:5; 6:5, 7–8 with 1 Cor 4:5; 6:9; 15:50; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:5–16, 27; Eph 1:14, 18; 5:5). Jackson affirms the significance of the future resurrection of believers and concomitant redemption of the cosmos, though his emphasis is on God’s salvific work in Christ in the past (New Creation, 6, 91, 102 104, 168). Jackson, p. 104, also recognizes these future references in Galatians, though he minimizes them as a “paucity.” He consequently views such a sequential, historical distinction between anthropological and cosmological dimensions of the “new creation” in Paul’s thought to be a false dichotomy, so that he repeatedly summarizes the inauguration of the new creation as already encompassing the individual, the community, and the cosmos (Creation, 4, 5 n. 11, 6, 83, 114, 137, 147–149). 43 Jackson, New Creation, 89.

318

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

works of the flesh]” (οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες in reference to τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός in 5:19–21) “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21; cf. Gal 6:7–8). Here Paul reintroduces the contrast in 4:29 between the children of the Sarah-covenant, who have been born κατὰ πνεῦμα and whose lives are thus characterized by “the fruit of the Spirit,” and the children of the Hagar-covenant, who have been born κατὰ σάρκα and whose lives are thus characterized by “the works of the flesh.” So although the new creation associated with the new covenant is universal in scope (it may apply to all humanity), it is still limited in realization (it has not yet affected all humanity). Jackson himself points out that the world’s crucifixion “is only experienced by those who unite with Christ (5:6; 6:15).”44 Jackson, however, underplays the anthropological aspect in 6:14–15 and overplays the reality of the “temporal shift in the ages” and the “cosmic renewal” that exists outside of the realm of the church.45 For in Jackson’s view, although “the eschatologically determinative Christ event” involved the individual, “it also occasioned a change in the very nature of time and space.”46 In my reading of Paul, this kind of world-transforming, ontological change in the cosmos will not take place until the consummation of this age (Rom 8:18–25). Until then, the kingdom of God exists in the midst of this evil age and is being experienced only by believers as “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). On the other hand, Jackson is right to argue against Hubbard that we should not divide Paul’s thinking into mutually exclusive anthropological and cosmological categories.47 Hubbard’s distinction between the apocalyptic analysis of the human dilemma “in terms of extrinsic factors (Satan and the Gentiles),” so that the answer was a newly created cosmos, and Paul’s analysis “primarily in terms of intrinsic factors (sin and the flesh),” so that the solution was a subjective transformation of believers, is a false one.48 Though all are agreed that Paul speaks explicitly of the future redemption of the cosmos in Rom 8:18–25, when  Ibid., 88 n. 30. e. g., ibid., 92: “Although the ‘form of the world’ remains intact in some sense, there is a real sense in which the death of Christ marks the beginning of the destruction of the old cosmos and his resurrection … marks the inauguration of the expected renewal of creation which was to occur at the end of time,” (emphasis mine; later, p. 139, Jackson agrees with Schweitzer, who declares that Christ’s resurrection is a “ ‘cosmic world-event’ ”). In my view, the world remains intact for Paul in a real sense everywhere outside of the community of faith, while inside the church as the realm of Christ’s lordship the old cosmos is destroyed in a real sense as a result of the inauguration of the renewal of creation at the end of time. As the expression of this new creation, the reality of Christ’s resurrection is inaugurated in the moral transformation of believers brought about by the Spirit (Rom 6:1–14; 8:9–17; 1 Cor 15:32–34). 46  Ibid., 110. 47  Ibid., 89. 48 Hubbard, New Creation, 52–53, 75–76, 238–239, quote from 238, emphasis his. For Hubbard, such a sharp contrast should be drawn because “… Paul’s new creation expresses a reality intra nos not a reality extra nos, and functions as an alternative formulation of his central Spirit affirmation – the Spirit creates life (2 Cor 3:6; cf. 2 Cor 5:6; Rom 7:6; 8:2, 10–11; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 3:22–23; 5:25)” (p. 232). But 2 Cor 3:6 indicates that the life created by the Spirit is a new 44

45 See,

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

319

Paul has the present redemption of God’s people primarily in view, as in Gal 6:15 and 2 Cor 5:17, he also conceives of this anthropological new creation as brought about by a cosmologically significant, albeit limited defeat of this present world. Hubbard’s conclusion that κόσμος in 6:14 refers only to Paul’s world of his former life as a Pharisee does not take seriously enough the “cosmic” change that for Paul has taken place regarding the sphere and powers in which and under which believers once lived (see above and Gal 1:4; 3:1; 4:3, 8–9; cf. Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 8:5; 10:20–21; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; Eph 2:1–3; 6:12; 1 Tim 1:20, etc.).49 In the contrast of Gal 6:15, “new creation” is the counterpart to the “world” in 6:14, not to Paul himself (i. e., the “I” of 6:14). Paul’s focus is on the world since in his conception circumcision and uncircumcision characterize the “world” in the same way that the identity defined in the parallel construction of 5:6 characterizes the “new creation.”50 The death of and to the κόσμος in Gal 6:14 thus corresponds to no longer knowing someone κατὰ σάρκα in 2 Cor 5:16, which in 2 Cor 5:17 is equated with the passing away of the “old things” of this age (see below). Hence, in both contexts, to be free from the world and the flesh, with its distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision, is an objective, “cosmological” event in terms of its divine agency and salvific impact, which is expressed “anthropologically” in the transformed life of the believer.51 Following on from Gal 6:15, Paul’s use of στοιχέω in 6:16 to describe the believers’ new-creation-way-of-life52 recalls 5:25, where Paul exhorted those “of [the] Christ (οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 5:24) who “live by the Spirit” (ζάω πνεύματι) to “walk covenant reality, which is itself an essential aspect of the eschatological reality of the new age of redemption and restoration inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection. 49  See ibid., 218. In effect, Hubbard takes “world” to mean “worldly,” rather than the epoch of the old covenant. To do so he must eliminate Gal 1:4 from consideration as “rather remote” (p. 216), even though it is no more remote than 1:10–14, which Hubbard relies on as having a “paradigmatic function” in Paul’s argument (p. 218). Yet Hubbard does see that τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Gal 4:3 can refer to “the salvation-historical principle of the obsolescence of the law, which is the main thrust of 3:1–5:1” (p. 216), i. e., “the nomistic world which the opposing missionaries offered” (p. 218). 50  Contra Hubbard, New Creation, 223. 51 In this regard, see the helpful critique of the current “apocalyptic” reading of “flesh” (σάρξ) as a cosmic power on a par with the Spirit in Gal 4:29 and 5:13–26 by Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 141–143, after which he concludes: “… Law and flesh are bound up together as belonging to a former age characterized by human weakness … they belong together to the old age … in which frail humanity was tempted by the ‘desire of the flesh’ to do the ‘works of the flesh’ … When Paul refers to the flesh in 5:13–26, then, he is not portraying it as power; rather he continues to think of the flesh as bound up with the Law in redemptivehistorical terms, as part of the era of human frailty that led humans to give in to their desire … to turn the weakness of fallen humanity into a personified power is to read too much into the text” (p. 143, pointing to Gal 3:23–25; 4:5–6 and following Russell’s work, p. 143 nn. 39–40). For this eschatological reading of Gal 5:16–17, see Morales, pp. 146–147. 52  Following Burton, Galatians, 356, who takes κτίσις in 6:15 to convey a verbal sense in view of the parallels in 5:6 and 1 Cor 7:19, where in each case the second member of the contrast is a term of action; Burton thus rightly stresses that the emphasis of the expression, “new creation,”

320

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

by the Spirit” (πνεύματι στοιχέω). So too, 6:16 recalls Paul’s use of στοιχεῖα in 4:3, 9 to characterize the antithetical reality of this κόσμος, to which both Jews and gentiles are enslaved outside of Christ (cf., too, Col 2:20).53 It is striking that Paul’s use of στοιχέω in Gal 5:25 and 6:16 to refer to the new-creation-way-of-life by the Spirit (cf. too Phil 3:16), rather than his more common verb, περιπατέω,54 is also found in Paul’s description in Rom 4:12 of the recipients of the blessing first given to Abraham. There στοιχέω is used to characterize those Jews who are true descendants of Abraham because they “walk (στοιχοῦσιν) in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith” which he had while still uncircumcised (cf. ἐν ἀκροβυστία). Paul’s distinctive use of στοιχέω/στοιχεῖα in these related contexts reflects the fact that the new covenant, new creation, the cross of Christ, faith, and life in/by the Spirit all belong to Paul’s semantic field of “salvation”. Hence, within the context of Galatians itself, the old age/new creation contrast of Gal 6:15 is the soteriological κανών of 6:16 that, once again using covenantal categories, determines the eschatological curse (i. e., the ἀνάθεμα of Gal 1:8) and blessing (i. e., the “peace” and “mercy” of Gal 6:16). The covenant realities of curse (1:8) and blessing (6:16) thus book-end Paul’s eschatological, history-ofredemption arguments throughout the epistle as an expression of the same covenant realities as established in the pivotal passage of Gal 3:8–10.55 These covenant realities fuel Paul’s desire to bring about faithfulness to the rule stated in 6:15 in order that the Galatians might experience God’s peace and mercy in the present is on “the radical transformation of character,” “the divine activity in the production of a new moral life (cf. Col 3:10)” (p. 355). 53 I owe the observation of the link between Gal 4:3, 9 and 6:15–16 to Jackson, New Creation, 94, who interprets it, however, only in terms of cosmology. 54  Paul uses στοιχέω four times (Gal 5:25; 6:16; Rom 4:12; Phil 3:16), whereas περιπατέω occurs 32 times in the Pauline corpus. That the two verbs are virtual synonyms is clear by the parallel between Gal 5:16 (πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε) and 5:25 (πνεύματι στοιχῶμεν). 55  For this latter point, see Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations, who establishes in detail the covenant structure and backdrop to Paul’s argument from the Scriptures in this key passage. Indeed, “the significance of the juxtaposition of blessing in 3:8 and the curse in 3:10 cannot be overemphasized. This same juxtaposition occurs in the promise itself (Gen 12:1–3)” (p. 146). Related to this insight, Wisdom shows the essential unity between the covenant structures of the Abrahamic and Deuteronomic/Sinai covenants. E. g., commenting on the fact that Gen 18:18 (alluded to in Gal 3:8, together with Gen 12:3) is grounded in 18:19, he observes: “These two promises are grounded … in 18:19 on the knowledge that Abraham will command his sons and his household after him and they will keep … the way of the Lord, so that they may do what is right (… ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν) and just, in order that the Lord may do what he has spoken to him (i. e., he may keep his promise to him). In this text the motif of covenant loyalty is linked clearly and firmly with the promise to Abraham … the continuation of covenant loyalty on the part of Abraham’s descendants results in the fulfillment of the promised blessing to all nations. In this respect, Gen 18:18–19 expresses a covenant perspective which it shares with Deuteronomy” (p. 31; cf. his treatment of the related texts, Gen 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 on pp. 32–36, in which he shows the centrality of the promise to bless the nations both in the Genesis narrative and in Paul’s use of the tradition in which “only the strands concerning descendants and blessing for the nations are present,” p. 36).

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

321

in anticipation of the righteousness and resultant justification to come at the end of the age.56 As a result, while his opponents boast in their old covenant identity centered in circumcision, which in Gal 6:13 is contrasted with actually keeping the law (cf. too Rom 2:17–29), the “rule” of 6:15 grounds Paul’s refusal to boast in anything but the cross (6:14).57 In 6:15, as in 5:6, Paul’s eschatological contrast between the past identities of this age under the Torah-covenant and the reality of the new creation again functions to ground Paul’s ethical “application.” Although the new creation now exists, believers still have “time” (καιρός) to persevere in doing good in this evil age (cf. ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν in 6:10). They should therefore sow “to the Spirit” (εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα) in order that they might reap the life of the age [to come] “from the Spirit” (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος), which will arrive “in its own time” (καιρῷ ἰδίῳ) (6:8–10). That here Paul’s eschatology, inaugurated and consummated, again drives his ethics is not surprising given the covenant-structure that informs Paul’s thinking: within the covenant relationship, keeping God’s commandments in the present in view of the divine promise to come in the future is the essential realization of God’s faithfulness to his promises from the past. In Galatians, keeping God’s commands under the Sarah-covenant, in hope of righteousness to come, is the realization of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, which is now being fulfilled through the impact of the cross and Spirit in the lives of believers (cf. again Jer 31:33–34; Ezek 36:27; 37:24 with Gal 1:4; 2:19–21; 3:3, 13–14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 13–26). Once again we see the essential link in Paul’s covenant thought between the “unconditional” provisions of the covenant prologue (the cross and the Spirit) and the confident, yet “conditional” promises still to come (the confident expectation of righteousness at the final judgment). In 6:8 the Spirit which produces the “fruit” of those who belong to Christ, apart from which no one will inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 5:21 with 5:23), is the same Spirit who grants life on the day of eschatological judgment – there is no synergism in salvation; from start to finish salvation is by God’s “grace” (Gal 1:3; 2:21; 5:4; 6:18). The cross is consequently Paul’s boast (6:14a) because it is the age-transforming, world-crucifying death of Christ that makes the fulfillment of the Torah in the new creation by the power of the Spirit possible (cf. Gal 6:14–15 with Gal 2:20 and 3:2, 5 and 4:4–6 on the one hand, and 5:2–15 on the other).58 56  I owe this insight into the structure of Galatians to Betz, Galatians, 321; see p. 321 n. 90 for the philosophical history of the quasi-legal term κανών. 57  Hubbard, New Creation, 221, called my attention to this parallel with Rom 2:23–25. As Hubbard points out, the reality of the “new creation” in Gal 6:15 is conceptually equivalent to circumcision by the Spirit on the heart in Rom 2:29. For my understanding of Rom 2:17–29 see chapter seven. 58  Jackson, New Creation, 99–100, is thus correct to reject Yon-Gyong Kwon’s view, Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia, WUNT 2/183

322

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Finally, these interrelationships within the covenant structure indicate that the significance of Paul’s decoding of the faith-expressed-in-love from 5:6 in terms of the new creation of Gal 6:15 should not be under-emphasized. The former is the organic manifestation of the latter and hence can be equated with it. Betz even takes the contrast in 6:15 to be a summary of Paul’s soteriology as it concerns Christian existence, which, as such, becomes the “cutting edge of the letter.”59 Similarly, Hubbard illustrates the inclusive nature of the new creation motif by pointing out that Käsemann could appropriate it “anthropologically” as a transformed humanity, “ecclesiologically” as an obedient community in the succession of the obedient Adam, “soterio-cosmologically” as the beginning of the new aeon, and “theologically” as a parallel expression to the new covenant.60 For Paul, therefore, “new creation” is not an abstraction, but an ontological reality. In accordance with its parallel in 5:6, the new creation entails Spirit-created obedience as the inaugurated, eschatological fulfillment of the Torah. As such, the proleptic reality of the new creation grounds the believer’s hope of future righteousness (Gal 5:5), while at the same time bringing the present blessing of God’s “peace” and “mercy” (6:16). For the law does not condemn covenantkeepers whose lives are characterized by the “fruit of the Spirit” (cf. οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον in 5:18 with κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος in 5:23). Conversely, holding to any other “gospel” brings the covenant curse upon those whose “works of the flesh” render them liable to judgment “under the law” (cf. 5:19–21 with 1:8, 3:10, and 6:13 and with 3:23; 4:4–5, 21). This includes those who are “under a curse” because they hold to the “works of the law” (= the era of the old covenant) even though faith (= the era of the new covenant) has arrived (cf. ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσιν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν in 3:10 with 5:7–12 and see chapter one above). For according to Gal 6:16, it is only those whose lives are measured by the criterion (κανών) of the cross-inaugurated new creation who are no longer fundamentally Jew or gentile, but members of the eschatological people of God made up of faithful Jews and gentiles, the new “third race,” “the Israel of God.”61 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 107–115, that in Gal 3:14 the reception of the Spirit is not an essential fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that his blessing would come to the gentiles. 59 Betz, Galatians, 263 n. 93, 318, 319. 60  Hubbard, New Creation, 189, 189 nn. 10–13, quoting Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 176, 134, 161, 178. 61 Taking the final καί in 6:16b epexegetically (as in, e. g., the RSV, but now rejected in the NRSV). For this reading, see already Lightfoot, Galatians, 225; against, see Burton, Galatians, 357–358. For the new creational “peace and mercy” motif from Isa 54:10, where it concerns the restoration of Israel, as the backdrop to this reading, together with the corresponding development of this rare formula in Jer 16:5; Ps 84:11LXX; 1QHa 13:5; 11–12; Jub. 22:9, see G. K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b,” Bib 80 (1999): 204–223. Beale shows that 6:16 is a development of the explicit use of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27 (pp. 208–210). Beale also posits that Paul finds it “natural to allude to Isaiah’s ‘peace and mercy’ in Gal 6:16 as a part of the ‘new creation’ he has just explicitly mentioned in v. 15” (p. 216), thereby relating Gal 6:15–16 to 2 Cor 5:17 and Rev 21:18–19, 21 (cf. Rev 3:14), where

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

323

Keeping the Commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19) If the Galatians were struggling with the significance of the cross and the Spirit in regard to the Torah, the Corinthians did not comprehend their impact not only on life in this age (cf. 1 Cor 6:9–11 in the context of 5:1–6:20), but also on the social structures of this created order, which were now being identified with one’s spiritual gifting as well (cf. 1 Cor 7; 11–14). In Corinth, as in Galatia, Paul consequently had to map out the implications of the cross for the eschatological life brought about by the Spirit, which once again found its focal point in the call to love (cf. 1 Cor 4:6–7; 8:1–3, 11–12; 10:23–24; 13:1–13; 16:24). This pastoral strategy can be seen to be at work in 1 Cor 7 concerning the practicalities of marriage and divorce. There, at the rhetorical center of his argument, Paul grounds his fundamental, “social” principle in 7:17–18 and 20–24 on yet another eschatological contrast to the circumcision/uncircumcision distinction in 7:19. Despite their Spirit-filled lives, Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to alter their current social circumstances regarding marriage, slavery, or freedom, or even their covenant identities as Jew or gentile (7:17–18, 20–24). At first glance, given their new identity as “saints,” Paul’s admonition seems surprising. But inasmuch as God called them (καλέω) in the midst of these divinely “assigned” circumstances (7:15, 17, 24), believers should continue to lead the life God has assigned to them in the world as indicated by their social identity at the time God called them “in the Lord” (7:17–18, 22). Believers thus have a dual identity. They live in the overlapping of the ages. Hence, in Paul’s words, “each one should remain in the calling (κλῆσις) in which he or she was called (καλέω)” (7:20; cf. 7:24). Nevertheless, although one’s social role or status in this age is also a divine “calling,” Paul stresses that one’s identity in the world has now been relativized as of secondary importance. Even the most fundamental categories no longer determine one’s role or status as “those called (κλητοῖς) to be holy ones” in the “church of God” (1 Cor 1:2). All such distinctives, even circumcision and uncircumcision, though all-important for determining one’s identity in this age, are now “nothing” for the believer (οὐδέν ἐστιν, 7:19a), for whom “the form of this world is passing away” (7:31b: παράγει γὰρ τό σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου; cf. 10:11).62 Isa 43 and 65–66 also play a role (pp. 216, 218). Of additional interest is Beale’s demonstration that the “fruit of the Spirit” from Gal 5:22–26 reflect new creation themes from Isa 32–66. 62  Cf. Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 123–124, who sees Paul’s argument in 7:17–24 to be “distinctively conservative political advice” in service of his “appeal for concord” in accordance with the principle of 7:24 (also in 7:17, 20). To that end, Paul goes on to redefine the Corinthians’ “proper ultimate goal from seeking to alter earthly status (7:8, 17–24, 27, 40) into realizing one’s Christian κλῆσις (7:15, 17:24)” (p. 124, following Wimbush, who argued that remaining in one’s calling “ ‘was not intended to support the status quo; it was designed only to relativize the importance of all worldly conditions and relationships’ ”; pp. 124–25 n. 362). For Mitchell, κλῆσις is “the language of unification

324

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

For as Garland points out, “Paul does not argue, ‘The end might come tomorrow with its terrible afflictions; therefore do not get married.’ He argues instead, ‘The end has broken into the present, and it requires a reevaluation of all that we do in a world already on its last legs.’ ”63 Hence, given this eschatological reality, what is everything regarding one’s identity as those who were “bought with a price” by the death of Christ (1 Cor 7:23) is “keeping the commandments of God” (7:19b). Once again, for Paul, eschatology drives ethics. Scholars have long puzzled over how Paul can contrast keeping God’s commands with circumcision and uncircumcision since the distinction between the latter certainly owes its existence to the former. As Fee observes, the contrast in 1 Cor 7:19 “has to be one of the more remarkable statements that Paul has ever made … If Paul’s fellow Jew would have been scandalized by his former statement, he would have been quite mystified” by the latter; “these sentences would be totally non sequitur, indeed contradictory.”64 Though Garland points despite differentiation … despite their various statuses in the outside world” (p. 125). Mitchell recognizes that the social statuses in view in the “outside world” are those of Jews and gentiles, and that Paul has “separated the κλητοί from those old names” (p. 125 n. 364, emphasis mine). Mitchell’s social-political reading, though accurate in terms of the community-unifying goal of Paul’s admonitions, must be linked to the covenant contrast of 7:19 as Paul’s explicit, rhetorical ground for the theological principle of 7:24. Due to these distinctively theological reasons Paul’s advice ends up in part “closer on these issues to that of more radical thinkers such as some of the Stoics and Cynics,” since “his eschatology stands behind a good deal of what he says here (cf. vv. 29, 31),” Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 174, 175–176. 63  David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 327. Thus, Paul’s statement in 7:29, “the time has been compressed” (ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν), is not about the duration of time, but about its character, i. e., it is “not about how little time is left but about how Christ’s death and resurrection have changed how Christians should look at the time that is left” (pp. 328–329). We must be careful, however, not to attribute to Paul an abstract or over-realized eschatology. Regarding the former, though being a Jew or gentile, like being a male or female, slave or free, no longer determines one identity “in Christ” (cf. Gal 3:28), this does not mean, for Paul, that one’s identity as a Christian is no longer expressed as a Jew or gentile, any more than being male and female dissolve into an androgynous “human,” even in worship (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–16!). In regard to the latter, though they are abolished at a fundamental level in relationship to God, the Christian’s personhood and social circumstances are both still significant, albeit relativized, as the context in which a believer lives out his or her new identity in the role relationships of this world (cf., e. g., Paul’s treatment of the master-slave relationship in Philemon 15–16, Paul’s own principle of behavior in 1 Cor 9:19–23 for the sake of mission, the Pauline household codes, and the discussion below of the context of 1 Cor 7:19). Eschatological realities are still only inaugurated in regard to the identities and social locations of this world, while even in the age to come neither gender nor ethnicity, being part of the created order, disappear; see, e. g., 1 Cor 15:20–28; Rom 1:3–4; 8:11, 39; 15:6, 12; 2 Cor 1:14, 19; Phil 1:6; 2:10–11; 1 Thess 4:14; 5:23, etc., where the resurrected and returning Lord is still the Jewish Messiah descended from David, “the root of Jesse,” the divine “Son,” and the man, Jesus. I owe this last point to David J. Rudolph, “Resurrection and Jesus’ Jewish Identity,” paper presented at the Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET) Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 14, 2008. 64 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 312. Fee’s solution, following Barrett, is to draw what he considers to be an obvious

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

325

out that Paul’s statement would not have been “that remarkable in Hellenistic Judaism,”65 Thiselton rightly points out that, in view of Gal 5:6, “Paul sharpens what becomes a paradox.”66 The answer to this apparent conundrum is not that Paul is referring to a new set of “Christian” commandments that somehow supersede, relativize, divide, or down-size the Torah into essential and non-essential aspects, the latter of which would include circumcision. Nor is Paul playing off the “boundary markers” of the law against their more important aspects. Though such solutions are often advocated, the phrase “to keep the commandments of God” was equivalent to keeping the Torah per se (Ezra 9:4; Sir 32:23; Matt 19:17; Rev 12:17; 14:12; Wis 6:18);67 moreover, even among the recent gentile converts in Corinth Paul often bases his ethics on the Mosaic law.68 So rather than positing that Paul is redefining or limiting the commandments of the Torah in some way, the statements in 1 Cor 7:29, 31 and the parallels between 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and Gal 6:15 indicate that in 1 Cor 7:19 Paul is once again making an eschatological contrast between the old covenant realities of “the wisdom of this age” and God’s commands themselves as they find their new covenant fulfillment in love, which constitutes an essential aspect of “the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 2:6–7).69 Moreover, just as in Pauline distinction (“of course”) between the “commands of God,” which Fee equates with “the ethical imperatives of the Christian faith,” and the “works of the law,” such as circumcision (pp. 313, 314 n. 32). But quite apart from the parallels in Gal 5:6 and 6:15, this distinction cannot do justice to Paul’s emphasis in Rom 2:6 on the coming judgment by “works” (ἔργα; cf. Ps 62:13; 2 Cor 5:10), which is equated in 2:13 with the justification of those who do the law (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται). See below and chapter seven for the implications of this point for Paul’s definition in Rom 2:25–29 of what constitutes valid “circumcision.” 65  Garland, 1 Corinthians, 306 n. 7, following Thielman and Tomson, against E. P. Sanders, Barrett, Räisänen, who also emphasize the striking nature of 1 Cor 7:19. 66 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 551. 67  So Thielman, followed by Garland, 1 Corinthians, 306. Garland, however, thinks that Paul distinguishes between parts of the law that now “count” and parts that do not. On the related meaning of “the works of the law” as a reference to what the Torah as a whole teaches, my chapter one above. 68 Contrast, e. g., the allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic law (Lev 11:3; Deut 14:6) in Barn. 10:11. On this point, see the programmatic work of Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7, AGAJU 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), esp. his conclusion, pp. 173–175, that Paul’s dictum that circumcision is nothing in 1 Cor 7:19 and Gal 6:16 may be determined by Apostolic Jewish-Christian tradition as an “amplification” of, e. g., Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4 (to which add Jer 9:25) and the figurative uses of “circumcision” in Exod 6:30; Jer 6:10; 9:26; Lev 19:23 (to which add Deut 30:6); it also reflects the teaching of Gen 2:24; Exod 19:15; 21:10; Deut 20:5–7; 24:1–4 (cf. the parallels with 1 Cor 7 in m. Gittin 1:4–6; 4:4–6; 5:8–9; 9:2–3 to Deut 24). Thus, though no Torah text is quoted in 1 Cor 7, it “turns out to be ‘the exception which proves the rule’ ” (p. 176). 69 For a theological interpretation of Paul’s ethics as an expression of his inaugurated eschatology which takes 2 Cor 5:14b–18 as its starting point, see the paradigmatic statement of Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 19–59. Regarding 1 Cor 7 Hays points to the determining

326

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Galatians, here too this fulfillment of the Torah is made possible by the power of the Spirit: divine wisdom is bestowed “by means of teachings from the Spirit” for “those who are characterized by the Spirit” (2:13: ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, πνευ­ ματικοῖς …). From Paul’s eschatological perspective, keeping the commands of God in this context thus refers to the kind of love that meets the needs of one’s spouse (1 Cor 7:5), maintains marriage and divorce for the sake of Christian witness and peace (7:10–16), and either forgoes or engages in marriage in a way that serves the Lord in view of the passing away of “the form of this world” (7:25–35 in view of 7:31b).70 Indeed, keeping the commandments of God through such acts of love, as the concrete expression of the faith in God’s provisions that creates hope in his promises, is consequently the greatest of the three “covenant” virtues that “remain” through judgment into the age to come (1 Cor 13:13)! It is love that builds up the church (8:1), love that is to be sought as the aim of all spiritual gifts (14:1), and love that is the expression of standing in one’s faith (16:14). Paul’s final wish for the Corinthians, therefore, is that they would experience Paul’s own love for them ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ (16:24). For as their “father” who, ἐν Χριστῷ  Ἰησοῦ, gave birth to them through the gospel, Paul exemplifies the love that Christ himself displays toward his people (1 Cor 4:15–16; 11:1). The eschatological context for 1 Cor 7:19, declared in 1 Cor 7:29 and 31b, and its call to obey God’s commands through acts of love, would not have been new to the Corinthians. Paul had already made it explicit in the formative “Lord’s Supper” tradition that he had passed on to his new church, in which the “new covenant” significance of Jesus’s death comes to the fore (1 Cor 11:23–26; cf. Luke 22:20). Of importance for our study is the fact that Paul’s reprise of the new covenant tradition functions in regard to the Corinthian situation depicted in 1 Cor 11:17–34 in the same way as the eschatological contrast did in 7:17–31. Just as Paul responded eschatologically to the questions that arose for the believer role played by Paul’s perspective that the old age is passing away as declared in 1 Cor 7:31b (p. 20), so that Hays labels 1 Cor 7, “Sex at the Turn of the Ages” (p. 47). Cf. too Thiselton, First Corinthians, 551, who likewise reads 1 Cor 7:19 in view of Gal 6:15 as a statement presupposing “an eschatological status” that makes such distinctions obsolete. 70  On the determinative role of the eschatologically-determinative indicative of the Christevent for Primitive Christianity, see the fundamental insight of Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 226: “No new commandment is set up, but the old and long-known commandment is to be fulfilled, that is, radically observed on the basis of that indicative … The law known of old is to be applied to every concrete situation, not in literal fashion, but radically, so as to fulfill God’s will of love which is embodied in every commandment. Thus it is not possible to regard this or that Old Testament commandment as done away because it does not foresee the present situation. The Old Testament deals throughout with a situation different from that of the New, and the ethical task, according to the New Testament, is precisely this, that in every new situation one is to fulfill the Old Testament in the light of the New … The New Testament ethic is an ethic of redemptive history in the sense also that it applies to the Old Testament commandments the idea of the ‘fulfillment’ of the times” (emphasis his).

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

327

concerning the social status of marriage, Paul once again applies his eschatological perspective, now expressed in the Lord’s Supper tradition, to the problem that ensues when a socially-determined status leads to a lack of love in the church, a problem which was manifest in Corinth during the Lord’s Supper itself (1 Cor 11:17–22, 27–34). Here too the context is the inaugurated end of the age, now being experienced within the church by the one who “drinks judgment upon him/herself” because he/she failed to act in accordance with the new reality of the church, i. e., the person did not “discern the body” (11:27, 29). As a result, the offenders took part in the Lord’s Supper “in an unworthy manner” (ἀναξίως), i. e., without the love that waits for one another (11:20–22, 33; cf. 13:4), thereby becoming “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27, 29). The result was weakness, sickness, and death (11:30). As in Galatians, so too here, to break the covenant is to fall under its covenant curse. First Corinthians 7:19 thus brings us back to the eschatological contrasts and their implications introduced in Gal 5:6 and 6:15. It does so, not by adding a new component to these contrasts, but by decoding them for Paul’s new situation. Faith’s expression in love, as the fulfillment of the Torah, is the reality of the new creation, which, in turn, can be defined as keeping the commandments of God. When Paul re-introduces the theme of “new creation” in 2 Cor 5:17, it is this thematic complex he has in view.

The “New Things” of the New Creation (2 Cor 5:17) The context of Paul’s declaration in 2 Cor 5:17, like that of Gal 5–6 and 1 Cor 7, is once again Christ’s impending judgment of all believers (cf. τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς in 2 Cor 5:10 with the reference to ἡμεῖς πάντες in 2 Cor 3:18; the judgment of unbelievers is assumed by Paul). This certainty, which elicits the fear of the Lord, motivates Paul both in his missionary endeavors (see the εἰδότες οὖν of 2 Cor 5:11) and in his ongoing ministry to the Corinthians (see the adverbial participle, συνεργοῦντες, in 6:1). But Paul is equally “controlled” by Christ’s love, openly displayed in Christ’s death for “all” (cf. πᾶς in 5:14–15; see the γάρ of 5:14).71 If 71 The extent (exclusive or inclusive) and nature (real or potential) of the referent of πᾶς (“all”) in 5:14–15, as in 1 Cor 15:22 and Rom 5:12–18 (cf. Rom 4:11; 10:12), is a matter of much debate. The link between πᾶς in 2 Cor 5:14 and οἱ ζῶντες in 5:15, which is clearly limited to those who are explicitly living for Christ (of which Paul himself is the example, vv. 11–14a, 15), points to an exclusive, real interpretation. For to Paul, death to self and ministry to others are explicitly grounded in Christ’s cross and resurrection power (2 Cor 4:7–12; cf. Rom 6:18–23). Second Corinthians 5:15 and 21 then detail the eschatological implications of Christ’s death for those who are now living as part of the new creation. Contra, e. g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 327–328, who takes the “all” to be inclusive and real, but nevertheless sees 5:15 to refer to “those who would by a deliberate act of faith respond to Christ’s love and identify with his death,” which supports the exclusive reading.

328

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the former points to Christ’s future role as judge (the covenant promise of divine blessing and curse), the latter points to Christ’s past role as redeemer (the covenant prologue of divine provision), which together support and motivate Paul’s apostolic ministry (the covenant stipulation). Within this covenantal, eschatological framework, 2 Cor 5:16 sets forth its consequence for ministering between Christ’s eschaton-inaugurating cross in the past and Christ’s eschaton-consummating judgment in the future (cf. ὧστε): “from the now-time … but now” (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν … ἀλλὰ νῦν), Paul no longer knows any person κατὰ σάρκα, not even Christ himself. Despite Bultmann’s (in)famous attempt to read κατὰ σάρκα here as a denial of any interest in the historical Jesus, it is widely agreed that in this context κατὰ σάρκα applies adverbially to the manner of Paul’s knowing, not adjectivally to its subject matter.72 Of interest for us is the corresponding recognition that in 5:16 the act of no longer evaluating people or Christ κατὰ σάρκα is a reference to the eschatological end of the identities of this world (cf. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν in Isa 48:6, from which Paul’s expression comes).73 As such, the twofold νῦν of 5:16, by alluding to Isa 48:6, anticipates the exclamatory ἰδού of 5:17b, which signals the eschatological significance of no longer knowing Christ “according to the flesh”: “new things have happened!” The νῦν … ἰδού of 5:16–17 also anticipates the chiastically expressed, twofold ἰδοὺ νῦν of 2 Cor 6:2b, with which Paul applies Isa 49:8 to the significance of his own ministry. Paul understands his apostolic mission to be the beginning fulfillment of Isaiah’s hope for the eschatological restoration of Israel.74 Paul, as the one working with God to bring about this redemption of his people, consequently warns the Corinthians not to accept God’s grace in vain by rejecting Paul and his gospel since God is making his final, eschatological appeal for reconciliation through Paul as an ambassador of Christ (cf. 5:20 with 6:1; cf. 1 Cor 15:2!).75  For a thorough examination of the evidence, see Thrall, Second Corinthians, 412–420. Furnish, II Corinthians, 312, for the reference to Isa 48:6; he renders κατὰ σάρκα, “according to worldly standards,” so that Paul is asserting that believers now operate “within a creation which has been totally refashioned (v. 17)” (p. 321); and Thrall, Second Corinthians, 414–415, 420, who takes it to refer to the present time as conditioned by the Christ-event (following Soucek, who points to Rom 3:21, 26; 5:9, 11; 8:1; 13:11; 2 Cor 6:2); of the seven possibilities for understanding 5:16b, Thrall convincingly takes the statement about knowing “even Christ κατὰ σάρκα” to be a reference to Paul’s pre-conversion estimate of Christ. 74 So Furnish, II Corinthians, 315, who points out that ἰδού also appears in the Isaianic backdrop to 5:17 and that it is used with solemn pronouncements, divine promises, and descriptions of visions in apocalyptic contexts (cf. too Matt 24:23; Luke 23:29; Rev 4:1–2; 21:5 and 1 Cor 15:51; 2 Cor 6:2). For our purposes we need not adjudicate whether in 6:2 Paul identifies himself with the Isaianic Servant, or whether he views himself as the servant of the Servant; for the current debate and a decision in favor of the latter option, see now Mark Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10, LNTS 330 (London: T&T Clark, 2007). Both views recognize that Paul sees his ministry among the Corinthians to be the eschatological fulfillment of Isaiah’s hope as expressed in Isa 49:8. 75 For the link between restoration in Isaiah and reconciliation in Paul, see below, note 94. 72

73 See

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

329

The Isaianic backdrop to both 5:16 and 6:2 points to the conclusion that “Paul understands the new creation to be the eschatological fulfillment of the soteriological program of Isaiah.”76 In Paul’s own case, this conviction concerning the eschatological “now” most likely derived initially not from pondering Isaiah, but from his encounter with the risen Christ; later Paul came to understand Christ’s death and resurrection ὑπὲρ πάντων … ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν (2 Cor 5:15) as the means to the realization of Isaiah’s hope for a “second exodus” redemption of God’s people. As the result of this redemption, a person’s identity in this age (τὰ ἀρχαῖα) no longer determines that person’s identity in the new creation (καινά; 5:17). This is true whether in this passing world (1 Cor 7:31) one is known to be a Hebrew-speaking Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5), a pagan slave or free gentile (1 Cor 7:20–21), a person with a religious reputation (cf. ἐν προσώπῳ, 2 Cor 5:12), or even a supposed messianic-pretender cursed by God (Gal 3:13). For someone to be known κατὰ σάρκα is thus “an epistemological locution” referring to an evaluation according to the characteristics of the old age that are now in conflict with those of the new age of the new creation.77 “The common sense rules of the old age are foolishness in the new creation.”78 It is rather the reconciling significance of Christ’s death, which in 5:14–15 and 18–21 frames Paul’s new-creation statements of 5:16–17, that now determines how Paul understands both Christ himself and all those for whom Christ died (cf. the ὥστε of 5:16 linking 5:14–15 to 5:16 and the resumptive τὰ πάντα in 5:18). And because the love of Christ manifest in the cross inaugurates the new creation, the implied contrast in 5:14–15 is thus between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ καινὴν κτίσιν.79 Paul’s resultant eschatological understanding of both humanity and Christ (cf. again ὥστε in 5:16a) leads to the resultant content of what one now knows about those who are no longer to be known κατὰ σάρκα (cf. ὥστε in 5:17a).80 What is  Jackson, New Creation, 116. Theological Issues, 95. Martyn, pp. 94–95, insightfully points out that μηκέτι, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, and νῦν οὐκέτι in 2 Cor 5:15–16 “are altogether harmonious with the clear indications given throughout 2 Cor 3–6 that Paul is centrally concerned with the turn of the ages in the death/resurrection of Jesus … As the second half of v. 17 shows, it is an event of cosmic, apocalyptic proportions … He is saying that there are two ways of knowing, and that what separates the two is the turn of the ages, the apocalyptic event of Christ’s death/resurrection. There is a way of knowing which is characteristic of the old age … And, since Paul now knows Christ (Phil 3:8), there must be a new way of knowing that is proper either to the new age or to that point at which the ages meet … To refer to the old way of knowing, Paul allows the phrase kata sarka to modify the verb ‘to know,’ using the word sarx (‘flesh’) to refer to the realm of the old age.” Martyn, p. 95–96 n. 22, relates this locution to Paul’s description in Gal 4:29 and to 2 Cor 5:16, the latter of which he understands to denote “ ‘by the norm of the flesh, the epistemological focus of the old age.’ ” I have argued that the “cosmic” proportion of the dramatic turn of the ages that takes place with the dawn of the “new creation” is anthropologically focused. 78  Jackson, New Creation, 135, who also follows Martyn here. 79  Ibid., p. 136. 80 Read in this way there is no need to take 5:17, together with 5:16, to be a second result of 5:14–15, rather than taking the ὥστε of v. 17a to indicate a natural consequence from the point of 76

77 Martyn,

330

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

known “from the now” (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν … νῦν) is stated in 5:17a as a first class condition: if anyone is “in the sphere of Christ’s lordship” (ἐν Χριστῷ), that person is “a new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις). The eschatological νῦν in 5:16 regarding “no longer” (οὐκέτι) knowing Christ (or anyone else) κατὰ σάρκα (i. e., the consequence of now living κατὰ πνεῦμα; cf. Gal 4:29) brings about the recognition in 5:17a that those ἐν Χριστῷ are no longer to be viewed in terms of their old-age identity, but in terms of being a new creation. This means that the “old things” (τὰ ἀρχαῖα) of this age have passed away and the “new things” (καινά) have come in regard to the believer’s life as a “new creation” in the midst of the evil age (5:17b). The allusion to Isa 48:6 in 5:16 and the citation of Isa 49:8 in 6:2 (cf. too εἰς κενόν in 6:1 with Isa 49:4 in view of Gal 2:2; 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:16) highlight that Isaiah no doubt also provides the conceptual background for Paul’s understanding of the “new creation” in 5:17. Together, the new creation motif from Isaiah 43:18–19 (cf. 48:3–6) and 65:17 combines with 48:6 and 49:8 to provide the prophetic picture now being colored in by the salvific implications of the coming of the Messiah.81 Inasmuch as Israel was “created” at the exodus (Isa 43:1), her eschatological, second-exodus-redemption becomes an act of new creation, so that throughout Isaiah the themes of creation and exodus-redemption merge and become mutually interpretive (cf., e. g., Isa 25:6–10; 41:17–20; 42:5–9; 43:1–3, 14–21; 44:24; 46:3–4; 50:1–2; 51:1–11; 52:7–12).82 For Isaiah, therefore, v. 16. For the construal of 5:17 as a second, parallel thought to 5:16, see both Jackson, New Creation, 136–137 and Hubbard, New Creation, 177, both of whom follow Thrall, though Hubbard argues that v. 17 also supports v. 16 by providing the grounds for Paul’s repudiation of “sarkic evaluations” (p. 177; cf. p. 184). Contra Thrall, Second Corinthians, 419–420, 424 and Furnish, II Corinthians, 314, following Plummer, Bultmann (wrongly taken to support this reading; Rudolf Bultmann, Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther, KEK 6 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976], 158, actually argues that since v. 17 develops the thought of v. 14 or v. 16, it does not matter whether one takes v. 17 as parallel to v. 16, as derived from v. 14, or from v. 16), Allo, Barrett, and Hahn, who takes 5:17 to be parallel to v. 16, drawing a consequence from 5:14–15. The most natural reading, however, is to take ὥστε with the immediately preceding clause. For this reading, see too Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 9th ed., KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970/1924), 189, who sees v. 17 to be the positive counterpart in new terminology to the negative of v. 16, so that being “in Christ” equates with “knowing Christ κατὰ πνεῦμα,” and J. F. Collange, Enigmes de la Deuxième Epître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Etude Exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4, SNTSMS 18 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 263–264, who alternatively points to the mutually interpretive correspondence between not knowing Christ κατὰ σάρκα in 5:16 and being ἐν Χριστῷ in 5:17, which has an eschatological, ecclesial, and individual meaning. 81 On the theme of new creation in Isaiah and for the arguments in favor of seeing Isaiah to be the “paradigm” for Paul’s statements, see now Jackson, New Creation, 19–31, 119–128. Since the verbal correspondence between Isa 65:17 and 2 Cor 5:17 is “not high,” Jackson, pp. 120–121, 124 suggests that the explicit phrase “new creation” itself probably derived either via the apocalyptic tradition (so Mell, Betz, Stuhlmacher, and my view; see above, nn. 2–3) or via Paul’s own reflection on Isa 65:17–25, which speaks of restoration in new creation terminology. 82  Hubbard, New Creation, 12–15, following the work of von Rad, Stuhlmueller, Reumann, Soggin, and B. Anderson.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

331

and hence for Paul as well, “the new creation functions as the ultimate expression of redemption from the corruption caused by sin”; moreover, in Isaiah the second-exodus-redemption of Israel is inextricably tied to and corresponds with the restoration of non-human creation (cf., e. g., Isa 11:1–16; 13:22; 35:1–10; and 65:17–25 with 43:17–20 and 66:22).83 As in Gal 6:15, the eschatological import of 5:17, with its Isaianic backdrop, has consequently led to a debate over whether in this passage as well Paul is thinking anthropologically and/or cosmologically. Those who stress that Paul is thinking cosmologically argue that individual readings “seriously distort” the nature of Paul’s assertion by limiting its scope to “the personal transformation of the individual through conversion experience.”84 This view has been codified in some of the most influential English translations, which render 5:17 similarly to the TNIV: “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation (cf. NIV: “the new creation has come”; NRSV: “there is a new creation”).85 Read in this way, 2 Cor 5:17 speaks of a new creation per se, not of a “new creature,” as found, for example, in some Jewish and rabbinic traditions (cf. NASB: “a new creature”; RSV/ ESV: “he is a new creation”).86  Jackson, New Creation, 20–21, quote from p. 31. As Jackson, p. 161, points out, this corresponds to the fact that the OT prophetic tradition is “replete” with images of eschatological restoration which include people as well as the cosmos: Isa 11:6–9; 43:19–21; 55:12–13; Ezek 34:25–31; Hos 2:18; Zech 8:12; the motif is also well-represented in Jewish apocalyptic tradition: 1 En. 45:4–5; 51:4–5; 4 Ezra 8:51–54; 2 Bar. 29:1–8; Sib. Or. 3:777–795. 84  Hays, Moral Vision, 20, pointing to Rom 8:18–25 and 1 Cor 7:31b; 10:11 and rejecting the earlier translations of 5:17 followed here that render it, “he is a new creation” (RSV) or “he is a new creature” (KJV): Paul “is proclaiming the apocalyptic message that through the cross God has nullified the kosmos of sin and death and brought a new kosmos into being” (p. 20). Hays goes on, pp. 20–21, to stress that the “apocalyptic scope” of this passage must nevertheless be put within the framework of Paul’s conviction that the consummation of the church’s hope must await Christ’s parousia: “Thus, Paul thinks of the present time as an anomalous interval in which the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of redemption exist simultaneously in dialectical tension. The ends of the ages have overlapped” (p. 21). Though I take 5:17 to refer to the new creation of the individual believer, Hays is right to stress that Paul’s point is not an “individual’s subjective experience of renewal through conversion” (p. 20, emphasis mine), since Paul’s point is that the new creation entails the concrete, ethical transformation of believers into Christ-like behavior. 85 See, e. g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 314, 332–333. See now too Douglas J. Moo, “Nature in the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment,” JETS 49 (2006): 474– 475, who acknowledges that the context of both Gal 6:15 and 2 Cor 5:17 appears to support an anthropological reading (cf. the emphasis on the reconciliation of the world of human beings in 2 Cor 5:19), but yet argues that “there are also indications that, while applied to the new state of believers, the ‘new creation’ language refers to the entire new state of affairs that Christ’s coming has inaugurated” (p. 475, emphasis his). Apart from the transformation of God’s people, however, what “new state of affairs” of the new creation has been inaugurated by Christ’s first coming? Moo himself concludes that, “In this age, the focus of God’s new creation work is the transformation of human beings – in their relationship to God, first of all, and then also in their relationship to each other” (p. 476). 86  See already Windisch, zweite Korintherbrief, 190, who points to Gen. Rab. 39 (to Gen 12:2), where God is said to make Abraham a “new creature” (‫)בריאה חדשׁה‬, so that the parallel to being “in Christ” is being “in Abraham” (cf. Jub. 5:12). 83

332

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

The cosmic view of 5:17 rightly stresses the radically new nature of the new creation.87 Those “in Christ” are not experiencing merely the renewal or improvement of their old nature; they are being given a new identity expressed in a new way of life as an inauguration of the new age. Nevertheless, the conceptual and logical link to v. 16, with its reference to Paul’s knowing as a representative of all believers, rather than to a universal knowledge or recognition, and the naturally implied repetition in v. 17 of τις from the protasis in the apodosis do not support interpreting “new creation” to be a general statement that includes the cosmos.88 Nor is Paul making an argument in 5:17 for the existence of the new creation based on the reality of a relationship with Christ. “In principle, through the Christ-event and in the person of Christ, the new world and the new age are already objective realities.”89 No longer knowing Christ “according to the flesh” does not bring about the new creation; the new creation brings about no longer knowing Christ “according to the flesh” (5:16). Given the already-established reality of the new creation quite apart from its realization in the life of the believer, the force of the first class condition in 5:17 is not that an individual’s being “in Christ” leads to a declaration of the existence of the cosmic, new creation. Rather, being “in Christ” means that the Christian is now experiencing the new creation Christ has brought about, together with its consequences regarding the “old” and “new things.” The contrast in 5:17cd between “the old things” (τὰ ἀρχαῖα) that have passed away and the “new things” (καινά) that now exist derives yet again from a widely attested and often recognized Isaianic theme, the link to which is found most directly in the τὰ ἀρχαῖα/καινά contrast of Isa 43:18–19.90 The common referent 87  As too with Gal 6:15; see Betz, Galatians, 320: “new creation” refers not to “recreation” or “rebirth” (as preferred in the mystery cults, p. 319 n. 79), but to “a replacement of the old world.” The key to Paul’s point is not the recreation of mankind, but the decisive sending of the Son into the midst of the old creation (p. 320). 88  So too Jackson, New Creation, 132–133, 133 n. 107, with Hubbard, New Creation, 179– 180. 89 Thrall, Second Corinthians, 427. “The reality of the Christ-event, as the origin of this καινὴ κτίσις, is not conditionally dependent upon the incorporation of individuals ἐν Χριστῷ but the essential presupposition of any such incorporation,” a point which is supported by the grammar: the singular use of τις as a reference to an individual person and not to the “world” and the fact that “new creation” describes this person are decisive for taking it to mean, “a newly created being” (p. 427). So too, κόσμος in 5:19a, defined by αὐτοῖς and αὐτῶν in 5:19b, should be given “an exclusively personal sense” as “human world” (pp. 434–435). 90  In addition to Isa 43:18–19, Hubbard, New Creation, 12, 12 n. 4, 15 n. 17, 17, points to the contrast between “first/former things” vs. “new things” and related concepts in Isa 41:22–29; 42:9; 48:3–6; 43:9, 18; 44:6–8; 45:11, 20–21; 46:9–11; 48:3, 12–16; 51:9; 65:17–18; 66:22. In LXX: τὰ πρῶτα/πρότερα in 43:18; 48:3; 46:9; τὰ ἀρχαῖα in 43:19 and ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς in 42:9; 43:9; 45:21; τὰ καινά in 42:9; 43:19; 48:6. However, Hubbard’s emphasis, pp. 16–17, on the difference between its application in Isa 40–55, where the focus is on the transformation of God’s people, with “creation” in a supportive role (cf. 43:18), and in Isa 65–66, where the focus is on cosmic new creation, with God’s people “swept up into the new creation,” should not be pressed for Paul. Both Isa 43:18–19 and 65:17 inform 2 Cor 5:17.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

333

of this contrast in Isaiah is to the “old/former things” of God’s prior acts of redemptive history (cf. Isa 41:21–29; 43:9; 44:6–8; 45:20–21; 46:9–11) over against the “new things” of God’s eschatological deliverance and restoration of both Israel and the creation (42:5, 9; 43:1, 15–21; 48:3–16; 65:17–18; 66:22).91 In 2 Cor 5:17 too the contrast between “the old things” and the “new” refers to the historical-eschatological contrast between the old way of knowing others “according to the flesh,” which is constitutive of this created order under the old covenant, and the implied new way of knowing others according to the new creation of the new covenant. Once this is recognized, 2 Cor 5:17 can be seen to represent the same historical-eschatological contrast we have observed from Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19. Furthermore, the explicit reference to the “new creation” in Gal 6:15 forges a conceptual link between the related negative side of the contrasts in Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19 and the contrast in 2 Cor 5:16–17. Within this semantictheological field, knowing someone κατὰ σάρκα corresponds to one’s identity being determined by the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision inherent in this age/world, i. e., by “the old things” of the old covenant that have now passed away eschatologically. Conversely, the “new things” of the new covenant that now exist correspond to the way of knowing Christ and others that results from being a “new creation.” If this conceptual link between Gal 5:6, 6:15, 1 Cor 7:19, and 2 Cor 5:17 holds, then what is the relationship, if any, between the positive, ethical contrasts in Gal 5:6 and 1 Cor 7:19 and Paul’s declaration in 2 Cor 5:17? Is there a related emphasis in the context of 2 Cor 5:17 to the fact that Paul defined the “new creation” (Gal 6:15) in terms of the believer’s ethical life of love as the eschatological fulfillment of the law (Gal 5:6, 13–14), which corresponds to an obedience to the commandments of God as determined by life in the “overlapping of the ages” (1 Cor 7:19)? In the “new creation” passage of Gal 6:15 in particular, this love, brought about by Paul’s boasting in the cross of Christ, was in stark contrast to the behavior of those who boast in the “old age” identity of their circumcision (Gal 6:11–14). The answer to these questions is yes. This same emphasis on love as the expression of the new creation is found in the near context of 5:17, when in 5:14, as in Gal 6:14, Paul again offers himself as the example of one ethically “impelled” (συνέχω) by “Christ’s love” (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ) as manifest in Christ’s death

91  Here too following Hubbard, New Creation, 15–17, 182, who in turn follows von Rad, Beale, and Webb. But, contra Hubbard, p. 183, I do not think that Paul is filling Isaiah with his own, distinctive content in which the “old things” now refer to “boasting in appearances (5:12), living for self (5:14–15), and judging others κατὰ σάρκα (5:16).” Rather than being the “old things” themselves, these vices are all manifestations of the attempt to go back to the former things now that the new act of redemption has arrived.

334

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

for all.92 Picking up the theme of Gal 6:13, Paul’s life stands in stark contrast to those described in 5:12 who boast “in face,” i. e., in the old-age identity as seen in one’s appearance, and not “in heart,” i. e., in the new-age identity as seen in the character of life that results from the cross and the Spirit emblematic of the new covenant (cf. 5:12–14 with 2 Cor 1:22; 3:2–6; 4:6; cf. Rom 2:15, 29; 6:17; Gal 4:6).93 Moreover, in 2 Cor 5:17 the “new things” (καινά) of a cross-produced love are set forth as a fulfillment of the Isaianic hope for a second-exodus act of deliverance that will be paramount to a new creation. Indeed, in Isa 65:17–25 the new heavens and new earth are a place of newly created, Eden-like joy, in which, in God’s presence, his transformed people never again do wrong.94 For Paul, then, the present eschatological reality in 5:17 is likewise essentially hermeneutical and ethical. It also follows that the anthropological reading of “new creation” remains primary. The portrayal in 5:17 of the believer as a “new creation” underscores that this conversion into a new identity, manner of evaluating others, and way of life is the beginning of the eschatological age of redemption (cf. 2 Cor 4:5–6). Just as the Lord created Israel at the exodus as part of the “old things” (Isa 43:1–2), so too he has created his people anew at the “second exodus-new creation” as part of “the new things” (Isa 43:18–19). In Stuhlmacher’s words, inasmuch as “die Christustat” is for Paul “die Speerspitze des in die alte Weltzeit hereinbrechenden neuen Äons,” Paul’s own example in 2 Cor 5:16 demonstrates that conversion is the “individuelle Applikation der

92 For the meaning of συνέχω as “impelled” via a “compulsion from within” and of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive that is then explained in 5:14b–15 (cf. Rom 5:8; 8:32–35; Gal

2:20), see Hubbard, New Creation, 171, emphasis his. In my view, Paul’s statement in 5:14–15 that Christ’s love, manifest in Christ’s death, impels Paul to live for Christ parallels Paul’s assertion in Gal 2:20, so that in the phrase ἐν πίστει ζῶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ is also best understood as a subjective genitive: Paul lives to God by the Son of God’s faithfulness in dying for Paul. 93  For the understanding that in Paul’s view what is in the “heart” is visible in one’s actions towards others and for the parallel to Rom 2:15–19, see chapter seven. 94 Though G. K. Beale stresses cosmic renewal, the anthropological consequence of God’s act of new creation actually seems to be the import of his programmatic essay, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” NTS 35 (1989): 551–557. Beale argues persuasively that in view of Isa 43:18–19 (cf. 65:17) “it is plausible to suggest that ‘reconciliation’ in Christ is Paul’s way of explaining that Isaiah’s promises of ‘restoration’ from the alienation of exile have begun to be fulfilled by the atonement and forgiveness of sins in Christ” (p. 556). See too, Seyoon Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of ‘Reconciliation,’ ” NovT 39 (1997): 380, and now Jackson, New Creation, 123–124, who follows Beale in arguing that the theme of reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:18–21 reflects the Isaianic “second exodus” restoration of Israel from exile (Isa 43:1, 5–7, 15), which is also spoken of in “new creation” imagery (Isa 43:1, 15, 19–21). The link between Israel’s restoration and new creation imagery is common in Isa 40–55 (see 40:28–31; 41:17–20; 42:5–9; 44:21–23, 24–28; 45:1–8, 9–13, 18–20; 49:8–13; 51:1–3, 9–11, 12–16; 54:1–10; 55:6–13).

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

335

druch Christus heraufgeführten Zeitenwende …;” in short, Paul’s conversion is “ein eschatologisches Ereignis.”95 But again, this “change of time” is cosmological in nature but not cosmic in scope. The restoration of the rest of creation, like the final removal of human suffering and strife, is yet to come at the Parousia (2 Cor 4:13–18; cf. Rom 8:18–25). Hubbard puts Paul’s understanding of the current eschatological situation well: “… the Christian groans because of the ‘already,’ while the creation groans because of the ‘not yet.’ ”96 For during the current overlapping of the ages eschatological restoration is experienced only by believers and only within the ongoing epoch of the age in which “the god of this world” still blinds unbelievers to what Paul and all believers “now” know (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 with 5:16). Though Paul affirms that the transformation of God’s people is already a defeat of “the god of this world” equal to creation in its cosmic significance (cf. 2 Cor 3:18 in view of 4:4–6), he also emphasizes that the resurrection power of the new creation is presently seen not in cosmic renewal, but in the ability of the faithful to endure in the midst of the continuing adversity of the old age (cf. 2 Cor 3:18 with 2 Cor 1:8–11, 2:14–17, 4:7–12; 6:3–13 in view of 1 Cor 4:8–13). To read 2 Cor 5:17 as a reference to cosmic renewal is to over-realize Paul’s eschatology. At this point it should be remembered that the theological context for the confluence of new creation and conversion, of eschatology and ethics, is the new covenant. Paul makes it clear that according to the early Jesus-tradition the Corinthians are to understand the Lord’s Supper in terms of the “new covenant” established in eschatological fulfillment of the Passover, which now “proclaimed the Lord’s death” as “our paschal lamb” (1 Cor 5:7) until he returns (1 Cor 11:23–26). The inauguration of the “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) is thus inextricably linked to the establishment of the “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη), in which, based on the forgiveness of sins, the Spirit creates and empowers the life of faith in anticipation of the resurrection to come (cf. 1:20–22; 2 Cor 3:3–18; 4:10, 13–18; 5:4–5 and Appendix Two above). Both Jackson and Hubbard therefore agree that in reading Paul we must not separate the eschatological “now” (cf. Rom 3:21; 16:26) from the soteriological “now” (cf. Rom 5:9, 11; 7:6; 8:1; Gal 2:20), especially as these are interwoven in 2 Cor 6:2.97 95 Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen,” 5–6, pointing to the same application of ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν from Isa 48:6 to conversion in Joseph and Aseneth 15:7. 96  Hubbard, New Creation, 225. 97 See Jackson, New Creation, 133, who in stressing the “broader soteriology” inherent in the “new creation” also recognizes the “clear anthropological application of 2 Cor 5:16–17,” and yet critiques Hubbard for nevertheless opting for a “stringently anthropological understanding” of 5:16. For his part, Hubbard, New Creation, 174, rightly points out that ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν in 5:16 explicates κρίναντας in 5:14, so that “from [the] now” refers to the time when Paul formed the judgment in the preceding verses, i. e., from his conversion. Moreover, given the content parallel between the two ὥστε-clauses in vv. 16a and 17a, “from now” parallels being “in Christ,” so that a reference to “conversion” is “beyond dispute” in view of Paul’s statement in v. 16b concerning

336

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

New Creation as the Cross-Shaped Life Paul’s declaration of the twofold significance of the new creation-transformation of individuals “in Christ” in 5:17 is confirmed and explicated by the parallel between Paul’s statement concerning the implication of the cross in 5:14–15 and its restatement in 5:20–21. By means of these parallels, Paul has re-applied his previous eschatological contrasts in Gal 5–6 and 1 Cor 7, which likewise focused on the new-age transformation of those in Christ, to his present argument.98 The parallels within 2 Cor 5:14–21 may be outlined as follows: 14a the love of Christ compels us 20a we are being ambassadors in Christ’s place (ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ), 20b just as (ὡς) God is appealing through us. 20c Hence, we are begging in Christ’s place, “Be reconciled to God.” 14b because (adv. ptcp.) we judge this, 21a For he made the one who knew not sin that one died in the place of all to be sin (ὑπὲρ πάντων), 14c therefore (ἄρα) all (οἱ πάντες) died, 15a and (καί) he died in the place of all (ὑπὲρ πάντων)

in our place (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν),

21b in order that (ἵνα + subj.) 15b in order that (ἵνα + subj.) those who are living we 15c might no longer live for themselves, but (ἀλλά) [they might live] for him who died and was raised in their place (ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν).

might become the righteousness of God by means of him (ἐν αὐτῷ).

his pre-conversion perception of Christ (p. 174). By framing conversion in terms of a “new creation” Paul indicates that he views the former as an event of eschatological and cosmological significance. So Hubbard’s conclusion that 2 Cor 5:17 “is not essentially about the presence of the new age, but the presence of a renewed image and a new humanity” (p. 185) is overdrawn, since the newly created humanity “in Christ” is an expression of the new age and could not come about without it. Unlike in Joseph and Aseneth, the purpose of the new creation statement is more than a rhetorical way “to portray conversion as a complete and irrevocable break with one’s former way of life” (contra Hubbard, New Creation, 186). 98  It should also be noted that the introduction of 5:11–13 is also picked up in 5:18–19, where Paul explains how the Corinthians should understand his ministry in order to answer the critique of his opponents. The overall structure of the passage thus exhibits the following pattern, the fulcrum of which is the statement regarding the new creation in 5:16–17: A: 5:11–13 (Paul’s Ministry) B: 5:14–15 (Significance of the Cross) C: 5:16–17 (Reality of the New Creation) A': 5:18–19 (Paul’s Ministry) B': 5:20–21 (Significance of the Cross)

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

337

Paul’s apostolic appeal as an ambassador “in Christ’s place as his representative” (ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ) for the reconciliation of the world (v. 20) is the consequence of his being compelled by Christ’s love (v. 14a). Paul’s apostolic ministry, as the embodiment of his love for the Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor 2:4; 11:11; 12:15), is thus based on Christ’s own love as embodied in his death “in the place of all he represents” (vv. 14b; 15a: ὑπὲρ πάντων; v. 15b: ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν). The ὑπέρ-formula in vv. 14–15 is then explicated in v. 21, so that the ὑπέρ-formula in these verses is best interpreted to mean the same thing that it signifies in v. 20, where the role of the ambassador is to take the place of the one he represents.99 In view of these parallels, v. 21a refers in covenant-cultic terms to the death of the Messiah as a sinless, atoning sacrifice for sin (cf. τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν … ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) offered in the place of all believers represented by the Messiah (cf. ὑπὲρ πάντων in vv. 14b and 15a with ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in v. 21a).100  99 Following

Sung-Ho Park, Stellvertretung Jesu Christi im Gericht: Studien zum Verhältnis von Stellvertretung und Kreuzestod Jesu bei Paulus, WMANT 143 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015) and my review of his work, BBR 27 (2017) 443–444. Park develops the Tübingen perspective on the meaning of “representation” in Paul as set forth by Gese, Janowski, Hofius, and Frey et al., in which in a judicial context acting (handeln) or entering in or standing up (eintreten) in the place of another (anstelle eines anderen), though often atoning in function, must not be equated with substitution (Austausch or Ersatz) or assumed always to be cultic in nature (cf. pp. 2, 4 nn. 11–12 and pp. 6, 6 n. 20, 33 and the many subsequent footnotes to their works). Park’s own work makes clear, however, that the distinction between representation and substitution is not always easy to maintain. Indeed, for Park, one can distinguish conceptually, but never isolate, “inclusive” and “exclusive representation,” thereby avoiding viewing representation either solely as a matter of “solidarity” or as a simple “substitution” (pp. 7–8). Having surveyed OT and 2TJ texts that speak of the role of a “representative” (der Stellvertreter; der Vertretende; cf. the parallel use of Repräsentant on pp. 74, 78) within the context of divine judgment, and the 17 Pauline passages that treat the cross and judgment separately, Park’s own focus is on the two Pauline letters where Christ’s representative death on earth and his ongoing intercession in God’s presence are explicitly interrelated both to one another and to divine judgment, above all at the Parousia: 1 Thessalonians (1:9–10; 4:14; 5:9–10) and Romans (5:8–10; 8:1–4; 8:31–34). Park concludes that for Paul the present justification of sinners through the death of Christ does not preempt their encounter with or ultimate salvific deliverance from the wrath of God in the final judgment (p. 364). Moreover, the relationship between Christ’s cross and his future intercession on the day of judgment is not a supplementary or subsequent one in which the latter is a second stage in redemption. The two aspects of Christ’s inclusive representation are a unified, single, salvific event according to a logical sequence of cross, resurrection, ascension, and intercession in which the certainty of salvation derives from their interrelationship (pp. 387–388, 405–406). For as Rom 8:34 makes clear, the significance of the cross is extended beyond the past to Christ’s act of representation both now and at the final judgment (p. 388). However, Park’s work stops short of working out the contours of that interrelationship and the way in which Christ’s representation relates to the role of the Christian’s Glaubenswerke in divine judgment and justification (p. 404). Hence, in our terms, the Pauline concept of Christ’s “representation” once again brings us back to Paul’s understanding of the interrelationship between inaugurated and consummated eschatology. 100  Cf. Lev 4:13–14, 20–21, 24–25, 32, 34; 5:6–8, 10–12; 6:18; 9:7; 14:19; 16:15, where “sin” (‫ ; חטאת‬ἁμαρτία) can be used as a short-hand description for the atoning sacrifice of the sinless animal offered on behalf of Israel. To be made “sin” on someone’s behalf (cf. 2 Cor 5:21: ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) is thus to be made a sacrifice for sin. Reconciliation is possible because

338

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

The key parallel for our purposes is between vv. 15bc and 21b, where both texts indicate the purpose to be accomplished by Christ’s death in the life of the believer (cf. ἵνα + subj.). That Paul is focusing on the life of the believer in 5:21 is not immediately evident. Though a matter of current debate, the parallels between vv. 11–14a and vv. 18–20 confirm that the first person plurals in vv. 18–20 are best construed not as references to the calling of the church, but as “apostolic” plurals referring to Paul’s own ministry.101 It may seem natural, therefore, that the first person plural pronouns in v. 21 also refer to Paul in his apostolic ministry. By virtue of the same argument, however, the parallels between vv. 14b–15c and v. 21ab indicate that in v. 21 Paul now includes his readers – exemplars of all believers – as the beneficiaries of Christ’s death (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) and as those who, by means of Christ’s death (ἐν αὐτῷ; cf. the parallel to 5:15c), are to “become the righteousness of God.” Furthermore, the threefold use of πᾶς in vv. 14b–15a and the switch to the third person in v. 15c clearly refer to referents including and outside of Paul, which signals this inclusive reading of v. 21 as well. That Paul can move abruptly from talking about his own ministry in the first person plurals of vv. 18–20 to including his readers in that same pronoun in v. 21 is evidenced by the identical move in 2 Cor 3:18, again indicated by the use of πᾶς.102 To state Paul’s point again, the purpose of Christ’s atoning death (v. 21a) is that “we,” i. e., “those who are living” (οἱ ζῶντες) as new creations ἐν Χριστῷ (5:15b, 17), might become the righteousness of God ἐν αὐτῷ (v. 21b). Though also a matter of much debate, the parallels between 5:15, 17, and 21 support those who argue that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 5:21 is a possessive or subjective genitive, depending on the degree to which δικαιοσύνη is rendered a verbal noun in relationship to the transitive uses of δικαιόω. Either way, it refers to the forensic estimation of God’s character as a result of evaluating the faithfulness of God’s actions against his own covenant commitments. The actions in view vary from context to context. Here the demonstration of God’s righteousness is seen in the establishment of the sinless Christ dies to atone for God’s people, a motif then picked up in Isa 52:13–53:12 (cf. Isa 53:10LXX: περὶ ἁμαρτίας, and Rom 3:25–26; 4:25; 5:8; 1 Cor 6:11; 11:23–26; 15:3–6; Col 1:19–20). For the corresponding lexical evidence and its application to the parallel, περὶ ἁμαρτίας, in Rom 8:3, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 221–222. For ‫ חטאת‬as a “sin-offering” for the purpose of the forgiveness of intentional sins, as well as a “purification offering” for the sanctuary, see John Dennis, “The Function of the ‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature: An Evaluation of the View of Jacob Milgrom,” ETL 78 (2002): 108–129, esp. 111–115, 118–119, 125–126. 101  For corollary support that the first person plurals in this passage, except for the general statement in v. 21, refer to Paul in his apostolic office, see Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21,” 368–371. 102 See Furnish, II Corinthians, 326, following Dinkler: though 5:14 refers to Paul and his colleagues, “it is almost inevitable … that the us in this initial affirmation of v. 14 should begin to expand under the sheer weight of the affirmation itself, so that what Paul has applied in the first instance to apostles is seen immediately to be applicable to all believers.” For the contrary view that 5:21 is a continuing reference to Paul in his apostolic ministry, see N. T. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Cor 5:21,” in Pauline Theology, Vol. II, ed. David M. Hay (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 200–208.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

339

the new creation by means of the reconciling cross of Christ as it accomplishes the transformation of God’s people in accord with the promises of the new covenant (cf. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ in 5:18a against the backdrop of Isa 43:18–19; 65:17–23; 66:22–23; Isa 52:6–10; 53:5 and 2 Cor 3:3, 6 against the backdrop of Ezek 36:26 and Jer 31:31–34). Concretely, and as a development of the eschatological contrasts in Gal 5:6 and 6:15, this transformation is framed in terms of God’s people no longer living for themselves but for the Christ who gave his life for them (5:15c). Here too the new creation of the new covenant is unpacked by a typical Pauline description of love for others as love for Christ, since love for others embodies God’s righteousness as now revealed eschatologically in and through Christ’s death (cf. Rom 5:8; 8:35, 38; 14:15; 1 Cor 13:4–7; Phil 2:3–5; 1 Thess 1:3; cf. Eph 5:2, 25; Phil 2:1–4 in view of 3:10–11; 2 Tim 1:13; Tit 2:11–14).103 As Hays puts it, “where the church embodies in its life together the world-reconciling love of Jesus Christ, the new creation is manifest. The church incarnates the righteousness of God.”104 Paul’s point in 2 Cor 5:17, therefore, is that those swept up into the inauguration of the eschatological “new creation” are already beginning to take on God’s right­eous character as revealed in Christ (2 Cor 3:9; 4:4–6; see 9:8–10). This point is corroborated by the “mutually illuminating” structural and conceptual parallels between 5:17ab and 5:21b as presented by Hubbard:105 ὥστε ἵνα

εἴ τις ἡμεῖς

ἐν Χριστῷ --‑ καινὴ κτίσις ἐν αὐτῷ γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

The fact that Christ’s love for all impels Paul to live for Christ by loving the Corinthians thus undergirds Paul’s conviction that all believers, by means of what Jesus accomplishes on the cross, become God’s righteousness (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) through their love for others. In this regard too the Corinthians are to imitate Paul, who imitates Christ (1 Cor 4:15–16; 11:1; cf. 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7, 9). For Paul is now governed, eschatologically, by the “rule of love” (cf. 2 Cor 5:14 with 103  Hays, Moral Vision, 31, in regard to Phil 3:10–11: “The twin themes of conformity to Christ’s death and the imitation of Christ are foundational elements of Paul’s vision of the moral life … Obedience to God is defined paradigmatically … by Jesus’ death on the cross” (pointing to Rom 6:1–14; 8:17, 29–30; 15:1–7; 1 Cor 10:23–11:1; 2 Cor 4:7–15; 12:9–10; Gal 2:19–20; 5:24; 6:14). 104 Ibid., 24, stressing Paul’s use of the verb γίνομαι in 2 Cor 5:21: “Thus, Paul’s defense of his own apostolic ministry turns out to be inextricably fused with the proclamation that the church community is a sneak preview of God’s ultimate redemption of the world.” 105 Hubbard, New Creation, 178. Commentators such as Kümmel, Wendland, Bultmann, Lang, Wolff, Breytenback, and Souza also point out a relationship between 5:17 and 5:21 (p. 178 nn. 253–254). Kümmel even draws the equation, “ ‘Neuschöpfung = Gerechtwerdung’ ” (quoted by Hubbard, p. 178). Based on these parallels, on a similar parallel between 2 Cor 3:16 and 5:17, and on the “mutually illuminating character of the ‘in Christ’ formulas in 2 Cor 3:14–16, 5:17, and 5:21” (p. 178, 178 n. 251), Hubbard concludes that “transformation – so important in the argument of Gal 3 and 4 – surfaces again in 5:17 and, as elsewhere in this letter, it is an anthropological-soteriological motif (τις)” (p. 179).

340

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

5:21).106 Regarding the repentant majority of the Corinthians (cf. 2:6), this rule of love will entail completing the collection for others (2 Cor 7; 8:7–10, 24; 9:13; see esp. 9:9: as an expression of God’s provisions to them, the righteousness of the saints is seen in their giving to the poor). On the other hand, for the minority of the Corinthians who are still in rebellion against Paul (cf. chs. 10–13) God’s righteousness entails giving them yet another opportunity to repent before Paul returns a third time to judge them as the final “proof” that Christ is indeed speaking powerfully through his ministry (cf. 2 Cor 13:1–5 with 5:19–20).

Eschatology, New Creation, and Covenant The related contrasts in Gal 5–6, 1 Cor 7, and 2 Cor 5:17 are all consistently eschatological. It is the coming of the Messiah, and in particular his death on the cross, that brings about the new creation (cf. ἐν Χριστῷ in 2 Cor 5:17 with ἐν κυρίῳ in 1 Cor 7:22, ἐν Χριστῷ in Gal 5:6, and ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Gal 6:14). And the consequence of the new creation is cataclysmic and concrete, even in its proleptic inauguration: “the old things (of human identity in this world and living for oneself) have passed away” (5:17b). In their place, the “new things” that have come (5:17c) are not an abstract eschatological “reality,” but the day-to-day life-pattern of the faith-expressed love embodied in obedience to God’s commands that was established and made possible by Christ’s love on the cross.107 In other words, 2 Cor 5:14–15, as the content of 2 Cor 5:17, express the same conceptuality found in Gal 5:6, 6:15, and 1 Cor 7:19.108 In summary, the life of the “new creation” declared in 2 Cor 5:17 is characterized by the fulfillment of the Torah being brought about by Paul’s ministry of the “new covenant,” taking 2 Cor 3:3, 6, 18 as a key conceptual backdrop to 2 Cor 5:17 (cf. again Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8–10). This link between new covenant and new creation is forged already by the parallels between 2 Cor 3:18 and 4:4 and 6. Through Paul’s ministry as a servant 106 Following Furnish, II Corinthians, 325–326, 328–329, who uses the image of the “rule of love” to describe the point of 5:14, emphasizing that, for Paul, to live for Christ means, concretely, to live for others, and pointing to 1 Cor 8:12 (for the point put negatively) and to Rom 15:1–3 in view of Rom 14:18 (for the point put positively). Here too Furnish turns to Gal 5:6 as a parallel (p. 328), though without a reference to the motif of new creation in Galatians as the link between the texts. 107  So too Campbell, Deliverance, 64: for Paul, salvation is “fundamentally transformational” (pointing to Rom 6:1–11; 7:1–4, emphasis mine), and this transformation has an important ethical dimension (pointing to Rom 6:19, 22–23) (p. 65). “That is, a transformation of the ethical capacity of humanity seems intrinsic to the entire salvific process; it is part of the event of grace” (Rom 6:15, 23) (p. 65). Thus, “Ethics merely denotes the behavioral aspect of this overarching process” (p. 83). 108  Contra, e. g., Hubbard, New Creation, 180, who sees 5:17b to be “Paul’s only commentary on καινὴ κτίσις.”

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

341

of the new covenant (3:6; 4:1, 5), the believer is being transformed into the image (εἰκών) of Christ (3:18), who is the image (εἰκών) of God (4:4), as a result of encountering the glory of the Lord/Christ through the Spirit (cf. 3:6, 8, 17). In 4:6 Paul then describes this life-transforming encounter under the new covenant as an act of (new) creation in which the God who created light in Gen 1:3 has now shown in the believer’s heart “with the light (ὁ φωτισμός) of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face (πρόσωπον) of Christ” (cf. Isa 9:2).109 In stark contrast, those blinded in the present era by “the god of this world” are not able to see “the light (ὁ φωτισμός) of the gospel of the glory of Christ,” just as hardened-Israel under the old covenant was not able to peer intently (ἀτενίζω) at the glory of God on the face (φωτισμός) of Moses (3:7, 13–14 with 4:4). If the new creation is “eschatological,” it is covenantally so, since its inauguration in the lives of believers signals the fulfillment of the old covenant in the new: the Passover and atoning sacrifice are taken up into the death of Christ; the remnant of Israel continues on in the remnant of Jews and gentiles that now constitute “the church of God” (2 Cor 1:1); God’s glory manifest at Sinai and in the temple is now identified with the glory of the Messiah (2 Cor 4:4, 6) and the temple of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3:17–18 with 1 Cor 3:16 and 2 Cor 6:16b). As reflected in Paul’s citing of Isa 49:8 in 2 Cor 6:2 in support of his prophetic declaration that the “day of salvation” has arrived, Paul’s conception of the new creation is thus inherently tied to his understanding of the history of redemption.110 Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 2–5 is framed by his reference to the new covenant in 3:6 and to the new creation in 5:17 because the one entails the other. For Paul, therefore, eschatology (the new creation) is inextricably tied to the history of Israel (the move from the old to the new covenants).111 109 Cf. Hubbard, New Creation, 160, who points out the way in which in 4:6 creation becomes an analogy for the new covenant work in the hearts of believers, while the confluence of creation, conversion, and Christology in 4:6 and 5:17 establishes an “almost symbiotic relationship” between the two passages. 110  Cf. too the parallels to Gal 6:15–16 in Isa 54:10, 1QHa 13,12, and Jub. 22:9–24 pointed out by Beale, “Peace and Mercy,” 212–213, 216, in which “covenant” appears in these eschatological texts in the context of referring to the annulment or renewal of the old covenant in the establishment of the new. Contra Campbell’s continuation of the divorce of apocalyptic from covenant, Deliverance, 701–702, in which he contrasts covenantal thinking as “rooted in the past and in a certain conception of history” with “a liberative and eschatological act of God in Christ” as a “fundamentally present and future event rooted in the resurrecting God (which therefore arguably introduces a reconceptualization of history).” 111 The covenantal backdrop to 2 Cor 5:14–17 is further supported by the “family resemblances” between 2 Cor 5:14–17 and Rom 7:1–6 pointed out by Hubbard, New Creation, 99– 100, 107–112: living in the “newness of the Spirit” in Rom 7:6 parallels the reality of the “new creation” in 2 Cor 5:17. Hubbard recognizes, therefore, that for Paul the move from Rom 7:5 to 7:6 “is of epochal significance” (cf. νυνὶ δέ in 7:6 with ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν … ἀλλὰ νῦν in 2 Cor 5:16 and the νῦν in 6:2); he rightly refers to the letter/Spirit contrast in Rom 7:6 as “Paul’s New Covenant retrospective” (pp. 107, 109), which Hubbard views as “both a synopsis and a portent of the apostle’s thought” (p. 121). Thus, “as the phrase implies, Paul’s New Covenant retrospective

342

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Within this framework it becomes important to keep in view that the “old things” in 2 Cor 5:17 do not refer to human distinctives in the narrow sense of an “ethnic identity” defined by a particular race, culture, and geography. Rather, like Paul’s relativizing of both circumcision and uncircumcision in the new creation text of Gal 6:15, the “old things” refer to a universal human identity determined by the old covenant under the old age. In contrast, the “new things” refer to the eschatological identity of a transformed humanity as determined by the new covenant of the new age of the new creation. Moreover, it is significant in terms of the history of redemption that the new creation, with its transformed humanity of Israelite and non-Israelite, is the beginning of Israel’s final restoration from God’s judgment meted out in the exile (cf. the context of Isa 43:1–21; 65:17–25 with Isa 2:1–4 and the use of Hos 2:1, 25 and Isa 10:22–23 in Rom 9:24–29 and Isa 52:6–10 in Rom 10:15). As Stuhlmacher insightfully observed over fifty years ago, what Paul called “the Israel of God” in Gal 6:16 he calls the “new creation” in 2 Cor 5:17, which in both cases places Paul’s thought within an “erwählungsgeschichtlich-kosmologischem Horizont.”112 Thus, the “canon” in view in Gal 6:16 is the “bestimmende Grund-Gesetz der neuen Welt.”113 Stuhl­ macher therefore interprets Gal 6:16, as an expression of “new creation,” in terms of its “salvation-history” significance: So aufgefaßt, fügen sich die heilsgeschichtlichen Differenzierungen von Judentum (περι­ τομή) und Heidentum (ἀκροβυστία), denen das  Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ als καινὴ κτίσις gegenüber­ gestellt wird, mit jenem erwählungsgeschichtlichen Wahrzeichen des κανών, das den Wandel normiert, nahtlos zusammen.114

So too, the Pauline polarity in 2 Cor 5:17 is between the old age of this creation, which is subjected to futility, but longing for its redemption (Rom 8:19–21), enabled him to juxtapose the old and new in an antithetical, dialectical fashion,” which Hubbard then describes as Paul’s “heilsgeschichtliche contrast” (pp. 110, 111). Moreover, in the context of both Rom 7:6 and 2 Cor 5:17 the new life of the Spirit and the existence of the new creation are unpacked in terms of the transformed, ethical life of the believer (cf. ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς in Rom 6:4 with ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος in 7:6; cf. too 8:4–5, 10, 13) (pp. 107, 109). Finally, the parallels between Rom 6:4 and 6:6 indicate that “the newness of the Spirit,” characterized by righteousness (6:15–23), is the antithesis to the “old man,” characterized by its “body of sin” (6:6), so that by extension the “new creation,” with its life for Christ as the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:14, 21), is also the opposite of the “old man” of Rom 6 (cf. ibid., 99–100 for the contrast between “new creation” and the “old man”). 112 “Erwägungen,” 6. Stuhlmacher supports his observation by interpreting the meaning of κανών in Gal 6:16 against its use in post-biblical Jewish tradition, where it is used to refer to an eschatological criterion of judgment, a criterion for evaluating creation, and a criterion for evaluating prophetic proclamation as the revelation of God’s will (pp. 6–7). Thus, in Gal 6:16 κα­ νών refers to the criterion for evaluating the grace of the Creator as determined by God’s justice (i. e., “the righteousness of God”) revealed to Paul in the “history of election” as the temporal realm of his apostolic work (p. 7). For my own further development of and application of this meaning in the context of 2 Cor 10:12–18, see chapter four. 113  Ibid., 7, emphasis mine. 114 Ibid., 7.

Chapter Ten: New Creation and the Consummation of the Covenant

343

and the new age of the new creation, which is proleptically characterized by the embodiment of God’s own righteousness in the transformed lives of his people (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Eph 4:24; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 3:12; 21:1–2, 5). This, then, is the eschatological context for understanding Paul’s ministry and message as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as the Spirit’s work of making alive (2 Cor 3:6b) is the assumed reality of the new creation (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17), the reality of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17) presupposes Paul’s ministry of mediating the Spirit as a servant of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:4–6a).

Conclusion

Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison1 Since the key to any understanding of Judaism must be the notion of the Covenant, it may safely be taken as an introduction to Essene religious thought. Geza Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls2

In bringing our work to a conclusion, the sectarian writings discovered at Qumran provide a fitting point of comparison by which to highlight the contours of Paul’s polarities since the congregation associated with Qumran was the only other self-identified eschatological community in Paul’s day. The comparisons that follow are not intended to indicate any kind of dependence on Paul’s part, or even mutual awareness.3 Their purpose is to indicate the related ways in which eschatology had a generative influence on the theological thinking of the leaders of the only two Second-Temple communities which saw themselves to be God’s  The thesis-like nature of this chapter is intentionally modeled on that of Prof. Stuhlmacher’s 1976 “Achtzehn Thesen zur paulinischen Kreuzestheologie,” now in his Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 192–208; his work has been the stimulus for much of what follows. An earlier version of this chapter was first published as “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought,” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher, ed. Jostein Ådna, Scott J. Hafemann, and Otfried Hofius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 172–189. 2  Geza Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 146. 3 For a survey of the various failed attempts to establish a literary or explicitly conceptual relationship between the NT and Qumran, in either direction, and the current methodological issues, see Jörg Frey, “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of The Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 519–528. The parallels here adduced from the texts discovered at Qumran are conceptual and exegetical, based on shared terminology and common Scriptural traditions; as such, following Frey, “The Qumran parallels provide the sources to study [the themes, terms, and techniques of Palestinian Judaism that influenced Paul], and they have actually contributed to a deeper understanding of the influence of Palestinian Jewish traditions on Paul’s theological language” (p. 534). 1

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

345

new covenant people. By so doing, the comparison with Qumran serves to confirm our eschatological reading of Paul, showing that Paul’s perspectives would make sense in his historical and Scripturally-informed environment. Similar eschatological convictions produce similar conclusions about the life of the new covenant community in relationship to the history of Israel; similar convictions about the life of the new covenant community in relationship to the history of Israel produce similar eschatological expectations. The comparisons that follow are therefore necessarily broad in scope in order to map out these similarities – what they lack in specificity they therefore gain in relevance by setting in relief the basic eschatological framework of Paul’s new covenant ministry developed in the previous chapters. There is no longer any serious debate that the writings associated with the Qumran settlement provide a significant, contemporaneous tradition alongside that of the New Testament, to which, next to Jesus and the Gospels, Paul’s thought has most often been compared.4 Moreover, the stark material contrasts between the sectarian documents found at Qumran and Paul’s letters that characterized earlier comparisons have gradually given way under the weight of the new perspectives on Paul and first-century Judaism that have arisen since the work of E. P. Sanders. In their place, recent scholarship has offered more nuanced appraisals in which the two bodies of literature are seen to be distinct, but parallel responses to the same socio-religious experience and location.5 4  See, e. g., the impetus established by the Munich project, “Qumran and the New Testament” on 1 Thess and Gal reported in Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. George J. Brooke, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 169–221, including an extensive bibliography. 5 For examples of this trend, see Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 174–180, who treats Paul’s concept of justification from the standpoint of its “analogical” similarities to the same doctrine in the Qumran texts (see, e. g., 1QS 11:2–12); the summary found in J. A. Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Paulist, 1992), 125–130, where he too stresses their similarities (e. g., “the Palestinian matrix for the Pauline idea of God’s righteousness and of justification by grace,” p. 126), as well as the distinct Christological focus of Paul’s theology; and N. T. Wright’s emphasis, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), 204, that those associated with the Qumran texts “can be seen as a cousin of early Christianity: sharing the same ancestor (pre-Maccabean Judaism), exhibiting some family similarities, but without direct derivation or even visible links.” Unfortunately, examples of stark, material contrasts still exist, largely due to a misreading of Paul as arguing for the abolishment of the Torah in some sense; see, e. g., Timothy H. Lim, “Paul, Letters of,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 639: “… attention has been drawn to the terminological use of ‘the new covenant’ in the Damascus Document and the Pauline letters, but in what sense is this a parallel? Given the diverging views concerning the efficacy of Jewish law in these texts, it is hardly illuminating, and even misleading, to compare the notion of the new covenant in Paul to that of the Qumran community. Whereas Paul sees the old covenant as having been surpassed by the new dispensation (2 Cor. 3), the Qumran community’s new covenant involves a return to a correct

346

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

N. T. Wright has correctly emphasized, however, that such comparisons, rather than minimizing the theological content of the Christian movement, actually heighten the role that theology played within the community. They show clearly that the identity of early Christianity was not formed by a particular ethnicity, geography, cultural practice, or heritage, but by her distinctive convictions concerning the relationship of the history of Israel to her own existence as the eschatological, new covenant people of God in Christ.6 The same can be said mutatis mutandis about the Qumran community, since merely being a circumcised Jew, or even a member of an Essene family, were insufficient grounds for membership in the congregation. As in the church, what was needed in Qumran was a proven allegiance to the community’s exegetical, halakhic, theological, and

and punctilious observation of the Mosaic commandments that reflects a spiritual renewal of the individual. More appropriate would have been a comparison of Paul with the remarkable passage in Jeremiah 31.31–34 … in which God declares that in the new covenant the law and its teaching will be internalized, placed in the hearts of the house of Israel. The Qumran community and Paul both drew on Jeremiah 31, but their respective formulations diverge dramatically and certainly do not show any mutual influence.” The purpose of this volume has been, in large degree, to show the formative influence of Jer 31:31–34 on Paul’s thought in order to argue that he too is just as “punctilious” in his observance of the Torah as now written on the heart as his Jewish contemporaries. The difference with other Jews of his day, including his opponents, is therefore not to be found in a supposed, Pauline abolishment of the Torah, but in their divergent halakhic interpretations of how the Torah is to be fulfilled and kept in the new age of the new covenant, especially in view of the incorporation of the gentiles, as gentiles, into the eschatological people of God. This holds true for his differences with the Qumran community as well. 6 Wright, People of God, 368. See too the insightful essay of Charles H. Cosgrove, “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” CBQ 68 (2006): 268–290. Cosgrove points out that “ancient Mediterraneans … tended to classify peoples according to fixed characteristics and geographical origin”; moreover, in contrast to the modern (or postmodern) view of ethnic diversity or difference as a positive value to be protected due to its convictions concerning cultural relativity, “ancient Mediterraneans did not think it wrong to view their own group as superior to others” (pp. 269, 270). In contrast, Paul preserved the kinds of distinctions identified in Gal 3:28 “not because the distinctions count in themselves but because to do otherwise would suggest that one ethnic-religious or gender identity counts more than others” (p. 278, summarizing Judith Gundry-Volf, with which Cosgrove agrees on p. 280, though disagreeing with her that such differences are adiaphora, p. 280). In doing so, however, Paul also called for their end in Gal 3:28 in a “ ‘counter-cultural text’ ” that does not argue from the standpoint of justice; rather, it is a “ ‘thoroughly apocalyptic text about God’s victorious call to life in the real world’ in the indicative mood of God’s new creation … in which the fundamental polarities by which the world is constructed have come to an end” (p. 279, quoting J. Louis Martyn). Thus, for Paul, “If differences must be simultaneously preserved and transcended, diversity both established and overcome, one way to think of this is to regard differentiation as penultimate and the end of differentiation as ultimate … In the meantime, penultimately, they both come to an end and are preserved. The ultimate qualifies their penultimate preservation” (p. 279, and the supporting literature cited there). For the fact that the reality of the new creation works out in distinct ways in regard to the ethnic and religious differences between gentiles and Jews (i. e., due to the reality of the gospel, gentiles should not become Jews and yet must respect Jewish Christians who keep the law, while Jews can live like gentiles for the sake of the unity of the church and still remain Jews!), see Cosgrove, pp. 280–281.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

347

historical commitments.7 A comparison of concepts central to both Paul and the Qumran documents in their respective settings thus serves us well in highlighting some of these respective commitments.8 In what follows, such a comparison produces five theses of particular relevance for highlighting Paul’s eschatology. 1. Both Qumran and Paul viewed their respective communities to be the remnant people of the new covenant. It has long been recognized that the only other explicit reference to the “new covenant” of Jer 31:31–34 in pre-rabbinic Jewish literature outside of the New Testament is found in the writings associated with the Qumran community.9 It 7  So too, e. g., Howard Clark Kee, “Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 105. For the three-step process of admission into the community as outlined in 1QS 6:13–23 in which this commitment was demonstrated, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Holiness and Sanctity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” now in his Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 259. As Schiffman points out, “All these stages serve to link the instruction in sectarian teachings with the initiation into the sect through the medium of ritual purity. As the novice gained in knowledge of the sect’s interpretations of biblical law and passed examinations … he gradually rose in ritual purity until he was able to partake of all the pure food and drink of the sect” (p. 259). 8 Though beyond my purpose here, it would be equally instructive to examine the respective central concepts not shared by Paul and the Qumran community, especially those regarding the priesthood and a priestly Messiah, purity and purification, the continuing historical and eschatological significance of Jerusalem and the temple, the eschatological battle, baptism and entrance rites, the Lord’s Supper and communal meals, and the role of gentiles qua gentiles in the covenant community. 9  In the Qumran texts the full designation “the new covenant” (‫ )הברית החדשה‬is found in CD 6:19; 8:21; 19:33–34; 20:12; 1QpHab 2:3; 4Q269 fr. 4 ii 1, usually together with the designation “in the Land of Damascus,” which may refer either to Damascus, to some other actual place where the community existed for a time (e. g., to Babylon; cf. the use of Damascus for Babylon in Amos 5:26–27, and Acts 7:43), or to their self-understanding as the continuation of the remnant which was preserved through the Babylonian exile. In CD 13:14 the new covenant can also be called the “Covenant of God” (cf. 1QS 2:26–27). Although 4Q504 Frag. 1–2 ii 12–18 is fragmentary, here too the hope for Israel’s future redemption, as well as the implied experience of the present remnant, is most likely portrayed in terms of the promise of the new covenant from Jer 31:31–34. The concept of the “covenant” itself, including the various biblical covenants, is naturally one of the major themes in the Qumran documents, occurring some 157 times in the Qumran texts; cf. James H. Charlesworth, Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 57, 92 ff., 122, 302, 338. For a helpful survey of the key texts and concepts regarding “covenant,” the various biblical covenants, and the “renewed covenant” in the scrolls, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Concept of Covenant in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature,” now in his Qumran and Jerusalem, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 235–255. Schiffman points out that the term “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬is common as a designation of the community itself, so that entering the covenant “was tantamount to joining the sect (cf. CD 2:2),” which in 1QS 3:11–12 can be called “the covenant of the eternal community” (p. 249, pointing on pp. 249–250 as well to the same concept in 1QS 1:8; 4:22; 5:2–3, 5–6, 21–22; 8:16–17; 1QM 17:6, 8; 4Q280 2 7; 11Q13 2:24). Conversely, “those not in the sect will be punished with the covenant curses (1QS 5:10–13). They are described as outside of God’s ‘covenant’ (1QS 5:18–19) or as violators of the covenant (‫מרשׁיעי ברית‬, 1QM 1:2)” (p. 250, pointing to 4Q387 3 6–8 for the same phrase and to a similar

348

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

is also generally recognized that there too, as in the New Testament, this new covenant concept is derived from Jer 31:31–34.10 Moreover, both Qumran and Paul understood their respective communities to be the elect people of this new covenant (cf. Jer 31:33). In the Damascus Document the community is portrayed as the continuation of the righteous remnant of Israel which, in accordance with God’s covenant with the Fathers, God had preserved in the midst of Israel’s rebellion and kept from the subsequent destruction of the Exile (CD 1:4–5; cf. CD 3:13–14).11 As such, God raised up the Qumran community “390 years” after the exile in order that they might inherit the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (CD 1:5–6; 3:13; cf. Ezek 4:5).12 The need for this divine intervention is traced to Israel’s history of rebellion, during which the nation as a whole broke the covenant made with the fathers (cf. CD 1:3–4; 3:4–11; 6:2; cf. CD-B 19:29–31). In CD 5:20–21 we thus read concerning the founding of the community that it took place in the midst of the moral and cultic impurity which resulted from the nation’s ultimately being led astray (most likely by the Pharisees, i. e., the “removers of the bound”) into a “rebellion against the commandments of God given by the hand of Moses ….” At that time, during the “age of wrath” (CD 1:5), God “remembered the Covenant with the forefathers, and he raised from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel men of wisdom” as “converts of Israel who went concept in 4Q171 1–10 iii 12). The reason for this identification is clear: “It is because the Qumran sectarians considered themselves the true biblical Israel that they believed they were vouchsafed a special covenantal status as a group” (p. 251). And for a survey of E. P. Sanders’s now paradigmatic treatment of the (new) covenant and remnant concepts in the Qumran material as clear expressions of a “covenantal nomism” in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 239–328, esp. 240–247, 250–252, see my, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 151–153, notes 183, 185, 186. 10  For a discussion of these points against their detractors and the exegetical support from the standpoint of 2 Cor 3:4–18 for many of the Pauline perspectives proposed here, see my, Paul, Moses, 150–173. 11 For the working assumption followed here that, despite the development which takes place within the sectarian documents and the geographical dispersion of the communities associated with the Qumran texts, there is an essential unity, though not uniformity, of the theological framework exhibited throughout those Dead Sea scrolls to be attributed to the sectarians themselves (most probably Essenes), see, e. g., Devorah Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, CRINT 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 497, 532, and the summary by James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2 ff. 12 The translations of the Qumran texts are taken throughout from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised Edition (London: Penguin Books, 2011), although the numbering follows the standard editions for the sake of reference; the column/line numbering of 1QHa follows the reconstruction found in DJD 40, ed. Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, trans. Carol Newsom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

349

out of the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus” (CD 6:2–3, 5).13 As a result, God established a “new covenant” with a remnant of the faithful in faithfulness to his own past “Covenant of/with the forefathers” (CD 1:5; 2:2; 3:12–14; 4:9–10; 6:2; 8:18–21; cf. 1QS 1:1–2:12; 4Q393 frg. 3 7).14 In doing so, he “raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of his heart” so that, in contrast to the disobedience of the nation, they might remain faithful to the law (CD 1:10–11; CD-B 20:1; cf. 1QpHab 2:8–10; 7:3–4; 4Q171 3:15). Due to this divine action the Qumran community has become the forerunners of the eschatological, faithful remnant to be saved from within the people (cf. CD 3:5, 12–13; 8:17–18).15 In 1QM 14:8–10 “the remnant of (God’s) people” in the midst of his wrath at the end of the age are similarly defined as those whom God has preserved and not caused to “stray from (his) Covenant”; here too this divine mercy on the remnant who lived “under the dominion of Belial,” seen in their 13  For the concept of the “remnant,” see too 1QM 13:8; 1QHa 14:11; for the community as the people of God and the forerunners of the only true Israel, see 1QS 1:7–8; 2:25; 1QHa 13:25; CD 2:2; 8:21; 13:14. As such, the “community of the eternal covenant” is also called “Israel” (cf. 1QS 5:5–6; 8:4–5; CD 12:8), the “seed of Israel” (CD 12:22), and the “multitude of (the sons of) Israel” (1QS 5:22; CD 14:4). In contrast, in the War Scroll only the eschatological community, over against the rest of the compromised nation, is called “Israel” (2:8–9; 3:13; 15:1), the “people of God” (1:5; 3:13; 10:9), the “people of God’s redemption” (1:12; 14:5), the “people of his holiness” (14:12), and the “twelve tribes” (2:2–3; 3:13–14.; 5:1–2). In commenting on these texts and this conception, Joachim Gnilka, “Das verstockte Volk – die erwählte Gemeinde,” in Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6, 9–10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker, SANT 3 (Munich: Kosel, 1961), 157 n. 9, observes: “Auch damit ist gegeben, daß der bisherige Bund allein nicht mehr genügt, daß das Volk als solches nicht mehr Träger des Bundes ist.” In contrast, “Die QumranGemeinde weiß sich aber wie die christliche Gemeinde als die legitime Erbin bzw. Fortsetzung des alten Israel” (p. 161). 14  Contra Philip R. Davies and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, who take the “new covenant” in CD not to be a reference to Jer 31, but to be a later redactional reference to those members of the schism within the Damascus community who followed the Teacher of Righteousness. For the relevant literature and a recent agreement with their thesis, see Dwight D. Swanson, “A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s: The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. George J. Brooke, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 282. But Swanson’s own admission of a resulting “confusing array of factions” speaks against these redactional theories. Cf. 1QpHab 2:2–10, where the community is identified with the “new covenant” in contrast to “those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that they [did] not [listen] to the word received by] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God” and were thus “the unfaithful of the New [Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God … (2:1–5). In other words, they “are castigated because they did not believe in the renewed covenant” of Jer 31:31 as this was now embodied in the Qumran community and set forth in its inspired interpretations of the biblical text (so Schiffman, “Concept of Covenant,” p. 252, who aligns this text with the point of CD 6:19 that the sectarians had not simply entered into the covenant, but had entered “ ‘the new [or better, ‘renewed’] covenant,’ an allusion to Jer 31:31 …”). 15 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 250–251, points out that since in the Qumran texts the term “remnant” refers to those who survive the judgment, past and future, the community viewed itself as those who would be involved in and vindicated through the final eschatological war and therefore not equivalent with the remnant at the present. Only in the end do the sect and Israel, as the remnant, become identical (cf. 1QpHab 5:3–6; 4Q171 2:19; 4:10, p. 254).

350

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

covenant faithfulness, is the result of God himself having “kept the Covenant with our fathers” (cf. 1QM 10:8–10 [“the people of the Saints of the Covenant”]; 13:7–8 [“the survivors of Thy Covenant”]). Like Qumran, Paul too saw a comparison of the old and new covenants to be the key to understanding the existence, character, and eschatological significance of the elect as the “remnant” of the faithful throughout the history of redemption (cf. 2 Cor 3:7–18; Rom 9:27–29; 11:1–6; for the significance of the remnant in Paul’s eschatology, see chapter eight). Paul too, like the texts of the Qumran community, viewed the history of Israel under the Sinai covenant to be characterized by disobedience and hard-heartedness (Gal 4:3, 24–25; 1 Cor 10:1–10; 2 Cor 3:12–14; Rom 2:17–24; 10:21; 11:7–10). Indeed, Israel as a whole still lived under the covenant curse of the law as prophesied in Deut 27–32 (cf. Deut 27:3–4 and 29:3 with 2 Cor 3:14–15 and Rom 11:7–10; Deut 27:26 with Gal 3:10).16 In order to fulfill his promises to Abraham, despite Israel’s history of breaking the covenant, Paul shared the Qumran community’s conviction that God had consequently inaugurated a community of the new covenant, though for Paul this had taken place as a result of the coming of the Messiah. Like Qumran, Paul too saw his divinely elected community to be the beginning of the final, eschatological restoration of Israel as God’s people, who, despite even her current, large-scale rejection of the Messiah, “are, according to election, beloved because of the fathers” (Rom 11:28; cf. Gal 3:6–9, 14–18, 23–29; 4:28; Rom 4:1, 11–17; 11:1, 26; 15:12; Eph 2:11–1217). At this point in redemptive history, therefore, the church is the eschatological remnant of God’s people, which exists in continuity with the faithful remnant from throughout Israel’s history and as a proleptic realization of the future redemption of Israel and the nations (2 Cor 16 For the idea of the continuation of the “exile” beyond the inauguration of the return from exile in the sixth-century BC, and of Israel’s consequent continuing need for restoration as a key to Paul’s view of the law, see chapters two and six and the programmatic statements of Wright, People of God, 149–150, 159, 170, 206, 217, 268–269, 272, 280, 320, 332. However, Paul develops this concept in terms of the law’s ongoing “curse” on disobedient Israel (Gal 3:10–13a; 2 Cor 3:6–9; Rom 3:19–20), rather than by referring to a continuing “exile” per se. But there is no doubt that the two are intimately related. For this concept in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Concept of Restoration in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” now in his Qumran and Jerusalem, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 301 (cf. pp. 290, 292), who concludes that for most of the sectarian texts, “there is a fundamental assumption that the restoration is not an event that took place in the Persian period. Rather, it is a still awaited event to take place as part of the unfolding of the eschaton and the ensuing escape from the limitations and imperfections of history. Effectively, the sectarian point of view saw the period of the Second Temple as a continuation of the period of the exile, and so the restoration was still to come.” To substantiate this claim Schiffman points to texts such as 4Q504 1–2 recto vi:12–14; 4Q509 frg. 3:3–5; 4Q528 3; 4QFlorilegium 1 I 2–9; 1QM 12:12–15; CD 4:2; CD 6:4–5 = 4Q267 frg. 2 11; CD 20:20–21, 32–33. 17  In what follows, the entire Pauline corpus is employed; even if one or the other is judged to be “deutero-Pauline,” these letters would represent the earliest understanding of the trajectory of Paul’s thought.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

351

6:14–7:1;18 Gal 6:16; Rom 9:22–31; 11:1–12; Eph 2:11–22). For Paul, the Mosaic “ministry of death” and “condemnation” rooted in Israel’s hardness of mind – expressed already in her sin with the golden calf – is finally being overcome by the Messiah, albeit penultimately, in the new covenant people of God (2 Cor 3:7, 9a, 13–14). This is confirmed by Paul’s use of Moses as a type of the church’s experience in 2 Cor 3:16–17, in contrast to the continuing experience of Israel in her stiff-necked condition depicted in 2 Cor 3:14–15. In support of this contrast, the events and theological point of Exod 32–34 at play in 2 Cor 3:7–18 recall the link between idolatry and a hardened heart presupposed in 1QHa 12:15; as with those whose minds are hardened in 2 Cor 3:14–15, so too “the teachers of lies” and those they have led astray consequently “perish without understanding.” On the other hand, like Paul in 2 Cor 3:12–13, the righteous teacher pictures himself in 1QHa 12:5–7 to be like Moses’s shining face in Exod 34:29–30 in that the Lord has “enlightened (his) face for (the Lord’s) covenant.” The glorious character of Paul’s ministry portrayed in 2 Cor 3:8, 9, 18 thus finds a parallel in the faithful teacher’s declaration in 1QHa 12:23–28 that the Lord has worked through him in power and revealed his glory so that, in so doing, the Lord has also “illumined the face of the Congregation” and gathered them into the Lord’s covenant. As with Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit” and “righteousness” in 2 Cor 3:6–18, so too in 1QHa 12:5–33 the figure and ministry of Moses as the model of God’s act of new creation-transformation provides the paradigm for the experience of the faithful in contrast to those who remain hardened outside the reality of the (new) covenant. Hence, Paul can now contrast Sinai as the “old covenant” with the “new covenant” reality found in Christ in fulfillment of Jer 31:31–34 (2 Cor 3:6, 14; Gal 4:21–5:1). This reality is embodied experientially in the church’s partaking of “the cup of the new covenant” in Christ’s blood during her celebration of the Lord’s supper “until he comes” (1 Cor 11:25–26), something that reminds us of the eschatologically-tinged communal meals celebrated by the Qumran community as anticipations of the messianic banquet to come (cf. 1QS 6:2–7 with 1QSa 2:11–21).19 Furthermore, we saw in the previous chapter that Paul’s transition from 2 Cor 3:4–18 to 5:12–21 reflects his conviction that the new covenant restoration also belongs to the Isaianic new creation,20 with all that this implies 18  On the new covenant and “second exodus” restoration backdrop to 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 187–220. 19 So too Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 83–84, who in commenting on the parallel between the communal meals and the eschatological, messianic meal, celebrated with a messianic high priest and the Messiah of Israel, concludes that “it is not unreasonable to infer from the New Testament parallel that the former [meal] was thought to prefigure the latter [meal],” pointing to Matt 26:29. 20  For the expectation of a new creation in the Qumran texts, cf., e. g., 1QHa 5:18, 28– 29; 7:26–30a; 11:20–24b; 19:12–17; 1QS 4:23b–26; 11QTa 29:7b–10. For the second-exodus/

352

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

both salvifically (cf. 2 Cor 4:7–18; 5:11–6:2) and ethically (cf. 2 Cor 6:14–7:1; see below). Having been freed from the curse of the law on Israel’s disobedience by Christ’s taking the curse upon himself, believers live as a remnant of the righteous in the midst of the ongoing evil age (Gal 1:4; 3:13; 2 Cor 4:1–6; Eph 2:1–10; Col 1:13). The people of God in Christ are now the true covenant people of God from among the nation Israel and from among the nations (1 Thess 2:14–16; 1 Cor 5:9–13; 10:32; Gal 6:16). 2. Both Qumran and Paul saw their respective communities to be formed around their own eschatological and singularly true interpretation of the Scriptures, especially the Torah. As the community of the new covenant, Qumran saw itself to be part of that “remnant which held fast to the commandments of God,” with whom God “made His Covenant with Israel forever, revealing to them the hidden things in which all Israel had gone astray” (CD 3:12–14). In order to establish this covenant, God “caused them to hear” so that, in fulfillment of Num 21:18, they “dug the well,” which is now interpreted to be the law itself (CD 6:2–4). To do so they used the “tool” provided by God in accordance with Isa 54:16, i. e., the “Interpreter of the Torah,” who provided the community with its correct meaning (CD 6:7–9). Only his interpretation of the law can make a life pleasing to God possible.21 Dimant therefore observes that “the sect’s point of departure appears to have been a double awareness: on the one hand the recognition of their own restoration/new-creation perspective as the basis of Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 5–7, in which the restoration motif is the foundation of Paul’s understanding of the new creation and reconciliation, see G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” NTS 35 (1989): 550–581 and William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1, JSNTSup 85 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). 21  Cf. Johannes A. Huntjens, “Contrasting Notions of Covenant and Law in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 8 (1974): 361–380, who sees the notion of the new covenant to be “legalistic” in the Damascus Document, over against a more “fluid” notion of the covenant elsewhere. By this he means that in CD the new covenant “is identified almost exclusively with the issue of the interpretation of the Torah and with the question of the Sabbath and the festivals” (pp. 363–364; cf. CD 6:17). Huntjens traces this same point in 1QS, in which to follow the exegetical and practical rules of the sect is to enter into the covenant (1QS 5:8, 18, 19, 22; 10:10; 1QSa 1:3), since the exegetical efforts of the sect are identified with obedience to the covenant (1QS 5:2, 3, 9, 11; 1QSa 1:3; 1QSb 1:2) (cf. pp. 364–369). Huntjens’s point is to show the centrality of the calendar for the Qumran community, though it seems to be an overstatement to conclude that the “whole issue of the law and the covenant is reduced to the question of the calendar” (p. 369). Moreover, Huntjen contrast this “legalistic” view of the new covenant with those texts from 1QpHab, CD, 1QHa, and 1QS in which “covenant allegiance is understood in a more fluid sense as a disposition of faith in a revelation concerning God’s eschatological purpose,” i. e., a supposedly “spiritual notion of covenant” (pp. 370–371; cf. 373–375, 378). To do so draws a distinction where there is none, since obedience to the law in the Qumran conception flows from the heart by the power of the Spirit (see below). Huntjens himself emphasizes that the “spiritualized notion of covenant law as faith … exists side by side with the more highly technical and restricted notion

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

353

sinfulness and the need to repent; on the other, the conviction that they possessed the true teaching and revelation through the Teacher of Righteousness. This explains why the sectaries call themselves both ‘the Repenters of Israel’ and ‘the comers into the New Covenant.’ ”22 Conversely, interpreting the Scriptures falsely is dangerous (cf. now 4Q184). In the Damascus Document the proper interpretation of the law is held to be divinely revealed as a proleptic manifestation of the righteous teaching which the priestly Messiah himself will confirm and establish at the “end of days” (CD 6:11; cf. 1QS 9:18–19). This interpretation concerns the divine “mysteries” (‫)רז‬ that have now been revealed to the community as the basis of the new covenant.23 The central figure in the community’s history therefore becomes the “Teacher of Righteousness,” since he is the one to whom and through whom these mysteries have primarily been revealed (1QpHab 7:3–5; 1QHa 10:15, 20; 12:8–13; 13:13–14; 4Q427 2+3 ii 12–13; 1QpMic frg. 10 4–8).24 To be the faithful remnant during the last days of wickedness was consequently associated with already possessing the correct interpretation of Scripture as given through the faithful priests, the Teacher of Righteousness, and the study of the community (cf. CD 1:12–13; 4:2; 6:11; 1QS 1:2–3; 8:14–16; 1QpHab 2:8–10; 7:1–5). It is this conviction that is embodied, most directly, in the Qumran pesharim. Ultimately, however, as promised in Isa 54:13 and Jer 31:34, God himself is the one who teaches the community (cf. 1QS 11:17–8; 1QHa 10:25; 14:12; CD 20:3–4; 1QM 10:10).25 This is reflected in the War Scroll in its corresponding description of the community in the divine passive: the people of the covenant have been “instructed in the laws and learned in wisdom” as those “whose ear of covenant law which centered mainly on the issue of the calendar” (p. 378; cf. 1QS 10:25; 9:23–26; 1QpHab 8:1–3, 10–11, 18, etc.). 22  Dimant, “Qumran,” 492. For the former designation (‫ )שבי ישראל‬she points to CD 4:2; 6:5; 8:16, 19:29; for the latter (‫ )באי הברית החדשׁה‬to CD 6:19; 8:21; 19:33; cf. 2:2; 3:10; 6:11; 13:14; 15:5; 19:16, 20:25 (p. 492 nn. 52–53). Dimant, 496 n. 77, supports her interpretation of the latter designation by pointing to its backdrop in Isa 59:20, which appears in CD 2:5; 20:17. See too her critique of Murphy-O’Connor’s theory that the designation refers to the sect’s return from exile in Babylon. 23  Cf., e. g., the “mysteries of truth” (1QS 4:6; 9:18; 1QHa 13:28), the “mysteries of wisdom” (1QHa 17:23), “of insight” (1QS 4:18; 1QHa 20:16), “of God” (1QHa 20:23; 1QM 16:11), and, most commonly, “of marvels” (1QS 9:18; 1QHa 9:23), etc. These “mysteries” include the correct interpretation of the Torah (1QS 9:18–19) and the Prophets (1QpHab 7:5), the forgiveness of sins (CD 3:18; 1QHa 19:12), the order of creation (1QHa 9:23), the sovereignty of God, and the lowliness of mankind (1QHa 18:6; 12:28). In addition, besides the community’s special legal views and calendar, the mysteries are concerned above all with the events and significance of the end times as the key to understanding the “periods” of time into which God has divided history (cf., e. g., too 1QS 4:18–19; 1QM 16:11; 17:9). For this summary and these texts, see Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels, 177–179. 24  On the Teacher of Righteousness, cf. too 1QpHab 1:13; 2:2, 8; 5:9–12; 8:3; 9:9–12; 11:4–8; CD 1:11; 20:1, 28, 32; 4Q171 2:18–19; 3:15; 4QpPsa 3:15–19. 25  So Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels, 172–173.

354

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

has been unstopped, and who have heard profound things” (1QM 10:10–11). The speaker in 1QHa 9:21 likewise confesses that he knows the wisdom of God’s sovereign ordaining of all things, “for Thou hast unstopped my ears to marvelous mysteries.” Entering the (new) covenant of the community is thereby equated with returning to the truth of God inscripturated in the commandments of the law as interpreted and obeyed within the community (cf. 1QS 1:2–7, 11–12, 16–18; 2:24; 6:15).26 In contrast, “the foolish of heart shall not comprehend these things” (1QHa 9:39). Indeed, they “walk in stubbornness of heart and seek (God) among the idols” (1QHa 12:16).27 Paul too saw his churches, as the congregation of the new covenant, to be in continuity with the “remnant” of the faithful within Israel’s history as testified to in the Scriptures. As such, they too are marked out in part by their “obedience of faith” to the commandments of God (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26). Moreover, the contrasts in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and 6:15, together with the argument of Rom 2:25–29 (cf. Phil 3:3), make clear that for Paul too this obedience derives not from one character or pattern of religion replacing another, nor from a new Torah taking the place of the old, but from a distinctive, eschatologically-informed interpretation of the Torah itself (cf. Rom 3:31; 10:4; 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; Eph 2:10; 1 Tim 1:8–11). In this sense, Paul’s perspective remains that of a concrete “covenantal nomism” in which, under the rule of the Messiah, Paul’s understanding of the Torah has undergone a “halakhic conversion.”28 The believer is ἔννομος  I owe this point to Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels, 155–185, esp. p. 157.  Given this emphasis on the contrast between the experience of the psalmist and of those within the nation who continue to be hardened, Arvid S. Kapelrud’s distinction between 1QS, where there is a clearer break between the old and new covenants, and the stress on the continuity between the two in 1QHa and 1QM, is overdrawn; see his “Der Bund in den QumranSchriften,” in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel‑ und Qumranwissenschaft, ed. Siegfried Wagner (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968), 148–149. 28 For the concept of a “halakhic conversion,” see now Joel Willitts, “One Torah for Another. The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21,” in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul, ed. Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House, WUNT 2/450 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 21–45. By “halakha” is meant “a pattern of life governed by the Torah,” i. e., “ ‘the tradition of formulated rules regulating life’ ” (p. 25, quoting Peter Tomson). The concept of a “halakhic conversion” was also used earlier and independently by Paula Fredriksen, though with the meaning of gentiles becoming Jews; for Willitts and here it refers to “the change from one Jewish halakhic authority to another within Judaism” (p. 36 n. 39). For Paul, this “move from one authoritative practical interpretation of the Torah to another” takes place “in light of a new historical moment, namely, the revelation of Jesus that Paul described in [Gal] 1:13–16” (p. 36). Moreover, “this halakha of the Messiah, in view of his revelation, is the only appropriate Jewish halakha” (p. 42). Willitts argues that this move was “not a reorientation away from the Torah to the Messiah as Dunn suggests, but a reorientation away from the Pharisaic Torah to the Torah determined by the faith of the Messianic Son” (p. 43), i. e., a “conversion from Pharisaic halakha to Messianic halakha” (p. 44). Paul “is after all an apocalyptic thinker along the lines of the writer of 2 Baruch, who combined God’s apocalyptic intervention with faithful obedience to the Torah” (p. 44). 26 27

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

355

Χριστοῦ, which is equated with “the law of God” (1 Cor 9:21) and, as such, fulfills ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 6:2). In other words, the authority of the (Sinai) Torah is

now enacted under the lordship of the Messiah and under that same lordship the believer now obeys the Torah in the concrete acts of love to which the symbols of the Torah always pointed (cf. again, Rom 2:25–29; 13:8–10; 14:13–23; 1 Cor 7:19; 13:4–7; Gal 5:6, 13–15; 5:22–6:1; Phil 3:9, as well as the new covenant stipulations set forth in the Pauline parenesis throughout his letters).29 Thus, there is for Paul a correct or straight “pattern of life determined by the truth of the gospel” as it pertains to keeping the Torah (halakha), which, paradigmatically, Peter’s behavior in Antioch betrayed (cf. ὀρθοποδέω in Gal 2:14).30 For Paul this meant that keeping the law, following Jesus’s own example as set forth in Gal 2:20, was seen to be fulfilled in the call to love (taking πίστις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ in Gal 2:20 to be a subjective genitive; cf. Gal 5:14; 6:1–2; Rom 1:5; 2:14–15; 6:16–17; 13:8–10; 15:18 [?]; 16:19, 26). In Willitts’s words, “Paul argued that with the truth of the gospel came a new halakha which determined one’s behavior, the Messiah’s own life ([Gal] 2:20). Jesus’s faithful life set a pattern of behavior for the Messianic community.”31 The church thus possesses the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16), i. e., the revelation of God’s righteousness in the wisdom embodied in the cross as the true locus of the divine power for redemption, right­ eousness, and the obedience of sanctification (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25, 30; 2:6–13 with Rom 1:16–17; 4:25; 5:6–11). Ultimately, however, as promised in Isa 54:13, Jer 31:33–34, and Ezek 36:27– 28, it is God himself who teaches the Pauline community that love is the fulfillment of the law (1 Thess 4:9 in view of 4:8), as well as revealing the wisdom of the gospel in general (1 Cor 2:10–13; 12:8). As the corollary to God’s pedagogy, believers “have received the Spirit that comes from God in order that (they) might know the things having been freely given to (them) by God,” i. e., the hidden σοφία now being spoken to the τέλειοι (1 Cor 2:6–7, 12; cf. Eph 1:17–19). This knowledge is mediated to the community through its teachers. Paul therefore emphasizes that, like Moses and the prophets before him, he proclaims the true gospel in response to the divine call and revelatory wisdom that has come to him (Gal 1:1, 11–17; 1 Cor 1:1; 3:5; 4:1, 14–17; 9:1–2; 15:3–11; 2 Cor 1:1; 2:16; 3:4–6; 4:5–6; Rom 1:1; 15:15–21).32 For God has entrusted Paul, as his steward, 29 Taking the genitives in both ἔννομος Χριστοῦ and ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ not to be genitives of source indicating a new law in contrast to the law of Moses, but to be genitives of possession or reference indicating the sphere and authority within which the law now finds its covenant context. 30  Following Willitts, “One Torah,” 23. 31  “One Torah,” 28. See too, p. 43, where Willitts points to De Boer for the subjective genitive reading and concludes more generally that, for Paul, “the faithful life, death and resurrection of the Messianic Son determines the pattern of life for the believer.” 32  For Paul’s prophetic self-understanding, see the programmatic work of Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, WUNT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); for Paul’s use of

356

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

with his “mysteries” in order that Paul might reveal God’s wisdom in the cross to all people, especially the gentiles, thereby bringing about their justification and obedience to the will of God as embodied in the law (1 Cor 4:1; Rom 2:2–16; 6:17; 8:3–11; 15:8; see as examples, 1 Cor 6:9–11; 2 Cor 5:6–10; Gal 5:16–24). Just as the law is the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Rom 2:20), so too Paul’s gospel is the “word of truth” (Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; cf. 2 Cor 11:10; Gal 2:5, 14; Eph 4:21; 1 Tim 3:15). Hence, in stumbling over Paul’s preaching of the cross, Israel continues with “unenlightened zeal” to seek God’s righteousness in the wisdom of the law as related to the now abrogated old covenant of the old age (1 Cor 1:22–23; Rom 9:30–10:3). In a related way, the gentiles who consider the cross foolishness continue to seek wisdom in the idols of this world (1 Cor 1:18, 23, 25; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Gal 4:8; 1 Cor 8:7; 10:14; Rom 1:23–25; Col 2:8). Such rejection of Paul’s message of Jesus as the Messiah renders one outside God’s salvation because it is the coming of the Messiah that has brought about reconciliation with God as an essential aspect the dawning of the eschatological deliverance from the present evil age (Gal 1:4; cf., e. g., 1 Cor 10:11; Eph 2:2; 2 Tim 1:8–10; cf. 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17–6:2; Rom 3:21–26; 5:10–11; Eph 1:7, 13–14; 2:10, 16; 4:24; Col 1:14, 20–22). This deliverance is therefore no longer based on the exodus from Egypt and focused on the “works of the law” as given under the Sinai covenant, a covenant established within the context of Israel’s “stiff neck” and “uncircumcised hearts” (cf. Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 29:2–4; Jer 5:20–29; 7:25–26; 11:1–14; Ezek 20:1–31; Ps 106, etc., with 2 Cor 3:14–15; Rom 9:27–29; 11:7–10).33 Rather, eschatological salvation is now effected by “the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1), which is identified with “the gospel of his Son” (Rom. 1:9; cf. too Rom 15:16 with 15:19). the call and ministry of Moses as the framework for understanding his own in 2 Cor 2:16–3:18, see my, Paul, Moses, 150–173. 33  As set forth in chapters one and two, I take Paul’s reference to τὰ ἔργα νόμου (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 27–28; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32) to refer to what the Torah, viewed as a whole (cf. Gal 3:10), enjoined as it was being taught by Paul’s contemporaries, rather than merely to some subset from the Torah (such as those aspects pertaining to Jewish ethnic distinctives, ritual purity law, or ceremonial prescriptions) or to a presumed perversion of the Torah into legalism. The context of Paul’s usage is the contrast between the two covenant eras within the history of redemption in view in these passages, in which “works of the law” and the Torah itself (in Gal 2:19, 21; Rom 3:19–20, 31; 9:31) belong to and are a metonymy for life under the old covenant, while ἡ πίστις  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ἀκοή πίστεως, ὁ νόμος πίστεως, and ἡ πίστις (in Rom 3:28 and 9:30, 32) represent the new covenant. Moreover, for Paul, the force of this contrast is eschatological. To maintain allegiance to the old covenant once the new has arrived not only denies the eschatological reality and saving efficacy brought about by Jesus as the Messiah (Gal 2:20–21), but also produces at times a false boasting and an ethnically based pride as a by-product (Rom 2:17–24; Gal 6:13–14; Phil 3:3). For the possible confirmation of this interpretation of “works of the law” by the use of the parallel phrase ‫ מעשי תורה‬in 4QFlor (4Q174) frag. 1 I, 21, 7 and the certain reading ‫ מעשי התורה‬in 4QMMT (4Q398) frag. 14–17 II 3 see above, pp. 65–66 n. 41. For a positive evaluation of the parallel between both texts and Paul, see Fitzmyer, Responses, 127–128, and note 55 below.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

357

This gospel “is the power of God for deliverance for everyone who trusts” in its revelation of God’s righteousness in and through the Messiah, whose death and resurrection have brought about the inauguration of the new covenant of the new creation (Rom 1:16–17; cf. the eschatological νυνί/νῦν in Rom 3:21–26; 16:25–27; 1 Cor 13:13; 2 Cor 6:2; Eph 2:13; 3:7–12; Col 1:26). These events and their significance are encapsulated in the fundamental formulations Paul passes on from the early Jesus‑ and apostolic tradition, which he no doubt learned from the Jerusalem church (for the former, see again 1 Cor 11:23– 26, remembered in the Lord’s Supper; for the latter, see 1 Cor 15:1–5, recounted by Paul in his preaching). They are also compressed in the Pauline dictum that virtually everything that happens salvifically happens “in Christ,” as expressed in the 73 uses of the formula ἐν Χριστῷ in the Pauline corpus, which expands to approximately 164 uses when related designations are included (cf. ἐν [τῷ] Χριστῷ [ Ἰησοῦ], ἐν κυρίῳ, ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ᾧ, etc.).34 “In Christ,” both the believer’s enslavement 34  For a treatment of all 73 uses of ἐν Χριστῷ and 86 of the related expressions, see Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 67–199. Campbell, pp. 31–64, also offers a survey of 16 influential proponents, beginning with Adolf Deissmann’s “Christ mysticism,” of various kinds of union, participation, identification, and incorporation readings of the concept – Campbell’s four terms for his own perspective on the various ways Paul employs the concept, all of which must be used “to do justice to the full spectrum of Paul’s thought and language” (p. 29; of interest is the fact that he does not include N. T. Wright in his survey). Influenced by E. P. Sanders’s understanding of the pattern of Paul’s religion as “participationist eschatology,” based on a recovery of Albert Schweitzer’s Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930), over against the dominant “covenantal nomism” of Paul’s Jewish tradition and contemporaries (see Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 434–442, 458–461, 514, 548–549), current Pauline scholarship is characterized by an ever-more pervasive emphasis on participatory readings of Paul’s theology that evolve out of Paul’s use of the “in Christ” motif, often over against juridical, forensic, or covenantal-nomistic interpretations of key Pauline texts. For more recent programmatic statements of this perspective, albeit integrated into differing construals of Paul’s theology, see Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 4, 83, 118, 570, 607–608, 710, 817–820, 848; Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 2–3 (and the literature cited on p. 3 n. 6 to support the point that “participation in Christ” as “fundamental for understanding Paul … is now quite widely accepted”), 32, 37, 40, 43–44, 66–68, 81–84, 170–171, and now throughout Gorman’s The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014); and N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Parts III and IV (London: SPCK, 2013), esp. 825–836, where Wright puts forth the concept of Paul’s “incorporative Messiahship,” in which “the vocation and history of Israel” is fulfilled (Jesus, as the Messiah, “was, in effect, Israel in person,” p. 828); hence, those who now believe in the gospel are also bound together and identified, defined, and incorporated “in (the) Messiah” as “a basic statement of Christian identity” (pp. 826–827, 833). And for an extensive compilation of various applications of this perspective to various aspects of Paul’s theology, its reception history, and its contemporary significance, see “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2/384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). Though it is beyond the scope of this volume to develop my own, non-participatory/non-union/non-incorporation/non-mystical reading of ἐν Χριστῷ in Paul in

358

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

to the power of sin under the old age and the law’s consequent “ministry of death” and “condemnation” under the old covenant have been redeemed by the “ministry of the Spirit” and “righteousness” (1 Cor 15:56–57; 2 Cor 3:3, 6–18; cf. Rom 3:9–20; 6:1–11, 20–23; 7:21–8:11).35 Hence, Paul shares the early Christian conviction that “the kingdom of God” is already here, being experienced in the “righteousness and peace and joy by means of the Holy Spirit” that characterizes the one who is now enslaved in service (δουλεύω) to the Messiah and thereby also enslaved in service (δουλεύω) to “God’s Torah” under the new covenant (Rom 14:17–18 with Rom 7:6, 25; cf. Rom 6:3–4, 16–19, 22; 12:11; Col 1:13; 3:24). It is the transfer from being enslaved in service (δουλεύω) to the power of sin to being a slave (δοῦλος) to the life of obedience that makes a life pleasing to God possible (Rom 6:6, 16–17; cf. Rom 7:1–6;36 7:8, 11, 17; 8:3–4, 8). In Paul’s words to the Roman church, “having been freed (ἐλευθερωθέντες) from sin, you were enslaved (ἐδουλώθητε) to righteousness … having been freed (ἐλευθερωθέντες) from sin and having been enslaved (δουλω­ θέντες) to God, you are having your fruit for sanctification, and [its] goal, life in the age [to come]” (Rom 6:18, 22). And as Paul’s use of βασιλεύω in Rom 5:14, 17, 21, and 6:12 intimates, this freedom from sin and slavery to righteousness and to God is a manifestation of the triumph of the “kingdom of God” (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom 14:18) in the life of the believer. At the same time, Rom 6:22 also reflects the early Christian conviction that the reality of God’s kingdom is not yet here in all its fullness (1 Thess 4:13–18; 2 Thess 1:10; Gal 6:7–9; 1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57; 2 Cor 4:13–5:10; Rom 8:10, 18– 25; 13:11–12). Christ himself must come again to consummate his reign on the day of judgment and vindication, i. e., on the “day of the Lord,” at which time Christ will separate out the “sons of light” from the sons “of darkness” (1 Thess 5:1–11; cf. 2 Thess 1:5–10; 2:1–12; 1 Cor 1:8; 4:5; 5:5; 6:9; 2 Cor 1:14; Gal 5:21; any detail, for the beginning of a reexamination of the meaning of ἐν Χριστῷ in Paul’s thinking, see chapter ten, note 22. In my view, when Paul speaks of “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ [ Ἰησοῦ]) and related expressions together with stative verbs he is referring to life within the sphere of and/or under the lordship of the Messiah; when he uses “in Christ” and related expressions with verbs of action Paul is referring to the Messiah’s instrumentality or agency in bringing about these actions, in which cases it should be rendered, “by [means of] the Messiah.” 35  Following Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 114. 36  Understanding Paul’s analogy in Rom 7:1–6 on the basis of Rom 6:6–19. It is therefore marriage to the σάρξ, not to the law, which is dissolved by the “death” of the believer and his/her new belonging to Christ (7:4–6). As in Rom 6:15–19, in 7:4, 6 one has not died to the law per se, but to the consequent curse of the law on those who break it, since those “married” to Christ have been freed from the passions of the flesh, which results in obedience (7:4), i. e., in the servitude to God and resultant “fruit” brought about by the newness of the Spirit. In 7:6, as in Rom 2:29 and 2 Cor 3:6, γράμμα is Paul’s way of describing the Torah per se, with its covenant stipulations and consequent blessings and curses; the Sinai covenant therefore “kills” when it encounters those whose hearts have not been changed by the Spirit, whereas the Spirit, by bringing about faithful covenant keeping under the new covenant, “makes alive” (2 Cor 3:6; see chapters three and seven).

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

359

Eph 5:5; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Tim 4:1, 18). This accords with the revelation (ἀπο­ κάλυψις) of the divine “mystery” (μυστήριον) that was kept secret for long ages but has now been “revealed” (φανεροῦν) to the community and to the nations

“through the prophetic writings” and the preaching of the kerygma of Jesus Christ (Rom 16:25–26; cf. 1 Cor 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; Eph 1:9; 3:3–5; 6:19; Col 1:26; 2:2; 4:3; 1 Tim 3:9, 16). In Rom 2:16 Paul can thus declaim in describing the eschatological judgment that it will take place “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the hidden things of humanity by the Messiah Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor 5:10). According to Rom 2:1–16, 25–29 the criterion of justification on the day of eschatological judgment will be the faithful “doing of the law,” which under the new covenant is now embodied in the lives of those gentiles in whom Jer 31:31–34 and Ezek 36:26–27 are being fulfilled (see chapter seven). This accords with the fact that an especially unexpected element of the “mystery” of the gospel is the proleptic inclusion of the gentiles into the remnant of the faithful “seed of Abraham” prior to the final restoration of Israel and the nations (see chapters eight and nine and Rom 15:7–13; cf. 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 3:29; Rom 4:16; 9:7, 29; Rom 11:25; Eph 3:6, 8–9; Col 1:27; 2 Thess 2:7–8). Paul’s overarching purpose in his ministry, like that of the Qumran community’s Teacher of Righteousness, is therefore to enable the people of the new covenant to offer their lives to God as living sacrifices of “faith’s obedience” (ὑπακοὴ πίστεως), i. e., of the “faith that works out through love” (πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη) (Rom 1:5; Gal 5:6; 12:1–2; cf. Rom 3:30–31; 4:12; 13:8–10; 15:16, 18; 16:26). Living under the new covenant can thus be delineated as “keeping the commandments,” as “faith working out through love,” and/or as “being a new creation” (1 Cor 7:19par.Gal 5:6par.Gal 6:15). Because such a life of covenant faithfulness reflects the spiritual circumcision of the heart to which circumcision under the old covenant always pointed as the true sign of God’s people (Rom 2:25–29; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11; conversely, Gal 6:13; cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25, etc., and see chapters six and seven), the new covenant community can be described as the “community of God” (ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:4; 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Tim 3:5, 15), the “community of the holy ones” (ἐκκλησία τῶν ἁγίων; 1 Cor 14:33), or the “community in Christ” (ἐκκλησία ἐν Χριστῷ; Gal 1:22; Eph 3:21). 3. Both Qumran and Paul were convinced that the obedience to the law made possible under the new covenant is brought about by the power of the divine Spirit. In CD 2:11–13 we read that God “raised for Himself men called by name that a remnant might be left to the Land … . And He made known His Holy Spirit to them by the hand of His anointed ones, and He proclaimed the truth (to them). But those whom He hated He led astray.” This text makes clear that the work of God’s Spirit to sanctify the community is the distinguishing characteristic of the

360

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

remnant. In CD 4:7–12 this holiness brought about by the Spirit is then said to take place “according to that interpretation of the Law in which the first (men) were instructed,” being based on the forgiveness/atonement of their sins “according to the Covenant which God made with the forefathers.” The hope of the Qumran community is thus based on the fact that, in contrast to the “wicked,” the “righteous” have been converted by the Spirit, have had their sins forgiven, have been given the correct interpretation of the law, and have received the power by the Spirit to keep it (cf. 1QS 3:6–12, which makes these same points and in so doing alludes to Ezek 36:25–27; see below).37 Clearly, forgiveness of sin and Spirit-empowered obedience to the law go hand in hand, the former providing the operative presupposition for the latter, with one’s eschatological hope linked to both aspects of God’s gracious work. Although in 1QS 3–4 the ultimate cleansing by the Spirit is still to come in the final redemption,38 to obey the law in the present is to anticipate this eschatological reality within the life of the community (cf. 1QS 5:7–10). The consequence is clear for the members of the community: no man shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart so that he strays after his heart and eyes and evil inclination, but he shall circumcise in the Community the foreskin of evil inclination and of stiffness of neck that they may lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the Community of the everlasting Covenant (1QS 5:4–6; cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26; 32:40).39 37  So too already Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 2:175–176, who stresses that their experience of the Spirit was viewed as a new eschatological beginning in Israel’s history, and that it had an important dynamic quality since it was through the Spirit that one’s predestination to life came into effect (he points to 1QHa 12:32; 15:9; 17:32; 1QS 4:6–8). Hence, like Paul, “auch die Qumrangemeinde versteht sich als eschatologischen Neuansatz, und die Kraftwirkung des Geistes fehlt in Qumran mehr der Vokabel als der Sache nach” (p. 259). 38  Braun, Qumran, 260, takes this point to indicate a difference over against Paul’s thinking, in which there is no expectation for a future cleansing through the Spirit; yet Braun himself points out that Paul anticipates receiving a “spiritual body” in the future (p. 260), so that for Paul the Spirit is certainly active at the consummation of this age (cf. 1 Cor 15:42–44). 39 Conversely, as Vermes points out, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 81, though the community certainly practiced circumcision, its concrete practice is seldom mentioned. Vermes refers to the mention of circumcision in 4Q266 fr. 6 ii 6, where it refers to female impurity after childbirth in accord with Lev 12:3 (see too 4Q367 fr. 1a–b 4 for this same reference), to CD 12:11, where it is not explicit, but may be implied in the reference to entering into the covenant of Abraham, and to CD 16:6, where it refers to Abraham’s own circumcision (see too 4Q225 fr. 1:4; 4Q270 fr. 6 ii 18; 4Q271 fg. 4 ii 7 for this same reference). In addition, see 4Q559 fr. 4:4, where it refers to the circumcision of the people after they crossed the Jordan. In contrast, in 1QS 5:5 it is used figuratively in reference to circumcising the “foreskin” of the inclinations of the heart (cf. Deut 10:16). For this same figurative use, see 1QpHab 11:13; 4Q177 fr. 7:6 (= II 16); 9:8; 4Q434 fr. 1 i 4; 4Q435 fr. 1:1; 4Q504 fr. 4:11; 4Q509 fr. 287:1. Thus, in addition to physical circumcision, there is clearly an emphasis on the reality of faithful obedience to which physical circumcision pointed. Moreover, it is also significant that the reference in 1QS 5:5 to the circumcision of the evil inclination occurs together with allusions to Exod 32–34 (“stiffness of neck”) and Jer 32:40

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

361

For this reason, both when he first enters the community of the covenant and then after his first year as an initiate, the person seeking membership is examined “with respect to his understanding and practice/observance of the Law” as taught and modeled by the community (1QS 5:20–21; 6:18). Moreover, inasmuch as the future cleansing by the Spirit is anticipated in the obedience of those who now keep the law within the covenant community, in 1QSb 1:1–3 the blessing to be uttered upon the faithful in the messianic age is already given to (and perhaps used by) the community to express their self-understanding. It is striking that here the obedience rendered by the community is described in terms of the everlasting covenant characteristic of Jer 31:31–34 and 32:38–40 (cf. 1QHa 17:31–32; 21:10–14). In turning our attention back to Paul, it is striking that second only to Paul’s persuasion that everything that happens takes place “in Christ” is his conviction that the Spirit is the empowering agent of these messianic actions. For example, the Spirit is operative in Christ’s own appointment as Son of God (Rom 1:4; 1 Tim 3:16), in the revelation of God’s wisdom (1 Cor 2:10–16; Eph 1:17), in the believer’s justification and sanctification (cf., e. g., 1 Thess 1:5–6; 2 Thess 2:13; Gal 3:1–5; 5:5, 16, 22, 25; 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 3:3, 17–18; Rom 5:5; 7:6; 8:1–16; 15:16; Eph 1:13; 2:18; Titus 3:5, etc.), in the bestowal of God’s gifts within the church (1 Cor 12:3–13), and in the resurrection of the body (1 Cor 15:42–45).40 Indeed, we have seen that Paul can define the kingdom of God as the righteousness, peace, and joy that exists ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Rom 14:17; cf. 2 Tim 2:22). Moreover, Paul too, like Qumran, interprets the new covenant of Jer 31:31–34 in terms of the obedient new heart brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit promised in Ezek 36:26 (2 Cor 3:3, 6; cf. Rom 2:15, 29; 6:17; 10:9–10; 2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6 with Gal 4:28–29; Phil 3:3; Eph 1:13). For example, like the Qumran psalmist of 1QHa 21:1–15 and 1QHa 12:10, those in Christ enter into the (new) covenant precisely because God has been able to “engrave” his truth/Torah on their hardened heart of stone (cf. 2 Cor 3:3 with Rom 2:5, 15; 1 Thess 1:4–10). As a result, even the gentiles no longer fall prey to the worship of idols (contrast 1 Thess 1:9 with the idolatry of the stubborn-hearted false teachers and their followers within Israel in 1QHa 12:13–16, 19). Indeed, given the pervasive guilt of the sons of Adam, this righteousness cannot come about “except by the spirit which God creates for him to make perfect a way for the children of men” (literally: “for the sons of Adam”), so that “all his creatures may know the might of His power, and the abundance of His mercies towards all the sons of His grace” (1QHa 12:29–33). (“everlasting covenant,” as the parallel to Jer 31:31–34) since, as we have seen, this same combination of motifs is found in 2 Cor 3:6–11 and Rom 2:28–29. 40 The work of the Spirit is referred to at least 111 times in the Pauline corpus! Long neglected in Pauline studies, the central role of the Spirit in Paul’s theology was demonstrated and underscored by Gordon Fee’s encyclopedic work, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) – 992 pages!

362

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

Like his Qumran counterparts, so too for Paul, the work of God’s Spirit to sanctify the people in obedience to the law is therefore the distinguishing characteristic of the remnant, which exists throughout Israel’s history and now continues on in the community of the new covenant (1 Cor 10:1–13; 2 Cor 3:16–18; Rom 3:27–31; 8:1–8; Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:9–11). The eschatological community “in Christ” consequently consists of those Jews and gentiles who are “inwardly Jews,” circumcised in the heart by the Spirit (Rom 2:29) – i. e., the “circumcision who are worshipping God by the Spirit” (Phil 3:3) and, as such, are now the “temple of God’s Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; cf. Rom 8:9; Eph 2:21–22), the eschatological “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). In each of these contexts, the identity of God’s remnant people entails keeping the law in accordance with the law’s fulfillment in love as elaborated and summarized in “the fruit of the Spirit” or the “fruit of righteousness,” thereby avoiding the law’s condemnation of those who break the covenant (cf. Rom 13:8–10 and Gal 5:14 with Gal 5:18, 22–23; Phil 1:9–11; 1 Thess 3:12–13; Rom 2:6–16; 7:4, 6). Kuhn consequently argues that, in view of their shared dualism and eschatological framework, “the greatest similarity between any pagan, early Jewish or early Christian catalogues of virtues and vices can doubtlessly be found between 1QS 3–4 and Galatians 5.”41 By implication, Paul can use the expression ὑπακούειν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ in Rom 10:16–17 to describe those who are responding to the declaration of the kingdom now being announced διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ. This point is made more directly in 2 Thess 1:8, where εἰδέναι θεόν is paralleled with ὑπακούειν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν  Ἰησοῦ.42 In contrast are those who do not entrust (πιστεύω) themselves to the fulfillment of its Isaianic proclamation (εὐαγγελίζω) as encapsulated in Paul’s declaration in 10:15–16, where he establishes the link between the announcement of the reign of God in Isa 52:7 and the report of the Servant’s suffering, death, and vindication referred to in Isa 53:1. In Rom 10:5 these “unbelievers” are identified as those within Israel who, according to the unfilled promise of Lev 18:5 cited  Kuhn, Galaterbrief, 172, 182–186.  My view of “faith” as a metonymy for the realities of the new age of the new covenant thus correlates to Paul’s use of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as a “superabbreviation” of his entire gospel, “functioning as a title which both characterizes its full contents and interprets its meaning for the hearer … In usage the single phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον allows Paul, with great economy and elegance, to insert the entire long narrative of God’s plan ‘according to the Scriptures’ into an argument without repeating the whole.” This is in accordance with the rhetorical strategy of “brevity” (ἡ Βραχύτης): an entire world of thought is communicated by means of a single word or phrase; so Margaret Mitchell, “Rhetorical Shorthand in Pauline Argumentation: the Functions of ‘the Gospel’ in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, ed. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, JSNTSup 108 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 64. Cf. too the uses of the corresponding verb, εὐαγγελίζω, with a direct object: Gal 1:16 has “his son”; Gal 1:23 has “the faith”; 1 Cor 15:1 has “the gospel”; 2 Cor 11:7 has “the gospel of God”; 1 Thess 3:6 has “your faith and love.” Hence, for Paul, “faith” can be used to parallel “gospel” as a metonymy, which includes the preaching of Jesus, the gospel itself, and the faith and love of the Christians. 41 42

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

363

in Rom 10:5, do not possess “the righteousness from the Torah” (ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου) characterized by doing the things (αὐτά) it commands, which are then equated (not contrasted!) in Rom 10:6 with “the righteousness from faith” (ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη; see πιστεύω/πίστις in 10:4, 9–11).43 Here too Paul’s use of the personification “the righteousness from faith” (ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη) as that which “speaks” (λέγει) in Deut 30:12, Ps 107:26, and Deut 30:14 to unpack what Moses “writes” (γράφει) in Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5) indicates once again that Paul can use “faith,” as he does “the gospel,” as a metonymy of the new covenant reality. Here, as in Rom 3:21, Paul stresses that the gospel was already promised in the Scriptures (cf. too the eschatological contrasts in Gal 2:15–21, 3:10–14, and Phil 3:9 as interpreted in chapters one and six). For Paul, therefore, the Christian hope of participating in the consummation of the kingdom at the return of Christ is based on the fact that, as the people of the new covenant, they (not the Qumran community) are the ones who have been given the correct interpretation of the law and the power to live according to it (2 Thess 1:5–12; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 15:56–58; 2 Cor 3:6; 5:10; Rom 2:6–11; 14:10–12; Gal 6:7–10, etc.). This confidence in the present work of the Spirit under the new covenant is the presupposition undergirding the Pauline imperatives. For believers have been “justified by means of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by means of the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). The salvific, justifying significance of the Spirit is also the basis for Paul’s insistence in view of the eschatological judgment by works that those who do not break from their past and persevere in a growing obedience to God be put away from the church as unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–5, 11, 13; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1; 12:20–13:4, 10; Rom 16:17–20; 2 Thess 3:6, 14–15; 1 Tim 1:20; Titus 1:10–11). Paul prays accordingly for the Spirit’s help that he too might not dishonor Christ and consequently be dishonored himself (1 Cor 9:27; Phil 1:19–20; Eph 6:19–20). In the context of 2 Cor 2:11, 6:15, 11:3, 2 Thess 2:9–10, Eph 6:11, and 1 Tim 5:15 this concern becomes a call to resist the onslaughts of the devil in the battle against the forces of this evil age (cf. Gal 5:21 and 2 Cor 6:9–11 with 2 Thess 3:3 and 2 Tim 4:6–8, 17–18). 43  The rhetorical link between Rom 10:5 and 6 is the often non-descript δέ. Nevertheless, for theological reasons, most commentators construe the move from Rom 10:5 to 10:6 to be a strong contrast between the Mosaic law and the Pauline gospel. Read in this way, Paul is understood to be using the law against itself in order to establish a material distinction between the righteousness from the law and the righteousness from faith as two different ways of relating to God. Though it is beyond my purpose to deal with Rom 10:5–6 in any detail, I have argued throughout these studies against such a material contrast between the “law” and “faith” in Paul’s thought. In grammatical support of these arguments in regard to this passage, Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 28–32, points out that the conjunction δέ should not be over-interpreted as indicating in itself a disjunctive contrast as if it were ἀλλά, but instead rendered as indicating a continuation or further interpretation of the point of the previous clause; any contrast must be indicated by contextual factors.

364

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

As they do in the Qumran texts, forgiveness of sin (the covenant prologue) and Spirit-empowered obedience to the law (the covenant stipulations) therefore go hand in hand in Paul’s thought, with the former once again providing the operative presupposition for the latter. The believer’s hope at the coming eschatological judgment (the covenant blessing) is essentially linked to both of these inextricably-related aspects of God’s gracious work. This is made clear in Rom 8:11–12, 17–25, where the ultimate redemption of one’s body by the Spirit (the covenant blessing) is based on being led by the Spirit so that, through “putting to death the deeds of the body” (the covenant stipulation), the believer receives assurance by the Spirit that one is already an adopted, covenant “son of God” (the covenant prologue). Accordingly, as a member of the covenant community, one is obligated no longer to “set the mind on the things of the flesh” (Rom 8:5), but to exhibit that obedience to the δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου which renders one “circumcised of the heart by means of the Spirit, not (merely) of the letter,” no matter whether one is Jew or gentile (cf. Rom 2:26–29 with 2 Cor 3:6).44 It is these “fellow heirs with Christ” who obtain the final freedom of the children of God, i. e., their final adoption as “sons” (Rom. 8:17, 21, 23; cf. Gal 4:4–7 and chapter two). For to please God by submitting to his Torah through the power of the Spirit is to participate already in the eschatological reality of “sonship” within the present life of the community (Rom 8:7–9). 4. Both Qumran and Paul understood their respective communities to be the positive counterpart to Israel’s experience in the “wilderness” and, as such, to be the true locus of God’s presence in the world. The Qumran community viewed itself to be God’s faithful ‫ יחד‬as a result of the Spirit’s work in and among them. Reflecting their corresponding self-understanding as the obedient antitype of the Exodus-generation, the members of the new covenant once again live in “camps” organized after the pattern originally set out for the tribes of Israel in the wilderness (cf. CD 13:1–2, 20; 14:3 with Exod 18:25). Moreover, those brought back to the proper interpretation of the Torah first given in the wilderness of Sinai, but broken by Israel from the beginning (1Q22 [1QWords of Moses] 1:1–12; 4Q216 [4QJubilees] 1:3–17; 2:2–17; cf. Jub. 1:1–14), must now separate not only from the nations, but also from the Temple and the rest of Israel as the wicked “sons of the Pit;” they must do so in order to “take care to act according to the exact interpretation of the law during the age of wickedness … according to the finding of the members of the New Covenant in the land of Damascus” (CD 6:14, 19; cf. 1QS 5:10–11; 8:12–13; 9:20–21). The reason for this separation is therefore eschatological: “the sect comes into being 44  This covenant reading is supported by the fact that in Rom 2:26–29, as in 1QS 5:4–6 and related texts, the obedience rendered by the community is described in terms of keeping the commandments from the circumcised heart spoken of in Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26, and 31:31–34.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

365

in ‘the Last Generation’ and in ‘a Period of Wickedness’ (CD 1:12; 6:10, 14; 12:23; 15:7), both standing at the end of the historical sequence: the sect is destined to be the shoot from which the new eschatological world will spring.”45 This same self-understanding is reflected in the Temple Scroll’s identification of the purity of its temple with the heightened purity of the entire city of Jerusalem on the one hand (11QTa 47:3–18), and in its own organization of Israel’s camp in the wilderness in accordance with Exod 18:25 on the other (11QTa 42:15; 57:4; 58:4). The purity laws are now applied to the entire city since, in expectation of the second coming of God, the Temple Scroll calls its community to be a kingdom of priests and a holy people in accordance with God’s intention for Israel as declared at Mt. Sinai.46 Such a call to ritual purity seems to correlate with the eschatological expectation found in 11QTa 29:7–10 that God will once again establish his covenant with them, dwell in their midst forever, and sanctify the Scroll’s temple with his glory in anticipation of the future temple that God himself will create on “the day of (the new?) creation … establishing it for (himself) for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob in Bethel” (based on Gen 28:10–22; Ezek 37:23, 26–28; Lev 26:12 [par. Jer 31:33!]; with possible allusions to Exod 29:43–45; 24:16; Isa 65:17–18; 43:7; 45:8, 12 and Jer 31:32).47 The covenant made with Jacob in 11QTa 29:10 recalls the references in CD 1:4; 2:2; 4:9–10; 6:2; 8:18 and 1QS 1:1–2:12; 4:22 to God’s everlasting “Covenant with the forefathers,” which was likewise viewed as the basis for God’s raising up the Qumran community in the last days (see above and cf. Lev 26:12, 4248). As such, this covenant with Jacob and the forefathers provides the counterpart  Dimant, “Qumran,” 493. She also points to CD 1:5 in support of this conception (p. 494).  Cf. Exod 18:21; 19:2, 6–8, 21–22 and CD 12:1; 11QTa 47:18; 48:11–14. For this point, see again Dimant, “Qumran,” 528, and Otto Betz, “Jesus and the Temple Scroll,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 94. 47  For these OT backdrops, see Swanson, “Covenant,” 277–278. The nature of the relationship between this first temple and the sanctuary that is said in 11QTa 29:10 to be created on the eschatological “day of creation” is a matter of debate and need not be decided here. The question concerns whether the text envisions two temples in the future, an earthly temple built by men in the dawning of the messianic age and an eschatological one built by God himself in the final new creation (so Yadin), or only one (as argued by Ben Zion Wacholder). The decisive exegetical issue is the meaning of the preposition ‫“( עד‬until” or “while/during” the day of the new creation) in 11QTa 29:9. For this debate and the relevant literature, see Michael O. Wise, “The Covenant of Temple Scroll XXIX:3–10,” RevQ 14 (1989): 49–60, who supports Yadin’s basic position, and Judith L. Wentling, “Unraveling the Relationship between 11QT, the Eschatological Temple, and the Qumran Community,” RevQ 14 (1989): 61–73, who argues for Wacholder’s view. 48  See Swanson, “Covenant,” 280, and the earlier work of Wise (see below, notes 49–50). But Swanson, p. 280, misses the point of the parallel, taking it to mean that the Temple Scroll “negates the covenant theology of Jeremiah” by asserting that, instead of a new covenant, “the scroll’s temple covenant will be just like that with the patriarchs” (emphasis removed). Swanson fails to see that for Qumran, like for Paul, Jeremiah’s “new” covenant is a fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs, rather than constituting a new type of covenant in contrast to that of 45 46

366

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

to the declaration in Jer 31:32 of the need for a new covenant in view of Israel’s having broken the Sinai covenant made with “their fathers.” In CD 15:5 this “everlasting covenant” is also identified with the Sinai covenant as that which has been “granted to all Israel forever.” So in taking “the oath of the Covenant which Moses made with Israel, the Covenant to return to the Law of Moses with a whole heart and soul” (CD 15:9–10), the members of the new covenant community are also fulfilling the covenant made with the patriarchs (CD 6:2). Here too, however, the eschatological hope for a new, everlasting covenant has been inaugurated short of its consummation. “In the interpretation of history held by the redactor of the Temple Scroll – assuming that he agreed with the views expressed in CD – Israel lost the land at the time of the exile, but the promised return to the remnant had not yet taken place.”49 Until that time, the community itself functions as the “temple” of God’s presence in fulfillment of the covenant promise made with the patriarchs, in this case to Jacob.50 Moreover, the allusions to Ezek 37:26–28 in 11QTa 29:7–951 indicate that God’s dwelling among the remnant and the presence of God’s glory in the temple are not merely placeholders until the divine creation of the eschatological temple, but are the initial fulfillment of this eschatological expectation in anticipation of its consummation.52 The people of the new covenant become themselves the locus, though not directly the temple, of God’s presence in the midst of an evil age.53 This interpretation is confirmed by the use of 2 Sam 7:10–11a in 4QFlor (4Q174) 1:1–7, which appears to refer to two distinct temples: the “temple of Israel” )‫)מקדשׁ ישׂראל‬ taken from 2 Sam 7:10b, which refers to Solomon’s temple, and a “temple of man” (‫)מקדשׁ אדם‬, which refers either to a temple consisting of people, taken both Sinai and the Patriarchs. He thus also wrongly concludes that Paul understood Jer 31 to be “a prophecy of a new beginning, and not a renewal of the covenant with the fathers” (p. 285). 49 Wise, “Covenant,” 59. I am indebted to him for the parallels between 11QTa 29:3–10 and CD as well, cf., pp. 58–59. 50  Taking the reference in 11QTa 29:10 to the covenant made “with Jacob in Bethel” to refer not merely to the establishment of a temple for God’s presence in the new creation, but to the entire context of 29:3–10, in which God’s presence among his people is primarily in view, together with the promise of the land. For this point, see Wise, “Covenant,” 55–56, 59, who points to Lev 26:42 as the specific background to this text since it is the only passage which references both Jacob and the covenant (cf. Gen 28:13–22 and 35:1–15). See too Lev 26:12 as the backdrop to the covenant formula in 11QTa 29:7. 51 So too Wentling, “Eschatological Temple,” 68. 52  See already Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. Emilie T. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 154, 201, who concluded that the community saw itself as the beginning of the eschatological age (1QS 4:19–21; 8:6–7; 1QpHab 1:12–13) and the fulfillment of Jer 31:31 (CD 19:34; 1QS 1:18), James A. Sanders, “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Quarter Century of Study,” BA 36 (1973): 144, Braun, Qumran, 318, Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 10, 48 n. 76, and the recent judgment of Wright, People of God, 209: “The sect thus held a form of what later scholarship has called ‘inaugurated eschatology.’ ” 53  Cf. the similar concept in 1QM 10, where the promise from Deut 20:24 and Num 10:9 of God’s presence in the midst of his people in order to fight for them in battle can be applied to the Qumran community in their final battle against the enemies of God.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

367

from 2 Sam 7:11a, or to the “temple of Adam,” i. e., the garden of Eden as a prototype of the eschatological restoration.54 The ‫מקדשׁ אדם‬, associated with the sect itself, is characterized as the temple in which, instead of sacrifice, “there they may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the Law” )‫ ;מעשׂי תורה‬4Q174 1:7).55 The community of holy men at Qumran thereby atoned for the land through their own existence as a “sacrifice” in which their obedience to the law and prayer can be equated with the incense and fat of temple offerings (cf. 1QS 8:6, 10; 9:3–6; cf. Rom 12:1).56 It follows that Qumran saw itself to be the “precious cornerstone” of right­ eousness that God has laid “as a foundation in Zion” in fulfillment of Isa 28:16– 17 (1QHa 14:27–32; 1QS 8:5–8). The equation of the community with the New Jerusalem of Isa 54 in the pesher 4Q164, in which the precious stones from Isa 54:11–12 are identified with the various groups of the sect, represents this same self-understanding. In this context it is significant that in Isa 54:13 the characteristic of the New Jerusalem is that “all your sons will be taught of the Lord,” a parallel to the new covenant promise of Jer 31:34. We are not surprised, therefore, when in the “allegory” of Gal 4:26–27, as in 4Q164, Isa 54 once again provides the backdrop for Paul’s designating believers to be the “free sons of Abraham” (Gal 4:22–24, 31) as the sons of ἡ ἄνω  Ἰερουσαλήμ, the city of God’s presence. The promise of a new, redeemed Jerusalem, with the eschatologically understood and empowered Torah now emanating out to the nations from Zion, is a key eschatological motif (cf. Isa 1:18–20, 24–27; 2:1–4; cf. Micah 4:1–5).57 54  For the meaning “temple of men,” see Dimant, “Qumran,” 519–521; for the meaning “temple of Adam,” see Michael O. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991): 123–132 and Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. George J. Brooke, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 8–10. Baumgarten finds confirmation for this view in 4Q265, in which Adam and Eve’s entrance into the ‫ גן עדן‬as ‫ קדושׁ‬is linked with the restrictions in Lev 12 concerning access to the sanctuary. Thus, in the Urzeit/Endzeit typology, the eschatological sanctuary was to be a restoration of Adam’s state before the Fall in which, instead of animal sacrifices, worship consisted of obedience to the divine law, taking 4QFlor (4Q174) to refer to “deeds of the Torah” (p. 9). 55 Again, with Vermès, reading ‫“( תורה‬Torah”) rather than ‫“( תודה‬thanksgiving”) in 4QFlor (4Q174); for the debate on this issue, see the literature cited by Dimant, “Qumran,” 520 nn. 177– 179 and pp. 65–66 n. 41 and p. 356 n. 33 above. Dimant points out that both ‫ אדם‬and “Torah” are found in 2 Sam 7:19. For support of the meaning “deeds of the Torah,” see the translation of Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 136, but now reversed to “works of thanksgiving” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume One 1Q1– 4Q273, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill/ Eerdmans, 1997), 352–353; Baumgarten, “Purification,” 9, and Betz, “Jesus,” 95. For the motif of the Qumran community as doers of the law, Dimant points to 1QpHab 7:11; 8:1; CD 4:8; 6:14; 4Q171 22:15, 23. In addition to their works of the law, cf. 1QS 9:4–5 and CD 11:20–21 for the prayer of the community as a sacrifice. 56  Betz, “Jesus,” 95. I owe the next observation to him as well. 57  For the programmatic statement regarding the biblical theological concept of the “Zions­ tora” in relationship to the “Sinaitora,” which is integrally linked with the promise of a new

368

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

In turning our attention back to Paul, he too sees his elect community, the

ἐκκλησία ἐν Χριστῷ (Gal 1:22), which is the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (Gal 1:13, etc.), to

be the faithful community of the new covenant as a result of the Spirit’s work. Moreover, even when it is predominantly gentile, the community of the faithful may be compared to Israel in the wilderness (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–13; 2 Cor 3:7–11). But once again, and in tandem with the Qumran community’s self-understanding, whereas Israel was disobedient, the community of the new covenant, “upon whom the end of the ages has come,” is expected to be obedient (1 Cor 10:11). We therefore read in Rom 9:11 and 11:1–5, 17–18 that those so “elected by grace,” even though they remain gentiles, are being “grafted” into the people of God to take their place alongside of the faithful throughout Israel’s history. Though undeserved, God has shown grace to Paul as well in calling him to be an apostle of Christ since it entailed forgiving him for persecuting the churches of God (1 Cor 15:9–10; Gal 1:13–15; Eph 3:7–10; 1 Tim 1:12–17). As a result, Paul too takes his place among the remnant as evidence that God has not rejected his people despite their continuing rebellion, now manifest in their rejection of the Messiah (cf. Rom 11:1). Like her Qumran “cousins,” the church comes into being in the midst of this evil age and the wickedness of the “last days” (Gal 1:4; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Thess 2:3–4; Rom 12:2; 13:11–14; Eph 2:1–3; 5:15–16; 6:13; 1 Tim 1:8–11; 4:1–5; 2 Tim 3:13; 4:4–5). This ongoing wickedness is seen to be the extension of Israel’s own history of hard-heartedness as already manifest in her sin with the golden calf (2 Cor 3:12–14; cf. Gal 4:21–31; 2 Cor 4:4; Rom 1:22–23 [cf. Ps 106]; 9:25–29; 10:18–21; 11:7–10; 2 Tim 3:1–9). As within the Qumran community, so too in the church, those whom God has redeemed are therefore to separate out those who claim to “bear the name of brother,” but continue to live in disobedience (1 Cor 5:11; cf. Gal 4:30; 2 Cor 10:6; 12:21–13:3; 2 Thess 3:6; Rom 16:17; 2 Tim 2:16–19; 3:5; Titus 3:10–11). The purpose of such a separation is not only to enact a potentially remedial judgment upon the sinner (1 Cor 5:5), but also to “cleanse out the old leaven in order that (they) might be a new lump,” since they are now “unleavened” as a result of the death of Christ (1 Cor 5:7, 11). When the community of the new covenant gathers to worship and to eat together, they thus “celebrate the festival, not with old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:8; 11:20–34). The Passover symbols, originally pointing to Israel’s redemption from slavery through the exodus from Egypt, now signify the church’s redemption from slavery to sin through the “second exodus” brought about by the sacrifice of the Messiah, the “Paschal lamb” (1 Cor 5:7).

covenant from Jer 31:31–34, see still Harmut Gese, “Das Gesetz,” in his Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1977), 55–84, esp. pp. 73–76.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

369

For Paul too, therefore, the location of the church in redemptive history was formative for her identity. Like the Qumran community, the church too comes into being at the end of God’s historical sequence, albeit as those for whom the Lord (= Jesus) will return in judgment on “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:8; cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2). As such, Paul understood the faithful remnant of Jews and gentiles “in Christ” to be living during the last days before the (second) coming of the Messiah. When Christ returns the future of those whose justifying faith-obedience is vindicated will be “life in the age to come” under the reign of God and the Lordship of Christ (Gal 6:8; 1 Cor 6:11; 15:20–28; Rom 2:7, 10; 5:21; 6:22–23; 13:11–14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Thess 1:3–12; 1 Tim 6:11–16; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:6–8). For the rest, it is “the day of wrath” (Rom 2:5, 8–9; cf. 2:16; 1 Cor 6:9–10). No suffering can thwart this outcome for the righteous. Rather, like the suffering of Christ, affliction becomes a pathway to its realization as the platform of faith, hope, and love (2 Cor 4:13–18; Rom 5:1–5; 8:17–39; Phil 3:10–11). To demonstrate this fact, Paul’s suffering and endurance as an apostle become the crucible for his new covenant ministry of the Spirit, which together become the authenticating marks of his calling as an apostle, embodying as they do the cross and resurrection of Christ (see chapter five and 1 Cor 4:8–13; 9:3–23; 15:30–32; 2 Cor 1:3–11; 2:14–3:3; 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 11:16–33; 12:11–18; Gal 4:12–16; Eph 3:13; Phil 1:12–26; Col 1:24–29; 1 Thess 2:1–12; 3:1–5; 2 Tim 1:8–12; 2:8–9; 3:10–13; 4:9–18). We have already seen above that the corollary to this understanding of the church as those “upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11) is Paul’s explicit identification of believers as “the temple of [the living] God” (1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 6:16ab; cf. Eph 2:19–21) or “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 6:19; cf. Rom 8:9, 11).58 Paul’s support for and implications of his understanding that believers in Christ are the temple of the living God (2 Cor 6:16a) are mapped out in the covenant structure of 2 Cor 6:16b–7:1. Referring to the same Scriptural texts used in 4QFlor 1:1–7, 10–11 and 11QTa 29:7–8, Paul declares in 6:16b–d that believers are now the temple of the living God in fulfillment of the covenant promises of Ezek 37:27 and Lev 26:11–12 – the new covenant prologue based on God’s provision in the past (cf. the καθώς in 6:16c).59 In view of 58 For a detailed study of these motifs against their OT and Jewish backdrops, see David A. Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God, BJS 224 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991). Though differing on individual points of exegesis, his central thesis that a key element in Paul’s theology was the conviction that the new covenant access to God’s presence had been opened up to all Christians certainly stands. 59  Taking 6:14–7:1 to be Pauline and an integrated part of 2 Cor 1–9. For the OT backdrop to this passage, see James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:16c–18,” JSNT 56 (1995): 73–99. Scott’s study of the covenant formula in 2 Cor 6:16, as a reference both to Israel’s protology (Lev 26:11–12) and her eschatology (Ezek 37:27), shows it to be an integral part and fitting conclusion to the argument of 2 Cor 1–7, thus establishing a new covenant/ restoration/second exodus context for 6:14–7:1. See too, now, Euichang Kim, The Fear of God

370

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

the fulfillment of these promises in the church (cf. the διό in 2 Cor 6:17a), Paul admonishes the Corinthians to separate from those who are unclean (Isa 52:11 in 6:17ab) – the new covenant stipulations in the present. Here too, as at Qumran, to be the locus of God’s presence in the world carries direct ethical and cultic implications and obligations (see 1 Cor 3:17; 6:18, 20; 2 Cor 6:14–15; Rom 8:12–13; Eph 4:25–32; for Paul’s ethical use of cultic language, see too 2 Cor 2:14–16; Rom 12:1–2; 15:16; Eph 5:2; Phil 2:17; 4:18). In response to the presumed keeping of these stipulations, in 2 Cor 6:18 Paul then applies to the church the promises based on 2 Sam 7:8 and 14 and Isa 43:6 that the Corinthians, as the regathered people of God (cf.; Ezek 20:34 in 6:17c), will be God’s eschatologically adopted sons and daughters – the covenant blessing for the future. Hence, as in 11QTa 29:3–10, God’s future acceptance of believers as his covenant people, in light of their cultic and ethical purity, means that they will dwell in the presence of God’s glory forever (1 Cor 13:12; 15:42–50; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:14, 17; Rom 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18; Eph 1:18; 2:6–7; Phil 3:20–21; Col 1:27; 3:4; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:9–10; 2:14; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 3:13). Concerned for their inheritance of these covenant promises for the future (taking τὰς ἐπαγγελίας in 7:1a to be a reference to 6:17c–18), and because they have already inherited God’s promises from the past (taking Paul’s designation of his readers as “beloved” in 7:1a to refer back to 6:14–16), Paul therefore concludes by once again focusing on the covenant stipulations for the present, admonishing the Corinthians to cleanse themselves “from every defilement of flesh and spirit, thereby making holiness complete in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1bc). Despite the similarities in their new covenant argumentation, there are, however, two striking and fundamental contrasts between Paul’s understanding of the church and the self-understanding of the Qumran community at this point. First, although the Qumran community saw itself to be the locus of God’s presence in the midst of the present evil age, it still found its identity in relationship to the Jerusalem temple, both in its rejection of the temple’s current, defiled state, and in its hope for the temple’s still-future restoration. In stark contrast, for Paul, the “children of God” who are “the sons of God” of the new covenant established by Christ and maintained by the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:14–17 and its exodus-imagery) are themselves already the “temple” of God’s presence in the midst of an evil age.60 As such, the church’s future resurrection-restoration, bringing with it the final “exodus-liberation” of the creation, not a restoration or rebuilding of a temple in in 2 Corinthians 7:1: Its Salvation-Historical, Literary, and Eschatological Contexts, LNTS 605 (London: T&T Clark, 2019); see above, note 18. Indeed, the exact same variation of the covenant formula in 2 Cor 6:16 is also found in Jer 31:33MT! 60 The imagery in 11QTa 29:3–10 is reminiscent of the eschatological promise of the restoration of the covenant and the presence of God in the midst of his people found in Ezek 37:26–28. There the author looks forward to the fulfillment of the same prophetic promise that Paul quotes in 2 Cor 6:16. Only now, for Paul, this promise of a “new covenant” reality and relationship is viewed as already being fulfilled within Paul’s community.

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

371

Jerusalem, will mark the consummation of redemptive history. Therefore, unlike Qumran, Paul institutes no binding purity regulations or priestly prescriptions associated with the temple as criteria for membership in the community and he harbors no expectation for the rebuilding or restoration of a future temple.61 Second, nowhere in Paul’s writings do we find the Qumran conviction that the community itself or its leaders atone for others and/or for the land through their own obedience or prayers. Rather, the new covenant reality of the church as God’s “temple” is brought about by the atoning, justifying, and reconciling death of Christ (Rom 3:21–26; 5:6–10; 2 Cor 5:21) and the transforming power of the Spirit (Rom 2:29; 8:4–16; 15:16; 1 Cor 3:16; 12:3; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 5:22–25), together with the ongoing, justifying intercession of the resurrected Christ “at the right hand of God” (Rom 8:1–3, 31–34). This brings us to our final thesis. 5. The essential distinction between Qumran and Paul is not their different ha­ lakha and its impact on the character of their “new covenant” communities, but Paul’s conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. The four theses above summarize the generative and integrative nature of Paul’s eschatology that the studies in this volume have sought to support. Paul’s understanding of the basic contours of the new age of the new covenant provides a striking structural parallel to that found in the writings most closely identified with the Qumran community. We have highlighted in particular their common emphases on obedience to the Torah from the heart, the role of the Spirit that makes this possible, and the resultant continuity between their communities and the remnant of the faithful throughout Israel’s history. Despite the major differences in the focus and content of their respective halakha, these parallels should not be surprising. Both communities can be classified as sectarian, messianic movements that viewed themselves as proleptic anticipations of the age to come. In the Qumran writings, their own lives of faithful obedience to the Torah, now properly interpreted by the Teacher of Righteousness and his community, point forward to a still outstanding eschatological restoration. For Paul, in contrast, the faithfulness of Jesus, as the Messiah of Israel and Lord of the nations, has already inaugurated the new age of the new creation in the midst of this evil age. In Qumran, the community atones through its own obedience; for Paul, the Christ atones for his people once and for all through his obedience on the cross (Phil 2:8; Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 5:6–11, 18–19; 8:3, 34; 1 Cor 1:17–18, 23 and 61 Cf. 11QTa 45; 4Q174. This is often pointed out as a striking difference between the Qumran texts on the one hand and Jesus and Paul on the other; see Charlesworth, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 23–28 and the conclusion of Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul, SNTSMS 53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 115–116. Newton is right to emphasize, however, that purity and separation from the impure does play a significant role in Paul’s thinking in regard to the distinct ethical obedience that is to characterize the church, of which Paul is a priestly minister and the people are sacrificial offerings (see my emphasis on this point above).

372

Part Two: The New Covenant’s Future Hope

2:2 with 15:3; 2 Cor 5:16–21; Gal 1:6–9 with 5:11; 6:14; 1 Thess 5:10; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20, etc.). This explains why the Qumran communities understood themselves to be the fulfillment of both the Abrahamic promises and the Sinai covenant, while, for Paul, Christ has brought the “old” (= Sinai) covenant, with its primary role of having rendered judgment on Israel and the world, to an end (2 Cor 3:6, 14–16; Gal 3:10–14; Rom 2:6–12, 17–24; 3:19–20). In Qumran, the “new covenant” is identified with the Sinai covenant of this age as its continuing and true fulfillment. For Paul, too, the “new covenant” fulfills the purpose of the Sinai covenant in establishing a relationship between God and his people, but in so doing brings it to an end as a constituent part of this evil age, though of course the Torah itself is not evil (Rom 3:31; 4:15; 5:20; 7:12–14; 10:4; Gal 3:19–24; 4:24–25). For Paul there is an overlapping of the ages since the new age is dawning in the midst of the old, but there is no overlapping of the old and new covenants. Therefore, unlike Qumran, Paul has no expectation of a subsequent covenant in the future. From Paul’s perspective, the coming of the Christ has dramatic consequences for the present character of the new covenant community as the eschatological “temple of God.” Since believers have already been cleansed and accepted by God as the locus of his presence in the world, believing Jews and gentiles, as Jews and gentiles, whether weak or strong in faith, are all welcome equally in the new covenant community “to the glory of God” (Rom 5:1–2 and 15:7, within the context of 14:1–15:13; cf. Rom 16:26–27; Eph 2:11–22; 3:11–12). Inasmuch as the eschatological reality of the new age of “faith” has dawned (Gal 3:23, 25), the age of the Torah’s custodianship has come to an end, together with its Jew/ gentile distinction (Gal 5:6a; 6:15a; 1 Cor 7:19a), indeed, together with all the distinctions so central to this age (Gal 3:26–29). All that matters now is the faith in Christ that works itself out through love in fulfillment of the Torah, which displays the dawning reality of the new creation, i. e., the keeping of God’s commandments in the everyday life still to be lived until Christ returns (Gal 5:6b; 6:15b; 1 Cor 7:19b; cf. Gal 2:20). Paul’s resultant, incessant missionary impulse to the gentiles, based on his self-understanding as the one whom God called to be their apostle, consequently finds no parallel within the Qumran documents. Finally, I have sought to show that the polarities of Paul’s thought are to be understood within a salvation-history framework that focuses on the eschatological restoration of God’s people being brought about by Christ and the Spirit. For Paul, the transforming experience of the glory of God in the face of Christ brought about by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4–6) is the beginning fulfillment of the eschatological restoration of Israel as promised in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which takes place in accordance with a relationship defined by the new covenant (2 Cor 3:3 and 6; 6:16b–18). The church’s present experience of the glory of the Lord is thus the proleptic fulfillment of the “eternal weight of glory” which will be experienced by God’s people on that day when “the mortal (will

Conclusion: Paul’s New Covenant Eschatology in Qumran Comparison

373

be) swallowed up by life” (2 Cor 4:17; 5:4). God himself, by giving believers his Spirit as a “down payment/first fruits” of this future reality, is preparing them for the final fulfillment of their eschatological hope, a hope strengthened by their own afflictions (cf. κατεργάζομαι in 2 Cor 4:17 with 5:5; see too 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 5:1–5; 8:11–18, 23–25). The followers of Christ must therefore patiently endure the same sufferings that Paul also suffers, which by comparison with the glory to be revealed are “momentary” and “slight,” until the God who raised Jesus from the dead raises Paul and all believers and brings them together into God’s unmediated presence (2 Cor 1:6; 4:13–14, 17; 1 Cor 15:20–28). In the meantime, as a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), believers testify by their faith-filled obedience that the consequences of the “fall” in Gen 3 for all mankind (2 Cor 4:7–5:21; 11:3; Rom 5:12–2162), together with the consequences of the “fall” in Exod 32 for Israel (1 Cor 10:5–10; 2 Cor 3:7–15; Gal 4:25), are now being reversed through the ministry of the apostle Paul as a “servant of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6).

62  On this passage, see C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), who argues that Genesis 1–3 presents the backdrop to both 4:4, 6 (esp. here Gen 1:26–27) and 5:1–10, thus providing the overarching structure for the entire section. 1QS 4:22–25; CD 3:20; 1QHa 15:18 demonstrate that Qumran also regarded itself as those to whom the restored glory of Adam belonged as part of the eternal/new covenant and new creation (Isa 43:19; 65:17; 66:22; 1 En. 45:4; 72:1; 91:15) (Pate, pp. 36–37). For an evaluation of Pate’s work, see my review, JBL 113 (1994): 346–349. Baumgarten, “Purification,” 8–10, has confirmed this reading on the basis of 4Q265, in which the primeval garden is seen to be a prototype of the sanctuary.

Bibliography of Works Cited Aageson, James W. “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11.” CBQ 48 (1986): 265–289. Baasland, Ernst. “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians.” ST 38/2 (1984): 135–150. Barclay, John M. G. “Paul: An Anomalous Diaspora Jew.” Pages 381–395 in Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. –. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. –. From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962. –. “Paul’s Opponents in II Corinthians.” NTS 17 (1971): 233–254. –. “Paulus als Missionar und Theologe.” Pages 1–15 in Paulus und das antike Judentum. Edited by Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel. WUNT 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Barth, Gerhard. “Die Eignung des Verkündigers in 2 Kor 2,14–3,6.” Pages 257–270 in Kirche. Edited by Dieter Lührmann and Georg Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees.” Pages 3–10 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by George J. Brooke. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Beale, G. K. “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” Pages 11–52 in “The Reader Must Understand”: Eschatology in Bible and Theology. Edited by K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliot. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997. –. “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1.” NTS 35 (1989): 550–581. –. “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b.” Bib 80 (1999): 204–223. –. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Beker, J. Christiaan. “Echoes and Intertextuality: On the Roles of Scripture in Paul’s Theology.” Pages 64–69 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. –. “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” HTR 79 (1986): 10–16.

376

Bibliography of Works Cited

–. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Bekken, Per Jarle. The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context. BZNW 144. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Belleville, Linda L. “A Letter of Apologetic Self-Commendation: 2 Cor. 1:8–7:16.” NovT 31 (1989): 142–163. –. Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:1–18. JSNTSup 52. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. –. “Under Law: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3:21– 4:11.” JSNT 26 (1986): 53–78. Berger, Klaus. “Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz: Die Vorgeschichte des antijüdischen Vorwurfs in Mc 10:5.” ZNW 61 (1970): 1–47. –. “Die impliziten Gegner: Zur Methode des Erschließens von ‘Gegnern’ in neutestamentlichen Texten.” Pages 373–400 in Kirche. Edited by Dieter Lührmann and Georg Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. SBLDS 175. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Bernard, J. H.  The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Expositor’s Greek Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Betz, Hans Dieter. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner “Apologie” 2 Korinther 10–13. BHT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. –. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Betz, Otto. “Jesus and the Temple Scroll.” Pages 75–103 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Black, David Alan. Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature. AUS 7/3. New York: Lang, 1984. –. “Weakness Language in Galatians.” GTJ 4 (1983): 15–36. Black, Stephanie L. “What Do Καί and Δέ ‘Mean’?: A Procedural Approach to the Semantics of Intersentential Conjunctions.” Unpublished paper presented at the Roehampton Institute. London, December, 1998. Blackwell, Ben C., John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, “Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction.” Pages 3–21 in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1961. Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. 4th ed. BNTC. London: A & C Black, 1997. Boer, Martinus C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2011. –. “Paul’s Mythologizing Program in Romans 5–8.” Pages 1–20 in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013. Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Bibliography of Works Cited

377

Bosman, Philip. Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group. WUNT 2/166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Bowers, Paul. “Paul and Religious Propaganda in the First Century.” NovT 22 (1980): 316–323. Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Braun, Herbert. Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Bring, Ragnar. “Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the ideas of Election, Faith and Law in Paul, with special reference to Romans 9:30–10:30.” Studia Theologica 23 (1971): 21–60. Brisson, Luc. “Natur, Naturphilosophie.” DNP 8:728–736. Brooks, James A. and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1978. Bruce, F. F.  The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Bryan, Steven. “The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah’s Prediction of a SeventyYear Exile.” JBL 137 (2018): 107–126. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes.” Pages 298–322 in Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 1967. –. Exegetische Probleme des Zweiten Korintherbriefes zu 2 Kor 5,1–5; 5,11–6,10; 10–13; 12,21. SymBU 9. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1947. –. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 8th ed. Expanded by Otto Merk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. –. Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther. KEK 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Burton, Ernest De Witt. The Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977 (1920). Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. Campbell, Constantine R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Caneday, Ardel B. “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians.” Pages 185–205 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009. Carroll, Robert P. “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society.” ZAW 89 (1977): 176–204. Charlesworth, James H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus.” Pages 1–74 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by idem. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Introduced, translated, and annotated by Pauline Allen. Writings from the Greco-Roman World 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

378

Bibliography of Works Cited

Ciampa, Roy E. “The History of Redemption.” Pages 254–308 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Clements, R. E. “On Law and Promise.” Pages 218–232 in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–1990. Edited by Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Collange, J. F.  Enigmes de la Deuxième Epître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Etude Exégétique de 2 Cor 2:14–7:4. SNTSMS 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Collins, John J. “Introduction: Towards a Morphology of a Genre” and “The Jewish Apocalypses.” Pages 1–20 and 21–59 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Edited by idem. Semeia 14 (1979). Collins, John N. DIAKONIA: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. –. “Georgi’s ‘Envoys’ in 2 Cor 11:23.” JBL 93 (1974): 88–96. Colson, F. H., and G. H. Whitaker. Philo, vol. II, LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. Conway, Kevin P. The Promises of God: The Background of Paul’s Exclusive Use of epangelia for the Divine Pledge. BZNW 211. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. Cosgrove, Charles H. The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988. –. “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection.” JBL 106 (1987): 653– 670. –. “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” CBQ 68 (2006): 268–290. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco: Word, 1983. Cranfield, C. E. B.  The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. –. “ΜΕΤΡΟΝ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ in Romans XII. 3.” NTS 8 (1960): 345–351. –. “St Paul and the Law.” SJT 17 (1964): 43–68. Croft, Steven J. L. The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms. JSNTSup 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964/1975. –. Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. Dahl, Nils A. “The Future of Israel.” Pages 137–158 in Studies in Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Das, A. Andrews. Galatians. Concordia Commentary. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. –. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Dennis, John. “The Function of the ‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature: An Evaluation of the View of Jacob Milgrom. ETL 78 (2002): 108–129. Dewey, Arthur J. “A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10.” HTR 78 (1985): 209–217.

Bibliography of Works Cited

379

Dimant, Devorah. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Donaldson, Terence L. “Proselytes or ‘Righteous Gentiles’?: The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological Pilgrimage Patterns of Thought.” JSP 4 (1990): 3–27. Dumbrell, William J. The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. –. “Paul’s Use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3.” Pages 179–194 in God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr. D. B. Knox. Edited by Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: Blackwells, 1993. –. “4QMMT and Galatians.” NTS 43 (1997): 147–153. –. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. –. “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What, her?” Pages 1–88 in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. “Philippians 3:2–14 and the New Perspective on Paul.” Pages 463–484 in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. Romans 1–8. WBC 38a. Dallas: Word, 1988. –. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Dallas: Word, 1988. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Dunne, John Anthony. Persecution and Participation in Galatians. WUNT 2/454. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus: Eine neutestamentlien-exegetische Untersuchung zum Gewissenbegriff. WUNT 2/10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. –. Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2:15–4:7. WUNT 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Eichholz, Georg. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Erlemann, Kurt. “Das ‘letzte Gericht’ – ein erledigtes Mythologumenon?”, ZNT 9 (2002): 47–53. Fanning, Buist M. “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method.” Pages 46–62 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSupS 80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993 [reprint: Bloomsbury, 2015]. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. –. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. –. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Fitzmyer, J. A.  Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Paulist, 1992. Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1975. Forbes, Christopher. “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric.” NTS 32 (1986): 1–30.

380

Bibliography of Works Cited

–. “ ‘Unaccustomed as I am’: St Paul the Public Speaker in Corinth.” BurH 19 (1983): 11–16. Forde, Gerhard O. Justification by Faith – A Matter of Life and Death. Mifflintown: Sigler Press, 1999 (1990). Fox, Timothy L. Restoration and Repentance: An Exegetical Investigation of 2 Corinthians 7:2–16 in Its Literary and Scriptural Contexts. Ph.D. diss. University of St Andrews. St Andrews, UK, 2016. Frey, Jörg, Stefan Krauter, and Herman Lichtenberger, eds. Heil und Geschichte: Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heilsgeschichte in der biblischen Tradition and in der theologischen Deutung. WUNT 248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “Paul’s Jewish Identity.” Pages 285–321 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. AGJU 71. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2007. –. “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 517–545 in The Oxford Handbook of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –. “Der Philipperbrief im Rahmen der Paulusforschung.” Pages 1–31 in Der Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Edited by Jörg Frey and Benjamin Schliesser, with the assistance of Veronika Niederhofer. WUNT 353. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. –. Benjamin Schliesser and Nadine Ueberschaer, with the assistance of Kathrin Hager, eds. Glaube: Das Verständnis des Glaubens im frühen Christentum und in seiner jüdischen und hellenistisch-römischen Umwelt. WUNT 373. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Furnish, Victor P. II Corinthians. AB 32A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Wahrheit und Methode. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. Gagnon, Robert A. J. “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews.” CBQ 62 (2000): 64–82. García Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –. and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, editors. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume One 1Q1–4Q273. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill/Eerdmans, 1997. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. –. “The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Features.” NovT 27 (1985): 141–173. Gathercole, S. J. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited.” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49. Gese, Hartmut. “Das Gesetz.” Pages 55–84 in his Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1977. Getty, Mary Ann. “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11.” CBQ 50 (1988): 456–469. Georgi, Dieter. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike. WMANT 11. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Translation: The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Gignilliat, Mark. Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10. LNTS 330. London: T&T Clark, 2007.

Bibliography of Works Cited

381

Gnilka, Joachim. “Die Kehre des Paulus zu Christus (Phil 3:2–21).” Pages 137–152 in Per Me Il Vivere È Cristo (Filippesi 1:1–3:21). Edited by Paolo Lundardon. SMB 14. Rome: “Benedictina” Abbazia di S. Paolo, 2001. –. Der Philipperbrief. HTKNT 10:3. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1968. –. Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6,9–10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. SANT 3. Munich: Kosel, 1961. Goddard, A. J., and S. A. Cummins. “Ill or Ill-Treated?: Conflict and Persecution as the Context of Paul’s Original Ministry in Galatia (Galatians 4:12–20).” JSNT 52 (1993): 93–126. Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014. Goulder, Michael D. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter IV. JSOTSup 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Gunther, John J. St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Güttgemann, Erhardt. Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr. FRLANT 90. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. –. Review of D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. ZKG 77 (1966): 126–131. Hafemann, Scott J. “ ‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1:4 within its Eschatological Context. ” Bib 94 (2013): 80–99. –. “Ferdinand Christian Baur.” Pages 285–289 in the Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. –. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –. Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective: Selected Essays. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015. –. Review of A. Andrew Das, Paul, The Law, and the Covenant. Trinity Journal 25 (2004): 264–267. –. Review of C. M. Pate, Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21. JBL 113 (1994): 346–349. –. Review of J. L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. JBL 111 (1992): 347–350. –. Review of Matthew V. Novenson: “From Christ to Christ: Matthew Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism.” ExposT 125 (2014): 179–181. –. Review of N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. JETS 40 (1997): 305–308. –. Review of Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology. Trinity Journal 29 (2008): 153–156. –. Review of Sung-Ho Park. Stellvertretung Jesu Christi im Gericht: Studien zum Verhältnis von Stellvertretung und Kreuzestod Jesu bei Paulus. BBR 27 (2017): 443–444. –. Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

382

Bibliography of Works Cited

–. Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence. WUNT 2/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. –. “The Covenant Relationship.” Pages 20–65 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. –. “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the OT – A Proposal.” HBT 14 (1992): 31–49. Hahn, Scott W. “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18.” CBQ 67 (2005): 79–100. Hall, Robert G. “Arguing like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos outside the Greco-Roman Rhetorical Tradition.” NTS 42 (1996): 434–453. Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. WUNT 2/172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Harvey, A. E. “Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy.” Pages 79–96 in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study. Edited by idem. London: SPCK, 1985. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972. Hasler, Victor. “Das Evangelium des Paulus in Korinth: Erwägungen zur Hermeneutik.” NTS 30 (1984): 109–129. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books). 2 Vols. Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1975. Hays, Richard B. “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention.” Pages 122–136 in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Edited by A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. –. “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 45 (1999): 391–412. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “A Letter from Christ.” Pages 122–153 in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. –. “On the Rebound: A Response to Critiques of Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.” Pages 70–96 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Heckel, Ulrich. “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des Paulus in 2 Kor 12,7 und Gal 4,13 f.” ZNW 84 (1993): 65–92. Heilig, Christoph. Paul’s Triumph: Reassessing 2 Corinthians 2:14 in its Literary and Historical Context. BTS 27. Leuven/Paris/Bristol: Peeters, 2017. Heiligenthal, Roman. Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum. WUNT 2/9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hellerman, Joseph H. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. SNTSMS 132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Bibliography of Works Cited

383

Hengel, Martin. “Heilsgeschichte.” Pages 3–34 in Heil und Geschichte: Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heilsgeschichte in der biblischen Tradition and in der theologischen Deutung. Edited by Jörg Frey, Stefan Krauter, and Herman Lichtenberger. WUNT 248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Commentary on the Psalms: Vol. I. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860. Hofius, Otfried. “Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11.” ZTK 83 (1986): 297–324. –. “ ‘Gesetz’ als Thema Biblischer Theologie.” JBT 4 (1989): 105–149. –. “Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther.” Pages 75–120 in Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Holloway, Paul A. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy, SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Home, Charles M. “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’ (Romans 11:26).” JETS 21 (1978): 329–334. Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought. SNTSMS 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hübner, Hans. Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11. FRLANT 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Hugenberger, Gordon Paul. “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure.” Pages 105–139 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E.  Satterthwaite, R. S.  Hess, and G. J.  Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Hunter, Archibald M. The Unity of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1943. Huntjens, Johannes A. “Contrasting Notions of Covenant and Law in the Texts from Qumran.” RevQ 8 (1974): 361–380. Jackson, Ryan T. New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept. WUNT 2/272. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Johnson, Dan G. “The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11.” CBQ 46 (1984): 91–103. Kapelrud, Arvid S. “Der Bund in den Qumran-Schriften.” Pages 137–149 in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel‑ und Qumranwissenschaft. Edited by Siegfried Wagner. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. –. “Die Legitimität des Apostels: Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10–13,” ZNW 41 (1942): 33–71. –. New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM Press, 1969. –. “Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit.” Pages 224–236 in vol. 1 of Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Keck, Leander E. “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13).” Pages 85–97 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John; In Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990.

384

Bibliography of Works Cited

–. “Romans 15:4  – An Interpolation?.” Pages 125–136 in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer. Edited by J. T. Carroll, C. H. Cosgrove, and E. E. Johnson. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Kee, Howard Clark. “Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus.” Pages 104–122 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kim, Euichang. The Fear of God in 2 Corinthians 7:1: Its Salvation-Historical, Literary, and Eschatological Contexts. LNTS 605. London: T&T Clark, 2019. Kim, Seyoon. “2 Cor. 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of ‘Reconciliation.’ ” NovT. 39 (1997): 360–384. Kirk, Alexander N. The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered. WUNT 2/406. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. –. “Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8.” Pages 107–128 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT 2/450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Kish, G. “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 15:7–13.” Th.M. thesis, GordonConwell Theological Seminary, 1993. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klaiber, Walter. Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde. Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Kirchenverständnis. FRLANT 127. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Kleinknecht, Karl T. Der leidende Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom “leidenden Gerechten” und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus. WUNT 2/13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Abraham und Mose im Streit der Meinungen: Beobachtungen und Hypothesen zur Debatte zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern in 2 Kor 11,22–23 und 3,7–18.” Pages 305–324 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by Reimund Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. –. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43.” Pages 93–100 in Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Koperski, Veronica. The Knowledge of Christ Jesus My Lord: The High Christology of Philippians 3:7–11. CBET 16. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House: 1996. Kraus, Wolfgang. Das Volk Gottes: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus. WUNT 85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galater­briefes aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament.” Pages 169–221 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by George J. Brooke. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Lambrecht, Jan. “The Nekrōsis of Jesus: Ministry and Suffering in 2 Cor 4:7–15.” Pages 120–143 in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère. Edited by Albert Vanhoye. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Lenz, John R. “Deification of the Philosopher in Classical Greece.” Pages 47–67 in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian

Bibliography of Works Cited

385

Traditions. Edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. –. “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Cor. 2:14–4:6.” Bib 64 (1983): 344–380. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Liebers, Reinhold. “2 Kor 3.” Pages 96–123 in Das Gesetz als Evangelium: Untersuchungen zur Gesetzeskritik des Paulus. ATANT 75. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989. Lietzmann, Hans, and Werner Georg Kümmel. An die Korinther I/II. 5th ed. HNT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Lightfoot, J. B.  Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. 6th ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1891. –. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885. Lim, Timothy H. “Paul, Letters of.” Pages 638–641 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. Vanderkam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lincoln, A. T. “ ‘Paul the Visionary’: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII. 1–10.” NTS 25 (1979): 204–220. Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Der Brief an die Philipper. 14th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Longenecker, Richard N. Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Lütgert, Wilhelm. Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth. BFCT 12/3. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1908. Luther, Martin. Vorlesung über den Römerbrief 1515/1516. Ausgewählte Werke. Ergänzungsreihe Zweiter Band. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. Marcus, Joel. “ ‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression,” CBQ 63 (2001): 72–83. Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War.” HTR 76 (1983): 143–173. Mannermaa, Tuomo. Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Martens, John W. One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and GrecoRoman Law. Studies in Philo of Alexandria 2. Boston: Brill, 2003. Martin, Ralph P. “The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians: An Old Issue Revisited.” Pages 279–289 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Martin, Troy W. “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy.” JBL 114 (1995): 437–461. –. “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4:13–14).” JSNT 74 (1999): 65–91. Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. McNamara, Martin. Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Aramaic Bible 5a. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1997.

386

Bibliography of Works Cited

Mell, Ulrich. Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie. BZNW 56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979. Mitchell, Margaret. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. –. «Rhetorical Shorthand in Pauline Argumentation: the Functions of ‘the Gospel’ in the Corinthian Correspondence.” Pages 63–88 in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. Edited by L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, JSNTSup 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Mohrmann, Douglas C. “Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest. Literature in the Second Degree.” Pages 129–150 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT 2/450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. “Nature in the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment.” JETS 49 (2006): 449–488. –. “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years.” SJT 40 (1987): 287–307. Morales, Rodrigo J. The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians. WUNT 2/282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Moule, C. F. D. “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul.” Pages 389–406 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. F. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Moule, H. C. G., ed. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Mowery, Robert L. “The Articular Prepositional Attributes in the Pauline Corpus.” Bib 71 (1990): 85–92. Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. Atlanta: John Knox, 1959. Translation of Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte. Copenhagen: University of Aarhus Press, 1954. Mussner, Franz. Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for Christian Faith. Translated by Leonard Swidler. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Nanos, Mark D. and Magnus Zetterholm, editors. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Newton, Michael. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. SNTSMS 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Oakes, Peter. Philippians: From People to Letter, SNTSMS 110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Oegema, Gerbern S. Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlich-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie. NovTSup 95. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Bibliography of Works Cited

387

Oostendorp, Derk. Another Jesus: A Gospel of Jewish-Christian Superiority in 2 Corinthians. Kampen: Kok, 1967. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. “Die Decke des Moses: Zur Exegese und Hermeneutic von Geist und Buchstabe in 2 Korinther 3.” Pages 87–115 in Die Heiligkeit der Tora: Studien zum Gesetz bei Paulus. Munich: Kaiser, 1989. Otto, Randall E. “ ‘If Possible I May Attain the Resurrection from the Dead’ (Philippians 3:11).” CBQ 57 (1995): 324–340. Park, Sung-Ho. Stellvertretung Jesu Christi im Gericht: Studien zum Verhältnis von Stellvertretung und Kreuzestod Jesu bei Paulus. WMANT 143. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015. Pate, C. Marvin. Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991. Perriman, Andrew. “The Pattern of Christs Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10–11.” TynBul 42 (1991): 62–79. Pilhofer, Peter. Philippi, Bd. 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas. WUNT 87. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1925. Prothro, James B. Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul. WUNT 2/461. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Provence, Thomas E. “Who is Sufficient for these Things?: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 2:15–3:18.” NovT 24 (1982): 54–81. Prümm, Karl. Diakonia Pneumatos: Der Zweite Korintherbrief als Zugang zur Apostolischen Botschaft; Auslegung und Theologie. 2 vols (vol. 2 in 2 parts). Rome: Herder, 1960–1967. Quarles, Charles L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17.” NovT 45 (2003): 1–21. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Reasoner, M. The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context. SNTSMS 103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. “Das Ölbaum-Gleichnis in Röm 11:16ff: Versuch einer weiterführenden Deutung.” Pages 127–164 in Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honor of David Daube. Edited by Ernst Bammel, C. K. Barrett, and W. D. Davies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Renwick, David A. Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God. BJS 224. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991. Rese, Martin. “Israel und Kirche in Römer 9.” NTS 34 (1988): 208–217. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Robertson, O. Palmer. “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?” Pages 209–227 in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology: Papers from the Thirtieth

388

Bibliography of Works Cited

Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Edited by Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Rohde, Joachim. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. THKNT 9. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. AGAJU 22. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Rovelli, Carlo. The Order of Time. Translated by Erica Segre and Simon Carnell. New York: Allen Lane/Penguin Random House, 2018. Rowley, H. H.  The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM Press, 1956. Rudolph, David J. “Resurrection and Jesus’ Jewish Identity.” Paper presented at the Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET) Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 14, 2008. Ruether, Rosemary R. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. New York: Seabury, 1974. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010. Sailhammer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sanders, E. P.  Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. –. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. –. “Paul’s Attitude toward the Jewish People.” USQR 33 (1978): 175–187. –. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Sanders, James A. “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Quarter Century of Study.” BA 36 (1973): 110–148. Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. OTS 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul – One of the Prophets? WUNT 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Savage, Timothy B. Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. SNTSMS 86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Concept of Covenant in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 235–255 now in his Qumran and Jerusalem, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Holiness and Sanctity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 256–269 now in his Qumran and Jerusalem, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “The Concept of Restoration in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 286–302 now in his Qumran and Jerusalem, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Schlatter, Adolf. Paulus, Der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 5th ed. KEK 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Schoeps, H. J.  Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Bibliography of Works Cited

389

Schreiner, Josef. “Jeremia 9,22.23 als Hintergrund des paulinischen ‘Sich-Rühmens.’ ” Pages 530–542 in Neues Testament und Kirche. Edited by Joachim Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Schreiner, Thomas R. “The Commands of God.” Pages 66–101 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott Hafemann and Paul R. House. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. –. Romans. BECNT 6. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. –. “Works of the Law.” Pages 975–979 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Schrieber, Rudolf. Der Neue Bund im Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Diss. Universität Tübingen, 1954. Schröter, Jens. Der versöhnte Versöhner: Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2. Kor 2:14–7:4. TANZ 10. Tübingen: Francke, 1993. Schultz, Richard. “The King in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 141–165 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordan J. Wenham. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. BBB 168. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2012. Schütz, John Howard. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. SNTSMS 26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –. “ ‘For as Many as are of Works of the Law are under a Curse’ (Gal 3:10).” Pages 187–221 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. –. “N. T. Wright’s Hypothesis of an ‘Ongoing Exile’: Issues and Answers.” Pages 1–16 in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright. Edited by idem. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017. –. “Paul’s Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:16c–18.” JSNT 56 (1995): 73–99. –. “The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2:14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul.” NTS 42 (1996): 260–281. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Seifrid, Mark A. “Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History.” TynB 45 (1994): 86–92. Simon, Merrill. Jerry Falwell and the Jews. Middle Village: Jonathan David, 1984. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stegemann, Ekkehard W. “Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zum Schriftverständnis des Paulus in II Kor 3.” TZ 42 (1986): 97–114. Stendahl, Krister. “Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism.” Pages 233–244 in Meanings: The Bible as Document and As Guide. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

390

Bibliography of Works Cited

–. “ ‘In No Other Name.’ ” Pages 48–53 in Christian Witness and the Jewish People. Edited by Arne Sovik. Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 2nd. ed. 1977. –. “Judaism and Christianity I: Then and Now.” Pages 205–215 in Meanings: The Bible as Document and As Guide. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. –. “Judaism and Christianity II: A Plea for a New Relationship. Pages 217–232 in Meanings: The Bible as Document and As Guide. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. –. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Stettler, Christian. Das letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis Jesus. WUNT 2/299. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. Das Endgericht bei Paulus: Framesemantische und exegetische Studien zur paulinischen Eschatologie und Soterologie. WUNT 371. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Still, Todd D. “(Im)Perfection: Reading Philippians 3:5–6 in Light of the Number Seven.” NTS 60 (2014): 139–148. Stockhausen, Carol Kern. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. AnBib 116. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Strange, James F. “2 Corinthians 10:13–16 Illuminated by a Recently Published Inscription.” BA 46 (1983): 167–168. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Achtzehn Thesen zur paulinischen Kreuzestheologie.” Pages 192– 208 in Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. –. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. –. Das paulinische Evangelium I: Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. –. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. –. “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus,” Evangelische Theologie 27 (1967): 1–35 –. “Zur Interpretation von Römer 11:25–32.” Pages 555–570 in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Sumney, Jerry L. Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. JSNTSup 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Swanson, Dwight D. “A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s: The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant.” Pages 273–289 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by George J. Brooke. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Thate, Michael J., Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, editors. “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation. WUNT 2 384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Theissen, Gerd. “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare.” Pages 201–230 in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979. Thielman, Frank. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NovTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1–15:13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991.

Bibliography of Works Cited

391

Thüsing, Wilhelm. Per Christum in Deum: Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. NTAbh nF 1. Munster: Aschendorff, 1965. Tigay, J. H.  Deuteronomy. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996. Travis, Stephen H. “Paul’s Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12.” Pages 527–532 in Studia Evangelica, Vol. VI. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Berlin: Akademie, 1973. Trebilco, Paul. “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?” NTS 57 (2011): 440–460. VanderKam, James C. “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 89–109 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Vermes, Geza. An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. –. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition. London: Penguin Books, 2011. Wagner, J. Ross. “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9.” JBL 116 (1997): 473–485. –. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Watson, Francis. “The Apostle Who Reads: In Dialogue with My Critics.” Pages xix–lxi in his Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. Cornerstones Series. Revised Edition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. –. “Romans 2:27 in the NET Bible.” bible.org/article/romans-227-bible. Webb, William J. Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1. JSNTSup 85. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Weippert, Helga. “Das Wort vom Neuen Bund in Jeremia xxxi 31–34.” VT 29 (1979): 336–337 Weitzman, Steven. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit.” JBL 115 (1996): 49–61. Wengert, Timothy. “Martin Luther on Galatians 3:6–14: Justification by Curses and Blessings.” Pages 91–116 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Wentling, Judith L. “Unraveling the Relationship between 11QT, the Eschatological Temple, and the Qumran Community.” RevQ 14 (1989): 61–73. Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Wevers, J. W.  Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 39. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. White, Joel R. “Baptized on account of the Dead: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context.” JBL 116 (1997): 487–499. –. “Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul: Methodological Considerations and a Test Case (1 Corinthians 6:5).” Pages 167–188 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and

392

Bibliography of Works Cited

Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT 2/450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Whittle, Sarah. Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans. SNTSMS 161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Wilckens, Ulrich. Röm 6–11. Vol. 2 of Der Brief an die Römer. EKKNT 6. Zurich: Benzinger, 1980. –. Röm 12–16. Vol. 3 of Der Brief an die Römer. EKKNT 6. Zurich: Benzinger, 1982. Wilken, Robert Louis. The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Willitts, Joel. “One Torah for Another. The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21.” Pages 21–45 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT 2/450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Wilson, G. H.  The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985. Wilson, Todd A. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia. WUNT 2/225. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “ ‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation.” JTS 56 (2006): 362– 392. Wilson, Walter T. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. CEJL. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Windisch, Hans. Der Zweite Korintherbrief. Edited by Georg Strecker. KEK 6. 9th. Edition (Re-issue of original 1924 edition). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Winter, Bruce W. “Roman Society and Roman Law in Romans 12–15.” Paper presented at the Tyndale Fellowship NT Study Group. Cambridge, 6 July 1999. Wisdom, Jeffrey R. Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3:8–10. WUNT 2/133. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Wise, Michael Owen. “The Covenant of Temple Scroll XXIX:3–10.” RevQ 14 (1989): 49–60. –. “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam.” RevQ 15 (1991): 123–132. Wise, Michael Owen, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999. Witherington III, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. –. Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville: Abingdon, 1994. Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Works, Carla Swafford. The Church in the Wilderness: Paul’s Use of Exodus Traditions in 1 Corinthians. WUNT 2/379. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Wright, N. T. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” TynB 29 (1978): 61–88 (now Pages 3–20 in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013). –. “Christ, the Law and the People of God: the Problem of Romans 9–11.” Pages 231–256 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. –. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

Bibliography of Works Cited

393

–. “The Law in Romans 2.” Pages 131–150 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. “Messiahship in Galatians?” Pages 3–23 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. –. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Volume One. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. –. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Cor 5:21.” Pages 200–208 in Pauline Theology, Vol. II. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. –. “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3.” Pages 175–192 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Parts III and IV. Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 2013. Yarbrough, Robert W. The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology. Leiden: Deo, 2004. Yates, Roy. “A Note on Colossians 1:24.” EvQ 42 (1970): 88–92. Zeller, Dieter. Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief. FB 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Zoccali, Christopher. “ ‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship.” JSNT 30 (2008): 289–318.

Ancient Text Index Hebrew Bible Genesis 1–3 118, 373 1:3 97, 115, 341 1:14 75 1:26–27 118, 373 2:7 LXX 304 2:24 325 3 117, 373 3:1–5, 14 78 3:6 42 3:7 118 3:14, 17 76 3:16 118 3:17–18 70 3:21 118 4:11 76 4:29 78 5:16–26 78 6:8 78 12, 15, 17 296 12:1–3 57, 320 12:2 78, 331 12:3 55–56, 76, 150, 280, 320 13:14–16 278 15–17 282 15:5 78 15:5, 7 278 15:6 12, 42, 44, 179 15:8 55 15:13 59–60 15:13–14 61 15:17–21 68 16–21 77 16:1–4 77 16:12 78

17:1 LXX 179 17:1–27 68 17:4–5 78 17:5 12, 281 17:7–8 55 17:16–21 78 17:23–27 79 18:10–14 78 18:10, 14 12, 254, 313 18:10, 18 278 18:18 55–56, 78, 280, 320 18:18–19 320 18:19 85 21:1–2 78 21:1–10 78 21:8–21 78 21:12 12, 251, 254, 258, 313 22:15–18 68 22:17 78, 278 22:17–18 44 22:18 280, 320 25:18 78 25:23 254 26:4 78, 280, 320 26:24 278 28:10–22 365 28:13–15 278 28:13–22 366 28:14 78, 280, 320 28:15 154 32:12 278 35:1–15 366 35:9–12 278 41:35 59 48:16 278

396

Ancient Text Index

Exodus 4:10 LXX 121 4:22 59 4:31 LXX 182 6:30 325 12:40 59 14:5 59 15:1–8 284 15:16 97–98 16:7, 10 97–98 16:18 97–98, 117 18:5 364 18:10 284 18:20 37 18:25 365 19:4–6 17 19:6 287 19:17 42, 47 20:2–3 17 20:13–17 232 24:17 97–98 31:18 96, 98 32 373 32–34 26, 80, 82, 103–104, 110–111, 113, 117, 289, 351, 360–361 32:15 96, 98 33–34 93 33:3, 5 103–104, 111, 228 33:19 254, 290–291 34 91, 101 34:6 290–291 34:7–9 265 34:9 228 34:29 98 34:29–30 351 34:29–35 81, 97, 102–105, 108 34:30 96, 98, 103 34:33–35 98, 111 Leviticus 6:21 153 11:3 325 12 367 12:3 360 15:12 LXX 153 18:5 18, 33, 44–45, 309, 312, 362–363

19:18

232, 273–274, 309, 312–313 19:23 325 26:11–12 97–98, 117, 369 26:12, 42 365–366 Numbers 10:9 366 15:20–21 261 17:25 178 21:18 352 25:6–11 177 33:55 98 Deuteronomy 4:11 42, 47 5:1 272 5:17–19, 21b 232 6:4 LXX 310 6:4–5 23, 46–47 6:6 47 6:12 172 7:9 96, 98 9:4 194 9:5–29 195 9:6, 13 26 9:10–11 96, 98 9:27 229 10:12, 20 172 10:16 23–24, 173, 195, 325, 360, 364 10:17 218 10:21 134 10:25 85 11:18 23 12:9 293 14:1–2 72 15:6 325 15:10 98, 117 16:16 228–229 19:15 98 20:5–7 325 22:10 97 22:22–23:1 272 24:1–4 325 25:1–3 76, 150 25:3 98 26:19 134

Ancient Text Index

27–28 47 27–32 66, 350 27:15–26 76, 149 27:26 33, 36, 38, 44–45, 66, 76, 96, 98, 149–150, 311, 350 28 2, 218 28–32 287 28:9 279 28:15–20 76 28:16–19 149 28:20 149 28:58 66 29:3 25, 82, 113–114 29:3–4 239 29:18 113 29:19b 66 29:20–30:1 113 30:6 173, 228, 325, 364 30:11–14 232, 289 30:12, 14 363 30:24 366 31–32 86 31:6, 8 154 31:16–18 113 31:24–29 178 31:27 229 31:29 287 31:30 284 32 26, 284, 295 32:1–25 287 32:4, 15, 18, 30,  31 284 32:5 178 32:10 98 32:13 284 32:20–21, 36, 39 287 32:21 LXX 257, 289 32:26–27 287 32:34 287 32:35 289 32:43 LXX 286–290, 293–294, 298 33:29 284 Joshua 8:31–32 39 21:43–45 293 23:6 39

Judges 4:9 134 1 Samuel 2:10 133–134 16:7 97, 99 2 Samuel 7:8 97, 99, 370 7:10–11a 366–367 7:12 55 7:14 72, 97, 99, 117, 284, 370 7:19 367 7:24 117 22:21 195, 283 22:25 195 22:50 283 23:1 283 1 Kings 2:3 39 8:56 293 18:21 97, 99 19:9–18 258 19:10, 14 258 19:17–18 259 19:18 258 2 Kings 14:6 39 23:25 39 Isaiah 1:9 255 2:3 266 6:9–10 113 8:14 225 9:1 97, 99, 115 9:2 341 10:22 259 10:22–23 255 10:23 256 11 295 11:1–11 292 11:10 LXX 283–285, 292–296 11:11–16 292 12:4 284

397

398

Ancient Text Index

27:9 250, 265–266 28:16 225 28:16–17 367 29:10 82, 239 29:10–11 113–114 29:13 114 32–66 323 38:12 97, 99 40–55 332 40–66 116 40:9–11 6 43 323 43:1 330 43:1–2 334 43:6 75, 97, 99, 117, 370 43:18–19 97, 99, 116, 330, 332, 334 44:23 288 45:23 296 48:3–6 330 48:6 328, 330, 335 49:1 75 49:4 75, 330 49:8 75, 97, 99, 138, 328, 330, 341 49:13 97, 99, 288 49:18 295 50:7–9 LXX 210 51:1–3 83 51:7 23 52:4 97, 99 52:5 228, 239 52:7 6, 239, 362 52:1–10 239 52:11 99, 117, 370 52:13–53:12 338 53:1 362 53:4 274 54 367 54:1 82–83, 322 54:4 62 54:10 322 54:11–12 367 54:13 353, 367 54:16 352 55:10 98–99 58:9 178 59:20 250, 353

59:20–21 265–266 61:1–2 6 63:13 75 65–66 323, 332 65:1 257 65:2 113, 257 65:16b–25 301 65:17 332, 334 65:17–25 330, 334 65:23 75 Jeremiah 1:10 22 2:2–3 62 2:5–8 25 4:4 24, 228, 229, 325, 364 6:1 26 6:6 26 6:10 325 7:25–26 21 7:26 26 9:4–6 25 9:22–26 99, 127, 133–134 9:23–24 185 9:25 325 9:25–26 24, 364 9:26 325 11:3 76 11:3–11 22 12:1 234 17:1 23, 227 19:15 26 22:24 296 24:6 99 24:6–7 22 25:11–12 87–88 31 2, 349, 366 31:1–34 21–27 31:9 99 31:28 22 31:31–34 2, 11, 13, 16, 21–22, 24–26, 47, 68, 85, 115, 137, 218, 227–228, 231, 242, 346–348, 351, 353, 359, 361, 365–368 31:33 24, 96, 99, 110, 117, 214, 227, 229, 236, 250, 348, 370

Ancient Text Index

31:39 97 32:37–40 110 32:40 360 36:10 72 36:31 22 38:33 23 50:5 23

Habakkuk 2:4

Ezekiel 1 163 3:7 229 5:11 296 11:9 99 11:19–20 2, 68, 96, 110 18:5–9 46 20:34 97, 100, 117, 370 20:41 100 28:34 100 36 2, 46 36:26 100, 361 36:26–27 2, 13, 16, 46, 68, 96, 110, 115, 218, 228, 359–360, 37:5–6 231 37:26–28 366, 370 37:27 97, 100, 117, 369

Malachi 1:2–3 254 2:2 76

Hosea 2:1 117, 225, 255 2:15–17 62 2:25 255 3:5 269 10:12 98, 100 11:1 59–60 11:2–4 62 11:5 62 Amos 3:13 97, 100 5:26–27 347 7:11 94 9:6 55–56 9:13 230 Micah 4:1 269 6:8 37 7:20 LXX 280

399

33, 41, 198, 225, 306–307 3:19 284 Zechariah 11:2 230

Psalms 2–41 284 2:7–9 284 2:11 97, 99 5:5 184 6:8 184 7:8 195 10, 33 284 14:2 211 14:4 184 15:10 154 17 292 17:4–6 283 17:20 288 17:33–49 283 17:50 LXX 280–281, 283–286, 288–290, 293, 295, 298 17:51 272 18 272 18:2 287 18:3, 32 284 18:7 284 18:20 195 18:24 195 18:33 284 18:49 284 25:7 62 28:3 184 31:1–2 LXX 159 36:25, 28 154 40:8 23 41:1–2, 11–12 284 46:5–6 26 53:5 99 55:9 55–56 55:11–12 26

400 62:13 231, 325 68 277 68:7 276 68:10 LXX 274–275 68:19 84 68:23 114 69 272, 274 69:6 276 69:10 LXX 285 72 284 72:17 55 89:3–36 284 89:18 134 89:38–39 284 90:12 25 95:11 293 96:11 288 106:20 229 106:31 177 107:1 290 107:26 363 108–110 290 111–118 290 111:4 290 111:9 98–99, 109 112:4 97, 99, 290 112:9 99 113:9–19 LXX 291 115:1 LXX 97 116 LXX 290–291 116:1 293–294, 298 116:2 LXX 272 116:10 99 117 295 117:22 291 118:17–18 97, 99 118:32 LXX 97 119:32 99 129:1–2 62 Job 4:19 97, 99 13:16 202 13:26 62 27:6 195 37:15 97, 99

Ancient Text Index

Proverbs 1:22 194 3:4 97, 99 3:9 98–99 7:3 96, 99 11:24 97, 99 13:12 55–56 15:14 25 16:31 134 17:6–7 134 21:22 99 22:8a 98–99 24:12 231 27:17 243 Ecclesiastes 12:14

97, 99

Lamentations 4:2

97, 99, 153

Esther 4:7 55–56 Daniel 9:11 38 9:13 39 9:24–27 88 Ezra 3:2 39 7:6 39 9:4 325 9:8 88 Nehemiah 8:1 39 1 Chronicles 28:20 154 2 Chronicles 23:18 39 30:16 39

Ancient Text Index

401

New Testament Matthew 7:6 184 8:17 274 9:37–38 184 10:10 184 10:17 150 15:26–27 184 19:17 325 24:32 222 26:29 351 Mark 13:29 222 Luke 1:71–74 284 10:2 184 13:7 60, 102, 184 15:29 60 22:20 326 24:44 250 John 2:17 177 5:58 60 15:27 60 19:7 223 Acts 3:22, 26 293 3:25 280 6:9 242 7:6–7, 17 60 7:37 293 7:43 347 13:38–39 210–211, 311 15:21 60 17:3 293 19:28–41 234 19:33 234 20:26 211 21:20–21 177 22:3–5 177 24:12 242 26:4–11 177 26:11 242

Romans 1–8 246 1:1 356 1:1–4, 17 208 1:1–7 5 1:1–17 6 1:2 57 1:3–4 293–294 1:5 18 1:14–17 274 1:16 272, 281 1:16–17 7, 110, 166, 209, 214, 225 1:17 41, 198, 215 1:18–32 229 1:18–2:11 217 1:18–3:20 213, 218 1:28 235 2 212, 214, 240 2:1–3 216–217 2:1–16 213 359 2:2–15 236 2:6–7 211 2:6–11 218, 230 2:10 211 2:12–16 207–241 2:13 18 2:13–29 172 2:13–15 229 2:14 220, 222–223, 226 2:14–16 229, 231, 238, 240 2:15 18, 228, 234–235 2:16 238 2:17–24 264 2:20 356 2:23–27 19 2:24 239 2:25–29 354 2:26 224, 227 2:27 220 2:28–29 18, 173, 186, 227, 232, 238, 362 3:1 268 3:1–5 47, 250 3:21 18, 363 3:21–22 214

402

Ancient Text Index

3:21–4:25 212 3:27–28 18–19 3:28–31 53 3:30 310 4:4–5 19, 211 4:12 320 4:13, 20 12, 59 4:16–17 281 4:17–21 282 4:23–25 293 5 296 5–8 212 5:8–10 215 5:9 202 5:12–18 327 6:1–4 229 6:6 200, 211 6:6–19 358 6:7 210 6:14–15 318 6:17 229 6:18, 22 358 7:1–6 358 7:4, 6 18–19 7:6 228 7:10, 14 177 8 210–211 8:1–3, 31–34 371 8:2 313 8:2, 3 18 8:3–4 79, 215, 230 8:4 228 8:4–7 19, 230 8:5 364 8:7–9 364 8:11–12, 17–25 364 8:14 279 8:18–22 70 8:18–25 318 8:19–21 342 8:23–25 4 8:34 337 9–11 180, 239, 242, 245–256, 260, 267, 270–271, 289 9:3 250, 252, 257 9:3–5 186 9:3–11:32 252 9:4 59

9:4–5 174, 249, 263, 268 9:4–11:32 253 9:6–8 265 9:6–10 313 9:6–13 82, 251–252 9:6–10:21 258 9:7–8 258 9:7–13 252 9:11 109, 265, 368 9:14, 30 260 9:14–29 255 9:14–11:10 254 9:15 290 9:27 255–256, 259, 267 9:27–32 256–257 9:30–32 18, 225 9:30–10:4 192–194, 267 9:30–10:14 225 9:30–10:21 257 9:32–33 257, 260 10:1 257 10:2–13 257 10:3 193 10:4 18, 193 10:4–13 208 10:5 362–363 10:14–21 257 10:15–17 239 10:16–17 362 10:17 247, 267 10:17–11:36 267 10:18–21 257 10:19 289 10:21 113, 258, 262 11 54, 243, 259 11:1 258, 261, 267, 368 11:1–2 260 11:1–5 67, 259, 261, 267, 368 11:1–10 256–259 11:1–26 53 11:1–32 260 11:5 85, 265 11:5–11 258 11:7–8 239 11:7–10 82, 113–114, 260 11:8 82 11:11–24 260–263 11:11–32 259, 264

Ancient Text Index

11:12 266 11:13–14 289 11:14–15 261–262 11:17–22 289 11:20–24 263, 267–270 11:24 193, 268 11:25–32 242–270, 279 11:25–36 243, 247–248, 250, 263–266 11:26 88, 254, 265–267 11:28–32 261, 264–265 11:33–36 247, 266 12–14 212 12:2 4, 9–10, 235 12:3 131 12:19 289 13:8–10 238, 274 14:1–15:13 271 14:4–5 193 14:10–12 211 14:15, 17, 20 232 14:17–19 208–212, 215, 361 15:1–6 273–274 15:1–13 256, 262, 271, 297, 318 15:3 281 15:4, 6 275–276 15:7–13 248, 271, 278–283, 295, 297–298 15:8–9 55, 282 15:9–12 293–294 15:10 286, 289 15:14 178 15:14–21 279 16:5 261 17–21 260 1 Corinthians 1:2 323 1:17–18 157–158 1:23 257 1:26–31 140 1:31 134 2:1–5 153 2:4–5 135 2:6 103 2:6–7 325 2:16 355 3 109–110

403

3:5 161 3:14 109 3:15 182 4 163 4:5 233, 237 4:9 152, 155, 161, 164 4:12–13 155 4:15 132 4:15–16 326 4:8–13 152 5:5–11 368 5:7 335, 368 5:13 272 6:9–11 15–16 6:11 363 7 323, 327, 336, 340 7:5 326 7:19 238, 301–307, 310, 319, 323–326, 333, 340, 354 7:20–21 329 7:22 340 7:23 324 7:29–31 4, 316, 325 7:31 329 8:7–12 233 8:11–13 273 8:12 340 9:1 164 9:9 313 9:19–23 324 9:20 42, 73 9:21 75–76, 355 10:11 4, 53, 368–369 11:1 326 11:17–34 326 11:20–34 368 11:23–26 326, 335, 357 11:25 13 11:25–26 351 12:3–13 361 13 109–110 13:13 109, 326 15:1–5 208, 357 15:12–19 161 15:21–26 161 15:22 327 15:29 157, 161 15:30–31 156

404

Ancient Text Index

15:31–32 157 15:34 157 15:42–45 361 16:15 261 16:17–18 158 2 Corinthians 1–9 90–96, 115, 117, 119 1:1 341 1:3–11 162 1:8–11 153–154 1:12 126 2–5 341 2:3 178 2:12–13 163 2:14 152, 155, 162–164 2:14–16 124, 158, 370 2:14–17 137 2:14–3:3 2–3, 77 2:14–4:6 77 2:14–6:13 124 2:15 157 2:15–16a 106 2:17 136 3 54, 102 3:1 137 3:1–2 300 3:1–18 119 3:2–3 121 3:3 19, 372 3:4–6 343 3:4–18 172 3:6 1, 13, 53, 90, 228, 279, 343, 373 3:6, 9 196 3:6, 14 19 3:6–18 12, 82, 90–118 3:7 102 3:7–11 19 3:7–13 81 3:7–18 92, 100–102, 351 3:10 107, 110–111 3:11 109 3:12–18 111 3:14 80–81 3:14–15 80, 82, 114 3:14–18 19, 351 3:16 248

3:17–18 341 3:18 10, 327, 338, 340, 372 4:1–6 106, 111 4:2 80, 137 4:4 80, 116 4:4–6 340–341, 372 4:5–6 334 4:6 116 4:6–7 107, 153 4:7 152 4:7–12 136, 142–161, 202 4:8–11 153 4:10 154 4:11 152, 155, 164 4:12 161 4:13–18 317 4:17 373 5–7 352 5:4 373 5:10–11 327 5:11–12 300 5:12 124, 137, 329 5:14–17 116 5:14–21 336, 351 5:15 329 5:16 328 5:16–6:1 100 5:17 117, 185, 300–343, 373 5:21 7 6:1–2 75 6:2 138, 328, 335, 341 6:3–10 124 6:4 1, 156 6:4–10 137 6:14–7:1 92, 351 6:16 117, 369 6:17 370 6:18 370 7:1 370 7:2–16 138 7:9 182 7:9–10 138 7:11 137 8:23 190 9:8–15 107 9:9 109 9:12 158 10–13 92, 98, 120–121

Ancient Text Index

10:1–6 124 10:4–6 235 10:7–18 128 10:12 120, 137 10:12–18 119–141 10:13 121, 132 10:13–16 130 10:14–18 133 10:17 134, 136 10:18 120, 127, 137 11–12 125 11:13 184 11:22–23 92 11:22–29 176 11:23 1 11:28 164 11:28–29 163 12:1–5 164 12:1–10 153 12:7 147–148, 151 12:7–10 148 12:9–10 155 Galatians 1:3–5 40 1:4 4, 17, 42, 53, 86, 315–316 1:6, 9 144 1:8 76 1:10 315 1:10–24 163 1:11–17, 23 145 1:12–24 144 1:13 368 1:13–14 169, 176 1:13–16 245, 354 1:13–17 315 1:14 85, 187, 304 1:15 75 1:22 368 2–4 300 2:2 330 2:3 310 2:7–8 270 2:10 301 2:14 355 2:15 222, 304 2:15–16 145

405

2:15–4:10 143 2:16 18, 20, 36, 40–41, 44, 307 2:17 1 2:18 137 2:19 315 2:20 17, 187, 190, 309, 355 2:21 20, 311 3 307 3–4 52–85, 107, 119, 339 3:1 151–152, 159 3:1–5 84 3:1–12 311 3:2, 5 20, 46 3:3 20 3:5–6 45 3:5–29 40 3:6 44, 224 3:6–14 31–51 3:7, 14 317 3:8 55, 57 3:8–10 320 3:10 35–36, 38, 49, 66, 113, 308, 356 3:10, 19, 23 67 3:10–11 114 3:10–13 315 3:10–14 20, 34, 45 3:10–22 114 3:11 306–307 3:12 33, 311 3:13 79, 81, 329 3:14 322 3:15–18 67–68 3:15–25 198 3:16 44 3:17, 24 306 3:18 20 3:21 40, 190 3:21–25 197 3:23–24 20 3:23, 25 198, 307, 372 3:24 307 3:26–29 372 3:28 80, 324, 346 3:29 313 4 54, 77 4:1 61

406

Ancient Text Index

4:1–3 54–71 4:1–7 20, 58 4:3 319 4:3, 9 315 4:4 159, 306 4:4–6 46 4:4–11 71–75 4:5 79 4:9–10 20 4:11 84 4:12–20 75–77, 142–161 4:12–30 77 4:13 145, 153 4:13–14 143, 148, 162 4:14 149–152 4:21–23 312 4:21–25 77–84 4:21–29 251 4:21–31 13, 82, 304 4:22–23 20, 86 4:22–24, 31 367 4:23–26 308 4:28–30 20 4:29 329–330 5 48, 307, 362 5–6 327, 340 5:1–3 20 5:2–3 311 5:3 37, 66 5:4 21, 36, 310–311, 354 5:5 307–309, 322 5:6 21, 42, 49, 224, 238, 301–313, 325–327, 333, 340 5:6–14 312 5:10 178 5:14 274, 310, 340 5:16 47 5:18 20 5:19 232 5:19, 22 21 5:21 311 5:22 232, 309 5:22–24 313 5:23 47, 236 5:24 317 5:25 320 6:1 76

6:1–2 313 6:2 274, 355 6:7–8 17 6:11 160 6:11–14 333 6:13 149, 334 6:14–15 70 6:15 21, 42, 45, 224, 238, 300–343 6:16 320, 342, 362 Ephesians 1:10 10 2:11 186 2:12 12 2:17–22 37 3:2, 9 10 3:7 1 3:8–12 10 3:20 305 4:8 84 4:17 235–236 4:23 236 5:6 232 5:9–11 232 5:11–13 238 6:21 1 Philippians 1:1 171 1:11 194 1:21 179 1:22, 24 187 1:25 199 1:26 185 1:28 238 2:1–4 203 2:2 194 2:5–8 200, 203 2:7 278 2:8–9 202 2:9–11 203 2:12–13 194 2:15 174, 179 2:21 193 2:27 158 2:30 158 3:2–3 171

Ancient Text Index

3:2–7 195 3:2–9 207 3:2–11 165 3:3 172, 186, 230, 236, 354, 362 3:3–4 186–188 3:4–6 71 85 3:5 329 3:5–6 174, 176 3:6 66–67, 192–194 3:7–8 182 3:7–9 181, 189 3:7–11 107 3:8 193 3:8–9 165–204, 308 3:9 41, 190, 192, 194, 199, 209, 363 3:10 201 3:10–11 339 3:16 320 4:14–18 158

1:9 361 2:1, 4 190 2:13 46, 305 2:14–16 248, 352 2:18 316 4:8–9 355 5:27 56

Colossians 1:9–10 200 1:21 235 1:23 1 1:24 158–159 1:25 10 1:29 305 2:1–2 158 2:5 44 2:8, 20 68 2:8–14 158 2:11 309 2:20 320 4:7 1

Hebrews 7:5 223 7:28 223

1 Thessalonians 1:5

2 Thessalonians 1:8 362 3:4 178 1 Timothy 5:25 207 6:18 231 2 Timothy 1:5 178 Philemon 21 178

James 1:22–25 312 2:8 312 3:7 222 2 Peter 1:4 222 1 John 2 90 3:8 60

135, 152

Deuterocanonical Works Baruch 2:30 229

5:5 102 6:8 102

2 Esdras 4:21, 23

1 Maccabees 1:41–64 304

102

407

408

Ancient Text Index

2:15–38, 49–64 304 12:9 276 12:39–49 125 2 Maccabees 6:10–31 304 7:1–42 304 13:26 234 Sirach 2:10 154 7:36 9 16:14 218 31:9–10 134 32:23 325 35:8 98, 100 44:13 110 44:19–23 59 44:21 55 45:23 177 46:7 178

47:22 292 49:16 118 Tobit 12–13 86 14:7 182 Wisdom of Solomon 1:6 211 1:11 178 2:12 234 4:10 234 6:18 325 7:27 110 9:15 97, 118 10:5 179 11–16 212 13:1 220 15:1–6 218 16:9 234 18:13 59

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 21–32 8

Apocalypse of Sedrach 14:5 220 15:4 220

1 Enoch 32:3–6 118 45:4–5 331, 373 49:2–3 2 51:4–5 331 72:1 301, 316, 373 91:12–17 8 91:15 373 91:16–17 316

Aristobulus 2:4, 9

Eupolemus 1:1 313

Apocalypse of Moses 20:1–3 118

313

2 Baruch 15:8 118 29:1–8 331 32:6 301, 316 44:12 301, 316 54:15, 21 118 57:2 301 3 Baruch 6:16 118

4 Ezra 3:1–27 8 2:4–7 118 4:11 116, 118 7:11–12 118 7:75 316 7:88–89 116, 118 6:25 301 7:31, 35 301 8:51 118

Ancient Text Index

8:51–54 331 11–12 8 14:22 313 16:12 284

3:265–345 287 3:310 287 3:675 284 3:777–795 331

Joseph and Aseneth 8:9 304 12 72 20–21 304

T. Dan 5:3–7 269

Letter of Aristeas 39, 46 223 170 234

T. Joseph 1:3 116 2:3 116 11:1 234

3 Maccabees 3:22 230

T. Judah 24:3 72 25 293

4 Maccabees 5:29–30 160

T. Naphtali 2:3 132

Sibylline Oracles 3:97–161 8

T. Simeon 6:1 211

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QM (War Scroll) 10:8–10 350 10:9 252 13:8 349 14:8–10 349 1QS (Rule of the Community) 1:8, 10 259 3:6–12 360 4:22–25 118 5:8 313 5:20–21 361 6:2–7 351 6:13–23 347 6:18 361 9:18–19 353 10:10–11 354 11:2–12 345 1QSa (Rule of the Congregation) 2:11–21 351

1QSb (Rule of the Blessings) 1:1–3 361 1QHa (Hodayota) 9:21 354 9:31 132 11:28 132 12:5–33 351 12:10 361 12:29–33 361 13:5 322 14:11 259, 349 15:18 118 21:1–15 361 23:12 132 4Q171 (Pesher Psalms) 1–10 iii 12 348 4Q174 (Florilegium) 1:1–7 366, 369 1:11 72

409

410 4Q280 (Curses) 2 7

Ancient Text Index

347

4Q387 (ApocrJer) 3 6–8 347 4Q504 (DibHama) 1–2 2 1–2 ii 12–18 347 2.13–14 2 4Q521 (Messianic Apocalypse) 2.1–7, 11 2 4QMMT (Halakhic Letter) 14–17 II 3 65 11QTa (Temple Scroll) 29:7–10 365–366, 369–370 42:15 365 47:3–18 365 57:4 365 58:4 365 Damascus Document (CD) 1:4–5 259, 348 1:5–6 348 1:5–8 67 1:10–11 349 1:11 353 1:12–13 353 2:2 347, 349 2:5 353 2:11–13 359 3:5, 12–13 349 3:12–14 352

3:13–14 348 3:18 353 3:20 118, 373 4:2 350, 353 4:7–12 360 4:8 367 5:20–21 348 6:2 366 6:2–3, 5 349 6:2–4 352 6:4–5 350 6:7–9 352 6:11 353 6:14 367 6:14, 19 364 6:17 352 6:19 347, 349 8:16 353 8:17–19 349 8:21 347, 349 11:20–21 367 12:11 360 12:22 349 13:1–2, 20 64 13:14 347, 349, 347 14:3 364 14:4 349 15:2, 9, 12 313 16:6 360 19:33–34 347 19:34 366 20:1 353 20:3–4 353 20:12 347 20:17 353 20:20–21, 32–33 350

Philo De Abrahamo 162–163 221 De Fuga et Inventione 164–165 221 De Sobrietate 56 72

De Specialibus Legibus 1.30 221 1.32, 36, 39–41 221 1.305 173 De Vita Moses 1:40, 43

59

Ancient Text Index

Josephus 6.290 195 7.49 125 8.152 220 18.81–84 224

Contra Apionem 2.169 37 Antiquitates Judaicae 2.288 59

Rabbinic Sources m. Abot 3:14 59

m. Pesaḥim 2:3 184

m. Bekhorot 5:6 184

m. Šabbat 24:4 184

m. Nedarim 4:3 184

Midrash Psalms 18 284 18:35 284 21:1 293

Apostolic Fathers Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 11, 113–114 185 12.123–125 181 12.125 191 Ignatius, To the Ephesians 11.1 182 14.2 182 Ignatius, To the Romans 3.2 182 4.12 182

Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 3.2 182 Ignatius, To the Trallians 1:1 222 Polycarp, To the Philippians 8:1 191 Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude(s) 2.5–6 277 50:5 223

Greco-​Roman Authors Polybius, Histories 4.5.6 125

411

Modern Author Index Aageson, James W. ​249 Abegg, Jr., Martin G. ​292 Baasland, Ernst. ​76, 143, 149–151 Barclay, John M. G. ​15, 86, 289, 304, 308 Barrett, C. K. ​4, 94–95, 121, 125–127, 129, 133, 142, 231, 280, 309, 324–325, 330 Barth, Gerhard ​121, 200, 226 Baumgarten, Joseph M. ​367, 373 Bayer, Oswald ​49–50 Beale, G. K. ​10, 116–117, 297, 322–323, 333–334, 341, 352 Beker, J. Christiaan ​52–53, 121, 249–250, 297 Bekken, Per Jarle ​xiii Belleville, Linda L. ​69, 100, 114, 125 Berger, Klaus ​68, 95 Berkley, Timothy W. ​227–228 Bernard, J.  H. ​140 Betz, Hans Dieter ​58, 78, 123, 126, 129, 132, 144, 148, 300, 302, 305, 308, 313–314, 316, 321–322, 330, 332, 367 Betz, Otto ​55, 365 Black, David Alan. ​123, 143–146, 148, 160 Black, Stephanie L. ​281 Blackwell, Ben C. ​7 Bockmuehl, Markus ​168–169, 173, 177, 183–184, 192, 197–200 Boer, Martinus C. de ​5–6, 46, 355 Bornkamm, Günther ​94, 212, 221, 249 Bosman, Philip ​233 Bowers, Paul ​93 Braaten, Carl E. ​39 Braun, Herbert ​360 Bring, Ragnar ​36 Brisson, Luc ​221–222

Brooks, James A. ​60 Bruce, F. F. ​64–65, 128, 212 Bryan, Steven ​88–89 Bultmann, Rudolf ​5–6, 10, 12, 36, 69, 93, 121, 123, 127–128, 135–136, 168, 226, 301, 309, 328, 330, 339 Burton, Ernest De Witt ​144, 306, 314, 319, 322 Caird, George B. ​81, 108, 188 Campbell, Constantine R. ​39, 357 Campbell, Douglas A. ​15, 41, 48, 147, 210, 212–214, 216–218, 220, 224, 240–241, 305, 307, 310, 340–341, 357 Caneday, Ardel B. ​41, 43–45 Carroll, Robert P. ​24, 82, 112 Charlesworth, James H. ​347–348, 366, 371 Chrysostom, John ​181, 185, 191 Ciampa, Roy E. ​10 Clements, R. E. ​278, 282 Collange, J. F. ​182–183, 330 Collins, John J. ​7, 168 Collins, John N. ​1–2, 93 Colson, F.  H. ​221 Conway, Kevin P. ​55–57, 279 Cook, Edward M. ​292 Cosgrove, Charles H. ​41, 58, 63, 69–70, 73, 76, 79, 140, 264, 306, 346 Craigie, Peter C. ​284 Cranfield, C. E. B. ​36, 101, 130–131, 220, 223, 226, 229, 231, 285, 312 Croft, Steven J. L. ​283 Cullmann, Oscar ​4, 9–12, 271, 326 Cummins, S. A. ​143–144, 147, 151, 160 Dahl, Nils A. ​55, 248–249, 255, 261 Das, A. Andrews ​16–17, 32, 207, 209, 225

Modern Author Index

Dennis, John. ​338 Dewey, Arthur J. ​128 Dimant, Devorah ​348, 352–353, 365, 367 Donaldson, Terence L. ​292 Dumbrell, William J. ​23, 100–102 Dunn, James D. G. ​32, 37–38, 66–67, 101, 132, 168–169, 172–173, 180, 185, 187, 195, 214, 217, 220, 226, 231, 266, 274, 280, 285, 288, 293, 312, 354 Dunne, John Anthony ​143 Eckstein, Hans-​Joachim ​63, 69, 233 Eichholz, Georg ​121 Ellis, E. Earle ​295 Erlemann, Kurt ​90 Fanning, Buist M. ​60 Fee, Gordon D. ​156–157, 168, 171, 173, 175, 179, 183, 185, 187–188, 196–197, 200, 324–325, 361 Field, Frederick ​288 Fitzmyer, J. A. ​220, 231, 266, 345, 356 Forbes, Christopher ​123, 126, 129, 135 Forde, Gerhard O. ​119 Fox, Timothy L. ​101–102, 138, 182 Frey, Jörg ​171, 337, 344 Furnish, Victor P. ​121, 123, 125, 131, 133, 136, 302, 327–331, 338, 340 Gadamer, Hans-​Georg ​32 Gagnon, Robert A. J. ​273 García Martínez, Florentino ​367 Garland, David E. ​171, 184, 193, 324–325 Gathercole, S. J. ​214, 219–224, 226, 229, 231, 234–236 Gese, Hartmut ​337, 368 Getty, Mary Ann ​249–250 Georgi, Dieter ​92–93, 124, 130 Gignilliat, Mark ​328 Gnilka, Joachim ​166, 175, 180, 183, 187, 189, 191, 200, 349, 353–354 Goddard, A. J. ​143–144, 147, 151, 160 Goodrich, John K. ​7 Gorman, Michael J. ​39, 357 Goulder, Michael D. ​290 Grosvenor, Mary ​131 Gunther, John J. ​95 Güttgemann, Erhardt ​93, 155

413

Hafemann, Scott J. ​2, 9, 13, 62, 68, 70, 77, 81–82, 91–92, 100, 102, 114, 118, 124, 136, 152, 210, 222, 272, 310, 348, 356, 373 Hahn, Scott W. ​53, 67–68, 330 Hall, Robert G. ​40 Hansen, G. Walter. ​54 Harrison, James R. ​15 Harvey, A.  E. ​150 Hasel, Gerhard F. ​259, 282 Hasler, Victor ​135 Hatch, Edwin ​84 Hays, Richard B. ​24, 41, 78, 83, 101–102, 227, 271–272, 274, 276, 280, 283–285, 288–289, 297, 306, 308–309, 325–326, 331, 339 Heckel, Ulrich ​142, 147–148, 151 Heilig, Christoph ​162–164, 227 Heiligenthal, Roman ​140 Hellerman, Joseph H. ​175–176 Hengel, Martin ​11–12 Hengstenberg, Ernst W. ​284 Hofius, Otfried ​101, 252, 257, 259, 337 Holladay, William L. ​23–25 Holloway, Paul A. ​181–182, 188–189, 202 Home, Charles M. ​254, 258 Hubbard, Moyer V. 8, 301–302, 304, 315–319, 321–322, 330–336, 339–342 Hübner, Hans ​249, 252, 262 Hugenberger, Gordon P. ​83 Hughes, Philip E. ​126 Hunter, Archibald M. ​10 Huntjens, Johannes A. ​352 Jackson, Ryan T. ​9–10, 301–302, 306, 314–321, 329–332, 334–335 Jenson, Robert W. ​39 Jewett, Robert ​174, 221, 266 Johnson, Dan G. ​259, 261–262 Kapelrud, Arvid S. 354 Käsemann, Ernst ​5–6, 10, 93–94, 120–123, 126–130, 168, 220, 226, 231, 255, 266, 280, 285, 322 Keck, Leander E. ​273, 275, 278, 280, 282, 285, 294 Kee, Howard Clark ​347 Kim, Euichang ​72, 117, 369–370

414

Modern Author Index

Kim, Seyoon ​334, 338 Kirk, Alexander N. ​182–183, 194, 200–201, 210, 226, 230, 233, 237 Kish, G. ​284–285, 293 Klaiber, Walter ​121 Kleinknecht, Karl T. ​116 Koch, Dietrich-​Alex ​92, 273, 275, 283, 285, 290, 294–296 Kooij, Arie van der ​288 Koperski, Veronica ​167–168, 180–183, 191–193, 197–202 Kraus, Wolfgang ​74 Krauter, Stefan ​11 Kuhn, Heinz-​Wolfgang ​65, 345, 362 Kümmel, Werner Georg ​121, 339 Lambrecht, Jan ​92, 155 Lenz, John R. ​221 Levin, Christoph ​21 Liebers, Reinhold ​101 Lietzmann, Hans ​121, 126, 212, 280 Lightfoot, J. B. ​46, 160, 165, 181, 185, 305, 310, 322 Lim, Timothy H. ​345 Lincoln, A. T. ​126, 139 Lohmeyer, Ernst ​171, 175, 183–184, 191–192 Longenecker, Richard N. ​212–214, 226 Lütgert, Wilhelm ​92–93, 95 Luther, Martin ​31–51, 167, 212, 231, 244 Marcus, Joel. ​42, 47 Malina, Bruce J. ​128 Malherbe, Abraham J. ​124 Mannermaa, Tuomo ​39 Martens, John W. ​221 Martin, Ralph P. ​94 Martin, Troy W. ​74, 143, 145–147, 149, 174, 182 Martyn, J. Louis ​39, 301, 303, 307–309, 329, 346 Maston, Jason ​7 McKnight, Scot ​93 McNamara, Martin ​288 Mell, Ulrich ​117, 301, 330 Meyer, Ben F. ​101, 170 Mitchell, Margaret ​323–324, 362

Mohrmann, Douglas C. ​250 Moo, Douglas ​212, 266, 286, 301, 331 Morales, Rodrigo J. ​2–3, 45–46, 61, 66–67, 306–309, 313, 319 Morgan, Teresa ​15 Moule, C. F. D. ​36 Moule, H. C. G. ​171, 181 Munck, Johannes ​91 Mussner, Franz ​76, 144 Nanos, Mark D. ​273 Newton, Michael ​371 Novenson, Matthew V. 40, 170, 310 Oakes, Peter ​176, 199, 202–203 O’Brien, Peter T. ​100–101, 142, 168–169, 171–172, 177, 179, 182–185, 188–189, 196–197, 199–200 Oegema, Gerbern S. 276, 296 Oostendorp, Derk ​94, 126 Osten-​Sacken, Peter von der ​101 Otto, Randall E. ​36, 182 Park, Sung-​Ho ​337 Pate, C. Marvin ​118 Perriman, Andrew ​158 Pilhofer, Peter ​175 Piper, John ​249, 252, 254 Plummer, Alfred ​91, 126, 183, 330 Prothro, James B. ​210–211 Provence, Thomas E. ​101 Prümm, Karl ​123 Quarles, Charles L. ​214 Räisänen, Heikki ​52–53, 168, 212–213, 325 Reasoner, M. ​273–275, 277, 283 Redpath, Henry A. ​84 Rendtorff, Rolf ​24 Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich ​261 Renwick, David A. ​81, 101, 369 Rese, Martin ​256 Ridderbos, Herman ​135 Ringgren, Helmer ​366 Robertson, A.  T. ​61 Robertson, O. Palmer ​258, 262, 266, 306

Modern Author Index

Rohde, Joachim ​65 Rosner, Brian S. 325 Rovelli, Carlo ​1 Rowley, H.  H. ​52 Rudolph, David J. ​324 Runge, Steven E. ​197, 363 Sailhammer, John H. ​287–288 Sanders, E. P. ​31, 37, 48, 52–53, 63, 87, 168–169, 195–196, 212, 214, 267, 268, 270, 325, 345, 348–349, 357 Sanders, James A. ​366 Sanders, Paul ​287–288 Sandnes, Karl Olav ​355 Savage, Timothy B. ​149, 153–154 Schiffman, Lawrence H. ​347, 349–350 Schlatter, Adolf ​6, 10, 131, 280 Schlier, Heinrich ​65, 148, 151, 220, 280 Schoeps, H. J. ​122, 126 Schreiner, Josef ​127, 134, 168, 220 Schreiner, Thomas R. ​1`38, 65, 101–102, 276, 280, 283, 285 Schrieber, Rudolf ​22 Schröter, Jens ​77, 101, 105, 162–164 Schultz, Richard ​292 Schumacher, Thomas ​15 Schütz, John Howard ​130 Scobie, Charles H. H. ​10 Scott, James M. ​55, 58–62, 64, 66, 69–70, 72, 81, 87, 89, 117, 162–164, 351, 369 Segal, Alan F. ​52, 345 Seifrid, Mark A. ​85 Stanley, Christopher D. ​227, 282–283, 290, 293, 295–296, 309 Stegemann, Ekkehard W. ​101 Stendahl, Krister ​31, 38, 174, 243–248, 260–261, 267–270 Stettler, Christian ​218 Still, Todd D. ​174 Stockhausen, Carol Kern ​101 Strange, James F. ​131 Stuhlmacher, Peter ​6, 9–11, 51–53, 132, 230, 256, 265–266, 300, 330, 334–335, 342, 344, 358 Sumney, Jerry L. ​94 Swanson, Dwight D. ​349, 365

415

Thate, Michael J. ​39, 257 Theissen, Gerd ​122–123 Thielman, Frank ​68, 168, 325 Thiselton, Anthony C. ​305, 325–326 Thompson, Michael ​143, 274, 276 Thüsing, Wilhelm ​277, 280, 286 Tigay, J.  H. ​287 Travis, Stephen H. ​135 Trebilco, Paul ​242 VanderKam, James C. ​59 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. ​39 Vermes, Geza ​344, 348, 351, 360, 367 Wagner, J. Ross ​228, 239, 271, 279–281, 283, 285 Wallace, Daniel B. ​60, 179, 237, 240, 306, 311 Watson, Francis ​17–18, 101–102 Webb, William J. ​117, 333, 352 Weima, Jeffrey A. D. ​298 Weippert, Helga ​22–24, 26 Weitzman, Steven ​86 Wengert, Timothy ​31–36, 49–51 Wentling, Judith L ​365–366 Westerholm, Stephen ​232, 308 Wevers, J.  W. ​287–288 Whitaker, G.  H. ​221 White, Joel R. ​161, 227 Whittle, Sarah ​9, 232, 266, 278–279, 289, 309 Wilckens, Ulrich ​135, 168, 212, 250, 275–276, 282, 285 Wilken, Robert Louis ​300 Willitts, Joel ​238, 354–355 Wilson, G. H. ​284, 290 Wilson, Todd A. ​47 Wilson, Walter T. ​221 Winbery, Carlton L. ​60 Windisch, Hans ​91–92, 125, 127, 330–331 Winter, Bruce W. ​274 Wisdom, Jeffrey R. ​56, 311–312, 320 Wise, Michael Owen ​292, 365–367 Witherington III, Ben ​53, 78–79, 324 Wolff, Hans Walter ​23, 25, 339 Works, Carla Swafford ​xiii Wright, N. T. ​8, 31–32, 40, 66, 85, 87–88, 101, 214, 219–220, 222, 226–229,

416

Modern Author Index

233–234, 238–239, 266, 272, 293, 296– 297, 306, 338, 345–346, 350, 357, 366 Yarbrough, Robert W. ​10 Yates, Roy ​158

Zeller, Dieter ​296 Zerwick, Max ​131 Zetterholm, Magnus ​xiv Zoccali, Christopher ​254

Subject Index Aaron ​103, 348 Adam ​70 Adoption ​58, 60, 72, 364 Antioch, incident with Peter ​355 Apocalyptic, as category in Paul ​5–10, 15, 39, 40, 213, 296, 301, 311, 318 Atonement ​156, 287, 360, 371 Baptism ​55, 161, 229 Battle, eschatological ​363 Boasting, proper ​129 Body – circumcised ​48 – Paul’s ​136, 146, 153, 155 – Jesus’  150, 327 – and resurrection ​361 – and redemption ​364 Bultmannian demythologizing ​5 Calendar practices ​75 Calvin ​244 Christology ​91, 96, 247, 275, 296 Chrysostom ​181, 185, 191 Collection ​340 Controversy – Galatian ​73 – Corinthian ​125–126 Covenant – definitions ​12–13 – structure in Paul  3, 13–15, 17–18, 63, 72, 77, 154, 170, 183, 240–241, 298, 320–322, 328, 364, 369 “Covenantal Nomism” ​170, 354 Cruciform life ​39 Crucifixion, to the world ​315–318 Crux interpretum ​102, 213 Cult, Greco-​Roman civic ​149 Cultic language, in Paul ​370 Culture, Roman ​175, 176, 274, 277

Cursus honorum ​176 Cyrus ​86, 87 Damascus Road, see Road to Damascus Decalogue ​34, 35, 50 “Day of the Lord” ​358 David – as speaker in psalms ​283–286 – as parallel to Christ ​285, 291 – seed of ​284–285, 290, 292, 294 Davidic covenant ​284, 288 Davidic king(ship) ​292, 293 Davidic Messiah, see Jesus, as Davidic Messiah Demonic powers ​69, 151 Diatribe style ​252 Divorce ​323, 326 Ecclesiology ​91, 272–273, 296, 322 Elijah ​258–260 Enoch ​234 Enumeratio ​174 Eschatology, definition ​8–10 Ethics, Pauline ​273–277, 289, 298, 321–325, 335 Exile, in Pauline thought ​86–89 Exodus – typology in Paul ​58–62, 370 – “Second exodus” in Christ ​72–74, 83, 100, 368, 370 – “Second exodus” in Isaiah ​83, 329–334 – “Second-​exodus” of David ​284, 292 Essenes ​346 Faithfulness – of believer ​42, 211, 214–215, 307–308 – of Israel ​195 – of Messiah ​40–44, 46, 51, 73, 197–198, 203, 208, 213, 307, 310, 371

418

Subject Index

– of Paul ​150 False prophets ​114 False teachers ​121, 361 “Forensic”, category for Paul ​6, 166, 338 Forgiveness ​26, 156, 234, 335, 360, 364 Freedom – as social category ​323 – in Christ ​144, 160, 212, 312–313, 358, 364 – of Paul ​144–145, 316 – of Sarah ​78, 308 Fruit of the Spirit, see Spirit – fruit of Golden calf ​26, 68, 81–82, 104–111, 122, 195, 229, 239, 351, 368 Hagar and Sarah ​13, 44–45, 77–82, 86, 251, 308, 313, 318 Hagar-​Sinai covenant ​13, 74, 82–84, 308, 318 Halakha ​238, 313, 354–355, 371 Hasmonean kingdom ​84 Hellenistic Jewish apologists ​93 Hermeneutic, “ecclesiocentric” ​272, 296 History of religions school ​91 Holiness – and the “remnant” ​267 – and Qumran, 360 Hypocrisy ​217 Idolatry – of gentiles ​70, 75, 215, 229, 287, 356, 361 – of Israel ​67, 229, 287, 351, 361 Imitation – of Christ ​202, 274, 339 – of Paul ​144, 339 Impartiality, of God ​218, 236, 237 Imputation, in Luther ​34–35 Inaugurated eschatology ​4, 6, 8–11, 88, 152, 239, 243, 273 Incorporation ​55, 61, 74, 267, 310 Intercession of Christ ​208, 371 Isaac ​44, 45, 77–83, 247, 251, 313, 348 Ishmael ​77–79, 83 Jacob – covenant ​365–366 – and Esau ​78

Jealousy ​257, 262–264, 289 Jeremiah ​21–26 Jesus – as Davidic Messiah ​285, 293, 296, 297 – as new Adam ​322 Joy ​188 – in kingdom of God ​208, 210–212, 232, 334, 361 Judaism – Post-​biblical ​84, 88 – Second Temple, see Second Temple ­Judaism Judaizers ​80, 144, 150, 160, 246, 314, 317 Justification, future ​208–214, 219, 223, 230, 233, 308, 314 Legalism ​36, 38, 48, 169–170, 244–245 Letter/spirit contrast ​90, 111, 114–115, 121–122, 172 Letters of Recommendation ​118, 122, 128, 137 Lord’s Supper ​326–327, 335, 351, 357 Marcion ​31 Mediation – of Moses ​104, 109, 114 – of Paul ​77, 105, 209, 111, 115, 117, 119, 142, 150, 153–156, 163, 278, 355 Melanchthon ​49 Mercy – in Luther ​50 – in Moses’ ministry ​104 – to the gentiles ​261, 264, 268, 293–295 Messianic age ​72, 248, 361 Midrash ​91–93 Monotheism ​87 “Mystery” ​246–247, 263–264, 268, 359 Mysticism ​163–164 “New Perspective on Paul” ​36, 48, 169–170, 214, 243, 246, 345 Obedience, of Christ ​197, 199, 203, 230 Patriarchs, promises to ​12, 55, 195, 251, 261, 265, 278, 279, 282, 288, 308, 348, 366 Peter ​270, 310, 355

Subject Index

Parousia, see Second Coming Persecution – of Paul ​143, 147–148, 150, 153 – of the Church ​80, 82, 145, 177 Pharisees ​170, 348 Pharisee, Paul as ​145, 168–169, 173–174, 177–179, 181, 304, 319, 329 Philemon ​178 Polarities, in Paul’s thinking ​4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, 51, 90, 102, 152, 207–208, 269, 303, 315, 344, 372 Powers, cosmic ​5, 69, 319 Prayer, in Qumran ​367, 371 Pre-​Pauline tradition ​92–93 Proem ​295 Propaganda, Hellenistic Jewish ​93–94 Providence of God ​148 Psalms – Hallel ​290–291 – Thanksgiving ​283 Purity, ritual ​171, 348, 365, 371 Qal wahomer ​104, 108, 110 Reconciliation ​215, 262, 328, 337, 356 Repentance ​137–138, 217–218, 297, 340 – of Israel ​22, 223, 353 Resurrection – of the dead ​9, 156, 157, 179, 183, 202, 316–317, 335, 361, 370 – God’s resurrection power ​152–157, 161, 201, 335 Return of Christ, see Second Coming Road to Damascus ​145, 148, 180, 183, 193, 244–245, 248, 269 Roman values ​176, 274, 277 Sacrifice ​367 Sacrifice – of Jesus ​337, 341, 368 – living ​359 Sanctification ​48, 134, 212, 355, 361 Sarah and Hagar, see Hagar and Sarah Satan ​80, 83, 151, 316, 318 Scriptures – in Paul ​38, 55, 91, 95–96, 100, 208, 271–272, 276, 285, 291, 298, 354, 363 – in Qumran ​353

419

Second Coming ​102, 161, 198, 289, 290, 293, 297, 335, 363, 365, 369 Second Temple Judaism ​36, 58, 344 – exile in ​86–89 – messianism in ​292 – ‘New Creation’ in ​301 Servant, Christ as ​274, 278–282, 362 Shema ​237 Slavery – and the law/Sinai ​45, 78–84, 84, 308, 313 – as social circumstance ​323 – of Israel ​44, 58, 60–64, 75, 368 – to this evil age ​145 – to idols ​75 – to righteousness ​358 – to sin ​79, 230, 312, 368 Social status ​149, 175–176, 323, 327 Son of God – Jesus as ​6, 48, 58, 64, 72, 150, 193, 208–209, 215, 232, 285, 294, 315, 361 – believer as ​44, 58, 59, 70, 72, 74, 86, 144, 364, 370 Sons of light and darkness ​358 Soteriology, of Paul ​8, 270, 298, 302, 314–315, 322, 335 Sovereignty ​79, 83, 170, 252, 254, 263–266, 284, 296, 354 – In Luther ​45, 50 Spirit – fruit of ​119, 236, 312, 313, 318, 322, 362 Spirit – in Luther’s thought ​34 Symbols, of the law ​47, 145, 172–173, 237, 355 Synagogue, early ​295 Syncretism, in Israel ​70 Synergism ​16, 46, 48, 170, 321 Teacher – in Qumran ​351, 353, 359, 371 – in Romans ​213, 218 Temple – future ​365, 371 – in Jerusalem ​370–371 – Solomon’s ​366 Ten Commandments, see Decalogue Ten Northern Tribes ​84, 88

420

Subject Index

Thanksgiving ​107, 152, 277 Third use of the law ​49 ‘Third race’ ​322 Time, fullness of ​57–58, 62, 64, 72 Triumphal procession ​152, 155, 162–164 Unity, in the church ​271, 298 Virtue, in Paul ​129, 177, 326 Virtues and vices ​362 Wisdom ​134, 212, 325–326, 355–356, 361 – in Qumran ​353–354

Wisdom tradition ​135 Wrath – in Qumran ​248–349 – of God ​14, 21–22, 214–217, 229, 237, 287, 289, 369 – vessels of ​254–255 Zeal – of Paul ​71, 173, 177, 180, 193 – of Israel ​193, 356 Zion ​262, 293, 367