Renaming Abraham's Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161544835, 3161544838

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

421

Robert B. Foster

Renaming Abraham’s Children Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9

Mohr Siebeck

Robert B. Foster, born 1973; received his PhD from Marquette University (2011); has taught at Marquette University, Albion College, and Madonna University; is currently an associate book review editor for Reviews of the Enoch Seminar.

ISBN 978-3-16-154483-5 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface The road which led me from my entry into doctoral work to the production of this dissertation and finally to its present revision has been long, circuitous, and filled with unexpected – and sometimes unpleasant – surprises. I could never have made the journey without support from many people. I entered Marquette to study under Dr. Carol Stockhausen. I did not then know that I was to have the unfortunate privilege of being among her final students. I was not particularly familiar with her work when I arrived, but I soon learned that she possesses a powerful capacity to expose the intricacies of ancient texts. Her ability to follow the logic of Paul’s argument and trace its scriptural roots left me breathless. When she entered into semi-retirement, Marquette’s loss became my fortune. It provided me with an unparalleled opportunity to pour over Pauline texts with her for hours in sessions that sometimes left me dazed. She became a model scholar, and I hope to honor her here not by repeating her views, but by aspiring to hear Paul at work the way she does. When Dr. Stockhausen’s health finally proved too great an obstacle for her continued involvement, the responsibility for overseeing my dissertation fell to Dr. Julian Hills. He was not content to push me through the finish line and be rid of an unexpected burden. To the contrary, he assumed and went far beyond an advisor’s full obligations. His keen editorial skills delivered me – and the reader – from many stylistic infelicities and his academic professionalism had a salutary effect on my sometimes intemperate mode of expression. His admonition that I write in a prose that “invites the reader into the argument” gave me an ideal to which I will aspire throughout my career. To put it succinctly, if in this study I have presented anything worth saying (and that is for the reader to decide), I owe it to Dr. Stockhausen. If I have produced anything worth reading (also a judgment for the reader to make), I owe it to Dr. Hills. If I have failed on either account (or both!), the fault lies solely with myself. A special word of thanks is due to my professors, especially those willing to serve on my dissertation board: Dr. Deirdre Dempsey, Fr. William Kurz, Dr. Mickey Mattox, and Dr. Andrei Orlov. I truly appreciate their time offered as readers of this dissertation, as well as their guidance as professors, examiners, and mentors at an earlier stage of my studies.

VI

Preface

Several colleagues and teachers provided feedback on various chapters and sections: Mary Anderson, Raanan Eichler, Mark A. Jennings, Todd Murphy, Dr. Sharon Pace, Dr. J. Brian Tucker and Dr. Claus-Jürgen Thornton. Their time, comments, and encouragement are greatly appreciated. Brian Tucker in particular offered generous feedback on ch. 2, despite disagreement between us on fundamental issues in Pauline interpretation. Todd Murphy read the manuscript in its entirety and made numerous suggestions of great help. The generosity of Marquette University provided me with a three-year teaching assistantship and a dissertation fellowship, making my studies possible. Many friends in Milwaukee opened to me their homes and their tables. They made the long commutes, first from Minnesota and then from Michigan, and the otherwise lonely visits to campus not only bearable but joyful. When I could not avail myself of the resources provided by the Marquette Raynor Memorial Library, I was fortunate to have access to other venues. The librarians of the G. H. Cachiaras Memorial Library at Crossroads College, formerly known as Minnesota Bible College, made their modest collection freely available to me for no reason other than Christian charity. The staff at the Hatcher Graduate Library of the University of Michigan also kindly allowed me to borrow from their stacks, even after they should have cancelled my borrowing privileges when my wife finished her residency program there. The library of Madonna University provided much resource material. I thank all these institutions deeply. The longing for intellectual stimulation as I worked far from my teachers and colleagues was met in part by Dr. Gabriele Boccaccini, who allowed me to participate in two of his graduate seminars at the University of Michigan. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Jörg Frey and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki of Mohr Siebeck for including this monograph in the WUNT 2 series and also to the reviewer who recommended it. The editors at Mohr Siebeck proved immeasurably helpful in preparing the final draft. The following people provided childcare that enabled me to complete my work in (relative!) peace, whether during coursework, exam preparation, the writing of my dissertation, or its present revision: Stephania Dumbravanu, Angie Foster, Gloria Foster, Jerry Foster Sr., Jerry Foster, Helen Geary, Joshua Grilly, Joyce Ham, Connie Yody, and Amy Young. My mother-in-law Stephania left her home in Romania for months at a time to live in a country where she could not speak the language in order to ease the burdens of childcare. My mother Gloria sacrificed time and money, though she counted it all joy, to assist in numerous ways. Without help from them and the others named, I would still be trying to complete the course work in my doctoral program.

Preface

VII

I have received persistent encouragement and unconditional love from my immediate and extended family throughout the time of my graduate work and beyond. Concerning the woman who provided me with unfailing support at every step, and without whom I would have quite literally fallen out of academia years ago (I refer to my wife Carmen, though Gale Prusinski, secretary extraordinaire of the Marquette Theology Department, nearly fits that description!), I cannot provide an acknowledgement sufficient to discharge the debt I owe. This study does not address modern theological issues. It is my prayer, however, that God may use it in some way however modest to further the proclamation of the gospel and to edify the church. Richmond, VA, December 2015

Robert B. Foster

Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................... V List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. XV A Note on Translations ........................................................................... XVIII

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique: Reading Scripture in Paul ...................................................................... 5 1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story ................................................ 5 1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4.

Getting Behind the Text ............................................................... 6 Locating a Pre-Epistolary Story .................................................... 8 Legitimating a Hypothesis ...........................................................20 Circumventing the Audience .......................................................22

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts ...............................................25 1.2.1. Textual Diversity in Second Temple Judaism ..............................26 1.2.2. Determining Paul’s Quotations ....................................................28 1.2.3. Excursus: Paul and the Hebrew Scriptures...................................32 1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique .......................................33 1.3.1. Torah and the Prophets ................................................................34 1.3.2. Analogy: Gezera Shawa and Heqesh ...........................................36 1.3.3. Atomizing Exegesis .....................................................................40 1.4. Conclusions ...........................................................................................41

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur in Early Judaism and in the Letters of Paul ......................................................................43 2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts ...................................................43 2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in the Letters of Paul .........50 2.2.1. Abraham, Isaac, and Israel in Galatians .......................................50 2.2.1.1. Abraham and the Gentiles in Galatia..............................52 2.2.1.2. Locating Gentiles in Genesis .........................................53 2.2.1.3. Participation in Abraham’s Single Seed .........................54 2.2.1.4. Overcoming Circumcision with the Prophets .................56 2.2.1.5. Paul, Judaism, and the “Israel of God”...........................60 2.2.1.6. Summary .......................................................................62 2.2.2. Former Gentiles with Circumcised Hearts ...................................64 2.2.2.1. Former Gentiles in 1 Corinthians ...................................65 2.2.2.2. Circumcised Hearts in Philippians and Romans .............73 2.2.2.3. Summary .......................................................................75 2.2.3. Romans 4 and the Two Branches of Abraham’s Family Tree...........................................................75 2.2.3.1. Justification, Circumcision, and Abraham’s Children in Romans 4:9–12 .........................77 2.2.3.2. Torah, Inheritance, and Abraham’s Children in Romans 4:13–17 .......................79 2.3. Conclusions ...........................................................................................82

Chapter 3: Ethnic Difference and Epistolary Exigency: Rethinking the Reason for Romans ....................................................84 3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity ................................................85 3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle...............................95 3.3. Apologetic Traces in Romans .............................................................. 100 3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors .............................................. 104 3.5. Conclusions: Mercenary Motives or Exegetical Breakthrough? .......... 111

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals in Romans 9:6–13 ................................................................................. 113 4.1. Covenantal Fidelity or Cosmic Farce? Romans 9:6a in Context.......... 114 4.2. Israel and Not Israel: Romans 9:6b in Context .................................... 118 4.3. Structure and Argument in Romans 9:7–13 ......................................... 122 4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9 ......................................... 125 4.4.1. Scriptural Quotation in Romans 9:7–9 ....................................... 125 4.4.2. Σπέρµα and Σάρξ in Romans 9:7–9 ........................................... 128 4.4.3. Ishmael’s Exclusion: Circumcision and Covenant in Romans 9:7–9 ................................................. 130 4.4.4. Ishmael’s Exclusion: Circumcision and Covenant Behind Romans 9:7–9 ......................................... 132 4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13 ........................ 136 4.5.1. Scriptural Quotation in Romans 9:10–13 ................................... 136 4.5.2. Works and Torah in Romans 9:10–13........................................ 139 4.5.3. Patriarchs, Prophets, and the “Dynamics of Diselection” in Romans 9:10–13 ......................... 142 4.5.3.1. Election and Its Opposite in Romans 9:10–13 .............. 142 4.5.3.2. Divine Love and Divine Hate in Romans 9:13 ............. 145 4.6. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 148

Chapter 5: Establishing and Intertextual Matrix: Moses and the Prophets in Romans 9 .............................................. 151 5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul ............................................. 151 5.1.1. 5.1.2. 5.1.3. 5.1.4. 5.1.5. 5.1.6. 5.1.7. 5.1.8.

“You Will Be Called”................................................................ 152 “Seed” ....................................................................................... 153 “As Numerous as the Sands of the Sea” .................................... 153 Inheriting the Land .................................................................... 154 The Remnant ............................................................................. 155 Sodom and Gomorrah................................................................ 157 Edom’s Inheritance ................................................................... 158 Summary ................................................................................... 159

XII

Table of Contents

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul ................................................... 159 5.2.1. Hosea 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23) in Romans 9:25 ................................... 161 5.2.2. Isaiah 10:22–23 in Romans 9:27–28 .......................................... 165 5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals in the Scriptures of Israel.............................................. 170 5.3.1. The Irony of Election: Favored Sons in Genesis ........................ 170 5.3.2. Exiled and Restored Children: Narrative Patterns in Hosea ....... 173 5.3.3. Pruning the Vine: Restricting Election in Isaiah ........................ 174 5.3.3.1. The Returning Remnant in Isaiah 10:20–23 ................. 174 5.3.3.2. The Survivors of Israel in Isaiah 1:9 ............................ 180 5.3.4. Summary ................................................................................... 182 5.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 183

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children: The Inversion of Election in Romans 9:25–26 .............................. 185 6.1. Power and Providence in Romans 9:14–23 and 9:24........................... 186 6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea ...... 190 6.2.1. Abusing Scripture? Exploiting Children? The Problem of Hosea in Romans 9:25–26 ................................ 191 6.2.2. Israel and the Nations in Hosea 2:1 and 2:25 ............................. 195 6.2.2.1. The Mystery of Gentile Inclusion in Hosea 2:1 and 2:25 .................................................. 195 6.2.2.2. Reversing Election ....................................................... 199 6.2.2.3. Esau and the Gentiles in Romans 9 .............................. 200 6.2.2.4. The Remnant of the House of Judah ............................ 201 6.2.2.5. From Etiology to Eschatology: Abraham’s Family Reunited ........................................ 202 6.2.3. Excursus: A Transgendered Esau? ............................................. 204 6.2.4. Summary ................................................................................... 206 6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul .......................... 207 6.3.1. Accounting for ʼΕκεῖ ................................................................. 207 6.3.2. Abraham’s Worldwide Patrimony ............................................. 209

Table of Contents

XIII

6.3.3. The Theological Geography of Romans 9 and Its Antecedents in Hosea ..................................................... 211 6.3.4. Summary ................................................................................... 214 6.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 214

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant: The Genesis of a Soteriological Transformation in Romans 9:27–29 ............. 216 7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word ................................................................ 217 7.1.1. An Indecisive Word? Λόγος Συντελῶν καὶ Συντέµνων in Romans 9:28 .................................................. 217 7.1.2. Word and Salvation in Romans 9:27–29 .................................... 219 7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel ......................................................... 222 7.2.1. 7.2.2. 7.2.3. 7.2.4.

The Remnant, From Isaiah to Paul............................................. 222 The Remnant in Second Temple Polemics ................................. 226 Locating the Remnant in Genesis .............................................. 232 A Remnant by Faith .................................................................. 235

7.3. A Certain Salvation – But Not for All: Reversing Election in Romans 9 .......................................................... 236 7.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 238

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9: Election and Its Reversal in Romans ............................................... 239 8.1. God’s Word to “Israel” Has Not Failed – Nor Has His Word to Israel ................................................................. 240 8.2. Trading Places with Esau .................................................................... 244 8.3. The Priority of Israel and the Equality of Gentiles .............................. 250 8.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 252

XIV

Table of Contents

Conclusions ............................................................................................ 255 1.

Summary of This Study ........................................................................ 255

2.

Genesis and Isaiah in Romans ............................................................. 258

3.

The Firstborn of Many Brothers .......................................................... 260

4.

Proposal for Further Study .................................................................. 261

Bibliography............................................................................................... 263 1.

Reference Works and Primary Sources ................................................ 263

2.

Secondary Sources............................................................................... 265

Index of References .................................................................................... 295 Index of Modern Authors ........................................................................... 318 Index of Subjects ........................................................................................ 325

List of Abbreviations AB ABD ABR AJA AJEC AnBib ANRW AzTh BA BASOR BBR BDAG

BDB BDF BETL BHT Bib BibInt BibOr BibSac BIOSCS BJRL BJS BNTC BRS BTB BZAW BZNW CBQ CBQMS CBR CC CR:BS CRBR

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Australian Biblical Review American Journal of Archaeology Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase Arbeiten zur Theologie Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblica et Orientalia Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Brown Judaic Studies Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Resource Series Biblical Theology Bulletin Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Continental Commentary Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Critical Review of Books in Religion

XVI CTM CTQ DCH DCLS DJD DPL DSD EdF EKK ESEC ETR ExAud ExpTim FAT FOTL FRLANT GAP GBS GTJ HBT HCS HTR HUCA HvTSt ICC JETS JBL JBQ JJS JQR JR JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JSS JTS Jud KEK LEC LNTS LSJ LXX MHUC NIB

List of Abbreviations Concordia Theological Monthly Concordia Theological Quarterly Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dictionary of Paul and His Letters Dead Sea Discoveries Erträge der Forschung Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Emory Studies in Early Christianity Etudes théologiques et religieuses Ex Auditu Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Guides to Biblical Scholarship Grace Theological Journal Horizons in Biblical Theology Hellenistic Culture and Society Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Hervormde teologiese studies International Critical Commentary Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Judaica Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Library of Early Christianity Library of New Testament Studies A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones Septuagint Monographs of the Hebrew Union College New Interpreter’s Bible

List of Abbreviations NICNT NIDB NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTAbh nF NTS OBT OCCC OG OTP OTR PRSt PSBSup RB RBL ResQ RevExp SBLDS SBLEJL SBLSCS SBL SemeiaSt SBLSP SBLTT SBT SCJR SDSSRL SEG SJT SNTSMS SP SSEJC STDJ TDOT THKNT TSAJ TTE TynBul VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT WW ZAW ZNW

XVII

New International Commentary on the New Testament New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge New Testament Studies Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth Old Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Old Testament Readings Perspectives in Religious Studies Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplement Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Studies in Biblical Theology Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studies in Scripture and Early Judaism and Christianity Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum The Theological Educator Tyndale Bulletin Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Westissenshaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word and World Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

A Note on Translations Unless otherwise noted, English translations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha are taken from the RSV. English translations of the LXX are taken from the NETS. However, in using this translation I have taken the liberty of writing all proper names according to their normal anglicized form. When the discussion presumes language-specific texts, I have followed the verse numbers for the Hebrew or alternatively the Greek text, though I supply the corresponding references as they appear in English versions. The index refers to standard English versification. Standard translations and critical editions were consulted for non-biblical works. These are listed in the Bibliography.

Introduction In the musical A Fiddler on the Roof, the experience of a Jewish Ashkenazi community in pre-revolutionary Russia is conveyed through its milkman Reb Tevye. As Tevye delivers his products to distant neighbors, he passes the time talking with God. These conversations articulate the religious and folk traditions by which Tevye maintains his balance (“Like a fiddler on the roof!” he says) in an increasingly hostile and intrusive world. At the conclusion of one discussion, Tevye whimsically bemoans the unique privilege of Jewish election. “I know, I know,” he ruminates, “we are your chosen people – but once in a while, can’t you choose someone else?” Absent from many discussions of Rom 9, particularly among those pointing to it as a robust affirmation of Israel’s priority asserted against Gentile presumption, is Tevye’s wry insight that election is anything but a straightforward blessing. One does not have to read very far in the Bible before encountering traces of a less than harmonious accord between God and his chosen covenantal partner. Indeed, the relationship between them seems characterized as often as not by betrayal (on the part of Israel), indifference (on the part of God), and mutual recrimination.1 The divinely imposed privilege of election brings in its wake not only benefits but also injuries. The Israel who prevails against God may win a blessing, but walks the rest of his life with a limp. In this study, I argue that in Rom 9 Paul reconfigures Abraham’s family on the basis of a specific understanding of election that he derives from Genesis – an understanding that resonates with Tevye’s comment. Paul finds in the patriarchal stories not a charter for chosen-nation hubris, but the ironic portrayal of election through negation. The divine appointment of one man and his successive descendants as the progenitors of God’s chosen people initiates a series of reversals. A younger brother is repeatedly assigned the status of firstborn, but he receives his inheritance only after suffering the rejection his elevation imposed on the elder son. It is this dialectic of election, displacement, and reversal that gives Rom 9 its much sought-after exegetical founda1 A few examples will illustrate the point: in Judg 2 among other passages God plays the part of the scorned lover; God’s indifference is lamented in many Psalms (e.g., Pss 10, 13, 22, 44, 69, 74, 83, 89, 139); very near to the surface of Deutero-Isaiah’s confident rhetoric lies his community’s own embittered cynicism (evident, inter alia, in Isa 40:27 and 49:14–15); and Israel’s rebellion is assailed in prophetic texts too numerous to list.

2

Introduction

tion. The fate of Jews and Gentiles in the messianic era recapitulates the reversals endured by the chosen and rejected sons. I seek to establish this claim over the course of eight chapters. Chapter 1 presents the method followed in this study. My attempt to reconstruct Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis of Genesis relies, in part, on the exegetical adaptations Paul makes to his biblical quotations. Therefore I must justify a reading of Paul that (1) probes behind his epistolary argument to an interpreted narrative supporting it; and (2) acknowledges the textual diversity present in early Judaism. In ch. 2, I appropriate Anthony D. Smith’s model of ethno-symbolism. This approach to ethnic identity elucidates how stories, especially myths of origin, express a collective self-understanding. I then show that Jewish interpreters in the Persian and Greco-Roman periods relied on stories of Abraham (and less frequently, of his children) as a cipher for ideal Jewishness. However, I devote the majority of this chapter to Paul’s use of the Abrahamic stories. He draws on these to legitimate the incorporation of uncircumcised Gentiles, first into Israel itself (Gal, 1 Cor, Phil, Rom 2), and then alongside Israel as a distinct line of descent within Abraham’s family (Rom 4). It is this latter perspective that he carries into Rom 9. This change in how Paul categorizes Jews and Gentiles within the Abrahamic community bears directly on the causes compelling him to write the Christ-followers in Rome a letter. Chapter 3 explains what these causes are and so provides the interpretive framework for what follows. I turn to Rom 9:6–13 in ch. 4, where I examine the biblical texts that Paul quotes, their original literary contexts, and the issues that they pose for the Apostle’s understanding of election and its traditional insignia, circumcision and Torah observance. I side with those who understand Rom 9:6–13 as a defense of Israel’s election, but I qualify this reading in two important ways: first, I contend that Paul’s argument does not correspond to his initial claim (v. 6b) nor lead naturally to his conclusion (vv. 25–29); second, I maintain that, because his discourse places the rationale for election entirely on the sovereign choice of God, it thereby renders physical circumcision and obedience to Torah, the epiphenomena of election, superfluous. Precisely because the electing God is absolutely sovereign, he is free to reorganize his elect people on the basis of his call and nothing else. The subject of ch. 5 is a series of connections that link Genesis (as interpreted by Paul) and the prophetic texts introduced in Rom 9:24 and quoted in Rom 9:25–29. If these connections can be demonstrated, they will support my hypothesis that beneath Rom 9 lie the interpreted narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Chapters 6 and 7 comprise the heart of this study. In them, I attempt to reconstruct Paul’s exegesis of Hos 2:1, 2:25 (ch. 6) and Isa 1:9, 10:22–23 (ch. 7) as prophecies that facilitate his application of the patriarchal stories to

Introduction

3

the crisis presupposed in 9:6: the widespread Jewish rejection of the gospel and its corresponding acceptance by Gentiles. I seek to confirm this hypothesis by showing its ability to resolve five exegetical difficulties. I begin in ch. 6 with two challenges set by Rom 9:25–26: (1) What rationale, if any, does Paul have for his use of Hosea to justify the inclusion of Gentile believers, in apparent violation of the text’s natural meaning? and (2) What explanation can account for Paul’s emphasis on the geographic location of their calling? In ch. 7, I address two problems in Rom 9:27–29: (3) What does Paul’s difficult and shortened quotation from Isa 10:22–23 signify? and (4) What is the origin and purpose of his theology of the remnant? Finally, I close with an interpretive issue posed by my foregoing exegesis: (5) Why does Paul’s argument in Rom 9 appear to lack coherence? I maintain that each of these questions can be answered by appealing to the dialectic of election and rejection embedded in Genesis’s narrative of the chosen son. Paul sees Israel’s destiny in the messianic age as a recapitulation of its etiology in the patriarchal age: the chosen and elect son Israel loses to his once displaced brother the privileged status he received by grace, only to receive it back again on the far side of his own exclusion. In ch. 8, I propose that my hypothesized exegesis can resolve three additional conundrums outside of Rom 9: (1) Why do Rom 9:6b–11:10 (a remnant will be saved) and Rom 11:11–32 (all Israel will be saved) appear to give distinct and not entirely consistent answers to the problem presupposed in Rom 9:6? (2) Why does Paul present the odd argument in Rom 11 that Jewish rejection of the gospel is necessary for Gentile salvation? and (3) Why does Paul throughout Romans affirm the priority of the Jewish people and insist on their equality with Gentiles? In answering these questions, I seek to demonstrate the logic underlying Paul’s epistolary rhetoric and contribute to the quest for his elusive coherence. The tortuous train of reasoning Paul lays in Rom 9–11 often leaves scholars anxious for a more straightforward solution to the mystery of Israel’s final destiny. For example, in his commentary for the Sacra Pagina series Brandon Byrne, S.J., wrote the following: In pursuit of the ultimate inclusion of Israel Paul draws a very long bow indeed. … For a long time what is uppermost in the argument is Israel’s rejection rather than her eventual acceptance. Modern readers who look to this section of Romans to find some positive reflection upon the fate of the Jewish people have to wait a long time before receiving satisfaction and even then the relevant passage (11:25–32) is not altogether without ambiguities of its own. Only in the context of the whole does Paul’s basically “eirenic” vision emerge; on the way to this complete vision several passages, taken by themselves, appear to cast Jews in a far from favorable light. It is important, when considering individual

4

Introduction

elements, always to keep in mind the broader, ultimately “inclusive” vision pursued by Paul.2

According to Byrne, the steps that Paul takes towards his ultimate goal frequently appear to lead in the wrong direction, a peculiar way for someone to compose an argument intended to persuade. The same point is perhaps stated even more forcefully by Charles H. Cosgrove: To eliminate what is provocative [in 9:22ff], by purporting to establish, for example, that Paul is not lumping Israel together with the enemy of Israel, Pharaoh, that he is not suggesting that Israel and Pharaoh might be like two pieces of clay worked up for immolation in a vast display of divine wrath and power – to rule out from deliberation the entertainment of such possibilities is to ignore what Paul’s language does here, the way it encourages the reader down a track that, arguably, turns out to be false but is not arguably false except on the basis of a particular interpretation of 11:11–36.3

I agree with these assessments. Discrete elements in Rom 9 as well as Rom 10–11 point the reader to the opposite of Paul’s final conclusion. It is the purpose of the present study to answer why this is so.

2

Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 284; emphasis added). 3 Cosgrove, “Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9–11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election,” JBL 115 (1996): 281 (emphasis original).

Chapter 1

Story, Text, and Technique: Reading Scripture in Paul In this study, I attempt to uncover Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis of the patriarchal narratives. This exegesis, I argue, lies beneath and extends far beyond his explicit quotations from Genesis in Rom 9:7, 9, 12. The evidence for this exegesis lies, to a significant degree, in the alterations Paul makes to his texts from Hosea and Isaiah in Rom 9:25–29. Thus three methodological issues are immediately posed. First, on what basis may an interpreter claim to reconstruct Paul’s exegesis of narrative texts behind his expressed arguments? Second, given the plurality of biblical text-forms in the late Second Temple period, on what basis may an interpreter claim that Paul makes specific changes to his biblical quotations? Finally, what procedures might Paul have used to move from antecedent text to contemporary interpretation? These are distinct issues, requiring separate treatments, but they converge in Rom 9 at the point where Paul’s altered prophetic quotations indicate that he has performed exegetical operations on a prior narrative passage.

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story 1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

Paul sometimes construes the meaning of his Scriptures in ways that modern interpreters find cavalier. It is a bold exegete who cites the Torah against circumcision (Gal 3, esp. v. 6, quoting Gen 15:6, and v. 16, quoting a phrase from Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7), who sets Moses against himself (Rom 10:5–9, quoting Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12, 14), who calls upon promises of Jerusalem’s restoration to justify the inclusion of Gentile Christ-believers (Gal 4:27, quoting Isa 54:1), and who denies the natural meaning of “Don’t muzzle the ox” in favor of a novel application to Christian missionaries (1 Cor 9:9, quoting Deut 25:4). From these examples, some scholars conclude that Paul appropriates Israel’s Scriptures arbitrarily, perhaps colonizing their pages with foreign christological significations.1 Those who claim by contrast that Paul 1

E.g., Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (trans. Harold Knight; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 244; Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T&T Clark, 2004), passim.

6

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

respected the integrity of his sacred text have been forced to ask what process of extraction might produce these counter-intuitive readings. To solve these problems, several researchers have posited a now-hidden exegesis located between the quotations in Paul’s text and their scriptural source. His interpretive efforts, though not fully emerging in his letters, can sometimes be discerned behind them. A recent development within this approach, already anticipated by C. H. Dodd, combines the hypothesis of Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis with the current interest in narrative as constitutive of human thought and discourse. The contributions growing out of this research trajectory contain methodological implications important for the present study.2 1.1.1. Getting Behind the Text Before scholars appreciated either textual diversity or interpretive freedom as features of the ancient exegetical landscape, they frequently attributed differences between OT passages and their NT quotations to lapses in memory or, for the pious, direct inspiration of the Spirit. Mediating positions appeared occasionally, suggesting that the NT writers had appropriated Jewish methods of interpretation, or that rabbis had tampered with the Masoretic text for antiChristian purposes. Around the turn of the twentieth century, J. Rendel Harris sensed that these avenues had reached a dead end and sought a fresh approach. He began by noting that several biblical quotations in early Christian writings show certain peculiarities. These include variant readings vis-à-vis both the Hebrew and Greek textual traditions and combined texts that appear together across a series of writings. To explain these features, Harris argued that the first generation of Christian missionaries compiled lists of biblical passages, or testi2 Broader summaries of the OT in Paul than that pursued here can be found in the following: E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957); C. Kingsley Barrett, “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,” in From the Beginnings to Jerome (vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible; ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 377–411; D. Moody Smith Jr., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (ed. James M. Efird; Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972), 3–65; Anthony T. Hanson, The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London: SPCK, 1980); Kenneth D. Litwak, “Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul’s Use of the Old Testament,” CR:BS 6 (1998): 260–88; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Craig A. Evans, “The Old Testament in the New,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 130–45; Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2013).

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

7

monies, for use in the proclamation and defense of the gospel.3 Although no direct evidence for such compilations exists until Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum (ca. 248), Harris inferred their early existence from the traces they allegedly left in the biblical quotations of the first Christians. This testimony hypothesis, he hoped, would not only account for the peculiar characteristics of OT quotations. It would also open a window into the development of early Christian literature in general. Harris’s theory caused more of a splash than a sea change, but it soon found considerable support (albeit in modified form) in the work of C. H. Dodd. In his According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology, Dodd moved the discussion away from a written collection or collections. Instead, he postulated an oral tradition of biblical interpretation, explicating the early kerygma and ultimately rooted in Jesus’ own understanding that his ministry was the fulfillment of Scripture.4 Dodd made two significant observations concerning the original contexts of various OT proofs. First, many of them contain material frequently alluded to elsewhere in the NT. Second, these passages largely coalesce around three topics: apocalyptic and eschatological expectations, the new Israel, and the suffering servant/ righteous one. Dodd labeled this material “the sub-structure of New Testament theology.” Beneath the NT documents lay an organized program for understanding and announcing the significant events that had brought the church into existence. In its claim to fulfill the Scriptures, the church found a mandate for biblical research.5 Dodd’s programmatic suggestions contain three implications important for the present study. First, early Christian exegetes actively searched the OT to support and explain evangelistic proclamation.6 Second, a quoted verse might serve to recall its larger context, which, in turn, may have affected an entire 7 NT passage beyond the specific quotation. Third, the biblical passages that attracted these early readers and therefore shaped their literary products were characterized by a narrative pattern.8 Relevant passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalms shared an explicit or implied “plot” 3

Harris, Testimonies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916–1920). See also Martin C. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NovTSup 96; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 7–69; David Lincicum, “Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?” JETS 51 (2008): 297–308. 4 Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952). 5 Ibid., 14–15. 6 Ibid., 111–25. 7 Ibid., 60, 126. 8 Dodd developed an analogous proposal for understanding the early Christian proclamation in The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), 17, 21–24.

8

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

that seemed to illuminate the death of Christ and the origins of the church.9 Long before narrative came into vogue, Dodd discerned that the appropriation of Israel’s Scriptures by early Christians could only be understood with reference to the story or stories found in them. A critical appreciation of Dodd’s proposals set in and various research projects began in their wake. The most sustained attempt to pursue his thesis in greater depth and exegetical grounding is perhaps Barnabas Lindars’s New Testament Apologetic.10 Although Lindars shifted the impetus for biblical interpretation from kerygmatic explication to apologetic necessity, he carried further Dodd’s attempt to recover the earliest Christian readings of Scripture. Less indebted to Dodd was Donald Juel, whose Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity denied the significance of narrative patterns and placed more weight than Dodd on Jewish comparative materials.11 Yet in different ways, Dodd, Lindars, and Juel showed that any attempt to understand the developing theological beliefs of the first Christians must probe behind the canonical documents to reconstruct the exegetical labors that preceded them. The NT writings are the product of an interpretive effort and in many cases reflect not the fountainhead but the delta of exegetical reflection. Recent scholarship has extended this line of research.12 1.1.2. Locating a Pre-Epistolary Story Dodd found the substructure of NT theology in the narrative shape of early Christian exegesis. In time this approach to biblical interpretation intersected with a bourgeoning interest in narrative itself, both as a fundamental element of Paul’s conception of reality and a scholarly tool for interpreting his texts.13 9

Dodd, Sub-structure, 72, 98, 102, 109, 128–29. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961). 11 Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). 12 A notable development is the increasingly narrow focus evident in large monographs investigating single NT books. Some of the more important examples include Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992); Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (WUNT 2/88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 13 A large number of studies have found Paul’s letters congenial to narrative interpretation, including Daniel Patte, Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to His Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Romano Penna, “Narrative Aspects of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,” in Jew and Greek Alike (vol. 1 of Paul the Apostle; trans. Thomas P. Wahl; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996); Stephen E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: 10

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

9

Three scholars in particular have explored this nexus in groundbreaking ways: Richard B. Hays, Nicholas T. Wright, and Carol K. Stockhausen.14 Several common motifs make a synoptic view of their work appropriate. First, they all attempt to go beyond a narrow focus on Paul’s explicit citations and approach Paul as a biblical theologian, a missionary and thinker who returns again and again to Scripture’s attestation that God has acted in the past and its promise that he will do so in the future. Second, they all argue that Paul’s hermeneutical horizon is arched by a narrative or set of narratives disclosed in Israel’s sacred texts. He strives to understand and interpret stories, though whether Paul primarily engages a discrete biblical drama – with its self-contained plot, characters, and resolution – or the meta-story of God’s involvement with Israel, the church, and the world varies with each interpreter. Finally, they all maintain that the biblical text has an autonomy which Paul respects. He does not merely exploit it for a series of rhetorically effective quotations, nor does he use it simply as a tool to magnify his own voice. Rather, Paul reads it and, to some degree, learns from it. Despite these similarities, each of these interpreters situates narrative in a different location within Paul’s interpretive practices. Further, although all three see these practices as the link between Israel’s Scriptures and Paul’s An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup 36; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Narrative World of Thought: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1994); Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); idem, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002); Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Bruce W. Longenecker, ed., Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002); James C. Miller, “Paul and Hebrews: A Comparison of Narrative Worlds,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 245–64. 14 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989); Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant (AnBib 116; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989); eadem, “2 Corinthians and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 143–64; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); idem, The New Testament and the People of God (vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); idem, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); idem, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); idem, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009); idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2 parts; vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013).

10

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

gospel, they assess the relative degree of continuity differently. The complex question, What does Paul do with his biblical narratives, and how do these narratives connect to his gospel? is a major issue in the present study. It will therefore provide the framework for the following comparison of these three scholars. In Hays’s monograph, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, what “echoes” through Paul’s epistles is not simply the “Scriptures of Israel” but a more specific story of God’s righteousness as covenantal faithfulness to his people. Hays wants to show that Paul apprehends the scriptural testimony to God’s actions in and for the Jewish people as a metaphorical representation of salvation in Christ, yet without violating the integrity of that witness or the divine faithfulness to which it points. In Hays’s account, the Scriptures are no palimpsest over which Paul inscribes his own, unrelated set of meanings. Rather, they comprise an account of God’s commitment to Israel that can be neither “superseded nor nullified,” but rather is “transformed into a witness of the gospel.”15 Although Hays provides several criteria to identify where in Paul’s letters this story reverberates (availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, etc.), he is less interested in applying them to various passages than in exploring how a latent OT signification guides Paul’s reading even when he appears to violate it.16 The gospel of Christ in its world-shattering newness leads Paul to his scandalous habit of reading Scripture consistently against the grain, yet again and again his reading drives him back to the gospel’s ultimate foundation in the reliability of the divine promise to Israel. The tensions between the traditions of Israel and the gospel of Christ ultimately dissolve, because they equally testify to God’s covenant with Israel.17 Christ and his spirit bring interpretive freedom, but the contours of the biblical story present an inviolable boundary that Paul can transgress only at the expense of his own proclamation. The story seizes Paul’s “strong misreadings” and redeploys them as a sublimated testament to its own unconquerablility.18 A concrete example, relevant to the present study, is offered by Rom 9:25–26. Here Paul asserts that the promise of Israel’s restoration in Hos 2:1 15

Hays, Echoes, 157. The criteria Hays proposes are discussed in ibid., 29–32. 17 This motif in Echoes emphasizing continuity between Paul’s inherited religion and his newly revealed gospel became a major issue in the series of review articles published in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. See especially J. Christiaan Beker’s remarks in “Echoes and Intertextuality: On the Role of Scripture in Paul’s Theology,” in Paul and the Scriptures, 68. Hays, in his response to this and other reviewers, demonstrates a greater willingness to acknowledge the rupture in salvation history which Christ precipitated for Paul than was present in Echoes (“On the Rebound: A Response to Critiques of Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,” in Paul and the Scriptures, 70–96). 18 Hays, Echoes, 66–68. 16

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

11

and 2:25 applies to Gentile Christians. Initially, at least, Paul appears to subvert the text’s transparent meaning, but, according to Hays, the controlling hermeneutical norm exerted by the story of God’s faithfulness eventually pushes itself to the fore. The regulative weight of Israel’s sacred story wins the day, reasserting itself against the Pauline trope and finally compelling him to proclaim “all Israel will be saved” (11:26). Thus, the subversive reading of Hosea is itself undone by the agency of God’s word. The biblical drama of God’s fidelity to Israel in the face of Israel’s repeated infidelity retains its autonomy and independence even as Paul reconfigures it into an allusive anticipation of his own gospel.19 N. T. Wright shares with Hays an interest in the role of narrative in Paul’s hermeneutics, but he goes in a significantly different direction. For Hays, the form of the scriptural story is not any specific biblical text whose details occupy Paul’s attention, but an abstracted, generalized witness to God’s covenantal faithfulness. Although Wright also tends to emphasize an abstracted meta-narrative, he shows greater concern for plot elements such as sequence and resolution than one finds in Hays’s approach. Wright is not seeking metaphorical and symbolic possibilities between Scripture and gospel. Rather, he begins with Israel’s sacred story of creation, covenant, law, curse, exile, and hoped-for renewal. Paul’s unexpected encounter with the risen Messiah disclosed this story’s surprising climax.20 According to Wright, the apostle’s biblical interpretation constitutes an effort to reappropriate Scripture in light of its unexpected fulfillment in the crucified and exalted Messiah.21 Wright’s maximalist understanding of covenant and story as mutually interpreting categories allows him to invoke a range of biblical texts as explanatory frameworks for Paul’s biblical exegesis. He fits specific passages from the letters into a sweeping account of creation, covenant, curse, and cross.22 Wright wants to show that Paul evokes, reinterprets, confirms, or subverts various elements of Israel’s meta-story on the basis of his belief in the resurrected Messiah. Wright’s treatment of Gal 3:10–14 provides a convenient example of how his approach cashes out in exegesis. The quotation from Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10 locates Paul’s argument within a specific inscripturated narrative: Deut 27–30 presuppose the entire biblical framework of covenant, disobedience, judgment, exile, and restoration. This is not a typological pattern but a his19

Ibid., 177–78. Wright, People of God, 216; idem, Saint Paul, 34–35; idem, Fresh Perspective, 10 and passim; idem, Justification, 59–63; idem, Faithfulness, 1:114–39 (a section entitled, “The Continuous Story”), 1:161, 1:175–77. 21 Idem, Climax, 26; idem, Saint Paul, 37; idem, Fresh Perspective, 53; and frequently in all his writings on Paul. 22 Wright provides explicit defense for this rather synthetic method in Faithfulness, 1:474. 20

12

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

torical résumé of past events running into an eschatological prediction of future ones. By quoting a text situated in the “exile” period of this narrative, Paul places Israel in that moment not as an act of the imagination (à la Hays) but as a “publicly observable fact.”23 This predicament prevents the blessings of membership in Abraham’s family from extending to the Gentile peoples, which was the divinely intended goal of the covenant from its inauguration (Gen 15).24 According to the quotation of Deut 21:23 in Gal 3:13, it is this problem of curse-as-exile that Christ bears.25 Habakkuk 2:4 and Lev 18:5 further explicate the covenantal membership and its proper definition that is actualized by the crucifixion: Genesis and Habakkuk, when read alongside Leviticus and Deuteronomy, indicate that God all along envisaged a different demarcation line [than works of Torah], namely faith. Thus it is that the death of Jesus, precisely as the Messiah who draws Israel’s destiny on to himself, is, historically, the climactic point of the curse of Deuteronomy 27–8, and thus functions theologically as the fulfillment not of a few prooftexts merely, but of the whole paradoxical history of Israel.26

This paradoxical history leads to its divinely intended, often obscured, lately reinstated goal of including Gentiles within Abraham’s family, as Paul declares in Gal 3:28–29.27 Thus, Wright appreciates more fully than does Hays the hermeneutical tension between (as Wright puts it) the publicly available, biblically testified account of Israel’s origin and destiny on the one hand and Paul’s drastic reconfiguration of it on the other. His attempt to express how Paul reinterprets the scriptural story in light of its eschatological denouement in Christ is a synthesis of salvation-historical (continuity) and apocalyptic (discontinuity) perspectives, two approaches to the apostle that normally do battle with a winner-take-all ferocity. The cross and resurrection provide a surprising and unexpected climax to Israel’s story which fundamentally transforms the very meaning of election, Torah, temple, and all other symbols of Paul’s native symbolic universe. Wright attempts a delicate balancing act and succeeds admirably. Yet there is in his work a fundamental commitment to continuity between Paul and his scriptural antecedents. Wright’s avowed aim of integrating “covenantal” and “apocalyptic” perspectives on Paul clearly takes the former as framework and the latter as supplement. Wright himself explains the relationship in this way when he argues, “‘Apocalyptic,’ including [the] sense of something radically 23

Idem, Climax, 141. Ibid., 142, 146. 25 Ibid., 143, 146. 26 Ibid., 155 (emphasis original). A briefer treatment of this passage occurs in idem, Fresh Perspective, 139–40. 27 Idem, Climax, 148, 150, 153–54. 24

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

13

new coming to pass and hence coming to be, must, I believe, be retained as part of Paul’s worldview – but it must be retained within the larger historical framework [e.g., the biblical narrative].”28 Beyond these explicit statements, Wright demonstrates his commitment to the essential continuity between the biblical story and Paul’s reconfiguration of it in at least two ways. First, the eschatological framework, which Wright takes to be traditional, of exile → Israel’s restoration → goal/climax/end/fulfillment of the law → Gentile blessing = Gentile mission is, in terms of sequence, adopted without alteration and applied to Paul as an explanation for his Gentile mission.29 Second, and related to the relationship between the final two stages of this scenario, the revelation of the crucified and risen Messiah clarifies what had been the immanent goal of the covenant since the beginning: God’s intention to create a single, multi-ethnic family of Abraham. Israel interrupts the eschatological sequence by misusing Torah as badge of national prestige (a misuse that itself is part of the mysterious plan of universal salvation).30 By incorporating Gentiles into Abraham’s seed, Paul not only deflates this ethnocentrism, he also recovers the original meaning of Israel’s election. While this climax is surprising and unexpected, it only brings into striking relief what was all along the story’s essential goal.31 28

Idem, Faithfulness, 1:461 (emphasis original). This attempted synthesis is a leitmotif (one of several!) throughout Paul and the Faithfulness of God, e.g.: “What we have seen [in Paul’s redefinition of election around the Messiah Jesus] is a redefined Jewish perspective, which is neither that of a simplistic ‘salvation history’ nor that of a simplistic ‘apocalyptic.’ … The narrative of Israel was anything but a smooth and evolving ‘history of God’s mighty acts.’ If anything, it was a history of divine judgment, of Israel being cut down to a remnant, of the covenant people apparently being led up a blind alley” (Faithfulness, 2:1038; see also 1:473, 2:1182, 2:1190, 2:1211). Wright goes on to express his preference for covenantal and messianic over either apocalyptic or salvation history as organizational categories. 29 “Paul’s point is to argue for the nature of the gentile mission on the firmest possible theological basis (this is one more indication that his mind is working on the theme of return from exile/renewal of covenant: the ingathering of Gentiles was a stock idea within this theme)” (Wright, Climax, 245); Paul reworks election around Israel’s messiah, but this is “exactly in line with what the prophets had promised” (idem, Faithfulness, 2:923; see also idem, Climax, 250, 262, 265; idem, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible [ed. Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 10:401–2; idem, Justification, 198; idem, Faithfulness, 1:139–63, 2:865, 2:1056–59, 2:1255). 30 Wright, Climax, 240, 242–43; idem, Saint Paul, 122, 130; idem, “Romans,” in NIB 10:410, 10:649; idem, Justification, 211. 31 A representative statement runs: “Although [Paul’s] telling of the story subverted the narrative world of his Jewish contemporaries, his claim was that it actually reinstated the true sense of the covenant promises” (People of God, 407; emphasis added; see also idem, Fresh Perspective, 37; idem, Justification, 118, 122, 126, 206; idem, Faithfulness, 1:352, 1:368, 1:374 [here with particular clarity, interacting again with the term “apocalyptic”], 1:400, 1:405, 1:408, 1:416, 1:444, 1:495–505 [a section entitled, “Yet Another Part of the

14

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

Therefore, on this understanding, the plan of salvation does not unfold in a smooth arch from inchoative promise to triumphalistic fulfillment. The thousand shocks to which flesh is heir have left their imprint on Israel’s covenantal story.32 The agony of Israel under judgment, doom, and exile is recapitulated in the crucified Messiah. In Wright’s own words, “The single plan always involved a dramatic break, a cross and a resurrection written into the very fabric of history.”33 Yet Paul’s Christology enlightens his reading of Israel’s story by illuminating what is already and has always been the latent intention of covenant and Torah – the inclusion of all nations within the one Abrahamic family. Therefore, on Wright’s understanding, salvation history embraces historical dislocation, but not hermeneutical rupture. Like Hays, therefore, Wright places the accent, though somewhat lighter, on continuity. But the specific way that he does so raises a challenge that he does not sufficiently address: it is not at all self-evident that a crucified and risen messiah would reconfigure and crystalize the great tradition of Israel’s story in the way Paul – or Wright – claims that he does. A messiah nailed to the cross and raised from the dead is certainly going to shatter many expectations. But it is not, at least not inevitably, going to demonstrate what for Wright are Paul’s most important conclusions: Gentile Christians have a relation to Israel equivalent to any Jew; the works of the law are not required in the messianic era; and the Torah should be redefined as the demand for faith.34 The passages which might conceivably (though seldom obviously) support Paul’s deductions in these matters stand next to texts – many of them – which point in a decidedly different direction. Hence, what is self-evident to Paul is a non sequitur to others – James for example.35 Something more is going on (Theological) Wood: the Story of Israel”], 1:517–18, 2:772, 2:783, 2:804–15 [a section entitled, “The Covenant Purpose: Through Israel to the World,” which lays out Wright’s functional understanding of Israel’s election], 2:842, 2:848, 2:873–74, 2:899, 2:1000– 1002, 2:1036, 2:1049, 2:1071–72, 2:1170; 2:1172; 2:1411). 32 Ibid., 1:124, 1:137, 2:780–782. 33 Idem, Climax, 241 (emphasis removed). 34 STATUS OF THE GENTILES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ISRAEL: Fresh Perspective, 110–23; TEMPORALITY OF TORAH: Climax, 181; Fresh Perspective, 45; Faithfulness, 2:862, 2:866; TORAH DEMANDS FAITH: Justification, 245; Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright (ed. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2011), 269. These themes, of course, are major elements that run throughout all of Wright’s work on Paul. 35 Contrast Wright, Climax, 176 n. 7: “It would be quite wrong to think that such an idea [of a renewed covenant, à la Jer 31] could have come to Paul only through a tradition, perhaps that of the Lord’s Supper. A Jew who longed for the restoration of Israel, and believed that this had paradoxically happened in the events concerning Jesus the Messiah, would come independently to the same conclusion” (emphasis added). Perhaps, but this hypothetical Jew would not likely deduce from this conclusion that the Gentiles were now

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

15

in Paul’s reading of Scripture than a revelation of its original, obscured, but present-all-along goal. There is a hermeneutical aporia here that raises a major question mark against Wright’s contention that the shocking climax to Israel’s story has merely identified its latent intention.36 Something unique to Paul drove a deeper wedge between his own understanding of the gospel and the storied worldview of ancient Jews than was typical of other Jewish Christ-followers. What instilled in Paul that hermeneutical quirk cannot now ever be known.37 But its results can be seen when one looks more closely at those uncircumcised but fully legitimate heirs of Abraham; that the Torah had completed its task and had in some sense been brought to its end; or that Torah’s task all along had been to proclaim the righteousness of faith. There is a significant tension in Wright’s synthesis at this point. On the one hand, he can speak of Paul’s transformed understanding of Scripture in powerful terms: “Paul’s worldview continued to be radically shaped by the praxis of scripture … but that praxis itself had been messianically transformed” (Faithfulness, 1:417; see also ibid., 2:828, with very helpful comments on the relation between the resurrection and Paul’s hermeneutic). Yet he also repeatedly argues that this transformed hermeneutic does not apply to the original goal of covenant and Torah, since Paul recovers these as they were originally intended by God. Paul is almost like a “biblical archaeologist,” excavating beneath (in Wright’s words) “the narrative world of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries” to find buried in the biblical story hidden treasures – overlooked but nevertheless present for centuries – that reveal the true meaning of the covenant. The hermeneutical transformation forced by the event of a crucified and risen Messiah, on this reading, only peals away the accretions of centuries spent misreading what God always intended. For my own part, I think that Wright conclusively demonstrates what Paul’s own position concerning the goal of the covenant is, but I am reluctant to concur that Paul was in fact doing hermeneutical archaeology and nothing else. His contemporaries’ narrative world, innocent of Paul’s redefinitions of Torah, circumcision, faith, seed, etc., seems to me closer to the truth of the what the “Old Testament” says on its own terms, since the Scriptures unambiguously attest that God reserves the privilege of election for the Jewish people alone. Wright’s attempt (in Faithfulness, 2:804–15) to counter the weight of this evidence with a functional interpretation of election can draw on what is at best a minor theme in scattered biblical passages. 36 For example, how does the climax of Israel’s story entail the cessation of Torah’s requirement for works? At this point, Wright frequently appeals to “eschatology.” He appears to think that works of Torah could not have any role in the messianic age, virtually by definition. To insist on circumcision, e.g., is to fail to see that the new age has dawned (see particularly Faithfulness, 1:359, 1:362–63, 1:367, 2:1078, 2:1138, 2:1140–42, 2:1430 and possibly 2:1173–74, where it seems presupposed but not spelled out). But why should this be so? There is no evident reason that Jews should not continue to observe works of Torah in the era of salvation. Indeed, the most obvious reading of the very passages to which Wright frequently refers (Deut 30, Jer 31) would suggest the opposite: perfect fulfillment of Torah, inclusive of its particular works, is what defines the age to come. On this point, Wright has been too-readily convinced by Paul’s own arguments. 37 Wright sometimes narrows his discussion from “eschatology” as an explanatory model to focus more specifically on the resurrection. He appears to argue, for example, that

16

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

texts with which Paul struggles than Wright’s synthetic approach – however brilliantly applied – will allow. The paradoxical nature of salvation history and the discontinuity between story and gospel are not due only to the vagaries of Israel’s history or only to its shocking climax in the cross. They also result from the conflict internal to Israel’s narrative itself: Gen 12 and 15 can no longer be plotted in a smooth continuity with Gen 17 and Gen 22. To the contrary, the immanent significance of the two latter texts threaten to undo the Pauline understanding of the two former. The continuity that resolves this tension occurs neither in the unfolding history of salvation – however fractured – nor in the paradox of the crucified and risen Messiah, but solely within Paul’s own interpretive virtuosity, a continuity which Paul must wrest from the Scriptures themselves. This brings the discussion to the work of Carol Stockhausen. If Hays presents an apostolic poet creatively reimagining the metaphorical potential of Israel’s story, and if Wright finds a public theologian rethinking that story from the beginning to its cruciform climax, Stockhausen offers a rabbinic exegete thoroughly engaged not with tropes or meta-stories but specific narrative texts, investigating them according to the standard procedures of his day, solving internal contradictions through interpretive ingenuity, and finding in prophetic oracles the resources for actualizing (what Paul perceives as) Paul’s inclusion of the Gentiles follows logically from the [accepted by Paul] fact of Jesus’ resurrection (Faithfulness, 2:905). I doubt that it is the resurrection tout seul but the unique circumstances in which Paul experienced it that revolutionized how he read the story of Israel. His impeccable zeal for the law had led him into violent conflict with God and God’s messiah. This commitment to Torah and its self-evident meaning was destroyed on the Damascus Road, when Paul found that his fulfillment of its commands had, in fact, lead him into rebellion. The revelation of Christ in this context made it impossible for Paul to confess Jesus as Lord without recognizing that his fastidious devotion to the law had been completely misguided. This paradox, unique to Paul and foreign to James, Peter, and most of the rest of early Christianity, required a radical reinterpretation of Torah if its divine origin is to be maintained alongside the sin-producing effects he – and only he – now recognized. For Paul, the commands of Torah cannot demand what they self-evidently mean but require an ingenious transformation to demonstrate the unity of God’s actions. The result is that Paul’s interpretive conclusions are necessary to him (and for him), and while his frustration with those who don’t “get it” is palpable, those conclusions remained idiosyncratic in his day even among fellow Jewish Christ-followers. Wright intends to present the contrary position in Faithfulness, 2:1425: “For Paul, the divine ‘call’ on the road to Damascus meant being grasped by and incorporated into all of those Israel-redefining realities. And those messianic events, as far as Paul was concerned, meant the same thing for Peter and Barnabas and the ‘certain persons’ who ‘came from James’ ([Gal] 2.12), if only they would realize it. Paul was not projecting his own ‘experience.’ He was unpacking the meaning of the messianic events.” In fact, I fully agree – once one gives full weight to the seemingly off-hand but in reality all-determining phrase as far as Paul was concerned. This is not how James “unpacked” the meaning of those events, and as far as James was concerned, the meaning he arrived at was applicable to Paul.

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

17

their contemporary meaning. Discussing 2 Cor 3, she states Paul’s hermeneutical interests this way: Paul himself [and not only his opponents] knows the narrative of Moses’ glorious descent from the mountain in every detail. He follows its structure closely. He accepts the story unreservedly. He wants to understand it. He wants to explain it to his Corinthian readers. He wants to use it to support his argument to them. To do all these things he must find the true meaning of Exodus 34:29–35, solve its difficulties, and make it relevant to his contemporary audience. In short, he must interpret it.38

Hence, Stockhausen is not looking for suppressed resonances echoing in Paul’s letters but clues embedded in his epistolary rhetoric that indicate a substantial exegetical enterprise occurring behind it, an approach that more nearly approaches Dodd’s program than that of either Hays or Wright. Explicit quotations, allusions, peculiar vocabulary, mixed metaphors, and argumentative leaps potentially serve as pointers to a scriptural context within which Paul’s discourse operates.39 The interaction between his own biblical interpretation, on the one hand, and the situation-specific persuasive goals of his correspondence, on the other, shape his epistolary communication. A reader alert to the scriptural precursors to which Paul’s text points can produce a hypothetical reconstruction of his exegesis that, while speculative, elucidates gaps in logic, jarring transitions, or apparent contradictions lying on the surface of his letters. In order to carry out this program, Stockhausen posits for Paul a series of guiding hermeneutical norms.40 First, Paul demonstrates a keen interest in stories of Israel’s founding heroes, especially Abraham and Moses. This claim has been established by Stockhausen’s examination of 2 Cor 3 (where Paul interprets Exod 31–34) and Gal 3–4 (where he interprets Gen 12, 15, and 17), validated several times by her students, and independently confirmed in the extensive study by Francis Watson.41 38

Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 101; see also 147 n. 108. Ibid., 41. 40 Ibid., 20–30; eadem, “Principles,” 144–46. 41 C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology as the Exegetical & Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21 (Lanham, N.Y.: University Press of America, 1991); 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); Stephan K. Davis, The Antithesis of the Ages: Paul’s Reconfiguration of Torah (CBQMS 33; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2002); Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Watson writes (in explicit agreement with Stockhausen and against Hays): “If there is a ‘narrative substructure’ in Gal 3–4, it is to be found in the use of scriptural material and not in Paul’s ‘narrative christological formulations’” (Hermeneutics, 209 n. 53). He later makes an observation that the present study hopes, in a modest way, to confirm: “Paul cites individual texts not in an ad hoc manner but on the basis of a radical construal of the narrative shape of the Pentateuch as a 39

18

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

Second, Paul frequently applies prophetic and, less often, sapiential texts to these stories as hermeneutical lenses which clarify their perceived meaning for his own day (see § 1.3.1. below). Third, Paul consistently engages the entire context of his base text. He does not grab convenient snippets for purely rhetorical purposes, even if specific biblical quotations are chosen for their persuasive effect. Rather, Paul labors over whole narrative blocks because they are inherently interesting to him theologically. Fourth, and here one can see a sharp difference between Stockhausen and Wright, Paul displays a distinctively Jewish and indeed rabbinic concern to resolve textual contradictions in his selected narratives. She illustrates this by examining the way Gen 15 appears to support Paul’s claims against Gentile circumcision in Galatians while Gen 17 threatens to undo them. She writes: I would argue that Paul has posed this very fundamental contradiction – between the absolute covenant and promise of Genesis 15 and the conditional promise and covenant of Genesis 17 – in order to relate the Abraham narrative properly to the gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to counter his opponents’ preaching of a gospel requiring circumcision, and in order to clarify the Galatians’ status as sons of God and sons of Abraham with reference to the text of Scripture itself.42

Not only must Israel’s inscripturated story be related to its proper fulfillment in the Messiah, tensions within the scriptural text itself must be resolved with reference to the same hermeneutical vantage point. Finally, Paul’s rabbinic training equipped him with specific exegetical techniques such as qal wa-homer, gezera shawa, and pesher, which enable him to perform a variety of interpretive maneuvers, not least in order to overcome the textual contradictions he identifies. In the case of Gen 15 and 17, Paul posits a corresponding set of contradictions, Lev 18:5 and Hab 2:4, in order to defend his preference for the former over the latter. The contradiction is ultimately solved by recourse to Deut 21 and 27. Read in light of the Christ event, these texts show that faith is the means by which righteousness is established. A Paul who exegetes in this fashion is less a “virtuoso reader” (so Hays) than an interpretive adept, skillfully and intensively committed to probing texts, ferreting out their meaning (as he understood it), resolving their tensions, and applying them to his own gospel and ministry. But the meaning recovered by Paul does not unfold organically from promise to fulfillment, nor point unambiguously from the one to the other. Stockhausen, like Wright, acknowledges the role of salvation history in Paul’s hermeneutics. But the differences between the two are important. For Stockhausen, Paul’s Christology is less a hermeneutical key than an interpretwhole, highlighting and exploring tensions between Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy” (ibid., 3) – and not only between these texts, but also within them. 42 “Principles,” 159.

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

19

tive conundrum. It provokes the problem his interpretive feats must overcome. She perceives that in Paul’s hermeneutics, the crucified Messiah confounds as much as illuminates Scripture. The climax of Israel’s covenantal story in the cross of Christ does not merely require a new reading but a new reading agenda to address the consequent contradictions situated deeply within it. Her examination of Paul’s treatment of Genesis in Galatians, particularly the way his explicit citations from Gen 12 and 15 clash with his implicit treatment of Gen 17, shows an exegete who brings to his labors a deep appreciation for the fractures, ambiguities, and ironies embedded in history – even sacred history. It progresses in fits and starts, backtracks from dead ends, and finds coherence only retrospectively when viewed from the standpoint of divine grace.43 To summarize, Hays demonstrates that Paul reads the Scriptures attentively, Wright shows that he appreciates its overarching narrative thrust, and Stockhausen establishes his rabbinic credentials and attraction to textual contradictions. All of them acknowledge that Paul’s christological convictions shape his interpretive habits, but each shows that these prior theological commitments did not determine the apostle’s exegetical conclusions. The Bible is neither a mirror reflecting Paul’s image nor a clanging symbol that sounds at his initiative. There is a delicate balance here between the living word of Scripture imposing itself on the apostle and the hermeneutical imperative of the resurrection which forces Paul to transform its meaning. He can read – actually hear and learn from – the Scriptures. But his reading everywhere presupposes the resurrection of Christ, an event which does not merely clarify a message already present, but transforms its content.44 This transformation is nowhere more clear than in Paul’s various attempts to demonstrate that Genesis predicts the inclusion of Gentile nations within the messianic people equal in status to Jews, indeed as fellow seed and heirs of Abraham, apart from circumcision and Torah. Such an scandalous construal of meaning has precedent neither in the Hebrew Scriptures nor the interpretive traditions accruing to it. Those few passages that could conceivably be read in support of Paul’s convictions are closed off by the obvious meaning 43 On this point, see also Martin Hengel, “‘Salvation History’: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology,” in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology (ed. David F. Ford and Graham Stanton; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 229–44. Like Stockhausen, Hengel embraces the term “salvation history,” but insists that rather than providing a harmonizing framework that enables one to trace God’s involvement in history, it “is full of oppositions, conflicts, bitter battles over the truth, tribulation and desperation” (239). 44 In my judgment, Wright never fully carries out the pregnant suggestion made in “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” (TynBul 29 [1978]: 61–88; see also Faithfulness, 1:374 for a similar statement): just as Israel’s messiah, and hence Israel itself, must endure a death and resurrection, so too must Israel’s sacred Scriptures, and hence the meaning of those Scriptures, undergo the a similar transformation .

20

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

of too many others. His exegesis therefore is frequently a herculean effort to break through these textual barriers and open up the messianic age to Jew and Greek alike. 1.1.3. Legitimating a Hypothesis By postulating a narrative antecedent, or substructure, prior to Paul’s text, Hays, Wright, and Stockhausen are able to give plausible and even compelling readings of his letters. But conclusions inferred from operations allegedly occurring prior to or outside of the Apostle’s act of writing cannot be other than hypothetical. The specific character of such an enterprise requires firm criteria to obtain convincing results. Unfortunately, some of the work just reviewed occasionally leaves the impression that it lacks methodological rigor. For example, the list of criteria proposed by Hays does not reoccur in his ensuing exegesis, suggesting that intuition and sympathy often guide his judgments. Very different from Hays, Wright justifies an appeal to story by insisting on its public character: it is the great story that Israel told, retold, celebrated, and socially enacted.45 But at times Wright’s actual interpretation of Pauline texts comes dangerously close to relying on an abstracted metanarrative to establish desired conclusions that could not be gained by straightforward exegesis.46 On this score, Stockhausen provides considerable advantage. Her reliance on specific lexical connections, thematic overlap, and comparative methods brings objective controls to the task of discerning a potential narrative-based exegesis supporting Paul’s arguments. It is her program that I have adapted to the needs of the present study. On its basis, I have formulated the following criteria. If the pre-epistolary exegesis I attribute to Paul fulfills them, its plausibility is thereby established. First, the proposed exegesis will have a demonstrable connection to the epistolary argument. It will take as its starting point explicit quotations from the proposed scriptural background. These provide objective controls because they ground the hypothetical exegesis in Paul’s text. But even where quotations are lacking, the presence of unique vocabulary, prominent themes, or 45

Wright, People of God, 47–80; idem, Fresh Perspective, 6–13. Wright’s essays “Curse and Covenant: Galatians 3.10–14” and “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3” (in Climax, 137–56, 175–92, respectively) provide good examples of how he uses narrative to bring unruly passages into line. R. Barry Matlock expresses a suspicion which applies to both Hays (whom he names) and Wright (whom he does not): “Until quite recently, my mental lexicon of contemporary biblical criticism had only the following (half-joking) entry under Narrative Criticism of Paul: ‘What you do when the Pauline text doesn’t actually say what you need it to (i.e., you read it in light of the underlying narrative)’” (“The Arrow and the Web: Critical Reflections on a Narrative Approach to Paul,” in Narrative Dynamics, 44); see also Mark A. Seifrid, “The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N. T. Wright,” CTQ 72 (2008): 19–44. 46

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

21

clear OT allusions may indicate an interpretation occurring prior to Paul’s writing an epistle. In ch. 5, I attempt to meet this criterion by analyzing the numerous threads that tie Paul’s argument in Rom 9 and especially his quotations in 9:25–29 to the patriarchal stories in Genesis. Second, the proposed exegesis will incorporate exegetical techniques known from Paul’s intellectual world (see § 1.3. below). Given his rabbinic training, the pervasive occurrence of certain interpretive methods in antiquity, and the christological and eschatological hermeneutics common in early Christianity, the methods of Paul’s biblical interpretation should cohere with comparative evidence from his cultural milieu. I seek to incorporate material that meets this criterion in most of the chapters that follow (esp. § 2.2.; § 4.1.; § 5.2.2.1.; § 6.2.4.). Third, the proposed exegesis will resolve difficulties not easily accounted for on other grounds. At least some problematic features in Paul’s text should become lucid if the hypothesized exegesis is to have merit. In the present study of Rom 9, the number of problems addressed is five: (1) Why does Paul use passages from Hosea to justify the inclusion of the Gentiles? (2) What is the significance of the emphasis on place in Hos 2:1 = Rom 9:26? (3) What does Isa 10:22–23 signify, given that its form in Rom 9:27–28 differs remarkably from both the MT and the LXX? (4) What is the origin and meaning of the remnant in Isa 1:9 = Rom 9:29? and (5) Why does the argument of Rom 9 appear to run in contradictory directions? The first two of these questions will be addressed in ch. 6, the last three in ch. 7. Fourth, the proposed exegesis will have explanatory power that extends beyond the exegetical difficulties of the specific passage under investigation. If the interpretation I postulate for Paul is capable of solving problems beyond those in Rom 9, the text that generated the hypothesis, it can claim substantial confirmation. This aim will be met in ch. 8, in which I will suggest that the results of this study can resolve three further difficulties: (1) Why does Rom 9:6–11:10 appear to contradict Rom 11:11–32? (2) What accounts for the convoluted reasoning within Rom 11:11–32 itself? (3) How can Paul affirm the continued viability of Israel’s election while insisting that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles? If the present study meets all four of these goals, its claim to isolate and explicate Paul’s interpretation of the patriarchal narratives behind Rom 9 will rest on a firm basis.47 47

I suggest that these four criteria provide this study with a much sounder methodological basis than those which track down the scriptural source of a biblical allusion/echo/ quotation in Paul, mine the surrounding OT passages for every textual nugget that could conceivably have some payoff, and then haul the “recovered” theological lode into Paul’s epistolary discourse, usually depositing it at the rhetorical level of the argument (i.e., the conclusions are set forth as aspects of Paul’s meaning in principle recognizable by his intended audience). As examples of this approach, see Brian J. Abasciano’s attempt to read

22

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

1.1.4. Circumventing the Audience The attempt to probe beneath the surface meaning of Paul’s letters to arrive at a subterranean interpretation of Scripture has not gone unchallenged. According to some, what the apostle’s biblical quotations reveal is not a prior engagement with his Bible but a rhetorical event with his audience. The attempt to limit research into Paul’s biblical quotations to their affective dimensions has been a driving methodological principle in the work of Christopher D. Stanley. Drawing on rhetorical theory and studies of literacy in the ancient world, Stanley insists that Paul’s use of Scripture would have had diverse effects on an audience composed of differing levels of intellectual ability, rhetorical sensitivity, and knowledge of the Jewish sacred writings. He correspondingly criticizes scholars who presume that Paul expected his ancient audiences to be able to “retrace and approve the interpretive activity that lay behind his many references to the text of Scripture.”48 He claims that the entire enterprise is rife with illegitimate assumptions: Paul’s audiences accepted the authority of the Jewish scriptures; they had easy access to them; they made frequent recourse to the contexts of Paul’s quotations; they would recognize and appreciate not only his quotations but also his allusions and echoes.49 Some scholars are content to make vague proposals to the effect that Paul’s evocative allusions to the Scriptures of Israel are intended to have a pedagogical effect: they encourage his readers to search out and listen to the the privileges of Rom 9:4–5 in light of Exod 32–34 on the basis of the allusion to Exod 32:32 in Rom 9:3, and Andrew David Naselli’s attempt to derive a massive salvationhistorical typology from Rom 11:34–35 on the basis of its deployment of language from Isa 40:13 and Job 41:3 (Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis [LNTS 301; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 115–42; Naselli, From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in Romans 11:34–35 [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2012], passim). These criteria provide my conclusions with an objective basis often lacking when interpreters begin asking what OT texts Paul may have had in mind when writing his letters. 48 Stanley, “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley; SBLSymS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 127. He makes similar remarks in his critique of Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, “A Decontextualized Paul? A Response to Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith,” JSNT 28 (2006): 353–62. Although the general point that scholars should not assume that Paul’s audience could reconstruct his biblical exegesis is valid, Stanley’s trenchant remarks apply much more appropriately to the work, e.g., of Brian J. Abasciano and Andrew David Naselli, referred to in the previous note, than to that of Watson, who makes an effective response in “Paul the Reader: An Authorial Apologia,” JSNT 28 (2006): 363–73, esp. 364. 49 Stanley, Arguing, 39–60; similarly, idem, “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?” NovT 41 (1999): 124–44.

1.1. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Story

23

voice of Scripture for themselves.50 A more substantive rejoinder to Stanley’s criticism locates the reading of Paul’s letters in a liturgical and dialogical environment, in which the Christian community gathers not only to hear, but to rehear, discuss, and probe the apostolic missives. J. Ross Wagner offers a convincing thesis along these lines. From the Corinthian letters, he assembles a picture of a community-wide study of Paul’s correspondence; of informal leadership roles, suggesting the presence of members with some education in both rhetoric and the Scriptures; and of letter carriers who, as close associates of Paul, provide interpretive assistance through difficult passages. Wagner concludes that a researcher cannot limit him- or herself to registering what Paul’s audience may have comprehended upon its first exposure to one of his epistles.51 This hypothesis has much to commend it, and I find it more fruitful than Stanley’s austere approach. However, when Wagner makes the transition from reconstructing the social situation of the Roman Christians and their hermeneutical competencies to using this model as an exegetical premise for interpreting Paul’s use of Isaiah (or, perhaps, his duet with Isaiah), confusion arises. Wagner does not, as a methodological axiom, differentiate between Paul’s pre-epistolary interpretation of Isaiah and his situationally-determined rhetoric. In working through Rom 9–11, he takes his interpretive bearings from (1) the climactic declaration of all Israel’s salvation in Rom 11:26 and (2) the prophetic message of deliverance in Isaiah. On the basis of these hermeneutical constraints Wagner overrides the ostensible meaning of earlier passages. As a result, the locus of Paul’s meaning remains uncertain. Does it lie in the dialogical argument articulated in the text and offered to the Roman congregations, or in the scriptural antecedent to which the argument constantly refers? The question is an urgent one because in Rom 9–11 these two options are not congruent. To illustrate, Wagner facilitates a positive interpretation of Rom 9:22–24 by reference to his two touchstones in this way: “the echoes of the [primarily Isaianic] scriptural texts Paul cites in chapters 9–11 – texts that speak of God’s commitment to save his people Israel – combine to form a countermelody that gradually swells in volume until it becomes the dominant strain

50

Hays, Echoes, 177; Wright, Faithfulness, 1:15. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 39. Analogous arguments have been made by Bruce N. Fisk (focusing on the role of the Synagogue in producing scripturallyinformed Christian readers of Paul’s letters, “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians of Rome,” in As It Is Written, 177–80), Brian J. Abasciano (“Diamonds in the Rough: A Reply to Christopher Stanley Regarding the Reader Competency of Paul’s Original Audience,” NovT 49 [2007]: 153–83), and N. T. Wright (Faithfulness, 2:1452). 51

24

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

of chapter 11.”52 But it must be asked: “Counter-melody to what?” Wagner has just interpreted the meaning of 9:22–24 on the basis of Rom 11 and Isaiah, so that Rom 9 and Rom 11 both contain the same (Isaianic) hope for all Israel. If the two levels of meaning are actually contrary to each other, which they need to be for Wagner’s counter-melody metaphor to work, then Paul should say or imply in Rom 9 precisely what he does not in Rom 11. But if they were contrary to each other, why would Paul be led to argue in such a confusing fashion?53 Would his original readers possess the ability not only to retrace his arguments’ exegetical roots but also on that basis to reinterpret Paul’s argument against its own tendency? This example is typical of Wagner’s approach. On the basis of “echoes [that linger] in the background” and the “undercurrents tugging [at] Paul’s logic” the explicit argument of Rom 9 is made to yield Wagner’s desired results, which it patently would not be able to do if Wagner followed more closely what Paul actually says.54 But he leaves unanswered the question as to why the Isaianic undercurrent flows in a direction opposite to the movement of the argument moving across the letter’s surface. What then carries the semantic and rhetorical burden of Paul’s discourse as a communicative event? Should the original readers attend to the actual message of Rom 9 or to the original contexts from which its quotations are drawn? Wagner suggests the latter in an effort to defend the unity between Rom 9 and Rom 11, but he has not explained why the apostle should write a letter whose passages – the actual arguments in them and the trajectories of their implications – stand on their surface in sharp tension with each other.55 I hope to avoid this confusion by keeping the biblical antecedents on which Paul draws to compose his epistles methodologically distinct from the rhetorical aims he hopes to realize. In this study I am after Paul’s own interpretation of the patriarchal narratives: his reading strategies, his interpretive decisions, and his conclusions, which are in theory prior to and distinct from the rhetorical aims of Romans, but which now exist only as they have been shaped by the exigencies of his written communiqué. The former can illumi-

52

Wagner, Heralds, 77–78 (emphasis added). The dilemma this approach engenders was identified by Charles Cosgrove and quoted in the introduction: if the apparent meaning of Rom 9 stands in such tension with the “obvious” meaning of Rom 11:26, perhaps the problem lies with the interpretation of Rom 11:26 being employed rather than the ostensible meaning of Rom 9 (“Rhetorical Suspense,” 271–87). 54 Wagner, Heralds, 53, 75; see also 39, 43–44, 70–71, and his frequent appeals to the meaning of discrete passages established “on the basis of Rom 9–11 as a whole,” e.g., 76. 55 A similar criticism of Wagner appears in Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel (WUNT 2/202; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 148–49 n. 47. 53

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts

25

nate the latter, and indeed is legitimated by its ability to do so.56 However, the construal of Genesis that I attribute to Paul is a speculative reconstruction that does not partake of textual meaning except indirectly. In other words, the criteria set forth above should not be taken to imply that Paul’s audience would necessarily have been able to discern any exegesis beyond what is evident from the texts he explicitly quotes, the glosses he supplies, and the obvious allusions that he makes. Far from it. Likely, Paul supposed that his audience could keep up with his multifaceted deployment of Scripture, expecting them to follow his explicit citations and allusive references alike. Whether this supposition was reasonable is another matter. It appears that, perhaps due to his own training and ability, the good apostle consistently attributed to his audience an intellectual ability beyond their actual capacity, as the author of 2 Peter was painfully aware (2 Pet 3:15–16).57 To cite one example, in 1 Cor 10:7 Paul quotes Exod 32:6, a verse whose relevance is self-evident to him but may have been lost on his initial audience. Either way, only recourse to the original context reveals why Paul appeals to this verse at all. Despite his obvious skill as an effective communicator, Paul writes in this instance out of his own expertise and not on the basis of his readers’ competency. Thus, Paul’s use of Scripture in any given epistle is the result of a dialectic between his own need to understand the Scriptures and the exigencies of the epistolary situation. This study is a wager that in Rom 9 at least Paul offers sufficient evidence to recover the former. The hotly-debated question concerning whether his audience could discern the nuances of his biblical interpretation and retrace his hermeneutical moves falls outside its scope.

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts 1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts

Objective criteria are needed not only to establish a narrative-based exegesis behind a given passage in Paul’s letters. They are also necessary for evaluating the text-forms of his biblical quotations and interpreting the significance of any alterations that appear in them. If Paul reproduces a scriptural passage that deviates markedly from its form as found in the LXX, can the interpreter 56

So Beate Kowalski, “Zur Funktion der Schriftzitate in Röm 9,19–29: Gottes Zorn und Erbarmen,” in The Letter to the Romans (ed. Udo Schnelle; BETL 226; Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 719. 57 I typed this paragraph days before embarking for the first time on the deep waters N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. I immediately found there the same point, inclusive of the appeal to 2 Peter (Faithfulness, 1:14). Interestingly, despite their disagreement about nearly everything else, both Wager and Stanley acknowledge that Paul’s audience may not have, in fact, possessed the requisite skill to track with his arguments or their scriptural citations (Wagner, Heralds, 35; Stanley, Arguing, 61).

26

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

deduce from this variation that Paul intentionally changed the wording to reflect the results of a previous exegesis? The present section will outline the problem and pose guidelines for determining when Paul has indeed made theologically significant alterations to his quoted texts. 1.2.1. Textual Diversity in Second Temple Judaism When Paul desired to consult his Scriptures, he could have had access to a broad range of texts. The manuscript evidence from the Second Temple period indicates that multiple text-types existed simultaneously and even, as the Qumran discoveries prove, side by side. Not only did the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the antiquity of the MT’s predecessor, they also provided examples of the Vorlagen of the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Further, they revealed additional biblical texts that could not be aligned with any of these textual traditions. As Emanuel Tov summarizes: “It appears that during the last three pre-Christian centuries many texts were current in Palestine; in other words, this period was characterized by textual plurality.”58 Frank Moore Cross (building on William F. Albright), Eugene Ulrich, and other scholars have presented various models to understand the complex development of the biblical text during this period, but all agree with Tov’s assessment that the Second Temple era featured extensive diversity of textual types.59

58

Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001),

191. 59

Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” BASOR 140 (1955): 27–33; Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 177–95; repr. from HTR 57 (1964); idem, “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 278–92; repr. from IEJ (1966); idem, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 306–20; Ulrich, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:79–100; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). See also P. W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 274; repr. from Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg, 1956 (ed. G. W. Anderson; SupVT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957); Tov, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls,” HUCA 53 (1982): 11–27; idem, Textual Criticism, 114–17; Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden, Brill: 2001), 197, 250–51; R. Timothy McLay, “Biblical Texts and the Scriptures for the New Testament Church,” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 55.

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts

27

The situation is similar with respect to the Septuagint, but for reasons unique to its translation and transmission process.60 The triumph of the Lagardian model over the opposing thesis of Paul Kahle concerning LXX origins suggests that only a single Greek translation existed for each biblical book until the time revisions began to occur.61 It is the task of the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, founded by de Lagarde’s student Alfred Rahlfs, to recover this original text insofar as the extant evidence permits. Yet this does not mean that Paul had access to a pristine LXX text. The discoveries from Qumran and its environs have shown that revisions of the Greek Bible began prior to the rise of Christianity. The most significant of these finds is the Greek scroll of the Twelve Prophets from Naḥal Ḥever (1st cent. C.E.).62 Dominique Barthélemy proved that its text resulted from a systematic revision designed to bring a LXX text-type into conformity with the proto-MT. This conclusion decisively pushed the period of recensional activity

60 Some scholars restrict the term “Septuagint” (LXX) to the Christian uncials from the fourth cent. and later, and apply the label “Old Greek” (OG) to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures or even only the Pentateuch undertaken first in Alexandria. However, even this restriction has its own ambiguities. For my purposes, I see no reason to dispense with “Septuagint” (following Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], 31–32; the problem is also discussed in Leonard Greenspoon, “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship,” BIOSCS 20 [1987]: 21–29). 61 Paul de Lagarde argued that behind the various divergent texts and recensions that characterize the extant manuscripts of the LXX lay a single translation, an Ur-text. This text could, in principle, be recovered through textual criticism. Paul Kahle objected to this model of LXX origins and argued instead that from the beginning, separate Greek translations occurred in different locations at different times for different purposes; the “ LXX” was an authorized version intended to suppress all previous translations (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza [2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959], 211–28; idem, “Problems of the Septuagint,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations [ed. Sidney Jellicoe; New York: KTAV, 1974], 67–77; repr. from Studia patristica [ed. F. L. Cross and Kurt Aland; 2 vols.; TU 63–64; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957]). See further Harry M. Orlinsky, “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Septuagint Text,” JBL 78 (1959): 33; Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 274–76; Fernández Marcos, Context, 102–3; James Barr, “Paul and the LXX: A Note on Some Recent Work,” JTS NS 45 (2003): 598–99; R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 103; Emanuel Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 363; repr. from The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. S. McKendrick and O. A. O’Sullivan; London: British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2003). 62 Emmanuel Tov, with R. A. Kraft and P. J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1990).

28

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

to a period well before Aquila (ca. 130 C.E.), traditionally thought to have been the first scholar to undertake a thorough revision of the Greek Bible.63 Most of these early revisions sought to “correct” the Greek text according to a Hebrew exemplar – an interminable task, since the Hebrew tradition was itself still in flux.64 In addition, extant manuscripts indicate that scribes made revisions due to stylistic preferences as well as theological commitments. Recensional labors even produced two distinct versions of several books or sections of books (Judges, Kings, Habakkuk 3, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Susanna, Judith). To complicate matters further, not only do the surviving manuscript groupings reveal an extremely complex process of transmission, a given manuscript frequently contains disparate recensions within it. Therefore the Greek Scriptures, no less than their Hebrew counterparts, existed in multiple forms during the Second Temple period. Early Christian writings themselves witness to the wide range of available texts and recensions. New Testament evidence such as the use of protoTheodotion Daniel and the distinctive Matthean formula quotations show that the textual diversity characterizing early Judaism also obtained in the nascent Christ movement. Given this state of affairs, an interpreter who makes definitive claims that Paul used “the LXX” or that he himself made any specific alteration may appear rash. Clearly, reliable standards are necessary to establish not only what text Paul read but also what alternations he may have made. 1.2.2. Determining Paul’s Quotations Nevertheless, in the majority of instances, the source of Paul’s biblical quotations poses little difficulty. If they agree with the text of a critically reconstructed edition like the Göttingen LXX, as they frequently do, the reading can be judged septuagintal.65 However, variations do occur. In theory, any of the following explanations could account for them: 63

Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 127–39; repr. from RB 60 (1953); idem, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). 64 Cross, “History of the Biblical Text,” 179; Tov, “Jewish Greek Scriptures,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 224–25. 65 Paul’s letters contain approximately eighty-three quotations from the OT. Whereas their measure of agreement with the LXX is extensive, in only four to six cases do they follow the MT noticeably (estimates vary), and never completely (William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902], 302–3; Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914], 400; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 11–12; D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” in It Is Written, 272–73; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts

29

1) Paul quotes the LXX; the modern edition, either through editorial error or lack of extant evidence, does not reproduce the correct text in this case. 2) Paul quotes the LXX from memory and does not produce his text exactly. 3) Paul quotes from a LXX MS that has been revised; in most cases, this would involve a revision towards the Hebrew text. 4) Paul quotes from a LXX MS that he has revised himself.66 5) Paul quotes from a LXX MS that has suffered from textual corruption.67 6) Paul quotes from an alternative Greek translation; like the septuagintal revisions, other known translations of the Scriptures into Greek usually aimed at closer fidelity to a Hebrew prototype than was achieved by the 68 LXX. 7) Paul translates his quotation directly from the Hebrew. 8) Paul quotes from the LXX, but the altered text-form reflects his own prior exegetical work and is designed to bring out more clearly the interpretive significance he finds in it. 9) Paul quotes not the OT directly, but an early Jewish or Christian exegetical tradition, in which case several of the above possibilities could, mutatis mutandis, apply to the quoted tradition.69 Not all of these options deserve equal consideration. Number 1, while remaining a theoretical possibility, requires anyone pursuing it to offer arguments of overwhelming strength to counter the expertise with which the Göttingen volumes have been produced. That Paul quoted from a faulty memory (#2) is an option difficult to square with the exact and nearly exact agreement between several quotations and their parent text, especially when the quoted material is quite lengthy, for example, the string of passages quoted in Rom Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature [SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 67; Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” DPL 630– 32; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint, 328–29). 66 Martin Hengel favors this theory (The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002], 22, 89, 108–9). 67 This is how Dietrich-Alex Koch accounts for the wording of Isa 10:22–23 in Rom 9:27–28 and of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15 (“The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1 Peter 2,6.8 as a Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” ZNW 101 [2010]: 223–40). I follow his conclusions with respect to Isa 10:22– 23 in § 5.2.2. below. 68 This approach is advocated by Timothy H. Lim (Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters [Oxford: Clarendon, 1997], 140–60) and R. Timothy McLay (Use of the Septuagint, 27, 117; “Biblical Texts,” 38–58). Nevertheless, even McLay concedes that “there is … merit to the view that general agreement with the OG [on the part of NT writers] indicates substantial dependence unless proven otherwise” (Use of the Septuagint, 43). 69 Barnabas Lindars’s work tends in this direction (Apologetic; idem, “The Old Testament and Universalism in Paul,” BJRL 69 [1987]: 511–27).

30

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

15:9–12.70 It also fails to explain why several of Paul’s “memory lapses” conform to the requirements of his argument so closely.71 Nor does Paul’s recourse to the Hebrew text have great merit (#7); aside from the paucity of examples where Paul’s quotation matches any known Hebrew text, in many instances he quotes from the LXX even when the Hebrew form would further his argument. The remaining possibilities may claim greater plausibility, but each Pauline quotation must be examined on its own merits before a judgment is made. While no option should be summarily dismissed or immediately accepted, previous research has tended to focus on the third and the eighth possibilities. These require further comment. First, in several instances Paul’s quotations diverge from the LXX reading because he used a text that had been revised towards the Hebrew. This conclusion was arrived at by Dietrich-Alex Koch on the basis of a thorough analysis, and it has been confirmed by further research.72 Where a quotation in Paul’s letters follows the LXX text in most of its details yet diverges in the direction of the MT or another known Hebrew text, he most likely utilized a manuscript type that had been previously revised. Second, like other Jewish interpreters Paul made changes in his quoted texts to explicate the meaning he found in them.73 In antiquity, it was common for interpreters of authoritative texts to alter quoted passages in order to express more clearly their perceived meaning in the contemporary situation. The practice occurred in early Christianity; early Judaism, especially among

70

Dietrich-Alex Koch, Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 93. 71 There are however specific instances where quotation from memory is plausible, e.g., Isa 29:16 and 45:9 in Rom 9:20–21 (so Alphonse Maillot, “Essai sur les citations vétérotestamentaires contenues dans Romains 9 à 11,” ETR 5 [1982]: 62; see also Koch, Schrift, 35–42; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 716). 72 Koch, Schrift, 78–81; idem, “Quotations,” 223–40; Hengel, Septuagint, 22, 109. Koch’s conclusions with respect to Isaiah were confirmed in Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 41–42; idem, “Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 253–71; Wagner, Heralds, 344–46. Philo’s quotations from the Septuagint attests to similar revisions towards the then-current Hebrew text (Peter Katz, “Septuagintal Studies in Mid-Century: Their Links with the Past and Their Present Tendencies,” in Studies in the Septuagint, 51; repr. from The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd [ed. William D. Davies and David Daube; Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1956]). 73 Koch, Schrift, 102–98; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint, 329.

1.2. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Texts

31

the rabbis; and the Greco-Roman environment at large.74 For example, 4QMMT 3–7 II, 14–15 introduces a quotation from Lev 17, complete with a formulaic, “and regarding that which is written.” However, the ensuing citation has been “reworked with the aim to focus the verse on the exact” halakic issue under debate.75 While the intellectual context of such exegesis varied, ancient readers routinely inscribed their own understanding into a quoted text, whether the ideological basis be eschatological, apocalyptic, priestly, philosophical-ethical, or something else.76 Another instance occurs in the “citations” found in Baruch 2:20–23 and 2:27–35, passages which introduce quotations with explicit formulae attributing them, respectively, to the prophets and to Moses. However, no corresponding text matches the wording that follows, though the ideas are common enough in the sources to which Baruch refers. The author here is reframing Scripture on the basis of a holistic understanding of its message and applying it to his contemporary situation.77 As for Paul’s letters, a relatively clear example occurs in Rom 10:11, quoting Isa 28:16. Here Paul has intentionally added the word πᾶς, all, to the text, as indicated by a comparison with Rom 9:33, where the correct form of Isa 28:16 appears. Clearly, an interpreter of Paul’s quotations must approach any particular instance aware that both textual revision and interpretive alteration affect the quotation’s form; hence, one must not close off alternatives prematurely. As Stanley notes, within a single letter (Romans), the quotations from a single book (Isaiah) provide data witnessing to all the main septuagintal textual families as well as pre-Christian revisions towards the Hebrew.78 The interpreter making the case that Paul intentionally altered a biblical text in a theologically significant manner is faced with the challenge, How can one establish 74

Most scholarly attention has been directed towards the Qumran pesharim (e.g., Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament [2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], 183–202; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 139–47). Christopher Stanley has shown that the reshaping of quoted material occurred much more broadly (“Paul and Homer: Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century C.E.,” NovT 22 [1990]: 48–78; idem, Language, 267–337). 75 Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “‘The Place which He has chosen’: The Identification of the Cult Place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT,” Meghillot 5–6 (2006): 57–80; see also Stefan Schorch, “Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah during the Hellenistic and the Roman Periods,” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (ed. Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Geza G. Xeravits; DCLS 16; Berlin: De Gruyter), 4. 76 I. Howard Marshall, “An Assessment of Recent Developments,” in It Is Written, 13. 77 Sean A. Adams, “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations,’” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, 63–83. 78 Stanley, Language, 68–69. McLay issues a similar call for caution (The Use of the Septuagint, 26).

32

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

that Paul has adapted his quotation to his argument if the peculiar form might indicate an alternative text available to him? To address this issue, I employ a simple criterion: If Paul is the only known witness for a specific reading (or if his reading is on text-critical grounds prior to other witnesses) and if the changes are (a) integrated with the surrounding Pauline context and/or (b) connected to the other texts with which he is working, then one can conclude that he himself is responsible for the form of the quotation as it appears in his epistle.79 A secondary criterion can provide additional confirmation: if the Pauline quotation is altered away from the MT, it is more likely to have originated from Paul’s own hand rather than from a lost revision, since the motive for most known revisions, namely, to bring it in line with a Hebrew exemplar, is not present. On the basis of these criteria, individual quotations can be analyzed and the extent of Paul’s rewriting assessed.80 1.2.3. Excursus: Paul and the Hebrew Scriptures In the chapters to follow, I base my arguments largely on the Greek Scriptures, and I never make claims for Paul and his biblical interpretation that rely exclusively on connections possible only in Hebrew. However, I have not hesitated to make extensive reference to the Hebrew text. I have followed this course for three reasons. First, in my judgment a full appreciation of the interpretive issues involved, from Paul’s end and ours, can be attained only when one is aware of the transformations in meaning involved as the Scriptures journeyed from their original Hebrew to a Greek translation. Second, it is entirely possible that some of the exegetical work informing Paul’s letters

79

This is similar to the methodological principle enunciated by Wilk: “[D]eviations from the septuagintal text should be attributed to [Paul] only if they match his intention in quoting from the Scriptures” (“Witnesses,” 261; see also pp. 263–64). 80 These criteria are most salient in ch. 5, though not rehearsed in a mechanical fashion at every juncture. Their role in chs. 2 and 4 is more implicit, because most of the quotations discussed in these chapters come from Genesis, a book whose Greek version follows its Hebrew Vorlage closely, and whose transmission in both languages was characterized by remarkable textual stability. In these instances, the unique textual history of Genesis limits the problem of textual plurality. The stability of Genesis’s textual tradition is discussed in Swete, Introduction, 315; Cross, “History,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 182–83; Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 213; John William Wevers, “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies,” BIOSCS 18 (1985): 37 (though Wevers’s cautionary remarks also deserve notice: Text History of the Greek Genesis [MSU 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974], 186–87, 217); Johann Cook, “The Exegesis of the Greek Genesis,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 91–125; Melvin K. H. Peters, “Septuagint,” ABD 5:1101.

1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique

33

came to him as part of an interpretive tradition that had been assembled by Hebrew-speaking readers. Finally, and most importantly, I consider it very likely that Paul had sufficient command of Hebrew to read his scriptural texts in their native language. The main evidence for this comes from Paul’s own claim to be a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and a Pharisee (Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22), peculiar self-descriptions for one incapable of reading Hebrew. His identification as a Ἑβραῖος is not merely an ethnic or religious categorization but includes a linguistic component, though the word itself cannot determine whether this means Hebrew or Aramaic or both.81 Paul’s claim to superior accomplishments in “Judaism” beyond his colleagues (Gal 1:14), even if he is indulging in hyperbole, would not be possible without linguistic fluency in the language of its sacred texts. The book of Acts supports this understanding. It claims that Paul received rabbinic training in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (22:3), that he could address the Jerusalemite crowds in a Ἑβραῒς διάλεκτος (i.e., Aramaic; 21:40), and that he still had relatives in that city (23:16). Even if this information is not directly corroborated by Paul’s own biographical statements it comports well with them.82 Therefore, reference to the Hebrew text of passages Paul used is pertinent, not only because as part of his Pharisaic training he may have learned exegetical traditions forged from it, but also because he may have been competent to engage it directly.

1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique 1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique

Along with a set of authoritative Scriptures, Paul inherited interpretive tools that facilitated the construction of textual meaning. Three of these are particu81 “Neither in II Cor. 11.22 nor in Phil. 3.5 can Hebrew mean anything other than someone speaking Ἑβραϊστί, i.e. a Palestinian Jew speaking the sacred language of Aramaic, or a Diaspora Jew, who in origin and education had extremely close connections with the mother country and who therefore also understood Hebrew” (Martin Hengel, The PreChristian Paul [trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991], 23; see also 38; Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984], 40; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997], 36–37; Jörg Frey, “Paul’s Jewish Identity,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World [ed. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog; AJEC 87; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 291; Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis [LNTS 317; London: T&T Clark, 2011], 156–62). 82 As Jörg Frey notes, ‘Not every detail unconfirmed by Paul’s own words is necessarily an invention of Luke” (“Identity,” 293); similarly, Günter Stemberger, “The Pre-Christian Paul,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 66–69.

34

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

larly important for the present study: the use of prophets to interpret Torah, gezera shawa, and atomizing exegesis. I will rely on these techniques to elucidate Paul’s hermeneutical practice throughout this study (esp. § 2.2.; § 4.1.; § 5.2.2.1.; § 6.2.4.). These reading strategies should be distinguished from large-scale hermeneutical perspectives. As the discussion will demonstrate, the apocalyptic typology of the Dead Sea sectarians, the philosophical mysticism of Philo, and the halakic codifications of the rabbis equally admit the same textual maneuvers.83 The present topic therefore is not Paul’s interpretive framework nor the rich, multi-layered social discourses within which biblical exposition occurred, but the specific tools he received from his intellectual context that allowed him to connect scriptural text to theology, proclamation, practice, and argument.84 1.3.1. Torah and the Prophets By the first century C.E., the practice of reading pentateuchal texts in combination with passages from the Prophets attained institutional status in Judaism.85 The Tosefta indicates that at the time of its compilation (3d cent. C.E.), lectionary readings occurring in weekly synagogue services had standardized the correlation of Moses and the Prophets (“Prophets” here including the historical works, recognized as “the Former Prophets” in the Hebrew canon).86 However shrouded in obscurity are the origins of this practice, evidence from the New Testament demonstrates that it was already taking shape in Paul’s day. According to Acts 13:15, for instance, the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch opened with a reading “from the Law and the Prophets.” 83

The peculiar emphases and interests of a specific writer or genre should not therefore restrict the application of these terms. For example, W. Sibley Towner defines gezera shawa strictly in terms of rabbinic formulations, with their specific halakic intent and generic peculiarities, and therefore denies that it occurs in any early Christian/New Testament writer (“Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look,” HUCA 53 [1982]: 134 n. 66). 84 Whether or not these interpretive strategies can be referred to as “midrash” is not a question that interests me. Diverse perspectives can be found in Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 139–49 (qualified pro); Hübner, Gottes Ich, 35–36 (con); William Richard Stegner “Romans 9:6–29 – A Midrash” JSNT 22 (1984): 37–52 (pro). 85 Ben Zion Wacholder, “Prolegomena: A History of the Sabbatical Readings of Scripture for the ‘Triennial Cycle’,” in The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus, by Jacob Mann (vol. 1 of The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue; New York: KTAV, 1971), 3, 10; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 153; Louis Jacobs, “Torah, Reading of,” EncJud 2d ed., 20:49; Louis Isaac Rinowitz, “Haftarah,” EncJud 2d ed., 8:199. 86 t. Megillah 3.1–9. The reading of Deut 25:17–19, for example, is followed by a reading from 1 Sam 15 (t. Megillah 3.2).

1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique

35

This liturgical practice had its analogue in the use of prophetic texts for clarifying passages from Moses. Whether the liturgical correlation grew out of exegetical habit or occasioned it is not possible to establish, but the evidence is sufficient to indicate that the custom was early and widespread. Baruch’s quotations, discussed above as examples of reformulations of biblical wording, paraphrase the words of Moses from Deut 30 with language that derives from Ezek 36. Similarly, the Damascus Document expounds the meaning of the fourth commandment in Deut 5:12 by means of the prophetic instruction given in Isa 58:13 (CD X, 16–21). These examples indicate that already in the first century B.C.E. prophetic passages could be drawn on to elucidate Torah. Rabbinic interpreters laboring to apply Mosaic legislation to a later era also had recourse to prophetic oracles. For example, a passage from the Mishna, m. Yoma 8, attempts to synthesize the biblical data for the Day of Atonement. The passage closes with a blessing, placed on the lips of Rabbi Akiba, that expounds Lev 16:30 by recourse to Ezek 36:26 and Jer 17:13 (8.9). Paul also finds the meaning of Torah in prophetic commentary. Romans 4:1–7, where Ps 32:1–2 explicates Gen 15:6, may provide an example, given David’s reputation as a prophet. Recently, Francis Watson has argued that in light of Rom 3:19 (“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law”), the immediately preceding catena in 3:10–18 should be understood as a commentary on the law from the psalms and the prophets, recording God’s negative verdict on humanity.87 Carol Stockhausen demonstrated that Paul applies this technique to 2 Cor 3, using Jer 38–39 and Ezek 11, 36 to explicate Exod 34. She writes: It is Paul’s usual procedure to apply prophetic and occasionally sapiential texts to bring the Torah into the proper contemporary focus. These secondary interpreting texts are usually (perhaps always) linked to each other verbally and linked to the fundamental Torah verbally – forming a network of mutually-interpreting texts which creates a new synthetic meaning at once scriptural and Pauline.88

Stockhausen considers this practice fundamental to Paul’s exegesis (see § 1.1.1.). These data suggest that Paul, like other Jewish interpreters, reads the prophets as a divinely inspired commentary on Torah. In ch. 2, I offer further examples.89 Together, these provide the foundation for my exegesis of Rom 87

Hermeneutics, 57–71; idem, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (rev. and expanded ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 228. 88 Stockhausen, “Principles,” 144; similarly, Maillot, “Essai,” 58, 72; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 117. 89 These include Hab 2:4 applied to Gen 12:3, 18:18 and Isa 44:3 applied to Gen 17 in Gal 3; 2 Sam 7:12 applied to Gen 49:10 in Gal 3:16; Isa 51:2 and 54:1 applied to Gen 21 in Gal 4:27; Ezek 36 and Jer 7 applied to Gen 17 in Rom 2.

36

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

9:25–29 = Hos 2:25, 2:1; Isa 10:22–23; 1:9 as oracles providing the “true” meaning of Genesis and explicating the fate of Israel latent in its narratives. 1.3.2. Analogy: Gezera Shawa and Heqesh The association of pentateuchal texts with a prophetic counterpart is normally justified by the presence of specific verbal links.90 Most of the examples given in 1.3.1. are connected in this way. In t. Megillah 3.2, Deut 25:17–19 and 1 Sam 15:2 are associated both linguistically by the term ‫זכר‬, “remember,” and thematically by the topic of the Amalekites and their fate. In m. Yoma 8.9, Lev 16:30 and Ezek 36:26 are joined by the term ‫טהר‬, “be clean.” Genesis 15:6 and Ps 32:2 contain the term λογίζεται, important for Paul’s interpretation in Rom 4. Shared vocabulary was one of the most common means for legitimating the interpretation of one verse by another, even if by modern standards the connection appears more fortuitous than substantive. According to rabbinic tradition, R. Hillel codified this interpretive principle (along with six others) and called it gezera shawa, the comparison of texts on the basis of similar expressions.91 As defined by David Instone-Brewer, gezera shawa is “the interpretation of one text in the light of another text to which it is related by a shared word or phrase.”92 Within rabbinic circles, the term properly applies to the interpretation of legal texts. However, the practice of linking biblical passages by means of common hook words was widespread, early, and not limited to halakah. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls gezera shawa appears frequently. In CD XIX, 1–8, Nah 1:2 explains Lev 19:18 on the basis of the shared terms ‫נטר‬, “bear a grudge,” and ‫נקם‬, “take vengeance.”93 Similarly, in 4QFlor, Isa 8:11, something of a favorite in sectarian exegesis, is used to expound Ps 1:1 since they both contain ‫הלך‬, “walk,” and ‫בדרך‬, “in the way” (1–3 I, 14–16). The rabbis employed gezera shawa pervasively. One example should suffice. According to ch. 31 of Avot of Rabbi Nathan, the following discussion occurs:

90

Wacholder, “Prolegomena,” 11–12, 14. Hillel’s seven hermeneutical rules can be found in t. Sanh. 7.11; Avot R. Nat. 37. 92 Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 18. Concerning gezera shawa, see Towner, “Hermeneutical Systems,” 116–18; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 156–57, 249; Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 41; Louis Jacobs and David Derovan, “Hermeneutics,” EncJud 2d ed., 9:26. 93 This passage provides a further example of using prophetic quotations to clarify Torah. 91

1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique

37

Rabbi Nehemiah says: How do we know that one man is equal to all the work of Creation? For it is said, This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him (Gen 5:1), and elsewhere it says, These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven (Gen 2:4): even as in the latter there was creation and making, so in the former there was creation and making. This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed to Adam all the generations destined to come forth from him, standing and rejoicing before him as it were. And some say: God showed him only the righteous, as it is said, All those that were written unto life in Jerusalem (Isa 4:3).

Here the use of link words is explicit: the two verses contain ‫ברא‬, “creation,” and ‫עשה‬, “making” (as well as ‫תולדות‬, “generations,” which R. Nehemiah does not specify). Another feature of this passage from Avot is relevant for the present study. It provides a quotation from Isa 4:3 intended to limit the interpretation provided by R. Nehemiah: God did not show Adam all of his descendants, only the righteous (presumably, only Israel). However, this quotation neglects the crucial phrase necessary to make the point: “And the one who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy.” Likewise, Paul can use of gezera shawa without citing the terms that make the analogy possible (e.g., Rom 10:19–20; see § 6.2.2.1.). Jewish interpreters showed no hesitation when it came to applying the same technique to a translation. Jewish interpreters showed no hesitation when it came to applying the same technique to a translation. Philo begins De migratione Abrahami with an exegesis of Abraham’s call (Migr. 1–3). In Gen 12:1, God commands him to depart ἐκ τῆς γῆς σου (Heb: ‫)מארצך‬. What does this mean? For an answer, Philo turns to Gen 3:19, where God decrees that Adam will return to the earth from which he came: γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ (Heb: ‫)עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב‬. Philo understands Abraham’s call as a summons of his spirit heavenward, leaving behind corporeal existence for the divine realms. If Philo knew that this alignment works only in Greek he appears to be not bothered in the least. Examples of gezera shawa appear frequently in Paul’s letters, demonstrating his own propensity for employing hook words to link together disparate texts into a new semantic entity. Two obvious examples appear in Romans: the combination of Isa 8:14 and Isa 28:16 in Rom 9:33 as a single quotation, a rewriting made possible by the appearance of λίθος, and the string of passages in 15:9–12, all connected by the term ἔθνη (Ps 17:50 [LXX; Heb.: 18:50; Eng.: 18:49]; Deut 32:43; Ps 116:1 [LXX; Heb., Eng.: 116:19c–117:1]; Isa 11:10). Again, Stockhausen has shown how this technique lies behind 2 Cor 3: Paul brings an entire pool of prophetic texts to bear on the base text from Torah.94 His propensity for using oracles from the prophets to actualize 94

Moses’ Veil, 56–67; 106–7.

38

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

Mosaic passages intersects with his conviction that verbal links permit the creation of mutually interpretive textual relationships. The result is a Pauline synthesis of biblical meaning applied to his own mission. In juxtaposing analogous texts, ancient interpreters were not limited to relations based on catchwords. They could also make connections from larger thematic or structural analogies. The rabbis refer to this association as heqesh. Unlike gezera shawa, it bases its comparisons not on verbal links but on similarity of subject matter.95 A Jewish exegetical tradition found in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, and Josephus illustrates how readers could move from a verbal connection (gezera shawa) to structural parallels (heqesh). The biblical description of Abram’s journey to Egypt in Gen 12:10–13:4 mentions his wealth twice, giving two distinct inventories in two different contexts. According to 12:16, Pharaoh, in exchange for Abram’s stunning “sister,” gives him sheep, oxen, donkeys, servants, female donkeys, and camels (in addition to royal favor). The ensuing plot sequence admits of no ambiguity: first Pharaoh gives gifts in exchange for Sarai, then he suffers afflictions from God. Yet upon Abram’s subsequent return to Canaan, Gen 13:2 unexpectedly informs us that the patriarch “was very rich in cattle, and silver, and gold,” a list of assets that does not overlap with the items bestowed by Pharaoh. In terms of both content and narrative location, these two enumerations of Abram’s possessions stand independent of each other. Early tradents introduced a subtle but significant change in the narrative sequence. The story as retold in Jubilees (13:13–15), the Genesis Apocryphon (XX, 31–33), and Josephus (Ant. 1.165) heightens Abram’s anguish for his wife, introduces the gifts after God afflicted Pharaoh’s house, and suggests (Jubilees and Josephus implicitly, Genesis Apocryphon explicitly) that these gifts include items from both lists in Gen 12:16 and 13:2. In these retellings, Pharaoh first suffers the divinely sent plagues, then he gives remunerative gifts to Abram. The rationale for this revision is not difficult to discern. A catchword links this story with the plague and exodus narratives. Because Pharaoh appropriated Abram’s wife, the Lord ‫ ינגע‬Pharaoh and his house with great ‫( נגעי‬Gen 12:17). In Exodus, the series of afflictions God brings on Egypt culminates in a final ‫ נגע‬on the house of Pharaoh and every Egyptian (Exod 11:1). After securing their freedom, the Israelites ask, and receive, gold, silver, and clothes from their former captors (cf. the similar list from Gen 13:2). The transformation of Gen 12 in the hands of Jewish interpreters brings its sequence into line with the events recounted in Exodus: bondage in Egypt, deliverance 95 Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions, 18 (though he finally dismisses any substantive distinction between gezera shawa and heqesh); see also Towner, “Hermeneutical Systems,” 129–30; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 157 n. 36, 249.

1.3. Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture: Technique

39

by afflictions, plundering the oppressor. A thin narrative analogy in the Scripture is made explicit by a subtle rearrangement of its elements in order to make clear the typological connection unifying Abraham and his children.96 The Apocryphon of Joseph (4Q371–373) offers a second example. This enigmatic, fragmentary text juxtaposes the history of the northern tribes (possibly referring specifically to the Samaritans) against the story of Joseph. His enslavement prefigures and illuminates their exile. Interestingly, the text operates within an apocalyptic framework: “Joseph” endures enslavement at the hands of foreigners until “the time of his end” (4Q 372 2 I, 15). Story and tradition, beginning and end, patriarch and descendants all merge in an interpretive kaleidoscope that brings various elements from the national and religious repertoire into congruency according to the needs of the interpreter. Finally, a brief example from early Christianity may illustrate the presence of large-scale analogies as interpretive frameworks. Matthew 9:36 offers an relatively clear allusion to Num 27:17: Jesus sees the people “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (ὡσεὶ πρόβατα µὴ ἔχοντα ποιµένα).97 This characterization of the forlorn flocks of Israel recalls the account in which Moses urges God to secure his replacement so that the congregation of Israel will not lack a leader and wander about ὡσεὶ πρόβατα, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ποιµήν. God agrees and nominates as Israel’s new shepherd, Joshua, in Greek, Ἰησοῦς, who will be ὃς ἔχει πνεῦµα ἐν ἑαυτῷ. I find it difficult to conclude that Matthew failed to see the deeper significance of his allusion, particularly given the pervasive use of wilderness traditions within his Gospel. For him, whether or not his readers could makes the same associations, the situation of Israel in the wilderness waiting for their new leader Ἰησοῦς anticipates the plight of Israel in Matthew’s day and the advent of the spirit-filled messianic deliverer, Ἰησοῦς. I am not here arguing that Paul knew a hermeneutical rule entitled heqesh and that he consciously set out to apply it to his texts. I propose the more modest claim that rabbinic commentators acknowledged a mode of interpreting texts on the basis of broad narrative analogies, that they named this reading strategy heqesh, and that this practice is already attested in texts that predate 96 This example is also relevant for the way it finds in Abraham a mirror of Jewish identity. He anticipates in his own person a narrative pattern that reemerges in Israel’s defining experience of liberation. Once the exegetical link is made, of course, the interpretive avenue permits traffic to flow both ways: the epic events of Israel’s slavery and redemption clarify ex post facto the compact episode recounted in Gen 12. As the forefather in whom all Israel exists seminally, Abraham’s experiences prefigure those of his offspring. In ch. 2 I explore further examples of Abraham’s paradigmatic role in Jewish and Pauline texts. 97 1 Kgs 22:17 may also have a presence in the background, though the verbal proximity is less close, especially with respect to the term πρόβατα, which Matt 9:36 and Num 27:17 share, in contrast with ποίµνιον, used in 1 Kgs 22:17. A similar phrase occurs in 2 Chr 18:16 and Jdt 11:19.

40

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

Paul. He could therefore draw passages into a comparative dialogue based on the thematic parallels he discerned in them, whether the term heqesh was current in his day or not. In this study, I will argue that he finds a narrative pattern in Genesis that is recapitulated in Hosea, in Isaiah, and finally in Abraham’s heirs during the messianic era. 1.3.3. Atomizing Exegesis A final hermeneutical operation common to first century Jewish interpreters has relevance for the present study. Operating with the conviction that Scripture in its totality expressed the very word of God, Jewish exegetes held that no portion of it could be superfluous. They therefore frequently gave discrete applications to phrases of Scripture that might more naturally appear (to us, at any rate) to be parallel descriptions of the same phenomenon.98 Although interpreters could (and did) apply this procedure to specific words, they could also split up the constituent elements of Hebrew poetic parallelism and assign distinct meanings to each resulting line.99 A well-known early example comes once again from the Damascus Document. In VII, 18–21 there occurs a messianic passage built on Num 24:17. In that verse, Balaam’s oracle employed a standard poetic device to describe a single entity with parallel descriptions: “a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel.” The Damascus Document, however, understands here an eschatological prophecy indicting two distinct figures. One, the Interpreter of Torah, will come (or has come?) to Damascus; the other, the Prince of the Congregation, will engage in some kind of destructive, possibly military, action. The interpreter responsible for this innovation disregards poetic canons for the sake of building an eschatological scenario.100 Rabbinic examples abound. In Avot of Rabbi Nathan 4.1, Ben Zoma cites the twice-described blessing of Ps 128:2, “You shall eat the fruit of the labor 98

Following a suggestion from Julian V. Hills and Fr. William Kurz, I refer to this technique as “atomizing exegesis” to emphasize that its use involved the attribution of discrete semantic qualities to parallel elements of a single text. The more common term atomistic exegesis implies the manipulation of texts abstracted from and without regard for their contexts. Jews did practice atomistic exegesis as well (e.g., the Qumran pesharim). However, this study approaches Paul as a reader always aware of and working with the context of his scriptural texts, making the connotations inherent in atomistic inappropriate. 99 On this technique, see Jan Willem Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: van Gorcum, 1954), 74–75, 82; Lim, Holy Scripture, 49–50; InstoneBrewer, Techniques and Assumptions, 15–16, 21–22. 100 Other examples could be easily adduced: 11QMelch II, 8–10, 24–25 take the dual appearance of ‫ אלהים‬in Ps 82:1 as an indication that both Yahweh and Melchizedek are spoken of; 4QIsaa 8–10 III, 5 comes from a very fragmentary text but evidently finds distinct applications for the description of Lebanon in Isa 10:33–34.

1.4. Conclusions

41

of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you,” as an indication that the person so described will attain beatitude both in this life and in the life to come. Similarly, in b. Sanh. 43b, R. Assi appeals to Josh 7:20, which literally reads, “And Achan answered, ‘Truly I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and as this and as this I did” (‫אמנה אנכי חטאתי ליהוה‬ ‫)אלהי ישראל וכזאת וכזאת עשיתי‬. R. Assi concludes that Achan violated the ban against Jericho three times.101 The same propensity appears in early Christian texts. In the messianic prophecy of Zech 9:9, a coming King will enter his capital “riding on an ass (‫ ;חמור‬ὑποζύγιον), on a colt the foal of an ass (‫ ;עיר בן אתנות‬πῶλον νέον).” Although Mark and Luke claimed that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by riding into Jerusalem on a colt only (Mark 11:1–7; Luke 19:29–35), Matthew insists that he entered the Holy City straddling both a donkey and a colt in unison (Matt 21:1–7). As he understands Zechariah’s predication, each term must have its corresponding referent. Clearly, when Jewish and Christian interpreters of the Second Temple period (and beyond) felt they had warrant, they could find diverse meanings in terms and phrases that might appear to refer to single entities. In ch. 6 I will argue that Paul is able to find dual prophecies concerning Israel and the nations in texts where the Gentiles are not mentioned (§ 6.2.2.1.). His postDamascus convictions lead him to do so, but his intellectual heritage made it possible.

1.4. Conclusions 1.4. Conclusions

While the context-specific rhetorical strategies in Paul’s letters may be dictated by the contingent historical circumstances, he is nonetheless able to draw on interpretations of Scripture that exist prior to and independently of the moment’s exigencies. But recovering a pre-epistolary exegesis is no straightforward task. Reasonable criteria are needed to establish whether a proposed interpretation is legitimate. In the present study, I attempt to meet the following standards: the reconstructed exegesis will rest on clues present in Paul’s text (vocabulary, thematic connections, explicit quotations), it will make sense on a comparative basis, and it will explain commonly recognized exegetical difficulties. In addition, if its explanatory power extends to other Pauline passages, its plausibility is correspondingly increased. Because the case for a pre-epistolary exegesis relies heavily on Paul’s explicit quotations, any variations from their source must be taken into account. Given the multiform state of the biblical text in the Second Temple era, the 101

R. Joḥanan is quick to counter that since Achan’s confession to Joshua contains five words, he actually violated the ban five separate times.

42

Chapter 1: Story, Text, and Technique

claim that Paul made interpretive changes also needs to meet criteria. Therefore I have adopted the following guide: if a biblical quotation in Paul deviates from the LXX in ways otherwise unattested, if the changes are not made in the direction of the Hebrew text, and if they are thoroughly integrated into his argument, then the likelihood of an intentional Pauline adaptation is high. The methods Paul uses to locate and re-present textual meaning derive from his intellectual milieu. Three of them bear on the following chapters. Paul interprets pentateuchal narratives by means of prophetic passages; these and other textual connections are made by verbal and thematic analogies; and he can split parallel texts to increase the range of possible significations. I consider it an advantage of this approach that it does not foreclose the possibility that Paul engaged his Bible in a meaningful way. Clearly, he did not come to Scriptures without interpretive suppositions or innocent of the outcomes he hoped to obtain. Paul did not open a scroll or pull out a parchment and absorb the text’s latent meaning. His Christology and his apostolic convictions were, perhaps from the time of his conversion, hermeneutically fundamental. If he claims to have fulfilled the law while dispensing with circumcision and kashrut, he is operating with interpretive norms not disclosed by the biblical text itself. Nevertheless, I resist the idea that the Apostle’s theological commitments were so dogmatic that when he read Scripture he only heard his own voice projected back to him, or that he only employed the text as a megaphone to broadcast his own independently-derived viewpoints as loudly as possible. Paul could be surprised by Scripture and alter his positions accordingly. As Francis Watson points out: In the act of reading the reader is changed. … It is true that the differences between [Paul and his non-Christian Jewish contemporaries] expose the crucial part played by the presuppositions and commitments that individual readers bring to a text. Yet it is wrong to imagine that the text itself is no more than a blank screen onto which readers project their various concerns: it is normally possible to show that the text itself is implicated in the readings it occasions. To interpret is always to interact with a text, and it is also to be constrained by the text.102

In ch. 2 I attempt to document the ways in which Paul’s primary text constrained his interpretation and shaped his conclusions. Paul engages in and through his letters in a dialogue – not a shouting match – and he is capable of not only creating meaning but also hearing past masters, including Hosea, Isaiah, and above all, Moses.

102

Hermeneutics, ix, 4 (emphasis original).

Chapter 2

The Abrahamic Mythomoteur in Early Judaism and in the Letters of Paul The previous chapter outlined a method for abstracting from Paul’s letters a narrative-based exegesis independent of the epistolary argument it supports. The present chapter will show which narratives matter. In Paul’s efforts to conceptualize the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the ἐκκλησία of Christ, he turns to the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is from within this narrative world that he mediates to Gentile Christ-believers the heritage formerly possessed exclusively by Israel. Paul interprets the Jewish Scriptures to implement this program throughout his correspondence. In the ensuing examination, I will seek to establish the following claims: (1) the interpretive horizon within which Paul understands and argues for Gentile participation in Israel’s covenant is determined by the patriarchal narratives; (2) Paul frequently discerns their meaning and contemporary relevance by means of prophetic texts; (3) this combination of patriarchal and prophetic texts disrupts rather than repristinates Israel’s covenantal traditions; and (4) in Romans, Paul’s interpretation of the patriarchal narratives displays a positive theological reflection on Israel “according to the flesh” absent from his other epistles. In arguing for these claims, I will set in place the theoretical, social-religious, and Pauline framework for my analysis of Rom 9 in chapters four through seven.

2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts 2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts

When Paul assumed the task of constructing a biblical identity for his Gentile converts, he turned to stories of Abraham. His decision was not an arbitrary one. It was a reflex of how these narratives created an identity for the Hebrew people. The book of Genesis provides the myths of origin that, together with the account of Israel’s political and legal formation under Moses, were utilized by ancient Jewish interpreters to articulate a collective self-understanding. By creating textual space in Genesis for uncircumcised children of Abraham, Paul reconfigures the meaning of the narrative and hence of Israel itself. In the term used by ethnologist Anthony D. Smith, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob constitute the Jewish mythomoteur, a community’s

44

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

driving political myth. It is an adaptable expression of collective identity that provides continuity over time, offers guidance in crises, and shapes a symbolic reality for socializing successive generations.1 Important components of any mythomoteur include a community’s myths of origin and its remembered history. The myths of origin usually chronicle the descent of an ethnic group from a single ancestor or family, while the communal memory preserves historical narratives that encapsulate experiences perceived as essential to the group’s character. A community recalls and, in light of its contemporary situation, refracts these traditions of origin and memories of history by a threefold narrating process: selection, the extraction from a potentially unlimited range of events just those episodes that crystallize its self-understanding; plotting, the combination of such episodes into a meaningful narrative which encodes values and assigns roles; and interpretation, the articulation of claims concerning what the plot, events, characters, and outcomes signify about the group.2 Through this process of narration, the remembered past shapes current perceptions, articulates the criteria necessary to sustain membership, and projects visions of a common destiny. In addition to providing myths of origin and memories of the past, a mythomoteur locates its community in a real or symbolic homeland, a territory hallowed by associations with stories of origin, migration, or conquest. Smith refers to this sacred geography as an ethnoscape. A community’s mythomoteur integrates its diverse membership and provides shared meanings that unite otherwise disparate subgroups, factions, or parties.3 It also relates members to outsiders. The stories of ancestors and past 1

The following discussion is indebted to Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (London: Blackwell, 1986); idem, The Myths and Memories of the Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, “Introduction,” in Ethnicity (ed. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith; Oxford Readers; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 6–7; Stephen Cornell, “That’s the Story of Our Life,” in We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity (ed. Paul Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), 41–53. 2 Cornell, “That’s the Story,” 41. 3 A. D. Smith, Myths, 14; idem, Origins, 49–50. The emphasis on the integrative, solidarity-inducing, and affective dimensions of ethnic affiliation distinguishes Smith from Fredrick Barth, whose enormously influential work takes the boundary-making and differentiating processes as fundamental to ethnic awareness. See Barth, “Introduction,” in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference (ed. Fredrik Barth; Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1969), 9–38; idem, “Boundaries and Connections,” in Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values (ed. Anthony P. Cohen; London: Routledge, 2000), 17–36; A. D. Smith, Origins, 97; idem, Myths, 14. Barth’s approach is concerned with the boundary-making functions of ethnic discourse more than its community-forming dimensions, and with its cognitive factors more than its social and symbolic realities. It is his influence, at least in part, that can be seen in the deeply volunteeristic and cognitive approaches to Jewish ethnicity, e.g., in

2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts

45

generations provide paradigms for evaluating and interacting with nonmembers and alien groups.4 But a mythomoteur’s dialectic of us and other does not produce fixed categories of understanding or static social relations. Though it imposes on members an authoritative mythology and set of ethical models, it persists through time precisely because it yields to interpretive exigencies. A mythomoteur’s ability to structure the discursive practices of a community and establish norms for behavior can be readily seen in the regulative power the Abrahamic narratives exercised among Jews in antiquity. Beginning in the postexilic era at the latest, the founding stories of Abraham and his children offered a common set of symbols, traditions, and memories. In them were embedded models of legitimate Jewish identity based on common descent, shared rituals, and behavioral norms. Options for ethnic, religious, and moral expression were limited by these implicit standards. As N. L. Calvert notes, in various Jewish writings members of the community were “instructed to live in their respective situations in the same way that Abraham is portrayed as living in a particular context.”5

Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (HCS 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 5–6, 53–62, 66–68, 105; Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (New York: Knopf, 2007), 160–68. A similar emphasis on ethnic fluidity and its corresponding volunteerism typifies most applications of ethnic theory to the letters of Paul, e.g., Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 19–39; Pamela Eisenbaum, “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles and Genealogy in Romans,” JBL 123 (2004): 671–702; eadem, “Paul, Polemics, and the Problem of Essentialism,” BibInt 13 (2005): 224–38; Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” JBL 123 (2004): 235–51; Caroline Johnson Hodge, “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity,” BibInt 13 (2005): 270–88; eadem, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Dennis C. Duling, “‘Whatever gain I had …’: Ethnicity and Paul’s Self-Identification in Philippians 3:5–6,” HvTSt 64 (2008): 799–818; idem, “2 Corinthians 11:22: Historical Context, Rhetoric, and Ethnicity,” HvTSt 64 (2008): 819–43; idem, “Ethnicity and Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (ed. Dietmar Neufeld and Richard DeMaris; London: Routledge, 2010), 68–89; Love L. Sechrest, A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race (LNTS 410; London: T&T Clark, 2009); Markus Cromhout, “Paul’s ‘Former Conduct in the Judean Way of Life’ (Gal 1:13) … Or Not?” HvTSt 65 (2009): 126–37; idem, Walking in Their Sandals: A Guide to First Century Israelite Ethnic Identity (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2010), 69. However, I find the socially integrative emphasis characteristic of Smith to be more illuminating of ethnic reality and the primordial commitments it inspires than the more transactional approach of Barth. 4 Barth, “Introduction,” 14. 5 “Abraham,” DPL 1; see further Robert L. Cohn, “Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis,” HTR 96 (2003): 147–66; Ronald Hendel, Remembering

46

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

Yet even as it circumscribed the range of options for expressing identity, the Jewish mythomoteur invited its own reinterpretation in light of new challenges. Although its shared script was recognized by Jews as the authoritative account of their origin and character, it nevertheless permitted a wide and contentious range of social reenactments. Cultural brokers with conflicting social agendas and divergent religious visions met on the common ground offered by the Abrahamic mythomoteur and attempted to out-interpret their opponents. As the narrative traditions articulating the mythomoteur were gradually fixed in a written authority, struggles over communal self-definition increasingly became exercises in textual hermeneutics.6 Polemics of this sort left traces in the Hebrew Bible itself. Genesis and Ezra-Nehemiah reveal divergent perspectives on the nature of Abraham’s descendants (his seed), their requisite purity, their relation to the land, and their attitude towards other ethnic groups. Genesis offers a Jewish identity that is cautious towards outsiders but not hostile, while Ezra-Nehemiah promotes a more aggressive ethnocentrism (cf. Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9 with Ezra 9:1–3; ch. 10; Neh 9:7–8, 23; 13:1–3, 23–29). Though their concrete proposals differ markedly, both claim to project an authentic and authoritative Abrahamic identity onto its native ethnoscape.7 Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 31, 34, and passim. 6 Joseph Blenkinsopp labels this the “core problem” of the postexilic community. He writes, “In biblical texts from the period … the same traditional self-referential language is in use as was previously – Israel, the seed of Israel, the holy seed, the people of God, the children of Abraham – but in this period it is not unproblematically clear to whom these terms refer” (“Judaeans, Jews, Children of Abraham,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context [ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011], 471; emphasis original). Analyses of specific examples can be found in Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History,” in Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (vol. 2 of Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition; ed. Ed P. Sanders, Albert I. Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 1–26, 299–309; James Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 36–38; Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era (JSJSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 114– 36. 7 Space, unfortunately, prohibits full examination of these texts and the dynamics of identity construction that animate them. I regard the ideology of ethnic identity in Genesis as less subversively cosmopolitan than do Mark G. Brett and Frank Crüsemann, yet less culturally chauvinistic than do Keith Whitelam, E. Theodore Mullen Jr., and Ronald Hendel (Whitelam, “Israel’s Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land,” JSOT 44 [1989]: 24– 28; Crüsemann, “Human Solidarity and Ethnic Identity: Israel’s Self-definition in the Genealogical System of Genesis,” in Ethnicity and the Bible [ed. Mark G. Brett; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 57–76; Mullen, Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch [SBL SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997],

2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts

47

Eventually, both these texts entered Israel’s common religious heritage, but their conflicting visions of ethnic identity perpetuated divergent interpretive interests. Among later writers, Demetrius and ben Sira carry forward a program similar to that expressed in Genesis. They find in Abraham’s virtue a charter for attitudes of modest cultural superiority and religious exclusivism, yet without Ezra-Nehemiah’s anxious xenophobia (Demetrius, apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.21.16; 9.29.1, which demonstrates a concern with endogamy; Sir 44:19–21).8 Much less reserved are those historians (or perhaps better, romance writers) who searched genealogical accounts from ancient civilizations looking for opportunities to plant Abraham’s family tree in the soil of Hellenistic historiography, a project that implied the legitimate integration of Jewish religion and Hellenistic culture. For example, Artapanus emphasizes that Jews and 131, 145–46, 153, 158, 160; Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity [OTR; London: Routledge, 2000], 79 and passim; idem, “Reading the Bible in the Context of Methodological Pluralism: The Undermining of Ethnic Exclusivism in Genesis,” in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation [JSOTSup 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000], 48–74; Hendel, Remembering, 31–44). The evaluation of Claus Westermann, lying between these two approaches, appears to me more judicious (Genesis 1–11 [trans. John J. Scullion; CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 529; similarly, Blenkinsopp, “Judeans,” 473–75). The construction of ethnic identity and the demonization of outsiders in Ezra-Nehemiah is treated in Gösta W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (ed. Diana Edelman; JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 846; James Kugel, “The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 24; Lester L. Grabbe, “Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xenophobes? The Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms and their Nachgeschichte,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. Siân Jones and Sarah Pearce; JSPSup 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 57– 58; Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 27–33; Philip Esler, “Ezra-Nehemiah as a Narrative of (Re-Invented) Israelite Identity,” BibInt 11 (2003): 413–26; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation, and Inclusion of the ‘Foreigner’ in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, 123 n. 14, 124; Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 66; idem, Judaism: The First Phase (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 35–37, 66. 8 Burton L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 205–14; Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 504–5; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs. Text, Tradition, Theology,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (ed. Géza B. Xeravits and József Zsengellér; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 209–28; Bradley C. Gregory, “Abraham as the Jewish Ideal: Exegetical Traditions in Sirach 44:19–21,” CBQ 70 (2008): 66–81.

48

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

Arabs shared Abraham as their ancestor and claims that Joseph made contributions to Egyptian agricultural practices (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1; 9.23.1–2; 9.27.4–6).9 According to Cleodemus Malchus, Abraham’s sons by Keturah fathered the Assyrians and conquered Africa alongside Hercules (apud Josephus, Ant. 1.239–241). Eupolemus likewise appeals to Abraham in his effort to establish bridges linking the cultures of Babylon, Greece, and Israel. In the process, he credits Enoch – casually identified with Atlas – with the origin of astrological knowledge, which is then transmitted through Abraham (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9).10 In these works, genealogical maps are being drawn to project contemporary visions of inter-ethnic relations into the past, and to simultaneously assert that Jewish ancestors made fundamental contributions to civilization. In the world of Hellenistic kinship diplomacy, attempts to forge genealogical relations with non-Jewish peoples served political goals. Where family is everything, establishing lines of shared descent, however strained, facilitates inter-ethnic alliances. First Maccabees 12:19–23 actually claims that in the third century the Spartans initiated a treaty of friendship after they discovered “concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren (ἀδελφοί) and are of the family of Abraham (ἐκ γένους ʼΑβραάµ).” The Maccabees eagerly embraced this discovery (if indeed they did not actually invent it themselves). Their nationalistic warfare against Greek encroachments did not preclude an eager recognition that they and this pagan nation boasted a common Abrahamic paternity.11 9 In 9.23.1–2, Israel should probably be emended to Ishmael; see Jacob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Hellenistische Studien 1–2; Breslau: Skutsch, 1875), 232; John J. Collins, “Artapanus: A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP 2:897 n. b). 10 Robert Doran provides strong arguments for the authenticity of this fragment; on this question see Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 82–103, 105–30; Ben Zion Wacholder, “PseudoEupolemus’ Two Greek Fragments of the Life of Abraham,” HUCA 34 (1963): 84; idem, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (MHUC 3; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974); Carl R. Holladay, Historians (vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; SBLTT 20; P 10; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 158–59; Robert Doran, “The Jewish Hellenistic Historians Before Josephus,” ANRW 20.1:270–74; idem, “Pseudo-Eupolemus: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:874–76; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2d ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 46–61. A comparison between these writers and Paul on Jewish ethnicity can be found in Carl R. Holladay, “Paul and His Predecessors in the Diaspora: Some Reflections on Ethnic Identity in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White; NovTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2003): 429–60. 11 As Stephen Cornell points out, claims that “my story” and “your story” intersect or overlap, especially if the point of connection is genealogical, are at the same time appeals

2.1. Abrahamic Identity in Postexilic Texts

49

A reaction was not long in coming. Already Jubilees reasserts the militant ethnocentrism of Ezra-Nehemiah. In its symbolic universe, an idealized myth of origins combines angelic status, Abraham’s holy seed, the promise of land, primogeniture, and endogamy in order to express a Jewish identity ontologically distinct from pagan nations (2:17–18, 28, 30–31; 15:27; 22:14, 16, 27; 24:6; 25:3–4; 32:19). Abraham and especially Jacob, whose election is woven into the fabric of the cosmos (2:19–23), crystallize the Torah piety and ethnic purity characterizing every true Jew.12 By contrast, Jacob’s brother Esau symbolizes the Other, the non-Jew, the repository of everything antithetical to membership in Abraham’s family (19:14; 25:4–10; ch. 28; 29:18). In the notso-subtle climactic battle between their two clans, Jacob is forced to kill Esau in self-defense.13 The story survived through channels of transmission unknown to us and reappeared in the Testament of Judah, in which Judah leads the charge against Esau’s surviving sons. After a successful siege he forces the survivors to pay tribute (T. Jud. 10). The War Scroll from Qumran likewise envisions a battle fought by the elect against Abraham’s illicit offspring. This text places Jubilees’s grim view towards Gentile peoples in the context of a forty-year apocalyptic war against all enemies. The War Scroll employs biblical typologies to characterize opponents local and distant, including Edom, Moab, Ammon, the sons of Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah (1QM I–II).14 Remaining peoples are orgato recognize a shared ancestry and heritage, which in turn provide the basis for joining forces in concerted action against common threats (“Story,” 45). 12 Joseph P. Schultz, “Two Views of the Patriarchs: Noahides and Pre-Sinai Israelites,” in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on His 70th Birthday by His Students (ed. Nahum N. Glatzer, Michael A. Fishbane, and Paul R. Mendes-Flohr; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 44–48, 57–58; John C. Endres, S.J., Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), esp. ch. 4: “Jacob, the Model Patriarch” (85–119), but more generally 18–84, 214–17; James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 110–14. According to the definition given by Benjamin H. Isaac, Jubilees embodies a proto-racism, because the moral degeneracy of the Gentiles is hereditary and therefore cannot be changed (Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006], 23–24, 35–37). 13 The use of Esau/Edom as the symbolic Other against which Jewish (= Abrahamic or even Jacobite) identity is placed occurs frequently in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, and is not confined to those texts as aggressively exclusivist as Jubilees. 14 The redactional history of the War Scroll is complex, and early researchers were wrong to assume the document’s unity (e.g., Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness [trans. Batya and Chaim Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962]; Jean Carmignac, La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres [Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958]). Its multileveled nature was established by Philip R. Davies in 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). However, the opening two columns, even if the material in one was composed independently of that in the other, evince a

50

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

nized according to their genealogical and geographic location in a strategy based on the Table of Nations (Gen 10). In this document, the web of human ancestors sketched in Genesis provides a template for religious violence on a global scale. The different ways that Jewish writers appropriated and interpreted the patriarchal stories throughout antiquity attests to the power of their shared mythomoteur to confer social, religious, and political currency on Abrahamic descent. Those interested in building as well as burning bridges with Gentile peoples found in it the raw materials waiting for the requisite hermeneutical ingenuity to develop them. When Paul attempted the unlikely task of extending this prestige to Gentile Christ–followers, he was compelled not merely because of the missionary exigencies that provoked an epistolary response. His own conceptual horizon demanded it.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in the Letters of Paul 2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

Although Jubilees’s xenophobia only took root among sectarian isolationists, programs to police Jewish identity, and employ violence if necessary to maintain its boundaries, were more widespread.15 By his own testimony, Paul embodied precisely this kind of purifying zeal (Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:5–6). His apostleship, commissioned as it was by the Jewish Messiah of the Hebrew God, did not repudiate his religious heritage, but it did require a drastic reinterpretation of his prior narrative universe. 2.2.1. Abraham, Isaac, and Israel in Galatians In Galatians, Paul gives his earliest extant attempt to “exegete” Gentile believers into the etiology of the Hebrew people. The mode of argument is surprising. He does not relate these converts to any of the prophetic predictions of righteous Gentiles coming to worship Israel’s God in Zion, although

remarkably unified strategy of apocalyptic conquest against the sons of darkness. The document therefore has an ideological coherence amenable to analysis (on which see also Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered [STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009]). 15 Torrey Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions (Biblical Interpretation Series 15; Leiden: Brill, 1995); idem, “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13–14 in Light of Philo’s Writings,” Bib 83 (2002): 449–71.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

51

attempts to read him in this way persist.16 Instead, he forges for them a new genealogical pedigree. To do this he selects key moments from the story of 16 Johannes Munck understood Paul in light of expectations that Gentiles would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the eschaton, a view that remains common (Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind [trans. Frank Clarke; London: SCM Press, 1959], 279–81 and passim; Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS NS 42 [1991]: 532–64; eadem, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 [2010]: 241–44; Michael Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief [WUNT 136; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 343; Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 12, 99–101, 129, 135, 152, 155, 198; idem, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle [ed. Mark D. Given; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010], 134–36, 145–50; Pablo T. Gadenz, Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11 [WUNT 2/267; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 303–7; Christopher Zoccali, Whom God Has Called: The Relationship of Church and Israel in Pauline Interpretation, 1920 to the Present [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2010], 122; Seyoon Kim, “Paul as an Eschatological Herald,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice [ed. Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner; LNTS 420; London: T&T Clark, 2011], 15–18. Primary sources documenting the Gentile pilgrimage tradition are collected in Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) [Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007]). However, I remain unconvinced by the Gentile pilgrimage hypothesis. I cannot find the this tradition in Galatians (nor in Romans). Although the letter is framed with eschatological statements (1:4, 6:15), Paul actually argues that Gentle Christ-followers are Abraham’s seed and indeed according to the argument I offer in this section the Israel of God, making the entire motif of a Gentile pilgrimage superfluous. Abraham’s seed, much less Israel, does not need to undertake a Gentile pilgrimage. Conversely, the Gentile pilgrimage motif neither postulates the full acceptance of Gentiles on equal footing with Israel in the eschatological age nor that such Gentiles count as the seed of Abraham. And, in fact, Paul never refers to his Gentile believers in terms taken from the pilgrimage motif and never applies texts that speak of a Gentile pilgrimage to them – not even by implication (Rom 15:12 quotes Isa 11:10, but this verse does not refer to a Gentile pilgrimage in the LXX, only in the Hebrew; a distant allusion to Ps 85:9 LXX [Heb., Eng.: 86:9] in Rom 15:9 is the only possible exception of which I am aware). It is interesting to note how Mark Nanos simply asserts without argumentation that these two ways of presenting Gentile Christ-believers, Abraham’s seed on the one hand, righteous Gentiles making an eschatological pilgrimage to Jerusalem (however conceived) on the other, are one and the same. This is a significant confusion of distinct conceptualities. To be sure, it is possible that Paul took passages anticipating that the nations will worship Yahweh and applied them to his Gentile converts in an ad hoc way, but there is no evidence that the Gentile pilgrimage motif generated his convictions concerning Gentile inclusion. Many passages that anticipate a pilgrimage of Gentiles emphatically situate them in a position of subservience (Isa 14:2; 45:14; 49:22–23; 60:10–14; 61:5; 66:20) and even place them under perpetual threat of destruction (Isa 60:12; Zech 14:16–21). Some passages do envision a pilgrimage of Gentiles that involves a more generous hope for their salvation, e.g., Isa 2:2–4 = Mic 4:1–3; Isa 56:6–8; Jer 16:19–21; Zech 2:11 (possibly; no pilgrimage is specifically mentioned); 8:20–23. Other texts simply state that Gentiles will come to

52

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

Abraham and his children, reorganizes its plot, and reinterprets its significance.17 2.2.1.1. Abraham and the Gentiles in Galatia The debate in Galatia, as E. P. Sanders has convincingly shown, centered on the requirements for entry into the people of God.18 Jewish Christ-followers in Galatia were apparently advocating that Paul’s Gentile converts adopt circumcision and (possibly) that they observe the Torah in order to count as full members of God’s people. For this claim they had powerful scriptural support in the story of Abraham. According to Genesis, he left his pagan roots (ch. 12), believed God (ch. 15), accepted circumcision (ch. 17), and obeyed God’s commandment (ch. 22). The paradigmatic significance is clear:

worship Israel’s God, with no further indication of their own beatitude (Ps 22:27; 86:9; 102:22; Jer 3:17). But among these passages one never finds an attribution of Abrahamic descent. (The whole question was, in my judgment, effectively dealt with by Terence L. Donaldson in Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 166–69, 187–97, 233–34.) Scholars sometimes argue that Paul’s collection for the Jerusalem saints symbolizes the tribute that Gentiles bring to Jerusalem in the pilgrimage tradition, but this hardly works (against Munck, Salvation, 301–5; Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem [Nashville: Abingdon, 1992]; Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy [SBT 1/48; Naperville: Allenson, 1966], 129–42; Roger D. Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. 11:25,” NovT 21 [1979]: 232–62; S. Kim, “Eschatological Herald,” 18–23). Paul no more applies texts or concepts from the Gentile pilgrimage to the collection in any of his discussions of it than he does to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Abrahamic family. Indeed, what he does say, that it represents mutuality and equality, is the exact opposite of how Gentile tribute functions in the pilgrimage traditions – tribute by definition involves homage paid to a superior. One might to begin with compare Isa 49, 60, key texts in the development of the Gentile pilgrimage tradition, with 2 Cor 8–9. In the former, the point of the pilgrimage is that Israel is exalted above the nations who cower in submissiveness (49:23; 60:12–14). In the latter, the point of the collection is to demonstrate genuine love, sacrificial giving, and equality (ἰσότης) within the body (8:8–9; 8:14–15; 9:6–7). My own position lies much more closely to that of David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 17 This threefold narrating process for constructing communal identity is borrowed from Stephen Cornell and discussed in § 2.1. above. 18 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 18–20; see also Terence L. Donaldson, “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14,” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112; idem, Gentiles, 118; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,1993), 16–17; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:971.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

53

(male) Gentile Christ-believers who desire full inclusion in God’s covenant must also submit to circumcision and assume the yoke of Torah.19 In response, Paul claims that faith in Christ and reception of the Spirit, qualities that the Galatians self-evidently possess, suffice.20 Several aspects of his counterproposal deserve note. 2.2.1.2. Locating Gentiles in Genesis First, Paul draws explicit attention to those passages in Genesis that emphasize a blessing for Gentiles “in Abraham.” Although Paul introduces the patriarch as one whose justification occurred on the basis of faith, citing Gen 15:6 in 3:6, he does not draw the conclusion that Gentiles are therefore also justified by faith. Instead, he claims that Abraham’s sons are therefore justified by faith (3:7).21 Since the identity of these sons is not yet established, this represents only a middle stage in the argument. In 3:8, Paul quotes a text composed of Gen 12:3 and 18:18: ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “all the Gentiles/nations will be blessed in you.”22 In this example one can already see Paul altering his text-forms on the basis of how he construes the overall import of his base texts. Whatever the significance of the prepositional prefix -‫ ב‬in the Hebrew phrase ‫בך‬, “in you,” Paul understands the Greek ἐν in an instrumental or perhaps even locative sense.23 The Scriptures place the nations inside Abraham seminally, as the ensuing question concerning the identity of Abraham’s σπέρµα shows (v. 16). It is because the Gentiles have become Abraham’s children 19 On the importance of Abraham to Paul’s opponents, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 139–40; Bernard Hungerford Brinsmead, Galatians – Dialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS 65; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 107–14; J. Louis Martyn, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Studies in the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 18; repr. from SJT 38 (1985); idem, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 302–6; Stockhausen, “Principles,” 153–54; Donaldson, Gentiles, 120–22. 20 I regard Paul’s use of “faith” terminology as a shorthand for “faith in Christ,” rather than a generalized disposition towards God that Jews supposedly lack (following Donaldson, Gentiles, 116–20; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 35–36, 121–30). 21 Günther H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans,” BBR 17 (2007): 133. 22 Gen 12:3: ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς; Gen 18:18: ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς. This composite text bears the weight of Paul’s argument more than Gen 15:6 does. Its combined contents are evoked in 3:16, 17, 18, 29. This string of verses links all the key terms under debate: promise, blessing, seed, faith, righteousness, and the Gentiles/nations (Sanders, Jewish People, 21; Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 73; Dunn, Galatians, 159; Martyn, Galatians, 301–2). 23 Hays, Echoes, 106.

54

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

that therefore what was true in his situation may be predicated of theirs. Since he was justified by faith, so too are his children. The Scriptures locate the nations/Gentiles within Abraham and therefore attribute to them his blessings.24 The rationale that underlies Paul’s argument has deep roots in ancient conceptions of ethnicity, kinship, and descent. It is the same ethnological discourse that shaped the texts surveyed in the previous section: what holds true in the case of an ancestor will bear out in succeeding generations.25 The ascription of Abrahamic paternity is a means of both establishing genealogical and therefore ethnic kinship and allocating social goods. According to this mode of thinking, “one’s status, character, and identity are conferred by one’s forbearers.”26 For Paul, only members of Abraham’s family can claim a share of the Abrahamic blessings. Paul does not specify the content of these blessings, but 3:10–14 suggests that they consist of a twofold benefit: life and Spirit. Neither appears in Genesis, and Paul likely derived both by exegetical means. The blessing of the Spirit is discussed below (§ 2.2.1.4.). The provision of life enters Abraham’s bequest through the intervention of Hab 2:4, quoted in Gal 3:11.27 This verse (like Lev 18:5, quoted in Gal 3:12), bears several lexical connections to Gen 15:6, making the former a useful commentary on the latter. It informs Paul that the sons of Abraham who share in his blessings (Gal 3:7, 9) will experience life.28 Therefore, Paul not only links several texts from Abraham’s story to create a genealogical connection with Gentile Christians (Gen 12:3; 15:6; 18:18), he also finds in Habakkuk the blessing they inherit as a result. This nexus of Torah and prophet makes Gentile Christ-followers heirs of Abraham and procures for them the corresponding benefits. 2.2.1.3. Participation in Abraham’s Single Seed Second, Paul assimilates Gentile believers to Abraham’s family by a Christological reading of καὶ τῷ σπέρµατι in combination with his participationist soteriology.29 He argues that baptism into Christ’s body provides these Gentiles with the necessary pedigree (3:29) because Christ is the σπέρµα to whom the promises are entrusted (3:16). 24 E. P. Sanders, Jewish People, 18; Siker, Disinheriting, 37; Donaldson, Gentiles, 113– 22; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 131. 25 Rosalind Thomas, “Genealogy,” in OCCC, 301; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 19–20, 22– 26; against the weaker formulations of Betz, Galatians, 142; Hays, Echoes, 108–9; Dunn, Galatians, 163, 165; Watson, Hermeneutics, 188–89. 26 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 19. 27 Stockhausen, “Principles,” 159. 28 Although Paul is not explicit, he likely means eschatological life, eternal life in the age to come (1:4; 6:15) which is already anticipated in the present (2:20). 29 On Paul’s participationist soteriology in Galatians 3, see Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 173–74, 196–98; Donaldson, Gentiles, 119.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

55

The complex exegetical rationale for this equation has been elucidated by Nils A. Dahl, who demonstrated that behind Paul’s identification of Christ and σπέρµα lies a use of 2 Sam 7:12 to facilitate a messianic reading of Gen 49:10.30 This solitary Davidic seed is, in Gal 3, less the promised Messiah than the sole beneficiary of the inheritance promised to Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:16, 19).31 Thus Christ himself lays exclusive claim to the Abrahamic goods, namely, justification, life, and the Spirit, which he thereby distributes to those incorporated into him. This participation in Christ the sole σπέρµα permits a secondary equation of σπέρµα and the ἔθνη blessed in Abraham (Gal 3:7–8). The argument is summed up in 3:29 and recapitulated in 4:28. The way into Abraham’s family is through incorporation into Christ.32 The corollary of this, however, is that Abrahamic status obtains only for those who believe in Christ, terms that hold good for Jew and Gentile alike.33 Spirit, baptism, and faith induct members into Christ and thereby make them 30 Dahl, “Promise and Fulfillment,” in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 121–36. See also Max Wilcox, “The Promise of the ‘Seed’ in the New Testament and the Targumim,” JSNT 5 (1979): 2–20, who shows that similar exegetical routes lead to several christological statements in Luke-Acts; Dunn, Galatians, 183–85; Calvert, “Abraham,” 4–5. I find this explanation more persuasive than the argument that Paul understands both σπέρµα and Christ in 3:16 as collective terms (Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 70–73; Wright, Climax, 162–68), or that he derived his identification of the two solely from Gen 12:3 and 15:6, read on the basis of the apostle’s Christology (as Watson appears to suggest; Hermeneutics, 193). 31 This point is particularly stressed by Sam K. Williams (“Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul’s Reading of Scripture,” JBL 107 [1988]: 709–20). 32 Hays, Echoes, 121; Siker, Disinheriting, 42; Wright, Climax, 165; Martyn, Galatians, 306, 340; Bruce Hansen, All of You Are One: The Social Vision of Galatians 3.28, 1 Corinthians 12.13 and Colossians 3.11 (LNTS 409; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 89, 99. 33 W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 128; repr. from NTS 24 (1978); J. Bradley Chance, “The Seed of Abraham and the People of God: A Study of Two Pauls,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1993 (ed. Eugene H. Lovering; SBLSP 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 388; Richard H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (WUNT 184; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 162, 172; against Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 67, 70, 71. The point is conceded reluctantly by Siker (Disinheriting, 49) and Susan Grove Eastman (“Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9–11,” NTS 56 [2010]: 370 n. 9, 388). On the other hand, Esler goes beyond the evidence when he maintains that Paul’s rhetoric would eliminate even Judean (i.e., Jewish) followers of Christ from membership (Conflict, 183). Against this claim, several data imply that Paul includes non-Pauline, Christ-following Jews in his understanding of the Christ-determined community: (1) Paul’s positive references to Christian communities in Jerusalem and Judea (1 Thess 2:14; Gal 1:22–24; Rom 15:26–27); (2) his characterization of the Jerusalem leaders, which, although somewhat tepid, refrains from the more aggressive polemic reserved for his direct opponents (cf. Gal 2:6, 9, with 2:4; 4:17; 5:12; 6:12–13; a similar distinction occurs in the contrast between the “super-apostles” and the “servants of Satan” in 2 Cor 10–13); and (3) his determination to carry through his collection for the Jerusalem church (Rom 15:25–28).

56

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

partakers of the Abrahamic blessings. These are bestowed in contradistinction to the provisions of the law (2:15–16; 3:5, 9, 14, 17–18, 21, 23–29; 5:4, 18) and without reference to circumcision (5:2–3, 6; 6:12–15). Only by the Spirit’s activity is God called “Father!” (4:6), because only by the Spirit is one baptized into Christ the Son and thereby constituted as Abraham’s seed (3:16, 29).34 Israel’s covenantal adoption has been not dissolved but redirected exclusively towards the Messiah.35 2.2.1.4. Overcoming Circumcision with the Prophets Third, Paul gives oblique indication that various prophetic oracles enable him to overcome those passages in the Pentateuch most problematic for his innovative understanding of Abrahamic descent. His two most difficult texts both relate to the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, Gen 17 and 21.36 I will address each in turn. In 3:1–5, Paul appeals to the Galatian believers’ reception of the Spirit. With a logic not entirely clear (but paralleled in Acts 11:18), he supposes that this Spirit/spiritual manifestation proves their justification by faith. In 3:6, he suddenly introduces Abraham. The transition from one topic to the next is not evident, but, in fact, an exegetical link between the Spirit and blessings promised to all nations ἐν Abraham lies beneath the surface and ties these verses together. 34

The bonds created by the Spirit represent for Paul not “fictive kinship ties” nor acceptance into a metaphorical family, but a supernaturally procured filiation supervening that established by natural genesis (correctly, Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 4, 72–76; Sechrest, Former Jew, 117–18, 125–26, 133, 186). 35 On this point, I have been particularly influenced by Daniel Boyarin (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity [Contraversions; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994], 111–12, 117). See also the discussion of Notger Slenczka, who though writing about Rom 9–11 actually describes more accurately Paul’s position in Galatians: “If one places in the foreground the controversy of Paul with contemporary Jews and the innerChristian controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christians, it becomes clear that … the controversy is properly not a quarrel between two religious communities. Rather, the controversy turns on the question of what constitutes the essence of being a Jew [Judesein] or membership in Israel. For Paul, it is not the case that Israel is no longer the object of the divine act of salvation, and in whose place the Church stands; rather, he formulates a conception of Jewish identity that has in its center the confession of Christ; the history of his people as interrelated descendants [seines Abstammungszusammenhangs] is interpreted accordingly” (“Römer 9–11 und die Frage nach der Identität Israels,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 [ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner; WUNT 257; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 475). 36 Hays’s comment on Gen 21 applies equally well to ch. 17: it is the very text “that might threaten to undo his mission to the Gentiles” (Echoes, 111). Although in Galatians Paul never quotes Gen 17, its presence can be easily discerned from the shadow it casts over Paul’s argument; see Stockhausen, “Principles,” 159–60.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

57

The question Paul struggles with is, Who constitutes the σπέρµα of Abraham that, according to Gen 13:16 and 15:18, stands to inherit the divine promises and covenant? Genesis 17 presents a dramatic and paradigmatic answer. Verses 10–11 explicitly define the σπέρµα in question as those who undergo the rite of circumcising τὴν σάρκα, “the flesh” (see also vv. 14, 23). Yet in v. 16 God says to Abraham, “I will bless (εὐλογήσω) her [viz., Sarah] and I will give to you from her a child (τέκνον); and I will bless (εὐλογήσω) him, and he (?) will be for [or, will become] nations (εἰς ἔθνη), and kings of nations will come from him.”37 The language overlaps considerably with Isa 44:3b: “I will set my sprit (τὸ πνεῦµά µου) upon your [viz., Jacob/Israel, mentioned in v. 2] seed (τὸ σπέρµα σου) and my blessings (τὰς εὐλογίας µου) upon your children (τὰ τέκνα σου).”38 Only this passage from Isaiah in the entire OT equates the blessing of Abraham’s children with the Spirit. In this, it corresponds to Gal 3:14, the only place in the NT which sets the same two elements in parallel. Because of Christ’s redemptive death, the blessings of Abraham have come upon the Gentiles and the promise of the Spirit is made available to “us.”39 The application of Isa 44:3 to Gen 17 by means of their common vocabulary (gezera shawa) allows Paul to interpret the blessing inherited by Abraham’s τέκνον as the Spirit.40 Working backwards, those possessing the Spirit are therefore Abraham’s children. Charismatic experience may convince Paul that God’s Spirit is present in and among his Gentile converts, but an exegetical and ethnological logic folds them into Abraham’s family.41 37

My translation. The masculine object of the second bless is peculiar to the LXX; the Hebrew text reads ‫וברכתיה‬. In the following clause, which refers to “nations,” no subject appears in either Hebrew or Greek. A feminine subject can be deduced from the Hebrew verb form ‫ ;והיתה‬the Greek is ambiguous. See also Gen 22:7–8, which also speaks of Isaac as τέκνον. 38 My translation. 39 Even if Paul’s pronouns “we/us” and “you” in this passage refer to Jews and Gentiles respectively (a view towards which I incline; see Donaldson, “Curse,” 94–112; Wright, Climax, 143; Rodrigo J. Morales, “The Words of the Luminaries, the Curse of the Law, and the Outpouring of the Spirit in Gal 3,10–14,” ZNW 100 [2009]: 275; but see the critical assessment in Martyn, Galatians, 334–36), the distinction between the blessings of Abraham given to the Gentiles in v. 14a and the reception of the Spirit given to the “we” in 14b is probably rhetorical (Dunn, Galatians, 179). That is, both Jews and Gentiles receive the same blessing, the Spirit. 40 Against Watson, who claims that in equating Abraham’s blessing with the Spirit, Paul is no longer reading texts but importing his Christian convictions (Hermeneutics, 192–93). 41 The one who possess the blessing in Isa 44:3 is identified there as Israel, not the nations. However, in view of Gal 6:16, discussed below, I do not think this is problematic. Certainly, Israel is Abraham’s seed; the important question is, How is Israel to be defined? The relevance of Isa 44:3 was floated by Richard B. Hays, but undeveloped and overshadowed by his alternate, and preferred, explanation of Spirit-language in Galatians, namely, the Christian community’s foundational story celebrating Christ as the dispenser of the Spirit (Faith of Jesus Christ, 182–83; Isa 44:3 is absent in Echoes altogether). The

58

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

If Isa 44:3 assists Paul in his need to deal with Gen 17, another Isaianic verse aids his interpretation of Gen 21. Although it does not mention circumcision, this chapter presents problems to Paul for analogous reasons. In it, the character of Isaac provides a bridge between Abraham and Jacob, father of Israel’s twelve tribes. The threat to the integrity of the Abraham–Isaac–Jacob succession in the person of Ishmael must be eliminated. Moreover, only here in Genesis are the two sons of Abraham placed in direct opposition to each other. The ethnological import is clear: the story suggests the inviolable nature of Abraham’s seed on a trajectory culminating in the Jewish people. It is this passage that Paul attempts to overcome with his strange allegory in 4:21– 31. This is not the place to untangle the complexities of what Richard B. Hays has called Paul’s act of hermeneutical jujitsu, but a few comments are in order.42 It would appear that a further exegetical substructure supports this interpretation of Abraham’s two sons. In Gen 11:30, Sarah is introduced into the narrative with the remark that she is “barren” (‫עקרה‬, στεῖρα). In Isa 51:2, Sarah is called “the one who bore you” (‫תחוללכם‬, τὴν ὠδίνουσαν ὑµᾶς). In Gal 4:27 Paul quotes Isa 54:1, which combines these two descriptions: “Rejoice, O barren one (‫עקרה‬, στεῖρα) who did not bear; break forth and shout, you who have not been in travail (‫לא חלה‬, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα); for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married” (NRSV). The identification of Sarah, the barren one who moves from a state of being ἡ στεῖρα (Gen 11:30) to that of ἡ ὠδίνουσα (Isa 51:2), with the mother of Isa 54:1 lies close to hand. Once again the connection is made on the basis of common lexical terms. The equation of Sarah with Jerusalem follows naturally from Isa 54:1–3 and the various other Isaianic texts which speak of the holy city as a mother yearning to gather her children (e.g., 1:26 LXX; 49:14– 21; 62:1–5). importance of this verse for Paul’s understanding of Gen 17 and its concentration of the exegetical topics seed, promise, and inheritance has rarely received its full due, being entirely ignored (e.g., Betz, Galatians; Hays, Echoes, 108, 110; Wilk, Bedeutung), largely unnoticed (e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 180; Martyn, Galatians, 323 n. 121), or flatly denied (Williams, “Promise,” 713 n. 10). But Rodrigo Morales has presented arguments for its centrality that I find convincing (The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians [WUNT 2/282; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 111– 14; idem, “Outpouring of the Spirit,” 270, 276–77, though Morales does not consider Gen 17 as the base text that Isa 44:3 is being used to interpret, as I do). 42 Hays, Echoes, 112. On the allegory, see ibid., 111–21; C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK, 1982), 154–70; repr. from Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976); Susan Grove Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 127–60; and especially Daniel Boyarin, Radical Jew, 32–36, which I have found particularly helpful.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

59

Although these intertextual links illustrate how Paul might have identified Sarah with the heavenly Jerusalem, other elements in the allegory remain obscure. The connection between her son Isaac and the Galatian Christians probably rests on the same christological reading of σπέρµα employed in 3:16. Gentiles who believe are κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα, “children of the promise like Isaac” (4:28).43 In this way, Paul elides any connection between Sinai and the Isaac-patterned children of promise whose native city lies in the heavens.44 In order to stem a potentially disastrous “common sense” reading of Gen 21, Paul turns to the prophets and the risen Christ as hermeneutical keys that unlock the true significance of Abraham’s story and give him discernment into how its concealed meaning transforms the genealogical heritage of Gentile believers. Paul thus offers an interpretation intended to counter the linear and selfevident reading strategy of his opponents.45 Promise (Gen 12), faith (Gen 15), circumcision (Gen 17), and fulfillment (Gen 21) do not unfold organically in a unitary narrative possessing direct, normative significance for Gentile Christ-followers. Rather, Isaiah shows him that those who count as Abraham’s seed are not Israelites of fleshly descent but believers in the Messiah who receive the Spirit. Prophecy and Christology determine how Paul selects, plots, and reinterprets Israel’s foundational story, discerns its dialectical meaning, and sets forth its contemporary relevance.46 43 This identification recalls the earlier summarizing statement in 3:29: if one belongs to Christ, that one is Abraham’s σπέρµα and κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόµος, “an heir according to the promise.” See also Hays, Echoes, 114; Dunn, Galatians, 255–56; Calvert, “Abraham,” 6; Martyn, Galatians, 443–44. Paul’s preference for the term τέκνον in his allegory, rather than his usual υἱός, may be related to the fact that in Genesis, both Ishmael and Isaac are referred to as υἱός (16:11, 15; 17:19, 23, 25, 26; 18:10, 14, 19; frequently in chs. 21, 22), while only Isaac is called a τέκνον (17:6; 22:7, 8). 44 David I. Starling makes a similar point: in Paul, “the culpability of old-era Jerusalem runs so deep and the discontinuity between ‘present Jerusalem’ and ‘Jerusalem above’ is so sharp that [uniquely among Jewish interpreters] he is able to depict a ‘Jerusalem above’ whose children are not native-born Israelites or even Gentile proselytes and pilgrims to Jerusalem, but uncircumcised Galatian believers” (Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics [BZNW 184; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011], 35). 45 Here I have been particularly influenced by Stockhausen (“Principles,” 153–54; 158– 59; see also Hays, Echoes, 107, 116; Martyn, Galatians, 302–6); against Dunn, Galatians, 165, 249. 46 This specific posture toward the biblical record and its meaning has deep roots in Paul’s own biography. Just as his calling to the Gentiles was determined before his birth, but revealed only when he encountered Christ (1:15–16, alluding to Isa 49:1, 5; Jer 1:5), so too the prophetic oracles long ago determined the correct way to organize the narrative of Genesis, but this meaning was unveiled only with the resurrection. On the connection between Paul’s biography and his hermeneutics, see John M. G. Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Narrative Dynamics, 133–56; Eastman, “Mercy,” 390–94 (though Eastman draws different conclusions than I). This aspect of Paul’s interpretative

60

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

2.2.1.5. Paul, Judaism, and “the Israel of God” Additional features of Paul’s argument indicate that he no longer takes the meaning of Israel for granted. He adopts a generally dismissive tone towards fundamental indicators of Jewish ethnic and religious identity. He looks back on his ἀναστροφήν ποτε τῷ Ἰουδαϊσµῷ (1:13–14); insists that Torah observance ensnares one in or perpetuates a state under the curse, and therefore cannot justify (3:10–12); suggests that salvation history, such as it is, skips from Abraham directly to Christ (3:16); implies that the textual record of the intervening historical trajectory serves as an allegory of the Christian community (4:24); equates the Sinaitic covenant with present Jerusalem (distinguished from “Jerusalem above”) and both with slavery (4:25–26);47 limits those qualified to inherit Abraham’s promise to those who believe in Christ, of whatever national or ethnic background (3:16, 29); concedes to the law a positive role only by assigning to it a negative function (3:21–22); quotes the septuagintal phrase καὶ τῷ σπέρµατί σου with emphasis but ignores the territorial dimension (the ethnoscape) attached to it in every case;48 implies that Jewish history prior to (and apart from?) the coming of Christ constitutes an posture is developed into an explicitly articulated hermeneutic by the author of Ephesians (1:9; 3:3–12; 5:25–33). 47 In the course of his allegorical treatment of Isaac and Ishmael, Paul makes comprehensive and wholly negative assessments of the Sinaitic covenant, and nothing in the rhetoric or context suggests that Paul was anxious to clarify that he really had in mind only his Jewish-Christian opponents. The recent strategy of scholars to insist that Paul’s bracing rhetoric in all these instances extends only to (Jewish) Christian opponents are more circumspect than Paul himself (for examples, see Sanders, Jewish People, 19; Siker, Disinheriting, 32, 41, 44, 46, 48, 213 n. 62; Charles B. Cousar, “Paul and Multiculturalism,” in Many Voices, One God: Being Faithful in a Pluralistic World: Essays in Honor of Shirley Guthrie [ed. Walter Brueggemann and George W. Stroup; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/ John Knox, 1998], 56; Martyn, Galatians, 36–37, 40–41, 455–56). The contrary opinion is given in Betz, Galatians, 204, 246, 250–51; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 173–77. Nanos’s attempt to limit the significance of the allegory to a rejection of the need for Gentile proselytizing ignores the fact that Paul explicitly frames his interpretation in light of Torah (4:21) and proceeds to discuss the Mosaic covenant without qualification (4:24–25; Nanos, Irony, 156–57). 48 Gen 13:5, 17:8, and possibly 24:7 (where καί is textually suspect). Galatians gives no indication as to whether Paul attaches any importance to Judea as the divinely guaranteed homeland waiting for the return and restoration of its native inhabitants (though assessments from various perspectives can be found in Williams, “Promise,” 716–19; Dunn, Galatians, 183, 186; Wright, Climax, 174; idem, “The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies [ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 225–26; Watson, Hermeneutics, 199–200; Hansen, All of You Are One, 102). His allegory implies a thoroughgoing transcendentalization, possibly along Platonic lines (4:25–26), on which see Boyarin, Radical Jew. I do not agree that Paul was a Platonist, but Boyarin’s research raises the distinct possibility that Middle Platonic currents influenced Paul’s hermeneutics.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

61

enslaved existence analogous to Gentile idolatry (4:1–7); equates Gentile circumcision and law-keeping with apostasy from Christ and a loss of grace (5:3–4); makes a crass pun on his opponents’ advocacy of circumcision using the disparaging term ἀποκόπτω (5:12); and closes two sections of his argument by insisting that union with Christ makes Torah and circumcision, at best, irrelevancies (2:19–21; 6:14–15). Paul does make statements implying a more positive evaluation of Torah, but it is difficult to know what weight to assign them. He gives it a temporal boundary in 3:19, 23–25, and (by implication) 4:4–7, and he insists on associating it with slavery in 4:25. These affirmations stands in considerable tension with his claim that Lev 19:18 fulfills the law and remains in force among his communities (Gal 5:14). Even more perplexing is how to interpret νόµος in the summons to “fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2). These conflicting statements may in fact cohere, but in Galatians Paul leaves little by way of guidance to assist the interpreter in figuring out how they do so. (This tension will resurface in 1 Corinthians; see § 2.2.2.1.) A final point: Paul’s entire argument across six chapters and the unrelenting push of his rhetoric give the expression ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ in 6:16 a definite meaning. It encompasses the Abrahamic community, redefined around Christ – with the implication that the title applies only to them.49 Christ con49

This Israel is not the Gentile church but the messianically determined people of God open to believing Gentiles; see N. A. Dahl, “Der Name Israel: Zur Auslegung von Gal 6, 16,” Jud 6 (1950): 161–70; Schoeps, Paul, 234, 241; Sanders, Jewish People, 173–74; Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 232; Boyarin, Radical Jew, 283 n. 29; Donaldson, Gentiles, 238; Martyn, Galatians, 574–77 (though he seems to equivocate in Theological Issues, 122–23); Gregory K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b,” Bib 80 (1999): 204–23; Theobald, Studien, 331; Zoccali, Called, 78–89; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:1143–51; pace W. D. Davies, “People of Israel,” in Studies, 129; Dunn, Galatians, 345– 46; W. S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: Continuum, 2008), 100; Eastman, “Mercy,” 367–95, all of whom interpret the name with reference to those who are ethnically Jews. The limitation of the phrase to believers in Galatia (so Betz, Galatians, 322; Charles A. Ray Jr., “The Identity of the ‘Israel of God,’” TTE 50 [1994]: 105–14) is too restrictive, and its application to the “Church” in distinction from “Israel” or the Jews (so Bell, Irrevocable Call, 174–77, 178–80) is too simplistic. Although Juncker is less precise in his use of “national Israel” and “church” than I would be, he does accurately point out that Paul’s reference to an “Israel of God” implies an Israel that is “not of God” (“Children of Promise,” 137, 137 n. 21). The debate concerning the nature of the καί in καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, even if resolved, would not decide the issue (Matera, Galatians, 232). Contextual factors must determine the overall meaning. According to the rule of maximum redundancy, the sense of καί which adds the least semantic weight should be given priority. This would disqualify reading into this verse an unexpected reference to the Jewish people (as in Ray, “Identity, 107–8). I am inclined to think that Paul uses καί because in 6:16a he still has his focus fixed on the situation in Galatia, while in 6:16b he broadens his view. In other words,

62

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

veys the Abrahamic blessings, and his Spirit engrafts into him those who believe, Jew and Gentile alike, so that the believing-in-Christ community constitutes Abraham’s exclusive σπέρµα (3:29). Gentile believers are taken into “Israel” by virtue of their connection, through Christ, to Isaac and Abraham.50 Jews who fail to respond to Paul’s gospel in faith do not so much suffer replacement as they forfeit their standing.51 Circumcision, a badge of identity which formerly attested to divinely bestowed Jewish prerogatives, is disposed of as irrelevant to the new creation (6:14–15). God’s Israel stands in continuity with Abraham’s seed, but it is reconfigured according to a Christological exegesis of the scriptural promise. 2.2.1.6. Summary These results show that in Galatians, Paul has performed an ethnogenetic feat of some consequence. He has pioneered for his Gentile converts an entirely new kinship-based religious identity.52 He does this through a rigorous and counterintuitive exegetical reinterpretation of Israel’s founding etiology as narrated in Genesis. Its meaning is illuminated at every step by prophetic oracles which actualize its meaning and by his certainty that a new creation

realizing that his wish for peace could be construed as limited exclusively to the letter’s recipients in Galatia, Paul adds “even the Israel of God” to expand the reference to those who follow his canon wherever they may be found. The καί is therefore not merely epexegetic: the latter group encompasses but goes beyond the former (similarly, Theobald, Studien, 331). 50 It is worth noting that already in 1 Thess 4:5 Paul apparently considers his addressees to be crossing the liminal line out of the category “Gentiles”: they should not possess themselves “in lustful passions like the Gentiles who do not know God.” 51 In Galatians, Paul’s theology of Israel is structurally similar to what Hartmut Stegemann claims for the Essenes: “From the outset … the Essenes never regarded themselves otherwise than as the sole legitimate representation of the twelve tribes of Israel as a whole in the current age. … The decisive thing was that the Essenes’ union … was the unification of all Israel in the Holy Land. Those who persisted in declining this union thereby definitively closed themselves off from Israel and from the salvific people of God, spurned the covenant God made on Sinai, and abandoned the foundation of the Torah, which had inextricably bound up salvation for Israel with Israel’s existence in God’s Holy Land” (The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 166, 168; emphasis added and Stegemann’s original emphasis removed). 52 Cf. these conclusions with the similar position of Hansen, arrived at by a very different route: the Galatian believers possess a “disrupted and reconfigured version of Israelite ethnic identity,” forged by Paul’s understanding of the cross of Christ (All of You Are One, 103). Hansen’s monograph is particularly strong in elucidating the ethical vision inspired by Paul’s kinship language in the letter. On the down side, he struggles unsuccessfully to find in Galatians affirmations of diverse ethnic identities (ibid., 105, citing Paul’s note that Titus is a Greek in Gal 2:3 and offering a rather forced interpretation of Gal 6:4–5).

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

63

has begun with the coming of Christ (6:15). Paul extracts from his text a broad range of Abrahamic elements that symbolize Jewish identity: seed, faith, righteousness, blessing, inheritance, and the dual promise of “life” (Hab 2:4) and “Spirit” (Isa 44:3). All these he applies in toto and without remainder to those incorporated into Christ. He leaves his opponents only a euphemism for foreskin (σάρξ) and expresses his criticism of them so strongly that it touches Torah itself (4:24–26).53 He shakes the designation Israel loose from its semantic synonymy with the Jewish ethnos and reconfigures its boundaries so that it becomes coterminous with the in-Christ community (6:16). In his hands, the story of Abraham and his seed secures a position in Israel for uncircumcised Gentiles who are equal in status to believing Jews, and limits this Israel to those who, of whatever ethnic background, believe in Christ.54 At the same time, Paul shows himself firmly committed to Abrahamic paternity as determinative for participation in Israel. The Hebrew mythomoteur has exerted itself in an unprecedented situation, and Paul’s commitment to it reveals deeply held convictions. Inclusion in Abraham’s family as necessary for salvation is a core belief of Paul’s, and not only of his opponents. He therefore appears to view his Gentile converts as “proselytes” to a christologically determined Abrahamic family.55 The collective identity of Israel has 53

The promise of land Paul leaves unaddressed but, as noted earlier, he implies that it exists only as a heavenly reality (4:26). 54 Writing on the social effects of Paul’s rhetoric in this epistle, Francis Watson concludes, “Paul disinherits the Jewish community and claims that his congregations of mainly Gentile Christians are the sole legitimate possessors of these traditions” (Beyond the New Perspective, 132). Martyn maintains a similar position (Galatians, 350). However much this claim may grate against current sensibilities, it is not wide of the mark. I would argue that Paul disinherits the unbelieving (viz., those who do not believe in Christ) Jewish community, places the crucified and risen Messiah at the center of what Israel means, and leaves open the question concerning on which side his Jewish-Christian opponents stand (similarly, Wright, Faithfulness, 2:854–55). Bengt Holmberg concludes from his analysis of Gal 1–2 that, “when … Jewish identity conflicts with Christian identity, the former must be abandoned” (“Jewish Versus Christian Identity in the Early Church?” RB 103 [1998]: 416). But this is to state what Paul’s position implies – from the perspective of Paul’s opponents. In any case, it is not a question of the church replacing Israel, but of a messianically redefined Israel requiring faith in Christ as the membership criterion which supersedes and nullifies all others. Gentiles responding in faith are adopted into Abraham’s family, while Jews who respond in unbelief forfeit their inheritance. 55 Here I follow Donaldson, Gentiles, 121. Pablo Gadenz objects to this model for understanding Paul’s Gentile converts for two reasons, neither of which are compelling. First, he asserts, “the evidence for a connection between Jewish proselytism of Gentiles and Christian mission to the Gentiles is weak” (Called, 304). But the question is not whether the practice of Jewish proselytism was the historical antecedent of Christian mission, as Gadenz seems to formulate it, but how Paul conceptualizes the relationship between Gentile converts and Israel, and what categories available to him best explain his understand-

64

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

been drastically reconfigured – but not radically (recalling the etymology of radical), since a filial connection to Abraham remains the sine qua non of membership. 2.2.2. Former Gentiles with Circumcised Hearts This extension of Israel to Gentile Christ-believers, and its corresponding limitation to Jews who follow Christ, coheres well with indications of ecclesial identity in Paul’s other letters. He associates the non-Jewish members of Christ’s body to whom he writes with Israel’s religious heritage to the extent that in his symbolic universe they acquire a set of transferred kinship relations. The myths, memories, and symbols of Israel’s ethnic heritage have become the exclusive property of the Christ-believing community, irrespective of prior ethnic affiliation.

ing. Second, Gadenz notes with an air of finality, “the upshot of seeing Jewish proselytism of Gentiles as the background for Paul’s understanding of the Gentile mission is that Gentiles become ‘full members of a redefined Israel’. As we have seen, however, this is precisely what Paul does not say” (ibid.; emphasis original; quoting Donaldson, Gentiles, 247). But the immediate context of this claim as well as the overall monograph in which it appears show that Gadenz actually means, “This is precisely what Paul does not say in Romans,” a potentially damaging argument against Donaldson’s proposal but not mine, since I argue that Paul’s position had evolved by the time he wrote Romans. The precise status of a proselyte within the Jewish community into which he/she converted remains unclear. There were probably regional and ideological differences. Statements from the rabbis, which may not correspond to actual attitudes, reflect both welcome of and suspicion towards proselytes (helpful examples occur in Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 128–30, 132–33). According to the Babylonian Talmud, a proselyte became an “Israelite in every respect” (b. Yeb. 47b), but actual halakah suggests otherwise. As Cohen writes, “Gentiles can change their religion, convert to Judaism, and join the community of Israel, but within that community they remain legally and socially distinct, because they are not absolutely equal with natives under the law and because their foreign extraction prevents them from becoming true ‘insiders.’” (Beginnings, 326; a similar evaluation appears in Hayes, Impurities, 187). Indeed, even the tractate which proclaims that proselytes are full Israelites arguably embeds this claim in a discourse concerning proselytes which views them negatively (as proposed in Moshe Lavee, “No Boundaries for the Construction of Boundaries: The Babylonian Talmud’s Emphasis on the Demarcation of Identity,” in Rabbinic Traditions between Palestine and Babylonia [ed. Ronit Nikolsky and Tal Ilan; AJEC 89; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 84–116). My argument here is that Paul was able to overcome this problem not out of some commitment to a strangely modern-sounding ideal of diversity (as an increasingly large number of interpreters understand him) but entirely due to his doctrine of the Spirit, which creates a genealogical connection to Abraham that supervenes a fleshly one. In no case, however, does Paul – at least by his own understanding – transgress the categories established by his native mythomoteur.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

65

2.2.2.1. Former Gentiles in 1 Corinthians Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians shows the apostle laboring to overcome the liminal status of Gentiles who follow the Jewish Messiah. Several passages intimate that these believers, by virtue of their relation to Christ, constitute a distinct entity existing outside the traditional Jew-Gentile dichotomy. In the opening discourse, Paul sets those called to be in-Christ opposite Jews and Greeks as a third entity (1:23–24).56 This same taxonomy appears with parallel terms in ch. 7: those called to the ἐκκλησίαι should remain content in their current state, whether they were called already circumcised or still in uncircumcision. To justify this arrangement Paul asserts that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything – what matters is keeping God’s commandments (vv. 17–20). When discussing his adaptable preaching and lifestyle strategies in 9:19–23, Paul appears to operate with a similar threefold classification: Jews, referred to as “those under the law,” exist side by side with “those who are without the law”; in contrast to both are those whom Paul has “won” and thereby “saved.” Finally, a parallel division of humanity appears in 10:32, where, despite speaking of the binary opposition between “the weak” and “the strong,” Paul concludes his call to Christian accommodation with the admonition, “Give no offense καὶ Ἰουδαίοις … καὶ Ἕλλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ.”57 In several places, Paul distinguishes his addressees from Gentiles, placing them outside of the ethnic relation that previously defined them. He chides them for their tolerance of incest, a sin not even found among the Gentiles (ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑµῖν πορνεία … ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; 5:1). He casually calls attention to times past when his readers were Gentiles (οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε 56 Paul acknowledges that the called group comprises both Jews and Greeks/Gentiles, but I am not convinced that he is motivated by a concern to affirm their ethnic particularity (as argued in J. Brian Tucker, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2010], 166–72). Indeed, if the background to the agrarian and architectural metaphors of ch. 3 has been correctly identified in the prophetic promises that God will rebuild and replant his people (Isa 41:9; 44:3– 4; 60:21; 61:3; on which see Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2011], 124–27), then Paul in this passage appears to sweep his Gentile Christians into an eschatologicallyrenewed, Christ-believing Israel. 57 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 489 n. 66; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 794–95; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 403. J. B. Tucker interprets the final καί as ascensive, which would make the Jews and Gentiles referred to members of the church (You Belong to Christ, 81). However, the conjunctive use is much more natural (see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar [rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956], § 2878).

66

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

ἔθνη; 12:2). A few verses later, he affirms that the identity which Christian believers possess “in Christ” supersedes those previously held, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες (12:13). The initial impression given by these texts is that Paul understands the messianic people as distinct from either Jews or Gentiles who do not believe in Christ. But it is not at all clear that in Paul’s understanding this community of Christ-believers actually constitutes a third entity. First Corinthians 10 signals a return to the perspective expressed in Gal 6:16. Israel’s historic experiences are recorded in Scripture for the sake of the terminal generation, whom Paul identifies with his own audience (10:11). Similarly, he unreflectively refers to the wilderness grumblers as οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν, “our fathers” (10:1), cementing the link between Hebrew ancestors and Corinthian believers.58 What Moses speaks concerning Israel has direct relevance for Gentile Christians on the basis of this newly asserted genealogical connection.59 Once the Gentile believers are made the posterity of ancient Israel, the interpretive bridge permits movement in both directions. The eucharistic presence of the risen Lord among the Corinthian Christians discloses the meaning of Israel’s biblical traditions, identifying the rock from which the fathers drank as the pre-existent Christ (10:4; see also 10:16–17; 11:24–25, 27; 12:12–13, 27). Only on the supposition of a Spirit-created ethnic descent is this two-way traffic possible. Additional evidence suggests that Paul understands the Corinthian believers as representatives of a new, spiritual Israel. When he draws an illustration from the contemporary operation of the Temple cult, he is careful to express that it comes from ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα (10:18), language that invites the 58 Cohen has written concerning the impossibility of Gentile proselytes claiming Israelite ancestry: “They become ‘insiders’ only when they have Israelite (Jewish) blood – either an Israelite mother, an Israelite father, or ‘our fathers’” (Beginnings, 326). Paul’s understanding of the Spirit’s power resolves this uncertainty. Gentiles who believe in Christ are baptized into a new family, and hence they are “insiders,” they are “Israel,” they do claim the Israelites of the wilderness as “our fathers.” 59 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1911), 199; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1968), 220; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 165; Fee, First Corinthians, 444; Boyarin, Radical Jew, 76; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 380; pace Fredriksen, “Judaizing,” 243; J. B. Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 147; Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes, 268, 332 all of whom see in 1 Cor 10 an ethnic distinction. The “our” in 10:1 occurs in a context where Paul is not merely expositing but directly addressing the Corinthian recipients and including himself with them in the same collective entity. Thus it stands apart from the use of our in the phrases “our forefather Abraham” (Rom 4:1), spoken to a Jewish interlocutor, and “our father Isaac” (Rom 9:10), where Paul is presenting a survey of patriarchal history and adopting an insider’s perspective.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

67

reader to consider the possibility of an Israel κατὰ πνεῦµα.60 If Paul regards the presence or absence of foreskin as irrelevant and sets both in contrast to keeping God’s commandments (7:19), and if his self-portrayal as an adaptable teacher indicates a rather liberal attitude towards Torah observance (9:19–21), the phrase ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα indicates the ontology that makes such convictions possible.61 Only by operating with a spirit (or, Spirit)/flesh conceptuality can Paul distinguish the ἐκκλησία from “Jews,” align the former but not the latter with οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν, and claim the authority of Torah while in the same breath squelching its literal meaning.62 The redefinition of Israel that Paul believes has occurred with the Messiah’s appearance makes circumcision irrelevant, Temple service “fleshly,” and Torah observance a policy stipulation adopted for strategic reasons! It appears, therefore, that in 1 Corinthians Paul absorbs Gentile believers into Israel, eliminates both their previous ethnic identity and the claim of unbelieving Jews to that honorific title, and stands aloof from a literal interpretation of Torah. However, these conclusions stand against the tide of recent exegesis. David J. Rudolph, for example, has applied to 1 Corinthians the increasingly common view that Paul neither erases the respective social identities of Jews and Gentiles nor tampers with the exclusive privilege Jews claim to bear the name Israel. He argues that the apostle remained Torah-observant and maintained the historical distinction between Jews and the nations. The two claims are inextricably related, since adhering to Torah practice and preserving the distinct ethnic identity of Jews constitute two pillars of a single socioreligious program.63 60

Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, 215; Fee, First Corinthians, 470 n. 38; Boyarin, Radical Jew, 74; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 392; Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes, 278; Wright, Faithfulness, 1:428. The expression is therefore analogous to “the Israel of God” and its corresponding implication, an Israel not of God. Σάρξ in this verse denotes not moral venality but either or both of two “aspects of human existence: physical observances of Jewish ritual, especially circumcision in the flesh, and physical kinship” (Boyarin, Radical Jew, 72). See further § 4.4.2. below. 61 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 308, 368–71. 62 The implication of my argument is that Paul holds the designation “Jew” more loosely than that of “Israel.” 63 Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 (WUNT 2/304; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Similar approaches to 1 Cor can be found in Nanos, “Paul and Judaism,” 132, 138; Zoccali, Called, 128–29; Hansen, All of You Are One, 107–57; J. Brian Tucker, “Remain in Your Calling”: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2011), 62–88. In addition to his exegetical arguments, Rudolph objects to the elimination of ethnic distinctives in the letters of Paul on linguistic grounds: Paul persists in using the terms Ἰουδαῖοι and ἔθνη for Christ-believing Jews and Gentiles. From this he deduces that for the apostle the terms bear unequivocal meaning and obvious import (Jew, 34, citing 1 Cor 1:22, 24; 12:13; Gal 2:3, 12, 14; Rom 11:13; Eph 2:11; Col 4:10–11; Acts 21:39; 22:3; the

68

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

Two passages, however, constitute a significant challenge to Rudolph’s proposal. The first is 1 Cor 7:17–20. Rudolph attempts to enlist this passage as evidence for a Torah-observant Paul who insisted that Jews and Gentiles preserve their ethnic particularity as members of the in-Christ community. But in order for him to take seriously Paul’s statements that “circumcision is nothing,” that “there is neither Jew nor Greek … for all of you are one in Christ,” etc., he must make a sharp theological distinction between covenant, Torah, and the present distinction between Jews and Gentiles, on the one hand, and justification, status before God, and eschatological salvation, on the other.64 Rudolph maintains that all of Paul’s statements implying the irrelevance of Jewish distinctiveness and a corresponding cessation of Torah observance belong to the latter category alone. But not only is Rudolph’s distinction – like the analogous Reformed division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects – difficult to find in Paul without imposing it onto the relevant texts, the context of 1 Cor 7 clearly has in view not eschatological salvation but existence in the present world (though, of course, an existence that is impinged upon by the apocalyptic crisis [vv. 19, 31], a feature of the text Rudolph tries to mute65). Speaking not of eschatological blessing but of conduct in this life (περιπατέω, v. 17), Paul discourages Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers from changing their condition. Gentiles should not seek circumcision, nor Jews epispasm. He proceeds to support this teaching with the principle that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything, but instead keeping God’s commandments. The clear implication is that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count with respect to how a Christ-believer obeys God’s commandments in the present course of existence. Rudolph forces a drastic shift in perspective onto v. 19: in a context speaking about present calling and lifestyle, Paul says that “circumcision is ‘nothing’ with respect to eschatological blessing. … By conargument is repeated with respect to the terms “circumcision” and “foreskin” on pp. 73– 75). But this claim fails to appreciate the variegated ways human language is – and is not – constrained by cultural conventions. Living languages contain resources that linguistic entrepreneurs can exploit to give established terms innovative meanings in certain contexts even while established lexical patterns will persist in other or even the same contexts. Language possesses an irreducible givenness: we do not choose the language into which we are born and socialized. Of course Paul’s discourse will labor under the lexical inertia of centuries of usage, implicated as it is in social arrangements, ethnic narratives, and binary categories of identity. The Jew-Gentile opposition is a given datum of sociolinguistic discourse. What is semantically marked and therefore theologically significant are not those occurrences in which Paul reflects the common linguistic usage of all Jews everywhere, including himself for most of his life. A much firmer indication of his theological direction and the outlines of its social embodiment occurs in his deliberate violation of standard categories of meaning and its corresponding reconfiguration of ethnic affiliation. 64 Rudolph, Jew, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 98 n. 37. 65 Ibid., 86–87 n. 237.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

69

trast, ‘keeping the commandments of God’ refers to the living out of different callings in concrete terms.” That Paul made such a jarring change of perspective without a clear contextual indication is implausible.66 This leads to a further problematic aspect in Rudolph’s treatment of 7:17– 20. To obtain the desired exegesis, he must engage in a hermeneutic which I call the “nomistic supplement.” Paul does not, in fact, express himself in such a way that his words naturally support the construal Rudolph and like-minded interpreters place on them. To rectify this situation, Rudolph supplements the necessary extensions of meaning that Paul failed to specify. In this way, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (v. 19) is transformed into “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but Jews keeping the commandments of God that apply to Jews and Gentiles that apply to Gentiles,” and “Circumcision is nothing” becomes, “Circumcision is nothing related strictly to salvation or with respect to eschatological blessing.”67 Rudolph must repeatedly provide what Paul did not say in order to establish what he must have meant. In fact, Paul’s relative distance from traditional Torah observance and its corresponding distinction between Jews and Gentiles reappears in 1 Cor 9:19–21, the second text challenging Rudolph’s synthesis. It is the goal of his 66

Ibid., 98 n. 37. Ibid., 28, 84–85, 98, 98 n. 37. I myself have supplied the italics, but in both cases they reflect and usually quote from Rudolph’s exegesis. Other examples of the “nomistic supplement” include the following: “I have become all things, especially [only?] with respect to eating what is set before me, to all people, especially [only?] my dinner hosts, so that by all means within the bounds of a flexible halakah I might save some” (1 Cor 9:22; ibid., 152, 193–9); “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean in cases where ceremonially clean food is defiled by association at communal meals” (Rom 14:14; ibid., 37); “It is right not to eat meat or drink wine that the weak consider potentially defied by association or do anything that makes your brother stumble” (Rom 14:21; ibid., 43); “One believes he may eat anything that is set on the table at the congregational meal in Rome, while the weak man eats only vegetables” (Rom 14:2; ibid., 43 n. 71); “For you have heard of my former life in the right-wing form of Pharisaic Judaism” (Gal 1:13; ibid., 45); and, “according to the sectarian standards of the law, a Pharisee” (Phil 3:5; ibid., 157, 194; again, in these examples I have supplied the italics to the biblical quotation, thought they are taken from Rudolph’s exegesis, usually verbatim). One must wonder if Paul ever simply said what he meant. Also relevant are these: “And [Jesus] said to them, ‘Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?’ Thus he declared all foods clean for Gentile believers” (Mark 7:18–19; ibid., 42 n. 70); “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing on the neck of the Gentile disciples a yoke of the Pharisaic interpretation of the law which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10; ibid., 199); “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him in order to confirm Timothy’s covenant identity because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3; ibid., 27). 67

70

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

monograph to overturn the common interpretation that, when Paul emphatically declares he is not ὑπὸ νόµον (v. 20), he expresses freedom from the Mosaic law. The word νόµος in Paul almost always refers to the Mosaic Torah viewed as a whole, and rarely – arguably never – does it bear a different meaning, though Rom 7:21, 8:2 are controverted cases. It is certainly the case that the expression ὑπὸ νόµον refers to the Mosaic Torah in its other Pauline occurrences (Rom 6:14, 15; Gal 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18). The authority of the Mosaic Torah, Paul declares, no longer impinges upon his missionary practice, as most interpreters recognize. Rudolph’s attempt to undo this consensus struggles to account for v. 20. If Paul actually asserts that he is not under the Torah of Moses, Paul’s argument collapses. He therefore claims that νόµος has a peculiar meaning in 1 Corinthians and may not necessarily refer to Torah as such.68 What then does νόµος in v. 20 mean? Here again Rudolph falls back on the nomistic supplement. What Paul intends can be clarified by adding materially to his statement (brackets are original): “To those under [a Pharisaic interpretation of] the law I became as one under [a Pharisaic interpretation of] the law (though I myself am not under [a Pharisiac interpretation of] the law) so that I might win those under [a Pharisaic interpretation of] the law.”69 Granted that Paul sometimes talks past his audience, it is nevertheless difficult to imagine him here laying before the Corinthian Christians his programmatic ministry strategy by limiting his evangelistic goals to disabusing Pharisees of their misguided halakah. Rudolph is on much firmer ground when he maintains that the phrase in 1 Cor 9:21 µὴ ὢν ἄνοµος θεοῦ most naturally refers to Torah.70 But doing so lands him in the same dilemma as the scholars whom he accuses of arbitrarily making νόµος refer to the law of Moses in v. 20 but some other object in v. 21. Rudolph maintains that ἄνοµος in v. 21 refers directly to the Mosaic 68

To substantiate this, he first shows commentators disagree on the meaning of 9:20 and then refers to 1 Cor 15:56 and its odd claim that “the power of sin is the law” (Jew, 154–57). Concerning the initial point, interpreters divide over the precise meaning of the term in 9:20, not its referent, making their disagreement relatively insignificant (Rudolph, in fact, concedes that this is the case on p. 156). Furthermore, a reference to the Mosaic Torah in 15:56 is supported by the parallel linking of Torah and sin in Gal 3:19; Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:12, 20; 7:8. 69 Jew, 157–58; see also 194. Rudolph attempts to support this reading by appealing to Phil 3:5, where Paul uses νόµος “in reference to Pharisaic interpretation of the law” (ibid., 157, 194), but the cross reference will not do the work Rudolph asks of it: νόµος in Phil 3:5 clearly denotes the Mosaic Torah. The connotation of Pharisaic halakah is a function of the term Φαρισαῖος, not νόµος. Several others have advocated a similar interpretation of 1 Cor 9:19–21, including J. B. Tucker (You Belong to Christ, 139 n. 51; Remain, 89–114) and Mark Nanos (“The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews,” SCJR 4 [2009]: 18; “Paul and Judaism,” 139–41). 70 Jew, 160–63.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

71

Torah by virtue of its root νόµος, so that Paul is not without Torah. But now νόµος in v. 20 must refer not to the Mosaic Torah as such but rather a specifically Pharisaic construal of it. But if Paul claims to be µὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόµον in v. 20, yet is also µὴ ὢν ἄνοµος θεοῦ in v. 21, what could he mean if he states that he is not under Torah but not without the Torah of God, if Torah has the same referent in both instances? In fact, Paul does not explain how he understands each state of affairs to relate to the other. His language here, it must be concluded, is confused.71 However, this confusion is not without an explanation. The essential insight lies not in noting his tangled mode of expression but in recognizing, on the one hand, that this tension is analogous to the problem of the law in Galatians, mentioned above (§ 2.2.1.5.), where after emphatically imposing a temporal limitation on the law, Paul suddenly insists without preparation that his ethic fulfills the law (5:14, citing Lev 19:18), and, on the other hand, that Paul cites Moses as a divine authority in 1 Cor 9:8–10, while explicitly denying the literal meaning of his text. “Don’t muzzle the ox” (Deut 25:4) does not, Paul insists, refer to animals but to ministers of the gospel.72 Paul’s statements 71

This point should be uncontroversial. Virtually all attempts to demonstrate coherence in Paul’s theologizing on the law begin with the supposition that his discrete statements at least occasionally conflict with each other, and proceed to formulate a conceptual framework outside the epistolary discourse itself that will allow the discordant statements to resolve themselves into a higher unity. This methodological approach is frequently tacit, but Frank Thielman brings it into the open: “tensions in [Paul’s] statements about the law can be relieved by postulating a larger conception of the law which lies beneath and can hold together seemingly contradictory statements” (“The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians,” NTS 38 [1992]: 236). Specific analyses attempting to execute this program are legion. C. E. B. Cranfield, for example, distinguishes between legalistic performance of the law and inwardly-motivated fulfillment of the law (“St. Paul and the Law,” SJT 17 [1964]: 43–68), Thomas Schreiner appeals to the traditional distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects of the law (“The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT 35 [1989]: 47–74, esp. 59–65), and Thielman himself, while agreeing to an extent with Schreiner, makes central the eschatological shift from the present age, in which the law is associated with sin and death, and the age of the Spirit, in which the law is the agent of life (“Coherence,” 252). 72 It is exceedingly difficult to read these verses in any way other than that the semantic meaning of Deut 25:4 is exhausted by its relevance for Paul’s contemporaries. Paul simply asserts that what Deut 25:4 means is, “Pay your ministers,” despite attempts among some exegetes to extend Paul’s appreciation for what is to us the obvious, historical meaning (e.g., Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 46–47; Walter C. Kaiser, “The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8–10,” JETS 21 (1978): 3–18; Fee, First Corinthians, 406–9; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 687). 1 Cor 10:6, 11 support my understanding of 9:8–10: what Scripture admonishes is now being made clear in the final days, and the sense of Scripture is in the first instance an eschatological reality (a hermeneutic functionally equivalent to the Qumran pesharist; see 1QpHab VII, 1–14 and also the helpful discussion of this passage in Hays, Echoes, 165–66).

72

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

concerning Torah are confused in Galatians and 1 Corinthians because he has not heretofore offered a language capable of expressing adequately the radical reorientation towards the law forced by the risen Christ, who appeared to him precisely when he was most zealously following the dictates of Torah and yet acting in disobedience to God. Paul has disposed of the literal application – hence his resistance to physical circumcision and his lack of concern for the ox in Deut 25:4 – but he has not relinquished its divine origin or authority, especially as it reveals its eschatological meaning perhaps for the first time in Paul’s day. In short, what Galatians and 1 Corinthians lack is the language of the spirit and the letter applied to Torah, a reading strategy first intimated in 2 Cor 3 and carried out with greater thoroughness in Romans. To summarize: the Corinthian Christians no longer have an identity as ἔθνη (12:2), their ancestors travailed in the wilderness (10:1), yet they remain distinct from unbelieving Jews (1:22–24) and ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα (10:18). The founding myths, the heroic – and not so heroic – ancestors, and the shared historical memories of Israel have a community-forming significance for Paul’s Gentile believers. Yet this new identity does not require a theology of supersession or transference. As in Galatians, Paul appears to be working with a conception of Israel as an entity so thoroughly recreated by its Messiah that belief in him renders once indispensable identity markers superfluous. It is into this New Israel (an anachronism in terminology but not conceptuality) that Paul invites previously idolatrous Gentiles to enter.73 This point does not depend on a specific decision concerning the force of πάντως in 9:10 (as suggested by R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 109–10). Paul’s claim opposes an alternative exegetical decision evidenced in Josephus, who maintains that the divine lawgiver teaches humanity compassion by his example in caring for the brute animals (C. Ap. 2.213–214). Paul is closer to the judgment expressed by Philo in On the Special Laws, where Philo claims that the law does not prescribe for unreasoning creatures, but for those who have mind and reason (Spec. 1.260; the Letter of Aristeas is similar, see 144– 169). But even this connection is limited. In the first place, Philo agrees with Josephus in On the Virtues, where contrary to his opinion in On the Special Laws he insists that God legislates in behalf of the ox (Virt. 145–146), a specific instance of his care for “animals of an irrational nature” (Virt. 81; this is not the only place in 1 Corinthians where Paul interjects an inter-Jewish interpretive debate that was probably completely lost on his first readers/hearers; cf. 1 Cor 15:51–52 and 2 Bar. 50:2). Moreover, while Paul’s hermeneutics may rely on Middle Platonic currents, what drives his reading in 1 Cor 9:8–10 is eschatology: the text does not prove God’s concern for the ox but discloses a mystery than can only be read correctly at the proper moment in the apocalyptic drama. The significance of eschatology for Paul’s interpretation of Deut 25:4 is overlooked by David Instone-Brewer, who argues that because the rabbinic halakah interpreted “ox” as meaning “laborer,” Paul gives Deut 25:4 a literal interpretation by 1st cent. standards (“1 Corinthians 9.9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’” NTS 38 [1992]: 554–65). 73 Barrett claims that in 1 Corinthians the language of a “third race” lies close to hand (First Corinthians, 279; Holmberg is similar [“Jewish Versus Christian Identity,” 422]), but I think that Paul’s dialectical reconfiguration of and fidelity to Israel’s traditions is

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

73

2.2.2.2. Circumcised Hearts in Philippians and Romans This reapplication of Israel’s traditions to the Jewish-and-Gentile community of Christ is further confirmed by Paul’s characterization of circumcision elsewhere. In Phil 3, he declares that he together with the Gentile Christians in Philippi are ἡ περιτοµή, “the circumcision,” a title explicitly placed in contrast to what he denigrates as ἡ κατατοµή, (vv. 2–3).74 “The circumcision” he correlates with those who “worship God in/by (the) spirit (Spirit)” (οἱ πνεύµατι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες), and “glory in Christ Jesus” (οἱ … καυχώµενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), while the practice of “mutilation” aligns with those who “put conbetter conveyed by New Israel language, though both phrases are absent from his writings. This latter option preserves the association between the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) and the new creation in which circumcision and uncircumcision become superfluous (Gal 6:15). The notion of a “third race” – aside from the problematic use of race itself – suggests that there is an Israel/Jewish people on the one hand, a collection of Gentile peoples on the other, and an emerging Christian community that transcends both. But my argument is that in all of his letters prior to Romans, Paul argues or presupposes that Gentile believers are incorporated into Israel, while Jewish unbelievers forfeit their original membership. On the other hand, terminology such as restored or renewed Israel suffers from the opposite defect as “third race” terminology: these terms are insufficient to express the new creation that Christ has inaugurated and inadequate to convey the fact that, for Paul, Israel’s history from Sinai forward demonstrates the presence of sin and the pervasive effects of Adam’s transgression (Rom 2:17–24; 3:19–20; 5:12–14, 19–21; 7:7–11; on Rom 7 and the history of Israel, see Douglas J. Moo, “Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7–12,” NTS 32 [1986]: 122–35; Wright, Climax, 196–97). Although I cannot argue the point here, I believe that my understanding of Israel in Paul’s letters to this point receives substantial support from the author of Ephesians, for whom the dominant ethnic category is and remains Israel. Participation in the cosmic body of Christ cannot be had by aliens and foreigners apart from acquiring citizenship among this chosen ἔθνος. However, the Israel in question is one determined by the cosmic Messiah, thereby transcending the limitations of Torah and boasting a circumcision that is not made with hands (Eph 2:11–22). Not only does Ephesians develop the theology of Israel found in Paul’s own letters, in my estimation it does so by tapping into the same Middle Platonic hermeneutic. Paul utilizes it to develop his understanding of the law, whereas Ephesians applies it to individual believers and to the church as a whole. 74 I consider Philippians to have been written shortly after Galatians, perhaps from an Ephesian imprisonment. The warnings in ch. 3 are in my judgment more likely a reflection of Paul’s anxiety to head off another debacle similar to the one that had exploded in Galatia than a reflection of opponents already present in Philippi (following George S. Duncan, “A New Setting for St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians,” ExpTim 43 [1931]: 7–11; Robert Jewett, “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians,” NovT [1970]: 364; Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., “What Shall We Say that Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4,” HTR 88 [1995]: 442 n. 11; Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians [rev. and expanded by Ralph P. Martin; WBC 43; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004], l, lv; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 181; Grindheim, Crux, 121–22; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 137–50; John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33B; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008], 17, 470).

74

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

fidence in the flesh” (ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες). As in Galatians, the fact that this polemic is directed in the first instance against (the same?) rival Christian missionaries does not obscure the fact that Paul expresses himself in a way that deprecates physical circumcision itself.75 According to Paul those who worship God in S/spirit and boast in Christ, whether physically circumcised or not, can claim the title “the circumcision” – inclusive of Gentiles! His position indicates a thoroughgoing reconfiguration of what circumcision means and the ethno-religious body it signifies.76 In Rom 2:28–29, Paul presents a similar understanding. He distinguishes between that which is euphemistically described as ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, ἐν σαρκί, “outward, in the flesh” (2:28, NASB) and circumcision itself, an inward reality which he describes as καρδίας ἐν πνεύµατι οὐ γράµµατι, “of the heart, by the 75

Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 358; Hawthorne, Philippians, 175; Grindheim, Crux, 125–26; against Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 298–99; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 182; Reumann, Philippians, 473–74, who do not find a polemical element here. Jewish interpreters applied “circumcision” to the condition of the heart (as already Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4 encouraged them to do; see 1QS V, 5; 1QHa II, 7, 18; XVIII, 20; Philo, Ques. Gen. 3.46). But even the allegorists to whom Philo elsewhere refers (Migr. 92–93) show no indication of a polemical assault on physical circumcision as “mutilation.” As Frey states, the notion of “heart” circumcision was common among Jewish interpreters, but “we cannot deny that Paul uses the idea quite differently” (“Identity,” 313). 76 Boyarin, Radical Jew, 81–82. Nanos tries to resist conclusions similar to those drawn here, but his counter-proposals are unconvincing. Two of them are relevant. First, he claims that σάρξ in Phil 3:3 has no connection to Paul’s frequent use of this word to indicate circumcision (see § 4.4.2. below) or to the κατατοµή in v. 2. He suggests instead that ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες “could certainly signify” the rejection of magical practices such as selfmutilation to influence pagan gods (though no evidence for such usage is offered, and in any case “could certainly signify” hardly inspires confidence; “‘Judaizers’? ‘Pagan’ Cults? Cynics? Reconceptualizing the Concerns of Paul’s Audience from the Polemics in Philippians 3:2, 18–19” (paper presented at the Philippians People’s History working group, November 2010. Cited 23 July 2011. Online: http://www.marknanos.com, 13). Second, Nanos argues that Paul’s expression, “We are the circumcised,” is a rhetorical device for including uncircumcised Gentiles within the Jewish community, so that “We are the circumcised” is a metonym for “We are the circumcised and the non-circumcised” (ibid., 17– 18). Again, one must ask whether Paul ever spoke his meaning plainly. Significantly, Nanos does not seem to know what to do with vv. 7–8; he applies to these verses the label “dissociative rhetoric” (which is not explained in this essay, nor does he cite his earlier [opaque] discussion in Irony, 56–59), but how this description is supposed to convince us that when Paul uses the word σκύβαλον, he really means (in Nanos’s words) “the superior, spiritual values” of Judaism that he wants his Gentile converts to identify with, remains unclear (ibid., 7, 15, 18–9). It appears to me, rather, that Paul’s willingness in the same passage to characterize the advantages of his Jewish heritage with a crudely pejorative slang in 3:8 confirms his negative perspective on physical circumcision in v. 2 (so too Duling, “Whatever Gain,” 810–14).

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

75

Spirit and not by the letter,” and thus obtainable by Gentiles as well as Jews. The detailed investigation of this passage by Timothy W. Berkley has shown that Paul’s thorough reinterpretation of circumcision has an exegetical basis which was barely hinted at in Phil 3:2. Genesis 17 again lays out the problem Paul needs to solve: How can physically uncircumcised Gentiles become partakers in a covenant whose fundamental demand is the removal of male foreskin? To meet this challenge, Paul employs pentateuchal and prophetic texts (Deut 29–30, Ezek 36, Jer 7), which allow him to reinterpret the “circumcision of the flesh” in Gen 17 (vv. 11, 13, 14, 24, 25) as a spiritual circumcision. This exegetical maneuver enables Paul to understand “being a Jew” as a spiritual reality and therefore inclusive of the Gentile Christbelievers.77 However, Paul does not denigrate circumcision (as in Phil 3:2) but only qualifies its meaning. This shift accords with the general tenor of Romans, as the examination of Rom 4 below also suggests. 2.2.2.3. Summary Not only in Galatians but also in 1 Corinthians, Phil 3, and Rom 2, Paul’s rhetoric of identity remains consistent: Christ-believing Gentiles have joined messianic Jews like himself and thereby receive an entirely new founding ancestor, ethnic affiliation, and stock of historical experiences. The apostolic discourse creates an identity for Gentile converts that encroaches on the cultural heritage guarded by the Jewish community. As W. D. Davies wrote, “In the [Church] Paul sees the world-wide growth of the true Israel, an Israel formed of those who had accepted the claims of Jesus as Messiah.”78 But, as Davies implies, even at his most extreme, Paul remains committed to the founding narratives of his native community. The Abrahamic mythomoteur, even when not explicitly invoked, regulates Paul’s efforts to conceptualize an identity for Gentile Christ-followers appropriate to their share in God’s new creation. 2.2.3. Romans 4 and the Two Branches of Abraham’s Family Tree Paul’s most sustained interpretation of Abraham as a progenitor of the Christdetermined community appears in Rom 4. As in Galatians, an exegetical 77

Berkley, Broken Covenant, 141–58; see also C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; 6th ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–1979), 1:176; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (2d ed.; BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 57–58; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” in DPL 137–39; N. T. Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:448–50; Frey, “Identity,” 313, 315; Zoccali, Called, 58–68; against Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 235–36, who finds the primary background in the Jesus tradition of Matt 6. 78 W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (4th ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 75.

76

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

argument extends genealogical ties from the patriarch to Gentile believers. But a remarkable shift occurs in this passage. In Galatians, those in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike, constitute the single seed of Abraham and the ethnically undifferentiated Israel of God. The argument was based on a locative or instrumental interpretation of ἐν in Gen 12:3 and 18:18, supplemented by Gen 15:6, and made possible by a christological reading of σπέρµα. In Rom 4, by contrast, Paul bypasses Gen 12:3 and 18:18, gives Gen 15:6 an independent role, and relies largely on Gen 17:5. More significantly, although the closing christological statement in vv. 24–25 is anticipated as early as v. 17, Paul’s interpretation of Genesis evinces no overt christological hermeneutic. As a result, law-free Gentiles retain their newly-found Abrahamic paternity but are carefully placed alongside a Christ-believing Jewish community which Paul acknowledges will persist in observing circumcision (v. 12) and Torah (v. 16).79 It is here, for the first time in his extant writings, that Paul is willing to speak of separate branches in the one Abrahamic family tree.

79 On the differences between Gal 3 and Rom 4, see Siker, Disinheriting, 72–74; J. Paul Sampley, “Romans and Galatians: Comparisons and Contrasts,” in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernard W. Anderson (ed. James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger; JSOTSup 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 315–39; Chance, “Seed,” 391; Martyn, Galatians, 350–52. It was once frequently heard among interpreters that even in Romans Paul applies the term Israel to the Gentiles. This position is adopted in Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 137–39; W. D. Davies, “People of Israel,” in Studies, 132; Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 281; James W. Aageson, “Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9–11,” JSNT 31 (1987): 55; Bruce Chilton, “Romans 9–11 as Scriptural Interpretation and Dialogue with Judaism,” ExAud 4 (1988): 31; Mary Ann Getty, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11,” CBQ 59 (1988): 459; E. Elizabeth Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11 (SBLDS 109; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 139–41; Byrne, Romans, 292–93, 304; Slenczka, “Identität,” 475. However, it is increasingly common for exegetes to see a consistent distinction in Romans (or, for some, in Paul’s career throughout) between Israel and the Gentiles/nations. This view can be found in Bruce W. Longenecker, “Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9–11,” JBL 36 (1989): 96–98; William S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 69; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 48; idem, Creation, 48–49, 100–102, 127, 131; James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (WUNT 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 132–33; Donaldson, Gentiles, 178–84; Leander E. Keck, “The Jewish Paul Among the Gentiles: Two Portrayals,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture, 461–81, esp. 470–75; Jewett, Romans, 575; Gadenz, Called, 82; Nanos, “Paul’s Judaism,” passim.

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

77

2.2.3.1. Justification, Circumcision, and Abraham’s Children in Romans 4:9–12 Romans 4 introduces Abraham to prove that justification occurs on the basis of faith (vv. 3–6, quoting Gen 15:6 in v. 3) and is effective for the forgiveness of sins (vv. 7–8, quoting Ps 32:1–2). In vv. 9–12, however, Paul moves from Abraham as example of justification to Abraham as ancestor of God’s people.80 He marks the transition with the question, “Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised?” Genesis 15:6 answers Paul’s question concerning the basis of justification, but it is the broader context that explains how the multiethnic recipients of justification relate to each other and to Abraham. A number of features in Rom 4:9–12 require comment. First, Paul bases his argument on the narrative sequence in Genesis. It is supremely important to him that Abraham’s justification occurs before his 80

Richard B. Hays argues that 4:1 be translated, “What then? Shall we say to have found Abraham as our forefather according to the flesh?” (“Abraham as Father of Jews and Gentiles,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 61–84; repr. from “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 [1985]; he is followed in Michael Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,” NTS 41 [1995]: 71–88; Berkley, Broken Covenant, 163; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:487, 10:489–90, 10:494; idem, Faithfulness, 2:849, 2:1003; see criticisms in James D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988], 1:199; Tobin, “Controversy,” 443 n. 14; Jewett, Romans, 307–8). This translation would bring 4:1–8 under the rubric of Abraham’s true family and eclipse the exemplary significance Abraham and his faith would otherwise seem to possess. Despite the exegetical and linguistic arguments Hays presents, I suspect more theological motivations afoot: an unwillingness to acknowledge that Paul’s argument shifts its focus midstream, introducing the topic of Abraham’s family and its correct determination only in v. 9; a realization that Abraham functioning as exemplar for the believer in Rom 4:1–8 would have potentially catastrophic results for Hays’s understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ; and a discomfort with traditional Protestant exegesis of Paul which finds very strong support from 4:1–8. The accuracy of traditional Protestant interpretations of 4:1–8 was acknowledged frankly by Sanders (ironically; Jewish People, 35) but is resisted by several proponents of the New Perspective, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 1:204–5; idem, The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 48–50; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:491–92; on this debate see further Simon J. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25,” in The Paradoxes of Paul (vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 156–60; Peter T. O’Brien, “Was Paul Converted?” in The Paradoxes of Paul, 377–78 n. 57; Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise (Studies in Biblical Literature 122; New York: Lang, 2009) and the response in Don Garlington, review of Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise, RBL 27 (2009): 1–10. Cited 13 January 2011. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7088_7701.pdf.

78

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

circumcision, that Gen 15 appears prior to Gen 17. Paul develops a dual significance from these two moments in Abraham’s story that has no analog in his other surviving letters. He identifies the meaning of the narrative order in this way: “The purpose was to make [Abraham] the father of all who believe without being circumcised … and likewise (καί) the father of the circumcised” (vv. 11b–12a). Abraham’s paternity encompasses distinct classes of people whose relation to him depends on the paradigmatic text that corresponds to their respective situations. The righteousness credited to him solely on the basis of faith (Gen 15) demonstrates his ancestral potency for those who believe without circumcision, while his subsequent circumcision (Gen 17) reveals his fatherhood of those who, believing, follow the same path from circumcision to belief.81 The chronology of Genesis enables Abraham to symbolize the multiform unity characterizing God’s people.82 Second, although Paul never provides an explicit statement concerning how these groups actually become Abraham’s children, 4:11–12 implies an answer. These verses suggest that following Abraham’s example suffices for both groups as a standard for membership in his one family.83 Abraham becomes the father of Gentiles who believe as he believed, and of Jews who both are circumcised and στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν, “walk in the footsteps of,” “conduct oneself in the manner of” (BDAG, s.v. στοιχέω and ἴχνος), that is, who exercise the faith that Abraham had while uncircumcised. Genesis provides distinct Abrahamic paradigms for each group to model, though faith in the Messiah remains the common denominator essential to both.84 This distinction between the circumcised and the Gentiles within God’s one people is consistently maintained for the rest of the epistle and appears in the peroration of 15:8–9. There Paul concludes his instructions for mutual service by emphasizing that Christ embodies a servant-mission to both the 81

This interpretation takes τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν κτλ. in v. 12 as a reference to the same group referred to with τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτοµῆς µόνον in the same verse, an interpretation required by the placement of the first τοῖς with respect to οὐκ … µόνον; see Cranfield, Romans, 1:237; Dunn, Romans, 1:211; Chance, “Seed,” 391–92; against Jewett, Romans, 320. 82 Anthony J. Guerra, “Romans 4 as Apologetic Theology,” HTR 81 (1988): 263–64; Hays, Echoes, 56; Andrew T. Lincoln, “Abraham Goes to Rome: Paul’s Treatment of Abraham in Romans 4,” in Worship, Theology, and Ministry: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige; JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 169–70, 172; Siker, Disinheriting, 58–61; Calvert, “Abraham,” 7; Tobin, “Controversy,” 447; idem, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 152; Watson, Hermeneutics, 213–14; W. S. Campbell, Creation, 63. 83 This despite Paul’s invocation of Abraham, “our forefather according to the flesh,” a phrase which implies that actual descent through procreation has a contributing role. 84 Watson, Hermeneutics, 216; Juncker, “Children of Promise,” 143 (though I do not understand why Juncker insists that Abraham’s example is not merely one of faith but of Gentile faith).

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

79

περιτοµή and the ἔθνη, a distinction presupposed in the ensuing catena of scriptural quotations (15:10–12).85 The difficult syntactical problems that inhere in Rom 15:8–9 are not important for the present argument, only that Paul’s final summation, arguably drawing to a close not only 14:1–15:7 but the entire epistle, presents the same contrast between the circumcision and the Gentiles that occurs first in ch. 4. Third, Paul continues to read the story of Abraham from the perspective articulated in Gal 6:15: a new creation in Christ has interrupted Israel’s historic traditions. While the drastic break so evident in Galatians is here and throughout Romans attenuated, Paul nevertheless refuses to read the Abrahamic story as a single, organically unfolding plot, whose narrative trajectory possesses an univocal significance for all Abraham’s subsequent children. The constituent elements of the Abrahamic myth do not combine in a straightforward etiology for an undifferentiated people. They contrast with each other and in so doing anticipate the paradoxically diverse unity of God’s eschatological family.86 2.2.3.2. Torah, Inheritance, and Abraham’s Children in Romans 4:13–17 In vv. 13–17a, Paul moves the discussion from circumcision to Torah. This suggests that his interest in Abraham’s “biography” has moved from Gen 15 and Gen 17 to Gen 22, the sacrifice of Isaac. Jewish interpreters commonly read this episode as the ultimate example of Abrahamic obedience and the anticipation of Torah-based piety.87 This transition allows Paul to reiterate his

85

Dunn, Romans, 2:848; J. Ross Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9,” JBL 116 (1997): 473–485; Jewett, Romans, 893. 86 See also Watson, Hermeneutics, 174, where Watson comments, “Paul believes that he has found [in Gen 15:6] the point in the narrative where the ‘pious exemplar’ reading is shown to be utterly untenable. This single sentence is the lever he needs in order to overturn a reading of the Genesis text which appears to be so entirely natural, so straightforward and unproblematic.” This soft emphasis on discontinuity is confirmed, I think, by the way Paul suppresses the significance of circumcision even for the Jewish branch of Abraham’s family in vv. 11a and 12. It is only the seal of Abraham’s prior righteousness, and it was adopted so that he can be the father of those who are not ἐκ περιτοµῆς µόνον. The clear implication is that for both branches of the Abrahamic tree, righteousness occurs through faith. For neither does it occur on the basis of circumcision. 87 Ancient readers frequently understood Gen 15:6 as an anticipatory verdict validated only on the basis of Abraham’s obedience in Gen 22: Sir 44:19–21; Jub. 17:15–18; 18:16; 19:8; 1 Macc 2:52; Philo, Abr. 192; Josephus, Ant. 1.223–225; Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 40:2, 5; 4 Macc 14:20; m. Avot 5.3. Jon D. Levenson presents a vigorous modern defense of this position in The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993), 125–42. Incidentally, this perspective is shared by the author of 1 Clem., who makes the birth of Isaac as the fulfillment of God’s promise contingent on Abraham’s willingness to

80

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

arguments from 4:9–12 while shifting their focus from circumcision to Torah.88 The emphasis on Abraham’s family as a multiplicity, rather than an undifferentiated unity, persists in this new phase of Paul’s discussion. Σπέρµα in v. 13 is given its natural, collective sense, glossed in v. 16 as παντὶ τῷ σπέρµατι, “all the seed.” Consistent with this, Abraham becomes ὁ πατὴρ πάντων ἡµῶν, “the father of us all” (4:16) and – on the basis of Gen 17:5 – πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν, “the father of many nations” (4:17). The christological argument of Galatians that assimilated Gentile Christ-followers to ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ cannot accommodate this emphasis on diverse peoples stemming from Abraham; accordingly it disappears. This fresh reading of σπέρµα has theological and social-symbolic repercussions absent in Paul’s other letters. Just as the continuing role of circumcision for Jewish Christ-follows was acknowledged in 4:12, Paul here accepts the significance of Torah for the same branch of Abraham’s children. Gentile believers enter the family of Abraham alongside those ἐκ τοῦ νόµου (v. 16).89 As Hans Hübner points out, the theological development in Paul’s understanding of Israel has its counterpart in his revised appreciation for the law.90 There is a tacit acknowledgment that Christian Jews will continue to observe their traditional Torah practices. And as he did in 4:9–12, Paul applies a reading strategy that refuses to allow later moments in the narrative to determine earlier ones. He already separated Gen 15 and 17, making each the symbolic paradigm for a distinct line of descendants; here he sets both in opposition to Gen 22. He insists that Abraham’s justification occurred not as a proleptic assessment of his character that the Akedah would confirm, but only on the basis of his faith in the divine promise. Some of Abraham’s seed may continue to be οἱ ἐκ τοῦ νόµου, but ὁ νόµος itself fails to demarcate his hiers (v. 13). Paul instead assigns to it a diagnostic purpose – it reveals sin. Any greater significance would undo the sacrifice him (with an implied appeal to God’s foreknowledge, though this is not stated; 1 Clem. 10:7). 88 Stanislas Lyonnet, Études sur l’épître aux Romains (AnBib 120; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989), 265. On the meaning of νόµος and ἔργα in Romans, see § 4.5.2. 89 In light of vv. 9, 11, 13, and especially 12 (“the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had”) and 14 (“If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void”), I regard Paul’s language in v. 16 as imprecise; with οἱ ἐκ τοῦ νόµου he refers to Torah-observant Jewish believers in Christ walking alongside Gentile believers in Christ. It is not a matter of Torah-observant but non-Christian Jews juxtaposed against Gentiles who believe as Abraham did (with Cranfield, Romans, 1:242; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:498; against Dunn, Romans, 1:216; Jewett, Romans, 331). 90 Actually, Hübner stated it the other way around: “… die bei der Erörterung des Gesetzes durch Paulus ersichtliche theologische Entwicklung ihre Parallele in der theologischen Entwicklung der Israelsicht des Apostels besitzt” (Gottes Ich, 8).

2.2. The Reconfiguration of Abrahamic Identity in Paul

81

unity of Abraham’s multiethnic descendants (v. 15; see also 2:17–24; 3:19– 20; 5:20; 7:7–12).91 But Paul does more in 4:13–17a than apply his arguments from vv. 9–12 to Torah. In a further contrast with Galatians, he specifically addresses the Jewish ethnoscape in 4:13. It is this territorial dimension, rather than the Spirit, that he identifies with the promise.92 Although this development commits Paul to a reading closer to the “original meaning” of Genesis, he interprets it in light of an eschatological trend: Abraham and his σπέρµα will “inherit the κόσµος.” The promise of land not only remains in force, but now delivers the entire creation.93 If Abraham is to generate nations, then the compact bit of real estate located around Jerusalem can hardly suffice as their place of residence. Only a world-encompassing fulfillment can contain a posterity so vast. Romans 4 thus shows both considerable consistency as well as remarkable innovation when compared to the remainder of Paul’s corpus. He continues to rely on the narratives of Abraham to understand the messianic family. But he also evinces a process of selection, emplotment, and interpretation not anticipated in his previous letters. By shifting his exegetical bases from Gen 12:3 and 18:18 to 17:5 – a most unlikely verse, given its context! – Paul has found a different way of reading Gentiles into Genesis. He applies to Gen 15, 17, and 22 his dialectical mode of reading: successive episodes in Abraham’s life do not combine into a seamless whole but signify now his Gentile children, now his Jewish ones, now the impossibility of law to supplement the justification of either. Both groups share an Abrahamic but no longer an Israelite kinship.94 Paul thus found an interpretive path into Israel’s traditions for his 91

As γράµµα, the law in Romans has only this diagnostic function. However, in the power of the Spirit the law is given a fresh lease on life – but it must be read in a correspondingly new way (cf. 7:6, 8:3–4). This dialectic explains Paul’s consistent willingness to give the law a positive role in the believer’s life (3:27; 7:12–16, 21–25; 8:2–4; 9:4; 10:5; 13:8–10). The work of Daniel Boyarin has convinced me that Paul evidently has joined a Middle-Platonic hermeneutic to his distinction between the spirit and the letter and made possible the dual law which appears throughout Romans – an emphasis unique to this letter (3:27–31, ch. 7; 8:1–4; 10:6–8), though first intimated in 2 Cor 3. 92 However, the Spirit will reappear in connection with language related to inheritance in Rom 8, esp. vv. 15–17. 93 Dahl, “The Future of Israel,” in Studies, 139–40; Cranfield, Romans, 1:239–40; Dunn, Romans, 1:213; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 188 n. 30; Zoccali, Called, 153; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:849–50. Paul’s evaluation of Israel’s ethnoscape will receive a more detailed discussion in § 6.3. below. 94 Only rarely do interpreters perceive the different ideologies of Israel that underwrite, respectively, Rom 2 and Rom 4, 9–11. However, some have made a grudging admission that this is the case. For example, both Timothy Berkley and N. T. Wright claim that throughout Romans Paul makes believing Gentiles members of Israel. Yet in From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart, Berkley is forced to recognize – in a footnote – that Rom 2, where Gentiles are capable of becoming Jews on the basis of Paul’s

82

Chapter 2: The Abrahamic Mythomoteur

Gentile converts that did not violate the integrity of Jewish ethnic affiliation, and this discovery runs in tandem with a new appreciation for the importance of the territorial promises to Abraham. As fundamental elements of the Jewish mythomoteur, circumcision, Torah, and land have reasserted themselves and made their presence felt in Paul’s interpretation of Israel’s etiological myth. They will emerge again in Rom 9.

2.3. Conclusions 2.3. Conclusions

When Paul conceptualizes an identity for Gentile Christ-followers, he pursues a single hermeneutical agenda: they must be incorporated into Abraham’s family. The exegetical means by which he makes the connection through Christ to Abraham changes over time. In Galatians, Paul bases his exegesis of Gen 12:3, 15:6, and 18:18 on his participationist soteriology: those in Christ are ipso facto children of Abraham. Different but complimentary perspectives occur in 1 Corinthians, Phil 3, and Rom 2. In Rom 4, however, the plural πολλῶν ἐθνῶν from Gen 17:5 provides him with the necessary warrant for engrafting Gentiles into the patriarchal family tree. Romans 9 will provide a similar means of situating Gentiles within the community of Abrahamic heirs.

redefinition of circumcision, and Rom 4 and 9–11, where Gentiles are included within Abraham’s family alongside Jews/Israel without such a transformation, represent divergent strategies (Broken Covenant, 192 n. 72; this difference is otherwise glossed over; see pp. 152, 160–61, 163–70). Similarly, Wright wants to argue that chs. 2, 4, and 9 all operate with the same redefined understanding of Israel as inclusive of Jewish and Gentile Christbelievers (e.g., Faithfulness, 2:922, 2:1002). But in vol. 1 of Paul and the Faithfulness of God he acknowledges that in Rom 9–11 Paul mounts an argument that presupposes the abiding distinction between Jews and Gentiles. He claims that here Paul steps out of his normal worldview in an unanticipated way in order to differentiate and thereby to underscore ironically the unity of the two groups as one ecclesia (ibid., 1:398; cf. this admission with his contrary statement in Climax, 238). Tellingly, this concession plays no role in Wright’s actual one hundred-page exposition of Rom 9–11 in vol. 2 (Faithfulness, 2:1156– 258). Both Berkley and Wright are forced to admit – against the push of their own interpretive goals – that Rom 2 presupposes a substantially different understanding of Israel (Gentiles can become Jews) than that operative in Rom 4, 9–11 (Gentiles and Jews remain distinct). I am therefore not alone in discerning this tension within Romans. Such a shift within the space of two chapters may strike some interpreters as implausible. Why would Paul persist in identifying Christ-believers of any ethnic background as “inward Jews” in Rom 2 if chs. 4 and 9–11 indicate that he has moved beyond this way of relating Jews and Gentiles in Christ? Any answer will be speculative. It may be that Paul sees his argument in Rom 2 – where, after all, the equation of “inward Jew” with “believer in Christ” occurs only at the level of implication and is not expressly stated – as useful for establishing the main point: the equality of Jews and Gentiles.

2.3. Conclusions

83

But these are diverse means by which Paul arrives at his unchanging goal. Those who believe in Christ become Abraham’s seed. New creation does not obliterate the significance of Abraham as progenitor of the covenant community, but supplies an avenue for making the Abrahamic endowment available to all nations. Paul consistently presents interpretations drastic in their revisionist implications yet grounded in the sacred mythomoteur. The textual meanings of seed, righteousness, circumcision, promise, and inheritance are all recategorized and given new referents in Paul’s symbolic landscape, but these concepts are never uprooted from their native soil. However, Paul does not merely expand Jewish religious identity until it is sufficiently broad to accommodate righteousness-in-Christ for Gentiles. Participation in Abraham’s family now requires membership in the messianic community (Gal 3:29; 1 Cor 12:13). Ethnic Jews, in Romans at least, may continue to observe their traditional practices, but Paul disqualifies them from membership in Abrahamic descent apart from faith in Christ. On this issue, he shows no indication of ambiguity. Paul is consistent in another area: he refuses to read Genesis as an unambiguous charter of Jewish ethnic solidarity. Instead, he finds a text characterized by disruption and fracture, composed of episodes whose discrete significances can be placed in contrast to each other, and whose ultimate meaning can be perceived only from the standpoint of the end of the ages brought about by Christ (1 Cor 10:11). To understand how God has brought about this paradoxical fulfillment, he turns repeatedly to prophetic texts that unveil the meaning of Abraham’s blessings for the messianic community. These results confirm the conclusions formulated by Carol Stockhausen in her own work on Paul reviewed in the previous chapter. When Paul interprets the OT, he pays close attention to the narrative shape of his base text, particularly the Pentateuch. He employs prophetic texts to make the narrative meaning relevant to his own time. And he uses the rabbinic technique of linking together texts on the basis of shared vocabulary (gezera shawa). Paul will execute the same hermeneutical program in Rom 9, where he once again turns to the etiology of Israel in Genesis to decipher its meaning for his own day.

Chapter 3

Ethnic Difference and Epistolary Exigency: Rethinking the Reason for Romans In his monograph Paul and the Gentiles, Terrance Donaldson analyzes the category of Gentiles in Paul’s thought. Despite its sophisticated methodology, Donaldson’s investigation arrives at something of a paradox: in Paul’s symbolic universe, Gentiles are proselytes to a reconfigured Israel defined by the crucified and risen Christ rather than by Torah, yet at the same time Paul insists that Israel and the Gentiles are distinct categories, indeed with Torah continuing to play a constitutive role in the former. We are left with, he claims, a kind of “category confusion”: proselytes to Israel who nevertheless are distinct from Israel.1 This tension can be alleviated with one important recognition: Donaldson’s own evidence that Paul recognizes the abiding significance of Israel as a distinct entity, free from Gentile presence or christological redefinition, is limited entirely to the epistle to the Romans. This is not an indication of Paul’s “category confusion,” but evidence for a transformed understanding of Israel, a transformation integrally connected to the purpose of what is arguably his final letter. In the previous chapter, I laid out the theoretical and ethnological context for the remainder of this study. In this chapter, I piece together the epistolary and communicative framework presupposed therein. I propose a reason for Romans that explains why Donaldson finds a clear distinction between Christ-believing Jews and Gentiles only here. This distinc1

Gentiles, 160; see also 159, 161–64, 236–48, 293–307. Zoccali criticizes the “category confusion” Donaldson’s position attributes to Paul and prefers to speak of the apostle’s multifaceted but coherent use of Israel (Called, 124, 171–73; see also 10, 18, 121). But this way of formulating the issue is an attempt to deal with the same problem: Paul sometimes refers to the in-Christ community, inclusive of Jews and Gentiles alike, as Israel, while other times he distinguishes the ethnic Jews from Gentiles even within the Christ movement. Donaldson’s main concern is to demonstrate the persistent relevance of the category Israel in Paul’s thought, against approaches which dissolve his Jewish identity so as to facilitate the construction of a Christian Apostle of universalism (Bultmann is specifically named but many others could be cited). By contrast, my concern is to establish that until Rom 4 Israel – redefined around the crucified and risen Messiah – is the only relevant category; outside of this there is nothing but idolatry and wrath (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9–10; Gal 2:15; 4:8–9; Phil 2:15; 1 Cor 5:5, 9–13; 6:9–11; 2 Cor 4:3–4; Rom 1:18–32; 2:17–24).

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

85

tion both sheds light on the contextual factors that called forth the epistle and provides the backdrop for the analysis of Rom 9 in the chapters ahead. In the letter to the Roman churches, situational exigency and scriptural exegesis combine to transform Paul’s vision of Jews, Gentiles, and their messianic unity.

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity 3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

Why did Paul write Romans? In the current discussion, an emerging consensus locates the occasion for the letter firmly in the fractious hostility among believing communities in Rome. Usually, the argument begins with textual evidence for the early history of Roman Christianity, then adds testimony for Roman anti-Semitism, and finally correlates these with statements from Paul’s epistles. The result: Jewish Christ-followers in Rome found themselves deprived of social power by suspicious Roman authorities and of religious significance by scornful Gentile converts. Paul takes up the cause of this beleaguered contingent, sending off Romans to establish the irrevocable rights of the Jewish people and to squelch Gentile Christian disdain.2 Historical documentation relevant to the early history of the Roman church begins with Suetonius, who records that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Claud. 25.4; the event is evidently confirmed by Acts 18:2).3 Most scholars see here a misspelling of Christ, Christus, and conclude that the 2

Examples include Willi Marxen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems (trans. G. Buswell; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 99–100; Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard Clark Kee; rev. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 310; Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate (ed. Karl P. Donfried; rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 92–96; repr. from Jud 26 (1970); James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 56–66; William L. Lane, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 202– 14; Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obscurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, 260–61; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:406–8; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser; ed. Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 15–16; Michael J. Cook, “Paul’s Argument in Romans 9–11,” RevExp 103 (2006): 92–94; Bernard Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 57–59. 3 Cited in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976), 2:113.

86

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

Christ movement, upon arriving in Rome, provoked some kind of civil unrest resulting in the expulsion of some or all Jews (assessments of the extent vary). This action left an exclusively Gentile church free to develop in its own way, cut off from the Jewish roots that originally fed it. If Suetonius indicates that in the late 40s the Christ movement was causing disruption among Jews, Tacitus implies that in the 60s it was a largely nonJewish phenomenon. He writes that Nero blamed the Christians for the recent fire in Rome, suggesting that the emperor saw adherents as isolated, identifiable, and deviant (Ann. 15.44).4 Aside from his note that the movement had its origin in Judea, Tacitus gives no indication that the persecuted Christians had any connection to the Jews living in Rome. For many scholars, then, Suetonius and Tacitus indicate a widening gap between the Jewish roots of Roman Christianity during the reign of Claudius and its Gentile dominance in the time of Nero. Thus, according to this reconstruction, when Jewish Christians began to trickle back to Rome, they found a social and religious situation drastically different from the one they left. A now-dominant Gentile contingent had grown hostile towards its own Jewish heritage, leaving the Jews who believed in Christ relative outsiders in the movement they themselves had founded. Why should the mere absence of Jews from the Christian communities in Rome precipitate a crisis requiring apostolic intervention? To answer this question, scholars usually invoke the social fact of Roman prejudice, claiming that the city was rife with anti-Jewish hostility.5 Christian congregations, bereft of the Jewish leadership and influence that had once guided it, allowed Roman anti-Semitism to infect their own attitudes towards their co-believers. Textual evidence indicating such sentiments is ample. Tacitus himself describes Judaism with the disdain worthy of his noble status: it is a disgusting foreign cult, misanthropic, aloof, and backwards, an evaluation shared at least by Cicero, Seneca, Quintilian, and Juvenal (Tacitus, Hist. 5.4.1, 5.5.1–5, 5.8.3, 5.12.2; Cicero, Flac. 28.66–69; Prov. Cons. 5.10–12; Seneca, De Superstitione, apud Augustine, Civ. 6.11; Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.21; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96–106)6. Nor were these merely private attitudes. The state expelled Jews from Rome twice before Claudius: as early as 183 B.C.E. and more recently by Tiberius in 19 C.E. (Valerius Maximus, Fact. ac Dict. 1.3.2; Josephus, Ant. 18.81–83; Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.5; Suetonius, Tib. 36; Cassius Dio, Roman History 57.18.5). Thus social contempt and political repression were two sides of the anti-Jewish Roman reality. 4

Ibid., 2:88–89. Dunn, Romans, 1:l–li, 1:liii; idem, “Romans, Letter to the,” DPL 839; Wiefel, “Jewish Community,” 96–100; J. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues, 39–40; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:406–7. 6 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1:197–98; 1:431; 1:513; 2:25–30. 5

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

87

This historical context can be given social-scientific depth with an emphasis on ethnic rivalry and intergroup competition. Hence, Philip Esler and Robert Jewett claim that ethnic populations in antiquity frequently imposed stereotypes and sought social power at the expense of opposing groups. This constant temptation was particularly acute in Rome, where the imperial ideology of honor and shame constantly induced non-elite groups to ape the elitist snobbery of their social superiors.7 At this point, the consensus reconstruction is already being supplemented by data from Romans. The historical and epistolary evidence produces, according to the common view, the following picture. After the Claudian expulsion, the Gentile congregations found themselves unencumbered by Jewish influence and increasingly swayed by an ethos of contempt. In this context, they launched a theology that both reflected contemporary prejudice and justified their dominance. Gentile Christians now claimed that they had replaced Israel as the elect people of God. They were, in effect, projecting onto heaven their own ethnocentric hauteur. Seeing a dearth of Jewish Christfollowers around them, they concluded God revoked Jewish election, nullified the Torah, and removed his former people from the sphere of salvation. The heritage that Israel forfeited now devolves onto a community drawn from the nations; they alone bear the historic honor of the name Israel and claim exclusive rights to its privileges. In short, the Gentile Christians spawned the first instance of theological supersessionism, and stood in desperate need of an apostolic dressing down. This Paul’s letter to the Romans provided. This scenario appears to be borne out by the statements Paul actually lays down in his letter. His repeated insistence that the gospel is for the Jew first (1:16; 2:9–10); his emphatic link between Jesus and the Jewish people (1:3; 9:5); his principle that God does not show partiality (2:11; 3:22–23; 3:29–30; 11:32); his declaration that the law is holy, good, and just (7:12); his enumeration of Jewish privileges (9:1–5); his insistence on the inviolability of Jewish election (11:29); his defense of halakic practices among the weak (14:1– 15:7); his careful attention to mutuality and reciprocity between Jews and Gentiles (11:30–31); his rebuke of Gentile presumption (11:20–22, 25); his firm distinction between Jews and Gentiles, only the former of whom are ever called Israel (chs. 4, 9–11); his climactic declaration that all Israel will be saved (11:26); and his summation that Christ came to confirm the promises to the patriarchs (15:8) all serve to counter the proto-supersessionism taking root among Gentile believers in Rome. They fit the historical circumstances just outlined, in the words of N. T. Wright, “like a glove.”8 Seen in this way, data derived from the epistle correspond to the historical development of the Roman church and to the social prejudices of the Roman people. When schol7 8

Esler, Conflict, 74–76; Jewett, Romans, 51, 79, 678, and passim. Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:406.

88

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

ars who adopt this approach to Romans argue that Paul writes to defend the interests of Jewish believers against an increasingly influential and antagonistic Gentile faction, they appear to rest their case on a solid foundation. No doubt many scholars find this historical hypothesis compelling on its evidentiary basis. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine this consensus hermetically sealed off from the diffused pluralism of present-day intellectual discourse. Its appeal to our moral intuition is unmistakable: this approach facilitates the hermeneutical task of making Paul speak to current ethical issues. On this understanding, the apostle is more easily enlisted as an advocate of social amelioration. He pens Romans for the purpose of establishing both Jewish election and the universal equality of all peoples before God. Israel is saved, disparate ethnic groups are mutually affirmed, and incipient Christian supersessionism, with its haunting twentieth-century evocations, nipped in the bud. Paul thus steps off the pages of Romans into our late twentieth and early twenty-first century contexts as a sponsor of cultural diversity and ethnic particularity. Moreover, his opposition to Gentile ethnocentrism can, according to the interests of the interpreter, be read as a cypher for resistance against ecclesiastical hegemony, imperial dominance, and cultural chauvinism.9 9

The political and ethical advantages of reading Paul as an advocate for multicultural inclusivism appear at different levels of explicitness in different interpreters. More obvious statements, frequently rooted in Romans and especially in a specific understanding of Rom 9–11, can be found in W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, iv, 85, 93, 98–121; James W. Aageson, “Abraham and the Gospel of Inclusion,” ch. 4 of Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1993); Markus Barth, “St. Paul – A Good Jew,” HBT 1 (1979): 36; Brad Braxton, No Longer Slaves: Galatians and African American Experience (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002); Byrne, Romans, 281–84; Chilton, “Romans 9–11,” 34; Cousar, “Paul and Multiculturalism,” 46–61; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies, 133, 140; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 300, 305, and passim; Eung Chun Park, Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2003), ix, 2, 72–73, 78–80, and passim; Neil Elliot, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); idem, “Paul’s Political Christology: Samples from Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker; LNTS 428; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 39–51, esp. 40–43. For general discussions of this overall trend, see Charles H. Cosgrove, “The Church With and For Israel: History of a Theological Novum Before and After Barth,” PRSt 22 (1995): 259–78; Stephen R. Haynes, “‘Recovering the Real Paul’: Theology and Interpretation in Romans 9–11,” ExAud 4 (1988): 70–84. A convenient example of movement between the historical and exegetical on the one hand and the hermeneutical and normative on the other can be seen by comparing Jewett’s numerous articles of biblical exegesis and his magisterial commentary with his various critiques of American society and government: Jewett, Christian Tolerance: Paul’s Message to the Modern Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982); idem, Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship (Louisville,

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

89

Hence, the essential component of the consensus view is not any historical datum on which it rests but the culturally sensitive apostle it produces. Thus, scholars who remove from this reconstruction one or more of its constituent elements – usually the relevance of Claudius’s decree or the mixed ethnic composition of the Roman churches – retain this presentation of Paul as central to their own proposals. Stanley Stowers rejects an epistolary (or implied) audience comprising any Jews.10 Andrew A. Das goes further and denies any actual Jews in the Roman congregations whatsoever, even as a minority.11 Mark Nanos and Philip Esler both argue that the expulsion under Claudius has no relevance for interpreting Romans.12 Ian E. Rock makes the expulsion central but severs the connection between the Chrestus – not Christus = Christ – of whom Suetonius speaks and Christian activity in Rome.13 Yet they all produce scenarios in which, when Paul writes Romans, he goes on the offensive, aiming to take down Gentile presumption and validate Jewish prerogatives. There are however several weaknesses in this approach to Romans that its advocates often gloss over. Concerning the attitudes of Gentiles towards Jews in the Roman congregations, one may begin by noting that apart from statements in Romans – the very purpose of which is the point under dispute – no evidence exists to inform us how non-Jewish believers actually felt towards Jewish members of the messianic movement. The case is circumstantial and can be questioned at several points. First, the elite derisiveness towards Jewish people was just that – an elite phenomenon, and not universal even among the nobility. Much evidence exists demonstrating that respect for Jews and their peculiar habits existed alongside disdain from cultural snobs. Classical writers frequently indicate that inhabitants of Rome not only esteemed Judaism but that many of them adopted its distinctive practices. Thus, Horace’s friend Aristius Fuscus can plausibly, if coyly, claim that he honors Jewish customs.14 He also indicates

Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1994); idem, Mission and Menace: Four Centuries of American Religious Zeal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence, The Myth of the American Superhero (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); idem, Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 10 Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994), 29–33. 11 Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 259. 12 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 333–34 and passim; Esler, Conflict, 98–100 13 Rock, “Another Reason for Romans – A Pastoral Response to Augustan Imperial Theology: Paul’s Use of the Song of Moses in Romans 9–11 and 14–15,” in Reading Paul in Context, 75–76, 84–85. 14 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1:324–25.

90

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

that Jews compel non-Jews into conformity – surely an exaggeration but one impossible to make without the perception that Jewish influence exceeded the boundaries of their own quarters (Sat. 1.4.139–143).15 From the comments of Cicero one can make the same deduction: Jews likely did not exercise the social leverage he attributes to them, but his remarks, all the more significant in that he is playing to the prejudices of his audience, reflect a sense that Jews in Rome wielded considerable and dubious influence (Flac. 28.66–67).16 Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, famously claimed, “The customs of this accursed race have gained such influence that they are now received throughout all the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors” (De Superstitione, apud Augustine, Civ. 6.11).17 Elsewhere he indicates that Jewish dietary restrictions were among the Jewish customs conspicuous in Rome (Ep. 108.22).18 Similar grievances were aired in the early second century by Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.1–2) and Juvenal (Sat. 14.96–106), both of whom know of actual circumcised proselytes.19 These cultural police were less outraged at Jews themselves than the perceived clout they allegedly had among large sections of the population. Even high-status Romans adopted Jewish practices or became full proselytes, such as Fulvia, whose husband was a senator and a friend of Tiberius (Josephus, Ant. 18.81–84), and the couple Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla, both cousins of Vespasian (Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.1– 2). Nero’s wife Poppaea was a known sympathizer (Josephus, Ant. 20.189– 196). Debatable examples include Quintus Caecilius Niger, the butt of Cicero’s jibe concerning Jews and pigs, and Caecilius of Calacte, the rhetorician of the Augustan age.20 These data indicate that among upper-class Romans were both those appreciative and scornful of Jews; by contrast, direct evidence of antipathy among the masses is still forthcoming. In the face of these facts, is a bold historian indeed who can assert, “The Christian congregation in Rome is surrounded by a society marked by its aversion and rejection of everything Jewish.”21 To the contrary, Andrew Das concedes, against the thrust of his own position, that in

15

Ibid., 1:323. Ibid., 1:197. 17 Ibid., 1:431. 18 Ibid., 1:434. 19 Ibid., 2:26, 2:102–103. 20 Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (updated ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1960), 15; Feldman and Reinhold, Jewish Life, 375–76. 21 Wiefel, “Jewish Community,” 100. See also J. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues, 39–40, where it is simply asserted without evidence that Roman prejudice was not limited to the upper echelons, from whom all his previously cited examples came. 16

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

91

the extant sources, such attitudes are limited to the upper crust, and even among them they were not universal.22 More generally, Josephus (C. Ap. 2.282–283; B.J. 7.45; Ant. 3.217) and Philo (Mos. 2.19–20) both report the widespread observance of Jewish customs among non-Jews; their claims may very well be exaggerated, but they are not likely to be wholly fabricated – indeed, they represent the obverse side of gripes from the Roman elite.23 (Interestingly, both Philo and Josephus claim that adherents to Jewish laws can be found among “Greeks and barbarians” and among every nation.) Politically, moreover, the Roman Jews experienced favorable legislation and received benefaction from the Julio-Claudians.24 Thus, even legislation against Roman Jews is not unambiguously negative. Clearly Jews in Rome enjoyed at least some prestige among the populace. There is evidence that they continued to do so among the Christ-followers. Far from suffering the depredations of anti-Semitic Gentiles, several indications suggest an active Jewish presence that was not voided in the time between Claudius and Nero. First, the text of Suetonius cannot prove that all Jews vacated Rome when Claudius issued his decree. Although his report is sometimes stated as, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome” (following the Loeb translation reproduced in Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism), a more plausible translation reads, “He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” On this translation, Suetonius’s report states only that the perceived ringleaders were forced out, whatever the extent of Claudius’s actual order.25 A substantial, less vocal majority of Jewish Christ-followers may have remained in the city and continued their association with Gentile believers. 22

Das, Solving, 194 n. 196. Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 288–382, where an extensive survey of evidence can be found to show that Jews, with or without explicit proselytizing activity, attracted both converts and sympathizers in significant numbers. 24 Leon, Jews, 9–11. 25 Those who prefer this second translation include Raymond E. Brown, “Part Two: Rome,” in Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 109; Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 204; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 13–14; Das, Solving, 162–66; Green, Christianity, 26. The whole situation is confused by the testimony of Cassius Dio, who, in an apparent allusion to this incident (disputed by some), insists that the Jews were not expelled but only forbidden to assemble. Stern postulates a complicated scenario, in which Claudius originally expelled all the Jews, and then relaxed the scope of the order to those responsible (Greek and Latin Authors, 1:116) Luke of course reports that Claudius commanded all Jews to leave, but even if correct it does not mean that they all actually left. In other instances draconian banishments of whole groups from the city were legislated but not enforced (see e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 12.52). 23

92

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

Further, it is difficult to make firm demographic conclusions based on Tacitus’s second-century report concerning Nero’s action against the Christians. Jews who accepted the messianic claims made for Jesus may have registered in the imperial calculations as Jews and nothing more. That Nero did not move against them does not prove they were not present. Moreover, early Christian texts of Roman province betray no anti-Semitic animus among Gentile Christ-followers. First Peter, whose Roman connection is established in 5:13, reflects a very high regard for Jewish traditions and a salvation-historical approach to the inclusion of the Gentiles (1:18–19; 2:5, 9, 12).26 Similarly, the role of the Jewish cult and interpretive traditions in 1 Clement bespeak not endemic Gentile supersessionism but the continuous esteem for Judaism.27 Granted, among Christian leaders, attitudes towards Jews soon hardened, but in the process they produced a mirror image of the earlier dichotomy: the church fathers who were largely drawn from elite society not only demonstrated the scorn with which that class rejected Jewish customs, they also inadvertently provide evidence that the laity whom they constantly admonished were incorrigibly attracted to the same.28 In other words, the expressions of anti-Semitism among Roman nobility and Church fathers alike reflect the same exasperation with the appeal Jewish traditions exerted among the “little people.” Taken together, these considerations mitigate against the assumption of virulent anti-Semitism running rampant among the Christ-believing Gentiles in Rome. If the consensus approach to Romans appeals to a one-sided presentation of the historical evidence, its treatment of Roman Christianity’s internal development relies largely on conjecture. The common reconstruction assumes the existence of conflicts among Roman Christ-followers willing to shame each other, engage in competitive bids for honor, and hurl mutually incriminating ethnic sneers. But this picture encounters two significant objections concerning both its inherent plausibility and its viability in the face of contrary evidence. First, the initial Gentile component among Roman Christfollowers was likely built on Godfearers and proselytes, if indeed the latter 26

Brown, “Rome,” 134. 1 Clement 40:1–5; 42:1; Brown, “Rome,” 169–71, 179–80; Anthony J. Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter (SNTSMS 81; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 39; Caragounis, “Development,” 278; Andrew Gregory, “Disturbing Trajectories: 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Development of Early Roman Christianity,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (ed. Peter Oakes; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 155; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 75–76. 28 Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire AD 135–425 (trans. H. McKeating; London: Littman, 1996), 232; Leonard Victor Rutgers, “Archaeological Evidence of the Interaction of Jews and Non-Jews in Late Antiquity,” AJA 96 (1992): 117–18; Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 400. 27

3.1. The Composition of Roman Christianity

93

category were not, in fact, considered to be Jews themselves.29 Even if the expulsion of Claudius left these adherents bereft of their Jewish social attachments and therefore isolated from the religious matrix that birthed them, there is no reason to suppose that they would suddenly abandon their regard for (and practice of some?) Jewish customs, nor that they could have successfully added to themselves a substantial number of Gentile converts who were hostile to their own Judaizing tendencies.30 How likely is it that a movement whose Gentile wing originated precisely because of its high level of interest in and even attachment to Judaism transformed itself into a largely antiJewish supersessionist movement between Claudius and Nero? Secondly, the consensus view results in unlikely exegetical results. It supposes that in Rom 11 Paul rebukes actual boasts from Gentile Christians who claimed to have replaced Israel (vv. 13–14, 18–21), and that in Rom 14:1– 15:7 he endorses the legitimacy of the weak in their halakic practices against the strong who malign them. But this means that Paul is opposing in ch. 11 the very group with whom he aligns in 15:1, where he unequivocally places himself among the strong. If Paul is writing throughout Romans against Gentiles who nurture presumptuous attitudes against Israel, why should he unnecessarily support their halakic position to the point that he not only refers to its adherents as “the strong” but also that he positively identifies with it?31 29

Most commentators recognize the likely role Godfearers and proselytes played in the formation of Roman Christianity, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 1:xlvii–xlviii; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 69–75; Das, Solving, passim. 30 Das, who claims that the Roman Christian assemblies are entirely Gentile in composition, is actually careful to argue that the relative size of the younger, anti-Jewish converts he supposes is unknown (Solving, 197). But, by the terms of Das’s own argument, unless they were a significant factor in the Roman congregations, why would Paul need to intervene at all? Indeed, if their addition to the numbers of Roman believers actually provoked an “identity crisis” (ibid.), they must have been a substantial number. 31 Mark Nanos attempts to avoid this improbability by defining the “weak in faith” as Jews who lack faith in Jesus Christ (Mystery, 119–144). Aside from other critiques of this position (see Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews,” CBQ 62 [2000]: 64–82; Das, “Former God-fearers or Synagogue Subgroup?” ch. 3 in Solving, 115–48) it is unsupportable in light of 14:9, which proves that lord in Rom 14 (vv. 4, 6, 8, 11, 14; see also 15:6 and probably 15:11) refers to Christ and not to God, which is essential to Nanos’s position (Nanos, Mystery, 113–14). This is probably why 14:9 does not appear in his index (except as 14:1–12, 14:1–13, 14:1–15:3, etc.) the only verse in the entire chapter which is not treated in the monograph. Nanos further claims that if Paul was not Torah observant, then he should have encouraged the weak to adopt his own law-less lifestyle, something that he never does. But it is not the case that Paul should feel obligated to encourage the weak to adopt the same position as he maintains, even if he no longer felt bound to a literal observance of Torah. In the first place, his ethical posture is not one determined by justification by faith and freedom from the law, as some traditional Protestant readings would have it, but by the story of Christ’s self-sacrifice for the sake of others (as implied in 14:7–9 and stated in 15:3–4; see

94

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

Besides these substantive problems concerning the surmised Gentile disdain for Jewish believers within the Roman congregations, the consensus view suffers from serious methodological problems. Scholars simply place too much weight on Suetonius than his passing remark can bear, often insufficiently dealing with a kettle of interpretive problems: When did the decree occur? What was its scope? Who, really, was Chrestus? Can Suetonius be reconciled with Acts? With Cassius Dio? And if all of these questions can individually be given answers that are probable, what is the relative strength of the entire edifice resting on this series of discrete possibilities, especially given that most interpreters claim that at least some of the information in Suetonius is wrong (e.g., his apparent assumption that Chrestus was personally in Rome)? Moreover, Suetonius’s imprecise recollections can hardly be set alongside the comments from Tacitus to buttress a knowledge of the ethnic composition of Roman Christianity sufficiently firm to guide our reading of the letter and our interpretation of its individual passages. Tacitus himself is hardly interested in providing the information on the ethnic constitution of early Roman Christianity modern scholars are seeking. His bird’s eye view from a generation later does not permit solid conclusions regarding the absence of Jewish believers in Jesus, or even that none were caught up in the Neronian persecutions. Trying to shore up this shaky foundation with an appeal to the actual content of Paul’s letter leads only to a kind of perverse triangulation, by which an unknown, the reason for Romans, is plotted by reference to two other unknowns, the classical evidence from Suetonius and Tacitus and the ethnic constitution and corresponding prejudices of the Roman church. The danger of circular reasoning is evident. Select statements of Paul are used to confirm a hypothesis that, in turn, is used to make sense of the letter. As a result, scholars fill historical gaps with assertion: “The problem [in Rome] was that there was so much diversity among the Christ-followers that there was not an adequate number of groups to allow everyone to find a group in which they in general Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 [1987]: 268–90). Paul’s cruciform ethic, in fact, requires that the strong – be they Jews or Gentiles – adapt themselves to the sensitivities of the weak. This ethical norm occurs throughout Paul’s letters and its application to the circumstances in Rom 14–15 should occasion no surprise. In the second place, the analysis of Rom 4 in ch. 2 showed that in Romans, Paul acknowledges that Jews – even Jews who believe in Christ – will continue to be identified by circumcision in the flesh and traditional practices of Torah (§ 2.2.3.2.; see also Rom 15:8). But this differentiation within the one messianic people is a breakthrough reached by Paul only in Romans. On the other hand, if as Andrew Das argues, both the weak and the strong are nonJewish believers in Christ, it is difficult to accept that Paul would not tell the weak simply to switch sides (Das, Solving, 106–13).

3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle

95

could conscientiously participate.”32 This statement does not arise from reading Paul’s letters but from an imaginative exercise that may be plausible but is hardly established fact. All of this suggests that Gentiles attracted to the Christ movement both before and after the edict of Claudius were proselytes, Godfearers, and Gentiles likely to be predisposed favorably towards Judaism rather than hostile towards it. Combined with the probability that at least some Jews continued to hold a place among the Roman congregations – whether because they escaped noticed at the time of Claudius’s eviction or because they were permitted to return at a later date – the resulting picture looks very different from the one normally posited: many and perhaps most Christ-followers in Rome held Jewish customs and religious practices in high regard. If Paul wants to win their support for his mission, he must at the very least be sensitive to their respect for Torah and their pride in affiliation with the elect people of God.

3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle 3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle

Despite substantial agreement among interpreters of Romans that Paul writes this letter in order to champion Jewish privileges, deflate Gentile presumption, and squelch a malevolent supersessionism, his own explicitly stated aim is quite different: the apostle hopes for mutual encouragement, he requests spiritual support for his impending trip to (and possible conflict in) Jerusalem, and he needs spiritual and material assistance when he passes through Rome on a missionary journey to Spain (1:11–13; 15:22–24, 30–32). The letter then has the obvious intention of introducing Paul and his message to a congregation otherwise unknown to him, establishing his own credibility and securing the Roman Christians’ goodwill. This fact should be the starting point for all investigation into the reason for Romans, and not simply one datum to be integrated into a larger reconstruction based on other considerations. It is the apparent disconnect between Paul’s need to introduce himself and the extensive, complex theological reasoning in Romans that drives most interpreters to look outside the letter’s expressed intention for its true purpose. But there are, in fact, weighty, frequently overlooked reasons that suggest Paul’s situation with respect to the Roman communities was delicate and perhaps demanded precisely the kind of orchestrated impression-management undertaken in the letter. Paul had reason to be uncertain about his reception in the capital. Two kinds of evidence suggest why this is so: data from Paul’s own letters and indications of spreading hostility against him. The congruence between both is striking. The assertions and implications of the former 32

W. S. Campbell, Creation, 115.

96

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

provided ammunition for the latter. Rather than charting the purpose of Romans on a dead reckoning, I fix my proposal to these two points of reference. Concerning the content of Paul’s own letters, much in them could not but strike observant Jews as offensive. This raises the possibility that his potential opponent in Romans is not an overconfident Gentile but an image of Paul himself constructed from material readily on hand in the epistles. It is Paul, not Roman Gentile supersessionists, who states in 1 Thess 2:14–17 that God’s wrath has come upon the Jews to the uttermost.33 It is he, not ethnic competitors attempting to shame perceived rivals, who in Gal 3 makes uncircumcised Gentiles Abraham’s seed and therefore heirs of the covenantal promises. It is he who in Gal 6:16 redefines Israel as the community that has faith in the crucified and risen Christ – the same Christ who according to the argument of Galatians is properly speaking the sole heir of Abraham. It is Paul who in 2 Cor 3:7–9 refers to the covenant delivered at Sinai as a ministry of death and condemnation and who in 3:14–16 claims that Jews are incapable of reading properly their own Torah, veiled as it is apart from faith in Christ. It is he who in Gal 2:19; 3:19, 23–25; 4:2–5, 24; 5:1, 3–4; 14 and 1 Cor 9:19–21 strongly implies that Torah has no continuing role as an ethical norm in the community of God’s people. Paul advocates and embodies an understanding of election and law that left him open to the charge that God had in one stroke rejected Israel from the covenant and altered the rules for its maintenance from practicing Torah to believing in Christ. Any observant Jew encountering directly or at second hand this series of claims could only respond that whether Paul admits it or not his gospel in fact entails the failure of God’s promises to the Jewish people, the dissolution of their election, the confusion of Israel and the nations, and the futility of their divinely imposed legal obligations.34 It proclaims God a liar and his demand 33

Although Birger Pearson mounted substantial arguments against the authenticity of these verses, they have not carried the day, not least due to the complete lack of manuscript evidence supporting his thesis (“1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 [1971]: 79–94). The passage is accepted as Pauline by Robert Jewett (The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety [Foundations and Facets: New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 36–42), Carol J. Schlueter (Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16 [JSNTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 25–38), and Karl P. Donfried (Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 195–208; repr. from Int 38 [1984]). I found particularly helpful the arguments advanced by Richard Bell for Pauline dependence on traditional material (Irrevocable Call, 56–84). On the tension between 1 Thess 2:14–16 and Rom 9–11, see Traugott Holtz, “The Judgment on the Jews and the Salvation of All Israel: 1 Thes 2,15–16 and Rom 11,25–26,” BETL 87 (1990): 284–94; Theobald, Studien, 328–30; Amy Karen Downey, Paul’s Conundrum: Reconciling 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 and Romans 9:1–5 in Light of His Calling and His Heritage (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2011). 34 Sanders, Jewish People, 207–8.

3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle

97

for righteousness a ruse. It leads to moral chaos and – if the crisis in Corinth had become public knowledge – has already done so as a matter of empirical observation. In short, Paul should be ashamed to speak such things, he should be silenced by force if necessary, and every effort should be made to prevent him from receiving a positive reception in any city he might care to infect with his abominations. It is not necessary to rely solely on conjecture, however reasonable, that Jews entertained sharp criticism of the apostle. It can be demonstrated from both Paul’s letters and Acts that such opposition occurred and that it was violent. In 2 Cor 11:24–26 Paul not only claims to be in constant danger from other Jews – κινδύνοις ἐκ γένους – but also to have received five times a judicially-administered flogging. The legal basis for this discipline is not clear, but it is absolutely certain that he did not come under the lash for his reputation as a defender of Jewish privilege.35 According to Acts, as early as Corinth, Paul faces the charge that he teaches men “to worship God contrary to the law” (18:13). A much fuller accusation occurs when he later arrives in Jerusalem. Both Jews native to that city and those visiting from the Diaspora oppose him, claiming that he persuades “the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs” (21:21) and that he teaches “men everywhere against the people and the law and this place” (21:28). In other words, “the allegation is that Paul is a disloyal Jew who has betrayed his own people, certainly the ultimate sign of apostasy.”36 Moreover, these detractors allege that Paul has brought Gentiles into the Temple, thus transgressing the most powerful social and religious boundary separating the heathen from the holy seed of Israel, a boundary literally erected around the Temple’s Court of Israel and promising death to Gentiles who disregarded it. 35

To explain the corporeal punishment Paul suffered there are two main candidates: Paul’s proclamation of a crucified messiah and his defamation of the law, this latter accusation true in the eyes of his opponents but not necessarily in those of the apostle himself. If Paul was a Torah-observant Jew, the message of the cross does not seem to explain sufficiently the hostility that he encountered. One may note, for example, the thousands of Christ-believing Jews whom James refers to, all, evidently, not suffering judicial violence despite their belief in a crucified Messiah (Acts 20:20; however, Acts 7, 1 Thess 2:14–15, and Gal 6:12 prove that they did suffer from severe harassment and, in the case of Stephen at least, mob murder). On the other hand, there is solid evidence that Jewish communities and vigilantes inflicted punishment on members perceived to disregard Torah practice. Philo himself notes, “There are thousands who have their eyes upon him [one who swears falsely] full of zeal for the laws (ζηλωταὶ νόµων), strictest guardians of the ancestral institutions (φύλακες τῶν πατρίων ἀκριβέστατοι), merciless to those who do anything to subvert them” (Philo, Spec. 2.253; see also the speech of Matthias in 1 Macc 2:29–68; Seland, Establishment Violence; idem, “Saul of Tarsus,” 449–71) 36 Richard P. Thompson, “‘Say It Ain’t So, Paul!’: The Accusations Against Paul in Acts 21 in Light of His Ministry in Acts 16–20,” Biblical Research 45 (2000), 41.

98

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

There are at least four reasons to accept these accusations as accurate summaries of real grievances and not a literary creation of Luke. To begin with, they are fairly precise. Luke does not give vague indications of discontent but itemizes a series of specific charges. Second, they are entirely without foundation in the narrative of Acts: at no point does Paul’s behavior substantiate the accusations laid against him.37 Throughout the narrative Paul conducts himself in exemplary Jewish fashion. Even his affiliation with the Pharisees is not eschewed. If the accusations in 18:13; 21:21, 28 have no historical basis, Luke himself is responsible not only for their form but also for their substance. He would thus needlessly introduce a question mark against his own presentation of Paul. Indeed, it would seem that his portrayal of the apostle is motivated at least in part to demonstrate that the charges are spurious. Luke needs to show that they are spurious, because they are real.38 37 Thompson, “Say It Ain’t So, Paul!” 36–37 (who, however, attempts to argue that Paul’s departure from the synagogue in Corinth [Acts 18:6] and in Ephesus [Acts 19:9] provide a narrative basis for the opposition in ch. 21, though if so the connections are subtle indeed; a revised statement of essentially the same argument occurs in idem, “‘What do you think you are doing, Paul?’: Synagogues, Accusations, and Ethics in Paul’s Ministry in Acts 16–21,” in Acts and Ethics [ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2005], 64–78); see also Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in NIB 10:293. 38 In Acts 18, the disconnect between Paul’s testimony that he “preaches Jesus is the Christ” (v. 5) and the Jewish remonstrance before Gallio that he is “persuading men to worship God contrary to the law” (v. 13) is evident. The Lukan narrative provides no basis for this complaint. The situation is much different in Thessalonica, the only place in Acts where the accusation against Paul and the alleged crime actually match. In that city, as in Corinth, Paul proclaims that Jesus is the Christ (17:3). The Jews who oppose Paul go before the civic authorities to claim that Paul and his companions “are acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (17:7). There is no indication that Paul has upset Jews by violating the Torah. To be sure, in 13:38–39 Paul claims that freedom from sin can be obtained through the resurrected Jesus and not through the Law of Moses, but neither narrator nor characters draw any conclusions relating to the continuing relevance of Torah observance. Otherwise, Luke’s presentation of Jewish resistance to Paul is ambiguous and lends itself to more than one interpretation. This motif constitutes a fairly regular feature of the narrative. Opposition occurs at Antioch in Pisidia (13:45, 50), Iconium (14:2, 5), Lystra (14:20), Thessalonica (17:5), Berea (17:13), Corinth (18:5), and Ephesus (19:9). Luke gives little by way of motivation save stereotyped explanations, e.g., the Jews who do not believe become hardened (ἐσκληρύνοντο; 19:9). But in two places Luke accounts for Jewish opposition by pointing to their ζῆλος (13:45, 17:5). English translations universally take this as jealousy or envy rather than zeal. Luke himself pushes the meaning of this term in the direction of jealousy when he makes Jewish opposition a backlash to Paul’s success among Gentiles (besides 13:45 and 17:5, this is implied in 14:1–2, 19; 17:12–13). All of this suggests that the imputation of jealousy to Jews who resist Paul may be Luke’s attempt to gloss over the real halakic issue that he largely suppresses, but that nevertheless emerges in 18:13; 21:21, 28. The zeal with which Jews respond would then not be jealousy, as Luke

3.2. The Prehistory of Romans and the Accused Apostle

99

Third, Luke must concede that resistance to Paul comes not only from Jews who have failed to accept the gospel message. Even the Jerusalem Christians harbor deep reservations with respect to his activities, and it is their concern that James gives voice to in v. 21. Hence, the charges themselves work against Luke’s Torah-observant portrait of Paul while their currency within the Jerusalem church works against his depiction of early Christian harmony. These elements, diverging sharply from Luke’s Tendenz, require an explanation. Again, it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that Luke has included the accusations against Paul precisely because he knows that they are widespread and in need of rebuttal. Finally, Paul provides partial corroboration of these accusations with his defensive asseveration in Rom 3:8: “And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’?” (NRSV). This reads like his own formulation, or at least an alternative way of stating, the charge made in Acts 21:21, 28: he teaches against Moses and the law. Paul fears that the slander originating in Asia Minor has made its way not only east to Jerusalem but west to Rome. To summarize: firmer points of reference for plotting the reason for Romans than speculation about its ethnographic constitution and its internal divisiveness are close to hand. I suggest that Paul’s own statements, which whatever their intent can easily be construed in a way hostile to the traditions of Judaism, fit, “like a glove,” the recriminations swirling around him. These have their most obvious point of origin in Paul’s own missionary practice, evidenced in his letters, of incorporating uncircumcised Gentiles into Israel as full members, the corresponding exclusion of Torah-observant Jews who failed to acknowledge the Messiah, and the somewhat strategic – to his opponents opportunistic and deceptive – attachment to Torah this missionary program presupposed.39 It should not be surprising, therefore, that Paul addresses precisely these issues in Romans and that he does so in a new way. would have it, but the same zeal for God and Torah that inspired violent reprisal from Phineas (Num 25:11) to Matthias (1 Macc 2:24–26) to Saul of Tarsus. 39 Promoters of a Torah-observant Paul since Krister Stendahl often blame benighted Gentile Christians of the second century and beyond – down to today – with foisting on the unsuspecting apostle their own anachronistic, anti-Semitic if not anti-Jewish assumptions (Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” in Paul among Jews and Gentiles [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 78–96; repr. from HTR 56 [1963]: 199–215; see also Stowers, Rereading Romans, 1–4, 187, 235; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 6– 9). But Acts 21:21, 28 make it clear that this understanding of Paul emerged in the first century in Jewish circles. The “supersessionist, anti-Torah, ‘Reformation,’ anachronistic” Paul was first a construct of Paul’s contemporary Jewish critics. Current scholars such as Mark Nanos and David Rudolph advocate for a Torahobservant Paul whose actual missionary practice is faithfully presented by Luke. For them, in the words of a like-minded scholar, Paul’s halakic position simply expresses “what everybody knows anyway” (Kathy Ehrensperger, “‘Called to Be Saints’ – The Identity-

100

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

3.3. Apologetic Traces in Romans 3.3. Apologetic Traces in Romans

Not only do various statements within Paul’s previous letters corroborate that opprobrium attached itself to him. At times, Romans itself reads like a rebuttal of the precise chargers recorded in Acts 18:13; 21:21, 28 that he teaches against Moses and dissolves the demarcation between Jews and Gentiles. The range of evidence is scattered across the letter and often occurs at key moments. Furthermore, much of this material is distinctive to Romans, either in terms of content or emphasis.40 Thus, what is unique to Romans corresponds exactly to the accusations lodged against Paul by his Jewish detractors in Acts. When composing the former, Paul is attempting to head off the latter. A brief survey of some central passages shows that this is the case. In Rom 1:16–17, an opening thematic statement correctly understood by most interpreters as the propositio, Paul gives the syntactical first position not to the letter’s theme (alternatively God’s power, God’s salvation, and/or Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context, 106). But the accusations lodged against Paul in Jerusalem call this position into serious doubt. Because they are directed against Paul alone, they must have had some basis in the peculiarities of his ministry. If Luke’s portrayal of a Torah-observant Paul – wholly in accord with his Jerusalem-based predecessors, themselves wholly in line with dominant Jewish halakah (conceived of as a unitary and essentially unvarying cultural practice) – is accurate, and if therefore Nanos, Rudolph, and others are correct that Paul’s observance of Torah was unobjectionable and even unremarkable except, perhaps, for its diligence, what provoked these accusations against Paul in the first place, and not against Peter, James, or any other apostle or missionary, all of whom in Acts share the same ideological perspective? At the very least, Acts 21:21, 28 prove that something about Paul caused his first recorded interpreters – all Jews – to think that he abrogated the law. Many interpreters today recognize that Paul affirmed his Jewish identity throughout his life. However, his own asseverations should not settle the issue, nor should we be too quickly taken in by them. Paul claimed to be and was a Jew – but he was precisely that kind of Jew who enacted his Jewishness in such a way that other Jews contested his legitimacy to be a Jew at all. To say that Paul is right is to say that they were wrong, and this in turn requires one to assume the authority to arbitrate debates among ancient Jews concerning their own identity and criteria of affiliation. When Ehrensperger claims that in Rom 14–15 Paul expresses the Jewish view – “what everybody knows anyway” –, she not only, ironically, reverts to an essentialist assumption of what Judaism is, she implies that Paul’s Jewish opponents who disagree with his position are somehow not Jewish, or not consistently Jewish, or not authentically Jewish – precisely what she asserts cannot be maintained with respect to Paul. By assuming to do him justice, Ehrensperger is willing to make other Jews not real Jews (“Called to Be Saints,” 103, 106). 40 Anthony J. Guerra offers a sound methodological principle, though his execution of it differs from mine: “It may be … fruitful, in attempting to discern the author’s purpose and intended audience, to identify motifs which are distinctive or unique to Romans” (“Romans: Paul’s Purpose and Audience with Special Attention to Romans 9–11,” RB 97 [1990]: 220).

3.3. Apologetic Traces in Romans

101

God’s righteousness) but to the fact that he is not ashamed of his gospel. Similarly, in 9:6 he avows, It is not as though the word of God has failed. This is a peculiar statement because it has no clear grammatical or thematic connection to what precedes – indeed, 9:4–5 could scarcely of itself provoke the thought that Paul so stridently denies. Both 1:16–17 and 9:6 have programmatic significance, both are presented as denials formulated in the negative, and both occur at crucial junctures in the letter, the opening of the letterbody and the beginning of the argument in Rom 9–11.41 In 3:8 and 6:1–2 Paul makes a further denial: his gospel does not allow persistence in sin. Methodologically, it is generally precarious to base reconstructions of the rhetorical situation on the basis of the diatribe-like statements in Romans (see § 3.4.). However, these verses constitute a special instance. Chapter 3 verse 8 explicitly draws attention to active opponents who accuse Paul of the principle, “Let us do evil that good may come.” It is unlikely that Paul would interject this damning if slanderous attribution unless he knows or suspects hostile voices at work in Rome attempting to poison his reception with a (in his view) perversion of his teaching (see § 3.2.). Also noteworthy is the extended salutation in 1:1–7. Here at the very outset Paul signals that the purpose of his gospel is to bring about obedience among the nations (1:5). At the termination of the letter’s argument, he repeats this aim (15:16, 18; see also 16:26), making a kind of inclusio: the goal of Paul’s missionary labors is to establish pockets of obedience to Israel’s God among the nations. Throughout the letter, Paul is careful to avoid the impression that his gospel promotes licentiousness, a deduction easy enough to make in light of his statements concerning Torah in Galatians and the actual debauchery practiced in Corinth.42 Not only does Paul insist that his message draws the nations into obedience, he similarly denies that it obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Although this would appear to be the implication of Rom 2, his clear statements in Rom 4, 9–11, 15:8–12 all support the view that for Paul, Jews and Gentiles represent distinct through related descendants of Abraham who are not to be confused with each other (§ 2.2.3.).

41

Other scholars have recognized behind 9:6a attacks leveled against Paul that could have been inspired by his own previous arguments and missionary practice: Ulrich Wilckens, Röm 6–11 (vol. 2 of Der Brief an die Römer; EKK; Zürich: Benziger, 1980), 191; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 15; Michael Theobald, Der Römerbrief (EdF 294; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000), 262. See further § 4.1. 42 Douglas A. Campbell, “Determining the Gospel through Rhetorical Analysis in Paul’s Letter to the Roman Churches,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatian and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker (ed. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson; JSNTSup 108; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 325; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 200–208.

102

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

Returning to Rom 3:1–8, this passage is significant not only because it demonstrates that at least some elements in the letter are designed to deny the alleged moral implications of Paul’s gospel. It also suggests that Paul wants to ward off accusations that are theological in nature. The question as to whether the Jew has any advantage immediately devolves into whether God is faithful. The logical sequence presupposes that God has conferred on the Jewish people the religious privileges of election, Torah, and promises – if he repeals them now God has broken faith. Hence, Paul immediately asserts, though without answering the objection, that God is faithful (v. 3, τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ), truthful (v. 4, γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής; v. 7, ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ), righteous (v. 5, θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην), and accordingly, a judge who will do what is right (v. 6, κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσµον; see also v. 4, quoting Ps 50:6 LXX; Heb.: 51:6; Eng.: 51:4). Therefore Rom 3:1–8 aligns with Rom 1:16 and 9:6 in its insistence that Paul’s gospel proclaims the faithfulness and righteousness of God, while it also corresponds to Rom 6:1–2 (formulated negatively) and 1:5 and 15:16, 18 (formulated positively) in its disclaimer that his Gospel does not lead to moral chaos but to the obedience of the nations. The closing peroration in Rom 15:7–13 reiterates the same message. In these verses, Paul summarizes the argument of Romans with the claim that Christ has become a minister for the circumcision for the sake of God’s truthfulness (ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ), in order to establish the promises of the fathers (εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, v. 8). God’s act in Christ does not nullify what he pledged to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but confirms it.43 Hence, Paul wants the Roman recipients to know that he is not ashamed of his gospel (why would he be?), that the word of God to Israel has not failed (who would claim that it might?) because God is faithful (what else would God be?), and that his teaching does not lead to sin (on what basis could anyone mount such an accusation?). In addition, there occur several positive assertions concerning Paul’s message that reinforce this complex of denials. It establishes the obedience of the nations (1:5; 15:16, 18); it comes to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile/Greek (1:16; 2:9–10) – and these two groups are not confounded in the epistle (4:11–12; 9:24–31; 10:19–21; 11:12–24, 30–32); it affirms the value of Jewish privileges (3:1; 9:4–5); it reveres the Torah (2:12–16, 27–29; 3:27; 7:7, 12; 8:2, 4; 9:30–32; 13:8–10) and the legitimate halakah of those who observe its precepts (chs. 14–15, esp. 14:3, 5; significantly, almost all of Paul’s unambiguously positive statements concerning Torah occur in this letter). By contrast, what we do not find in Romans is a redefinition of Israel as a community defined by belief in Christ, unshackled from ethnic associations and independent of halakic obligation. There is no spiritual Israel, no dissolu43

Williams, “Righteousness,” 285–89; Dunn, Romans, 2:845–49; Hays, Echoes, 70–73; Donaldson, Gentiles, 95–100; Jewett, Romans, 888–93.

3.3. Apologetic Traces in Romans

103

tion of ethnic particularity in the service of christological unity, and no unbalanced criticism of Torah. Indeed, one scholar has gone so far as to categorize Romans as a retractatio.44 Paul appears to have shaped his epistle, at least in part, as a denial that he teaches diaspora Jews to forsake Torah, circumcision, and their ancestral practices, to assimilate to the Gentiles, or to erase their own religious distinctives, as his opponents claim. Indeed, the letter affirms precisely the opposite. There is therefore a striking convergence of three streams of data at a single point. The arguments maintained by Paul in his earlier letters are expressed in such a way that any non-sympathetic Jew exposed to his teaching, especially if it came second-hand via rumor (and especially if word of the Corinthian debacle spread among his critics), could deduce from them precisely the accusations made against Paul in Acts 18:13; 21:21, 28: he teaches against Moses and encourages Jews to live like Gentiles. These two sets of data, Paul’s prior letters and the attacks recorded in Acts, in turn conform to the internal evidence found in Romans. Paul wrote the letter precisely because of the reason he explicitly states: he needs prayers to bless his impending journey to Jerusalem and money to support his subsequent mission to the West.45 He therefore requests assistance from the Roman Christians. However, he perceives that the leadership there includes members who have a high regard for Jewish religious traditions, whether these be Jews, proselytes, Godfearers, or sympathizers.46 Paul feels that in order to secure his goals he must assert that he is not ashamed of his gospel, that this gospel does not lead to sin but on the contrary brings the nations to obedience, that it is for the Jew first, that it proclaims God’s faithfulness to Israel, that it maintains the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, and that it affirms the goodness of Torah. Again, these are all features unique to or uniquely emphasized in this letter. They appear in Romans with such emphasis because Paul makes these claims in the face of opposition 44

Theobald, Studien, 328. The Jerusalem visit was not decisive for the letter, but Paul is clearly preoccupied with it, and it certainly leaves its mark on what he writes. For assessments which attempt to evaluate the importance of Jerusalem for the letter to the Romans, see M. Jack Suggs, “‘The Word is Near You’: Romans 10:6–10 within the Purpose of the Letter,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 295; Marxsen, Introduction, 101; Günther Bornkamm, Paul (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 96; Jacob Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” in The Romans Debate, 53–64; repr. from ST 25 (1971); Williams, “Righteousness,” 252. 46 Hence, the apologetic note sounded already with the opening emphasis on Christ’s Davidic descent in Rom 1:3–4 (so Guerra, “Paul’s Purpose,” 220; Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 94–95; Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., “Controversy and Continuity in Romans 1:18–3:20,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 298– 318). 45

104

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

faced in Asia Minor and possibly Greece (Phil 3; Acts 18:13), immanent in Jerusalem (Acts 21:21, 28; Rom 15:31), and potentially receiving a sympathetic hearing already in the Roman churches themselves (Rom 3:8).47 Therefore, the letter is not a timeless treatise but neither is it a warning specifically targeting fractious house-churches in Rome. Rather, Romans is an apologetic defense of the apostle written to counteract the defamation against him and establish the credentials necessary for a partnership with the Roman Christians for the future of his missionary endeavors.48

3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors 3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors

Most interpreters of Romans have claimed that the congregations addressed by Paul include both Jews and Gentiles. Evidence for the latter is clear enough in the numerous verses in which Paul directly speaks to a Gentile audience. Evidence for the former lies primarily in the content of the epistle, most of which deals with material of interest primarily to Jewish Christians – the role of the law, the place of Israel in God’s election, etc. – , the apostrophe in 2:17 which addresses a Jewish interlocutor, and the named Jewish members of the congregation in ch. 16. Some recent exegetes have strongly contested this conclusion and argued that the epistolary body addresses only Gentile believers. Mark Nanos formulates this as a hermeneutical principle for Romans and indeed all of Paul’s letters.49 Stanley Stowers combined his previous work on the literary trope of 47

Dahl, “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans,” in Studies, 77; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 257; Brown, “Rome,” 113, 120; Folker Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus: Gezeigt an Röm 9–11 (WUNT 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 121; Guerra, “Paul’s Purpose,” 221–22, 224; idem, Romans, 30, 41, 145, 171, 178; F. F. Bruce, “The Romans Debate – Continued,” in The Romans Debate, 182–83; repr. from BRJL 64 (1982); Wedderburn, Reasons, 102–39, esp. 104, 108, 112, 134, 139; Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Purpose of Romans,” (trans. Reginald and Ilse Fuller) in The Romans Debate, 239–49; repr. from ZNW 77 (1986); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 541; D. A. Campbell, “Determining the Gospel,” 315–36; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 21; Theobald, Studien, 328, 332; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 62–70. 48 I am not hereby claiming that Romans is an apology in terms of its genre, and certainly not an apologetic Protreptic (so Guerra, Romans, passim) or a logos protreptikos (so David E. Aune, “Romans as a Logos Protreptikos,” in The Romans Debate, 278–96), unhelpful designations in my view. 49 “Here is a simple suggestion. To be more faithful to the contextual usage of Paul’s language, the interpreter of Paul’s rhetoric should add, ‘for non-Jews’ as well as ‘believers in Jesus Christ’ to the end of virtually every sentence in his letters about these matters [viz., Torah observance and the role of the law as a whole]” (Nanos, “Paul’s Judaism,”

3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors

105

prosopoiia with the recognition that Paul explicitly encodes only Gentile readers in the letter frame to open up entirely new avenues for understanding the letter, not least by relegating the Jewish interlocutor in Rom 2:17–3:8 to the status of rhetorical trope rather than real-world opponent.50 An audience inclusive of Jews should, on this reading, be excluded from consideration. Andrew Das built on these approaches in his recent claim to bring the Romans debate to a close. Not only does the letter envision only Gentiles as recipients, Das claims, it is delivered to a church composed of Gentile Christians exclusively.51 Indeed, the case mounted by Stowers and Das is strong: the explicitly encoded readers of the letter body are non-Jewish in ethnic origin.52 Once the prosopoiia aspect of the diatribe form is recognized not only for ch. 2 but also for Rom 3:1–8; 3:27–4:2; 7:7, 13; 9:19–21, the only evidence remaining to identify the recipients are the epistolary bookends.53 The salutation, the disclosure formula, and the explanation of Paul’s mission all refer explicitly and exclusively to Gentile believers: Rom 1:5–6 Through [Christ] we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.54

137). This is Nanos’s version of the “nomistic supplement” employed by David Rudolph: a hermeneutical principle supplying to Paul what he does not actually say but what he must, in fact, mean if the position Nanos attributes to him – in Romans and elsewhere – can be substantiated. 50 Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981; ibid., Rereading Romans, 21–41, 65–67, 126–75. 51 Das, Solving, 53–114 and passim. On this score Das shows less methodological astuteness than Stanley Stowers, whom Das repeatedly and wrongly cites as a precursor of his own position. In fact, Stowers explicitly denies that the encoded Gentile audience addressed by the letter has any necessary connection with the real, historical audience in Rome (Rereading, 21–22, 30). 52 The case is strong, but not airtight. When writing chs. 14–15, Paul clearly has Jews as well as Gentiles in view in these chapters, as the explicit reference to “the circumcision” and the Gentiles in 15:8–9 shows. These verses suggest that any interpretation of Romans must account for the tension between Paul’s explicit exhortation to a mixed ethnic group and the exclusive identification of Gentile recipients in the salutation. 53 I do not believe that the interlocutor in Rom 9:19–21 articulates Jewish objections to the preceding argument in Rom 9:6–18, but this is a controversial position (see § 6.1.). 54 The relation between ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν in Rom 1:5 and ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑµεῖς in 1:6 is contested. Cranfield argued that 1:6 locates the addressees among the Gentiles without actually equating them with Gentiles (Romans, 1:98; so too Guerra, Romans, 26; KJV NKJ NJB NASB NAB). This position would allow for ethnic Jews to be included in the salutation. By contrast, Das argues that the ascription identifies the recipients as Gentiles (Solving, 55–59; so too Moo, Romans, 54 n. 79; RSV NRSV ESV NIV NLT).

106

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

Rom 1:13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. Rom 15:15–16, 18 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. … For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed.

Only in the greetings that conclude the epistle and stand outside of its body does Paul explicitly refer to Jewish compatriots.55 The letter as a whole addresses Gentile Christ-followers in Rome. How is this recognition consistent with my own proposal that Paul wants to allay the suspicions of a church that is largely Jewish in orientation (due to the presence of actual Jews and Jewish leaders as well as a significant contingent of proselytes, Godfearers, and Gentile sympathizers)? The answer, I think, is simple: Paul addresses Gentile Christians because he is the apostle to the Gentiles. He repeatedly presents himself as the one whose missionary work and sphere of authority is bound to the non-Jewish world (1:5, 13; 15:15–16, 27). It is in this role that Paul announces his intention to evangelize Spain. He knows that his own apostleship is limited to the Gentile world, and his initial agreement with the Jerusalem pillars rests on a shared recognition of this point.56 It was a violation of this understanding that, as C. K. Barrett argued, so incensed the apostle when he wrote 2 Corinthians.57 When Paul turns to the Roman churches, he enters an extremely delicate situation. Paul writes as an unknown and possibly suspect person to a church not of his own founding. As a result, he is, in Guerra’s words, “noticeably circumspect” in asserting his apostolic standing.58 It is likely that he explicitly addresses the Gentile believers in accord with the limitations of his own authority. Already Paul presses these limits to their breaking point (“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder,” 55 Das argues that the Jews referred to in ch. 16, whose number he claims is less than often assumed, are Jewish missionaries associated with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and not members of the Roman congregation to whom Paul writes (Solving, 90–103). 56 “Consistently and conspicuously … Paul mentions the Romans in the context of his apostolic mission to the gentiles. In other words, Paul is identifying the Romans as within the sphere of his apostolic labors” (Das, Solving, 66; emphasis original). Paul labors this point precisely because his authority is not established. 57 Barrett, Essays, 65–66. See also Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 305. 58 Guerra, Romans, 27; see also ibid., 23; Das, Solving, 65.

3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors

107

15:15). Issuing a missive directed towards Jewish readers would burst the bounds of his legitimate sphere of interest. In order to establish his credibility among the entire congregation, a more subtle approach is necessary. In short, Paul encodes only believers from the nations as his addressees, but he writes to them knowing that a Jewish Christian presence (along with those Gentiles who hold the Torah in high regard and perhaps even follow part or all of it) stands within hearing range. They are, in other words, an oblique audience, and Paul writes with one eye glancing in their direction. Nevertheless, the mention of “the circumcision” in Rom 15:8–9 provides solid evidence that he implicates them into the epistolary conversation.59 It cannot be said that this approach to Romans is in principle too subtle. First, it is easy enough to imagine a writer proceeding in such a manner, and, in fact, other examples from antiquity are at hand. Polybius wrote for a Greek audience all the while hoping that what he said would capture the attention of his Roman benefactors. Similarly, Philo composed De vita Moses for the edification of fellow Jews, yet indications in the text suggest that he may very well have wanted to garner a Greek or Roman readership.60 There is precedent for authors writing to one audience with the aim of being overheard by another. Second, to the extent that Romans displays the generic elements of the letter-essay, as argued by M. Luther Stirewalt Jr., Karl Donfreid, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Changwon Song, it has the capacity to address both an explicitly identified readership as well as a larger field of implicit addressees.61 Such 59

Stowers response at this point, which is less an argument and more a snipe, I find wholly unconvincing (Rereading of Romans, 32–33; followed by Das, Solving, 105). 60 The reference to Polybius’s strategy of writing to dual audiences comes from Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 29. The possibility of an intended (or hoped-for) dual readership of De vita Moses is argued for in Finn Damgaard, Recasting Moses: The Memory of Moses in Biographical and Autobiographical Narratives in Ancient Judaism and 4th-Century Christianity (Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 13; Bern: Peter Lang, 2012), 73–74, 86; Gavin McDowell kindly provided me with this source. Guerra gives further examples; referring to Philo, Athenagoras, and Justin, he points out, “The debate as to whether the apologist is addressing outsiders or insiders is not a genuine issue. The apologist has a dual intent: to confirm the believer’s confidence in the truth and to convert the non-believer to it” (Romans, 19). A modern day equivalent might be Evangelical apologetic literature, which is often specifically written to non-believers, but with the tacit awareness that Christians themselves will most likely constitute the majority of readership. Alternatively, the same genre is often written to Christian audiences with the explicit hope that its contents will directly or indirectly find their way into the hands of non-Christians. 61 Stirewalt, “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay,” in The Romans Debate, 147–71; idem, Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 107–12; Donfried, “False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans,” in The Romans Debate, 122– 25; repr. from CBQ 36 (1974); Fitzmyer, Romans, 68–69; Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe (Studies in Biblical Literature 59; Bern: Peter Lang, 2004). Even Adolf Deissmann, against the grain of his entire synthesis of early Christian literature, the sociol-

108

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

letters may be solicited by specific situations that concern a limited number of actors, and yet display a public character that make it suitable for a wider readership. Finally, this proposal merely extends the rhetorical strategy Paul employs in Rom 14–15. Here, the apostle clearly envisions potential differences between two groups, a law-observant group, and a non-observant group. The extent to which these postulated groups correspond to actual flesh-and-blood constituencies in Rome is difficult to assess. However, in terms of the rhetorical presentation, the law-observant group would include Judaizing Gentiles and probably the majority of Jews, whereas the non-observant party might contain some Jews but is a majority-Gentile group. Paul not only identifies with the latter, whom he refers to as the strong, he primarily speaks only to them. They constitute the main addressees. Besides the call to mutual welcome in 15:7, only in 14:4 does Paul give a command that could conceivably be directed towards the weak: “Who are you to pass judgment (ὁ κρίνων) on the servant of another?” But even here, in light of the same prohibition expressed more generally in v. 10 and against the strong in v. 13, he has both parties in mind. Therefore, the specifically identified addressees in chs. 14–15 are those among the strong. Yet the apostle clearly intends for the former group, the weak, to be party to the entire discussion, to witness what is the instruction for the strong, and indeed to hold them accountable to it.62 He rarely addresses the weak, though 15:7 clearly brings them into the scope of Paul’s call to mutual welcoming, but they are present to the conversation nevertheless. In the same way he never directly speaks to the Jewish Christ-followers in the Roman congregations, but they form the essential supposition of his apologetic purpose all the same. There remain at least two further exegetical arguments supporting the proposition that Paul writes Romans in order to deflate Gentile arrogance toward Israel and the consequent inter-congregational strife its preening theology provoked. First, in Rom 11:13, 18–20, Paul firmly puts in place a Gentile interlocutor who claims that the Jews’ unbelief led to their rejection. Little weight can be placed on this datum. The explicit turn to the Gentiles here conjures up a collective addressee arguably as fictitious as the interlocutor of 9:14, 19 and indeed 2:1, 17. Paul uses the rhetorical style of the diatribe in ogy of the first Christians, and the religion of Paul, conceded that Romans stands out among Paul’s letters as the one most similar to a letter-essay (in his terminology, a literary epistle, distinct from an actual letter; Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History [trans.William E. Wilson; 2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1927], 19, 23). 62 Guerra, Romans, 36. Some have drawn attention to a similar strategy in the epistle to the Galatians, in which Paul obliquely speaks to his opponents through a letter addressed exclusively to his congregants (e.g., Betz, Galatians, 114; Martyn, Galatians, 246–47; Hansen, All of You Are One, 74 n. 24).

3.4. Gentile Addressees and Jewish Auditors

109

these passages, a form which serves a pedagogical rather than a polemical function, as Stowers himself established.63 Rivka Ulmer, in a comparative study of midrash and diatribe, pointed out the fictional character of an interlocutor, who appears in a text for the purposes of moving the author’s own arguments forward.64 The evocation of such questions even in the mouth of a rhetorically-conjured interlocutor implies of itself nothing concerning the reality of the historical and social situation. Furthermore, to the extent that Paul addresses actual Gentiles in the Roman community, he is attempting to ward off what he regards as illegitimate deductions they might be tempted to make from his own prior argumentation. Frequently in Romans Paul uses diatribal tropes to eliminate a potential though in his view specious conclusion someone might make from the previous discussion (3:1, 9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:1; 9:14, 19). With respect to the Gentiles specifically addressed in ch. 11, Paul may be attributing to them a wrong-headed deduction from the preceding discourse, not least Rom 9:6, 25–29, 30–31; 10:1, 3, 18–21; 11:1–10, to say nothing of the results a Gentile might derive from, e.g., 1 Thess 2:14–16 and Gal 3:16, 28.65 Guerra correctly points out that the direct address to Gentile Christians in 11:13 “is intended primarily to assuage Jewish Christians’ fears that Paul is disdainful of Jews and their traditions.”66 And as Brian Abasciano states, “We should beware of being too hasty in conclusions from Paul’s rhetorical address, which may seek to reach Gentiles by addressing Jews and vice versa.”67 In other words, Paul’s pointed barb against Gentile presumption is not a window into the ecclesiological situation in Rome but a case of the apostle protesting too much. Moreover, if Paul did have a real Gentile addressee in mind, the very fact that he must make this explicit implies that he anticipates that nonGentiles will be part of the audience.68 A second pillar supporting the all-Gentile hypothesis is the evidence Rom 14–15 provides for tensions among the Roman Christians, and this is often assumed to be a dispute between Jewish and Gentile factions (though it would be more accurate here to speak of Christ-followers who follow Jewish halakah to various degrees and those who dismiss Jewish halakah as irrelevant). 63

Stowers, Diatribe, 117. Ulmer, “The Advancement of Arguments in Exegetical Midrash Compared to that of the Greek ∆ΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ,” JSJ 28 (1997): 51; see also ibid., 53, 55, 62, 70, 89–91, and the similar conclusions in David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 201–2; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 334; Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, passim; Gadenz, Called, 36; Abasciano, Romans 9.10–18, 168–69. 65 The point is virtually conceded by Das (Solving, 259). 66 Guerra, “Paul’s Purpose,” 235 n. 63; similarly idem, Romans, 154. 67 Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 28 n. 7. 68 So Guerra, Romans, 154. 64

110

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

It may be that these chapters speak to a real contention among the Christian congregations, despite the skepticism of some.69 But it is not possible to evaluate the extent to which Paul has reliable information about the situation in Rome, the extent to which he is speculating, the extent to which he is addressing issues that his teaching earlier in the letter naturally provoke, and the extent to which he is imposing what he knows from past experience onto an uncertain situation. The parallels between Rom 14:1–15:7 and 1 Cor 8–10 suggest that the categories and the shape of Paul’s teaching results at least in part from his deploying in Romans the forms of argument previously used in Corinth. This not to say that the passage in Romans is only a generalized statement of now-settled arguments from Paul’s prior ministry having no connection to disputes in Rome.70 It is only to recognize that Paul might naturally address a new situation by adapting to it an ethical argument worked out in an earlier, analogous though distinct conflict, and consequently to urge reasonable caution in working backwards from what Paul says in Rom 14–15 to hermeneutical frameworks that can be assumed for the letter as a whole.71 Relying on this passage as the interpretive key for reconstructing the situation in Rome is a dubious prospect. In conclusion, Paul addresses only Gentiles in Romans not because they are the only relevant conversation partners but because they alone fall within the sphere of his responsibility as apostle to the nations, one of the most salient aspects of his self-presentation in the letter. But his explication of the gospel, his appeal for assistance not only in Spain but also in Jerusalem, and his profound defense of Israel’s election are all given a rhetorical cast determined by his need to overcome real or potential objections that may be circulating among his opponents, be they Jews, proselytes, Godfearers, or sympathizers.

69

E.g., Kümmel, Introduction, 311; John W. Drane, “Why Did Paul Write Romans?” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 221; Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate, 65–84; repr. from CBQ 25 (1973). 70 This position was argued by Thomas Walter Manson, “Paul’s Letter to the Romans – and Others,” in The Romans Debate, 15; repr. from Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (ed. Mathew Black; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962); Günther Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” in The Romans Debate, 20–21; repr. from ABR 11 (1963). 71 Correctly, Donfried, “False Presuppositions,” 109, 123, who makes pertinent remarks in light of Dionysius’s Letter to Pompeius; so too Brown, “Rome,” 109.

3.5. Conclusions

111

3.5. Conclusions: Mercenary Motives or Exegetical Breakthrough? 3.5. Conclusions

The discussion to this point may leave the reader with the impression that Paul’s shift in argument from the scandal-inducing claims of his earlier letters to the more conciliatory tone of Romans constitutes a sort of subterfuge: the very different ways Paul speaks of Israel, election, and Torah in Romans as compared to 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians reveals an apostle bereft of integrity, willing to accuse Jews of killing Christ in 1 Thess 2:15 but, when in need of a handout, boldly declaring that Israel’s election is inviolable. The emphasis in this chapter, however, has been on the external factors that accompanied Paul’s revised claims as they appear in Romans. In fact, there are solid reasons to suppose that the arguments encountered there reflect a substantive development in Paul’s thinking, what Michael Theobald calls a Lernprozess, rather than a mere smokescreen hiding his true sentiments.72 In the first place, the mere necessity of explaining himself to the Roman congregations and the Jerusalem apostles alike (Rom 15:30–32) may have provided Paul with an impetus to rethink his own convictions concerning the status of Israel and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The logical consequences of his arguments in Galatians for the ultimate destiny of the Jewish people may have become more obvious, and perhaps more problematic, to Paul over time, leading him to rethink the role of election. Similarly, the debacle in Corinth may have provoked him to reconsider the role of Torah.73 The stinging accusation, ostensibly rooted in his own teachings, that Paul called for Jews to apostatize from Moses may very well have spurred him to reevaluate past formulations. Finally, and most relevant for the present study, Paul was a reader of Scripture, and in the act of reading Scripture, he was changed by it. This possibility is closed off by some exegetes. Terence Donaldson, for example, does not accept that Scripture actually shaped Paul’s theological convictions in any substantive way. He maintains this position, in part, because Paul uses biblical texts, specifically in Rom 9, to support conclusions strikingly at variance with their immanent meaning. When Donaldson queries whether Paul derives his theological positions from Scripture, or whether he uses Scripture to justify claims held for other reasons, he answers, “The latter is clearly the 72

Theobald, Studien, 331, 335. In general, I do not think that the catastrophe in that city and the impact it may have had on Paul’s understanding of Torah is adequately appreciated by many scholars. Notable exceptions are Drane (“Why Did Paul Write Romans,” 223; see also idem, Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles [London: SPCK, 1975]) and Tobin (Paul’s Rhetoric, 74–75 and passim). 73

112

Chapter 3: Rethinking the Reason for Romans

case. In most instances the texts establish what Paul wants them to establish only if one shares his convictions at the outset.”74 The question therefore does not arise for Donaldson, Why does his own evidence that Paul consistently distinguishes Jews from Gentile within the Christian community come exclusively from Romans? If theological commitments shape or guide Paul’s reading of Scripture, we need not therefore conclude that they determine his conclusions in advance. As Francis Watson eloquently argued, although Paul certainly read his sacred texts guided by a range of theological convictions, he was not trapped in a hermeneutical solipsism, finding only in his scroll what he projected onto it (§ 1.1.2.; § 1.4.). According to several scholars, Deut 32 and Isaiah exerted constraints on Paul that transformed his theology of Israel in Romans, and especially in Rom 9–11. Florian Wilk went so far as to say that Paul’s unique perspective in this letter was the result of his undertaking a fresh reading of Isaiah.75 If so, the nature of Paul’s use of Scripture, specifically with reference to Torah and election, suggests that Scripture has in the end used Paul, impressing the apostle into its own affirmation that God’s promises to Israel is irrevocable. In this study, I argue that Genesis is at least as important as, and perhaps more fundamental than, either Isaiah or Deuteronomy. It determines how Paul wrestles with election, covenant, and the destiny of Israel. The product is not a mere reissue of arguments previously employed but a reinvigorated understanding of Israel’s election that allows Paul to claim what he does not in any other epistle: Jews and Gentiles are separate but equal children of Abraham, the former rebellious sons who, though currently under divine wrath, nevertheless remain God’s eternally beloved chosen people.

74 75

Donaldson, Gentiles, 101. Wilk, Bedeutung, 41–42, 140, 159, 362–63.

Chapter 4

Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals in Romans 9:6–13 In Romans Paul’s assessment of Israel “according to the flesh” breaks new interpretive ground. In ch. 4 he acknowledges for the first time the legitimacy of Israel’s ritual of circumcision, its practice of Torah, and its promise of territory. Corresponding to this development, Paul provides a place within Abraham’s family for both Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers without assimilating one group to the other. The generative power of his native mythomoteur has opened new avenues for understanding the eschatological community created in Christ. This reconfiguration of Abraham’s family as a dual unity occurs again in Rom 9. Its argument presupposes a simple fact: Abraham had two sons, and according to Genesis, their fates are intertwined. The etiology of the Jewish ethnos explains the mystery of Gentiles in God’s one eschatological family. It need only the skills of a hermeneutical adept to reveal itself. In the present chapter, I begin my case for a pre-textual interpretation of Genesis underlying all of Rom 9. I argue, first, that in Rom 9:7–13 Paul interprets Genesis so as to affirm God’s inviolable election of Israel; second, that he does so in a peculiar manner, namely, by detaching circumcision and Torah from election and promise, and by drawing attention to the exclusionary reflex election entails; and third, that he does this in apparent defiance of his own opening thesis in 9:6. In that verse, Paul promises a vindication of God’s word (9:6a) on the basis of a distinction within Israel (9:6b). Although the quotations from Isaiah in vv. 27–29 finally effect this inner-Israel rupture, the intervening verses push in a very different direction. They retell a conventional story of Israel’s emergence from the nations by God’s electing call. In subsequent chapters I will show how Paul’s interpretation of Genesis via Hosea and Isaiah explains these shifts in his argument.

114

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

4.1. Covenantal Fidelity or Cosmic Farce? Romans 9:6a in Context 4.1. Romans 9:6a in Context

In Galatians, Paul’s christological redefinition of ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ implies that Israel’s election persists in the Christ-believing community alone. This understanding of Christ and Israel has controversial implications for the viability and perceived efficacy of Israel’s religious traditions. For anyone not predisposed to accept Paul’s premises, it implies that God has arbitrarily changed the terms defining his people in complete disregard of his commitment, repeated endlessly in Scripture, to ensure their eventual salvation (see § 2.2.1. and § 3.2. above). This is the challenge Paul deals with in Rom 9–11. Unfortunately, Paul does not lay out his thesis quite so clearly. He begins with a preamble establishing his character: Paul deserves a hearing as someone who acknowledges the historic privileges of Israel and confesses a deep concern for their salvation (vv. 1–5). Then comes the declaration: Οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” Most commentators identify 9:6a as the propositio to Rom 9–11.1 Yet the statement is jarring, since it has no grammatical connection with the preceding enumeration of Israel’s benefits.2 Its relation must be inferred. Behind this declaration lies Paul’s restriction of God’s saving act to the community of Christ-followers. He made this limitation in previous letters (§ 2.2.), and he repeats it in Romans. Paul has already argued that the Jews proved themselves disobedient to the demands of the covenant (2:21–24);3 1 Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 143; Cranfield, Romans, 2:473; Käsemann, Romans, 261; Wilckens, Röm, 191; Siegert, Argumentation, 124; Dunn, Romans, 2:539; Theobald, Römerbrief, 264; Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer (15th ed.; KEK 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 270–71, 272; Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (3d ed.; THKNT 6; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 214; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:635; Brian J. Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 36, 177; Grindheim, Crux, 141; Jewett, Romans, 570–71, 574; Filippo Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2010), 49–50. On the application of classical rhetorical analysis to 9:6, see Benjamin Fiore, S.J., “Romans 9–11 and Classical Forensic Rhetoric,” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 8 (1988): 120; Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9–11 (SBLDS 176; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 123–24; Jewett, Romans, 572–73; Belli, Argumentation, 49–50. 2 Klaus Wengst, “Freut euch, ihr Völker, mit Gottes Volk!” Israel und die Völker als Thema des Paulus – ein Gang durch den Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 294. 3 Michael Cranford, “Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Israel in Romans 9.1–13,” JSNT 50 (1993): 31–33; Berkley, Broken Covenant, 124–25. See also § 2.2.2.2. Dunn’s view that Paul targets Jewish “national presumption” in this passage is too narrow (Romans, 1:113–14, 1:117), while Wright’s attempt to combine both perspectives on Rom 2 (disobedience and nationalism) is perhaps an example of having one’s cake and eating it too (“Romans,” in NIB 10:445–58).

4.1. Romans 9:6a in Context

115

that the terms of righteousness which God has laid down consist of faith in Christ (3:22–24); that Torah observance (3:19–21; 4:13–17a; 7:4–6) and circumcision (2:25–29; 4:9–12) no longer define Abraham’s children or channel the blessings promised to his descendants. This characterization of Israel as presently outside the realm of salvation persists into chs. 9–11. Already in 9:3 Paul states his willingness to become ἀνάθεµα … ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου κατὰ σάρκα, “cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh” (NRSV). This implies that Israel’s relation to its religious heritage is in Paul’s mind problematic, to say the least.4 His later claims that Israel lacks “righteousness” (9:30–31; 10:3) and stands in need of “salvation” (10:1) clarify Paul’s position further. And even as he anticipates that God will undo Israel’s current situation, he acknowledges three times that the nation is disobedient (ἀπειθέω, ἀπείθεια, 11:30, 31, 32) and characterizes the Jews as enemies (ἐχθροί, 11:28).5 If Paul’s argument polemically denies to Israel, viewed as a totality, its reliance on election and covenant, his portrayal of Gentile Christ-followers exacerbates the scandal. According to Romans, Gentiles who believe in Israel’s messiah obtain a share in adoption (8:15–17, 23); in glory (8:21, 30); 4

Ἀνάθεµα is a particularly strong term; in the conquest traditions, it refers to the ban placed on accursed objects devoted to destruction (Num 21:3; Deut 7:26; Josh 6:17; 7:12; Judg 1:17; BDAG, s.v.; J. Behm, “ἀνατίθηµι, προσανατίθηµι, κτλ.,” TDNT 1:353–56; H. Aust and D. Müller, “Anathema,” NIDNTT 1:413–15). In the present context, it signifies the state of being delivered over to divine wrath (Cranfield, Romans, 2:457; Barrett, Romans, 165; Moo, Romans, 557–58; Lohse, Römer, 266; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 198–99; against the weaker formulation of Jewett, Romans, 561). Paul does not specify precisely how the state of being anathema relates to the covenantal privileges enumerated in vv. 4–5. However, it is unlikely that the genitive present participle ὧν can bear the weight place on it by interpreters who insist that for Paul, Israel’s election is straightforward, intact, and unproblematic (e.g., Stendahl, “Apostle Paul,” passim; Lloyd Gaston, Paul and Torah [Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987], 92, 94, passim; W. S. Campbell, Creation, 134–39). These privileges belong to the people of Israel as a matter of God’s historical election, but their possession does not translate into entitlement with respect to the eschatological counterparts described by Paul in ch. 8 (where υἱοθεσία, δόξα, πληροῦν τὸ δικαίωµα τοῦ νόµου, and by implication ἡ λατρεία [see also 12:1] all appear as realities of the in-breaking eschaton) and elsewhere. Rather, to borrow a word Paul uses in a different context, Israel’s possession of these historical privileges should have made Israel ἱκανός to obtain the corresponding eschatological blessings. The very fact that Israel’s historic election did not, for the majority of the people, result in their inclusion among the community of salvation is the contemporary reality presupposed in Rom 9–11 and its defense of God’s faithfulness. 5 Paul’s discourse twice provokes the question as to whether God has rejected his people (11:1; 11:10); the vehement denials indicate his desire to avoid conclusions one could potentially draw from his own discussion, however unwarranted he thinks those conclusions are (see § 3.4. above).

116

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

in circumcision (2:29); in the law (3:27; 3:31; 8:4; 13:8–10); in cultic service (12:1; 15:16); and in the promises (4:13–15). In other words, Paul sees the same privileges enumerated in 9:4–5 extended to Gentile Christ-followers, while correspondingly limited to Jews who make the same christological confession. In light of the paltry numbers of Jews confessing κύριος Ἰησοῦς (10:9) and the comparative success of Paul’s apostolate among the Gentiles, his reconfiguration of covenant and salvation around the Messiah raises a problem: Does this unexpected development undermine God’s faithfulness towards the historic people of Israel?6 With the affirmation of v. 9:6a, therefore, Paul sets out to prove that the new era inaugerated by Christ has not abrogated the divine promises vouchsafed to Israel in days past.7 The suspicion that he has is provoked not by 6

See also Dunn, who writes: “How is it that Gentiles are entering into the promises to Abraham so readily while most of [Paul’s] own people to whom the promises were given seem to be missing out? If God is not faithful to Israel, how can Paul proclaim his faithfulness to the Gentiles?” (Romans, 2:530); similarly, C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MNTC; New York: Harper, 1932), 150, 155; Schoeps, Paul, 237; Cranfield, Romans, 2:447; Siegert, Argumentation, 121; Chilton, “Romans 9–11,” 27–28; Martin Rese, “Israel und Kirche in Römer 9,” NTS 34 (1988): 211–12; Hays, Echoes, 64; B. W. Longenecker, “Different Answers,” 95; Johnson, Function, 145–46; Lyonnet, Études, 264, 266; Wayne A. Meeks, “On Trusting an Unpredictable God,” in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (ed. John T. Carroll, Charles H. Cosgrove, and E. Elizabeth Johnson; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 105; Barrett, Romans, 164, 166; Wright, Climax, 235–36; idem, Faithfulness, 2:1020; Moo, Romans, 548–49, 568; Byrne, Romans, 282; Wilk, Bedeutung, 120; Tobin, Rhetoric, 304; Grindheim, Crux, 139 n. 8; M. J. Cook, “Paul’s Argument,” 96; Belli, Argumentation, 49–50. Beverly Roberts Gaventa’s claim that Rom 9–11 is not really about God’s faithfulness, “since it seems doubtful that such a question would actually have occurred to Paul or his audience,” is beside the point (“On the Calling-into-Being of Israel: Romans 9:6–29,” in Between Gospel and Election, 257). The issue is a contested hermeneutic: does Paul’s gospel imply that God is not faithful towards the people to whom he made his promises. Paul emphatically denies that it does. His opponents claimed otherwise (see § 3.2.). Paul’s urgent attempt to wrestle with the question of Israel’s ultimate fate is explicitly predicated on a prior question of God’s own fidelity and his ability to establish his promised word. Francis Watson makes the following statement which, though I would not accept it without qualification, does place the weight on the correct foot: “The main subject of Rom. 9–11 is the consistency of the Pauline view of God’s activity with the OT Scriptures, and not ‘Israel’s unbelief’ per se. Everywhere, the presupposition is the Pauline view that God has rejected the majority in Israel and called to himself a new people consisting mainly of Gentiles (although also a Jewish remnant). The question for Paul and his readers is: Is such a view of God’s activity consistent with his revelation of himself in Scripture?” (Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach [SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986], 162; emphasis added, original emphasis removed; similarly idem, Beyond the New Perspective, 303–5, 307). 7 I find unconvincing the argument that ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in 9:6 refers to the gospel, so that Paul must account for its ineffectiveness among Jews (so R. David Kotansky, “A Note

4.1. Romans 9:6a in Context

117

Gentile presumption in Rome but by the presuppositions and implications of his own gospel, expressed prior to Romans and within the letter itself (see § 3.2.–3.3.).8 As Ulrich Wilckens has stated, the objection Paul must answer is whether or not his gospel “is built on the shattered foundation of salvation history,” and whether or not “the righteousness of God, which is proclaimed in the gospel, can in reality be anything other than unrighteousness, since it has nothing more to do with the covenantal righteousness for Israel.”9 On Paul’s understanding of the Christ-event, did God change his mind in the middle of history and capriciously switch one plan for another?10 Does Paul preach a gospel that implies God foisted a cruel trick on Israel, duping it into pursuing a path of Torah obedience and then arbitrarily substituting for it a competing basis for salvation?11 It is this unthinkable possibility, which Paul’s own reconfiguration of Israel’s mythomoteur has opened up, that he must now close off with his affirmation that God’s word has not failed. on Romans 9:6: Ho Logos tou Theou as the Proclamation of the Gospel,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 7 [1977]: 24–30; J. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues, 80–81; Jewett, Romans, 573). This interpretation ignores the parallel phrase ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγελίας in v. 9, which cannot refer to the gospel. Further, in Rom 3:1–8 the leading indicator of Jewish advantage is the fact that the Jews were “entrusted with τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ” (3:2). In context, these λόγια must involve something to which God has pledged himself. Lexical evidence suggests a flexible concept embracing, on the one hand, God’s promises, deeds, pledges, and intentions for his people, and on the other, the Scriptures recounting these acts. Hence, the issue of Jewish advantage immediately becomes a question of divine faithfulness (3:2), truthfulness (3:4), and justice (3:5–6). See also BDAG, λόγος 1aβ (though I disagree with BDAG’s preferred definition under 2a), Jan Willem Doeve, “Some Notes with Reference to τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 3.2,” in Studia Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), 111–23; Thomas Walter Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (ed. Matthew Black; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 87–96; Käsemann, Commentary, 262; Williams, “Righteousness,” 265–70, 281–82 (though his restriction of λόγια/λόγος to the specific promise that Gentiles were to be included in Abraham’s family is too narrow); Dunn, Romans, 1:130–31; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 179; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 197; Haacker, Römer, 215; David R. Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son: Paul’s Lament-Midrash in Romans 9–11 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 62 n. 10. 8 Against Esler, Conflict, 277; Wengst, Freut euch, 294–95. 9 Wilckens, Röm, 181–82; see also ibid., 191. So too Dunn: v. 6a “responds to a question which arises naturally from a Jewish perspective on Paul’s gospel” (Romans, 2:539). See also Charles Gore, “The Argument of Romans IX–XI,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (ed. S. R. Driver, William Sanday, and John Wordsworth; 5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1895), 3:39–40; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 226, 238; Käsemann, Romans, 261; Donald Sneen, “The Root, the Remnant, and the Branches,” WW 6 (1986): 400; Hays, Echoes, 64; Otfried Hofius, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9–11,” PSBSupI 1 (1990): 27–28; Barrett, Romans, 168–69; Wright, Climax, 236; Fitzmyer, Romans, 539–41, 558; Guerra, Romans, 144–45; Byrne, Romans, 282, 286, 289; Theobald, Studien, 336; Belli, Argumentation, 49–50; Wallace, Lesser Son, 48. 10 Wright, Climax, 238. 11 Meeks, “Trusting,” 108.

118

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

4.2. Israel and Not Israel: Romans 9:6b in Context 4.2. Israel and Not Israel: Romans 9:6b in Context

If v. 9:6a presents the thesis for chs. 9–11 as a whole, v. 9:6b, οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (NIV), functions as a distinct, secondary propositio.12 The γάρ indicates that this phrase supports what precedes it. In turn, the following οὐδ’ ὅτι connects v. 7a tightly with v. 6b. The distinction between πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ and οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, and the corresponding demarcation of Abraham’s σπέρµα from his τέκνα in v. 7a provide Paul’s thesis with a dual rationale: God’s promissory word made to Israel has not failed because not all those from Israel count as Israel, because not all those who are Abraham’s children count as his seed.13 This concept of Israel determines Paul’s apologetic through 11:10. 12

Belli, Argumentation, 51. The precise grammar and translation of 9:6b is disputed. It is possible to take οὐ with οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, resulting in the translation, “those descended from Israel are not that which is Israel” (Moo, Romans, 573; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 210). However, this would have the effect of entirely separating the two groups; the “true” Israel would be completely distinct from those who descend from the patriarchs. But the ensuing argument indicates that Paul is, in fact, distinguishing between a larger group and a subgroup of which it is a part. This sense is better conveyed by keeping οὐ with πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. The same consideration applies to the proposal of Klaus Wengst, that 6b is a rhetorical question aimed at Gentile supersessionism: “Sind den nicht alle aus Israel eben Israel?” (“Are not all from Israel [= Jacob] precisely Israel [= members of God’s people]?” [Freut euch, 293, 297–98]). Wengst attempts to contort v. 7 into a statement opposing 6b: “Aber es ist nicht so, dass Nachkommenschaft Abrahams alle sind, die er als Kinder hat” (“But it is not the case that the descendants of Abraham are all whom he had as children”). But οὐδ᾽ ὅτι does not support this construction. Wengst’s counter-argument based on Heb 9:25 ignores that fact that Heb 9:25a together with 9:26b is parallel to 9:24a and 9:24b; consequently, 9:25a is not connected to 9:24b in the way he claims. As a result, Heb 9:25 does not support his preferred translation of “aber nicht” over against “auch nicht.” Another possibility is adopted by Bevery Gaventa, who wants to take the οὐ as negating the entire clause, hence: “For it is not the case that all those who are from Israel (i.e., Israelites by birth), these people are (i.e., they constitute) Israel,” with the result that Paul’s point lies not in negating some group’s membership in Israel. Instead, his sole point is that the only Israel which exists is that one which God creates through promise and call (“Calling-IntoBeing,” 259–60). But as a result she must claim not only that this verse does not anticipate the explicit division within Israel stated in 11:7, 25–26, but also that ch. 9 itself has little interest in election as an excluding action of God, claims which runs counter to Paul’s own emphasis. Indeed, every divine utterance reported through v. 17 enacts a division between the elect and the non-elect (Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 310). 13 In my estimation, πάντες τέκνα in v. 7 must be the subject of εἰσίν and the broader category, despite its greater distance from the verb and the inconsistency in gender, and σπέρµα the predicate. Only in this way can 7a cohere with the following quote from Gen 21:12 (so NRSV, ESV, NJB; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 240–41; Hays, Echoes, 206 n. 61; Dunn, Romans, 2:540; Barrett, Romans, 169; Rese, “Israel und Kirche,” 209–10 [where an explanation for the shift in gender occurs on p. 215 n. 20]; Moo, Romans, 575

4.2. Israel and Not Israel: Romans 9:6b in Context

119

Considerations of content compel me to take 9:6b–9:29, 11:1–10 as a single argument, whose conclusions (11:1–10) are separated from the premises by the lengthy but necessary digression of 9:30–10:21. Several reasons justify this division of Paul’s argument. First, his series of biblical exemplars and episodes on which he bases the argument run in chronological order, from Abraham and the patriarchal era (9:7–13) to Moses and the exodus (9:14–18) to Elijah and the monarchy (11:2–4). Second, the same cluster of terms and concepts that conclude ch. 9 open ch. 11, forming a clear link between the two. Third, and most decisively, 11:1–10 continues to base God’s reliability wholly on the existence of a remnant created by grace, which holds a soteriological position wholly antithetical to that characterizing the rest of Israel (on this reading, the thesis-like statement in 11:1a simply restates in more specific terms the problem signaled in 9:6a). Only after 11:11 does Paul provide the slightest hint that a body of Jews larger than this tiny enclave will attain salvation (and until 11:26, it is only a hint; see vv. 12, 15–16, and the conditional formulation in v. 23). Any indication within Paul’s argument that the remnant has any positive function with respect to all Israel appears first in Rom 11:16, and cannot be assumed prior to this point (see § 7.2.). Similarly, the notice that Israel’s hardening has a positive soteriological function that is limited in its duration only occurs after 11:11. By contrast, in 11:1–10, what Paul applies to non-remnanted Israel is not any alleged soteriological promise inherent in the remnant itself but the language of hardening that was previously used to characterize Pharaoh (9:18). What these data indicate is that in Rom 9–11 two distinct answers occur to the question of 9:6a, Has God faithfully maintained his word to Israel? According to 9:6b–11:10, the conditions of the present situation are wholly consistent with God’s fidelity to Israel – the elect remnant suffices of itself to demonstrate the viability of his word. By contrast, according to 11:11–32, only when the conditions of the present situation are reversed will God be shown to be faithful to Israel – all Israel must and will in some way come to salvation.14 n. 25; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 189–90; Jewett, Romans, 575; Wengst, Freut euch, 298 n. 483; against KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ASV, NAB; Cranfield, Romans, 2:473; Siegert, Argumentation, 125; Byrne, Romans, 293; Lohse, Römer, 270, 273; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 212; Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 639; Belli, Argumentation, 76 n. 61; Wallace, Lesser Son, 63–64). 14 On this formulation of the issue, see Donaldson, Gentiles, 176–77; Wright, “Romans,” in NIB 10:680–81 (though Wright himself dissents from it); Bell, Irrevocable Call, 244. In my judgment, the unity of Rom 9:6–29 and 11:1–10 renders null any attempt to divide these chapters chronologically as dealing with the past (Rom 9), present (Rom 10), and future (Rom 11) of Israel, as for example in Theobald, Römerbrief, 263–64, 267; idem, Studien, 340–41; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 720; in any case, ch. 11 itself deals with past and

120

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

Within the context of 9:6–11:10, then, Paul must vindicate God’s word by first establishing the proper referent of the Israel whom it address.15 This requires drastic hermeneutical procedures. With the phrases οἱ ἐξ Ισραήλ and οὗτοι Ισραήλ, Paul ruptures the continuity of God’s people.16 It is this Israel and not those of Israel who can depend on the reliability of what God has spoken. Although Paul’s discussion of election in the immediate sequel (9:7b–13) does not follow the expectations raised by this bifurcation (πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ vs. οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ; τέκνα vs. σπέρµα), it reappears in Paul’s quotations from Isaiah in 9:27–29 and is developed extensively in 11:1–10. In these passages, the Israel reckoned as seed exists as the remnant, while οἱ λοιποί, “the rest,” have forfeited their inheritance and can claim only bent backs, blind eyes, and (divinely!) hardened hearts (see § 7.1.2., § 7.2.1.).17 From the opening knell, Paul situates his exegetical discussion in terms of an opposition that is both binary and hierarchical. Election, he intimates, entails exclusion. While Rom 9:6b and 7a are tightly connected by their grammar and rhetorical intent, their two sets of contrasts are not coterminous, because Israel does not exactly correspond to the seed of Abraham. The argument distinguishing between Abraham’s offspring and strictly related to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau (vv. 7a–9) does not have necessary implications for the descendants of Israel. Thus, in moving from v. 6 to v. 7, Paul changes focus. Thomas Tobin noted this shift, as the following observation shows: “Paul never represent as well as future timeframes. One of the most recent and thorough attempts to establish the unity of ch. 11 comes from Gadenz, who largely appeals to rhetorical and formal criteria (Calling, 16–33; 167–226). However, when attending to the content of the chapter, he is forced to acknowledge that vv. 1–10 imply precisely that God did reject that part of Israel which is not included in the remnant (e.g., the majority). Therefore Gadenz must label v. 11 a subpropositio, and claim that it governs 11:11–32, in which this implication is denied (see esp. Calling, 187, but also 179, 181, 209, 211–12, 224). Thus, his argument concedes that in terms of content 11:1–10 belongs with 9:6b–29 and indeed 9:30– 10:21. Both of these earlier passages conclude with OT catenae appearing to exclude hardened Israel from any share in salvation, precisely as is implied in 11:1–10. The challenge of finding the coherence of Rom 9–11 I take up in § 8.1. 15 Hübner, Gottes Ich, 17; Johnson, Function, 139; Barrett, Romans, 169; Fitzmyer, Romans, 559–60; Moo, Romans, 573; Theobald, Römerbrief, 261; Wagner, Heralds, 49; Belli, Argumentation, 73–74. 16 Lohse, Römer, 273. 17 If these quotations from Isaiah are relevant for determining the meaning of the two instances of “Israel” in 9:6b, neither of the latter can include Gentiles, since the quotations are explicitly in contradistinction to the Gentiles described in 9:25–26, whether these Gentiles are included with or displace ethnic Jews (against, e.g., Wright, Climax, 238, 250; Alexander Kyrychenko, “The Consistency of Romans 9–11,” RQ 45 [2003]: 219; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 180–82).

4.2. Israel and Not Israel: Romans 9:6b in Context

121

turns to [v. 6b]. … After the statement about Israel in 9:6b, Paul immediately turns to the specific cases of Abraham and Isaac, both of whom lived before Jacob/Israel, in such a way as seems to follow immediately on 9:6a.”18 Tobin and other commentators perceive that Paul promises an argument concerning the nature of belonging to the people of Israel, but turns his discussion to the chosen and rejected children of Abraham.19 The two categories are not coextensive. This difficulty has rarely been noticed because interpreters have been frequently misled by Paul’s own initial statement in v. 6b, its continuation in vv. 27–29, and its conclusion in 11:1–10. Naturally, they tend to interpret what falls in between in line with these key moments that initiate the argument and bring it to a rhetorical climax.20 But the immediate sequel in 9:7–13 fails to execute the inner-Israel division just anticipated. These verses do not discriminate between an authentic Israel distinct from its parent body. When v. 6b determines the interpretation of vv. 7–13, the latter are forced to signify

18 Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 327; however, Tobin’s statement that the claim of 9:6b disappears for good would seem unfounded; 9:27–29 and 11:1–10 clearly take up its thought. 19 Other commentators notice this adjustment without pursuing its full implications: “St. Paul could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent from Abraham [i.e., 9:7], of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob [i.e., 9:6b], and thus establish his fundamental principle – that inheritance of the promises is not the necessary result of Israelitish decent” (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 240); “Οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ concerns Israel, not the patriarch” (Käsemann, Romans, 262); Paul “must accept that he covers up a serious difference between the actual present time [characterized by the failure of the Jewish majority to accept his gospel, and presupposed in 9:6b] and the history of Israel’s election in the fathers [begun in 9:7], but which may not have escaped the attentive Jewish reader,” namely that Paul posits a division within Israel itself, but tries to project this onto a patriarchal history which itself symbolizes the division between Israel and Gentile nations (Theobald, Studien, 333–34; see also Römerbrief, 334); “It is … important not to draw a strict parallel between v. 6b and v. 7a. … [T]he exclusion of Ishmael and the exclusion of Esau in the next generation should not be likened to the exclusion of unbelieving Jews” (Bell, Irrevocable Call, 212–13). 20 Examples include E. P. Gould, “Romans IX–XI,” JBL 3 (1883): 22–23; Gore, “Argument,” 40; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 238–50; Cranfield, Romans, 2:474; Käsemann, Romans, 262; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 18–21; Watson, Sociological Approach, 163–64, 227 n. 9, 228 n. 10; Siegert, Argumentation, 126–27; Heikki Räisänen, “Römer 9–11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens,” ANRW 25.4:2897–902; Dunn, Romans, 2:539–40; Wright, Climax, 238; Cranford, “Election and Ethnicity,” 35, 38–40; Moo, Romans, 568–69; Craig A. Evans, “Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with Special Reference to Romans 9–11),” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 123–24; Wagner, Heralds, 51; Esler, Conflict, 279; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 147–215; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 219–37; Grindheim, Crux, 142–46; M. J. Cook, “Paul’s Argument,” 96–97.

122

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

that some or many or perhaps even all Jewish people fail to be included in οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, a topic they do not, in fact, raise.21 By contrast, some recent interpreters have perceived this discrepancy. But in order to suit their interpretive interests, they merely set the problem on its head and force 9:6b and vv. 27–29 (and 11:1–10) into the mold of vv. 7–13. In this way, Paul is made a champion of Jewish election without equivocation. The division within Israel is erased and the opening declaration is made consistent with what follows. Yet by imposing the text onto a Procrustean bed, they generally produce interpretations of 9:6b that noticeably limp. On their reading, “not all Israel is Israel” becomes a bizarre way of insisting the inviolability of all Israel’s election.22 In other words, 9:6b and 9:27–29 signal Paul’s intention to defend God’s faithfulness by splitting open Israel and its sacred history, while 9:7–13 reiterates a conventional account of Abraham’s divine election. Few interpreters have been able to take both sets of passages with equal seriousness. But instead of contorting one into the pattern of the other, I propose that Paul’s argument itself proceeds in different directions. Only in hindsight will it become clear that vv. 7–13, by the removal of circumcision and works from the logic of election, actually prepare for the rhetorical turn in vv. 24–29. Yet as the argument moves forward, the discourse seems to reverse on itself. I will discuss the problem of inconsistency further in ch. 7 of this study (§ 7.3.).

4.3. Structure and Argument in Romans 9:7–13 4.3. Structure and Argument in Romans 9:7–13

The argument that Paul does present in vv. 7–13 progresses in two parallel phases, each containing two scriptural quotations and various interpretive comments. The first subsection, vv. 7–9, relates the inner-Abrahamic division to God’s promise and juxtaposes this against flesh, while the second, vv. 10– 13, connects this division to God’s call and contrasts this promise-call nexus with works. Structurally, the first paragraph contains four movements. Paul formally applies the thesis of v. 6b to the family of Abraham, quotes a supporting text (Gen 21:12), provides an interpretive comment, and adds a sec-

21

This tension can be illustrated by Gore’s article, which on the basis of this passage attempts to reproduce a dialogue between Paul and a Jewish objector; unfortunately, none of the claims put in the mouth of the opponent on pp. 40–41 (based on vv. 7–13) match the initial objection expressed on p. 39 (based on v. 6). 22 Interpreters who are guided by vv. 7–13 include Gaston (Paul and Torah, 96), Getty (“Salvation of Israel,” 465), W. S. Campbell (Paul’s Gospel, 48, 142–43; Creation, 121– 27), J. C. Walters (Ethnic Issues, 82); John G. Gager (Reinventing Paul [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 131), Wengst (Freut euch, 293–302), and Eastman (“Mercy,” 377 n. 34, 382).

4.3. Structure and Argument in Romans 9:7–13

123

ond quotation supporting the gloss on the first (Gen 18:10). These verses may be analyzed as follows: Claim applying the thesis statement of 6b Quotation supporting the claim, introduced with ἀλλά Interpretive gloss, introduced with τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Quotation supporting the gloss

7a 7b 8 9

In terms of quotation technique, the pesher-like phrase τοῦτ’ ἔστιν is noteworthy.23 Although Paul is not producing running commentary on a piece of consecutive text, he does present the scriptural witness as confirmation of how he himself understands election and covenant. The second subsection contains a bit of awkward grammar and is accordingly more difficult to analyze. The initial phrase in v. 10, οὐ µόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καί, not only marks out a further stage in Paul’s argument but also indicates that the following example will prove the overarching claim even more clearly than the previous one, with καί referring back to vv. 7–9.24 There follows what initially appears to be the grammatical subject, “Rebecca.” The remainder of the sentence lacks a finite verb, includes a nominal phrase (Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν) separated from its antecedent ἑνός (itself the object of the preposition ἐκ) by a participial phrase (κοίτην ἔχουσα), and seems to lose itself completely in what follows. Verse 11 begins a lengthy γάρ clause, composed of a compound genitive absolute introduced with an adverb (µήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων µηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον).25 There follows a purpose clause (ἵνα ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ µένῃ). All this leads toward the quotation from Gen 25:23. Only as the biblical text is introduced are we given a passive verb with an implied (divine) subject and indirect object: ἐρρέθη αὐτῇ. These unwieldy constructions are more easily understood if Ῥεβέκκα in v. 10 is taken as a dative noun, the indirect object of the main verb ἐρρέθη in v. 11, making αὐτῇ resumptive. The material which intervenes between 23

On Paul’s use of pesher interpretation, see Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 139–48; James D. G. Dunn, “2 Corinthians III, 17: ‘The Lord is the Spirit,’” JTS NS 21 (1970): 309–20; Koch, Schrift, 227–30; Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 28–30, 111–13, 123–52; R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 113–16. A dissenting, but to my mind unpersuasive, argument against the value of pesher for understanding Paul’s hermeneutical techniques appears in Timothy H. Lim, “Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran After Fifty Years (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997), 280–92. 24 The intensification is lost by the NRSV: “something similar happened.” 25 A γάρ clause may support ideas not expressed which must be supplied from the context (BDAG, s.v. 1e; Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 2810). Such is the case here. The γάρ in v. 11 provides the reason for the implied thought behind the expression οὐ µόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καί of v. 10: what can be demonstrated from the case of Isaac is made even more certain in the case of Jacob, because in the latter instance Jacob and his twin were not yet even born.

124

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

Ῥεβέκκα and ἐρρέθη αὐτῇ all anticipate the quotation and guide Paul’s audience in making the correct deductions from it. This material is parenthetical only in terms of grammar; its content is essential for a proper understanding of the quoted text. On this interpretation, the kernel sentence reads: “And not only this, but it was also said to Rebecca [in addition to what was said to Abraham].”26 A final prophetic quotation from Mal 1:2–3 supports both the quotation from Gen 25:23 in 9:12b and Paul’s introductory comments in 9:10–12a; it also summarizes the entire pericope and concludes the argument so far. Romans 9:10–13 may be analyzed in the following way: Introduction and intensification Circumstances of the divine oracle 1: identical parents Circumstances of the divine oracle 2: prenatal state of the children Purpose of these circumstances Quotation: divine oracle to Rebecca Quotation: summary Scripture

10a 10b 11a 11b–12a 12b 13

Both sections of this pericope are more or less parallel in form: assertion, biblical quotation, interpretative gloss, conclusion. Despite the difficult grammar, they demonstrate conceptual symmetry and care in their expression.

26

The resumptive use of αὐτῇ may be indirectly confirmed by 46 and the corrector of D; both apparently considered the word superfluous and deleted it. I find this solution more satisfying than most of its competitors. Cranfield refuses to take vv. 11–12a as a parenthesis but must posit hypothetical, unexpressed thoughts in Paul’s mind to derive a sensible meaning (Romans, 2:477; similarly, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 244); Rese considers v. 10 to be an anacoluthon and vv. 11–12 a complete sentence (“Israel und Kirche,” 210, 216 nn. 26–31); Fitzmyer considers the grammar faulty but understands the participial phrase Ρεβεκκα … ἔκουσα as a nominative absolute to which αὐτῇ eventually refers (Romans, 561–62); Moo takes Ρεβεκκα as a pendant nominative, but agrees that αὐτῇ is resumptive (Romans, 579 n. 44); Jewett understands vv. 10–13 as “a loose syntactic unit whose subject is Rebecca and whose finite verb must be supplied from the preceding argument” (Romans, 577). Abasciano regards 9:10 as elliptical and supplies an impersonal use of εἰµί with Ρεβεκκα as the predicate nominative, translating, “And not only [this], but [there was] also Rebekah” (Romans 9.10–18, 41–42; brackets original). In any case, the various clauses in vv. 10b–12a are not so much parenthetical statements (so Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 243; Wilckens, Röm, 194; Dunn, Romans, 2:538; Moo, Romans, 580) as exegetical guideposts: they maneuver Paul’s readers along the interpretive course he sets for them.

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

125

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9 4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

Although Paul does not actually retell the stories of Genesis in Rom 9:7–13, he does select, plot, and interpret key episodes.27 These evoke the Jewish mythomoteur with its intertwined stories of domestic strife and divine election. The following discussion will first look at the text-form of Paul’s quotations, then examine two terms which crystallize the hermeneutical issues at stake, and finally relate this analysis to the argument of 9:7–9. 4.4.1. Scriptural Quotation in Romans 9:7–9 By means of Gen 21:12 and 18:10 and their pesher-like interpretations, Paul elucidates the operation of God’s electing activity and the external manifestation by which it becomes visible. Although both quotations lack introductory formulae, the leading terms ἀλλά and ὁ λόγος οὗτος indicate that Paul has inserted a biblical witness at each point. Paul’s fidelity to the original text varies considerably. In Rom 9:7 he reproduces Gen 21:12 precisely as written in the LXX, itself a close rendering of the Hebrew. The text is well chosen. Paul will relate every term to his argument. Further, his analysis of election as it operated in the patriarchal generations is supported not only by the specific words but also by the divine voice. The quotation presents God in the first person speaking from Scripture through Paul’s epistle. This feature is common to all of the explicitly marked 28 OT quotations through 9:27.

27 On the use of selection, plotting, and interpretation as a means of constructing a communal identity, see § 2.1. 28 The one exception is Paul’s quotation of Isa 29:16 in v. 20, which, as the only quotation to lack some kind of introductory notice, is the only one which could not be recognized as a biblical passage on first hearing. When Paul drops the impression of direct divine speech in the introduction to Isa 10:22 in v. 27, he explicitly draws attention to this shift in speakers: Ἠσΐας δὲ κράζει. When Paul quotes divine speech from Scripture elsewhere, he usually attributes it directly to God (Gen 17:5 in Rom 4:17; Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18; Exod 20:17/Deut 5:21 in Rom 7:7; Deut 32:21 in Rom 10:19; Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:20–21; 1 Kings 19:10, 14 in Rom 11:3–4; Isa 59:20, 27:9 in Rom 11:27; Deut 32:35 in Rom 12:19; Exod 20:13–17/Deut 5:17–21 in Rom 13:9; Isa 29:14 in 1 Cor 1:19; Isa 49:8 in 2 Cor 6:2; Gen 12:3/18:18 in Gal 3:8 and possibly Ezek 37:27 in 2 Cor 6:16; Isa 52:11 in 2 Cor 6:17; Ezek 20:34 in 2 Cor 6:17 [if this passage is authentic]; 2 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18). However in two instances the speaker is probably Christ (Isa 49:18, 45:23 in Rom 14:11; Isa 28:11–12 in 1 Cor 14:21). Nowhere else does Paul present such a sustained series of biblical quotations in which God is presented as the sole speaker as in Rom 9 (Hübner, Gottes Ich, 31–35; esp. 32 n. 69, 34 [though I find Hübner’s attempt to replace Paul’s biblical interpretation with a personal “I – Thou” encounter unpersuasive]; Theobald, Römerbrief, 264; Watson, Hermeneutics, 19).

126

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals Gen 21:12 Hebrew

Gen 21:12 LXX

‫ ויאמר אלהים אל אברהם‬εἶπεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῷ Ἀβραάµ ‫ אל ירע בעיניך‬Μὴ σκληρὸν ἔστω τὸ ῥῆµα

Rom 9:7 οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρµα Ἀβραάµ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’,

ἐναντίον σου

‫ על הנער ועל אמתך‬περὶ τοῦ παιδίου καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδίσκης·

‫ כל אשׁר תאמר אליך שׂרה‬πάντα, ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπῃ σοι Σάρρα,

‫ שׁמע בקלה‬ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς, 29 ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι ‫כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע‬ σπέρµα.30

Ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα.31

In Rom 9:9, the text from Gen 18:10 seems to have undergone several alterations.32 Paul moves the prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον into the opening position, inverting it with the verb. In the process, εἰς ὥρας has fallen out; perhaps Paul deemed it superfluous. The verbal phrase itself he has reduced to a simple ἐλεύσοµαι.33 The actual content of the promise corresponds more closely to the Hebrew than the LXX, perhaps as a result of the similar phrasing in 18:14; there is no reason to think Paul intentionally conformed his quotation to the Hebrew of Gen 18:10, which would both diverge from his habit of using the LXX and lack any evident motivation.34 These alterations 29

“But God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your seed be called’” (RSV modified). 30 “But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not let the matter be hard in your sight on account of the child and on account of the slave-girl; whatever Sarah says to you, obey her voice, for in Isaac seed shall be called for you’” (NETS modified). 31 “And not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed; but ‘Through Isaac shall your seed be called’” (RSV modified). 32 These changes are commonly obscured in English translations. 33 The only other occurrence where Paul reduces an entire phrase to a simple verb seems to be 2 Cor 6:16 – if the passage is authentic –, where ἐνοικήσω replaces καὶ ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς µου from Ezek 37:27. Otherwise, the verbs in Paul’s quotations occasionally vary from the LXX. The reasons differ, and it is difficult to be certain in many cases. The cause may be stylistic (e.g., καταλείψεις, ὤκλασαν in 3 Kgdms 19:18 → κατέλιπον, ἔκαµψαν in Rom 11:4), textual (e.g., οἴδασιν in Isa 59:8 → ἔγνωσαν in Rom 3:17; Paul agrees with A; ἐµβαλῶ in Isa 28:16 → τίθηµι in Rom 9:33); theological (e.g., κρύψω in Isa 29:14 → ἀθετήσω in 1 Cor 1:19, perhaps under the influence of Ps 32:10 [Heb., Eng.: 33:10]) or even accidental (e.g., νικήσῃς in Ps 50:6 [Heb., Eng.: 51:6] → the grammatically incorrect νικήσεις in Rom 3:4, although νικησῃς is a variant reading; cf. the same change in tenses: καταισχυνθῇ in Isa 28:16 → καταισχυνθήσεται in Rom 10:11). 34 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 243; Cranfield, Romans, 2:476; Dunn, Romans, 2:548; Jewett, Romans, 577. Stanley presents an alternative view. He denies Gen 18:10 is

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9 Gen 18:10 Hebrew

‫ויאמר‬ ‫שׁוב אשׁוב אליך‬ ‫כעת חיה‬ ‫והנה בן לשׂרה אשׁתך‬ ‫ושׂרה שׁמעת פתח האהל‬ 35

‫והוא אחריו‬

Gen 18:14 Hebrew

‫היפלא מיהוה דבר‬ ‫למועד‬ ‫אשׁוב אליך‬ ‫כעת חיה‬ 37 ‫ולשׂרה בן‬

Gen 18:10 LXX εἶπεν δέ Ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σάρρα ἡ γυνή σου. Σάρρα δὲ ἤκουσεν πρὸς τῇ θύρᾳ τῆς σκηνῆς, οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ.36

127

Rom 9:9 ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος, Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσοµαι

Gen 18:14 LXX µὴ ἀδυνατεῖ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆµα; εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀναστρέψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.38

καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.39

quoted at all and judges that the entire quotation comes from 18:14, κατά being the only word in Rom 9:9 absent from 18:14 but present in 18:10 (Language, 104). He is followed by Belli (Argumentation, 33), but effectively rebutted by Abasciano (Romans 9.1–9, 155–56). 35 “The LORD said, ‘I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.’ And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him.” 36 “And he said, ‘I will come to you, when I return, during this season next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.’ And Sarah, who was behind him, listened at the tent door.” 37 “Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, in the spring, and Sarah shall have a son.” 38 “Can it be that a matter is impossible with God? In this season I will come back to you next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” 39 “For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.’” Ἐπαγγελία plays an important role in the theological rhetoric of Galatians 3–4 (nine occurrences of the term and its verbal cognates) and Rom 4 (five occurrences), 9 (three), and 15 (one). Despite its importance, and its first position in v. 9, it is the grammatically subordinate term: ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος. The articular λόγος in the nominative followed by the demonstrative οὗτος should not be eclipsed by its genitival modifier ἐπαγγελίας. English translations demonstrate an unfortunate tendency to omit the grammatical subject wholly or partially. The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NLT all lack a word equivalent to λόγος, while others (NIV, NAB, NJB) take λόγος as a term emphasizing the exact wording of the promise, scarcely an improvement (e.g., the NIV’s “For this was how the promise was stated”). Just three verses earlier, Paul expressed his propositio in terms of the viability of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. This term ought to be reflected in any English translation (see also Cranfield’s balanced comments, Romans, 2:476).

128

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

considerably abbreviate the original verse and achieve the same effect that Paul created with his straightforward quotation of 21:12: all extraneous elements are removed and the focus lies exclusively on the operation of promise and call.40 4.4.2. Σπέρµα and Σάρξ in Romans 9:7–9 Fundamental to Paul’s reinterpretation of membership in Abraham’s family is a distinction between σάρξ and σπέρµα (9:7). In Genesis, the word ‫זרע‬/σπέρµα indicates the organic connection tying together a single people descending from an individual progenitor. Manifold seed (i.e., descendants) forms a constituent aspect of the divine promise to Abraham and his children (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:5, 18; 17:7–10, 19; 22:17–18; 24:7; 26:3–4, 24; 28:4, 13–14; 32:13 [Eng.: 32:12]; 35:12; 48:4). In the social memory shaped by these stories, the term developed powerful connotations. It signified inclusion within Abraham’s family and the covenantal privileges such standing implied. The affecttive dimensions of shared ancestry, social memory, and even sacred geography coalesced around membership in Abraham’s σπέρµα (§ 2.1.).41 For most Jews, the connection between σπέρµα and σάρξ was self-evident and inviolable. Already in Genesis, σάρξ assumes a consistent web of associations.42 By euphemistic metonymy, it represents the male reproductive member and thus indicates alternatively or simultaneously (1) relations based on physical procreation (Gen 2:23, 24; 29:14; 37:27) and (2) the removal of foreskin as a divinely mandated act. In ch. 17, which offers the highest concentration of occurrences in the book (5 times: vv. 11, 13, 14, 24, 25; cf. 34:24), σάρξ is tied firmly to the institution of circumcision as a physical symbol of the covenant between God and Abraham’s seed. In Genesis, therefore, the terms σπέρµα and σάρξ are integrally related. If σπέρµα connotes the religiously significant genealogy of Abraham, the organic relation tying one generation to the next, and the corporate contours of the Abrahamic covenant, σάρξ refers to bonds of kinship established through marriage and procreation and to the physical site of the circumcising ritual. 40

Jewett, Romans, 577, pace the more elaborate suggestions that ἐλεύσοµαι refers to some future epiphany (Dunn, Romans, 2:541). 41 Siegfried Schulz and Gottfried Quell, “σπέρµα, κτλ.,” TDNT 7:536–47; Bruce A. Demarest and Colin Brown, “Seed, etc.,” NIDNTT 3:521–27. The integral connection between seed and Abrahamic paternity is demonstrated by several texts that use the term to indicate ethnic solidarity and shared descent: Deut 1:8; 4:37; 10:15; 11:9; 2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8; 45:19; Jer 33:26; Jub. 17:6; 19:16; 21:25; 22:9–11, 15, 24, 27–30 and passim; Wis 10:5; Sir 1:13 (perhaps an implied reference to Israel as the place where Wisdom abides); 44:21; Pss. Sol. 9:9; 18:3; 3 Macc 6:3; 4 Macc 18:1. 42 E. Schweizer, F. Baumgärtel, and R. Meyer, “σάρξ,” TDNT 7:106–7; H. Seebass and Anthony C. Thiselton, “Flesh,” NIDNTT 1:671–82; Richard J. Erickson, “Flesh,” DPL 303–6.

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

129

Σάρξ and σπέρµα overlap in the relation that makes all Jews descendants of Abraham – a kinship symbolized in the removal of foreskin. The institutionalized rite constantly evoked the belief in shared ancestry, which, in turn, recalled the mythomoteur that gave circumcision its meaning.43 The language of σπέρµα and σάρξ thus have deep roots in the historical memory and social reality of Jewish life: election, covenant, and ethnic origin are all interwoven around these symbols.44 It is this complex that Paul determines to unravel.

43

The ability σάρξ to refer to kinship is illustrated by Gen 37:25. Joseph’s brothers say to each other, “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh (σάρξ).” Literature of the Second Temple period continued to evoke Gen 17 when linking circumcision to covenantal status: Achior the Ammonite believed in God, περιτέµετο τήν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτοῦ, “had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised” (NAB), and joined the house of Israel (Jud 14:10). Sirach describes Abraham’s fidelity to Torah with the phrase ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ ἔστησεν διαθήκην, “he established the covenant in his flesh” (44:20). Although σάρξ carries a range of meanings in Paul, in several instances it can refer only to circumcision and/or physical descent through natural procreation (BDAG, s.v. 2bβ, 4). Gal 3:3 and 6:12–13 indicate that perfection of one’s spiritual life σαρκί means initiation through circumcision; the description of Ishmael as the child according to flesh (4:23, 29) aligns him with the circumcising party (cf. 2:12). Flesh in Gal 4:14 could be a further reference (so Troy Martin, “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4:13–14),” JSNT 74 [1999]: 65–91). Phil 3:2–5 makes the same association. The discussion of the circumcision of the heart in Rom 2:28 also connects circumcision and σάρξ and in 4:1 it stresses a genealogical connection to Abraham by means of physical generation (§ 2.4.2., § 2.4.3.). The presence of Gen 17 in the background of Paul’s argument in Rom 9:7–9 suggests that here σάρξ refers primarily to circumcision. In light of vv. 6–7, physical descent clearly plays a role, but commentators sometimes err in focusing on descent alone (e.g., Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 240, 242–43; Käsemann, Romans, 262; Fitzmyer, Romans, 560). Scholars occasionally over-interpret the language of flesh and under-appreciate its natural connection to circumcision and its ethnic-religious associations. According to Jewett, in 9:5, σάρξ “evokes the realm of self-justification by works as opposed to a neutral reference to human limitations” (Romans, 567); in 9:8 it “has a negative connotation strongly reminiscent of Gal 4:21–31, where slavery, hostility, the old age, and exclusion from the realm of the Spirit are the characteristics of those born of the flesh” (ibid., 576; see also Wilckens, Röm, 193 n. 855; Käsemann, Romans, 262; Watson, Hermeneutics, 206; Seifrid, “Romans,” 640). By contrast, Paul’s meaning has been transparent to Jewish scholars like Jacob Neusner (Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise: A Rabbi Talks with Paul [Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1995], xi, xv, 13, 18), and Daniel Boyarin (Radical Jew, 70, 80– 81). The agreement between Neusner and Boyarin on this point is striking, considering their very different perspectives on and evaluation of rabbinic Judaism and its relation to Paul’s concern for the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s people. 44 John J. Collins, “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century,” in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985): 163–86; Robert G. Hall, “Circumcision,” ABD 1:1028–29.

130

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

4.4.3. Ishmael’s Exclusion: Circumcision and Covenant in Romans 9:7–9 In Rom 9:7–9, Paul relieves flesh of its role as signifier of divine election and reassigns this function entirely to ἐπαγγελία and κλῆσις.45 Neither the cut foreskin nor natural descent but the divine promise demonstrates the progress of election from one generation to the next.46 Flesh is overturned by God’s promise, which manifests itself in the designation of Abraham’s second-born son as the one who is to inherit the blessings and covenant of his father. Paul separates flesh from seed, promise, and election by a careful reading of Gen 21. The quotation of v. 12 in 9:7 supports his semantic reassignment of σπέρµα from σάρξ to ἐπαγγελία. Two elements make this verse ideal for Paul’s purposes: the presence of key lexical items and the tight thematic correspondence between Gen 21 and the burden of Paul’s argument. Almost every word in this brief quotation carries significance. First, while the use of ἀλλά to introduce a quotation is unusual, it reinforces the distinction just made between σπέρµα and τέκνον (v. 7a). Second, ἐν Ἰσαάκ limits the channel of God’s election to only one of Abraham’s sons, the second-born Isaac; the promise to Abraham constitutes a ban on Ishmael.47 Third, the word κληθήσεται, a divine passive, accentuates the supernatural agency operative in election and introduces a leading term which, with its cognates, will drive a large share of the argument through 11:29. Fourth, σοί refers, of course, to Abraham, further emphasizing Paul’s main point: the election of Isaac involves a fracture within Abraham’s family. Moreover, by retaining the second person, Paul maintains the impression of direct divine speech. Finally, σπέρµα appears in a rhetorically effective final position. God calls only Isaac from Abraham’s two sons and appoints him as seed. Paul does not leave his audience to infer the correct conclusion for themselves. He gives an interpretive remark introduced with the standard τοῦτ’ ἔστιν. Thus, v. 8a provides the necessary rhetorical frame for his quotation of Gen 21:12, while v. 9 completes the argument with its summarizing conclusion. On the surface, the logic is straightforward. Isaac was appointed by divine calling to be Abraham’s seed; his birth was made possible by a divine promise; therefore, constitutive for Abraham’s family, and hence God’s, is a birth marked by calling and promise. At the same time, Ishmael’s oblique appearance in v. 8, submerged under the collective label “the children of flesh,” 45

Paul uses only the verb form καλέω except in 11:29. I regard as without textual basis the claim that in Rom 9 Paul affirmed the superiority of natural descent from Abraham (against Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 305; W. S. Campbell, Creation, 114). 47 Dunn, Romans, 2:540; Jewett, Romans, 576. It is worth noting, as an aside, that Paul clearly presupposes that his audience possesses a general familiarity with the stories that he alludes to; one can hardly make sense of either this verse or, more importantly, vv. 10–11 without some knowledge of Genesis. 46

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

131

hints at the underside of God’s elective action and draws attention to its exclusionary nature. Isaac is the seed who inherits Abraham’s blessing – not Ishmael. The effectiveness of God’s promise can be seen in its ability to overturn the institution of primogeniture in favor of Abraham’s younger son.48 According to convention, Ishmael as the firstborn should stand to inherit the family goods, or at least – in the formulation of Deut 21:15–17 – a double portion thereof. Genesis presupposes a knowledge of this institution for the rhetorical effect of its subversion.49 Several Jewish writings indicate an awareness of this theme. Jubilees, the Primary Adam Books, and the Rabbis demonstrate a degree of sensitivity about this motif in Genesis, and Jubilees appears particularly uncomfortable in dealing with it.50 The inversion of primogeniture 48

Frank Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy: Echoes of a Biblical Motif in Romans 9–11,” SJT 47 (1994): 169–81; Byrne, Romans, 292; Seifrid, “Romans,” 640–41. This feature of Genesis and Rom 9 is also a major element in the work of David Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son: Paul’s Lament-Midrash in Romans 9–11. Although he and I pursue many of the same questions, his exegesis and mine vary considerably. 49 The tension that propels Genesis’s narrative requires primogeniture as the societal “default” setting. Those scholars who argue from Genesis that primogeniture did not exist in ancient Israel neutralize the text’s rhetorical potency. On this topic, see § 2.1., § 6.3., and the following: Isaac Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959): 38–40; Eryl W. Davies, “The Inheritance of the First-Born in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” JSS 38 (1993): 175–91 (pp. 175–79 I found particularly helpful in clarifying what role the revocation of primogeniture plays in Genesis); Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Primogeniture in Ancient Israel,” in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young (ed. Joseph E. Coleson and Victor H. Matthews; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 69–80; Gary N. Knoppers, “The Preferential Status of the Eldest Son Revoked?” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seeters (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 115–26; Harvey Sicherman and Gilad J. Gevaryahu, “‘Foremost in Rank and Foremost in Power’: Conflict Over the First-Born in Israel,” JBQ 31 (2003): 17–25; Ben-Zion (Benno) Schereschewsky, “Firstborn,” EncJud 7:45–48. 50 Jubilees addresses this topic frequently, e.g., 2:20, which interprets the culmination of the creation week in light of Exod 4:22; 24:1–7; 36:15 and makes Israel’s primogeniture a cosmic reality. Otherwise, the idea is implicit throughout (see also Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy,” 177–78). The rabbinic evidence is discussed in Judah Goldin, “The Youngest Son, Or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?” JBL 96 (1977): 27–44. In the Life of Adam and Eve this inversion of primogeniture is extended backwards in time to explain the downfall of Satan and his envy of Adam (Latin L.A.E. 14–17, esp. 14:3, 15:3). This episode does not occur in the Greek version, generally considered the best witness to L.A.E, nor in the Slavonic. However, the Greek L.A.E. 16:2–3 and 39:2–3 clearly demonstrate knowledge of it, even after removing the more explicit allusions in the additions of the ATLC manuscripts. Also, the Greek introduces Satan for the first time as an alreadyestablished character (2:4). For reasons unknown the story seems to have fallen out of the Greek textual tradition. The account was evidently widespread; similar stories are presup-

132

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

thus continued to provoke reflection through Paul’s time and supplied him with an alternative marker of election to substitute for circumcision. God’s call bypasses the preferential status of the elder son in favor of displaying his mercy on whom he will (cf. 9:15). However, God’s power to reverse primogeniture does not solve the exegetical problem of identifying the proper referents of σάρξ and σπέρµα. Paul has already broached the issues of circumcision and identity in Rom 2 and Rom 4, so he can rely on his previous discussion here. But the suppressed mention of Ishmael in connection with σάρξ indicates a distinct exegetical maneuver not anticipated earlier in the letter. Paul denies that merely receiving biological life from Abraham as his τέκνον makes one his σπέρµα, for Abraham of course had two τέκνα.51 Paul must have exegetical reasons for maintaining that the one τέκνον counts as σπέρµα and not the other.52 4.4.4. Ishmael’s Exclusion: Circumcision and Covenant Behind Romans 9:7–9 In one sense, Paul’s identification of Isaac as the child of the covenant could hardly be more prosaic. Despite the propensity of many interpreters to see here an attack on Jewish ethnic presumption, when Paul traces election from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob, exclusive of Ishmael and Esau, he simply restates the most conventional features of Israel’s mythomoteur. The undertaking Paul assays belongs “smack in the middle of that second-Temple genre which consists of retellings of Israel’s story.”53

posed or appear in 2 En. 22 and Ques. Bart. 4:54. I regard L.A.E. as a pre-Christian work, though space prevents a discussion of this issue here. 51 Wilckens, Röm, 192–93. 52 I would reiterate here my methodological starting point that, contrary to the working assumptions of some exegetes, Paul was not barred from interpreting his Bible except when some specific controversy erupted in his churches, at which point he scurried about available papyri for ad hoc proof texts. What emerges in the letters, with their explicit quotations, allusions, and echoes, is the iceberg’s tip, mere traces of a profound and relentless drive to grapple with Israel’s heritage and its written record (§ 1.1., § 2.1.). The power of his native mythomoteur and the need to reinterpret it after his experience with Christ were imposed on Paul from the beginning. The explicit quotations of and clearly identifiable allusions to his Scriptural text are rhetorically-determined ways of brining a continuous interpretive process into dialogue with context-specific situations. 53 Wright, Faithfulness, 2.1158; similarly Gadenz, Called, 43–45; against, e.g., Brian Abasciano, who writes of this passage: “If [as Paul claims] God’s promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church (or at least fulfilled in the Church), and the vast majority of Israel remain outside of the Church because of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah, then Israel has not received the fulfillment of the promises made to her and is cut off from God and his salvation. This calls into question God’s faithfulness to his promises. … The answer that Paul gives is that the promises were not made to ethnic Israel but to the covenant people of God, the seed of Abraham and true spiritual Israel” (Romans 9.1–9, 178, 182).

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

133

What sets his analysis apart from standard Jewish suppositions concerning covenant and kinship lies in his refusal to permit circumcision any role in determining covenantal membership. In opposition to Paul’s (apparently) cavalier attitude towards circumcision stands Gen 17, a text that reiterates four times in as many verses (vv. 10–13) the necessity of circumcising all Hebrew males and issues a dire warning against disregarding its command (v. 14). No other passage in Scripture connects circumcision to covenant so strongly, yet Paul finds here the exegetical resource for decoupling participation in Abraham’s family from circumcision and flesh. Paul exploits two texts and in so doing manages to make Gen 17 not an obvious but a problematic passage in terms of circumcision’s role as a marker of Jewish ethnicity: Gen 17:23 Καὶ ἔλαβεν Ἀβραὰµ ʼΙσµαὴλ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντας τοὺς οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀργυρωνήτους καὶ πᾶν ἄρσεν τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Ἀβραὰµ καὶ περιέτεµεν τὰς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἡµέρας ἐκείνης, καθὰ ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός.54 Gen 21:13 καὶ τὸν υἱὸν δὲ τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης, εἰς ἔθνος µέγα ποιήσω αὐτόν, ὅτι σπέρµα σόν ἐστιν.55

The chapters containing these two verses have already appeared in Paul’s efforts to reconceptualize the family of Abraham inclusive of Gentiles (Gal 3, 4; Rom 4; see § 2.2.1.4., § 2.2.3.). They both address the same dilemma: the threat Ishmael poses to Isaac’s inheritance and therefore Israel’s status. But taken together, they state that Abraham had not only two τέκνα/υἱοί, but that he also had two σπέρµατα – and both were circumcised.56 Genesis 17:23 and 54 “And Abraham took his son Ishmael and all his homebreds and all the ones bought with money and every male of the men that were in Abraham’s house, and he circumcised their foreskins at the opportune time of that day, as God had said to him.” 55 “And as for the son of the slave-girl, I will make him also into a great nation, because he is your seed” (NETS, modified). 56 Rabbinic discussions also show a nervous awareness that Ishmael’s circumcision poses interpretive challenges to the unity of the sacred line, Abraham–Isaac–Jacob. According to the dictum of R. Jose b. Ḥanina, “Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [heathens and Israelites].” If valid, this principle would make circumcision a universal requirement and dissolve its connection to Jewish religious and ethnic identity. In the case of Ishmael, this principle would include Gentiles under the command to be circumcised (Gen 17:9). Thus, the need to exempt the non-chosen branches of Abraham’s family becomes acute, and an exegetical argument must be assembled to avoid this conclusion; hence: “Circumcision was from the very first commanded to Abraham only [and not to the Noachides in general]: Thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations, meaning, thou and thy seed are to keep it, but no others. If so, should it not be incumbent upon the children of Ishmael [Abraham’s son]? – For in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Then should not the children of Esau be bound to practice it? – In Isaac, but not all Isaac” (b. Sanh. 59a–59b;

134

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

21:13, on the one hand, and 21:12, on the other, represent a glaring textual contradiction: Isaac is the σπέρµα; therefore Ishmael may be discarded. Yet Ishmael himself is also circumcised σπέρµα. He receives almost the same benefits as were promised to Abraham and later conferred on Isaac: a blessing, a great nation, and fruitful increase of offspring (16:10; 17:20; 21:18; cf. 25:12–18). He does not, however, receive the covenant, circumcised though he may be. Despite Paul’s own distinction between the (mere) children and the seed, the scriptural text identifies Ishmael as both. Paul needs a reason to disqualify Ishmael as σπέρµα despite the fact that the text indicates he is precisely that. Jewish interpretation tended to explain Ishmael’s expulsion with reference to the cryptic expression that Sarah witnessed him ‫ מצחק‬with the younger Isaac (Gen 21:9), preferring an answer based on his lack of moral character.57 Paul, however, finds a theological solution. According to Gen 18:10, only Isaac entered the world under the superintendence of God’s promise. His birth in Gen 21:1 occurred as a result of the Lord’s visitation. Human agency plays no role – Abraham is not even mentioned: “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah has he had spoken.” Isaac entered the world in fulfillment of God’s commitment and in demonstration of his power. Ishmael, by contrast, resulted from the maneuvering of Sarah and the passivity of Abraham, with results both had cause to regret. Paul signifies the relation of promise to seed by means of a term already saturated with Abra-

cf. also b. Ned. 31a; Gen. Rab. 46.2). More generally, the rabbis interpreted details in the story of Abraham to demonstrate that his experiences prefigure the historical traditions of Israel, e.g., in Gen. Rab. 40.6. Neusner comments on this passage: “Any claim … that there were children of Abraham other than Israel (‘after the flesh’) finds refutation in this statement” (Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation [3 vols.; BJS 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], 2:85). These parallels show that Paul shared the rabbinic concern to isolate a single trajectory of Abrahamic descent as the exclusive heirs of election and covenant. But they also indicate Paul’s uniqueness. The discussions in b. Sanh. 59 are animated by a concern to preserve circumcision as a sign of Israel’s election and difference from the nations. Paul wants to eliminate it. 57 Rabbinic interpretation often understood ‫ מצחק‬as idolatry (Tg. Ps-J. and Tg. Neof. on Gen 21:9). T. Sota 6.6 provides a catalogue of Ishmael’s possible deficiencies (repeated in Gen. Rab. 53.11): idolatry, attempting to murder Isaac by arrows (with reference to Prov 26:18–19; similarly, Josephus, Ant. 1.215; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 48.2; Pirqe R. El. 30), and, most relevant to Rom 9, a jealous defense of his primogeniture. On the character of Ishmael in rabbinic literature, see David J. Zucker, “Conflicting Conclusions: The Hatred of Isaac and Ishmael,” Judaism 39 (1990): 37–46; Carol Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border: Rabbinic Portrayals of the First Arab (New York: SUNY Press, 2006). Another option was to explain Ishmael’s rejection on the basis of his Egyptian ethnicity, which, according to rabbinic law, he would have inherited from his mother (Cohen, Beginnings, 263–307); this assumption may lie behind Gen. Rab. 53.15.

4.4. Flesh Does Not Mean Seed: Romans 9:7–9

135

hamic associations: λογίζεται. Just as Abraham was counted (λογίζειν) as δίκαιος by πίστις (so Rom 4), so Isaac was counted (λογίζειν) σπέρµα by ἐπαγγελία.58 As he did in ch. 4, Paul draws theological meaning from the narrative sequence, although here in reverse order. In the earlier chapter, the point was Abraham’s justification before his circumcision; here it the promise which occurs after Ishmael’s circumcision. In both cases the circumcising rite misses the crucial moment of divine affirmation. The περιτέµνειν τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας does not lead directly to covenantal blessing; the story of circumcision does not flow seamlessly in tandem with the story of covenant. A fault-line splits Abraham’s family into two separate trajectories. Paul exploits this cleavage as the hermeneutical justification for rupturing the narrative coherence between the rite described in Gen 17 and the promise recorded in Gen 18.59 Although Paul builds on the respective fates befalling Isaac and Ishmael, the switch in Rom 9:8 to collective labels in the plural indicates that Paul sees these figures as representative characters, exempla who prefigure respectively τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός and τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.60 On the other hand, the singular verb λογίζεται emphasizes the corporate significance borne by each. Ishmael’s expulsion from the patriarchal family opens a breach in Abraham’s household through which issue all those constituted as (only) children of flesh. Divine election entails divine exclusion, and the determining element lies wholly in God’s inscrutable will, not in the fleshly realm of excised foreskin or biological affinity.61 The undoing of Ishmael’s primogeniture enables all those born of promise to participate in Abraham’s σπέρµα. So far Paul’s argument has exploited the division between τέκνα and σπέρµα, but he does not apply this semantic distinction to the identities of 58

Klaus Haacker claims that Paul disregards Gen 21:13 (Römer, 216); he is correct only if this statement is limited to the communicative event which occurs between Paul and the Roman Christians. Paul is very aware of its relevance and adept at turning it towards his own understanding of election, even if his reasoning is not spelled out for his audience. 59 Stegner has argued that Gen 18:10, Gen 21:12 (possibly), and the viability of God’s word to Sarah came to Paul as an exegetical tradition (“Romans 9:6–29 – A Midrash,” 46– 47). This is entirely possible, but Paul has made the text his own, and done so with full knowledge of their contexts (as Stegner himself emphasizes on pp. 40–41). 60 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 314. 61 Seifrid, “Romans,” 639. In my judgment, it is insufficient to follow Hübner and content oneself with the observation that “a certain imbalance is present in Paul’s understanding of the statements of Genesis” (Gottes Ich, 42 n. 100). Even less able to accept how Paul deals with Genesis is Gaventa: Rom 9:7b proves that Paul has nothing to say about Ishmael’s exclusion, and in this silence he is consistent with Genesis, which does not exclude Ishmael but includes a promise for him parallel to Isaac’s (“Calling-Into-Being,” 260). The imbalance in Paul’s understanding of Genesis, which is indeed consistent with its own narrative, is an effect of the God who elects one and does not elect the other.

136

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ and οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ as it first appeared he would (6b). His discussion lacks words or phrases such as συστοιχέω, οὕτως καί, νῦν, and the copulas εἰµί or γίνοµαι; in other words, all the coordinating terms employed in the allegory of Gal 4:21–5:1 that might clarify how the determination of σπέρµα and ἐπαγγελία relate semantically to Ἰσραήλ. To this point, Paul’s interpretation of Genesis makes clear the division within Abraham’s family entailed by Ishmael’s exclusion, but it does not call into question the election of the Abraham–Isaac–Jacob trajectory. The sequel in vv. 10–13 will even more strongly solidify this connection between the Jewish people and their elect forefathers.

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13 4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

According to Genesis, God’s actions produce diametrically opposed destinies for each of Abraham’s circumcised sons. The exclusionary word he speaks concerning Isaac in Gen 21:12 leaves no room for Ishmael among the promised seed – an inference made clear in Gen 22:2, where God tells Abraham, “Take now your son, your only son (‫)יחידך‬, whom you love, Isaac” (see also Gen 22:12, 16). Paul sees in these contrasting fates the impotency of σάρξ as a defining mark of the covenant people. In the following generation, God’s word produces analogous effects. It exalts Jacob and humiliates Esau. Paul understands this extension of favor and its denial as an annulment of ἔργα. He continues to affirm the absolute election of Israel while deconstructing the religious practices that embody it in the social sphere. The following exegesis will show how Paul does this. I will begin with an examination of his biblical quotations, discusses his understanding of ἔργα, and explore his characterization of election in exclusionary terms, which emphasizes in the strongest possible way Jacob’s election over against Esau’s. For an argument aimed at the inclusion of the Gentiles in vv. 24–26, Paul’s interpretation of Genesis appears headed in the wrong direction. 4.5.1. Scriptural Quotation in Romans 9:10–13 Paul concludes the opening section of Rom 9 with two biblical quotations. In both cases his text corresponds to the LXX with only minor variation. In v. 12, Paul supports his understanding of election apart from works by citing a portion of Gen 25:23. In it, a divine oracle announces to Rebecca that her difficult pregnancy with twin boys foreshadows the antagonisms between their respective descendants. The original announcement is delivered in poetic form, consisting of two diptych lines, each half parallel with its pair, and both

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

137

lines together parallel with each other. The first line emphasizes the distinctiveness of these embryonic progenitors. The second anticipates the tumultuous character of their relationship and declares the younger one’s eventual supremacy. Paul does not use a formula to introduce this verse, but opens the quotation by transforming “and the Lord said to her” of the LXX into a divine passive. He then quotes the last half-line of the oracle unchanged. Gen 25:23 Hebrew

‫ויאמר יהוה לה‬ ‫שׁני גיים בבטנך‬

‫ושׁני לאמים ממעיך‬ ‫יפרדו‬ ‫ולאם מלאם יאמץ‬ 62 ‫ורב יעבד צעיר‬

Gen 25:23 LXX

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος αὐτῇ ∆ύο ἔθνη ἐν τῇ γαστρί σού εἰσιν, καὶ δύο λαοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου διασταλήσονται· καὶ λαὸς λαοῦ ὑπερέξει, καὶ ὁ µείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι.63

Rom 9:12 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος, ἐρρέθη αὐτῇ ὅτι

Ὁ µείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι·64

Like the earlier quotations (vv. 7, 9), this OT text conveys the impression that God is speaking in the first person. Paul presents himself in Rom 9 not only as an interpreter of holy Scripture but also as a channel of divine speech. This first quotation is itself supported by another, this time from the Prophets, Mal 1:2b-3a. It is preceded by a standard introductory formula. Paul’s strategy of appealing to direct divine support continues despite his shift from pentateuchal texts to a prophetic one. He is indeed determined to show that it is God’s word that has not failed (v. 6). Paul makes only a single change.65 He stresses the contrast between two collective persons by moving τὸν Ἰακώβ forward to the emphatic position.

62 “And the LORD said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.’” 63 “And the Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from your uterus shall be divided, and a people shall excel over a people, and the greater shall be subject to the lesser.’” 64 “She was told, ‘The elder will serve the younger.’” 65 The LXX text for the seven words Paul quotes is secure, although ‫ א‬adds λεγει κυριος to the end of v. 2. Paul’s quotation also shows no variation in the manuscript tradition. Therefore, most interpreters attribute the alteration to the apostle (e.g., Stanley, Language, 105–6; Jewett, Romans, 580; Steve Moyise, “The Minor Prophets in Paul,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament [ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise; LNTS 377; London: Continuum, 2009], 103).

138

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

This brings the quotation into closer conformity with God’s oracle spoken to Rachel. Taken together, the two quotations form a sort of chiasm: Mal 1:2–3 Hebrew

‫אהבתי אתכם אמר יהוה‬ ‫ואמרתם במה אהבתנו‬ ‫הלוא אח עשׂו ליעקב‬ ‫נאם יהוה‬ ‫ואהב את יעקב‬ ‫ואת עשׂו שׂנאתי‬ ‫ואשׂים את הריו שׁממה‬ 66

‫ואת נחלתו לתנות מתבר‬

Mal 1:2–3 LXX

Rom 9:13 καθὼς γέγραπται,

Ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς, λέγει κύριος. καὶ εἴπατε Ἐν τίνι ἠγάπησας ἡµᾶς; οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἦν Ἠσαῦ τοῦ Ἰακώβ; λέγει κύριος· καὶ ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰακώβ, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐµίσησα καὶ ἔταξα τὰ ὅρια αὐτοῦ εἰς ἀφανισµὸν καὶ τὴν κληρονοµίαν αὐτοῦ εἰς δόµατα ἐρήµου.67

τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐµίσησα.68

The greater will serve the younger. Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Formally, Moses and Malachi complement each other nicely as corresponding agents of divine revelation.69 This concluding quotation from Malachi performs several functions. It acts as a hermeneutical lens which brings into focus the contemporary significance of Paul’s narrative texts (see § 1.3.1.). It reinforces the previous quotation as a warrant for his claims about divine election and its unilateral character. It sums up the present pericope (vv. 10–13), which began by drawing attention to the specific circumstances of Jacob and Esau’s birth. Finally, it brings to a close Paul’s seven-verse condensation of Israel’s election and origin. The apostle has covered a large expanse of narrative material with a few, brief quotations from Genesis. This final prophetic text provides him with a précis for his salvation-historical review and the prism through which the narratives of Israel’s sacred story may be read.

66 “‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ says the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have made his hill country a desolation and his heritage a desert for jackals’” (NRSV). 67 “I loved you, says the Lord. And you said, ‘How did you love us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother, says the Lord. And I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau, and I made his mountains an annihilation and his heritage gifts of the wilderness.” 68 “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” 69 Stanley, Language, 106.

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

139

4.5.2. Works and Torah in Romans 9:10–13 In these verses, Paul mounts an interpretation of Jacob’s birth that will dismantle ἔργα as a pillar of Israelite self-understanding. He has in mind not the meritorious activities of an archetypal “self-righteous person,” but the Mosaic Torah as the foundation of a religious and cultural heritage. Its observance signaled Jewish identity, mutual solidarity, and ethnic difference (Let. Aris. 139–142; Philo, Legat. 210; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.209–210). As W. D. Davies has stressed, possession of the law signified “the special inheritance of Israel and … could be taken to indicate a whole cultural tradition which governed [a Jew’s] life in its totality. To submit to or to reject the law was to accept or reject a particular culture or way of life in all its intricate ramifications.”70 Torah articulates the moral dimension embedded in the Israelite mythomoteur, both stipulating God’s covenantal requirements and separating Jews from their Gentile neighbors.71 In Jewish cultural memory, the centrality of Torah was projected onto the behavior of the patriarchs. Their demonstration of obedience was frequently set forth as the basis of Israel’s relationship to God. Jubilees, for example, situates election in the structure of creation (2:17–24) but narrates its emergence in history as a response to the patriarchs’ specific acts of devotion.72 Philo similarly justifies Israel’s election on the basis of God’s foreknowledge

70

W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation,” in Studies, 93; repr. from Hastings Law Journal 29 (1978): 1459–1504. 71 This understanding of Torah and its role in early Judaism and Paul relies on the work of E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977]), Francis Watson (Sociological Approach, 119–20, 130, 133–34, 139–41, 165–66; idem, Beyond the New Perspective, 102, 121–25, 128, 202, 212) and especially the later (and more nuanced) emphases of James D. G. Dunn (“The New Perspective on Paul,” in Jesus, Paul and the Law [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1990], 183–205; repr. from BJRL 65 [1983]; with important qualifications in “Additional Note,” in ibid., 206–14; idem, “Yet Once More – ‘The Works of the Law’: A Response,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 99–117; repr. in The New Perspective on Paul). See also Joseph B. Tyson, “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians,” JBL 92 (1973): 423–31; Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 9–18; W. D. Davies, “Law in First-Century Judaism,” in Studies, 3–26; repr. from IDB 3; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 190–95; James D. Newsom, Greeks, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 102–6; Donaldson, Gentiles, 108–31; N. T. Wright, “Paul and Qumran,” BR 14 (1998): 18, 54; Martin G. Abegg Jr., “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law,’” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. Peter W. Flint; SDDSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 203–16; Cromhout, Walking, 81–88. 72 E.g., Abraham’s initial call comes only after he repudiates polytheism and calls out to the “Most High God” (12:16–24); Levi receives the priesthood in response to the slaughter of the Shechemites (30:1–20).

140

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

of Jacob’s moral superiority (Leg. 3.88).73 According to many accounts, Jacob’s immoral foil Esau lost his claim to carry on the covenantal line because of his wicked deeds (Jub. 19:15–16; Philo, Leg. 3.88; Virt. 208–210; PseudoPhilo, L.A.B. 32:5; 4 Ezra 3:13–16; Gen. Rab. 67.8; Tg. Ps.-J. 25:23).74 The Damascus Document likewise emphasizes patriarchal piety as the basis for election: because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob kept God’s commands, they were reckoned his friends and inherited an eternal covenant (III, 2–4). Similar claims appear in 1 Macc 2:50–54 and 2 Bar. 57:1–2. Passages from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs date specific aspects of the Mosaic legislation to the patriarchal era (T. Levi 9:3–14; T. Zeb. 3:4). The rabbis would make the global assertion, “Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given, for it is written, Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (m. Qidd. 4:14, quoting Gen 26:5). In Paul’s day, the question as to how the piety of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob related to the election of Israel was a live one.75 Few of these writings assume that the patriarchs complied with the whole Torah as Moses brought it down from Sinai. Even Jubilees admits that Abraham did not know God’s law in its entirety, and posits oral traditions and divine revelations as the source of specific pre-Sinaitic observances. Nevertheless, the homology is evident. The patriarchs may not have known all 613 commands, but their obedience to God’s instructions anticipate the Torah

73

Philo does emphasize here the divine craftsman shaping the individual’s constituent parts, which takes him a step in Paul’s direction. 74 Pseudo-Philo expresses himself with the words of Mal 1:2–3, suggesting that other Jewish interpreters besides Paul found in it a convenient crystallization of Genesis’s meaning. The correlation also occurs in rabbinic literature (Pesiq. Rab Ka. 48.2; Gen. Rab. 63.7). These parallels provide further indications that in 9:7–13, Paul is adapting a conventional approach to Israel’s election, and not pursuing the radical claim of v. 6a. 75 On this entire tradition, see further J. P. Schultz, “Two Views of the Patriarchs,” 43– 59; W. D. Davies, “Law,” in Studies, 8; Gary A. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 1 (1994): 1–29; idem, “The Status of the Torah in the Pre-Sinaitic Period: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1–23; Jon D. Levenson, “How Not to Conduct JewishChristian Dialogue,” Commentary 112 (2001): 36. Conflicting rabbinic views on this question can be found in m. Qidd. 4.14; t. Qidd. 4.21; Gen. Rab. 49.2 (Abraham knew the Mosaic Torah), and b. Yoma 28b (he did not). Sifre Deut § 412 accounts for the Abraham– Isaac–Jacob trajectory of election by contrasting Jacob’s moral character with that of Ishmael and Esau. A similar rabbinic apology for election, which focuses on Sinai rather than the patriarchs, relates that all nations, including the Edomites and Ishmaelites, were given the opportunity to accept Torah but refused (Mek. on Exod 19:19 [Bahodesh 4.45– 58]; Mek. on Exod 20:2 [Bahodesh 5.63–79]; Sifre Deut § 443; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1.15).

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

141

observance to which every Jew ought to aspire. Gary Anderson elucidates as follows: [The giving of Torah in] Exodus 19 stands as a sort of semi-permeable membrane in the Bible. On one side of the divide is the era of the Patriarchs in which the mandates of the Torah are rather casually if not blithely ignored whereas on the other side the centrality of these commandments could hardly be more emphatically underscored. … This severe imbalance sought some sort of equilibrium and in virtually any Jewish document one would care to consult … the tendency was for the ethos, if not the norms, of Sinai to cross over into the era of the Patriarchs.76

According to the inner-logic of the Jewish mythomoteur, its constituent elements interpreted and homogenized each other in accordance with the general tenor of the whole: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob observed God’s Torah. Paul’s argument and its polemical edge fits smoothly into this context. He does not speak of Torah/νόµος in the patriarchal stories but of ἔργα. His case rests on a structural analogy between those under the law (the Jews) and those prior to the law (the patriarchs), despite different historical contingencies. “Works” in v. 12 denotes practices which anticipate Torah obedience as the sine qua non of Jewish religious identity. This understanding coheres with Rom 4:1–6, where Paul draws a parallel between a specific individual standing outside the sphere governed by Torah, Abraham, and those who stand inside, his Jewish descendants. Abraham was justified by faith apart from works just as the promises vouchsafed to his descendants are not secured through the law (οὐ … γὰρ διὰ νόµου). Paul relates Abraham to works, but his descendants to law. Works, on the one hand, and law and works of the law on the other (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28), are not coterminous in meaning but parallel in effect.77 By emphasizing the impotence of ἔργα to determine God’s election in 9:11, Paul draws a similar correspondence between the situation of Jacob and Esau, who like Abraham had no direct relation to νόµος, and the Jewish people who did.78 76

Anderson, “Status of the Torah,” 22. “(The) works of the law” directly connects works with Torah observance. Hence the parallel formulations: justification does not come by law (Gal 2:21; 3:11, 21; 5:4; cf. Rom 4:13; 8:3), justification does not come by works of the law (Gal 2:16; Rom 3:20, 28); the Spirit provides what the law could not accomplish (Rom 8:1–4), and the works of law cannot provide the Spirit (Gal 3:5); the law brings wrath (Rom 4:15) and increases transgression (Rom 5:20; cf. Rom 7:5; Gal 5:1), those who are ἐξ ἔργων νόµου are under a curse (Gal 3:10; cf. Rom 6:14; 8:2). 78 Paul’s use of ἔργα in these instances should not be equated with the fuller ἔργων τοῦ νόµου, as some commentators tend to do. Dunn, for example, states that in 9:12, “Paul certainly means, as always with the ἐξ ἔργων formulation, works of the [Mosaic] law” (Romans, 2:543; similarly, Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 125, 128). This understanding eliminates Paul’s careful nuance. On the other hand, neither does ἔργα refer to general human works which could conceivably be regarded as meritorious. Douglas J. Moo 77

142

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

4.5.3. Patriarchs, Prophets, and the “Dynamics of Diselection” in Romans 9:10–1379 In Rom 9:10–13, Paul continues his dual approach to the narratives of Israel’s origin that he began in vv. 7–9. He embraces the conventional progress of election, covenant, and promise from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob, while enlisting the same characters in his attempt to separate nomistic practice from covenantal status. Jacob’s relation to election and to ἔργα is paradigmatic for interpreting Israel’s relation to νόµος. Paul uses this connection to draw out further the particularity of election: God’s preference for Jacob has an exclusionary reflex against Esau. 4.5.3.1. Election and Its Opposite in Romans 9:10–13 Jacob’s appearance in the argument introduces the figure who even more than Abraham symbolizes the unity, integrity, and solidarity of the Jewish people. As patronymic ancestor of the twelve tribes, Jacob/Israel symbolizes membership in the people he fathered. His centrality to Paul’s argument can be seen in three aspects of these verses: Jacob’s collective significance, the importance of chronology in divorcing his election from works, and the binary oppositions that underlie the discussion. First, Paul is not only drawing attention to a pattern of election but arguing that what is true of Jacob/Israel holds good for the people descended from

has argued for this understanding. He insists that Paul’s reference to ἔργα prior to the institution of the Mosaic administration (as in Gal 3:15–18, Rom 5:13–14) demonstrates his opposition to works in and of themselves, even good works, in the matter of justification. He writes, “‘Works’ had no more place in the selection of Abraham and Jacob, who bore no relationship to the law … than in the justification of Galatian Gentiles, who were being encouraged to supplement their faith with ‘works of the law.’ In other words, Paul appears to criticize ‘works of the law’ not because they are nomou (‘of the law’) but because they are erga (‘works’)” (“‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 [1983]: 96–97; see also idem, Romans, 581–82, 582 n. 55). Similarly, Stephen Westerholm claims on the basis of Rom 9:11 (and 4:4–5) that Paul opposes the notion of any human activity as a possible contribution to an individual’s salvation (Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 309, 315, 320; idem, “Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law [ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001]; see also Grindheim, Crux, 144 n. 31; Abasciano, Romans 9.10–18, 52). I think that this approach fails to take into account the polemical targets of Paul’s argument (which would answer the objection based on chronology) and does not appreciate the fundamental issue with which Paul wrestles in Rom 9: the relation between the Jewish people and the electing will of God. 79 The phrase “dynamics of diselection” is taken from R. Christopher Heard, The Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah (SBL SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001).

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

143

him.80 The same logic of ethnic affiliation and common descent that underlies Gal 3 and Rom 4 continues to be operative in the present pericope. Already in v. 8 Paul uses the third person plural to draw out the respective destinies Isaac and Ishmael signaled for the people groups they represent. The same implication carries over into vv. 10–13. Furthermore, Paul’s notice of Isaac as “our father” actualizes the belief in a shared descent from a common ancestor and the implicit norms ethnic prototypes embody.81 Most importantly, the oracle in Gen 25:23 from which Paul quotes specifically addresses δύο ἔθνη. It identifies Jacob and Esau not as individual characters acting for their own benefit, but as exemplary figures. They bear the respective fates of the people groups whom they encode in the narrative. Paul’s interest does not lie in how individuals illustrate eternal principles of predestination, nor in a typological reading that aligns Isaac and Jacob with believers in Christ; he wants to show how the scriptural story of Jacob’s election prefigures Israel’s relation to νόµος and the ἔθνη. In the same way, Esau represents Jacob’s obverse, the “Other” against whom the prototypical, eponymous “Us” is defined. It is not a question of the historical Edomites entering into Paul’s argument any more than Ishmael signified the Arab peoples in 9:7–9. Paul is not concerned with the historical peculiarities of various ethnic groups but with the way God’s word to and about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob initiates the election of Israel as opposed to Esau, Israel’s paradigmatic enemy (§ 4.5.3.2.). As Ishmael represents the child of flesh who is not promised to Abraham, so Esau encodes the nations of the world who are “Not-Israel.”82 Second, Paul’s attempt to isolate works from election rests on the same attention to chronology that characterizes his interpretations elsewhere. In Gen 25, a pregnant Rebecca senses some upheaval taking place within her and “inquires of the Lord” (v. 22, evidently indicating some kind of cultic peti80

Wilk, Bedeutung, 121 n. 11. In the context of Rom 9, Paul is speaking as a Jew and explicating how Genesis construes Jewish election; hence the our in “our father Isaac” in v. 10 is rhetorical and does not necessarily include his Gentile audience. The use of the phrase is different in character from 1 Cor 10:1, which – especially in light of 12:2 – supposes that Gentile believers are children of Israel (see § 2.2.2.1.). 82 As Gaston stated, “It is clear, both from Genesis and from Paul’s use of it, that Ishmael and Esau are Gentiles and not chosen and, conversely, that Isaac and Jacob and their descendants were chosen” (Paul and Torah, 94). The introduction of the Edomites/ Idumeans (or Ishmaelites/Arabs) as a historical people group obscures the way Jacob and Esau represent collective personalities. In Paul’s argument, Esau does not symbolize a specific nation but the non-elect peoples in opposition to Israel (against Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 245–47; Cranfield, Romans, 2:479; W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, 45; Fitzmyer, Romans, 563). Wilckens (Röm, 195), Dunn (Romans, 2:544), Watson (Beyond the New Perspective, 314), and Jewett (Romans, 580) properly avoid importing the Edomites into Paul’s argument, but err in the opposite direction by refusing to see any collective significance to Esau at all. 81

144

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

tion). The oracular response both discloses the transhistorical, interethnic hostilities her travails prefigure and also announces God’s intention to exalt the second-born Jacob over his elder brother. As in the previous generation, God’s word confounds the operation of primogeniture and elects the lesser child while excluding altogether the elder.83 Paul’s notice that Jacob and Esau were born not from different mothers but from the same parental pair (indeed, from the same coital act!) reiterates the claim advanced in vv. 7–9: physical generation does not determine God’s favor.84 But his emphasis on the chronology of election, birth, and moral development (or lack thereof) introduces a new element. The narrative sequence will not allow subsequent actions to condition the divine announcement. The actual circumstances surrounding Jacob’s election and promised elevation rule out of court any contribution from works. God selects Jacob to be the preeminent brother neither as reward nor penalty but by simple fiat. Finally, several oppositions shape Paul’s conceptual framework, though their symmetry lies partially obscured under the distended syntax. Already in vv. 7–9 key terms were set against each other, making a series of contrasts: σπέρµα and ἐπαγγελία on the one hand and τέκνα and σάρξ on the other. In v. 11, the second genitive absolute of the adverbial clause, µήπω … πραξάντων, is conceptually set against the purpose clause, ἵνα ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ µένῃ. Human doing and divine election are mutually exclusive categories. In the next verse, a pair of grammatically parallel but materially contrastive prepositional phrases modify µένῃ: not on the basis of works but on the basis of the one who calls (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος). In these verses, then, Paul aligns ἔργα with πράσσειν, whether such are ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον. Opposite these terms stand God’s ἐκλογή and κλῆσις. By naming God ὁ καλῶν, “the one who calls,” Paul establishes a connection with Gen 21:12 already quoted in v. 7: ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα. God operated on the same basis when he choose Isaac and discarded Ishmael as he did when he exalted Jacob and rejected Esau. The calling of the one inevitably entails the exclusion of the other.85 The words of Malachi in v. 13 give this opposition a particular severity with its binary allocation of God’s love and God’s hate. This summary provides the climax for the series of antitheses that fills out Paul’s argument dialectically. In its very syntax, Paul’s rhetoric displays the theme of divine election and preference.86 It may be expressed in parallel columns: 83

Seifrid, “Romans,” 640. BDAG, s.v. κοίτη 2b; Cranfield, Romans, 2:476–77; Wilckens, Röm, 194; Dunn, Romans, 2:542; Moo, Romans, 579 n. 46. The point stands even if, as Abasciano argues, the phrase ἐξ κοίτην ἔχουσα cannot on its own bear a meaning beyond having intercourse with one man (εἷς being in apposition to Isaac; Romans 9.10–18, 41–42). 85 Seifrid, “Romans,” 640. 86 Belli, Argumentation, 84 84

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13 οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ Ἰσαάκ σπέρµα σπέρµα ἐπαγγελίας ἐκλογή κλῆσις ἐλάσσων Ἰακώβ άγαπάω

145

οὐχ Ἰσραήλ (Ἰσµαήλ) τέκνα σαρκός σαρκός πράσσω ἔργον µείζων Ἐσαῦ µισέω87

These contrasts provide the interpretive frame that undergirds Paul’s exegetical discussion. He has shifted the rationale for election from any connection with nomistic service (the right column) and based it firmly on God’s prerogative (the left column). The operative force remains “God’s electing purpose” and “the one who calls.” The common assumption that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were deemed worthy on account of their fidelity to a proto-Mosaic set of covenantal stipulations fails to account for the election of Jacob over Esau, which was determined long before any respective moral attainments or failings had the opportunity to manifest themselves.88 God simply abrogates Esau’s right of primogeniture by sovereign dictum. Abraham’s authentic lineage does not proceed in terms of fleshly descent or nomistic fidelity but by the supervention of a divine action that discriminates for reasons wholly internal to God’s mysterious will. 4.5.3.2. Divine Love and Divine Hate in Romans 9:13 Malachi 1:2–3 delivers the exegetical coup de grâce. By subpoenaing a prophetic witness in support of his exegesis, Paul clinches the argument. This prophetic oracle recapitulates Paul’s survey of the patriarchal story and provides it with a concluding hermeneutical frame: Election relies on God’s prerogative, not nomistic service. Its terse statement distills the meaning of Genesis’s plot (as Paul interprets it) and thereby provides an authoritative guide for reading how divine election both grants grace and entails malignity. The sovereign volunteerism of God’s love over against the impotency of Torah is not the only thing that Malachi affirms. In robustly ethnocentric terms the oracle specifies what it means for “the greater to serve the lesser”: one people has been elected to God’s covenantal love and called by the free outpouring of his unconditional commitment to Abraham. Another people, a

87 Similar pairs of opposites composed for exegetical purposes appear in Gal 4:21–5:1 and 2 Cor 3 (see Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 73–82). 88 As Dunn comments, “Paul’s fellow countrymen assume a direct link between their nationhood, the covenant, and the law, but their founding fathers disprove rather than prove the equation” (Romans, 2:548; similarly, Jewett, Romans, 579).

146

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

brother people, rejected from conception, labors under the burden of divine hatred.89 The God of Mal 1:2–3, like that of Rom 9:6–13, elects, discriminates, and damns.90 Paul does not set about to uphold the merciful character of divine election, but God’s sovereign prerogative to choose Israel and not to choose Esau.91 Paul’s understanding of what it means to be a child of Abraham includes the shadow cast by God’s gracious choice. Just as his calling of Isaac, the child(ren) of promise, segregates Ishmael, the child(ren) of flesh, from Abraham’s family, so too his love for Jacob leaves destructive hatred for Esau. Malachi’s oracle, of course, does not speak from a vacuum, but itself expresses a pervasive anti-Edomite trajectory woven into the Scriptures. It recapitulates a frequent celebration of God’s vengeance about to be poured out on

89 Wrangling over the precise force of hate remains beside the point. God actively predestines Esau to a destiny which excludes him from the covenantal love bestowed on his brother – for no fault of his own and indeed before his very birth (against those who argue that hate represents a Semitic idiom meaning love less; e.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 563; Byrne, Romans, 295; Haacker, Römer, 213 n. 2; Wallace, Lesser Son, 70 n. 27). As Cranfield aptly expresses it: “The word ‘hate’ should probably not be explained, either in Malachi or in Romans, as an instance of the Semitic use of a direct opposite in order to express a lesser degree of comparison. … God has chosen Jacob and his descendants to stand in a positive relation to the fulfillment of His gracious purpose: He has left Esau and Edom outside this relationship” (Romans, 2:480; similarly Dunn, Romans, 2:544; Moo, Romans, 587; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 225; Evans, “Paul and the Prophets,” 124; Seifrid, “Romans,” 641; Abasciano, Romans 9.10–18, 66). The predestinarian account in CD II, 2–13 supplies a close parallel to Paul’s discussion. Like Rom 9, it rationalizes the lack of positive response from its author’s (or, authors’) intended audience; it explains this state of affairs by appealing not only to predestination but also the remnant; it claims for this remnant the presence of the holy spirit, the promise that seed will fill the earth, and the possession of God’s truth. The passage ends: “But those whom he [God] hated [‫ ]שנא‬he led astray” (II, 13). 90 Against Lohse, who maintains that “the apostle seizes this phrase [from Malachi] without taking into consideration the context of the prophetic book” (Römer, 275). He supports this claim by pointing out that in Malachi, the names Jacob and Esau represent peoples, whereas Paul views them solely as individuals. This is the natural result of viewing, as Lohse does, the doctrine of justification as the foundation of Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11. 91 Against Wallace, Lesser Son, 58. Wallace attempts to establish from this verse that, according to Paul, God “desires the repentance of Israel … [and] humble service from both the son in the ‘weaker’ position and service from the ‘older’ son,” but both were disobedient (ibid., 72–73). This emphasis on God’s desire for humility from both sons occurs frequently in Wallace’s book, and is a major element in his understanding of Rom 9 as a whole (e.g., ibid., 101). It appears to me, however, that the introduction of the subjective attitude of humility and moral response of service clutters the passage with notions extraneous to Paul’s argument.

4.5. Obedience Does Not Mean Election: Romans 9:10–13

147

the historic enemies of Israel.92 However, it stands alone among prophetic denunciations in connecting Edom so tightly with Esau and the fraternal role he plays in Genesis. By recollecting the patriarchal drama, Malachi juxtaposes the inheritance of God’s promise, covenant, law, and love – guaranteed for the chosen seed – against the desolation, ravaging animals, and relentless divine opposition in store for Esau (Mal 1:3–5; see also § 5.1.7.). In short, Paul has chosen one of the most jingoistic verses in the Scriptures to complete his survey of election in Genesis. Although Mal 1:2–3 provides a fitting text encapsulating the exclusionary rhetoric in Rom 9:7–12, few passages could have supplied a more malapropos anticipation to the announcement of God’s gracious inclusion of the nations appearing at the chapter’s end.93 To this point, Paul’s argument has more in common with the unlikely 92

Cranfield attempts to soften his own comments on Rom 9:13 by characterizing Esau as “an object of God’s merciful care” according to “the testimony of Scripture” (Romans, 2:480; similarly, Wallace, Lesser Son, 71). The texts he quotes in support represent a minority strand in the Bible (Gen 27:39–40; the genealogies in Gen 36 and 1 Chron 1; Deut 23:7). The Scriptures’ dominant voice can be heard in Ps 137:7; Isa 11:14; 34:1–16; 63:1–6; Jer 49:7–22; Lam 4:21–22; Ezek 25:12–15; 35:1–5; 36:3–5; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11– 12; 9:11–15; Obad 8–10, 12, 17–18, 21. These passages show that the “canonical” conclusion to Esau’s story is the one given by Malachi. In many cases, the denunciation of Edom goes beyond the violence typical of oracles against the nations and expresses a desire for vindictive devastation. This thirst for revenge has its roots in the sense of betrayal many biblical authors/editors harbored for Edom’s participation in the Babylonian conquests (see esp. Ps 137:7; Ezek 36:5; Obad 10, 12). Several investigations have concluded that “Edom” eventually became an emblem of Israel’s paradigmatic antagonist (Munck, Christ and Israel, 39–41; Bruce C. Cresson, “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New, 125–48; Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story [JSOTSup 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 14, 15, 102–4, 108, 154; Abasciano, Romans 9.10– 18, 19). 93 Although this point eludes many commentators, Frank Thielman expresses it clearly: “The national symbolism of Jacob and Esau in the Malachi quotation … seems lost on Paul” (“Unexpected Mercy,” 174). See also Jan Lambrecht, “Israel’s Future According to Romans 9–11: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Approach,” in Pauline Studies: Collected Essays (BETL 115; Louvain: Peeters: 1994), 37; repr. from Kerkelijk leven in Vlanderen anno 2000: Opstellen voor Prof. Dr. Jan Kerkhofs bij zijn emeritaat (ed. Jan Kerkhofs, J. Bulckens, and Paul Cooreman; Louvain: Acco, 1989). In contrast to Thielman, Jewett speculates that Paul is actually “conscious of the problematic quality of the Malachi quotation” (Romans, 580). He claims that its only purpose is to present “an extreme statement of Paul’s basic position – to confirm the reliability of the divine promise in the face of human rejection of the gospel” (ibid). As evidence, he argues that Paul proceeds to develop the “loving side” of Malachi’s antithesis. But, in fact, Paul develops both sides of Malachi’s dual assertion, stressing the “hating side” in vv. 17–18 with reference to God’s active hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. It is this emphasis on hating/ hardening that provokes the question of v. 19. In response, Paul does not hesitate in vv. 20–23 to draw out the implications of this severe theology (§ 7.1.). If anything, the

148

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

Jubilees, which asserts that, “The Lord did not draw near to himself either Ishmael, his sons, his brothers, or Esau. He did not choose them (simply) because they were among Abraham’s children, for he knew them. But he chose Israel to be his people. He sanctified them and gathered (them) from all mankind” (15:30–31a).94 Paul’s very argument establishing Israel’s election seems to place a significant roadblock in front of his desired destination in 9:24–26.95 The emphasis placed on God’s discriminatory election of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may suffice to preserve the integrity of his people despite the loss of circumcision and Torah as boundary-marking practices, but it hardly opens the door to including Gentiles in his family. Why does Paul moves his discussion in this direction? I propose the answer rests on a hypothetical substructure beneath his argument and the ironic understanding of election this exegetical foundation expresses. Paul has found in Genesis a pattern whereby chosen status – of Isaac, Jacob, and others – is doubly inverted. This narrative feature of Genesis connects to Rom 9:6–13 and Rom 9:24–29 via a thick but often overlooked complex of associations that will illuminate Paul’s labyrinthine rhetoric.

4.6. Conclusions 4.6. Conclusions

In his previous letters, Paul transferred Israel’s covenantal heritage to the inChrist community without remainder (§ 2.2.). The problem of Rom 9 is that vv. 7–13 appear to overcompensate for this absolute disinheritance of the (non-Christ-following) Jewish people by resorting to ethnic chauvinism. Paul asserts God’s inscrutable decision to bestow on Isaac and Jacob his gracious love and to exclude Ishmael and Esau from the divinely called Abrahamic family. He does this to such an extent that he appears to limit God’s grace to sequel to v. 13 shows that Paul is unmoved by the alleged “problematic quality” of the quotation from Malachi. Jewett criticizes previous commentators for attenuating the severity of Paul’s claim, but he proceeds down the same path. Some (esp. German) commentators find Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith behind the discussion of election in 9:6–13 (so Käsemann, Romans, 264; Wilckens, Röm, 194–95, [tentatively]; Theobald, Römerbrief, 269; Lohse, Römer, 263, 272, 274–75; Abasciano, Romans 9.10–18, 52). The quotation from Malachi suggests that the argument is running along a different track altogether (a point helpfully emphasized in Haacker, Römer, 218– 29). 94 The translation is VanderKam’s, inclusive of parentheses. On Jubilees’s presentation of Esau as “Not-Israel,” see § 2.1. 95 Again, Thielman: “Genesis is the first and programmatic chapter in the biblical story of how God chose the nation of Israel to be his people, and when read on its own terms seems to support precisely the opposite of what Paul is trying to prove in Romans 9” (“Unexpected Mercy,” 174; emphasis added). Thielman’s own solution is, overall, very compatible with my own understanding (see § 8.2.2.).

4.6. Conclusions

149

the patriarchs and their descendants alone. The exclusionary nature of election in v. 13 threatens to betray Paul’s repeated insistence throughout the epistle on the impartial grace of God extended towards Jews and Gentiles alike (2:11–13; 3:9, 22, 29–30; 10:12; 11:32). Yet Paul does not simply repristinate the standard narrative of Israel’s primordial election. It is insufficient to insist, with Klaus Wengst, for example, that Paul opposes Gentile supersessionism by anchoring the essence of “Israelite-ness” exclusively in God’s electing act, and thereby to render it unassailable.96 Paul goes much further. In his reconfiguration of Israel’s mythomoteur, the biblically-warranted and publicly-recognizable marks of covenantal identity – circumcision and Torah – fail at the very moment when Israel emerged as a distinct entity. The glosses which frame Paul’s scriptural quotations breach Genesis’s own textual warrants for tying covenant and election to circumcision and Torah as their irreducible symbolic enactment. In their place, Paul sets God’s promise and call.97 The form God’s election takes as it manifests itself in history is not related to foreskin or Torah fidelity, but to a divine calling which undoes human expectation and reverses the privilege of primogeniture. Paul will bring into his argument not only the exclusionary effect of Israel’s election but the surprising reversal it perpetrated by subverting the rights of the elder brother and conferring firstborn status on the younger. The course of Paul’s argument in v. 7–13 runs not in tandem with its context but in apparent opposition to it. In the opening peroration, Paul implies that Israel has fallen into apostasy (9:2–3) and immediately thereafter he positions himself to rupture Israel from Israel (9:6b). This dual maneuver intimates a sectarian-like agenda that would reduce the true Abrahamic seed to a bastion of fidelity amidst a sea of faithlessness. But, in fact, Paul has pursued an entirely different strategy. Verses 7–13, aside from their relativization of σάρξ and νόµος, produce a rather conventional statement of Israel’s 96

“Gegenüber dem Anspruch nichtjüdischer Messiasgläubiger aufgrund des eigenen Glaubens an Jesus und aufgrund der Verweigerung dieses Glaubens durch Israel nun an der Stelle Israels zu stehen, verankert hier Paulus das Israelsein Israels ganz im erwählenden Handeln Gottes und macht es so unangreifbar” (Wengst, Freut euch, 318). 97 But not faith. Interpreters read this concept into the text when they insist that faith distinguishes the contrasting trajectories of Abrahamic descent in Rom 9:6–13 (e.g., Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 183, 190, 208 and passim). In fact, faith drops out of the argument not because Paul has forgotten to include it but because for rhetorical purposes he bases his argument for God’s freedom and mercy – the dual presupposition for Gentile calling – on a radical statement of divine sovereignty, as Rom 9:14–23 demonstrates (recognized by Wengst [Freut euch, 300] and Räisänen [“Faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, 240–41], though the latter with his characteristic lack of charity towards the apostle). In this context, faith would obscure the argument entirely.

150

Chapter 4: Discriminatory Election and Logical Reversals

ethnic genealogy, tracing the passage of election from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob and pushing out the progenitors of Gentile peoples. Romans 9:24 returns to the expansive view of God’s mercy that otherwise characterizes Romans. It offers a drastically different ending to the story of patriarchal election than that provided by Mal 1:2–3. If 9:24–29 shows that the original conclusion was a ruse, why did Paul pose it at all? The answer is to be found in the exegetical substructure that gives Rom 9– 11 its paradoxical coherence. When Paul turns to Hosea and Isaiah at the end of ch. 9, he has not left Genesis behind, as the following chapter will demonstrate. Paul’s prophetic texts share an implicit narrative pattern typified by election, exclusion, reversal, and restoration. “Reversal” not only characterizes how Paul understands the operation of election; it also characterizes the argument of Rom 9 itself. Paul, reading the story of election in light of the prophets, finds a sovereign freedom of God, which is eternally pledged to Abraham’s family but also capable of its unexpected recreation.

Chapter 5

Establishing an Intertextual Matrix: Moses and the Prophets in Romans 9 Paul’s rhetoric of exclusion and his sharp turns in argument do not cease after Rom 9:13. Through 9:23, he proceeds to emphasize God’s prerogative to elect and his power to exclude. But in 9:24 the ethnically inclusive divine call springs on the reader a surprising about-face (see § 6.1.). Unless Paul knew neither where he was going nor how he wanted to get there, the logic behind these turns must lie outside the epistolary text itself. What explains these difficult features are the narrative and theological patterns of the Abrahamic mythomoteur exerting themselves on both the content and the mode of Paul’s argument. This explanation presupposes what is not obvious: as Paul moves his discussion from the patriarchs (9:7–13) to Moses (9:14–18) and to the prophets (9:25–29), he remains within the horizon established by Genesis. Although Paul frequently applies prophetic texts to Abrahamic episodes, it is not self-evident that he does so here. The present chapter will show that this is in fact the case. Beneath Paul’s argument lies a biblical substructure combining Torah and the prophets. Three lines of evidence point to this conclusion. First, a series of specific words and phrases connects the quotations in 9:25-29 to the patriarchal narratives, particularly those texts Paul quotes in 9:7–13; second, the altered elements in the quotations suggest that he has intentionally integrated these narrative and prophetic texts; finally, a common theology of election, characterized by paradox and reversal, appears in the narrative cycles of Genesis, in the story of Hosea’s children, in the fate of Israel according to Isaiah, and in the respective destinies of Jews and Gentiles in Rom 9. By showing the extent of these interrelationships, I will lay the groundwork for the reconstruction of Paul’s exegesis mounted in chs. 6 and 7.

5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul 5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul

The various texts from which Paul quotes share a network of common terms, providing the basis for a complex application of gezera shawa (see § 1.3.2.). Thirty years ago, William Stegner rightly said of Rom 9 that “most commentators have not noted the interplay of key words whereby the proof-texts are

152

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

linked to one another.”1 However, Stegner himself specified only call, seed, and sons. In fact, Paul weaves a string of interlocking lexical features through his discourse that ties together Genesis, Malachi, Hosea, and Isaiah in a single interpretive matrix. These include: (1) καλέω and cognates; (2) σπέρµα and cognates; (3) ὁ ἀριθµὸς υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης; (4) ἡ γῆ as Abraham’s inheritance; (5) τὸ κατάλειµµα and cognates; (6) Σόδοµα, Γόµορρα; and (7) κληρονοµία, particularly that of Jacob as contrasted with that of Esau. These seven terms and phrases all figure prominently in Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11 (or, in the case of #7, lies close to hand), they all characterize the plot of Genesis or appear at significant narrative junctures, and they all bring into Genesis’s orbit the prophetic texts quoted in Rom 9:25–29.2 5.1.1. “You Will Be Called” Paul makes a substantial investment in the term καλέω. He introduces it in v. 7 by way of Gen 21:12, explicates its theological significance in v. 12, and states its contemporary relevance in v. 24. Although the word καλέω disappears after ch. 9, the concept continues to play an important role. In 11:29, its noun form sums up all three chapters: ἀµεταµέλητα γὰρ τὰ χαρίσµατα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ, “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Therefore the appearance of καλέω in Paul’s quotation of Hos 2:1 (9:26) can hardly be incidental to his appropriation of that text: Gen 21:12 ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα.3 Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10) ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός µου ὑµεῖς, κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.4

The divine call which creates life out of Abraham’s sterile loins (4:17), which ensures the justification of the elect (8:30), and which counts Isaac as Abraham’s seed (9:7) also announces that a people not God’s own are now his children.5

1

Stegner, “Midrash,” 40. See also Wagner, Heralds, 48. Interpreters occasionally argue that the series of quotations in Rom 9:25–29 came to Paul as a preformed tradition (Wilckens, Röm, 198; Lindars, “Universalism,” 511–28). I believe that the results of this chapter will strengthen the opposite conclusion. Though Paul may have incorporated elements of traditional (Jewish or early Christian) exegesis, the resulting interpretive structure is his own. 3 “In Isaac offspring shall be called for you” (NETS, modified). Here and throughout only the relevant portion of the quoted verse is provided. 4 “And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called, ‘sons of the living God’” (NETS, modified). 5 Belli, Argumentation, 115. 2

5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul

153

5.1.2.“Seed” According to Rom 9:7 = Gen 21:12, what God calls is Abraham’s σπέρµα. This word reappears in 9:29, where the quotation of Isa 1:9 reprises this theme from earlier in the chapter. Furthermore, in the unquoted portion of Hos 2:25, the verbal form σπερῶ introduces a promise that after judgment God will restore fecundity to the land (see also 2:5, 11, 14 [Eng.: 2:3, 9, 12]).6 Gen 21:12 ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα.7 Hos 2:25 (Eng. 2:23) καὶ σπερῶ αὐτὴν ἐµαυτῷ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.8 Isa 1:9 καὶ εἰ µὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡµῖν σπέρµα, κτλ.9

In Genesis, the viability of God’s promise to Abraham depends on the successful establishment of a family from his own σπέρµα.10 This motif of Abraham’s seed pulls both Hos 2 and Isa 1 into the narrative of Genesis. 5.1.3. “As Numerous as the Sands of the Sea” God’s promise of seed involves descendants beyond measure. Genesis records several instances in which this pledge comes by a threefold simile: the σπέρµα would be as numerous as the dust (‫עפר‬, ἄµµος) of the earth (13:16; 28:14), as the stars (‫כוכבים‬, ἀστέρες) of the sky (15:5; 22:17; 26:4), and as the sand (‫חול‬, ἄµµος) of the sea (22:17; 32:13 [Eng.: 32:12]). These promises provide a further connection with Paul’s prophetic texts. Genesis 22:17 and 32:13 are closest in form to Hosea and Isaiah: Gen 22:17 καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρµα σου … ὡς τὴν ἄµµον τὴν παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης.11 Gen 32:13 (Eng.: 32:12) καὶ θήσω τὸ σπέρµα σου ὡς τὴν ἄµµον τῆς θαλάσσης, ἣ οὐκ ἀριθµηθήσεται ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους.12

6

Wilk is among the few who notice the relevance of σπερῶ in Hos 2:25 to Paul’s argument but he does not relate this connection to Genesis (Bedeutung, 187). 7 “In Isaac offspring shall be named for you.” 8 “And I will sow her for myself in the land.” 9 “And if the Lord Sabaoth had not left us offspring,” etc. 10 With some variation in expression: Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 22:17–18; 24:7; 26:3; 26:24; 28:13; see also 15:13; 28:4; 35:12. 11 “I will make your offspring … as the sand that is by the seashore.” 12 “I will … make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which shall not be counted for multitude.”

154

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10) καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, ἣ οὐκ ἐκµετρηθήσεται οὐδὲ ἐξαριθµηθήσεται.13 Isa 10:22 καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, κτλ.14

In Hebrew, the two prophetic verses display an even tighter parallelism: Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10)

‫ישׂראל כחול הים‬

‫מספר בני‬

‫והיה‬

‫עמך‬

‫יהיה‬

Isa 10:22

‫ישׂראל כחול הים‬

‫כי אם‬

Thus Hos 2:1 and Isa 10:22 both recall God’s commitment to give Abraham seed beyond measure.15 5.1.4. Inheriting the Land What the seed inherits is the land. The story of Abraham’s journeys begins with the divine grant of Canaan (Gen 12:1–2), bringing into focus the need for descendants who can possess it.16 The promise of seed and of land reappear in conjunction at several points (Gen 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3–4; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4). These intertwined motifs provide the Jewish mythomoteur with its native ethnoscape. They charged the religious and political 13

“And the number of the sons of Israel was like the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured nor numbered.” Because the LXX translates both ‫ עפר‬and ‫ חול‬with ἄµµος, Hos 2:1 bears a further link with Gen 13:16 and 28:14. 14 “And if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea,” etc. 15 Although the phrase “as the sands of the sea” can picture a great multitude without any reference to the patriarchal promises (Gen 41:49; Judg 7:12; 1 Kgs 4:29 = 3 Kgdms 2:35; Jer 15:8), it never loses its primary association. Several occurrences explicitly or implicitly recall God’s pledge to Abraham and his sons (Num 23:10; 1 Kgs 4:20 = 3 Kgdms 2:46a; Jer 33:22 [only in Hebrew, a possible reference]; Jub. 19:22; 27:33; 1 Macc 11:1; Sir 44:21; Pr Azar 1:13). Isa 48:19 connects seed and sand in a way that probably alludes to the patriarchal promise. The Hebrew contains an untranslatable word play indicating this. The relevant portion reads, ‫ויהי כחול זרעך וצאצאי מעיך כמעתיו‬. The word ‫ ֵמ עֶה‬in ‫ מעיך‬refers to the internal organs or inward parts. Here it means womb, as also in Gen 25:23; Isa 49:1; Ps 71:6; Ruth 1:11; 4QTobe II, 2; 11QT L, 10 (BDB, s.v.; DCH, s.v.). ‫ מעה‬in ‫ כמעתיו‬is a difficult term occurring only here in the HB. It is evidently derived from ‫ ָמ עָה‬, grain (BDB, s.v.; DCH, s.v., though both express some uncertainty). The masculine singular suffix on ‫ כמעתיו‬apparently refers to ‫ חול‬in the first part of the verse. Hence, God says to Israel, had Israel obeyed him, “the issue of your womb (‫ ) ֵמ עֶה‬would be as its [= the sand’s] grains (‫) ָמ ָעה‬.” The lost opportunity for seed to increase as sand echoes the promise to Abraham. Further, ‫ וצאצאי מעיך‬may recall Gen 15:4: “This man shall not be your heir; your own son (‫ )יצא ממעיך אשר‬shall be your heir.” 16 Technically, the divine bestowal of the promised land on Abraham is only implied in Gen 12:1–2, but present nonetheless. An explicit statement occurs at 13:14–15.

5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul

155

imagination of Jews into the first century and beyond. An oblique reference to this promise may explain a recurring but overlooked element in Paul’s biblical quotations in Rom 9: their geographical connotations. Exod 9:16 as quoted in Rom 9:17 εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωµαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναµίν µου καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνοµά µου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ.17 Hos 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23) καὶ σπερῶ αὐτὴν ἐµαυτῷ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.18 Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10) as quoted in Rom 9:26 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός µου ὑµεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.19 Isa 10:22b–23 as quoted in Rom 9:28 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.20

I argue in the following section that Gen 45:7 is also relevant to Paul’s argument. It too contains a reference to the land: Gen 45:7 ἀπέστειλεν γάρ µε ὁ θεὸς ἔµπροσθεν ὑµῶν ὑπολείπεσθαι ὑµῶν κατάλειµµα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.21

The verbal chain connects an entire series of texts and strengthens the claim that Genesis, Hosea, and Isaiah are connected in an exegetically significant manner.22 5.1.5. The Remnant Most commentators explain both the presence and theology of the remnant in Rom 9–11 with reference to Isaiah. There is reason to suspect, however, that Paul’s understanding derives from Genesis (see § 7.2.). Two texts in the patriarchal narratives bear comparison with Isa 10:22 and its context:

17

“I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 “And I will sow her for myself in the land.” 19 “And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called ‘sons of the living God’” (NETS, modified). 20 “For the Lord will perform [his] word quickly and certainly on the earth” (my translation; see § 5.3.3.1.). 21 “For God sent me before you, to leave behind a remnant of you on the earth.” 22 Ps 19:5 (Gk.: 18:5; Eng.: 19:4), a portion of which is quoted in Rom 10:18, may also belong here, though its context is too far removed to be certain: εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουµένης [cf. Isa 10:23] τὰ ῥήµατα αὐτῶν, “Their sound went out to all the earth, and to the ends of the world their utterances.”

156

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Gen 32:9 (Eng.: 32:8) 23

‫ויאמר אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה‬

Gen 45:7 24

‫וישלחני אלהים לפניכם לשום לכם שארית בארץ ולהחיות לכם לפליטה גדלה‬

Isa 10:20–22

‫והיה ביום ההוא לא יוסיף עוד שאר ישׂראל ופליטת בית יעקב‬ …

‫שאר ישוב שאר יעקב אל אל גבור‬ 25 ‫כי אם יהיה עמך ישראל כחול הים שאר ישוב בו‬

The Greek translation of Gen 32:9 attenuates these connections by erasing its remnant terminology. However, its rendering of ‫ פליטה‬with σώζω maintains a link with Isa 10:20. Further, the LXX also allows for the inclusion of Isa 1:9 in this collection of references. The relevant passages are as follows: Gen 32:9 (Eng.: 32:8) καὶ εἶπεν Ἰακώβ Ἐὰν ἔλθῃ Ἠσαῦ εἰς παρεµβολὴν µίαν καὶ ἐκκόψῃ αὐτήν, ἔσται ἡ παρεµβολὴ ἡ δευτέρα εἰς τὸ σῴζεσθαι.26

23 “For he [Jacob] said, ‘If Esau comes to the one company and attacks it, then the company which is left will escape’” (NASB). 24 “And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors.” The passage contains other vocabulary related to the remnant, although this is evident only in the Hebrew. In v. 5, Joseph assures his brothers: “And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life (‫ ;למחיה‬LXX: εἰς … ζωήν).” This rare term (seven occurrences in the HB, a possible eighth in Neh 9:6 is probably a piel ptc., not a noun) appears elsewhere in connection with remnant-related language. Ezra 9 records a prayer that reads in part, “But now for a brief moment favor has been shown by the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant (‫ ;להשאיר לנו פליטה‬τοῦ καταλιπεῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν), … to grant us a little reviving (‫ ;מחיה מעט‬ζωοποίησιν µικράν) in our bondage. … [God] has extended to us his steadfast love … to grant us some reviving (‫ ;מחיה‬ζωοποίησιν)” (vv. 8–9). The same association is made by the Qumran Hodayot: “[For] I [kn]ow that shortly you will raise a survivor (‫)מחיה‬ among your people, a remnant (‫ )ושארית‬in your inheritance (‫( ”)בנחלתכה‬1QHa XIV, 7–8). These parallels show how easily an ancient interpreter might connect language of Gen 45:7 to the theology of the remnant. 25 “In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean upon him that smote them. … A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return.” See also Gen 7:23, which notes that only Noah’s family of all living things on the earth was “left” (‫ ;ישאר‬κατελείφθη). On the remnant in Genesis, see § 7.2.3. 26 “And Jacob said, ‘If Esau should come to one company and eradicate it, then there will be the second company to be saved’” (NETS, modified).

5.1. Lexical Connections Discovered by Paul

157

Gen 45:7 ἀπέστειλεν γάρ µε ὁ θεὸς ἔµπροσθεν ὑµῶν, ὑπολείπεσθαι ὑµῶν κατάλειµµα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐκθρέψαι ὑµῶν κατάλειψιν µεγάλην.27 Isa 10:20–22 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται τὸ καταλειφθὲν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ οἱ σωθέντες τοῦ Ἰακὼβ οὐκέτι µὴ πεποιθότες ὦσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀδικήσαντας αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ ἔσονται πεποιθότες ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ ἔσται τὸ καταλειφθὲν τοῦ Ἰακὼβ ἐπὶ θεὸν ἰσχύοντα. καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειµµα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται.28 Isa 10:22 as quoted in Rom 9:27–28 ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται.29 Isa 1:9 καὶ εἰ µὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡµῖν σπέρµα, κτλ.30

The use of ἐγκαταλείπω in Isa 1:9 to translate ‫( הותיר‬Hiphil, √‫)יתר‬, a word often related to the remnant (1 Kgs 19:10, 14; Ps 79:11; Ezek 6:8; Mic 5:2; Zeph 2:9; Zech 14:2), transforms a thematic link attaching ‫ שארית‬and ‫ שאר‬to ‫ יתר‬into a lexical one connecting ὑπολείπω, κατάλειµµα, κατάλειψις, τὸ καταλειφθέν (Gen 45:7; Isa 10:20–22), and ἐγκαταλείπω (Isa 1:9). These connections support the claim that Paul’s deployment of prophetic texts was inspired by his reading of Genesis. 5.1.6. Sodom and Gomorrah Isaiah 1:9 = Rom 9:29 mentions Sodom and Gomorrah, locales which figure prominently in Gen 13 and 18–19.31 The connections between Isaiah and Genesis go beyond the mere appearance of these names. Given Paul’s meticulous attention to the narrative shape of the texts he interprets, he may have found in Isaiah a specific reflection of Genesis’s plot. His quotation contains the following terms: ἐγκαταλείπω, σπέρµα, and Σόδοµα and Γόµορρα. Genesis 27

“For God sent me before you, to leave behind a remnant of you on the earth and to nourish a great posterity of you.” 28 “And it shall be on that day that what remains of Israel will no more be added [Brenton: join themselves with; Brenton mg.: repeat their offense], and those of Jacob who have been saved will no more trust in those who have wronged them but will trust in God, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. And what remains of Jacob will be to the mighty God. And if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.” 29 “If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved” (ASV). 30 “And if the Lord Sabaoth had not left us offspring,” etc. 31 In Jewish writings, Sodom and Gomorrah often appear as symbols of human wickedness (Deut 32:32; Isa 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Ezek 16:44–52; T. Naph. 8:12), divine judgment (Deut 29:22; Isa 1:9; 13:9; Jer 48:19; 50:40; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9), or both (Lam 5:6; Jub. 16:9; 22:22; 3 Macc 2:5; T. Ben. 9:1). The NT also cites these as illustrations of retribution justly deserved (Matt 10:15 // Luke 10:12; Matt 11:23–24; Luke 17:29; 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7).

158

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

17 addresses the identity of Abraham’s σπέρµα (see § 4.4.4.). In the following chapter, his bartering with God introduces the concept of the remnant, though without its typical vocabulary (see § 7.2.3.). There follows in ch. 19 the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus Gen 17–19 and Isa 1:9 are both concerned with σπέρµα, the remnant, and the notorious twin cities – in that order.32 5.1.7. Edom’s Inheritance Edom figures prominently in the oracle that opens Malachi, whose full text resonates with further allusions. In light of the concern in Genesis to trace the called seed as beneficiaries of a promised inheritance, two terms stand out: κληρονοµία/κληρονοµέω and (ἐπι)καλέω. Both appear in Gen 21:10–12: Mal 1:3b–5 καὶ ἔταξα … τὴν κληρονοµίαν αὐτοῦ εἰς δόµατα ἐρήµου. διότι ἐρεῖ ἡ Ἰδουµαία Κατέστραπται, καὶ ἐπιστρέψωµεν καὶ ἀνοικοδοµήσωµεν τὰς ἐρήµους· τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ Αὐτοὶ οἰκοδοµήσουσιν, καὶ ἐγὼ καταστρέψω· καὶ ἐπικληθήσεται αὐτοῖς ὅρια ἀνοµίας καὶ λαὸς ἐφ’ ὃν παρατέτακται κύριος ἕως αἰῶνος.33 Gen 21:10, 12 καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Ἀβραάµ Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην ταύτην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ κληρονοµήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης µετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ µου Ἰσαάκ. … εἶπεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῷ Ἀβραάµ Μὴ σκληρὸν ἔστω τὸ ῥῆµα ἐναντίον σου περὶ τοῦ παιδίου καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδίσκης· πάντα, ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπῃ σοι Σάρρα, ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς, ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα.34

The removal of Ishmael from the promised line in Gen 21 is later replicated in Esau’s loss of his birthright and inheritance (§ 5.3.1.). Malachi 1:2–5 alone 32 In view of Paul’s treatment of Jacob and Esau in Rom 9:10–13, a further connection between Isa 1:9 and Gen 19 may be possible. In texts affected by the events of 587 B.C.E., Edom assumed a symbolic status parallel to that of Sodom and Gomorrah: its name became an epithet for wickedness itself (see § 5.1.6. and § 5.3.3.2.). Thereafter Edom could potentially be equated with the two cities, and at least one OT text avails itself of this possibility. Jer 49 (32 LXX), an oracle of doom against Edom, expressly connects this nation with its forefather Esau (v. 8) and compares it to Sodom and Gomorrah as symbols of complete devastation (v. 18; LXX: v. 12). It is impossible to be certain that Paul incorporated this passage into his interpretation of Genesis, but the connections are suggestive nevertheless. In any case, the link between Isa 1:9 and the antecedent story in Genesis is clear (whichever text is actually older historically), and the surprise felt by Kowalski that Paul referred to the narrative through Isaiah rather than directly through Genesis is unnecessary (“Funktion,” 715, 729). 33 “I made … his inheritance gifts of the wilderness. For Idumea will say, ‘It is destroyed. And let us return and rebuild the desolate places.’ This is what the Lord Almighty says: They will build, and I will tear down. And they will be called borders of lawlessness and a people against whom the Lord is drawn up in battle forever’” (NETS, modified). 34 “Then she [Sarah] said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slave-girl and her son; for the son of this slave-girl shall not inherit together with my son Isaac.’ … ‘Do not let the matter be hard in your sight on account of the child and on account of the slave-girl; whatever Sarah says to you, obey her voice, for in Isaac offspring shall be named for you.’”

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

159

among prophetic denunciations connects Edom with both the patronymic Esau and the fraternal role he plays in the patriarchal narratives; it also discloses the miserable inheritance that Esau does receive. Verses 2–5 succinctly express the destiny of the non-chosen children of Abraham and therefore encapsulate Paul’s argument very well. 5.1.8. Summary In Paul’s quest to specify the term Israel through the etiology of Abraham’s family, the prophets provide necessary assistance. By their allusions to Genesis, they extend and reinterpret the divine call that brought this family into existence. Like threads through a tapestry, a series of interrelated themes run through these pentateuchal and prophetic texts: call, seed, the sand-like number of Israel, the land, the remnant, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the inheritance.35 But Paul does not merely collect and quote texts; he alters their wording to express how he understands their intended meaning.

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul 5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

The various terms discussed in the previous section sometimes travel in clusters. In CD II, 11–12, for example, several of them appear together: “remnant” (‫)התיר פליט‬, “land” (‫)ארץ‬, “world” (‫)תבל‬, and “seed” (‫)מזרעם‬.36 Yet it does not seem that an interpretation of Genesis lies behind their use, even if that book provides their origin and ultimate referent. Perhaps Paul in Romans employs a linguistic network that had long since been abstracted from its source and attained a life of its own. Against this supposition stands Paul’s own modifications of the quoted lemmata. He has reworked his verses in order to bring out more clearly the inner-connection he perceives them to share with the patriarchal stories. The resulting textual peculiarities indicate neither the apostle’s faulty memory nor, in most cases, alternative textual traditions. They show, rather, that Paul’s 35 To this list φαῦλος should probably be added. In Rom 9:11, Paul describes the twins’ amoral condition with the phrase µηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον. The choice of φαῦλος departs from the much more common pairing of ἀγαθός with either πονηρός or κακός (in Paul alone, see Rom 3:8; 7:19; 12:9, 21; 13:3, 4; 16:19; 1 Thess 5:15). Although Paul may use φαῦλος for stylistic reasons (e.g., 2 Cor 5:10), its occurrence at this point in Rom 9 may be significant. Esau is never said to be πονηρός or κακός, but in Gen 25:34, he is connected with the only occurrence of φαῦλος/φαυλίζω occurring in that book: Esau ἐφαύλισεν his birthright. Hence, before Jacob had done anything good or Esau anything φαῦλος (such as ἐφαύλισεν his birthright), divergent destinies had already been assigned to each brother. 36 A similar example occurs in 1QHa XIV, 7–8.

160

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

hermeneutical act has brought Moses and the prophets into a dialogical relation. The heuristic principle guiding this section was stated in § 1.2.2.: variations between Paul’s quotations and the LXX can be attributed to Paul if (1) the variation is attested only in Paul; (2) the variation reflects the emphases of Paul’s argument; and (3) the variation indicates the influence of other texts Paul quotes from. Furthermore, variations away from the MT are more likely the work of Paul than of a scribal reviser. The application of these norms to Paul’s quotations of Hos 2:25 and Isa 10:22–23 will show the impact his exegesis of Genesis had on his prophetic quotations.37

37 Isa 1:9 in Rom 9:29 does not vary from the LXX and therefore need not be discussed under this heading, which deals with changes Paul (likely) made himself. The quotation of Hos 2:1 is more complicated for two reasons. First, Paul’s text contains the word ἐκεῖ, matching the Hebrew ‫במקום‬. Ἐκεῖ is textually secure in Rom 9:26. However, the Göttingen edition of LXX Hosea judges it non-septuagintal. Zeigler’s text reads instead κληθήσονται καὶ αὐτοί, following (with some variation) S, B, Q, the majority of the Alexandrian tradition, a portion of the Lucianic tradition, and the Catena witnesses. Ἐκεῖ is supported by V (Hexaplaric); 239 (Catena); A, 29 (Alexandrian), part of the Lucianic tradition, and it is followed by Rahlfs. While it is possible to give ἐκεῖ a plausible meaning within the context of Rom 9 (§ 6.3.), I do not think that the evidence supports a deliberate addition by Paul subsequently taken up into a minority of the LXX manuscripts (so, tentatively, Wengst, Freut euch, 312 n. 519). Koch posits an rather complicated, inner-LXX corruption (Schrift, 54, 174), while Stanley remains uncommitted (Language, 113). Yet Koch’s own conclusions with respect to the revised nature of Paul’s LXX text towards the Hebrew would suggest that ἐκεῖ most likely entered into the manuscript tradition as a translation of ‫במקום‬ in a Hebraizing revision prior to Paul, which subsequently found its way into Romans. Second, the textual witnesses to Rom 9:26 divide between the uncontested LXX reading ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς, which most manuscripts of Romans follow, and the more weakly attested (ε)αν κληθησονται ( 46 F G, Old Latin MSS, and the Peshitta). The issue has provoked a debate between Stanley, who prefers the LXX reading ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς in Rom 9:26, and Wagner, who provides arguments in favor of the variant (ε)αν κληθησονται (Stanley, Language, 113 n. 86; Wagner, Heralds, 84–85 nn. 126–27; Seifrid sides with Stanley, “Romans,” 647). I believe that either reading will support the interpretation proposed here. However, my impression is that it would be redundant for Paul, after changing ἐρῶ to καλέσω in Rom 9:25 = Hos 2:25, to substitute (ἐ)ὰν κληθήσονται for ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς in Rom 9:26 = Hos 2:1, especially when Rom 9:26 = Hos 2:1 already contains κληθήσονται in its final phrase. God’s call is important in this verse but it hardly needs to be stated three times. The variant accepted by Wagner can be explained on the supposition that a scribe, noticing that Paul changed λέγω to καλέω once in 9:25 = Hos 2:25, followed his authority in reproducing the same change in 9:26a = Hos 2:1aα. Stanley is likely correct here: Paul quotes Hos 2:1 as it stood in the Greek version he was familiar with. Therefore, like Isa 1:9, it need not be referred to in a discussion of Pauline adaptations.

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

161

5.2.1. Hosea 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23) in Romans 9:25 Hosea 2:25 undergoes two significant transformations which solidify the intertextual relations that connect it to Genesis. These are illustrated in the following chart: Hos 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23)

Rom 9:25 ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει,

καὶ σπερῶ αὐτὴν ἐµαυτῷ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐλεήσω τὴν Οὐκ – ἠλεηµένην καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ Οὐ – λαῷ – µου Λαός µου εἶ σύ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐρεῖ Κύριος ὁ θεός µου εἶ σύ.38

καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν µου λαόν µου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπηµένην ἠγαπηµένην.39

First, the thematically significant verb καλέω replaces the less notable ἐρῶ (fut. of λέγω). The LXX reading is uncontested, and because the Hebrew reads ‫אמרתי‬, Paul’s text cannot reflect a Hebraizing revision. Given the prevalence of καλέω in the argument, evidence of a Pauline adaptation appears strong. This alteration links Hos 2:25 with its sister text Hos 2:1 (κληθήσονται υἱοὶ ζῶντος) and both with Gen 21:12 (ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρµα). This substitution allows Hos 2:25 to advance Paul’s discussion of God’s call as the power directing election from the patriarchal generations to the time of his own mission.40 The second alteration is far more complex and its Pauline origin controverted. Whereas the original oracle contained an allusion to the epigrammic 38

“And I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have pity on Not Pitied, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people,’ and he shall say, ‘You are the Lord my God.’” 39 “As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call “my people,” and her who was not beloved I will call “my beloved.”’” Paul revises the structure of this verse considerably. The complex chiasm of Hos 2:25 works both as aa΄bb΄ and as abb΄a΄. Paul retains only the second and third lines in reverse order, concentrating the entire oracle on a single announcement expressed in synonymous parallelism. 40 Commentators largely agree that Paul made this change himself (Koch, Schrift, 105, 167; Dunn, Romans, 2:571; Stanley, Language, 110; Barbara Fuss, Dies ist die Zeit, von der geschrieben ist: Die expliziten Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea in den Handschriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament [NTAbh nF 37; Münster: Aschendorff, 2000], 175; Wagner, Heralds, 80; Jewett, Romans, 600; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 724; Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 105), including Wilckens (Röm, 199), who otherwise argues that Rom 9:25–29 reflects pre-Pauline tradition. This transformation of ἐρῶ to καλέω effects further changes. Paul rephrases the divine announcement from direct speech addressed to Hosea into a public proclamation (Stanley, Language, 110–11; Wagner, Heralds, 81). The verb’s object shifts accordingly from the dative case (τῷ Οὐ-λαῷ-µου) to the accusative (τὸν οὐ λαόν µου) and as a result the words εἶ σύ drop out.

162

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

name of Hosea’s daughter, Οὐκ-ἠλεηµένη, “Not-mercy,” the quotation given by Paul instead reads, τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπηµένην ἠγαπηµένην, “I will call … [she who was] not-loved, loved.” His text maintains both the participial form and the feminine gender, but omits the prophecy’s essential term mercy in favor of beloved-ness, a different concept altogether. A deliberate alteration by Paul may appear unlikely in light of the preceding passage, where mercy had been a major motif. The verb ἐλεέω appeared four times in the space of four verses (9:15–18); the noun form ἔλεος resumes the same theme in 9:23, leading into the concatenation of verses in 9:25–29, headed by Hos 2:25 itself.41 Because many commentators have not provided a compelling reason for an intentional change, some have argued that Paul quoted the text as he read it.42 According to Stanley, Rom 9:25 preserves a minority textual tradition found in various LXX manuscripts where the Hebrew ‫ ורחמתי את לא רחמה‬is translated καὶ ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπηµένην. Although the evidence is sparse, this reading has cropped up among diverse textual families; B, V (both Hexaplaric); 407 (Alexandrian); the Coptic and Ethiopic witnesses to the LXX; Cyril and Jerome all attest to this reading of Hos 2:25.43 Stanley supports his claims with three arguments: (1) the combination of Hos 2:25 and 2:1 in Paul’s text makes it unlikely that Rom 9:25 has influenced the minority reading in Hos 2:25; (2) two LXX texts and other witnesses render √‫ רחם‬with ἀγαπάω elsewhere: in 1:6, 1:8, and 2:3, V, 407, and some Latin manuscripts (LaSW) have the same variant;44 (3) no motivation for a Pauline change of ἠλεηµένην to ἠγαπηµένην presents itself. Stanley therefore concludes, “That Paul’s text of Hos 2.25 read ἀγαπήσω … ἠγαπηµένην with B V et al. seems assured.”45 Many have concurred.46 41

Mercy continues to play an important role in Romans, as 15:8–9a demonstrates: “For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.” 42 Dunn, for example, speculates that Paul may have wanted to retain ἐλεέω in a consistently positive sense throughout his argument, and so refrained from speaking of οὐκ ἠλεηµένην. But he admits that a reason for diverging from Hosea’s text at this point is not clear (Romans, 2:571). 43 MS 239, from the Catena group, has both alternatives in a clear conflation: ελεησω την ουκ ηλεηµενην και την ουκ ηγαπηµενην. 44 Stanley’s case could actually be presented more strongly, since he neglects to mention the Coptic translation and, for 2:3 alone, the Catena MS 239. Both share the same reading. 45 Stanley, Language, 112. 46 Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 264), Koch (Schrift, 55 n. 34), Moo (tentatively; Romans, 612 n. 9), Fuss (Zeit, 175–76), and Grindheim (Crux, 148). These authors do not adduce a further consideration that might support their case: the possibility that some LXX texts – if not Paul himself – used ἀγαπάω for ‫ רחם‬under the influence of Aramaic. As

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

163

However, a closer look at the evidence suggests otherwise.47 First, B and the Ethiopic translation should be dismissed, since they attest Paul’s ἀγαπάω in Hos 2:25 alone, and translate √‫ רחם‬with the corresponding forms of ἐλεέω in 1:6, 8; 2:3. The Catena MS 239 also has ἠγαπηµένην for ἠλεηµένην, but only in 2:3 and the conflated reading in 2:25, not in 1:6, 8. Therefore it is unlikely that these LXX texts have influenced Paul, as Stanley claims. Otherwise they would not switch from ἐλεέω to ἀγαπάω where Paul quotes from the prophet and (except for 2:3 in Catena MS 239) nowhere else.48 Manuscripts V, 407, the Coptic, and LaSW are more consistent in their preference for ἀγαπάω when translating ‫רחם‬. However, this translation decision has only affected those occurrences where ‫ רחם‬is used as a proper noun signifying the symbolically-named daughter. Therefore, the textual witnesses supporting Paul’s text do not reflect a consistent translation technique but an otherwise arbitrary shift from their more normal use of ἐλεέω for √‫רחם‬.49

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner state, in biblical and other Aramaic dialects “the original meaning of ‘to have mercy’ is generally expanded to ‘to love’” (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [rev. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm; trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson; 5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996], s.v.; see also H. Simian-Yofre and U. Dahmen, “‫רחם‬, rḥm,” TDOT 13:438; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period [Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002], s.v.; ibid., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods [Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002], s.v.). Indeed, the qal form of ‫ רחם‬in the HB is usually translated ἀγαπάω in the LXX, and even some occurrences in the piel use the same word. It is therefore possible, as was suggested to me by Dr. Deirdre Dempsey, that if Paul followed a LXX use of ἀγαπάω, that LXX translation was itself using ἀγαπάω to translate ‫ רחם‬in the Aramaic sense of “to love.” However, I think it unlikely. The name of Hosea’s daughter is a substantive not a verb, and the noun form ‫ רחמה‬is never rendered ἀγαπή in the LXX. Hence, the expanded meaning of ‫ רחם‬as “to love” does not appear to have affected the LXX translation of the nominative ‫רחםה‬. This, in turn, makes it improbable that Rom 9:25 reflects the direct or indirect influence of a Greek translation. 47 The following arguments are my own, based on my reading of the Göttingen LXX apparatus, carried out at an early stage of research for this study. I was pleased to find them in agreement with Wagner’s conclusions (Heralds, 81–82 n. 120). 48 There is the additional consideration, passed over in Stanley’s discussion, that B and V are both witnesses to the Hexaplaric recension, which qualifies their value as witnesses to the LXX – a point stressed by James Barr, though without reference to this specific passage (“Paul and the LXX,” 600). 49 In 1:6, for example, God declares, “Call her name Not Pitied (‫)לא רחמה‬, for I will no more have pity (‫ )ארחם‬on the house of Israel.” While the manuscripts Stanley cites read ηγαπηµενη for the name of Hosea’s daughter, no witnesses carry this through to describe God’s act that her name symbolizes. ʼΕλεήσαι stands as the uncontested translation for ‫ארחם‬. The same holds true for √‫ רחם‬in 1:7, 2:21, and 14:4. In none of these instances does a cognate of ἀγαπάω appear anywhere in the textual tradition. Ἐλεέω is used every time.

164

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

It is therefore much more plausible that Paul has influenced the transmission of the LXX here than the reverse. Vaticanus shows how this alignment began: only the actual verse quoted by Paul was altered. V and 407 indicate a more thorough reworking which, however, touched only those occurrences where √‫ רחם‬is used as a proper noun. The conflations in Catena MS 239 reflects the incorporation of both traditions. Only this hypothesis explains the decision to use ἀγαπάω exclusively when √‫ רחם‬refers to a named personage but ἐλεέω everywhere else.50 What of Stanley’s final argument, that a Pauline alteration lacks any evident motivation? Actually, a reason is not difficult to discern. By modifying his quotation, Paul overturns Malachi’s prior announcement of Esau’s diselection. Whereas in former times God announced a love for Jacob extending to him only, a love so concentrated on its sole object that nothing remained for not-Jacob but divine hatred, on Paul’s reading Hosea predicts a time when Not-loved will be “christened” Beloved. Mal 1:2–3a Ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς, λέγει κύριος. καὶ εἴπατε Ἐν τίνι ἠγάπησας ἡµᾶς; οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἦν Ἠσαῦ τοῦ Ἰακώβ; λέγει κύριος· καὶ ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰακώβ, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐµίσησα.51 Hos 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23) as quoted in Rom 9:25 ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει, καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν µου λαόν µου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπηµένην ἠγαπηµένην.52

In Paul’s hands, Hos 2:25 becomes a direct response to the announcement of divine hatred set forth in Mal 1:2–3.53 Because Malachi itself summarizes the exposition of patriarchal election in Rom 9:6–12, the substitution of ἠγαπηµένην for ἠλεηµένην places Hosea in the same exegetical orbit. Not only do these two prophetic testimonies engage in critical dialogue with one another, they also compete as divinely authoritative voices asserting divergent conclusions to the labyrinthine tale of Israel’s election. The link Paul forges between Hos 2:25 = Rom 9:25 and Genesis may be reinforced by a final consideration. The term ἀγαπάω does not only allude to the quotation from Malachi, it also reflects the traditional use of beloved as a 50 Though not decisive, it is worth mentioning that the LXX variant which allegedly influenced Paul left no trace whatsoever in the manuscript tradition at 1 Pet 2:9, which quotes the key terms from Hos 2:25 as the received text has it: οἵ ποτε οὐ λαὸς νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεηµένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες. 51 “I loved you, says the Lord. And you said, ‘How did you love us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. And I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.” 52 “As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call “my people,” and her who was not beloved I will call “my beloved.”’” 53 Recent exegesis has come to the same conclusion (Wilk, Bedeutung, 129 n. 57; Jewett, Romans, 600; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 724; Gadenz, Called, 101; Belli, Argumentation, 113–14).

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

165

title of the patriarchs, particularly Abraham.54 Paul himself employs this ascription in Rom 11:28. Concerning the relation of his Gentile hearers to Israel, he says: “As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election (τὴν ἐκλογήν) they are beloved (ἀγαπητοί) for the sake of the forefathers (διὰ τοὺς πατέρας).” He combines election, patriarchal descent, and the status of being “beloved” in one conceptual package. The proposal that Paul explicitly brings his quotation from Hosea into dialogue with Malachi and so with Genesis rests on solid ground. To summarize: Paul indicates the presence of an exegetical substructure in the two alterations he makes to Hos 2:25. He substitutes καλέω for λέγω and ἀγαπάω for ἐλεέω. Both changes draw Hos 2:25 into the interpretation of Genesis undertaken in 9:7–13. 5.2.2. Isaiah 10:22–23 in Romans 9:27–28 Paul makes a number of alterations to Isa 10:22–23 that are difficult to explain. If Isaiah predicts that God will cut short his word, Paul appears to have carried out a verbal cutting off of his own. A synoptic diagram illustrates the relation between the LXX and Paul’s text: Isa 10:22–23 LXX

Rom 9:27–28

καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειµµα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται·55 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων

ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται· λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων

ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ.56

ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.57

54 See the LXX translation of Isa 41:8 and 2 Chron 20:7 (both linking seed with Abraham the beloved); Pr Azar 1:12–13 (which adds mercy to this pair); CD III, 2–3; and, among Christian writings, Jas 2:23 and 1 Clem. 10:1; 17:2 (both using φίλος). 55 Happily for Paul (or, as he would no doubt prefer, providentially), the LXX translates ‫ שוב‬with σῴζω only here. This fortunate choice provides a firm connection between Isa 10:22 and Rom 10–11, in which Paul returns to the hope of Israel’s salvation several times (10:1; 11:14, 26; see also 10:10–13). 56 “And if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved, for he is completing and cutting short a reckoning with righteousness, because God will perform a shortened reckoning in the whole world.” 57 “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will perform [his] word quickly and certainly upon the earth’” (RSV, modified).

166

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Some differences have little exegetical significance. Probably the least important involves the change in the subjunctive verb γίνοµαι to εἰµί.58 The presence of ὑπόλειµµα rather than κατάλειµα also amounts to little, since they can be used synonymously, as indeed Paul does in Rom 11:3–4.59 The more significant variations from the LXX are as follows: (1) ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν appears instead of γένηται ὁ λαός; (2) ἐν δικαιοσύνη ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον is absent; (3) κύριος, not ὁ θεός, performs the action; and (4) ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς concludes the quotation rather than ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ. Items (2) and (3) can be dealt with quickly. I find most plausible for both the suggestion that Paul followed his received text. Concerning (3), considerable support for κύριος exists in the manuscript tradition. Paul’s reading may reflect an early variation or even the original LXX.60 Stanley, Language, 115–16; Fuss, Zeit, 180. The Hebrew has the impf. ‫יהיה‬. Moo, Romans, 614 n. 19; Fuss, Zeit, 180; Wagner, Heralds, 95–96. The variant κατάλειµµα in several manuscripts is most likely an assimilation to the LXX. The semantic equivalence between κατάλειµµα and ὑπόλειµµα (and their verbal cognates) is evident in Gen 45:7; Isa 4:2–3; 3 Kgdms 19:14, 18 (quoted in Rom 11:3–4). Their interchangeable use refutes Jewett’s suggestion, already questionable on linguistic grounds, that Paul deliberately avoids κατάλειµµα in referring to the remnant because κατά, meaning down, might impute a judgmental quality to the remnant idea (Romans, 602). 60 Important Hexplaric (B, V, 109, 736) and Alexandrian (Qmg, Syro-Palestinian) texts provide evidence for κύριος as a distinct LXX reading. Wilk opts for an early LXX revision reflected in Paul’s text, while Koch argues for κύριος as the authentic LXX reading rather than ὁ θεός (Wilk, Bedeutung, 38; Koch, Schrift, 50, 93; siding with Koch are Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary [trans. Thomas H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 434; and Stanley, Language, 118). For several reasons it is unlikely that Paul’s text represents a modification towards the Hebrew (entertained as a possibility without committing to it by Shiu-Lun Shum in Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts [WUNT 2/156; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002], 211): (1) Paul lacks the full phrase ‫;אדני יהוה צבאות‬ influence from the Hebrew would have produced something like κυριος κυριος δυναµεων (as in the Hexaplaric text 88 and several Catena texts), κυριος των δυναµεων στρατειων (Aquila), or simply as κυριος δυναµεων (the Syro-Hexaplaric translation, Symmachus, and Theodotion); (2) he agrees with the LXX in placing the verb ποιήσει before the subject, while the Hebrew places the corresponding ‫ עשה‬after it; (3) both Paul and the LXX have future forms of the verb, while the Hebrew employs a participle. Stanley argues that Paul’s text reflects the influence of the LXX of Isa 28:22. This verse could explain the change from ὁ θεός to κύριος; the substitution of ἐπί for ἐν; and the lack of ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον in Paul’s quotation (Language, 119; similarly Wagner, Heralds, 97–100; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 210–11 [with hesitation]; Pablo T. Gadenz, “‘The Lord Will Accomplish His Word’: Paul’s Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9:24–29,” Letter & Spirit 2 [2006]: 152). However, this explanation fails to provide substantial motivation for these changes and does not account for the ways that Paul diverges from Isa 28:22 (e.g., the lack of πᾶσαν and the use of the genitive following ἐπί instead of the accusative). Further, the omission of ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ remains puzzling. Why would Paul omit such a relevant expression in favor of a text, Isa 28:22, he is not 58 59

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

167

As for (2), the material omitted from Isa 10:23 probably fell out due to the similarity of συντέµνων and συντετµηµένον, as Dietrich-Alex Koch has argued, especially if at some point the similar words both ended a line of text: λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον

A scribe may have moved inadvertently from συντέµνων to the similar συντετµηµένον, which in uncial script would read ΣΥΝΤΕΜΝΩΝ and ΣΥΝΤΕΤΜΗΜΕΝΟΝ, and proceeded from there.61 This leaves (1) the reading of ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ instead of ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραήλ in Isa 10:22 = Rom 9:27 and (4) the substitution of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς for ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ in Isa 10:23 = Rom 9:28. Concerning both, I would claim (1) that they carry exegetical significance; (2) that they migrated to Paul’s quotation from the textual universe of Genesis; and (3) that they made this journey through Hosea. The immediate source of Paul’s expanded sobriquet for Israel is clearly Hos 2:1. It shares with Isa 10:22 the phrase Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης. On this basis, Paul produced a fused text, suggesting that he intreprets these passages in light of each other (gezera shawa). Moreover, as pointed out above (§ 4.1.3.), these verses both recall the promises made to Abraham recorded in Genesis:

quoting? This hypothesis would seem likely only if it could be established that Paul was quoting from memory. Jewett also sees the use of κύριος as an intentional alteration by Paul. But the thematic claim in 9:6, οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, emphasizes the reliability of God’s word (Romans, 603). Why would Paul later deviate from a text which stresses the manner by which ὁ θεός enacts his λόγος and substitute for it κύριος, especially when these designations tend to have distinct referents in Paul (the Father and the risen Christ, respectively)? 61 Koch, Schrift, 82; followed by Wilk, Bedeutung, 38; Fuss, Zeit, 172; Lohse, Römer, 283; Wagner, Heralds, 96 (tentatively); Kowalski, “Funktion,” 727. I find Stanley’s attempted rebuttal unconvincing (Language, 117). A haplography occurring in the Hebrew text is far less likely; although the corresponding terms are both derived from ‫חרץ‬, their forms are much more distinct: ‫ חרוץ‬and ‫ונחרצה‬, respectively. The addition of εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετµηµενον to Rom 9:28, despite its widelat syh), undoubtedly occurred under the influence of the spread support (‫א‬2 D F G Ψ 33 LXX. It is difficult to accept that Paul would knowingly skip over Isaiah’s emphasis on God’s acting ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, a central motif in Romans, and indeed the central concept in the letter’s thesis (Rom 1:16–17; see also 2:5; 3:4–5, 21–22, 25–26; 9:14; 10:3). Jewett argues that Paul intentionally dropped “in righteousness” because it would carry over a judicial nuance from the context of Isaiah (Romans, 602–3; similarly Wilckens, Röm, 207; Stanley, Language, 117; Belli, Argumentation, 122–23, 125). However, there is no reason for Paul to have attributed any sense to δικαιοσύνη other than his normal one.

168

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10) καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης. Isa 10:22 καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, κτλ. Isa 10:22 as quoted in Rom 9:27 ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, κτλ.

This juxtaposition, I will argue in § 6.2.2.1., has major implications for how Paul’s exegetical substructure should be understood.62 The concluding phrase of Paul’s quotation, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, has been attributed to both a revision towards the Hebrew and to the influence of Isa 28:22.63 These explanations are unlikely.64 Koch proposes that Paul uses the more modest γῆ rather than the expansive οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ because he wants to emphasize Israel’s reduction to a paltry shadow of its former state, and Jewett speculates that Paul avoids a reference to the οἰκουµένη in order to keep the focus on Israel rather than the various nations of the earth.65 Neither suggestion fits Paul’s argument well. I suggest an avenue, so far unexplored, that takes the investigation once more into the narrative world established by Genesis. As demonstrated above, Gen 45:7 expresses God’s intention to preserve a remnant of Abraham’s family (§ 5.1.5.); it also promises that he will ensure the remnant’s existence ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. This phrase links Gen 45:7 and Isa 10:23 = Rom 9:28 to Hos 2:25,

62

Koch’s explanation that Paul wanted to avoid attributing the title λαός to Israel is not persuasive (Schrift, 171; followed in Kowalski, “Funktion,” 725). This has inspired some nervous denials from scholars who see in this proposal the specter of supersessionism (e.g., Theobald, Römerbrief, 268, 269–70; Gadenz, Called, 72–73, 110–15). But the question of supersessionism can hardly be made to rest on the use of the single term λαός, which Paul in any case applies straightforwardly to the Gentiles in Rom 9:25. 63 Stanley, Language, 118–19; Wagner, Heralds, 97–100. 64 Correctly, Wilk, Bedeutung, 52 n. 7. The alleged influence of Isa 28:22 was discussed above. As for a Hebraizing revision, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is indeed a common translation of ‫בקרב‬ ‫( הארץ‬used in half of its ten occurrences: Gen 45:6; 48:16; Isa 5:8; 6:12; 7:22); however, here the LXX is actually quite faithful to its parent text, since it needs to find an equivalent for ‫בקרב כל הארץ‬, “in the midst of all the earth.” While idiosyncratic, ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ renders the sense aptly and in its retention of an equivalent for ‫ כל‬is closer to the Hebrew than to Paul. By contrast, the results of a Hebraizing translation can be seen in Symmachus and Theodotion: both read εν µεσω πασης της γης, not επι της γης. 65 Koch, Schrift, 167–68; Jewett, Romans, 604. Paul has already placed the discourse in a universalistic horizon (9:17, quoting Exod 9:16; implied in the use of ἐνδείκνυµι in v. 22 and γνωρίζω in v. 23; so too Wilk, Bedeutung, 52 n. 10), so it is unlikely that he wants to exclude other nations from view. Seifrid claims that Paul’s “upon the earth” both strengthens the note of judgment by using upon and broadens the scope beyond “in the midst of all the earth” (MT) or “in all the inhabited earth” (LXX; “Romans,” 649); I find both suggestions unpersuasive.

5.2. Lexical Connections Forged by Paul

169

which contains the same phrase.66 Hosea 2:25, in turn, brings in its wake Isa 1:9, since both contain the key word σπέρµα. For convenience, the Greek text of the relevant passages are provided once again: Gen 45:7 ἀπέστειλεν γάρ µε ὁ θεὸς ἔµπροσθεν ὑµῶν, ὑπολείπεσθαι ὑµῶν κατάλειµµα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐκθρέψαι ὑµῶν κατάλειψιν µεγάλην. Hos 2:25 καὶ σπερῶ αὐτὴν ἐµαυτῷ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, κτλ. Isa 10:22–23 as quoted in Rom 9:27–28 Ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται· λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Isa 1:9 καὶ εἰ µὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡµῖν σπέρµα, ὡς Σόδοµα ἂν καὶ ὡς Γόµορρα ἂν ὡµοιώθηµεν.

Genesis 45:7 is the only place in the LXX that speaks positively of a remnant (√λεῖµµα) being preserved ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. In Hos 2:25, God says, σπερῶ … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. In the entire NT, only Rom 9:27–28 gives a corresponding assurance that a remnant will be saved because God will do a λόγον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. And Isa 1:9 insists that a σπέρµα will be “remnanted” (ἐγκατέλιπεν) for Israel. The texts Paul quotes and their adaptations to his argument evince too many links with Gen 45:7 for them to be dismissed as coincidental. To summarize: Paul reshapes the text of Isa 10:22–23 in two significant ways. First, he expands the evocation of innumerable seed with the phrase ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ from Hos 2:1, which, in turn, reflects the promises to Abraham recorded in Genesis. Second, Paul describes the arena in which God accomplishes his word as ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, under the influence of Gen 45:7 and Hos 2:25. In the entire Greek Bible, only Gen 45:7 and Rom 9:27–28 promise that a remnant will be preserved on the earth. Paul actively shapes the content of his quotations after the pattern provided by Genesis.67

66

Wilk also recognizes the influence of Hos 2:25 on the form ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in Isa 10:22, though he does not suggest any influence from Gen 45:7 (Bedeutung, 52, 187). 67 If these conclusions are valid, Aageson’s claim that Paul argues from Scripture in an ad hoc, impressionistic manner, seeking out (mere) correspondences that have no organic connection between past and present is an inadequate way of characterizing Paul’s use of Scripture in Rom 9 (“Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11,” CBQ 48 [1986]: 265–89; ibid., “Typology,” 51–72). The text-forms of Paul’s quotations indicate an exegesis of Genesis aiming to extend its story into the present, not a string of metaphors turned on the moment of writing.

170

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals in the Scriptures of Israel 5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

So far, the evidence adduced for an exegetical substructure beneath Rom 9 has been largely verbal, consisting of explicit quotations or common terms shared by Paul and his biblical predecessors. But Paul is not only sensitive to recurring words; he also attends to narrative contexts and theological patterns. He draws from texts that have thematic as well as terminological correspondences. Working from analogies according to the technique referred to by the rabbis as heqesh (§ 1.3.2.), he builds an interpretive construct from passages that, though diverse, express a common theme: they uniformly affirm the election of Abraham’s family but also its inherent ambiguity. 5.3.1. The Irony of Election: Favored Sons in Genesis The theology of election in Genesis is inseparable from the patriarchal narratives as the founding myth of Israel.68 This etiology is composed of a cycle of stories shaped by patterns of sibling rivalry and divine favoritism. Beginning with Cain and Abel, successive generations see a younger son elevated to the status of “firstborn.” This movement entails the elder sibling’s expulsion from his place of privilege.69 With the introduction of Abraham, this revocation of primogeniture brings with it an exclusive claim to inherit the divine promises announced in Gen 12 and expanded at regular intervals throughout (Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–16; 15:1, 18–21; 17:1–8, 10, 14; 22:17–18; 25:23; 26:1– 5, 24; 28:4, 13–15; 31:3; 35:10–12). Isaac is designated the son of promise, while Ishmael is exiled with his forlorn mother (chs. 16, 21); Jacob steals the blessing, while Esau is left with his porridge and his tears (25:27–34; ch. 27);

68

In writing this section, the text most helpful to me has been Jon D. Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, a profound book whose influence on my thinking about Rom 9–11 has been surpassed only by the reading methodologies of Carol Stockhausen. I have also relied on Goldin, “The Youngest Son”; Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991); Roger Syrén, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives (JSOTSup 133; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Dicou, Edom; Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy”; Grindheim, Crux, chs. 1 and 2; Joel S. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). Of course, I alone am responsible for the argument expressed here. 69 As Robert Alter succinctly states, “The firstborn very often seem to be losers in Genesis by the very condition of their birth.” He calls this pattern a “devious twist of destiny” and a “genealogical irony” (The Art of Biblical Narrative [rev. ed.; New York: Basic Books, 2011], 5).

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

171

Joseph ascends to power over his brothers, while they unwittingly fulfill his prophecy of preeminence (chs. 37–46).70 However, the younger son’s ascension is far from being an unmitigated blessing. In a further reversal, he must experience in his own person that fate which his favored status imposed on the less fortunate sibling. As Levenson remarks, “The first-born or beloved son undergoes a symbolic death. … Justice is not done to the complicated role of the first-born son if we fail to note both his exalted status and the precariousness of his very life. The beloved son is marked for both exaltation and for humiliation. In his life the two are seldom far apart.”71 Through a real or symbolic death, he suffers a dereliction analogous to that endured by the brother he replaces. Only after this trial can the chosen son secure his inheritance and claim the promise of blessing, seed, and land. In yet another irony, this misfortune brings the formerly superseded brother back into preeminence while the favored child lapses into a corresponding humiliation or even loss of life. Abel falls when Cain “rises up” against him (4:8); Isaac eclipses Ishmael but himself goes under the knife (ch. 22); Jacob runs for his life from Esau and later falls prostrate before him seven times (27:42–45; 33:3); and Joseph is cast into a pit by his brothers, who after gloating from the edge sell him into slavery to the sons of Ishmael (37:18– 28). This pattern of ironies and reversals elucidates the underside of election: exclusion, exile, fratricide, betrayal, displacement, separation. In every case the beloved son is subjected to the experience of death before he can be raised up to secure life for his family. The words of Jacob concerning Joseph graphically illustrate this homology between election, on the one hand, and exile, exclusion, and death, on the other. Wrongly believing his son to be dead, he laments, “I will go down to Sheol, to my son, mourning” (37:35). With these remarks, the narrative juxtaposes Joseph’s expulsion with the literal death experienced by Abel, the symbolic death suffered by Isaac, and the exile to Mesopotamia endured by Jacob himself. When Jacob finally hears that his lost son is both alive and administering Egypt’s internal affairs, he nearly dies from shock and announces: “My son Joseph is still alive” (45:28). When Joseph and his brothers are reunited, all Jacob’s children dwell together in Goshen. This is the only time in Genesis where the problem of feuding brothers is not solved by a final separation. The construction of a symbolic space sufficiently large to accommodate the twelve brothers terminates the repeated excisions within Abra-

70

Other less developed fraternal pairs are entangled in this pattern: on Abraham and Lot, see Gen 11:27; 12:1–3; 13:11, and Kaminsky, Jacob, 29–30; on Reuben and Judah, see Gen 35:22; 49:4, 10; 1 Chron 5:1–2; on Ephraim and Manasseh, see Gen 48:19–20. 71 Levenson, Beloved Son, 59.

172

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

ham’s family.72 Joseph’s journey through death to life makes possible the preservation of Jacob’s house – as Gen 45:7 makes explicit. Having suffered the exclusion endured by his unchosen brothers, the beloved son can assume his salvific role and guide his family to survival. The theme of exclusion and reversal is not limited to fraternal opposites. Traces of this motif affect the sisters who vie for Jacob’s affections (29:31– 30:24; 35:16–21). The antagonism between the elder, fertile, but homely Leah and her younger, more attractive, but barren sister Rachel does not involve the issues of election and inheritance that characterize the rivalry between Jacob and Esau, but it does display parallel ironies.73 Leah gains prestige at her sister’s expense on account of her ability to bear children, yet she never attains the affections her husband reserves for Rachel. For her part, Rachel chafes under the humiliation brought by her barren womb, but never loses her preferred position in Jacob’s heart. The names they give their actual and surrogate children reflect this conflict.74 When Rachel finally has children of her own, it costs her her life. The struggle of these two sister-wives extends the themes of displacement, exclusion, and death beyond the agonistic relations of contrasting brothers to embrace the domestic warfare of embittered sisters – with tragic results (see further § 6.2.3.). Genesis thus entertains a deep and serious irony in its portrayal of election. The destiny of segregation, exile, and death inheres in the privileged status of the firstborn. The displacers who attain favor and inheritance over the prior claims of their elder siblings do not enter into those benefits without suffering the same reversal they imposed by their exaltation. Election favors the beloved child and excludes other claimants, but always turns on itself so that the chosen and rejected brothers each experience the other’s fate. The Pauline emphasis on exclusion and reversal in Rom 9, and the logical reversals which typify his argument, are therefore fundamental elements of Genesis itself. There, as in Romans, the privilege of election embraces its opposite.75

72

Peter D. Miscall, “The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies,” JSOT 6 (1978): 38. For example, Laban justifies his act of deceiving Jacob into marrying Leah with the nonplussed comment, “It is not so done in our country, to give the younger (‫ )הצעירה‬before the firstborn (‫( ”)הבכירה‬29:26). ‫ צעיר‬was used of the prenatal Jacob in the oracle of 25:23. 74 This is especially true of the two sons born to Rachel by her maid Bilah, Dan, “because the Lord has vindicated me” (30:6) and Naphtali, because “I have wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed” (30:8; see also Samuel Dresner, “Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?” in Abraham and Family: New Insights into the Patriarchal Narratives [ed. Hershel Shanks; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000], 165; Steinmetz, Father, 193 n. 22). 75 There are, in my judgment, clear and important christological implications to Paul’s reading of these narratives. However, in order to keep the focus on the problems delineated 73

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

173

5.3.2. Exiled and Restored Children: Narrative Patters in Hosea A parallel narrative of election and its loss opens the book of Hosea. Each of its first three chapters recapitulates a sordid tale of domestic ruin (1:2–2:3; 2:4–2:25; 3:1–5). These vignettes, when juxtaposed against each other, illustrate the fate of Israel via symbolic acts, oracular prophecy, and literary metaphor. Key actors in the drama include not only Hosea and his wife of ill repute but also their offspring, “Jezreel,” “No-Mercy,” and “Not-My-People,” children whose unfortunate monikers brand them living witnesses to election revoked. Through them, Hosea announces in the public sphere, and enacts in the domestic one, God’s complete repudiation of his covenantal relationship with Israel.76 Yet this sentence of national death is in all three episodes transformed into a promised restoration attaining worldwide proportions.77 The anticipation of deliverance and restoration in 2:1–3 responds to the message of judgment in 1:2–9; the picture of national and cosmic renewal in 2:16–25 answers the shocking infidelity – and its brutal punishment – in 2:4–15; and finally, the messianic promise in 3:5 reverses the political devastation portrayed in 3:1–4. This threefold reversal brings to Hosea’s drama a dialectic of doom and deliverance. God disowns his people – and yet his coming will bring salvation to Israel. He initiates this renewal by transforming the names of Hosea’s children. “Not-My-People” is renamed “My-People,” “No-Mercied,” is called “Mercied,” and “Jezreel” now signifies not desolation but fertility (2:1–3, 24– 25). The multifaceted story of a faithless wife and her outcast children becomes a comedy in which, by a sudden unveiling, the main characters are healed, forgiven, and restored to their proper place in God’s affections. above (§ 1.1.3.), I have resisted the temptation to explore these and have forced myself to be content with some remarks in § 3 of the conclusion. 76 The covenantal background of Hos 1–3 is a manifest feature of the text in its present form (Gary W. Light, “The New Covenant in the Book of Hosea,” RevExp 90 [1993]: 219– 38). However, it has suffered from a considerable lack of attention on the part of contemporary interpreters. The exhaustive survey of modern scholarship on Hos 1–3 by Brad E. Kelle mentions this aspect only twice (“Hosea 1–3 in Twentieth Century Scholarship,” CBR 7 [2009]: 196, 203). 77 The redactional history of these chapters is quite complex. A clear process of dehistoricization has affected the transmission. The oracles have left their historical moorings as their message was interpreted within an increasingly eschatological context. The asyndeton of 2:1 (despite its clear connections with 1:2–9), the twofold ‫( והיה ביום ההוא‬2:18, 23), and vague temporal notation which begins 3:5 all point to a thoroughgoing process of reinterpretation. My own study of parallels between Hosea and 1–2 Chronicles has led me to date their final redaction, to which much of the salvation promises in chs. 1–3 belong, to the postexilic period (similar conclusions are offered in Gale A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation [SBLDS 102; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987]; R. E. Clements, “Understanding the Book of Hosea,” RevExp 72 [2001]: 405–23).

174

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Election in Hosea thus moves from its own repudiation to its ultimate repristination. In doing so, it follows a pattern similar to that which characterizes Genesis. Hosea’s dual message of judgment and promise, symbolically announced by the names he gives his sons and daughter, corresponds to the reiterated plot device in Genesis of children suffering exile, exclusion, and reinstatement – and Hos 2:1 explicitly connects Israel’s destiny to the promises vouchsafed to Abraham (§ 5.1.3.). Yet on most conventional readings of Hosea, the story of the prophet’s forlorn children lacks an important feature typical of Genesis: a set of contrasting siblings whose oppositional relation throws into relief Jewish identity and destiny. If in Hosea Israel itself follows the path of Abel, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph from election through death/exile to restoration, where are the excluded siblings who correspond to Cain, Ishmael, Esau, and the eleven brothers? It would seem that the thematic parallel suggested here between Hosea and Genesis does not extend to this crucial element. However, Paul’s application of certain phrases from Hos 2 to Gentile believers suggests that he has discovered the hermeneutical resources for reading Abraham’s elect as well as his excluded children into Hosea’s prophecies. Chapter 6 will show how he does this. 5.3.3. Pruning the Vine: Restricting Election in Isaiah The story of Hosea’s children illustrates one possible route ancient interpreters could take in applying the symbolic resources of election to the anticipated destiny of their nation. The redefinition of Israel as a faithful remnant amidst a sea of apostasy represents another. This is the path taken by at least some of those responsible for editing the book of Isaiah into its present form. Like Hos 1–3, the composition of Isa 1 and 10 draws on certain pentateuchal themes to articulate its understanding of election. But here, this reinterpretation limits Israel to a congregation of penitents and excludes the religiously disqualified.78 Election is in this way turned against the nation as a whole and redirected towards the faithful minority. 5.3.3.1. The Returning Remnant in Isaiah 10:20–23 A remnant that is separate and distinct from Israel as such appears in Isa 10. The bulk of this discourse (10:5–19, 24–27), though not free of redactional additions, presents a unified prophetic denouncement of royal hubris directed

78 In ch. 7 I will evaluate more fully the oft-heard claim that “remnant” in Isaiah guarantees salvation for the entire nation, but the exegesis in the present section will permit some critical soundings.

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

175

against the Assyrian king.79 The Isaianic voice reduces Assyria’s military power to a mere utensil used by God for Israel’s chastisement. The king, arrogantly presuming to have subdued all nations by his own strength, does not recognize his instrumental role much less the ultimate benefit towards which God directs his actions. The transition from depicting Assyria’s impudence to announcing its downfall occurs twice, first in v. 16 and then in v. 24. In both verses a messenger formula introduces corresponding announcements of Assyrian doom, 10:16–19, and Zion’s deliverance, 10:24–27.80 These oracles anticipate an imminent intervention by which God will destroy Israel’s oppressor and deliver the entire nation. Between these two passages appear three interrelated additions (vv. 20, 21, 22–23), each of which noticeably restricts the scope of salvation from the people in general to a select few.81 Several features indicate that these verses were composed on the basis of the broader as well as the immediate context; they therefore suggest a conscious attempt to resignify the surrounding material.82 Verse 20 anticipates v. 24 and guides the interpretation of the salvation 79

Scholars who assume the unity of this chapter and its Sitz im Leben in the life of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah naturally interpret Israel to signify the northern kingdom (so Harold H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election [London: Lutterworth, 1952], 74; Ronald E. Clements, “‘A Remnant Chosen By Grace’ (Romans 11:5): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant Concept,” in Pauline Studies, 106–21; Jimmy J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah 2 and the Prophet’s Message to the North,” JQR 75 [1985]: 295–98; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 [WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985], 153). However, I find the evidence for interpretive redaction more persuasive (Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 435–46; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 257–58). 80 The transition is hinted at first in v. 12, but not immediately developed; vv. 13–14 return to the king’s haughty monologue (vv. 10–12 are intrusive and may be redactional). Both vv. 16–19 and vv. 24–27 are introduced with ‫לכן‬, but the first text should be described, in terms of form, as an announcement of destruction, the second as an oracle of salvation. On these forms, see Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 61–65; Claus Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (trans. Keith Crim; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 80–81, 97–98, 197–98; Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 23–27, 199–200, 202–3. 81 Vv. 20–23 may have all come from the same hand, but their unity is not certain (Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 435). 82 Several elements in 10:20–23 recall items appearing elsewhere in Isaiah, especially in chs. 7–11, which develops an explicit theology of the remnant. Isa 10:21 recalls Isaiah’s son, Shearjashub (7:3) as well as the announcement in 10:19 (which retains the older, wholly negative notion of remnant, on which see Lev 26:39; Deut 2:34; 3:3; 28:62; Josh 8:22; 10:28–40; 11:8; 2 Kgs 10:11; Amos 1:8; 3:11–12 [without specific “remnant” terms]). The title “the Holy One of Israel,” which appears in v. 20, is used almost exclusively in Isaiah. As for the immediate context, the promise that Israel “will no more lean

176

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

oracle in 10:24-27: both verses describe Assyria’s action as one of “striking” (‫)נכה‬, but while v. 24 speaks to “my people,” v. 20 proleptically identifies the addressees as “the remnant (‫ )שאר‬of Israel and the survivors (‫ )פליטת‬of the house of Jacob.” What characterizes this band of escapees is their dependence on God: they will lean (niphal ‫ )שען‬on him alone ‫באמת‬, “in truth.” This grammatically awkward prepositional phrase should not be eliminated as an accretion. It emphasizes the distinction between those who rely on the Lord falsely and those sincere in their dependence (30:12; 31:1; see also Mic 3:11).83 God does not save Israel from his enemy (viz., Israel’s enemy; note the masc. sg. suf. attached to ‫ מכהו‬in v. 20) without regard for Israel’s spiritual state. Thus, v. 20 inserts an editorial comment that predicates the divine deliverance predicted in vv. 24–27 on a corresponding spiritual renewal, a point lacking in the original prophecy. In the event that an obtuse reader might fail to understand this narrowed sphere of deliverance, v. 21 reiterates: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob.” The object of deliverance is reinterpreted in the same direction as in v. 20. In both cases, those who “dwell in Zion” are being pared down to a faithful enclave that truly depends on God. Should these circumscriptions still prove too ambiguous, a final addition in vv. 22–23 removes all doubt. It contrasts the narrow escape of a tiny minority with the pervasive disaster falling on the whole of Israel. By picturing the nation’s numerical expanse metaphorically as the sea’s sands in v. 22, the redactor draws attention to the patriarchal promises recorded in Gen 22:17, 32:13 (Eng.: 32:12) and declares them fulfilled. This allusion suggests a rather ominous understanding of national election and its limits. God has discharged his promises and remains under no further obligation to guarantee the survival of Abraham’s uncountable offspring in the face of their persistent disobedience.84 However numerous Israel has grown, a complete and predeupon him that smote them” (‫ ;מכהו‬v. 20) anticipates v. 24: “O my people, … do not be afraid of the Assyrians when they smite” (‫ ;יככה‬both from the root ‫)נכה‬. The ascription “the LORD, Yahweh of hosts” (v. 23), while not unknown, is rare in Isaiah, yet it occurs several times in Isa 10 (vv. 16, 24, 33; only three appearances elsewhere: 3:1; 19:4; 22:14). The emphasis on the remnant’s escape from destruction (vv. 20, 22, 23) and its return/ restoration (vv. 21, 22) presuppose the scenario described elsewhere in the chapter, not only in vv. 5–19, 24–27, but also in vv. 28–32, which depicts the devastating invasion of Assyrian armies (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 256–58). 83 J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 153; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 437. 84 A grammatical peculiarity in v. 22a reinforces this religious-social demarcation: ‫שאר‬ ‫ ;ישוב בו‬literally, “a remnant will return in it.” This unusual use of the preposition -‫ ב‬carries a partitive meaning, rendered in most translations “a remnant of them” (RSV, NRSV, ESV, ASV, NAB, NJB, KJV, NKJV; the NASB has “a remnant with them”). However, rather than changing the Hebrew pronominal suf. from masc. sg. to an English pl., perhaps it would be better to acknowledge an inner-Hebrew shift in voice from the 2d per., “your people, O Israel” to 3d per.: “a remnant of him” (cf. the JPS: “a remnant of it;” note also v. 20, men-

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

177

termined destruction awaits the nation; the remnant alone will perpetuate the legitimate community of Israel.85 The concluding phrase of v. 22, ‫כליון חרוץ שוטף צדקה‬, indicates a thorough destruction in store for the “non-remnanted” people of Israel.86 The opening words of v. 23, ‫כלה ונחרצה‬, should probably be understood as a hendiadys, the participle acting as a noun, and the entire clause meaning something like “the decisively-decreed destruction.” In the final phrase of 10:23, ‫בקרב כל‬ ‫הארץ‬, the reference to ‫ ארץ‬most likely retains its normal meaning, “land,” not the more expansive “earth.” The expectation of Israel’s destruction remains in focus: though numerous as the sea’s sand, the people of Israel face a “quickly executed decree of destruction” which God will unleash “in the midst of all

tioned above: “the one who struck him”). The antecedent of the pronoun in ‫ בו‬is the single nation Israel: judgment entails numerical diminution if it is to bring about spiritual purification (J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 152–53; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–13, 434). 85 Blenkinsopp brings out the effects that vv. 20–23 have on the overall interpretation of Isa 10: “The few who survived the judgment of exile with their faith intact, the prophetic remnant of Israel, now take the place of the people as numerous as the sands of the sea, a clear echo of the Abrahamic promise (Gen 22:17; 32:12 [MT 13]). They also serve as an anticipation of the final convulsive judgment ‘in the midst of the earth’ which only the few, the eschatological remnant, will survive. Implied is a radical reinterpretation of the Abrahamic promise” (Judaism, 43). See also Dunn, Romans, 2:575; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 94–95. 86 The phrase is very difficult to interpret. The term ‫ כליון‬occurs only twice in the HB. Here it apparently bears the meaning “annihilation, strictly decided” (BDB, s.v.). For its other appearance, Deut 28:65, BDB gives a very different sense: “failing of eyes, i.e., in longing,” though DCH subsumes both occurrences under “destruction, annihilation, failure” (s.v.; the word’s appearance in the very fragmentary 4Q Festival Prayersc 242 I, 1 has no context and is of no help). Its morphological similarity to ‫כלה‬, “be complete, at an end, finished, accomplished, spent” (BDB, s.v.), together with the overall context, perhaps accounts for BDB’s definition “annihilation.” ‫ חרץ‬means (among other things) “decide, determine, fix” (BDB, s.v.). The noun ‫ חרוץ‬signifies “strict decision” (BDB, s.v.; DCH, s.v.). Given the fact that ‫ כליון‬occurs only two times in the OT with little discernable connection between either usage, one wonders if the appearance of the phrase ‫ כליון חרוץ‬in Isa 10:22 has not influenced the glosses “annihilation, strictly decided” (BDB, s.v.; italics added) and “be determined” (DCH, s.v.) for ‫כליון‬. Almost all translations take ‫ כליון חרוץ‬as “destruction is decreed.” The words that follow, ‫שוטף צדקה‬, indicate that this impending judgment is “overflowing with righteousness” (RSV). The context suggests that here ‫ צדקה‬refers to a strict standard of rectitude against which the non-remnant people of Israel have failed to measure. This meaning, although not common, does appear elsewhere (Isa 5:16; Zech 3:5; see B. Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬,” TDOT 12:244–45; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 152). The NAB translation captures this nuance: “their destruction is decreed, as overwhelming justice demands.” JPS is similar, though it uses an independent clause connected asyndetically: “retribution comes like a flood.”

178

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

the land,” that is, Palestine.87 Only the remnant will survive this eschatological doom (as suggested by the apocalypticizing “in that day” of v. 20 and again in v. 27). The transformation of the original prophecy is complete. The earlier announcement proclaimed that God would at any moment deliver his people, the nation as a whole, from the Assyrian menace and visit on that power its own violence. But the interpretive additions insist that the devastation prefigured in the Assyrian invasion will, in fact, overtake Israel itself; only a penitent faction will survive. Each of the expansions in 10:20–23 reiterates this austere reduction of Israel’s national heritage. Salvation is confined to the faithful few, destruction appointed for the many. Abraham’s rebellious children face not deliverance but death. The text from which Paul quotes in Rom 9:27–28 develops the notion of Israel’s election precisely in order to eliminate from the elect people Israel itself.88 The LXX of vv. 22–23 contains further difficulties. Many of its puzzling translation decisions are probably due to the difficult Hebrew rather than a deliberate shift in meaning.89 Yet in one instance, whether by intention or 87

Against Blenkinsopp, who considers that the general apocalyptic orientation of the passage favors a universalizing “in the midst of the earth” (Isaiah 1–39, 258; similarly, Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 438). 88 Against John Paul Heil, “From Remnant to Seed of Hope for Israel: Romans 9:27– 29,” CBQ 64 (2002): 710; Wagner, Heralds, 106. 89 According to Isac Leo Seeligmann, these changes are rooted in the translator’s intention to push the meaning of his text from threat to promise (The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies [ed. Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann; FAT 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004] 284–85, 288; so too Wagner, Heralds, 100–106). But if so, these changes are exceedingly subtle: (1) in v. 20, the implied contrast between those who rely on God falsely and those who rely on him “in truth” is weakened by the use of the dative, τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, which would stress the mode of relying rather than the criterion for distinguishing those who will be delivered from those marked for judgment; Seeligmann places great semantic weight on this slight change; (2) in v. 22, several manuscripts lack a term corresponding to the partitive ‫ ;בו‬again, Seeligmann assigns too much importance to a negligible feature. Those manuscripts which do supply the equivalent αυτων cannot decide on which side of σωθησεται it belongs (preceding: S B V 88 109 736 Qmg Syh, the Lucianic tradition, several Catena and mixed texts; following: 710 and again several Catena and mixed texts) suggesting that uncertainty concerning the Hebrew sense explains the translation rather than a desire to avoid the partitive and hence condemnatory nuance. To be sure, LXX Isaiah does display a willingness to transform announcements of doom into offers of salvation (e.g., at 8:14), but it seems rash for Seeligmann to attribute a coherent theological agenda to a passage that is prima facie a haphazard paraphrase. As C. E. B. Cranfield notes concerning Isa 10:23, “The Hebrew … is difficult, and the LXX translators were apparently baffled by the details” (Romans, 2:502; similarly, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 265; Koch, Schrift, 146–47; and see the general caution in McLay, Use of the Septuagint, 96). In 28:22, where the Hebrew is similar and the Greek as periphrastic as in the present passage, the note of judgment sounded against apostate Israel in the Hebrew is clearly discernable in

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

179

ineptitude, the LXX rendering transforms a message of doom into an obscure statement that can be read as a promise of salvation. In the redirection of judgment from Assyria to Israel in Isa 10:20–23, the most damning indictment occurs in v. 22b: “Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness.” But the LXX version has λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.90 Here λόγος refers back to the announcement of the remnant’s salvation made immediately before.91 Συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων should probably be taken, like the underlying Hebrew, as a hendiadys.92 The combined phrase does not likely carry the full semantic weight of each individual term; συντέµνω here need not signify “to cut short prematurely” but probably means something more like “bring about swiftly.”93 The meaning would then be not “to bring to an end” in the sense of destroy, but “to carry out, to bring about,” with quickness or finality.94 As a genitive absolute, its relation to the surrounding context is somewhat hazy, but the phrase seems to have adverbial force, describing the manner with which the λόγος is carried out. It thus insists that the promised salvation will certainly come to the remnant.95 the Greek. Thus, the conclusion that the LXX undertook an intentional reworking of the entire passage appears unjustified. The complexities of these verses are treated in greater detail in R. R. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) (2 vols.; 2n ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–1909), 2:243–44; Koch, Schrift, 147, 147 n. 26; Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (JSJSup 124; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 283–86. 90 In v. 22, the Hebrew word which apparently refers to destruction, ‫כליון‬, is evidently translated twice: λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν, with λόγος being retained for the morphologically similar ‫ כלה‬in v. 23, whereas συντελέω is used for ‫ כלה‬in the parallel phrase in 28:22. 91 Gadenz, “Paul’s Argumentation,” 153. 92 Ibid. 93 Koch, Schrift, 147 n. 33; Wilk, Bedeutung, 186; against Wengst, Freut euch, 316; Belli, Argumentation, 124. 94 Koch, Schrift, 147–48, 148 n. 35; Moo, Romans, 615 n. 25. This sense fits the closely parallel phrases in Isa 28:22; Dan 5:26; Dan 9:27 Theodotion. The LXX of Dan 5:26 shows the influence of LXX Isaiah (Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 229; Arie van der Kooij, “Isaiah and Daniel in the Septuagint: How are These Two Books Related?” in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez [ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and M. Vervenne; BETL 224; Louvain: Peeters, 2008), 468–69, 472; and does not prove the existence of an independent apocalyptic formula, as Käsemann claims (Romans, 275). Most English translations of Isa 10:22 LXX retain the distinct lexical meaning of συντέµνω, “cut short” (e.g., Brenton, Ottley, NETS; also Stanley, Language, 117 n. 100). The use of συντέµνω to indicate the shortening of a speech by omitting material or the shortening of available time (LSJ, s.v. II, III) might have facilitated the meaning of “bring about swiftly” for συντελέω καὶ συντέµνω. 95 Koch, Schrift, 146–48 (while conceding that the sense of the Hebrew was only partially grasped by the LXX translator).

180

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

However, despite dropping the reiteration of Israel’s doom present in the Heb. of v. 22b, this transformation does not entail an incipient hope for the salvation of “all Israel.”96 Nothing in the LXX version, any more than in the Hebrew, attenuates the drastic reduction of Israel that was already announced in vv. 20–22a. The LXX provides for the possibility of reading Isa 10:22b positively, as a hope vouchsafed for the remnant, but not as a guarantee for the salvation of all Israel. 5.3.3.2. The Survivors of Israel in Isaiah 1:9 A similar limit on the extent of salvation occurs in Isa 1. Although composed of diverse material, this chapter in its current form possesses a consistent, conscious organization. The introduction of Yahweh’s lawsuit (v. 2) and the summons to arbitration (v. 18) present the intervening material (and its conclusion in vv. 19–20) as an announcement of accusation against the people.97 The focus narrows to Jerusalem itself in v. 21, which, despite its wickedness (particularly of the city’s corrupt leaders), will be purified (vv. 26–28) when the persistently rebellious are eliminated (vv. 29–31).98 Three features of this text are noteworthy. First, the rhetorical progression from judgment to redemption recalls Israel’s self-understanding as a chosen people. The opening allegory in vv. 2–4 portrays the Israelites as sons of God who have gone to ruin (‫;בנים משחיתים‬ see also Exod 4:22). The LXX of 1:4 reorients this accusation towards Israel’s failure to practice Torah faithfully: they are υἱοὶ ἄνοµοι. The same verses indicate that other symbols of election have gone awry:99 as a nation (‫גוי‬, ἔθνος), a people (‫עם‬, λαός; see also v. 10), and seed (‫זרע‬, σπέρµα), God’s chil96

Jewett writes, “Whether intentionally or not, the LXX translated a somewhat baffling in such a way as to weaken the link between Israel’s destruction and the completion of God’s word” (Romans, 603). But this holds good only for the change in v. 22b, which refers exclusively to the remnant; thus, the clarification introduced by the LXX does not break the connection between God’s word and Israel’s destruction with respect to the nation as a whole. Similarly, Heil (“Remnant,” 713–16) and Wagner (Heralds, 100–106) have seen that the LXX of Isa 10:22 offers a promise of salvation to the remnant, but conclude from this, wrongly, in my judgment, that the remnant necessarily functions as a pledge for the entire nation; see further § 7.2. below. 97 On the lawsuit formula, see George E. Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law,” BA 17 (1954): 26–46; idem, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50–76; Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285–95; Julien Harvey, “Le ‘Rib-pattern,’ réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance,” Bib 43 (1962): 172–96; D. R. Daniels, “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” ZAW 99 (1987): 339–60; Westermann, Basic Forms, 199–201; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 27– 28. 98 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 63–71. 99 J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 18; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 14–17. MT

5.3. Thematic Connections: Election, Exclusion, and Reversals

181

dren have become encumbered by sin (‫חטא‬, ἁµαρτωλός), iniquity (‫עון‬, πλήρης ἁµαρτιῶν), and wickedness (‫מרעים‬, πονηρός); they have collectively abandoned (‫עזבו‬, ἐγκαταλείπω) and spurned (‫נאצו‬, παροργίζω) the Lord. This reproach places the nation under the covenantal curses announced in Deut 28. Several allusions equate Israel’s impending doom with the judgment predicted there by Moses.100 Isaiah 1:9 specifically recollects Deut 28:62: Deut 28:62 101

‫ונשארתם במתי מעט תחת אשר הייתם ככוכבי השמים לרב כי לא שמעת בקול יהוה אלהיך‬

Isa 1:9 102

‫לולי יהוה צבאות הותיר לנו שריד כמעט כסדם היינו לעמרה דמינו‬

In addition to the shared term ‫מעט‬, both texts contain language typically related to the remnant (niphal ‫ ;)יתר ;שאר‬both affirm that however great in number Israel becomes, persistent rebellion will bring about a drastic diminution; and both use language recalling the patriarchal stories: numbering as the stars in the heaven (Deut 28:62; see Gen 15:5; 22:17; 26:4) and Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa 1:9). Thus Isa 1:9 joins other contextual indications to affirm that Israel has indeed been judged so severely that without its divinely preserved remnant the nation would have ceased.103 By emphasizing Israel’s symbols of election (sonship, nation, people, seed) and by placing Israel under the Mosaic indictment as Deuteronomy anticipated, Isa 1 portrays a nation whose covenantal heritage has run aground. 100 Isa 1:7 alludes to the curses of Deut 28 as descriptions of Israel’s current spiritual state: the land is a waste (Deut 28:21, 24), the cities are desecrated (Deut 28:52), and the land’s produce is devoured by foreign enemies (Deut 28:30, 33, 51). A further allusion occurs in v. 15, where God’s threat to turn his eyes away from his petitioning people both recalls a similar threat in Deut 31:17 and 32:20 and anticipates a theme which surfaces elsewhere in Isaiah (8:17; 30:20; 45:15; see also Christiaan H. W. Brekelmans, “Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 1–12,” in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage [ed. Jacques Vermeylen; BETL 81; Louvain: Peeters, 1989], 167–76; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 181). Here I only claim that the final redaction of Isa 1 occurred under the influence of an ideology similar to that expressed in Deut 28, but there is evidence that Deut 32 has also influenced Isa 1 (cf. Deut 32:1 and Isa 1:2a; Deut 32:6 and Isa 1:3; see also Ronald Bergey, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case for Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 [2003]: 39–42). 101 “Whereas you were as the stars of heaven for multitude, you shall be left few in number; because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God.” A parallel prediction occurs in Deut 4:27. 102 “If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.” 103 J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 19. Incidentally, Deut 28:62 alludes to the patriarchal promises of Gen 15:5, 22:17, and 26:4 in a manner strikingly parallel to Isa 10:20–23.

182

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

Second, the redactional shape of Isa 1 imbues it with a dualistic orientation. The final editorial statements in vv. 18–20 (the conclusion of the first half of the chapter) and vv. 27–28 (the conclusion of the second) divide the nation according to how people respond to “Isaiah’s” message of guilt and repentance.104 The captives/repentant ones (‫ )שבים‬in Zion will have their sins washed white (v. 18), eat the land’s abundance (v. 19), and be redeemed (‫;פדה‬ LXX: σώζω; v. 27), while those who rebel will fall by the sword (v. 20) and be consumed (v. 28). This dichotomy reinforces the opposition – already present in the earlier material – between the survivors (v. 9) and the slag (v. 25), and circumscribes the promised redemption to the repentant community. Those preserved by God in v. 9 present not a promise available to the population at large but the affirmation that salvation occurs only for those who separate themselves from the lawlessness of their nation.105 Finally, the LXX translation of 1:9 introduces material whether fortuitously or deliberately which accentuates the allusion to Genesis already given with the names Sodom and Gomorrah. In Hebrew, the paltry number constituting the remnant is expressed with ‫שריד כמעט‬. The connection with Deut 28:62 has already been noted, where the few survivors of God’s judgment explicitly contrast with the promise that Israel will surpass the number of stars in heaven, a direct allusion to Genesis. It may be that the Greek translator of Isa 1:9 chose σπέρµα as a translation of ‫ מעט‬simply because σπέρµα appears in the context (v. 4), but this is unlikely. ‫ מעט‬occurs seven other times in Isaiah and is correctly translated in every case with µικρός or ὀλίγος. The translator may therefore have used σπέρµα because he followed the allusions occurring in the Hebrew to Deut 28 and ultimately back to Genesis itself. God promised Abraham seed numbering as the stars above (Gen 15:5) but without divine intervention to spare a remnant these descendants would have become – like Sodom and Gomorrah – a smoking desolation (Gen 19:28). 5.3.4. Summary The three major biblical antecedents behind Rom 9 are interconnected on the thematic and not merely the verbal level. Exclusion and reversal characterize 104

On the late date of these verses, see Sweeney, Isaiah, 81–83, 86–87; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 187. 105 Verses 27–28 do not have terminology relating explicitly to the remnant, but the language of returning/repenting, ‫שוב‬, immediately ties these verses to the remnant motif as expressed in 7:3 and 10:20–21. Thus, even if it is historically significant that 1:9 on its own carries no mention of repentance or any other spiritual condition (so Rowley, Election, 73; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 29) the larger literary context homogenizes this verse with other appearances of the remnant and the call to repentance. As Grindheim points out, vv. 2, 8–9, 21, 26–27 all develop the theme of renewal, which is predicated only of the penitent remnant, not Israel as a whole (Crux, 30).

5.4. Conclusions

183

Paul’s discussion of election in Rom 9:7–13; this motif also typifies the patriarchal narratives, the story of Hosea’s family, and the fate of Israel in Isaiah. In Genesis, election – and the Abrahamic inheritance that it brings – does not pass from one generation to the next in a straightforward manner. It manifests itself in a consistent but surprising reversal: a chosen second born replaces his elder brother in status and excludes him from the covenantal family. The irony of election lies in the requirement that the favored child subsequently endure the humiliation his own elevation forced on the rejected sibling. To inherit Abraham’s election means that one is called to suffer its negation. The ironic potential of election is exploited, in different ways, by the passages in Hosea and Isaiah from which Paul quotes. In their prophecies, Israel’s election resembles not a socially-given, reified institution, but a tumultuous movement of God’s people in and out of divine favor, under judgment and promise, reduced to a remnant and eventually brought back into God’s mercy on the other side of national death. Hosea tells the story of Israel’s election as the disownment and reintegration of Yahweh’s children, who endure the covenantal rupture only to experience its renewal in the aftermath of judgment. Isaiah declares that Israel’s election can be turned against Israel itself and redirected towards a community of faithful penitents. Both evoke the Abrahamic promise of innumerable seed and thereby extend the story of favored and excluded children from Genesis into their own day. It remains for Paul to complete that story in his.

5.4. Conclusions 5.4. Conclusions

It appears that Paul’s quotations from the prophets in Rom 9:25–29 were generated by his reading of Genesis. This fact has not been sufficiently recognized in past exegesis. James Dunn, for example, acknowledges that “Many of the themes in these closing verses [of ch. 9] pick up key motifs from the opening of the section,” but he does not pursue them as relevant to his exposition.106 Steve Moyise, after raising the possibility of a connection between Genesis and Malachi – Hosea is entirely overlooked in this connection –, commits himself only to the claim that Mal 1:2–3 simply restates in heightened form the principle of selection from 9:1–12.107 By contrast, J. Ross Wagner and Florian Wilk have more recently insisted that Hosea and Isaiah complete the meaning of Genesis in Malachi from earlier in the chapter.108

106

Dunn, Romans, 2:257; see too Barrett, Romans, 178; Jewett, Romans, 600. Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 103. 108 E.g., Wilk, Bedeutung, 52, 120, 186. 107

184

Chapter 5: Establishing an Intertextual Matrix

However, their enthusiasm for Isaiah has impeded a full recognition for the base text that alone can explain these verses and the argument as a whole. Despite this reticence, my hypothesis that Paul relies fundamentally on Genesis is substantiated by three lines of evidence. First, an extensive network of terminological links connect Hos 1–3, Isa 1, and Isa 10, as well as Mal 1, to the patriarchal narratives. Second, Paul makes several changes to his quotations from Hos 2:25 and Isa 10:22–23, all of which accentuate the allusions to Genesis already present. Finally, the irony of election that structures the plot of Genesis is developed in unique ways by Hosea, Isaiah, and finally Paul in his letter to the Romans. The direction of influence, however, is dialectic. Genesis leads Paul to the prophets, but the texts he finds there clarify the meaning of Genesis. I propose that this nexus of Torah and prophets constitutes the interpreted narrative or, in Dodd’s term, the substructure beneath Rom 9. In the following chapters I will attempt to reconstruct how Paul understands and interprets Hosea and Isaiah in light of his reading of Genesis in Rom 9:7–13. I will contend that he uses his prophetic texts not as independent prophecies arbitrarily selected but as hermeneutical lenses that reveal the mystery of Abraham’s family and the ultimate fate of its Jewish and Gentile branches.

Chapter 6

Hosea’s Excluded Children: The Inversion of Election in Romans 9:25–26 Scholarly preoccupation with Isaiah as the source behind Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11 has not only eclipsed Moses’s more fundamental contribution, it has also overlooked Hosea as a text worthy of the apostle’s exegetical skill. The investigations of Wagner, Shum, Wilk, and others imply or explicitly argue that Paul derived his theological vision largely – if not entirely – from Isaiah, while Hosea offers at best secondary confirmation and perhaps some rhetorically effective phrases. I propose the opposite hypothesis. Hosea holds the key to Paul’s reinterpretation of Genesis, and it is this reading of Genesis (not Isaiah!) that, in turn, unlocks the mystery of Israel, the Gentiles, and their mutual relation in God’s covenantal family. To substantiate this claim, I attempt in this chapter to reconstruct Paul’s exegesis of Hosea. The probative value of this admittedly speculative exercise is its ability to explain key exegetical difficulties recognized in the text (§ 1.1.3.). An introductory section will summarize my understanding of Rom 9:14– 24. After this, I will propose a Pauline exegesis of Hosea that can solve two commonly recognized interpretive problems. First, the question concerning the rationale, if any, for Paul’s application of Hos 2:1 and 2:25 to Gentile Christians is answered by considering how he might apply contemporary exegetical techniques to Hos 1–3. Second, the question as to the emphasis on the topography of salvation in Hos 2:1 = Rom 9:26 is answered by appealing to the (apocalyptically-reinterpreted) promise of land which Abraham’s Gentile children will inherit. The reconfigured patriarchal family encompasses the nations alongside Christ-believing Jews and therefore requires a territorial inheritance expansive enough to accommodate its universal scope.1

1 Conclusions established in the previous chapters will be presumed here: Paul is attracted to narrative passages of Scripture, especially those found in the Pentateuch; he frequently uses prophetic texts to interpret them; his survey of patriarchal history employs a rhetoric of exclusion and reversal (9:7–13); he both discovers and introduces verbal and thematic links connecting Genesis, Hosea, and Isaiah.

186

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

6.1. Power and Providence in Romans 9:14–23 and 9:24 6.1. Power and Providence in Romans 9:14–23 and 9:24

Paul’s presentation of election in Rom 9:7–13 does not correspond to the thesis expressed in v. 6b (§ 4.2., § 4.6.). Initially, he intimates that the answer to whether God’s word has failed requires a semantic limitation of Israel. But the argument he unfolds instead defends God’s fidelity by rehearsing a largely conventional account of Israel’s emergence and differentiation from the nations. The proposed demarcation within Israel never materializes. Paul simply adopts a conventional definition of Israel: it is the divinely blessed covenanted people who descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Romans 9:14–23 supports this interpretation. In these verses, Paul moves his discussion from Israel’s origin in election and calling in Genesis to its foundation in redemption and deliverance in Exodus.2 Structurally, this material is subservient to the previous section.3 Its emphasis on divine sovereignty upholds the unilateral election of Israel set forth in vv. 7–13. Paul deduces from Genesis that God’s election discriminates among the children of Abraham (9:7, 13), and from Exodus that God possesses the authority to do so (9:15–18). This leads to a fuller statement of divine power (9:19–23) before a sudden reintroduction of mercy (9:24, used four times in vv. 15–18 but absent in vv. 19–23). In both vv. 14–18 and vv. 19–23, two elements reinforce the interpretation of vv. 7–13 offered above in ch. 4: the rhetorical questions in v. 14 and v. 19 and the binary contrasts that shape Paul’s response. In v. 14, Paul imagines a hostile rejoinder to the argument just presented. The riposte objects to Israel’s election itself. It does not respond to the redefinition of Israel intimated in v. 6. The question implies that God, by his choice of and love for Jacob over against not-Jacob, has displayed ἀδικία, the quality of injustice or, more concretely, an act that violates standards of conduct (BDAG, s.v.). Therefore the viewpoint expressed is not a Jewish one.4 It 2

Although Paul moves forward in the chronology of his ethno-cultural mythomoteur, the exodus events from which he theologizes evince in their own way a concern with how election relates to the identity of the firstborn son. God’s favor towards Israel his firstborn (Exod 4:22–23) has its reflex in the destruction of Pharaoh’s firstborn (Exod 11:4–5; 12:12, 29; 13:2, 13–15; see also the cultic stipulations in Exod 22:29; 34:20). 3 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 247; Käsemann, Romans, 269; Dunn, Romans, 2:550– 51. 4 Gaston, Torah, 93–94; Räisänen, “Römer,” 2902; Barrett, Romans, 175; Byrne, Romans, 298; Westerholm, “Paul and the Law,” 221; Jewett, Romans, 581; Wengst, Freut euch, 303; Belli, Argumentation, 60; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:1186; against Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 257; Wilckens, Röm, 199; Siegert, Argumentation, 125; Dunn, Romans, 2:551, 2:554, 2:557, 2:564; J. D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 126. The aspects of 9:7–13 that, from a Jewish perspective, would sound most controversial (the relativization of circumcision and Torah) are precisely those features that the rhetorical question does not address.

6.1. Power and Providence in Romans 9:14–23 and 9:24

187

is animated by moral convictions that are almost the opposite of those behind Paul’s declaration in v. 6a. In the latter, the point of contention is, How can God’s word to Israel be reliable in light of the very different terms for covenantal standing that (according to Paul) obtain since the advent of Israel’s Messiah (§ 4.1.)? Here, however, the disputed issue is, How can God’s particular regard for a single people accord with general intuitions of divine fairness?5 This objection presents Paul with an occasion to tone down the robustly ethnocentric conclusion of v. 13. He refuses to take it.6 Instead, in vv. 15–18 he carries forward the antinomies developed from the patriarchal stories. Using now the figures of Moses and Pharaoh, he extends the contrast between Jacob and Esau found in Malachi. While Moses and his ministry affirm God’s right to proclaim “Jacob I have loved,” the case of Pharaoh resumes the divine hostility expressed in “Esau I have hated.”7 A set of contrasting actions is aligned with each figure. Moses signifies God’s act of mercy (ἐλεέω, v. 15), and this correlation is set against Pharaoh and God’s act of hardening (σκληρύνω, v. 18). The antithesis in v. 16 between human willing and running on the one hand (θέλων, τρέχων) and the merciful God on the other (ὁ ἐλεῶν θεός) restates the antithesis from v. 11 between human working (πράσσων) and the divine election (ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ). Both contrasts show that God retains the prerogative to act as he sees fit in bringing praise to his name, even to the point of orchestrating human resistance for the sake of his greater glory (v. 17).8 In vv. 19–23, Paul does not draw back from this severe conclusion. On the contrary, he pushes its implications as far as they can go. The same two elements supporting my exegesis of 9:14–18 recur here: an objection which demands an account of God’s equity in view of his propensity to play favor-

5

It is difficult for me to see that the objector really asks whether God’s election “of the son in the lesser position makes God responsible for the son’s actions,” as David Wallace proposes. Accordingly, Wallace interprets this passage to mean that Israel is after all the one responsible for Israel’s actions, while God is good to make the decisions that he makes (Lesser Son, 75). This approach undercuts the monergistic emphasis Paul invests in these verses. 6 Käsemann, Romans, 265; Guerra, Romans, 149; Byrne, Romans, 296–97; Moo, Romans, 590. 7 Hübner, Gottes Ich, 40–41; Lambrecht, “Israel’s Future,” in Studies, 37; Moo, Romans, 593; Byrne, Romans, 296. 8 Concerning Paul’s use of Exod 33:19, Sanday and Headlam correctly state that “the point of the words in the original context is rather the certainty of divine grace for those whom God has selected; the point which Paul wishes to prove is the independence and freedom of the Divine choice” (254; emphasis added; similarly, Fitzmyer, Romans, 564; Lohse, Römer, 278–79).

188

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

ites (that is, from the interlocutor’s perspective), and the rhetorical use of contrasting pairs dividing the elect from the excluded.9 By introducing this critical voice, Paul gives himself a second occasion to qualify the extreme predestinarian position his argument appears to be leading him towards. The interlocutor accuses God (as he is presented by Paul) of acting arbitrarily towards and then condemning the very people he uses for his glory.10 Paul dismisses the question with a brisk retort, in effect conceding that the objection is accurate if impudent. As creator, he claims, God possesses the right to dispose of his creatures as a potter does his clay. This metaphor allows Paul to develop further contrasts: as the same lump can be fashioned for honorable and dishonorable uses, so too the creature may be destined for glory or for destruction. Objects of glory and objects of wrath both serve God’s greater purposes.11 Paul responds to the question posed in v. 14 and reiterated in v. 19 with an assertion of God’s supreme right. Against the non-Jewish objection concerning God’s equity, he sets a rationale for Israel’s election supplied by earlier interpreters. Although most readers of Genesis looked for some moral characteristic that might explain Jacob’s favor and Esau’s rejection, Paul follows an 9

In these verses, “the statements are sharpened, not softened” (Käsemann, Romans, 267; see also ibid., 269). “While in vs. 15–16, God’s mercy is stressed, the next verses go down the other path” (Räisänen, “Römer,” 2902; similarly, Moo, Romans, 598). The actual question posed in v. 19 shows that the emphasis in vv. 14–18 falls not on God’s sovereign mercy but on his sovereign mercy (against Cranfield, Romans, 2:483–84; W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, 46; Gager, Reinventing Paul, 131–32; Jewett, Romans, 581–82; Belli, Argumentation, 61, 93; correctly, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 266; Byrne, Romans, 301; Belli, Argumentation, 94 [who appears to come down on this side after some wavering]). Many commentators focus on mercy in order to blunt the unpalatable conclusions that naturally flow from the argument in vv. 7–13, despite the fact that Paul seems rather intent not on qualifying but on exacerbating them. Using 9:14–18 in this way can only come at a high exegetical price. It requires Jewett, for example, to downplay the arbitrary element activating mercy in v. 16, to ignore the equal emphasis on divine hardening in vv. 17–18, and to group unpersuasively 9:14–18 together with 9:6–13 rather than 9:19–24, when 9:14–24 reads more naturally as a single discourse on the theme of divine power which 9:6–13 provoked. 10 Again, the voice of opposition does not speak in behalf of Jewish covenantal theology against Paul’s alleged transgression of it. As Jewett concedes, the objector “identifies himself with Pharaoh, who seemed to suffer an arbitrary fate in 9:17–18” (Romans, 589 n. 5; similarly, Barrett, Romans, 175; Charles H. Cosgrove, “Rhetorical Suspense,” 273; against Dunn, Romans, 2:555; Fitzmyer, Romans, 568). 11 Although I do not agree with Räisänen’s overall assessment of ch. 9, his jaundiced comments do correctly assess the thrust of Paul’s argument here: “The manner and way in which Paul justifies the ways of God with humans may not convince all too many modern readers, because the presentation of his case has hardly repulsed with any effectiveness the accusation of ‘injustice,’ of despotism, of tyranny, of Sultanhaften” (“Römer,” 2906).

6.1. Power and Providence in Romans 9:14–23 and 9:24

189

established if minority tradition. The fountainhead of this approach is Deuteronomy, which affirms that God selected the Israelites not because of any righteousness they possessed but exclusively because of God’s love for them (7:7–8) and for the patriarchs (4:37; 9:4–6; see also 8:17–18; 9:7, 13–14, 24; 31:27). This position is reiterated by ben Sira (Sir 33:7–13; the language of v. 13 is especially close to the potter metaphor in Rom 9) and the Dead Sea community (CD II, 2–13; 1QS III, 13–IV, 24; 4Q186).12 These texts locate the motivation for God’s choice entirely within his inscrutable counsel. As 9:14–23 shows, Paul embraces this understanding of election. In God’s choice of Jacob over his elder brother Paul finds the outworking of an absolute power, apparently disregarding human freedom in the process. The single phrase from Gen 25:23, which Paul quotes in v. 12, emphasizes precisely the pattern articulated in Deuteronomy: God has chosen the lesser and exalted it over the greater in order to demonstrate his prerogative as Creator (see also 1 Cor 1:25–29). Election both reverses human expectations and discriminates without moral justification.13 With this line of reasoning, Paul appears to digress. It seems that the trajectory of the argument is becoming entangled in obtuse speculation that is abruptly dropped at v. 24.14 In terms of both syntax and subject matter, the sudden declaration that God has called both Jews and Gentiles bursts into the argument with little preparation.15 12 2 Bar. 47 comes close to the same position (47:6, 20a) but does not go as far as Paul (cf. 47:20b). On predestination and determinism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Phillip S. Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; LNTS 335; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 27–49. 13 Up to this point, Paul has said nothing in Rom 9 which would indicate that contemporary, non-believing Jews correspond to Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh (contra Cranfield, Romans, 2:485; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 45; Räisänen, “Römer,” 2:900–901, 2:902–3; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 193–94; idem, Romans 9.10–18, 62–63; all of whom make this connection earlier than Paul does). As Dunn’s comments on v. 22 correctly state, “In the context of the preceding argument, ‘objects of wrath’ would most naturally be understood with reference to Esau and Pharaoh, those who suffer the negative corollary of Israel’s election. But Paul is about to make it clear that the ‘objects of wrath’ are the covenant people themselves, or more precisely, the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the continuity/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel” (Romans, 2:567; emphasis added; see also Wilckens, Röm, 196, 202–3; Johnson, Function, 148; Meeks, “Trusting,” 110; Barrett, Romans, 174; Esler, Conflict, 281; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 317; Jewett, Romans, 584; Belli, Argumentation, 60). 14 This was perceived by Dodd. Although he did not provide an adequate reason for the turn he saw in v. 17, he did realize that “Paul takes [what] seems to be a false step,” only to “come back to the point of vital interest” in v. 24 (Romans, 157, 159; emphasis added; see also Moo, Romans, 610; Lohse, Römer, 277). 15 So Räisänen, “Römer,” 2905. I am persuaded by Cranfield that the most natural way of reading v. 24’s opening is to take οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡµᾶς as a relative clause dependent

190

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

Despite initial appearances, however, it is the theology of unilateral election in vv. 14–23 that actually provides the warrant for God’s surprising work announced in v. 24.16 By incorporating the rhetorical questions that he did, Paul directs the discussion towards increasingly strong articulations of God’s absolute freedom and power. It is this unconstrained aspect of his character that ultimately subverts the initial conclusion provided by Malachi and protects God’s freedom to act in a new way since the Messiah’s coming.17 God’s sovereign right to elect Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob establishes his freedom to reverse election, to limit its preservation to the Israel within Israel, and to extend its scope to Gentile peoples. Paul corroborates these claims by appealing to Hosea.

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea 6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

The most difficult question of Rom 9:25–26 is why these verses are here at all. Paul quotes from Hosea predictions of Israel’s restoration, but he applies them to Gentile membership in God’s family. Does he have an exegetical warrant for this reassignment? Many scholars would answer, No. Dodd famously thought it “strange that Paul has not observed that this prophecy referred to Israel,” and wondered why he did not place these verses at the end of ch. 11, where they “would have fitted so admirably the doctrine of the restoration of Israel which he is to on σκεύη ἐλέους in v. 23 (Cranfield, Romans, 2:498; so too Barrett, Romans, 176). Materially, however, a new thought is introduced abruptly. As Sanday and Headlam notice, Paul introduces the calling of the Gentiles “not because it was a difficulty St. Paul was discussing, but because … the calling of the Gentiles had come through the rejection of the Jews” (Romans, 263; emphasis added; also Seifrid, “Romans,” 646). 16 Paul later applies this same theology of election to the remnant in 11:1–10. Cf. especially 11:6–7 (where grace, χάρις, characterizes the remnant but works, ἔργα, and being hardened, πωρόω, typify “the rest”) with the parallel ideas in ch. 9 (showing mercy, ἐλεέω [vv. 15, 16, 18, 23]; doing works, παράσσω [v. 11]; and being hardened, σκληρύνω [v. 18]; Dunn, Romans, 2:555). Many commentators force Paul’s argument ahead of itself by reading Rom 9 not in light of its natural conclusion in 11:1–10 but in view of the more congenial affirmations in 11:11–32. Neither Cranfield (Romans, 2:447–48, 2:481–97) nor Jewett (Romans, 581–98) can resist the temptation to interpret 9:14–23 in light of Paul’s final conclusions, though for different reasons (the former because of a commitment to a Barthian understanding of election, the latter an enthusiasm for the politics of identity), demonstrating again the tendency of commentators to contort Paul’s carefully crafted argument by pushing his conclusions ahead of their proper place (see also Käsemann, Romans, 271; Lohse, Römer, 281; Wagner, Heralds, passim). 17 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 248; Dunn, Romans, 2:566; Fitzmyer, Romans, 572; Byrne, Romans, 290; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 314.

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

191

expound” there.18 Likewise, Terence Donaldson cites Rom 9:25–26 as evidence that, because Paul’s claims cannot be derived from the cited Scripture, the source of his theology must lie elsewhere.19 But neither Dodd nor Donaldson discuss the possibility that Paul reads Hos 2:1 and 2:25 not as isolated prophecies but as part of a larger biblical matrix. In this section, I seek to establish Paul’s framework for interpreting these verses. I will argue that Paul brings Genesis and Hosea together in order to decipher the eschatological mystery that Gentiles have become children of Abraham.20 If this perspective is accurate, then Paul wrestles with the meaning of Hosea on a level more profound than is usually acknowledged. 6.2.1. Abusing Scripture? Exploiting Children? The Problem of Hosea in Romans 9:25–26 Admittedly, Paul’s decision to quote Hos 2:1 and 2:25 as promises of God’s salvific calling addressed to Gentiles seems forced.21 He appears to seize 18

Dodd, Romans, 160. Donaldson, Gentiles, 100–104. Similarly, Lohse: “The apostle has no consideration for the context of the prophetic word” (Römer, 282; so too Chilton, “Dialogue,” 29; Fuss, Zeit, 184). 20 To paraphrase Morna D. Hooker, for Paul it is axiomatic that the true meaning of Scripture has been hidden, and only with Christ’s appearance can it be discovered. The apostle’s hermeneutical project is the task of deciphering Scripture’s true meaning in light of God’s revelation in Christ (“Beyond the Things that Are Written? St Paul’s Use of Scripture,” in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], 151; repr. from NTS 27 [1981]; see also Robert M. Grant, The Spirit and the Letter [New York: Macmillan, 1957], 50; Marshall, “Assessment,” 14; D. M. Smith, “Pauline Literature,” 281; Martin Hengel, “The Scriptures and Their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context [ed. Derek R. G. Beattie and Martin J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 170). 21 With most interpreters, I understand Paul’s quotations from Hosea in Rom 9:25–26 to refer exclusively to Gentiles, and not to both Jews and Gentiles (correctly, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 265; Dodd, Romans, 160; Munck, Christ and Israel, 72–73; Wilckens, Röm, 198, 205; Käsemann, Romans, 274; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 55–56; Siegert, Argumentation, 139; Watson, Sociological Approach, 162; idem, Beyond the New Perspective, 320; Aageson, “Typology,” 71 n. 48; Rese, “Israel und Kirche,” 212; Guerra, Romans, 149; Moo, Romans, 611; Wilk, Bedeutung, 130; Fuss, Zeit, 173, 184; Lohse, Römer, 282–83; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 208; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 336–37; Grindheim, Crux, 148; J. Paul Tanner, “The New Covenant and Paul’s Quotations from Hosea in Romans 9:25– 26,” BibSac 162 (2005): 98; Haacker, Römer, 222; Jewett, Romans, 589, 599; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 725; Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 104, though less certainly in idem, “Does Paul Respect the Context of His Quotations? Hosea as a Test Case,” in The Letters and Liturgical Traditions [vol. 2 of “What Does the Scripture Say?” Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity; ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias; LNTS 470; SSEJC 18; London: T&T Clark, 2012], 45; Belli, Argumentation, 109; pace 19

192

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

them with little regard for their original context, doing violence to the text and reducing Hosea’s children to ciphers for his own converts. Confronted with this incongruity between prophet and apostle, but traditionally chary of accusing Paul of hermeneutical ineptitude, scholars have often sought for some clue to account for this tour de force. A widespread solution is that Hosea does not really provide Paul with a prophecy but an underlying theological principle: the sovereign God is free to accept those once rejected. What matters to Paul are not the details of Hosea’s prediction but the way it preserves God’s freedom to extend mercy to nations once under judgment.22 Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 145–46; W. S. Campbell, “Favouritism and Egalitarianism: Irreconcilable Emphases in Romans?” SBL Seminar Papers, 1998 (SBLSP 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 23–24; idem, Paul’s Gospel, 48; Getty, “Salvation,” 460, 465; Barrett, Romans, 178; Jewett, Romans, 600 [!]; Wengst, Freut euch, 313–14; Zoccali, Called, 109 n. 45; Gaventa, “Calling-Into-Being,” 267; Mitchell Kim, “Respect for Context and Authorial Intention: Setting the Epistemological Bar,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation [ed. Christopher D. Stanley; ECL 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012], 124–25; Wallace, Lesser Son, 99). First, the assertion itself, οὐ µόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, is phrased in such a way as to indicate that the more audacious claim, and hence the one more in need of scriptural justification, is the calling of the Gentiles. Second, there is a chiastic structure in vv. 24–29 that should not be dismissed: Jew (v. 24a)–Gentile (v.24b)–Gentile (vv. 25–26)–Jew (vv. 27–29; BDF § 477). Third, Paul introduces the Isaianic texts by explicitly referring them to Israel alone and introducing them with δέ. The implied contrast suggests that the quoted Hosean prophecies concern only Gentiles. Finally, if Hos 2:25 refers to Israel, then Paul calls the remnant “Not-MyPeople,” which seems unlikely (so Räisänen, “Römer,” 2905 n. 79; Wilk Bedeutung, 129). 22 Gould, “Romans IX–XI,” 29; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 264; Cranfield, Romans, 2:499–500; Aageson, “Typology,” 61–62; Dunn, Romans, 2:571, 2:575; Johnson, Function, 150; Fitzmyer, Romans, 573; Craig A. Evans, “‘It is Not as Though the Word of God Had Failed’: An Introduction to Paul and the Scriptures of Israel,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 14–15; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 208 n. 96; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 338; Grindheim, Crux, 148; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:1193. Some variations on this theme deserve special mention. Belli senses that Paul reads in Hosea an actual prophecy that God will bring Gentiles into his people, but the most he can arrive at is that Gomer and her children “really are ‘pagans’ or are to be considered as such” (Argumentation, 118; see also 112–11; Gadenz, Called, 107–9). But he presents no argument that Gomer and her children really are pagans, and if they are only “to be considered as such,” then Belli’s approach ultimately falls under this category: Paul derives from Hosea a principle of divine action that can be applied by analogy to his own day. David I. Starling proposes that Paul interprets Hosea according to a specific hermeneutical perspective found throughout his letters: Israel’s existence under the law has placed it in exile and therefore in the same metaphorical relationship to God that obtains between God and the Gentiles. Hence, promises from Scripture given to Israel in exile, such as those found in Isa 54:1 (Gal 4:27) and in the catena cited in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, may be typologically applied to the Gentiles, and that without dissolving their proper significance for Israel (hence Rom 11:26; Not My People, 162–65). I find much in Starling’s treatment convincing, but it does

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

193

Others posit a more direct connection between prophecy and fulfillment: Paul takes Hosea as a prophecy of True [or, New] Israel, a church body inclusive of Jewish and Gentile believers alike.23 A more recent, non-supersessionist version drops the label True Israel in favor of an inclusive body that neither confounds Israel with the Gentiles nor replaces it with the church.24 Others appeal to a “hermeneutic of reversal,” which is an apt description of what Paul does but not an explanation for why he does it.25 A distinct minority is willing to claim that Paul reads Hosea according to an “eschatological hermeneutic” which does not consider the original sense at all.26 For those less disposed to grant Paul’s arguments theological validity, his alleged misappropriation of Hosea offers not a reason for embarrassment but grounds for accusation: Paul argues incoherently or even exploits his audience’s ignorance in order to provide his claims with a divine authority they clearly do not merit.27 not explore the connections with Genesis that I am pursuing here (see Robert B. Foster, review of David I. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, RBL 2012: 1–7. Cited 2 May 2015. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail. asp?TitleId =8213&CodePage=8213). W. Edward Glenny shows that the supposition of an application by analogy suffers from several shortcomings (“The ‘People of God’ in Romans 9:25–26,” BibSac 152 [1995]: 49); he himself decides for a dual fulfillment: a preliminary, typological application in Paul’s day and an eschatological, literal fulfillment in the future (ibid., 51–52, 55– 59). In different ways Cranfield [Romans, 2:500], Dunn [Romans, 2:571], Wagner [Heralds, 86], Seifrid [“Romans,” 648], and Tanner [“New Covenant,” 101, 108–9] approach this view). 23 Dodd, Romans, 155, 160; Erich Dinkler, “The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9–11: A Contribution to the Problem of Predestination and Individual Responsibility,” JR 36 (1956): 114, 126 n. 26; Schoeps, Paul, 241–42 (though in the end Schoeps considers Paul’s exegesis to be arbitrary; Paul, 244); Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 122 n. 6; Moo, Romans, 613. 24 Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 145–46; W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, 48; idem, Creation, 130; Getty, “Salvation,” 460, 465; Hays, Echoes, 67; Gadenz, “Paul’s Argumentation,” 146 n. 24, 148–49; idem, Called, 107–9; Jewett, Romans, 600. Taking this trajectory one step further is the view that Paul takes the prophecies from Hosea at face value. According to John A. Battle, Paul adheres to the clear grammatical-historical referent, Israel; accordingly Hos 2:1, 25 applies to Israel just as much as Isa 10:22–23, 1:9 and not to the Gentiles at all (“Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25–26,” GTJ 2 [1981]: 115–29). Going even further down the same path, Jason A. Staples claims that, because Paul cites a prophecy predicting the restoration of the northern kingdom Israel in explicit contrast to the South (Hos 1:7), he must therefore equate Gentile converts with the dispersed Israelites in distinction from the Jews/Judeans who originated in Judah (Staples, “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27,” JBL 130 [2011]: 371–90). 25 Wagner, Heralds, 82–83; Seifrid, “Romans,” 614; Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 104. 26 Käsemann, Romans, 274; Sneen, “Root,” 401. 27 Räisänen, “Römer,” 2906 and passim; Stanley, Arguing, 155–60, 171, 173, 181–83.

194

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

Amidst all of these proposals, it is curious to find so few willing to take Paul’s use of Hosea seriously. The contrasting statement by Richard Hays should give pause: “Paul is not arguing by analogy that just as God extended mercy to Israel even when Israel was unworthy so also he will extend grace to Gentiles. Instead, Paul is arguing that God was speaking through the prophet Hosea to declare his intention to call Gentiles to be his own people.”28 If Hays is correct, and unless Paul is reading Hosea dogmatically, in the worst sense of the term, he needs some rationale for attributing to Hosea a prophecy of Gentile inclusion. Regardless of Paul’s use, some justification would be required because in his day, the meaning of Hos 2:1 and 2:25 was less self-evident than it appears to modern interpreters. Contemporary hermeneutical assumptions allowed for greater freedom in handling biblical texts, and accordingly Hos 2 lent authority to diverse interpretive interests.29 Judging by standards prevailing at the time, Paul’s interpretation was not necessarily outside the bounds of plausibility. Ironically, the rabbis seem to have considered his argument more worthy of a sober response than many present-day scholars. The discussion of Hos 1–3 in b. Pesaḥ. 87a–b almost demands to be read as a rejoinder to an interpretation similar to that found in Rom 9:25–26. In this retelling of Hosea’s story, the prophet appears as the first advocate – of Gentile supersessionism! He attempts to persuade God to replace Israel with another nation because of Israel’s many sins. God rejoins by affirming his mercy towards Israel and providing a blessing for Hosea’s children. The blessing, derived from Hos 2:1–2, 25, explicitly counters the suggestion that God might reject his chosen people. It is difficult to avoid the impression that this haggadic exercise has some relation, direct or otherwise, to the apostate rabbi whose own understanding of these same verses matches so closely that here attributed to Hosea. If in the Talmud this prophet can suggest that God transfer his election from Israel to the nations, then perhaps Paul’s “strong misreading” deserves a second look.30 28

Hays, Echoes, 67 (first emphasis original, second added). This statement seems, to me at least, somewhat undercut by Hays’s belief, also stated on p. 67 and referred to above, that Paul includes both Jews and Gentiles in the Hosean prophecy. It is further obscured by Hays’s commitment to Paul as a reader who leaps from texts to meanings in “moments of metaphorical insight” by means of “intuitive apprehensions of meaning,” without any degree of “systematic reflection” on his biblical texts (ibid., 161). It is this apprehension of Pauline hermeneutics that I hope to dismantle in the present chapter. 29 A wide variety of examples can be found in Jub. 1:25; Jos. Asen. 19:8; b. Pesaḥ. 87b; b. Yoma 22b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2.8; Exod. Rab. 13.1 (on Exod 10:1); 39.1 (on Exod 30:12); 48.6 (on Exod 35:30); Lev. Rab. 32.5 (on Lev 24:10); Num. Rab. 2.12–18 (on Num 2:32); 9.48 (on Num 5:23); 19.3 (on Num 19:2); 20.25 (on Num 25:7); Song Rab. 7.3 § 7. Few of these examples adhere to what modern exegetes would call the historical context of Hosea. 30 “Strong misreading ” is Wagner’s characterization of Rom 9:25–26 (Heralds, 83, 86), though he borrows the phrase from Hays (Echoes, 66–68).

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

195

6.2.2. Israel and the Nations in Hosea 2:1 and 2:25 Paul does not give an account of the exegetical route that led him from biblical text to epistolary performance. Can one be charted? Steve Moyise says no. Referring explicitly to Hos 2:1, 25 in Rom 9:25–26, he concedes that “Paul does seem to be engaged in something more sophisticated than simply replacing the original meaning with his own”; he nevertheless remains skeptical that this “something more” can be retraced.31 Why not? First, Moyise answers, because the more complex such hypotheses become, the greater their demands on Paul’s original audience. This objection I dealt with in ch. 1 by distinguishing between Paul’s exegesis and his argument. A prior interpretive activity impinges upon but remains outside the communicative event occasioned by the letter. For their part, the first readers or hearers had access only to Paul’s specific claims, biblical quotations, and what they knew in general about the Scriptures of Israel (§ 1.1.4.). Second, Moyise claims, Paul’s audacity in using Scripture is more pronounced than his conventionality. I would not dispute this claim, but it begs the question. “Audacity” does not necessarily indicate, without textual warrant, nor does “conventional” have to mean, according to the obvious meaning. In fact, Paul supplies coordinates with which his exegetical path may be retraced: the interlocking biblical texts he quotes, the deliberate changes to them he makes, and the claims he uses them to support. These may be supplemented with methods of interpretation current in his intellectual environment – an important factor in establishing the historical plausibility of the pre-epistolary exegesis that I propose (§ 1.1.3.). From these fixed elements, I will attempt to plot the course from Torah, through prophetic commentary, to the Pauline conclusion that God calls Gentiles, “My People.” 6.2.2.1. The Mystery of Gentile Inclusion in Hosea 2:1 and 2:25 In their original context, the lines from Hos 2:1 quoted by Paul open a compact, three-verse salvation oracle. This text offers a convenient place to begin my attempt to retrace Paul’s exegesis. I suggest that he employs two exegetical techniques. First, Paul applies to Hos 2:1 an atomizing exegesis. This way of reading a biblical text was a widely-employed practice in ancient Judaism. Interpreters often decoupled synonymous terms or phrases and provided each with a distinct referent (§ 1.3.3.). A particularly relevant example appears in Rom 10:20–21. Here, Paul quotes Isa 65:1–2, a text which provides parallel descriptions of Israel – and Israel alone – as a people not only uninterested in but actively resisting God’s proffered salvation:

31

Moyise, “Context,” 50.

196

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

I became visible to those who were not seeking me; I was found by those who were not inquiring about me; I said, “Here I am,” to the nation (τῷ ἔθνει) that did not call my name. I stretched out my hands all day long to a disobedient and contrary people (λαόν), who did not walk in a true way but after their own sins.

In Paul’s hands, this divine testament becomes a two-pronged prophecy referring to Israel and the Gentile nations in turn: Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people (λαόν).”

Although he does not quote the third line of Isa 65:1–2, it is probably fair to surmise that the textual feature which permitted this dual application consists in the distinction between the ἔθνος and the λαός: two terms, two referents, two peoples. Moreover, it is not likely that Paul fortuitously stumbled on these distinct words and was struck by their exegetical potential. The context of the quotation in Romans indicates that he derived this hermeneutical possibility, once again, from his reading of Torah, and that the link was made, once again, through the application of gezera shawa. (§ 1.3.1.). Immediately before citing Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:20–21, Paul quotes from Deut 32:21 in 10:19. In this verse, Moses distinguishes between “you,” the children of Israel being addressed, and those “not a nation” (οὐκ ἔθνος) and “a foolish nation” (ἔθνος ἀσύνετος) by whom God will provoke Israel to jealousy (παραζηλόω). Paul’s quotation of this verse anticipates the jealousy motif he develops in 11:11–14, where it connects the unbelief of Israel with the salvation of the Gentiles.32 Furthermore, Deut 32:43 is quoted in Rom 15:10: εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, µετὰ τοῦ 32

Deuteronomy and Paul’s letters contain half the occurrences of παραζηλόω in the Greek Bible (Deut 32:21 [2x]; Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14; 1 Cor 10:22; 6 out of 12 total). Deut 32 appears to have been a important text for Paul. He quotes or alludes to it in several places: v. 4 in Rom 9:14; v. 5 in Phil 2:15; v. 17 in 1 Cor 10:20; v. 21 in 1 Cor 10:22 and Rom 10:19; v. 35 in Rom 12:19; v. 43 in Rom 15:10. Moreover, a combination of Deut 32:15 and Isa 6:10 (linked by the rare term παχύνοµαι) may lie behind Rom 11:7. On Paul’s use of Deuteronomy, see Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 (WUNT 2/63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Guy Prentiss Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul (WUNT 2/221; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Roy E. Ciampa, “Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament (ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise; LNTS 358; London: Continuum, 2007), 99–117; Brian S. Rosner, “Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament, 118–35; David Lincicum, “Paul’s Engagement with Deuteronomy: Snapshots and Signposts,” CBR 7 (2008): 37–67; idem, Encounter.

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

197

λαοῦ αὐτοῦ. The semantic opposition of ἔθνη and λαός corresponds precisely to the dual referent that characterizes Paul’s atomizing exegesis of Isa 65:1–2. Beginning with Moses’s disturbing prediction, Paul forays into the prophets looking for explanations that might elucidate the jealousy-ridden relationship between Israel and the nations. He finds what he is looking for in Isa 65:1–2. I posit a parallel operation behind Rom 9:26 and its quotation of Hos 2:1. In this instance, the pentateuchal allusions in Hosea point to Genesis rather than Deuteronomy as the matrix from which Paul proceeded.33 The specific verbal links can be located in the words “Israel” and “like the sand of the sea,” recalling the patriarchal promises in Gen 22:17 and 32:13 (Eng.: 32:12; see § 5.1.3.). On the basis of this connection, Paul simply assigns to each half of the verse a distinct referent. Thus: And the number of the people of Israel was like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Sons of the living God.”

The possibility that Paul carried out an atomizing exegesis on Hos 2:1 does not rest only on the analogy with Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:20–21 and Deut 32:43 in Rom 15:10. Individually or together, three peculiarities in Hos 2:1–3 may have indicated to Paul a contrasting signification in each half-verse. First, as the above quotation indicates by its italics, the collective singular Ἰσραήλ contrasts with the dative plural αὐτοῖς, providing Paul with a textual warrant for reading τὰ ἔθνη – a plural noun – as the pronoun’s antecedent. No specific identification in Hos 2:1–3 resists this interpretation. “Not-MyPeople” and “Not-Mercied” are not in these verses explicitly equated with a group clearly identified as Jews. Second, the verb tenses introducing each half of the verse differ. In the Hebrew, both are identical in form: ‫ היה‬preceded by a vav consecutive, a construction normally used for future events. In 2:1b, the LXX translator has conventionally rendered this καὶ ἔσται (fut. tense), hence: καὶ ἔσται … ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς. However, he translated 2:1a differently, using καὶ ἦν for ‫ והיה‬and thereby introducing a temporal distinction not present in the Hebrew: past and future respectively.34 Israel was as numerous as the sands of the sea, those called “Not-My-People” will be called “Sons of the living God.” Third, Hos 2:3 implies that an entity distinct from ethnic Jews participates in their restoration. The prophetic voice issues a command to address “your 33

In the Hebrew, there is a terminological connection between Deut 32:21, where God provokes Israel “by a no-people,” ‫בלא עם‬, and ‫לא עמי‬, the name of Hosea’s son (Greek: οὐκ ἔθνη and οὐ λαός, respectively). 34 Wilk, Bedeutung, 185. This unusual translation may have been an attempt to indicate a distinction between the two different ways ‫ היה‬is used (in the first instance it is an impersonal, “and it will be”; in the second it is the verb of the subject ‫)מספר בני ישראל‬.

198

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

brother” as “My-People,” and “your sister” as “Mercied.” The closest subject for εἴπατε (pl. impv.; Heb.: ‫ )אמרו‬is οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰούδα καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ just mentioned in v. 2.35 Hence, the sons of Judah and Israel will address their brother and sister as “My-People” and “Mercied.” The parallel with v. 1 and its distinction between “Israel” and “them” is striking. Paul has apparently perceived a textual distinction between the Israelites and Judahites on the one hand, and their newly-found fraternal and sisterly relations on the other. Therefore, in addition to the analogy of Isa 65:1–2, at least three textual peculiarities in Hos 2:1–3 may have led Paul to conclude that distinct groups are being referred to, Israel in the first half of Hos 2:1, but “Not-My-People,” that is, the nations collectively subsumed under the label τὰ ἔθνη, in the second. If this conclusion is valid, how then does Hos 2:1 portray Israel’s fate? If Paul does understand each half-verse as suggested here, the first, unquoted, line is left dangling: “And the number of the people of Israel was like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered” – what? I posit that a further application of gezera shawa answers this question.36 Hosea 2:1 and Isa 10:22 both allude to patriarchal promises that God would provide Abraham with seed as numerous as the sands of the sea (Gen 22:17; 32:13 [Eng.: 32:12]). In Rom 9:27, Paul splices into his quotation of Isa 10:22 the phrase ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ from Hos 2:1. This compound quotation provides objective textual evidence that Paul reads Hos 2:1 and Isa 10:22 as mutually interpreting. He connects their “intended” signification to explain that God has discharged the Abrahamic promise in a surprising, paradoxical manner.37 The result might look something like this: And the number of the people of Israel was (ἦν) like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered – a remnant of them will be saved (σωθήσεται)!

By means of this exegetical maneuver Paul is able to discern Israel’s current status, which in Hosea 2:1 was otherwise left unspecified. From the limitless expanse of Abraham’s people God will save a remnant, as Isaiah foretold. Paul’s other quotation from Hos 2 can yield a similar conclusion. Verse 25 concludes a three-verse oracle which itself ends a series of promises (vv. 18– 19, 20–22, 23–25). The final prediction in vv. 23–25 repeats the new names of Hosea’s children given in 2:1–3 and proclaims that “No-Mercy” and “NotMy-People” will be incorporated into God’s family (2:25b; Jezreel is also alluded to in a wordplay involving ‫)זרע‬. The Heb. imperative is plural, corresponding to ‫בני יהודה ובני ישראל‬. The addressees referred to in the command are also plural, ‫אחיכם‬, ‫אחותיכם‬, but singular in Gk., τῷ ἀδελφῷ ὑµῶν, τῇ ἀδελφῇ ὑµῶν. 36 Belli, Argumentation, 114–15. 37 Against Fuss (Zeit, 178–80), who argues that Isa 10:22 is expanded in Rom 9:27 for purely stylistic motivations. 35

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

199

Paul can read these children as Gentiles entering God’s covenant simply by carrying forward the meaning he derived from 2:1–3. Nothing in 2:23–25 prohibits this identification. The entities symbolized by these names are not specified as Israelites. The way is open to apply the exegetical conclusions obtained from Hos 2:1–3: in “Not-Pitied” and “Not-My-People” are encoded the Gentile nations as a totality. Hosea predicts a day when Yahweh and “Not-My-People” will exchange the covenantal formulae, signifying the transformation of Gentile status from pagan nations destined for destruction to a people of God’s possession destined for mercy.38 6.2.2.2. Reversing Election If Paul’s claim that “Not-My-People” and “Not-Mercied” in Hos 2:1 and 2:25 refer to the Gentile nations is taken seriously, and if it is recognized that neither in Hos 2:1–3 nor in 2:23–25 are these epithets explicitly applied to the Jewish people – who appear with the titles “sons of Judah” and “sons of Israel” (2:2; cf. 3:4–5) – then Hos 1–3 offers hitherto overlooked possibilities for locating the source and logic behind Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11. The following features of these chapters are all anticipated in Hos 1–3 when read as suggested by Paul’s use of 2:1 and 2:25: the reversal of election, the correlation of Esau and the Gentiles, the partition of Israel into a remnant, and the eschatological restoration of all parties into a single, multiethnic family. I will discuss these in turn. First, the reversal and reassignment of election. According to Rom 9:25– 26, Paul considers “Not-My-People” and “Not-Mercied” to be collective names for the Gentile believers. As pointed out above, in Hos 2:1–3, neither of these appellations refers explicitly to Israel; vv. 2–3 even appear to contrast Israel and Judah with their heretofore estranged siblings. However, in Hos 1 it is Israel and Judah who bear the titles signifying divine punishment and convenantal expulsion (v. 4). In the Hebrew of Hos 2:1a, a prediction of future salvation overturns the condemnation narrated in Hos 1. But the LXX eliminates the future tense. I noted already that καὶ ἦν replaces ‫והיה‬. This variation allows Paul to read Hos 1 and Hos 2:1a as occurring simultaneously rather than sequentially. The oracle of salvation no longer nullifies the previously announced judgment as it applies to the nation as a whole. Instead, after Israel is renamed “Not-MyPeople” and “Not-Mercied,” (1:6, 9), those who had once been named “NotMy-People” – the Gentiles, on Paul’s reading – will miraculously become 38 The NRSV and Paul, I suspect, are on different pages when the former translates – paraphrases, really – Hos 2:20 (Eng.: 2:18) with, “Then I shall make a covenant on Israel’s behalf with the wild beasts.” Likewise, in v. 25 (Eng.: 2:23) it expands on the RSV’s mistranslation of ‫וזרעתיה‬, “And I will sow him,” with the even more inaccurate, “Israel will be my new sowing in the land.”

200

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

God’s children (2:1b) without Israel losing its lately-bestowed titles of opprobrium. Israel thus finds itself standing in the position formerly occupied by Gentiles, while the Gentile peoples obtain the covenantal relation that was previously the sole prerogative of Israel.39 The historical reality and eschatological destiny of Jews and of Gentiles are inversely related: each group endures the other’s exclusion, and each shares the other’s blessing. The irony of Jacob’s election as it appears in Genesis resurfaces in Paul’s interpretation of Hosea. This dynamic recurs in Hos 2:25. The same (Gentile) persons reappear: “Not-My-People” and “Not-Mercied” receive divine favor that reverses their status before God (2:25). There immediately follows a description of the spritual quiescence characterizing “the sons of Israel” (3:1–4). On Paul’s reading, 1:2–2:1 and 2:25–3:4 provide parallel accounts. Israel loses its covenantal relation, which is transferred to those formerly excluded. In both passages, “Not-My-People” and “Not-Mercied” enter into God’s family from the outside, while “the sons of Israel” tread the same path in the opposite direction, from belonging to disownment. In this way, the paradoxical destiny of Israel recapitulates the story of election articulated in Genesis. As expressed by Jon Levenson, “The exaltation of the chosen brother – Isaac over Ishmael, Joseph over the tribes – has its costs: it entails the chosen’s experience of the bitter reality of the unchosen’s life. Such is the humiliation that attends the exaltation of the beloved son.”40 By his own election the chosen son is to bear the pain of the one excluded from Abraham’s family. According to Paul, Hosea predicts the outworking of this harsh irony in the eschatological era. The loved and the hated children have traded places. 6.2.2.3. Esau and the Gentiles in Romans 9 This interpretive matrix provides Paul with a distinct way to read Gentile Christ-believers into the patriarchal narratives. In Galatians, he attributes to them an Abrahamic lineage on the basis of their faith and their reception of the Spirit, realities which unite believers with Christ, Abraham’s single seed (Gal 3:16, 22, 29; see § 2.2.1.3.). By contrast, in Rom 4, Paul makes Abraham the father of two groups – those who believe and are circumcised and those who believe and are uncircumcised – by assigning to each the pattern of Abrahamic faith relevant to that particular group (Rom 4:11–13; see § 2.2.3.).

39

Seifrid, “Romans,” 648. Levenson, Beloved Son, 96. Theobald makes a similar point (thought I don’t claim that he would necessarily support the exegesis offered here): “The ways of Israel and those of the Gentiles have in the Christ event crossed themselves, so that they hence forth cannot be seen as separated from each other” (Römerbrief, 271). 40

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

201

In Rom 9, Paul carries through this genealogical realignment by using Hos 2:1 and 2:25 to overturn a previous exclusion from Abraham’s family of those outside the Isaac–Jacob line of descent. His adaptation of Hos 2:25 and its subversion of Mal 1:2–3 (see § 4.5.1., § 4.5.3., § 5.2.1.) suggests that these Gentiles enter Abraham’s family not only by the Spirit and by faith but also by means of a hermeneutical identification with Esau.41 His disownment prefigures the nations now incorporated into God’s family as unexpected objects of divine love. By reenfranchising the formerly discarded children, Paul secures for them the Abrahamic goods such as the promised Spirit (Gal 3:29), the cosmos (Rom 4:13), and the covenantal relation implied by the newlybestowed honorifics, “Loved,” “My People,” and “Sons of the Living God.” These conclusions pose a challenge to those interpreters who, in their desire to remove Rom 9 from the arsenal of supersessionists, deny that the chapter has anything to do with Gentiles. For example, William Campbell maintains that Paul introduces the Gentiles into the argument of Rom 9 almost as an afterthought.42 Similarly, Martin Rese asserts that concerning Israel, the chapter speaks much, concerning the church, far less, and concerning the relationship between the two, virtually nothing.43 It is true that in this passage Paul does not confound Israel with Christ-believing Gentiles. However, the interpretive tour de force he does undertake speaks far more profoundly to the mysterious relation of Jews and Gentiles in the messianic era than these comments allow. 6.2.2.4. The Remnant of the House of Judah Hosea 1–3 may also have contributed to Paul’s theology of the remnant. Whatever the ultimate source for how Paul understands this concept (see § 5.1.5.; § 7.2.3.), Hosea makes a distinction within Israel parallel to that made in Isa 10:20–23. In Hos 1:6–7, the expulsion from God’s family predicated of Israel is explicitly contrasted with the situation characterizing “the

41 Paul’s originality lies in his positive reincorporation of Esau as typological representative of Gentile peoples into the covenantal family, not in the equation Esau = the nations itself. The latent possibility of identifying the nations or representative instances of them with nonelect descendants of Abraham occurs already in Genesis and is exploited both by the Jewish romance writers and Jubilees, though in each with opposing aims (see § 2.1.; Jub. 15:30: “For the Lord did not draw Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau near to himself, and he did not elect them because they are the sons of Abraham, for he knew them. But he chose Israel that they might be a people for himself”; 16:7: the nonIsaac seed of Abraham “would be counted with the nations”). Esau appears as an exemplar of the Gentiles in rabbinic writings as well, especially as a cypher for the empire of Rome. 42 W. S. Campbell, “Favouritism and Egalitarianism,” 22; idem, Creation, 124, 126. 43 Rese, “Israel und Kirche,” 212; see also Munck, Christ and Israel, 36; Wengst, Freut euch, 310.

202

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

house of Judah.” This latter entity receives from God assurances of mercy (ἐλεεῖν) and deliverance (σῴζειν). The combined text of Hos 2:1 and Isa 10:22 in Rom 9:27 makes this same distinction: an innumerable people of Israel, on the one hand, and the remnant that will be saved (σωθήσεται), on the other (cf. 11:14). The use of ἐλεέω in Rom 9:15–23 – where it and its cognate noun occur five times – implies that the remnant is characterized by mercy as well as salvation. Hosea predicts that though the nation as a whole is relieved of its covenantal standing, God will ensure mercy and salvation for a distinct minority. The parallel suggests that Paul has carefully attended to his biblical text and found in Hosea the same Israel/remnant distinction present also in Isa 10:20–23. 6.2.2.5. From Etiology to Eschatology: Abraham’s Family Reunited Finally, Hosea may have supplied the salvation-historical sequence that appears in Rom 9–11 and nowhere else in the letters of Paul. If, on his understanding, Hos 1:2–2:1 and 2:23–3:4 parallel each other in their nullification of Israel’s elect status (the remnant excepted) and in the transfer of that privilege to Gentile believers, then their respective sequels in 2:2–3 and 3:5 anticipate a restored family in which both the houses of Israel and of Judah (= the remnant?) embrace their Gentile relations. These two texts announce Israel’s repentance, the reconstitution of Judah and Israel as a single people, the ascendency of a Davidic scion to lead them, and the return to Zion for the worship of Yahweh. How might Paul relate these events to the other transformations Hosea describes? The LXX translation provides a clue. Its temporal distinction in 2:1 distinguished between the promise of abundant seed that has been fulfilled in the past and the adoption of “Not-My-People” into God’s family that is projected into the future (see § 6.2.2.1.). fulfillment of the promise to multiply seed

adoption of Gentile nations

Likewise, Hos 2:23–3:5 assigns distinct temporal indicators to the transformation of “Not-My-People” and “Not-Mercied” on the one hand, and the eventual restoration of “the sons of Israel” on the other. The incorporation of the excluded peoples takes place, from Hosea’s vantage point, sometime in the future (καὶ ἔσται ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ; ‫והיה ביום ההוא‬, 2:23). By contrast, the restoration of Israel will transpire “after these things” (µετὰ ταῦτα; ‫אחר‬, 3:5) – that is, after it loses its elect status and trades places with the Gentiles as described (on Paul’s reading) in 2:23–3:4. adoption of Gentile nations

restoration of both houses of Israel and Judah

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

203

Paul sees his own apostleship as occurring at the midpoint of these events: through his missionary work the time to include Gentiles in God’s family has arrived (9:24).44 These temporal markers provide an axis on which the other events announced by Hosea may be plotted. As a prophecy extending the story of Abraham’s children into the eschaton, Hosea may have catalyzed the theology of Israel that appears only in Romans (§ 2.2., esp. § 2.2.3.). His reiterated promises can be arranged into a coherent picture of eschatological redemption that aligns with the expectations Paul sets out in Rom 9–11.45 Hos 2:1–3

Hos 2:23–3:5 Cosmic Reconciliation; 2:23–24

Israel reduced to a remnant; 2:1a; see also Isa 10:22 and division between Judah and Israel in Hos 1:7

Rom 9–11 (Cosmic Reconciliation; 8:19–25, 28, 32?) Israel reduced to a remnant; 9:27–29

Gentile Inclusion; 2:1b

Gentile Inclusion “in that day;” 2:23, 25

Gentile Inclusion; 9:24–26

Present destitution of Israel, announced in 1:2–9

Present destitution of Israel; 3:1–4

Present destitution of Israel; 9:3; 9:31–10:3; 10:21; 11:7b–10, 12, 15, 17

Restoration of Israel; 2:2a

Restoration of Israel “after these things;” 3:5a Davidic Messiah; 3:5b

Restoration of Israel; 11:12, 15–16, 23–24, 26

Renewal of Covenant; 3:5c

Renewal of Covenant; 11:27

Single Ruler; 2:2b Renewal of Covenant; 2:3 Israel addresses the Gentiles as brothers and sisters; 2:3

44

Deliverer from Zion; 11:26

Israel and the Gentiles part of one (Abrahamic) family; olive tree metaphor 11:17, 24, cf. 4:11

As Wilk notes, the combination of Hos 2:1a and Isa 10:22 shows that “the proclaimed ‘salvation of the remnant’ belongs together in time as well as content with the calling of the Gentile Christians” (Bedeutung, 186). 45 Paul may have been assisted by additional texts, though their influence cannot be proven. For example, Jer 23 promises the following: God will restore a remnant (v. 3); a Davidic Messiah will reign (v. 5); Judah and Israel will be united, the former expressly said to be saved (v.6); the house of Israel will return (v. 7). A few verses later, Jerusalem is likened to Sodom and Gomorrah (23:14). This text contains several items that also appear in Hos 1–3 (reunification of Judah and Israel, messiah, “the house of Israel”) and Rom 9 (remnant, Sodom and Gomorrah).

204

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

Only in Rom 9–11 does the apostle describe the sequential and even causal connection between the (present) rejection of Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles, and all Israel’s final salvation. The factors accounting for this perspective need not be reduced to a single cause, but Paul’s exegetical reflection on Hos 1–3 likely made significant contributions. The tight correspondence between these chapters – read in light of the indications Paul provides – and the scenario envisioned in Rom 9–11 give evidence that Hosea influenced and possibly generated the expectations for Israel Paul expresses only here. 6.2.3. Excursus: A Transgendered Esau? One feature of Paul’s quotations might appear to present a significant obstacle to my reconstruction. The argument hinges on the patterned antagonism between two brothers woven through the fabric of Genesis. By means of Hos 2:25 and 2:1 Paul announces that the hated, unloved son Esau (see Mal 1:2–3, quoted in Rom 9:13) undergoes a transformation – he is now the beloved son. But as one can readily see, the participles in both Hos 2:25 and Rom 9:25 are feminine. ‫לא רחמה‬/οὐκ ἠγαπηµένη is, of course, Hosea’s daughter. If her gender as well as her symbolism has been applied to Esau, then Esau has undergone a transformation indeed! A clue to Paul’s intent may be found – again – in Genesis. Of all the elder siblings overshadowed by a privileged second born, there is only one in the who, like Esau in Mal 1:3, is said to be hated: Leah. In fact, the two share several similarities, as the following texts suggest: Gen 25:23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from your uterus shall be divided, and a people shall excel over a people, and the greater (ὁ µείζων) shall be subject to the lesser.” Gen 27:11 But Jacob said to his mother Rebecca, “My brother Esau is a hairy man, while I am a smooth man.” Gen 29:16–17 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the bigger (τῇ µείζονι) was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was shapely in figure and lovely in appearance. Gen 29:26 And Laban said, “It is not possible thus in our locality to give the younger before the elder (τὴν πρεσβυτέραν).” Gen 29:31–33 Now when the Lord saw that Leah was hated (µισεῖται), he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived and bore a son to Jacob, and she called his name Rueben, saying, “Inasmuch as the Lord has seen my humiliation, now it is me my husband will love.” And Leah conceived again and bore a second son to Jacob and said, “Because the

6.2. Transformed Children: Abraham’s Gentile Descendants in Hosea

205

Lord has heard that I am hated (µισοῦµαι), he has also in addition given this one too,” and she called his name Simeon. Mal 1:2–3 Was not Esau Jacob’s brothers? says the Lord. And I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau (ἐµίσησα).

Both Esau and Leah are hated. Both have a certain legal priority as firstborn, yet are pushed aside in favor of a sibling who receives the honor, love, and blessing denied to them. Both compare unfavorably with their younger, more comely, counterparts. Both find themselves on the losing side of a competitive struggle: in Esau’s case a battle of wits (for which he is sorely unqualified); in Leah’s case a contest of fertility (in which even her partial success leaves her disconsolate). Both make desperate attempts at some kind of vindication that ultimately fail: despite his tears, Esau cannot attain the kind of fraternal intimacy he desires (Gen 33:4–16; see § 8.2.); despite her fecundity, Leah cannot attain the kind of domestic acknowledgment she craves. And both suffer rejection from the same man. Jacob wants only distance from Esau and children from Leah. He is not interested in showing affection towards either (see § 5.3.1.). These considerations suggest an entirely plausible explanation for Paul’s decision to retain the feminine participle in his quotation from Hos 2:25, even while altering it to overturn Malachi’s condemnation of Esau. What Paul seeks to invert is the pattern of exclusion by which the younger sibling ousts the elder. Although Genesis devotes most of its attention to this theme as it affects the relationship between brothers, its pattern of reversal and exclusion does not discriminate according to gender. Hosea’s proclamation indicates that not only Esau but also Leah finally receive a long-denied recognition. In Hos 2:3, it may be remembered, the restored sons of Israel and Judah are to call out to their brother and their sister.46 The reconciliation effected embraces not only antagonistic ethnic groups but excluded daughters as well as sons. 46

I believe this solution to be more compelling than that of Seifrid, who suggests that Paul, by using the feminine τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπηµένην, summarizes and applies the story of the adulterous wife in Hos 1–3, a symbol of God’s people (“Romans,” 647). Unloved is never used of the wife in Hosea; indeed, 3:1 suggests the opposite: she is loved even in her harlotry, just as Israel is loved by God even in Israel’s idolatry. That Paul extended biblical promises of covenantal renewal to both genders may find confirmation in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. Unfortunately the Pauline origin of this passage is fiercely contested. Hans Dieter Betz (“2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” JBL 92 [1973]: 88–108) and Joseph Fitzmyer (“Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14– 7:1,” in The Semitic Background of the New Testament [BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 205–17; repr. from CBQ 23 [1961]), among others, have argued that these verses are a non-Pauline or even anti-Pauline interpolation. Nevertheless, several scholars have accepted their authenticity (F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians [NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971], 213–14; C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; London:

206

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

6.2.4. Summary In Rom 9:25–26, Paul quotes prophecies originally referring to Israel in order to vindicate the inclusion of Gentile Christ-believers in God’s family. His warrant for doing so is not obvious. The firmest indication that he has one is the network of verbal and thematic links that connect his quotations and their context to Paul’s interpretation of Genesis in vv. 7–13. It appears that Paul reads Hos 2:1 in an atomizing fashion, applying one half of the verse to Israel and the other to the Gentiles. He then reads the first half referring to Israel in light of Isa 10:22–23 (gezera shawa). These hermeneutical moves allow Paul to find in Hos 1–3 new resources for interpreting the Abrahamic mythomoteur in the era inaugurated by Christ. On this understanding, Hosea extends the story of Israel’s election as the experience of exclusion and reversal to Paul’s contemporaries. Their Abrahamic status has been determined by God’s calling issued through the gospel. The Gentile nations prefigured in Esau’s rejection have now gained ascendency. The children of Jacob are divided into a minority, the house of Judah to whom God provides salvation and mercy, and a majority, the house of Israel who forfeits its membership in the covenant. Only when the Davidic messiah reunites both houses together with Gentile believers will all Abraham’s family receive its promised inheritance.

A&C Black, 1973], 193–94; Gregory K. Beale, “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]: 550–81; Margaret E. Thrall, 2 Corinthians 1–7 [ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1994], 25–36). William J. Webb in particular provides convincing arguments showing that the passage is integral to 2 Corinthians (Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1 [JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993]). The important aspect of these verses for present purposes is the reproduction of 2 Sam 7:14, αὐτὸς ἔσται µοι εἰς υἱόν, in 2 Cor 6:18 as ὑµεῖς ἔσεσθέ µοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας. Not only is the Davidic covenant “democratized” and applied to the entire community (perhaps under the influence of Isa 55:1–5; see Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962], 196–207), the application to both sons and daughters is made explicit. Isaiah’s restoration texts may have played a role in this: 43:6, 45:11, 49:22, and 60:4 all announce a regathering of both Israel’s exiled sons and daughters. Verse 45:11 is particularly interesting. The Hebrew, “will you ask me about things to come ‫ ”על בני‬is translated with περὶ τῶν υἱῶν µου καὶ περὶ τῶν θυγατέρων µου. This addition to 1 Sam 7:14 in 2 Cor 6:18 emphasizes that the Davidic promises extend to all members of the community, regardless of gender. I believe that a similar motive might explain why Paul adapted his quotation from Hosea to undo Micah’s execration of Esau while retaining the feminine form. God calls not only from among Jews and Gentiles, but also from among male and female (Gal 3:28), the not-loved and notenfranchised of all nations and both genders.

6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul

207

Therefore, the proposed exegetical substructure can account for the first of five commonly recognized exegetical problems in Rom 9:25–29: Paul interprets Hos 2:1 and 2:25 as prophecies that God will call Gentiles into his family.

6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul 6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul

The change of names announced in Hos 2:1 = Rom 9:26 occurs at some unspecified locale: ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ … ἐκεῖ. This phrase has puzzled exegetes. What significance, if any, attaches to it? The answer to this question constitutes the second issue to be addressed by my hypothesis of Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis of Genesis. However, firm evidence for a solution is admittedly sparse; confidence in putting one forward must be correspondingly modest. Yet Paul has already shown in Rom 4 a greater willingness to take seriously the land as a constitutive aspect of God’s promise to Abraham than he did in Galatians (§ 2.2.3.2.). Paul appropriates this promise of land as it had been reinterpreted according to universalizing tendencies common in Jewish eschatological expectations. The same background can explain the topography of salvation in 9:26. I propose that Paul understands ὁ τόπος in v. 26 as well as ἡ γῆ in v. 28 as the apocalyptically-redefined territorial patrimony of Abraham’s seed. 6.3.1. Accounting for ʼΕκεῖ The term ἐκεῖ in Paul’s quotation of Hos 2:1 seems to have entered into the Paul used as a revision towards the Hebrew (§ 5.2.). Combined with ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ it noticeably stresses the place where God’s call occurs. As W. D. Davies points out, the phrase is “very emphatic in the text as Paul understood it; it is unlikely that Paul is merely quoting loosely.”47 If so, it is worth asking what sense he may have given to these words. Scholarly debate has entertained three possibilities. Davies himself read ἐκεῖ as a reference to Jerusalem, “the centre of the world, the symbol of the land itself and the focal point for the Messianic Age.” Paul held this conception of the city prior to his conversion, and “[t]he likelihood is that, at first at least, it occupied the same place in his life as a Christian.”48 Yet this position has not gone uncontested. A second, contrary LXX

47

W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 196. 48 W. D. Davies, Land, 198 (emphasis added). The qualification is significant, because Davies also argues that Paul’s commitment to Jerusalem as the city of eschatological salvation had significantly waned by the time he wrote Romans, lingering only as an emotional attachment without theological substance (ibid., 208). Other writers who accept Jerusalem

208

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

approach is exemplified by Käsemann, who claimed that Paul, “with great audacity,” strips ἐκεῖ of its original reference to Israel’s territorial promises and relates it to the sphere of his missionary work.49 Finally, the most common interpretation avoids any spatial reference at all. This understanding takes ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ as an expression devoid of geographical significance. Not “in the place where” but “instead of” is Cranfield’s translation, buttressed by an appeal to the original Hebrew. He writes, “It is quite likely that in Hos 1.10 (MT: 2.1) bimeḳôm ’ašer yē’āmēr should be translated ‘instead of its being said’ and not unlikely that Paul’s Greek should be understood similarly.”50 or alternatively Palestine as the referent of ἐκεῖ include Munck, Christ and Israel, 72; idem, Salvation, 282–308; Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 146; Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans,” 232–62; Fitzmyer, Romans, 573 (though Fitzmyer judges that ἐκεῖ has no relevance for Paul; it is only a residual term in the quotation); James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (WUNT 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 133; Frey, “Identity,” 302–4. Sanday and Headlam incline towards this view (Romans, 264, 337, tentatively). Moo, like Davies, suggests that Paul retains the original sense, but for Moo ἐκεῖ in the quotation means not the promised land but the place of exile (Romans, 613–14). 49 Käsemann, Romans, 274, and with some variation Wagner, Heralds, 84–85, and Belli, Argumentation, 116–17. 50 Cranfield, Romans, 2:501. He cites two witnesses to support this understanding of τόπος: Bauer’s lexicon and the historian Herodian. BDAG provides only one other example of this use, Achmes’s Oneirocriton, a 9th-century Christian reworking of a Greco-Roman text (s.v. τόπος), and Cranfield himself notes that Herodian wrote in the third century C.E. In view of these late dates, the examples have questionable relevance. LSJ, in addition to “place, region” (and related meanings), provides two further definitions: “topic, common-place” (e.g., in rhetoric), and, in metaphorical usage, “opening, occasion, opportunity,” e.g., Rom 12:19; Eph 4:27; Heb 12:17; Sir 4:5; Thucydides 6.54; Polybius 1.88.2; Plutarch 2.462b; Heliodorus 6.13. (The LSJ supplement adds “rank, position.”) All of these examples indicate a metaphorical sense of “place,” such as, “give no τόπον to the devil” (Eph 4:27), rather than anything approaching “instead of.” Given the paucity of evidence, Cranfield may be relying too heavily on the underlying Hebrew. Nevertheless, this understanding of ἐν τῷ τόπῳ κτλ. is accepted by many (Wilckens, Röm, 206; Käsemann, Romans, 274 [who sets this solution alongside the previous one]; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 56; Siegert, Argumentation, 140; Dunn, Romans, 2:572; Lohse, Römer, 282–83; Jewett, Romans, 601). Those scholars who consider that already in Paul the territorial promises had been spiritualized are committed to either the second (“wherever Gentiles believe”) or the third (“instead of”) alternatives, whether they address Rom 9:26 or not (e.g., Paul S. Minear, “Holy People, Holy Land, Holy City: The Genesis and Genius of Christian Attitudes,” Int 37 [1983]: 18–31, esp. p. 28; Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 113–60; Gary M. Burge, “Land,” NIDB 3:570–75; idem, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010], 73–94).

6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul

209

Despite its widespread acceptance, this approach to ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ can account for neither the other geographic references in Rom 9 (§ 5.1.4.) nor the presence of ἐκεῖ.51 The combination of τόπος, οὗ, and ἐκεῖ makes a spatial reference very likely. If so, where is it that God adopts “Not-My-People” into his family? Three points discussed above may provide some guidance. First, in Rom 4:13 Paul interprets God’s promise of land to Abraham as a promise of ὁ κόσµος. Second, several OT verses quoted or alluded to in Rom 9 (and 10:18) refer to the earth as the theater of God’s saving acts.52 Most important among these is 9:28, which quotes Isa 10:23 but omits ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ in favor of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.53 Third, the quotations from Hosea recall the patriarchal stories in Genesis. In light of these factors, I will attempt in what follows to combine the first interpretation (ἐκεῖ = Jerusalem/Palestine) with the second (ἐκεῖ = the area of Paul’s missionary work). God’s call makes Gentiles children of Abraham and therefore heirs of the world. 6.3.2. Abraham’s Worldwide Patrimony In the HB, the land symbolizes the place of promise, conquest, national inheritance, and future glory. As a remembered and hoped-for homeland, or in Anthony Smith’s term, ethnoscape, it demonstrates an elasticity that in eschatological contexts could envelope the world.54 In the HB itself, the term ‫הארץ‬,

Seifrid, for his part, takes an all-inclusive approach: ἐκεῖ refers to the desolation of the land during Israel’s exile, the promise of its restoration, and the place where Gentiles turn to God in all the earth (“Romans,” 648). Belli, by contrast, goes for a minimalist position: there is no significance to ἐκεῖ except perhaps to emphasize that the call occurs where one would least expect it (Argumentation, 116–17). 51 It is even more difficult to derive a metaphorical meaning for ἐκεῖ than τόπος. LSJ has “there, in that place,” followed by “as euphem. for ἐν Ἅιδου,” “in the intelligible world,” “thither,” “rarely, of Time, then,” and, in the supplement, “perh. in that matter,” for which it cites SEG 30.568.6 (from Macedon, 1st cent. C.E.). Only this final example could support the reading of ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ to mean, “instead of,” but even then the result is more than a little awkward: “and instead of it being said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ in this matter they shall be called, ‘sons of the living God.’” 52 Exod 9:16 in Rom 9:17; Hos 2:25 (Eng.: 2:23) in 9:25; Hos 2:1 (Eng.: 1:10) in Rom 9:26; Isa 1:9 in Rom 9:29; Ps 18:5 (Heb.: 19:5, Eng.: 19:4) in Rom 10:18. These verses are quoted in § 5.1.4. above. 53 Concerning this substitution, Belli writes that it is difficult to find a motivtion, except perhaps that Paul wanted to “underline that the fulfillment in question regards Israel, and the term γῆ is more suited to expressing this idea than the universalistic ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ” (Argumentation, 123). I think that he is on the right path, but he leaves this suggestion undeveloped. 54 The multivalent religious and political symbolism of the land is explored in Norman C. Habel, The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress,

210

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

like its LXX equivalent ἡ γῆ, can be translated either the land, i.e., Canaan, or the earth, the entire inhabited creation.55 In Genesis, where the territory God granted to Abraham comes with relatively clear boundaries (15:8; 17:8; cf. 12:7; 13:15), the first definition applies. In time, however, the conviction arose that God would not limit his people to so confined a space. This development began with Second Isaiah at the latest. In his prophecies, a new kind of monotheism emerged, combative and ready to confront the gods of other nations on their own territory. The scope of ‫ ארץ‬expands accordingly from Canaan to the entire cosmos.56 Several psalms show the same development, intimating that, in their authors’ view, Israel’s inheritance could not be contained within the boundaries of Canaan.57 This is especially true of the royal or so-called messianic psalms.58 Likewise, several prophetic texts announce a coming deliverer whose rule will encompass the nations (Isa 9:2–7; 11:1–10; Zech 9:9–10).59 The rise of cosmic eschatology in various apocalyptic movements pushed in the same direction (e.g., Isa 26:15; Dan 2:35, 44; 7:14, 27; 1 En. 5:7; 2 Bar. 14:13; 51:3). Especially relevant are those postbiblical passages in which Abraham’s seed inherits a territory that encompasses the entire world. Jubilees 32:18–19, Sir 44:21, and CD II, 11–12 all bear witness to this development.60 In these 1995); Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (2d ed.; OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). 55 BDB, s.v. ‫ ארץ‬1, 2e; DCH, s.v. ‫ ארץ‬1, 2; BDAG, s.v. γῆ 1, 3; Brueggemann, Land, xiii. 56 Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship,” CBQ 42 (1980): 1–29. 57 Pss 22:28–32 (Gk.: 21:28–32; Eng.: 22:27–31); 47:3–4, 8–9 (Gk. 46:3–4, 8–9; Eng.: 47:2–3, 7–8); 66:5 (Gk.: 65:5); 67:3–8 (Gk.: 66:3–8; Eng.: 67:2–7); 86:9 (Gk.: 85:9); 97:1, 5, 9 (Gk.: 96:1, 5, 9); 98:2–4, 9 (Gk.: 98:2–4, 9); 100:1–2 (Gk.: 99:1–2); 102:16, 23 (Gk.: 101:16, 23; Eng.: 102:15, 22); 113:4–5 (Gk.: 112:4–5); 117:1 (Gk.: 116:1); 148:7. 58 Pss 2:8–9; 18:47 (Gk.: 17:47); 110:1–2, 6 (Gk.: 109:1–2, 6); 118:10 (Gk: 117:10). Pss 72 and 105 (Gk.: Pss 71 and 104) are particularly relevant. Ps 72 reinterprets Gen 12:2–3 and 27:29 in Davidic and universal terms, extending Abraham’s inheritance “from sea to sea, and from the River [= Euphrates] to the ends of the earth” (v. 8; see also vv. 5, 11, 17; Scott, Nations, 64; Wright, Faithfulness, 1:366). In Ps 105:42–44, because God remembers his word to Abraham, he gives his people “the lands of the nations” (‫ ;ארצות גוים‬χώρας ἐθνῶν). 59 Zech 9:10 provides the same boundaries as Ps 72:8: from sea to sea and from the Euphrates to the world’s end. 60 Jub. 17:3, 19:21, and 22:14 are ambiguous – they may refer only to Palestine. In 17:3, Isaac rejoices because “the Lord had given him seed upon the earth so that they might inherit the land.” The same Ethiopic word is used both times (VanderKam, Critical Text, 103). Both Wintermute and VanderKam translate the relevant phrases in 19:21 and 22:14 “all of the earth.” The original referent may be only Palestine. However, 32:19 clearly has a wider area in view, and nudges these earlier passages in a universalist direction. On the other hand, if one follows Todd R. Hanneken and adopts the Latin translation,

6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul

211

examples, the worldwide scope of the expected Israelite occupation rests firmly on the Abrahamic territorial promises. A similar reinterpretation likely lies behind an allegorical reworking in Philo (Somn. 1.175 [interpreting Gen 28:14]; Mos. 1.157). The author of 4 Ezra can take this expansive understanding of Abraham’s promise for granted, though to him it seems less like a living hope than a cruel disappointment: “If the world has indeed been created for us [viz., Israel, God’s ‘firstborn and only begotten,’ v. 58], why do we not possess our world as an inheritance?” (6:59). These examples show that many Jews felt the world lay before them by virtue of their Abrahamic claim. 6.3.3. The Theological Geography of Romans 9 and Its Antecedents in Hosea Romans 4:13, the geographic references in Rom 9, and the cosmic reinterpretation of Abraham’s bequest in Jewish literature, all argue against the third interpretation, that ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ … ἐκεῖ indicates a de-territorialized “instead of.” The remaining alternatives have wrongly been posited as antithetical: either Paul continued to maintain Jewish expectations in a literal Gentile pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where they would worship God in Jerusalem (so Munck, Scott); or he spiritualized the territorial dimensions of God’s promises and substituted for them a Christo-ecclesial reality (so Käsemann). The Hosean context of Paul’s quoted verses suggests a solution that synthesizes both approaches. The salvation oracles recorded there possess a dual characteristic that corresponds to these conflicting interpretations of ἐκεῖ: they are cosmic in scope yet anticipate a return to Jerusalem.61 A universalist impulse clearly animates Hos 2:20, where God dissolves the hostility between humanity and the animal creation. He does this by effecting a covenant that repristinates the ideal world of Gen 1. It embraces the beasts of the field (‫ ;חית השדה‬θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ), the birds of the air (‫;עוף השמים‬ πετεινοὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and creeping things of the ground (‫ ;רמש האדמה‬ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς; cf. Gen 1:26, 30). This γῆ on which the creeping things crawl must therefore refer to the entire world. The spread of peace as a result of God’s new order is similarly comprehensive in scope: God will break the weapons of war ‫מן הארץ‬/ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς (Hos 2:18; cf. 1:7). This cosmic rejuvenation

Jub. 32:19 remains ambiguous (The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees [SBLEJL 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012], 189–90). Sir 44:21 repeats the same borders as those given in Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10. In two papers delivered to regional SBL conferences in 2008, I argued that a similar process can be seen in the editorial history of the War Scroll and related documents, whose latest redactional passages transform a localized battle for the liberation of Palestine into a global crusade. A similar argument has been recently advanced by Brian Schultz (Conquering the World, 236–39). 61 The conclusions that follow are independent of but consistent with those reached by N. T. Wright (Faithfulness, 1:366–67).

212

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

continues to unfold in vv. 23–24, where Creator and creation – the heavens, the earth, the earth’s produce, and the Jezreel valley – combine in antiphonal celebration of God’s eschatological salvation. Hosea’s prediction of worldwide festivities corresponds to the universalistic and eschatological framework within which Paul situates the promise that Abraham’s seed would inherit the earth. In addition to this perspective oriented toward creation, Hos 2:2 and 3:5 both portray a return of God’s people to Jerusalem. The former verse promises a return from slavery: a unified and restored Israel will “go up from the land” (‫ ;ועלו מן הארץ‬ἀναβήσονται ἐκ τῆς γῆς), an expression evoking Egypt as the symbolic place of slavery, as 2:17 makes explicit.62 According to 3:5, the sons of Israel will return (‫ ;ישבו‬ἐπιστρέψουσιν) and seek (‫ ;בקשו‬ἐπιζητήσουσιν) their God and come trembling (‫ ;פחדו‬ἐκστήσονται) to the Lord. This language strongly implies that a worshiping assembly is in view.63 The very few passages where Paul refers to the heavenly Jerusalem suggest how he may have read these predictions. The only place where he invokes a prophecy of Jerusalem’s resettlement occurs in the allegory in Gal 4. Paul presents Sarah, the mother of Abraham’s true children, as the textual representation of the Heavenly Jerusalem (v. 26). He applies to this transcendent city the eschatological ingathering of God’s children from their exile (Isa 54:1–2 in v. 27), now reapplied to Gentiles who, as incorporated into the one heir (Gal 3:16), have become children of Abraham (Gal 3:29; see § 2.2.1.). A second reference to the heavenly Jerusalem probably occurs in Rom 11:26, where Paul speaks of the Deliverer proceeding from Zion.64 Despite the controversy surrounding this verse, I consider a reference to Christ descending from his heavenly residence to be the most persuasive understanding.65 Hence, both Gal 4:26–27 (certainly) and Rom 11:26 (probably) refer to Jerusalem as a heavenly entity. 62

See also the language of “going up” (i.e., from Egypt) in Gen 50:24; Exod 1:10; 3:8; 13:18; 32:1, 4, 7, 8, 23; 33:1; Lev 11:45; Num 16:13; Deut 20:1; Josh 24:17; Judg 2:1; 11:13; 19:30; 1 Sam 12:6; 1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 17:7, 36; Ps 81:10; Isa 11:16; Jer 2:6; 11:17 (not in LXX); 16:14, 15; 23:7, 8; 50:9 (LXX 27:9); 51:16 (LXX 28:16); Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7; Mic 6:4. 63 Similar cultic language occurs in Exod 34:24; 1 Sam 1:3; 10:3; Isa 2:3; Jer 31:6. 64 Sanday and Headlam speculate that ἐκ Σιών in Rom 11:26 might shed light on ἐκεῖ in 9:26, but incline towards the view that in both cases Paul is speaking of terrestrial Jerusalem and/or Palestine (Romans, 337). 65 Cranfield, Romans, 2:578; Käsemann, Romans, 314; W. D. Davies, “Israel,” in Studies, 141–42; Dunn, Romans, 2:682 (who actually vacillates between this understanding and Christ’s appearing in/from the earthly Jerusalem); Esler, Conflict, 306; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 374; Jewett, Romans, 704. I find this suggestion more plausible than a dual reference to the earthly and heavenly Zion (Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 153 n. 47; Aageson, “Scripture,” 285), a textual corruption from εἰς Ζιών (Berndt Schaller, “ΗΞΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο

6.3. Promised Land and Restoration Eschatology in Paul

213

Thus, Galatians indicates that Paul understood the biblical promises of a restored Zion as a transcendental reality, and Romans suggests both that Paul maintained this view (11:26) even while placing next to it a complementary conviction that Abraham’s territorial bequest would encompass the physical creation (4:13).66 This cosmological duality (not dualism) coheres well with Paul’s description of the heavenly realm in Philippians: believers are citizens of the heavenly city now, even while awaiting the arrival from there of the ascended Lord (3:20–21), who will then exercise dominion over all creation (2:9–11).67 It is not, I hope, overly speculative to apply the same metaphysical framework to Paul’s reading of Hos 2:1–3, 3:5. The location indicated by ἐκεῖ is the territorial promise fulfilled as Abraham’s Gentile children throughout the world enter the messianic community. As the reenfranchised seed of Abraham, they become citizens of the Holy City in heaven (Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27) and concurrently take possession of the territorial promise that they have inherited on earth (see also Phil 3:20 for an analogous presentation of heavenly citizenship). When “all Israel” eventually turns to its deliverer (Rom 11:26), it too will make a pilgrimage, as predicted in Hos 2:2 and 3:5. The former describes this movement with the phrase ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τῆς γῆς (2:2), which can be translated “ascending from the earth.”68 This phrase permits Paul to read this as a journey with simultaneous heavenly and earthly dimensions. Received into the Jerusalem above, Israel discovers Gentile brothers and sisters (Hos 2:3). Yet these transcendental realities do not erase the tangible fulfillment of God’s promise on earth (Rom 4:13). Paul envisions a heavenly, spiritual Jeru-

ΡΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f in Röm 11:26f,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday [ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox; Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984), 203; Wilk, Bedeutung, 39–40], a prePauline adaptation (Koch, Schrift, 176; Stanley, Language, 166–68; idem, “‘The Redeemer will Come ἐκ Σιων’: Romans 11.26–27 Revisited,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 118–42), or a vague use of Zion as metonymy for the Jewish people in general (Räisänen, “Römer,” 2920; Johnson, Function, 162–63; Reidar Hvalvik, “A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25–29,” JSNT 38 [1990]: 94–95 [tentatively]; Fitzmyer, Romans, 625). This identification of the Zion mentioned in 11:26 with the heavenly realm may be supported by the interesting suggestion of Gadenz that the Zion mentioned in 9:33 = Isa 28:16 also refers to the celestial abode, based on the further mention of the exalted and enthroned lord in 10:12 (Called, 157). 66 Wright’s position is very similar (Faithfulness, 1:366–67), though he does not admit of development in Paul on this point. 67 A parallel cosmology occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews; see 11:10, 13–16; 12:22– 23; 13:13–14; and also Minear, “Holy People,” 26–27. 68 The noun form ἀνάβασις in 2:17 would support the same interpretation.

214

Chapter 6: Hosea’s Excluded Children

salem entered into ἐκ τῆς γῆς (Hos 2:2) even while the pilgrims claim Abraham’s inheritance ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (cf. Rom 9:28).69 6.3.4. Summary The hypothesis that Paul rests his argument in Rom 9 on a pre-epistolary exegesis of Genesis as read through Hosea is capable of explaining a textual peculiarity in Rom 9:26: the extension of God’s call to Gentile believers occurring at a place described with the emphatic phrase ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ … ἐκεῖ. Paul does not explain what he means by this, but a plausible answer can be assembled from several expressions of the Jewish ethnoscape: the territorial promise to Abraham, the restoration predicted in Hosea, the apocalyptic universalizing of Abraham’s inheritance, and Paul’s references to the heavenly Jerusalem elsewhere. From these, it appears that the place where God summons Gentiles to join his family is the whole earth reinterpreted as the territory promised to Abraham’s seed. His newly reinstated heirs claim their earthly patrimony in conjunction with a spiritual entry into the heavenly Jerusalem, as also implied in Gal 4:26.

6.4. Conclusions 6.4. Conclusions

Hosea’s contribution to Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11 goes far beyond what most interpreters acknowledge. The evidence suggests that the Hosean prophecies give Paul not only rhetorically effective language for expressing that, but material resources for imagining how, the Abrahamic mythomoteur can embrace Gentile believers in Christ. The quotation from Mal 1:2–3 in Rom 9:13 provokes two objections (vv. 14, 19) which require Paul to justify the Creator’s right to act in the way he describes. In defending God’s election of Jacob and his repudiation of Esau, Paul resorts to a unilateral monergism that appears to lead him off topic. In reality, he is preparing for the ironic undoing of his own argument: God’s absolute prerogative as Creator not only justifies his right to love Jacob and hate Esau, it also vindicates his calling of Gentiles and Jews, even while rejecting Israel as a whole (see further § 7.1.2., § 7.2.1.).

69

Several interpreters appear to reach a similar conclusion though by very different routes. Scott, for example, suggests that Gentile believers enter the heavenly city in and through Paul’s missionary work (Nations, 134), despite his attempt to retain the centrality of empirical Jerusalem in Paul’s missiological and eschatological convictions. See also W. D. Davies, “People of Israel,” in Studies, 351–52 n. 70; Dunn, Romans, 2:682, 2:692– 93; Lambrecht, “Israel’s Future,” in Studies, 46–47 (discussing 11:25–27); Glenny, “People of God,” 54.

6.4. Conclusions

215

By the time Paul introduces his prophetic quotations, he has not, as it might appear, left Genesis behind. The lexical and thematic connections that link it to Hosea and Isaiah (and Malachi) indicate the contrary (ch. 5 above). I have attempted to show that Paul reads Hos 1–3 as prophecies that, when properly decoded, reveal the fate of Abraham’s diverse children. This interpretation makes it possible to answer two exegetical questions. First, Paul can use these quotations to support his claim that God calls Gentiles because he correlates the characters in Hosea with outcast Esau, in turn typologically identified with Gentile Christians. Second, he retains the phrase that emphasizes the place of God’s calling because this confirms – for Paul – that the patriarch’s newly reconstituted (Gentile) seed share in Abraham’s territorial possession. In this way, the tumultuous story of Hosea’s children offers a conclusion to the story of Abraham’s descendants remarkably different from that given by Malachi. Hatred is traded for hope and partisan love is exchanged for paradoxical mercy that excludes all the children in turn, so that in the end all may be brought back into mercy (Rom 11:32). Speaking a fresh word through apostolic interpretation, Hosea proclaims the inclusion of cast-out Ishmael, hated Esau, and despised Leah, the salvation-historical debris that formerly littered the hinterland of Israel’s election.

Chapter 7

Reading Isaiah’s Remnant: The Genesis of a Soteriological Transformation in Romans 9:27–29 In his three-verse quotation from Isaiah, Paul evokes the patriarchal stories several times: Ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται· λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Εἰ µὴ κύριος Σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡµῖν σπέρµα, ὡς Σόδοµα ἂν ἐγενήθηµεν καὶ ὡς Γόµορρα ἂν ὡµοιώθηµεν.

It would be difficult to achieve a thicker concentration of Genesis-related elements in so short a space (see § 5.1.2.–§ 5.1.6., § 5.2.2.). These allusions suggest that Isa 1:9 and 10:22–23 play a derivative rather than a constitutive role in Rom 9. Paul’s reading of Genesis led to these verses, and they, in turn, illuminate Genesis. In the previous chapters, I moved from the intertextual links between Paul’s pentateuchal and prophetic texts (ch. 5) to a reconstruction of how Paul reads and uses Hosea (ch. 6). In the present chapter I will turn to Isaiah and attempt the same. I will argue that Paul relies on Isaiah in order to clarify the Abrahamic identities of Jews who do and who do not believe in Jesus, and I will support this perspective by showing it can solve two exegetical problems: the difficulty of deriving a clear meaning from Rom 9:28, and the question as to the origin and significance of the remnant concept. Once these issues are resolved, the apparent turns in logic that characterize Rom 9 can be accounted for as well (§ 4.6., § 6.1.). These also have their explanation in the narratives of Genesis. Its pattern of election and reversal has influenced not only the substance of Paul’s theology but also the shape of his argument.1 This is the fifth and final interpretive difficulty in Rom 9 that can be solved by the hypothesis of a pre-epistolary exegesis of Genesis.

1 The following exegesis of Rom 9:27–28 presupposes conclusions reached in § 5.2.2. and § 5.3.3.1.: Paul inherited a shortened LXX text; this text, whether due to an intentional tendenz of the translator or not, emphasizes the salvation of the remnant; the participles in the phrase συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων form a hendiadys indicating the swiftness with which God accomplishes his word.

7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word

217

7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word 7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word

Until recently, most interpreters have agreed that Isa 10:22–23 in Rom 9:27– 28 announces a severe judgment against Israel.2 But an increasing number of scholars find here not condemnation but the implied assurance of all Israel’s eventual salvation. By reading these verses against 9:6–13, I hope to move beyond these stark alternatives. It is my contention that Paul derives from Genesis an ironic understanding of Israel’s election, which, in turn, provides the proper framework for interpreting his quotations from Isaiah. These texts confirm that God’s word has not failed by redefining Israel as the remnant on whom his promises devolve. 7.1.1. An Indecisive Word? Λόγος Συντελῶν καὶ Συντέµνων in Romans 9:28 At least two obstacles have prevented many commentators from arriving at a satisfactory interpretation of Rom 9:27–28. First, they frequently read these verses as an announcement of judgment against Israel, and second, they often give συντέµνω in the phrase συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων its full lexical force of “cut short, limit” (BDAG). Because συντελέω has the very different meaning of “fulfill, complete,” this requires interpreters to supply some entity that could be so described, forcing them either to find distinct items to which both συντελέω and συντέµνω could be individually applied or to allow the meaning of συντέµνω to eclipse the normal definition of συντελέω. For example, several scholars apply συντελέω to God’s word and συντέµνω to Israel itself: God will fulfill his purpose and reduce Israel to a remnant.3 But even if Paul’s quotation implies such a limitation, it is unlikely that the participles, joined by a conjunction and situated between a verb, ποιέω, and its object, λόγος, can be syntactically split in this way. Others understand συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων to limit the time allotted for Israel’s repentance.4 Occasionally, commentators take λόγος as God’s promise, which he will “cut short” by “fulfilling” it in a drastically reduced form. One prevalent interpretation also relates συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων to λόγος, now understood as a judicial sentence (apparently influenced by the Hebrew of Isa 10:22, ‫כליון חרוץ‬, “destruction is decreed”). Cranfield prefers this read-

2

Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 252–53, 265; Käsemann, Romans, 275; Cranfield, Romans, 2:501; Wilckens, Röm, 206–8; Byrne, Romans, 304; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 321. 3 Wilckens, Röm, 207; Dunn, Romans, 2:569; Fitzmyer, Romans, 574; Byrne, Romans, 306; Kowalski, “Funktion,” 727, 731. 4 Johnson, Function, 150 n. 125; NIV, NASB.

218

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

ing, and the resulting problems are instructive.5 He presents his understanding thus (all brackets are added): [1] His completing and abridging His sentence, [2] i.e., accomplishing it completely and decisively ([3] indicating the thoroughness and dispatch with which it is executed). [This interpretation], which comes near to the probable meaning of the Hebrew … is the only one which is really probable. We may translate v. 28, then in some such way as the following: {a} “for a sentence complete and decisive will the Lord accomplish upon the earth” (literally: {b} “for a sentence, completing and abridging it, will the Lord accomplish upon the earth.”). It explains [4] how it will come about that only a remnant of Israel will be saved (v. 27).6

In these four sentences, Cranfield offers two translations (marked with letters) and four glosses (marked with numbers), and it is not clear that these all amount to the same thing. Particularly telling is his indecision as to whether an abridged sentence is spoken of {b} or a sentence accomplished completely [2] and thoroughly [3]. Further, the hesitation to decide if the participles are best translated as adjectives {a}, nouns [3], adverbs [2], or participles whose verbal idea has λόγος for its object [1], {b}, shows the uncertainty which results from taking the quotation from Isaiah as a prediction of Israel’s judgment. These various explanations share several inadequacies. First, the lexical meaning of συντέµνω, “cut short,” has unduly constrained the discussion. In the LXX, συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων functions as a hendiadys indicating an impending but not yet manifest action of God (§ 5.3.3.1.). There is no evident reason why the semantic force of συντέµνω should overwhelm that of συντελέω, forcing the exegete to posit some object that can be described as “cut short,” whether Israel, the time allotted for repentance, or some other entity. Second, this overreliance on συντέµνω as indicating a limitation has forced many scholars to bring extraneous or even conflicting ideas into the discussion, such as the announcement that God will “execute a sentence,” “cut repentance short,” or “fulfill a promise only in reduced form.” All of these notions have no basis in the context and would seem to undo the very thesis that Paul is arguing for (see 9:6).7 5 Most translations also construe the meaning in this way. Using the judicial sentence for λόγος (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NAB, NJB) and/or execute for ποιήσει (RSV, NRSV, NASB, ASV, NAB, NJB), they cast a menacing pall over Paul’s quotation (e.g., “the Lord will execute his sentence,” RSV). In this case, συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων is usually taken in an adverbial sense, translated either with a prepositional phrase (e.g., “with rigor and dispatch,” RSV) or with adverbs (e.g., “quickly and decisively,” NRSV). Other commentators who accept this position include Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 265) and Moo (Romans, 615). 6 Cranfield, Romans, 2:502. 7 A point stressed in Koch, Schrift, 148. Naturally, Paul may reproduce material from his OT texts beyond the specific item that contributes to his argument. If he does so here, this would explain features in the quotation that do not cohere with the context of his

7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word

219

Third, the object of the participles has a clear but often overlooked grammatical referent, ποιεῖν λόγον. In Paul, as in Isaiah, they probably have an adverbial sense, explaining the manner in which God carries out his word (§ 5.3.3.1.).8 Fourth, commentators too often allow the underlying Hebrew to determine how they interpret the very different Greek.9 Finally, those who understand these verses in a condemnatory sense ignore the way that 9:27–28 takes up themes and vocabulary that has already played a major role in Paul’s discussion.10 A compelling understanding of these verses must allow Paul’s context to set the interpretive bearings. 7.1.2. Word and Salvation in Romans 9:27–29 Recently, some interpreters have attempted to circumvent these pitfalls by reading the quotation not as condemnation but as promise. Normally, advocates first revise the interpretation of Isa 10:22–23 = Rom 9:27–28 as a promise of salvation for the remnant, and then interpret the remnant itself as a guarantee that God will restore the entire nation. This understanding of the remnant deserves critical scrutiny, which I undertake below (§ 7.2.2.). However, the argument that Isaiah’s prophecy announces the remnant’s salvation holds promise. The LXX translation itself points in this direction (§ 5.3.3.1.). Additional evidence lies in the connections that link these quotations and their introduction in v. 24 to the exposition of patriarchal election in Rom 9:6–13. It is this intersection of foundational story and prophetic interpretation that will best clarify Paul’s intention in 9:27–28. Although this matrix has been noticed in the past, exegetes have not acknowledged its full interpretive potential.11

argument. But an interpretation that integrates all quoted elements into the present discussion should receive relatively greater consideration. 8 Koch, Schrift, 147; Heil, “Remnant,” 713; Jewett, Romans, 603; Belli, Argumentation, 124. If they were adjectival (as Lohse appears to take them [Römer, 283]), they would likely be in the accusative case, corresponding to λόγον, rather than the genitive. 9 E.g., many translations. Cranfield (Romans, 2:502) and Moo (Romans, 615), both explicitly appeal to the Hebrew of Isa 10:22–23 to determine the meaning of Rom 9:27–28. 10 E.g., Käsemann, who argues that because συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων implies judgment, λόγος in v. 28 cannot refer to v. 6 (Romans, 275). 11 Interpreters sometimes acknowledge such links but make little of them. Both Wilckens and Dunn, for example, mention in passing that v. 28 recalls v. 6a, but this awareness plays no role in their exposition (Wilckens, Röm, 207; Dunn, Romans, 2:573). Even scholars attempting to shift the emphasis from judgment to hope show only moderate interest in pursuing this connection, e.g., Paul E. Dinter, “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” BTB 13 (1983): 49; Heil, “Remnant,” 713; Wilk, Bedeutung, 185; Wagner, Heralds, 104 n. 194; Gadenz, “Paul’s Argumentation,” 151; Jewett, Romans, 602–3; Wengst, Freut euch, 316; Belli, Argumentation, 124–26.

220

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

The Isaianic quotation in 9:27–28 resumes three elements from 9:6–13: the reliability of God’s word, the division within Israel, and the effectiveness of God’s calling. In the opening thesis Paul affirms the integrity of God’s word and posits a discrimination between Israel and Israel, which, however, he neglects to develop (v. 6). Verses 7 and 12 draw attention to God’s calling, first of Isaac, then of Jacob. Verse 9 brings this calling into close connection with “the word of promise” that defines Abraham’s seed (§ 4.4.2., § 4.4.4.) Thus, in Paul’s summary of patriarchal history (9:6–13), God’s word to Abraham becomes effective through his calling of Abraham’s children, but how this divine action relates to the distinction between all those from Israel and those who are Israel remains unspecified. Paul returns to these themes in v. 24. Here he introduces his prophetic quotations with the declaration that God has “called us,” the vessels of mercy. This statement applies God’s election of the patriarchs to the present and prepares for quotations that follow. Just as Paul uses the Hosean verses to support the calling of Gentiles, so too the texts from Isaiah return to the calling of “us … from the Jews.” Isaiah is thus summoned as a witness testifying to the faithfulness of God and the reliability of his word. The word that has not failed issued a calling to Abraham in days past, a calling now extended to multi-ethnic Christ-believers in Paul’s present.12 At this point Paul deploys the perhaps garbled LXX translation to great theological effect (§ 5.3.3.1.). The transformation of a judgment against Israel into a promise of the remnant’s salvation allows him to give a powerful biblical proof supporting his opening thesis. Verses 6 and 27–28, in fact, make identical claims. According to 9:6, God’s word has not failed because (γάρ) not all those from Israel are those who are Israel; likewise, in 9:27–28, a remnant, distinct from the “number of the sons of Israel,” will be saved because (γάρ) God will certainly perform his word. The λόγος carried out in Isa 10:23 = Rom 9:28 is the promise of God to make his calling effective in the salvation of his people.13 12 Wilckens, Röm, 206; also Lambrecht, “Israel’s Future,” in Studies, 38; Wilk, Bedeutung, 129, 186; Gadenz, “Paul’s Argumentation,” 150; idem, Called, 123, 129–30; Belli, Argumentation, 122–23. 13 Hence, the tendency of many translations to add only to the quotation of Isa 10:22 in Rom 9:27 is not legitimate (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NLT; Dodd, Romans, 154; Cranfield, Romans, 2:471; Käsemann, Romans, 272; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 57; Haacker, Römer, 222). This arbitrary supplement obscures the fact that Paul uses Isa 10 to emphasize the positive side of what he expresses negatively in 9:6b: not all those οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ are οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ. The latter are precisely the vessels of mercy whom God has called. As Wagner says, “Only a reading that ignores Paul’s plain interpretive statement in 9:24 can maintain that Isaiah 10:22–23 functions in Romans 9 as an announcement of condemnation on Israel and a grim declaration that ‘only’ a remnant will be saved” (Heralds, 107; similarly Wilk, Bedeutung, 128, 129 n. 51; Gadenz, Called, 120; Belli, Argumentation, 122).

7.1. A Certain and Salvific Word

221

The participial phrase συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων reinforces this claim. It indicates a certain and perhaps swift completion and implies that God’s word is fulfilled in terms of his salvific intent but stands poised at the brink of historical actualization. The words do not heap judgment on Israel but assure the remnant that God can be relied on to carry out the salvation he has pledged. Isaiah 1:9 = Rom 9:29 equates seed and remnant through the use of ἐγκαταλείπω, a verbal cognate of ὑπόλειµµα/κατάλειµµα: “Had the Lord of Host not ‘remnanted’ to us seed …” (my translation). This identification recalls the question posed in v. 7 concerning Abraham’s seed, its true identity, and its potential to establish God’s reliability. The σπέρµα of Abraham is the ὑπόλειµµα whom God ἐγκαταλείπει and by so doing fulfills his λόγος. With this appeal to Isaiah, Paul finally removes the studied ambiguity surrounding the meaning of Israel. In 9:27–29, the exegetical claim of v. 7a (“not all the children of Abraham count as his seed”) is for the first time explicitly applied to the distinction in v. 6b (all those from Israel vs. those who are Israel). Paul’s argument concerning God’s fidelity to the fathers is entirely predicated on the remnant’s survival. God’s word to Israel has not failed (οὐχ ἐκπέπτωκεν) and will be performed (ποιήσει) because Isa 10:22–23 and 1:9 redefine what counts as Israel. The Israel to whom God is faithful is the remnant. The intervening passage, Rom 9:14–23, initially appears to be a circuitous theological speculation on God’s sovereign right to elect whom he will. But Paul’s closing statements reveal that they laid the foundation on which his conclusion stands (§ 6.1.). The consistent exclusionary effect of divine election and its proclivity to reverse human expectations does not merely clarify the processes by which God broke off non-Israelite peoples from Abraham’s family in times past; it also persists into Paul’s own day to explain the innerIsraelite rift provoked by his gospel proclamation.14 If Hos 2:1 subverts Malachi’s announcement of divine hatred towards the Gentiles (§ 6.2.2.3.), Isa 1:9 and 10:22–23 produce a corresponding transformation by redefining Jacob, the initial recipient of God’s electing love, as the remnant whom God calls. To summarize: by quoting Isa 10:22–23 and 1:9, Paul finally sets forth the inner-Israel division, inchoate in v. 6b: οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ to whom God’s word of promise remains valid is the ὑπόλειµµα whom God will save and the σπέρµα

14 “St. Paul analyzes the principles on which this one race was chosen and the other rejected and shows that the very same principles would perfectly justify God’s action in further dealing with it. God might choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham” (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 248; similarly, Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 320–21).

222

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

whom God will preserve. The implied restriction of Israel intimated in 9:6b has been substantiated not only by the direct citation of Isaiah but the entire discourse to this point, although this is clear only in hindsight. God’s calling as expressed in Genesis (vv. 7–13), the theological basis of that calling (vv. 14–23), and its present activity (v. 24) all relate to the reliability of God’s word (v. 6a) and the semantic restriction of Israel (v. 6b). God’s word to Abraham has not failed because “those who are Israel” are the seed that God “remnanted.” The significance of this remnant now needs further clarification.

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel 7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

The recent move towards reinterpreting Rom 9:27–29 as a promise of salvation seldom stops, as Paul does, with the remnant. Many commentators claim that the idea of a remnant necessarily brings with it an assurance for the entire nation. The problems with this view are considerable. First, advocates seldom clarify whether this implicit hope is a feature of Paul’s rhetoric that he expects his audiences to recognize or whether it can only be appreciated from a knowledge of Isaiah’s original texts. Second, the significance of the remnant itself – in Isaiah and elsewhere – is not nearly so unambiguously positive as these interpreters suppose (§ 7.2.2.). Finally, this alleged promise is nowhere evident in Paul’s argument until after he assumes a very different line of reasoning in 11:11–32, provoking the question, Why does he wait so long to clarify the remnant’s promissory role these exegetes claim for it? In the ensuing discussion, I propose that Genesis rather than Isaiah inspires and informs the use Paul makes of the remnant concept in Rom 9–11. To do this, I shall make a number of controversial claims: (1) Paul uses the remnant in 9:27–29 to exclude “all Israel” from salvation; (2) he has solid precedent in early Judaism for doing so; (3) Genesis, not Isaiah, provides the exegetical rationale for this restriction – as well as the guarantee of salvation it brings in Rom 11; (4) Isaiah provides not the comprehensive assurance for all Israel frequently claimed for the remnant but the distinguishing mark that separates it from the nation as a whole, namely, faith. 7.2.1. The Remnant, From Isaiah to Paul The survey in ch. 2 showed that Paul’s reinterpretation of the Abrahamic mythomoteur reconfigures Israel around the person of the crucified and risen Messiah. Paul conceives of the messianic community, whether composed of ethnic Jews or Gentiles, as God’s new creation (2 Cor 5:17) on whom “the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11). It is not clear that remnant, implying a community consciously aware of its minority status, is a label naturally

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

223

suited to this religious self-understanding. Perhaps for this reason Paul nowhere employs it outside of Rom 9–11.15 In these chapters, however, the remnant plays an important theological role. Although Paul introduces it by means of his Isaianic quotations, his use of Isaiah at this point is limited in both rhetorical function and soteriological scope. He does not subpoena the prophet to witness in behalf of Israel’s nationwide deliverance. On the contrary, these quotations reinforce the division posed in 9:6b rather than overcome it. Three considerations indicate that they redefine Israel so as to exclude the majority from salvation: the explicit statements they express; the inner-Israel division they develop, recalling v. 6 and preparing for 11:1–10; and the contribution they make to the antinomies of ch. 9. First, there is the content of the quotations themselves. Isaiah 10:22–23 = Rom 9:27–28 lacks any indication of a future salvation that extends beyond the remnant.16 To this extent, Paul’s use of these verses concurs with their original signification in the HB, and transformation of meaning brought about by the LXX does not undo the original note of judgment (see § 5.3.3.1.). The same holds true for Isa 1:9. Only the persistence of a seed preserved by God’s intervention separates Zion from a destruction as thorough as that visited upon Sodom and Gomorrah. The εἰ µή formulation does not demand any salvific correlation between the remnant and the remainder of Israel. It implies nothing more than that without the preserved seed, the destruction of Israel would be as complete as Sodom and Gomorrah’s.17 By enlisting these texts as promises for the remnant, Paul sets all those from Israel (οἱ ἐξ 15

Donaldson attempts to establish that Paul maintained an understanding of the Jewish Christian community as the remnant throughout his career, but I find the argument unpersuasive (Gentiles, 178–81). He himself admits that “outside of Romans, remnant ideas are more elusive” (ibid., 180). 16 Paul introduces Isa 10:22–23 with ὑπέρ, which in other contexts in Romans carries the positive connotation, “for salvation.” Many interpreters find the same significance here (Hays, Echoes, 68; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 302; Wilk, Bedeutung, 128–29, 185– 86; Heil, “Remnant,” 705, 707; Wagner, Heralds, 93; Jewett, Romans, 601; Gaventa, “Calling-Into-Being,” 268). They may be correct, but I remain doubtful. First, Paul can speak of his own intercession ὑπέρ his kinsmen in a context which implies that the nation is, in fact, anathema (9:3; Cranford, “Election,” 30). Second, to the extent that the preposition does signal a positive assurance of salvation, the ensuing quotation connects it to the remnant alone. 17 The second class conditional form assumes the untruth of the protasis, εἰ µή indicating “unless, except (that)” (Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 2302–3; BDF § 376; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 694–95): “Except that the Lord had ‘remnanted’ us seed,” or more idiomatically, “If the Lord had not left us seed (though he did).” This preservation of seed is the only condition necessary to prevent the apodosis from becoming a reality. It does not require a salvation that includes all Jews.

224

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

Ἰσραήλ) outside the scope of salvation (σωτηρία, v. 27) and aligns them with the devastated cities.18 Second, the way Paul employs his quotations to resume the inner-Israel division mentioned in 9:6b and to prepare the way for its explication in 11:1–10 also shows the restricted sphere of salvation. The relation between 9:6 and 9:27–29 was explored above, and need only be referred to here (§ 7.1.2.). The same exclusionary potential of language related to the remnant resurfaces in Rom 11:1–10. Interpreters frequently cite 11:1 as proof that Israel’s election is, for Paul, unproblematic, self-evident, and non-transferable: “Has God rejected his people? Μὴ γένοιτο!”19 Yet immediately after this ringing affirmation, Paul defines this people as the remnant whose existence God has always guaranteed. He uses terms that recall the election of the patriarchs described in 9:10–11: it is a remnant elect by grace, κατ’ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν (11:5), and apart from works, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων (11:6). As in 9:29, the seed of Abraham whom God has not rejected is the remnant. By contrast, the remainder (i.e., the majority) face unrelenting divine opposition. In 11:7, Paul contrasts the Israel who did not acquire what it sought (righteousness, evidently, in light of 9:30–32) and the remnant that did. The language of hardening, πωρόω, makes the analogy between οἱ λοιποί and Pharaoh explicit (9:18).20 These non-remnanted “leftovers” face only a punitive 18

Wilckens, Röm, 207; Fitzmyer, Romans, 562, 575; Byrne, Romans, 305; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 233; Grindheim, Crux, 155. Many interpreters who correctly recognize that 9:27–29 emphasizes the positive aspect of God’s salvation for the remnant simply assume that therefore these verses cannot imply a judgment on the larger body from which the remnant is separated (e.g., Wagner, Heralds, 107, 108–9; Gadenz, Called, 123). However, emphasis and implication are two different things and indeed the very words imply (!) that if a text emphasizes one aspect of a discussion, it may very well imply its counterpart. In other words, if 9:27–29 emphasizes the salvation of the remnant, it may nevertheless imply the forlorn and hopeless situation attending Israel as a whole. This lack of salvation characterizing Israel itself is sufficient to strain severely any interpretation of Rom 9–11 that identifies the “misstep of the Jews” with “resistance to Paul’s Gentile mission” (as claimed in Gaston, Paul and Torah, 135–50). The σωτηρία which the Jews lack (10:1) consists of that which the Gentiles have obtained (11:11); it comes through belief in and confession of Christ (10:9–10); and it has as its goal a future deliverance from wrath (5:9–10) and bestowal of eschatological life (1:16–17; 8:23–24; 11:26; 13:11). “Resistance to the Gentile mission” does not fit the context in Rom 9–11 or elsewhere. 19 E.g., Gaston, Paul and Torah, 92, 140; Getty, “Salvation of Israel,” 464; W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, 52; Hays, Echoes, 68. 20 Paul chooses a different word for “hardening” in 11:7 than he uses in 9:18, likely because he is influenced by a non-LXX version of Isa 6:10 that uses this πωρόω (cf. Mark 6:52; John 12:40; 2 Cor 3:14; see also Mark 3:5, 8:17; Eph 4:18; Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 136–40; Dunn, Romans, 2:640–41). Nanos, finding the equation of Pharaoh and Israel distasteful, tries to give πωρόω a different meaning, ignoring in the process the evidence for a non-LXX form of Isaiah behind Paul’s text (“‘Callused’, Not ‘Hardened’: Paul’s

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

225

stupor. God himself acts to harden, blind, deafen, and humiliate them (11:8– 10). Isaiah 1:9 and 10:22–23 provides the bridge between the division hinted at in 9:6 and this sobering contrast in 11:1–10. Finally, the Isaian quotations extend Paul’s antinomies, perpetuating the pattern of exclusion and reversal that characterizes Rom 9 as a whole and reach into 11:1–10. These oppositions both take up the fissure within Israel from v. 6 and develop the potter’s twofold purpose in vv. 21–23. They can be laid out schematically: πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ τέκνα τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός [τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός]

οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ σπέρµα τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας

σκεύη ὀργῆς εἰς ἀτιµίαν εἰς ἀπώλειαν

σκεύη ἐλέους εἰς τιµήν εἰς δόξαν

ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ ἡµῖν Σόδοµα καὶ Γόµορρα

τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σπέρµα σωτηρία

Ἰσραήλ λοιποί πορόω

λεῖµµα ἐκλογή ἐπιτυγχάνω

The column on the left associates πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ with the negatively valued children of the flesh, “the rest,” and those hardened. On the right, the category οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ is aligned with the remnant, promise, and therefore salvation. Just as God, by his promise, reckons (λογίζεται) Abraham’s child as seed (σπέρµα), so too God “remnants” (ἐγκατέλιπεν) a seed in Israel and promises it salvation (σωθήσεται). Paul ends where he began: like the family of Abraham in days past (9:6–7), so too the house of Israel in the present encounters rupture, exclusion, and exile (9:27–29). It is exceedingly difficult to find in 9:6–11:10 any hope for the “non-remnanted” majority of Israel κατὰ σάρκα.21 Instead, the logic of election, which Revelation of Temporary Protection until All Israel Can Be Healed,” in Reading Paul in Context, 53 n. 2, 55). 21 Munck, Christ and Israel, 73–74; Koch, Schrift, 148; Räisänen, “Römer,” 2905–6; Westerholm, “Paul and the Law,” 221; Esler, Conflict, 278; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 338; Grindheim, Crux, 151. There is simply no basis in Paul’s quotations for setting Isa 10:22– 23 (“threat”) against Isa 1:9 (“promise”; so Meeks, “Trusting,” 113); nor the claim that σπέρµα and ὑπόλειµµα/λεῖµµα carry distinct meanings (unbelieving Israel and the Jewish Christians, respectively; so Wilk, Bedeutung, 130–31, 185; Heil, “Remnant,” 704 n. 3, 708). This last interpretation requires Heil unpersuasively to sever ἐκάλεσεν ὑµᾶς οὖ µόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων in 9:24 from its connection to 9:27–29 and to disconnect the remnant in 9:27–

226

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

had previously dispensed with Ishmael and Esau, now recoils on Jacob. Although Paul confirms the (past) calling of Israel in 9:7–23, he does so in such a way that its operating principles, God’s power and sovereignty, become the basis for Israel’s un-election in the present.22 The irony of election that typifies the narratives of Genesis is being recapitulated in the Israel contemporary with Paul. For this reason he brings his discussion concerning his nonChristian compatriots, as Wilckens expresses it, to a “very gloomy” end: [Israel] is excluded from salvation (vv. 27f.), the fate of Sodom and Gomorra stands before it (v. 29). Only the Jewish Christians are accepted as the promised remnant of Israel, to whom alone God makes effective the given word of promise for the vessels of his mercy.23

God’s people have gone the salvation-historical path of Ishmael, Esau, Pharaoh, and the vessels of wrath.24 The elect and the non-elect peoples have traded places. 7.2.2. The Remnant in Second Temple Polemics Interpreters desiring to expand the promise of salvation beyond the remnant to all Israel cannot claim direct evidence from Rom 9. Many, therefore, supplement their case with comparative material from the Second Temple period. 29 from that in 11:1–10. Nor are there grounds for alleging that the remnant in Isa 10:22– 23, 1:9 = Rom 9:27–29 involves a “threat” to all Israel, while in 11:1–10 it involves a “promise” (Munck, Christ and Israel, 110; Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 149; Theobald, Römerbrief, 270; Wright, Faithfulness, 2:1189 n. 540, an exegesis apparently encouraged by the unfortunate insertion of a chapter break between 10:21 and 11:1). 22 Rom 9:33–10:4, 10:17 suggest that this “diselection” occurred at Christ’s coming and Israel’s subsequent rejection of the gospel. However, this new phase in God’s relation with the heretofore covenanted nation is not without its precedents, as Paul shows in 11:1–4. I disagree with N. T. Wright’s claim that for Paul, Israel’s exile has come to an end with the death and resurrection of the Messiah (Climax, 151–52, 245, 250; Fresh Perspective, 138–40). The argument of Rom 9–11, though exile plays no explicit role, suggests that Israel’s actual exile begins only with its refusal to accept the messianic gospel. I venture to speculate that Paul would consider the “historical exile” of the sixth century B.C.E. a mere anticipation of Israel’s true exile, which became a reality when it failed to believe in Christ (a point made in Mark Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification [NSBT 9; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000], 168–69; idem, “The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems,” Themelios 25 [2000]: 10–12; idem, “Romans,” 648, and also Starling, Not My People, 151). 23 Wilckens, Röm, 2:207. 24 Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 145; Evans, “Paul and the Hermeneutics of ‘True Prophecy’: A Study of Romans 9–11,” Bib 65 (1984): 570; idem, “Paul and the Prophets,” 124; Dunn, Romans, 2:559, 2:567; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 208–9; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 233; Jewett, Romans, 586. To those who deny this identification of Israel with Israel’s enemies (e.g., Wagner [Heralds, 75–77]), the remarks of Charles Cosgrove, quoted in the introduction to the present study, are pertinent (“Rhetorical Suspense,” 281).

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

227

They claim that in Paul’s religious context, remnant naturally signifies a pledge of salvation valid for Israel in its entirely.25 But is this claim as selfevident as is often supposed? The terminology associated with remnant originally signified the residual population that lingered after a major catastrophe. In time it evolved into a theological discourse by which a group could claim to preserve the traditions of the past through a time of crisis.26 Many texts present the remnant as the locus of Israel’s authentic heritage and the hope for a pan-Israelite renewal.27 Hence, several commentators have claimed that the mere appearance of ὑπόλειµµα in Rom 9:27 invokes this tradition and anticipates the eventual salvation of all Israel (Rom 11:26).28 25 “To designated the small number of converted Jews as a ‘remnant’ is therefore, for Paul, to affirm already the future conversion of the people as such” (Lyonnet, Études, 272); see also Munck, Christ and Israel, 108; Cranfield, Romans, 2:472, 2:544, 2:547–48; Dahl, “Future of Israel,” in Studies, 149; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 335; W. D. Davies, “Israel,” in Studies, 132; Getty, “Salvation,” 465–66; Chilton, “Romans 9–11,” 33; Dunn, Romans, 2:645–46 (but in some tension with 2:574–75); Hays, Echoes, 68; W. S. Campbell, “Israel,” DPE 444; idem, Creation, 110, 114, 127–29; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 301–2; Byrne, Romans, 305; Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 260; Wilk, Bedeutung, 185–90; Gager, Reinventing Paul, 132; Theobald, Studien, 341; Heil, “Remnant,” 718–19; Wagner, Heralds, 94, 106–16; Kyrychenko, “Consistency,” 224–25; Das, Solving, 246–47; Frey, “Identity,” 290; Jewett, Romans, 601–4, 658; Seifrid, “Romans,” 649–50; Wengst, Freut euch, 317, 353; Gadenz, Called, 132; Belli, Argumentation, 122 n. 205; 124, 128–29. This tendency contrasts significantly with older interpretations, e.g., Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 313. 26 Gerhard Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1972); idem, “Remnant,” IDBSup, 735–36; Ernst Jenni, “Remnant,” IDB 4:32–33; Clements, “Chosen,” 106– 21; idem, “‫שׁאַר‬ ָ , šā’ar,” TDOT 14:272–86; Lester V. Meyer, “Remnant,” ABD 5:669–71; Edgar W. Conrad, “Remnant,” NIDB 4:761–62. The roots of this development evidently go as far back as 8th-century Isaiah (see 1:9; 4:2–6; 6:12–13; 7:3; 11:11–16; 28:5–6; 37:30– 35), though at least some of the relevant material attributed to him is editorial. The earlier, doom-laden sense is evident in 2 Kgs 21:14; Isa 14:22, 30; Jer 6:9; 44:14; Ezek 5:10. 27 2 Kgs 19:31; Isa 7:3; 8:16–18; Jer 23:3; 31:7; Mic 4:7; 5:7–8; Zeph 3:11–13; Hag 1:12–14; 2:2; Sir 44:17; 47:21–22; Bar 2:13 (read in light of 4:27–29 and 5:5–9); 1 Macc 3:35; 1 En. 83:8; 84:5–6; 4 Ezra 12:34; ch. 13 (the sixth vision), esp. vv. 16–20, 23–35, 39–40, 46–49; 2 Bar. 40:1–4. Zech 8:6–13 should possibly be included, on which see Sara Japhet, “The Concept of the Remnant in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-Definition,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 436–37; repr. from Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger (ed. Erich Zenger, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, and Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger; Freiburg: Herder, 2004). 28 Among the works already referred to, this claim is most thoroughly argued for in Wagner, Heralds, 106–16.

228

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

Yet this promissory character, though evident in several texts, does not exhaust the remnant’s symbolism. The language related to it expanded in other ways as well. Alongside ecumenical hopes of national deliverance appeared less inclusive visions. When conflicting parties claimed to embody exclusively Israel’s religious traditions, the language of the remnant became a polemical tool for delegitimizing opponents. If the specific point of contention involved identifying Abraham’s authentic lineage, factions could easily invoke the rhetoric of the remnant to bastardize unwelcome relatives. These controversies left their mark on numerous writings. In the final form of Isaiah, for example, the limitation of Israel’s salvation in 10:20–23 appears to be part of a systematic redaction of the entire work (§ 5.3.3.1.). Several passages in Isa 1–55 both give evidence of editorial origin and also cohere theologically with the sectarian perspective articulated in chs. 56–66. These accretions, in the words of Joseph Blenkinsopp, “nudged Isaiah in the direction of [an] apocalyptic worldview.”29 Significantly, they also evince a deep concern to align Abraham’s seed with the community responsible for the book’s composition: Isa 6:13 And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains standing when it is felled. The holy seed (‫ )זרע קדש‬is its stump.30 Isa 48:17–19 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “… O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then … your offspring (‫ )זרעך‬would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me.” Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many. Isa 65:8–9 Thus says the LORD: “As the wine is found in the cluster, and they say, ‘Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it,’ so I will do for my servants’ sake, and not destroy them all. I will bring forth descendants (‫ )זרע‬from Jacob, and from Judah inheritors of my mountains; my chosen shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. 29

Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book, 98. The last phrase of Isa 6:13 is widely acknowledged to be a later addition, though its original Sitz im Leben continues to be debated (Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 274–75; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 138; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 226). In my judgment, the verse originally predicted destruction for even the initial survivors of the coming catastrophe (either referring to the events of 701 or 587 B.C.E.), whereas the identification of stump and holy seed suggests that the stump will remain and even sprout again. In any case, it does not contain a promise for the lopped-off and already burnt tree. 30

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

229

In this last example, the “servants” who stand behind Third Isaiah and the “seed from Jacob” constitute a single group for whose sake God will refrain from destroying all of the apostate nation (65:9; cf. the similar perspective in Isa 1:9). When judgment falls, they alone remain to inherit “the mountains of Judah.” Once the Judean ethnoscape has been cleansed of apostasy, the sectarians will emerge to claim it. In a similar way, the book of Ezra-Nehemiah portrays a theocratic community appropriating the traditions of Israel and presenting themselves as the sole legitimate bearers of religious and social continuity (§ 2.1.).31 To this end it makes generous use of remnant-related discourse.32 By identifying the returnees with Abraham’s children (cf. Neh 9:7–8, 28) and the “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2), Ezra-Nehemiah presents its own community as the exclusive heirs of preexilic Israel. By contrast, the non-deportees are assimilated to Israel’s traditional enemies (the Canaanites, Moabites, etc.) and an undifferentiated “people of the land” (9:1). Ezra’s prayer in particular demonstrates the exclusionary possibilities inherent in a discourse centered on the remnant (Ezra 9). As Sara Japhet notes, “The context of Ezra 9–10 does not recognize any other Jews except the returning exiles.”33 And Blenkinsopp explains: [T]he terminology in Ezra-Nehemiah [“Israel,” “golah,” “remnant,” etc.] for the group in whose name and on whose behalf the book was composed implies a collective selfunderstanding without precedent. The claim to be the Israel which inherits the promises, commitments, and privileges to which the traditions testify was now limited to members of the golah who subscribed to its theology, its interpretation of the laws, and its religious practices. All other claims, including those of the inhabitants of Samaria, the Judeans who had never left the land, and presumably those elsewhere in the diaspora whose religious beliefs and practices differed from those of the golah leadership, were excluded.34

Isaiah and Ezra-Nehemiah show that the discourse of remnant gained currency in the postexilic era precisely as a means of defining Jews (or Judeans, or Yahwists) out of “all Israel.” Similar bids for – or fantasies of – religious hegemony by minority groups appear in writings left by the Qumran community. The Damascus Document,

31 This agenda can be seen in the various epithets the returnees apply to themselves, in their organization into groups of twelve, and in their resettlement of the traditional homeland (Ezra 2:70; ch. 8; Neh 7:73). 32 The ideology of remnant is not the only feature Ezra-Nehemiah shares with Third Isaiah. Other aspects bring these books into close proximity: holy seed occurs only in Ezra 9:2 and Isa 6:13 in the HB, and “the tremblers at God’s word,” figure prominently in both (Isa 66:2, 5; Ezra 9:4; 10:3). 33 Japhet, “Remnant,” 441. 34 Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 37. Japhet and Blenkinsopp actually differ over how the language of remnant was used in the Restoration period, but their respective understandings intersect in how they interpret Ezra 9–10.

230

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

despite its composite nature, consistently and repeatedly distinguishes rebellious Israel from the faithful remnant. The opening lines read: For when they were unfaithful in forsaking him, he hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary and delivered them (‫ )ויתנם‬up to the sword. But when he remembered the covenant with the forefathers (‫ ;ראשנים‬lit.: “heads”), he saved (‫ )השאיר‬a remnant (‫ )שאירית‬for Israel and did not deliver (‫ )ולא נתנם‬them up to destruction. (I, 3–5)

The wicked face the sword, not a promise of salvation implicit in the remnant’s existence. The ensuing columns organize all history according to a moral dualism. God raises up a group of survivors (‫ )פליטה‬to preserve the true knowledge of his law, to inhabit the land, to fill the whole world with their seed, and to receive the holy spirit (II, 11–13). This party refers to itself as those “remnanted” from others (‫ ;נותרו מהם‬III, 12–13) and the elect of Israel (‫;בחירי ישראל‬ IV, 3–4). They preserve the righteous lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, outside of which there is only apostasy. Philip Davies summarizes this ideology as follows: Old Israel (now represented by Judaism outside the CD covenant) … has, in fact, been abandoned to Belial by God, and allowed to stray. … One of the central themes of CD as a whole is the presentation of a remnant group as the Israel with whom God is presently dealing. The rest of “Israel” has been and is rejected, subject to the covenant vengeance of God.35

This ideology provided Qumran with the conceptual means of assigning nonsectarian Judaism to the machinations of Belial (IV, 13–15) while claiming for itself exclusive continuity with Abraham’s righteous seed. This discourse of self-legitimation coheres with what can be gathered from the fragmentary Qumran pesher on Isa 10:20–23, which appears to identify Isaiah’s promised remnant with the sect itself. Similar claims occur in the War Scroll (XIII, 8–9; XIV, 8–9), in the Hodayot (XIV, 7–8), 4QFlor (I, 19– II, 2), and other sectarian documents. Thus Joel Willitts, in a recent essay on the remnant in the DSS, concludes that while the eschatological expectations of the sect presuppose but one people of God, they anticipate two distinct ends for its members: salvation for sectarian adherents, destruction for everyone else.36 35

P. R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSNTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 54, 71. See also Jerome MurphyO’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1,” RB 77 (1970): 227. 36 Willitts, “The Remnant of Israel in 4QpIsaiaha (4Q161) and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JJS 57 (2006): 11–25; similarly Jean Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1 QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân,” RB 84 (1977): 210–38; pace John J. Collins, “The Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books,” in Theory of Israel (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; vol. 1 of The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls; ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; part 5

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

231

According to early Christian memory, John the Baptist made a similar bifurcation within Israel, and refused to grant legitimacy to physical descent from Abraham. Although there is no indication that he employed terminology related to the remnant, in Luke’s account of his ministry he imposed beyond Abrahamic paternity additional requirements on the community expecting eschatological deliverance (Luke 3:7–9).37 Only Jews meeting the criteria he announced will escape coming judgment. To summarize: in these ideologies of the Second Temple period, the rhetoric of remnant serves to isolate God’s favor within the confines of the faithful rather than to ensure the salvation of a larger body. While evidence exists that in many Jewish traditions the remnant signified the vanguard of a much more expansive restoration, the examples just surveyed indicate a parallel struggle to restrict Abraham’s seed to a limited sphere of authentic religious expression.38 This semantic ambivalence makes it problematic to maintain, in the face of Paul’s express statement to the contrary, that the mere presence of remnant language in Rom 9:27–29 aligns him with the “guarantee of national redemption” framework and not the “enclave of sectarian exclusivity” one.39 Paul evokes the remnant for the same boundary-demarcating purposes it served when used by exclusionary parties. As a tool of social-theological polemic, it contracts the spectrum of Jewish diversity to a much smaller nucleus and identifies that community as the representation of true Israel. The sole exegetical basis for interpreting Rom 9:27–29 as a promise to the entire people is its ability to save the two halves of Paul’s argument (9:6– 11:10 and 11:11–32) from appearing inconsistent (see § 8.1.). If an eschatological pattern exists that can elucidate the diverse ways the remnant operates in Rom 9–11, it must account for both the complete exclusion of Israel as a whole from any hope of salvation (implied in 9:27–29 and explicitly stated in of Judaism in Late Antiquity; ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 25–42; Gudrun Holtz, “Inclusivism at Qumran,” DSD 16 (2009): 22–54. 37 Carl R. Kazmierski, “The Stones of Abraham: John the Baptist and the End of Torah,” Bib 68 (1987): 22–40; idem, John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist (Zacchaeus Studies; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 112–13; Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Social-Historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 49; Stegemann, Library, 214. 38 See Rowley, Election, 70, where the ambiguity latent in the concept is noted. 39 If Wagner is indeed correct that “the words [of Isaiah] in Romans [9:27–28] function as they do in their context in Isaiah,” it does not follow, as he claims, that the hope and promise those words offer extends beyond the remnant to embrace an apostate people (Heralds, 107). Cf. the unintentionally ironic evaluation of Hans Wildberger: “In Rom. 9:29, Paul quotes Isa. 1:9 as evidence for the fact that God had not rejected Israel. Isaiah does not speak of that here; the question of Israel’s continued existence is an open one for him” (Isaiah 1–12, 32).

232

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

11:8–10) and the contrary claim that as the firstfruits sanctify the harvest (11:16), so the remnant ensures the salvation of all Israel (11:26). Neither the content of Isaiah nor the literature of the Second Temple period can resolve this tension. Scholars looking for a theology of remnant that bridges the two halves of Paul’s argument must find an alternative precedent or abandon the effort altogether. 7.2.3. Locating the Remnant in Genesis The language of remnant in Genesis supplies what Isaiah lacks. As R. E. Clements noted, “Once the political and sociological weight of the claim to the status of a remnant acquired central significance in the religious life of the Jews, earlier narrative traditions could be reinterpreted in light of this development.”40 The appearance of remnant-related language in Genesis invited such reinterpretation. In the patriarchal narratives, terminology or motifs related to the remnant appear in exactly those three episodes evoked by Paul’s quotations from Isaiah – and only in those three episodes: Gen 18; 32:9 (Eng.: v. 8); 45:7 (§ 5.1.5.–§ 5.1.6.).41 In what follows I will argue that Paul has assembled these texts and read them in light of Isa 10 to arrive at the portrayal of Israel’s fate that he presents in Rom 9–11.

40

Clements, TDOT 14:274; however, in his article on the OT background of the remnant in Rom 9–11, he makes no mention of Genesis beyond a passing reference to Gen 12:2 and 17:5–6 (“Chosen,” 116). 41 In Genesis, the notion of a righteous minority delivered from or through an otherwise annihilating judgment appeared already in the story of the flood. Because of humanity’s wickedness, God sends a cataclysmic, cleansing deluge on the earth (Gen 6:5–7). Only righteous Noah “was left (‫ ;ישאר‬κατελείφθη), and those that were with him in the ark” (7:23). A mere eight people preserve humanity in the face of an otherwise terminal judgment. Ben Sira, at least, noticed this motif; he writes: “Noah was found perfect and righteous; in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange; therefore a remnant was left to the earth (ἐγενήθη κατάλειµµα τῇ γῇ) when the flood came” (Sir 44:17). This and other remnant-related texts from Genesis were examined in detail by Gerhard Hasel in The Remnant, still the most extensive treatment in English (see also the brief comment by Bruce C. Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament [2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005], 90). Hasel’s approach is not always adequate, however, since he tends to overemphasize the principle of unbroken continuity. For example, writing on the flood episode, he concludes, “The remnant motif links human existence in the past in an unbroken chain with human existence in the present and the future” (Remnant, 140). This assessment hardly captures the radical break that occurs when God eliminates the human race almost in its entirety. If this understanding were applied to the postexilic era (Hasel ends his study with Isaiah), it would not be able to clarify discourse connected to the remnant as a strategy for legitimation and delegitimation.

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

233

The first occurrence appears in Gen 18 and the exchange between Abraham and God concerning the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.42 Yahweh begins by revealing his intention to destroy these cities and all of their inhabitants. In response, Abraham queries the judicial rectitude of a God willing to eradicate whole populations in whose midst a righteous minority still lives. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And the LORD answered, “If I find within the city of Sodom fifty innocent ones, I will forgive the whole place for their sake (‫ ;ונשאתי לכל המקום בעבורם‬ἀφήσω πάντα τὸν τόπον δι’ αὐτούς)” (Gen 18:23–26).

Probing divine justice, Abraham discovers that God will endure an outcry against the wicked in order to guarantee that the innocent among them are not swept away in an indiscriminate judgment. When God grants that fifty righteous people would suffice, Abraham incrementally decreases the number to an eventual ten. Sensing that he has pushed his luck far enough (18:27, 30, 32), and perhaps assuming (wrongly) that there must be at least ten tolerably decent citizens in Sodom, Abraham declines to pursue the issue further. In the end, Sodom and Gomorrah meet their doom. Angelic visitors compel the four righteous citizens (before the tragedy of Lot’s wife) to flee. The conclusion thus bears a strong similarity to the fate of humanity during the flood: utter destruction from which only a few are delivered. Yet in Abraham’s debate with God, the possibility surfaces that a righteous remnant might guarantee the survival of its parent body. It is this more positive role that appears in two further episodes. In Gen 32, Jacob’s frantic ploy to save his family from Esau’s wrath leads him to divide the members of his household into two groups.43 At least one, he hopes, will live through the anticipated onslaught. In v. 9 (Eng.: v. 8), Jacob surmises that if Esau manages to destroy one of his camps, the other will “be ‘remnanted’ for an escape” (‫ ;לפליטה הנשאר‬εἰς τὸ σῴζεσθαι). Likewise, in ch. 45, Jacob’s son Joseph finally relinquishes the ruse he perpetuates on his brothers and reveals his true identity. He assures them that God has utilized him, in the language of the LXX, “to ‘remnant’ for you a remnant on the earth and to nourish for you a great remnant” ( ‫לשום לכם שארית בארץ‬ ‫ ;ולהחיות לכם לפליטה גדלה‬ὑπολείπεσθαι ὑµῶν κατάλειµµα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐκθρέψαι ὑµῶν κατάλειψιν µεγάλην; v. 7, my translation). 42 Wilk and Das are rare voices who have noticed the relevance of Gen 18:23–33 for understanding Isa 1:9 in Rom 9:29 (Wilk, Bedeutung, 189; Das, Solving, 248–49; against the explicit denial in Kowalski, “Funktion,” 729). 43 Das mentions the relevance of Gen 32 in a footnote (Solving, 247 n. 180). Even this laconic note goes beyond most commentators.

234

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

In this way, the narrative brings the motif of the remnant into close connection with its portrayal of Israel’s election. At stake in both Gen 32 and 45 is the viability of the divine promise to make Abraham a great people when the vagaries of history throw his family’s survival into question. Each chapter recalls God’s pledge to Abraham: Jacob expressly invokes the promise to make his seed as numerous as the sands of the sea (Gen 32:13 [Eng: 32:12], referring to Gen 28:14);44 Joseph also, if more obliquely, affirms his faith that God has providentially made possible the continued existence of his father’s house (Gen 45:5–7). In each case, Abraham’s family is broken, “remnanted,” and finally restored. The favored son delivers his family after its rupture and through the loss of his favored status: the partitioning of Jacob’s family before Esau’s menacing arrival and the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers results in the humiliation of each and the (temporary) exaltation of their respective siblings – the chosen and the rejected sons have traded places.45 Genesis 32:9 and 45:7 take up the idea broached in 18:26 and with it pierce Abraham’s family. On the far side of domestic fracture it survives because God, through the agency of the beloved son, preserves it. Isaiah replays the dissolution of Abraham’s seed as a rupture within salvation history. The quotations as they appear in Paul recall just these moments. The reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa 1:9 = Rom 9:29 is explicit, but Isa 10:22–23 = Rom 9:27–28 reflect both the language and the pattern of the chosen son’s suffering. In Gen 32, at the moment of Esau’s exaltation and Jacob’s humiliation, Jacob makes arrangements to ensure that a remnant (‫ )הנשאר‬of his family will escape (‫ ;פליטה‬σῴζειν). In ch. 45, Joseph assures his brothers, all sons of Israel and members of Jacob’s house, that God has guaranteed that a remnant (‫ ;שארית‬κατάλειµµα) will escape (‫ )פליטה‬on the earth (‫ ;בארץ‬ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). Ιn Isa 10:20, Israel will have a remnant (‫שאר‬, τὸ καταλείφθεν) and the house of Jacob will escape (‫פליטה‬, οἱ σωθέντες). Paul’s quotation expands the connections already present in his sources: a remnant will be saved on the earth (Rom 9:27–28; τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). In the entire Greek Bible, only Gen 45:7 and Rom 9:27–28 speak of the survival of a remnant ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (§ 5.1.4., § 5.2.2.). The promised salvation for all Israel after its apparent dissolution lies latent not in Isaiah but in the suffering of the beloved son for his brothers in Genesis.

44 Hasel writes, “This prayer, then, is extremely significant not only for connecting for the first time the election tradition, i.e., the promise to the fathers, with the remnant motif, but it reveals once more that the remnant can escape judgment only through God’s grace. … The narrative, thus, shows that the preservation of Jacob and his clan is a prototype of the preservation of Israel as a whole” (Remnant, 154; see also 153, 158–59). 45 On the exegesis of Hosea I postulated for Paul in ch. 6, an identical exchange of roles occurs between the house of Israel and Not-My-People (= Gentiles) in Hos 1:2–2:3 (§ 6.2.2.2).

7.2. From Residual Seed to All Israel

235

Abraham’s plea for God’s mercy to spare Sodom and Gomorrah in behalf of its righteous inhabitants, Jacob’s desperate decision to split his family and save at least some, and Joseph’s perception that God banished him to ensure the survival of his relatives “on the earth,” provide the connection between Paul’s limitation of God’s saving call to a remnant (9:24) and his ultimate conviction that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26). Isaiah clarifies the present in light of Genesis, but it is Genesis that provides Paul with the soteriological significance of the remnant. Only as Abraham’s divided family follows the firstborn son into exile does it finds the seed for its eventual salvation. 7.2.4. A Remnant by Faith What Isaiah does provide Paul with is not an implied promise linking the remnant and all Israel but the characteristic that distinguishes the remnant from its parent body. In Isaiah, the remnant is set apart by its thorough dependence on Yahweh. According to Isa 10:20, the remnant will trust (πεποιθότες) in God alone.46 The semantic range of πείθω in the pf. tense includes “depend on, trust in” (BDAG, s. v. 2b). It therefore overlaps considerably with πιστεύω, “to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust; to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence” (BDAG, s.v. 1, 2). The semantic similarity between πείθω and πιστεύω can be seen by comparing Isa 10:20, 8:14, and 28:16, all texts which Paul quotes in Rom 9: Isa 8:14 καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς, ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασµα, καὶ ουχ ὡς λίθου προσκόµµατι.47 Isa 10:20 Καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται τὸ καταλειφθὲν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ οἱ σωθέντες τοῦ Ἰακὼβ οὐκέτι µὴ πεποιθότες ὦσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀδικήσαντας αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ ἔσονται πεποιθότες ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.48 Isa 28:16 Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐµβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεµέλια Σιὼν λίθον πολυτελῆ … καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ µὴ καταισχυνθῇ.49

The Greek translates ‫שען‬, a verb used in the niphal stem to mean “lean, support oneself.” Outside of Romans, Paul occasionally uses πείθω in a theological sense similar to how it is used in Isa 10:20 (2 Cor 1:9; Phil 3:3). 47 “If you trust in him, he will become your holy precinct, and you will not encounter him as a stumbling caused by a stone.” The underlined text is uncontested in the manuscript tradition, though it represents a LXX plus with respect to the Hebrew. 48 “And it shall be on that day that what remains of Israel will no more be added, and those of Jacob who have been saved will no more trust in those who have wronged them but will trust in God, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.” 49 “See, I will lay for the foundations of Zion a precious stone … and the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.” Several texts, mostly in the Hexaplaric tradition, omit ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, which is likely a “correction” towards the Hebrew, in accordance with the 46

236

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 are conflated in Rom 9:33, making it likely that Paul understood πείθω and πιστεύω synonymously. In this light, Isa 10:20–23 not only prophecies a day when the Jacob’s house will be reduced from an innumerable expanse to a remnant, it also provides a standard for distinguishing the faithful from the apostate that is easily translatable into Paul’s own understanding of faith as the criterion for membership in God’s people.50 Precisely those described as πεποιθότες or πιστεύοντες will be saved (cf. Rom 10:9–10). The perspectives of Isa 10 and Rom 9:6–11:10 mesh: the divine promises wrongly assumed to belong to Israel as a whole have become, for now, the exclusive possession of the believing remnant – and the Gentile believers who share their Abrahamic paternity.51

7.3. A Certain Salvation – But Not for All: Reversing Election in Romans 9 7.3. Reversing Election in Romans 9

On several occasions throughout this study, I have observed that Paul’s argument progresses in fits and reversals. While some have taken these rough contours as evidence of conceptual ineptitude, a few recent interpreters have alleged that Paul makes deliberate use of cunning, ambiguity, and even duplicity.52 In a striking example of making hermeneutical lemonade out of exegetical lemons, Charles Cosgrove argues that the irreducible plurality to tendency of the Hexapla. The words could represent a Christian insertion on the basis of Rom 9:33, but internal evidence suggests the tendency of the LXX translator (cf. 8:17, 12:2, where ἐπ’ αὐτῷ also occurs). 50 Clements comes to a similar conclusion, though his main Isaianic text is 7:9: “If you will not believe (πιστεύσητε), you shall not be established” (“Chosen,” 119). 51 Paul does not explicitly apply the language of faith to the remnant in 9:27–29, 11:1– 10, since his emphasis on divine monergism leaves little room for it (Räisänen, “Römer,” 2899; idem, “Faith, Works and Election,” 240–41). However, 9:30–10:21 clearly presupposes that the majority of Israel has fallen into dire straits precisely because of its failure to have faith in God’s Messiah (9:32–33; 10:9–10, 14, 16–17; see also 11:20, 23; similarly, Evans, “Paul and the Prophets,” 125). 52 E.g., Räisänen, “Römer,” passim; Stanley, Arguing, 148, 153, 169–70, and passim; Johan S. Vos, “‘To Make the Weaker Argument Defeat the Stronger’: Sophistical Argumentation in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference (ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2007), 217–31; and more generally, J. Paul Sampley, “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 40–52; Mark D. Given, Paul’s True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning and Deception in Greece and Rome (ESEC; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2001), 123, 181, and passim.

7.3. Reversing Election in Romans 9

237

Paul’s definitions of Israel in Romans both confirm textual indeterminacy and require a hermeneutics of love rather than a hermeneutics of objective meaning.53 I prefer to answer this challenge by appealing to the substructure developed throughout this study.54 Paul opens Rom 9 with an affirmation of Israel’s privileges, but this is already placed in question by his implication in v. 3 that Israel is at present anathema. There follows in v. 6 the intimation that God’s fidelity to his people can only be maintained by a redefinition of the term Israel that removes contrary evidence (i.e., the anathematized, nonChrist-following Jews) out of its semantic scope. However, as the chapter continues, Paul drops this strategy in favor of a conventional understanding of what Israel means: its is the nation that emerged from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, an elect people distinguished from the Gentiles/nations surrounding it by God’s call (vv. 7–13). He asserts this understanding of election over hypothetical objections raised against God’s fairness and he criticizes the imagined riposte for its arrogant tone even while acknowledging its substance (vv. 14–23). Paul then declares that God’s call does incorporate the Gentiles/nations, and uses Hosea to prove his case (9:24–26) – a development not obviously prepared for by the discussion to that point. He returns to the rupture within Israel, stated in v. 6 but not developed, by quoting verses from Isaiah which, both in their original context and in Paul’s argument, divide the remnant from apostate Israel and assign salvation exclusively to the former (9:27–29). This pattern of reversals makes for a very tortuous argument. But its origin and purpose should by now be clear. In the biblical tradition, God elects Israel to be his firstborn son.55 This theological conviction finds narrative expression in the stories of Genesis, which articulate Israel’s election as the revocation of primogeniture. The younger son receives the status of “firstborn,” but as the one chosen to obtain favor and replace his elder brother, he must in his turn endure an expulsion, an exile, and a real or symbolic death. The mythomoteur of Israel’s origin expresses an ideology of election characterized by its own negation: the elect status of the firstborn son imposes on him his brother’s exclusion. Paul applies this irony of election to the relation between Jew and Gentile in the messianic era, and his own rhetoric simulates the same pattern of reversals. As in Galatians, where the Deuteronomic curses and blessings recur in the epistolary rhetoric, so also in Rom 9, the ebb and flow of his argument 53

Cosgrove, “Rhetorical Suspense,” 271–87; ibid., Elusive Israel, passim. I owe the idea expressed in this section to Carol Stockhausen. 55 Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1–2; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; Mal 1:6; 2:10; Sir 17:18 (some MSS). Υἱοθεσία in Rom 9:4 summarizes this tradition (Barrett, Romans, 166; Moo, Romans, 562). 54

238

Chapter 7: Reading Isaiah’s Remnant

instantiates the dialectic of the story he has been reading. The precarious nature of election has become a literary feature of Paul’s own discourse. He forces his reader through the same loss and recovery that he posits for Israel as a whole and recreates in the reading experience the solidarity that he expects for all God’s children in the eschaton.

7.4. Conclusions 7.4. Conclusions

I have proposed that behind Paul’s quotations from Isaiah lies his interpretation of Genesis. He applies the prophet to Moses in order to decipher the mystery of why Israel refused the Messiah and to answer the challenge this refusal places against God’s faithfulness to his people. By reading Rom 9:27–29 in this way, two interpretive obstacles can be overcome. First, Isa 10:22–23 can be given a coherent place in Paul’s argument. These verses finally unveil the true meaning of Israel withheld since v. 6b: those who are Israel exist as a called remnant. Paul’s quotations place the accent on the positive note of the remnant’s salvation. However, he clearly implies that those not called are excluded from Abraham’s seed and therefore God’s family. They fill the typological role formerly played by Ishmael, Esau, Pharaoh, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Gentiles, all non-chosen objects of God’s wrath. Second, Paul derives his theology of the remnant from Genesis, and not, as is commonly thought, from Isaiah. Language integral to the remnant occurs at critical junctures in Genesis’s narrative. The family of Abraham survives in and through its dissolution by means of a favored son who must trade his superior status for the exclusion previously imposed on his elder brother/s. What is true of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob also holds good for their seed, and by recapitulating their fathers’ story of exile, death, and resurrection, the descendants authenticate their paternity. Although Isaiah’s prophecies do not inspire Paul’s theology of the remnant, they do provide him with the remnant’s distinguishing feature. It is composed of those who trust (πέποιθα, Isa 8:14; 10:20) or believe in (πιστεύω, Isa 28:16) God and or his Messiah (Rom 9:30–33; 10:4–5, 8–11, 14, 16). Those who are Israel are known by their faith. Paul leads his audience down a path that takes them through many apparent backtrackings and dead ends. But the route is intentional. It reenacts the paradoxical election that Paul finds in Genesis, which has now become a characteristic of his own expression.

Chapter 8

Beyond Romans 9: Election and Its Reversal in Romans If a pre-epistolary interpretation of Genesis does support Paul’s argument in Rom 9, as I have proposed, can its existence be detected in other parts of the epistle? The answer, in my estimation, is, Not directly. However, evidence from elsewhere in Paul’s corpus suggests that he frequently makes a claim based on unexpressed exegetical reasoning. For example, his leap from Gen 15:5 to “the seed is Christ” (Gal 3:16) reads as though it were a non sequitur, yet beneath it lies a profound piece of biblical interpretation (§ 2.2.1.3.). In a similar way, many attribute to Paul an interest in “narrative” precisely because of its ability to bring a coherence to his letters otherwise difficult to obtain, given their contingent circumstances. As Bruce W. Longenecker expressed it: Interest in narrative aspects of Paul’s letters has risen as part of a move to identify pretextual ingredients that factored into and influenced Paul’s reflections at any given point alongside … other matters. The prospect of Paul being a narrative theologian seems to offer the prospect of a fresh evaluation of Paul’s theological prowess and probity, and as such holds great attraction for many. 1

Likewise, the exegetical substructure that I have argued for may indirectly testify to its presence by supplying to other passages in Romans an intelligibility absent from their surface. In this chapter, I seek to corroborate my thesis by attempting to meet the final goal laid out in ch. 1: the proposed exegesis will have explanatory power that extends beyond the exegetical difficulties of the specific passage under investigation (§ 1.1.3.). 1

B. W. Longenecker, “The Narrative Approach to Paul: An Early Retrospective,” CBR 1 (2002): 89. Or to express a similar point differently: “As Rom 9–11 makes massive appeal to the Scriptures, it requires us to ask ourselves whether one might find in them the model or models which would be able to guide the Apostle’s thinking and, at the same time, provide us with the key to the passage capable of clarifying not only this section, but also the soteriology and the ecclesiology of the letter” (Jean-Noël Aletti, Israël et la loi dans la lettre aux Romains [LD 173; Paris: Cerf, 1998], 236 cited in Gadenz, Calling, 41 n. 86; translation my own). This key to Rom 9–11 is what I have been after, not necessarily in the service of uncovering the soteriology and ecclesiology of Romans, but if that in fact results, so much the better.

240

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

I submit that the exegetical substructure reconstructed in this study might contribute to resolving at least three conflicting or internally inconsistent arguments in Romans: (1) the divergent sets of reasoning that support the thesis in 9:6a given in 9:6b–11:10 and in 11:11–32; (2) the peculiar argument in Rom 11 that Gentile salvation depends causally on Jewish unbelief; and (3) the discord within Paul’s contention that the gospel shows no partiality but is nevertheless for the Jews first. All these topics have been addressed implicitly at various stages of this study. It remains to draw together the disparate threads in a series of brief proposals.

8.1. God’s Word to “Israel” Has Not Failed – Nor Has God’s Word to Israel 8.1. God’s Word to “Israel” Has Not Failed

In Rom 9–11 Paul puts forward a defense of God’s righteousness that is on the surface both inconsistent, because he provides separate theodicies predicated on distinct understandings of Israel, and lacking in logic, because he posits a causal connection between the (temporary) rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles that is neither self-evident nor justified. I will treat the first problem in this section, the second in the one that follows. To answer the question as to whether God’s word has failed (9:6a), Paul employs divergent notions of election, which correspond to separate definitions of Israel. In 9:6b–11:10, he apparently limits election to a remnant and eliminates physical kinship with Abraham as an affiliation guaranteeing or even facilitating elect status. Not fleshly descent but divine calling establishes Israel’s identity (9:8). Yet in 11:11–32, Paul evidently presupposes the inviolable election of Israel as an ethnic entity. The distinction between πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ/οἱ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν on the one hand (9:6; 11:7), and οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ/λεῖµµα κατ’ ἐκλογήν (9:6; 11:5) on the other, which had made Paul’s prior argument possible, vanishes in favor of an undifferentiated πᾶς Ἰσραήλ facing not bent backs and blind eyes (11:8–10), but the assurance of a coming deliverer (11:26–27).2 By v. 28 this promise sits comfortably on that very 2 With most interpreters I understand Rom 11:26–27 as a reference to Christ’s return, which will in some unspecified way effect the conversion of unbelieving Israel (probably in a manner analogous to Paul’s own conversion; so Hofius, “All Israel,” 37; Dunn, Romans, 2:683; Theobald, Studien, 341–42; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 270). What many are less willing to accept is that this view almost demands taking καὶ οὕτως in v. 26 either as temporal, “then” (so Pieter W. van der Horst, “‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ οὕτως in Romans 11:26,” JBL 119 [2000]: 521–25) or as correlative with the καθὼς γέγραπται that follows, despite the unnatural formulation. The salvation that breaks in from above in vv. 26–27 is clearly distinct in manner and effect from the provocation-through-jealousy program that Paul has just summarized in v. 25, making a modal interpretation awkward (see also vv. 14, 23–24; Watson, Beyond the New

8.1. God’s Word to “Israel” Has Not Failed

241

σάρξ that Paul had previously decoupled from Abrahamic paternity and disposed of as impotent before God’s sovereign call. Further, the remnant assumes a promissory function that it earlier lacked (11:16–17). Romans 11:11– 32 therefore contains an entirely distinct argument composed of elements either unanticipated or having an unanticipated role. Nowhere does Paul indicate how these divergent attempts to vindicate God’s word relate to each other. With reason, then, Francis Watson charges that in ch. 11 Paul reverts to the very theology of Israel he had previously rejected.3 Likewise, Heikki Räisänen draws attention to this volte face in his typically trenchant style. Critically evaluating claims that Paul’s attitude towards Israel in Romans has matured from the condemnatory tone struck in previous epistles, he writes as follows: The negative judgment on the people of Israel and the negation of their positive position in Rom 9 agrees with the view of 1 Thessalonians and Galatians. … If one reckons with a direct development [in Paul’s understanding of Judaism], then one should for the sake of consistency place the turning point between Rom 9 and Rom 11, or perhaps even between Rom 11:10 and 11:11!4

Several other exegetes have concurred.5 The problem of relating Israel in 9:6–11:10 to Israel in 11:11–32 is therefore parallel to the problem of finding consistency within Rom 9:6–29: the Perspective, 338–39; against Bell, Irrevocable Call, 253–54). The eschatological salvation of all Israel is hinted at in vv. 12, 15 but only explicitly stated in v. 26. Taking οὕτως as temporal permits (but does not require) the interpreter to accept a threefold mystery in vv. 25–26: (1) a hardening has come upon part of Israel (or, less likely, a partial hardening has come upon Israel; 11:25c); (2) this hardening is limited in time by the full inclusion of the Gentiles (11:25d); (3) all Israel will be saved (11:26). But if οὕτως introduces what follows, identifying the mystery is more problematic. This option suggests the translation, “And all Israel will be saved in this [viz., the following] way, as it is written … ,” which, in turn, forces a semantic break between v. 25 and v. 26–27. On this approach, 11:25c, d either contain the mystery themselves, making 11:26–27 an explanatory supplement added by Paul, or they form a summarizing introduction, recalling the argument of 11:11–24, that prepares for the actual mystery in v. 26–27: the coming deliverer (viz., Christ at his second coming) will trigger the salvation of all Israel. 3 Watson, Sociological Approach, 168, 170, 172–73. 4 Räisänen, “Römer,” 2929, 2932; see also 2893, 2906, 2916, 2920; idem, “Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism (ed. Jacob Neusner et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 178–206. 5 Though details vary, see Dodd, Romans, 179, 182–83; Dinkler, “Eschatological Israel,” 116–17; Wilckens, Röm, 185; Hübner, Gottes Ich, 58–59; J. Christiaan Beker, “Romans 9–11 in the Context of the Early Church,” PSBSupI 1 (1990): 45; Hofius, “All Israel,” 31; Lambrecht, “Israel’s Future,” in Studies, 35, 48–49; Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy,” 169; Cosgrove, “Rhetorical Suspense,” 273–75, 277, 281–82; idem, Elusive Israel: The Puzzle of Election in Romans (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1997); Donaldson, Gentiles, 176–77; Westerholm, “Paul and the Law,” 219.

242

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

argument seems to reverse on itself and lead the reader down false avenues.6 The difference is that 9:24–29 was anticipated already by the phrases ἐξ Ἰσραήλ and οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ in 9:6 and that the theology of election expressed in 9:7–23 can be seen upon reflection to justify the redefinition of Israel that Paul makes in 9:24–29. By contrast, nothing in 9:6–11:10 anticipates the turn made in 11:11, and certainly not the conclusion in 11:26–27. If Paul’s two attempts to establish God’s word to Israel cohere, its internal unity lies not within the textual discourse of Romans but beyond it.7 6

§ 4.6., § 7.3. See also Cosgrove, “Suspense,” 277; idem, Elusive Israel, 31–32, where in my judgment this point is established conclusively. 7 Attempts to answer this difficulty are numerous, and many of the following (only a representative list!) can be combined with each other in different ways: Paul arrived at the mystery unveiled in Rom 11:26–27 in the process of composing these chapters, whether through a direct revelation (Otto Glombitza, Bent Noack), or by means of working through various scriptural passages as he was writing (James W. Aageson); the dilemma does not exist because “all Israel” refers exclusively to either the community of Jewish and Gentile Christians (N. T. Wright) or to the elect Jews throughout history (François Refoulé, Ben L. Merkle, Christopher Zoccali) or to the elect Jews throughout history and believing Gentiles (Kyrychenko; Günther H. Juncker); the dilemma does not exist because Paul maintains Israel’s salvation and special privilege throughout Rom 9–11 (the two-covenant view of Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, Marry Ann Getty); the dilemma does not exist because the problem itself is the pernicious heritage of reading Paul in light of Christian anti-Judaism (William S. Campbell); the dilemma does not exist because Paul’s argument progresses temporally from the past (ch. 9) to the present (ch. 10) into the future (ch. 11; Johannes Munck, Bruce Longenecker, Michael Theobald); the dilemma does not exist because 11:26–27 were not part of the original epistle (Christoph Plag); the dilemma does not exist because “contradiction” can be relabeled “dynamic tension” and grounded in the Apostle’s theology proper (E. Elizabeth Johnson); the dilemma does exist but is understandable in light of the “irresistible momentum of [Paul’s] religious intuition” (Deissmann); Paul’s shift in argument is understandable in light of the remnant tradition (see § 7.2.); Paul’s shift in argument is understandable in light of the “hermeneutics of true prophecy” (Craig A. Evans); Paul’s shift in argument is understandable in light of a revised Gentile pilgrimage scenario (Dale C. Allison Jr.); Paul’s shift in argument is understandable in light of the “deuteronomic tradition” (James M. Scott, Richard H. Bell; building on the work of Joseph Klausner, Odil H. Steck, and Anders Hultgård); Paul’s shift in argument is understandable in light of the “deuteronomic tradition” which was first the “Exodus 32–34 tradition” (Brian J. Abasciano); Paul’s shift in argument can be explained by his use of intentionally misleading rhetoric and the trope of the “unreliable author” (Stowers, Gager, Meeks). These proposals may be found in the following: Deissmann, Paul, 107; Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (trans. William F. Stinespring; 3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1955); Glombitza, “Apostolische Sorge: Welche Sorge treibt den Apostel Paulus zu den Sätzen Röm. xi 25ff?” NovT 7 (1964–1965): 312–18; Noack, “Current and Backwater in the Epistle to the Romans,” Studia theologica 19 (1965): 166; Munck, Christ and Israel, passim; Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967); Plag, Israels Wege zum Heil: Eine

8.1. God’s Word to “Israel” Has Not Failed

243

Some scholars have appealed to Paul’s hermeneutic of reversal to ease this tension. Paul understands God’s action to operate paradoxically: he gives life to the dead and calls into being those things which are not (Rom 4:17), so that Israel, once rejected, stands in precisely the position required for a new divine calling.8 However, this approach, while accurate as far as it goes, is insufficient to address the problem at hand. “Logic of reversal” is a formal category with little material content and therefore limited in explanatory power. Paul’s paradoxical way of interpreting God’s calling as reversal is evident already in 1 Cor 1–4, but only in Romans does he indicate that it applies to Israel with the results described in 11:26–27. A decisive step towards solving this difficulty is taken by Frank Thielman in his article, “Unexpected Mercy: Echoes of a Biblical Motif in Romans 9– 11.” Following Paul’s quotations in Rom 9:6–13 back to their source in Genesis, Thielman perceives that the “logic of reversal” in Romans has its roots in a cycle of stories that repeatedly depicts an elder brother who loses his firstborn status to a younger sibling.9 Paul follows this pattern until its comes back full circle. Thielman elaborates: The motif which Paul has echoed in 9:6–13 contains within it the possibilities which Paul explains in 11:11–32, and which reach a climax in … 11:26. Since God is not bound by ethnic and cultural expectations … he can and will include ethnic Israel within his newly constituted people (11:23–31).10

Untersuchung zu Römer 9 bis 11 (AzTh 40; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969); Hultgård, L’eschatologie des “Testaments des Douze Patriarches” (2 vols.; Historia Religionum 6–7; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977–1982), 1:82–199; Evans, “True Prophecy,” 560–70; idem, “Paul and the Prophets,” 115–28; François Refoulé, “… et ainsi tout Israël sera sauvé”: Romains 11, 25–32 (LD 117; Paris: Cerf, 1984); ibid., “Cohérence ou incohérence de Paul en Romains 9–11?” RB 98 (1991): 51–79; Allison, “Romans 11:11–15: A Suggestion,” PRSt 12 (1985): 23–30; Aageson, “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11,” CBQ 48 (1986): 277–78, 280; Gaston, Paul and Torah, 96– 97; Getty, “Salvation,” 465; Johnson, Function, 146; B. W. Longenecker, “Different Answers,” 113; Meeks, “Trusting,” 108–10; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 298–99; Gager, Reinventing Paul, 134, 151–52; Wright, “Christ, the Law, and the People of God: The Problem of Romans 9–11,” in Climax, 249–51; Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 645–65; W. S. Campbell, “Favouritism and Egalitarianism,” 25, 31; Merkle, “Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel,” JETS 43 (2000): 709–21; Kyrychenko, “Consistency,” 215–17; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 200–285; Theobald, Römerbrief, 267; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 143; Juncker, “Children of Promise,” 131–60; Zocalli, “‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship,” JSNT 30 (2008): 289–318; idem, Called, 116–17. 8 Käsemann, Romans, 263, 274; Grindheim, Crux, 9, 32, 139, 161. Those cited in § 6.2.1. as applying the logic of reversal to Rom 9:25–26 can also be mentioned here: Wagner, Heralds, 82–83; Seifrid, “Romans,” 614; Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 104. 9 Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy,” 177. 10 Ibid., 180.

244

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

Once Gentile believers have received this mercy, they themselves need to hear both the warnings Paul delivers in 11:21–22 and the reminder that the Jews, because they have lost their covenantal status, are ironically now ideal candidates for a renewed extension of God’s unexpected mercy. Thielman’s solution clearly has much in common with my own, independently derived understanding of Rom 9–11.11 However, on his reading Paul recovers from Genesis primarily a pattern of divine election. I suggest that Paul finds not only a rationale for God’s action but also a typology of Israel. As the vehicle for the Hebrew mythomoteur, Genesis defines Israel by the dialectic of exile and return, exclusion and restoration, death and resurrection (§ 2.1., § 5.3.1.), an identity Paul sees confirmed in the present state of his fellow Jews. He thus recapitulates in his discourse what Genesis expresses through narrative portrayal: Israel exists simultaneously as one chosen and rejected; as an integrated kinship group and a fractured set of fraternal adversaries; as a divinely guaranteed seed and a remnant whose survival has been thrown into doubt. The vicissitudes of Paul’s exposition enact the paradoxical definition of Israel that he finds in Genesis.

8.2. Trading Places with Esau 8.2. Trading Places with Esau

Perhaps because Thielman concentrates his essay on Genesis’s narrative pattern as it relates to God, he leaves its horizontal elements underdeveloped. But in the depiction of agonistic relations between competing brothers, I suggest, lies the rationale for the perplexing argument in Rom 11:11–32. Throughout Rom 9–10, Paul maintains that Gentiles and Jews – the remnant excepted – have traded places. Israel, defined as an ethnic entity, has assumed the position formerly held by Ishmael, Esau, Pharaoh, and the vessels of wrath (§ 7.2.1.); it has failed to win the law of righteousness, though Gentiles have attained righteousness without trying (9:30–33); and it presently lacks the salvation experienced among the nations (10:1). Paul continues to expound this reversal after 11:11. Israel suffers rejection while the Gentiles enjoy acceptance (11:11–12, 15) and they are cut off from the olive tree while the Gentiles are grafted in (11:17–21). The entire discourse closes with a clear delineation of how in God’s plan Israel and the nations have been transposed: “Just as you [Gentiles] were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they

11

I agree with Thielman that Genesis has left its trace on the shape of Paul’s argument, but I seriously doubt that this influence was recognizable to the letter’s initial readers/ hearers, as Thielman maintains. Its presence is too subtle to play a determinative role at the communicative and rhetorical levels.

8.2. Trading Places with Esau

245

[the Jews] have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy” (11:30–31; see also vv. 28–29). Despite this continuity, new factors begin to appear in Paul’s argument after 11:11. The fundamental change in argumentative strategy was just addressed, but another element also surfaces: Paul relates the temporary rejection of Israel to Gentile salvation causally. He contends that God desires the salvation of all Israel. To bring this about, God hardens Israel (vv. 7, 25). He does this so that they will not accept the gospel (vv. 8–10). God wills this nonacceptance so that the gospel will proceed to the Gentiles (v. 11). This transference is necessary so that, provoked to jealousy by Gentile acceptance of the gospel – and God’s attendant acceptance of the Gentiles – Israel will accept the gospel (v. 14).12 Hence, Israel’s rejection of the gospel is explained

12

This understanding of 11:14 rests on the meaning of three terms, the determination of which also affects the interpretation of v. 11. In full, the verse reads, εἴ πως παραζηλώσω µου τὴν σάρκα καὶ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν. First, when Paul speaks of inciting his ethnic relations (σάρξ µου) to jealousy and saving some ἐξ αὐτῶν, the pronoun has as its antecedent hardened Israel, not the remnant (as claimed by Gadenz, Called, 246, 249). In vv. 12– 13, Paul refers to this part of Israel (i.e., the majority, the people as a whole minus the remnant) five times, using in every case the plural form of αὐτός. It stretches credulity to think that Paul’s sixth use of pl. αὐτός in v. 14 reaches behind its previous five occurrences, past four more appearances of αὐτός in the quotation from Ps 69:22–23 in 11:9–10, all in the plural and all referring to hardened Israel, finally pointing to the singular ἡ ἐκλογή in v. 7, the last reference to the remnant (made by way of an abstract noun). Second, the καί is not a mere connection but has ascensive force – Paul intends to provoke Israel to jealousy and so he will save some of them. Finally, there is no need to choose between the negative and positive understandings of παραζηλοῦν. The traditional supposition among commentators has been that Paul means righteous indignation, a meaning that clearly appears in 10:17. Recently, some interpreters have advocated taking it in a positive sense of emulate (on this debate, see arguments for the positive view in Bell, Irrevocable Call, 249–53; Lincicum, Encounter, 164–65; and the alternative in Gadenz, Called, 161–62, advocating for the negative view). However, it may be that Paul conceives of the jealousy envisioned as a negative experience having a potentially positive result. One may recall, by way of analogy, Socrates’s attempt to force people into knowledge by bringing them into confusion. He encountered an elite who, precisely because of its assumed intellectual achievements, lacked the conditions for the possibility of learning. He therefore introduced into their perceived knowledge a disruption that, once intensified to the point of crisis, resulted either in illumination and recollection or conversely in a confirmation of the interlocutor’s ignorance (e.g., Euthyphr. 15–16). An illustration closer to Rom 10–11 may be found in 1 Cor 1:18–31, where Paul states that he proclaims the cross in a paradoxical manner which of necessity produces scandal and rejection. It is the essence of his gospel that faith in it can only be authenticated when that faith embraces the offense of that in which it trusts. Similarly, in Rom 11, Paul appears to envision a ministry that acerbates the “emotional intensity and chagrin” (in Esler’s helpful phrase; Conflict, 292) among his Jewish compatriots in order to provoke a crisis that will result in the salvation of “some of them” (v. 14). In other words, the identity of the rem-

246

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

by the necessity for it to be proclaimed among the nations.13 But the necessity for it to be proclaimed among the nations is explained by its instrumentality in provoking Israel to believe in the gospel. The road to all Israel’s salvation seems to involve many extraneous steps. If God were truly as sovereign as Paul declared in ch. 9, why would it be necessary in ch. 11 for God to cause Israel’s disbelief for any reason, whether in order to include Gentiles in his salvation, or in order to lead Israel circuitously through provocation back to belief? That Paul has argued himself into an impasse has not gone unnoticed. C. H. Dodd calls the discussion “roundabout” and “tortuous.”14 Lloyd Gaston writes, “Why did Paul think God had to trip Israel in order to make manifest his new act of righteousness for Gentiles? Since Paul does not give an answer one can only speculate.”15 James Dunn wonders, “Was the casting off of Israel really necessary at this stage in salvation-history? Why could not the Gentiles have come in without the bulk of the Jews being thrown out, albeit temporarily?”16 It would seem that the apostle’s struggle to account for Israel’s rejection of the Messiah has only produced further difficulties.17 nant is discerned precisely by the willingness of a few to breakthrough their jealousy and believe the scandalous gospel message (11:23). 13 The author of Luke-Acts presents this idea in narrative form via the motif of Paul’s initial preaching in the synagogue and subsequent proclamation to the Gentiles (Acts 13:14–47; 14:1; 17:1–5, 10; 18:4–6; 19:8; the pattern is partially repeated in Rome, though Paul’s confinement requires that he host Jewish leaders in his own quarters, 28:17–28). How Paul himself actually carried out this program, or indeed whether he ever produced Jewish disciples of Christ in precisely the way described in Rom 11:11, 14, is impossible to know. 14 Dodd, Romans, 177. 15 Gaston, Paul, 149; so too Gager, Reinventing Paul, 139. 16 Dunn, Romans, 2:670. 17 Commentators have proffered numerous solutions, some of which overlap with those mentioned above in connection with the problem of relating 9:6–11:10 and 11:11–32, and which, like them, are not all mutually exclusive: Israel’s hardness is necessary to prevent the Jews’ “spiritual pride” and “narrowness” from overwhelming the church (E. P. Gould; H. L. Ellison); to bring about the crucifixion of the Messiah (C. E. B. Cranfield); to preserve the legitimacy of Paul’s Gentile mission against the belief of Peter that Gentiles would be converted only after Israel’s restoration (Lloyd Gaston); to trigger Gentile salvation in a revised Jewish restoration → Gentile pilgrimage scenario (Dale C. Allison Jr.); to deflate Jewish nationalism (James D. G. Dunn; Mark Nanos adopted a similar view but later repudiated it); to conform to the deuteronomic pattern (James M. Scott, Richard H. Bell); to create a temporal window of opportunity for Gentile conversion (Terence L. Donaldson; N. T. Wright; Robert Jewett [though I cannot see how Jewett squares this approach and its emphasis on the coming Parousia with his overall anti-apocalyptic interpretation of Rom 11:11–16]; Pablo T. Gadenz); to prevent Israel’s destruction due to divine judgment on its sin (Brian J. Abasciano); to prevent limiting the inheritance of Abraham to a single ethnic group (N. T. Wright; Brian J. Abasciano).

8.2. Trading Places with Esau

247

Does my hypothetical pre-epistolary exegesis address the peculiar relation between Jewish jealousy and universal salvation in Rom 11? Actually, the requirement that Israel lose its salvation so that the nations may gain it has an analogue in the relation between the chosen and the rejected sons. To summarize again: Genesis narrates the story of Israel’s election by means of a twofold literary motif. Primogeniture is transferred from the elder to the younger son, but the favored son’s resulting preeminence is reversed by the temporary exaltation of the non-elect brother. Cain rises up over Abel, Ishmael carries away Isaac’s enslaved grandson, Esau receives the submission of Jacob, and Joseph’s brothers cast him down into a pit. It is the fate of the firstborn son to lose his exalted position before receiving his inheritance, so that only as one who has endured exile and death – indeed, only by suffering the exclusionary reflex his election had on his brother – does he realize what that election entails (§ 5.3.1.). I attempted to show in ch. 6 that Paul has applied the paradox of election to the people of Israel through an exegesis of Hosea (§ 6.2.2.2.–§ 6.2.2.5.). As Jacob attains his inheritance only after experiencing Esau’s – temporary – exaltation over him, so too Israel gains its promise only after being replaced by Esau’s typological heirs. The chosen son suffers rejection because only by sharing his brother’s exclusion can he deliver a remnant of his family and For these arguments, the references are as follows: Gould, “Romans,” 36; Henry L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel: An Exposition of Romans 9–11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 81–82; Cranfield, Romans, 2:556; Gaston, Paul and Torah, 149; Allison, “Suggestion,” 23–30; Dunn, Romans, 2:670–71; Wright, Climax, 249; Donaldson, “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission,” JBL 112 (1993): 81–98; idem, Gentiles, 236–48; Scott, “Deuteronomic Tradition,” 645–65; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 200–285; idem, Irrevocable Call, 249; Nanos, Mystery, 286; idem, “Response,” CRBR 11 (1998): 169; Jewett, Romans, 674; Abasciano, Romans 9.1–9, 106; 210; Gadenz, Calling, 250. Some offer no solution but repeat Paul’s affirmations. E. Elizabeth Johnson may be taken as representative: “If God has blinded Israel and continually ‘bends their neck’ (11:10), is this a permanent condition? Of course not, since Israel’s very hardening has meant the Gentiles’ salvation, which will itself result in Israel’s” (Function, 161; so too Grindheim, Crux, 162 n. 99). But the question is this: If what prevents Israel’s salvation is its current hardening by divine action, then why should Paul have recourse to such hardening for the purpose of bringing about Israel’s salvation? Those who accept the historical reliability of Acts tend to see in Rom 11 a reflection of Paul’s missionary pattern as presented there (Barrett, Romans, 197; James C. Miller, “The Jewish Context of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” TynBul 58 [2007]: 101–15). Dahl understands Paul’s description as an ex post facto rationalization. He writes: “Paul interprets what has actually happened”; the cause-and-effect relation Paul argues for represents an attempt to explain theologically what has in fact occurred (“Future of Israel,” in Studies, 150; see also W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel, 89–91). Most interpreters, whatever else they may say about these chapters, would acknowledge at least some truth to this claim, myself included.

248

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

thereby preserve Abraham’s seed (§ 7.2.3.). By submitting to the exaltation of the formerly cast-off sibling the firstborn finds the meaning of election and secures his family’s survival. I contend that in Rom 11, Paul carries forward his correlation of Gentile believers with Esau and applies to them and to Israel this dialectic of election and its reversal. God hardens his people in order to bring about the salvation of the Gentiles, so that he may ultimately bring salvation back to Israel – simply because this paradoxical operation corresponds to the fate of the chosen son as rendered in Genesis. Paul’s rationale for this depiction is only that it recapitulates the mythomoteur on which it is based. This proposal may be substantiated by a brief look at Gen 32–33. This passage narrates Jacob’s return to Palestine, a turning point in his story. He has suffered the fate of Cain (4:12, 14, 16), Lot (19:30), and Ishmael (21:8–21) by going into exile; he shares the fate of Esau in his humiliating return. Jacob bows before his brother seven times (33:3, 10) and proclaims himself Esau’s servant (32:21 [Eng: v. 20]; 33:5, 14). This obeisance reverses the divine oracle of 25:23 and the patriarchal blessing of 27:29 (see also 27:37). Jacob insists on giving Esau atoning gifts (‫ ;אכפרה פניו במנחה‬32:21 [Eng: v. 20]) and offers a blessing to compensate for the one he stole (33:11).18 Jacob’s return from exile brings about not his exaltation but his abasement. By contrast, Esau – once duped, humiliated, robbed of his blessing and birthright, and destined since birth to fraternal servitude – suddenly reappears not only as a powerful chieftain but even resembling the face of God (33:10).19

18

Brett, Genesis, 98. According to several interpreters, Jacob, in fact, returns the blessing, the very one taken in 27:28–29 (Steinmetz, Fathers, 111; Levenson, Beloved Son, 64– 65; Syrén, Forsaken, 106; Dicou, Edom, 123). 19 This episode is frequently – and wrongly – referred to as the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau (e.g., Levenson, Beloved Son, 64, 65, 225; Syrén, Forsaken, 107, 109; Dicou, Edom, 16, 116, 159; Kaminsky, Jacob, 54–56 [with qualifications]; Abasciano, Romans 9.10–18, 8). This understanding has persisted for some time: John Locke, who in his First Treatise of Government frequently makes reference to professional interpreters of Scripture, states that after Isaac’s death, Jacob and Esau live “with the friendship and equality of brethren” [Two Treatises of Government: And, A Letter Concerning Tolerance; ed. Ian Shapiro; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 72). In fact, Jacob’s return is riddled with ambiguity. He offers atoning gifts for his past, but Esau in the rush to “bear hug” his brother brushes these aside. They kiss and weep in each other’s arms, yet Esau’s persistent attempts to reestablish fraternal ties are met with diffidence; Jacob quickly becomes aloof. Esau showers him with affection while Jacob seeks to put a good bit of distance between them. Esau insists that they spend some time together, but Jacob repeatedly demurs, finally promising to come at some convenient time, a pledge which turns out to be Jacob’s final deceit (33:14). The “reconciliation” depicted is entirely one-sided (George W. Coats, “Strife without Reconciliation: A Narrative Theme in the Jacob Traditions,” in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Wes-

8.2. Trading Places with Esau

249

If Paul transplants Gentiles into the Abrahamic family by aligning them with excluded and outcast Esau, then his admonition to them in Rom 11 can be accounted for without resorting to speculative hypotheses concerning interethnic hostilities in Rome. He exhorts the Gentiles to humility in the face of Israel’s current position because they are to demonstrate the conciliatory, loving, and fraternal attitude towards Jacob that Esau displayed in Gen 33. The parallels between Jacob and Esau on the one hand and Israel and the Gentiles on the other can be illustrated schematically: Jacob and Esau in Gen 33

Israel and the Gentiles in Rom 9–11

Jacob is the son chosen by God’s election.

Israel is the son chosen by God’s election.

Jacob strives for the blessing, yet loses it.

Israel strives for righteousness, yet loses it.

Jacob splits his family to preserve a remnant.

Israel is split to preserve a remnant.

Jacob and Esau exchange places.

Israel and the Gentiles exchange places.

Jacob’s humiliation means gifts for Esau.

Israel’s exclusion means riches for the Gentiles.

Esau receives Jacob’s blessing.

Gentiles share in the Jews’ blessing (15:27).

Esau is not bitter.

The Gentiles should not be arrogant.

The intertwined fates of favored and rejected sons in Genesis discloses the eschatological relation between Jews and Gentiles, and the crystallization of this pattern in Gen 32–33 shapes the argument in Rom 11. Esau’s heirs have forced out (the majority of) Jacob’s, but only for a time. The logic of this position is not rational or theoretical but exegetical and theological: each brother must suffer the fate of the other, so that God’s mercy may fall equally on everyone (Rom 11:32).

termann zum 70. Geburtstag [ed. Rainer Albertz et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980], 82–106; Stanley D. Walters, “Jacob Narrative,” ABD 3:605).

250

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

8.3. The Priority of Israel and the Equality of Gentiles 8.3. The Priority of Israel and the Equality of Gentiles

Perhaps the crux interpretum in Romans is Paul’s affirmation that the gospel is available to all without distinction even while he maintains Israel’s priority in salvation history. The gospel is for all who believe, yet remains for the Jew first (1:16); they have priority in judgment as well as salvation (2:9–10); they have received privileges unique among the nations (3:1; 9:1–5); they retain their election on the basis of the fathers (11:32); they beheld the Messiah whose mission was to confirm their promises (15:8); and they possess spiritual blessings, so that Gentiles who share in them are placed in their debt (15:27). Yet the gospel addresses the problem of universal sin (3:22) and announces a universally attainable faith (10:12), in both cases without distinction: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή. No human can be justified by works of the law (3:20), because the one God of Jews and Gentiles justifies circumcised and uncircumcised on the same basis (3:29–30; see also 4:16; 10:13). Again, several interpreters have detected this incongruity. W. D. Davies expressed the problem in this way: Paul’s quandary was precisely this: how to do justice to the historical role of his own people without thereby, ipso facto, elevating their ethnic character to a position of special privilege. This is why the tortuous discussion in Romans 9–11 … ends in a paradox: in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek and yet a continued place for the Jewish people as such.20

E. Elizabeth Johnson summarizes: The extended discussion of Israel’s place in the economy of salvation is the final resolution of a tension inherent in the letter from the very statement of its theme (1:16): God is absolutely impartial in judgment and salvation, but Israel nevertheless has a salvation-historical advantage. This tension in Paul’s argument between God’s impartiality and faithfulness to Israel provides the conceptual framework for the whole letter. God’s impartial treatment of all can never be seen as abandonment of God’s elect, but neither can God’s faithfulness to Israel be construed as partiality.21 20

W. D. Davies, “Israel,” in Studies, 147. Johnson, Function, 120. Despite claiming that Rom 9–11 is the “final resolution” of a tension present in Paul’s letter since 1:16, Johnson realizes that Rom 9–11 does not, on its surface, provide a resolution at all. She soon after writes: “[In Rom 11:28–32, Paul sets] God’s irrevocable election of Israel directly beside his impartial judgment and redemption of all, without resolving the tension” (ibid., 146; emphasis added). See also Seifrid, “Romans,” 638: the open proclamation of the gospel to all, Jew and Gentile alike, is a characteristic of salvation in the present age that will eventually come to an end. Then, God will exercise his prerogative to act “in all particularity” and save Israel. Despite considerable effort, David Wallace’s attempt to overcome this problem also succeeds only in restating the issue (e.g., Lesser Son, 104, 247–48). His ultimate solution, that the salvation of all Israel includes both repentant Jews and Gentiles in Israel (ibid., 201–3, 219–20), is not only susceptible to the common objections to an ecclesial interpre21

8.3. The Priority of Israel and the Equality of Gentiles

251

And Charles H. Cosgrove writes: “Although a majority of scholars now think that ‘all Israel’ is the Jewish nation as a whole, whose election is irrevocable, no satisfactory answer has been given to the objection that this makes God partial in a way that contradicts the whole tenor of the first ten chapters of Romans.”22 Israel is privileged, yet the gospel gives Israel no advantage. If all Israel is saved, it has retained its primacy, and yet neither the gospel nor God’s mercy that offers it can show favoritism. A number of exegetes find the answer to this dilemma in Paul’s interpretation of Scripture. The two sources most commonly advanced to explain this feature of Paul’s eschatological convictions are Deuteronomy and Isaiah.23 Both biblical witnesses provide important testimony to the destiny of Israel, its relation to the Gentiles, and its ultimate guarantee of God’s faithfulness. When Paul combines their voices, as he does several times in Romans (Rom 10:19–21, quoting Deut 32:21 and Isa 65:1–2; Rom 11:8, quoting a mixed form of Deut 29:4 and Isa 29:10, with Isa 6:10 likely in the mix; Rom 15:9– 12, quoting Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10), the conclusion appears evident that, as J. Ross Wagner claims, Moses and Isaiah speak in concert, prophesying “the divine hardening of a portion of Israel for the sake of the salvation of the Gentiles.”24 Despite these claims, the equality of Jew and Gentile in God’s eschatological salvation of his people is nowhere affirmed in either Deuteronomy or Isaiah. At most, the passages that Paul quotes or alludes to (e.g., Deut 32:43; Isa 11:10) may permit such a reading when taken in isolation, but given the extensive negative portrayals of the Gentiles in these books as enemies of both God and his people (Deut 32:28–35, 42, and even 43b; Isa 11:13–15 – note especially the destruction of Edom by the returning exiles in Isa 11:14 and the contrast between this and Mal 1:2–3 on the one hand and Paul’s subtation of 11:26, it also stands in some tension with his claim that Paul does not “eliminate ethnic distinctions” (218). 22 Cosgrove, Elusive Israel, 31–32; see also idem, “Suspense,” 277; J. Christiaan Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in The Romans Debate, 327–32; repr. from Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor Krister Stendahl on His 65th Birthday (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Grindheim, Crux, 136; W. S. Campbell, Creation, 127. 23 Bell, Irrevocable Call, 249; J. Ross Wagner, “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians,” in Isaiah in the New Testament (ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 118; J. Edward Walters, “How Beautiful Are My Feet: The Structure and Function of Second Isaiah References in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” ResQ 52 (2010): 30–31, 39; Wright, Faithfulness, 1:118, 1:130–31. 24 Wagner, “Moses and Isaiah in Concert: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah and Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Romans,” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 102. See also idem, Heralds, 328, and frequently throughout.

252

Chapter 8: Beyond Romans 9

version of this very theme in Rom 9 on the other), it is difficult to posit these as generative sources of inspiration.25 Despite the claims of Wagner, the interconnection between Israel’s hardening, Gentile salvation, and Israel’s salvation is completely foreign to these texts taken on their own. The exegetical substructure I have posited for Rom 9 can address this dilemma as well. I propose that it is Genesis that provides the key to understanding the paradox between the priority of Israel and the equality of Jews and Gentiles that has puzzled students of the Apostle.26 To sketch an answer very briefly: When Israel’s priority as God’s firstborn son (Exod 4:22; Rom 9:4) is seen against the narrative pattern of Genesis (§ 5.3.1.), the paradox of Romans dissolves. It is not merely that God elects the son in the humble position, so that he can display his compassion, as is argued by David Wallace.27 Israel can be both preeminent over and equal to its Gentile counterpart because the favored child trades his dignity to share his brother’s reproach. It is the privilege of Israel to relinquish its priority so that others may share in its blessings (see Rom 15:27). Paul assigns this operation a theological cause: God locks up all in disobedience so that he may have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). This is not a destiny freely assumed but one divinely imposed. It is not any heroism found in Israel, much less any virtue present among the nations, which accounts for this preeminence-in-suffering-for-another. It is the irreducible meaning of divine election, mediated through narratives and finding climactic expression in the Son who is the firstborn. I will return to this ultimate christological basis in the conclusion (§ 9.3.).

8.4. Conclusions 8.4. Conclusions

The exegetical substructure that I have derived from Rom 9 has the potential to untangle some of the most perplexing knots in the epistle. In every case, Paul’s interpretation of Genesis reconstructed from Rom 9:6–13, 24–29 proved capable of meeting fundamental interpretive challenges. 25

The attempts of Wagner (Heralds, 317 n. 38) and, more thoroughly, Lincicum (Encounter, 161–62) to deal with this problem is commendable, especially since the issue is often simply ignored (and they themselves treat only Deut 32, not Isa 11 in this regard). They successfully show how Paul might have dealt with the negative portrayal of Israel’s enemies in the Song of Moses if he was already determined to read the text as applicable to his own missionary situation. However, this falls short of demonstrating that Deut 32 generated Paul’s convictions concerning the interplay of Jewish unbelief in the Messiah and the Messiah’s acceptance by the nations. 26 Naturally, Paul’s conviction concerning the equality of Gentiles and Jews with respect to salvation predates Romans. But it is only in this letter that the peculiar tension occurs between “for the Jew first” and “there is no difference.” 27 Wallace, Lesser Son, 2, 4, and passim.

8.4. Conclusions

253

The tension between Israel defined as a remnant (9:6–11:10) and Israel defined as an ethnic entity descended from Abraham (11:11–11:32) is resolved in the paradoxical identity of Israel articulated in the Jewish mythomoteur. There, the beloved son proves his election by sharing in the fate of his excluded brother. The odd causal relation between the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the nations (11:11–12, 17–19, 28–32) likewise has its ground in the same ironic portrayal, because the chosen son experiences his rejection in and through the elder brother’s temporary reclamation of his lost preeminence. Finally, the tension between Israel’s priority (2:9–10; 3:1; 9:1–5; 11:26–27; 15:8, 27) and the gospel’s impartiality (3:22–23, 29–30; 4:16; 10:12) also corresponds to Genesis’s narrative pattern. Israel is privileged to surrender its own place for the benefit of another. Therefore, the Pauline exegesis reconstructed above is supported by more than its ability to solve the interpretive problems inherent in Rom 9. It appears to have shaped major elements composing the epistle’s theological vision. If there is a need to account for the unique convictions that Paul expresses only in Romans, I submit that a fresh exegesis of the Bible’s first book undertaken prior to writing this letter offers an answer that is not only plausible but compelling. Scholars will debate whether the meaning of “the righteousness of God” is located in Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, or somewhere else. But the ability of that righteousness to pacify antagonistic relations among estranged brothers is revealed in Genesis.

Conclusions In Rom 9, Paul reconfigures the identity of God’s people through an extensive reinterpretation of his inherited mythomoteur. He does this neither by “troping” abstracted narratives of God’s righteousness (so Richard Hays) nor by exerting his will to power over a mute text (so Christopher Stanley). Rather, Paul reads his biblical texts looking for clues to the mystery of Jew and Gentile in the messianic era. What he discovers and sets forth in Romans is a theology of Israel unique among his extant writings. This new departure suggests that, however much theological convictions and rhetorical exigencies guide his interpretation of Scripture, they do not determine it in advance. He finds in Genesis the story of election bestowed, annulled, and reconstituted, and he discerns in Hosea and Isaiah the means to apply this dynamic to the salvation-historical events unfolding before him. In Israel’s etiology Paul discovers its eschatology. This conclusion affords an opportunity to summarize the foregoing results, to assess the relative importance of Genesis and Isaiah for Paul, to mention some christological implications, and to propose further study of the relation between Paul’s scriptural interpretation and a specific aspect of the Jesus tradition.

1. Summary of This Study 1. Summary of This Study

In the introduction, I presented my thesis that beneath Paul’s assertions and biblical quotations in Rom 9 lies his prior interpretation of Genesis, and I suggested that this hypothesis might account for many of the tensions between the disparate arguments in Rom 9–11. In ch. 1, I laid out the methodological bases on which the present study rests. I suggested that for Paul, story constitutes an essential category of interpretation, as a scriptural meta-narrative, certainly, but especially as discrete narratives embedded within that overarching plot. I then dealt with three issues that must be addressed in any attempt to reconstruct Paul’s scriptural exegesis after him. First, because of its hypothetical nature this enterprise requires that it meet firm criteria if its results are to be persuasive. Second, because it relies on adaptations that Paul allegedly makes to his biblical quo-

256

Conclusions

tations, it needs compelling standards to evaluate whether these are intentional, and those standards must take into consideration the textual plurality of the Second Temple period. Finally, because this study aims to recover Paul’s own exegesis, it supposes that Paul uses interpretive practices common in early Judaism. Therefore I proposed criteria to deal with each of these issues. A reconstructed pre-epistolary exegesis has merit to the extent that it (1) is rooted in the Pauline text through specific vocabulary, thematic overlap, and especially direct quotations from Scripture; (2) makes use of hermeneutical techniques known to have been available to Paul in his intellectual milieu; (3) solves recognizable problems in the text; and (4) has an explanatory power that reaches beyond the passage that initially generated the hypothesis. Further, an intentional, exegetically significant change to the quoted text is probable to the extent that the variation (1) has its earliest extant witness in Paul (insofar as this can be established on text-critical grounds); (2) is integrated into his argument; (3) has some connection to the context of other texts that he quotes; and (4) cannot be explained as a revision towards the Hebrew. Lastly, examples of those exegetical techniques important for this study were shown to be present in contemporary forms of Jewish reading practices. These include the use of prophetic texts to interpret the Torah, gezera shawa, and atomizing exegesis. In ch. 2, I assembled a threefold frame of reference for the exegesis of Rom 9 undertaken in subsequent chapters. First, I derived a theoretical model from Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach to narrative and identity, an approach summarized in the concept of a mythomoteur. Second, I located Paul’s ideological and theological background in those Jewish writings that use Abraham as a symbol of Jewish identity. Finally, I surveyed passages in his letters in which he relates Gentile believers to Israel via Abrahamic traditions. I concluded that Rom 4 pioneers new ground. Rather than subsuming Gentiles under the label Israel in an undifferentiated Abrahamic unity, here for the first time Paul places Jewish and Gentile believers next to each other as separate branches of a single Abrahamic tree. This perspective reappears in Rom 9. Chapter 3 explores the exigencies that compelled Paul to write Romans and thus establishes the reason for the letter presupposed throughout this study. Paul does not write with the primary aim of unifying disparate congregations in Rome, be they fractured along sociological, ethnic, political, or theological lines. Rather, he sends this letter for precisely the reason he gives: to prepare for his visit which he hopes will result in spiritual benefit for everyone and financial assistance for him. The reason why he composes such a daunting, complex, and theologically dense letter to attain such simple goals is that he fears opposition from Asia Minor has found its way to Rome and is currently poisoning his reception. This and other external factors likely precipitated the

1. Summary of This Study

257

change in Paul’s understanding of how Jews and Gentiles relate in the eschatological age that one encounters when Romans is compared Paul’s other letters. However, the driving factor was not merely a need to tailor his message to gain financial patronage but a biblical hermeneutic that allowed him to read and therefore to hear the Scriptures in new ways. In ch. 4, I began a detailed examination of Rom 9 by exegeting vv. 6–13. I argued that Paul defends the viability of (what his gospel implies about) God’s word, and he turns to the patriarchal narratives to do so. He bases on them an understanding of election that operates without regard for circumcision or Torah observance. It is instead characterized by a reversal of primogeniture and an exclusionary reflex: the election of the younger son as Abraham’s seed entails the expulsion of his elder brother. I further argued that Paul lays out his case in a manner that appears to rupture the logic of his own goals. He does so in two ways. First, he so strongly emphasizes the absolute freedom of God that he leaves undeveloped his opening distinction between all those from Israel and those who are Israel. Second, Paul seems to follow a reading of the Jewish mythomoteur that limits God’s love to the chosen people and that rejects any divine solicitude for nonJewish nations, a position inconsistent with the conclusion stated in 9:24–29. I turn to these verses in ch. 5. The prophetic texts quoted in Rom 9:25–29 have numerous connections with the patriarchal narratives, particularly as Paul interprets them in 9:6–13. His quotations from Malachi, Hosea, and Isaiah all show significant verbal links with Genesis. These occur at every level: in the portions Paul quotes, in the adaptations that he makes to them, and in their original contexts. Furthermore, Hosea and Isaiah display the same ironic pattern of election and its reversal that characterizes Genesis. This network of intertextual connections indicates that an exegetical substructure undergirds Rom 9. In ch. 6, I attempted to reconstruct Paul’s interpretation of Hosea as a conclusion to the story of Abraham’s children found in Genesis. I began with an overview of Rom 9:14–24 that confirmed my interpretation of 9:6–13: Paul is not (explicitly) pursuing the question of Israel’s division from Israel (v. 6b) but providing a defense of Jewish election (vv. 7–13), which he eventually overturns (vv. 25–29). Concerning Paul’s reading of Hosea, two exegetical problems set the agenda: Why does Paul quote Hosea’s promise that Israel will be restored to God’s covenant as proof that Gentiles are currently being included among his people? and, What meaning might he attribute to the words in his quoted text that emphasize the place where Gentiles are called? I argued that Paul atomizes the parallel phrases in Hos 2:1 and reads them in light of Isa 10:22 (gezera shawa). By these maneuvers, he accomplishes two goals. First, he creates in Hosea textual space for Gentile children of Abraham: they are the excluded children typologically identified with Esau, whose (temporary) period of ascendency has begun. Second, he locates the

258

Conclusions

remnant in Hosea’s predictions: it is the house of Judah, temporarily estranged from the house of Israel. On this basis, I argued that the series of prophecies in Hos 1–3 closely parallels Paul’s eschatological scenario in Rom 9–11, and may therefore have played a role in its formulation. I also concluded that Paul understands the place where Gentiles are included to be the cosmicallyreinterpreted territory promised to Abraham’s seed. In ch. 7, I moved from Hosea to Isaiah and continued to reconstruct Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis. As in ch. 6, two questions framed the discussion: What is the meaning of Paul’s quotation from Isa 10:22–23? and, What is the origin and significance of the remnant? I showed that Paul interprets Isaiah’s oracle as a promise, but as one that applies exclusively to the remnant. He does not quote Isaiah to express hope for all Israel’s salvation. On the contrary, by means of these verses Paul for the first time in Rom 9 explicitly applies to Abraham’s family the division in v. 6b between those of Israel and that which is Israel. Isaiah effects this rupture, which in God’s power had always been possible (Rom 9:14–23), and expressly states that faith distinguishes those rejected from those who remain. The remnant itself is therefore an ambiguous theological symbol. Attempts to read it as a guarantee of salvation for the entire people of Israel run against the obstacle that it has this function neither in Isaiah nor Rom 9:6–11:10. If, within the context of Paul’s argument, the concept of the remnant contains a promise for all Israel, it most likely derives from Genesis, where remnant language is applied to Abraham’s family in order to describe its paradoxical deliverance through dissolution. In ch. 7, I also addressed the several surprising turns in Paul’s argument noted in ch. 4. These can also be understood in light of his narrative precursor. The dialectic of election expressed in Genesis as a literary feature is recapitulated in Paul’s epistle as a subtle, almost subterranean, element of his rhetoric. In ch. 8, I proposed that the exegetical substructure I have reconstructed can resolve several antinomies in Romans as a whole. The tension between Paul’s different solutions to the problem behind 9:6a (9:6b–11:10 and 11:11– 32), the necessary connection he posits between Israel’s rejection and the nations’ inclusion, and the apparent conflict between particularity and universality throughout the letter, all grow out of Paul’s abiding commitment to the Abrahamic mythomoteur, even as he drastically reconfigures it.

2. Genesis and Isaiah in Romans 2. Genesis and Isaiah in Romans

Throughout this study, I have sought to show that Genesis is Paul’s base text and that Hosea is at least as important as Isaiah in applying the patriarchal narratives to his contemporary situation. I hope thereby to correct an imbal-

2. Genesis and Isaiah in Romans

259

ance among Pauline interpreters. Several recent monographs have argued that Isaiah supplies Paul with the necessary theological tools and rhetorical arguments for constructing his epistle to the Romans.1 Florian Wilk goes so far as to postulate that Paul, prior to writing Romans, undertook a fresh and thorough engagement with Isaiah, resulting in the distinctive theological emphases found throughout the letter and particularly in chs. 9–11 (§ 3.5.). The epistle therefore represents something of a hermeneutical breakthrough in Paul’s theology of Israel, and it is occasioned, according to Wilk, by the apostle’s newfound willingness to take Isaiah at face value.2 I have no desire to detract from Isaiah’s importance to Paul or indeed to early Christian readers of Scripture in general. And I would not dispute that a new engagement with Scripture gives Romans a theological vision that sets it apart from Paul’s previous letters. Yet I cannot help but think that Isaiah sometimes does more work in the pages of Paul’s interpreters than in the Pauline letters themselves, and that its importance for Romans has been overstated to the detriment of other, equally or more compelling sources of Paul’s theological reasoning.3 Romans 9–11 opens (9:7) and closes (11:28) with Paul’s appeal to the patriarchs. I hope to have shown that much of what occurs in between proceeds from the same point of reference. The misplaced focus on Isaiah, one might say, has caused interpreters to trip over the Isaianic stumbling stone, a stone which, ironically, should have led them back to Torah.

1 Wilk, Bedeutung; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah; Wagner, Heralds. Other exegetes who agree that Isaiah is the major biblical source of Paul’s theology in Romans include Paul E. Dinter, J. Edward Walters, and Jörg Frey (Dinter, “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” 48–52; Frey, “Identity,” 300; Walters, “How Beautiful,” 29–39). Seifrid suggests that behind Paul’s interpretation of Genesis in Rom 9:6–13 lies his reading of Isaiah – precisely the opposite of what I argue here (“Romans,” 639, 640; similarly Wagner, Heralds, 43, 47). 2 Wilk, Bedeutung, 41–42, 140, 159, 362–63. 3 To recapitulate, in the book of Isaiah, the remnant does not serve as a guarantee for the salvation of all Israel nor does that salvation involve the inclusion of Gentiles except occasionally, and never, with the possible exception of 19:18–25, on equal footing between the two groups. Further, when Gentiles do share in Israel’s salvation, they never do so as children of Abraham. More broadly, Paul’s regulation of Torah (interpreted literally) to the status of adiaphora is completely inconsistent with LXX Isaiah, which actually increases the importance of Torah observance vis-à-vis the Hebrew (a point made by Joel Marcus, in dialogue with J. Ross Wagner: Marcus, “Response to J. Ross Wagner, ‘“Now is the Day of Salvation”: Paul and Isaiah as Heralds of the Gospel’” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Diego, Calif., 7 November 2007]). To be sure, Isaiah’s message of doom and restoration does bear both a formal and material similarity to how Paul views Israel, and there is no reason to deny that his influence on the apostle here is profound. But there is nothing in Isaiah that could provoke the complicated and delicate interplay of judgment, hope, jealousy, and Gentile equality that occurs in Rom 9–11.

260

Conclusions

3. The Firstborn of Many Brothers 3. The Firstborn of Many Brothers

If there is a bedrock beneath the exegetical substructure I have proposed, it is the apostle’s Christology. I have avoided entanglements in this area, because the subject is vast and would quickly lead away from Rom 9. But in my judgment it is not possible to appreciate fully Paul’s exegetical and typological accomplishment without recognizing its christological foundation. In Genesis, the firstborn son suffers a loss of status in order to endure an exile synonymous with death, and he does so precisely so that the excluded brother regains his superior standing, and ultimately so that the elect son shares the fate of his oppositional Other. In Rom 9, Paul applies this typology to Israel, who enacts an exodus from covenantal standing to death, and from death to eschatological life, so that Gentiles too may be brought into salvation with them (Rom 11:12, 15). This entire complex of movements is homologous to the passage from crucifixion to resurrection endured by the Son, the firstborn of many whose siblings find salvation through their conformity to the pattern of his death-for-others (Rom 8:17, 29, 32). The conceptual parallels between Rom 8 and 11 illuminate this correspondence. Rom 8:17 And if [we are] children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew [= the elect; v. 33] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Rom 11:30–32 Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

God is the one who gives up his firstborn son for the sake of the world’s salvation, be that son the incarnate Messiah or the Israel whose destiny is inextricably tied to his. Salvation comes to those united with Christ in his forsakenness. If Israel refuses to experience the sufferings of its Messiah through faith in him, God will impose on it the form of his dereliction in the same unilateral way that, according to Paul’s description in Rom 9, he imposes election. I therefore consider my proposal to be compatible with N. T. Wright’s christological interpretation of Rom 11: Israel shares in the destiny of the Messiah who himself recapitulates the story of Israel. As Wright puts it: “Israel … is

4. Proposal for Further Study

261

cast away, as was her Messiah, so that the world might be brought into the family of God.”4 And again: “The story of election … reflect[s the] cruciform necessity all along in a way which only the inaugurated messianic eschatology can reveal.”5 If both groups are to participate in the eschatological life of Christ, both must be conformed to his death and resurrection. In the Abrahamic mythomoteur, reinterpreted in light of the crucified and resurrected Christ, Paul has discovered the resources for a theology of Israel’s election that entails its own repudiation-for-others.6 The paradox between the priority of Israel’s election and the universality of the gospel can be revisited from this angle. Ultimately, Israel can be preeminent and also without advantage because Israel’s Messiah, God’s Son, is both lord and servant (Rom 1:4, 15:8; see also Phil 2:5–11), both first and last (cf. Mark 9:35; 10:31, 44).

4. Proposal for Further Study 4. Proposal for Further Study

This reference to the Jesus tradition leads to a final suggestion. Paul has reappropriated the mythomoteur embedded in Genesis to understand how Israel and the nations relate to each other and to God in the era begun with the Mes4

Wright, Climax, 246. Idem, Faithfulness, 2:1182; see also idem, Climax, 243, 248–49; idem, “Adam, Israel, and the Messiah,” in Climax, 18–40; idem, “Romans,” in NIB 10:471–72, 682–84; idem, Justification, 125, 130–31, 244; idem, Faithfulness, 2:858, 1015; Hays, Echoes, 61–62; Donaldson, Gentiles, 223; Zoccali, Called, 113. I regard it an additional strength that my interpretation allows what Wright’s does not: an ethnic interpretation of πᾶς Ἰσραήλ and a real correspondence between Christ’s resurrection, Israel’s restoration, and a universal, non-metaphorical resurrection in Rom 11:15. On my reading, Paul imposes a cruciform pattern on Israel’s destiny without thereby erasing Israel’s ethnic particularity. 6 Wright, Faithfulness, 2:1183, 1191. These conclusions are also consistent with those of Sigurd Grindheim, though the arguments leading to them differ greatly. (Grindheim criticizes Wright’s christological interpretation of Israel’s stumbling but comes very close to it himself: “The people of Israel are instrumental in bringing salvation to the Gentiles not through their glorification but through their humiliation” [Crux, 165].) According to Grindheim, Paul reinterprets Israel’s election on the basis of the crucifixion of Christ: the cross and resurrection of the Messiah force Paul to transvalue election into a paradoxical critique of Jewish presumption (Crux, 3, 195, and passim). Grindheim maintains that it is this theological insight rather than an exegetical breakthrough that provides the basis for Paul’s critical engagement with Israel’s religious tradition. But Paul’s theology of the cross is evident already in 1 Cor 1:18–31, in which God chooses the weak things of the world and confounds the strong. It is only in Rom 9–11 that Paul applies this understanding of God’s action in history to the election of Israel. Whether or not this revised understanding of election prompted the reading of Genesis proposed in this study is now impossible to say, though a mutual interrelationship seems more likely. In any case, the irony of a crossrevealed God whose power is manifest in weakness corresponds at the deepest level to the Israel whose irrevocable election is demonstrated under the sign of its opposite. 5

262

Conclusions

siah’s death and resurrection, and he reenacts its symbolic meaning in his preferred mode of expression: discursive, theoretical, and frequently opaque.7 Though attracted to biblical narratives, Paul does not in his epistles reveal himself as a storyteller. But if he were, he might translate the complex analysis in Rom 9–11 into a simple story that begins with, “There was a certain man who had two sons …” In fact, Luke’s parable of the prodigal (Luke 15:11–32) resonates with the narrative of Abraham’s two sons in ways remarkably similar to the evocations present in Paul’s exegetical argument.8 James L. Kugel has shown that rabbinic midrash sometimes produced stories that, once abstracted from the interpretive activity giving them birth, attain a life of their own.9 Given the prevalence of exegetical debates between Jews and Christians over the true lineage of Abraham (John 8:37–59; Jas 2:21–24; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 11.1–5; 23.3–4; 80.4; 119.3–6; 120.2; see also ch. 2 above), it would be fruitful to investigate whether Paul’s pre-epistolary exegesis has any connection with the Jesus tradition recorded in Luke 15, and if so, to discover in what direction the influence lies.10 The question of Paul’s influence on Mark’s Gospel has received renewed attention of late; perhaps, given Paul’s central role in the Acts, it is time to ask whether he had an effect on Luke’s Gospel as well.11

7

For what follows, I am indebted to conversations with Carol Stockhausen. The intertextual relations between the story of Jacob, the traditions of exile and return, and the parable of the prodigal son have been demonstrated in Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 124–44; idem, Climax, 248; Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003). 9 Kugel, “Two Introductions to Midrash,” in Midrash and Literature (ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986), 95–100. 10 On Abraham as a contested figure between Jews and Christians, see Robert L. Wilken, “The Christianizing of Abraham: The Interpretation of Abraham in Early Christianity,” CTM 43 (1972): 723–31; Roy Bowen Ward, “Abraham Traditions in Early Christianity,” in Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg and Robert A. Kraft; SCS 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 173–84; Jeffrey S. Siker, “From Gentile Inclusion to Jewish Exclusion: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy with Jews,” BTB 19 (1989): 30–36; idem, Disinheriting; Jon D. Levenson, Abraham between Torah and Gospel (Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 42; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2011). 11 On the presence of Pauline influence in the gospel of Mark, see Joel Marcus, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul,” NTS 46 (2000): 473–87; Francis Watson, “‘I Received from the Lord …’: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper,” in Jesus and Paul Reconnected (ed. Todd D. Still; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 103–24. 8

Bibliography 1. Reference Works and Primary Sources Anderson, Gary A. and Michael E. Stone. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2d ed. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 17. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis, David E. Green, and Douglas W. Stott. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–present. Braude, William G. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1968. Braude, William G. and Israel J. Kapstein. Pĕsiḳta dĕ-Raḇ Kahana. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1985. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Clines, David J. A., ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 4 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–present. Feldman, Louis H. and Meyer Reinhold. Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Freudenthal, Jacob. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1–2. Breslau: Skutsch, 1875. Friedlander, Gerald. Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1971. Hammer, Reuven. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Yale Judaica Studies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986. Holladay, Carl R. Historians. Vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 20. Pseudepigrapha 10. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 13 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

264

Bibliography

Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933–1935. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Sir Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. –. Greek-English Lexicon: Supplement. Edited by E. A. Barber with P. Maas, M. Scheller, and M. L. West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Maher, Michael, M.S.C. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Aramaic Bible 1B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. McNamara, Martin, M.S.C. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Aramaic Bible 1A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. 3 vols. Brown Judaic Studies 104–6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Ottley, Richard R. The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus). 2 vols. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–1909. Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov. Poetic and Liturgical Texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 5. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Plato. Works. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb et al. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914–2013. Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm and Robert McL. Wilson, eds. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Rev. by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. –. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976. Tov, Emmanuel with Robert A. Kraft and Peter J. Parsons. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr). Discoveries in the Judean Desert 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 510. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wevers, John William. Genesis. Vol. 1 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Ziegler, Joseph. Duodecim prophetae. Vol. 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 3d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. –. Isaias. Vol. 14 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 3d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

Bibliography

265

2. Secondary Sources Aageson, James W. “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 265–89. –. “Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9–11.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 51–72. –. Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Abasciano, Brian J. “Diamonds in the Rough: A Reply to Christopher Stanley Regarding the Reader Competency of Paul’s Original Audience.” Novum Testamentum 49 (2007): 153–83. –. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. Library of New Testament Studies 301. London: T&T Clark, 2005. –. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. Library of New Testament Studies 317. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Abegg, Martin, Jr. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.’” Pages 203–15 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Adams, Sean A. “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations.’” Pages 63–83 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Geza G. Xeravits. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 16. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Ahlström, Gösta W. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. Edited by Diana Edelman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 146. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Albl, Martin C. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Albright, William F. “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140 (1955): 27–33. Aletti, Jean-Noël. Israël et la loi dans la lettre aux Romains. Lectio Divina 173. Paris: Cerf, 1998. Alexander, Phillip S. “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 27–49 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. Library of New Testament Studies 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Romans 11:11–15: A Suggestion.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 12 (1985): 23–30. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2011. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 24. New York: Doubleday, 1980. Anderson, Gary A. “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 1–29. –. “The Status of the Torah in the Pre-Sinaitic Period: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” Pages 1–23 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light

266

Bibliography

of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. Studies in the Texts of the Desert of Judah 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Aus, Roger D. “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. 11:25.” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 232–62. Bailey, Kenneth E. Jacob and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. –. Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2011. Bakhos, Carol. Ishmael on the Border: Rabbinic Portrayals of the First Arab. New York: SUNY Press, 2006. Barclay, John M. G. “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony.” Pages 133–56 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. Barr, James. “Paul and the LXX: A Note on Some Recent Work.” Journal of Theological Studies NS 45 (2003): 593–601. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. The Epistle to the Romans. 2d ed. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. –. Essays on Paul. London: SPCK, 1982. –. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1968. –. “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New.” Pages 377–411 in From the Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. –. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1973. Barth, Fredrik. “Boundaries and Connections.” Pages 17–36 in Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values. Edited by Anthony P. Cohen. London: Routledge, 2000. –. “Introduction.” Pages 9–38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Edited by Fredrik Barth. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Barth, Marcus. “St. Paul – A Good Jew.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 1 (1979): 7–45. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. –. “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante.” Pages 127–39 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Repr. from Revue biblique 60 (1953): 18–29. Bassler, Jouette M. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 59. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2013. Battle, John A., Jr. “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25–26.” Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 115–29. Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

267

Beale, Gregory K. “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.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 550–81. –. “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b.” Biblica 80 (1999): 204–23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs. Text, Tradition, Theology.” Pages 209–28 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Géza B. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Beker, J. Christiaan. “Echoes and Intertextuality: On the Role 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. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 327–32 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from pages 10–16 in Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His 65th Birthday. Edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. –. “Romans 9–11 in the Context of the Early Church.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplementary Issue 1 (1990): 40–55. Bell, Richard H. The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 184. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Belli, Filippo. Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2010. Bergey, Ronald. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case for Intertextuality?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2003): 33–54. Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 175. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Betz, Hans Dieter. “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 88–108. –. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 2d ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History.” Pages 1–26, 299–309 in Aspects of Judaism in the GraecoRoman Period. Vol. 2 of Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Edited by Ed P. Sanders with Albert I. Baumgarten and Alan Mendelson. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. –. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. “Judaeans, Jews, Children of Abraham.” Pages 461–82 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded

268

Bibliography

Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011. –. Judaism: The First Phase. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bornkamm, Günther. “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament.” Pages 16–28 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Australian Biblical Review 11 (1963): 2– 11. –. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Contraversions 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Braxton, Brad. No Longer Slaves: Galatians and African American Experience. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Brekelmans, Christiaan H. W. “Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 1–12.” Pages 167–76 in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures; unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 81. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. Brett, Mark G. Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 2000. –. “Reading the Bible in the Context of Methodological Pluralism: The Undermining of Ethnic Exclusivism in Genesis.” Pages 48–74 in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Brinsmead, Bernard Hungerford. Galatians – Dialogical Response to Opponents. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 65. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Brown, Raymond E. “Part Two: Rome.” Pages 87–261 in Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1982. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971. –. “The Romans Debate – Continued.” Pages 175–94 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 64 (1982): 334–59. Brueggemann, Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. 2d ed. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Buell, Denise Kimber and Caroline Johnson Hodge. “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 235–51. Burge, Gary M. Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. –. “Land.” Pages 570–75 in vol. 3 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008. Byrne, Brandon, S.J. Romans. Sacra Pagina 6. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Calvert, Nancy L. “Abraham.” Pages 1–9 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. Campbell, Douglas A. “Determining the Gospel through Rhetorical Analysis in Paul’s Letter to the Roman Churches.” Pages in 315–36 in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatian and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. Edited by L. Ann Jervis and

Bibliography

269

Peter Richardson. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Campbell, William S. “Favouritism and Egalitarianism: Irreconcilable Emphases in Romans?” Pages 12–32 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. –. “Israel.” Pages 441–46 in Dictionary of Paul and His Epistles. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. –. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: Continuum, 2008. –. Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans. Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 69. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. Caragounis, Chrys C. “From Obscurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement.” Pages 245–79 in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Carmignac, Jean. La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958. Chance, J. Bradley. “The Seed of Abraham and the People of God: A Study of Two Pauls.” Pages 384–411 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1993. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2001. Chilton, Bruce. “Romans 9–11 as Scriptural Interpretation and Dialogue with Judaism.” Ex Auditu 4 (1988): 27–37. Ciampa, Roy E. “Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans.” Pages 99–117 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. Library of New Testament Studies 358. London: Continuum, 2007. Clements, Ronald E. “‘A Remnant Chosen By Grace’ (Romans 11:5): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant Concept.” Pages 106–21 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. –. “Understanding the Book of Hosea.” Review and Expositor 72 (2001): 405–23. Coats, George W. “Strife without Reconciliation: A Narrative Theme in the Jacob Traditions.” Pages 82–106 in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Rainer Albertz, Hans-Peter Müller, Hans Walter Wolff, and Walther Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohn, Robert L. “Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis.” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 147–66. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2d ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century.” Pages 163– 86 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. Conrad, Edgar W. “Remnant.” Pages 761–62 in vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008.

270

Bibliography

Cook, Johann. “The Exegesis of the Greek Genesis.” Pages 91–125 in VI Congress of the IOSCS. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Cook, Michael J. “Paul’s Argument in Romans 9–11.” Review and Expositor 103 (2006): 91–111. Cornell, Stephen. “That’s the Story of Our Life.” Pages 41–53 in We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity. Edited by Paul Spickard and W. Jeffrey Burroughs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000. Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Church With and For Israel: History of a Theological Novum Before and After Barth.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 259–78. –. “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 268–90. –. Elusive Israel: The Puzzle of Election in Romans. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1997. –. “Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9–11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 271–87. Cousar, Charles B. “Paul and Multiculturalism.” Pages 46–61 in Many Voices, One God: Being Faithful in a Pluralistic World: Essays in Honor of Shirley Guthrie. Edited by Walter Brueggemann and George W. Stroup. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1998. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. 6th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975– 1979. –. “St. Paul and the Law.” Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964): 43–68. Cranford, Michael. “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 71–88. –. “Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Election in Romans 9.1–13.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50 (1993): 27–41. Cresson, Bruce C. “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism.” Pages 125–48 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Edited by James M. Efird. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972. Cromhout, Markus. “Paul’s ‘Former Conduct in the Judean Way of Life’ (Gal 1:13) … Or Not?” Hervormde teologiese studies 65 (2009): 126–37. –. Walking in Their Sandals: A Guide to First Century Israelite Ethnic Identity. Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2010. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text.” Pages 278–92 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Repr. from Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 81–95. –. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pages 306–20 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. –. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” Pages 177–95 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Repr. from Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964): 281–99. Crüsemann, Frank. “Human Solidarity and Ethnic Identity: Israel’s Self-definition in the Genealogical System of Genesis.” Pages 57–76 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Bibliography

271

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Der Name Israel: Zur Auslegung von Gal. vi,16.” Judaica 6 (1950): 161–70. –. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Damgaard, Finn. Recasting Moses: The Memory of Moses in Biographical and Autobiographical Narratives in Ancient Judaism and 4th-Century Christianity. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 13. Bern: Peter Lang, 2012. Daniels, Dwight R. “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 339–60. Das, Andrew A. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Davies, Eryl W. “The Inheritance of the First-Born in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Semitic Studies 38 (1993): 175–91. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Biblica et Orientalia 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. –. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Davies, William D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. –. Jewish and Pauline Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. –. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Davis, Stephan K. The Antithesis of the Ages: Paul’s Reconfiguration of Torah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 33. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002. Deissmann, Adolf. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by William E. Wilson. 2d ed. New York: Harper, 1927. Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Dinkler, Erich. “The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9–11: A Contribution to the Problem of Predestination and Individual Responsibility.” Journal of Religion 36 (1956): 109–27. Dinter, Paul E. “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 13 (1983): 48–52. Dodd, Charles H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. –. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936. –. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1932. Doeve, Jan Willem. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: van Gorcum, 1954. –. “Some Notes with Reference to τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 3.2.” Pages 111–23 in Studia Paulina in Honorem Johannis de Zwaan. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. Donaldson, Terence L. “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 94–112. –. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE). Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007. –. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

272

Bibliography

–. “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 81–98. Donfried, Karl P. “False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans.” Pages 102–25 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 332–58. –. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Doran, Robert. “The Jewish Hellenistic Historians Before Josephus.” Pages 246–97 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2. Principat, 20.1. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987. Downs, David J. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Drane, John W. Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London: SPCK, 1975. –. “Why Did Paul Write Romans?” Pages 208–27 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Dresner, Samuel. “Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?” Pages 161–81 in Abraham and Family: New Insights into the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Hershel Shanks. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000. Duhaime, Jean. “La rédaction de 1 QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân.” Revue biblique 84 (1977): 210–38. Duling, Dennis. “2 Corinthians 11:22: Historical Context, Rhetoric, and Ethnicity.” Hervormde teologiese studies 64 (2008): 819–43. –. “Ethnicity and Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 68–89 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard DeMaris. London: Routledge, 2010. –. “‘Whatever gain I had …’: Ethnicity and Paul’s Self-Identification in Philippians 3:5– 6.” Hervormde teologiese studies 64 (2008): 799–818. Duncan, George S. “A New Setting for St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians.” Expository Times 43 (1931): 7–11. Dunn, James D. G. “2 Corinthians III, 17: ‘The Lord is the Spirit.’” Journal of Theological Studies NS 21 (1970): 309–20. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. –. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1990. –. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. –. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. Eastman, Susan Grove. “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9–11.” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 367–95. –. Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Ehrensperger, Kathy. “‘Called to Be Saints’ – The Identity-Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans.” Pages 90–109 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Eh-

Bibliography

273

rensperger and J. Brian Tucker. Library of New Testament Studies 428. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Eisenbaum, Pamela. “Paul, Polemics, and the Problem of Essentialism.” Biblical Interpretation 13 (2005): 224–38. –. “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles and Genealogy in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 671–702. Eissfeldt, Otto. “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5.” Pages 196–207 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962. Elliot, Neil. The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. –. “Paul’s Political Christology: Samples from Romans.” Pages 39–51 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. Library of New Testament Studies 428. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Ellison, Henry L. The Mystery of Israel: An Exposition of Romans 9–11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Endres, John C., S.J. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 18. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987. Erickson, Richard J. “Flesh.” Pages 303–6 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –. “Ezra-Nehemiah as a Narrative of (Re-Invented) Israelite Identity.” Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003): 413–26. Evans, Craig A. “‘It is Not as Though the Word of God Had Failed’: An Introduction to Paul and the Scriptures of Israel.” Pages 13–17 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. “The Old Testament in the New.” Pages 130–45 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. –. “Paul and the Hermeneutics of ‘True Prophecy’: A Study of Romans 9–11.” Biblica 65 (1984): 560–70. –. “Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with Special Reference to Romans 9–11).” Pages 115–28 in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Edited by Sven K. Soderlund and Nicholas T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. –. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

274

Bibliography

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Fiore, Benjamin, S.J. “Romans 9–11 and Classical Rhetoric.” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 8 (1988): 117–26. Fisk, Bruce N. “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians of Rome.” Pages 157–85 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S.J. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 32. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. –. “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1.” Pages 205–17 in The Semitic Background of the New Testament. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Repr. from Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961): 271–80. –. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Foster, Robert B. Review of David I. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics. Review of Biblical Literature 2012: 1–7. Cited 2 May 2015. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8213&CodePage=8213. Fowl, Stephen E. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 36. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” Journal of Theological Studies NS 42 (1991): 532–64. –. “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 232–52. Frey, Jörg. “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. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 87. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fuss, Barbara. Dies ist die Zeit, von der geschrieben ist: Die expliziten Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea in den Handschriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. Neue Folge 37. Münster: Aschendorff, 2000. Gadenz, Pablo T. Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 267. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “‘The Lord Will Accomplish His Word’: Paul’s Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9:24–29.” Letter & Spirit 2 (2006): 141–58. Gager, John G. Reinventing Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Gagnon, Robert A. J. “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 64–82. Garlington, Don. Review of Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective: Faith Embraces the Promise. Review of Biblical Literature 2009: 1–10. Cited 13 January 2011. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7088&CodePage =7088. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press, 1987. Gathercole, Simon J. “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25.” Pages 147–84 in The Paradoxes of Paul. Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Bibliography

275

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “On the Calling-Into-Being of Israel: Romans 9:6–29.” Pages 255–69 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Georgi, Dieter. Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem. Nashville: Abingdon, 1992. Getty, Mary Ann. “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1988): 456–69. Given, Mark D. Paul’s True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2001. Glenny, W. Edward. “The ‘People of God’ in Romans 9:25–26.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 42–59. Glombitza, Otto. “Apostolische Sorge: Welche Sorge treibt den Apostel Paulus zu den Sätzen Röm. xi 25ff?” Novum Testamentum 7 (1964–1965): 312–18. Goldin, Judah. “The Youngest Son, Or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 27–44. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New York: Knopf, 2007. Gore, Charles. “The Argument of Romans IX–XI.” Pages 37–45 in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, William Sanday, and John Wordsworth. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895. 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. Gould, E. P. “Romans IX–XI.” Journal of Biblical Literature 3 (1883): 22–41. Grabbe, Lester L. “Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xenophobes? The EzraNehemiah Reforms and their Nachgeschichte.” Pages 50–65 in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by Siân Jones and Sarah Pearce. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 31. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Grant, Robert M. The Spirit and the Letter. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Green, Bernard. Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Primogeniture in Ancient Israel.” Pages 69–80 in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young. Edited by Joseph E. Coleson and Victor H. Matthews. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Greenspoon, Leonard. “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 20 (1987): 21–29. Gregory, Andrew. “Disturbing Trajectories: 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Development of Early Roman Christianity.” Pages 142–66 in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Edited by Peter Oakes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Gregory, Bradley C. “Abraham as the Jewish Ideal: Exegetical Traditions in Sirach 44:19– 21.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008): 66–81.

276

Bibliography

Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. Grindheim, Sigurd. The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 202. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Guerra, Anthony J. “Romans 4 as Apologetic Theology.” Harvard Theological Review 81 (1988): 251–70. –. Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. –. “Romans: Paul’s Purpose and Audience with Special Attention to Romans 9–11.” Revue biblique 97 (1990): 219–37. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. 3d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Habel, Norman C. The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Hall, Robert G. “Circumcision.” Pages 1025–31 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freeman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hanneken, Todd R. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Hansen, Bruce. All of You Are One: The Social Vision of Galatians 3.28, 1 Corinthians 12.13 and Colossians 3.11. Library of New Testament Studies 409. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture. London: SPCK, 1980. Harris, J. Rendel. Testimonies. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916– 1920. Harvey, Julien. “Le ‘Rib-pattern,’ réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance.” Biblica 43 (1962): 172–96. Hasel, Gerhard. “Remnant.” Pages 735–36 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. –. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1972. Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Haynes, Stephen R. “‘Recovering the Real Paul’: Theology and Interpretation in Romans 9–11.” Ex Auditu 4 (1988): 70–84. Hays, Richard B. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 268–90. –. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2d ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Bibliography

277

–. “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. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Heard, R. Christopher. The Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Heil, John Paul. “From Remnant to Seed of Hope for Israel: Romans 9:27–29.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 703–20. Hendel, Ronald. Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. –. The Pre-Christian Paul. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. –. “‘Salvation History’: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology.” Pages 229–44 in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology. Edited by David F. Ford and Graham Stanton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –. “The Scriptures and Their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 158–75 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Edited by Derek R. G. Beattie and Martin J. McNamara. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Hofius, Otfried. “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9–11.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplementary Issue 1 (1990): 19–39. Holladay, Carl R. “Paul and His Predecessors in the Diaspora: Some Reflections on Ethnic Identity in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors.” Pages 429–60 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 110. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Holmberg, Bengt. “Jewish Versus Christian Identity in the Early Church?” Revue biblique 103 (1998): 397–425. Holtz, Gudrun. “Inclusivism at Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009): 22–54. Holtz, Traugott. “The Judgment on the Jews and the Salvation of All Israel: 1 Thes 2,15– 16 and Rom 11,25–26.” Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 87 (1990): 284–94. Hooker, Morna D. “Beyond the Things that Are Written? St Paul’s Use of Scripture.” Pages 139–54 in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Repr. from New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 295–309. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ οὕτως in Romans 11:26.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 521–25. Hübner, Hans. Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 285–95.

278

Bibliography

Hultgård, Anders. L’eschatologie des “Testaments des Douze Patriarches.” 2 vols. Historia Religionum 6–7. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977–1982. Hutchinson, John and Anthony D. Smith. “Introduction.” Pages 3–14 in Ethnicity. Edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. Oxford Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hvalvik, Reidar. “A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25–29.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990): 87–107. Instone-Brewer, David. “1 Corinthians 9.9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox.’” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 554–65. –. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Jacobs, Louis. “Torah, Reading of.” Pages 46–50 in vol. 20 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. Edited by Fred Skolnik. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007. Jacobs, Louis and David Derovan. “Hermeneutics.” Pages 25–29 in vol. 9 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. Edited by Fred Skolnik. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007. Japhet, Sara. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Jenni, Ernst. “Remnant.” Pages 32–33 in vol. 4 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Jervell, Jacob. “The Letter to Jerusalem.” Pages 53–64 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Studia theologica 25 (1971): 61–73. Jewett, Robert. Christian Tolerance: Paul’s Message to the Modern Church. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. –. “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians.” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 362–90. –. Mission and Menace: Four Centuries of American Religious Zeal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. –. Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. –. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. –. “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter.” Interpretation 36 (1982): 5–20. –. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Foundations and Facets: New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Jewett, Robert and John Shelton Lawrence. Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –. The Myth of the American Superhero. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Jobes, Karen and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Baker: Grand Rapids, 2000. Johnson, E. Elizabeth. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9– 11. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 109. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Johnson Hodge, Caroline. “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity.” Biblical Interpretation 13 (2005): 270–88. –. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Jones, Christopher P. Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

279

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Juncker, Günther H. “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 17 (2007): 131–60. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959. –. “Problems of the Septuagint.” Pages 67–77 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Edited by Sidney Jellicoe. New York: KTAV, 1974. Repr. from pages 1:328–38 in Studia patristica. Edited by F. L. Cross and Kurt Aland. 2 vols. Texte und Untersuchungen 63–64. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957. Kaiser, Walter C. “The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8–10.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 3–18. Kaminsky, Joel S. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Karris, Robert J. “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans.” Pages 65–84 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1973): 155–78. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Katz, Peter. “Septuagintal Studies in Mid-Century: Their Links with the Past and Their Present Tendencies.” Pages 21–53 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Edited by Sidney Jellicoe. New York: KTAV, 1974. Repr. from pages 176–208 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd. Edited by William D. Davies and David Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Kazmierski, Carl R. John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist. Zacchaeus Studies. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. –. “The Stones of Abraham: John the Baptist and the End of Torah.” Biblica 68 (1987): 22–40. Keck, Leander E. “The Jewish Paul Among the Gentiles: Two Portrayals.” Pages 461–81 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 110. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Kelle, Brad E. “Hosea 1–3 in Twentieth Century Scholarship.” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2009): 179–216. Kim, Johann D. God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9–11. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 176. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Kim, Mitchell. “Respect for Context and Authorial Intention: Setting the Epistemological Bar.” Pages 115–29 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Early Christianity and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Kim, Seyoon. “Paul as an Eschatological Herald.” Pages 9–24 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. Library of New Testament Studies 420. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. Translated by William F. Stinespring. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Knoppers, Gary. “The Preferential Status of the Eldest Son Revoked?” Pages 115–26 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible:

280

Bibliography

Essays in Honour of John Van Seeters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 294. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. –. “The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1 Peter 2,6.8 as a Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 101 (2010): 223–40. Kooij, Arie van der. “Isaiah and Daniel in the Septuagint: How are These Two Books Related?” Pages 465–73 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 224. Louvain: Peeters, 2008. Kotansky, R. David. “A Note on Romans 9:6: Ho Logos tou Theou as the Proclamation of the Gospel.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 7 (1977): 24–30. Kowalski, Beate. “Zur Funktion der Schriftzitate in Röm 9,19–29: Gottes Zorn und Erbarmen.” Pages 713–32 in The Letter to the Romans. Edited by Udo Schnelle. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 226. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Kranz, Reinhard Gregor. “‘The Place which He has chosen’: The Identification of the Cult Place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT.” Meghillot 5–6 (2006): 57–80. Kugel, James L. “The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times.” Pages 21–32 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. –. “Two Introductions to Midrash.” Pages 77–103 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986. Kugel, James L. and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Library of Early Christianity 5. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Howard Clark Kee. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Kyrychenko, Alexander. “The Consistency of Romans 9–11.” Restoration Quarterly 45 (2003): 215–27. Lambrecht, Jan. Pauline Studies: Collected Essays. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 115. Louvain: Peeters: 1994. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Lane, William L. “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement.” Pages 196–244 in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Lavee, Moshe. “No Boundaries for the Construction of Boundaries: The Babylonian Talmud’s Emphasis on the Demarcation of Identity.” Pages 84–116 in Rabbinic Traditions between Palestine and Babylonia. Edited by Ronit Nikolsky and Tal Ilan. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 89. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Leon, Harry J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Updated ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1960.

Bibliography

281

Levenson, Jon D. Abraham between Torah and Gospel. Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 42. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2011. –. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993. –. “How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Commentary 112 (2001): 31–37. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2d ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Light, Gary W. “The New Covenant in the Book of Hosea.” Review and Expositor 90 (1993): 219–38. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. –. “Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters.” Pages 280–92 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran After Fifty Years. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997. Lincicum, David. Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008): 297–308. –. “Paul’s Engagement with Deuteronomy: Snapshots and Signposts.” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2008): 37–67. Lincoln, Andrew T. “Abraham Goes to Rome: Paul’s Treatment of Abraham in Romans 4.” Pages 163–79 in Worship, Theology, and Ministry: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961. –. “The Old Testament and Universalism in Paul.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 69 (1987): 511–27. Litwak, Kenneth D. “Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul’s Use of the Old Testament.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1998): 260–88. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government: And, A Letter Concerning Tolerance. Edited by Ian Shapiro. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. 15th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9–11.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (1989): 95–123. –. “The Narrative Approach to Paul: An Early Retrospective.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2002): 88–111. –. ed. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lyonnet, Stanislas. Études sur l’épître aux Romains. Analecta Biblica 120. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

282

Bibliography

Maillot, Alphonse. “Essai sur les citations vétérotestamentaires contenues dans Romains 9 à 11.” Etudes théologiques et religieuses 5 (1982): 55–73. Manson, Thomas Walter. “Paul’s Letter to the Romans – and Others.” Pages 3–15 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from pages 225–41 in Studies in the Gospels and the Epistles. Edited by Mathew Black. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962. –. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Edited by Matthew Black. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Marcus, Joel. “Mark – Interpreter of Paul.” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 473–87. –. “Response to J. Ross Wagner, ‘“Now is the Day of Salvation”: Paul and Isaiah as Heralds of the Gospel.’” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. San Diego, Calif., 7 November 2007. –. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Marshall, I. Howard. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” Pages 1–21 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Martin, Troy. “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4:13–14).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 74 (1999): 65–91. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. –. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Translated by G. Buswell. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. Sacra Pagina 9. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,1992. Matlock, R. Barry. “The Arrow and the Web: Critical Reflections on a Narrative Approach to Paul.” Pages 44–75 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. McLay, R. Timothy. “Biblical Texts and the Scriptures for the New Testament Church.” Pages 38–58 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Meeks, Wayne A. “On Trusting an Unpredictable God.” Pages 105–24 in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer. Edited by John T. Carroll, Charles H. Cosgrove, and E. Elizabeth Johnson. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Mendelsohn, Isaac. “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (1959): 38–40. Mendenhall, George E. “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law.” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 26–46. –. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50–76. Merkle, Ben L. “Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2000): 709–21. Meyer, Lester V. “Remnant.” Pages 669–71 in vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Miller, James C. “The Jewish Context of Paul’s Gentile Mission.” Tyndale Bulletin 58 (2007): 101–15.

Bibliography

283

–. “Paul and Hebrews: A Comparison of Narrative Worlds.” Pages 245–64 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Biblical Interpretation Series 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Minear, Paul S. “Holy People, Holy Land, Holy City: The Genesis and Genius of Christian Attitudes.” Interpretation 37 (1983): 18–31. Miscall, Peter D. “The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978): 28–40. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. “Israel and Paul in Rom 7.7–12.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 122–35. –. “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 73–100. Morales, Rodrigo J. The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “The Words of the Luminaries, the Curse of the Law, and the Outpouring of the Spirit in Gal 3,10–14.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (2009): 269–77. Moyise, Steve. “Does Paul Respect the Context of His Quotations? Hosea as a Test Case.” Pages 39–50 in The Letters and Liturgical Traditions. Vol. 2 of “What Does the Scripture Say?” Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. Library of New Testament Studies 470. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 18. London: T&T Clark, 2012. –. “Paul and the Minor Prophets.” Pages 97–114 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. Library of New Testament Studies 377. London: Continuum, 2009. Mullen, Theodore E., Jr. Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Munck, Johannes. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Translated by Ingeborg Nixon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. –. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. London: SCM Press, 1959. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1.” Revue biblique 77 (1970): 201–29. –. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Nanos, Mark D. “‘Callused’, Not ‘Hardened’: Paul’s Revelation of Temporary Protection until All Israel Can Be Healed.” Pages 52–73 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. Library of New Testament Studies 428. London: T&T Clark, 2010. –. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. –. “‘Judaizers’? ‘Pagan’ Cults? Cynics? Reconceptualizing the Concerns of Paul’s Audience from the Polemics in Philippians 3:2, 18–19.” Paper presented at the Philippians People’s History working group. November 2010. Cited 23 July 2011. Online: http:// www.marknanos.com.

284

Bibliography

–. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. –. “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews.” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 4 (2009): 1–22. –. “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?” Pages 117–60 in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Given. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010. –. “Response.” Critical Review of Books in Religion 11 (1998): 167–77. Naselli, Andrew David. From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in Romans 11:34–35. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2012. Neusner, Jacob. Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise: A Rabbi Talks with Paul. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1995. Newsom, James D. Greeks, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. Nickle, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. Studies in Biblical Theology. First Series 48. Naperville: Allenson, 1966. Noack, Bent. “Current and Backwater in the Epistle to the Romans.” Studia theologica 19 (1965): 155–66. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –. “Was Paul Converted?” Pages 361–91 in The Paradoxes of Paul. Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Septuagint Text.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 26–33. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Park, Eung Chung. Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2003. Pate, C. Marvin. Adam Christology as the Exegetical & Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21. Lanham, N.Y.: University Press of America, 1991. Patte, Daniel. Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to His Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Pearson, Birger. “1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation.” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 79–94. Penna, Romano. Jew and Greek Alike. Vol. 1 of Paul the Apostle. Translated by Thomas P. Wahl. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Peters, Melvin K. H. “Septuagint.” Pages 1093–1104 in vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Petersen, Norman. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Plag, Christoph. Israels Wege zum Heil: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9 bis 11. Arbeiten zur Theologie 40. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969. Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. “Haftarah.” Pages 198–200 in vol. 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. Edited by Fred Skolnik. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007. Räisänen, Heikki. “Faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm.” Pages 239–46 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Bibliography

285

–. “Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research.” Pages 178–206 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –. “Römer 9–11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens.” Pages 2891–2939 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2. Principat, 25.4. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987. Ray, Charles A., Jr. “The Identity of the ‘Israel of God.’” The Theological Educator 50 (1994): 105–14. Refoulé, François. “Cohérence ou incohérence de Paul en Romains 9–11?” Revue biblique 98 (1991): 51–79. –. “… et ainsi tout Israël sera sauvé”: Romains 11, 25–32. Lectio divina 117. Paris: Cerf, 1984. Rese, Martin. “Israel und Kirche in Römer 9.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 208–17. Reumann, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33B. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Roberts, Jimmy J. M. “Isaiah 2 and the Prophet’s Message to the North.” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985): 290–308. Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911. Rock, Ian E. “Another Reason for Romans – A Pastoral Response to Augustan Imperial Theology: Paul’s Use of the Song of Moses in Romans 9–11 and 14–15.” Pages 74–89 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. Library of New Testament Studies 428. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Rosner, Brian S. “Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” Pages 118–35 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. Library of New Testament Studies 358. London: Continuum, 2007. Rowley, Harold Henry. The Biblical Doctrine of Election. London: Lutterworth, 1952. Rudolph, David J. A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 304. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. “Archaeological Evidence of the Interaction of Jews and NonJews in Late Antiquity.” American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992): 101–18. Sampley, J. Paul. “Romans and Galatians: Comparisons and Contrasts.” Pages 315–39 in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernard W. Anderson. James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. –. “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13.” Pages 40–52 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Sanders, Ed P. Judaism: Practice and Belief. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

286

Bibliography

–. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. –. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Schaller, Berndt. “ΗΞΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο ΡΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f in Röm 11:26f.” Pages 201–6 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984. Schereschewsky, Ben-Zion (Benno). “Firstborn.” Pages 45–48 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Brenenbaum. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Schlueter, Carol J. Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14– 16. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 98. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Schoeps, Hans Joachim Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Schorch, Stefan. “Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah during the Hellenistic and the Roman Periods.” Pages 1–15 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Geza G. Xeravits. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 16. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Circumcision.” Pages 137–39 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. –. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 47–74. Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. Studies in the Texts of the Judean Desert 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schultz, Joseph P. “Two Views of the Patriarchs: Noahides and Pre-Sinai Israelites.” Pages 43–59 in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on His 70th Birthday by His Students. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer, Michael A. Fishbane, and Paul R. Mendes-Flohr. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Scott, James M. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –. “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 645–65. Sechrest, Love L. A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race. Library of New Testament Studies 410. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Seeligmann, Isac Leo. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. Edited by Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. New Studies in Biblical Theology 9. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. –. “The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N. T. Wright.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008): 19–44. –. “The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems.” Themelios 25 (2000): 4–18. –. “Romans.” Pages 607–94 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Bibliography

287

Seland, Torrey. Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions. Biblical Interpretation Series 15. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13–14 in Light of Philo’s Writings.” Biblica 83 (2002): 449–71. Shum, Shiu-Lun. Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 156. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sicherman, Harvey and Gilad J. Gevaryahu. “‘Foremost in Rank and Foremost in Power’: Conflict Over the First-Born in Israel.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 31 (2003): 17–25. Siegert, Folker. Argumentation bei Paulus: Gezeigt an Röm 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Siker, Jeffery S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. –. “From Gentile Inclusion to Jewish Exclusion: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy with Jews.” Biblical Theological Bulletin 19 (1989): 30–36. Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire AD 135–425. Translated by H. McKeating. London: Littman, 1996. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism.” Pages 212–25 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Repr. from pages 148–58 in Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg, 1956. Edited by G. W. Anderson. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 4. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. Anchor Bible 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Slenczka, Notger. “Römer 9–11 und die Frage nach der Identität Israels.” Pages 463–77 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Smith, Anthony D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. London: Blackwell, 1986. –. Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Smith, D. Moody. “The Pauline Literature.” Pages 265–91 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New.” Pages 3–65 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Edited by James M. Efird. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation, and Inclusion of the ‘Foreigner’ in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology.” Pages 117–42 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Sneen, Donald. “The Root, the Remnant, and the Branches.” Word and World 6 (1986): 389–409. Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. Studies in Biblical Literature 59. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. “A Decontextualized Paul? A Response to Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006): 353–62.

288

Bibliography

–. “Paul and Homer: Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century C.E.” Novum Testamentum 22 (1990): 48–78. –. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. –. “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters.” Pages 125–55 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. –. “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?” Novum Testamentum 41 (1999): 124–44. –. “‘The Redeemer will Come ἐκ Σιων’: Romans 11.26–27 Revisited.” Pages 118–42 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Staples, James A. “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 371–90. Starling, David I. Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 184. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Steck, Odil H. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967. Stegemann, Hartmut. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Stegner, William Richard. “Romans 9.6–29 – A Midrash.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22 (1984): 37–52. Steinmetz, Devora. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Stemberger, Günter. “The Pre-Christian Paul.” Pages 65–81 in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles. Edited by Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005. Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stirewalt, Martin Luther, Jr. “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay.” Pages 147–71 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. –. Paul, the Letter Writer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Stockhausen, Carol K. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis.” Pages 143–64 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. Analecta Biblica 116. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 57. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. –. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994.

Bibliography

289

Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Purpose of Romans.” Pages 231–42 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Translated by Reginald and Ilse Fuller. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1986): 180–93. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 1–29. Suggs, M. Jack. “‘The Word is Near You’: Romans 10:6–10 within the Purpose of the Letter.” Pages 289–312 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Syrén, Roger. The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 133. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Tanner, J. Paul. “The New Covenant and Paul’s Quotations from Hosea in Romans 9:25– 26.” Bibiotheca Sacra 162 (2005): 95–110. Theobald, Michael. Der Römerbrief. Erträge der Forschung 294. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000. –. Studien zum Römerbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 136. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Thielman, Frank. “The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 235–53. –. “Unexpected Mercy: Echoes of a Biblical Motif in Romans 9–11.” Scottish Journal of Theology 47 (1994): 169–81. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Text Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thomas, Rosalind. “Genealogy.” Page 301 in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Thompson, Richard P. “‘Say It Ain’t So, Paul!’: The Accusations Against Paul in Acts 21 in Light of His Ministry in Acts 16–20.” Biblical Research 45 (2000): 34–50. –. “‘What do you think you are doing, Paul?’: Synagogues, Accusations, and Ethics in Paul’s Ministry in Acts 16–21.” Pages 64–78 in Acts and Ethics. Edited by Thomas E. Phillips. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2005. Thrall, Margaret. 2 Corinthians 1–7. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 1994. Tobin, Thomas H., S.J. “Controversy and Continuity in Romans 1:18–3:20.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 298–318. –. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. –. “What Shall We Say that Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4.” Harvard Theological Review 88 (1995): 437–52. Tov, Emanuel. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

290

Bibliography

–. “Jewish Greek Scriptures.” Pages 223–37 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982): 11–27. –. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Towner, W. Sibley. “Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look.” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982): 101–35. Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 124. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Tucker, J. Brian. “Remain in Your Calling”: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2011. –. You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2010. Tyson, Joseph B. “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 423–41. Ulmer, Rivka. “The Advancement of Arguments in Exegetical Midrash Compared to that of the Greek ∆ΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 28 (1997): 48–91. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 79–100 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Visscher, Gerhard H. Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise. Studies in Biblical Literature 122. New York: Lang, 2009. Vos, Johan S. “‘To Make the Weaker Argument Defeat the Stronger’: Sophistical Argumentation in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 217–31 in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2007. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974. –. “Prolegomena: A History of the Sabbatical Readings of Scripture for the ‘Triennial Cycle.’” Pages xi–lxxxvi in The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus, by Jacob Mann. Vol. 1 of The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. New York: KTAV, 1971. –. “Pseudo-Eupolemus’ Two Greek Fragments of the Life of Abraham.” Hebrew Union College Annual 34 (1963): 83–133. Wagner, J. Ross. “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 473–85. –. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians.” Pages 117–32 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Bibliography

291

–. “Moses and Isaiah in Concert: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah and Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Romans.” Pages 87–105 in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. Edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Walker, Peter W. L. Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Wall, Robert W. “Acts.” Pages 3–368 in Acts, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, Romans, 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10 of New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. Wallace, David R. Election of the Lesser Son: Paul’s Lament-Midrash in Romans 9–11. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Walters, J. Edward. “How Beautiful Are My Feet: The Structure and Function of Second Isaiah References in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Restoration Quarterly 52 (2010): 29–39. Walters, James C. Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definition in Earliest Roman Christianity. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993. Walters, Stanley D. “Jacob Narrative.” Pages 599–608 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ward, Roy Bowen. “Abraham Traditions in Early Christianity.” Pages 178–84 in Studies on the Testament of Abraham. Edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg and Robert A. Kraft. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 6. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. Waters, Guy Prentiss. The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 221. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Watson, Francis. “‘I Received from the Lord …’: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper.” Pages 103–24 in Jesus and Paul Reconnected. Edited by Todd D. Still. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. –. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. –. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Rev. and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. –. “Paul the Reader: An Authorial Apologia.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006): 363–73. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Social-Historical Study. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 62. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. The Reasons for Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Wengst, Klaus. “Freut euch, ihr Völker, mit Gottes Volk!” Israel und die Völker als Thema des Paulus – ein Gang durch den Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Westerholm, Stephen. “Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11.” Pages 215–37 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

292

Bibliography

–. Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament. Translated by Keith Crim. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Wevers, John William. “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18 (1985): 16–38. –. Text History of the Greek Genesis. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Whitelam, Keith. “Israel’s Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44 (1989): 19–42. Wiefel, Wolfgang. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” Pages 85–101 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Repr. from Judaica 26 (1970): 61–73. Wilckens, Ulrich. Röm 6–11. Vol. 2 of Der Brief an die Römer. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zürich: Benziger, 1980. Wilcox, Max. “The Promise of the ‘Seed’ in the New Testament and the Targumim.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5 (1979): 2–20. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 179. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –. “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text.” Pages 253–71 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Wilken, Robert L. “The Christianizing of Abraham: The Interpretation of Abraham in Early Christianity.” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 723–31. Williams, Sam K. “Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul’s Reading of Scripture.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 709–20. –. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 241–90. Willitts, Joel. “The Remnant of Israel in 4QpIsaiaha (4Q161) and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 11–25. Witherington, Ben III. Paul’s Narrative World of Thought: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. Wolff, Hans Walter. Hosea. Translated by Gary Stansell. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Wright, Nicholas T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. –. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009. –. “The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology.” Pages 205–36 in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. “Paul and Qumran.” Bible Review 14 (1998): 18, 54. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 parts. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

Bibliography

293

–. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. –. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61–88. –. “Romans.” Pages 393–770 in Acts, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, Romans, 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10 of New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. –. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yee, Gale A. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 102. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Zoccali, Christopher. “‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008): 289–318. –. Whom God Has Called: The Relationship of Church and Israel in Pauline Interpretation, 1920 to the Present. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2010. Zucker, David J. “Conflicting Conclusions: The Hatred of Isaac and Ishmael.” Judaism 39 (1990): 37–46.

Index of References For the sake of consistency and ease of reference, English versification is followed in the index.

Old Testament Genesis 1 1:26 1:30 2:3 2:4 2:7 2:24 4:8 4:12 4:14 4:16 5:1 6:5–7 7:23 10 11:27 11:30 12 12:1 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:2 12:2–3 12:3 12:7 12:10–13:4 12:16 12:17 13 13:2

211 211 211 128 37 27 128 171 248 248 248 37 232 156, 232 50 171 58 16, 17, 19, 38, 39, 52, 59, 170 37 154 170, 171 232 210 35, 53, 54, 55, 76, 81, 82, 125 5, 128, 153, 210 38 38 38 157 38

13:5 13:6 13:11 13:14–15 13:14–16 13:15 13:16 15 15:1 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:8 15:13 15:18 15:18–21 16 16:10 16:11 16:13 16:15 17

17–19 17:1–8 17:5 17:5–6

60 153 171 154 170 5, 128, 153, 154, 210 57 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 52, 59, 78, 79, 80, 81 170 154 125, 128, 153, 181, 182, 239 5, 35, 36, 53, 54, 55, 76, 77, 79, 82 210 153 57, 128, 153, 154 170 170 134 59 154 59 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 52, 56, 57–59, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 128, 129, 133, 135, 157– 58 158 170 76, 80, 81, 82, 125 232

296 17:6 17:7 17:7–10 17:8 17:9 17:10 17:10–11 17:10–13 17:11 17:13 17:14 17:16 17:19 17:20 17:23 17:24 17:25 17:26 18 18–19 18:10 18:14 18:18 18:19 18:23–26 18:23–33 18:26 18:27 18:30 18:32 19 19:28 19:30 21 21:1 21:8–21 21:9 21:10 21:10–12 21:12

21:13 21:17 21:18

Index of References 59 5 128 60, 153, 154, 210 133 170 57 133 75, 128 75, 128 57, 75, 128, 133, 170 57 59, 128 134 57, 59, 133–34 75, 128 59, 75, 128 59 135, 232–33 157 59, 123, 125–27, 134–35 59, 126–27 35, 53, 54, 76, 81, 82, 125 59 233 233 234 233 233 233 158 182 248 35, 56, 58–59, 130, 158, 170 134 248 134 158 158 118, 122, 125–26, 128, 130, 134–35, 136, 144, 152–53, 158, 161 133–35 181 134

22 22:2 22:7 22:7–8 22:8 22:12 22:16 22:17 22:17–18 24:7 25:12–18 25:22 25:23

25:27–34 25:34 26:1–5 26:3 26:3–4 26:4 26:5 26:24 27 27:11 27:28–29 27:29 27:37 27:39–40 27:42–45 28:4 28:13 28:13–14 28:13–15 28:14 29:14 29:16–17 29:26 29:31–33 29:31–30:24 30:6 30:8 31:3 32 32–33 32:8 32:12

16, 52, 59, 79, 80, 81, 171 136 59, 153, 177 57 59 136 136 153, 176, 197–98 128, 153, 170 60, 128, 153, 154 134 143 123, 124, 136–37, 143, 154, 170, 172, 189, 204, 248 170 159 170 153 128, 154 153, 181 140 128, 170 170 204 248 210, 248 248 147 171 128, 153, 154, 170 153, 154 128 170 153, 154, 211, 234 128 204 172, 204 204 172 172 172 170 233–34 248–49 156, 232–34 128, 153, 176, 177, 197–98, 234

297

Index of References 32:20 33 33:3 33:4–16 33:5 33:10 33:11 33:14 34:24 35:10–12 35:12 35:16–21 35:22 36 37–46 37:18–29 37:25 37:27 37:37 41:49 45 45:5 45:5–7 45:6 45:7 45:28 48:4 48:16 48:19–20 49:4 49:10 50:24

248 249 171, 248 205 248 248 248 248 128 170 128, 154 172 171 147 171 171 129 128 171 154 233–34 156 234 168 155–57, 166, 168– 69, 172, 232, 234 171 128, 154 168 171 171 35, 55, 171 212

Exodus 1:10 3:8 4:22 4:22–23 9:16 11:1 11:4–5 12:12 12:29 13:2 13:13–15 13:18 19 19:16

212 212 131, 180, 237, 252 186 209 38 186 186 186 186 186 212 141 155, 168

20:13–17 20:17 22:29 24:1–7 31–34 32–34 32:1 32:4 32:6 32:7 32:8 32:23 32:32 33:1 33:19 34:20 34:24 34:29–35 35 35:12 36:15

125 125 186 131 17 22 212 212 25 212 212 212 22 212 187 186 212 17 35 153 131

Leviticus 11:45 16:30 17 18:5 19:18 19:19 26:39

212 35, 36 31 5, 12, 18, 54 36, 61, 71 46 175

Numbers 16:13 21:3 23:10 24:17 25:11 27:17

212 115 154 40 99 39

Deuteronomy 1:8 2:34 3:3 4:27 4:37 5:12 5:17–21 5:21 7:7–8

128 175 175 181 128, 189 35 125 125 189

298 7:26 8:17–18 9:4–6 9:7 9:13–14 9:24 10:15 10:16 11:9 14:1–2 20:1 21 21:15–17 21:23 22:9 23:7 25:4 25:17–19 27 27–28 27–30 27:26 28 28:21 28:24 28:30 28:33 28:51 28:52 28:62 28:65 29–30 29:4 29:22 30 30:6 30:12 30:14 31:17 31:27 32 32:1 32:4 32:5 32:6 32:17 32:20 32:21 32:28–35

Index of References 115 189 189 189 189 189 128 74 128 237 212 18 131 12 46 147 5, 71–72 34, 36 18 12 11 11 181–82 181 181 181 181 181 181 175, 181–82 177 75 251 157 15, 35 74 5 5 181 189 112, 181, 196, 252 181 196 196 181 196 181 125, 196–97, 251 251

32:32 32:35 32:42 32:43 32:43b

157 125, 196 251 37, 196–97, 251 251

Joshua 6:17 7:12 7:20 8:22 10:28–40 11:8 24:17

115 115 41 175 175 175 212

Judges 1:17 2 2:1 7:12 11:13 19:30

115 1 212 154 212 212

Ruth 1:11

154

1 Samuel 1:3 10:3 12:6 15 15:2

212 212 212 34 36

2 Samuel 7:12 7:14

35, 55 125, 206

1 Kings 4:20 4:29 12:28 19:10 19:14 19:18 22:17

154 154 212 125, 157 125, 147, 166 126, 166 39

2 Kings 10:11 17:7

175 212

299

Index of References 17:36 19:31 21:14

212 227 227

1 Chronicles 1 5:1–2

147 171

2 Chronicles 18:16 20:7

39 128, 165

Ezra 2:70 8 9 9–10 9:1 9:1–3 9:2 9:4 9:8–9 10 10:3

229 229 229 229 229 46 229 229 156 46 229

Nehemiah 7:73 9:6 9:7–8 9:23 9:28 13:1–3 13:23–29

229 156 46, 229 46 229 46 46

Job 41:3

22

Psalms 1:1 2:8–9 10 13 18:47 18:49 19:4 22 22:27 22:27–31 32:1–2

36 210 1 1 210 37, 251 155, 209 1 52 210 35, 77

32:2 33:10 44 47:2–3 47:7–8 51:4 51:6 66:5 67:2–7 69 69:22–23 71:6 72 72:5 72:8 72:11 72:17 74 79:11 81:10 82:1 83 86:9 89 97:1 97:5 97:9 98:2–4 98:9 100:1–2 102:15 102:22 105 105:42–44 110:1–2 110:6 113:4–5 116:19c–117:1 117:1 118:10 128:2 137:7 139 148:7

36 126 1 210 210 102 126 210 210 1 245 154 210 210 210–11 210 210 1 157 212 40 1 51, 52, 210 1 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 52, 210 210 210 210 210 210 37 210, 251 210 40–41 147 1 210

Proverbs 26:18–19

134

300 Isaiah 1 1–55 1:2 1:2–4 1:2a 1:3 1:4 1:7 1:8–9 1:9

1:10 1:15 1:18 1:18–20 1:19 1:19–20 1:20 1:21 1:25 1:26 1:26–27 1:26–28 1:27 1:27–28 1:28 1:29–31 2:2–4 2:3 3:1 3:9 4:2–3 4:2–6 4:3 5:8 5:16 6:10 6:12 6:12–13 6:13 7–11 7:3 7:9

Index of References

153, 174, 180–82, 184 228 180, 182 180 181 181 180, 182 181 182 2, 21, 36, 153, 156– 58, 160, 169, 180– 82, 193, 209, 216, 221, 223, 225–26, 227–28, 231, 233– 34 157, 180 181 180, 182 182 182 180 182 180, 182 182 58 182 180 182 182 182 180 51 212 176 157 166 227 37 168 177 196, 224, 251 168 227 228–29 175 175, 182, 227 236

7:22 8:11 8:14 8:16–18 8:17 9:2–7 10 10:5–19 10:10–12 10:12 10:13–14 10:16 10:16–19 10:19 10:20 10:20–21 10:20–22 10:20–22a 10:20–23 10:21 10:22

10:22–23

10:22a 10:22b 10:22b–23 10:23 10:24 10:24–27 10:27 10:28–32 10:33 10:33–34 11 11:1–10 11:10

168 36 37, 178, 235–36, 238 227 181, 236 210 174, 176, 184, 220, 233, 236 174, 176 175 175 175 175–76 175 175 156, 175–76, 178, 234, 235, 238 182 156–57 180 174–80, 202, 228, 236 175–76 125, 154, 155, 165, 167–69, 176–80, 198, 202–3, 217, 220, 257 2, 3, 21, 29, 36, 160, 165–69, 175– 76, 178, 181, 184, 193, 201, 206, 216, 217, 219–21, 223, 225–26, 234, 238, 258 176 179–80 155 155, 167–68, 176– 79, 220 175–76 174–76 178 176 176 40 252 210 37, 51, 251

301

Index of References 11:11–16 11:13–15 11:14 11:16 12:2 13:9 14:2 14:22 14:30 19:4 19:18–25 22:14 26:15 27:9 28:5–6 28:11–12 28:16 28:22 29:10 29:14 29:16 30:12 30:20 31:1 34:1–16 37:30–35 40:13 40:27 41:8 41:9 43:6 44:2 44:3 44:3–4 44:3b 45:9 45:11 45:14 45:15 45:19 45:23 48:10 48:17–19 49 49:1 49:5 49:8 49:14–15

227 251 147, 251 212 236 157 51 227 227 176 259 176 210 125 227 125 31, 37, 126, 235– 36, 238 166, 168, 178–79 251 125–26 30, 125 176 181 176 147 227 22 1 128, 165 65 206 57 35, 57–58, 63 65 57 30 206 51 181 128 125 154 228 52 59, 154 59 125 1

49:14–21 49:18 49:22 49:22–23 49:23 51:1 51:2 52:7 52:11 54:1 54:1–2 54:1–3 56–66 56:6–8 58:13 59:8 59:20 60 60:4 60:10–14 60:12 60:12–14 60:21 61:3 61:5 62:1–5 63:1–6 63:16 64:8 65:1–2 65:8–9 65:9 66:2 66:5 66:20

58 125 206 51 52 228 35, 58 29 125 5, 35, 58, 192, 213 212 58 228 51 35 126 125 52 206 51 51 52 65 65 51 58 147 237 237 125, 195–97, 198, 251 229 229 229 229 51

Jeremiah 1:5 2:6 3:17 4:4 6:9 7 11:17 15:8 16:14 16:15 16:19–21

59 212 52 74 227 35, 75 212 154 212 212 51

302

Index of References

17:13 23 23:3 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:14 31 31:6 31:7 31:9 33:22 33:26 38–39 44:14 48:19 49:7–22 49:8 49:18 50:9 50:40 51:16

35 203 203, 227 203 203 203, 212 212 157, 203 14, 15 212 227 237 154 128 35 227 157 147 158 158 212 157 212

Lamentations 4:21–22 5:6

147 157

Ezekiel 5:10 6:8 11 16:44–52 20:35 25:12–15 35:1–5 36 36:3–5 36:26 37:27

227 157 35 157 125 147 147 35, 75 147 35, 36 125–27

Daniel 2:35 2:44 5:26 7:14 7:27 9:27

210 210 179 210 210 179

Hosea 1 1–3

1:2–9 1:2–10 1:2–2:1 1:4 1:6 1:6–7 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10

1:10–11 1:10–2:1 1:10a 1:10aα 1:10b 1:11 1:11–2:1 1:11a 1:11b 2 2:1 2:2–13 2:2–23 2:3 2:9 2:12 2:14–23 2:15 2:16 2:16–17 2:18 2:18–20 2:19 2:21 2:21–22 2:21–23 2:21–3:4 2:21–3:5

153, 199 173, 174, 184, 185, 194, 199, 201, 203– 6, 215, 258 173, 203 200, 202 173, 234 199 162–63, 199 201 163, 193, 203, 211 162–63 199 2, 10, 21, 36, 152, 154–55, 160–62, 167–68, 173–74, 185, 191, 193–207, 221, 257 194 173, 197–99, 203, 213 197, 199, 203 160 197, 200, 203 198–99, 212–14 199, 202 203 203 174, 194, 198 162–63, 197–98, 203, 205, 213 173 173 153 153 153 173 212, 213 173, 211 198 199, 211 198 163 173, 202–3 203, 212 198–99 202 202–3

303

Index of References 2:22–23 2:23

2:23–3:4 2:23b 3:1 3:1–4 3:1–5 3:4–5 3:5 3:5a, b, c 11:1 14:4

173 2, 11, 36, 153, 155, 160–65, 168–69, 184, 185, 191, 192, 194–207 200 198 205 173, 200, 203 173 199 173, 202, 212–13 203 237 163

Joel 3:19

147

Amos 1:8 1:11–12 2:10 3:1 3:11–12 4:11 9:7 9:11–15

175 147 212 212 175 157 212 147

Obadiah 8–10 12 17–18 21

147 147 147 147

Micah 3:11 4:1–3 4:7 5:2 5:7–8 6:4

176 51 227 157 227 212

Nahum 1:2

36

Habakkuk 2:4 3

12, 18, 35, 54, 63 28

Zephaniah 2:9 3:11–13

157 227

Haggai 1:12–14 2:2

227 227

Zechariah 2:11 3:5 8:6–13 8:20–23 9:9 9:9–10 9:10 14:2 14:16–21

51 177 227 51 41 210 210–11 157 51

Malachi 1 1:2–3

1:2–3a 1:2–5 1:2b–3a 1:3 1:3–5 1:3b–5 1:6 2:10

184 124, 138, 140, 145– 47, 150, 164, 183, 201, 204–5, 214, 251 164 158–59 137 204 147 158 237 237

Deuterocanonical Books Judith 11:19 14:10

39 129

Wisdom 10:5

128

304

Index of References

Sirach 1:13 4:5 17:18 33:7–13 44:17 44:19–21 44:20 44:21 47:21–22

128 208 237 189 227, 232 47, 79 129 128, 154, 210–11 227

Baruch 2:13 2:20–23 2:27–35

227 31 31

4:27–29 5:5–9

227 227

Prayer of Azariah 1:12–13 165 1:13 154 1 Maccabees 2:24–26 2:29–68 2:50–52 2:52 3:35 11:1 12:19–23

99 97 140 79 227 154 48

Pseudepigrapha Artapanus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1 48 9.23.1–2 48 9.27.46 48 2 Baruch 14:13 40:1–4 47:6 47:20a 47:20b 50:2 51:3 57:1–2

210 227 189 189 189 72 210 140

Cleodemus Malchus apud Josephus, Ant. 1.239–241 48 Demetrius apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.21.16 47 9.29.1 47 1 Enoch 5:7 83:8 84:5–6

210 227 227

2 Enoch 22

131

Eupolemus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9 48 4 Ezra 3:13–16 6:58 6:59 12:34 13 13:16–20 13:23–35 13:39–40 13:46–49

140 211 211 227 227 227 227 227 227

Joseph and Aseneth 19:8 194 Jubilees 1:25 2:17–18 2:17–24 2:19–23 2:20 2:28 2:30–31 12:16–24

194 49 139 49 131 49 49 139

305

Index of References 13:13–15 15:27 15:30 15:30–31a 16:7 16:9 17:3 17:6 17:15–18 18:16 19:8 19:14 19:15–16 19:16 19:21 19:22 21:25 22:9–11 22:14 22:15 22:16 22:22 22:24 22:27 22:27–30 24:6 25:3–4 25:4–10 27:33 28 29:18 30:1–20 32:18–19 32:19 Letter of Aristeas 139–142 144–169

38 49 201 148 201 157 210 128 79 79 79 49 140 128 210 154 128 128 49, 210 128 49 157 128 49 128 49 49 49 154 49 49 139 210 49, 210–11

16:2–3 39:2–3

131 131

Latin 14–17 14:3 15:3

131 131 131

3 Maccabees 2:5 6:3

157 128

4 Maccabees 14:20 18:1

79 128

Psalms of Solomon 9:9 128 18:3 128 Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 32:5 140 40:2 79 40:5 79 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Benjamin 9:1 157 Testament of Judah 10 49 Testament of Levi 9:3–14

140

139 72

Testament of Naphtali 8:12 157

Life of Adam and Eve Greek 2:4 131

Testament of Zebulun 3:4 140

306

Index of References

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature CD (Damascus Document) I, 3–5 230 II, 2–13 146, 189 II, 11–12 159, 210 II, 11–13 230 III, 2–3 165 III, 12–13 230 IV, 2–4 230 IV, 13–15 230 VII, 18–21 40 X, 16–21 35 XIX, 1–8 36 XX, 2–4 140 1QapGen ar (Genesis Apocryphon) XX, 31–33 38 1QHa (Thanksgiving Hymns) II, 7 74 II, 18 74 XIV, 7–8 159, 230 XVIII, 20 74 1QM (War Scroll) I–II 49 XIII, 8–9 230 XIV, 8–9 230 1QpHab (Habakkuk Pesher) VII, 1–14 81 1QS (Rule of the Community) III, 13–IV, 24 189 V, 5 74

4Q186 (4QHoroscope)

189

4Q371–373 (Apocryphon of Joseph) 4Q372 2, I, 15 39 4QPrFêtesc (Festival Prayers) 242 I, 1 37 4QFlor (Florilegium) 1–3 I, 9–II, 2 230 1–3 I, 14–16 36 4QIsaa (Isaiaha) 8–10 III, 5

40

4QMMT (Miqṣat Ma‘aśê ha-Toraha) 3–7 II, 14–15 31 4QpIsac (Isaiah Pesher) 4–6 I, 12–17 230 4QTobe II, 2

154

11QMelch (Melchizedek) II, 8–10 40 II, 24–25 40 11QT (Temple Scroll) L, 10 154 8ḤevXIIgr (Minor Prophets Scroll) 27

Josephus Ant. (Antiquitates judaicae) 1.165 38 1.215 134 1.223–225 79 3.217 91 18.81–83 86 18.81–84 90 20.189–196 90

B.J. (Bellum judaicum) 7.45 91 Contra Apionem 2.209–210 2.213–214 2.282–283

139 72 91

307

Index of References

Philo Abr. (De Abrahamo) 192 79 Leg. (Legum allegoriae) 3.88 140 Legat. (Legatio ad Gaium) 210 139 Migr. (De migratione Abrahami) 1–3 37 92–93 74 Mos. (De vita Mosis) 1.157 211 2.19–20 91

QG (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin) 3.46 74 Spec. (De specialibus legibus) 1.260 72 2.253 97 Somn. (De somniis) 1.175 211 Virt. (De virtutibus) 81 72 145–146 72 208–210 140

New Testament Matthew 6 9:36 10:15 11:23–21 21:1–7

75 39 157 157 41

Mark 3:5 6:52 7:18–19 8:17 9:35 10:31 10:44 11:1–7

224 224 69 224 261 261 261 41

Luke 3:7–9 10:12 15 15:11–32 17:29 19:29–35

230 157 262 262 157 41

John 8:37–59

262

12:40

224

Acts 7 11:18 13:14–47 13:15 13:38–39 13:45 13:50 14:1 14:1–2 14:2 14:5 14:19 14:20 15:10 16:3 17:1–5 17:3 17:5 17:7 17:10 17:12–13 17:13 18 18:2

97 56 246 34 98 98 98 246 98 98 98 98 98 69 69 246 98 98 98 246 98 98 98 85

308 18:4–6 18:5 18:6 18:13 19:8 19:9 20:20 21:21 21:28 21:29 21:40 22:3 23:16 28:17–28 Romans 1:1–7 1:3 1:3–4 1:4 1:5 1:5–6 1:6 1:11–13 1:13 1:16 1:16–17 1:18–32 2 2:1 2:5 2:9–10 2:11 2:11–13 2:12–16 2:17 2:17–24 2:17–3:8 2:21–24 2:25–29 2:27–29 2:28 2:28–29 2:29 3:1 3:1–8 3:2 3:4

Index of References 246 98 98 97–100, 103–4 246 98 97 97–100, 103–4 97–100, 103–4 67 33 33, 67 33 246

101 87 103 261 101–2, 105–6 105 105 95 106 87, 102, 250 100–1, 167, 224 84 2, 35, 75, 81, 82, 101, 105, 114, 132 108 167 87, 102, 250, 253 87 149 102 103, 108 73, 81, 84 105 114 115 102 129 74–75 116 102, 109, 250, 253 102, 105, 117 117 117

3:4–5 3:5–6 3:8 3:9 3:10–18 3:17 3:19 3:19–20 3:19–21 3:20 3:21–22 3:22 3:22–23 3:22–24 3:25–26 3:27 3:27–31 3:27–4:2 3:28 3:29–30 3:31 4

4:1 4:1–6 4:1–7 4:1–8 4:3–6 4:4–5 4:7–8 4:9 4:9–12 4:11 4:11–12 4:11–13 4:12 4:13 4:13–15 4:13–17 4:13–17a 4:15 4:16 4:17 4:18 4:24–25

167 117 101, 104, 159 109, 149 35 126 35 73, 81 115 70, 141, 250 167 149, 250 87, 253 115 167 81, 102, 116 81 105 141 87, 149, 250, 253 116 2, 36, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81–82, 84, 87, 94, 101, 113, 127, 132, 133, 135, 143, 200, 256 66, 77, 109, 129 141 35 77 77 142 77 80 77–79, 80, 81, 115 80, 203 102 200 76, 80 141, 201, 209, 211, 213 116 79–82 115 70, 151 76, 250, 253 76, 125, 152 125 76

Index of References 5:9–10 5:12 5:12–14 5:13–14 5:19–21 5:20 6:1 6:1–2 6:14 6:15 7 7:1 7:4–6 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:7–11 7:7–12 7:8 7:12 7:12–16 7:13 7:19 7:21 7:21–25 8 8:1–4 8:2 8:2–4 8:3 8:3–4 8:4 8:15–17 8:17 8:19–25 8:21 8:23 8:23–24 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:32 9

224 70 73 142 73 70, 81, 141 109 101–2 70, 141 70, 109 81 109 115 141 81 102, 105, 125 73 81 70 87, 102 81 105 159 70 81 115, 260 81, 141 70, 102, 141 81 141 81 102, 116 81, 115 260 203 115 115 224 203 260 115, 152 203, 260 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 24, 25, 43, 82, 83, 85, 111, 113, 118, 119, 125, 127, 130, 131, 134, 136, 137, 142, 143, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 159,

9–10 9–11

9:1–5 9:1–12 9:2–3 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:5 9:6

9:6–7 9:6–12 9:6–13

9:6–18 9:6–29 9:6–11:10

9:6a

9:6b

309 170, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, 190, 201, 203, 209, 211, 214, 216, 220, 223, 225– 26, 237–38, 239, 241, 242, 246, 252– 53, 255, 256–58, 260 244 3, 23, 24, 56, 81–82, 87, 88, 96, 101, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 146, 150, 152, 155, 170, 185, 199, 202–4, 214, 222, 223–24, 226, 232, 233, 239, 240, 244, 249, 250, 255, 258, 259, 261, 262 87, 114, 250, 253 183 149 22, 115, 203, 223, 237 81, 237, 252 22, 101, 102, 115, 116 87, 129 3, 101–2, 109, 113, 120, 137, 167, 186, 217, 219, 220, 223– 25, 237, 240, 242 129, 225 164 2, 146, 148, 149, 188, 217, 219–20, 252, 257, 259 105 119, 241 21, 120, 225, 232, 236, 241–42, 245, 253, 258 101, 113, 114–18, 119, 121, 187, 219, 222, 240, 258 2, 113, 118–22, 136, 149, 186, 220– 22, 223–24, 238, 257–58

310 9:6b–29 9:6b–11:10 9:7

9:7–9 9:7–12 9:7–13

9:7–23 9:7a 9:7a–9 9:7b 9:7b–13 9:8 9:8a 9:9 9:10 9:10–11 9:10–12a 9:10–13 9:10a 9:10b 9:10b–12a 9:11 9:11–12 9:11–12a 9:11a 9:11b–12a 9:12 9:12b 9:13

9:14 9:14–18

Index of References 119–20 3, 119, 240, 258 5, 118, 120–21, 125–26, 128, 130, 137, 144, 152–53, 186, 220–21, 259 122–23, 125–36, 142, 143, 144 147 113, 119, 121–24, 125, 140, 148, 149, 151, 165, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 206, 222, 237, 257 226, 242 118, 120–21, 123, 130, 221 120 123, 135 120 123, 129, 130, 135, 143, 240 130 5, 123, 126–27, 130, 137, 220 123–24, 143 130, 224 124 122, 124, 136–48, 158 124 124 124 123, 141, 142, 144, 159, 190 124 124 124 124 5, 136–37, 141, 152, 189, 220 124 124, 138, 144, 145– 48, 151, 186–87, 204, 214 108, 109, 167, 186, 188, 196, 214 119, 151, 186–88

9:14–23 9:14–24 9:15 9:15–16 9:15–18 9:15–23 9:16 9:17 9:17–18 9:18 9:19 9:19–21 9:19–23 9:19–24 9:20 9:20–21 9:20–23 9:21–23 9:22 9:22–24 9:23 9:24

9:24–26 9:24–29 9:24–31 9:24a 9:24b 9:25 9:25–26 9:25–29

9:26

9:26a 9:27 9:27–28

149, 186–90, 221– 22, 237, 258 185, 188, 257 132, 187, 190 188 162, 186–87 202 187–88, 190 118, 155, 168, 187, 189, 209 147, 188 119, 187, 190, 224 108, 109, 147, 186– 88, 214 105 186–87 188 125 30 147 225 4, 168, 189 23–24 151, 162, 168, 190 2, 150, 151, 152, 186–90, 203, 219– 20, 222, 225, 235 136, 148, 203, 237 122, 148, 150, 192, 242, 252, 257 102 192 192 160–65, 168, 204, 209 3, 10–11, 120, 185– 215 2, 5, 21, 35–36, 109, 151, 152, 161, 183, 207, 257 21, 152, 155, 160, 185, 197, 207–8, 209 160 125, 167, 198, 202, 218, 220, 224, 228 21, 29, 157, 165– 69, 216, 217–20, 223, 226, 231, 234

Index of References 9:27–29 9:28

9:29

9:30–31 9:30–32 9:30–33 9:30–10:21 9:31–10:3 9:32–33 9:33 9:33–10:4 10 10–11 10:1 10:3 10:4–5 10:5 10:5–9 10:6–8 10:8–11 10:9 10:9–10 10:10–13 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:15 10:16 10:16–17 10:17 10:18 10:18–21 10:19 10:19–20 10:19–21 10:20–21 10:21 11

11:1

3, 113, 120–22, 192, 203, 216–38 155, 167–68, 207, 209, 214, 216, 217– 20 21, 153, 157, 160, 209, 221, 224, 226, 231, 233–34 109, 115 102, 224 238, 244 119–20, 236 203 236 31, 37, 126, 213, 236 226 119, 242 4, 165, 245 109, 115, 165, 224, 244 109, 115 238 81 5 81 238 116 224, 236 165 31, 126 149, 213, 250, 253 167, 250 238 29 238 236 226, 245 155, 209 109 125, 196 37 102, 215 125, 195–97 203, 226 3, 24, 93, 109, 119– 20, 222, 241, 242, 245–49, 260 115, 224, 226

11:1–4 11:1–10 11:1a 11:2–4 11:3–4 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:6–7 11:7 11:7b–10 11:8 11:8–10 11:9–10 11:10 11:11

11:11–12 11:11–14 11:11–16 11:11–24 11:11–32

11:11–36 11:12 11:12–13 11:12–24 11:13 11:13–14 11:14 11:15 11:15–16 11:16 11:16–17 11:17 11:17–19 11:17–21 11:18–20 11:18–21 11:20 11:20–22 11:21–22 11:23

311 226 109, 119–22, 190, 223–26, 236 119 119 125, 166 126 224, 240 224 190 118, 196, 224, 240, 245 203 251 225, 232, 240, 245 245 115, 118, 241, 247 119–20, 196, 224, 241–42, 244–45, 246 244, 253 196 247 241 3, 21, 119–20, 190, 222, 232, 240–41, 244, 246, 253, 258 4 119, 203, 241, 260 245 102 108–9 93 165, 196, 202, 240, 245, 246 203, 241, 244, 260– 61 119, 203 119, 232 241 203 253 244 108 93 236 87 244 119, 236, 246

312 11:23–24 11:24 11:25 11:25–26 11:25–32 11:25c 11:25d 11:26

11:26–27 11:27 11:28 11:28–29 11:28–32 11:29 11:30 11:30–31 11:30–32 11:31 11:32 11:34–35 12:1 12:9 12:19 12:21 13:3 13:4 13:8–10 13:9 13:11 14–15 14:1–12 14:1–13 14:1–15:3 14:1–15:7 14:2 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6 14:7–9 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:11

Index of References 203, 240 203 87, 240–41, 245 118, 241 3 241 241 11, 23, 24, 87, 165, 192, 203, 212–13, 224, 228, 232, 235, 240–41, 251 240–42, 253 125, 203 115, 165, 240, 259 245 250, 253 87, 130, 152 115 87, 245 102, 260 115 87, 115, 149, 215, 249, 250, 252 21 115, 116 159 125, 196, 208 159 159 159 81, 102, 116 125 224 94, 100, 102, 105, 108, 109–10 93 93 93 79, 87, 93, 110 69 102 93, 108 102 93 93 93 93 108 93, 125

14:13 14:14 14:21 15 15:1 15:3–4 15:6 15:7 15:7–13 15:8 15:8–9 15:8–12 15:9 15:9–12 15:10 15:10–12 15:11 15:12 15:15 15:15–16 15:16 15:18 15:22–24 15:25–28 15:26–27 15:27 15:30–32 15:31 16 16:19 16:26

108 69, 93 69 127 93 93 93 108 102 87, 94, 250, 253, 261 78–79, 105, 107 101 51 29–30, 37, 251 196–97 79 93 51 107 106 101–2, 116 101–2, 106 95 55 55 249, 250, 252, 253 95, 111 104 104, 106 159 101

1 Corinthians 1:18–31 1:19 1:22 1:22–24 1:23–24 1:24 1:25–29 3 5:1 5:5 5:9–13 6:9–11 7 7:17–20 7:31

245, 261 125–26 67 72 65 67 189 65 65 84 84 84 65, 69 65, 68–69 69

313

Index of References 8–10 9:8–10 9:9 9:19–21 9:19–23 9:22 10 10:1 10:4 10:6 10:7 10:11 10:16–17 10:18 10:20 10:22 10:32 11:13 11:24–25 11:27 12:2 12:12–13 12:13 12:27 14:21 15:9 15:51–52 15:56 2 Corinthians 1:9 3 3:7–9 3:14 3:14–16 4:3–4 5:10 5:17 6:2 6:14–7:1 6:16 6:17 6:18 8–9 8:8–9 8:14–15 9:6–7 10–13

110 71–72 5 67, 69–71, 96 65 69 66 66, 72, 143 66 71 25 66, 71, 83, 222 66 66, 72 196 196 65 67 66 66 66, 72, 143 66 66, 67, 82 66 125 50 72 70

235 17, 35, 37, 72, 81, 145 96 224 96 84 159 222 125 192, 205–6 125–26 125 125, 206 52 52 52 52 55

11:22 11:24–16 Galatians 1–2 1:4 1:13 1:13–14 1:14 1:15–16 1:22–24 2:3 2:4 2:6 2:9 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:15–16 2:16 2:19–21 2:20 2:21 3 3–4 3:1–5 3:2 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:7–8 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:10–12 3:10–14 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15–18 3:16

3:17 3:17–18 3:18

33 97

63 51, 54 69 50, 60 33 59 55 62, 67 55 55 55, 96 16, 67, 129 67 84 56 141 61 54 141 5, 35, 54, 55, 76, 96, 133, 143 17, 127 56 141 129 56, 141 5, 53, 56 53, 54 55 53–54, 125 54, 56 11, 141 60 11, 54 54, 141 54 12 56, 57 142 5, 36, 53, 54–56, 59, 60, 109, 200, 212, 239 53 56 53

314 3:19 3:21 3:21–22 3:22 3:23 3:23–25 3:23–29 3:28 3:28–29 3:29

4 4:1–7 4:2–5 4:4 4:4–7 4:5 4:6 4:8–9 4:14 4:17 4:21 4:21–31 4:21–5:1 4:23 4:24 4:24–25 4:24–26 4:25 4:25–26 4:26 4:26–27 4:27 4:28 4:29 5:1 5:2–3 5:3–4 5:4 5:6 5:12 5:14 5:15 5:18 6:2 6:4–5 6:12

Index of References 55, 60, 70, 96 56, 141 60 200 70 61, 96 56 109, 206 12 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 82, 200, 201, 212 133, 212 61 96 70 61 70 56 84 129 55 60, 70 58–59 136, 145 129 60, 96 60 63 61 60 63, 212, 214 212 5, 35, 58, 192, 212– 13 55, 59 129 96, 141 56 61, 96 56, 141 56 55, 60 61, 71 96 56, 70 61 62 97

6:12–13 6:12–15 6:14–15 6:15 6:16

55, 129 56 61, 62 51, 54, 63, 73, 79 61–62, 63, 66, 73, 96

Ephesians 1:9 2:11 2:11–22 3:3–12 4:18 4:27 5:25–33

60 67 73 60 224 208 60

Philippians 2:5–11 2:9–11 2:15 3 3:2 3:2–3 3:2–5 3:3 3:5 3:5–6 3:7–8 3:20 3:20–21

261 213 84, 196 73, 75, 82, 104 75 73–74 129 235 33, 69, 70 50 74 213 213

Colossians 4:10–11

67

1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–16 2:14–17 2:15 4:5 5:15

84 55 97 96, 109 96 111 62 159

Hebrews 9:24–26 11:10 11:13–16 12:17

118 213 213 208

315

Index of References 12:22–23 13:13–14

213 213

2:9 2:12 5:13

92, 164 92 92

James 2:21–24 2:23

262 165

2 Peter 2:6 3:15–16

157 25

1 Peter 1:18–19 2:5

92 92

Jude 7

157

Rabbinic Writings Mishna Yoma 8.9

Nedarin 31a

134

Sanhedrin 43b 59 59a–59b

41 134 133

35, 36

Qiddushin 4.14

140

Avot 5.3

79

Tosefta Megillah 3.1–9 3.2

34 34, 36

Sota 6.6

134

Qiddushin 4.21

140

Sanhedrin 7.11

36

Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 87a–b 194 87b 194 Yoma 22b 28b

194 140

Yebamot 47b

64

Avot of Rabbi Nathan 4.1 40 31 36–37 37 36 Genesis Rabbah 40.6 46.2 49.2 53.11 53.15 63.7 67.8

134 134 140 134 134 140 140

Exodus Rabbah 13.1 39.1 48.6

194 194 194

Leviticus Rabbah 32.5

194

Numbers Rabbah 2.12–18 9.48 19.3 20.25

194 194 194 194

316

Index of References

Song of Songs Rabbah 7.3 § 7 194

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 30 134

Mekilta Exod 19:19 / Baḥodesh 4.45–58 140

Sifre Deuteronomy 412 140 443 140

Exod 20:2 / Baḥodesh 5.63–79 140

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 21:9 134 Gen 25:23 140

Pesiqta of Rab Kahana 2.8 194 48.2 134, 140 Sup. 1.15 140

Targum Neofiti Gen 21:9

134

Early Christian Writings 1 Clement 10:1 10:7 17:2 40:1–5 42:1

165 79–80 165 92 92

Cyprian Ad Quirinum

7

Justin Dialogue with Trypho 11.1–5 262 23.3–4 262 80.4 262 119.3–6 262 120.2 262 Questions of Bartholomew 4:54 132

Greco-Roman Literature Cassius Dio Historia Romana 57.18.5 67.14.1–2

86 90

Cicero Prov. cons. (De provinciis consularibus) 5.10–12 86 Flac. (Pro Flacco) 28.66–67 90 28.66–69 86 Heliodorus Aethiopica 6.13

Horace Sat. (Satirae) 1.4.139–143

90

Juvenal Sat. (Satirae) 14.96–106

86, 90

Plato Euthyphr. (Euthyphro) 15–16 245 Plutarch Cohib. ira (De cohibenda ira) 2.462b 208

317

Index of References Polybius Historiae 1.88.2

208

Quintilian Inst. (Institutio oratoria) 3.7.21 86 Seneca De superstitione apud Augustine, Civ. 6.11 86, 90 Ep. (Epistulae morales) 108.22 90 Suetonius Tib. (Tiberius) 36

86

Claud. (Divus Claudius) 25.4 85

Tacitus Ann. (Annales) 2.85.5 12.52 15.44

86 91 86

Hist. (Historiae) 5.4.1 5.5.1–2 5.5.1–5 5.8.3 5.12.2

86 90 86 86 86

Thucydides Historiae 6.54

208

Valerius Maximus Fact. ac Dict. (Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX) 1.3.2 86

Index of Modern Authors Aageson, James W.…76, 88, 169, 191, 212, 242 Abasciano, Brian J.…21–22, 23, 33, 109, 114, 116, 119, 120, 121, 124, 127, 132, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 189, 242–43, 246–47, 248 Abegg, Martin G.…139 Achtemeier, Paul J.…106 Adams, Sean A.…31 Ahlström, Gösta W.…47 Albl, Martin C.…7 Albright, William F.…26 Aletti, Jean-Noël…239 Alexander, Philip S.…189 Allison, Dale C. Jr.…242–43, 246–47 Alter, Robert…170 Anderson, Gary A.…140, 141 Aune, David E.…104, 109 Aus, Roger D.…52, 208 Aust, Hugo…115 Bailey, Kenneth E.…65, 66, 67, 262 Bakhos, Carol…134 Barclay, John M. G.…59 Barr, James…27, 163 Barrett, Charles Kingsley…6, 58, 66, 72, 75, 106, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 205, 237, 247 Barth, Fredrik…44 Barth, Markus…88 Barthélemy, Dominique…27, 28 Bates, Matthew W.…6 Battle, John A. Jr.…193 Baumgärtel, F.…128 Baumgarten, Albert I.…46 Baumgartner, Walter…163 Beale, Gregory K.…61, 206 Beentjes, Pancratius C.…47

Behm, Johannes…115 Beker, J. Christiaan…10, 227, 241, 251 Bell, Richard H.…55, 60, 61, 73, 74, 96, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 146, 196, 224, 226, 240, 241, 242–43, 245, 246–47, 251 Belli, Filippo…114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 144, 152, 164, 167, 179, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 198, 208, 209, 219, 220, 227 Bergey, Ronald…181 Berkley, Timothy W.…17, 75, 77, 81– 82, 114 Betz, Hans Dieter…53, 54, 58, 61, 108, 205 Birch, Bruce C.…232 Blenkinsopp, Joseph…46–47, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 228–29 Bornkamm, Günther…103, 110 Boyarin, Daniel…56, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67, 74, 81, 129 Braxton, Brad…88 Brekelmans, Christiaan H. W.…181 Brett, Mark G.…46–47, 248 Brinsmead, Bernard Hungerford…53 Brown, Colin…128 Brown, Raymond E.…91, 92, 104, 110 Bruce, Frederick Fyvie…104, 205 Brueggemann, Walter…210 Buell, Denise Kimber…45 Bultmann, Rudolf…84 Burge, Gary M.…208 Byrne, Brandon…3–4, 76, 88, 116, 117, 119, 131, 146, 186, 187, 188, 190, 217, 224, 227 Calvert, Nancy L.…45, 55, 59, 78 Campbell, Douglas A.…101, 104

Index of Modern Authors Campbell, William S.…61, 76, 78, 88, 95, 115, 122, 130, 143, 188, 192, 193, 201, 224, 227, 242–43, 247, 251 Caragounis, Chrys C.…85, 92 Carmignac, Jean…49 Chance, J. Bradley…55, 76, 78 Childs, Brevard S.…177 Chilton, Bruce…76, 88, 116, 191, 227 Ciampa, Roy E.…196 Clements, Ronald E.…173, 175, 227, 232, 236 Coats, George W.…248 Cohen, Shaye J. D.…45, 64, 66, 134 Cohn, Robert L.…45 Collins, John J.…48, 129, 231 Conrad, Edgar W.…227 Conzelmann, Hans…66 Cook, Johann…32 Cook, Michael J.…85, 116, 121 Cornell, Stephen…44, 48–49, 52 Cosgrove, Charles H.…4, 24, 88, 188, 226, 237, 241–42, 251 Cousar, Charles B.…60, 88 Cranfield, Charles E. B.…71, 75, 78, 80, 81, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 124, 126, 127, 143, 144, 146, 147, 178, 188, 189–90, 192, 193, 208, 212, 217–18, 219, 220, 227, 246–47 Cranford, Michael…77, 114, 121, 223 Cresson, Bruce C.…147 Cromhout, Markus…45, 139 Cross, Frank Moore…26, 28, 32 Crüsemann, Frank…46 Dahl, Nils A.…55, 61, 81, 104, 114, 192, 193, 208, 212, 226, 227, 247 Dahmen, Ulrich…163 Damgaard, Finn…107 Daniels, Dwight R.…180 Das, Andrew A.…89, 90–91, 93–94, 105–7, 109, 227, 233 Davies, Eryl W.…131 Davies, Philip R.…49, 230 Davies, William D.…55, 61, 75, 76, 88, 139, 140, 207, 212, 214, 227, 250 Davis, Stephan K.…17 Deissmann, Adolf…107–8, 242 Demarest, Bruce A.…128 Derovan, David…36

319

Di Lella, Alexander A.…47 Dicou, Bert…147, 170, 248 Dinkler, Erich…193, 241 Dinter, Paul E.…219, 259 Dodd, Charles H.…6–8, 17, 116, 184, 189, 190–91, 193, 220, 241, 246 Doeve, Jan Willem…40, 117 Donaldson, Terence L.…51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61, 63–64, 76, 84, 102, 111–12, 119, 139, 191, 223, 241, 246–47, 261 Donfried, Karl P.…96, 107, 110 Doran, Robert…48 Downey, Amy Karen…96 Downs, David J.…52 Drane, John W.…110, 111 Dresner, Samuel…172 Duhaime, Jean…231 Duling, Dennis C.…45 Duncan, George S.…73 Dunn, James D. G.…52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 93, 102, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 161, 162, 177, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 208, 212, 214, 217, 219, 224, 226, 227, 240, 246–47 Eastman, Susan Grove…55, 58, 59, 61, 122 Ehrensperger, Kathy…99–100 Eisenbaum, Pamela…45 Eissfeldt, Otto…206 Elliot, Neil…88 Ellis, E. Earle…6, 28, 31, 34, 35, 55, 71, 76, 193 Ellison, Henry L.…246–47 Endres, John C.…49 Erickson, Richard J.…128 Esler, Philip F.…45, 47, 55, 87, 88, 89, 117, 121, 189, 212, 225, 245 Evans, Craig A.…6, 121, 146, 192, 226, 236, 242–43 Fee, Gordon D.…65, 66, 67, 71, 74 Feldman, Louis H.…64, 90, 91, 92 Fernández Marcos, Natalio…26, 27, 29, 30 Fiore, Benjamin…114

320

Index of Modern Authors

Fishbane, Michael…36, 38 Fisk, Bruce N.…23 Fitzmyer, Joseph A.…65, 66, 67, 104, 107, 117, 120, 124, 129, 143, 146, 187, 188, 190, 192, 205, 208, 213, 217, 224 Foster, Robert B.…193 Fowl, Stephen E.…8 Fredriksen, Paula…51, 66 Freudenthal, Jacob…48 Frey, Jörg…33, 74, 75, 208, 227, 259 Fuss, Barbara…161, 162, 166, 167, 191, 198 Gadenz, Pablo T.…51, 63–64, 76, 109, 120, 132, 164, 166, 168, 179, 192, 193, 213, 219, 220, 224, 227, 239, 245, 246–47 Gager, John G.…122, 188, 227, 242– 43, 246 Gagnon, Robert A.…93 Garlington, Don…77 Gaston, Lloyd…115, 122, 143, 186, 224, 242–43, 246–47 Gathercole, Simon J.…77 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts…116, 118, 135, 192, 223 Georgi, Dieter…52 Getty, Mary Ann…76, 192, 193, 224, 227, 242–43 Gevaryahu, Gilad J.…131 Given, Mark D.…237 Glenny, W. Edward…193, 214 Glombitza, Otto…242 Goldin, Judah…131, 170 Goodman, Martin…45 Gore, Charles…117, 121–22 Gorman, Michael J.…9 Gould, E. P.…121, 192, 246–47 Grabbe, Lester L.…47 Grant, Robert M.…191 Green, Bernard…85, 91 Green, Joel B.…106 Greenspahn, Frederick E.…131 Greenspoon, Leonard…27 Greer, Rowan A.…46 Gregory, Andrew…92 Gregory, Bradley C.…47 Grieb, A. Katherine…9

Grindheim, Sigurd…24, 73, 74, 114, 121, 142, 162, 170, 191, 192, 224, 225, 243, 247, 251, 261 Guerra, Anthony J.…78, 92, 100, 103, 104, 106–7, 108, 109, 117, 187, 191 Haacker, Klaus…114, 117, 135, 146, 148, 191, 220 Habel, Norman C.…209 Hall, Robert G.…129 Hanneken, Todd R.…210 Hansen, Bruce…55, 60, 62, 67, 108 Hanson, Anthony T.…6 Harris, J. Rendel…6–7 Harvey, Julien…180 Hasel, Gerhard…227, 232–33, 234 Hawthorne, Gerald F.…73, 74 Hayes, Christine E.…47, 64 Haynes, Stephen R.…88 Hays, Richard B.…9–11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 71, 77, 78, 102, 116, 118, 193, 194, 223, 224, 227, 255, 261 Headlam, Arthur C.…28, 117, 118, 121, 124, 126, 129, 143, 162, 178, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 208, 212, 217, 218, 221, 227 Heard, R. Christopher…142 Heil, John Paul…178, 180, 219, 223, 225–26, 227 Hendel, Ronald…45, 46–47 Hengel, Martin…19, 29, 30, 33, 191 Hofius, Otto…117, 240, 241 Holladay, Carl. R.…48 Holmberg, Bengt…63, 72 Holtz, Gudrun…231 Holtz, Traugott…96 Hooker, Morna D.…191 Horst, Pieter W. van der…240 Hübner, Hans…33, 34, 80, 101, 120, 121, 125, 135, 187, 189, 191, 208, 220, 241 Huffmon, Herbert H.…180 Hultgård, Anders…242–43 Hutchinson, John…44 Hvalvik, Reidar…213 Instone-Brewer, David…36, 38, 40, 72 Isaac, Benjamin H.…49

Index of Modern Authors Jacobs, Louis…34, 36 Japhet, Sara…227, 229 Jenni, Ernst…227 Jervell, Jacob…103 Jewett, Robert…73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 88–89, 96, 102, 114, 117, 119, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 137, 143, 145, 147–48, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168, 180, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 208, 212, 219, 223, 226, 227, 246–47 Jobes, Karen H.…27 Johnson, Bo…177 Johnson, E. Elizabeth…76, 116, 120, 189, 192, 213, 217, 242–43, 247, 250 Johnson Hodge, Caroline…45, 54, 55, 56, 81, 99 Juel, Donald…8, 36 Juncker, Günther H.…53, 61, 78, 242– 43 Kahle, Paul…27 Kaiser, Walter C.…71 Kaminsky, Joel S.…170, 171, 248 Karris, Robert J.…110 Käsemann, Ernst…104, 114, 117, 121, 129, 148, 179, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 208, 211, 212, 217, 219, 220, 243 Katz, Peter…30 Kazmierski, Carl R.…231 Keck, Leander E.…76 Kelle, Brad E.…173 Kim, Johann D.…114, 186 Kim, Mitchell…192 Kim, Seyoon…51, 52 Klausner, Joseph…272 Knoppers, Gary N.…131 Koch, Dietrich-Alex…29, 30, 123, 160, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 178, 179, 213, 219, 225 Koehler, Ludwig…163 Kooij, Arie van der…179 Kotansky, R. David…116–17 Kowalski, Beate…25, 30, 119, 158, 161, 164, 167, 168, 191, 217, 233 Kraft, Robert A.…27 Kratz, Reinhard Gregor…31

321

Kugel, James L.…46, 47, 262 Kümmel, Werner Georg…85, 110 Kyrychenko, Alexander…120, 227, 242–43 … Lagarde, Paul de…27 Lambrecht, Jan…147, 187, 214, 220, 241 Lampe, Peter…85, 91, 92, 93 Lane, William L.…85, 91 Lavee, Moshe…64 Lawrence, John Shelton…89 Leon, Harry J.…90, 91 Levenson, Jon D.…79, 140, 170, 171, 200, 248, 262 Levine, Lee I.…34 Light, Gary W.…173 Lim, Timothy H.…29, 40, 123 Lincicum, David…7, 196, 245, 252 Lincoln, Andrew T.…78 Lindars, Barnabas…8, 29, 152 Litwak, Kenneth D.…6 Locke, John…248 Lohse, Eduard…114, 115, 120, 146, 148, 167, 187, 189, 190, 191, 208, 219 Longenecker, Bruce W.…9, 239, 242– 43 Longenecker, Richard N.…6, 72, 76, 123 Lyonnet, Stanislas…80, 116, 227 Mack, Burton L.…47 Maillot, Alphonse…30, 35 Manson, Thomas Walter…110, 117 Marcus, Joel…8, 259, 262 Marshall, I. Howard…31, 191 Martin, Troy…129 Martyn, J. Louis…53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 76, 108 Marxsen, Willi…85, 103 Matera, Frank J.…61 Matlock, R. Barry…20 McLay, R. Timothy…26, 27, 29, 31, 178 Meeks, Wayne A.…116, 189, 225, 242– 43 Mendelsohn, Isaac…131 Mendenhall, George E.…180

322

Index of Modern Authors

Merkle, Ben L.…242–43 Meyer, Lester V.…227 Meyer, Rudolf…128 Miller, James C.…9, 247 Minear, Paul S.…208, 213 Miscall, Peter D.…172 Momigliano, Arnaldo…107 Moo, Douglas J.…73, 104, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 124, 141–42, 144, 146, 162, 166, 179, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 208, 218, 219, 237 Morales, Rodrigo J.…57, 58… Moyise, Steve…137, 161, 183, 191, 193, 195, 243 Mullen, E. Theodore Jr.…46 Müller, Dietrich…115 Munck, Johannes…51, 52, 147, 191, 201, 208, 211, 225, 226, 227, 242 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome…33, 109, 230 Nanos, Mark D.…51, 60, 67, 70, 74, 76, 89, 93–94, 99–100, 104–5, 224–25, 227, 246–47 Naselli, Andrew David…22 Neusner, Jacob…129, 134 Newsom, James D.…139 Nickle, Keith F.…52 Noack, Bent…242 O’Brien, Peter T.…74, 77 Orlinsky, Harry M.…27 Ottley, Richard R.…179 Pao, David W.…8 Park, Eung Chun…88 Parsons, Peter J.…27 Pate, C. Marvin…17 Patte, Daniel…8 Pearson, Birger…96 Penna, Romano…8 Peters, Melvin K. H.…32 Petersen, Norman R.…8 Plag, Christoph…242 Plummer, Alfred…66, 67 Quell, Gottfried…128

Rahlfs, Alfred…27 Räisänen, Heikki…121, 149, 186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 213, 225, 236, 241 Ray, Charles A. Jr.…61 Refoulé, François…242–43 Reinhold, Meyer…64, 90 Rese, Martin…116, 118, 124, 191, 201 Reumann, John…73, 74 Rinowitz, Louis Isaac…34 Roberts, Jimmy J. M.…175 Robertson, Archibald…66, 67 Rock, Ian E.…89 Rosner, Brian S.…196 Rowley, Harold H.…175, 182, 231 Rudolph, David J.…67–70, 99–100, 104 Rutgers, Leonard Victor…92 Sampley, J. Paul…76, 236 Sanday, William…28, 117, 118, 121, 124, 126, 129, 143, 162, 178, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 208, 212, 217, 218, 221, 227 Sanders, Ed P.…52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 77, 96, 139 Sandmel, Samuel…139 Schaller, Berndt…212 Schereschewsky, Ben-Zion (Benno) 131 Schlueter, Carol J.…96 Schoeps, Hans-Joachim…5, 61, 116, 193 Schorch, Stefan…31 Schreiner, Thomas R.…71, 75 Schultz, Brian…50, 211 Schultz, Joseph P.…49, 140 Schulz, Siegfried…128 Schweizer, Eduard…128 Scott, James M.…76, 208, 210–11, 214, 242, 246–47 Sechrest, Love L.…45, 56 Seebass, Horst…128 Seeligmann, Isac Leo…178, 179 Seifrid, Mark A.…20, 129, 131, 135, 144, 146, 168, 189, 193, 200, 209, 226, 227, 243, 250, 259 Seland, Torrey…50, 97 Shum, Shiu-Lun…166, 191, 192, 226, 259 Sicherman, Harvey…131

Index of Modern Authors Siegert, Folker…104, 114, 116, 119, 121, 186, 191, 208 Siker, Jeffrey S.…53, 54, 55, 60, 76, 78, 262 Silva, Moisés…27, 29 Simian-Yofre, Horacio…163 Simon, Marcel…92 Skehan, Patrick W.…26, 32, 47 Slenczka, Notger…56, 76 Smith, Anthony D.…2, 43–44, 209, 256 Smith, D. Moody Jr.…6, 28, 191 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L.…47 Smyth, Herbert Weir…65, 123, 223 Sneen, Donald…117, 193 Sokoloff, Michael…163 Song, Changwon…107, 109 Stanley, Christopher D.…5, 22–23, 25, 28, 31, 126–27, 137, 138, 160, 161– 64, 166, 167, 168, 179, 193, 213, 236, 249, 255 Staples, James A.…193 Starling, David I.…59, 192–93, 226 Steck, Odil Hannes…242 Stegemann, Hartmut…62, 231 Stegner, William Richard…34, 135, 151–52 Steinmetz, Devora…170, 172, 248 Stemberger, Günter…33 Stendahl, Krister…31, 99, 115 Stern, Menahem…85, 86, 89–91 Stirewalt, M. Luther Jr.…107 Stockhausen, Carol K.…9, 16–19, 20, 35, 37, 51, 54, 56, 59, 123, 170, 224, 237 Stowers, Stanley K.…89, 99, 104–5, 107, 109, 130, 223, 227, 242–43 Stuhlmacher, Peter…104 Stuhlmueller, Carroll…210 Suggs, Jack M.…103 Sweeney, Marvin A.…175, 180, 182, 228 Swete, Henry Barclay…28, 32 Syrén, Roger…170, 248 Tanner, J. Paul…191, 193 Theobald, Michael…51, 61, 62, 96, 101, 103, 104, 111, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 148, 168, 200, 226, 227, 240, 242–43

323

Thielman, Frank…71, 131, 147, 148, 170, 241, 243–44 Thiselton, Anthony C.…65, 71, 128 Thomas, Rosalind…54 Thompson, Marianne Meye…106 Thompson, Richard P.…97, 98 Thrall, Margaret E.…206 Tobin, Thomas H.…73, 77, 78, 101, 103, 104, 111, 116, 120–21, 191, 192, 212, 225 Tov, Emanuel…26, 27, 28 Towner, W. Sibley…34, 36, 38 Troxel, Ronald L.…179 Tucker, Gene M.…176 Tucker, J. Brian…65, 66, 67, 70 Tyson, Joseph B.…139 Ulmer, Rivka…109 Ulrich, Eugene…26 VanderKam, James C.…49, 148, 210 Visscher, Gerhard H.…77 Vos, Johan S.…236 Wacholder, Ben Zion…34, 36, 48 Wagner, J. Ross…23–25, 30, 79, 120, 121, 152, 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 168, 178, 180, 190, 193, 208, 219, 220, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 231, 243, 251–52, 259 Walker, Peter W. L.…208 Wall, Robert W.…98 Wallace, Daniel B.…223 Wallace, David R.…117, 119, 131, 146, 147, 187, 192, 223, 250–51, 252 Walters, J. Edwards…251, 259 Walters, James C.…85, 86, 90, 117 Walters, Stanley D.…249 Ward, Roy Bowen…262 Waters, Guy Prentiss…196 Watson, Francis…17, 22, 35, 42, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 63, 73, 78, 79, 112, 116, 119, 121, 125, 129, 135, 139, 141, 143, 189, 190, 191, 217, 221, 241– 42, 262 Watts, John D. W.…175, 176, 177, 180, 181 Watts, Rikki E.…8 Webb, Robert L.…231

324

Index of Modern Authors

Webb, William J.…206 Wedderburn, Alexander J. M.…103, 104 Wengst, Klaus…114, 117, 118, 119, 122, 149, 160, 179, 186, 192, 201, 219, 227 Westerholm, Stephen…142, 186, 225, 241 Westermann, Claus…47, 175, 180 Wevers, John William…32 Whitelam, Keith…46 Wiefel, Wolfgang…85, 86, 90 Wilckens, Ulrich…101, 114, 117, 124, 129, 132, 143, 144, 148, 152, 161, 167, 186, 189, 191, 208, 217, 219, 220, 224, 226, 241 Wilcox, Max…55 Wildberger, Hans…166, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 228, 231 Wilk, Florian…30, 32, 58, 112, 116, 143, 153, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169,

179, 191, 192, 197, 203, 213, 219, 220, 223, 225, 227, 233, 259 Wilken, Robert L.…262 Williams, Sam K.…55, 58, 60, 76, 102, 103, 117 Willitts, Joel…230–31 Witherington, Ben III…9 Wright, Nicholas T.…9, 11–16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 52, 55, 57, 60, 61, 63, 67, 73, 75, 77, 80, 81–82, 85, 86, 87, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 132, 139, 186, 192, 210, 211, 226, 242– 43, 246–47, 251, 260–61, 262 … Yadin, Yigael…49 Yee, Gale A.…173 Zoccali, Christopher…51, 61, 67, 75, 81, 84, 192, 242–43, 261 Zucker, David J.…134

Index of Subjects Abraham…1–2, 12–13, 15, 17–19, 37, 39–40, 43, 45–60, 62–64, 66, 75–83, 96, 101–2, 112, 113, 115–22, 124, 126, 128–36, 139–43, 145–46, 148, 150, 152–54, 158–59, 165, 167–71, 174, 176–78, 182–83, 185–86, 190– 91, 198–99, 200–203, 206–7, 209– 15, 220–22, 224–25, 228–31, 233– 38, 240–41, 246, 248–49, 253, 256– 59, 262 Apocalyptic…7, 12–13, 31, 34, 39, 49, 50, 68, 72, 178–79, 185, 207, 210, 214, 228, 246 Atomizing exegesis…34, 40–41, 195– 98, 206, 256 Barnabas…16 Beloved son see Son, beloved/chosen/ firstborn Call see God, call of Chosen son see Son, beloved/chosen/ firstborn Christology…14, 18–19, 42, 55, 59, 260–61 Circumcision…5, 15, 18–19, 42, 52–53, 56, 59, 61–62, 65, 67–69, 72–83, 94, 102, 105, 107, 113, 115–16, 122, 128–29, 132–35, 148–49, 186 Diatribe…101, 105, 107–9 Divine calling see God, call of Divine promise see Promise Election…1–4, 12–15, 21, 49, 87–88, 96, 102, 104, 110, 111–12, 113–23, 125, 129–151, 161, 164–65, 170–84, 185–90, 194, 199–202, 206, 214–15, 216–17, 219–21, 224–26, 234, 236–

38, 240–44, 247–53, 255, 257–58, 260–61 Esau…49, 120–21, 132–48, 152, 156, 158–59, 164, 170–74, 187–89, 199– 201, 204–6, 214–15, 226, 233–34, 238, 244–49 Eschatology…7, 12–13, 15, 31, 40, 51, 54, 65, 68–69, 71–72, 81, 113, 115, 173, 178, 191, 193, 199–200, 202–4, 207, 209–14, 230–32, 238, 249–51, 255, 258, 260–61 Ethnicity, ethnic identity…2, 43–49, 54, 58, 60–68, 73–76, 82–83, 84, 87–94, 99, 102–5, 128–29, 133, 139, 143, 150, 186, 222, 240, 244, 250–53, 256, 261 Ethnoscape…44, 46, 60, 81, 154, 209, 214, 229 Faith…12, 18, 53–56, 59, 63, 77–80, 83, 93, 96, 115, 141–42, 148–49, 200, 222, 235–36, 238, 245, 250, 258, 260 Firstborn son see Son, beloved/chosen/ firstborn Flesh…57, 59, 64, 66–67, 74–75, 77– 78, 94, 113, 115, 122, 128–30, 133– 35, 143, 145–46, 225, 240 Gentile pilgrimage…51–52, 59, 211, 213–14, 242, 246 Gentiles…52–83, 190–206, 209–15, 244–52 Gezera shawa…18, 34, 36–38, 57, 83, 151, 167, 196, 198–99, 206, 256–57 God – call of…2, 113, 118, 122, 128, 130, 132, 144–46, 148–49, 151–53, 159–

326

Index of Subjects

62, 189–95, 206–7, 209, 214–15, 220–22, 235, 237, 240–43 – faithfulness of…10–11, 102, 114– 17, 119, 122, 132, 220–22, 238, 250–52 – word of…101–2, 113, 114–20, 136– 37, 143–44, 165, 167, 169, 180, 186–87, 216, 217–22, 240–42, 257 Gospel…3, 10–11, 15–18, 62, 71, 87, 96, 99, 101–3, 110, 116–17, 121, 147, 206, 221, 226, 240, 245–46, 250–53

90, 200–201, 205–6, 214, 220–21, 226, 229–30, 234–38, 247–49, 262 James…14, 16, 97, 99 Jerusalem/Zion…5, 33, 37, 41, 50–52, 55, 58–60, 81, 97, 99–100, 103–4, 106, 110–11, 175–76, 180, 182, 202–3, 207–14 Justification…53–56, 68, 77–81, 93, 135, 141–42, 146, 148, 152, 250

Heir, Heirs…15, 19, 40, 54, 59, 82, 96, 121, 134, 209, 214, 229, 247, 249 Heqesh…38–40, 170

Paul’s conversion/calling…16, 42, 59, 207, 240 Pesher…18, 123, 125, 230 Peter…16, 100, 246 Primogeniture…49, 131–35, 144–45, 149, 170, 237, 247 Promise…9–10, 14, 18, 53, 57–60, 62– 63, 79–81, 83, 113, 117–19, 122, 126–28, 130–31, 134–35, 142, 146– 47, 149, 153–55, 169–71, 173–80, 181–83, 185, 198, 202, 207–14, 217–21, 222, 225–26, 228, 230–32, 234–35, 240, 247, 257–58 Promised Land/promise of land…49, 62–63, 81, 154–55, 159, 171, 177– 78, 185, 207–14

Inheritance…1, 55, 58, 63, 79–83, 120– 21, 133, 147, 152, 158–59, 171–72, 183, 185, 206, 210–11, 214, 246–47 Interpretation of Scripture – original meaning…3, 5–6, 10–11, 13, 16–17, 19–20, 30–31, 42, 59, 67, 71–72, 81, 111–12, 159, 191–95, 207–8, 223 – narrative…5–21, 39, 43–45, 50–52, 54, 59, 63, 76–83, 135, 138, 142–43, 144, 149–51, 157–58, 170, 182–83, 239–40, 244, 252, 255 – technique…33–41 – typological…21, 34, 38–39, 49, 143, 192–93, 201, 215, 238, 244, 247, 257, 260 Isaac…2, 43, 57–62, 66, 79, 102, 121, 123, 126, 130–36, 140–50, 152, 170–71, 174, 186, 190, 200–201, 210, 220, 230, 237–38, 247–48 Ishmael…48–49, 56–60, 120–21, 129– 36, 140, 143–44, 146, 148, 158, 170–71, 174, 189, 200–201, 215, 226, 238, 244, 247–48 Israel, Paul’s theology of…59–66, 72, 76–83, 96–97, 114–22, 148–50, 199–200, 201–4, 206–7, 222–38, 240–53 Jacob…2, 40, 43, 49, 57–58, 102, 118, 121, 123, 132–33, 136, 138–50, 152, 158–59, 164, 170–72, 174, 176, 186–

Law see Torah Leah…172, 204–5, 215

Rachel…138, 172 Remnant…3, 13, 21, 116, 119–20, 146, 155–59, 166, 168–69, 174–82, 190, 192, 198–99, 201–3, 217–38, 240– 42, 244, 245, 247, 249, 253, 258, 259 Roman Christianity…85–95 Romans – audience of…104–10 – reason for…85–88, 95–96, 99, 100– 104 Salvation/soteriology…3, 10, 13, 23, 51, 54, 56, 62–63, 68, 82, 87, 100, 114–17, 119–20, 132, 142, 165, 173–75, 178–82, 185, 195–96, 199– 200, 202–4, 206–7, 211–12, 216–21, 222–32, 235–39, 241–42, 244–48, 250–53, 258–61

Index of Subjects Salvation history…10, 12–16, 18–19, 22, 60, 92, 138, 202, 215, 226, 234, 246, 250, 255 Sarah…57–59, 134–35, 212 Seed…13, 15, 19, 46, 49, 51, 53–59, 62–63, 76, 80, 83, 96–97, 118, 120, 128–34, 136, 146–47, 149, 152–54, 158–59, 165, 169, 171, 178, 180–83, 198, 200–202, 207, 210, 212–15, 220–25, 228–31, 234–235, 238–39, 244, 248, 257–58 Sodom and Gomorrah…157–59, 181– 82, 203, 223, 226, 233–35, 238 Son, beloved/chosen/firstborn…1, 3, 130–32, 146, 170–72, 186–87, 200, 204, 234–35, 237–38, 247–49, 252– 53, 257, 260–61 Spirit…6, 10, 53–59, 62–64, 66–67, 71, 73–75, 81, 129, 141, 146, 200–201, 230

327

Supersessionism…72, 87–88, 92–93, 95–96, 99, 118, 149, 168, 193–94, 201 Testimony hypothesis…6–7 Torah/law…2, 5, 11–16, 19, 40, 42, 49, 52, 56, 60–65, 67–73, 76, 79–82, 84, 87, 91, 93–95, 96–104, 107–8, 111– 13, 115–17, 129, 139–43, 145, 147– 49, 151, 180, 186, 192, 229–30, 244, 257, 259 – interpreted with prophets…34–37, 54, 184, 195–96, 256, 259 – works of…12, 139–42, 250 Word see God, word of Zeal…16, 50, 72, 97–99 Zion see Jerusalem