The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161590764, 9783161590771, 3161590767

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

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

520

Samuel D. Ferguson

The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Paul

Mohr Siebeck

Samuel D. Ferguson, born 1982; 2006 BSBA from Drexel University; 2010 MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; 2011 MPhil from Cambridge University; 2019 PhD from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; currently Rector of The Falls Church Anglican in Falls Church, Virginia. orcid.org/0000-0002-6960-1571

ISBN 978-3-16-159076-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-159077-1 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-159077-1 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgments The present volume represents a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, accepted by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in April 2019. I am especially grateful to Professor Jörg Frey for reading and accepting the manuscript for the WUNT II series. Thanks is also due to Professor Markus Bockmuehl, who offered helpful suggestions for revision and encouraged me to pursue publication. There are many people to thank following the completion of a dissertation and now book. During seminars and research, I had the privilege of working under the supervision of Professor Andreas Köstenberger, whose excellence as a scholar guided my course, and whose encouragement and care made completing this project possible. Dr. Benjamin Merkle provided valuable comments as part of my committee, and Dr. Simon Gathercole, as an external reader, offered extremely helpful feedback as well. Other teachers prepared and inspired me for studying the New Testament. Former Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, Professor Judith Lieu, taught me that good research meant not beginning with my conclusions. Dr. Stephen Witmer gave me a vision for scholarly diligence born out of devotion to Christ. I am forever grateful for Dr. Witmer’s Introduction to New Testament Interpretation course, still the best class I have ever taken. The abiding interest of this monograph is relational anthropology, or, how persons are shaped by others. It is quite fitting, then, that many friends made these years of study not only endurable, but even joyful! Brad K. and his family made Raleigh home; Levi B. and Robbie B. helped me survive long days in the library; Bill B., Matt M., Eric S., and Phil H. showed me Christ’s love; Greg M. was steadfast; Brad B. remained, as ever, my brother in the journey; and the Fichthorn family loved me as their own. More recently, my study assistant Palmer Jones labored to copy-edit and format the manuscript for publication. Palmer’s eagle-eye, maximum effort, and friendship have been great blessings as this project moved to completion. None of my graduate studies would have been possible without the community and support of The Falls Church Anglican. Since 2009, I’ve gone from being their summer seminarian, to postulant, to deacon, to associate pastor, to rector as of May 2019. The constant love I’ve received from my

VI

Acknowledgments

church family overwhelms me. Thank you for allowing me the years away for study. Few things sustain during the toil of doctoral research like a vocational vision. I am forever grateful to Rev’d Drs. John Yates II and John Yates III, who for over a decade have been my model for life as a pastor. I pray I can live up to their example. Final thanks are reserved for my family, especially my father and mother. They have been a constant support during this journey and paved the way not only to a love of learning but also to a love of Jesus Christ. Falls Church,Virginia, May 2020

Samuel D. Ferguson

Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... V List of Abbreviations .............................................................................. XI Part 1: Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Situating the Study ............................................................... 4 1.1. Thesis of This Study ................................................................................ 6 1.2. Uniqueness of This Study ........................................................................ 8 1.3. Contribution of This Study to Pauline Scholarship ................................ 12 1.4. Approach of Study and Flow of Argument ............................................ 12 1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History of Research................. 14 1.5.1. H. Wheeler Robinson and Corporate Personality .......................... 14 1.5.2. Bultmann and Käsemann on Anthropology ................................... 16 1.5.2.1. Bultmann and the Self-in-Relation-to-Itself ....................... 17 1.5.2.2. Bultmann on Key Anthropological Terms .......................... 18 1.5.2.3. Bultmann and The Individual amid External Forces .......... 20 1.5.2.4. Bultmann and Faith as Individual Decision ........................ 21 1.5.2.5. Bultmann, The Individual, and The Community ................ 21 1.5.2.6. An "Opening" in Bultmann's Anthropology ....................... 24 1.5.2.7. Käsemann and the Individual-in-Solidarity ........................ 25 1.5.2.8. Käsemann and Humankind as Corporeal ............................ 26 1.5.2.9. Käsemann, The Individual, and The Community ............... 28 1.5.2.10. Conclusion to Bultmann and Käsemann ........................... 30 1.5.3. Social-Scientific Approaches and Dyadic Persons ........................ 30 1.5.4. The Individual in Communal and Apocalyptic .............................. 32 1.5.5. Aaron Son and Corporate Anthropology ....................................... 35 1.5.6. Ben Blackwell, Christosis, and Participatory Relationships .......... 37 1.5.7. Ben Dunson and the Individual-in-Community ............................. 40 1.6. Conclusions from Literature Review...................................................... 43 1.7. Methodology .......................................................................................... 46

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology............................... 48 2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology .......................... 49 2.2. Relational Anthropology: Clarifying the Concept .................................. 54 2.3. A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies .......................... 57 2.3.1. Susan Grove Eastman and Participatory Personhood...................... 57 2.3.2. Volker Rabens and Spirit-Generated Relationships ........................ 70 2.3.3. Emmanuel L. Rehfeld and Relational Ontology in Paul ................. 74 2.4. Summary Observations .......................................................................... 80 2.5. Further Exploration ................................................................................ 87

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul ............... 88 3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation ................................................ 88 3.1.1. The “Person” according to Paul ...................................................... 88 3.1.2. The Concept “Relation” .................................................................. 95 3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul ........................................ 97 3.2.1. Creature and Creator ....................................................................... 97 3.2.2. Embodied, Therefore Embedded .................................................. 101 3.2.3. Human Beings, the Cosmos and Supra-Human Forces ................. 108 3.2.4. Christ-Relatedness ........................................................................ 111 3.2.5. The Believer in Relation to Other Believers ................................. 130 3.2.6. Conclusion .................................................................................... 132 3.3. Personhood Defined by Relations ........................................................ 132 3.3.1. Relations and Identity ................................................................... 132 3.3.2. Relations and Agency ................................................................... 133 3.3.3. Relations and Heart....................................................................... 134 3.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 135

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul ............................................. 137 Background to Paul’s Pneumatology .......................................................... 137 The Personal Spirit ................................................................................. 138 The Relational Work of the Spirit in Paul’s Background ....................... 140

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8 ................................................................................................. 150 4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8 ............................................. 153 4.1.1. The Unit Romans 5:1–8:39 ........................................................... 154 4.1.2. The Flow of Romans 5:1–8:39...................................................... 156 4.1.3. The Driving Theme of Romans 5–8: Life and Death .................... 157 4.2. Christian Personhood and Being “In the Spirit” ................................... 169 4.3. The Relational Work of the Spirit in Romans 8 ................................... 173 4.3.1. The Spirit and Belonging to Christ and God: Romans 8:5–11 ...... 173 4.3.2. The Relation of Lingering Embodiment ....................................... 185 4.3.3. The Spirit and Relation of Sonship: Romans 8:14–17 .................. 186 4.3.4. Horizontal Implications of Vertical Sonship ................................. 196 4.4. Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships ............ 197 4.4.1. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Identity ...................................... 197 4.4.2. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Heart ......................................... 199 4.4.3. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Agency ...................................... 201 4.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 205

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12 ..................................................................................... 207 5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12 ............................ 209 5.1.1. Historical Context ......................................................................... 209 5.1.2. Literary Context ............................................................................ 213 5.2. Summarizing the Context of 1 Corinthians 12 ..................................... 214 5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse χαρίσματα ..................... 215 5.3.1. Defining πνευματικός and χάρισμα .............................................. 216 5.3.2. Common Source, Agency and Purpose of χαρίσματα ................... 220 5.3.3. 1 Corinthians 12:7 to 12:8–10....................................................... 226 5.3.4. Summary Observations ................................................................. 228 5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence ................................. 229 5.4.1. The Nine-fold 'η φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος.................................. 230 5.4.2. Summary Observations ................................................................. 242 5.5. How χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood .............................. 246 5.5.1. Anthropological Implications of the Body Metaphor.................... 246 5.5.2 Ongoing Experiences of Utility and Belonging ............................. 249 5.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 253

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Implications ......................................... 254 6.1. Findings and Implications .................................................................... 255 6.2. Relational Anthropology and Christian Existence ............................... 256 6.3. Relational Anthropology and Individuals and Community ................. 258 6.4. Relational Anthropology and Ecclesial Friendships ............................. 259 6.5. Further Study ....................................................................................... 261 6.7. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 262 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 264 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................................ 289 Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................ 296 Index of Subjects and Key Terms ............................................................... 298

Abbreviations AB ABD ALUOS AnBib AYBC BBR BDAG BECNT BHT BNTC BSac BZ BZNW CBR CBQ CCWJCW CTQ CSRT CTR DLNT DNTB DPL DSS EA ECNT EGGNT EKKNT EMSP EQ EJPR EuroJTh ExpTim FAT GNS FRLANT HAR HB HBT HeyJ HR HSM

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta Biblica Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries Bulletin of Biblical Research Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek–English Lexicon of the NT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bibliotheca Sacra Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Currents in Biblical Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish & Christian World Concordia Theological Monthly Columbia Series in Reformed Theology Calvin Theological Journal Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments Dictionary of New Testament Background Dictionary of Paul and His Letters Dead Sea Scrolls Ex Auditu Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Evangelisch – katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament European Monographs on Social Psychology Evangelical Quarterly European Journal for Philosophy of Religion European Journal of Theology Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Good News Studies Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hebrew Annual Review Hebrew Bible Horizons in Biblical Theology The Heythrop Journal History of Religions Harvard Semitic Monographs

XII HTR HUCA ICC Int INT JAAR JBL JBPR JES JETS JITC JPT JSJSup JSNT JSNTS JTI JTS LNTS LSJ LXX MNTC MTZ NA28 NICNT NIGTC NTAbh NTS PNTC RA RevQ SBL SBLDS SJT SNTSMS SP SSN STDJ TynBul TDNT TDOT TSAJ TrinJ TynBul VCaro VT WBC WEC WTJ WUNT

Abbreviations Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements Journal of Theological Interpretation Journal of Theological Studies Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek–English Lexicon Septuagint Moffatt NT Commentary Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle–Aland, 28th ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Studies Pillar New Testament Commentary Relational Anthropology Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Tyndale Bulletin Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Trinity Journal Tyndale Bulletin Verbum Caro Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Wesleyan Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Abbreviations WW ZAW ZNT ZNW ZTK

XIII

Word & World Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Neues Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Part 1

Introduction How interpreters conceive of Paul’s anthropology exerts influence, often unknowingly, upon their broader understanding of his thought. Topics such as sanctification and ethics, for example, will be approached differently depending on how one views the corporeal aspect of humanity (e.g., 1 Cor 6:12–20). Whether or not the Pauline person is seen as inherently autonomous, or irreducibly corporate, likewise affects how one construes of topics such as justification and ecclesiology. From Christology (e.g., Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7) to soteriology (e.g., Rom 3:23; 5:12–21) to ecclesiology (e.g., 1 Cor 12:12–13, 27), understanding Paul requires understanding his anthropology.1 It is surprising, therefore, that during the modern era of biblical scholarship Paul’s anthropology has not received the same attention as other areas of this thought. It is also significant that within the notable exceptions that did address the topic, a tendency persisted to conceive of the Pauline person as a predominantly autonomous being. Whether through Bultmann’s existentialist approach,2 or the substance-ontology questions of the monism and dualism debate,3 treatments of Paul’s anthropology during the early and middle part of 1 As an example, Timo Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach, trans. T. McElwain (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 2, made such a point when he suggested that E. P. Sanders, in his comparison of “patterns of religion,” did not “sufficiently take into account” anthropological dimensions, which notions of agency and soteriology always presuppose. See also, Laato, “Paul’s Anthropological Considerations: Two Problems,” Justification and Variegated Nomism, vols. 1–2, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, WUNT 2.140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 343–59. 2 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 1:191, is well known for his dictum, “Paul’s theology is at the same time anthropology.” Bultmann interpreted Paul’s anthropology through Heideggerian existentialism, which tended toward individualism. Bultmann’s work is considered below. 3 The monism and dualism (and trichotomy) debates tended to focus the anthropology question on the individual qua individual. In analyzing the constitution of human beings, how external factors influenced existence was often unaddressed. For an overview of the monism and dualism debate, see John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1–20. For an exegetical defense of dualism, see Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); in

2

Part 1: Introduction

the 20th century largely focused on the individual qua individual.4 However, responding to both a dearth in research on the one hand, and overly individualistic readings on the other, a renewed interest in Paul’s doctrine of humanity is emerging.5 Here, the assumption is that persons are who they are only in relation to another, and analysis accounts not only for “anthropological terms,”6 but also for the pervasively participatory atmosphere surrounding the Pauline person: e.g., persons are “in Adam” or “in Christ” (Rom 5:12–21), “members of the body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:12–13; Rom 12:3–5), and existence is impacted by cosmological and eschatological factors.7 The present study support of a trichotomous anthropology in Paul, see George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 1.232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 219; 298–312; for biblical scholars favoring monism, or a complex holism, which is the view of this study, see H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1947); Bultmann, TNT, 1:190–227; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952), 11–33; W. David Stacey, The Pauline View of Man: In Relation to Its Judaic and Hellenistic Background (London/New York: Macmillan, 1956), 121–241; M. E. Dahl, The Resurrection of the Body: A Study of 1 Corinthians 15 (Naperville: A. R. Allenson, 1962), l; D. R. G. Owen, Body and Soul: A Study on the Christian View of Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), 163–221; E. Earle Ellis, “Sōma in First Corinthians,” Int 44 (1990): 132–44. 4 Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press), 4–6, wonders if centuries of Pauline interpretation was uncritically filtered through a Cartesian dualism, with the latter prizing non-material and introspective aspects of being human – all factors tending toward individualism: “Descartes’s dichotomy has mislead countless readers in their reading of ancient authors, Paul especially” (p. 6). We return to this topic in chapter 2. 5 Hans Dieter Betz refers to this renewed interest in Paul’s anthropology and situates it vis-à-vis the earlier debate between Bultmann and Käsemann, e.g., Betz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἒσω ἄνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46 (2000), 315, writes, “Ending a period of relative silence after the controversy between Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann in the 1960s, recent studies are evidence of a renewed interest in Paul’s anthropology.” We consider the debate between Bultmann and Käsemann later in chapter 1. 6 An important approach to Paul’s anthropology is to consider various terms, such as σῶμα, σάρξ, etc. Here again, analysis can inadvertently over-focus on the individual qua individual, although this is not always the case. An exhaustive treatment of Paul’s anthropological terms is Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971). Also see Alexander Sand, Der Begriff “Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, Biblische Untersuchungen 2 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1967); Gundry, Sōma; Martin, Corinthian Body; Bultmann, TNT, 1:190–246. 7 An overview of the turn toward a participatory and relational notion of personhood is considered in depth in chapter 2. Indicative of this view are the words of Susan Grove Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, ed. Matthew V. Novenson and R. Barry Matlock, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/

Part 1: Introduction

3

joins this latter and developing approach to Paul’s doctrine of humanity, recognizing the far-reaching importance of the topic, and asking how to understand Paul’s anthropology in light of the communal and cosmic nature of existence. The uniqueness of this study lies first in its argument that the concept “relation/relationship” presents a fruitful way to conceive of how the Pauline person situates alongside, and is in part constituted by, communal and external dynamics – whether these dynamics are personal relationships, cosmic and divine forces, or the natural environment. Developing this relational model of anthropology and situating it within the context of Pauline scholarship makes up Part 1 of this study. The second innovation of this study builds from Part 1, when in Part 2 the role of the Spirit in generating and sustaining relationships that reconstitute Christian personhood is analyzed.

oxfordhb/9780199600489.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199600489-e-005#oxfordhb9780199600489-e-005-div1-1. n.p. Online publication, April 2014, “The structure of human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder. That is, whether ‘in Christ’ or under the power of sin and death, human life always is constrained and constructed in relationship to external forces that also operate internally.” Eastman’s work is considered in depth in chapter 2. See also the study of Sarah Harding, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), who argues that Paul’s anthropology can only be understood by situating it within his cosmology and eschatology, e.g., “Humans are situated, both temporally and spatially, within a cosmological context” (p. 2). Harding’s study has affinities with the present work inasmuch as eschatological aeons function as contexts/relational webs influencing personhood; i.e., “Paul’s anthropological utterances are embedded within an eschatological dynamic, which accounts for the varied valuations accorded any anthropological ‘part’ or ‘aspect’ mentioned in his letters” (p. 42).

Chapter 1

Situating the Study This study will argue that in Paul a person is not an autonomous reality, but rather his or her existence depends on another. Put another way, this study asks how corporate and cosmic realties affect the structure of human existence in Paul’s anthropology. Focusing the approach to this broad interest is the comment of James D. G. Dunn, who, in his treatment of Pauline anthropology, highlights the significance relations may have upon human existence: “Paul’s anthropology is not a form of individualism; persons are social beings, defined as persons by their relations.”1 Dunn’s comment runs counter to earlier construals of Paul’s doctrine of humanity highlighting individualism.2 Moreover, if Dunn’s conclusion is correct, that relations define persons, it has wide-ranging implications for Paul’s broader thought. If personhood is constituted in a relational matrix, then a fresh paradigm may open for better understanding the participatory logic of Paul’s thought: i.e., being “in Christ,” or a “member of the body of Christ.” Also, a relational view of anthropology may help explain how categories at times seen in antithesis, such as justification and participation, are inherently bound together.3

1 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 53, writes, “[Paul] was not concerned with God in himself or humankind in itself. The classical Greek philosophical debates about existence and subsistence and the later church debates about the natures of Christ are remote from Paul. As the opening of his exposition of the gospel in Rom. 1.16ff. clearly shows, his concern was rather with humankind in relation to God, with men and women in their relationship with each other, and subsequently with Christ as God’s response to the human plight.” For Dunn’s overview of Pauline anthropology see Theology of Paul, 38–101. 2 For the tendency for 19th and 20th century treatments of Paul’s anthropology to focus on the individual qua individual, see above, Part 1. 3 How frameworks of Paul’s anthropology impact understandings of justification will be noted later in this chapter. It is also the case that a relational view of anthropology impacts views of sanctification, which at times have been overly individualistic. E.g., James H. Howard, Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 2, explains, “The role of the believing community in this process [of sanctification] has consistently been overlooked in traditional exegetical and theological studies … the community, while important, is not essential in the process of growing in maturity.” Howard goes on to explain that a reason for this is that “the Western world [has] long emphasized the individual aspect of biblical truth. [This] has resulted in a highly individualized systematic theology in the Western church.”

1.1. Thesis of This Study

5

Despite the significance of his claim, Dunn unfortunately does not probe the anthropological assumptions that would make sense of relationally defined persons. By stating persons are defined by relations does Dunn simply point out the obvious, that relations “add on” to otherwise self-contained identities, such as when the relationship of marriage adds to “woman” being “wife”? Or, does he suggest something more fundamental, that personhood requires relations? Though not a detailed explanation, Dunn’s further comment witnesses to a more fundamental reality: “In Pauline perspective, human beings are as they are by virtue of their relationship to God and his world.”4 The present study is concerned with probing what anthropological assumptions might make sense of Dunn’s statement. What view of human existence explains the fact that for Paul, life and salvation are not matters of self-possession or self-understanding, but rather always construed in relation to another?5 This question – how relations constitute and affect persons – needs to be framed in light of Paul’s broader thought: how do individuals and communal (corporate, cosmological) elements interrelate in Paul?6 Does the Pauline individual simply sit awkwardly, or autonomously, amid the communal and cosmic atmosphere around him or her? Or, is this individual constituted, at least in part, in connection to (relation to) surrounding realities? Put this way, our anthropological interest situates within a wider conversation in Pauline studies, referred to by Stephen Barton as the “explosion of interest in the communal dimension of earliest Christianity.”7 A wide-ranging turn toward the communal and corporate aspects of Early Judaism and earliest Christianity has impacted a plethora of theological issues, including not only views of soteriology and justification, but also anthropology.8 As such, this study’s Dunn, Theology of Paul, 53. Emphasis added. Even Paul’s vision of salvation (new life) is a decidedly non-autonomous affair, as Dunn, Theology of Paul, 53, points out. For Paul “salvation is of man and woman being restored to the image of God in the body of Christ.” 6 For a thorough overview of this question, see Ben C. Dunson, “The Individual and Community in Twentieth- and Twenty-first-Century Pauline Scholarship,” CBR 9.1 (2010): 63–97. 7 Stephen C. Barton, “The Communal Dimension of Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey of the Field,” JTS 43.2 (1992): 399, overviews the “explosion of interest in the communal dimension of earliest Christianity” in recent NT study, detailing nine reasons for it, then explaining its presence across an array of NT areas, including Pauline studies. On this communal interest, see also James G. Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles, LNTS 320 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 28–32. 8 Krister Stendahl’s work is a prime example of how the turn away from individualism and turn toward communal aspects affects views of soteriology and justification. E.g., writing in 1963, Stendhal, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56.3 (1963): 199–215, critiqued traditional Western ways of reading the Pauline letters 4 5

6

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

interest in the relational aspect of Pauline anthropology is relevant also to the apostle’s more extensive theology, especially in addressing how individual and communal aspects interrelate.

1.1. Thesis of This Study 1.1. Thesis of This Study

This study, therefore, organizes around one fundamental question: how do relations impact human existence in Paul? It will be argued that in Paul persons are constituted in a web of relations, ranging from relationship with their Creator, to embeddedness in a world, to domination by outside forces, to relationships with each other. An entirely autonomous existence is an impossibility. Employing the term “Zusammenhang” (“interrelations”), Udo Schnelle’s explanation of human existence in Paul points in the direction of this study: The idea prevailed within the Pauline symbolic universe that human life by nature exists within a comprehensive set of interrelations [dass menschliches Leben natürlicherweise in einen übergreifenden Zusammenhang eingeordnet ist]. People cannot live out of themselves, on their own resources, for they always find themselves in a previously existing force field where various powers already hold sway. As a creature, the human being is not autonomous [Als Geschöpf ist der Mensch nicht autonom] but is exposed to the powers that prevail in creation: God, and evil in the form of sin.9

Along with the general claim that persons are not absolutely autonomous in Paul’s thought, Schnelle’s words signal two further aspects of this study.10 It will be argued that relations are not a secondary, but an essential feature of personhood in Paul – “human life by nature exists within a comprehensive set

as documents of human consciousness, asserting, “Especially in Protestant Christianity – which has its roots in Augustine and the Middle Ages – the Pauline awareness of sin has been interpreted in the light of Luther’s struggle with his conscience” (p. 200). Stendhal’s point throughout the influential article is that centuries of NT scholarship were filtered through an individualist lens, anachronistic to the NT writings. 9 Udo Schnelle, Paulus: Leben und Denken (Berlin: Walter de Guyter, 2003), 565; Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 494. Emphasis added. 10 This thesis does not deny any notion of autonomy to the subject (“I”), which would in effect dissolve the subject. Rather, we understand human existence as a “limited autonomy” [begrenzter Autonomie], where an “all or nothing” distinction between autonomy and heteronomy is avoided. Therefore, while it is in a sense correct to say human existence is not autonomous, this needs to be qualified and nuanced. See Jürgen Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität: Zur Analyse eines theoretischen Begriffs,” in Identitäten, ed. A. Assmann and H. Friese (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1998), 81–82.

1.1. Thesis of This Study

7

of connections.”11 This is over against any notion that personhood can be realized or maintained in an entirely autonomous, self-referential framework.12 Second, Schnelle alludes to two possible “realms of relations/connections” within which human life may find itself constituted: “God, and evil in the form of sin.”13 This suggests a possible transference from one relational web to another. Therefore, this study also focuses on the reconstitution of the person who has been transferred from a realm of lethal relations and placed within a web of life-giving relations.14 Examining this aspect draws the study’s attention to the Spirit, who will be shown, through examinations of Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12, to generate and sustain new relational networks within which personhood is reconstituted. To anticipate some of the work below, in Romans 8 the relational nature of personhood is on display, along with the work of the Spirit. The person in relation to sin and according to the flesh (Rom 7:7–25)15 stands juxtaposed to the person in relation to Christ and according to the Spirit (Rom 8:1–17). As the chapter unfolds, persons-as-enemies (Rom 5:10; 8:7) become persons-aschildren-of-God, heirs of God, fellow heirs of Christ; and all this is actualized through Spirit-wrought relationships: For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom [the Spirit] we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself

Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 494. E.g., according to Rom 5:12–21, a person is who they are in relation to Adam or Christ; there is no existence outside of this “relation.” 12 Bultmann’s existentialist anthropology risks such autonomy, as discussed below. 13 Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 494. 14 The language of a realm of “lethal relations” borrows from Eastman, Paul and the Person, 105, who understands “sin as a lethal ‘relational partner’ in Romans 7.” Her work is considered more below. 15 The identity of the “I” in Rom 7:7–25 is widely debated. Defending whether or not the “I’s” voice pertains to a pre- or post-Christian experience is not essential to the argument of the present thesis. However, we do treat the text more carefully in chapter 4, where we will read a “generalizing ‘I,’” evoking the voice of Adam, which echoes the voice of all men. And, we will also read the voice of the “I” as indicative of humankind living without the Spirit, whether that be a non-believer or a believer who is not “putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit” (Rom 8:13). In our view we follow the work of Will Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the ‘I’ in Its Literary Context, SNTSMS 170 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 8, who says the following regarding the “I” in Rom 7:7–25: “Paul portrays the anthropological condition of the ἐγώ as an Adamic state of powerlessness, without direct reference to the ἐγώ’s relational ontology, viz. without reference to being ‘in the Spirit’ (Rom 8:9). The ἐγώ’s condition is a lingering, lasting solidarity with the old order, but, as an anthropological condition, it remains with the ἐγώ even when he is no longer in the flesh, under the law.” Timmins’s reference to “relational ontology” also points in the direction of the anthropological model of this study, as does the qualifying statement, “viz. without reference to being ‘in the Spirit’ (Rom 8:9).” 11

8

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ. (Rom 8:15–17)16

Ideal existence is not self-understanding or autonomy, but an experienced relationship with God as “Abba! Father!” Put succinctly, this thesis will argue that Paul’s anthropology is relational; the Pauline person is constituted in a web of relations, a fact further attested by the work of the Spirit.

1.2. Distinctiveness of This Study 1.2. Distinctiveness of This Study

In asserting that personhood is relational in Paul, this study joins a nascent but growing conversation in Pauline anthropology. Since 2001, at least six Pauline scholars have devoted monographs to this general topic.17 In varying degrees, how individual persons interrelate with corporate and cosmic aspects of Paul’s thought animates these studies, and specifically in regard to what such interrelationships reveal about his anthropology. The diverse nomenclature employed in these studies evidences the complexity and newness of this discussion. For example, what this thesis describes as “relational anthropology” (RA), these studies refer to as “corporate anthropology,”18“the individual-in-community,”19 “participatory relationships/Christosis,”20 21 “relational ontology,” “relational transformation,”22 “being oneself-in-

16 Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural quotations in English of the HB and NT are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV). Citations of the Greek NT come from NA28. 17 Considered in more detail below, these works include: Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001); Ben C. Blackwell, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria, WUNT 2.314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Ben C. Dunson, Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, WUNT 2.332 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, WUNT 2.283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013); Emmanuel L. Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus: Die ontische Wirksamkeit der Christusbezogenheit im Denken des Heidenapostels, WUNT 2.326 (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Eastman, Paul and the Person. 18 Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology. 19 Dunson, Individual and Community, 176. Dunson states his thesis succinctly, “The individual and the community belong together in Paul’s theology; there is no Pauline individual outside of community, just as there is no community without individuals at the heart of its ongoing life” (p. 1). 20 Blackwell, Christosis, 106. 21 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus. 22 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 123, in regards to how human transformation happens in Paul, argues, “It is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate

1.2. Distinctiveness of This Study

9

another,”23 “participatory personhood,” and “second person perspective.”24 Although drawing from these previous studies, this thesis takes a unique direction in two ways, the first in regards to specificity, the second in regards to the Spirit. First, more so than asserting that the phenomenon of RA exists in Paul, this study asks with more specificity how it works, addressing the mechanics of how relations define and determine personhood. Previous studies highlight the corporate aspect of Paul’s anthropology,25 and that both the individual and community are prominent factors in Paul’s thought.26 However, to date no study has asked how relations affect persons in Paul by considering with any systematic organization various components and aspects of the person. Only with a sharpened view of the Pauline person can a study answer how relations may constitute that person. For example, do relations merely impact the whole person in each instance? Or might they affect human identity in one case, but human agency in another? Other studies have hinted at differing areas or aspects of personhood impacted by relations, such as “agency”27 or relationship with, God, Jesus Christ and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religious-ethical life.” 23 Susan Grove Eastman, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul, ed. Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2.384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 103–25. The phrase “self-inrelation-to-others” is also used by Eastman, Paul and the Person, 7. 24 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 9, writes, “Paul’s anthropology is participatory all the way down…. For Paul the self is always a self-in-relation-to-others.” This so-called “participatory anthropology” is variously referred to by Eastman as the “self-in-relation-toanother” (pp. 7, 105) and “second-person perspective” (pp. 15, 16, 117). Eastman defines “second-person perspective” as “a standpoint for intellectual inquiry in a variety of subjects including philosophy, psychology, and sociology. This standpoint is disclosed by the grammar of second-person address more than either first-person, self-referential modes of knowledge or third-person, objectifying and distancing modes of knowledge. The other to be known is a ‘Thou,’ who addresses and knows the inquirer also as a ‘Thou.’ The self therefore always also exists as the recipient of an address, in the presence of an interlocutor” (p. 15). 25 E.g., Son, Corporate Elements, overviews five areas that point to a corporate nature to Paul’s view of human existence. Son does not, however, probe how Paul’s anthropology is actually construed via corporate phenomena. Son’s work is considered in detail below. 26 E.g., Dunson, Individual and Community, for example, demonstrates eight “types” of individuals within Romans, as well as the pervasive nature of community in that letter. Dunson’s work does not, however, move into the question of how the individual is uniquely constituted by this communal atmosphere. Dunson’s work is considered below. 27 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 13, for example writes, “The question is not whether Paul speaks as a robust ‘self’ addressing other ‘selves’ as well as communities, but how that personal agency and speech are qualified by participation in a larger relational environment and by indwelling agents.” Emphasis added. Here she makes explicit how RA might affect personhood, namely, by impacting agency. Her work is considered in detail in chapter 2.

10

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

“cognition.”28 Some also suggested that relations affect a person by changing the “heart,”29 or through “an experience of intimacy.”30 None of these studies, however, has first considered what aspects might be indicative of the Pauline person and then probed how various relations affect specific aspects. This study, therefore, will address how relations affect persons by first delineating a model of personhood. Developed in chapter 3, we suggest the Pauline person be viewed aspectively, keeping in view the aspects of identity, agency, and heart.31 In tandem with a more detailed notion of personhood, this study also more carefully differentiates between various types of relations. Relations may constitute personhood in Paul, but not all relations are the same. Some relations may be personal, such as that between believers and Christ. Other relations may be impersonal, such as that between a corporeal person and her environment. Both relations, however, affect personhood. Therefore, this study Rabens, Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 131–32, for example, argues “that a primary mode of the Spirit’s enabling for religious-ethical life occurs in the context of Spirit-designed intimate relationships … [through which] ethical transformation and empowering of believers [happens by] their receiving true knowledge of the Lord and his message through the Spirit.” Emphasis added. I.e., relations affect the person’s cognitive capacities by revealing knowledge. 29 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 319, sees “the heart (das Herz) as the place where the relational-ontological determination of man occurs (der relational-ontologischen Bestimmtheit des Menschen).” Rehfeld is certainly correct that the “heart” – especially in the Pauline and Jewish sense of it being the motivating center of man – is a key location where relations affect persons. However, as this study will show, there is also the fact of relation within the world, where agency may be affected by embeddedness in a perishable cosmos (e.g., 1 Cor 15:44–50). Rehfeld’s work will be considered more below, as will the various ways relations affect persons. 30 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 131–32, states “that a primary mode of the Spirit’s enabling for religious-ethical life occurs in the context of Spirit-designed intimate relationships…. [And] in Paul’s letters a major aspect of transformation and empowering for religious-ethical life is the experience of the intimate presence, love and immediacy of the divine by the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18; Gal 4:4–9; Rom. 5:5; 8:12–17; etc.).” Emphasis added. 31 Here we follow the broad distinction made by Dunn, Theology of Paul, 54, that, “Greeks regard the human being as made up of distinct parts, Hebrew thought saw the human being more as a whole person existing on different dimensions.” Though Paul could use Greek terms and concepts, he essentially has a Hebraic and holistic view of the person. That does not mean, however, that he cannot see human beings via different aspects. Brevard Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 199, explains that according to Hebrew thought, humanity “is a complete entity and not a composite of parts from body, soul and spirit. Yet it is also true that the Old Testament views man from different holistic perspectives. He can be described in terms of his will, or his emotions, or his physical prowess.” In this study, we will highlight three aspects of the person; however, in viewing them always keep the whole in mind. More will be said on our model in chapter 3. 28

1.2. Distinctiveness of This Study

11

differentiates between several types of relations in Paul such as relations between creature and Creator, corporeal humans and their world, vulnerable humanity and sinister powers, the believer and Christ, and the believer and other believers. This taxonomy reveals that different types of relations affect persons differently.32 In its aiming at specificity, therefore, this study is unique in that analysis penetrates to how a specific relation impacts a specific aspect of personhood. The second distinctive of this study involves the Spirit. The Spirit’s role in effecting relationships between the believer and others (Christ, God, and other believers) has been recently demonstrated.33 Also, Eastman’s, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” focuses attention on the Spirit’s relational work in terms of Pauline anthropology.34 However, to date no study has brought together a well-developed relational view of personhood in Paul with a thorough analysis of the Spirit’s work across multiple Pauline texts. Moreover, by distinguishing more precisely how types of relations affect aspects of persons, this study will be able to decipher with more clarity how Spirit-shaped relationships35 constitute Christian personhood. For example, at times Spirit-shaped relationships reconstitute a person’s identity (i.e., sonship, Rom 8:14–17); at other times, Spirit-shaped relational bonds affect agency (i.e., exercising spiritual gifts, 1 Cor 12:4–13).

32 The study that comes the closest to a “typology of relations” in Paul is Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus. Early in his study, he points out the difference between external- and internal-relations (Extern- und Internrelationen), determining, in agreement with Gerhard Ebeling, to consider both as important, “‘der Begriff der Externrelation nicht so gefaßt warden [darf], daß das Interne ausgeschlossen ist’” (p. 40). Throughout his study he proceeds to consider various different types, although he does not refer to them this way. Where this study is different than Rehfeld is that it will asks more carefully how different types of relations affect particular aspects of persons differently. 33 Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, builds his model of ethical transformation around the relational work of the Spirit. His thesis reads, “It is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate relationship with, God, Jesus Christ and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religious-ethical life” (p. 21). Emphasis original. He explains that transformation is “predominantly by means of intimate relationships created by the Spirit with God (Abba), Jesus, and fellow believers” (p. 126). Emphasis added. Rabens’s work offers important insights from which this study draws, especially regarding the relational work of the Spirit and that relationships transform people. However, Rabens’s work is not expressly concerned with anthropology, but ethical empowerment, and as such does not deal in depth with the anthropological assumptions underlying his ethical model. Rabens’s work is considered in more detail below. 34 Eastman, “Oneself in Another.” 35 Throughout this study we will use the phrase “Spirit-shaped relationships” to qualify the nature of a relationship that is generated and sustained by the Spirit. We borrow this term from Rabens, who defines the term: “‘Spirit-shaped’ is used with the meaning ‘modeled by the Spirit’, not ‘modeled on the Spirit” (Spirit and Ethics, 204 n. 105).

12

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

1.3. Contribution of This Study to Pauline Scholarship 1.3. Contribution of This Study to Pauline Scholarship

The contribution of this study lies chiefly in further arguing that Paul’s anthropology is a relational phenomenon and doing so by demonstrating more clearly how relations affect persons in Paul and how the Spirit participates in this anthropological reality. However, the concept of RA, inasmuch as it sheds light on the reality of the Pauline doctrine of humankind, may also link individual and communal/corporate elements in Paul’s thought. As such, this study also contributes, though less directly, to broader aspects of Pauline theology.

1.4. Approach of This Study and the Flow of Argument 1.4. Approach of This Study and the Flow of Argument

The importance and purpose of this study comes into sharper relief when situated in the context of how biblical scholarship has sought to understand how the individual is related to communal, corporate, and cosmic phenomena. Therefore, filling out chapter 1 is an overview of relevant literature, focused mostly on Pauline studies, addressing the question of how anthropology is construed in relation to an “other.” While including several current thinkers, the review of literature includes an in-depth analysis of the thought of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann. Both Bultmann and Käsemann address the question of Paul’s doctrine of humanity directly; however, they arrive at very different conclusions. For Bultmann, an image of a near autonomous self emerges; for Käsemann, the human risks being swallowed in cosmology. Tracing how their analyses reach these conclusions reveals some of the crucial exegetical questions surrounding Paul’s doctrine of humanity. Chapter 1 concludes with an explanation of this study’s methodology. In chapter 2 the concept of “relational anthropology” will be set forth and defined. A brief consideration of the interdisciplinary turn toward RA demonstrates how the concept is broadly understood. Then a detailed analysis of how three scholars – Susan Grove Eastman, Volker Rabens, and Emmanuel Rehfeld – have argued for some form of relational- or participatoryanthropology in Paul establishes how the topic is being addressed in Pauline studies. Their research lays the groundwork for this study and highlights the opportunities and gaps this thesis addresses. Chapter 3 turns to an exegetical analysis of RA in Paul. Definitions of the concepts “person” and “relation” open the chapter, allowing for a more penetrating analysis of the phenomenon RA. Here it will be demonstrated that identity, agency, and the heart represent aspects of the Pauline person. Five types of relations in Paul are then analyzed, each of which bear uniquely upon human existence: (1) the creature-and-Creator relation; (2) the relation

1.4. Approach of This Study and the Flow of Argument

13

resultant of embodiment; (3) the person in relation to sinister powers; (4) the believer and Christ-relatedness; and (5) the believer in relation to other believers.36 This analysis covers several types of relations in Paul, personal and impersonal, intimate and hostile, and vertical and horizontal. Analyzing this broad array of types of relations allows the study to expose the complexity and depth of RA in Paul. Following the analysis of different relations, chapter 3 asks how these relations affect specific aspects of personhood, e.g., identity, agency, and the heart. Together, chapters 1, 2, and 3 make up Part 1 of the study, where the idea of RA is introduced and set forth as a viable concept to be considered in Paul. In Part 2 of the study, chapters 4 and 5, the presence of RA in Paul is further explored by focusing on the work of the Spirit. Here, the driving question becomes: What is the role of the Spirit in reconstituting Christian-persons through relationships? An introductory section to Part 2, Approaching the Spirit in Paul, explains the study’s approach to Pauline pneumatology and briefly considers the work of the Spirit in generating relationships in intertestamental literature, especially when notions of the new covenant community are in view. In chapter 4, Romans 8 is explored with the focus upon Spirit-shaped relationships that foster closeness and intimacy between the believer and God and Christ. Through these “vertical” relationships, personhood is reconstituted as aspects of identity (sonship, 8:14–16), agency (living by the Spirit, 8:9, 13–14) and heart (cry of “Abba, Father,” 8:15) are affected. Chapter 5 turns to “horizontal” Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence between believers, evidenced in 1 Corinthians 12. Analysis focuses on how the apportionment of χαρίσματα requires and creates a relational matrix, whereby individual “members” of the body are actualized through a new sense of utility (agency) and belonging (identity and heart). Chapter 6 concludes the study by summarizing findings and considering theological and pastoral implications of Spirit-shaped RA.

One may wonder why, in a study titled “The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Paul,” that we have not included a category on the believer’s relationship with the Spirit. The reason for this will become clear as the study unfolds, but put briefly, in our analysis the Spirit is the agent who generates, shapes and sustains a relationship with another. However, this is not to say that a believer does not relate directly to the Spirit; evidence for such is found when Paul refers to the Spirit “leading” the believer (Rom 8:14) or praying for the believer (Rom 8:26–27). 36

14

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History of Research 1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

1.5.1. H. Wheeler Robinson and Corporate Personality

Within biblical studies, the question of how relations, or external realities, affect personhood emerges in the work of Old Testament scholar H. Wheeler Robinson. At the turn of the 20th century, Robinson suggested the notion “corporate personality” best explained several phenomena in ancient Israel. These phenomena included how guilt is distributed from the individual to the community, how not-yet-born-kin exist within present family, and the fluidity with which Hebrew poetry moves from the “I” to the “we.”37 This concept of corporate personality, he concluded, was so significant “its effects could be enumerated from the accidence and syntax of Hebrew grammar up to the highest levels of Old Testament theology.”38 Though criticized for an “overly strong emphasis on the group at the expense of the individual,”39 Robinson’s work was a welcome attempt to explain pervasively communal elements throughout the Old Testament. Three areas of his work are especially noteworthy. First, Robinson was convinced that the interrelation between the individual and group in Israel was real, “neither a literary personification nor an ideal.”40 In other words, when guilt was dispersed from the individual to the group, or vice versa, it was due to some real connection between them (e.g., Josh 7:1). Second, understanding the nature of this interrelation was to be found on “the anthropological side” of the subject.41 Robinson sought to explain the pervasively communal nature of Israelite thought as indicative of anthropological realities, namely, that persons were constituted in and by community. 37 See H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), which is a reprint of two earlier essays: “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments: Vorträge gehalten auf der Internationalen Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Göttingen vom 4.– 10. September 1935, ed. Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer, and Johannes Hempel (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1936); and “The Group and the Individual in Israel,” in The Individual in East and West, ed. E. R. Hughes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937). 38 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 34. Brevard Childs is another Old Testament scholar who emphasizes the relational or corporate nature of human existence. In Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 201, he writes, “Another essential feature of the Old Testament lies in its setting the description of human existence within various societal relationships. Man in the Old Testament is always part of a group.” 39 See Howard, Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification, 99. Howard goes on to state that despite criticism, “Nevertheless, this field of study has revealed that the concept of solidarity was very powerful in Old Testament Israel.” 40 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 29. 41 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 29.

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

15

Third, Robinson emphasized the significance of the covenant as affecting a connection between the “I” and “we,” which eventually led him to highlight the role of the Spirit in generating corporate personality. Moving through redemptive history, he suggests that with the new covenant the nature of the “covenant bond” shifts from “the common blood-tie” to “the spirit.”42 In Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning the new covenant, a “heightened sense of the individual” arises, yet the covenant bond is still with the whole community.43 Moreover, the covenant bond more expressly involves the Spirit: So we have the promise of a “new covenant” through Jeremiah, which should be individualized and internalized …. It is still a covenant “with the house of Israel,” but it is accomplished through a new and more searching relation of God to each member of that house. So also with the promise of … Ezekiel (36:26–27): “A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you …. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.”44

This “more searching relation of God to each [individual] member” is rooted in a covenant with the whole “house of Israel” and effectuated by God’s Spirit. When Robinson briefly turns to the NT, he identifies 1 Corinthians 12 as the “most explicit utterance of the Bible” of corporate personality.45 His reflection on this passage is significant for the present study, for it highlights both a form of RA in the NT and role of the Spirit: St. Paul has shown us this group [i.e., corporate personality] at a further stage of its development, using the metaphor of the body of Christ…. Thus St. Paul (1 Cor. 12:12ff) is led to conceive those who are spiritually gathered round Christ by faith in him as members of his body. They vary in function and rank, but they are made one by the unity of the body, animated as it is by the one Spirit of the Lord. This is the most explicit utterance of the Bible concerning the relation of the group and the individual. It implies a new kind of individual, but one who, like the true Israelite of old, could never be divorced from his social relationship.46

Robinson’s work suggests that understanding how the individual relates to corporate elements lies in an anthropology reality. It also notes that this involves a relation between God, the individual, and community (house of Israel), and is animated by the Spirit. The weaknesses of Robinson’s work lie in that despite suggesting that an anthropological reality explains how the individual and corporate interrelate, he never explores this claim. How, exactly, is the particularity of the individual not only maintained but also further constituted by communal forces? By not Robinson, Corporate Personality, 30. Robinson, Corporate Personality, 30–31. 44 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 55. Emphasis added. 45 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 58. 46 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 58. Emphasis added. 42 43

16

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

explaining the anthropological side of corporate personality, his framework threatens to dissolve the individual within the group.47 It has also been shown that Robinson’s underlying anthropological assumptions were shaped by the work of Lévy-Bruhl. The latter argued that ancient cultures lacked the psychological nuance to differentiate between subjective and objective experience, and thereby the individual (subject) could not easily disassociate from the group (object).48 However, as Macaskill points out, “[Lévy-Bruhl’s] work is no longer deemed acceptable by anthropologist, who see it as indiscriminately conflating widely different cultures and phenomena.”49 Where Robinson’s idea would benefit is from a more developed anthropological model, one involving a more searching consideration of how personhood may be constructed vis-à-vis the other. 1.5.2. Bultmann and Käsemann on Anthropology Current conversations about biblical anthropology owe a great deal to the work of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann. Especially in light of their differing approaches to Paul – existentialism for Bultmann and apocalypticism for Käsemann – their analyses of Paul’s doctrine of man help frame this study’s driving question: how relations, or communal and corporate realities, affect human existence. The focus of this review of their work aims to highlight how these respective approaches impact their interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of humanity, and, in turn, how their respective anthropological models understand the individual in relation to cosmic and corporate realities. Analyzing Bultmann’s and Käsemann’s work in some depth is essential for in many ways they represent the polarities between a nearly autonomous individuality, on the one hand, and an individual (seemingly) swallowed by cosmology on the other. 47 This was the criticism of Joshua R. Porter, “Legal Aspects of the Concept of Corporate Personality in the Old Testament, VT 15 (1965), 361–80, who noted the extent to which the individual is still held accountable and found guilty within covenant community, a phenomenon that Robinson’s group-centric model does not fully explain. See also the overview of criticism of Robinson’s work in Andrew Perriman, “The Corporate Christ: ReAssessing the Jewish Background,” TynBul 50.2 (1999), 239–63, 242–46; and S. E. Porter, “Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism,” SJT 43 (1990), 289–307. 48 See L. Lévy-Bruhl and L. A. Clare, Primitive Mentality (Oxford: Macmillian, 1923). On the influence of Lévy-Bruhl’s work upon Robinson, particularly in the context of the notion of corporate personality in the OT, see the work of Jurrien Mol, Collective and Individual Responsibility: A Description of Corporate Personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20, SSN 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 127–32. 49 Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 102, who is referring to the critique of Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology (Leuvan: Peeters, 2001), 15.

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

17

As giants of 20th century scholarship, their work also highlights some of the important exegetical questions any treatment of Pauline anthropology must navigate. Bultmann and the Self-in-Relation-to-Itself Rudolf Bultmann famously equates Paul’s theology with anthropology, writing, “Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man … and in this sense Paul’s theology is, at the same time, anthropology.”50 His treatment of Paul in Theology of the New Testament (TNT) follows this dictum, beginning with Paul’s doctrine of humanity, and structuring the sections around “man prior to the revelation of faith and … man under faith.”51 Bultmann’s focus on anthropology, however, seems at times less exegetical than philosophical: e.g., “To be a man – if I may briefly summarize for our purposes the results of Heidegger’s analysis – is something that uniquely belongs to the individual; and the being of man is a ‘possibility of being,’ i.e., the man who is involved in care for himself chooses his own unique possibility.”52 Bultmann’s work is best described as theological interpretation because it involves, as the reference to Heidegger suggests, a complex synthesis of historical-critical expertise,53 dialectical theology, and existentialist philosophy.54 As such, his anthropological model is more 50 Bultmann, TNT, 1:191. Elsewhere, Bultmann, “The Historicity of Man and Faith,” in Existence and Faith (New York: Meridian, 1960), 92, states his theorem, “the concept of ‘existence’ must be the methodical starting-point of theology.” See also Bultmann, “Paul,” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, trans. Schubert M. Ogden (New York: Meridian, 1960), 128. So also Ernst Käsemann, “New Testament Questions of Today,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 13, who concurs, “The distinctive feature of [Bultmann’s] interpretation of Paul is the manner in which he makes the doctrine of man the central point.” 51 Bultmann, TNT, 1:191, explains that analysis of Paul’s thought should be organized, “first, of man prior to the revelation of faith, and second, of man under faith…” 52 Bultmann, “The Historicity of Man and Faith,” 102. Emphasis added. 53 Trained by leaders of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Bultmann’s teachers included Hermann Gunkel, Johannes Weiss, Wilhem Heitmüller, and Wilhelm Boussett, all scholars determined to understand early Christianity through careful historical research. For an overview of Bultmann’s development as a scholar, see Robert Morgan, “Introduction,” in Theology of the New Testament, Rudolf Bultmann, trans. by Kendrick Grobel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), xi–xxxviii. 54 In his overview of Bultmann’s thought, Walter Schmithals, An Introduction to the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1967), 19, explains, “In Bultmann’s encounter with Heidegger, his theology took that fixed and characteristic form in which it has encountered us not for about years.” Heidegger’s critique of the “subjectobject” paradigm of thought, which “falsely” assumes the objectivity of its object of observation, becomes key to Bultmann’s work. This philosophical perspective also gives rise, inevitably, to seeing the subjectivity of “existing” (“Dasein”) as central to all reflection.

18

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

existential than scientific, concerned with the possibility of “Being” (“Dasein”), not the objective what of a “scientific anthropology.”55 This creates a hermeneutical constraint, which, as will be drawn out below, tends toward an anthropology organized around the individual qua individual. “Authentic existence,” Bultmann finds, is determined by the self-in-relation-to-itself, by individual decision (“Entscheidung”)56 and existential position (“existentielle Situation”).57 Bultmann on Key Anthropological Terms According to Bultmann, anthropological terms in Paul do not refer merely to parts of a person. Rather, he writes, “Individual anthropological concepts, like ‘body,’ ‘soul,’ and others … always mean man as a whole with respect to some specific possibility of his being.”58 Most significant for Bultmann is the term σῶμα, which “indicates the whole person …. Man does not have a soma; he is soma.”59 While Bultmann’s conclusion that “body” refers to the whole person remains influential, how he further defines “somatic-existence” has not. It is common to see in Paul’s use of σῶμα a reference to humanity’s corporeality indicating his or her creaturely and physical nature.60 Bultmann, however, avoids attaching physicality to 55 Bultmann, TNT, 1:191, writes, “Paul, of course, did not draw up a scientific anthropology as if to describe man as a phenomenon in the realm of the objectively perceptible world.” The concept of Dasein was integral to Martin Heidegger’s epistemology and philosophy. Dasein essentially means that human existence is a “being there,” not static, but fluid, and therefore experience (=existentialism) is the ground of meaning. See David Clark, Knowing and Loving God (Downers Grove: Crossway, 2010), 105. 56 The phenomena of “kerygma” and “decision” are central to Bultmann’s theological system and will be further considered below. In “The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul,” in Faith and Understanding (New York: Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966), 241, he explains, “Jesus Christ confronts men in the kerygma and nowhere else; just as he confronted Paul himself and forced him to the decision [Entscheidung].” Emphasis original. 57 Bultmann, “What Does It Mean to Speak about God,” in Faith and Understanding (New York: Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966), 53, explains that a human cannot even speak about God in general statements that are valid “without reference to the … existential position [existentielle Situation] of the speaker.” 58 Bultmann, Existence and Faith, 130. 59 Bultmann, TNT, 1:192, 194, emphasis original. Contra Bultmann, Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology, 15, writes, “On examination, in context it appears that soma is not at all a comprehensive term.” Despite Gundry’s thorough treatment, the majority of Pauline scholars today see σῶμα as a comprehensive idea in Paul, indicating the whole person. Further comment on this debate about the meaning of σῶμα is beyond the scope of this study. 60 “σῶμα,” BDAG, 983, “1. body of a human being or animal, body; 1.b the living body. See also Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 456, writes, “The first of two technical ‘body’ concepts

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

19

somatic-existence. He allows that in places Paul has a “physical” referent in mind when using σῶμα, e.g., 1 Cor 5:3; 7:34; Gal 6:17; 1 Thess 5:23.61 However, he ultimately concludes it “would be an error in method to proceed from such passages”62 to assume Paul stresses physicality when using σῶμα. Instead in such passages (e.g., 1 Cor 7:34) Paul is “influenced … by the Hellenistic-dualistic deprecation of the body.”63 In the final analysis, therefore, Paul’s use of “body” is not corporeal in the traditional sense. Rather, σῶμα in Paul indicates “corporeality” in the sense that the body indicates the objective aspect of the “subject-object” internal relationship, which constitutes personhood. Bultmann’s idea of corporeality is essentially one’s ability to have a relationship with oneself. Summarizing his interpretation of σῶμα, he writes, [Σῶμα is used] to denote man’s person in the respect that having a relationship to one’s self belongs essentially to being man. More accurately [than a physical interpretation], man is soma when he is objectivized in relation to himself by becoming the object of his own thought, attitude, or conduct…. He can be called soma, that is, as having a relationship to himself – as being able in a certain sense to distinguish himself from himself.64

Therefore, Bultmann’s “somatic-person” is not really “somatic” at all. As σῶμα the human being is not part of the created world in the sense of sharing physicality or materiality. Rather, “as a being endowed by God with special dignity and responsibility … man stands between God and the creation and must decide between the two.”65 Other anthropological terms, such as ζάω, ψυχή,66 and (human-) πνεῦμα,67 are likewise understood as forms of existential being without concrete or develops in the course of Corinthian Letter A in response to the anti-somatic theology of the Gnostics: σῶμα as the basis of relationship and unity between persons was worked out in the discussion of idolatry (1 Cor 10:16ff) and fornication (1 Cor 6:12ff) and is then applied to the question of resurrection (1 Cor 15:35ff) and of Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament (1 Cor 11:24).” In each instance, Jewett is saying that Paul is stressing physicality by his use of σῶμα, over against the anti-somatic Gnosticism in Corinth. 61 See Bultmann, TNT, 1:193. 62 Bultmann, TNT, 1:202. 63 Bultmann, TNT, 1:202. Bultmann also points to 2 Cor 12:2–4 and Paul’s sympathy with the “ascetic tendencies of dualism” in his marriage instructions in 1 Cor 7:1–7.” 64 Bultmann, TNT, 1:195–96, 202–3. 65 Bultmann, TNT, 1:229. Emphasis added. Schmithals, An Introduction, 55, in commenting on Bultmann’s doctrine of man, emphasizes this point: “[For Bultmann] Man … is not authentically understood if he is understood as nature. He is possibility, i.e., his authentic being stands newly before him at each moment, and if he exists authentically, he does not know today who he will in fact be tomorrow.” 66 Bultmann, TNT, 1:205, explains, “Psyche is the specifically human state of being alive which inheres in man as a striving, willing, purposing self.” 67 Bultmann, TNT, 1:207, understands the non-divine use of πνεῦμα in Paul to be similar to ψυχἠ; however, it can “also mean the self regarded as conscious or aware.” He draws this out by referring to Rom 8:16, commenting that “‘the divine spirit bears witness to our spirit

20

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

corporeal referents. Paul’s use of ζάω, Bultmann explains, “shows clearly that Paul does not understand life as a phenomenon of nature,” but rather the term indicates “the intentionality of human existence.”68 Derived from his interpretation of these anthropological terms, “authentic existence” for Bultmann is “detached” from the material world,69 is selfdetermined and ultimately pertains to a self-in-relation-to-itself.70 Bultmann and The Individual amid External Forces How does Bultmann’s construal of Pauline anthropology stand in relation to his view of Paul’s cosmology and hamartiology? Though Bultmann identifies elements in Paul such as sin and the cosmos as apparently real and external powers, his reading ultimately relegates them to permeations of misguided anthropology. For example, Bultmann at one point refers to the meaning of κόσμος in 2 Cor 4:4 as a “sphere of anti-godly power under whose sway the individual … has fallen.”71 However, in his final analysis this sphere of power is man-made: “This power, however – and this is the distinctive thing about Paul’s view – does not come over man, either the individual or the race, as a sheer cure of fate, but grows up out of himself.”72 Likewise, he can describe life according to the “flesh” in Paul as indicating “a power that lays claim to [man] and determines him.”73 However, under closer scrutiny, “according to the flesh” and “sin” are matters of misguided anthropology – wrong attitudes.74 Bultmann’s idea of the that we are God’s children’ – i.e., makes us conscious of it, confers the knowledge of it upon us.” Emphasis added. 68 Bultmann, TNT, 1:210, emphasis added. 69 In his critique of Bultmann’s anthropology, Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 13, writes, for Bultmann, “‘Detachment from the world’ does not aim at spiritualization and pious introspection; it characterizes the believer as being no longer determined by what is at hand in this world…” 70 Bultmann, TNT, 1:227, writes, “Man is a being who has a relationship to himself [ein Verhältnis zu sich selbst], is placed at his own disposal, and is responsible for his own existence. But this existence of his, as the investigation of the terms soma, psyche, pneuma, zoe, nous, and kardia showed, is never to be found in the present as a fulfilled reality, but always lies ahead of him. In other words, his existence is always an intention and a quest and in it he may find himself or lose his grip upon himself, gain his self or fail to do so.” 71 Bultmann, TNT, 1:256. 72 Bultmann, TNT, 1:256, emphasis original. Elsewhere, Bultmann Faith and Existence, 129, explains, “‘World’ does not refer to men as a ‘what,’ but rather as a ‘how,’ as a ‘how’ of their life and, to be sure, as a ‘how’ that they themselves have created by turning away from God. As such it is a power that always already encompasses each individual, encountering him and taking him along with it…” 73 Bultmann, TNT, 1:201. 74 Käsemann, “New Testament Questions of Today,” 13, notes that in Bultmann’s existentialist framework, “Paul’s characteristic antithesis of flesh and spirit is to be seen …

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

21

person in Paul vis-à-vis cosmology and sin, therefore, is not of a being impacted by forces surrounding him or her. Rather, it is of a person determined by self-understanding.75 Bultmann and Faith as Individual Decision What does play the decisive role in human existence for Bultmann is the individual’s decision, or faith. “Faith,” for Bultmann, is an obedient decision made during the “hearing of the word of proclamation [the kerygma].”76 It involves a radical new self-understanding, including a rejection of selfaccomplishment (boasting).77 Existence by faith, moreover, is not static but involves a “decision” that “must be maintained – that is, made again and again anew.”78 In summary, Bultmann’s anthropological model does not posit a being embodied or embedded in a world, where social or cosmological forces influence existence. Rather, authentic existence is about “self-understanding,” and persons are constituted as a self-in-relation-to-itself. Bultmann, The Individual, and The Community How does Bultmann’s anthropological model situate alongside communal aspects in Paul? Are communal or external realities necessary for authentic existence? We can see how these factors interrelate by briefly considering

as directed neither toward the contrast of transitory and everlasting nor towards the experience of withdrawal from an earthly to a heavenly state. This antithesis connotes rather the attitude of the man who is delivered over by the sin of disobedience to the powers of the world.” Emphasis added. 75 Dunson, Individual and Community, 24, summarizes well Bultmann’s overall reading of “powers” and “forces” in Paul, writing, “No matter how much Paul’s language may seem to speak of a cosmic battle between God and the devil, the truly significant reference of such language is to the power of choice that resides within each individual person.” See also Meech, Paul in Israel’s Story, 129–30. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 523, also offers an important conclusion regarding what Bultmann is after in his rendering of Pauline cosmology. When we encounter Bultmann reading Paul’s cosmology through existential terms (i.e., self-understanding or attitudes), Sanders explains, it is not the case that he is arguing that “the best we can now do in appropriating what Paul wrote is to translate it into existential categories.” Rather, Sanders states, for Bultmann these existential and demythologized categories “represent what Paul really meant.” 76 Bultmann, “Paul,” 140. 77 Man must “surrender his previous understanding of himself” (Bultmann, TNT, 1:315). 78 Bultmann, TNT, 1:322. Eastman, Paul and the Person, 98, also points out that in Bultmann, “typically … the language of decision and intention is wedded to the concept of self-relation.” Therefore, authentic existence is constituted by the self-in-relation-to-itself.

22

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

Bultmann’s understanding of the church and idea of “human togetherness” (“menschliches Miteinander”).79 Three elements make up the Pauline church in Bultmann’s reading. The church “continues the Old Testament concept of the qāhāl, the cultic assembly of the community (‘die kultische Versammlung der Gemeinde’).”80 Second, it is “the eschatological community” (“die eschatologische Gemeinde”), existing not according to chronological or natural history, but salvation history (“Heilsgeschichte”).81 Third, the church is the “fellowship of those called by God” (“die Gemeinschaft der von Gott Berufenen”).82 This third aspect, fellowship of those called, suggests one way the individual may be affected by communal realities. In Bultmann’s anthropology, being “called” plays an important role. This is so because “faith” is a response to the proclaimed word/kerygma, through which Christ calls men.83 This calling, apparently, is not only to authentic existence but also, Bultmann explains, “The preached word calls and gathers men into the ecclesia, the Church, the Congregation of those who are ‘called’ and ‘saints.’”84 Thus a link exists, albeit under-developed, between anthropology and ecclesiology at this point in Bultmann: the called individual is called into community.85 Bultmann, TNT, 1:342. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding, 184, 193; Bultmann, Glauben Und Verstehen (Tübingen: Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1958), 164–5. He also writes in Faith and Existence, 119, “Nevertheless, this consciousness of being a church is but a recasting of the Jewish inheritance; for in Judaism also the idea of the church as the people of God was very much alive.” 81 What Bultmann means by history (“Geschichte”) must be carefully considered in light of his broader thought. For example, in Faith and Understanding, 185, he can speak of the church as “bound to history” (“die also an eine Geschichte gebunden ist”). But what he means by “history” in this case is “eschatology.” As David W. Congdon, “Kerygma and Community: A Response to R. W. L. Moberly’s Revisiting of Bultmann,” JTI 8.1 (2014): 13, points out, “Bultmann everywhere understands history (Geschichte) as eschatology; eschatology is the truth of history, and history is only truly historical as eschatology.” In short, “history” in Bultmann’s theology indicates the possibility to choose one’s existence; it means the future lies open and the (chronological and natural) past is not determinative of existence. 82 Bultmann, TNT, 1:165. 83 Bultmann, Faith and Understanding, 197. 84 Bultmann, TNT, 1:308. Emphasis added. 85 It is worth noting that for Bultmann the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), while functioning to link the community, are really only an extension of the phenomena of the word. He writes in Faith and Understanding, 213, “When the service [of the cult] also includes the ministration of the sacraments, it still remains under the domination of the word. The sacraments stand beside the word as the ‘word made visible’ (verbum visibile). They achieve nothing which differs from what is achieved by the spoken word. Like the word, they make the saving act a present act; like the word, they demand obedience.” 79 80

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

23

A second potential link between the individual and community lies in Bultmann’s idea of “human togetherness” (“menschliches Miteinander”). Here the stress lies on the ethical obligations of the believer along with his new nature to love his neighbor. It “is love,” Bultmann explains, “which builds up the congregation and hence requires the waiving of one’s ‘authorization’ or ‘right’ (1 Cor 8:1; Rom 14:15).”86 The individual is marked by “indifference toward everything worldly” but “personal responsibility” toward fellow Christians. Inasmuch as human fellowship is a blend of individual and community, the “link” between the two is grounded in “love,” “obligation,” and “responsibility.”87 Through both “calling” and “ethics,” Bultmann brings the individual into the context of the community. However, what is the nature of this relationship? Are communal or corporate realities essential to authentic existence? When the logic of the above is considered, the community in no way constitutes authentic existence but rather is derived from it. Even if community ensues necessarily from calling or ethics, it logically proceeds from an already constituted individual. In fact, because faith is what constitutes existence, and for Bultmann faith is a fundamentally individualistic concept (one’s decision), the individual is the necessary prerequisite to community. Bultmann’s existential construal of anthropology implicitly walls off the individual from any inherent communal need, as Dunson’s analysis suggests: Faith thus constitutes an exegetically-derived, individually-oriented hermeneutical constraint for Bultmann, in the sense that human knowledge of God is dependent on the acceptance of the kerygma by the individual…. If for Paul it is futile to seek knowledge of God apart from faith, it is equally futile to seek the ground or locus of Christian experience in the community, since it is individuals as individuals who are confronted with the kerygma and must submit to it in faith.88

Likewise, Eastman, highlighting the logic of Bultmann’s anthropology, writes that the “self” in Bultmann “begins with and constantly refers back to the perspective and experience of the ‘I’ as a singular, self-referential entity…. [The] self precedes and mediates all other knowledge and experience.”89 Thus, in conclusion, individuality comes prior to the community in Bultmann’s reading of Paul, which means communal/corporate realities are non-essential to anthropology.

Bultmann, TNT, 1:344. Bultmann, TNT, 1:342. 88 Dunson, Individual and Community, 29, emphasis added. 89 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 98, emphasis added. 86 87

24

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

An “Opening” in Bultmann’s Anthropology Prior to turning to Käsemann, there are two angles to Bultmann’s existentialindividualism that suggest an “opening” or a manner in which individuality may have an inherently relational aspect. First, in his construal of faith the individual is dependent on hearing the kerygma – a word from outside. In his essay, “Kirche und Lehre im Neuen Testament,” Bultmann further explores how it is that words, or teaching (“Lehre”), “disclose new possibilities of existence.”90 A “word of love,” he explains, “is itself love,” and if it is spoken in the right manner, itself “discloses new existence” (“Lehre an sich selbst neue Daseinsmöglichkeiten erschliebßen”).91 In this sense, an external force, “a spoken word” (not just the content, but manner of the word), plays a role in affecting existence. Further explaining this phenomenon, Bultmann makes a surprising claim regarding existence as “co-existence” (“Miteinandersein”): Übrigens würde dieser Sachverhalt genauer geklärt warden können, wenn der Charakter des Daseins als Miteinandersein deutlich gemacht und von ihm her der ursprüngliche Sinn des „Wortes “aufgewiesen würde. Nur ein individualistisches Daseinsverständnis muß es als Schwierigkeit empfinden, daß „Lehre “Daseinsmöglichkeiten erschließen kann….92

Here Bultmann suggests, “the character of existence is co-existence” (“der Charakter des Daseins als Miteinandersein”), and those who deny that “teaching” (proclaimed-word) can change existence are guilty of an “individualistic understanding of existence” (“ein individualistisches Daseinsverständnis”). The idea of “Daseins als Miteinandersein” is not further worked out in Bultmann, but we see here that even an otherwise existentialindividualism may lie “open” toward, or be dependent upon in some manner, relation to another for being. A second area of Bultmann’s anthropology that points in the direction of this thesis is the fact that for Bultmann man, as a creature, always exists before God: “Paul sees man always in relation to God,”93 or “standing before God.”94 Faith is choosing to exist as though God is there. This introduces a relational component to Bultmann’s anthropology, though Bultmann does not consider Rudolf Bultmann, “Kirche und Lehre im Neuen Testament,” in Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958), 156–57. 91 Bultmann, “Kirche und Lehre im Neuen Testament,” 157. 92 Bultmann, “Kirche und Lehre im Neuen Testament,” 159, emphasis added. Translated, the passage reads, “This point could also be better presented if the character of human existence as co-existence [der Charakter des Daseins als Miteinandersein] with one another were made clear and the original meaning of the ‘word’ clarified on this basis. Only an understanding of existence as individualistic finds difficulty in the statement that ‘teaching’ is able to disclose possibilities of existence; and only from such a point of view can the wellknown antithesis of ‘teaching’ (knowledge) and ‘life’ arise.” 93 Bultmann, TNT, 1:191; Bultmann, Existence and Faith, 128. 94 Bultmann, Existence and Faith, 128. 90

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

25

how a dynamic interchange of man-in-relation-to-God might impact his anthropological model.95 In conclusion, Bultmann’s existentialist hermeneutic, his reading of σῶμα as non-corporeal, his reducing cosmology and sin to misguided anthropology, and his stressing of humanity’s “detachment from the world,”96 all result in an individualistic-anthropology. Authentic existence is ultimately a matter of selfunderstanding and self-possession – decision. External realities do not play a decisive role in constituting personhood. As such, the idea of “relational anthropology,” or that persons are defined by relations, is foreign to Bultmann’s reading of Paul. However, because faith is a response to an external word, and because one exists before God, Bultmann’s thought does suggest, albeit obliquely, a relational necessity to existence. Käsemann and the Individual-in-Solidarity Ernst Käsemann developed his Pauline anthropology, in part, in reaction to his teacher’s existential individualism.97 Whereas for Bultmann existentialism was the controlling hermeneutical lens, for Käsemann it was apocalypticism, the “mother of Christian theology.”98 In this sense, his view of humanity started from without, whereas Bultmann’s began from within. Two facets that shape Käsemann’s anthropological conclusions are his situating of humankind within cosmological and communal “spheres” that act upon persons, and his interpretation of “body” – corporeal existence – which leaves human beings embedded in a surrounding world.

95 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 99, suggests that Bultmann never considers the “vice versa” of his dictum, “Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa.” She writes, “[Bultmann’s claim that] Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa – is a second-person claim, insofar as God and humanity are known in their mutual relations…. [But] Bultmann’s starting point and consistent focus are on the inner experience of the individual, rather than the dynamic exchange between God and humanity in the complexities of human history.” Emphasis added. 96 “As a being endowed by God with special dignity and responsibility … man stands between God and the creation and must decide between the two” (Bultmann, TNT, 1:229). 97 Käsemann, “New Testament Questions of Today,” 10, understood the significance of Bultmann’s work, but was not uncritical toward it, wondering if it was “the pupil who cannot help being the predestined adversary of the teacher.” 98 Käsemann, “Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 37. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, 136, in detailing the turn toward apocalyptic in New Testament studies, explains, “The ‘apocalyptic triumph’ in which God wins the victory over the forces of evil, highlighting the ‘cosmic’ dimensions of Paul’s gospel rather than focusing on the ‘individual’ meaning, has become, in many circles, the new orthodoxy.” Emphasis added.

26

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

Käsemann and Humankind as Corporeal Like Bultmann, Käsemann sees σῶμα as the crucial anthropological term for Paul.99 He also sees it as indicating the whole person.100 However, unlike Bultmann, for Käsemann corporeal existence is fundamentally physical. Key texts making this point come from 1 Corinthians 6–7. The sexual ethics of 1 Cor 6:12–20 require a physical referent to “body,” Käsemann argues. He points out that on this passage in 1 Corinthians 6, Bultmann’s interpretation “becomes involved in inextricable contradictions” as he tries “to distinguish and divide the human person from its corporeality.”101 Käsemann also sees a physical corporeality at work in 1 Cor 7:14 where Paul is able to call children holy because of “their physical relationship to their Christian parents.”102 Drawing from 1 Cor 6:13, Käsemann summarizes the corporeal reality of Paul’s thought: [1 Cor 6:13] shows that the apostle intends man to be understood entirely in the light of his corporeality and that that is why he relates even Christology and soteriology to it. This relationship is also the root of his eschatology and the physical resurrection.... The coherence of Pauline soteriology is destroyed once we modify in the slightest degree the fact that for Paul all God’s ways with his creation begin and end in corporeality.103

For Käsemann corporeality functions as a unifying element across Paul’s theology. Käsemann and Humankind in Solidarity The implications of humans as (physical-) corporeal beings are far-reaching. To begin, it means humanity is, by nature, embedded in the rest of corporeal Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 17–18, writes, “The most important and controversial of Paul’s anthropological concepts [is] the body.” 100 In agreement with Bultmann, Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 7 explains, “The basic insight of Bultmann’s interpretation was that the apostle’s anthropological termini do not, as in the Greek world, characterize the component parts of the human organism; they apply to existence as a whole, while taking account of its varying orientation and capacity in any given case.” Also, Käsemann states, “The alteration between ‘body’ and ‘self’ is not surprising either, especially if all Paul’s anthropological terms describe the whole man” (p. 18). 101 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 19, goes on, saying, “[Bultmann’s interpretation] is not even put out.” Käsemann goes on, “by the tremendous statement that not only is the body meant for the Lord but the Lord is meant for the body (1 Cor 6:13).” Käsemann does note that Bultmann speaks of “corporeality,” but explains, “Corporeality is for [Bultmann] the possibility of a relationship with God, i.e., the possibility of being good or evil” (p. 20). Regarding Käsemann’s critique of Bultmann’s reading of σῶμα, Eastman, Paul and the Person, 99, makes the similar point, “Käsemann thinks that Bultmann’s understanding of the body as the capacity for self-relation tends toward a division between the ‘human person and its corporeality.’” 102 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 21. 103 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 18–19, emphasis added. 99

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

27

reality, existing in “relationship to a world with which he is confronted.”104 Whereas Bultmann referred to human beings as “detached from the world,” Käsemann describes him or her in “solidarity” (“Solidarität”) with it – “his [or her] being is open towards all sides.”105 One could say that “embodiment” results in “embeddedness” for Käsemann, and the “spheres of solidarity” impacting human existence are cosmological in scope. Thus, in reflecting on Rom 5:12–21, corporeal existence also means that a person is either in a sphere of solidarity “under the domain of Christ, or domain of the hostile powers of the old fallen age.”106 The realm in which persons are embedded and enmeshed “defines the nature of humanity,” not individual decision.107 The key paradigm, then, for authentic existence is not individuality but Christology: “the dominion of the risen Lord is the basis of the new existence.”108 Drawing again from 1 Corinthians, Käsemann explains, The statement that our body belongs to Christ, but that Christ also belongs to our body, is also understandable: our corporeality is the relationship to the world and the creatureliness of our existence to which the appointed cosmocrator must lay claim if he is to establish the basileia in the universe, as 1 Cor. 15.25ff. promises.109

In a complete reversal from Bultmann, cosmology for Käsemann is not an emanation of anthropology, but rather, “anthropology is crystallized

Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 21. Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 22. 106 See Dunson, Individual and Community, 41. In reference to Adam, Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 24, describes his idea of participation, “…Adam’s fate is repeated and confirmed in every individual…. Just as each person is both himself and his world, so he is also himself and Adam on the path which he follows.” 107 Dunson, Individual and Community, 41. 108 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 188. Writing near the end of his life, Käsemann, “A Theological Review,” in On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene: Unpublished Lectures and Sermons, ed. Rudolf Landau and Wolfgang Kraus, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), xiii, recalls, “I came to know [in youth, with the help of a youth pastor] that each one’s uniqueness, or in modern parlance, each one’s identity, is experienced only through the Lord or through the demons to which one surrenders. No one belongs to himself or herself. In various ways a person exists only in a participation to be discovered. It is not enough to demythologize texts with Bultmann. Before doing such, the world and human beings need to be demythologized, in, say, their self-mastery, their ideology, and the religious superstition to which they have surrendered. This takes place in the power of the gospel.” 109 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 22. 104 105

28

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

cosmology.”110 Each person “is both himself, and his world.”111 Drawing his work into sharp antithesis with existential individualism, Käsemann writes, Our soul and conscience may perhaps constitute a relationship to ourselves, but we stand bodily in a sphere which can by no means be summed up under the individual aspect. Ontological speculation [i.e., existentialism] cannot remove corporeality from the realm of nature. It is related, not to existence in isolation, but to the world in which forces and persons and things clash violently – a world of love and hate, blessing and curse, service and destruction … where nobody, fundamentally speaking, belongs to himself alone.112

To summarize, for Käsemann persons-embodied leads inevitably to personsembedded. Man is a being, therefore, whose “existence stems from outside himself.”113 Being determined is “a constitute part of his existence.”114 Käsemann, The Individual, and The Community How does Käsemann’s anthropological model impact the relationship between the individual and the community? On the one hand, cosmology could swallow up the individual entirely. This is, in fact, the case for humanity under the dominion of sin; “Paul is apparently able to disregard the human person when he speaks of the power of sin.”115 However, individuality is found in relation to Christ where it is given as a gift. Here, in the community of the Body of Christ, the “individual exists only in representation. His individuality is found in that he alone can become his particular representation of the Nazarene.”116 In Paul, the individual only appears “as the category of the believer.”117 Therefore, Käsemann’s individual is fundamentally relational. The Lordship of Christ and community of his Body become the arena where individuality is reconstituted, and persons exists in mutuality, or solidarity, with Christ and each other: The community of the church only exists in mutual representation, each [believer] in his own particular place, each with his own particular service, each with his own particular blessing…. [Even] nonconformists … are and remain useful members of the whole simply by virtue of their particular gifts and functions…. For [Paul], the “individual” is not the

Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 29; See also, Sarah Harding, Paul's Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 70. 111 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 24. 112 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 21. 113 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 28. 114 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 5. 115 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 28, explains, “Paul is apparently able to disregard the human person when he speaks of the power of sin which is in our members and which works through them.” 116 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 28, 30, 31. 117 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 31. 110

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

29

premise of an anthropological theory but the result of the grace which takes people into its service…. According to the apostle, individuation does not follow from already existing individualities; it is a crystallization of our calling, in which the point at issue is the universal lordship of Christ.118

Several aspects of Käsemann’s anthropology prove significant for the direction of this thesis. First, the human person is not constituted as self-in-relation-toitself but rather as self-in-relation-to-other(s). In light of his interpretation of σῶμα, situated within his cosmology, Käsemann offers a vision of humanity were communal realities are essential to existence: “Membership and participation,” Käsemann explains, “form the existential presupposition for the fact that we as believers can be incorporated into the kingdom of Christ.”119 Such anthropological ideas need to be further drawn out, which will be the focus of chapters 2 and 3 of this study. Second, the “how” of individuals-in-community points in the direction of Christology and ecclesiology in Käsemann. However, the “link” binding these realities together could be further explored. Käsemann’s comments do, however, point in the direction of asking what role the Spirit may play in generating and sustaining individuals-in-community. For example, he writes that the “body of Christ” is the location where “individuality” manifests via the “particular gifts and functions of members.”120 As 1 Cor 12:4–13 makes clear, such “gifts” and “functions” are “manifestations of the Spirit for the common good.”121 Based on Käsemann’s logic, “individuality” is in part constituted pneumatologically, as the Spirit creates relational networks between believers by “gifting” them for the sake of each other.122 In chapter 5 of this study we consider in detail how the Spirit actualizes individuals in the context of the Body of Christ.

Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 31. Ernst Käsemann, “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 114. 120 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 31, emphasis added. 121 E.g., in 1 Cor 12:7 Paul writes, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This underscores that the Spirit’s work in “gifting” directs individuality toward community, even “binds” them together, functionally. 122 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 100, also notices pneumatology at work at this point in Käsemann’s thought: “On the one hand, Käsemann does develop the importance of the individual in Paul, albeit not as innate or self-directing, but rather as given through the charismata of the Spirit: …For him the ‘individual’ is not the premise of an anthropological theory but the result of the grace which takes people into its service. It differentiates in the Christian community especially.” Eastman is referring in particular to Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 31. 118 119

30

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

Conclusion to Bultmann and Käsemann The work of Bultmann and Käsemann further demonstrates the significance of this question: how do relations affect persons in Paul’s thought? To risk an oversimplification, for Bultmann authentic existence is a matter of proper selfrelation, and therefore Paul’s anthropology emphasizes the individual qua individual. For Käsemann, however, authentic existence is a matter of the selfin-relation-to-other(s). The latter includes various cosmological forces yet is ultimately a matter of Lordship. Therefore, for Käsemann, Paul’s anthropology emphasizes the individual qua another; it is a form of relational anthropology. Key interpretive questions also surface in light of their work. How one interprets humanity as a creature and understands corporeality (i.e., the meaning of σῶμα) deeply influences how the individual situates in relation to the surrounding world. How one views cosmology in relation to the individual, likewise has wide ranging implications. Finally, whether an individual’s faith, or Christology and ecclesiology, play the decisive factor in constituting authentic existence, is tied up with how an exegete construes Paul’s anthropological assumptions. These interpretive questions shape our approach to RA in Paul in chapter 3. 1.5.3 Social-Scientific Approaches and Dyadic Persons Following the work of Bultmann and Käsemann, there are other areas within Pauline studies where the question of relations and the structure of human existence surface. The social-scientific approach to interpreting the NT is one such area. Applying models from Mediterranean anthropologists, Bruce Malina concludes that “the first-century Mediterranean person did not … comprehend our idea of an ‘individual’ at all.”123 Rather, the biblical world is indicative of a “collectivist society,” governed by values of “shame and honor”124 where an “individual” is better understood as a “dyadic person.”125 He explains, “Such 123 Bruce J. Malina, New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 66. Another scholar applying such models to the NT is Philip Esler, who makes points similar to Malina, writing, “Nowhere [are the dangers of anachronistic readings of the New Testament] more evident than in the predilection of European and US critics to discuss first-century texts in terms of individualism when that is a feature of modern Western culture largely from the period under discussion.” Philip F. Esler, The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994), 24. 124 Malina, New Testament World, 28–62. 125 Malina, New Testament World, 67. See also Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “First-Century Personality: Dyadic, Not Individual,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991): 67– 97.

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

31

individuals [dyadic persons] need others for any sort of meaningful existence, since the image such persons have of themselves has to be indistinguishable from the image held and presented to them by their significant others in the family, village, city, or nation.”126 The strength of Malina’s work, as was the case with Robinson’s, lies in highlighting the need for an anthropological explanation to the communal atmosphere surrounding “individuals” in ancient thought. Malina posits the idea of the “dyadic person,” which is at least a helpful corrective to readings of the NT that may have inadvertently read into those texts modern forms of individualisms. However, Malina’s work has been criticized for favoring the communal at the expense of the individual, which is often the case with works emphasizing “collectivist societies.”127 Moreover, Malina’s logic seems flawed when he claims that a pervasive “others consciousness” necessarily diminishes individuality. The modern individual, often obsessed with what others think, has no problem maintaining individuality.128 Finally, constrained by a purely social-scientific methodology, Malina does not explore the nature of what may link the individual and community beyond psychological and sociological explanations. Malina’s work does, however, shed light on a specific facet of personhood that relations may affect, namely, identity. Persons living in a shame and honor society suggest human identity is irreducibly relational. Wayne Meeks is another scholar applying social-scientific tools in his reading of Paul. In his well-known study The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, he seeks an “antidote … to the subjective individualism of existentialist hermeneutics.”129 A thoroughgoing concern for the internal life of Christian communities marks Paul’s work, Meeks suggests, and these communities fall into the sociologist’s category of “small groups/groups.”130 Marking the Pauline group is “an unusual degree of intimacy” and “internal cohesion,” which Meeks believes reconstitutes identity.131

Malina, New Testament World, 63. Dunson, Individual and Community, 5, notes that fading into the background in this context of collectivism are “issues of individual sin, justification and even ethics.” 128 N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 253, critiques Malina for too completely negating individual personality in the biblical world and does so by similarly pointing out the modern person’s tendency to care what others think, while developing his or her individuality. 129 Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 2. 130 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 74. 131 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 74. We return to Meeks’s analysis of identity visà-vis Pauline communities in chapter 5. 126 127

32

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

Most striking as it pertains to this study is Meeks’s portrayal of the dynamics surrounding the Christian “rite of initiation,” and how initiation impacted personhood through relationships. For example, the ritual of baptism was the new believer’s “initiation into the Christian fellowship,” it coincided with language of “adoption and sonship,” and conveyed they were “intimately incorporated into a new community.”132 This familial incorporation was not metaphorical, but an experienced reality. The “ecstatic response of the baptized person, ‘Abba! Father!,’”133 writes Meeks, is a manifestation of their new identity. He summarizes, Whatever else is involved, the image of the initiate being adopted as God’s child and thus receiving a new family of human brothers and sisters is a vivid way of portraying what a modern sociologist might call the resocialization of conversion. The natural kinship structure into which the person has been born and which previously defined his place and connections with the society are here supplanted by a new set of relationships.134

Meeks goes on to emphasize the role of the Spirit in effecting this “new set of relationships.” The experience of sonship is the Spirit’s way of conveying the reality of “sonship,” and “incorporates the person into the one Son of God.”135 Elsewhere, Meeks describes this new relational bond as “an ‘objective’ change in reality that fundamentally modifies social roles.”136 The work of Malina and Meeks represents a social-scientific approach to the question of how the individual and community interrelate in the Mediterranean world. Their work also demonstrates that at play in such a question are anthropological assumptions: if personhood is inherently communal, then, according to Malina, we must speak of “dyadic persons,” not individuals. Meeks speaks of a “kinship structure into which a person is born” that is “supplanted by a new set of relationships.”137 This suggests some type of anthropological model whereby persons are never outside of a relational network, either a “kinship structure” at birth, or a Christian community through conversion-initiation. Meeks in particular uses the language of “relationships” in describing how this new identity is constructed. He also draws upon the work of the Spirit. 1.5.4. The Individual in Communal and Apocalyptic In his 1963 article, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” Krister Stendhal criticizes decades (even centuries) of Protestant Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88. 134 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88. Emphasis added. 135 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88. 136 Wayne Meeks, “Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” HR 13, no. 3 (1974): 182. 137 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88. 132 133

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

33

Christianity for anachronistically reading individualism into Paul’s letters.138 Paul’s idea of sin and salvation had been filtered through “Luther’s troubled conscience.”139 Paul’s letters, therefore, became reflections not on communal ideas, but on “human consciousness.”140 Such critiques became indicative of a rising tension between individualistic or forensic construals of Paul’s theology and more participatory or communal understandings. W. D. Davies, for example, explains, “Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith was not solely and not primarily orientated toward the individual but to the interpretation of the people of God. The justified man was ‘in Christ,’ which is a communal concept.”141 On the other hand, some insist salvation is worked out in the individual. In Paul and the Salvation of the Individual, Gary Burnett argues, “Paul saw clearly that God’s purposes were worked out, fundamentally, with individual selves.”142 Simon Gathercole similarly concludes, “The doctrine of justification in Paul is quite individualistic.”143 Operative in these conversations, though often not addressed directly, are assumptions about the nature of human beings. The question of the communal nature of human beings also surfaces in readings of Paul emphasizing an apocalyptic framework. Markus Barth sees Paul’s understanding of justification as a “social event” that “ties man to man Stendahl, “Introspective Conscience.” Stendahl, “Introspective Conscience,” 200–201. 140 Stendahl, “Introspective Conscience,” 200–201. 141 W. D. Davies, “Paul: From the Jewish Point of View,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davies, John Sturdy and William Horbury (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1999), 3:716, emphasis added. Others emphasizing the communal nature of Paul’s soteriology include Richard Hays, “Abraham as Father of Jews and Gentiles,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 69, who suggests that the fundamental problem with which Paul wrestles “is not how a person may find acceptance with God” but how “to work out an understanding of the relationship in Christ between Jews and Gentiles.” Regarding NT ethics, Hays, “Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians,” Ex Auditu 10 (1994), also writes, “[T]he primary sphere of moral concern is not the character of the individual, but the corporate obedience of the Church” (p. 33). Nuance is needed, however, as many thinkers within the New Perspective do not entirely eliminate the individual; e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patters of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 547, comments, “[B]oth Judaism and Paul take full account of the individual and the group.” 142 G. W. Burnett, Paul and the Salvation of the Individual (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 229. 143 Simon Gathercole, “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 240, emphasis added. Tom Schreiner is another Pauline scholar who argues against the diminishment of the individual in Paul’s soteriology. Reacting to Sander’s “solution and plight” framework, Schreiner writes, “We cannot dispense with the anthropological critique [i.e., individuals cannot keep the Law] that informs Paul’s writing relative to the law.” Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 119. 138 139

34

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

together”; in other words, he takes a predominantly “communal” reading of how salvation functions.144 J. L. Martyn explains, Paul “is concerned to offer an interpretation of Jesus’ death that is oriented not toward personal guilt and forgiveness, but rather toward corporate enslavement and liberation.”145 Apocalyptic readings of Paul do not necessarily dissolve individuality, however. Käsemann, as was noted, while positing that individuality can be lost under the dominion of sin, held that individuality, rightly understood, was bestowed under the Lordship of Christ. “The individual,” is “the result of the grace which takes people into its service…. [Individuality] is a crystallization of our calling, in which the point at issue is the universal lordship of Christ.”146 Apocalyptic readings have drawn attention to the cosmic and eschatological atmosphere that, at least partially, determines existence according to Paul.147 The topics of soteriology, justification, and apocalypticism lie outside the scope of this study. They are mentioned in passing because they, too, witness to the relevance of RA. For example, it has been suggested that debates about individualistic and communal readings of justification may be predicated on a truncated anthropology. Susan Eastman wonders if “the key [to understanding the] relationship between the forensic and participatory strands of Paul’s thought … which are often wrongly opposed in Pauline scholarship, is the thoroughly participatory quality of both Paul’s anthropology and his Christology.”148 The same may be true in regard to how the individual situates within Paul’s cosmology. Käsemann’s view that Lordship defines the individual need not eviscerate personhood altogether, if in fact to be human is to exist in relation to another. Therefore, while not dealing with these broader theological topics, this study relates to them by dealing with the anthropological assumptions underlying them. When individuality collides with cosmology, or personal agency with notions of participation, it may be the case that anthropology is the key to avoiding a false antithesis between the individual and community. 144 Marcus Barth, “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul,” JES 5 (1968): 241–67. 145 J. L. Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 10, emphasis added. 146 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 31. 147 E.g., Martyn, Galatians, 105, holds, “It is this apocalyptic vision [i.e., God invading the cosmos to defeat powers and liberate humans], then, that has given Paul his perception of the nature of the human plight.” 148 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 105. See also the comment of John L. Meech, Paul in Israel’s Story: Self and Community at the Cross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4, who writes, “[The] tenor of the question as to whether ‘righteousness’ refers first and foremost to the self or to the community shifts when the self and community are at stake in the same ontology.”

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

35

1.5.5. Aaron Son and Corporate Anthropology One of the first studies to address directly and systematically whether Paul’s anthropology is inherently corporate is Aaron Son’s 2001 monograph, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology.149 Son states at the outset that “the individual and the corporate dimensions of Pauline anthropology” are key issues for understanding his doctrine of humanity, though under attended to.150 He addresses the topic by considering five “elements” in Paul suggesting fluidity between individual and corporate realities: the “in Christ” formula, Adam-Christ typology, the church as the body of Christ, the church as temple, house, or building of God, and the nature of the “one flesh” union as it pertains to Christ and the church/individual believer. The underlying question throughout asks whether or not these corporate realities are mere metaphors, or indicative of some type of communal existence. Son first attends to the participatory nature of Paul’s language in turning to the “in Christ” formula – an aspect of the apostle’s thought this study considers in detail in chapter 3. He concludes that when used in the “locative” sense, “it is not only an individual believer who exists and does certain things in Christ, but believers as a whole also exists and do certain things in Christ.”151 Aware of the various “meanings” of ἐν Χριστῷ,152 Son sees the most likely reading in many texts as “the believer’s existence in the corporate Christ.”153 This conclusion is rooted, however, not only in his reading of ἐν Χριστῷ but also in his understanding of Paul’s Adam-Christ typology. In the latter, Son sees “a basic exegetical key” and “fundamental substructure” to Paul’s thought.154 Son argues that for Paul, Adam and Christ are representative figures that mark the inauguration of two humanities and two creations, determining the destiny and mode of existence of their respective humanities.155 Based on his reading of Rom 5:12–21, Son sees individual existence to be in “some kind of solidarity relationship” with these two representative heads.156 In considering the background to Paul’s notion of “solidarity” with a Son, Corporate Elements. Son, Corporate Elements, 1. Son points out that within Pauline anthropology the “critical issues have been exposed in the monism-dualism debate, [however] this is not the case with the individual-corporate question” (p. 2). 151 Son, Corporate Elements, 16. As an example, Son points out that in Gal 1:22 Paul writes, “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ (ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ).” He also notes 1 Thess 1:1; 2:14; and 2 Thess 1:1. 152 Son, Corporate Elements, 26, refers to Deismann’s interpretation as “being in the Spirit,” Ziesler’s as “being in Christ’s sphere of power,” and Käsemann’s view that the phrase means “being in the Church.” 153 Son, Corporate Elements, 27. 154 Son, Corporate Elements, 58–9. 155 Son, Corporate Elements, 62, 63, 64. 156 Son, Corporate Elements, 64–65 149 150

36

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

representative “Adam-type,” Son rules against the so-called Gnostic “Primal Man” myth in favor of an Old Testament and Early Jewish notion of corporate personality.157 Adding to this idea of solidarity with a “representative person” is Son’s reading of Paul’s notion of the “body of Christ.” Here he understands more than a metaphor, but a reality. The following comments from Son regarding the “body of Christ” capture his conclusions regarding Paul’s corporate language and its bearing on Pauline anthropology: Paul’s designation of the church as the body of Christ seems more than a mere metaphor…. It involves an ontological reality…. One of the most significant characteristics of Paul’s conception of the corporate solidarity of man is its realistic nature. When he speaks of the solidarity of man either with Adam or with Christ (Rom 5:12–21), he does not refer to a solidarity in a juridical or metaphorical sense.158

Paul’s corporate language, in Son’s view, is not metaphorical. The strength of Son’s work lies in his methodology and thoroughness. His study employs historical exegesis, considers both the Hellenistic and Jewish background, and his conclusions are derived from an inductive approach. Son also considers several areas of Paul’s thought, offering a cohesive view of anthropological assumptions that seem to underlie the apostle’s thinking. His conclusion that Paul’s thought evidences a type of solidarity – between the believer and God, and the believer and other believers – that is real versus merely metaphorical, arises directly from his reading of texts. Son’s insight that one paradigm in Paul (i.e., “in Christ”) may be better understood in light of another paradigm (i.e., Paul’s Adam-Christ typology, or nuptial imagery) is also praiseworthy. Below this study will follow Son’s method in asking how one aspect of Paul’s incorporative language sheds light on others. A weakness of Son’s approach, however, is that he never pursues the deeper anthropological reality to which his work points – the so-called “ontological reality” to which corporate anthropology points.159 In his review of Son’s monograph, C. F. D. Moule notes this limitation: Terms such as “ontological reality,” “really and ontologically,” in “a realistic sense” run like a refrain through the study; but where are we when “… this corporate body may not be physical in nature if one defines the term ‘physical’ strictly as the visual [sic], material substance; nevertheless, it is an ontological reality as real as the physical body” (p. 111)?160

Son, Corporate Elements, 81–82. Son, Corporate Elements, 101. 159 Son, Corporate Elements, 101. 160 C. F. D. Moule, review of Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Selected Study of Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in Light of Paul's Usage and Background, by SangWon (Aaron) Son, JTS 53.2 (2002): 658. 157 158

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

37

Moule finds Son running into a conceptual obstacle: how to explain the “reality” of Paul’s incorporative thought. It seems that one way to approach the apparent conceptual problem created by “corporate anthropology” is to be wary of possible anthropological assumptions modern readers may bring to the text. Perhaps Son, inadvertently, is trying to reconcile a more “substanceontological construction” of human existence with the participatory nature of Paul’s view of humankind. However, as will be posited in chapter 2, it may be the case that Paul’s doctrine of humanity is more porous and relational than otherwise perceived. Son’s study, therefore, not only demonstrates important areas of Paul’s thought to consider when asking how individual and corporate realities interrelate. It also demonstrates the need to attend to anthropological assumptions and to ask more carefully how personhood may be constructed through relations. 1.5.6. Ben Blackwell, Christosis, and Participatory Relationships Another recent study approaching the question of how the Pauline individual (anthropology) is shaped by the presence of another is Ben C. Blackwell’s, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria. Demonstrating the relevance of reception history for illuminating New Testament thought, Blackwell brings patristic theologians into conversation with Paul around the topic of “Christosis.” For Blackwell, Christosis is a properly Christo-form explanation of theosis, or deification.161 The concept is meant to capture the participatory nature of Christian formation, whereby the believer is (re-)made into the likeness or image of Christ (God) through “participatory relationships.”162 In his assessment of Irenaeus and

161 Blackwell, Christosis, 104–05, carefully explains that neither the notion of deification in Irenaeus and Cyril, nor what he is proposing in Paul, blurs the lines between Creator and creature. In other words, the believer does not become “divine,” but rather, through participation, “shares in particular divine attributes,” most notably (incorruptible) life and glory. Mathias Nygaard, “Romans 8–Interchange Leading to Deification,” HBT 39 (2017): 156–175, 162–63, organizes understandings of deification contemporary to Paul into four categories, (1) political-cultic, (2) essentialism/ontological affinity, (3) transformational, and (4) intermediary figures.” Like Blackwell, Nygaard finds that in Paul “an essential ontological affinity to the divine is wholly unfitting” (173), but notes “it could be argued that Paul has a version of transformational deification…. It is clear that through the Spirit, believers are being changed into other persons” (174). We see merit in Nygaard’s thesis, however hold that deification over-focuses on the state of the individual, even if that individual’s state is tied to the activity of God. The relational anthropological model allows for transformation, but conceptually keeps the relationship to God in view whenever talking about the individual. 162 Blackwell, Christosis, 106.

38

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

Cyril, Blackwell summarizes, “We can easily describe the soteriological transformation of both as arising from relational participation.”163 Blackwell’s study of Cyril’s and Irenaeus’s reading of Paul shapes four questions he then poses in his investigation of the apostle: (1) What is the anthropological shape of Paul’s soteriology? (2) When do these soteriological changes occur? (3) How does the soteriological change of the human condition occur? (4) How does Paul relate this soteriological change to creation themes – in terms of continuity and discontinuity?164 Blackwell looks for answers to these questions mainly in Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 3–5, though offering excursuses into other Pauline texts along the way. Most relevant for this study is Blackwell’s reading of Romans (especially Romans 8) in terms of how that texts helps him answer questions 1–3. Paul’s anthropology is fundamentally relational, according to Blackwell, and therefore the “anthropological shape of Paul’s soteriology” is likewise relational (question 1).165 While the relationship with God is most central, other relational factors, evident throughout Romans 5–8, impact the breakdown of human life: “Personalized agents of Sin, Death and the Flesh facilitate this breakdown.”166 The solution to this relational fracturing is “relational and personal restoration,” which is enacted as God through Christ and the Spirit restores “inter- and intra-personal harmony.”167 When and how does this soteriological change occur (questions 2 and 3)? Blackwell points to “participatory relationships”168 as the means of transformation,169 and answers the question of when through Paul’s present/future eschatology. The full experience of “Christosis,” in terms of

163 Blackwell, Christosis, 106. Blackwell, 111, summarizes his study of Irenaeus further, writing, “Though Irenaeus describes his soteriology in several ways, he primarily uses three relational models – adoption, vision of od, and union with God.” 164 Blackwell, Christosis, 112. 165 Blackwell, Christosis, 168, explains that according to Romans, “Paul presents the fundamental human plight as a breakdown in their relationship with God.” 166 Blackwell, Christosis, 168. 167 Blackwell, Christosis, 169. 168 Blackwell, Christosis, 135, writes, “As the means to enjoying the benefits of Christ and the Spirit, Paul uses a variety of overlapping phrases to describe the participatory relationship.” 169 Blackwell, Christosis, 148, emphasizes the importance of adoption here (e.g., Rom 8:14–17 and Gal 4:6), but also notes the overlapping-varieties of ways Paul conveys this relational reality: “The variety and the reciprocal nature of the phrases show that the relationships are deeper and more complex than any one phrase can describe. Being ἐν Χριστῷ seems to be equivalent to being ἐν πνεῦματι and living κατὰ πνεῦμα…. Not only do believers now exists in the sphere of Christ and the Spirit, Christ and the Spirit reside personally within each believer. The result of this self-communication to believers is that they experience their attributes – particularly, that of life” (135).

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

39

(somatic) incorruptibility, awaits the resurrection. However, in the present the Spirit provides “moral enablement” and “noetic” enlightenment.170 This study will agree in large measure with Blackwell’s general assessment of Paul’s anthropology and his reading of Romans 8: human existence is structured by relationships and Christ and the Spirit facilitate participatory relationships integral to human restoration. Our reading of the flow of Romans 1–8 will also prove similar, emphasizing that life juxtaposed with death is the driving theme of chapters 5–8.171 Like Blackwell, our study of Romans 8, rooted in our relational anthropological model, will argue against an overlybifurcated view of forensic and participatory aspects of Paul’s soteriology.172 However, while agreeing with Blackwell’s interpretation of Paul’s anthropology in light of his soteriology, as well as how this is derived from Romans (1–) 8, this study’s approach is unique in two ways. First, this study will argue that relationships play a primary, not only secondary, role in anthropological structure and transformation. While Blackwell notes that anthropological transformation toward Christ-likeness happens “through … relationship with divine agents,”173 he does not so much focus on how these relationships themselves transform the person (a primary role). Rather, emphasis lies on how the power (divine attributes) conveyed through the relationships comes to transform the person (a secondary role). He explains, Through their relationship with divine agents believers are formed in such a way that they take on divine characteristics, of which life and glory are primary. The Son of God and the Spirit of God mediate the life and glory of God to believers. ‘The Spirit of life … grants that life to believers somatically (8.11, passim) but also noetically (8.6) and ethically (8.12– 13).174

Blackwell, Christosis, 173, finds in Romans 8, “‘The Spirit of life’ … grants that life to believers somatically (8.11, passim) but also noetically (8.6) and ethically (8.12–13).” And, (169), “the moral enablement granted by the Spirit is a current experience of believers.” 171 Blackwell, Christosis, 88. 172 Blackwell, Christosis, 171, argues, “Some (e.g., Schweitzer and Wrede and more recently Campbell) draw a stark distinction between a forensic-only justification, which addresses the problem of condemnation and an apocalyptic participation which addresses the problem of death, and promote the latter. However, Romans 8, Galatians 3–4, and Colossians 2 subvert this proposed division.” 173 Blackwell, Christosis, 173. 174 Blackwell, Christosis, 173, emphasis added. Later, Blackwell shows just how close the role of the participatory relationships and divine attributes are in terms of transformation, however it still seems that, ultimately, it is the divine attributes that do the transforming: “If the experience of the divine attributes is always dependent upon participation in Christ through the Spirit, there is never a time when a believer creates their own life, glory, or righteousness as if they were simply an independent agent apart from God. All these divine attributes are experienced because the gift is only accessed through participation in the Giver” (268). 170

40

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

The Son of God and Spirit “mediate the life and glory”175 that transform believers. According to this logic it is the divine attributes of life and glory that do the transforming and reshaping, not the relationships themselves. The relationships are the channel through which the transforming agents flow. This study, while not disagreeing with Blackwell’s reading, will analyze how the relationships themselves are also a primary means of anthropological transformation and restructuring. Second, this study will take time to develop a relational model of human existence, which will then allow for a closer examination of how relationships form a primary aspect of personhood. This relational model will allow the study to more carefully probe aspects of personhood affected by relationships of participation (as Blackwell calls them). In summary, Blackwell’s treatment of Christosis in Paul supports the general thesis of this study: that human existence is shaped by relationships, and the work of the Spirit, especially as shown in Romans 8, is a key to how such relational-existence is restored. 1.5.7. Ben Dunson and the Individual-in-Community A third recent study that attends specifically to the question of the individual in relation to the other is Ben Dunson’s 2012 monograph, Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.176 Dunson situates his thesis within the debate between “the classically Lutheran” reading of Paul’s letters – focused as it was on the individual – and a “seismic shift” toward communal readings of the apostle.177 He sees a false antithesis developing in this debate, which he counters: “The individual and the community belong together in Paul’s theology; there is no Pauline individual outside of community, just as there is no community without individuals at the heart of its ongoing life.”178 Blackwell, Christosis, 173. Dunson, Individual and Community. 177 Dunson, Individual and Community, 1, explains that traditionally Paul’s letters “have been read as directed, if not exclusively, at least primarily at the individual and the individuals’ salvation and moral life. A new consensus … has been developing among Pauline scholars that understands the apostle as a communal thinker who has little concern for the fate of individuals, who by and large does not even have a conception of the individual at all.” Dunson goes on to point out this shift away from individualistic readings by noting Pauline studies in the various areas of apocalyptic, the New Perspective, and social scientific readings. 178 Dunson, Individual and Community, 1, 3. Dunson concludes his work by suggesting that it helps navigate three possible errors of interpretation: “1) that of seeing the redeemed individual as nothing but an isolated individual, and redemption as nothing but a transformation of inner piety, 2) that of seeing the individual in abstraction from the cultivation of love and peace within the life of the believing community and 3) that of dismissing the importance of the individual and individual spiritual enabling within the church’s continuing life together. Put positively, it has become clear that the Pauline 175 176

1.5. Situating the Study within the Relevant History

41

The exegetical bulk of Dunson’s study is an analysis of Romans that seeks a middle way between Bultmann’s and Käsemann’s construal of Paul’s anthropology.179 Analyzing Romans 1–8, Dunson develops an eight-part typology of the individual, demonstrating that the individual is essential to Paul’s theology. Then, in Romans 12–15 he demonstrates that the community is also essential. Moreover, he says the two elements interrelate: “Although there are many ways in which Paul integrates individuals into his argument, with each of them the communal coloring of his theology is evident.”180 Two particularly significant “types” of individuals Dunson sees in Paul are the “representative individual” and “somatic individual.” The former, emerging from Rom 5:12–21, are “those whose actions determine the destiny of those whom they represent.”181 The latter involves how the individual is incorporated into community. “Vitally important,” Dunson explains, “for understanding how Paul sees the individual incorporated into community is the somatic individual of Romans 12.”182 Both the representative- and somaticindividual suggests a type of existence whereby “being” is determined in relation to another. Also significant is Dunson’s comment regarding the role of the Spirit. While the Spirit does not factor majorly in his study, he admits, “a full articulation of Paul’s theology of individuals and community” would require “further work relating Paul’s Christology and pneumatology to his understanding of

individual – a vital and complex category in Romans – is necessarily an individual-incommunity” (p. 176). Emphasis original. 179 Dunson, Individual and Community, 18–19, summarizes his critique of Bultmann and Käsemann, writing, “Käsemann constructs a misleading … antithesis between the individual and the community in Paul in only partially justified opposition to Bultmann…. Bultmann’s insistence on the importance of the Pauline individual – while salutary in many respects – is limited mostly to a single construction of the individual, and thus inadequately captures the fullness of Paul’s talk of individuals.” This thesis has also considered the work of Bultmann and Käsemann; however, it has looked less at how these authors consider specifically, “the individual,” on the one hand, and then the “communal/cosmic,” on the other. Rather, it has asked how their construals of Paul’s anthropology lead to a view of humankind that is either closed, or open, to the other. 180 Dunson, Individual and Community, 109. Dunson goes on in this paragraph, stating, “That is to say, there is no isolated individual in Paul; there is no ‘individual qua individual,’ at least as far as Paul’s view of the redeemed individual is concerned. Instead, Paul conceives of the individual within a communal framework. Therefore, at points in this chapter I will attempt to show not only how pervasive and central the category of the individual is in Paul’s theology, but also how communal concerns necessarily shape Paul’s understanding of the individual.” 181 Dunson, Individual and Community, 147. 182 Dunson, Individual and Community, 147.

42

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

individuals in community.”183 As such, this study’s attention to the pneumatological aspect of individuals-in-relation-to-others builds from Dunson’s thesis in a unique way. The strengths of Dunson’s work are many. He offers the best overview of the individual-in-relation-to-the-communal debate in Pauline studies to date.184 By restricting his analysis to Romans he allows for a systematic and penetrating study of one instance of Paul’s thought. His typology of the individual is likewise innovative and creative, and helpfully points out the need to resist a “generic” reading of the “individual” in Paul. Dunson’s typology of the individual in many ways inspires this study’s more careful consideration of types of relations below, as well as its more specific analysis of aspects of personhood. Dunson’s conclusion, finally, that “the Pauline individual … is necessarily an individual-in-community,”185 becomes convincing as his detailed analysis of Romans unfolds.186 There are two areas of Dunson’s work, however, that call for further analysis. First, Dunson seems to be most interested in the question of if the individual and community coexist in Paul – a point he proves. However, this study is more interested in how the individual and community coexist. For example, Dunson’s idea of the somatic individual embedded in community receives only five pages of examination in the work. It is with this category, however, that Paul’s anthropological assumptions appear most contrary to modern conceptions. How is it that the Christ-believer only exists in relation to Christ and his body (other believers)? This study builds from Dunson in 183 Nearing the conclusion of his study, Dunson, Individual and Community, 180 n. 3, writes, a “full articulation of Paul’s theology of individuals and community” would require “further work relating Paul’s Christology and pneumatology to his understanding of individuals in community.” Emphasis added. This study focuses on the pneumatological aspect, which clearly overlaps with the Christological. 184 Along with his monograph, see his article, Dunson, “The Individual and Community in Twentieth- and Twenty-first-Century Pauline Scholarship,” 63–97. 185 Dunson, Individual and Community, 176, emphasis original. 186 Dunson, Individual and Community, 146, for example, explains how the communal and individual hold together in Romans 1–4, writing, “I have also noted several ways in which the various individual types must be understood as communally shaped, or ways in which they help define the nature of community in Pauline thought. For example, although Abraham’s importance lies chiefly in the exemplary pattern he establishes for future believers, his role as patriarch and forefather of Israel serves an important function in Romans 4 with regard to the shape of the new-creational people of God. Likewise, the interplay of the generic and characteristic individuals in Romans 2–3 has much to say about the nature of Pauline community, both positively in the centrality attached to faith with regard to the formation of that community and negatively in the way it radically relatives the Jew-Gentile distinction. As important as all of these communal dimensions are, however, the communal location of the Pauline individual becomes much more pronounced as Romans progresses….”

1.6. Conclusions from Literature Review

43

asking the “how” of individuals-in-community, and from the anthropological side of the equation. A second area requiring more analysis Dunson himself highlighted, pneumatology. Especially evident in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12 – texts considered below – not only are individuals constituted in relation to others, but the work of the Spirit is integral to the process. Thus, this thesis builds from Dunson’s work, attending more carefully to how communal elements constitute the individual and probing the role of the Spirit in such.

1.6. Conclusions from Literature Review 1.6. Conclusions from Literature Review

The works of Robinson, Bultmann, Käsemann, Malina, Meeks, Son, Blackwell, Dunson, as well as several other areas of Pauline research, all point toward the relevance of this thesis’s driving question: how do relations affect persons in Paul? Though conceived in various ways, there is a need to better grasp how the individual interrelates with communal and cosmic realities. Though none of the above studies employed the term “relational anthropology,” their work points in the direction of an anthropological model where “relatedness” may be integral to human existence. This somewhat eclectic review of literature has served two purposes: first, it demonstrated that how one conceives of anthropology impacts how they understand individual and communal elements interrelating. This was the case across biblical studies, and especially in Paul. Second, it surfaced several areas requiring further exploration. First, attending to how individual and communal (cosmic/corporate) realties interrelate in Paul requires probing his anthropological assumptions. It is not enough to merely point out that both individual and communal elements coexist; one needs to ask what type of anthropological model undergirds the pervasively participatory nature of Paul’s theology. As such, chapter 2 of this study examines anthropological models that posit a relational structure to human existence. This in turn prepares the way for developing such a model based on exegesis of Paul in chapter 3. Second, this overview of literature highlighted a need to consider the “bond” that links the individual and community/corporate realities. Above, what “bonded” the individual to communal- or cosmic-realities was variously construed as “transference of guilt” (Robinson), “solidarity,” (Käsemann), “dyadic personality” (Malina), “resocialization through group dynamics” (Meeks), “ontological reality” (Son), “participatory relationships” (Blackwell), and the “somatic individual” (Dunson). Each of these ideas is an attempt to explain a phenomenon: persons are not themselves by themselves, but inherently bonded to another. What this study proposes is that a more carefully defined concept of “relation/relationship” (defined in more detail in chapters 2

44

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

and 3) offers a way to shed light onto how a person is constituted and impacted by that which is outside him or her. Third, while most of these studies point in the direction of persons being constituted, at least in part, by external factors, rarely do they offer a penetrating or organized assessment of how this happens from the anthropological vantage point. For example, Käsemann suggests that Lordship determines the Pauline person and individuates.187 However, Käsemann does not probe how Lordship constitutes individuals. Is it by a bestowal of identity, e.g., a once generic being is now her Lord’s subject? Or, is individuation constituted by agency, e.g., Christ as Lord liberates the will from bondage to sin (no agency) and gives it the ability to obey a new Lord (bonded agency)? Another example of this lack of specificity is Son’s work. There, the corporate aspect of personhood is forcefully argued, but the only explanation for how individuals are constituted within corporate spheres is to say this is an “ontological reality.”188 There is no analysis, however, of how personhood is constituted by the group. The works of Meeks and Malina come somewhat closer to offering a more specific explanation for how persons are constituted by external phenomena. In differing ways, both authors suggest a person’s identity is constituted through social spheres. This study suggests, however, that thus far no analysis of the so-called communal side of Pauline anthropology has first offered a detailed definition of the Pauline person. As such, how these external or social factors actually affect personhood is less than specific. As already noted, this study addresses this lack of specificity by developing a model of the Pauline person that highlights three aspects integral to personhood: identity, agency, and the heart. This in turn allows for sharpened analysis of how relations affect personhood. Fourth, some of the above works alluded to the role of the Spirit in effecting a bond between the individual and another. Robinson’s idea of corporate personality eventually noted the role of the Spirit in fostering the bonds of the new covenant, especially when it considered the Pauline community in light of 1 Cor 12:12–13.189 The Spirit, however, does not factor prominently in Robinson’s overall explanation of corporate personality. Malina says nothing of the Spirit, as his method restricts analysis to social-scientific explanation. Meeks, on the other hand, draws attention to the Spirit’s importance by

Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 31. Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, 186. He also writes, “The basic concept that Paul advocates here is that the sexual relationship with a prostitute creates a real and ontological union with her, a union that conflicts with the union that the believer has with Christ” (p. 148). 189 Robinson, Corporate Personality, 58. 187 188

1.6. Conclusions from Literature Review

45

highlighting the Spirit-wrought cry of sonship in Gal 3:26–28 and Rom 8:14– 17 and suggesting this effectuates a new familial identity.190 Bultmann notes that “‘the inner man’ of II Cor. 4:16 is the self transformed by the Spirit ([2 Cor] 3:18),” but, as was seen above, Bultmann’s anthropology is fundamentally concerned with the individual qua individual. Käsemann focuses predominately on the individual in light of Paul’s cosmology and Christology, however, alludes to the role of the Spirit in certain communal contexts. However, Käsemann’s pneumatology leans toward a material view of the Spirit, and therefore the “bonding” mechanism of Spirit is more through shared substance than Spirit-shaped relationships: e.g., Käsemann understands the Spirit to be administered through the sacraments in his reading of 1 Cor 12:13, explaining, “im Sakrament ein Kraftstrom stofflich in den Menschen dringt.”191 For Blackwell the Spirit is integral to linking the individual to Christ and God, with emphasis on the divine attributes conveyed to the believer by the Spirit.192 Of the above studies, it is Dunson who makes the most explicit connection between the notion of RA and the role of the Spirit, however in doing so only underscores the need for further analysis: “a full articulation of Paul’s theology of individuals and community” would require “further work relating Paul’s … pneumatology to his understanding of individuals in community.”193 This study argues that the Spirit plays an integral role in fostering and sustaining relationships between the believer and Christ, God and other believers. These relationships, in turn, are what bond the individual and community together, and serve as the location whereby personhood is reconstituted. This pneumatological angle is the focus of Part 2 of the study.

Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 88, explains, “When Paul in Galatians 3:26–4:6 (cf. Rom. 8:15–17) uses the metaphor of adoption to describe initiation into the Christian fellowship, he is evidently drawing on common baptismal language. The ritual symbolizes ‘putting on Christ,’ who is the ‘new human’ and ‘the Son of God.’ The ecstatic response of the baptized person, ‘Abba! Father!” is at the same time a sign of the gift of the Spirit and of the ‘sonship’ … that the Spirit conveys by incorporating the person into the one Son of God.” 191 Ernst Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi: Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit, BHT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Seibeck, 1933), 125. Rabens, Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 9, however, points out a development in Käsemann’s later work, where the Spirit takes on a more “personal nature” and works by bringing the presence of God to the believer: “the [earlier] emphasis on ‘material spirit’ disappears behind another emphasis in the latter Käsemann … he maintains that for Paul the Sacramental Spirit is not some substance which enters a person in an impersonal manner. Rather, this gift brings with it its Giver.” 192 Blackwell, Christosis, 173, “… Christ and the Spirit of God mediate the life and glory of God to believers.” 193 Dunson, Individual and Community, 180 n. 3. 190

46

Chapter 1: Situating the Study

1.7. Methodology 1.7. Methodology

Before moving forward, a brief explanation of this study’s methodology is offered. The foundation of this study is historical exegesis, i.e., analysis of Paul’s thought in terms of its historical and literary context.194 Of primary importance, therefore, is ascertaining authorial intent and understanding texts in light of historical, social, and grammatical matters.195 In chapters 2 and 3, when a model of the Pauline person is considered (ch. 2) and types of relations in Paul examined (ch. 3), the approach attempts to be as inductive as possible. It is recognized, however, that all studies are limited in scope and involve some level of selectivity – and in this sense subjectivity. As such, when probing relations in Paul, this study limits analysis to the five aforementioned areas: (1) creature in relation to Creator, (2) corporeal existence and embeddedness, (3) man and woman in relation to sinister powers, (4) the believer and Christrelatedness (i.e., union with Christ), and (5) the believer in relation to other believers. These categories were not chosen arbitrarily, however, but emerged during the above review of literature and will be shown in ensuing chapters as factoring significantly in assessing Paul’s anthropology vis-à-vis the individual-community conversation. In chapters 4 and 5 the method of historical and exegetical analysis focuses on two texts in particular, Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12. An added area of investigation in these chapters is pneumatology, which this study situates in light of Jewish eschatological expectations.196 Finally, an explanation is needed for how this study approaches “anthropological assumptions” in Paul. By this phrase (anthropological assumptions), this study indicates an interest in the underlying ontology of The exegetical analysis of this study pays careful attention to the Jewish background to Paul’s thought. It assumes, however, a blended aspect to the Judaism of Paul’s day, whereby the impact of Hellenism was felt even within Jewish thinking (i.e., Philo). For the Jewish background of Paul’s thought as integral, yet necessarily part of a “Hellenized” milieu, this study follows the work of Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974). 195 This study’s interpretive approach follows closely the work of Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011), where the authors advocate for holding history, theology, and literature together in interpretation. Our insistence that authorial intent is essential to a text’s meaning is based on the work E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). Also N. T. Wright’s articulation of “critical realism” is indicative of the ideological principles governing this study’s approach to history; see N. T. Wright, New Testament and The People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 1–138. 196 Our approach to Paul’s pneumatology and its context is explained in the introduction to Part 2. 194

1.7. Methodology

47

Paul’s view of being human. However, Paul is not a philosopher and does not offer his readers an account of his ontological assumptions. However, as Rehfeld notes, while Paul is not “interested in a particular ontology,” he is concerned with its “effect (Wirkung).”197 Therefore, while Paul may not reflect abstractly about what constitutes persons, his letters witness to a functional reality whereby relations appear to impact human existence. In Rehfeld’s view, “ontic effectiveness of relationships (die ontischen Wirksamkeit von Beziehungen)”198 is evident across Paul’s thought: i.e., human beings are who they are in relation to God, Christ, and other believers. Moreover, the effect of these relationships upon life lies at the heart of Paul’s thought and missionary effort.199 Therefore, this study focuses upon functional realities in Paul’s presentation of human existence. The study then postulates about what type of anthropological assumptions (what ontology) makes sense of such functionality. A major aspect of the ensuing chapter (ch. 2), where the concept of RA is examined, is a further explanation of this study’s methodological approach to Paul’s anthropology. There it will become clearer how the model of RA is understood across disciplines and how it has been employed in exegetical analysis of Paul’s doctrine of humanity

Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 44, writes that in Paul “there is no (explicit) thinking about ontology as a ‘condition of possibility’ of being.” 198 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 44. 199 I.e., the creature’s relation to Creator (Rom 1:18–25); the believer reconciled to God (Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:18–20); the believer exists “in Christ” (Rom 6:1–11; 8:1; 2 Cor 5:17; etc.); and the believer is one body with other believers (Rom 12:3–5; 1 Cor 12:1ff.). More will be said on “relatedness” and Paul’s view of human existence below. 197

Chapter 2

A Turn to Relational Anthropology Chapter 1 referenced Dunn’s claim that in Paul persons are defined by relations.1 It was recognized that such a notion, relations define persons, sits amid a broader conversation in Pauline theology, namely, debates about how the individual interrelates with communal and cosmic dynamics. Literature involving that broader theme was reviewed, highlighting a need to address the individual-in-relation-to-community question from the anthropological side. What model of humankind makes sense of the pervasively communal and participatory atmosphere surrounding Paul’s doctrine of humanity? That review of literature also made clear that although some studies have directly approached the communal nature of Paul’s anthropology, there is a need to probe not just if, but more specifically how, external factors impact personhood. Yet another feature of that review of literature was a surprising dearth of references to the concept of “relation(ship)s” to explain how the individual and community are linked in Paul. Outside of Dunn’s usage of “relation” and Blackwell’s “participatory relationships,” terms as various as “corporate personality,” “the dyadic person,” “solidarity,” or “the somatic individual,” aimed to explain an apparent corporate nature of existence.2 The goal of this chapter, however, is to introduce and develop the concept of relationality as a way of understanding this communal aspect of human existence. As such, this chapter establishes the basic anthropological model of the study, relational anthropology (RA) and through interaction with other Pauline scholars, demonstrates how it may be employed in studying Paul. A brief interdisciplinary consideration of RA will demonstrate how the concept has developed and is currently understood across disciplines. Second, a detailed analysis of three Pauline scholars who have offered construals of the apostle’s anthropology that are “relational” will be considered: Susan Grove Eastman, Volker Rabens, and Emmanuel Rehfeld. Their work not only 1

53.

James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),

2 A recent exception is Benjamin E. Reynolds’s essay on Johannine anthropology, “The Anthropology of John and the Johannine Epistles: A Relational Anthropology,” in Anthropology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 121–40. Reynolds’s article makes observations similar to this thesis, however is focused on Johannine literature.

2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology

49

establishes the validity of speaking of RA in the context of Paul’s thought, but also surfaces important questions this study will need to keep in mind moving forward.

2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology 2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology

Anthony Thiselton, in Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self, points out how many modern theorists of personhood now criticize “the problematic nature of what [they] call ‘the Cartesian cogito.’”3 By this Thiselton refers to Descartes’s well-known withdrawal into solitude and ensuing dictum, cogito ergo sum.4 This “turn away” and “turn inward” had certain ramifications on modern notions of personhood, as Stanley Grenz explains: “For Descartes, essential humanness entails being a thinking substance, and by implication each human is an autonomous, rational subject. In this manner, Descartes shifted the focus of rationality to the inner self of the autonomous individual.”5 The autonomous individual to which Grenz refers, and to which modern theorists object, is not the existence of the individual per se. Rather, it is a reaction to a particular construction of the individual, where personhood – the particularity and uniqueness of the individual – is constituted in an essentially autonomous framework. Jürgen Moltmann defines such construals as “possessive individualism … [where] everyone is a self-possessing, selfdisposing centre of action which sets itself apart from other persons.”6 3 Anthony C. Thiselton, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 49. 4 René Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (Shenley, Hertfordshire: Knowledge Matters, 1998), 19–20. Chris Shilling, The Body: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 2–3, further explains, “Famous for his dictum ‘I think therefore I am,’ Descartes assumed a strong distinction between the mind, on the one hand, and the body’s senses, on the other, and prioritized the former over the latter for his assessment of what it meant to be human.” 5 Stanley Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 70. To be fair to Descartes, Grenz rightly acknowledges that the genesis of modern individualism may stem from Augustine: “Although a modern invention, [the ‘centered self’s’] genesis lies in Augustine’s highly innovative ‘turn inward.’ His attempt to discover God at the foundation of his mind and will launched a centuries-long quest to establish the self as the stable, abiding reality that constitutes the individual human being. At the apex of this trajectory stands the self-sufficient, self-constructing ‘therapeutic self’ of modern psychology, exemplified by Abraham Maslow but mediated through the mastering self of both the Enlightenment and the evangelical movement” (p. 16). 6 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 145.

50

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Essentially, Thiselton and other theorists dismiss the notion of the individual as absolute, a being in possession of his own being. This critique of “possessive individualism” sounds across an array of disciplines, including philosophy, sociology, psychology, theology, and even biology.7 Emerging from this critique – and in some ways leading up to it – is a growing awareness of the relational or social nature of human existence. From the philosophical vantage point, a broad shift away from substanceontological to relational-ontological views of reality laid the groundwork for rethinking personhood. Schulthess, in his overview of the history of modern philosophy, explains, In post-Kantian philosophy … a fundamental change in the nature of relation occurs: things, the objects, are defined by relations, not by an οὐσια (substance), and Nature as a whole is thought of as a system of relations. This change could be characterized as a change from an ontology of substance to an ontology of functions or relations.8

This recognition of an inherent connection between “relatedness” and “the nature of things” has ramifications upon anthropology, as James Beck and Bruce Demarest explain: “In late modernity and postmodernity a discernable ‘turn to relationality’ has occurred. This shift involves a rejection of classical substance ontology and faculty psychology in favor of a relational ontology, wherein the person, or self, is said to be constituted in relationship with another or others.”9 This shift can be seen in the work of Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. In his book Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity, Taylor posits 7 Kevin Vanhoozer, “Human Being: Individual and Social,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. Colin Gunton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 172, further explains the widespread critique of the autonomous self, writing, “The autonomy of the self has been questioned not only by the natural sciences but also by recent cultural studies. The latter claim that the material process by which knowledge and values are culturally transmitted can be every bit as deterministic on the intellectual level as DNA is through to be on the molecular level. Determinisms of ‘nature’ (for example, sociobiology) and ‘nurture’ (for example, socio-linguistics) alike cast doubt upon the independence and individuality of the subject.” 8 P. Schulthess, “Relation I: History,” Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, ed. H. Burkhardy and B. Smith (Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1991), 2:778. Also explaining the significance of “relatedness” in terms of philosophy is J. Turner, “Ontology,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1917), 9:497–98, who explains, “A fundamental characteristic which meets us in examining reality is the fact that ‘things’ are not isolated but interrelated…. It is evident … that no particular thing is a complete unity, or really self-dependent, for it always carries us beyond itself; it is related to other objects in the universe, and is what it is only because the laws of the whole universe are operative in constituting it.” 9 James R. Beck and Bruce Demarest, The Human Person in Theology and Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2005), 12.

2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology

51

that the modern person/self requires several “external” realties for existence.10 Personhood requires a notion of the good, a narrative to live within, and a sense of community. The social embeddedness of such a model is pervasive, requiring “inescapable frameworks” within which identity develops via a web of relations.11 Taylor explains, “The very way we walk, move, gesture, speak is shaped from the earliest moments by our awareness that we appear before others, that we stand in public space, and that this space is potentially one of respect or contempt, or pride of shame.”12For Taylor and other modern theorists, “one is a self only among other selves. A self can never be described without reference to those who surround it.”13 Significant to this study, Taylor understands these “inescapable frameworks” to involve “a space of moral and spiritual orientation within which [one’s] most important defining relations are lived out.”14 This turn to relationality is likewise evidenced in theological articulations of personhood.15 The roots of this shift, however, lie not in post-Kantian thought but fourth-century Trinitarian theology.16 It was the Cappadocian 10 Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989). Elsewhere, Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition,” ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 25, makes a similar claim in referring to the constituting of human identity: “The thesis is that our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves.” 11 Taylor, Sources of the Self, 29, understands the human quest for selfhood and identity “in terms of finding or losing orientation in moral space,” and takes this as “a space which our frameworks seek to define as ontologically basic.” 12 Taylor, Sources of the Self, 15. 13 Taylor, Sources of the Self, 35. 14 Taylor, Sources of the Self, 35. Emphasis added. Taylor goes on to reject modern construals of the self that are overly autonomous, writing, “Again, a common picture of the self, as (at least potentially and ideally) drawing its purposes, goals, and life-plans out of itself, seeking ‘relationships’ only insofar as they are ‘fulfilling,’ is largely based on ignoring our embedding in webs of interlocution” (pp. 38–39). 15 For reflection on the idea of personhood within the field of theology, see especially, Alistair I. McFadyen, The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Colin E. Gunton, “Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of Imago Dei,” in Persons, Divine and Human, ed. Christoph Schwobel and Colin E. Gunton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 47–61. 16 John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 36, writes, “The concept of the person with its absolute and ontological content was born historically from the endeavor of the Church to give ontological expression to its faith in the Triune God.” See also Vanhoozer, “Human Being,” 174, who states, “The Trinity – three persons in communion – defines the very being

52

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Fathers, the argument runs, who in navigating the heresy of modalism (or Sabellianism), saw person (πρόσωπον), rather than substance (οὐσια), as the core of God’s being: “the unity of essence (ousia) in God contains a triplicity of hypostases (hupostaseis) or persons (prosôpa),” explains Jean-Yves Lacoste.17 Therefore, “relation (ad aliquid) is indeed internal to God.”18 New Testament scholar Max Turner also notes this link between trinitarian thought and relational-personhood: “The one God only becomes three persona (‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Spirit’) as each relates, in intimate communion, with the other.”19 The move from this assertion about the being of God to making a similar assertion about the being of human persons was not immediate, though based on the imago Dei principle, it was inevitable.20 A modern thinker bringing together a notion of being-in-relation with anthropology is Greek Orthodox theologian John D. Zizioulas. In his work Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, he derives an ontology of human existence from the being of God, creating a link between fourth-century trinitarian doctrine and modern notions of RA: Up until the period when the Cappadocians undertook to develop a solution to the trinitarian problems, an identifying of ousia with hypostasis implied that a thing’s concrete individuality (hypostasis) means simply that it is (i.e. its ousia). Now, however, changes occurred. The term hypostasis was dissociated from that of ousia and became identified with that of prosopon. But this latter term is relational, and was so when adopted in trinitarian of God, and provides an ontological foundation for thinking about human personhood and interpersonal relationships as well.” 17 Jean-Yves Lacoste, “Being,” in Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, ed. Jean-Yves Lacoste (New York: Routledge, 2005), 1:190. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 39, further points out the importance of the connection of the term “hypostasis” with “person” in patristic work on the Trinity, which, in effect, gave persona an ontological ground. I.e., “the person is no longer an adjunct to a being, a category which we add to a concrete entity once we have first verified its ontological hypostasis. It is itself the hypostasis of the being…. [And] Entities no longer trace their being to being itself – that is, being is not an absolute category in itself – but to the person, to precisely that which constitutes being, that is, enables entities to be entities.” 18 Lacoste, “Being,”190. 19 Max Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood’ in the New Testament, with Special Reference to Ephesians,” EQ 77.3 (2005): 215. Turner also references McFadyen, The Call to Personhood, 27, who writes, “Father, for instance, denotes both a specific individual and the form of relation existing between Him and the other Persons…. The Father, Son and Spirit are neither simply modes of relations nor absolutely discreet and independent individuals, but Persons in relation and Persons only through relation.” 20 As Lacoste, “Being,” 191, points out, “that being-in-relation as … a decisive factor [in human modalities of being] has only been clearly set out in recent theory.” Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 216, notes the inevitability of applying relationality to God’s image bearers: “For beings created in such an image, ‘personhood’ involves an essentially relation-oriented ‘I.’”

2.1. An Interdisciplinary Turn to Relational Anthropology

53

theology. This meant that from now on a relational term entered into ontology and, conversely, that an ontological category such as hypostasis entered the relational categories of existence. To be and to be in relation becomes identical.... It is only in relationship that identity appears as having an ontological significance.21

Zizioulas is quoted at length because of his significance on theological and biblical conversations of anthropology.22 In a fashion similar to the philosophical turn from “substance-ontology” to “relational-ontology,” Zizioulas argues that personhood is not solely constituted by substance (οὐσια), but also by relations. In this sense “relationality” becomes a feature of ontology, or, in more anthropological terminology, relationality becomes an aspect of Being (“Sein”).23 Kevin Vanhoozer is another modern theologian writing on this topic. In an essay, “Human Being: Individual and Social,” he describes the relational nature of humans by comparing the concepts “individual” and “person”: “Whereas individuals are defined in terms of their separation from other individuals,” he explains, “persons are understood in terms of their relations to other persons.”24 He goes on: Persons are not autonomous individuals…. For instance, I am a child in relation to my parents, a husband in relation to my wife, a father in relation to my children, a neighbor in relation to those who live near me, a teacher in relation to my students, a creature in relation to God…. Some of these relations are free: I chose to marry my wife and I chose to become a teacher. Other relations are involuntary, for example, my being created by God and being born to my parents.25

Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 88. Emphasis original. Elsewhere, in John D. Zizioulas, Otherness, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, ed. Paul McParlan (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 112, Zizioulas similarly writes, “The identity of a person is recognized and posited clearly and unequivocally, but this is so only in and through a relationship, and not through an objective ontology in which the identity would be isolated, pointed at and described in itself. Personal identity is totally lost if isolated, for its ontological condition is relationality. This hypostatic fullness as otherness can emerge only through a relationship so constitutive ontologically that relating is not consequent upon being but is being itself. The hypo-static and the ecstatic have to coincide.” 22 On the significance of Zizioulas, Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self, 51, comments, “[Zizioulas’s] collection of essays, Being as Communion (1985), together with an earlier essay on anthropology, ‘Human Capacity and Human Incapacity’ (1975), have been so influential that his major thesis, which forms the book’s title, has become almost a methodological axiom of the order of Rahner’s Rule.” 23 There is a sense whereby Zizioulas seems to identify human existance as relations, i.e., Being as Communion, 88, “To be and to be in relation becomes identical.” While we argue that relationality is an essential feature of personhood/the structure of human existence, we are not equating the two without remainder. See below for discussion. 24 Vanhoozer, “Human Being,” 174. 25 Vanhoozer, “Human Being,” 174. Emphasis added. 21

54

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Examples from sociology, biology, and psychology could be added, but would risk moving this study further away from its focus – Pauline anthropology. These brief references to the development of RA in philosophy and theology serve to highlight the subject’s basic framework: relationality is an essential feature of personhood; definitions of human existence focused solely on substance-ontology (οὐσια) are insufficient for explaining the structure of human existence.

2.2. Relational Anthropology: Clarifying the Concept 2.2. Relational Anthropology: Clarifying the Concept

Before considering how biblical scholars have explored relational notions of personhood in Paul, the concept requires some clarification. First, in our model of RA, while positing that personhood and relationality are coextensive, we are careful not to identify persons as relations, where personhood is collapsed into relationality. This is a necessary clarification, for at times Zizioulas, for example, seems to be arguing that persons are relations: e.g., “To be and to be in relation becomes identical.”26 Eastman, considered below, similarly writes, “human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder.”27 However, if a model of anthropology comes to identify persons as relations, then, as Harris objects, “between what are relationships formed out of which persons come into being?”28 The model of RA developed in this study identifies a careful nuance between identifying persons as relations and identifying relationality as an essential feature of personhood. How this is the case becomes more evident below as our aspectival view of personhood is developed. There, personhood will be shown to involve the interrelated aspects of identity, agency, and heart. It will become evident there that in their generation and maintenance, each of these aspects involves relationality. To support briefly our view here – i.e., that while an essential feature of personhood, human existence/ontology is not being reduced to relations – we refer to the distinction made between “individuality” (Individualität) and “personal identity” (Personale Identität) by social scientist and psychologist Jürgen Straub.29 In his essay, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” Straub emphasizes the need to distinguish between the concepts of “individuality” and “personal Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 88. Emphasis original. Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” n.p. 28 This objection is raised by Harriet A. Harris, “Should We Say that Personhood Is Relational?,” STJ 51.2 (1998): 214–34. This study responds to it in what follows. 29 See Jürgebn Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität: Zur Analyse eines theoretischen Begriffs,” in Identitäten, ed. A. Assmann and H. Friese (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1998). 26 27

2.2. Relational Anthropology: Clarifying the Concept

55

identity.”30 As concepts used by modern theorist to explain human existence, “individuality” denotes merely “instance” (Instanz), that something is, and is numerically identifiable.31 When speaking of “personal identity,” however, while that concept presupposes “individuality” (e.g., Instanz),32 one has in mind much more: e.g., “individuality lacks everything that is constitutive of identity: unity, coherence, and, of course, all that is underlying it, selfreferentiality of thinking and action.”33 For Straub, while “individuality” denotes the basic fact of existence, “personal identity” is concerned with the more complex experience and structure of existence within a given environment [Raum].34 Straub’s distinction here is illuminating for our model of RA. If “individuality” is thought of as denoting the most basic fact of human existence – namely, that a human is, versus is not – then personhood, like Straub’s view of “identity,” is the more complex explanation of features, or attributes, of human existence that give the human a subjective sense of particularity vis-àvis a context. Whereas for Straub “individuality” is eine “Instanz,” and never absorbed into an “order, or structure of rational knowledge, or language, or hermeneutic,”35 personal identity (= personhood) is always envisioned vis-àvis a relational atmosphere. Straub holds that personal identity requires “contingency, difference, and alterity” (Kontingenz-, Differenz- und Alteritätserfahrungen), 36 as well as “orientation in physical, social, and moral space (Orientierung im physikalischen, sozialen und moralischen Raum).37

30 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 78, laments, “Both the psychoanalytic contributions and the sociological and social-psychological efforts have from the beginning mixed questions of the constitution and structure of the identity of persons [der Konstitution und Struktur der Identität von Personen] with questions of the constitution and structure of their individuality [der Konstitution und Struktur von deren Individualität].” Emphasis original. 31 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 79. 32 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 79, sees identity as a “counterpart” to individuality [“Widerpart des anderen”]. 33 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 79. Straub is here drawing from the work of Enno Rudolph, Odyssee des Individuums. Zur Geschichte eines vergessenen Problems (Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1991). 34 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 85, sees identity as constructed within a physical, moral, and social space [Raum]. 35 See Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 79. 36 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 82, explains, Nach den nun anstehenden genaueren Klärungen eines subjekttheoretischen Identitätsbegriffs, der auf spezifisch modernen Kontingenz-, Differenz- und Alteritätserfahrungen basiert, widme ich mich im letzten Teil der Abhandlung noch kurz dem Konzept der kollektiven Identität.” 37 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 85.

56

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Thus, while it would be incorrect to say that in Straub’s model of human existence there is a collapsing of ontology/human existence and relations, it would not be incorrect to note that relations are an essential feature of personal identity (= personhood). In a similar fashion, this study does not argue that human existence (= individuality/ Instanz) is relations, but rather, that relations are an essential feature of personhood (= personal identity/Personale Identität). A second aspect of RA to clarify briefly has to do with whether or not personhood is a static or dynamic reality. Because we will argue that relations are an essential feature of personhood, and certain relations can change, it would appear at first that personhood is dynamic, or even inherently fluid. Straub, for example, in noting that personal identity is always in a degree contingent, speaks of “insuperable limitations and threats to the formation and preservation of identity [personhood] and autonomy of action. Identity [personhood] is limited, temporary, fragile, and all this is inevitable.”38 In our model of personhood, however, we avoid a strict “all or nothing” regarding the static or dynamic nature of personhood. Any analysis of human existence will note the aspect of “becoming” alongside the reality of “being,” and therefore personhood will be at least in part dynamic.39 However, in contrast to the idea of “insuperable limitations and threats to the formation and preservation of [personhood],”40 our anthropological model identifies a permeant and static foundation to personhood, namely, God’s relation toward the creature. Even while elements of “transformation” and “confusion” affect the subject’s experience of personhood in the historical present (e.g., 2 Cor 3:18; 1 Cor 13:12), a person’s true (static) identity is known and unchanging inasmuch as it is ultimately grounded from outside the subject: e.g., “Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known (ἐπεγνώσθην)” (1 Cor 13:12b). Personhood is grounded, therefore, not by the subject herself, but from without, by God. It is God’s relation toward the person that grounds personhood. In the words of William J. Mander: “God doesn't know what it is like to be me, for he knows me better than I know myself…. God knows the true me; the person I really am.”41 Especially in the

Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 82. Mary T. Clark, “An Inquiry into Personhood,” 7, notes, “Aristotle conceives substance as dynamic and interrelated. Becoming, as analyzed by Aristotle, is intrinsic development.” 40 Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität,” 82. 41 William J. Mander, “Does God Know What It Is Like to Be Me?” The HeyJ 43.4 (2002): 435. Emphasis added. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1967), 2:292, commenting on texts from Hosea, makes explicit the relational nature of being known by God: “God knows his people … that is to say, he has introduced them into a permanent relationship of the closest mutual belonging.” Emphasis added. Cited in Rosner, “Known by God,” 350. 38 39

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

57

case of Paul’s view of human beings, it is being known by and related to by God that establishes and orients personhood.42 Therefore, two areas of potential confusion can be avoided as this study proceeds: the model of RA here posited sees relations as an essential feature of personhood but avoids a collapsing of human existence and relations. And, because our model of RA sees personhood as grounded by God’s relation toward the subject, even while personhood may include dynamic elements, it is not entirely fluid. This study now turns to considering RA within Pauline studies, asking how biblical scholars have considered this phenomenon from a historical and exegetical vantage point, and how such work lays a foundation for the anthropological model and ensuing analyses of this study.

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies 2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

The work of three recent scholars demonstrates the viability and importance of considering the relational aspects of Paul’s anthropology: Susan Grove Eastman, Volker Rabens, and Emmanuel L. Rehfeld. Here we consider aspects of their work that illuminate the relational aspect of Paul’s anthropology and suggest areas of further exploration. 2.3.1. Susan Grove Eastman and Participatory Personhood Much of Susan Grove Eastman’s work is animated by this question: What does the pervasively participatory nature of Paul’s thought indicate about his anthropology?43 Or, put another way, what anthropological assumptions make 42 Richard Hays, First Corinthians, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 138, in commenting on 1 Cor 8:3, writes, “What counts is not so much our knowledge of God as God’s knowledge of us. That is the syntax of salvation.” C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on The First Epistle to The Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 308, writes similarity, “Even in the Gospel man does not fully know God, and he ought not to deceive himself into thinking that he does; but God knows him, and this is the all-important truth.” On the significance of personhood being grounded by God’s relation toward the creature, see also, Brian S. Rosner, “Known by God: C. S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” EQ 77.4 (2005): 343–52. 43 Susan Grove Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, ed. Matthew V. Novenson and R. Barry Matlock, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com /view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600489.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199600489-e005#oxfordhb-9780199600489-e-005-div1-1. n.p. Online publication, April 2014, refers to indications of participation in Paul, saying, “The phrase ‘in Christ’ and its variants; the motif of belonging to the body of Christ; union with Christ’s death; and the possession and indwelling of the Spirit.” In terms of the implications of Paul’s anthropology for understanding human existence in general, Eastman, Paul and the Person, 23, notes an

58

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

sense of the concept of being “in Christ,” or a member of the body of Christ, or united with Christ’s death, or being indwelt by Christ’s Spirit? In approaching Paul at this juncture, she, like many, acknowledges the lament of E. P. Sanders: We seem to lack a category of “reality” – real participation in Christ, real possession of the Spirit – which lies between naïve cosmological speculation and belief in magical transference on the one hand and a revised self-understanding on the other. I must confess that I do not have a new category of perception to propose here. This does not mean, however, that Paul did not have one.44

Whereas scholars since Sanders have sought explanations for this participatory language in Paul’s ecclesiology, Eastman turns to Christology and anthropology – where the former discloses the latter. Drawing from Käsemann and J. Louis Martyn, Eastman approaches Paul through an apocalyptic framework, and therefore begins with God invading the cosmos, i.e., Christology.45 The human plight, so the logic runs, can only be understood in the light of God’s deed of salvation. If salvation required more than forgiving erring humans from a distance, but God sending his Son to liberate humankind from the powers of sin and death, then an anthropological model cannot begin with the notion autonomy.46 Moreover, if the logic of salvation begins with Christ’s participation in Adamic humanity (Rom 8:3) and concludes with a human’s participation “in Christ” (Rom 6:1–11), then Paul’s “anthropology is

overarching heuristic question: “Is the person foundationally, essentially a bounded, discrete being who exists primarily in the form of self-relation, such that self-relation mediates and grounds other-relation? Or is the person primarily constituted in a relational exchange, such that other-relation mediates and grounds the person’s self-relation?” Such a question also animates the present study. 44 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patters of Religion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 522–23. Eastman references Sanders’s words in “Participation in Christ,” n.p. 45 Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” 2, notes that while others have approached the being “in Christ” motif from an existentialist framework, or through Paul’s ecclesiology, she “will take a different tack by situating the notion of participation first in Paul’s Christology and anthropology.” 46 Eastman draws much from the work of J. Louis Martyn, understands Paul’s thought from the perspective of God’s apocalyptic move into the cosmos, and reasons from that starting point. As an example, in “Events in Galatia,” in Pauline Theology, ed. J. Bassler (Minneapolis: 1994), 1:168, he reflects upon Paul’s thought in Galatians, “For Paul, the dominant line is the one along which God has moved into the cosmos in the invasive sending of Christ and in Christ’s faithful death for all…. The difference between human movement into the covenant and God’s movement into the cosmos is, in the terms of Galatians, the watershed distinction between religion and apokalypsis, which is one way of encapsulating the subject of the letter.”

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

59

participatory all the way down…. For Paul the self is always a self-in-relationto-others.”47 Thus, Eastman approaches Paul’s doctrine of humanity not by first studying terminology (e.g., σῶμα, σάρξ, ψυχή), but cosmology and Christology. For her, “The structure of human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder. That is, whether ‘in Christ’ or under the power of sin and death, human life always is constrained and constructed in relationship to external forces that also operate internally.”48 Her anthropology, therefore, is less dissection of a cadaver and more observation of human being. As this study continues, it will become clear that we agree with many of Eastman’s conclusions regarding Paul’s anthropology; in many ways this study builds on her work. What will be helpful for positioning the present study is to interact with certain aspects of Eastman’s work that relate specifically to our own method of approach and areas of focus. As such, this overview focuses primarily on Eastman’s work on the Pauline person, and comments specifically on the following: (1) her methodology; (2) key exegetical and historical aspects that support her findings; and (3) themes that point specifically in the direction of this study and suggest further exploration. Eastman’s Approach to Personhood in Paul (Methodology) Throughout her work Eastman employs traditional methods of historical exegesis, attending to historical and social context on the one hand, and philological and literary issues on the other. It is also the case, especially in studying the concept of “person/personhood,” that she brings her findings in Paul into conversation with concepts that may at first seem foreign to the text. She also draws Paul’s thought into a broader and interdisciplinary conversation, asking how (ancient and modern) philosophy, psychology, or cognitive science may help the modern reader better understand concepts in Paul. In such an approach there is of course a risk of reading insights into Paul, rather than drawing out what is truly there. However, a close reading of Paul and the Person makes evident that Eastman is well aware of the pitfalls of eisegesis and employs modern “concepts and methods,” not to distort Paul, but – to borrow from a phrase from Schnelle – , to “as neutrally as possible lift up the NT corpus.”49 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 9. Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” 4. 49 Udo Schnelle, The Human Condition: Anthropology in the Teachings of Jesus, Paul, and John, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 9–10, in his own work on biblical anthropology, says the following about methodology: “As an exegetical discipline, NT anthropology should forgo perception-prejudicing system borrowings from other scientific areas and on the basis of the historical critical method lift up the meaning and significance of the NT statements about humankind and in the process make use of the 47 48

60

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

The “Person” in Paul? An example of Eastman’s careful use of a “modern concept” in her interpretation of Paul relates to personhood. The title of her most recent book, Paul and the Person, makes plain her willingness to use this concept. However, early on she acknowledges need for clarification: There was in fact no “abstract concept of the person in the first-century Hellenistic world,”50 she writes. If as interpreters “we adopt post-Enlightenment assumptions about the individual as autonomous, discrete, and self-determining, it is questionable whether such an ‘individual’ existed in Paul’s day.”51 This does not mean, however, that there was no “self” and no “individual” in Paul’s thought world. Rather, and this is the hermeneutical key to Eastman’s methodology, one must approach personhood not as an “abstract conceptuality” but as an “immediate experience.”52 In other words, in the complexity of everyday experience, so-called individuality is recognizable through the perceptions and interactions of persons with others.53 Eastman notes the many instances in Paul’s own writing that evidence his individual experiences and interactions, and states, “No one could accuse Paul of lacking a robust sense of himself, whether or not he had a ‘theory of the self.’”54 Eastman’s exploration of Pauline personhood, therefore, does not search for abstract conceptualities in the text but rather observes human beings in action, vis-à-vis the persons and forces interacting with them. In doing so, she perceives of phenomena such as agency and identity, which are construed in relation to another: The question is not whether Paul speaks as a robust “self” addressing other “selves” as well as communities, but how that personal agency and speech are qualified by participation in a larger relational environment and by indwelling agents. Recognizing the difficulty of finding

conceptual system of the NT.” However, Schnelle adds, “Second, the concepts and methods adopted from other sciences must be structured so that they correspond to the form of tradition in the NT text and at the same time help as neutrally as possible to life up the NT corpus.” A careful reading of Eastman demonstrates that her work is built first on historicalcritical exegesis, and only then brought into conversation with modern terms or concept in an effort to “lift up” the text to more clearly grasp its meaning. 50 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 11. 51 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 11–12. 52 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 12. 53 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 12, makes mention here of the work of A. A. Long, Stoic Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 265, who finds a strong sense of the “self” in Stoic thought: “The self in this sense is something essentially individual – a uniquely positioned viewer and interlocutor, a being who has interior access of a kind that is not available to anyone else.” 54 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 13.

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

61

language that avoids anachronistic modern individualism, I will speak of “person” and “self” as pointers to this somewhat mysterious, variously qualified and defined human agent.55

Within this “relational environment,” another important aspect to Eastman’s definition of the Pauline person has to do with what grounds personhood. It is not the self or individual that determines his or her own personhood, but rather, personhood is established from without. She draws this notion from Paul’s totalizing view of human beings as defined by either Adam or Christ: All humanity is included in Adam’s heirs and in those for whom Christ died. If there were a working denotation of “person” here, it would be “one for whom Christ died.”…. [Therefore] the person always and already exists in the presence of another; personhood is constituted in the self-donation of Christ for all humanity. It is grounded in gift, regardless of criteria.56

Hence, Eastman is careful not to read into Paul a modern sense of the “self,” especially in terms of an “autonomous, discrete, and self-determining” individual.57 However, she does not therefore deny that Paul thought in terms of persons and individuals. Rather, her explanation of the individual in Paul ends up being a critique of the modern notion of autonomous-individualism: “Paul displays a functional understanding of human beings as relationally constituted agents who are both embodied and embedded in their world.”58 In this area our study’s approach to Pauline anthropology mirrors Eastman’s. Exegetical Aspects of Eastman’s View of the Pauline Person To demonstrate that Eastman’s view of the Pauline person is grounded in historical-critical exegesis, we now briefly highlight two examples of her interaction with textual matters.59 First, Eastman notes an interesting sentence Eastman, Paul and the Person, 13. Eastman, Paul and the Person, 14. 57 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 11–12. 58 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 2. Eastman notes the tendency of some scholars to downplay any individuality Paul’s thought; e.g., she notes, “J. Louis Martyn speaks of the ‘newly competent human agent’ in Paul almost exclusively in corporate terms as the church.” As an example, Martyn, “Afterword: The Human Moral Drama,” in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8, ed. Beverly R. Gaventa (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013), 165, writes, “The identity, then, of the morally competent agent is clear. That agent is itself the new creation, the new community, the corpus Christi, the body of Christ that is daily brought newly into being by God’s own participation in the moral drama, as he places that drama under the liberating Lordship of Christ.’” Cited in Eastman, Paul and the Person, 2 n. 2. 59 In Paul and the Person, Eastman ultimately explores three aspects of Paul’s participatory logic that shed light on his anthropology: (1) human involvement in the realm of sin and death (pp. 109–25); (2) Christ’s participation in that realm of human bondage (pp. 126–50); and (3) human involvement in a new interpersonal regime inaugurated and indwelt by Christ (pp. 151–75). She holds that in all of these aspects, “Paul’s logic involves 55 56

62

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

structure in two Pauline texts that conveys a perplexing view of human existence. In both Rom 7:20 and Gal 2:20, Paul portrays human existence with a similar phrase: “I no longer [verb] but [subject plus verb] in me.”60 In the case of Romans 7, sin (ἁμαρτία) takes residency (οἰκοῦσα) in the individual and is the subject of the verb: “It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” In Galatians 2, it is Christ within the individual who is the subject of the verb: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” For Eastman, these texts indicate two “relational statuses” within which personhood is constituted. A person is “either in the flesh, captured by sin, or in the Spirit, in Christ, in a life determined by the God-relation.”61 The relational status “in the flesh,” derived from Rom 7:20 and its context suggests that a person exists in a “lethal” relationship with sin.62 Careful not to eclipse individual agency altogether – humans are “both captive and complicit”63 – Eastman paints a harrowing picture of a person “of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin (ὑπὸ τήν ἁμαρτίαν)” (Rom 7:14b): [Such a person exists within] a relational matrix dominated by sin and death. Insofar as human beings are embodied and embedded creatures, they are enmeshed in and constituted by that matrix. As such, they are not free agents, certainly not autonomous, and not capable of freeing themselves. They require a liberating alliance with a noncompetitive and transcendent Other.64

The “person,” according to Eastman’s reading of Romans 7, never dissolves entirely. However, he is “occupied territory, his subjectivity colonized by an oppressive foreign power.”65 Rescue from such a situation leads not to autonomy, but to the second of the two relational statuses: in the Spirit/in Christ. Eastman finds this new existence expressed poignantly in Gal 2:20, the antithesis of Rom 7:20. Here, Paul states, “I have been crucified with Christ. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Eastman wonders what such a statement makes of the “I” in Paul – is “the whole of the ego gone … [are we witnessing] the real and total demolition of the self … the execution of [Paul’s] own identity?”66 Eastman points out, profoundly constitutive interpersonal bonds between people, whether for good or for ill. All three occur in a fully embodied and socially embedded existence that shapes our cognitive capacities as well” (p. 10). 60 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 6. 61 Volker Rabens, “Reframing Paul’s Anthropology in the Light of the Dichotomies of Pauline Research,” JSNT 40.4 (2018): 504. 62 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 119, explains that living under the sway of sin means that “the person is constituted in relationship to lethal, albeit ultimately transient powers.” 63 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 111. 64 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 117. 65 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 114. 66 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 154, is here referring to three different scholars’ comments, respectively: Beverly R. Gaventa, “The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited,” in

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

63

however, that the ego is not gone. In Gal 2:20b, the ego “reappears immediately as the subject of active verbs.”67 Paul’s “I” resurfaces as he states, “the life I now live (νῦν ζῶ) in the flesh I live (ζῶ) by faith in the Son of God” (Gal 2:20b). A second aspect of Paul’s thought Eastman finds indicative of participatory anthropology is embodiment. Drawing from Käsemann’s theological reflections and Dale Martin’s study of the term σῶμα in its Hellenistic milieu, Eastman notes that in Paul σῶμα is not a freestanding or unqualified term. She agrees with Martin’s assessment of the ancient body, which she summarizes: “In the ancient world bodies were permeable, unbounded, and of a piece with their environment…. In all its physicality [the body] is more of a bridge than a barrier … immensely vulnerable to environmental factors, for good or ill.”68 This view of embodiment, of course, recalls Käsemann, who understands that humanity’s “corporality … is related, not to existence in isolation, but to the world in which forces and persons and things clash violently.”69 Such a view of embodiment influences Eastman’s reading of σῶμα in Rom 6:6 and 7:4. In the former text, she finds that τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας should not be read primarily in an anthropological sense, because Paul does not understand the human body to be “intrinsically ‘sinful’”; otherwise how could it be presented as a weapon of righteousness (e.g., Rom 6:13, 16, 19)?70 Rather than speaking of an individual’s sinful body, Eastman prefers understanding the phrase “the body held captive by Sin/belonging to Sin.”71 She explains, “In Paul’s logic, ‘Sin’ itself once held human bodies captive, but now through Christ they have been set free (Rom 6:6–7, 10–14, 16–18).”72 Her reading of Rom 7:4 also notes a complexity in grasping the meaning of σῶμα. While one should take the genitive τοῦ σώματος as referring to Christ’s Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 193; John M. G. Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 143; Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 848. 67 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 155. 68 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 95; see Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Have: Yale University Press, 1999), 25–29. 69 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 21. 70 For Eastman’s larger treatment of this verse see, Paul and the Person, 87–90. 71 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 89. She also notes that Käsemann, Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 169, interprets “old anthrōpos” and “the body of sin” simply as “existence in sin’s power.” Similarly, Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 403, translates the phrase “the sinful body” but then explains, “the human body that stands in the generic sense ‘under the rule of sin and death.’” 72 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 89.

64

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

physical body,73 this does not explain how it is that Christians die to the law through (διά) that body. Eastman finds this text to be “building on the notion of solidarity with Christ’s crucified body as a means of deliverance from the ‘body of sin’” referenced in Rom 6:6.74 In short, from both material and cosmological perspective, embodiment implies embeddedness, not autonomy. Existence as an embodied creature makes the “relational statuses” referenced above unavoidable. Human existence is constituted, at least in part, in relation to another. Yet another exegetical aspect of her construction of the Pauline person involves pneumatology, however we will interact with this below as we note important themes of her work that converge more directly with our own study. Pertinent Themes Emerging from Eastman’s Work There are three aspects of Eastman’s work that are especially relevant for the present thesis. First, her methodology suggests the viability of studying Pauline anthropology with an aim to discuss personhood. In the ensuing chapter, the concept of “person” is defined in terms of its use in the present study. However, from this brief window into Eastman’s work, we find agreement with at least part of Bultmann’s anthropology: namely, Paul’s view of humanity must take seriously the phenomenon of being (“Dasein”), recognizing the apostle is not developing a “scientific anthropology.”75 As such, personhood according to Paul must account for human existence in light of myriad other factors and forces, which in turn may shed light on Paul’s deeper, unarticulated anthropological assumptions. Eastman’s reading of σῶμα in particular texts also highlights the validity of Käsemann’s anthropological framework, whereby the person cannot be reduced to self-understanding, but is always and everywhere determined in relation-to-another. Therefore, this thesis mirrors Eastman’s approach to Paul’s anthropology by its focus on personhood. Second, her work suggests the “relational construction” of the Pauline person, drawing not only from Pauline texts, but also bringing Paul into conversations with modern theorist. Borrowing the concept of “second-person perspective,”76 she explains Eastman, Paul and the Person, 87. Eastman, Paul and the Person, 87. 75 Bultmann, TNT, 1:191, writes, “Paul, of course, did not draw up a scientific anthropology as if to describe man as a phenomenon in the realm of the objectively perceptible world.” The concept of “Dasein” was integral to Martin Heidegger’s epistemology and philosophy. “Dasein” essentially means that human existence is a “being there,” not static, but fluid, and therefore experience (=existentialism) is the ground of meaning. See David Clark, Knowing and Loving God (Downers Grove: Crossway, 2010), 105. See chapter 1 of this study for discussion of Bultmann’s work. 76 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 15. Eastman explains that the term “second-person perspective refers to a standpoint of inquiry in a variety of subjects including philosophy, 73 74

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

65

The self is formed not alone in self-referential cognition (a first-person “I”), nor in objective knowledge of things beyond oneself (a third-person “he/she,” “it,” or “they”), but in encounter with others, in the “I-you” address where relationships are not additional to the already-formed individual but are constitutive of the person…. Persons being with and in the encounter with others.77

Eastman assumes, therefore, that relationality is not something that merely adds on to personhood but defines and determines it.78 Two areas that come to the fore in her work in terms of how relationality affects personhood include agency and identity. Eastman notes that Paul “depicts human agency as constituted in relationship to the agency of ‘the flesh,’ on the one hand, or ‘the Spirit,’ on the other.”79 Moreover, walking in the Spirit turns out to involve participation in the communal life of the body of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 12:12– 26).80 Therefore, personhood involves the aspect of agency, and agency, according to Eastman’s reading of Paul, is never an autonomous affair. We will say more about agency and how it applies to personhood in following chapters. Relationality also affects personhood via the aspect of identity. In explaining the individual’s relationship to God according to Paul’s thought, Eastman writes, “It is the other-relation to God through ‘gift’ and ‘call’ that functions to constitute each person with a unique vocation, in differentiation from others. Here personhood is thoroughly relational, given as a gift that generates distinctive personal identity, not as a general idealist or humanistic construct.”81 Eastman’s work at this juncture points particularly in the direction of this thesis, as she notes that for Christians, personhood, especially identity, is reconstituted in a relational matrix that involves vertical and horizontal psychology, and sociology.” Her main emphasis in employing to understand the person in Paul is that it directs attention at the space between (a) self-referential knowledge, where too much autonomy is assumed, and (b) the objectifying and distancing knowledge that comes by “third-person” address. Here we see her concern to locate Paul’s anthropology in light of the self’s existence in, and experience of, the world. 77 Eastman, Paul and the Person, x, 15. Here Eastman references the work of Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingus (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1991), 227–28, who finds that personhood emerges in “the face to face.” 78 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 16, refers here to the work of philosopher Timothy Chappell, “Knowledge of Persons,” EJPR 5.4 (2013): 3–4, who in commenting on John Donne’s famous line, “no man is an island,” writes: “No human starts out an island. Each of us at least begins as a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Insofar as we ever come to be anything like ‘entire of ourselves,’ this is a learned and socialized achievement; an achievement, moreover, which is necessarily built upon our prior stats as parts of the main. In a word, individuality presupposes relationality.” Emphasis original. 79 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 91. 80 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 91, explains that the opposite of walking in the flesh is “not a dematerialized ‘spiritual’ life but bodily participation in the ‘body of Christ’ (Rom 12:4–5; 1 Cor 6:15; 12:12–27). Paul apparently intends to link the behavior of singular, physical human bodies to the well-being of the communal, social ‘body’ of believers.” 81 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 100. Emphasis added.

66

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

relationality. For the believer, identity is mediated “through a new otherrelation with Christ [vertical relationship], which in turn finds experiential expression through interpersonal ties in the new community [horizontal relationships].”82 More than one relation impacts personhood; as such, how different types of relations affect persons differently must be kept in mind. By pointing to “agency” and “identity,” Eastman offers concrete examples of how relations affect and determine personhood. However, at no point does she explain that agency and identity are integral parts of personhood, but rather assumes such throughout. In the following chapter, we will pause to develop more clearly a model of personhood, asking if and how aspects such as agency and identity are integral to being a person. Third, Eastman’s work also suggests ways in which the Spirit relates to the notion of relational personhood in Paul. In her essay “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” Eastman draws together this relational view of human existence with the work of the Spirit. In her analysis of Romans 8, Eastman keeps in mind the broader context of chapters 5–8, and therefore identifies a “new relational matrix”83 available for those “in Christ” (Romans 8) as compared to the old relational matrix of Sin’s dominion (Romans 7). She also explains the importance of the Spirit’s role in affecting this new relational matrix. For example, the work of the Spirit in Rom 8:14–17 makes palpable a new “family system.”84 This new relational context has profound implications for personhood. Believers undergo “a re-formation of personal character, motivation and relationship at the most foundational level…. Familial metaphors of ‘father,’ ‘sons,’ ‘children,’ and ‘siblings powerfully reshape the constitution of persons in Christ. They shake the foundations of personhood.”85 Eastman’s emphasis in “Oneself in Another” anticipates chapter 4 of this thesis in many ways: she identifies the relational aspect of human existence in Romans 8 via the larger context of Romans 5–8 and she notes the work of the Spirit as integral to appropriating the believer’s new “relational” identity as part of the family of God. However, there are elements of her treatment of Eastman, Paul and the Person, 160. She further explains, “Insofar as the self is always a self-in-relationship, when it is embedded in a new relational matrix it becomes a new self. Insofar as this new self still lives ‘in the flesh,’ it repeatedly must confront the old relationally constructed existence that was ‘crucified with Christ’” (p. 160). 83 Susan Grove Eastman, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul, ed. Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2.384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 105, 116. 84 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 116, writes, “Paul’s use of familial metaphors is striking: led by the Spirit, we are ‘sons of God’; crying ‘Abba! Father!’ as ‘children of God,’ we are joint-heirs with Christ, suffering together in anticipation of being glorified together. Christ is the first-born of many siblings. Within this new ‘family system’….” 85 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 116–17. Emphasis added. 82

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

67

Romans 8 that require comment here and also flag the need to further explore the role of the Spirit in relational anthropology. To begin, Eastman uses Romans 8 to emphasize strongly the horizontal relationality of Christian existence, and while doing so downplays any emphasis on the individual’s personal relation to God and Christ. She holds that while many commentators emphasize the individual’s experience of God and the Spirit in Romans 8, “an individualistic emphasis does not reflect Paul’s language.”86 Eastman reads Romans 8 as a thoroughly communal text. In doing so she refers to the work of Jewett, who holds that in Romans 8, Paul’s language “reflects a collective type of charismatic mysticism in which God’s Spirit was thought to enter and energize the community as well as each member. Its primary arena of manifestation, in contrast to most later Christianity, was not individual ecstasy but social enthusiasm.”87 Eastman further grounds the claim that Romans 8 should be read in light of a communalexperience on the following points: Paul’s use of plural pronouns,88 the οἰκεῖ motif,89 the σῦν-compounds,90 a corporate reading of “τῷ πνεύματι” in 8:16,91 and the kinship language.92 Besides the obvious communal implications of the kinship language (e.g., Rom 8:14–17, 29), all of these points are widely disputable on exegetical grounds. Take the presence of plural pronouns, for example. Eastman notes, “The first aspect of the new relational matrix animated and sustained by the Spirit is Paul’s use of plural pronouns…. Paul unfolds his addressee into the plural, intersubjective ‘we.’”93 However, the presence of the second-person plural in Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 112. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 490–91. Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 112, agrees. 88 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 111, notes, “Paul returns to a second-person address, again in the plural (vv. 9–11).” From this Eastman deduces, “The Spirit indwelling the community is the counterbalance to sin indwelling the singular ἐγώ in 7:17, 20.” 89 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 112, finds that “οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν” (8:9) emphasizes not the Spirit of God/Christ indwelling the individual, but community. Her paraphrase of 8:9 reads, “But together with one another, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, since in fact the Spirit of God dwells in the midst of your life together.” 90 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 113, writes, “Paul develops this insight [the Spirit generates a bond between believers] in a number of ways, most notably through his combined use of συν-compounds and kinship imagery at two related points in the chapter: 8:14–17 and 8:26–30.” 91 Eastman follows Jewett, Romans 500–501, who argues that the second instance of spirit, “τῷ πνεύματι,” in Rom 8:16 refers to “the Holy Spirit apportioned to the community and dwelling in its midst.” Hence, Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 113, writes of 8:16, “Paul is not addressing individuals, but rather the community in which he includes himself with the phrase ‘our spirit’ – the possessive is plural, the noun is singular.” 92 E.g., Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 116, points to “led by the Spirit, we are ‘sons of God’; crying ‘Abba! Father!’ as ‘children of God,’ we are joint-heirs with Christ, suffering together in anticipation of being glorified together. Christ is the first-born of many siblings.” 93 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 111–12. 86 87

68

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

8:9–11 does not necessarily mean Paul has in mind a communal experience and not the experience of an individual. Rather, this is far more likely a case of a “categorical plural”;94 Paul is after all writing to more than one person: πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ (Rom 1:7). Likewise, to say that οἰκέω has a communal rather than individual meaning does not cohere with the broader sense of 8:9–11, where the presence of the Spirit offsets the mortality of the (individual’s) body: “If Christ is in you, although the body (σῶμα, sg.) is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (8:10).” The logic of Paul’s thought in 8:9–11 seems to be: (a) because God’s Spirit is in you (sg.), (b) you need not worry over your mortal body (sg.), (c) because this same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead will resurrect your body also. The logic breaks down if one reads this as a reference to the Spirit indwelling the community rather than the individual – does the community also have a mortal body?95 Moreover, the predominant use of συνcompounds in Romans 6–8 seems to emphasize the individual believer’s union with Christ or the Spirit (e.g., ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἂνθρωπος συνεσσταυρώθη, Rom 6:6), rather than the believer’s relationships with other believers (though the latter may be implied). Finally, arguing for “the apportioned Spirit”96 in Rom 8:16 over against the human spirit likewise goes against the majority of scholarship. The grammatical disparity between the singular noun and plural pronoun – αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν – is best explained as a “distributive 94 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 403–4, who refers to a situation where a noun or pronoun in the plural should be understood as referring to person in particular: i.e., “they means he (or she)” (p. 404). Wallace also notes that what he calls the “categorical plural” is similar to the “indefinite plural,” and that A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923), 406, “puts this plural under the broad umbrella of the literary plural which, in his terminology, also includes the epistolary plural.” 95 Eastman’s view that οίκέω has a communal, not an individual meaning, follows R. Jewett, “The Question of the ‘Apportioned Spirit,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, ed. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 196. Yates’s, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, WUNT 2.251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), response to Jewett’s point follows the same view as we do: “Jewett’s argument (2004: 196) that οίκέω has a communal, not an individual meaning, based on the 2nd person plural in [Rom] 8:9 and the matching phrase in 1 Cor 3:16 is simply unsustainable given the emphasis on the 1st person singular in 7:14–25. Furthermore, whether Paul was thinking individualistically or corporately he still would have used the second person plural because he was writing to more than one person!” (Spirit and Creation, 128). 96 Eastman is here again following Jewett, “The Question of the ‘Apportioned Spirit,’” 193–206. See also Jewett, Romans 500–501, where he holds “τῷ πνεύματι” in Rom 8:16 refers the “the Holy Spirit apportioned to the community and dwelling in its midst.”

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

69

singular,”97 which is how Fee understands it (see also the similar construction in Rom 6:12).98 Moreover, the fact that the parallel text of Gal 4:6 speaks of God sending “the Spirit of his son into τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν,” where the noun and pronoun match in number (pl.), should clear up any discrepancy regarding whether or not Paul has in mind the Spirit interacting with the depths of individuals. Therefore, while we agree with and will further defend many of Eastman’s conclusions regarding the Spirit’s role in reconstituting Christian personhood, when we turn to Romans 8 in chapter 4 we will argue that Paul primarily has in view the individual’s experience of a new relationship with God and Christ. This new vertical relationship is generated by the Spirit. This is not to say, of course, that the communal element is not there – it is simply not the focal point (as it is in Rom 12:3–8.). Also, when this study does consider the horizontal relationships generated by the Spirit between believers, we will turn to 1 Corinthians 12, a text, we will argue, more suited to that topic. Bearing some of these exegetical differences in mind, however, Eastman’s work in “Oneself in Another” does highlight a few of the more pertinent areas we will address in later chapters. For example, Eastman notes the link between being in relationship with Christ and relationship with others, as well as the role of the Spirit therein: To be “in Christ” is to be in relationship with people in the midst of whom Christ dwells through his Spirit, and thereby to share experiences not only with Christ but also with one another. It is to have an identity that is always shaped and constituted in relation to others within the bond generated and sustained by the Spirit. It is to be constituted as interpersonal beings at the very foundation of our identity, always to be oneself-in-another, never oneself in isolation or autonomy.99

Eastman also points to the need to ask how the Spirit creates these relationships between individuals “in Christ,” or, in her language, what “bonds” believers together. Reflecting on Rom 5:5, Eastman holds that “love” creates the bond between believers. More precisely, the Spirit communicates the love of God to the believer, who in response turns in love towards others: “The Spirit E.g., J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 3:23, explains: “Contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice, the NT sometimes follows the Aram. and Heb. preference for a distributive sing[ular]. Something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the sing: as τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν 1 Cor 6:19, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Lk 1:66.” 98 E.g., Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 469, writes, “This [Gal 6:18] use of the plural pronoun with a singular noun is but another reflection of Paul’s (Semitic) preference for a distributive singular, wherein ‘something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.’” Fee makes the same point regarding Rom 8:16, e.g., Empowering Presence, 567– 68. 99 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 113. 97

70

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

generates and sustains a mutually participatory bond of love” as “the Spirit mediates knowledge of God’s love.”100 When this study turns to 1 Corinthians 12, we will argue that along with this notion of love, it is also through the apportioning of χαρίσματα and the relational matrix those gifts create that the bonds of the community are fostered. Conclusion of Eastman’s Work To conclude this overview of Eastman’s work on Pauline anthropology, we emphasize again that this study builds from her own insights and previous work. We hold a similar methodology to Eastman in approaching the Pauline texts with historical-exegesis while also employing the concept of “person.” We also employ a similar anthropological model as Eastman, whereby persons are not themselves by themselves. And finally, though not the focal point of her larger work, her essay probing the Spirit’s role in affecting a new relational matrix, which thereby reconstitutes personhood, points specifically in the direction of this study. The next two authors consider need not be examined to quite the depth of Eastman, however they both address issues pertinent to this thesis, and therefore require comment. 2.3.2. Volker Rabens and Spirit-Generated Relationships The focus of much of Volker Rabens’s work is not on anthropology per se, but rather on how the Spirit functions in Pauline thought to transform believers and empower ethical living. However, as will become clear, certain anthropological assumptions factor significantly in his work, most notably the role of relationships in transforming the human person. Moreover, the role of the spirit in generating reconstituting-relationships is at the heart of his work. A brief overview of his monograph, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, along with related articles, will surface from yet another angle the presence of RA in Paul.101 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 105, 117–18. Rabens’s major monograph is The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, 2nd ed., WUNT 2.283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). His articles involving similar themes include, “Power from In Between: The Relational Experience of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in Paul’s Churches,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner, ed. I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012); “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western’ Perspective,” in The Holy Spirit and the Church According to the New Testament: Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013, ed. Predrag Dragutinović, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, James B. Wallace, and Chrēstos K. Karakolēs, WUNT 1.354 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); “‘Indicative and Imperative’ as the Substructure of 100 101

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

71

Rabens sets out to contrast two models of how the spirit transforms believers for ethical living. The (more traditional) “infusion-transformation” model, exemplified by the work of F. W. Horn, argues that the material (“stofflich”) πνεῦμα enters/infuses the person affecting a “substance-ontological” change.102 Rabens explains that in this model, “the (material) πνεῦμα is infused into the person – namely, into her interior or ‘inner being’ (ψυχή/καρδία/νοῦς/ἒσω ἄνθρωπος, etc.) … [and] ethical life is the outflow of this.”103 The other model, “relational-transformation,” is Rabens’s unique development, and focuses on how the Spirit effects religious-ethical life by means of relationships. Romans 8:9–11 is a key text for Rabens’s model, and from it he summarizes some key contours of “relational-transformation.” First, in conversion/initiation “human beings are transferred from the existence ‘in the flesh’ to being ‘in the Spirit’ (Rom 8:9).”104 Second, being “in the Spirit” is a dynamic reality, equivalent to being in “the sphere of influence of the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι).”105 Third, the transfer to the realm of the Spirit radically affects the identity of the believer, an identity linked to the Spirit.106 Fourth, the means by

Paul’s Theology-and-Ethics in Galatians? A Discussion of Divine and Human Agency in Paul,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Pauls Letter, ed. M. W. Elliott, Scott Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014); “Begeisternde Spiritualität: Geisterfahrungen im Leben der paulinischen Gemeinden,” Glaube und Lernen 26 (2011): 133–47; “Sein und Werden in Beziehungen: Grundzüge relationaler Theologie bei Paulus und Johannes,” in Relationale Erkenntnishorizonte in Exegese und Systematischer Theologie, ed. Walter Bührer, Raphaela Meyer, and Hörste-Bührer, MThSt 129 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018), 91– 143. 102 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 3, explains that Horn [see Friedrich W. Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie, FRLANT 154 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992)] argues for a “model of human transformation through the reception of the stofflich (material) πνεῦμα” which “comes close to an automatism of ethical life…. Believers are substance-ontologically transformed by the infusion of the (physical) Spirit.” See also Rabens, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul,” 200–03. 103 Rabens, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul,” 201–2. 104 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 171. 105 Rabens, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul,” 201. 106 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 171, is here drawing from the work of K. Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus,” in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Hans Hübner Zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Udo Schnelle, Thomas Söding, Michael Labahn, and Hans Hübner (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). On the dynamic transferal from the realm of flesh to Spirit, Backhaus writes, “So verwandelt die Begegnung mit dem Gekreuzigten die Identität des Glaubenden radikal … (2 Kor 5.17; 4.6, Ga; 6:15). Die Neuheit erweist sich insofern als “Neuheit des Geistes” (Rom 7.6), als der Versöhnte das tödlich-bindende Magnetfeld der auf sich selbst geworfenen Sarx

72

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

which the transformation and radically affected identity come about are relationships: The existence-transforming result of this transferal is thus well comprehended in relational terms: it is freedom from sin, the flesh, the law, the enslaving powers, etc., and a new, intimate relationship with God, Christ, the Spirit and the Christian community (Rom 7:5–6; 8:2–11; Gal 4:3–7; 1 Cor 12:13; etc.). A change of allegiance has happened, with the consequence of a new belonging (see, e.g., Rom 8:9: ἒστιν αὐτοῦ; Gal 5:24): the converts are now united with Christ by the Spirit – they are in “in Christ” (Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26; etc.), “in the Spirit” (Rom 8:9; etc.) and Christ by his Spirit indwells them (Rom 8:9–11; etc.).107

Certain aspects of Rabens’s work prove illuminating for the present thesis. First, he makes explicit use of the concept “relationship” for understanding how human persons change/are constituted. Whereas Eastman and others allude to this phenomenon, they typically use “participation” or “union with Christ,” or other nomenclature. Second, Rabens analyzes the concept “relationship.” He offers a clear definition of the term and brings in the work of modern theorists in order to understand how relationships affect personhood.108 Third, and related to the previous point, Rabens’s work begins to shed light on how, specifically, relationships transform people – and how they constitute identity and personhood. For example, the following summation of his thesis suggests that intimacy and knowledge, as conveyed through relationships, affect personhood: The Spirit effects religious-ethical life predominantly by means of intimate relationships created by the Spirit with God (Αββα), Jesus, and fellow believers…. It is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate relationship with, God, Jesus Christ, and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religiousethical life.109

Fourth, Rabens’s work makes explicit the role of the Spirit in generating and sustaining relationships. On this point, Rabens delves into the background of Paul’s understanding of the Spirit and demonstrates the viability of a relational verlassen und Zugang gewonnen hat zum pneumatischen Freiheitsraum der Sohnschaft (Gal 3, 26–29; Gal 4, 5–7; Rom 8,12–17)” (p. 15). 107 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 172. 108 Rabens defines relationship, saying, “Fundamentally, a relationship is about ‘the state of being related; a condition or character based upon this’” (Spirit and Ethics, 123). Commenting on how relationships affect personhood, he quotes from the work of R. Hinde, Understanding Relationships, 4, who writes, “It is … clear that what we are is determined at least in part by the relationships we have had. Early family relationships have special importance here, but relationships all through life continue not only to affect us in the short term but also influence our subsequent behavior and relationships” (Spirit and Ethics, 130). 109 Rabens, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul,” 200; see also Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 21, 123.

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

73

model for the Spirit’s work within early Judaism, especially with reference to Ezekiel 36–37 and texts found at Qumran.110 Finally, Rabens’s work suggests that a key to understanding transformation in Paul lies in grasping anthropological phenomena. Though this facet could be made more explicit, Rabens’s critique of infusion-transformation is anchored not only in (what he deems) a faulty, material notion of the Spirit. It is also rooted in what he sees as a faulty anthropological conception – a substance-ontological model. On this point, Rabens turns to the work of Gerhard Ebeling, who, like Zizioulas, is a theologian who argues for a relational view of personhood. Rabens writes regarding Ebeling, According to G. Ebeling, a substance-ontological approach to being and relating focuses on separate entities whose states of Being (Sein) exist independently of another. In the (substance) ontologies of scholasticism, relations were perceived as the weakest factor determining the nature of an essence…. Ebeling thinks that the same holds true for modern scientific thought with its objectivizing rational view of reality. Ebeling himself, per contra decides for a theology in which primacy is given to “being” as relational, as “being together,” because relations have a constitutive character.111

By drawing from Ebeling, Rabens makes explicit the anthropological assumptions of his study: relational-transformation assumes a relational ontology, or relational-anthropology.112 Where this study seeks to build from the work of Rabens is in attending to the anthropological model that Rabens’s work assumes. Then, from this vantage point, it asks not only how the Spirit transforms for ethical living, but how Spirit-wrought relationships reconstitute personhood. Much of Rabens’s work will prove helpful when this study turns to texts such as Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12 and considers how the Spirit generates and sustains new Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 158, writes, the “[Dead Sea Scrolls] give ample evidence how the Spirit relates the believer more closely to God by providing revelation and wisdom,” and notes that within the Qumran community, “It is predominately through facilitating cognitive and experiential knowledge of God that the Spirit enables righteous living.” Rabens also notes that “knowledge” and “experience” come about through Spirit-wrought relationships: in Qumran literature it can been seen that “the Spirit’s relating believers closer to God [happens] through wisdom and understanding”; “the transforming aspects of Spiritprompted encounters and existential interaction with God and with fellow members of the community.” 111 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 138–39, referring to Gerhard Ebeling, Dogmatik des Glaubens (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987), 221–22, 348. 112 E.g., Rabens points out that infusion-transformation models of the Spirit’s work depend on substance-ontological views of anthropology. Commenting on the work of Egon Brandenburger, Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 139, writes, Brandenburger “reflects an ontology of substance when he submits that for Paul, the transferal of a person from the sphere of the flesh to the sphere of the Spirit must be comprehended as a substance-ontological transformation.” E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, WMANT 29 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlad, 1968), 44. 110

74

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

relational networks. This study also builds from Rabens by asking more carefully how relations may differ in Paul. Whereas Rabens’s study involves only personal and intimate relationships – e.g., the believer in relation to God, Christ, other believers – this study argues that there are also important impersonal relations that affect personhood in Paul’s thought world (i.e., embeddedness and life “under sin”). 2.3.3 Emmanuel L. Rehfeld and Relational Ontology in Paul In his study Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus,113 Emmanuel Rehfeld is concerned with how to understand and define the connection between the individual believer and Christ in Paul. His assertion, which he eventually develops through careful exegetical analysis, is that relational ontology, over against the more traditional substance ontology, better captures the essence of Christ-relatedness [“Christusbezogenheit”] in Pauline theology. What is particularly significant about Rehfeld’s approach, in terms of its relevance for this thesis, is that in answering how the Christian (individual) relates to Christ (another), he focuses on the anthropological side of the equation: i.e., the “ontology” of being [“Sein”]. Rehfeld is aware of the immediate methodological concerns arising from employing a philosophical category, “ontology,” in order to interpret Paul. The apostle was not so much “interested in a particular ontology,” Rehfeld admits, but rather with its “effect (Wirkung).” As such, there is “no explicit thinking about ontology in Paul…. Darin ist er ganz Theologe, nicht Philosoph.”114 However, Rehfeld is also correct to note that the apostle is interested in the ontic effectiveness of relationships (“der ontischen Wirksamkeit von Beziehungen”):115 i.e., human relationships with God, Christ, and other believers, and the effect of these relationships upon life, are at the heart of Paul’s thought and missionary effort.116 Beneath the pervasive “relatedness” of the person in Paul, Rehfeld holds that the apostle “presupposes quite a certain ontology (gewisse Ontologie), which, at least in its basic features, can be reconstructed.”117 113 Emmanuel L. Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus: Die ontische Wirksamkeit der Christusbezogenheit im Denken des Heidenapostels, WUNT 2.326 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 113 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 44, writes, in Paul “there is no (explicit) thinking about ontology as a ‘condition of possibility’ of being.” 115 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 44. 116 I.e., The creature’s relation to Creator (Rom 1:18–25); the believer reconciled to God (Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:18–20; the believer exists “in Christ” (Rom 6:1–11; 8:1; 2 Cor 5:17; etc.); the believer is one body with other believers (Rom 12:5–8; 1 Cor 12:12–31a). More will be said on “relatedness” and Paul’s view of human existence below. 117 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 44.

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

75

With this caution in mind, and the careful historical and exegetical nature of his study, Rehfeld seems justified in asking whether or not relational ontology captures important aspects of Paul’s anthropology. What will become clear as his work is considered is that his relational model offers helpful correctives to other terms/concepts used to capture Christ-relatedness in Paul, such as mysticism or participation. Neither of the latter terms attends adequately to the anthropological nature of “union with Christ” as Rehfeld sees it.118 In using the term “relational ontology” (“relationale Ontologie”), Rehfeld is primarily concerned with moving away from attempts to define humankind within so-called substance-ontology (“Substanzontologie”) frameworks – frameworks that define human existence based on inner qualities or materials.119 Relational ontology, on the other hand, holds that “a person exists first in and through relationships.”120 Relational ontology is a way to address the relationality surrounding Paul’s view of human existence at its anthropological foundation. Referring to the work of Martin Buber, for example, Rehfeld explains his framework: “‘Sein’ ist also immer extern bestimmtes Sein und damit das genaue Gegenteil der incurvatio in seipsum: Eine Person entsteht immer am anderen, d. h. durch Beziehung; ein relationsloses Sein ist stricto sensu kein Sein – oder, um mit M. Buber zu sprechen: ‘Der Mensch wird am Du zum Ich.’”121 Before Rehfeld turns to Pauline texts, he reviews how the concept “relationale Ontologie” has been developed in various fields, including philosophy, theology, and science.122 In the theological vein, the work of Ebeling and Zizioulas factor prominently. 118 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, finds helpful elements in the mystical and participatory language used to capture Paul’s “in Christ” paradigm, but ultimately critiques both; e.g., “It is noticeable that the correct understanding of the Pauline εν Χριστωexpressions often stand in the way of a decidedly anti-mystical pathos” (p. 74). And, “Perhaps the concept of ‘participation’ [Partizipation] would be more useful, but here too there is the danger that the ontological implications and reciprocity of the union (‘we in Christ’ – ‘Christ in us’) would not be codetermined, but ‘partial’ only as (ultimately, inauthentic) participation in the ‘work’ of Christ (not Christ himself) will understand” (p. 76). More will be said about his reading of “in Christ” below. 119 As an example of the impact of “substance ontologies” in Pauline studies, Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 5, points out how “material” views of the Spirit went hand in glove with ideas that ethical transformation was a matter of a substance-ontological change: “An important step on the way to this development is the work of the early Käsemann and Stuhlmacher who have argued … that the concepts of the stofflich nature of the Spirit is an integral part of Paul’s ethics, and that it is through this Spirit that God transforms human beings substance-ontologically.” 120 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 42. The German reads, “… existiert eine Person allererst in und durch Beziehung.” 121 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 42. Emphasis original. Rehfeld is referring to Martin Buber, Ich Und Du (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verl.-Haus, 2014), 37. 122 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 15–43.

76

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Ebeling, Rehfeld notes, makes the important point that relationships are not accidental to being (contra substance-ontology), but rather, “external relations are constitutive” (“Externrelationen konstitutiv”) of it.123 The work of Zizioulas makes the connection between an ontology of being and trinitarian theology – a connection Rehfeld returns to when describing the intimacy between the believer and Christ as a “reciprocity properly described as perichoresis (Perichorese).”124 Rehfeld’s analysis of relationality in Paul’s thought is wide-ranging and thorough. The meaning and essence of fellowship (κοινωνία) is probed, including the significance of rival-community to Christ-community (“Konkurrenzgemeinschaft zur Christusgemeinschaft”).125 The believer’s relation to impersonal powers (“unpersönliche Mächte”) is also considered. These powers include sin, the law (“die Sinaitora”), and death. It is concluded that Paul sees these as powers that compete with Christ, with Rom 7:5 factoring as a summarizing statement for this reality.126 Analysis of “Christusbezogenheit” finally moves to the important collocation, ἐν Χριστῷ (and ἐν κυρίω), in the undisputed Pauline letters. We consider this theme in Paul (“in Christ”), along with Rehfeld’s reading of it, more carefully in chapter 3. Here it suffices simply to note that Rehfeld resists a monolithic, formulaic reading of all instances of ἐν Χριστῷ,127 arguing that in certain uses the preposition “ἐν” signifies “space,” or “area [Bereich]” (e.g., 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 6:11).128 Most importantly for Rehfeld is that the spatial sense of “in Christ” conveys more than an impersonal sphere of influence: “The formula ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι is an expression of being in, or belonging to, a thoroughly personal sphere [personal … Sphäre] and therefore is to be interpreted as “personal sense of being” not a “local sense of being” [“personal-seinshaft” nicht “local-seinshaft”].129 Several factors lead Rehfeld to the conclusion that being “in Christ,” – or, more broadly, “Christ-relatedness” – is a relational and personal dynamic, and G. Ebeling, Dogmatik, 1:350; cited in Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 42. In a summation of his understanding of the union of Christ and believer, Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 288, writes, “Die recht verstandene Einheit zwischen Christus und den Christusgläubigen bedeutet nicht ein Aufgehen des Einen im Anderen, sondern sie ist kraft ihrer Reziprozität sachgemäß als Perichorese zu beschreiben.” Emphasis original. 125 Rival-community to Christ-community includes fornication with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:12–20), fellowship with demons (1 Cor 10:14–22), and relapse into slavery to elemental and demonic forces (Gal 4:1–11). Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 105–15. 126 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 220–1. 127 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 281, writes, “The connections in which Paul makes use of the prepositional expression ‘in Christ’ are too manifold to limit his meaning to a completely homogeneous sense [homogene Sinn].” 128 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 281. 129 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 281. 123 124

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

77

therefore best understood from the anthropological side by relational ontology. First, other concepts or terminology used to capture the essence of being “in Christ” (or, “Christusbezogenheit”), though partially illuminating, misunderstand important aspects of the connection. For example, the language of mysticism rightly captures the closeness of the union, but risks losing the particularity of the parties involved, as the idea tends toward “indistinguishability between God and man.”130 The term “participation” [“Partizipation”] preserves the particularity of the individual, however risks missing the “ontological implications and reciprocity of the union (‘we in Christ’ – ‘Christ in us’).” Moreover, Rehfeld goes on, participation focuses on partial union with the “‘work’ of Christ … not Christ himself” [»Werk« Christi … nicht an Christus selbst].131The language of “relational ontology,” however, captures the closeness of the union without dissolving the individuals (i.e., a relationship requires preservation of particular persons). It also captures the personal nature of the connection, versus focusing only on the benefits derived from “participation” in Christ’s death or resurrection. Second, Rehfeld finds that the language of “relational ontology” captures the ontological nature of being in Christ. Important is his consideration of 2 Cor 5:17, “ὣστε εἲ τις ἐν Χριστῷ [ἐστίν], καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά.” In this text, he understands an “ontological change” to have occurred. Focusing on the meaning of “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) in Paul, he quotes Stuhlmacher: Re-creation (Neuschöpfung) is an ontological concept (ontologischer Begriff) according to Paul. The being (Sein) of the new creature is a worldly and at the same time doxological being. The power that pervades this being is that of the Spirit, which in turn represents the Christological dimension of the thoroughly ontic word of God.132

Later in this study (ch. 4) we will revist whether or not the nature of the Christian person should be understood in terms of a new being (ontology). Third, the nature of union with Christ is dynamic and reciprocal in Rehfeld’s understanding, and the relational aspect of relational ontology captures this. “The local [lokales] understanding of the Pauline formula,” he explains, “can be misunderstood statically (sacramentally!) [statisch (sakra– mentalistisch!)].”133 The connection between the believer and Christ, on the other hand, represents a “dynamic relationship with a real person [dynamisches

Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 74. Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 76. 132 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 249; see P. Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen zum Problem von Gegenwart und Zukunft in der paulinischen Eschatologie,” ZTHK 64 (1967): 423–50. 133 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 282. 130 131

78

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

Verhältnis mit einer realen Person].”134 Rehfeld also notes that the related phrases “in Christ” and “Christ in you/us” express a reciprocal aspect of being “in Christ.” This reciprocity captures a key element of relationships, as he explains: “Relations (Relationene) are, in substance, designed for permanence and duration … and necessarily require constant care and renewal (bedarf es notwendigerweise ihrer stetigen Pflege und Erneuerung).”135 All these facets point toward a fourth emphasis, intimacy. Although not in total agreement with the mystical interpretation, Rehfeld does agree with Deissmann’s emphasis on the “intimacy of the union” between the believer and Christ.136 As stated above, the mystical reading risks leading to indistinguishability between the parties; intimacy, however, seems to require the particularity of the persons. For Rehfeld, central to the intimate nature of Christ-relatedness is Paul’s use of the marriage analogy for the believer’s relationship to Christ (i.e., 1 Cor 6:16–17; 2 Cor 11:2).137 Rehfeld is aware that within the history of interpretation the marriage analogy has often “given rise to mystical interpretations of the Christ community (mystischen Interpretationen der Christusgemeinschaft).”138 However, he contends, Paul does not understand marriage as a mystical unity, but “differentiated unity” (“differenzierte Einheit”).139 This “differentiated unity” means that the believer “in Christ” is in a relationship with a real person (“realen Person”), not a nebulous “pneumatic Christ.”140 It is only in a relationship with a real person Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 282. Rehfeld goes on to conclude, “To describe this living relationship [lebendigen Verhältnisses], as a ‘local’ understanding of the pauline-formula … is in fact inappropriate and better substituted by a ‘relationalontological,’ or ‘personal-ontology’ [personal-seinshaftes].” 135 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 78. This study will consider the reciprocal aspect of relationality in chapter 4 when analyzing Rom 8:9–11. 136 Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (New York: Harper, 1957), 140, writes of the “in Christ” paradigm that it is an “expression of the most intimate possible fellowship of the Christian with the living Spiritual Christ.” 137 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 73, explains in reference to the marriage analogy in Paul: “Although this happens only once explicitly (2 Cor. 11:2), there are also far-reaching convergences, such as when the apostle justifies his attitude to marriage by saying that he ‘seeks to please the Lord,’ like spouses looking for each other’s favor (1 Cor 7: 32–43).” One could add Rom 7:1–6; 1 Cor 6:16–17. 138 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 69–70. 139 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 69–71, considers the implications of 1 Cor 6:16–17 for union with Christ, and concludes that the marriage idea does not dissolve individuality altogether, “an entirely new, as yet unprecedented existence arises (see 2 Cor. 5:17), which, however, is to be understood as a differentiated unity, not as a numerical ‘unity’ (differenzierte Einheit, nicht als numerische “Einsheit”). 140 This is how Deissmann, Paul, 140, captures the nature of the “Christ” that the believer was in: “Christ is Spirit; therefore He can live in Paul and Paul in Him. Just as the air of life; which we breathe, is ‘in’ us and fills us, and yet we at the same time live in this air and 134

2.3 A Turn to Relational Anthropology in Pauline Studies

79

that the “unimaginably intimate union” (“unvorstellbar innige Einheit”) Paul conveys by the marriage analogy is intelligible.141 Further emphasizing the importance of the marriage analogy for Paul’s understanding of union with Christ is the apostle’s view of an illicit union with a prostitute. The latter is not merely unethical but signifies rival-community to Christ-community (“Konkurrenzgemeinschaft zur Christusgemeinschaft”).142 Following Zizioulas, Rehfeld finds the term perichoresis, which refers to the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, helpful for further explaining the nature of intimate union between believer and Christ.143 The “place (Ort)” of this intimate relationship is the believer’s heart (καρδία; Herz), which “is the affective and intentional ‘center’ of the human being (der καρδία als dem affektiven und intentionalen »Zentrum« des Menschen).”144 The strengths of Rehfeld’s study are many, including the scope of his analysis – ranging from κοινωνία, to relationships that compete with Christrelatedness, to impersonal powers, to the complex and rich collocation “ἐν Χριστῷ.” Rehfeld’s various references to relational realities such as “rivalcommunity to Christ-community” (“Konkurrenzgemeinschaft zur Christusgemeinschaft”) and impersonal powers (“unpersönliche Mächte”),145 support our efforts in the next chapter to consider different types of relationsaffecting-persons in Paul. Another strength is that Rehfeld precedes his exegetical analysis with an interdisciplinary overview of the concept relational ontology, which helps clarify the topic before turning to Paul. Finally, his study pushes the question of the individual-in-relation-to-the-other toward the anthropological side of the equation, and to the depth of ontology. This angle of analysis is missing from other accounts of the “corporate” or “participatory” elements of Paul’s thought. As mentioned in chapter 1, in Son’s treatment of “corporate anthropology” he

breathe it, so it is also with the Christ-intimacy of the Apostle Paul: Christ in him, he in Christ.” 141 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 284. 142 Rival-community to Christ-community includes fornication with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:12–20), fellowship with demons (1 Cor 10:14–22), and relapse into slavery to elemental and demonic forces (Gal 4:1–11). Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 105–15. 143 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 316–17, writes, “For example, J. D. Zizioulas, following Eastern theologians, described this reciprocal indwelling as perichorese and thus adopted a term originally found in the doctrine of the Trinity.” 144 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 319, 321. 145 E.g., Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paul, 126–221.

80

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

states that the “corporate” nature of human existence speaks to an “ontological reality.”146 However, nowhere does he probe what this means.147 Three areas of Rehfeld’s study may be built upon. First, as mentioned above, there is a need to more carefully categorize different types of relations in Paul. Second, and related, is a need to further explain how relationships impact personhood – or how the relational side of ontology affects specific aspects of the person. Third, although Rehfeld notes the importance of the Spirit in relational ontology,148 more could be said about how the Spirit generates the relationships between the believer and the Father and Son, and between the believer and other believers. These facets of the relational nature of human existence will be explored more in ensuing chapters of this study.

2.4. Summary Observations 2.4. Summary Observations

Having considered the interdisciplinary turn to RA as well as an increasing interest in how dynamics of RA surface in Paul, it will now be helpful to offer some summarizing observations. What are key elements of RA? How do the works of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld point in the direction of further exploration of RA in Paul? Six observations arise from this investigation so far. First, strictly individual or internal frameworks (i.e., especially substance ontologies) for understanding human existence are to be avoided. Views across the modern disciplines briefly noted above all suggest that constructions of the person based on substance-ontology or rationality are at best truncated, at worst

In explaining the connection between the believer and the Body of Christ, Sang-Won Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001), 101, writes, “Paul’s designation of the church as the body of Christ seems more than a mere metaphor…. It involves an ontological reality.” 147 As mentioned above, in his review of Son, C. F. D. Moule comments, “Terms such as ‘ontological reality,’ ‘really and ontologically,’ in ‘a realistic sense’ run like a refrain through the study; but where are we when ‘…this corporate body may not be physical in nature if one defines the term “physical” strictly as the visual [sic], material substance; nevertheless, it is an ontological reality as real as the physical body’ (p. 111)?” Moule, review of Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Selected Study of Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in Light of Paul’s Usage and Background, by Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, JTS 53.2 (2002): 658. 148 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 321, writes, “The emergence of the ‘Christian-intimacy’ received in faith in the time owes itself overall therefore to a pneumatic event.” He is here referring especially to Rom 5:5. While this explains that the Spirit communicates the love of God to the believer, in the heart, it does not explain more specifically the “relational work” of the Spirit, as Rabens’s work has done. 146

2.4. Summary Observations

81

false. Anthony Thiselton refers to modern theorists’ problem with the Cartesian cogito.149 Dale Martin explains that similar assumptions have affected Pauline studies: Even for those of us who never studied Descartes himself, some of the ways in which he defined the human situation provided the lens through which we see ourselves and nature. In particular, the relations between body and mind (or soul), physical and spiritual (or psychological), matter and nonmatter, nature and supernature, were delineated by Descartes in ways from which modern mentalities have only recently begun to escape…. Descartes’s importance for our purposes is his construction of that dualism as an ontological dualism (that is, his notion that these two things [i.e., body/soul] by their very substances partook of radically different realms of reality)…. Descartes’s dichotomy has mislead countless readers in their reading of ancient authors, Paul especially.150

Martin flags a few ways the “Cartesian lens” may affect understandings of Pauline anthropology. It further solidified a gnostic dualism, especially between the physical body and soul/mind. Evidence of such an impact is seen in the plethora of attention given to the “monism vs. dualism” debate, while only recently have scholars considered the more holistic questions of how embodiedness and relationality may constitute personhood.151 This “Cartesian lens” not only led to a dualism between the body and mind, but a prizing of the mind (soul/reason) over the body. This “turn inward” led naturally to making the foundation of personhood internal and isolated – a thoroughly disembodied and unrelated self. Related to these frameworks are the “substance ontological accounts” of human existence highlighted by the work of Rabens.152 George H. van Kooten’s study, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, is an example of a view onto Paul’s doctrine of man focusing heavily on substance-ontology (a trichotomy, in this case153), with a coinciding deemphasis on the physical aspect. Arguing for Thiselton, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self, 49. Martin, Corinthian Body, 4, 6. Emphasis added. 151 For example, Son, Corporate Elements, 1, opens his study by noting, “The discussion of Pauline anthropology basically deals with two key issues: (1) the nature of man – whether man is composed of three parts (trichotomy), two parts (dichotomy), or one (monism) – and (2) the individual and the corporate dimensions of Pauline anthropology.” In the area of modern biblical studies, treatments of the former question far exceed the latter. Max Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” makes the case that “until the twentieth century, a dominant Christian understanding of ‘man’ … was variously baptized versions of the (neo-) Platonic dualistic account of human ‘being,’ which emphasized the rational/moral ‘soul’….” 152 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 3. 153 George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 219, writes, [Philo’s and Paul’s] anthropology is very similar indeed and is based on a trichotomic understanding of man as consisting of 149 150

82

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

congruence between Philo’s and Paul’s view of humankind – a question beyond the purview of this study – van Kooten determines that Paul’s anthropology is strongly shaped by Greek thought.154 This leads to a focus on the substance and interior of the person (soul and spirit) aiming to gain control over the exterior (body),155 resulting in a dualism between inner- and outerman. In Paul’s use of “inner-” and “outer-man,” however, it seems more likely – though van Kooten disagrees – that as Betz argues, Paul is not so influenced by Greek thought as he is interacting with it, while holding a Jewish notion of a holistic anthropology.156 For van Kooten, “the climax of Paul’s anthropology” is noetic, or the “metamorphosis of man’s mind.”157 Romans 12:1–2 is a “synthesis of what Paul has said in 2 Cor 3–4 and Romans 6–8,” and therefore, metamorphosis in accordance with the image of God results in the growth of the inner man (2 Cor 3:18, 4:4, 4:16 …), in the latter text [Paul] shows that – in line with particular strands of philosophical reflection – he considers the inner man as equivalent with the mind (Rom 7:22–25) and defines man’s assimilation to Christ as a summorphōsis with the image of God.158

However, others understand the logic and goal of Paul’s idea of metamorphosis in the image of God differently. For example, C. Kavin Rowe explains the anthropological sense of Christ as the εἰκών of God (2 Cor 4:4) by stressing just the opposite of van Kooten, not interiority, but Christ’s visibleness, i.e., he is embodied: “The shape, then, of God’s image is in a very definite sense anthropological…. [F]or Paul Christ is always an ἄνθρωπος (cf. esp. Rom 5:15f.’ Phil 2:7f.), and thus God’s εἰκών is an image of a human…The εἰκών is the person himself.”159 Therefore, with Christ as the “object of spirit, soul, and body. This appears to be very similar to Platonic anthropology, although with a Jewish twist.” 154 E.g., van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 363–64, where van Kooten takes Paul’s phrase ὁ ἒσω ἂνθρωπος (2 Cor 4:16; Rom 7:22) “in this philosophical sense,” i.e., as used by platonic tradition. Although he does note the significance of Jewish texts, especially Genesis 1–2, however that text is interpreted through Philonic categories (219). 155 I.e., van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 340, argues that in his correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul develops his anthropology with “anti-sophistic features” by focusing “on man’s inner being, which is strengthened through a metamorphosis in accordance with the image of God.” 156 E.g., Hans Dieter Betz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἒσω ἄνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46.3 (2000), 316, writes, “It was Paul who first raised the problem that the conventional dualistic anthropology of body and soul was not compatible with the Christian gospel as he understood it.” 157 For example, van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 388–89. 158 van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 388–89 159 C. K. Rowe, “New Testament Iconography? Situating Paul in the Absence of Material Evidence,” in Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images, ed. A.

2.4. Summary Observations

83

transformation, this transformation not only has an internal dimension, but also an external one.”160 The relational component of human existence is also downplayed in van Kooten’s model: i.e., “to walk according to the Spirit not flesh” (Rom 8:4) does not envision the believer in relation to Christ and God by the Spirit. Rather, the use of “spirit” in Rom 8:4 is deliberately “ambiguous,” and the distinction Paul makes is between “those who walk according to the lowest possible level of their anthropological constitution … [and] those who walk according to their highest possible level.”161 The Spirit of God does not so much connect the believer with God in a relational sense, but, according to van Kooten, in Romans 8 “the human spirit is the result of the inbreathing of God’s Spirit of life. Yet this Spirit becomes fully part of man’s constitution, and it is better, therefore, to retain the ambiguity by writing ‘spirit’ with a small s.”162 Models of anthropology emphasizing this type of substance-ontological constitution downplay the importance of embodiment and participation in Paul’s vision of existence (e.g., 1 Cor 15:42–47; Rom 8:1–17; Phil 3:21), and in doing risk an overly-autonomous vision of the person. As the above overview demonstrates, a plethora of modern theorists and an increasing number of Pauline scholars argue against views of human existence that are overly dualistic and/or individualistic. This of course is not to say that questions such as how Paul conceived of the soul (ψυχή) or inner human (ἒσω ἄνθρωπον; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16) in relation to the body are unimportant. Neither is it to say that the individual does not exist in Paul or has no interior life. Rather, an accurate account of individual existence must account for a more complex array of phenomena than examining merely the substance of the soul, rational capacity of the mind, or notion of consciousness, allows. Second, relations (i.e., relations, relationships, relatedness, relationality) play an essential role in constituting and shaping personhood. Dunn’s claim – in Paul “persons [are] defined as persons by their relations”163 – is supported by modern theorists and recent biblical scholars. Theologians Zizioulas, Vanhoozer, and Ebeling all emphasize that relations are not secondary, but essential to being a person. From the field of biblical studies, that the Pauline person exists within a web of connections – i.e., embeddedness, cosmology, participatory language in Paul, etc. – is becoming an increasingly common Weissenrieder, F. Wendy, and P. von Gemünden, WUNT 2.193 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 289–312, 300. 160 V. Henry T. Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus, and Valerius Maximus, WUNT 2.243 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 179. On Paul’s use of “the image of God,” see Vernon S. McCasland, “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul,” JBL 69.2 (1950): 85–100. 161 van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 384. 162 van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 384–85. 163 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 53.

84

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

viewpoint. One way to articulate and understand these non-autonomous features of personhood is the category relations. Third, not all relations are equal or unfold in the same manner. In tandem with the importance of relations for understanding human existence is the need to notice that various types of relations play a role. Vanhoozer notes that some relationships are “free” while others are “involuntary.”164 Eastman suggests that some relations may be with humans while others with non-humans (“supracorporeal forces”),165 and some may be vertical and others horizontal. Relations can also be personal and non-personal, as Rehfeld’s reflections on relations with the “unpersönliche Mächte” sin, the law, and death, suggested.166 The embeddedness in a world, or solidarity, that results from being embodied is yet another type of relation affecting persons, as the work Käsemann and Eastman (building on Martin) points out.167 A thorough understanding of RA in Paul, therefore, needs to account for an array of expressions, or types, of relations. We will keep this in mind in chapter 3 when we develop this study’s view of RA in Paul. Fourth, how, specifically, relations affect or determine human existence can also vary. In certain cases, it appears that a relation determines identity, such as in the case of sonship (Rom 8:14–17). In other cases, relations affect agency. Eastman, reflecting on the disappearing and reappearing “ego” in Gal 2:19–20, explains that the claim that “Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20a) “affects the agency and identity of the acting subject of the verb ‘to live’ in the following verse.”168 It is also the case that in Paul, sin, cosmic forces, and other factors appear to affect the agency of individuals.169 Rabens points out, moreover, how relationships affect the heart through experiences of intimacy and deepening knowledge. The “transferal” from life in the flesh to life in Christ/the Spirit in Romans 8, Rabens explains, is an “existence-transforming,” resulting in a “change of allegiance … with the consequence of a new belonging.”170 It is the intimacy and deeper knowledge brought about in these relationships that Vanhoozer, “Human Being,” 174. Emphasis added. Eastman, Paul and the Person, 91. 166 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 126–221. 167 Martin, Corinthian Body, 17 writes, “In the ancient world bodies were permeable, unbounded, and of a piece with their environment.” Cited in Eastman, Paul and the Person, 95. 168 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 155. Emphasis added. Eastman explains, “Paul subsequently depicts human agency as constituted in relationship to the agency of ‘the flesh,’ on the one hand, or ‘the Spirit,’ on the other” (p. 91). 169 J. Albert Harrill, “Paul and the Slave Self,” in Religion and the Self in Antiquity, ed., David B. Brakke, Michael L. Satlow and Steven Weitzman (Indiana University Press, 2005), 53, suggests a reading of Romans 7 where the self is a “captured slave,” however, “though captured, retains its subjective agency.” 170 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 172. 164 165

2.4. Summary Observations

85

actualizes new existence/new belonging.171 Rabens’s emphasis here is echoed by Rehfeld’s use of the term perichoresis to explain the relatedness of believer and Christ, which takes place in the heart.172 From the works considered thus far, it is clear that how relations define or affect personhood involves various aspects of the person. This suggests the need to more carefully define the Pauline person, and then more systematically ask how relations affect aspects of personhood. This need is addressed in chapter 3. Fifth, methodological concerns need to be raised when employing the concept of relational anthropology, but they are not insurmountable. The term “relational anthropology” is not a Pauline term, and neither is the cluster of terms “relation/ relationship/relatedness.” Rabens notes this potential problem but offers a compelling case for seeing the “concept” of “relationship” as pervasive in Paul and the biblical context. He remarks, “The center of Paul’s life and theology is a relationship – what he values most in his life is ‘the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord’ … (Phil 3:7–14; Gal 2:20).”173 He also offers dozens of scriptural references indicating the theme of “relationship” and “relatedness” in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. This study will further define the term “relation” and “relationship” below but cites Rabens as a particularly relevant example of the merit of using this term when describing phenomena in Paul. Another methodological concern is the interdisciplinary approach this study has taken in this chapter by considering the development of RA in non-biblical disciplines, as well as the use of the so-called non-Pauline concept “person/personhood.” As a study of Pauline thought, an analysis of RA in Paul’s letters must be grounded in historical and exegetical work and avoid “reading into” Paul modern concepts. However, as the analysis of Eastman’s methodology reveals, especially in her careful use of the term “person,” asking if Paul’s letters shed light on a notion of personhood is plausible if done with caution. What is required is (a) the building of the study on ultimately historical and exegetical work attending to the Pauline texts; and (b) carefully defining the terms and concepts used that may come with much “modern baggage,” so that they are used, as Schnelle puts it, to “help as neutrally as possible to life up the NT corpus.”174 As such, this study will take time to define the concepts 171 Rabens, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul,” 200, writes, “The Spirit effects religious-ethical life predominantly by means of intimate relationships created by the Spirit with God (Αββα), Jesus, and fellow believers…. [I]t is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate relationship with, God, Jesus Christ, and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religious-ethical life.” Emphasis original. 172 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 321. 173 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 137. 174 Schnelle, The Human Condition, 9.

86

Chapter 2: A Turn to Relational Anthropology

“person” and “relation” in the next chapter, and develop the model of relational anthropology through analysis of several Pauline texts. Sixth, the role of the Spirit in RA needs further examination. This was signaled at the close of chapter 1, and the work of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld only further emphasize this point. Their work analyzed above suggests the importance of the pneumatic aspect of the individual-in-relation-to-another in Paul, though in varying ways. Eastman’s work on the Spirit and personhood in Romans 8 proved insightful, but ultimately suggested that this text needed to be examined again, along with other passages that may be relevant to how the Spirit affects RA. Rabens’s work focuses directly on pneumatology by offering a model whereby for the believer RA is essentially a pneumatological phenomenon. The relationships that build up individuals are generated and sustained by the Spirit.175 However, while Rabens’s work offers a key insight that the Spirit generates and sustains relationships, it does not focus so much on personhood as it does on transformation for ethical living. Rehfeld’s work also notes the role of the Spirit in RA by carefully addressing the tendency in Pauline mysticism of speaking of the “pneumatic Christ.” Deissmann, for example, suggests that the “peculiarly Pauline expression [ἐν Χριστῷ]” is indicative of “fellowship of the Christian with the living Spiritual Christ.”176 The less common, though similar, collocation ἐν πνεύματι, along with the difficult 2 Cor 3:17, have led some scholars to equate the “exalted Christ” with the Spirit. Drawing from the work of Mehrdad Fatehi, Rehfeld concludes however, “Christ cannot be reduced to the Spirit,”177 though a dynamic relationship exists between the two. Rather, “Christ remains as the exalted person [Erhöhte Person] and does not dissolve into the Spirit.”178 However, and at the same time, “Christ as the exalted is personally present and real [ist persönlich gegenwärtig und real wirkend (dynamisch)], his presence being pneumatically mediated [pneumatisch vermittelte].”179 From this framework, Rehfeld makes the important conclusion, “Consequently, spirit175 E.g., Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 239, writes, “1 Corinthians 14 spells out in more details how the individual gifts can strengthen and empower the body of Christ. For example, the Spirit builds up individuals through the gift of tongues. However, Paul admonishes the Corinthians that as a church they should rather give more space to prophecy as this builds up others within the community (14:4–5, 12). Paul is thus aware of the empowerment and building up of people that is the result of the Spirit’s work in the dynamics of interpersonal relationships.” Emphasis added. 176 Deissmann, Paul, 140. 177 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 261; referring to Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, WUNT 2.128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 307. 178 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 262. 179 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 262.

2.5. Further Exploration

87

gift and being-in-Christ [Geistbegabung und In-Christus-Sein] belong inseparably together.”180 Such insights from Rehfeld suggest how integral the Spirit is to the relationships between the believer and Christ, and this begs for further exploration. The work of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld all demonstrate that the role of the Spirit is integral to RA in the life of the believer. However, none of their studies thoroughly addresses how Spirit-wrought relationships affect personhood in Paul but rather only touch on the topic partly (Eastman, Rehfeld) or treat it from a different focus, such as ethical transformation (Rabens). This study seeks to bring these various aspects together by focusing in later chapters directly on how the Spirit’s work evidences RA in Paul, and, more specifically, on how Spirit-wrought relationships affect personhood.

2.5. Further Exploration 2.5. Further Exploration

The above analyses and summarizing comments suggest a need for further exploration in two areas: specificity and the Spirit. The need for specificity has to do with recognizing that RA involves an array of types of relations in Paul,181 and therefore in the next chapter we will specify various types of relations in Paul, asking if they in fact bear upon personhood. The need for specificity also has to do with grasping how personhood is defined or affected by relations. As noted above, the works of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld point toward a variety of aspects of personhood to be considered – i.e., agency, identity, and the heart. They also demonstrate the need to more systematically explore this area. This will require developing a model of the Pauline person that exposes various aspects of personhood, so that we can ask how different types relations affect various aspects of personhood. This is the task of chapter 3. Following this, the study will then turn in Part 2 to the theme of the Spirit and RA.

Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 262. E.g., Eastman’s work highlights at least three different types of relations: embodiedhumanity in relation to the world, acting-humanity in relation to sin, and converted-humanity in relation to Christ. Rabens highlights humanity in relation to God, Christ, and other believers, and Rehfeld covers the widest array of relational-counterparts, ranging from the idea of κοινωνία, to relations with idols, the law, sinister powers, and Christ. 180 181

Chapter 3

Relational Anthropology According to Paul This study now turns to assessing the phenomenon of Relational Anthropology (RA) in Paul by looking at the apostle’s thought. As the previous two chapters suggested, considering RA in Paul would benefit from increased specificity. On the one hand, analysis needs to bear in mind various types of relations that may shape personhood in Paul. On the other hand, analysis must penetrate to various aspects of personhood in Paul in order to explain more specifically how relations affect persons. Keeping these needs in mind, this chapter is organized in three parts. First, the concepts “person” and “relations” are defined, asking how we can speak of these concepts in light of Paul’s own thought. Emerging from this section will be a view of the Pauline person that highlights three aspects, identity, agency, and heart. Also emerging will be a spectrum of relational “types,” ensuring analysis of relations in Paul is sufficiently broad. Second, five types of relations in Paul are considered that shape human existence in some degree. These include: (1) creature and Creator relation; (2) embodied persons embedded in an environment; (3) humans vis-à-vis cosmology and supra-human forces; (4) Christ-relatedness; and (5) believer in relation to other believers. These areas of Paul’s thought are not treated exhaustively, but rather considered in enough depth to support the theory that the Pauline person is constructed vis-à-vis relations. Third, how these five types of relations shape personhood in light of the three aspects – identity, agency, and heart – will be noted.

3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation 3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation

3.1.1. The “Person” according to Paul Methodological Considerations

Interpretations of Pauline anthropology that employ the term “person” face methodological challenges. “Person” and “personhood,” in their modern usages, are not Pauline words. Neither did Paul’s immediate lexicon include a

3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation

89

usage of πρόσωπον1 carrying the level of introspective-individualism and autonomy the modern term “person” indicates.2 In the NT and Septuagint, πρόσωπον conveyed the senses “face,” “countenance,” “mask,” or “front/façade.”3 In the broader Hellenistic literature, πρόσωπον, Lohse explains, could convey a “sense of ‘person’ to denote man in his position in human society”; however, “one may not assume that the word had this sense in the NT period.”4 This does not mean, however, that Paul had no concept of a human being as an individual actor with a sense of self. Rather, it means that one must approach the idea carefully in his letters, avoiding anachronism, but still allowing certain individualizing aspects of his anthropology to speak. Anthony Cohen’s distinction between “individualism” and “selfhood” is a 1 The English terms “person” and “personhood” are etymologically related to persona and πρόσωπον. See Max Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood’ in the New Testament, with Special Reference to Ephesians,” EQ 77.3 (2005): 211. In Paul’s use of πρόσωπον, the term can mean one’s “face” (e.g., 1 Cor 13:12; 14:25), and in one instance does capture the sense of the individual human, “You also must help us by prayer, so that many (πολλῶν προσώπων) will give thanks on our behalf…” (2 Cor 1:11). However, nowhere does Paul use it to convey the complex modern idea of the “self; among his anthropological terms, πρόσωπον is not one. In terms of Paul’s “anthropological terms,” along with the basic term for the human, or individual, ἄνθρωπος (111 x), the most significant are: σῶμα (75 x); σάρξ (77 x); καρδία (51 x); συνείδησις (19 x); νοῦς (19 x); ψυχή (13 x); [human] πνεῦμα. For analysis of each term, see Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971). Also included can be the phrases and terms, ὁ παλαιὸς ἂνθρωπος (Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9); καινός [νέος] ἄνθρωπος (Eph 2:15; 4:22; Col 3:10); ἒσω ἄνθρωπος (Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16); καινὴ κτίσις (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). 2 Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 222, cautions that when “Western Moderns and post-Moderns” approach the Pauline world, they must be cautions of their own presuppositions. He explains, “Descartes, Enlightenment ‘man’, the Romantics, Kant, Freud, Jung, and developments since, have placed the major emphasis of personhood on the inner self, the subjective and all-too-readily individualistic pole of experience, the worldinterpreting (including ‘self-interpreting’) ‘I.’ The first century Greco-Roman world, like so much of the modern Eastern and Southern worlds, was fundamentally different.” 3 For the semantic range of πρόσωπον in Greek literature, see LSJ, “πρόσωπον,” 1533; for its range in biblical literature, including the LXX and NT, see BDAG, “πρόσωπον,” 887– 88; Eduard Lohse, “πρόσωπον,” TDNT, 6:768–80. All concur that the predominant Greek usage, up to the period of the NT, was “face/front,” “mask,” or “countenance.” 4 Eduard Lohse, “πρόσωπον,” TDNT, 6:768–80, 768. John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 27–49, offers a thorough overview of the development of the concept “person” in Greaco-Roman literature. His findings concur with those of Lohse. See also V. Henry T. Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus, and Valerius Maximus, WUNT 2.243 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 21–50, who studies the usage of persona and πρόσωπον in the Graeco-Roman world and finds that “in both these malleable terms there existed a meaning of ‘social identity’ in the Graeco-Roman world” (p. 49). Again, the stress is on the social setting more so than introspection.

90

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

helpful way forward. In “individualism,” there is a “infatuation” with the individual and a privileging of the “individual over society.”5 This may reflect certain modern societies, but not Paul’s world. With “selfhood,” however, “anthropological attention to the self recognizes the need to address individuals’ perceptions of society.”6 This means the individual exists because they “differ” from others, and because they are “the premise of individual’s behavior.”7 Cohen uses a third category, “individuality,” to suggest “a property of selfhood: the perception of an individual’s distinctiveness.”8 A notion of individuality and selfhood can be robust and present, without a society needing to show signs of individualism. Therefore, we will approach this idea in Paul as Eastman has: Paul “did [have a notion of the person], but not with the abstract or individualistic concept ‘person.’ Rather, he displays a functional understanding of human beings as relationally constituted agents who are both embodied and embedded in their world.9 Following Cohen and agreeing with Eastman, this study holds that Paul’s thought does include a notion of “person”; however, it requires some clarification in terms of how it differs from most modern conceptions and how it will be used in this study.10

5 Anthony Cohen, Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity (London: Routledge, 1994), 168; see also Michael Welker, “Flesh–Body–Heart–Soul–Spirit: Paul’s Anthropology as an Interdisciplinary Bridge-Theory,” in The Depth of the Human Person: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. M. Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 45–57, 56, who notes Paul’s anthropology includes a self-awareness, “a dynamic, restless, and sensitive ‘power of self-judgment,’ a consciousness of norms, which also questions itself in light of its fellow human beings and their needs, in which a person’s ‘conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them’ (Rom 2:15).” 6 Cohen, Self Consciousness, 168. 7 Cohen, Self Consciousness, 168. 8 Cohen, Self Consciousness, 168. 9 Susan Grove Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 2 10 John M. G. Barclay, “Introduction,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole, LNTS 335 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 3–4, makes a similar point in reference to discussions of human agency: “If the ‘post-modern’ turn has taught us anything, it is that many of the ‘obvious’ assumptions of modernity are historically conditioned: they express a conceptuality that may be neither necessary nor helpful in considering either the future of our race or its pre-modern traditions. With regard to agency, the similarities of language between ancient debates and modern discussions of free will and determinism often, it seems, mask fundamental differences of conceptuality. For instance, the modern association of human agency and responsibility with notions of independence and autonomy – especially in relation to the divine – can be shown to be the construct of a particularly modern phase in the history of thought.”

3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation

91

Approaching a Definition The OED defines “person”: “An individual human being … acting in some capacity, [a] personal agent…. The actual self or being of a man or woman, an individual personality.”11 A more philosophical definition suggests that the concept accounts for “rationality, command of language, self-consciousness, control of agency, and moral worth or title to respect.”12 Modern theorists note the maxim of Boethius as an early articulation: persona est naturae rationabilis individua substantia.13 Bearing in mind Turner’s caution – that “person” and “personhood” are “fuzzy lexemes”14 – it seems plausible to highlight three aspects of the above definitions. Along with always having in mind an individual, definitions touch on identity, agency and heart. We briefly comment on each. The term “identity” suggests that persons have a level of self-awareness, a transcendent capacity to conceive of who they are in relation to other persons and a social setting. The above definitions speak of “an actual self” with an “individual personality” having “moral worth or title to respect.”15 This suggests both self-awareness (“actual self”) and self-evaluation vis-à-vis a context (“moral worth/title to respect”).16 As was the case with the term person, when using the concept identity to understand first century anthropology, we need to be equally cautious of anachronism. However, as Lieu has argued, in terms of the notions of “boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity

11 “Person,” Oxford English Dictionary, 597. The fuller definition reads, “An individual human being; a man, woman, or child. (In earliest use, The human being acting in some capacity, personal agent or actor, person concerned) …. In general philosophical sense: a self-conscious or rational being…. The actual self or being of a man or woman; individual personality. With or possessive of his (own) person=himself; your person=yourself, you personally.” 12 See The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 3rd ed., ed. Simon Blackburn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 356. 13 Boethius’s (c. 480–525) definition is roughly translated, “A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. His words are noted by C. C. J. Webb, God and Personality: Being the Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in the Years 1918 & 1919, First Course (London: Allen & Unwin, 1918), 47–48, who explains that it “became the standard definition for the writers of the Middle Ages and which is still [1919] perhaps, take it all in all, the best that we have.” See also Hans-Peter Schütt, “Person,” in Religion Past & Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion, ed. Hans D. Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, Eberhard Jüngel (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 9:731, who refers to the significance of Boethius’s dictum on modern ideas of personhood. 14 Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 215. 15 “Person,” Oxford English Dictionary, 597; “Person,” The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 356. 16 E.g., Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth, 49, who emphasizes “‘social identity.’”

92

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

… of recognition by self and by others,” we can apply the concept of identity to Paul’s world with some confidence.17 The concept of identity surfaced in various scholars considered above: Malina writes of “individuals” in need of “meaningful existence” who have an “image … of themselves [identity].”18 Meeks sees the “unusual degree of intimacy” and “internal cohesion” of Christian groups as a means of reconstituting identity.19 Eastman suggests that the presence of Christ within the believer (e.g., Gal 2:20) “affects the … identity of the person.”20 As such, in asking whether and how relations affect personhood, we will specify by asking if relations shape an individual’s sense of who they are and their worth. The concept of “agency” implies that persons are actors; they can decide, choose and act within the world in which they live. This comes directly from the above definitions, which speak of an “individual human being … acting in some capacity, [a] personal agent.”21 Barclay and others have noted how complex the notion of agency is in Paul and his cultural environment, especially in light of the interplay between divine and human actors.22 Our goal in this study is not to analyze agency per se, but to broadly define it inasmuch as it is important to personhood; and, from that vantage point, ask if certain relations shape human agency. In his treatment of personhood in the New Testament, Turner suggests that persons have a capacity for “responsible/moral agency and deliberate actions.”23 In our use of the word, the emphasis lies with deliberate actions 17 Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 11–12. 18 Bruce J. Malina, New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 63. 19 Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 74. 20 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 155. 21 “Person,” Oxford English Dictionary, 597. Emphasis added. 22 E.g., John M. G. Barclay and Simon Gathercole, ed., Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, LNTS 335 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). Barclay, “Introduction,” 6–7, notes three different construals of how divine and human agency were conceived of in Paul’s milieu: a competitive relationships, “the more that one is said to be effective, the less can be attributed to the other” (p. 6); kinship, “God and humanity are here within the same spectrum of being, and the agency of one is shared with the other, rather than standing in competition against it” (p. 6); non-contrastive transcendence, “Here divine agency is certainly not in principle exclusive of human agency: transcendence is not viewed in contrastive terms. God’s sovereignty does not limit or reduce human freedom, but is precisely what grounds and enables it. The two agencies thus stand in direct, and not inverse proportion: the more the human agent is operative, the more (not the less) may be attributed to God” (p. 7). The divine-human interplay will be touched on in the below treatment of the “Creator and creature” relationship. 23 Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 213.

3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation

93

more than the will or desire. By agency we mean that a person is able to act in accordance with either (a) their desire(s) or (b) a command. We are interested, for example, in the idea that the presence of “another” enables the human to act in a way they otherwise would not – e.g., Eastman notes that Christ’s presence “affects the agency … of the acting subject.”24 In asking if relations shape personhood, we will therefore pay attention to whether or not a relation aides, suppresses, or guides a human’s ability to act.25 If by agency we focus on the act, by “heart” we are concerned with internal reasons and motives. There are admittedly important distinctions between notions of reason, desire, and will. However, Paul’s use of καρδία (heart) reflects a Jewish heritage where these phenomena were intertwined. Jewett has found in Paul’s Jewish context “the heart as the center of man is thought of as the source of will, emotion, thoughts and affections.” He goes on, “This traditional Judaic conception was related by Paul to Hellenistic categories such as ‘mind,’ ‘attitude,’ ‘thoughts,’ and ‘desires.’”26 Therefore, this study’s use of the concept of “heart” is meant to capture the blended phenomena of thinking, willing and desiring – man’s center or intentionality. In his study of relational ontology, Rehfeld draws attention to this aspect of anthropology, noting the location of the believer’s experience of Christ-relatedness is the heart. For Paul, Rehfeld concludes, the heart is “dem affektiven und intentionalen ‘Zentrum’ des Menschen.”27 In asking how relations shape personhood, therefore, we will note how the presence of another shapes thinking, willing and desiring. Thus, a basic model of the person emerges involving three basic aspects, identity, agency, and heart. These aspects admittedly have much overlap –

24 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 155. Eastman writes, “The question is not whether Paul speaks as a robust ‘self’ addressing other ‘selves’ as well as communities, but how that personal agency and speech are qualified by participation in a larger relational environment and by indwelling agents” (p. 13). Emphasis added. 25 There is overlap between these aspects, e.g., if agency is impacted by Lordship, with new agency can also come new identity. Valérie Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing the Self: Thinking with Paul and Michel Foucault, WUNT 2.324 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 79, writes in reference to Romans 6–8, “In terms of ēthos, human beings are marked by a lack of autonomy. Being a slave to one’s master involves giving obedience to the master [agency] ([Rom] 6:16), but Paul also indicates that the master one is serving decides the identity of the one who is serving the master.” 26 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 448. 27 Emmanuel L. Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus: Die ontische Wirksamkeit der Christusbezogenheit im Denken des Heidenapostels, WUNT 2.326 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 321.

94

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

hence the more Hebrew “aspectival” perspective.28 It is also the case that these three aspects are indicative of ideas indigenous to Paul and his world. Though not with the same degree of introspection, Paul is aware of his own identity, who he is vis-à-vis the world about and his own narrative/ethnic heritage (e.g., Rom 9:3; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 1:13–14; 2:15; Phil 3:4). Likewise, the Hebrew poet could reflect on humanity’s worth vis-à-vis God’s grandeur (e.g., Ps 8:4). A sense of who I am in relation to others is a basic aspect of Paul’s view of human existence. Such is the case with agency, as varied and complex as that concept is. As mentioned, we cannot here delve into the broader conversation regarding the interplay between divine and human agency in Paul’s thought.29 Our concern is with the more general claim that Paul’s anthropology includes some aspect of agency.30 The very fact of the broader scholarly conversation supports this facet of our anthropological model: whatever else personhood involves, some facet of agency is at play. How such agency is construed in relation to other forces/beings will surface later in this study. For now, it suffices simply to note that Paul’s view of humankind evidences some blend of (a) an ability to choose and act (Rom 15:25); (b) a frustrated ability to choose and act (Rom 7:15–24); and (c) some form of blended agency (θεός … ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν, Phil 2:12–13; see also Rom 8:13, 14; 26–27; Gal 2:20; Phil 1:21; 4:13; Col 1:29).31 28 We referred to this aspectival approach in chapter 1. Most modern scholars take this approach to Paul’s view of humankind. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 54, is representative: “While Greek thought tended to regard the human being as made up of distinct parts, Hebrew thought saw the human being more as a whole person existing on different dimensions. As we might say, it was more characteristically Greek to conceive of the human person ‘partitively,’ whereas it was more characteristically Hebrew to conceive of the human person ‘aspectively.’” See also, Schweizer, “σάρξ,” TDNT, 7:109; Turner “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 217. 29 For discussions on agency in Paul and his context, see the aforementioned Barclay and Gathercole, Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment; Jason Maston, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Study, WUNT 2.297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 30 The comment of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Once More a Lutheran Paul?: A Review of Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith,” SJT 59 (2006): 452, is indicative of the debate: “The idea of a clear and radical contrast between a way to salvation that is ‘unconditional,’ in the sense that it is exclusively an expression of divine agency, and a way that is ‘conditional’ in the sense that it also involves human agency, is a contrast that has no footing at all in the ancient texts themselves.” Cited in Maston, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul, 9. 31 Gudrun Holtz, Die Nichtigkeit des Menschen und die Übermacht Gottes: Studien zur Gottes- und Selbsterkenntnis bei Paulus, Philo und in der Stoa. WUNT I.377 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), notes a likely interplay between Paul’s understanding of the self and stoic thought. Such a thesis is beyond the scope of this study, but Holtz’s insight regarding the difference between knowledge and agency in Paul and the Stoa illumines some of the arguments of this study: Holtz, 372, argues, “In stoic philosophy, God is known through

3.1. Defining Concepts: Person and Relation

95

The third aspect, heart, could be thought of as the psychological aspect of humankind.32 Though Paul can differentiate between mind and heart, he ultimately understands thinking, willing, and desiring as blended, originating in one’s center/heart, which is a very Jewish notion of the person.33 Jewett’s above comment suffices for evidence that this notion was part of Paul’s anthropological milieu.34 Paul specifically refers to this inner aspect of men and women in Romans 1, when he recounts their turn away from God, which reveals a capacity, in some degree, for knowing and desiring: e.g., although they “knew” (γνόντες) God they did not honor God, and therefore became futile in “thinking” (διαλογισμοῖς), darkened in “heart” (καρδία), and debased in “mind” (νοῦν) (Rom 1:21–22, 28). This plunge/handing-over into ignorance and impotence is complex, but here we simply point out that it reflects some capacity within the Pauline person to think, will, desire – he or she is a cognitive, affective, and volitional being. Finally, and as mentioned above, highlighting these aspects of personhood is meant neither to be an exhaustive treatment of Paul’s anthropology nor a partitive one. The aspectival view of personhood, when analyzing a specific aspect, always has in mind the totality of the person. 3.1.2. The Concept “Relation” The second concept to define before moving forward is “relation.” As the previously assessed studies suggest, “relation” is not a monolithic concept in Paul. Rather, if we take collectively the work of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld, it is evident that an array of relations exists in Paul. Here we briefly distinguish human reason [menschliche Vernunft, i.e., λόγος],” and human reason and rational argument teach one “God-knowledge” [Gotteserkenntnis] (372). On the other hand, in Paul’s thought, knowledge requires God’s revelation to man, i.e., λόγος = “das heißt seine Verkündigung” (372). Thus, for Paul man’s ability to know and act are not autonomous, but depend on another. 32 J. K. Chamblin, “Psychology,” in DPL, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 765, admits, “The term psychology is based on Greek (psychē [“soul”] + logos [“word”]) but is not Pauline.” However, he too uses it as a catch-all for several “interior” phenomena in Paul’s anthropology: “[The term psychology] is useful for denoting aspects of Paul’s anthropology, so long as we recognize that Paul views the human being as a psychosomatic unity in whom rational, emotional and physical functions are fully integrated.” Emphasis added. 33 E.g., Deut 6:5 and Matt 22:37 call for the “totality” of humanity’s devotion to God and demonstrate the blend of heart and mind. 34 Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 448, adds, “From the first letter to the last, Paul’s use of the word ‘heart’ remains uniformly within the Judaic tradition. It therefore belongs to the earliest ascertainable level of Pauline anthropology. It depicts man as a whole viewed from his intentionality; the heart as the center of man is thought of as the source of will, emotion, thoughts and affections. This traditional Judaic conception was related by Paul to Hellenistic categories such as ‘mind,’ ‘attitude,’ ‘thoughts,’ and ‘desires.’”

96

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

between different “types of relations” in order to more carefully assess the phenomenon in Paul. To begin, this study notes a distinction between “relation” and “relationship.” The term “relation” refers to a connection existing between two things, where the existence of one is affected in some way by the reality and presence of the other.35 Used in this study, the term refers to a connection where only one of the parties needs to be personal. For example, in the sentence, “somatic man is partly constituted in relation to his world,” man is a personal being, while the world is an impersonal thing.36 The term “relationship,” on the other hand, involves two personal parties.37 Defined, a relationship involves two personal parties, where the existence of at least one is affected by the presence and influence of the other, and it is more likely that both parties are affected by the connection between the two.38 A personal relationship may be further qualified by reciprocity or mutuality, as Robert Hinde explains: “A relationship implies some sort of intermittent interaction between two people involving interchanges…. The interchanges have some degree of mutuality.”39 The relationship that involves reciprocity is The OED definition reads thus, “The feature or attribute of things which is involved in considering them in comparison or contrast with each other; the particular way in which one thing is thought of in connexion with another; any connexion, correspondence, or association, which can be conceived as naturally existing between things.” See “Relation,” The Oxford English Dictionary, prep. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 13:550. 36 J. Turner, “Ontology,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1917), 498, explains the concept “relation” from a more philosophical vantage point, but his definition is helpful here: “The relation is the being of one term in so far as it concerns itself with the being of another. This connection may be permanent or temporary, essential or unessential: the general types of relation of which a thing is capable remain unaltered, but particular relations may vary without change of the thing itself.” 37 A relationship can involve more than two parties, as certain dynamics involving being “a member of the body of Christ” (Rom 12:3–5; 1 Cor 12:12–26) demonstrate. However, for the sake of clarity, the above definition is restricted to dyadic relationships, however the basic principles will apply to relationships involving more than two parties. 38 F. M. Berenson, Understanding Persons: Personal and Impersonal Relationships (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), 74–75, explains the “personal relationships” require that both parties are “object-subject dynamics,” writing, “Seeing a person as an object involves, broadly speaking, observing behavior, expressions, deducing motives and intentions from observed actions and such like…. Seeing a person as a subject involves seeing him as having feelings, intentions, desires, etc., which come into play in his relationships vis-à-vis another.” Emphasis added. 39 Robert A. Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, EMSP 18 (London: Academic Press, 1979), 14, Daniel Perlman and Anita L. Vangelisti, “Personal Relationships: An Introduction,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, ed. Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 4, define personal relationships by emphasizing the mutual impact between the two parties: 35

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

97

likewise dynamic versus static,40 with the dynamic relationship often being marked by intimacy. This is important to note, because, as Hinde suggests, the “type” of relationships will affect how persons are impacted within the relational dynamic. For example, intimate relationships tend to have a strong impact on persons, a point to keep in mind when the Christ-believer relationship is examined below.41 Two further distinctions can be made. First, when turning to Paul, we want to be aware not only of intimate but also hostile relations. If an intimate personal relationship is important to personhood (“in Christ”), it may be the case that a hostile relationship has just as significant of an impact (“indwelt by Sin”). Second, the presence of relationships that are “vertical” as well as “horizontal” need to be kept in mind, meaning, those with supra-human beings (God, demons, etc.) and those with other humans. In summary, a relational typology in Paul would need to be aware of personal, impersonal, intimate, hostile, vertical, horizontal, dynamic, and static relations. Having this range of relations in mind will help ensure that our analysis is appropriately broad. Referring again to Schnelle, in Paul “human life by nature exists within a comprehensive set of interrelations [Zusammenhang].”42

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul 3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

3.2.1. Creature and Creator

A key presupposition to all of Paul’s thought is his doctrine of creation.43 Fundamental to that doctrine is that humans are creatures created by God (Rom 1:23, 25; cf. Gen 1–3; 1:26–27; 2:7–25). In contrast to other views in the ancient world, for Paul and his Jewish tradition, this did not mean humanity is

“Two people are in a relationship with one another if they impact each other, if they are interdependent in the sense that a change in one person causes a change in the other and vice versa.” 40 Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 35. 41 Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 114, defines intimacy as follows: “The extent to which the participants in a relationship are prepared to reveal all aspects of themselves, experiential, emotional and physical, to each other is a crucial dimension of many relationships.” Developed below will be the intimacy the believer experiences in relationship to God, through God’s Son and Spirit (i.e., Rom 5:5; 8:39) and how this affects personhood. 42 Udo Schnelle, Paulus: Leben und Denken (Berlin: Walter de Guyter, 2003), 565. 43 See Udo Schnelle, The Human Condition: Anthropology in the Teachings of Jesus, Paul, and John, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 37–38.

98

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

divine.44 Rather, humans bear a divine likeness (Gen 1:26–27; 5:1–2; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10) and their existence must be understood, therefore, in relation to God. Several aspects of the creature-Creator relation can be drawn from Rom 1:18–32 and other Pauline texts. First, the relation between man-as-creature and God-the-Creator is more than a “static/positional” reality.45 It is intended to be a personal relationship, dynamic in nature and marked by intimacy. In Romans 1 this is evidenced by the unmet expectations of “honor,” “thanks,” “worship,” and “service” (Rom 1:23, 25) that man and woman are to render to God – “the only appropriate attitude for the creature towards the Creator.”46 Acts of “honoring,” “serving,” and “worshiping” indicate that man (ideally) knows God, speaks to God, and has affection toward God, all facets of dynamic and intimate relationships.47 Indicated in both Paul and his Jewish background, humanity’s relating to God is to be from the heart, not mere lip service (Deut 6:5; Ps 39:8 LXX; 85:12 LXX; Isa 19:13; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26–27; see Rom 2:28–29). This pervasive focus on the heart as the location from which humanity relates rightly to God further underscores the dynamic and intimate nature of the creature-Creator relationship: e.g., ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι, κύριε ὁ θεός μου, ἐν ὃλῃ καρδίᾳ μου (Ps 85:12 LXX). The flow of Romans 1 also underscores a level of mutuality. Man and woman relate toward God in response to God’s relating toward them (revelation). God has made himself knowable to them (Rom 1:19–20). Throughout Paul’s letters, it is evident that Paul’s existence is dependent on God’s relation toward Paul. For example, who he is (1 Cor 13:12),48 what he is James D. G. Dunn Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 58, writes, a “qualitative distinction between Creator and creature [was] a fundamental feature of Judeo-Christian theology.” 45 Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 230, points out an important difference between stating something is “in relation” to another in a “static/positional view,” versus a “dynamic/relational understanding.” As will become clear, the relation between creature and Creator is far from static, whether or not the creature recognizes it as such. 46 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 91, writes in regards to Rom 1:18–32, “Paul clearly assumes that the only appropriate attitude for the creature towards the Creator is one of worship and gratitude.” 47 See Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 35–37. In terms of what Paul means by a person “knowing God,” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 59, notes that in the Hebraic tradition, this was more of a personal and relational reality than, as in the Greek sense, merely rational: “If in Greek thought ‘to know God’ is to perceive God as he really is…, in Hebrew thought there was a strong sense of knowledge as an acknowledging, a motivational recognition which expressed itself in the appropriate worship and obedience (as in Judg 2:10; 1 Sam 3:7; Ps 79:6; Hos 8:2).” 48 Brian S. Rosner, “Known by God: C. S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” EQ 77.4 (2005): 343, in an article emphasizing the neglected aspect of being known by God, points to an important way God relates to humankind, by knowing them: “A huge imbalance exists 44

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

99

called to do (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1), and his destiny, all originate in God and are given to him by God: e.g., “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace…” (Gal 2:15). God helps Paul (2 Cor 6:2; cf. Rom 8:6; Phil 1:19), comforts Paul (2 Cor 1:4), and loves Paul (Rom 5:15; 8:37–39; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20). Paul’s relationship with God is indicative of a broader phenomenon: God does, and wants to, relate to others as he does to Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 1:3–4). Therefore, the creature-Creator relationship is dynamic and mutual. It is asymmetrical, to be sure; worship runs one direction. However, it has the marks of a personal and intimate relationship. “Relationships,” Hinde explains, demonstrate intimacy when “participants in a relationship are prepared to reveal … aspects of themselves, experiential, emotional and physical, to each other…. Intimacy [is marked by] a degree of self-disclosure.”49 Ironically, even humanity’s turning away from God does not mean the creature is “free” from a relation to God. As Romans 1 unfolds, and humans “exchanges” a right relating with God for idolatry, God’s relation toward them does not dissolve but turns from intimate to hostile (wrathful).50 Mortal humanity’s relationship with God is further marked by dependence and being-determined-by. God “created all things” (Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16; cf., Gen 1–2), is “over all things” (Eph 4:6), and upholds and determines the destiny of all things: “from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom 11:36). Man and woman are therefore dependent upon God, which is made explicit in 1 Cor 8:6 when Paul explains there is “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist (ἐξ οὖ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν).”51 The futility of life “independent” from the Creator further

between the sheer volume of scholarly and popular output concerning knowing God over against the overwhelming neglect of, dare I say it, the more important theme of being known by God.” 49 Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 114. 50 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Mission,” NDBT, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 663, comments, “Once fallen, humans are under the wrath of God. Their relationships with God and with one another are severely affected, and their exercise of dominion over creation through work and procreation is characterized by frustration and pain.” Emphasis added. Köstenberger’s comment suggests that the “relationship” between God and humanity is central to their existence and is either “healthy” or “severely affected.” 51 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), explains that 1 Cor 8:6 is one of “four expressly monotheistic texts in Paul where he uses the traditional formula ‘one God’ (cf. Gal 3:20; Rom 3:29–30, 1 Tim 2.5).” Fee goes on to explain, “This sentence [1 Cor 8:6] is often considered a pre-Pauline creedal formulation that had its origins in Hellenistic Jewish Christianity.” Irrespective of whether or not Paul is coining the sentence or employing it makes no difference for our purposes here, because either way he means the content.

100

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

underscores humanity’s relational dependence upon God (e.g., Rom 1:21– 32),52 as well as the Pauline rejection of human boasting (1 Cor 1:29–31).53 The fact that humanity is determined by God is sharply portrayed by the potter and clay image Paul employs in Romans 9–11. Explaining the mystery of ethnic Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, Paul draws from a significant Hebrew anthropological claim: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay” (Rom 9:20–21)? Paul cites Isa 29:16b (Rom 9:20b, μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι = Isa 29:16b LXX μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι). The LXX typically employs πλάσσω and πλάσμα to render the Hebrew “‫”יצר‬54 (e.g., Gen 2:7, 8, 19; Isa 29:16; 45:7, 18), verbs calling to mind God’s molding of Adam out of dust: ἒπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἂνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπο τῆς γῆς (Gen 2:7 LXX).55 Referencing the Isaianic context behind Rom 9:20–21, Seifrid underscores the “relational” component at work: “In the broader Isaianic context the Lord asserts his right by questioning his rebellious people, charging them with inverting their true relation to him (Isa 29:13–16).”56 Further commenting on the significance of the “potter and pot” imagery in Paul’s background, Foerster also highlights the relational implications: These terms ( ‫יצר‬/πλάσσω) are very suitable for expressing the relation of the creature to the Creator … bringing out very forcefully the distinction, superiority and higher wisdom of the one who fashions in relation to what he fashions, just as the image of the vessel and the potter, even apart from creation in the strict sense, is well calculated to express the absolute dependence of man on God, cf. Is 29:16f.; Jer 18:1ff.57

W. Foerster, “κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσμα, κτίστης,” TDNT 3:1000–35, 1011, writes, “Man, in his “becoming, being and perishing … is wholly dependent on the will of the Creator.” 53 Holtz, Die Nichtigkeit des Menschen und die Übermacht Gottes, argues that Philo’s rejection of φιλαθτία (“self love”) in some ways influences Paul’s rejection of καυχάομαι. In her explanation, the creature’s lack of autonomy in Paul’s thought comes through: i.e., Holtz writes, “‘φιλαθτία’ here refers to the self-elevation of man over God, which is articulated in the conviction that understanding, sensory perception and thus at the same time all human action are detached from God and man acts autonomously [und der Mensch autonom agiert]. Philo repeatedly characterizes this attitude as being or ‘acting “out of oneself”’ [Handeln, ‘aus sich selbst’] and thus touches closely on Paul” (p.1). 54 Part of the “creational terminology” in the OT includes the verb ‫יצר‬, “to form, fashion, create.” See “ ‫יצר‬,” HALOT, “form, fashion,” “create, form.” 55 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), 644. Foerster, “κτίζω,” 1033, writes similarly, “Man is the creature of God. This means that he has no claim on God. Paul depicts this in the image of the vessel and the potter, R. 9:20ff. The figure relates not merely to the historical situation of man, but to the total relationship of man to God.” Emphasis added. 56 Seifrid, “Romans,” 645. 57 Foerster, “κτίζω,” 1007–8, emphasis added. 52

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

101

Finally, it is also noteworthy that part of Paul’s explanation of salvation includes the relational framework between creature and Creator. In Rom 5:6– 11 and 2 Cor 5:16–21 Paul describes believers as “reconciled” (καταλλάσσω) to God, an overtly relational concept.58 And of course, there is also the profoundly relational nature of the sonship of God’s people, which reverberates from the promise to Abraham through its fulfillment in Christ and for those “in Christ”: “for in Christ you are all sons of God” (Gal 3:26; cf. Rom 8:14–17; Gal 4:6). To summarize, a fundamental component of human existence in Paul is the fact that persons are creatures of God. This dynamic is helpfully understood through the concept of “relationality.” This relation is dynamic and complex, and in many ways lies in the background of all of Paul’s thought. To be human, according to the apostle, is to-be-in-relation-to-God.59 The more specific ways this relation defines and determines aspects personhood will be considered below. 3.2.2. Embodied, Therefore Embedded An essential component of creatureliness is corporeality. God made ’adam from the ’adamah (Gen 2:7; 3:19). For Paul, this means man is made up of the “material” of creation, the “quintessence of dust”60: ὁ πρῶτος ἂνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός … οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί (1 Cor 15:47a, 48a; see Gen 3:19; Ps 102:14 LXX). This materiality is uniquely organized into a body, given to humans by God (1 Cor 15:38). Humanity, as such, is and always will

“καταλλάσσω,” BDAG, 521, “the exchange of hostility for a friendly relationship.” Max Turner, “Human Reconciliation in the New Testament with Special Reference to Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians,” EuroJTh 16:1 (2006): 38, referencing the description from Louw-Nida, writes, “Central to the linguistic sense of the reconciliation word-group is ‘to reestablish proper friendly interpersonal relations after these have been disrupted or broken.’” 59 Wolfgang Beinert, “Der Einzelne und die Gemeinschaft: ekklesiologische Aspekte zum Thema Nachfolge” MTZ 30.2 (1979): 25–36, 31, further points out the significance of God’s call coming to man in the Old Testament, meaning the life of faith, while requiring an individual’s faith, first requires the dialectic [Zwiegespräch] between creature and Creator, writing, “Der Anfang der Berufung ist stets ein Zwiegespräch zwischen Rufer und Gerufenen. Das kann nicht anders sein.” 60 Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, line 13. The fuller line reads, “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.” Emphasis added. 58

102

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

be embodied (Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 15:42–49; Phil 3:21), even if death prior to the eschaton suggests an awkward “nakedness” (2 Cor 5:1–10).61 Human embodiment entails a relation that may be described as embeddedness.62 By “embedded,” it is meant that the human is of a piece with the world, belongs to it, and is affected by it. As Käsemann claims, humanity’s “bodily existence [Leiblichkeit]” is a “gift and participation [Teilhabe] … a belonging to a world [die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Welt].”63 Grasping this corporeal aspect of humanity requires considering human existence in light of Paul’s chief anthropological terms, σῶμα and σάρξ.64 These terms can overlap in Paul65 but by and large are distinct: “the spectrum of meaning for sōma is for the most part morally neutral, and the spectrum of meaning for sarx is for the most part morally negative.”66 Both terms imply a Dunn, Theology of Paul, 72, notes the permanence of embodied existence, writing, “For Paul, human beings will always be embodied beings, by definition.” 62 “Embedded” is also used by Dunn, Theology of Paul, 56, who writes, “A better word to use [than ‘body’] … is the alternative term ‘embodiment’ – sōma as the embodiment of the person. In this sense sōma is a relational concept. It denotes the person embodied in a particular environment. It is the means by which the person relates to that environment, and vice versa. It is the means of living in, of experiencing the environment…. But sōma as embodiment means more than my physical body: it is the embodied ‘me,’ the means by which ‘I’ and the world can act upon each other.” 63 Käsemann, “Aspekte der Kirche,” in Kirchliche Konflikte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 10. 64 The Greek words σῶμα and σάρξ are common terms used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew ( ‫)בשר‬. The Hebrew term, used 273 times in the Hebrew Bible, typically indicates “flesh,” “the material body of man,” or “man in general.” See Schweizer, Baumgärtel, Meyer, “σάρξ, σαρκικός, σάρκινος,” TDNT 7:105–8. Further emphasizing the importance of corporeality for human existence are Paul’s descriptions of the incarnation, e.g., “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh…” (Rom 8:3); “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ…” (Rom 7:4). 65 E.g., 1 Cor 15:39–40, “Not all flesh is the same…. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies.” Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 25, notes, “It has always been felt to be a problem that the expressions ‘body’ and ‘flesh’ in Paul run parallel for part of the time, or are even synonymous.” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 391, explains, “the range of meanings covered by σάρξ and σῶμα overlap precisely where both denote man’s embodiment in this three-dimensional time-space complex; yet σῶμα can cross the boundary of the ages, whereas σάρξ belongs firmly to this present age (cf. 1 Cor 15:44–50; 2 Cor 4:7–5:5).” 66 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 71. Another important aspect of this distinction is the fact that “σάρξ-existence” does not persist in the eschaton (1 Cor 15:50), though “σῶμα-existence” does (1 Cor 15:44, 53). Dunn, Romans 1–8, 475, further explains the significance of this nuance based on his reading of Rom 8:23, “Paul’s distinction between σῶμα (man’s bodily participation in and with his environment) and σάρξ (man’s belonging to and dependence on that environment and its society) needs to be kept in mind here [e.g., Rom 8:23] (cf. 1 Cor 15:44, 50).” 61

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

103

corporeal existence yet offer a nuanced take on embeddedness. Put simply, an embodied person (σῶμα-man) is embedded in his or her environment in a neutral way; an enfleshed person (σάρξ-man) is profoundly susceptible to everything negative about that environment (Rom 7:5, 14, 18, 25).67 We need not go into a detailed treatment of the background to the terms σῶμα and σάρξ, but rather want to make some more specific observations about how embodiment and enfleshment indicate a relation of embeddedness.68 Solidarity with World A first aspect of how corporeality signals a relation-of-embeddedness is the above-mentioned notion of solidarity between humanity and their world. This comes from Paul’s Jewish heritage (Genesis 1–3) and indicates that corporeal existence ties humans to a larger realm, or environment. Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 indicate a special solidarity between humankind and the created world.69 After the fall (Gen 3:1–7) and ensuing ramifications (Gen 3:14–23), corporeality emphasizes humanity’s mortality and vulnerability: “until you return to the ground (’adamah).” From here on in the biblical narrative, humanity is a mortal being, limited in myriad ways by his or her corporeality. This underscores a fundamental relation in biblical anthropology; the nature of humanity’s corporeality ties them to a larger realm of reality, an environment within which they are entangled and with which they share a fate. Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 495, explains, “For Paul, corporeality constitutes the essence of human existence in its creatureliness. Because of the reality of sin, corporeality for Paul also always means endangered corporeality, and so he distinguishes between σῶμα and σάρξ.” 68 For Paul’s use of σάρξ and σῶμα within the context of his letters, and with reference to possible background, see Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 49–135, 201–88. Jewett concludes that “flesh” can take on a spectrum of meaning, e.g., “As it emerges in the Galatian’s letter, σάρξ is both a personal, psychological and a cosmic reality, i.e. it is both the flesh which is circumcised and a power in the old aeon” (p. 453). He likewise notes the spectrum of usage of σῶμα, which has a more positive/neutral meaning than “flesh”: e.g., “In Romans … [σῶμα] is fit into the theological structure of the letter to depict the somatic ground of existence in both aeons” (pp. 456–57). 69 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 83, summarizes this aspect of Paul’s thought and its origins in the Genesis account: “…we may note also the deliberate play in the Hebrew of Gen 2:7 between adam and the material from which adam was made, adamah (‘ground, earth’) – ‘the Lord God formed the adam, dust from the adamah.’ The tie-in was no doubt deliberate: the adam was formed to till the adamah (2:5–9); and subsequently the adamah is caught up in adam’s penalty for his disobedience (the ground cursed and its produce necessitating hard labor), a penalty which will last till adam returns to the adamah (3:17–19). Paul clearly had this passage in mind when he speaks of the futility of creation in its subjection to corruption in Rom 8:20–22. But we might also note that the theme ties in closely to … the implications of Paul’s sōma language, as indicating the human bond to the rest of creation.” 67

104

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

We can see this acutely in two texts in Paul, Rom 8:18–23 and 1 Cor 15:42– 49. In stark contrast to some of the dualistic tendencies in Hellenism, in Rom 8:18–23 Paul ties the hopes of humankind and creation together: “we know that the whole creation has been groaning…. And not only the creation, but we ourselves” (Rom 8:22–23). Walter Schmithals captures the implications of Paul’s thought here: A fate, or common destiny [Schicksalsverbundenheit], between man and creation comes into view, which contradicts all dualistic world-relations [dualistischen Weltverhältnis]. Creation is created for man [auf den Menschen], and man needs creation for his life. Man cannot and must not turn from creation and withdraw to himself.70

Dunn sees a clear allusion to Gen 3:17–18 here, and whereas “creation shares in humankind’s futility, it also is tied to humankind’s liberation.”71 Dunn concludes of Rom 8:23, the “point to be underlined is the solidarity of humankind with the rest of creation, of ’adam with the ’adamah from which ’adam was made.”72 That the body is the locus of this connection is evident from Paul’s words in Rom 8:23: “We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies (τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν).”73 The same notion of solidarity is at work in 1 Corinthians 15. As Paul comes to the climax of his argument for the resurrection of the body (σῶμα), he emphasizes both continuity and discontinuity between the present and future body (1 Cor 15:42–49). Paul qualifies present and future somatic-existence with two adjectives: σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor 15:44). The emphasis is not so much on the substance, or material, of the bodies. Rather, the adjectives describe somatic existence in terms of solidarity with two broader realms of existence.74 70 Walter Schmithals, Die theologische Anthropologie des Paulus: Auslegung von Röm 7.17–8.39 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 143. 71 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 100. 72 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 101. 73 See also Dunn’s comment in Romans 1–8, 331, regarding the eschatological tension of the Christian life, in particular reference to the logic of Rom 6:1–11: “The whole of this life for the believer is suspended between Christ’s death and Christ’s resurrection … between the conversion-initiation which began the process and the resurrection of the body which will complete it. The very real dying of believers is a lifelong process: they do not sever all links and relationships with this world until the death of the body. How can they?” Dunn’s thought demonstrates the inevitable relation-to-the-world embodied existence entails. Only with a new/resurrected body, the “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44) or “glorified body” (Phil 3:21), is humanity’s relational entanglement within the age of Adam finally severed. 74 Fee, First Epistles, 786, explains, the terms “describe the one body in terms of its essential characteristics as earthly, on the one hand, and therefore belonging to the life of the present age, and as heavenly, on the other, and therefore belonging to the life of the Spirit in the age to come.” See also, T. Paige, “Holy Spirit,” DPL, 408, who writes, “‘spiritual

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

105

What exactly the terms ψυχικόν or πνευματικόν mean in the Corinthian context is not of central interest here. Rather, what is significant is that in these texts Paul demonstrates that the nature of the body implies an inherent relation between human existence and a particular realm – the body is the link that embeds humankind in an environment. As Fee goes on, “the transformed body … is not composed of ‘spirit,’ it is a body adapted to the eschatological existence that is under the ultimate domination of the Spirit.”75 This means human existence does not occur in a vacuum. Somatic-humanity is who she is in relation to her environment. As Dunn summarizes, Sōma is a relational concept … it is the means by which the person relates to that environment, and vice versa. It is the means of living in, of experiencing the environment…. But sōma as embodiment means more than my physical body: it is the embodied “me,” the means by which “I” and the world can act upon each other.76

Dunn’s words also draw attention to a further facet of the relational side of somatic-existence. It is through the flesh (=body) that a person is tied to a family or tribe (Rom 1:3; 4:1; Gal 2:15; 4:23; Phil 3:3–5), and only through the body that a person can interact in the larger social sphere. This facet of bodily existence is emphasized in 1 Cor 6:12–20, where it becomes clear that what one does with the body, one does with the whole self. Drawing on the larger letter, Jewett summarizes: In response to the anti-somatic theology of the Gnostics … σῶμα as the basis of relationship and unity between persons was worked out in the discussion of idolatry (1 Cor 10:16ff) and fornication (1 Cor 6:12ff) and is then applied to the question of resurrection (1 Cor 15:35ff) and of Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament (1 Cor 11:24).77

Paul’s view of somatic-existence, therefore, assumes that without a body, the human would not be able to relate to the world around them in a human way. Enfleshed and Enslaved Thus far we have focused mostly on the somatic side of embedded existence. However, humanity is not only embodied but enfleshed. Human existence as σάρξ carries a darker force in Paul than does existence as σῶμα. The term “flesh” (σάρξ) has a range of meaning in Paul. It can indicate the neutral sense body,’ 1 Cor 15:44, does not mean ‘a body made of spirit’ or bodiless existence; rather, it indicates a body fit for the existence of resurrection life – simultaneously corporeal and ‘spiritual.’” 75 Fee, First Epistle, 786. 76 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 56. Emphasis added. 77 Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 456, emphasis added. Writing in 1971, Jewett was apace with scholarly opinion in referring to Gnostics in Corinth. Since then, however, this is not the consensus, but rather notions of a proto-gnosticism, which included a dualistic depreciation of the body. See Martin, Corinthian Body, 71.

106

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

of the physical body (1 Cor 15:39), humankind in general or the people of Israel (Rom 4:1; 9:3; 11:14; Gal 1:16; 2:16, 20), or a seemingly sinister force, or realm, which is opposed to God (Rom 8:5–8; Gal 5:16).78 In a manner unlike the more neutral term “body,” the “flesh” lies open to the invasion of sin: e.g., “For while we were still living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were are work”; “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh”; “…but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom 7:5, 18, 25). Existence in the flesh indicates the dark side of our “creatureliness and all its vulnerabilities,”79 exemplified by the infiltration of, and proclivity to indulge in, sin. Flesh should not, however, been seen as a “cosmic reality”80 or “hostile active power,” sinful in and of itself.81 Dunn summarizes: The problem with flesh is not that it is sinful per se but that it is vulnerable to the enticements of sin – flesh, we might say, as “the desiring I” ([Rom] 7.7–12). It is the all too human/fleshly need to satisfy appetites which leaves the individual exposed to the wiles of sin ([Rom] 7.8) and indeed, or so it would seem, impotent before the power of sin at work within the “I” ([Rom 7.23) … an orientation to what is transient and perishable ([Rom] 8:6), a life lived solely at the animal level of satisfying merely human appetites and desires.82

Flesh is not a cosmic power, but that part of human existence characterized thoroughly by frailty and vulnerability. The interplay between enfleshment and the power of sin (and other forces) will be considered below. Here, however, a relational aspect of enfleshment needs to be considered which Paul refers to as life “in the flesh” or 78 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 62, notes that σάρξ is the most controversial anthropological term in Paul, “principally because of the range of usage, since it seems to span from the innocuous sense of the physical material of the body to the sense of ‘flesh’ as a force hostile to God.” 79 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 25, writes, “We are flesh in are relation to creatureliness and all its vulnerabilities. This is a hostile active power, opposed per se to the divine Spirit and struggling against it for mastery of the world.” As will be discussed below, however, this thesis does not see “flesh” as a hostile power, in the same manner as sin. 80 Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 453, argues that σάρξ “is both a personal, psychological and a cosmic reality, i.e. [in Galatians] it is both the flesh which is circumcised and a power in the old aeon.” 81 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 67, explains, “Sin itself can certainly be described as a cosmic power in Paul’s thinking. But it would be more accurate to speak of sin making its headquarters in the flesh, or using and abusing the flesh, than to speak of the flesh as such as likewise a cosmic power. One could indeed speak of the flesh as a kind of sphere or character of existence, but to envisage that as a cosmic dimension or force field is unnecessary.” 82 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 67. Schnelle, Human Condition, 60–61, likewise does not describe “flesh” as a cosmic power, but as the aspect of man where sin exercises power, and the life “of the flesh,” as “being oriented toward what is in the foreground and external; the things that are, by default, visible and obvious to us, rather than aware of the spiritual.”

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

107

living/walking “according to the flesh” (e.g., Rom 8:1–11). Ultimately juxtaposed with life “according to/in the Spirit” (treated further in ch. 4), this paradigm in Paul indicates an important anthropological phenomenon: man and woman are beings who live according to another (e.g., Rom 8:4, κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα).83 Neither living according to the flesh nor according to the Spirit is living according to the autonomous-self. In each case, a force, or factor, other than the self draws the human to live according to its influence. A life turned over entirely to the flesh is really a life controlled be a sinister foreign agent, sin, which Paul depicts in Rom 7:14b: ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. Life according to the flesh is life ruled by sin.84 On the other hand, life may be lived according to the Spirit (Rom 8:9–11). In this case, it is Christ, by his Spirit, who rules the subject. This is not to say humankind is bereft of agency altogether – the individual must “walk” and “set their mind,” either on the flesh or Spirit (Rom 8:4–5) – but rather to emphasize that human beings are far from autonomous. As Schnelle explains, “If people think they can live by their own devices, they succumb to the flesh, which is then ruled not by the Spirit but by sin. The flesh (our present-mode of existence) is either ruled by sin or the Spirit. We have a role in allowing the Spirit to take control.”85 How the “relation” of bodily-embeddedness defines and determines personhood will be explored below. Here, however, a few aspects of the type of relation involved can be noted. Somatic existence is inherently embedded existence, which in turn indicates a static and impersonal relation inherent to Paul’s anthropology. It is static in the sense that it is permanent. A person does not choose her body or the world it binds her to; nor is she capable of changing her bodily nature. Therefore, somatic-embeddedness is a different type of relation than the creature-Creator relationship. However, as will be drawn out below, it also defines and determines personhood. To summarize, the corporeal nature of humanity implies a relation: embeddedness. How that relation affects a person will be determined in large measure by what world her body binds her to. Due to her embodiment, she is never “detached” or “autonomous,” as Bultmann seems to suggest.86 In his

83 Jason Maston, “Enlivened Slaves: Paul’s Christological Anthropology,” in Anthropology and New Testament Theology, LNTS 529, ed. Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds (New York: T&T Clark, 2018), 146, explains a similar idea; in Paul, “humanity is eschatologically oriented between the poles of life/honor/glory and death.” 84 Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 499, writes of life according to the flesh, “The real acting subject of life is sin, which results in death (Rom 7:5).” 85 Schnelle, Human Condition, 63. 86 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 13, explains that for Bultmann, “‘Detachment from the world’ does not aim at spiritualization and pious introspection; it characterizes the

108

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

study of σῶμα in Paul’s Hellenistic background, Martin concludes, “The presupposition underwriting Paul’s argument [in 1 Cor 15:35ff] is that the nature of any body is due to its participation in some particular sphere of existence. It gets its identity only through participation.”87 To be embodied is to be constituted in relation to an “other,” with that “other” being a complex environment of natural and supernatural phenomena. I now turn to consider how this external environment, with its myriad forces, is a relational reality affecting human beings. 3.2.3. Human Beings, The Cosmos and Supra-Human Forces Somatic existence in the present not only means a human being is subject to death and decay (1 Cor 15:50) but also to myriad of other natural, historical, social, and cosmic influences. As Käsemann puts it, “Man continues to be thrown into relief against nature and history.”88 Käsemann is well known for seeing a dynamic relation between embodied man and cosmology in Paul,89 with the latter playing a large role in determining human existence. He writes, “The world is not neutral ground; it is a battlefield, and everyone is a combatant. Anthropology must then eo ipso be cosmology just as certainly as, conversely, the cosmos is primarily viewed by Paul under an anthropological aspect, because the fate of the world is in fact decided in the human sphere.”90 Within this cosmological theatre, a person finds him or herself in relation to several “powers,” including sin, supernatural beings, and the world (age). Sin As Paul describes humankind’s condition in Romans, he indicates that man or woman can be enslaved by sin (δουλεύειν…τῇ ἁμαρτία, Rom 6:6), indwelt by sin (ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία, Rom 7:17, 20), and under sin (ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτία, Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22).91 Romans 3:9 indicates that life affected by sin is a believer as being no longer determined by what is at hand in this world but as being eschatologically liberated for his future, to use theological terminology.” 87 Martin, Corinthian Body, 132. 88 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 13. On this facet of Käsemann’s thought, Eastman, Paul and the Person, 101, further explains, for Käsemann, “The body is thus never a neutral entity; embedded in its environment, it is always constrained and shaped by the worlds to which it belongs. For this reason, the body is contested territory in the battle between cosmic powers – on the one hand, the ‘flesh,’ and on the other, the ‘Spirit,’ which for Paul is always the Spirit of God.” 89 Ernst Käsemann, Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 33, summarizes, “The tension between cosmology and anthropology characterizes the whole of Paul’s theology.” 90 Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 23. 91 The abundance of uses of ἁμαρτία in Romans is striking. Of the sixty-four occurrences in the Pauline cannon, forty-eight appear in Romans. Moreover, forty-one of those forty-

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

109

universal anthropological reality (“all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin”). Though ἁμαρτία in Paul includes a human side, whereby it indicates deviation from standards of righteousness,92 it also can be a “personified power.”93 Humans “under sin” experience this power as a compulsion towards actions or dispositions often not in accord with their own desire or willing.94 Supernatural Beings and Powers Operative in Paul’s cosmology is another sinister force acting upon humans described here as “supernatural powers” or “superhuman beings.” These include ἄγγελοι,95 ἀρχαί,96 ἀρχόν,97 δυνάμεις,98 δαιμόνιοι,99 θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί,100 σατανᾶς,101 and στοιχεῖα.102 Humans can be enslaved to eight appear in Rom 5:12–8:3. For statistics, see Dunn, Theology of Paul, 111; and Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 499. 92 “ἁμαρτία,” BDAG, 50, “1. a departure fr. either human or divine standards of uprightness.” 93 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 96, writes, “Sin entered the world (5.12); sin ruled in death. Sin, in effect takes the role of serpent/Satan…. Sin is also “reckoned”, like an attribute or statistic (5.13); and sin also increases or grows (5.20), perhaps more like fruit.” This is contra Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM Press, 1952), 1:245, who considers Paul’s seeming personification of sin as “rhetorical language,” writing, “‘Sin’ particularly appears in this way as if it were a personal being. It ‘came into the world” (Rom 5.12) and ‘achieved dominion’ (Rom 5.21). Man is enslaved to it (Rom 6.6), so under it, etc. Little as all this constitutes realistic mythology – it is not that, but figurative, rhetorical language – it is, nevertheless, clear that this language stamps flesh and sin as powers to which man has fallen victim and against which he is powerless. The personification of these powers expresses the fact that man has lost to them the capacity to be the subject of his own actions.” 94 On the interplay between the power of sin and human agency, see Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 500–1, “The power of sin precedes and is the basis of individual sinful acts (cf. [Rom] 5:12.)” See also Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 75. For the implications on human identity here, see NicoletAnderson, Constructing the Self, 79, who notes that in Romans 7, “the individual is being possessed by an outside power…. Both [Romans] 6 and 7 indicate that slavery I smore than mere obedience; it is a matter of identity.” 95 Romans 8:38. 96 Romans 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 1:16. 97 First Corinthians Cor 2:6, 8; Eph 2:2. 98 Romans 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21. 99 First Corinthians 10:20–21; 1 Tim 4:1. 100 First Corinthians 8:5–6; 2 Cor 4:4. 101 Romans 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 1 Tim 5:15. 102 Galatians 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20. The meaning of στοιχεῖα has been debated, however, as Dunn, Theology of Paul, 108, points out, “The reference of stoicheia should almost certainly be regarded as … the elemental substances of which the cosmos was usually thought to be composed (earth, water, air, and fire)…. These substances were also commonly divinized …

110

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

(δεδουλωμένοι) the transcendent powers of στοιχεῖα (Gal 4:3), separated from God by ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαί (Rom 8:38),103 blinded by (ἐτύφλωσεν) the ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αὶῶνος τούτου (2 Cor 4:4), and tempted, outwitted, and hindered by σατανᾶς (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 1 Thess 2:18). The Cosmos, This Age A third power under which humankind lives is the cosmos or age. Paul’s view of the cosmos in this sense is derived, in large measure, from Jewish apocalyptic. This is evidenced by his framing of “ages” – e.g., “this present age” and “the age to come.”104 Employing both the terms κόσμος and αἰων,105 Paul warns Christians of being “conformed to this age” (Rom 12:2; see also 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18), an age that is “evil” (Gal 1:4) and ruled by “elemental spirits” (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20). The present age has its own rulers and god(s) (1 Cor 2:6; 2 Cor 4:4) who are opposed to God (2 Cor 4:4). Therefore, although Paul (keeping with his Jewish heritage) held the view that the cosmos and creation are good (i.e., Gen 1:26–31; Rom 8:21), he was equally influenced by the Jewish apocalyptic view that the present state of the world was “fallen” and “passing away”: i.e., foolish, inferior, partial, imperfect, transitory, perishable, evil, etc. (see 1 Cor 2:6; 10:11; 13:10; 15:54; Gal 1:4).

as divine spirits or deities.” See also Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary On Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 204, who claims, “A large number of scholarly investigations have arrived at the conclusion that these ‘elements of the world’ represent demonic forces which constitute and control ‘this evil aeon’ (1:4).” 103 The fact that Paul emphasizes in Rom 8:36–39 that nothing can separate the believer from the love of God implies that, without “Christ Jesus our Lord,” human beings could be separated from the love of God, and by the things which Paul lists in these verses. 104 J. Painter, “World, Cosmology,” DPL, 980, writes, “The notion of the two ages, this age and the age to come, has its roots in apocalyptic Judaism (4 Ezra).” Dunn, Theology of Paul, 41, explains that whereas the “Greeks more typically thought of time as cyclical…. In contrast, Jews saw time more naturally as a progression of ages, and looked for the age to come to release them from the evils of the present. Paul shared the latter view.” On the two ages as a key framework in Early Judaism, see also N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 1054. However, as Ben Dunson, Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, WUNT 2.332 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 44, correctly emphasizes, in “contradistinction from Jewish apocalyptic, Paul sees the old age overlapping with the present age, rather than being surpassed by it.” 105 J. Painter, “World, Cosmology, DPL, 979, writes, “Aiōn was used to translate the Hebrew ‘ôlām. Both words have a reference to time, and the expression ‘this age’ has substantially the same meaning as ‘this world.’” In several place Paul uses the word κόσμος interchangeably with αἰων, denoting the idea of a present aeon, e.g., 1 Cor 3:19; 5:10 cf., 1 Cor 1:20, 2:6, 8, and Eph 2:2, which reads, “τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου.”

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

111

Seen within this larger drama, the person in Paul is not a free actor but exists under indomitable forces. The basic elements of the world are “not simply material substance, but demonic entities of cosmic proportions.”106 The work of Christ, therefore, includes not only forgiveness of sins but also “deliverance from the present evil age (ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ)” (Gal 1:4).107 This evil age is described elsewhere as having a ruling “spirit” that can directly influence human beings (e.g., Eph 2:2). As such, the relational nature of humankind is further exposed by Paul’s cosmology; the human lies open to influence – even to being ruled. 3.2.4. Christ-Relatedness A fourth area of relationality that bears upon human existence in Paul is Christrelatedness, or what is often referred to as “union with Christ.” Expressed predominantly through the collocation ἐν Χριστῷ and its cognates108 – yet also conveyed by other phrases and analogies109 – the notion that salvation and life 106 Betz, Galatians, 205, explains the cosmology of Paul’s readers: “The common understanding was that man is hopelessly and helplessly engulfed and oppressed by these forces. They play capricious games with man from the time of his entering into the world until his departure. While working inside man, they make up the body, yet they also encounter him from the outside.” See also J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 482–83, who writes, “That world has about it the character of a drama. On its stage, as we have begun to see, a number of actors are playing their parts…. Seeing the real actors on the real cosmic stage, seeing how they are in fact interacting with one another, the Galatians will be able to once again to discern their own part.” 107 For Martyn, Galatians, 105, the divine act is what alerts Paul to the human condition: “It is this apocalyptic vision, then that has given Paul his perception of the nature of the human plight. God has invaded the world in order to bring it under his liberating control. From that deed of God a conclusion is to be drawn.” 108 The ἐν Χριστῷ formula occurs 165 times in the Pauline cannon. For statistics on its usage, see Sang-Won Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001), 8–9, 187–90. It is widely accepted that “a number of variations of the expression are possible for Paul,” the other most common being, “ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,” and “ἐν κυρίῷ.” See M. A. Seifrid, “In Christ,” in DPL, 433–36. 109 Studies of the concept “union with Christ” in Paul typically focus on the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (κυρίῳ), considering its meaning and background. Also, however, many note the importance of the “metaphors” in Paul also indicative of union between the believer/church and Christ. See, for example, Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, who along with the “ἐν Χριστῷ” phrase considers Paul’s Adam-Christ typology, the church as the Body of Christ, Christ/the Church as the Temple, House of God, and Building of God, and nuptial union. Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), is a more recent and excellent example of treating “union” by considering the prepositional phrases as well as metaphors indicative of it.

112

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

occur in some sense “in Christ” is a central theme in Paul. If not the “center” of Paul’s theology, then perhaps the “webbing that holds it all together.”110 The topic of union with Christ moved “center stage”111 in Pauline studies early in the twentieth century with the work of Adolf Deissmann, Wilhelm Bousset, and Albert Schweitzer.112 Though with differences, these scholars made prominent the “local” or “spatial” reading of the phrase “in Christ,” emphasizing intimacy between believer and Christ [Christ-Innigkeit].113 However, others have rejected the so-called “mystical” reading and consensus regarding the meaning of ἐν Χριστῷ has not been reached.114 The difficulty in interpretation is due, in large measure, to the elasticity of the preposition ἐν,115 as well as the diverse contexts within which Paul employs 110 Campbell, Union with Christ, 442, writes, “We can deny that union with Christ is the central concern [in Paul’s thought.” However, he goes on to conclude, “Union with Christ is the webbing that holds it all [Paul’s thought] together.” Likewise, Dunn, Theology of Paul, 395, resists making union with Christ the central theme in Paul, but admits, “In fact, study of participation in Christ leads more directly into the rest of Paul’s theology than justification.” Others who have commented on the significance of the phrase, include Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans W. Montgomery (London: A & C Black, 1931), 225, who famously writes, “The doctrine of righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater, which has formed within the rim of the main crater – the mystical doctrine of redemption through being-in-Christ.” More recently, Udo Schnelle, “Transformation Und Partizipation Als Grundgedanken Paulinischer Theologie,” NTS 47.1 (2001): 60, argues, “Die Kategorien der Transformation und der Partizipation bestimmen durchgängig das paulinische Denken; sie sind das einigende Band, aus dem alle anderen Vorstellungen abgeleitet werden können.” 111 Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 391, writes, “It was Deissmann who brought the formula ‘in Christ’ to centre stage.” 112 Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William E. Wilson (1911, Repr. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957); Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (1921, Repr. New York: Abingdon Press, 1970); Schweitzer, Mysticism. 113 Deissmann, Paul, 143. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 154, refers to this facet of Paul’s thought as “Christ Mysticism and Cultic Mysticism,” and explains, “Thus for Paul Christ becomes the supra-terrestrial power which supports and fills with its presence his whole life. And this Christ piety of the apostle is summed up for him in the one great ever recurring formula ἐν κυρίῳ (Χριστῷ) εἶναι.” Schweitzer, Mysticism, 1, explains, “We are always in the presence of mysticism when we find a human being looking upon the division between earthly and super-earthly, temporal and eternal, as transcended, and feeling himself, while still externally amid the earthly and temporal, to belong to the super-earthly and eternal.” 114 Campbell, Union with Christ, is one of the most recent and exhaustive studies, and in it he demonstrates an array of plausible usages for the phrase, and suggests a quartet for capturing what it means: “To do justice to the full spectrum of Paul’s thought and language, the terms union, participation, identification, incorporation are adopted” (p. 29). 115 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 357, writes, “Without question, the

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

113

it. On the first point, BDAG lists twelve uses for ἐν; Wallace lists ten.116 In terms of its use in the Pauline phrase “in Christ,” Seifrid suggests a triangular field of meaning, including “instrumentality,” “locality,” and “modality.”117 Similarly, Dunn summarizes three aspects of usage as follows: (1) believers “being” in Christ; [locality]; (2) believers doing something in Christ [modality]; (3) redemptive power as enacted in Christ [instrumentality].118 This different usages may blend together, for “locality” can also be “instrumental” in effect. This flexibility cautions against an overly formulaic treatment of the phrase, and favors treating each usage in light of its contexts. The interests of the present thesis restrict at large analysis of the theme. Rather, of special interest are instances of Paul’s “in Christ” theme that strongly suggest a “spatial/local” sense, i.e., usages emphasizing some type of proximity between the individual believer and Christ. More specifically, what type of relation these spatial preposition ἐν is the most significant and, at the same time, the most perplexing of the relevant prepositions.” BDAG, “ἐν,” 326, writes, “The uses of this prep. are so many and various, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible.” 116 E.g., “ἐν,” BDAG, 326–29, (1) Marker of a position defined as being in a location, in, among; (2) Marker of a state or condition, in; (3) Marker of extension toward a goal that is understood to be within an area or condition, into; (4) Marker of close association within a limit, in; (5) Marker introducing means or instrument, with; (6) Marker of agency, with the help of; (7) Marker of circumstance or condition under which something takes place [in view of]; (8) Marker denoting the object to which something happens or in which something shows itself, or by which something is recognized, to, by, in connection with; (9) Marker of cause or reason, because of, on account of; (10) Marker of a period of time, in, while, when; (11) Marker denoting kind and manner, [according to]; (12) Marker of specification or substance … consisting of. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 372, lists ten, ranging from “spatial/sphere” to “instrumental” to “manner.” This frequency of use combined with manifold “meaning” is one recent the Pauline phrase proves elusive. 117 See M. A. Seifrid, “In Christ,” 433. Other scholars noting a polysemic aspect of the phrase include A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘In Christ’ and ‘With Christ,’” JSNT 25 (1985): 87, “Nothing so far has indicated that ‘ἐν Χριστῷ’ and ‘ἐν κυρίῳ’ will be used in one way only in Paul’s writings. They are likely not to be ‘formulae.’” Also Campbell, Union with Christ, 26, writes, “In fact, ἐν Χριστῷ” has a range of usage determined by the elasticity of the preposition ἐν…. Consequently, it is best to abandon the term formula when referring to the phrase…”; Seifrid, “In Christ,” DPL, 433, “they serve as a flexible idiom…”; Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 281, writes, “But it is advisable to speak in these cases only of the phrase [der Wendung] ‘in Christ,’ since the proof of the formulaic sense [des formelhaften Sinnes] stricto sensu does not succeed readily in all these passages. Ultimately, too manifold [vielfältig] are the connections, in which Paul uses the prepositional expression ‘in Christ,’ that its meaning should be limited to a completely homogenous sense [homogene Sinn].” 118 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 324, adds, “The three usages are clearly interconnected and overlap: it is the meeting of divine power with human commitment ‘in Christ’ which makes possible a quality of life which shares the character of Christ (in however imperfect a manner in this life).”

114

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

usages indicate needs to be considered, especially in light of other popular ways of describing the phenomenon, such as “mysticism” or “participation.” The main question being asked here, is whether or not the dynamic of “beingin-Christ” indicates some form of relation between the believer and Christ, and if so, how this relation might be better understood in the light of the present study. The texts considered in this section have been selected based on three criteria: (1) they suggest a local use of the theme; (2) the subject of the explicit (or implied) verb is personal;119 (3) the emphasis of the text is a state of being, or status. Along with the grammatical phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, included below is also a consideration of an “analogy” or “image” Paul employs for the theme of Christ-relatedness, marriage.120 It will be argued that the marriage analogy, as an image for Christ-relatedness, offers an important interpretive grid for understanding the relational nature of “being in Christ.” Romans 6:11 Following Paul’s organization of humanity under two representative heads, Adam or Christ (Rom 5:12–21), Rom 6:1–14 explains how one is transferred from condemnation and death “in Adam” (Rom 5:12–14, 17; 1 Cor 15:22a) to justification and life “in Christ” (Rom 5:15–17, 21; 1 Cor 15:22b). The means of such transfer is being united with (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν, Rom 6:5) Christ in his death – a union that is effectuated, in this instance, through baptism (Rom 6:3–4). The interrelated themes of Rom 6:1–14 are old- and new-existence (“our old self [πλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἂνθρωπος] was crucified,” Rom 6:6), on the one hand, and what further characterizes these types of existence on the other, “enslavement to sin” (Rom 6:6) versus “being alive to God” (Rom 6:11). It is in this context of “being alive to God” that Paul uses the ἐν Χριστῷ phrase: ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ· ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ. οὓτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκρος μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Rom 6:10–11). 119 There are instances where the subject of the “in Christ” phrase is “redemption” or “freedom” or “salvation,” etc. not specifically (syntactically) the believer. For example, Rom 3:24, “… the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” has redemption as the subject of the clause. This is not to say Paul’s point in these cases does not involve the person as well, but that the focus upon the person is less stressed. For a similar classification of personal and nonpersonal uses of ἐν Χριστῷ and its complementary formulations, see Son, Corporate Elements, 13–17. 120 Son, Corporate Elements, demonstrated that Paul’s idea of “union with Christ” is evidenced in various areas of this writing – i.e., not only in the “in Christ” collocation. Son also demonstrates that considering the “in Christ” phrase in light of other facets of Paul’s thought, such as the Adam-Christ typology, help better explain the former.

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

115

Some downplay a local sense to the use of ἐν Χριστῷ here, suggesting instead an emphasis on redemptive history, the past event of God’s action.121 While the historical event of the cross is in mind (Rom 6:3–5), the larger emphases of vv. 10–11 include present and future realities. Being “alive to God in Christ” is not merely a matter of God’s “divine decision” to “see us, not as we are in ourselves, but ‘in Him.’”122 Rather, it involves the believer’s present experience – their “vital energies and motivations”123 – as being affected by the person of Jesus. That ἐν Χριστῷ communicates a local sense in Rom 6:11 can be seen by how that verse parallels, by way of a comparison,124 verse 10. In the former verse, two ideas stand in juxtaposition, death and life: (1) for the death he died, he died to sin once and for all; (2) the life he lives, he lives to God. The comparative conjunction οὓτως signals the parallelism and the ἐν Χριστῷ phrase of v. 11 is compared to the second idea of v.10, life.125 As such, the ἐν Χριστῷ paradigm refers not merely to a past, redemptive-historical event, but also, to a present experience/reality. Campbell suggests the prepositional phrase is best understood through the local or spatial sense (realm): “Since this reality is predicated upon Christ’s death and his being alive to God – and this demarcates two different realms – so, for believers, being dead to sin and alive to God delineates two realms. The second realm is described as ἐν Χριστῷ [Rom 6:11b].126 Further stressing the present and local sense of the text is the participle phrase ζῶντας τῷ θεῷ. This indicates a present, personal, and relational dynamic: the believer is living toward/in-restored-relationship-with God, a

121 E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 6th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:315–16, who believes that the “so very heilsgeschichtlich” context “should discourage us from accepting local, mystical or sacramental-realistic explanations.” However, this reading does not to justice to the sense of the participle, ζῶντας, or sense of vv. 10–11 where a past and present dynamic is being emphasized. 122 Cranfield, Romans, 316. 123 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 333. 124 Douglas Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 440, states, “The introductory words, ‘in the same way also,’ indicate that Paul is now drawing a comparison – a comparison between the death and life of Christ and the attitude Christians are to adopt toward themselves.” 125 Campbell, Union with Christ, 115–16, states, “Believers have moved from death to life, from being spiritually dead before God to being spiritually alive to him, and this new life is described as being ἐν Χριστῷ.” Emphasis added. 126 Campbell, Union with Christ, 116.

116

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

reality occurring “in Christ.” As Thüsing indicates, “this participle [ζῶντας] indicates the whole dynamic of the being-in Christ.”127 Dunn is probably right in his final analysis of Rom 6:11 to note that both the instrumental and local senses of “in Christ” should be held together. He explains that in the phrase “Paul looks back to the decisive act of Christ’s death and resurrection by which [i.e., instrumentality] the new epoch had been introduced.”128 Also, however, Dunn continues, “This new epoch is also characterized by the continuing Lordship of Christ (not just initiated by him).” “Participation in Christ,” therefore, “can begin to be experienced now [i.e., locality].”129 Significant, then, for Rom 6:11 is the fact that both redemptive-historical and present/experiential aspects of being “in Christ” are present: i.e., the person in Christ benefits from Christ’s work in the past (“dead to sin” looks back to Christ’s death). Also, the person in Christ is presently alive to God, indicating a present experiential reality. The local aspect of living “in Christ” in Rom 6:11 surfaces the key interpretive question for this aspect of the study: if present Christian existence is understood by Paul as being alive (ζῶντας) ἐν Χριστῷ, with ἐν Χριστῷ indicating a location or realm, then how should the nature or reality of such a dynamic be understood? Where exactly does it take place? What anthropological assumptions make existence-in-someone-else intelligible? And, to what “Christ” (i.e., the exalted Lord, historical Jesus, ecclesial-bodyof-Christ, pneumatic-Christ, etc.) does the phrase refer? Below we highlight and interact with different explanations that have been offered – namely, “mysticism” and “participation.” Here we briefly note the conclusions of Goppelt on this text, which points in the direction of a “relational” explanation for the meaning of “in Christ.” The ἐν Χριστῷ of [Rom 6] v 11 is the result of the συν Χριστῷ of v 8; the death to sin and life to God of v 11 follows from and is dependent upon the death to sin and life to God of v 10. And the whole thought here is still under the influence of 5:12–21: “in Christ” as part of 127 Wilhelm Thüsing, Per Christum in Deum. Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, NTAbh 2/1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1965), 67; cited in Dunn, Romans 1–8, 324. 128 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 169–70. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 398, includes Rom 6:11 “as a more subjective usage, where Paul speaks regularly of believer as being ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Lord.’ So, for example, Rom 6:11….” 129 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 170. Others reading Rom 6:11 with the local sense include Son, Corporate Elements, 14; and Campbell, Union with Christ, 115. Käsemann, Romans, 165, referring to the context of 6:1–11, writes, “As in 2 Cor 1:21; Gal 3:27 the baptized are integrated into the new Adam. This should not be abstractly brought under the denominator of the ‘reality of salvation’…, though one is right to reject the idea of a mystical union ... as has been intimated already 5:12ff., it is ultimately a matter of participation in the reign of Christ.”

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

117

eschatological humanity. Hence ἐν Χριστῷ denotes not mere location, but something more dynamic in terms of relationship.130

Goppelt’s notion of a dynamic relationship points in the direction of this study’s interests. Romans 8:39 An important element to “in Christ” in Paul involves God’s agency. When an action verb in the passive is used to describe the subject that is “in Christ,” it often indicates God’s action, in Christ, to affect the believer: e.g., ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Cor 1:2).131 In 1 Cor 1:30, Paul goes so far as to say that, ἐξ αὐτοῦ [θεοῦ, see 1:29] δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. In a text that interests this study due to apparently personal-relational aspects, Rom 8:39, Paul communicates that God loves the believer in Christ: “For I am sure that neither death nor life … nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord [ἀπο τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῷ ἡμῶν]” (Rom 8:38–39).132 In the broader context (Rom 8:31–39) God’s love clearly refers to his gift of his son (8:32), and has a past, concrete referent in the son’s sacrificial death and resurrection: “gave him up for us all” (v. 32); “Jesus is the one who died – more than that, who was raised” (v. 34). However, there is also a present, ongoing aspect in mind, indicated by several factors: (1) Christ is at present interceding (ἐντυγχάνει) for the believers (v. 34); (2) the dangers and distress, which will not separate the believer from the love of Christ/God, are stated as present threats, not merely past. Emphasizing this is the future tense of the infinitival structure in v. 39, δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωπίσαι. Due to movement from past, present, and future, along with the image of the exalted Christ (“seated at the right hand of God,” v. 34) interceding, it seems that the sense of “in Christ” would involve more than a past, instrumental aspect, but local and even personal dynamics. As Campbell notes, 130 Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. John E. Alsup, ed. Jürgen Roloff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 2:105. 131 For other instances where God is acting toward the believer, in Christ, see 1 Cor 1:4; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 1:3; 2:6, 7, 10; 4:32; Phil 3:14; 4:7, 19. 132 In this section of Romans 8, vv. 31–39, Paul moves freely between references to God’s love and Christ’s love: e.g., “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (v.35); “…we are more than conquerors through him [God] who loved us” (v. 37); “nothing … will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 39). As Dunn, Romans 1– 8, 504, notes, “The free interchange in the Paulines between the phrase ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (5:5; 8:39; 2 Cor 13:13; 2 Thess 3:5) and ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (8:35; 2 Cor 5:14; Eph 3:19) is striking.” This connection demonstrates how much Paul saw Jesus the Messiah as “expressing and embodying the (covenant) love of God for his people.”

118

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

We may conclude that God’s love being found ἐν Χριστῷ does not appear to lead to any kind of remoteness on the part of God … it is personal and imminent. Thus, the trinitarian nature of God’s love means that it is both mediated through Christ and, yet, is personally imminent, such that any kind of separation from it is impossible.133

How, exactly, does ἐν Χριστῷ modify the love of God in Rom 8:39? It would be hard to rule out an instrumental (or causal) sense, considering the earlier reference to Jesus’s death (v. 34), i.e., we cannot be separated from God’s love, which was given to us when Christ died for us. There seems to be more going on in these verses then merely a past, instrumental reference, however. Campbell, however, rejects a local use, arguing that if “the love of God is experienced as part of belonging to” the “realm or sphere of Christ … it makes the love of God seem abstract … [a] cosmic force that operates within the domain of Christ.”134 It seems that just the opposite would be the case. Experiencing the love of God in Christ need not make it an abstraction. On the contrary, if “in Christ” is understood as a personal connection (relation) to the exalted one who is interceding for the believer (8:34), then it in fact personalizes and focuses God’s love. It may be that the God who put the believer in Christ (1 Cor 1:30), and “reconciled [the believer] to himself through Christ (διὰ Χριστοῦ)” (2 Cor 5:19), is personalizing his love toward believers-as-they-are-drawn-into-relationship-in-Christ. If this were the case, then the sense of the prepositional phrase would be “local,” yet not so much in stressing a “realm” but an intimate relationship.135 2 Corinthians 5:17 Another Pauline use of the ἐν Χριστῷ phrase that indicates a “new status”136 predicated upon being “in Christ” is 2 Cor 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ [ἐν Χριστῷ], he is a new creation [καινὴ κτίσις]. The old has passed away; behold, Campbell, Union with Christ, 130. Emphasis added. Campbell, Union with Christ, 130. Campbell prefers that in this instance ἐν used in the sense of recognition, so that “Paul’s point may be that the love of God is recognized in Christ” (p. 131). The sense is certainly not less than this, but seems there is an experiential aspect involved, especially if that larger context of Romans 8 and 5–8 are kept in mind. In this larger section, the love of God is “poured into hearts” (5:5), the believer expresses their relation with God with the cry, “Abba! Father!” (8:15); the current state of affairs is filled with eager longing and groaning (8:19, 22, 23, 26), and the culminating vv. 31–39, where, as Dunn, Romans1–8, 497, explains, “the rhythmic structure is probably the product of intense feeling….” More will be said about Romans 8 below, but these brief mentions highlight the experiential dynamic of this section of Paul’s letter. 135 BDAG, “ἐν,” 328, explains that “in numerous pass. [“in Christ”] is used w. verbs and nouns of the most varied sort … to designate someth. as being in close assoc. w. Christ, and can be rendered, variously, in connection with, in intimate association with….” Emphasis added. 136 This is Campbell’s phrase in Union in Christ, 115, “New Status in Christ.” 133 134

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

119

the new has come.” Clearly a state of being is in mind (καινὴ κτίσις).137 And with ἐν Χριστῷ modifying what comes directly before it, τίς,138 the stress is on the individual [τις] being/becoming a new creation in Christ. While Christ is still the cause, or instrument, of what is unfolding, the emphasis of 5:17 lies in a present experience or reality. The context draws this out. In 5:16 Paul explains, “From now [νῦν] on … we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” Paul is not here talking about the event of the cross [past] as the instrument that affected this new creation back then; rather, he is speaking of a present (νῦν) reality, or “location.” Here, ἐν functions in the spatial or local sense, and Paul’s idiom takes on the emphasis that Deissmann suggests was its dominant meaning, local.139 Also, the subject of the phrase is personal, τίς, meaning if a person is “bound up with Christ,” that individual is a new creation.140 Grant Macaskill demonstrates that the broader context of 2 Cor 5:17 is that of the new covenant, further suggesting the themes of new creation and closeness with God. Paul’s language in 2 Cor 3:3 reveals that he is drawing on a combination of Jer 31:31–33 and Ezek 36:25–27, texts introducing the new covenant theme that “continues to reverberate through the subsequent

Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 63, emphatically states, “Paul does not use the term ‘new creation’ as a metaphor. Man in Christ will be, indeed already is, a truly new creature.” Later this study will address this obvious attention between future hope and present experience. 138 Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 (Texas: Word Books, 1986), 152, sees the ἐν Χριστῷ as governing καινὴ κτίσις, not τις. Thus, he translates the verse as, “So, if anyone comes to be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old order has gone, to be replaced by the new.” “The accent,” he writes, “falls on a person (τις) entering the new order in Christ, thus making the καινὴ κτίσις an eschatological term for God’s age of salvation” (p. 152). This goes against the flow of the Greek, however, εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις, and therefore against the “most natural way to take the Greek, in which ἐν Χριστῷ modifies that which directly follows it.” See Campbell, Union with Christ, 117. 139 Adolf Deissmann, Die Neutestamentliche Formel „In Christo Jesu” (Marburg: Elwert, 1892 1892), 98, writes, “Die Frage, ob man den lokalen Grundgedanken der Formel im eigentlichen Sinne oder nur als rhetorisches Hülfsmittel aufzufassen hat, kann nicht mit Sieherheit entschieden werden, doch hat die erstere Möglichkeit den höheren Grad der Wahrscheinlickheit.” See also the comment of Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, ed. F. W. Horn, trans. M. E. Boring (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter/Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 117, “In his foundational study Adolf Deissmann posited the thesis that έν Χριστώ is to be understood in a local/spatial sense. Christ is understood as the realm, the sphere, into which the Christian is incorporated.” 140 This is Dunn’s phrase in Theology of Paul, 410, “The sense of being bound up with Christ….” 137

120

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

logic of Paul’s argument.”141 With this covenantal framework at hand, Macaskill rightly points out that in 2 Cor 5:17 “Paul is speaking of the personal transformation of the individual, [however] that transformation is located within the bigger eschatological reality of the new creation.”142 The covenant context is important because it stresses not only the theme of new creation, but that of personal relationship: e.g., within the narrative logic of 2 Corinthians 3–5, the believer comes face to face with God through Christ,143 enjoys “intimate knowledge of God,”144 and all this is within a covenant marked by “glory,” which is indicative of the return of the “relational presence” of God amid His covenant people.145 In 2 Cor 5:17, therefore, to be in Christ indicates a new state of being involving a new covenantal-relationship with God through Christ, with the Spirit playing a decisive role (e.g., 2 Cor 3:3–5, 16). Defining the Local Meaning of “In Christ” These three texts, Rom 6:11, Rom 8:39, and 2 Cor 5:17, demonstrate that Paul’s “in Christ” paradigm cannot be reduced to only an instrumental sense, making being-in-Christ only equivalent to being a recipient of the benefits of his historical-redemptive actions. The texts considered so far suggest a current, dynamic element to “union with Christ” that stresses not only historical, but existential, ontological realities, e.g., a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). However, how to understand or define the nature the present and local meaning refers to is difficult. This difficulty was captured well by Markus Barth, who listed nine different interpretive offers related to the phrase “in Christ”:

Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 227–28. 142 Macaskill, Union with Christ, 233. 143 Macaskill, Union with Christ, 230, understands the “narrative logic” 2 Corinthians 3– 5 as putting “believers/ministers into the position of Moses, and Christ into the position of God,” and that what we are dealing with in the use of “εἰκών” in 3:18 is “a word that focuses [on] the concept of the divine face” (p. 231). Hence, in the new covenant believers come face to face with God through Christ. 144 Macaskill, Union with Christ, 232. 145 Macaskill, Union with Christ, describes God’s presence amid the covenant people as a “relational presence” (298), and draws attention to a well-established link between the glory of the Lord and God’s presence. Referencing the work of Cary C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric, SNT 69 (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1992), 21– 24 Macaskill explains, “[Newman] notes … that prior to the composition of the New Testament, the concept of ‘glory of the Lord’ was well established, with a clear set of associations. The phrase is particularly associated with the visible presence of the Lord; that is, not with a secret or internal quality of God, but rather with his being in relation to (his) people” (p. 111). 141

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

121

This key term of Paul’s theology [“in Christ”] is a puzzle that has been treated in any number of monographs and excurses. Mythical (Schlier in his commentary), mystical (Schweitzer), existential, sacramental (Bouttier), local (Deissmann), historical and eschatological (Lohmeyer, Neugebauer, Bouttier), juridical (Parisius), and ecclesiastical (Grossouw) interpretations compete for recognition or are grouped together in various selections.146

Three influential concepts in the past century are “mysticism,” “participation,” and the “redemptive-historical reading.” These three descriptive options will be briefly considered, weighing strengths and weaknesses in terms of how they capture the essence of union with Christ in Paul. Then, the concept of “relationship” will be suggested as a way to understand union in Paul, especially in light of the marriage analogy Paul uses to further explain the union of the believer and Christ. Mysticism As early as the sixteenth century, John Calvin described how Christ organically incorporates believers into his life with the phrase “mystical union” (mystica unio).147 However, it was Deissmann who brought the concept of mysticism center stage in the early twentieth century, followed by Schweitzer and Bousset.148 Deissmann essentially argued that in many cases ἐν Χριστῷ in Paul had the local sense. Moreover, the basic idea of locality [“den lokalen Grundgedanken”] was not “only a rhetorical aid [rhetorisches Hülfsmittel],” but indicated a reality.149 This local reality indicated a present connection between the believer and Christ, which Deissmann describes as having the character of a relationship with the pneumatic Christ.150 This relationship, in Deissmann’s estimation, is not metaphorical but real: “If Paul had attempted a definition, he would have [ἐν Χριστῷ] … in a manner more realistic, more massive, more concrete perhaps than speculative thinking

146 M. Barth, Ephesians 1–3: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 34 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 69. 147 See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC 20–21, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.1.1. 148 Deissmann, Paul, 140, writes, “This primitive Pauline watchword ‘in Christ’ is meant vividly and mystically.” Emphasis added. Also see Schweitzer, Mysticism, 1, “We are always in the presence of mysticism when we find a human being looking upon the division between earthly and super-earthly, temporal and eternal, as transcended, and feeling himself, while still externally amid the earthly and temporal, to belong to the super-earthly and eternal.” 149 Deissmann, Die Neutestamentliche Formel „In Christo Jesu”, 98, 150 Deissmann, Die Neutestamentliche Formel „In Christo Jesu”, 97, writes, “Die von Paulus unter Benutzung eines vorhandenen Profansprachgebrauches geschaffene Formel ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου charakterisiert das Verhältnis des Christen zu Jesus Christus als ein lokalaufzufassendes Sichbefinden in dem pneumatischen Christus.”

122

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

of our own times.”151 Finally, the relationship between Christ and the believer was marked by intimacy, indicating “the most intimate possible fellowship of the Christian with the living Spiritual Christ.”152 These three aspects to Christ-mysticism, namely, that it depicts a local, real and intimate connection between the believer and Christ are all strengths. They capture features of the meaning of “in Christ” highlighted above in Rom 6:11; 8:39 and 2 Cor 5:17. Also, as Deissmann asserts, too often that phrase in Paul is “misunderstood by exegetes, rationalized, applied to the ‘historical’ Jesus in isolation.”153 However, Rom 6:11 and 2 Cor 5:17 strongly point toward more than a reference to salvation history but also to a present reality to being in Christ, and Rom 8:39 suggests the intimate nature of experiencing God’s love in Christ. Despite these strengths, there are weaknesses to the Christ-mysticism interpretation. Two of these are (1) an over-spiritualized view of Christ and (2) the risks of the indistinguishably of the parties inherent in mysticism. An overspiritualized view of Christ is evident in Deissmann, who equates Christ with Spirit without remainder: “Christ is Spirit; therefore He can live in Paul and Paul in Him. Just as the air of life; which we breathe, is ‘in’ us and fills us, and yet we at the same time live in this air and breathe it, so it is also with the Christ-intimacy of the Apostle Paul: Christ in him, he in Christ.”154 With these words Deissmann has in mind 2 Cor 3:17, ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν. But from this text it should not be deduced that the Christ is the Spirit,155 but rather that there is a dynamic interconnection between the two.156 151 Deissmann, Paul, 143. Also, Schweitzer, Mysticism, 15–16, in considering how the believer is “in Christ” in his death and baptism, explains, “Dying and rising with Christ is for [Paul] not something merely metaphorical, which could be expressed also in a different metaphor, but a simply reality…. For him the believer experiences the dying and rising again of Christ in actual fact, not in imitative representation.” 152 Deissmann, Paul, 140. See also the words of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 153–54, who describes the relationship between the believer and Christ, writing of “the intense feeling of personal belonging and of spiritual relationship with the exalted Lord.” 153 Deissmann, Paul, 140. 154 Deissmann, Paul, 140. 155 Fritz Neugebauer, In Christus (ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ): Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubenverständnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 64, in commenting on this text asserts, “Christus werde hier nicht als ein Geist-wesen ausgewiesen, sondern der Herr Jesus Christus ist als das eschatologische Handeln Gottes zugleich der Geist.” 156 Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, WUNT 2.128 (Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2000), 307, explains, “Paul’s identification between the Spirit and the Risen Lord should probably be understood as a dynamic identification…. One should conclude from all this that the dynamic identification between Christ and the Spirit, though including an ontological aspect, nevertheless is not a personal or complete identification.” Emphasis added. On seeing distinction here between Christ and the Spirit, see also, James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

123

When Deissmann makes a complete identification of Christ and Spirit, he forfeits other important aspects of the “in Christ” paradigm. For one, it separates the reality of being in Christ from the historical Jesus, his person and redemptive-historical work.157 It also makes problematic the idea of a personal connection, or the idea of intimacy, which Deissmann wants to stress. How does the believer have a personal connection with something akin to “air”? 158 Or, how does one have a relationship with what Bousset refers to as “the supraterrestrial power which supports and fills with its presence [the believer’s] whole life”?159 Rehfeld’s summation at this point is to be preferred, where he maintains that the connection is between the believer and the person of the exalted Christ: The thesis of the dynamic identification between Christ and the Spirit initially means two things: (1) Christ also remains as the exalted person [der Erhöhte Person] and does not dissolve in spirit [und lost sich nicht in Geist auf]. (2) Christ as the exalted is personally present and really-acting [real wirkend] (dynamic), where his presence is a pneumatically mediated, which therefore means only a πνευματικός can partake of it [nur ein πνευματικός teilhaftig sein kann].160

Rehfeld is right to preserve the person of the exalted Christ, avoiding dissolving him into “Geist.” We will interact with his second point more below (ch. 4), where he suggests that Christ’s “presence is … pneumatically mediated.” 161 It will be explored then whether or not a better way to understand the interworkings of the dynamic is that the Spirit effects and sustains a new relationship between the believer and Christ. Thus, while the mystical reading rightly emphasizes something more than only an instrumental sense to “in Christ,” it risks minimizing the historical Jesus, on the one hand, and dissolving the exalted Christ into pneuma, on the other. Secondly, the mystical reading risks indistinguishability between parties.162 As Campbell notes, in a “vague mysticism … the identity of believers is Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 326. 157 Deissmann, Paul, 143, points at this distinction when he writes, “That is to say, mystical communion with the Spirit-Christ transforms all that we call the ‘historical’ Christ, all that found its climax on Golgotha…” 158 Deissmann, Paul, 140. 159 Boussett, Kyrios Christos, 154. 160 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 262. 161 Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 262. 162 Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, 118, explains, “One should not speak of Pauline Christ mysticism, since it is characteristic of mystics that they are absorbed into the Other and become identical with God or Christ (‘I am you’), but Paul understands the relation of human beings to Christ in the sense of personal encounter in which the two persons remain distinct; the person of Christ is not dissolved.”

124

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

dissipated through union with the divine.”163 The classic definition of mysticism emphasizes an eventual “indistinguishably between God and man”;164 in other words, it moves away from particularity. Particularity, however, is necessary for a relationship where intimacy and love are experienced.165 Participation A second term used to describe the “in Christ” paradigm is “participation:” For example, Schnelle suggests that, alongside transformation, “the thought of the participation [der Teilhabe] of the believers in the fate of Jesus Christ profoundly shapes Pauline thought.”166 While there is much overlap with mysticism, where participation is different is that it tends to emphasize the believers participating in the benefits of Christ’s work, especially his death, burial, and resurrection (e.g., Romans 6).167 Many view participation as being effected by baptism,168 and therefore as having a sacramental component. Like mysticism, however, participation can be a broad category taking on various 163 Campbell, Union with Christ, 308. Helmer Ringgren, “Mysticism,” ABD, 945–46, explains that not all forms of mysticism dissolve the individual, but some do: “In some cases the mystical experience leads to a sense of unification with the divine (unio mystica) or of losing oneself into ‘the void’ or ‘the infinite.’ In others there is an experience of intimate fellowship with God that leaves personality intact.” Importantly, however, most view of mysticism emphasize a “passivity” on the part of the non-divine being, as the four basic characteristics of mysticism point out, “ineffability, a noetic quality, transience, and passivity” (p. 945). Emphasis added. 164 Reheld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus, 74, explains the “klassischen Begriff von Mystik” as “Ununterscheidbarkeit zwischen Gott und Mensch.” 165 C. Arthur VanLear, Ascan Koerner, and Donna M. Allen, “Relationship Typologies,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, ed. Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 94–95, explain the difference between personal and impersonal relationships, with intimacy being a key factor in the former, and therefore requiring the particularity of persons in order to be experienced: “The most obvious dimensions on which this distinction [between personal and social (impersonal) relationships] is based are intimacy, closeness, or interdependence, with personal relationships being closer, more intimate, and interdependent and social relationships being more superficial and impersonal.” Emphasis added. 166 Schnelle, “Transformation Und Partizipation,” 64. 167 Campbell, Union with Christ, 408, defines participation, explaining that “union with Christ involves the participation of believers in the events of Christ’s narrative, including his death and burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification.” 168 For Schnelle, “Transformation Und Partizipation,” 64, “participation takes place … in baptism.” Campbell, Union with Christ, 62, explains, “While most scholars recognize some relationship between baptism – whether spiritually defined or the concrete act – and union with Christ, [Alfred] Wikenhauser in particular raises this relationship to some degree of prominence. He argues that union with Christ is established by the sacramental act of baptism and not by faith, though faith is a prerequisite.”

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

125

hues. As such, although it tends to highlight sharing in the benefits of the Christ-events, it can also emphasize communion. Schnelle’s summary of the reality brought about by participation emphasizes more personal aspects: The communion [Gemeinschaft] between Christ and the baptized is so close [ist so eng] that the baptized not only has a share [Anteil] in the crucifixion of Jesus, but the risen Christ himself lives, determines and fills him ([Gal] 2:20). The human ego [Das menschliche Ich] is freed from its self-centeredness and incorporated [eingegliedert] into the comprehensive reality of Jesus Christ [Wirklichkeit Jesu Christi].169

Schnelle’s explanation of participation captures elements of the above analysis of Pauline texts. It states that the connection Paul has in mind is a reality [“eingegliedert … Wirklichkeit Jesu Christi”], not merely metaphorical. It also, in a way that mysticism risks losing, maintains the importance of the historical Jesus; it is the historical events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth in which the believer participates. Schnelle’s explanation is also somewhat atypical in that it stresses communion [“Gemeinschaft”] between the believer and Christ. As Campbell points out, “participate is a ‘doing’ word, while union is a ‘being’ word.”170 As such, participation language often risks downplaying the relational and “being” aspects of “in Christ,” while emphasizing the forensic benefits drawn from a sharing in Christ’s work.171 Another aspect of Schnelle’s description, to which we will return below, exposes the anthropological aspect of union with Christ. The believer is so close to Christ, Schnelle explains, “the human ego [Das menschliche Ich]” is constitutionally changed, having been “incorporated [eingegliedert] into the reality [Wirklichkeit] of another person.”172 Redemptive-History Other scholars find “Paul’s conception of ‘salvation history’ … best explains the general meaning of his ‘in Christ’ language.”173 Here, the believer “belongs to Christ as [their] representative, so that the decisions applied to him apply to us.”174 The preposition ἐν has a spatial sense in this reading, as Christ the representative figure is an “inclusive person”; however, the instrumental force is always in mind – what is done is done through Christ. It seems a word that Schnelle, “Transformation Und Partizipation,” 65. Campbell, Union with Christ, 413. 171 Campbell, Union with Christ, 413, explains, “the term participation … obviously suits participatory elements, conveying participation in the events of Christ’s narrative, but it insufficiently convey union elements, such as the faith union or mutual indwelling of Christ and his people.” 172 Schnelle, “Transformation Und Partizipation,” 65. 173 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 421. 174 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 421. 169 170

126

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

might capture the essence of this view is “identification,” meaning that believers are now in the “realm” or “under the rule” of Christ, and by belonging to him, share in his destiny.175 To commend in this view is the significance of the historical Jesus for the logic of Paul’s “in Christ” paradigm, as well as the local sense – that believers exist within Christ’s realm. However, what this view seems to be missing is any suggestion of a real or experiential connection between the believer and Christ. Though taking the preposition ἐν as spatial, distance exists between the believer and Christ if the “union” is merely being located under Christ’s lordship. This reading lacks the dynamic and intimate ethos that Rom 8:39 suggests, where God’s love is experienced in Christ. Fritz Neugebauer, also representative of the redemptive-historical interpretation, suggests that ἐν Χριστῷ should be understood as meaning “determined by the Christ event,”176 which is true in some respects, but does not capture the ongoing reality of being-in-Christ.177 The salvation-historical reading of “in Christ” risks only emphasizing the objective elements of the Pauline paradigm. It misses the subjective aspects of an ongoing and dynamic connection between the believer and Christ. Moo himself is aware of this tension, noting that it would be “reductionistic to force all occurrences of the phrase [“in Christ”] into one mold,” and that, “Paul insists that everything the believer is and experiences has relation to Christ.”178 However, the phrase “relation to Christ” is ambiguous, as it could merely imply a static relation rather than a dynamic personal relationship.

Another term/concept employed under the notion of salvation history is that of “exchange.” Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament, 299, notes the possible background of the fourth Servant song of Isaiah for the New Testament idea of “exchange,” writing, “‘He’ [the suffering Servant] suffers and, because of this, ‘we’ or ‘they’ are healed.” Macaskill goes on to note that it is less the intimate and relational aspect of union that is emphasized here, but “this account of exchange or representation is inescapably forensic in tone” (p. 299). 176 E.g., Campbell, Union with Christ, 43, notes that “Neugebauer develops a salvationhistorical approach to the topic, in which ‘in Christ’ depicts the objective reality of Christian existence and the work of God in the death and resurrection of Christ.” 177 Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, 117, offers the following critique of Neugebauer’s reading and the salvation-historical reading in general: “While the Christ event is here [in Neugebauer’s reading] seen as a past event and rightly emphasizes the “Christus incarnatus,” this must not be done in such a way that the “Christus praesens” is not included in the meaning. The ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι points not only to the Christ of the past but at the same time to the present Lord of the church.” 178 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 421. Moo, 421, also refers here to Rhefeld’s, Relationale Ontologie, 222–315, “relational ontology.” 175

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

127

Relationality Each of these concepts – mysticism, participation, and redemptive-history – capture important aspects of union with Christ in Paul, while at the same time missing elements. Campbell is probably correct to render “one word” explanations insufficient, instead landing on a quartet: union, participation, identification, and incorporation.179 This study holds that “relation” or “relationship” should be added to Campbell’s list. That concept captures important elements of Paul’s paradigm, such as the personal and intimate nature, which participation and redemptive-historical readings may miss, while preserving the particularity and individuality that mysticism dissolves. The Nuptial Union and Relation to Christ Further underscoring the appropriateness of referring to union with Christ with the concept “relationship” is the nuptial image Paul employs to describe it. On four occasions Paul employs the marital union as a way of describing the relationship between the believer/the church and Christ. In 1 Cor 6:16–17, Paul grounds a matter of sexual ethics on the nuptial union of the believer and Christ, drawing on Gen 2:24 to make his point. The union between the man and prostitute and believer and Lord are both described with the verb, κολλάω, which looks back to Gen 2:24, where the first marital union is described with the verb, προσκολλάω (Gen 2:24 LXX).180 Again in correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul draws on a marital image to warn against deception (2 Cor 11:2–3). Though with some nuance – betrothal rather than marital union – the underlying emphasis is that the Corinthians are to understand themselves as bound to Christ. In Rom 7:1–4, Paul explains the believer’s relationship to the Mosaic Law through a marriage metaphor. Just as the death of a woman’s husband subsequently frees her from one legally binding relationship, so she is then free to be joined to another, so also the Christian, by dying with Christ (to the law, 7:4), is free to “belong to another [εἱς τὸ γεγέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ]” (Rom 7:5). In the latter’s case, the “other” is Christ.181 179 Campbell, Union with Christ, 29, explains, “These four umbrella terms successfully capture the full range of prepositional phraseology, metaphorical conceptualizations, and theological interactions that Paul draws on to communicate what it means to be united in Christ.” 180 Ciampa Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 269–60, point out, “The parallel with Gen 2:24 underscores that Paul thinks of the union between Christ and Church as a nuptial union.” 181 J. D. Earnshaw, “Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1–4,” NTS 40 (1994): 73, paraphrases Rom 7:1–4: “You, my readers, are free from the Mosaic law through sharing with Christ in his death, and have embarked on a new life in union with Christ in his resurrection. You are thus in many respects like a widow who has remarried, for such a

128

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

Finally, in Eph 5:22–33, the most explicit comparison of earthly marriage and the believer’s/church’s relationship with Christ within the Pauline canon182 is found. Within the “Haustafel” section of Ephesians (Eph 5:22–6:9), the “relationship between Christ and the Church [is] used to structure the exhortations to wives and husbands.”183 As was the case in both 1 Cor 6:16–17 and 1 Cor 11:2–3, here a direct reference to the first couple in Genesis is made (Eph 5:31). Emphasized in Ephesians 5 is Christ’s love for the church. Husbands are to love their wives “just as (καθώς) Christ loved the Church” (Eph 5:25).184 In other words, Paul’s point is not just that a “serious” or “covenant-like” bond exists between the believer/church and Christ; along with the legal implications of such a bond, its character is noted: Christ loves the church. The verses that follow after Eph 5:25, where Christ sanctifies and purifies his church, are, as Rudolf Schnackenburg explains, the outworking of his love (“Liebe”) and devotion (“Hingabe”).185 These four passages demonstrate that a way Paul understood the connection between the believer/church and Christ was analogous to the marriage relationship. Although Paul never explicitly connects the marriage motif with the “in Christ” collocation, there are thematic and grammatical reasons to see woman is free from the law governing her first marriage through sharing in the legal consequences of her first husband’s death and has embarked on a new life with a second husband.” 182 The Pauline authorship of Ephesians is debated. The present author affirms the letter’s authenticity, while noting that this study’s thesis in no way requires a reader to share this position. For support of Pauline authorship, note (1) the many modern scholars who hold to it: e.g., Markus Barth, Ephesians, 2 vols., AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 6–10; Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Frank Thielman, Ephesians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); and Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1514. Second, as Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1514, points out, “Even if, on other grounds, we were fully convinced that Paul did not and could not have written [Ephesians], most agree that it was at least written by someone close to him, consciously developing and imitating him, drawing deeply on several aspects of his other writing to produce a general, overall summary of his teaching.” 183 Gregory W. Dawes, The Body in Question: Metaphor and Meaning in the Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21–33 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 108. 184 Dawes, The Body in Question, 92, explains the significance of the conjunction in the middle of v. 25, writing, “The καθως [rather than οτι] indicates, not so much cause, but comparison.” He goes on to state that this section, Eph 5:25–28a, motivates by comparison and indicates “not so much ‘why’ husbands should love their wives, but rather ‘how’ they should love their wives, namely, as Christ loved the Church.” 185 Rudolf Schnackenburg Der Brief an die Epheser, EKK (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Patmos Verlag, 1982), 248, writes, “Was Christus mit seiner Liebe und seine Hingabe bei der Kirche erreichen wollte, wird in drei Finalsätze entfaltet, die nicht gleichgeordnet sind, aber in ihrer Folge immer mehr verdeutlichen, wie Christus die Gestalt seiner Kirche gewünscht hat.”

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

129

them as drawing from the same underlying concept. The phrase in 1 Cor 6:17, “he who has been joined to the Lord (τῷ κυρίῳ) becomes one Spirit with him,” clearly indicates a “union” (thematic coherence), just as the prepositional phrase explored above, ἐν Χριστῷ, does.186 Second, the dative τῷ κυρίῳ indicates locality (grammatical coherence). The phrase εἱς τὸ γεγέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ in Rom 7:4 underscores a union (thematic coherence) as does the explicit likening of earthly marriage to the church’s relation to Christ in Eph 5:32, “this mystery is profound (i.e., Gen 2:24), and I am saying it refers to Christ and the church.”187 The nuptial image, therefore, offers a window into the meaning of ἐν Χριστῷ highlighting the following. First, it involves a union, “one flesh/spirit,” but does not dissolve the particularity of the parties involved. In Ephesians 5, this is particularly evident, as the unique roles of the husband and wife emphasize that the “oneness” (Eph 5:31–32; cf. Gen 2:24) never threatens individuality. Second, the union is dynamic versus static. The marital relationship is meant to indicate permanence (“one flesh”) but can ebb and flow in quality; Eve can be deceived, and likewise the church can be “led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3).188 The dynamic nature of the union points toward its personal-relational, versus merely institutional, character. Third, the character of the relationship can be further described as intimate.189 Fourth, the union between the believer/church and Christ involves mutuality, but with important nuance. The believer acts toward Christ in many ways, including faith, sincerity, devotion, submission, trust, worship, etc. The comment in Eph 5:30, that “we are members of his body,” demonstrates thematic coherence with Rom 12:5, where in the latter verse the body/member image is connected directly with the prepositional formula: “So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” See also 1 Cor 12:12–13, although the language is “in one Spirit.” 187 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh,’” TJ 12 (1991): 91, explains the reality of the union Paul has in mind, commenting, “Thus, in one sense, Paul envisions Christ and his church as one person, inextricably united in this world, just like husband and wife (cf. Gen 2:24).” 188 As Martin, Second Corinthians, 333, points out, “The apprehension … expressly qualifies Paul’s desire to lead the Corinthians to their full bridal dignity.” Also Campbell, Union with Christ, 305, writes in reference to 2 Cor 11:3, “turning away from Christ is act of marital unfaithfulness.” 189 Campbell, Union with Christ, 309–10, summarizes, “The metaphor [of nuptial union] is personal because of the intimate nature of the one-flesh union of marriage. This means that union with Christ is not simply a general spiritual reality that designates believers as part of Christ’s domain. While living under his domain is no doubt part of what it means to be united to Christ, the metaphor of marriage provides further nuance: the church [and individual believer, 1 Cor 6:17] is intimately and essentially wedded to Christ, to the exclusion of all others.” Emphasis added. 186

130

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

Christ acts toward the believer(s) differently, but he still acts.190 For example, in Eph 5:25–27, Christ gives himself up and sanctifies and presents the church to himself. This involves Christ relating toward the believer, not only being related to. Before proceeding, it is necessary to highlight an aspect of the marital analogy that is not like union with Christ. In the succinct parallelism of 1 Cor 6:16–17, Paul introduces an important difference between earthly sexual union and union with Christ. The one joined to a prostitute “is one body (σῶμά) with her; the one joined to the Lord becomes one spirit (πνεῦμα) with him. This shift from “body” to “spirit” means that the believer does not have a sexual union with Christ in the same manner as earthly sexual intercourse. The strong and significant parallels do not include physical sex but rather emphasize closeness, oneness, the order of gender, intimacy, and the fidelity such a union requires.191 Hans Burger notes these differences, then highlights the pneumatic aspect of union with Christ: This unity is no bodily union as sexual union is, but a unity … in the Spirit…. Consequently, this image shows the presence of a moment of union, and further clarifies a little bit the nature of this union: real, and comparable with a sexual union in marriage, but more complex, for Christ and the Holy Spirit both play a role in it.192

A central interest of this study is not only this relationship that “in Christ” points to, but also the pneumatic aspect of such. This is explored further below. 3.2.5. The Believer in Relation to Other Believers The well-being of churches motivates nearly all of Paul’s letters. The language Paul uses to describe these groups witnesses to a unique relational aspect to their fellowship. Meeks refers to the “language of belonging” that permeates Pauline churches, which includes “saints” or “holy ones,”193 “the term elect and its cognates,”194 and the “notion that the members are peculiarly ‘loved’ 190 Emphasizing the fact that this is not an even reciprocity, is the fact that Christ would not need the church the way it needed him, and Christ would not submit to the believer just as the believer submitted to him. I.e., Eph 5:23: “for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” 191 Campbell, Union with Christ, 302–3, notes in reference to 1 Cor 6:16–17, “There are significant differences, of course, between the two relationships – one is metaphorical, the other concrete; one is asexual, the other sexual; one is spiritual, the other physical – so that the parallel cannot be pressed too far.” 192 Hans Burger, Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 240. 193 For Paul’s use of ἄγιος (“saints”/”holy ones”) as a label for Christians, see Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2. 194 For Paul’s use of ἐκλογή (“chosen”) to describe Christians within the church, see Rom 8:33; 1 Cor 1:27; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4.

3.2. Types of Relations Affecting Persons in Paul

131

by God.”195 The “repetitive use” of these terms “for the groups and its members,” Meeks goes on, “plays a role in the process of resocialization by which an individual’s identity is revised and knit together with the identity of the group.”196 The most striking element of this language of belonging are the familial terms Paul uses to describe believers, including “sons of God,” “children of God” (Rom 8:14, 17), and “brothers and sisters” (Rom 1:13; 7:1; 8:12; 1 Cor 1:1, 10; etc.). Paul’s view of human beings assumes a “natural” kinship structure into which one is born. Human identity is never constituted outside of some type of kinship structure. What happens within the Christian communities is not a first introduction to a familial web. Rather, it is a supplanting of an old familial network by a new one. While this is an obvious point – that humans are born into a familial network – it is important to note in light of the familial nature of salvation in Paul. The striking use of familial language to portray the Christian fellowship suggests an aspect of Paul’s anthropology whereby familial-relations are essential to human existence. One is either a son of God or enemy of God (Rom 5:10; 8:14), a son according to the flesh or son according to the promise/Spirit (Gal 4:23, 28–29), strangers and aliens from the covenant or members of the household of God (Eph 2:12– 19). The “familial-relationship” Christians experience is personal and dynamic and intended to be intimate. In his earliest letter, Paul refers to the Thessalonians as “brothers loved by God,” then writes of being “affectionately desirous” of them, reminding them he was as a “father with his children” when with them (1 Thess 1:4; 2:8, 11). That the relationship between believers is an essential aspect of Christian personhood is further stressed by Paul’s use of “body of Christ” in explaining the church. In Rom 12:5, Christians are described as “members of one another” (ἀλλήλων μέλη), and in 1 Cor 12:20 as “many members, but one body” (πολλὰ μὲν μέλη ἓν δὲ σῶμα). The image of the body of Christ is highly significant in Paul and will be returned to when this study considers 1 Corinthians 12 in more depth below. Not only is the unity (oneness) of the believers emphasized by it (1 Cor 12:13), but also the interdependence of one upon the other. As O’Brien points out, “Each member with his or her gifts is necessary to the other members for the good of the body as a whole (1 Cor 12:17–21).”197

195 Meeks, First Urban, 85. For Paul’s reference to believers as beloved by God, see Rom 1:7; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4. 196 Meeks, First Urban, 85–86. 197 Peter O’Brien, “Church,” DPL, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 128.

132

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

3.2.6. Conclusion We have considered five types of relations/relationships in Paul: Creatorcreature, embodied-persons, persons under cosmology and sister powers, Christ-relatedness, and believers in relationships with one another. This “taxonomy” reveals that relations do shape personhood in Paul and can range from the impersonal and static relation of embeddedness, to the personal and dynamic relationship of union with Christ. A final step in this chapter is to bring this relational taxonomy together with the above description of the person, asking how these relations shape particular aspects of personhood.

3.3. Personhood Defined by Relations 3.3 Personhood Defined by Relations

3.3.1. Relations and Identity

The aspect of personhood described above as “identity” indicates a capacity for self-awareness and self-evaluation. Paul’s understanding of humankind as creatures of God indicates that humans cannot understand themselves rightly outside of knowing and relating rightly to God, their Creator. Romans 1 indicates that a right relationship with the Creator is meant to be personal and intimate. Outside of this proper relationship with God, human beings cease to be themselves or understand themselves, but are plunged into darkened thinking, feeling, and acting (Rom 1:21–31). Therefore, a human cannot grasp his or her true identity outside of this relationship with their Creator. A second relation that impacts a person’s identity is the Christ-relation. By and in this relationship, the believer’s identity is transferred from enemy to son (Rom 5:10; 8:14–17) and from stranger to family member (Eph 2:12–19). Moreover, in-relation-to-Christ, the individual believer is a member of the body of Christ, a sibling to other Christians, and a child of God (Rom 8:14–17; 12:5; 1 Cor 12:12–20; Gal 4:6). This entails what Meeks refers to as “the resocialization of conversion” where “the natural kinship structures into which the person has been born … are supplanted by a new set of relationships.”198 In Paul, therefore, identity is shaped in a relational web; who one is, is determined by whose one is. There is no instance in Paul’s anthropology where a person’s identity is constituted merely by self-reflection or self-assertion. If for Paul identity is an aspect of human existence, and relations are essential to identity, then our model of RA is supported.

198

Meeks, First Urban, 88.

3.3 Personhood Defined by Relations

133

3.3.2. Relations and Agency A second aspect of personhood highlighted above is agency, which indicates the capacity to act within an environment. Several types of relations impact this aspect of personhood. Corporeality indicates that humans are embedded in an environment, affecting agency in several ways. For example, Paul’s description of the σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν in 1 Cor 15:44 imply that the nature of the body affects human ability. The “natural body” (i.e., flesh) limits a person temporally, for she is perishable (1 Cor 15:50), and morally, for life according to the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7). Embodied existence further affects humans because it makes them open to external forces. Sin relates to a person “in the flesh” (Rom 7:18) and threatens to take over agency (Rom 7:20). Moreover, as Käsemann notes, the impact cosmology has upon the somatic-person is such that outer forces threaten to subsume them: “each person is both himself and his world.”199 In the above consideration of Paul’s cosmology and notion of external forces and supernatural beings, it is clear that human existence is conditioned, at least in part, by external forces, which can act external and internally. Whereas for Bultmann, “‘authentic’ man is permitted to transcend nature, society and history, and is set apart from created being as a whole,” according to Paul’s own cosmology, man is dominated by the environment(s) surrounding him.200 The Pauline person appears as dominated or ruled. She is either under the dominion of sin and this present age, or under the dominion of the Spirit and the new age (Rom 8:3–9). This human situation is polarized by two statements in Romans 7–8: either a person is indwelt by sin (Rom 7:17, 20, ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία)201 or indwelt by God’s/Christ’s Spirit (Rom 8:9, 11, πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν). In the context of Romans 7–8, both of these statements imagine human agency as either overtaken by another or blended with another. Rather than an autonomous agent, it is more accurate to think of the Pauline person as having an agencyin-relation-to-another’s-agency. Underscoring this view of agency from yet another angle is the concept of Lordship. Liberation from the panoply of forces in Rom 8:35–39 comes only “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:39; Col 2:15) and it is only Christ who delivers the believer from the present evil age (Gal 1:4). Freedom for the believer, therefore, does not mean autonomy but being ruled by the right Lord. Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 24. With these words Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 23, critiques Bultmann’s view of “creatureliness” in Paul. 201 E.g., Albert Harrill, “Paul and the Slave Self,” in Religion and the Self in Antiquity, ed. David B. Brakke, Michael L. Satlow and Steven Weitzman (Indiana University Press, 2005), 53, paints a paradoxical picture of the person enslaved by sin, yet maintains a level of subjective agency. 199 200

134

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

“Once slaves to sin,” freed man is now “a slave of righteousness/God” (Rom 6:18, 22). Käsemann summarizes: One again has to be clear how far the apostle parts company here with the message of autarchy and emancipation in popular philosophy. The premise of his anthropology may be seen once more. A person is defined by his particular lord…. Standing beneath the cross marks the position of the conquerors. Their Lord sustains them through the messianic woes.202

Paul’s view of humanity does maintain an element of subjective agency. Paul commands Christians “not to present their members to sin” (Rom 6:13), indicating an element of agency. However, the more stunning image that emerges from the larger scope is an agency always and everywhere impacted by another. Käsemann’s final emphasis on Lordship as what ultimately defines a person is correct: i.e., Lordship determines the “age” to which one belongs, whether “in the flesh” or “in the Spirit,” and whether or not they have been brought back into a right relationship with God. And all these factors – the age, being in the flesh or Spirit – affect man as an agent, as the above analysis attested. In summary, therefore, agency is an aspect of personhood in Paul. However, human agency is always constituted in relation to another. 3.3.3. Relations and Heart The third aspect of personhood highlighted is “heart,” indicating the blended realities of thinking, willing, and desiring at a person’s center. There is obvious overlap here with the issue of agency, as willing and doing are related. However, focused on here is more specifically the cognitive and affective nature of man. The above relation between the creature and Creator, especially as highlighted in Romans 1, indicates that knowledge is essential to authentic personhood. In particular, knowledge of God is necessary for knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and acting rightly (Rom 1:19–23). Throughout Paul’s thought, this necessary knowledge is only attainable as a gift from God and in degrees. To all men, God gives a basic knowledge of himself through creation (Rom 1:19–20). To those who receive the gospel and are in Christ, God gives a “secret and hidden wisdom,” which is not the knowledge available through the present “age or rulers of this age” (1 Cor 2:6–7). It is only in relationship to Christ that believers gain the knowledge requisite for true life: i.e., they are “taught by the Spirit,” and “share the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:13, 16). Paul draws a comparison between the divine fiat of creation and the knowledge God gives believers, writing, “For it is God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6).

202

Käsemann, Romans, 250. Emphasis added.

3.4. Conclusion

135

Second Corinthians 4:6 draws together knowledge and a relationship with Christ (“in the face of Jesus Christ”) and indicates that the location of such “knowing” is the “heart.” Interestingly, this text joins together a notion of ongoing closeness with Christ (“in the face of Jesus Christ”) with the knowing heart. It is not that God gives knowledge so that the person can then relate to Christ face-to-face. Rather, the two are one and the same: knowing Christ is the face-to-face relationship. Without this heart-centered relational-knowing, the human’s heart remains “darkened” (Rom 1:22); he or she is “a child of the night,” not a “child of the light” (e.g., 2 Cor 4:6; 1 Thess 5:4–5). The believer’s relationship with Christ affects not only cognition but also motives and affections, as the above study of the “in Christ” motif noted. Through Christ-relatedness, the believer receives God’s love by the inpouring of the Spirit into his or her heart (Rom 5:5). The believer’s sense of security is further grounded in the love of God and love of Christ that is found in relationship with Christ, “Nothing … will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:39). As a being with cognitive and affective aspects, humans know rightly and feel rightly only in relation to another. In relationship with Christ, God reveals wisdom, knowledge, and love, and does so through the face-to-face relationship with Christ (2 Cor 4:6).

3.4. Conclusion 3.4. Conclusion

The goal of this chapter was to consider RA in the light of Paul’s own thinking. To do so, we first defined the concepts “person” and “relation,” sharpening the study’s analytical tools. The five types of relations that were then studied in turn provided data for asking if particular relations affect particular aspects of personhood. What has materialized is a picture of human existence that is anything but autonomous in the modern sense: the Pauline person is constructed vis-à-vis other beings, environments, and powers. In concluding the first three chapters of this study, Part 1, it has become evident that RA is a viable way to conceive of Pauline anthropology. Along with this conclusion, however, another interest surfaced in Part 1 of this study related to RA in Paul: the role of the Spirit. In certain cases, it appears that the Spirit is integral to generating and sustaining person-affecting relationships. Eastman and Rabens, for instance, draw specific attention to the Spirit in their work on anthropology and human transformation. And in the above analysis of Paul’s thought, the “relation” of being “in the flesh” is offset by being “in the Spirit”; Deissmann and others, moreover, find Christrelatedness to be intertwined with the Spirit. To date, no monograph-length study has attended to both the relational nature of Paul’s anthropology and how the work of the Spirit may shed light on it. With our more defined model of personhood in hand, in Part 2 of this study we will ask how Spirit-shaped

136

Chapter 3: Relational Anthropology According to Paul

relationships define and affect Christian personhood. After briefly commenting on our approach to pneumatology in Paul and his background (Part 2 Introduction), we will focus on the Spirit and RA via a close study of Romans 8 (chapter 4) and 1 Corinthians 12 (chapter 5).

Part 2

Approaching the Spirit in Paul This study will now ask how the work of the Spirit in Paul further evidences relational anthropology. Addressing this question will happen primarily through analysis of two texts, Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12. In light of the added interest of pneumatology, it will be helpful first to offer a few organizing observations about how this study understand the Spirit in Paul, as well as pertinent background to the relational work of the Spirit. The following observations are in no way an exhaustive treatment of Pauline pneumatology nor the background to his thinking. Rather, these observations highlight certain themes within those broader fields and therefore offer context for the ensuing chapters.

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

The early Christian understanding of the Spirit had its roots in Jewish eschatological expectations (e.g., Acts 2:17–21; Joel 2:28–32).1 As a Pharisee, Paul’s eschatological expectations were likewise shaped in large measure by his Jewish background, and therefore his anticipation of the Messianic age included an outpouring of God’s Spirit (e.g., Joel 2:28–32; Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26–27; 39:29).2 The impact of the promised eschatological Spirit on Paul’s 1 We are not here assuming a monolithic portrait of pneumatological expectations in the Second Temple period. Rather, we are concerned with identifying the presence of certain themes: i.e., the Spirit is closely associated with (a) eschatological expectations, (b) anthropological renewal within a covenant context and (c) that the Spirit effects new relationships. E.g., Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2.282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 75– 76, notes that while the Second Temple literature does not yield a “monolithic picture of the Spirt and restoration eschatology,” there are abiding themes: The Spirit is connected with “the problem of the heart”; “A few documents also relate the gift of the/a spirit to the establishment of a filial relationships (Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, Testament of Judah): it is by means of a new spirit or the Spirit that Israel is given the status of sonship”; and “several texts associate the Spirit or a spirit with resurrection and new creation.” 2 Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 5, writes that Paul’s view of the Spirit “stems from the

138

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

pneumatology, as Horn has argued, is apparent from the apostle’s earliest writing (e.g., 1 Thess 4:8; Gal 3:14; 4:6).3 The influence of Ezekiel in particular is made explicit in 2 Cor 3:4 (cf. Ezek 11:19; 36:26). The outpouring of the Spirit would be ubiquitous (“sons and daughters,” Joel 2:28) and its effect seen in prophecy (Joel 2:28; 1 Corinthians 12–14), religious-ethical transformation (Ezek 36:26–27; Rom 8:13; 12:3–13), and newness of life (Ezek 37:9–14; 2 Cor 3:6; Rom 8:1–11).4 The Personal Spirit The Jewish background to Paul’s conception of the Spirit further shapes how this study views the nature of πνεῦμα in Paul, namely, as personal versus material. Scholars who see a strong Hellenistic background to Paul’s pneumatology tend to see the Spirit as a material substance, “the finest heavenly matter (Stofflichkeit).”5 Rabens has pointed out, however, that socalled substance views of the Spirit are often rooted in erroneous readings of metaphors in Paul, especially that of the “pouring out” of the Spirit (e.g., Acts

eschatological framework of his Jewish roots, with its eager awaiting of the Spirit as part of the realization of the messianic age.” At the conclusion of his magisterial study on the Spirit in Paul, Fee, Empowering Presence, 904, writes, “There can be little question that Paul considered his understanding of the Spirit to flow directly out of the Old Testament. This is writ large throughout the corpus. The Old Testament contains the ‘covenant’ which Christ and the Spirit have replaced; here are found the ‘promises’ which Paul understands to have been ‘fulfilled’ by the gift of the Sprit. In his earliest letter he echoes the language of the LXX of Ezek 37:6 and 14 to speak of God’s ‘giving his Holy Spirit into you’ (1 Thess 4:8).” On the view that during the tannaitic period the Spirit had departed from Israel, see the overview by John R. Levison, “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data,” NTS 43 (1997): 35–57, who notes that this view is built on a pastiche of texts, Ps 74:9; 1 Macc 4.46, 9.27 and 14.41; Josephus's Ap. 1.37 – 41; 2 Apoc. Bar. 85.3; Pr Azar 15; and t. Soṭa 13.2 – 4. 3 Friedrich W. Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien Zur Paulinischen Pneumatologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1992), 123. 4 On the connection between the Spirit, new life, and Ezekiel, see especially, Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 29–39. 5 Ernst Käsemann, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), 108–135, 115. More recent scholars who argue that for a material view of the Spirit in Paul include, Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes, 43–48, and especially Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in Paul,” in Philosophy at the Roots of Christianity, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen and H. Tronier (Working Papers 2; Copenhagen: The Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen, 2006), 101–23, 121–22, who writes, “I propose that we read all of Paul’s references to the pneuma … as drawing on the distinctly cosmological idea of a concrete, physicalistic power from heaven that … is infused into believers at baptism, informs their bodies and directs their lives here on earth.” Cited in Rabens, The Spirit and Ethics, 15n 71.

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

139

2:17–21; Rom 5:5; referencing Isa 32:15; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28).6 The image of God pouring out his Spirit need not indicate a literal-material substance. In the Hebrew Bible the Spirit is more explicitly associated with the presence and person of God, as the parallelisms of Psalm 139:7–8 demonstrate: Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. This study follows the view of Rabens, Fee, Dunn, and before them H. H. Wendt, which focuses on the Spirit in Paul as personal, rather than theorizing about its substance.7 Paul’s close association between the Spirit and the person of God and person of Christ (e.g., Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 3:17–18), as well as the many personal traits attributed to the Spirit (e.g., 1 Cor 2:10–13; 3:16; 6:11; 12:11; Gal 4:6; 5:17, 22), suggests focusing on the personal, versus material, nature of the Spirit. As will be drawn out below, the association between the Spirit and the personal presence of God and Christ is particularly significant for the present thesis. That the work of the Spirit involves bringing the presence of God into the midst of the covenant people (e.g., Ezek 11:19–20) is, as Fee argues, “the context of continuity in which we should read scores of Spirit texts in the apostle.”8 Inasmuch as the covenant between God and His people involves a relationship, the work of the Spirit to restore or make new such covenantal bonds is relational work. 6 Volker Rabens, “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology: A Response to F W Horn,” BZ 43.2 (1999): 170, explains, “One cannot infer from the notion of the Spirit as being poured out into the hearts of the believer (Rom 5,5) … that the Spirit was thought of as material in the same way as water since šfk‘l is also used of God’s wrath ... the outpouring of grief (Lam 2,11), blessing (Isa 44,3) and lust (Ezek 23,8) [which] leads me to my main contention: The Jewish and Christian writers that we are dealing with encoded their experiences and thoughts concerning the Spirit in metaphorical language…. We will either understand (metaphorical) passages about the outpouring of the Spirit like Isa 32,15f and 44,3f as having nothing but metaphorical meaning or we will misunderstand them.” 7 Rabens, “Power from In Between,” 147, writes, “As the presence of God and presence of Christ the Spirit bears personal traits and is ‘received.’” Fee, “Empowering Presence,” 6, writes, “In dealing with the Spirit, we are dealing with none other than the personal presence of God himself.” Dunn, Theology of the Apostle Paul, 433, points out the connection between the Spirit and Christ in Paul and emphasizes therefore a personal aspect of the Spirit, “The distinguishing marker of the Spirit and the manifestations of the Spirit was their Jesus character – the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ.” Elsewhere Rabens, “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology,” 169, cautions, “One may want to question whether Palestinian or Hellenistic Judaism, as well as Paul, ever embraced the idea of the Spirit as a material substance at all. As far back as 1878 H. H. Wendt contended in reply to Otto Pfleiderer that in speaking of the Holy Spirit Paul did not have any other words at his disposal apart from those that could in a different context also be used of a material essence.” 8 Fee, Empowering Presence, 8.

140

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

The Relational Work of the Spirit in Paul’s Background The Spirit and Relations in Israel’s Scriptures The work of the Spirit manifest in Paul’s writings is diverse and wide-ranging.9 That the Spirit’s work would involve, in general, the giving of life is explicit in Paul’s letters and his Jewish background (Gen 2:7; Ezek 37:1–14; 1 Rom 8:6, 10, 11; 2 Cor 3:6; see also 1 Cor 15:45). This study seeks to draw attention to a particular facet of the Spirit’s life-giving work, the generating and sustaining of relationships. When we turn to Paul’s work in more detail (chs. 4, 5), it will be argued that among the many works the Spirit does is the generating of relational bonds between the believer and God, Christ and other believers. That the Spirit had a role to play in fostering closeness between God and the people of God is evident in Paul’s historical-religious background and context. The paradigm of the covenant, central to Israel’s self-understanding and Paul’s background, is inherently relational. As Gentry and Wellum summarize, “The question of relationships is handled in the Bible by one concept, one word: covenant. And the question of an overall plan is handled by the sequence of significant covenants.”10 The promise of the new covenant made explicit the role of the Spirit in generating closeness between God and his people (Jer 31:31–34àEzek 36:26–28). The new covenant would be familial and intimate: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people…. They shall all know me” (Jer 31:33–34; Ezek 11:19–20; 36:28). Moreover, only by the re-creational

Put broadly, Paige, “Holy Spirit,” 410, writes, The Spirit works “to make the saving events of Jesus’ life-death-resurrection present … for the believer.” More specifically, in Paul’s letters the Spirit strengthens believers (Eph 3:14–17), unifies believers (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3; Phil 1:27), gifts believers (1 Cor 12:4, 7–11), assures believers of future hope (Rom 8:11, 23; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5), helps believers in their weaknesses (Rom 8:26), and sanctifies believers (Rom 15:16). That the Spirit’s work would involve, in general, the giving of life is explicit in Paul’s letters and his Jewish background (Gen 2:7; Ezek 37:1–14; Rom 8:6, 10, 11; 2 Cor 3:6; see also 1 Cor 15:45). 10 Peter Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A BiblicalTheological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 162. See also Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 103–10, who treats the Hebrew concept of covenant as integral to the background to participation in Christ and soteriology in general in the New Testament, along the way concluding, “Vitally, though, such contracts [ancient covenants] are relational in character” (104). Macaskill stresses the essential covenantal framework for understanding the New Testament, while also stressing this “does not require us to adopt a merit-based account of salvation. There are … biblical resources that allow us to see God as the one solely responsible for salvation within the terms of this contractual framework” (105). 9

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

141

work of the Spirit, explains Allen, “could the covenant relationship become a living actuality rather than a doctrinal truth.”11 The intimate nature of the covenantal-relationship generated by the Spirit is expressed in Isa 44:3–5, For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, “I am the Lord’s,” another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, “The Lord’s,” and name himself by the name of Israel.

Ezekiel’s vision of the revivification of Israel in Ezekiel 37, in a fashion similar to Isa 44:3, emphasizes the intimate nature of the Spirit when it identifies it as God’s own Spirit: “I will put my Spirit within you” (Ezek 37:14).12 The intimate nature of both the old and new covenants is expressed in the filial language of Hosea: To a people once far from God, it will be said, “Children of the living God” (Hos 1:10). This familial-covenant looks back to God’s original taking hold of Israel, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1; see also Deut 7:6–8). Coming together in sharp relief in the oracles of Ezekiel, Joel, and Isaiah is the connection between the (eschatological) work of the Spirit and the restoration of the covenantrelationship. In his work on the origins of Pauline pneumatology, Philip notes this connection in Paul’s background, The nature of the exilic and postexilic prophetic expectation was that YHWH would pour out the Spirit upon the covenant community when YHWH restored the nation of Israel from their present situation. The Spirit is depicted as the power of Israel’s eschatological transformation. On the one hand it brings covenantal intimacy and fidelity to YHWH

Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word Books), 179. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 354, writes similarly, “But Yahweh’s efforts to rehabilitate his reputation will go far beyond merely reuniting people and land [Ezek 36:24]; he will also revitalize the relationship between himself and his people.” 12 Ed Noort, “Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life: The Anthropology of Gen 2:7 in Context,” in Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and George H. van Kooten, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 12 explains a connection between Ezekiel 37 and 36: “A remarkable step is made in the second part of the vision. In the explanation of Ezek 37:14, the [ruach] is explicitly called ‘the spirit of Yhwh,’ cq. ‘my spirit.’ Here the intertextual link with Ezek 36:26–27 cannot be overlooked: ‘And I will give you a new heart and I will put a new spirit within you…. I will put my spirit within you.’ The revivification of Ezek 37 is the recreation of Ezek 36.” 11

142

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

commandments, while on the other rejuvenation in the nature and security to the nation of Israel.13

The role of the Spirit within the context of the new covenant and the new relationships envisioned therein are attested in the Hebrew scriptures most familiar to Paul. The Spirit and Relations in Intertestamental Literature These expectations regarding the Spirit intensify in the Second Temple period.14 The community at Qumran, associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls,15 understood themselves “as the first fruits of a new creative act of God.”16 13 Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit Upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology, WUNT 2.194 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 75. Emphasis added. 14 This study’s interaction with intertestamental texts does not assume nor require that Paul had direct literary dependence upon them. Rather, we assume these texts, varied as they are, reflect certain theological and anthropological ideas that, in part, influenced Paul’s thought-world. In terms of the relationship between Paul and the Qumran literature in particular, see George J. Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XI.1, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1991),” 317, who writes, “it is unwise to look for any direct literary dependence of the New Testament writers on Dead Sea Scroll texts. Rather, it is appropriate to read these sets of texts comparatively, noticing how each use the Book of Ezekiel … such observation may lead to the better understating of both sets of text.” See also the comment of Menahem Kister, “Body and Sin: Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 171–72, who explains, “The parallels between Paul and the scrolls (written prior to Paul), even when striking, do not suggest, of course, that the writers of these scrolls had any sympathy for quasi-Pauline, antinomistic notions; the similarities imply rather that Paul’s thinking made use of existing theological and anthropological ideas that had been employed in a totally different religious context.” Finally, see Pierre Benoit, “Qumran and the New Testament,” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 1–30, 1–2; Scott J. Hafemann, “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought,” in Egangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. Jostein Adna, Scott Hafemann and Otfried Hofius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 172–189. 15 Jodi Magness, “Qumran,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1126–131, 1130, “Archaeological and literary evidence indicates that Qumran was inhabited by the same Jewish sect that deposited the scrolls in the nearby caves.” 16 John W. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, WUNT 2.251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 64. Yates also notes the connection between the work of the Spirit at Qumran

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

143

Integral to this new creation identity was the function of God’s Spirit within the community as well as the individual.17 Many have seen similarities between Paul’s pessimistic view of (fallen) humankind and the anthropology of yahad at Qumran. Timo Laato, for example, while arguing for an abiding thread of “free will” among “the Jews from Sirach until the Babylonian Talmud,” notes “a single (important) exception confirms the rule: the Qumran community seems to represent an absolute fatalism,” which reflects Paul’s own thought.18 Irrespective of whether the anthropological assumptions at Qumran stem from the creation of two different types of humans, what is clear in texts such as the Hodayot is that without the giving of the Spirit of God in the present, people remain in the corrupted state of fallen Adam.19 Flusser, for example, finds that the dualism and Ezekiel 37, writing, “members of the yahad understood themselves to possess the promised eschatological spirit of Ezekiel 37” (65). Also arguing for a new creation selfunderstanding at Qumran is J. D. M. Derrett, “New Creation: Qumran, Paul, The Church, and Jesus,” RevQ 13.49–52 (1988), 599, who writes, “Qumran surely saw the New Création as beginning with their community, the nucleus of the New Jerusalem.” See also Michael A. Daise, “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, ed., Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 305, who concludes from a close reading of 1QH XVI, 4–5a for the strong presence of creation motifs in the Hodayot. Finally, see John J. Collins, “Interpretations of Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 29–43. 17 The significance of the Spirit amid the Qumran community is well attested, i.e., Terence Paige, “Holy Spirit,” DPL, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 404–13, 404, who notes that the Qumran sectarians “believed themselves heirs in some sense of [the] promise of the Spirit.” See also Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts, JSNT 54 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 89, who notes, “the scrolls present the Spirit as the dynamic of the religious life of the community.” 18 Timo Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach, trans. T. McElwain (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 72, writes, “In summary: it appears that free will in the domain of soteriology among the Jews from Sirach until the Babylonian Talmud was opinion communis. A single (important) exception confirms the rule: the Qumran community seems to represent an absolute fatalism.” Laato, 75, goes on, “the apostle Paul does not recognize free will in the area of soteriology.” For comparison between the anthropology of Paul and Qumran, see also Michael L. Barré, “Qumran and the ‘Weakness’ of Paul,” CBQ 42.2 (1980), 216–227, 221, who, for example, notes similarities between Paul’s phrase, “vessels of clay” (2 Cor 4:7a) and the phrase, “creature of clay” in the Hodayot (e.g., 1 QH XI, 23– 24). 19 There is some debate as to whether or not the “spirit” and “flesh” language of texts such as 4QInstruction (4Q415–418; 4Q423) indicate the creation of two (ontologically and predetermined) different types of people, or, rather designate a corrupted- and renewedhumanity but where there is no ontological or predetermined distinction. Benjamin G. Wold, “‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ in Qumran Sapiential Literature as the Background to the Use in Pauline

144

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

of Qumran is rooted in the idea that God grants the Holy Spirit to his elect, “and it allows them to overcome their innately sinful flesh, which is part of human nature as such.”20 This surely has certain affinities with the logic of Romans 5–8. A seemingly intractable deficiency of the “old Adam” – a “spirit of flesh” and ignorant “structure of dust” (see 1QHa V, 19–22; 1QHa XVIII, 4–5)21 – is ignorance, or an inability to know God and perceive his ways.22 A mark of anthropological transformation amid the community, therefore, is a new ability to know God that is generated by the Spirit: “And I, your servant, have known by the spirit which thanks to the spirit you have placed in me” (1QHa V, 24– 25; 1QHa XX, 12).23 Such Spirit-given knowledge is demonstrative of a shift from the ignorant “spirit of flesh” toward being restored to “all the glories of Adam” (1QHa IV, 15).24 The Spirit of God, therefore, is integral to anthropological transformation at Qumran. Epistles,” ZNW 106.2 (2015), 262–279, explains the recent history of discussion, and argues for, based on his reading of 4QInstruction and the Hodayot, a view of “all of ‘humanity’ as having been created the same” (p. 267). As near to our topic as the anthropological assumptions of Qumran may seem, our focus in this section of the study remains upon the role of the Spirit of God in affecting new relationships amid the Qumran community and how these relationships might indicate anthropological transformation. 20 David Flusser, “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament” in in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 1, ed. D. Flusser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 291. 21 Unless otherwise noted, translations and citations from the DSS are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). The non-capitalized “spirit” in translations of DSS reflects the translation of Martínez and Tigchelaar. 22 Wold, “‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ in Qumran,” 267, writes, “This expression [“spirit of flesh”] in the Hodayot is equated with the obtuse part of humanity unable to gain insight without God’s spirit.” 23 F. F. Bruce, “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts.” ALUOS 6 (1966/68), 51, notes the “holy spirit as the fount of knowledge” among the Qumran community. 24 Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community, CCWJCW 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 35, glosses “the glories of Adam” as, “the state which Adam enjoyed before the fall.” There is a type of already-not-yet tension to the eschatology of the Qumran community, whereby certain aspects of the ideal state of Adam are enjoyed (i.e., knowledge of God and His ways) while the consummation of all things lies in the future. Some have argued that this language, “all the glory of Adam,” reflects a belief amid the Qumran community that humanity was originally divine and/or was transformed into “angelomorphic” humanity. This is the argument of Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), who, 2, comments, “Numerous studies have now challenged a rigid view of the creator-creature relationship [in Jewish monotheism] which would exclude any possibility of a developed sense of a theological anthropology in which humanity’s bearing of God’s image might actually entail its participation in [God’s] own identity, his divinity.” The view of this study

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

145

The work of the Spirit upon the members of the yahad can be further understood as involving Spirit-generated relationships. Integral to the work of God’s Spirit in the Hodayot is the drawing of members into the relational milieu of the covenant community – entrance into which was seen as an act of “new creation (Neuschopfung)” (e.g., 1QHa XI, 19–22; XIX, 10–14).25 The Spirit’s work to instill covenant relationships happens between an individual member and God, as well as between members with other members. In 1QHa VIII, 19–20 the Spirit works to turn the hymnist toward God’s face and bring him near to God: “I have appeased your face by the spirit which you have placed [in me] to lavish your [kind]ness on [your] serv[ant] for[ever] to purify me with your holy spirit to bring me near [‫ ]לטהרני ברוח קודשך ולהגישני‬by your will according to the extent of your kindness.” In 1QHa VI, 13–14 the hymnist writes of God, “in your kindness towards m[a]n [you] have enlar[ged his share with] the spirit of your holiness. Thus, you make me approach knowing you [‫]הגישני לבינחך‬.”26 This closeness with God is experienced simultaneously with a deeper closeness with the covenant community: “In this way I was brought near in the community of all the men of my counsel” (1QHa VI, 18).27 This bond with the community is likewise fostered by the spirit, “[U]pon the dust you stretch out the spirit […] in the mud […the so]ns of gods, to be in communion with the sons of heaven” (1QHa XXIII, 9–10). It is the spirit, moreover, that gives the knowledge and ethical transformation that maintains the covenant community, “I want … to look for the spirit […] to be strengthened by [your] ho[ly] spirit, holds that Fletcher-Louis’ blurring of the lines between the “absolute qualitative difference between God and Man” confuses (a) comparison between humans and angels in the literature (b) and, even in the case of angels and mediating figures in Judaism, these figures do not share the divine identity. See the work of Andrew Pitts and Seth Pollinger, “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 135, who explain, “[M]ediating agents [in Judaism] were too ontologically dissimilar to Yahweh to provide an adequate antecedent to the Christian Messiah. Angels, exalted patriarchs, and the like do not share in the divine identity.” 25 Peter Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen zum ontologische Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus,” Evangelische Theologie 27 (1967): 18–35, 13; see also Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 11. 26 Author’s translation. The hiphil form of the verb, ‫נגש‬, “to bring close,” reflects its use later in 1QHa VIII, 20, where God is drawing the hymnist near to himself. The noun, ‫בינה‬, “understanding,” in the context of the Hodayot, is not abstract knowledge as in gnosticism, but rather a personal knowing of God (on the type of knowledge envisioned in the Hodayot see below). The sense in 1QHa VI, 13–14 is of the hymnist being drawn near to God with the Spirit playing a key role. 27 The hymnist also refers to himself in a parental relationship to the community, “You have made me a father for the sons of kindness, like a wet-nurse to the men of portent” (1QHa XV, 20–21).

146

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

to adhere to the truth of your covenant, to serve you in truth, with a perfect heart, to love [your will]” (1QHa VIII, 14–15).28 Two features of this work of God’s Spirit at Qumran to further highlight involve the relational nature of the Spirit-given-knowledge and the intimacy of the Spirit-fostered covenant relationships. As noted, the hymnist often attributes knowledge to the work of the Spirit: e.g., “And I, your servant, know thanks to the spirit you have placed in me” (1QHa V, 24–25; 1QHa XX, 12).29 The type of knowledge the hymnist has in mind should not, however, as Davies argues, be seen “to coincide with gnosticism.”30 Rather, the knowledge that comes by the Spirit has a relational dimension, more about knowing God (knowing his deeds, his mysteries, his Law, i.e., his person) in order to obey him and live at peace with him than about penetrating mysteries. It is often, Davies points out, “not so much intellectual as practical: it is not so much understanding as obedience (it can also mean faith, the fear of God).”31 The second and related point is that the covenantal-relationships fostered by the Spirit are intimate in nature, affecting the heart. The covenant itself, which the Spirit helps maintain, is a relational reality where the member is brought near to God with his heart opened, e.g., “You have [br]ought him into the covenant with you and you have opened the heart of dust [….]” (1QHa XX, 9), and, “Do not withdraw your hand, [… that he may] be one who holds fast to your covenant and stands up before you” (1QHa XXIII, 9–10). Also exemplifying the personal and intimate nature of the new experience of knowledge and covenantal-relationship with God are the many expressions of joyous intimacy from the psalmists: e.g., “And myself, your servant, you have favored me with the spirit of knowledge [to love tr]uth [and justice,] and to loathe all the paths of injustice. I love you liberally, and with (my) whole heart” (1QHa VI, 25–26; see also1QHa VIII, 14–15). The Spirit-wrought relationship between initiate and God, as well as its personal and intimate nature, is also in view when through the Spirit God helps the member: “I give James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 545, notes that “the idea of the people as God’s temple is already present at least in Qumran,” an idea also connected with the presence of the Spirit. Inasmuch as the covenant community functioned as God’s temple, it coincides with the importance of the role of the Spirit in fostering that community. On the idea of the Qumran community as a new temple indwelt by the Spirit see also Bruce, “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts,” 55, who in light of 1QS IX, 3–5, writes, “This appears to envisage the establishment of a living temple as a habitation for the holy spirit, where the offering of obedient lives and praising lips replaces animal sacrifices, and approaches the New Testament concept of the age of the Spirit replacing the age of law.” 29 W. D. Davies, “Knowledge and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25–30, HTR, 46.3 (1953): 113–139, 118, notes that the “emphasis on ‘knowledge’ in the DSS … is quite unmistakable.” 30 Davies, “Knowledge and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 130. 31 Davies, “Knowledge and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 135. 28

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

147

you thanks, Lord, because you have sustained me with your strength, you have spread your holy spirit over me so that I will not stumble” (1QHa XV, 6–7); “[W]ith certain truth you have supported me. You have delighted me with your holy spirit until this day…. Because you are a father to all the [son]s of your truth. You rejoice in them, like her who loves her child, and like a wet-nurse you take care of all your creatures on (your) lap” (1QHa XVII, 32, 35–36). It is also evident that the Qumran community’s understanding of the Spirit is indebted to a tradition stemming from texts such as Ezekiel 36–37.32 In 1QHa XXI, 9–14, for example, an image of new creation echoes of Ezekiel 36, “You have [br]ought him into the covenant with you and you have opened the heart of dust so that he will observe […] from the traps of judgement, by reason of your compassion. And I, I am a creature [of clay …and ear of du]st and heart of stone [‫…]ולב האבן‬. For […] you have [gi]ven to the ear of dust, and you have made stop, to bring into the covenant with you and so that he will stand [in your presence] in the everlasting residence….” (1QHa XXI, 9– 14; cf., Ezek 36:26–28).

Amid the yahad at Qumran, therefore, was an understanding of the Spirit as that which effected covenantal relationships between the individual member and God, and between each member. This tradition drew from particular readings of Israel’s scriptures that would have also been familiar to Paul. Elsewhere in second temple literature both the theme of the eschatological Spirit and the relational nature of the Spirit’s work are also attested. The Spirit works, for example, to draw individuals closer to God in Testament of Levi 18. Coinciding with God’s promise to renew the priesthood (T. Levi. 18:2), a future is foreseen where God will “give the saints to eat from the tree of life, and the spirit of holiness will be on them” (T. Levi. 18:11).33 This eschatological outpouring of the Spirit (“the spirit … will be on them”) involves an intimate relationship between God and his people, emphasized by familial language: The heavens will be opened … with the Father’s voice as from our father Abraham to Isaac…. And he will give the saints to eat from the tree of life, and the spirit of holiness will be on them. And Beliar will be bound by him, and he will give authority to his children [τέκνοις αὐτοῦ], to trample upon the evil spirits. And the Lord will rejoice in his children [τέκνοις αὐτοῦ], and the Lord will be pleased in his beloved ones [τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς αὐτοῦ] for eternity. Then Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will rejoice, and I will be glad, and all the holy ones will clothe themselves with joy (T. Levi 6: 11–14). 32 Yates, Spirit and Creation in Paul, 82, examines the Hodayot closely and concludes, “the authors of the Hodayot believed themselves and their community to be the recipients of the promised spirit of Ezekiel 37:6, 14.” On the use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls in general, see Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” 317, who suggests, “it may be that within the Qumran corpus as a whole Ezekiel is used in a more or less consistent manner.” 33 Unless otherwise noted, citations and translations from the Pseudepigrapha are taken from, James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985).

148

Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul

A similar theme is at work in Testament of Judah 24, where the eschatological vision includes God’s “pouring out the spirit of grace” (T. Judah 24:2) and the people becoming His children: “and you will be sons in truth to him, and you will walk in his commands from first and last” (T. Judah 24:3). Echoes of Ezekiel 36 are evident, as the pouring out of the Spirit involves a new ethical ability.34 These brief mentions of expectations of the Spirit in the intertestamental period are not meant as an exhaustive treatment of pneumatology nor of Paul.35 Rather, these observations identify a basic theme: from the exilic and postexilic prophecies throughout the period leading up to the Paul’s life and work, there was a paradigm whereby the messianic age involved an outpouring of the Spirit that renewed God’s covenant people, drawing them into a familial/covenantal relationship with Him and each other. By the Spirit the new covenant people come to know and obey God (Ezek 11:19–20; 36:26–28; 1QHa V, 24–25), experience being his children (Ezek 11:20; 36:28; 37:27; T. Levi 6: 11–14; T. Judah 24:2–3; 1QHa XVII, 32, 35–36), and enjoy a new level of intimate relationship with Him (Isa 44:4; Ezek 37:27; T. Levi. 6:14; 1QHa VI, 26). With this background in mind, it seems appropriate to consider the work of the Spirit in Paul against this covenantal and pneumatological matrix. Put in the anthropological framework of this study, if personhood involves relations, then the work of the Spirit within the context of the new covenant – a relational paradigm in itself – is a pregnant area to analyze Paul’s anthropology. Instances where the Spirit works in the “adoption of children” (Rom 8:14–17; Gal 4:6), “outpouring of God’s love” (Rom 5:5), “washing and sanctification” (1 Cor 6:11), and “walking in new obedience” (Gal 5: 16–25), should be viewed within the framework of the covenant making relational God. What is new in Paul is the role of Christ, which, as Dunn explains, affects the unique “Trinitarian” element of Paul’s pneumatology: So far as Paul is concerned there is what might be called a ‘Trinitarian’ element in the believer’s experience. It is evident from Paul that the first Christians soon became aware that they stood in a dual relationship – to God as Father, and to Jesus as Lord. This relationship and awareness of it was attributed by them to the Spirit…. That is to say, Christians became aware that they stood at the base of a triangular relationship – in the Spirit, in sonship to the Father, in service to the Lord … the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded in

34 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 224, also notes this connection between Testament of Judah 24 and the prophecy of Ezekiel 36, writing “Both Testament of Judah 24: 2–3 and Jub. 1:23– 25 draws on the tradition of Ezekiel 36:25–28.” 35 See again Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts,” 317, who notes, “it is unwise to look for any direct literary dependence of the New Testament writers on Dead Sea Scroll texts.”

Background to Paul’s Pneumatology

149

experience – and in experience of Spirit, Spirit as Spirit of sonship, Spirit as Spirit of the Son.36

Dunn’s words not only take us from Paul’s background into Paul’s own unique “Trinitarian” thought. His words also summarize the interconnection between RA and the work of the Spirit. The believer stands in a “dual relationship … to God as Father and Jesus as Lord.”37 The “awareness” (experience) of this relationship is “attributed by … the Spirit.”38 As this study now turns to examining such relational work of the Spirit in Pauline texts, our specific interests may be stated by two questions: how does the work of the Spirit evidence the generating and sustaining of relationships between the believer and God, Christ and other believers? And second, do these Spirit-wrought relationships reconstitute personhood, especially in terms of shaping identity, agency or the heart? To these questions we now turn.

36 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 326. 37 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 326. 38 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 326. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, the People of God, 72, also emphasizes the relational work of the Spirit in Paul, writing, “‘To be saved’ in the Pauline view means to become part of the people of God, who by the Spirit are born into God’s family and therefore joined to one another as one body, whose gatherings in the Spirit form them into God’s temple. God is not simply saving diverse individuals and preparing them for heaven; rather he is creating a people for his name, among whom God can dwell and who in their life together will reproduce God’s life and character in all its unity and diversity.”

Chapter 4

The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8 The driving question of this study is how relations affect personhood according to Pauline anthropology. In previous chapters this question was situated within a developing and interdisciplinary view of human existence termed relational anthropology (RA). Surveying the work of three recent scholars who, in various ways, have considered Paul’s anthropology from a relational aspect, demonstrated the validity of studying the apostle’s anthropology using such an approach. Their work also surfaced a corollary area in Paul to consider alongside RA: pneumatology. In Rabens’s work in particular, it appears that not only is relationality significant to personhood, but also that the work of the Spirit is integral to fostering these person-affecting relationships. As such, how Spirit-shaped relationships constitute Christian personhood surfaced as an opportune avenue for further exploration of RA in Paul. In turning to in-depth analysis of Pauline texts, therefore, our question now is: how do Spirit-shaped relationships reconstitute the Christian as a new person? The relationship between human existence and pneumatology naturally draws the interpreter to Romans 8 and its larger context, Romans 5–8.1 Although not necessarily a scientific treatment of anthropology, in these four chapters Paul gives his most “sustained account of humanity.”2 Romans 5:12– 21 situates each individual human in relation to one of two representative humans: the “one man Adam” (ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ... Αδάμ, 5:12, 14, 15, 17) and “one man Jesus Christ” (ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 5:15, 17). In chapter 1 Justification for identifying Romans 5–8 as a distinct unit is offered below along with brief analysis of that section’s main theme and explanation of how Romans 8 fits within that unit. 2 Jason Maston, “Enlivened Slaves: Paul’s Christological Anthropology,” in Anthropology and New Testament Theology, LNTS 529, ed. Jason Matson and Benjamin E. Reynolds (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 145. See also, Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2016), 696, who writes that in Romans 8 Paul has in mind “two quite different modes of human existence.” John W. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, WUNT 2.251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 132–33, also points out that this juxtaposition of “two orders of existence” is developing throughout Romans 5–8: “Romans 5:12–21 provides the controlling thesis of the 4 chapters: there are two orders of existence that find their representatives in Adam (vv. 12–14) and Christ (vv. 15–17).”

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

151

6 Paul studies transference from existence “in Adam” (5:12–21; cf., 1 Cor 15:22) to existence “in Christ” (6:1–11), then juxtaposes the vicissitudes and struggles of life “in the flesh” and “under the law” to the freedom and vitality of life “in the Spirit” and “under grace” (7:7–8:39).3 Bringing to crescendo chapters 5–7,4 Romans 8 not only offers one of Paul’s most penetrating explanations of the nature of Christian life, but does so with an array of references to the Spirit.5 Paul uses the term πνεῦμα twenty-one times in this chapter, the densest accumulation in the Pauline cannon.6 As Dunn concludes, “Rom 8.1–27 is unquestionably the high point of Paul’s theology 3 Some texts in Romans 5–8 are widely debated, most notably Rom 7:7–25. While the burden of this chapter’s argument does not rest on answering the identity of the “I” in those verses, we do follow the recent work of Will Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the ‘I’ in Its Literary Context, SNTSMS 170 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) in holding that (a) the “I” in Rom 7:7–13 and 7:14–25 is the voice of “Adam,” speaking for humanity in general, but also that (b) Paul is employing a personalized I, whereby he means to communicate “the experience of an individual, who came, through the law, to perceive sin’s presence in his life” (p. 202). Also, (c) Paul is drawing from his own experience of trying to gain life through Torah without Christ or the Spirit, a state inevitable for non-Christians, but possible, to a degree, for Christians living during the already-butnot-yet eschatological tension, burden by “mortal bodies” and still confronted by the realm of the flesh. In Timmins’s words: “Paul is speaking of his own experience, but an experience with a ‘history,’ played out against the backdrop of Eden. He presents his own experience as a recapitulation of that of Adam and, thereby, as a revelation of Adamic solidarity. The shadow of Adam, which is cast across the audience’s [i.e., Roman readers] condition described in 6:12 and 6:19, takes on a more defined shape in 7:7–13 via this strong, scriptural allusion…. [The ‘I’] is not a fictive use of ‘I’ that gives it its inclusive reference, but the representative voice of Paul, whose experience, as Adamic, is typical of all people” (pp. 202–3). For further support of Timmins’s thesis, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 377–88. For an alternative view, that the ”I” looks back to a pre-conversion state, see Hermann Lichtenberger, Das Ich Adams und Das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7, WUNT 164 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 266, “Diese Arbeit bemüt sich um die Begründung der These, daß in Röm 7, 7–25 grundsätzlich vom Menschen ohne Christus gesprochen wird, in Röm 8, 1ff. vom Menschen in Christus.” 4 Scholars who see Romans 8 as the highpoint of the argument running from 5–8 include Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, 680; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 520–21; and Andrzej Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30 “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,” ISFCJ 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 45. 5 Dunn, Theology of The Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 423, writes of Rom 8:9, “In this verse in fact, Paul provides the nearest thing to a definition of a Christian (someone who is ‘of Christ’). And the definition is in terms of the Spirit.” 6 The terms πνεῦμα and πνευματικός appear 170 times in the traditional Pauline corpus. They appear thirty-seven times in Romans, with a stunning twenty-one occurrences in Romans 8. The only other chapter with a close density is 1 Corinthians 12, with thirteen occurrences. Romans 8, therefore, is clearly integral to Paul’s pneumatology. As Schreiner, Romans, 440, puts it, “It is the Spirit after all who is the main character in chapter 8.”

152

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

of the Spirit.”7 Thus in Romans 8 the themes of anthropology (human existence) and pneumatology are intertwined, presenting this study with an exegetical opportunity to pursue its stated topic: whether and how the Spirit generates relationships that in turn constitute personhood. This chapter addresses this question in four stages. First, Romans 8 will be situated in the larger unit chapters 5–8, noting that unit’s structure and driving theme. Second, the nature of human existence in light of Paul’s flesh-Spirit juxtaposition will be considered, using Dunn’s and Fee’s interpretation of Rom 8:5–9 as a foil for key questions pertaining to the nature of Christian personhood. This will suggest the need for considering the nature of Christian personhood vis-à-vis RA. Third, Spirit-shaped relationships in Romans 8 will be studied with special attention to belonging to Christ (8:9–11) and sonship to God the Father (8:14–17), though also noting the lingering relation of embeddedness resultant of mortal-embodiedness (τὰ θνητὰ σώματα, e.g., Rom 6:12; 8:11–13, 23). Fourth, how the identified Spirit-shaped relationships affect Christian personhood will be considered, keeping in mind the previously delineated aspects of persons: identity, agency and heart.

7

Dunn, Theology of Paul, 423.

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

153

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8 4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

Most scholars organize Paul’s8 letter to the Christians in Rome (Rom 1:7)9 into four main sections, framed by an opening (Rom 1:1–15)10 and closing (15:14– 16:27). These main sections, with some nuance, are typically delineated as follows: Rom 1:16–4:25; 5:1–8:39; 9:1–11:36; and 12:1–15:13.11 There are structural and thematic reasons for reading the letter this way that need not be commented on here outside of our focus on the section 5:1–8:39.

8 The Pauline authorship of Romans is widely held, with little scholarly doubt that it was the apostle Paul who wrote/dictated this letter. E.g., Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 5; James D. G. Dunn Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), xviii; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 6th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 2; John D. Harvey, Romans, EGGNT (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2017), 3, who adds, “Romans has been accepted as Pauline since postapostolic times (1 Clem 32:2; 35.5; 50:6; Polycarp 3.3–4.1; 6.2; 10.1; Ignatius Eph. 19.3; Magn. 6.2; 9.1; Trall. 9:2; Smyr 1.1).” The date of composition was likely the mid to late 50s (AD 57–58), with Paul on his way to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25) but wintering in area of Corinth (Acts 20:2–3), perhaps in the port town of Cenchreae (Rom 16:1). This line of thinking follows Longenecker, Romans, 6. 9 There are important questions surrounding the occasion and purpose of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. However, these need not be addressed for the present argument as the topic of interest here (Rom 5–8, Rom 8) is chiefly concerned with broad and abiding theological aspects of Paul’s thought, not so much the historical context/situation that may or may not have elicited Paul’s writing (not that theology and occasion are not interrelated). Put very generally, however, the opinion of this author is similar to Longenecker, that Paul had both missionary and pastoral reasons for writing, i.e., establishing a missions base for work in Spain (Rom 15:24) and addressing possible doctrinal or ethical questions within the Christian community in the all-important city of Rome. For more discussion of these matters, see Longenecker, Romans, 9–10. 10 Harvey, Romans, 4, sees the “Letter Opening” as 1:1–17, with 1:16–17, the “Thesis,” falling within this section. We prefer to take 1:16–17 as part of the first main section. 11 For this basic structure see Harvey, Romans, 4–6; Longenecker, Romans, v–viii; Cranfield, Romans, 1:xi; Cranfield, Romans, 2:ix; and Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), viii–xii, is similar to our organization, but adds the following overarching structure of a doctrinal and hortatory section: “I: Doctrinal Section: God’s Gospel of Jesus Christ Our Lord (1:16–11:36),” which is subdivided by, 1:16–4:25; 5:1–8:39; 9:1–11:36, and, “II. Hortatory Section: The Demands of Upright Life in Christ (12:1–15:13).” Dunn, Romans 1–8, vii–xi, is somewhat different in seeing Rom 5:1–21 as part of the preceding section on “God’s Saving Righteousness to Faith.” He sees Rom 6:1–8:39 as the “Outworking of the Gospel in Relation to the Individual.” Important to the argument here is the significance of the individual in Romans 5–8, which Dunn notes.

154

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

4.1.1. The Unit Romans 5:1–8:39 Almost all commentators today see Romans 6–8 as a unit, and a majority view 5–8 as a unit, although with some differing opinion on the role of 5:1–11. Here we follow the view that 5:1–11 is a “transitional passage,” both tying in what preceded in 1:16–4:25 and also setting the tone for what follows in 5:12–8:39.12 The example of Abraham in 4:1–25 seems a fitting way for Paul to conclude the preceding section, which sets forth the theme of righteousness by faith (e.g., 1:16–4:25).13 In 5:1, the inferential conjunction οὖν, along with the causal participle clause δικαιωθέντες … ἐκ πίστεως, serve to ground the ensuing argument in the forensic fact of justification by faith. The main clause of 5:1, “we have (ἔχομεν14) peace with God,” then makes the verse into a “literary hinge,”15 summarizing and preparing for themes ahead.16 Therefore, the logic of 5:1, which ties Romans 1–4 together with 5–8, is as follows: because we have been justified by faith (5:1a; e.g., 1:16–4:25), we now have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1b; e.g., 5:2–8:39). Longenecker’s summary points to the relational emphasis of Romans 5–8: the “transitional unit” (5:1–11) repeats the “forensic theme of ‘justification,’ … but also moves on … to speak of personal and relational matters regarding salvation … based on relationship with God’s Son.”17 For purposes of our thesis, we might summarize: Romans 5–8 is the outworking of the forensic reality of 12 Fitzmyer, Romans, 97, explains, “the paragraph 5:12–21 would be a strange beginning of a new part of the doctrinal section of Romans. 5:1–11 is clearly transitional; it alludes to what has been the topic in 1:16–4:25 … and announces the topic that will eventually be developed in chap. 8.” For this same view, see also, Longenecker, Romans, 540; John A. Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, TPINTC (London: SCM Press, 1989), 135. Harvey, Romans, 126, is also similar, stating, “Paul begins the second section of the letter body with a paragraph consisting of three parts (5:1–5; 5:6–8; 5:9–11). The first sentence summarizes and builds upon 1:18–4:25.” 13 E.g., Longenecker, Romans, 540. 14 There is a textual variant, ἔχωμεν, in Rom 5:1 with strong external support. If taken, it would change the sentences main verb to a hortatory imperative and sense of verse to, “… let us have peace with God.” Both NA28 and UBS 3rd ed. favor ἔχομεν. We follow Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 452, who gives the indicative an “A” rating and explains, despite the “far better external support” for the imperative, the “internal evidence must here take precedence. Since in this passage it appears that Paul is not exhorting but stating facts (‘peace’ is the possession of those who have been justified), only the indicative is consonant with the apostle’s argument.” 15 E.g., Longenecker, Romans, 540–41. 16 Moo, Romans 1–8, 301, notes, the opening verse both “summarizes the argument of 1:18–4:25 while preparing the way for a new topic that will build on it.” See also Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 317–20. 17 Longenecker, Romans, 553–54.

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

155

justification by faith in light of the participatory nature of human existence and overlapping aeons.18 Further demarcating Romans 5–8 are thematic and verbal links between 5:1–11 and chapter 8 (esp. 8:31–39). These include linking words and themes such as “hope” (5:2, 4; 8:24–25), perseverance in “suffering” (5:3; 8:17–23, 35–39), future “glory” (5:2; 8:18), the “Spirit” (5:5; 8:1–27), and God’s “love” (5:5; 8:35, 37–39).19 Moo views the “main developments of chaps. 5–8 as a ‘ring composition,’ or chiasm.”20 It is abundantly clear, finally, that not only does Rom 8:31–39 sound as a triumphant21 conclusion to what preceded (5:1– 8:30), but also that in 9:1–4 Paul is turning to a new, though connected, topic: ethnic Israel in light of justification by faith and life “in Christ” (9:1–11:36). One final factor to note that strongly supports reading chapters 5–8 as a unit is a surprising dearth of scriptural quotations. Whereas in 1:16–4:25 there are roughly fifteen to eighteen biblical quotations, and some thirty in 9:1–11:36, there are only two in 5:1–8:39.22 Whatever the reason for this, it adds weight to seeing chapters 5–8 as a distinct unit.23 18 Eastman, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul, ed. by Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2.384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 105, also draws together the forensic and participatory strands of Paul’s thought in her treatment of Romans 8 (5–8), and does so via anthropology: “We first need to reckon with the relationship between the forensic and participatory strands of Paul’s thought, which unite in Romans 8 as the climax of the first half of the letter. I shall argue that the key to these motifs, which are often wrongly opposed in Pauline scholarship, is the thoroughly participatory quality of both Paul’s anthropology and his Christology.” 19 Fitzmyer, Romans, 97, writes that Rom 5:1–11 “announces briefly what 8:1–39 will develop at length.” Schreiner, Romans, 448, writes similarly, “These verses [8:31–39] function as an inclusio with 5:1–11 since both texts feature the confidence that is characteristic of the hope of believers.” In agreement see also Longenecker, Romans, 565; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 535; and Douglas J. Moo, Romans 1-8, WEC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 303. 20 Moo, Romans 1–8, 303. Emphasis original. See also Moo, Letter to the Romans, 318– 319. 21 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 497, refers to Rom 8:31–39 as a “purple passage.” 22 E.g., in Rom 7:7 the tenth commandment is referenced, “Do not covenant,” from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21. In Rom 8:36, Psalm 44:22 is cited in what appears to be an early Christian confessional. 23 Longenecker, Romans, 542, wonders if this surprising lack of OT quotations is evidence that what unfolds in Rom 5:1–8:39 is Paul’s “form of the Christian message that he customarily proclaimed to pagan Gentiles in his Gentile mission, which in 2:16 and 16:25 he calls ‘my gospel’ – whereas the previous material of 1:16–4:25 … should be understood as that form of Christian proclamation that Paul knew as held in common by all Jewish believers in Jesus.” For the use of the Old Testament in Romans, also see Richard Longenecker, “Prolegomena to Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans,” BBR 7 (1997): 145–68, especially pp. 146–47 for its use in Romans 5–8; and Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A.

156

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

4.1.2. The Flow of Romans 5:1–8:39 As Longenecker notes, in Romans 5–8 Paul builds from the Old Testament and Jewish-Christian “motifs of ‘repentance’ ‘justification,’ and ‘propitiation,’” to speak in “much more personal, relational, and participatory language” about the gospel.24 Paul begins this unit with the themes of “peace” and “reconciliation” – the personal and relational outworking of being justified by faith – though not without signaling that suffering is part of this eschatological moment (5:1–11). Paul then offers a universal explanation for human sinfulness and death: Adam, juxtaposed with his counterpart, the universal solution, Christ (5:12–21). In chapter 6, the transference from being “in Adam” (5:12–21; see also 1 Cor 15:22) to being “in Christ” is recalled with baptismal imagery (6:1–11), grounding a new type of existence whereby “obedience to God,” not “slavery to sin,” is possible and called-for (6:12–23). Invoking again the story of Adam,25 in chapter 7 Paul draws his readers into the vicissitudes of human life “under its own steam” (7:7–25).26 While doing so he also offers an apology for the Mosaic Law, that the law itself is not evil. Rather, “sin” and its ally “the flesh” are humanity’s deeper problems – even though life under the law seems only to exacerbate humankind’s frustrations (7:1–25) rather than bringing about the life it promised (e.g., Lev 18:5).27 Finally, Paul brings not only Romans 5–7, but also 1:16–7:25, to a crescendo28 by announcing that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 607–94. Also noteworthy is Fitzmyer’s point in Romans, 97, that in 5:1–8:39 Paul never mentions “Jews and Greeks,” a central feature of what comes before (1:16–4:25) and after (9:1–11:36). 24 Longenecker, Romans, 539. This shift in focus, in part away from more specifically Jewish motifs, may be a reason for the lack of OT citations in Romans 5–8. It is important to point out that fact that Paul does indeed address both Jewish and Gentile Christians throughout the letter (e.g., 1:16; 2:9, 14–16, 17–29; 3:9; etc.). 25 As stated above (footnote 3), Rom 7:7–25 is a debated passage. For further support of seeing the voice of Adam in the “I,” see, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, trans. Scott Haffeman (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 104, who writes that in Rom 7:7, “Paul references the command of God from Gen. 2:16f”; he also sees Adam’s voice continuing on through 7:7–25, “In this manner, every person, as Adam, can identify himself or herself with the speech of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–24. For as it says in 2 Baruch (54:19), ‘We have all become Adam, each one for himself” (p. 106). See also Dunn, Theology of Paul, 99, who also identifies Adam’s voice in 7:7–25. 26 This is Longenecker’s, Romans, 539, phrase for referring to the “I” in Romans 7. 27 The topic of Torah/Mosaic Law in Romans 7–8 is controversial, as several uses of νόμος in these verses are debated. We treat this topic more below. 28 Longenecker, Romans, 680, writes of 8:1 and 8:1–39, “It is with this pronouncement [8:1ff.], these themes, this emphasis, and this metaphor – together with their respective implications – that Paul has come to the high-water mark of all that he proclaimed to pagan Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world of his day.” See also, Fee, Empowering Presence, 520– 21; and Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30 “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,” 45, who

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

157

Christ Jesus” (8:1). He then proceeds to portray life in the eschatological “now” (νῦν, 7:6; 8:1), which is lived “not according to the flesh,” but “according to the Spirit” (8:2–17). It is in these verses that Paul’s pneumatology bursts forth, having remained in the background since 5:5. Paul now reveals the Spirit as the key ingredient to Christian existence. This last section then turns to an allencompassing portrayal of the eschatological tension to life in the “already/not yet” (8:18–30), and concludes with a note of assurance, the triumph of God’s love (8:31–39). 4.1.3. The Theme of Romans 5–8: Life and Death Paul qualifies his first mention of πνεῦμα in Romans 8 with the word ζωή, with the latter functioning as a genitive of product and indicating that “life” is what the Spirit produces/creates.29 When this chapter comes to focus on the Spirit’s work in Roman 8, we will hold that “life” is in fact the driving theme of the larger unit, chapters 5–8. Therefore, to understand the life-producing work of the Spirit in Romans 8 requires stepping back to see how the motif of life develops in this larger unit. Argued now will be that life juxtaposed with death, with human existence as the loci of life and death, is the overarching theme of Romans 5–8, and thus the interpretive foil within which to read Romans 8. However, some scholars interpret the work of the Spirit in the opening sections of Romans 8 not so much in light of the theme of life but Torah. Their argument holds that Romans 8 furthers Paul’s defense of the Mosaic Law begun in Romans 7. If such a reading is correct, then the driving point of Romans 8 is not a transformed anthropology (e.g., in the Spirit vs. in the flesh), but a new approach to Torah. In Stendhal’s words, “Paul here [Rom 7:7–25] is involved in an argument about the Law; he is not primarily concerned about man’s or his own cloven ego or predicament.”30 The influence of Stendhal’s in a rhetorical analysis of this section of the letter, notices that in contrast to the other subpropositiones of this section (6:1, 15; 7:7, 13), “in 8:1–2 Paul changes the technique: he does not present his basic claims in the form of false conclusions but announces his position and then justifies it. As a result, beginning with 8:1 we pass from the defense of the proposition 5:20–21, (cf. Rom 6–7), to its positive unfolding, in other words, from clarifications to the very core of his Gospel.” 29 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 106. Schreiner, Romans, 396, explains, “The genitive τῆς ζωῆς … modifies ‘the Spirit,’ indicating that the result of the Spirit’s presence is life and peace (cf. also 2 Cor 3:6).” See also John A. Bertone, “The Function of the Spirit in the Dialectic between God’s Soteriological Plan Enacted but Not Yet Culminated: Romans 8:1–27,” JPT 15 (1999): 81. 30 Krister Stendhal, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56.3 (1963): 212, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Consciousness of the West,” 211. Stendhal goes on, “The anthropological references in Rom. 7 are … a means for a very special argument about the holiness and goodness of the Law.”

158

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

view has been enduring, and his reading of Romans 7 as primarily about Torah has influenced interpretation of Romans 8, especially 8:1–17. Scholars such as Wright and Dunn, for example, find all instances of νόμος in Rom 7:13–8:4 as references to Torah. Therefore, the main subject when Paul introduces the Spirit in Rom 8:1–17 is not so much new life, but a new approach to/understanding of Torah.31 The danger with such readings, however, is not only the fact that understanding each instance of νόμος as Torah in Rom 7:21, 23, 8:2 is widely debated,32 but that this type of reading means interpreting the work of the Spirit in Romans 8 is constrained by one’s view of the law. As Yates explains, 31 E.g., N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 200, remarks in regard to Rom 8:1–11, “the Torah is still clearly the subject.” Also, James D. G. Dunn, “‘The Law of Faith,’ the ‘Law of the Spirit’ and ‘the Law of Christ,’” in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters, ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr. and Jerry L. Sumney (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 72, believes that Rom 8:1–4 is a continuation of Paul’s defense of Torah that began in 7:7. 32 The readings of scholars who see a defense of Torah as Paul’s main theme in Romans 8:1–17 are partly predicated on debatable translations of νόμος in Rom 7:21, 23, and 8:2, where all instances of the term νόμος are understood as referring to Torah. For example, Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 204, agrees that “Hübner is right in asserting that ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεῦματικος in [8].2 is referring to the Torah itself….” See also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 374. This study, however, takes the widely held position that there are uses of νόμος in Romans 7–8 that do not refer to Torah (e.g., 7:21, 23b [ἓτερον νόμον]; 8:2 [ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεῦματος τῆς ζωῆς]). Regarding this last example, Rom 8:2, Dunn, Theology of Paul, 646, sees both the “law of the Spirit” and the “law of sin and death” as two sides of the divided law: Dunn writes, “The law is ‘spiritual’ (7:14) because it can be a vehicle or instrument of the Spirit…. ‘The law of the Spirit,’ in other words, is one of the ways in which Paul refers to what we might call the positive side of the divided law.... In the flow of the argument, ‘the law of sin and death’ (8:2) is surely intended as shorthand for the law abused and misused by sin to bring about death (as described in 7:7–13)” (p. 646). However, the position of this study – that “law of the Spirit of life” indicates a “rule” or “force” – is supported by a majority of interpretive tradition and an array of modern readers. For example, see Heikki Räisänen, “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm 3:27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm 8:2), NTS 26.1 (1979): 114, who argues for reading νόμος in Rom 8:2 as referring to “rule” or “force” (Regel, Zwang); e.g. “In [Röm] 8:2b wird dieser Sprachgebrauch aufgenommen: Die Situation des unerlösten Menschen unter dem Gesetz wird mit der Wendung ὁ νόμος (=Regel, Zwang) τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου umschrieben” (p. 114). Other modern commentators holding this view include Cranfield, Romans, 376; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Collins, 1970), 119; Nygren, Romans, 311–12; Leander Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 46–49; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 119; Fitzmyer, Romans, 482; Moo, Romans 1–8, 505. Schreiner, Romans, 375, offers the following summary and measured conclusion, “The notion that ‘law’ (νόμος) in every case refers to the Mosaic Law in verses [7:]21–25 [and 8:2] has gained a significant following in recent scholarship…. A decision is difficult, and I have gone back and forth on this matter. But it seems to me that in some instances Paul does use the word ‘law’ … metaphorically so that it means something like principle.”

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

159

Such a reading encourages an understanding of the spirit entirely dependent upon Paul’s view of the law. If one further understands 8:1–4 as a commentary on Torah, then the contrast found in chapters 7 and 8 becomes one between two different understandings of/approaches to the law. Hence Dunn is able to say that 8:2–4 are “nothing other than a climax of Paul’s defense of the law, which began in 7:7.”33

While it is abundantly clear Paul is concerned with the Mosaic Law in Romans 734 –especially in freeing it from ultimate responsibility for sin and death (7:7, 13) – when read within the warp and woof of Romans 5–8, the law is a subsidiary not primary topic. Lindars argues that Paul’s apology for the law in Romans 7 must be read within the broader argument, which he summarizes: Paul’s argument in Romans 5–8 is much more like a story than a logical treatise. The story begins in ch. 5 with God’s intention of universal salvation, and the reader has the satisfaction of seeing the story reach its happy ending in ch. 8. However, this conclusion is not attained without a variety of incidents in between. These threaten the fulfillment of God’s plan, and ways have to be found to overcome their destructive effects. The objections in chs. 6 and 7 [i.e., sin, death, law] are like the obstacles which a hero must surmount before his object is achieved [i.e., life].35

In his actantial analysis of Romans 5–8, Lindars concludes, “references to the law are spasmodic and subordinate to the main purpose of the argument.”36 It is without question that for Jewish members of Paul’s churches the ongoing role of Torah was a complex issue; therefore, it is only natural Paul would treat it at some point in Romans 5–8. When the Torah/law comes up in chapter 7, it is likely Paul is anticipating that his hearers may draw a false inference from his gospel, namely that the law itself the problem.37 He is emphatic that this is not the case (7:13). His emphases in drawing the Torah into the argument seem twofold: (a) Torah is not the culprit behind humanity’s 33

45.

Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 134; referencing Dunn, Theology of Paul, 644–

Of the thirty-three occurrences of the term νόμος in Romans 5–8, twenty-three of them fall in the twenty-five verses of chapter 7. 35 Lindars, “Paul and the Law in Romans 5–8,” 128. 36 Barnabas Lindars, “Paul and the Law in Romans 5–8: An Actantial Analysis,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity: By Members of the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University, ed. Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co, 1988), 128. 37 Paul’s comments from 6:1–7:25 are structured around four rhetorical questions that are responses to possible false inferences, e.g., 6:1, 15; 7:7, 13. See Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 66. Therefore, when the Mosaic Law comes to the fore in chapter 7, it is likely in anticipation of a possible false inference hearers may draw from Paul’s gospel; i.e., if man’s real problem is death, which is caused by sin (5:12–21), and being united with Christ, not practicing Torah, is the cure (6:1–14), and if the Torah not only cannot cure man’s sinning, but exacerbates it (7:5) and announces condemnation/death on man (7:9), is it not the case that the law is sinful and deadly (7:7, 13)? “Μὴ γένοιτο,” is Paul’s reply. (7:13). 34

160

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

plight; that belongs to sin and death (Romans 5–7). Torah is from God and served God’s purposes (7:14; Gal 3:21–25). (b) However, while not the culprit, neither is the law the answer to humanity’s plight; that belongs to Christ and the Spirit (Rom 8:1–4). To put it another way, the issue underlying Romans 5– 8 is anthropological and hamartiological, not nomological, which is why Paul anchors the story not in Sinai, but Eden, and juxtaposes Christ with Adam, not Moses. Even in his defense of the goodness of the law, Paul draws attention to the anthropological insufficiency of Adam vis-à-vis the power of sin (7:9– 10).38 The law alerts humanity to sin and therefore orients them towards righteousness (7:7) – therefore it is good. However, doing so only exacerbates humanity’s anthropological insufficiency before such realities (7:8). With this understanding of how Torah functions in the larger unit of Romans 5–8, we now further explain why the driving theme of these chapters is life juxtaposed with death, with human existence as the locus. Although one can only derive so much from the concentration of particular terms, there is a striking frequency to the following vocabulary in Romans 5–8, as the following chart demonstrates: “sin” (ἁμαρτία; ἁμαρτάνω; ἁμαρτωλός; παράπτωμα), “death” (ἀποθνῄσκω; θανατος; θανατόω; νεκρόω; νεκρος), “flesh” (σάρξ; σάρκινος), “law” (νόμος), “life” (ζωή; ζάω; ζῳοποιέω; συζάω; ἀναζάω), and “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα; πνευματικός).

38 On seeing a reference to Adam in Rom 7:9–10, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 401, who writes, “With v. 9 the reference to Adam becomes all but inescapable.” See also Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology, trans. John Galvin (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987), 203–4.

161

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8 Term Clusters in Romans Sin: ἁμαρτία; ἁμαρτάνω; ἁμαρτωλός; παράπτωμα Death: ἀποθνῄσκω; θάνατος; θανατόω; νεκρόω; νεκρός Flesh: σάρξ; σάρκινος Law: νόμος Life: ζωή; ζάω; ζῳοποιέω; συζάω; ἀναζάω Spirit: πνεῦμα; πνευματικός

Total

Chaps. 1–4

Chaps. 5–8

Chaps. 9–16

Chaps. 7–8

Chap. 7

Chap. 8

68

9

55

4

21

16

5

65

5

50

10

22

12

10

27

4

18

5

17

4

13

74

35

33

6

28

23

5

41

3

27

11

14

6

8

37

4

24

9

23

2

21

Death in Romans 5–8 The concentration of uses of θάνατος (and its cognates ἀποθνῄσκω; θανατόω; νεκρόω; νεκρος) and ἁμαρτία (and its cognates ἁμαρτάνω; ἁμαρτωλός; παράπτωμα) is striking. The term θάνατος (“death”) and its cognates appear sixty-five times in Romans, with just five occurrences in chapters 1–4, but fifty in chapters 5–8. Clifton Black adds that in the undisputed Pauline letters,39 θάνατος and its cognates appear ninety-five times, with forty-two of these (44 percent!) occurring in Romans 5–8.40 The equally dense occurrences of “sin” relate to this theme of “death,” with sin being the cause of death: e.g., “through one man sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) came into the world and through sin, death (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος)” (Rom 5:12a; also, 5:12b, 15, 17; 6:11, 13). The term ἁμαρτία and its cognates appear sixtyeight times in Romans, with only nine occurrences in 1:1–4:25, but fifty-five I.e., Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. Clifton Black, “The Pauline Perspective on Death in Romans 5–8,” JBL 103 (1984): 413 n. 2. 39 40

162

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

in 5:1–8:39 (80 percent of overall occurrences). Dunn – analyzing the undisputed letters and only the term ἁμαρτία – speaks of an “astonishing predominance of the term [sin] in Romans,” where “no less than three-fourths” of Paul’s (overall) uses of it appear,41 the vast majority of which are in Romans 5–8.42 Paul locates the origin and scope of sin and death in Adam and humankind’s solidarity with that one man: δι᾽ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τόν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὓτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν (5:12).43 Paul finds in the story of Adam from Genesis 1–3 not only what set in motion the current nature of humanity, but also a story that replays itself in the life of every man and woman.44 By locating the topics of sin and death in Adam, Paul makes explicit that his concern is not with abstractions, but human existence – anthropology comes to the fore with Adam. The term σάρξ also occurs with a high frequency in these four chapters. Paul uses the noun σάρξ and the adjective σάρκινος twenty-seven times in Romans, Dunn, Theology of Paul, 111. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 111. Dunn notes an “extraordinary intensity of usage” in Romans 5–8. 43 Of great debate is the nature of the chain of causality between Adam’s sin and the sin of other humans. Though answering this question is not necessary for this thesis, Longenecker, Romans, 578, helpfully summarizes four theories that have developed from patristic times to the present: “(1) a ‘realist’ or ‘seminal union’ theory (i.e., the collective whole of humanity actually sinned ‘in Adam’), (2) a ‘representative’ or ‘federal headship’ theory (i.e., the whole of humanity was represented ‘by Adam in his sin’), (3) an ‘influence’ or ‘example’ theory (i.e., humanity has been influenced for the worse ‘by Adam’s sin’), or (4) an ‘inherited depravity and mediated guilt’ theory (i.e., all people have inherited the depraved condition brought about by Adam’s sin and have become personally guilty by their own expression of that inherited state of depravity).” Because the focus of this study is on the general state of human existence in Adam, rather than the chain of causation, we need not go into more detail addressing this exegetical and theological debate. 44 Paul’s reliance on the Genesis 1–3 narrative is explicit in Rom 5:12–21, while the story of Adam is likely at work in varying degrees throughout 5:21–8:39. In terms of the tradition that developed within Judaism based on Genesis 3, Longenecker, Romans, 583, points out that this aspect of the Adam narrative (Adam’s sin) was “usually neglected by rabbinic Judaism, but … seems to have been more and more brought to the fore in a number of nonconformist Jewish circles as a primary explanation for human depravity and sin” Longenecker, Romans, 583, refers to the following as examples: Sir 25:24; 4 Ezra 3:7–8, 21–22; 2 Bar 23:4; 48:42–43; 56:5–6. Also attesting a Jewish tradition, albeit sectarian, that connected humankind’s depravity with the person of Adam are the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot). In 1QHa V. 20–22, for example, the hymnist’s words echo Gen 2:7 and 3:19, along with Psalm 8, as he laments, “What is one born of a woman among all your awesome works? He is a structure of dust fashioned with water, his counsel is the [iniquity] of sin, shame of dishonor and so[urce of] impurity, and a depraved spirit rules over him.” 41 42

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

163

with four occurrences in chapters 1–4 and eighteen in 5–8. Significantly, seventeen of these uses come in Romans 7–8, where, as will be explained momentarily, Paul compares two ways of human existence. In its most typical usage, σάρξ refers to humankind’s creatureliness with an emphasis on fallenness, weakness, or vulnerability to sin.45 In Romans 7–8 it functions as a type of short-hand to capture all the elements of existence “in Adam,” i.e., being in the flesh = “sold under sin” (7:14), “hostility toward God” (8:7), and “death” (8:7–8). How Paul understands existence ἐν σάρκί is considered more below. With this overarching theme of sinàfleshàdeath, Lindars is right to read instances of the law (νόμος46) in light of this larger story.47 The law was to be a “helper,” promising life to those who kept it (Lev 18:5). However, this helper cannot transform Adam, but is futile (ἀδύνατον) in the face of flesh: i.e., τὸ γάρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου ἐν ᾧ ἡσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός (Rom 8:3).48 The picture that emerges from Romans 5–8, is, on the one hand, of deadhumanity. It is a picture of Adamic-humanity, enfleshed, invaded by sin, condemned by law, heading irrevocably toward death. However, there is another side to this story of human existence. Life in Romans 5–8 The antitype of dead-Adamic-anthropology (5:14; 5:12–21) is Christ, and life “in Christ” and “in the Spirit” (6:1–11; 8:1–17). Two other high-frequency terms draw attention to this counter-theme: life and Spirit. The noun ζωή and its cognates (ζάω; ζῳοποιέω; συζάω; ἀναζάω) appear forty-one times in Romans, with only three occurrences in chaps. 1–4, but twenty-seven in chaps. 5–8. Paul often sets life in direct opposition with death: e.g., Rom 5:10, 12, 17, 18, 21; 6:1–11, 13, 17; 7:25; 8:2, 6, 10–11, 13. Many observations could be made about the nature and quality of “life” in Romans 5–8. We will limit our comments here to the eschatological aspect of life, which means that for Paul, “life” is viewed from a future, past, and present aspect.

The term σάρξ was defined in more detail in chapter 3. Also included in the above chart of terms in Romans was νόμος. While the term appears thirty-three times in Romans 5–8, it also appears thirty-five times in chapters 1–4, and six in 9–16. In distinction from the term-clusters “death,” “sin,” “flesh,” “life,” and “Spirit,” the use of νόμος in Romans 5–8, in terms of frequency, is unremarkable. 47 Lindars, “Paul and the Law in Romans 5–8,” 128. 48 Romans 8:3–4 is a difficult verse to translate. We take the ἀδύνατον in v. 3 as an accusative of respect, with ὁ θεὸς as the subject and κατέκρινεν as the main verb, translating as, “For, with reference to the inability of the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God – by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin – condemned sin in the flesh.” 45 46

164

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

Life in Eschatological Context The first mention of ζωή in Romans comes as Paul forebodes “the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:5). To those who “seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life (ἀποδώσει … ζωὴ αἰώνιον)”49 (2:7). Hence, “life” has for Paul a future dynamic tied to the Jewish-apocalyptic framework of the turning of the ages. This future element is apparent throughout chapters 5–8 as well: e.g., “Now that we are reconciled, we will be saved by [Christ’s] life (σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ)” (5:10); “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be (ἐσόμεθα) united with him in resurrection” (6:5). As the latter verse indicates, a key aspect to the future hope of life involves the resurrection of the body, a datum made more explicit in Rom 8:11: “The spirit … will also give life to your mortal bodies (ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν)”50 (see also 8:23). As Dunn points out, the new age inaugurated by Christ “is bracketed by the double resurrection – initially of Christ, at the end, of believers.”51 Believers, therefore, while “walking in new life” (6:4), do not yet possess it in its fullness (8:11, 23). This promise of future life is grounded in a past event: the believer has been “reconciled to God by the death of his Son (κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ)” (5:10).52 This past aspect that grounds life is also evident in Rom 6:1–11, where Paul explains with baptismal imagery that believers “have died (ἀποθνῄσκω)”53 (6:2), “have been baptized into [Christ’s] death” (6:3), and “were buried with [Christ] by baptism into death” (6:4). Ironically, the believer’s life is grounded in a past death – life comes by death. However, for Paul the resurrection of Christ has inaugurated the new age, and therefore in the present “authentic life”54 is available to the believer – though not free of the sufferings involved in the overlap of epochs (e.g., Rom The verb, ἀποδώσκ, at the end of 2:7 is implied, looking back to 2:6. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 432, notes that it “is now agreed … the ζῳοποιήσει (future tense) clearly refers to the final resurrection (as in 1 Cor 15:22).” 51 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 432. 52 Bultmann, “ζάω, ζωή, ζῶον, ζωογονέω, -ποιέω, ἀναζάω, TDNT, 2:865, writes regarding Paul’s understanding of ζωή, “Future ζωή is established by the event of salvation already enacted in the death and resurrection of Christ, the decisive thing has already taken place and the future resurrection of the dead is simply the consummation of the event of the replacement of the old aeon by the new which has already commenced in Christ.” 53 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 307, writes, “ἀποθνῄσκω is used here for the first time to describe the death of believers as something which has already happened (so also in different variations in 6:8; 7:6; Gal 2:19; Col 2:20; 3:3).” 54 Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 410, phrases this matter well, writing of Paul’s Christology, “[Jesus Christ] liberates from the slavery to sin and death and already in the present grants authentic life.” 49 50

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

165

5:3–5; 8:17–39). Paul’s thought here is in step with the general sense of the New Testament, where, as Bultmann notes, “ζωή bears to some degree the character of something for which we still hope, and to some degree it is a present possession.”55 Several uses of νῦν (“now,” 5:9, 11; 8:1, 22) in Romans 5–8 highlight, as Longenecker summarizes, “The fact that the ‘eschatological now’ is a present reality that (1) culminates all of God’s earlier redemptive dealings with his people and (2) brings about in a more personal, relational, and participatory manner what God wants his people presently to experience.”56 Longenecker is suggesting that this “eschatological now” includes God’s offering of a “more personal, relational, and participatory … experience” for his people. As the logic of Paul’s thought in Rom 6:2–4 attests, because believers have died with Christ (past), they are now (present) “to walk in newness of life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς)” (Rom 6:4).57 This “life” experienced by the believer “now,” moreover, is tied to the resurrection-life of the exalted Christ (5:10), and meant to be like it: “For the death he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he live to God. So also you (οὓτως καὶ ὑμεῖς)58 must consider (λογίζεσθε) yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:10–11). When this study considers how the Spirit affects Christian personhood below, the primary focus will be on life in the present. This eschatological tension notwithstanding, there it will be argued that the Spirit is integral to actualizing the “relational ontology” of new life in the present.59 Life by the Spirit of Life The last term in the above chart is πνεῦμα (“S/spirit”) and the related πνευματικός (“spiritual”). Of its thirty-seven uses in Romans, four occur in chapters 1–4, twenty-four in 5–8, and nine in chapters 11–16. As stated above, twenty-one of these occur in chapter 8 alone. To discuss here is the association Bultmann, “ζάω, ζωή, ζῶον, ζωογονέω, -ποιέω, ἀναζάω, TDNT, 2:865. Longenecker, Romans, 565. Emphasis added. 57 Schreiner, Romans, 303, draws attention to this logic: “[Rom 6] verses 3–5 explicate how believers have died to sin…. Those who are baptized into Christ are united with him in his death. They do not merely participate in the death of Christ; all those who are joined with him in his death are also united with him in his resurrection. Indeed, by virtue of Christ’s resurrection, the age to come has invaded the present evil age, and thus even now believers should walk in newness of life.” 58 The οὓτως καὶ ὑμεῖς has the sense of “so also you,” grounding the believer’s death/rejection of sin’s rule and life/life in the new realm of God upon Christ’s death and life. See Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 71. 59 Here we have in mind Timmins’s depiction of the Christian in Romans 6–8, where ongoing Adamic-embodiedness creates a tension, vis-à-vis the new “relational ontology” affected by the Spirit uniting persons with God and Christ. Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 8. 55 56

166

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

Paul makes between πνεῦμα (Spirit) and ζωή (life), especially in Romans 8: e.g., “the law of the Spirit of life” (8:2); “the mindset of the Spirit is life and peace” (8:6); “the Spirit is life” (8:10); “he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (8:11); “if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (8:13). The background to Paul’s association of life and Spirit sheds light on the work of the Spirit in Romans 8. Operative in the background of Paul’s pneumatology is a view that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 has arrived.60 While a strong emphasis regarding the work of the Spirit in the Second Temple period involves the “Spirit of prophecy,”61 there are substantial examples of the Spirit being linked to the “soteriological” function of “new creation,” i.e., the giving of life.62 Moreover, Yates has made evident a tradition in Judaism that connects the “breath of life” that suffused Adam (Gen 2:7) with the promise of the Spirit in Ezekiel 36–37;63 meaning a connection was evident between the Spirit’s prophetic and ethical work, and the creation of (anthropological) life. In Romans 6 and 7 Paul makes likely allusions to this tradition that flowed through Ezekiel 36–37. Most notable is when Paul speaks of “obedience from the heart” (Rom 6:17; cf. Ezek 36:26–27) and then the juxtaposition of the

60 On the importance of Ezekiel 36–37 as background to Paul’s pneumatology, see Fee, Empowering Presence, 904, See also Yates, Spirit and Creation in Paul, 4, who writes, “Paul’s understanding of the spirit was heavily influenced by his belief that with the indwelling of the spirit the promises of Ezekiel 36–37 have been fulfilled”; Schreiner, Romans, 396; Byrne, Romans, 240; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 118–22. 61 Yates, Spirit and Creation, 21. 62 Yates, Spirit and Creation, 46–48, 72–82, draws attention to Wisdom of Solomon 15:11 where the phrase πνεῦμα ζωτικόν is used, and to the collection of hymns known as the Hodayot, where in 1QHa xvi the psalmist draws on “imagery from Genesis 2–3,” and portrays the “vivifying of man” with strong parallels to “the image of God breathing into Adam’s nostrils” [e.g., 1QHa xvi. 35–36]. 63 Regarding the use of “breath” versus “spirit,” Yates, Spirit and Creation, 25–26, has argued that the terms had become near synonyms within an identifiable text tradition: Gen 6:3 makes it clear that “in the Hebrew text ‘breath’ and ‘spirit’ are interchangeable in this context” (p. 25); “For the Jews of the second Temple period these terms are found in fairly stable text traditions, and exist in a state of near synonymy, reflecting the well-known idea that life is in the breath that God bestows at creation” (p. 26). Yates’s basic argument runs as follows: (a) the “breath of life” of Gen 2:7 became associated/was synonymous with God’s Spirit as an agent in creation [i.e., Gen 6:3; see Yates 25]; (b) views of new-creation came to include this tradition about God’s breath/Spirit as integral in creation [i.e., the phrase πνεῦμα ζωῆς is found in LXX Ezek 1:21, 21; 10:17; 37:5]; (c) this idea that in the New Covenant/new Creation God’s Spirit would be an agent of creation is identifiable in Intertestamental texts [i.e., esp. 1QH xx. 11–13; see Yates 76–81]; and (d) this tradition impacted Paul’s thinking of the Spirit, and therefore it was natural that Paul would link the Spirit with the giving of life within the notion of the new covenant people of God..

4.1. Romans 8 in the Context of Romans 5–8

167

“new way of the Spirit (καινότητι πνεύματος)” and “old way of the letter (παλαιότητι γράμματος)” (Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:67; cf. Ezek 36:26–27).64 Reading Romans 5–8 in the context of the inbreaking new covenant is important as it prepares us for seeing both an ethical and relational element of the life that the Spirit brings.65 For example, in LXX Ezek 36:27, God promises to put his Spirit into the people in order to cause them to follow his ways (τὸ πνεῦμα μου δώσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ποιήσω ἳνα ἐν τοῖς δικαιώμαςίν μου πορεύησθε καί κρίματά μου φυλάξησθε καὶ ποιησητε). Here the Spirit of God produces new life in the mode of ethical empowerment. However, in the following verse, LXX Ezek 36:28, the promise regards the restoration of a relationship, “you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (καὶ ἒσεθέ μοι εἰς λαόν, κἀγὼ ἒσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς θεόν). That the work of the Spirit would include not only ethical transformation but also the restoration of the relationship between God and his covenant people is attested elsewhere in Second Temple literature, as was noted above.66 In Jub 1:20–25, Moses asks God to restore his wayward people, to “create for them an upright spirit” (Jub 1:20). In response, God promises not only ethical transformation, but also a restored relationship marked by sonship and love: After this they will return to me in all uprightness and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called “sons of the living God.” And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them.” (Jub 1:22–25)67

Schreiner, Romans, in commenting on 6:17, writes, “Such obedience reflects God’s new-covenant work in the hearts of believers (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek 36:26–27); and in reference to 7:5–6, he suggests that the letter-Spirit contrast “indicates a fulfillment of salvation history in which the promises of the new covenant are becoming a reality (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:26–27)” (p. 350). So also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 366, who notes the link with 2 Cor 3:6. 65 Above it was noted that Jewish expectations/understandings regarding the new covenant included a restored relationship with Yahweh that the Spirit has a key role in. That tradition is evident in texts such as Isa 44:3–5, Ezek 36:26–28, and intertestamental literature including the Hodayot hymns from Qumran and Pseudepigraphal texts. See the final section of chapter 3 for more discussion. 66 See above, Part 2: Approaching the Spirit in Paul. 67 Translation is taken from O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 2:54. Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 2nd ed., WUNT 2.283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 148, also identifies in Second Temple literature a link between the Spirit and filial relationship between God and his people; Rabens’s references include, T. Levi 18:7 and 1 En 49:3. 64

168

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

In this context of the restored covenant, both ethical (“they will do my commandments”) and relational (“their souls will cleave to me;” “I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me”) aspects are tied to the Holy Spirit; moreover, there is a sense of intimacy to the restored relationship, i.e., “And I shall love them.” Stuhlmacher and others suggest that texts such as Jub 1:20–25 are evidence of a tradition in early Judaism that joined together the covenant promise made to David, which involved David’s son(s) (2 Sam 7:12–14), and the prophetic oracles of Ezek 36:26–28 promising the Spirit on all of Israel.68 Such a tradition suggests that within Paul’s Jewish thought-world, the Spirit was linked with (a) ethical empowerment and (b) restored relationships between God and his people, which (c) occurred within the Spirit-bestowed context of the new covenant. That resurrection of the body followed in this tradition is also bore out by the relationship of the Spirit’s work in Ezek 36:26–28 and Ezekiel 37;69 Paul’s flow of thought in Romans 8 follows this format: e.g., Rom 8:10–11 (= Ezek 37:3–14) follows Rom 8:5–9 (= Ezek 36:26). Finally, with the joining of Gen 2:7 and Ezekiel 36–37 in Jewish views of the Spirit, it also becomes evident that the life-giving work of the Spirit will involve anthropological renewal: i.e., the first Adam was brought to life by the breath of God (Gen 2:7); the bones in Ezekiel were resurrected by God’s breath (Ezek 37:5–9, 14); and within Paul’s pneumatology the Spirit’s work includes giving life to humans (e.g., Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:44). While the most acute application of this involves the resurrection of the body (Ezek 37:14; Rom 8:10–11),70 it is also the case that the Spirit gives life to humans in the present.

68 Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to Romans, 118, writes, “In Jub. 1:5ff., 23ff., this promise [Ezek 36:27] is then taken up and bound together with Nathan’s prophecy from 2 Sam 7:12– 14. Since in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul sees himself placed into the ‘ministry of the Spirit’ in the new covenant (according to Jer 31:31–34), which cuts off the Mosaic ‘ministry of death,’ and since he characterizes Christ as the Spirit of freedom which fulfills this new ‘arrangement’ from God (cf. 2 Cor 3:6–17), it is natural to interpret Rom 8:2–7 against the background of Jer. 31:31ff.; Ezek 36:27; and the early Jewish expectation that the end-times people of God, in fulfillment of the promise of a son from 2 Sam 7:12–14, will be led into the perfect obedience of the ‘sons of God.” For concurrence on this point, see also Bertone, “Function of the Spirit,” 83. 69 Daniel I. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWH in the Book of Ezekiel,” JETS 32 (1989): 39, demonstrates the connection between the Spirit in these two chapters of Ezekiel, “The announcement of Yahweh's infusion of his own rwh is repeated in [Ezek] 37:14, suggesting that the entire unit (37:1–14) is an exposition of the notion introduced in [Ezek] 36:26–27.” 70 Fee, Empowering Presence, 552, does not understand the Spirit to have agency in the resurrection of the body, but only gives a sense of surety that the resurrection will happen. Here we follow Dunn, “‘The Law of Faith,’ ‘the Law of the Spirit’ and ‘the Law of Christ,’” 72, who argues that the life-giving work of the Spirit both gives life in the present and in the

4.2. Christian Personhood and Being “In the Spirit”

169

The Spirit is at work from the moment of conversion (Gal 3:3; 1 Thess 1:5–7) and continues to indwell and sustain believers during the eschatological present (Rom 8:9–11, 14–17, 26–27).71 Argued below will be that Romans 8 evidences that the Spirit creates new relationships between the believer and God and Christ, and this actualizes new life in the present. To conclude this overview of the driving theme of Romans 5–8, it is evident that Paul is (a) juxtaposing two modes of existence, one characterized by death and the other life; (b) that these are further situated in the eschatological framework of overlapping ages; and (c) Romans 8 brings to a crescendo the triumph of life over death, with a special emphasis on the Spirit’s role in affecting new life. We now will turn to Romans 8 more specifically. The first step will be to consider the nature of Christian life/personhood in light of Paul’s “in the flesh” versus “in the Spirit” juxtaposition highlighted in Rom 8:5–11.

4.2. Christian Personhood and Being “In the Spirit” 4.2. Christian Personhood and Being “In the Spirit”

Understanding Paul’s anthropology in light of Romans 5–8 is difficult, especially in terms of defining the new nature of Christian existence. This is so for several reasons. As mentioned, there is the participatory logic of Paul’s thought, whereby an individual’s identity and destiny are bound up with one of two representatives, Adam or Christ. Adding to the complexity of “existence in another,” however, is the way Paul goes on to describe the Christian life, which seems at times a paradox. On the one hand, the believer is “dead to sin” (Rom 6:7), “released from the law” (7:6), “liberated by the Spirit of life” (8:2), and able “to walk in newness of life” (6:4). If we may draw in a verse from 2 Corinthians, “a person in Christ is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17).72 On the other hand, the believer remains vulnerable to sin (Rom 6:12–14; 8:13) and is groaning, weak, and dying (Rom 8:11, 23, 26). This complexity comes to the fore in Romans 8 with Paul’s juxtaposition of life according to/in the Spirit versus life according to/in the flesh. Having future is the agent by which God raises the dead. For further discussion on the views of Fee and Dunn here, see Yates, Spirit and Creation, 9–17. 71 The early Christian tradition that the Spirit is integral in conversion is evident in John 3:5. Bertone, “Function of the Spirit,” 76–77, identifies three types of work the Spirit does in Romans 8, which stretch across the eschatological tension: the Spirit (1) “signals God’s redemptive plan enacted,” (2) “is the sustainer in the concurrence of his redemptive plan enacted but not yet culminated,” and (3) “is the surety of his redemptive plan to be culminated.” 72 This is my translation of the Greek, τις ἐν Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις, which comes from 2 Cor 5:17.

170

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

painted a harrowing picture of life in the flesh in Rom 7:7–25, Paul anticipates a “clean break” from the old self as Romans 8 begins: there is “no condemnation” and the believer has been “set free from the law of sin and death” (8:1–2). However, as Paul goes on to detail life in the Spirit vis-à-vis life in the flesh, the break does not appear to be complete (e.g., 8:13, 17b, 23, 26).73 This paradox makes it difficult to define the nature of Christian existence in light of Paul’s language of being in the flesh verse in the Spirit: οἱ ὂντες κατὰ σάρκα/ἐν σαρκί and οἱ [ὂντες] κατὰ πνεῦμα/ἐν πνεύματι (Rom 8:5, 9). Is the person “in Christ” and “in the Spirit” truly a new person? James Dunn says no. Referring to Rom 8:5, Dunn states, “The οἱ κατά… ὂντες, should not be taken as an ontological classification, as though Paul envisaged two classes of humankind, created differently.”74 Rather than a different type of being, Dunn finds Paul’s argument in Rom 8:5–11 indicative of a new orientation. Those “in the Spirit” are characterized by a new “mindset, attitude, or conditioned pattern of thinking and acting.”75 Commenting on Rom 8:9, Dunn summarizes what Paul has in mind when he compares those in the flesh to those in the Spirit: “What is in view is not ontological transformation but change in orientation and motive centers.”76 Those in the Spirit are determined no longer by a “belongingness to the world,” but by “belongingness to God.”77 Ultimately, Dunn argues that Paul does not refer to Christians as truly new beings in Romans 8; rather, he sets before those in Rome to ideal “types (sociologically speaking) … flesh-man and Spirit-man,”78 and “naturally assumes that his readers conform more to the latter than to the former.”79 Thus, for Dunn, to be “in Christ” and “in the Spirit” is not to be a truly new person, but to have a radically new orientation and to belong, no longer to the E.g., Mathias Nygaard, “Romans 8–Interchange Leading to Deification,” HBT 39 (2017), 156–75, 166, writes, “In Romans 8 the believer is in the midst of being transformed…. This new life entails a process of turning and being turned from something, to something else.” 74 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 425. Dunn reads the phrases οἱ έκ νόμου and οἱ ἐκ πίστεως in Rom 4:14, 16 as “close parallels [to 8:5] … since they describe not so much a given condition as an attitude or orientation” (p. 425). 75 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 425, 428. Emphasis added. 76 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 428. In commenting on “participation in Christ,” Dunn, Theology of Paul, 411, writes similarly, “Being in Christ is not any kind of mystical removal from the real world of every day. On the contrary, it becomes the starting point and base camp for a quite differently motivated and directed life…. Here we may say that Paul’s sense of the mystical Christ functioned in his ethical life as resource and inspiration.” Emphasis added. 77 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 428; see also Dunn, Romans 1-8, 332. 78 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 428, uses the term “types” in the sociological sense: e.g., he explains that Paul has in mind “types (sociologically speaking) … flesh-man and Spiritman.” 79 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 428. Emphasis added. 73

4.2. Christian Personhood and Being “In the Spirit”

171

world, but to God. The ongoing struggle of the Christian with sin and weakness is thus explained from both the anthropological and eschatological vantage point: the person is not ontologically different than before, and the Adamicage still lingers. We will return to Dunn’s notion of the Christian person below, especially in terms of the implications of “belonging” to God. Gordon Fee, on the other hand, sees more than a new orientation in mind in Romans 8. In agreement with many other commentators, he finds in the phrases οἱ ὂντες κατὰ σάρκα/ἐν σαρκί and οἱ [ὂντες] κατὰ πνεῦμα/ἐν πνεύματι (Rom 8:5, 8, 9; 7:5–6) the “language of ontology.”80 In Romans 8, Fee contends, Paul has in mind “radically opposed kinds of existence.”81 When Paul refers to the believers as “fleshly” or still faced with sin, the tension lies in eschatology, not anthropology. Commenting on Paul’s use at times of “fleshly” (σάρκινος, e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 2 Cor 10:3–4) to describe Christians, Fee writes, “This type of language in Paul does not reflect some internal struggle in the believer between these two kinds of existence. On the contrary, it describes the essential characteristics of the two ages, which exist side by side in unrelieved opposition in our present ‘already but not yet’ existence.”82 For Fee, therefore, the ongoing paradox of Christian existence – e.g., struggle with sin and mortality – is explained from the eschatological side. The pressure comes from the lingering aeon of Adam and lingering Adamicembodiment.83 However, in neither case is the Christian’s existence as a new person in question – there is no “internal struggle in the believer between two kinds of existence.”84 Thus, Fee’s interpretation of the nature of Christian persons vis-à-vis the Spirit/flesh juxtaposition in Romans 8 is significantly different than Dunn’s. The thought of Dunn and Fee help highlight important questions when examining personhood in light of Romans 8: (1) Does Paul have in mind an ontologically different existence when speaking of those “in Christ” (8:1) and “in/of the Spirit” (Rom 8:5, 9)? (2) If one answers, “yes,” to the former question, then how should the ongoing struggle with sin and weakness be explained? What we will argue below, is that yes, Paul has in view a truly new person in Romans 8 and understanding the role of the Spirit in generating this newness For those who see ontology in view – i.e., a new mode of existence – see Fee, Empowering Presence, 540; Schreiner, Romans, 405; Moo, Romans 1–8, 518–19; Letter to the Romans, 508–13. Fitzmyer, Romans, 488; Schnelle, Paul, 496. 81 Fee, Empowering Presence, 540. So also Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 223, who writes that through baptism, “A change in existence has taken place.” 82 Fee, Empowering Presence, 820. 83 Fee, Empowering Presence, 819, does note that embodied humans “continue to live in weakness and limitations, due to present mortality.” 84 Fee, Empowering Presence, 820. 80

172

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

is crucial. In this sense we will disagree with Dunn’s reading and agree with Fee’s. However, on the other hand, our explanation for the ongoing struggle of the Christian will be different than Fee’s. We will find that the ongoing struggle with sin that a believer experiences is an internal struggle because Adamicembodiment (the mortal body, Rom 8:11) in the lingering Adamic-age implies both eschatological and anthropological tension. Ultimately, we will argue in our treatment of Christian personhood via Romans 8 that relational anthropology helps explain the paradox of Christian existence. Our model of RA will demonstrate the truly new aspects of Christian personhood, namely, a new identity and partially reconstituted agency and heart, all actualized through Spirit-shaped relationships. At the same time, our model of RA will help explain the significance of ongoing embodiment in the present world, and why this entails ongoing anthropological struggle. Will Timmins, in his treatment of Christian identity in Romans 7, points in the direction of our argument. In attempting to reconcile the newness of Christian life with the ongoing struggle with sin (which is relevant irrespective of how one reads Romans 7, e.g., Rom 6:12–14; 8:13), Timmins suggests the difference lies in perceiving existence through anthropological versus relational ontological categories, writing, Paul portrays the anthropological condition of the ἐγώ [in Rom 7:7–25] as an Adamic state of powerlessness, without direct reference to the ἐγώ’s relational ontology, viz. without reference to being “in the Spirit” (Rom 8:9). The ἐγώ’s condition is a lingering, lasting solidarity with the old order, but, as an anthropological condition, it remains with the ἐγώ even when he is no longer in the flesh, under the law.85

Though he references the “I” in Romans 7, Timmins’s paradigm is applicable across Romans 5–8. When considered outside of the Spirit’s work, the anthropological condition of Christians in the present does not appear drastically different than life prior to conversion. The “anthropological condition of the ἐγω” then, even for the Christian, is such that the person is still vulnerable to the lures of sin (6:12), though not to the degree they were prior to conversion. However, and this is the crucial point, when the person is viewed through the broader anthropological model of “relational ontology,” it suddenly becomes abundantly clear how they are different: e.g., they are not related to sin as slaves, but to God as slaves (6:6, 22); they no longer relate to God as enemies, but children (5:10; 8:7, 14–17); they are no longer related to Adam as brothers (5:12–15), but to Christ as brother (8:29). Using the language of relational anthropology rather than Timmins’s relational ontology, we will argue below that through Spirit-shaped relationships the Christian person is made new, albeit not without the lingering reality of Adamic-embodiment.86 Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 8, emphasis original. Susan Grove Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, ed. Matthew V. Novenson and R. Barry Matlock, 85 86

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

173

In explaining the nature of Christian existence in Romans 8 with the model of RA, we will focus on two Spirit-shaped relationships: (1) Spirit-shaped belonging to Christ and God (Rom 8:9–11) and (2) Spirit-shaped sonship with God the Father (Rom 8:14–17). In approaching these two relationships, we will first comment on how they situate in the flow of chapter 8.

4.3. The Relational Work of the Spirit in Romans 8 4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

4.3.1. The Spirit and Belonging to Christ and God: Romans 8:5–11 Situating Rom 8:5–11 in Romans 8 Romans 8 can be broadly organized in two overarching sections, which can then be further delineated. In Rom 8:1–17 Paul compares life according to the Spirit with life according to the flesh with a focus on life in the eschatological now.87 Then, in Rom 8:18–39, Paul lifts his eyes to the entire cosmos, explaining that all things await final redemption (8:18–30), but there is the assurance of God’s final triumph rooted in God’s love (8:31–39).88 Romans 8:1–17 can be further delineated into three related sections: vv.1– 4; 5–11; and 12–17. In the opening unit Paul states a fact – there is no condemnation for those in Christ (vv. 1–2) then elaborates – God in Christ condemned sin so that by the Spirit believers fulfill righteousness (vv. 3–4).89 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600489.001.0001/oxfor dhb-9780199600489-e-005#oxfordhb-9780199600489-e-005-div1-1, online publication, April 2014, n.p., uses the language of “double participation” to explain the ongoing tension in the Christian life, which may be a helpful way to think of the Christians life “in Christ” and coterminous embodiment in the Adamic-age: “In the present time Christian existence is, for Paul, a kind of ‘double participation.’ On the one hand, believers continue to live ‘in the flesh’ and therefore in vulnerability to the powers of this age. On the other hand, Christians’ present and future life is one of participation in Christ – that is, in a mutual indwelling between Christ (or the Spirit) and believers, and in the sharing of experience between believers. Christian identity is constituted through and in this exchange, which amounts to a regime change that is accomplished but not yet fully and universally acknowledged. Still living in occupied territory, albeit serving a different Lord, at the juncture of the ages Paul and his converts experience conflict, affliction, and suffering.” 87 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 55, refers to the focus on the individual person in Romans 6–8, writing, “Here [Paul] expounds the concept in highly moral terms ([Romans 1] vv. 19–32), but these verses contain the beginning of an answer which he elaborates later in terms of the individual (chaps. 6–8) and of humankind as a whole, Jew and Gentile (chaps. 9–11).” 88 On this basic organization, see Schreiner, Romans, vii. Other overarching divisions include Fitzmyer, Romans, x, who demarcates 8:1–13 and 14–39; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, ix, who demarcates 8:1–30 and 31–39. 89 Schreiner, Romans, 397, identifies the γάρ of v. 3 as “explanatory, and verses 3–4 together constitutes an explanation and expansion of verses 1–2.”

174

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

Romans 8:1–4 and the Life-Giving Spirit Romans 8:1–4 contain the essential message of Rom 8:1–17, which is: those in Christ enjoy a new mode of existence, in the Spirit not flesh, and therefore can (will) obey and please God, as children enjoying their Father. Romans 8:1– 4 must be read in light of what has preceded, especially the Adam-Christ typology. The noun κατάκριμα (8:1) links back to the only other Pauline uses at the end of 5:12–21.90 Those who were in Adam (5:12–21) lived under condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:16, 18); those in Christ (6:1–11) are freed from condemnation (8:1). In giving the reason (γάρ) for verse 1, verse 2 brings the forensic and dynamic together: “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). In this verse Paul brings together the reality of being “in Christ Jesus”91 (6:11, 23; 8:1–2, 39) with the “Spirit of life,” a mode of existence he will further develop in 8:5–17.92 Verse 1–2, therefore, point to an important dynamic of Christian existence: The Spirit appropriates the reality of being “in Christ” in the life of the believer. This comes to the fore in the indwelling motif of verses 9–10, where, as we argue below, the Spirit fosters and maintains “contact between the human and the Divine.”93 The reality of freedom from the “law of sin and death,” therefore, is Longenecker, Romans, 684. In Rom 8:2, there is some debate whether or not to take ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ with the verb that follows, ἠλευθερωσέν (Cranfield, Romans, 375; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 418), or the preceding noun phrase (Jewett, Romans, 481). We take it as connected to the preceding noun phrase, while follows more naturally the flow of the sentence, and further, as Harvey, Romans, 189, points out, “The absence of a definite article suggests a connection to the entire noun phrase rather than to any one of the nouns in it.” As such, the sense in 8:2 is that the Spirit works within the domain of being “in Christ.” 92 In Rom 8:1–17 Paul further demonstrates the dynamic interrelationship between the believer being “in Christ” and Christ being “in the believer” (8:10), all of which become caught up in the work of the Spirit. Longenecker, Romans, 693, explains of the “in Christ” theme: “In 8:1–11 … [Paul] focuses particular attention on this theme in speaking of believers in Jesus as being ‘in Christ Jesus’ and of Christ by his Spirit being ‘in the believer.’” 93 Earlier in this study (ch. 3), we argued for taking certain uses of the “in Christ” motif as local, personal, and intimate, versus merely instrumental. Regarding the joining of such a reading of “in Christ” with the work of the Spirit in Romans 8, Longenecker, Romans, 694, offers the helpful commentary: “In accepting such an intimate, local, and personal meaning for the expression ‘in Christ Jesus,’ one is of course acknowledging some form of mysticism in Paul’s thought. But this need not be abhorred if, by the term ‘mysticism,’ we mean ‘that contact between the human and the Divine which forms the core of the deepest religious experience, but which can only be felt as an immediate intuition of the highest reality and cannot be described in the language of psychology.’ It is not the pagan mysticism of absorption, for the human ‘I’ and the divine ‘Thou’ of the relationship retain their identities. Rather, it is fellowship between the human ‘I’ and the divine ‘Thou’ at its highest, which for Paul epitomizes the essence of personal relations between the exalted Christ and those who 90 91

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

175

not only brought about by the past event of Christ’s death (v. 3), but is further worked out by the dynamic new mode of existence in the Spirit of life (vv. 2, 4). Earlier in this chapter we referred to the phrase ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς in 8:2. There it was noted that certain interpreters read ὁ νόμος as referring to the Mosaic Torah, and therefore the atmosphere of Rom 8:1–4 is “nothing other than the climax of Paul’s defense of the law which began in 7:7.”94 We have explained above our view of the overarching theme of Romans 8, life juxtaposed with death, with human existence as the locus. There are two further aspects of Rom 8:2 to note briefly at this point. First, we follow a majority of scholars in taking the reference to νόμος here as referring to “authority,” “rule,” or “principle.”95 Paul’s earlier statement that ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν (Rom 7:14a) does not mean it is a “vehicle or instrument of the Spirit,”96 but rather is part of Paul’s apology against relegating the law’s origins to that of sin or evil.97 This is the case also for the use of νόμος in the parallel phrase “the law (τοῦ νόμου) of sin and death” (8:2b).98 As such, we take the sense of the verse to be: the power and rule of the life-giving Spirit has freed believers from the authority and principle of sin and of the authority and principle of death. The implications of this reading cohere with our view of the overarching theme of Romans 5–8; namely, Paul is juxtaposing two “rival powers”99 in Romans 8 and two types of human existence that unfold under their sway. This leads to the second aspect of Rom 8:2 we need to consider. Why does Paul further qualify the Spirit with the genitive τῆς ζωῆς? As noted above, τῆς ζωῆς functions here as a genitive of product, indicating that the Spirit produces

believer in and are committed to him. And this is how Paul uses ‘in Christ Jesus’ and its cognates here in 8:1–2, which usage is reflected also elsewhere in the letter at 6:11, 23; 8:39; 9:1; 14:14; 15:17; and 16:2, 11–13.” 94 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 646. 95 For our view on νόμος in Rom 8:2, and support of this position, see above, footnote 31. 96 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 646. 97 E.g., the law came from God (Exodus 19–20; Deut 5:22); it is of supernatural not natural origin (e.g., 1 Cor 15:44). 98 E.g., Harvey, Romans, 190, “Τοῦ νόμου parallels the idea of authority in the first half of the verse.” Also, Schreiner, Romans, 375, argues that νόμος almost certainly is used metaphorically here, and “in context, then, the second use of νόμος in the verse also designates a principle or rule.” For further support of this point see Moo, Romans 1–8, 507. 99 Yates, Spirit and Creation, 139, highlights the difference in emphasis when taking νόμος as “rule/power” rather than Torah: “Those who believe Paul uses νόμος in its ‘general’ sense view the contrast in 8:2 as one between rival powers. The emphasis of many of those who understand νόμος to mean Torah is essentially on the transition from one understanding of/approach to Torah to another.”

176

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

or creates life.100 Also noted above was the background motif to Paul’s association of the Spirit with life; namely, the new covenant and outpouring of the Spirit, where the Spirit not only empowers for obedience (Ezek 36:26–27), but creates a new relational bond between God and his people (Ezek 36:28). Most significant to recall here is the connection that was noted between Ezek 36:27 and Gen 2:7, or between the Spirit poured out in the new covenant and the “Spirit that vivifies Adam.”101 The Spirit gives life to humans. Our question regarding the nature of Christian existence according to Romans 8, therefore, will need to keep this paradigm in mind. Paul is not only speaking of the Spirit in Romans 8, but very intentionally connects the Spirit with the giving of life,102 an idea that would call to mind God’s creation of Adam. As we also noted above, Paul’s notion of new life must bear in mind an eschatological context, and therefore it will contain past and future elements. It is no surprise, then, that in Rom 8:11 Paul refers to the Spirit’s role in giving life to Christians’ mortal bodies: i.e., resurrecting them. However, Paul also has in mind the present in Roman 8, e.g., “now” (8:1); the Spirit of life has set you free (ἠλευθέρωσέν) (8:2); you are (ἐστέ) in the Spirit (8:9), etc. The Spirit has been at work from the moment of conversion (Gal 3:3; 1 Thess 1:5–7) and continues to indwell and sustain believers during the eschatological present (Rom 8:9–11, 14–17, 26–27). Therefore, as we posit below that the Spirit’s work includes reconstituting Christian personhood in the present, this background offers a conceptual justification for such a notion. Romans 8:5–11 and the Relational Framework to Life in the Flesh/Spirit: Enmity or Peace In Rom 8:5–11 Paul grounds (γάρ)103 his statement from Rom 8:4. The logic is essentially that Christians fulfill the just requirements of the law (v. 4) because 100 Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 106. Schreiner, Romans, 396, explains, “The genitive τῆς ζωῆς … modifies ‘the Spirit,’ indicating that the result of the Spirit’s presence is life and peace (cf. also 2 Cor 3:6).” See also Bertone, “The Function of the Spirit,” 81. 101 E.g., Yates, Spirit and Creation, 28, explains, “First, Jewish anthropology links life to the breath/spirit given by God at creation. Secondly, the textual roots of this belief can be traced quite clearly to the description of human creation in Gen. 2:7 and the application of this description in the early chapters of Genesis. Thirdly, the terms ‫ רוה‬and ‫ נשמה‬are essentially interchangeable when the subject is the basis of human vitality or the idea that the breath of God vivifies humankind.” 102 E.g., “The law of the Spirit of life (τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς)” (Rom 8:2), “to set the mind on the Spirit is life (ζωὴ) and peace” (8:6), “the Spirit is life (τὸ πνεῦμα ζωὴ)” (8:10), “will also give life (ζῳοποιήσει … διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν) to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (8:11). 103 The γάρ at the front of verse 5 indicates the verse 4 is grounded not only by v. 5, but by vv. 5–11. See Schreiner, Romans, 404; Cranfield, Romans, 385; Dunn, Romans, 452.

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

177

they are of the Spirit, whereas unbelievers cannot because they are of the flesh (vv. 5–11).104 In verses 5–8, Paul explains why this is so by grounding an ethical orientation (setting of the mind) in a state of being (οἱ ὂντες κατὰ σάρκα/οἱ [ὂντες] κατὰ πνεῦμα). With a strong antithesis in verse 9 (οὐκ … ἀλλά), Paul sets the Christian existence in sharp contrast to those in the flesh: “but you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.” Verses 9–11 state succinctly the present and future of the Christian life: in the present indwelt by the Spirit though lingering in mortal bodies; but in the future, resurrected, and liberated from the mortal body. What we will ultimately argue regarding this section of Romans 8 is that (a) Paul has in mind a change of existence (8:9), and that those in the Spirit are new persons. We will establish this claim by (b) demonstrating that the “indwelling” motif of verses 9–10 is indicative of a relationship of belonging, whereby the Spirit draws those “in Christ” (8:1) near to Christ and God, by the Spirit’s indwelling presence.105 Finally (c), it will be argued that this relationship is the dynamic experience of “life and peace” with God (8:6), over against enmity with God (8:7), with the former being a qualitative manifestation of new life. The Relational Framework of Peace versus Enmity: Romans 8:6–8 As noted above, claiming that being “in the Spirit” is indicative of a new type of existence is not how everyone reads Romans 8.106 As such, rather than just asserting that this is the case, it is necessary to offer some reasons for seeing a new form of existence at play. The first reason offered here requires looking not directly at the person, but the realm, or relational matrix, within which they find themselves. Knut Backhaus, in an article titled “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” refers to a new realm of existence (“Existenzbereich”) within which Christians lives. He explains there is both an objective ground (“objektiver Grund”) and a subjective ground (“subjektiver Grund”) to this existence. The “atoning death of Jesus on the cross” is the objective ground; the subjective ground not only includes the believer’s faith, but also the “load-bearing power of the Spirit (tragende Macht das Pneuma).”107 He then goes on to explain that the

See Schreiner, Romans, 404. Longenecker, Romans, 689, refers to the indwelling motif of Rom 8:9–10 as indicative of “reciprocity in relationship.” 106 See above for references to Dunn’s reading of Rom 8:5–11, where he argues against seeing ontology in this passage. 107 Knut Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus,” in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; FS Hans Hübner, ed. U. Schnelle and T. Söding (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 15. 104 105

178

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

“newness” of life unfolds through an encounter with Christ, which is made real (subjectively) to the believer by the Spirit. Backhaus explains, So verwandelt die Begegnung mit dem Gekreuzigten die Identität des Glaubenden radikal … (2 Cor 5.17; 4.6, Ga; 6:15). Die Neuheit erweist sich insofern als “Neuheit des Geistes” (rom 7.6), als der Versöhnte das tödlich-bindende Magnetfeld der auf sich selbst geworfenen Sarx verlassen und Zugang gewonnen bat zum pneumatischen Freiheitsraum der Sohnschaft (Gal 3,26–29; Gal 4,5–7; Rom 8,12–17).108

Much of Backhaus’s paradigm points in the direction of our reading of Rom 8:5–11. To highlight at this point is his explanation for the “newness of the Spirit” (“Neuheit des Geistes”)109 in terms of (a) the “reconciled one” (“der Versöhnte”) and (b) transference from the realm (what he calls “tödlichbindende Magnetfeld”) of “Sarx” to the realm of the “Spirit.” Focused on more below will be (c) the notion that this new realm is referred to as “the pneumatic freedom-space of Sonship.” To summarize, Backhaus is portraying a type of new existence that is subjectively actualized (i.e., experienced by the individual) in terms of a reconciled and new relationship with God and Christ. We find many of Backhaus’s themes present in Rom 8:5–11. First, the notion of “the reconciled one” being transferred to a new “realm” is how we read the juxtaposition of “peace” and “enmity” in verses 6–7. In verse 6, Paul states that while the mind set on the flesh is death, “to set the mind of the Spirit is life and peace (εἰρήνη).”110 Here the life that is associated with the Spirit is also associated with peace. Paul has more in mind here than fleeting feelings; rather, he is speaking in “the fullest eschatological sense.”111 Paul only uses the word εἰρήνη twice in Romans 5–8, here and in 5:1. In verse 5:1 it announced and anticipated the theme of chapters 5–8, the dynamic result of being justified through faith: “having been justified by faith, we have peace (εἰρήνη ἔχομεν) with God” (5:1). The present tense ἔχομεν emphasizes the presently reality of peace, which Paul qualifies in a relational sense: we have peace with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). In fact, a major theme of the opening section (5:1–11) is the restored relationship between God and man, highlighted by presence of the inherently relational concept, “reconciliation” (καταλλάσσω, 5:10 [2x] καταλλαγή, 5:11).112 Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 15. Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 15. 110 The present tense, “ἐστίν,” is understood in 8:6. See Harvey, Romans, 192. This is the only place in the Pauline cannon where Paul groups ζωή and εἰρήνη together this tightly. 111 Schreiner, Romans, 406. 112 In biblical literature, the concept καταλλαγή is inherently relational, referring to the “reestablishment of an interrupted or broken relationship.” E.g., “καταλλαγή,” BDAG, 521. Max Turner, “Human Reconciliation in the New Testament with Special Reference to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians,” EuroJTh, 16.1 (2006): 38, writes, “Central to the linguistic sense of the reconciliation word-group is ‘to reestablish proper friendly interpersonal relations after these have been disrupted or broken.’ And that ‘sense’ usually 108 109

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

179

Thus, Paul’s first summarizing comments for the outworking of the gospel have to do with a restored relationship with God. Longenecker points out how εἰρήνη in Romans 5–8 should be read in terms of the Hebrew expression shalom.”113 Dunn, also in commenting on Rom 5:1–11, sees the idea of shalom present in Paul’s use of εἰρήνη, and goes on to explain its relational implications, writing that “the basic idea is of ‘well-being,’ including social harmony and communal well-being. As the most fundamental of all human relationships, a positively interactive relationship with God is the basis of all other fruitful human relationships.”114 Therefore, when Paul describes the life of those in the Spirit in Rom 8:5–11, his use of “life and peace” in verse 6 has in mind a restored relationship with God – as Dunn put it, “a positively interactive relationship with God.”115 The realm of existence for the believer, therefore, is in the most fundamental sense, categorized by shalom with God. Life in the flesh is also defined in relational terms: ἒχθρα εἰς θεόν (Rom 8:7). In this Paul also looks back to Rom 5:1–11, where prior to being justified through Christ, the believer also lived as God’s enemy (ἐχθροὶ ὄντες, 5:10). Thus, there is a relational explanation for life according to the flesh – enmity toward God. The expectancy of submitting to God (ὑποτάσσεται, 8:7) “characterizes the state proper to the creature, from which the rebel, manifesting his enmity to God, has fallen.”116 To summarize, Paul’s juxtaposition of life in the flesh verse life in the Spirit has a decidedly relational framework: ἒχθρα εἰς θεὸν or εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Rom 5:1–11; 8:6–8). Backhaus’s notion of the reconciled one (“der Versöhnte”) being transferred to a new realm and thus gaining the access to a new relationship (“und Zugang gewonnen bat zum pneumatischen Freiheitsraum der Sohnschaf”)117 harmonizes with this motif of peace and enmity.

has the following components of meaning (to continue the quote of Louw-Nida): ‘(1) disruption of friendly relations because of (2) presumed or real provocation, (3) overt behavior designed to remove hostility, and (4) restoration of originally friendly relations).’” For a definition of the term via the NT period, see Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, ed., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, based on Semantic Domains (New York: UBS, 1988), 502. In the biblical literature, the term often involves the reestablishing of a human’s relationship with God (2 Macc 5:20; Rom 5:10–11; 2 Cor 5:18–20). Paul is the only NT writer to use the term, e.g., Rom 5:10–11 [3x]; Rom 11:15; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18–20 [5x]. 113 Longenecker, Romans, 555. 114 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 387. 115 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 387. 116 Käsemann, Romans, 219. 117 Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 15.

180

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

The Spirit’s Role in Actualizing the Relationship of Peace with God: Romans 8:9–11 Backhaus notes a distinction between the objective and subjective ground of transference from one realm of existence to the other.118 The subjective realm involves faith from the believer’s side and the Spirit from the divine side. By the Spirit the objective reality of justification is made real to the believer in an experiential way. Now we will explore how the “indwelling” motif of Rom 8:9–10 conveys the Spirit’s role in actualizing the believer’s new relationship of peace with God and Christ. The reciprocity of being “in Christ” and Christ/the Spirit being in the believer comes to the fore in vv. 8–9, emphasizing a relationship whereby the exalted Lord takes possession of believers’ lives.119 It also emphasizes the closeness that exists between the believer and Christ and God, a relational reality that is made experiential by the Spirit. Εἴπερ in 8:9 and εἰ in 8:10 indicate a “fulfilled condition,”120 and as such Paul expects his readers to answer in the affirmative: e.g., they are in the Spirit, not flesh. In v. 9 Paul is addressing “what believers are,”121 and thus he is making the point that having the Spirit is a necessary condition for being a Christian. In verses 10 and 11, Paul builds on this fact that the Spirit indwells the believers but does so by highlighting a specific implication of this: (a) the Spirit will give life to the mortal body, and (b) the presence of the Spirit is therefore assurance of future resurrection life, when the sufferings of the present age are no more. The phrases “the body is dead (σῶμα νεκρόν) through sin” (v.10) and “the mortal body (τὰ θνητά σώματα)” (v. 11) have in mind the physical death that awaits believers, due to the (a) ramifications of being sinners and (b) the interrelated nature of their current body as mortal. The contrast between the dead body and Spirit in v. 10 has led some to see a reference to the human spirit here;122 however, most scholars today reject this in favor of a reference to the Holy Spirit.123 As Schreiner points out, decisive is the use of ζωή as it relates to πνεῦμα in 8:10, for if it qualified human spirit it would mean “alive,” not Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 15. Käsemann, Romans, 223. 120 Schreiner, Romans, 407–8. This is in contrast to Dunn, Romans 1–8, 428, who takes these as conditional, asserting, “Of itself it does not imply that the condition has been met.” However, the strong contrast that opens v. 9, ὑμεῖς δέ οὐκ, indicates that Paul is now talking to a different audience than in vv. 7–8, and that these are set in contrast to those of the flesh. 121 Schreiner, Romans, 408. 122 Fitzmyer, Romans, 491; John R. W. Stott, Romans: God's Good News for the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 226. 123 Schreiner, Romans, 409; Cranfield, Romans, 390; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 431; Fee, Empowering Presence, 550–51; Moo, Letter to the Romans, 514; Harvey, Romans, 194. 118 119

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

181

“life.” But, in Paul, ζωή “never means ‘alive’ but always means ‘life.’”124 In summary, then, vv. 10–11 draw out an implication of v. 9, which is the indwelling Spirit not only marks the believer as belonging to Christ (v.9), but also assures them of the future resurrection, despite ongoing weakness of the mortal body. What is most intriguing about these three verses for the purpose of this study, however, is not primarily what they signal about future life, but what they say about Christian existence in the present and how the latter involves a reciprocal indwelling. Paul has a state of being in mind in these verses that is of an intimate nature, hence he refers to belonging to Christ (Rom 8:9) and mutual indwelling between Christ, the Spirit, the Spirit of God/Christ, and the believer (vv. 9– 11), using both the dative of location (ἐν ὑμῖν), the verbs οἰκέω (2x vv. 9–11), and the intensive ἐνοικέω (v. 11). Of the four uses of ἐν ὑμῖν, Longenecker writes, “Together, the ‘in Christ Jesus’ formula of 8:1–2 and the four ‘in you’ formulations of 8:9–11 constitute, in brief, the two reciprocal polarities of Paul’s [message]…. It is a message that focuses on the personal, relational, and participational features of the Christian gospel.”125 As Longenecker’s words suggest, in Rom 8:9–11 we arrive at an overtly relational aspect of the Spirit’s work. The Spirit is integrally related to bringing the believer and Christ into intimate relationship. The ease by which Paul shifts from πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ, to πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ … ἒχει, to Χριστός ἐν ὑμῖν in vv. 9–10 indicates just how close God, Christ, and the Spirit were in his thought. This is all the more interesting when we bear in mind the motif of being “in Christ” that opened Romans 8. In trying to grasp what Paul has in mind by employing these phrases in “seeming” synonymy, an initial distinction needs to be made. The apparent synonymy between the Spirit of Christ being in the believer (8:9) and Christ being in the believer (8:10) has led some to equate Christ with the Spirit without remainder: e.g., Christ is the Spirit, and is present to the believer as the Spirit.126 However, when the broader thought of Romans 8 is considered, this cannot be the case, for Paul makes a distinction in location between the exalted Christ (who intercedes from the right hand of God, 8:34) and the Spirit (who

Schreiner, Romans, 409. Longenecker, Romans, 700. Emphasis added. 126 E.g., Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (New York: Harper, 1957), 140, holds, “Christ is Spirit; therefore He can live in Paul and Paul in Him. Just as the air of life; which we breathe, is ‘in’ us and fills us, and yet we at the same time live in this air and breathe it, so it is also with the Christ-intimacy of the Apostle Paul: Christ in him, he in Christ.” 124 125

182

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

prays from within the believer) in Romans 8. As Orr points out, “the presence of the Spirit does not nullify the absence of Christ.”127 Keeping this distinction in mind between the Spirit and Christ, it is still the case that in Rom 8:9–11 Paul portrays a striking closeness and seeming interchangeability between Christ, the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God. Argued now will be that these verses present a striking intimacy between the believer and Christ and God that is indicative the Spirit’s relational work. Two factors draw this out. The Spirit Is Indicative of the Presence and Experience of the Divine The first point to make in noting the intimate and relational aspect of Rom 8:9– 11, is the connection between (a) the Spirit of God and (b) the presence and experience of God in Paul’s Jewish thought-world. As Fatehi points out in his study of the Spirit in Judaism, πνεῦμα θεοῦ/‫ אלהם רוח‬often “refers to God in his active role of relating to his creation and his people.”128 Fatehi goes on, “The Jewish experience of the Spirit is always and essentially an experience of God himself.”129 In other words, in Judaism, the Spirit of God was equated with God’s presence (e.g., Ps 139:7–8). Therefore, in using the phrase πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ as analogous to πνεῦμα θεοῦ, it appears that with the former Paul has in mind “the experience and presence of Christ.”130 As was the case in Judaism, so too in the context of the new covenant, God mediates his presence by his Spirit. However, for Paul, it is not only the presence of God mediated by the Spirit, but also Christ.131 Thus, in Rom 8:9–11, we find that the Spirit generates an experience of closeness and intimacy between the believer and the divine.132 127 Peter Orr, Christ Absent and Present: A Study in Pauline Christology, WUNT 2.354 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 210. 128 Mehrdad Fatehi The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, WUNT 2.128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 163. 129 Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul, 163. 130 Orr, Christ Absent and Present, 209. 131 Paul’s ability to switch between πνεῦμα θεοῦ and πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ in such proximity has implications for both his Christology as well as early Trinitarian thought, although both these topics are outside the scope of the present study. F. F. Bruce, “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts,” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966/67): 49–55, also points out this movement from the Spirit bringing God’s presence in Judaism, and the Spirit also conveying Christ’s presence in Christianity: “But in the New Testament this Old Testament teaching acquired a new dimension because the Hole Spirit now communicates the presence and power of the glorified Christ” (p. 52). 132 That “experience” is in mind in Paul’s language here is emphasized by James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 200, who writes, “Obviously central to Paul’s religious experience is his experience of Christ, expressed particularly by his ‘in Christ,’ ‘in the Lord’ language.”

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

183

The Spirit Creates a Bond of Belonging to Christ Especially in the Absence of the Exalted Christ While some interpreters of Rom 8:9–10 simply equate Christ and the Spirit without remainder, others do the same regarding the experience of the Spirit and experience of Christ. As Dunn explains, “For Paul no distinction can be detected in the believer’s experience between exalted Christ and Spirit of God…. The Spirit is the medium for Christ in his relation to men.”133 While to a degree this is the case – the Spirit is the medium for Christ in his relation to men – Dunn’s point goes too far. If Paul’s experience is indicative of most believers, then the Christian experiences the painful absence of the exalted Christ. This is what lies behind Paul’s statement in Phil 1:23, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” In other words, Paul is aware of an experience of Christ that is different and better than being indwelt by Christ’s Spirit in this present eschatological moment. In this sense, we want to emphasize that the Spirit’s work in the present involves drawing the believer close to Christ in light of the absence of Christ amid the overlapping aeons.134 As Orr words it, the Spirit “serves – in some sense – as a substitute for an absent Christ.”135 By distinguishing between the experience of the Spirit and experience of Christ, we preserve the uniqueness of the two, while at the same time acknowledging Paul’s language in Rom 8:9– 10 demonstrates they are extremely bound together. How exactly might we imagine the Spirit makes the believer feel close to Christ, even when Christ is absent? We suggest two ways: (1) by the assuring sense of belonging, and (2) by making palpable the character and ways of Christ. First, we note the sense of belonging. This becomes evident when a connection between Rom 8:9 and 7:1–4 is noted.136 In the latter verses, Paul uses an analogy from the Mosaic Law regarding marriage in order to illustrate how the Jew is freed from the Torah through Christ’s death. Paul explains that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (7:2), but if her husband dies she is released from that law of marriage, and therefore can marry another man (7:3). Applying the analogy to the believer (ὤστε, 7:4) who has died to 133 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 146–47. Emphasis added. 134 It would be worth exploring this idea in John’s pneumatology, especially in light of John 14:16, “I will not leave you as orphans…. I will send the comforter.” 135 Orr, Christ Absent and Present, 207. 136 Bertone, “The Law and the Spirit,” 176–77, demonstrates a strong parallel between Rom 8:2 and 7:1–6, tying things together especially through the parallels of being “in Christ” (8:2) and “belonging to another” (7:4). Here we simply point out that Rom 8:9–11 also deepens the motif the believer being “in Christ” by speaking of its reciprocal reality, Christ/the Spirit in the believer; hence, it also has ties to 7:1–6.

184

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

the law in baptism (Rom 6:1–11), Paul draws out the inference137 of the comparison: you have died to the law through the body of Christ, in order to belong to another (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, 7:4). While the precise way Paul uses the illustration in 7:1–3 may be debated, our only concern here is the parallel he is drawing between the relationship of wife and husband and the Christian belonging to Christ.138 Though no direct verbal link is present, Rom 8:9b has a similar idea of belonging to Christ: εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ἒχει, οὗτος oὐκ ἒστιν αὐτοῦ. The pronoun αὐτοῦ is genitive of relationship,139 and the verb in the first clause, ἒχει, is indicative of “possession,” and as Dunn points out, elsewhere in the NT, is possession of “a long established nature.”140 The picture is such that possessing the Spirit – i.e., being indwelt by the Spirit – is indicative of Christ possessing the believer. The presence of the Spirit, therefore, is an experience of belonging to Christ. Second, the Spirit brings a personal touch that mirrors the character and ways of Christ. In Romans 8 Paul refers to the Spirit often in “personal terms,”141 and many scholars understand Paul’s view of the Spirit in more personal versus material terms.142 In Romans 8 the Spirit indwells, gives life, fights sin, bears witness with a person’s spirit, groans, comforts, and intercedes (8:9, 11, 13, 16, 26–27), all actions suggesting not a material substance, but personal being. Because the Spirit is so closely associated with Christ and Paul can speak of the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, it is likely that Paul understood the various personal aspects of the Spirit as fostering a personal connection with Christ – the Spirit makes palpable the character (the caring touch) of Christ. To summarize our comments on Rom 8:9–11, by indwelling the believer, the Spirit is the means by which the exalted Christ and God (8:34) draw near to the believer. The Spirit generates and sustains an intimate relationship between the believer and Christ and God. This relationship is characterized by a sense of belonging143 and an experience of the personal touch of Christ, as Moo, Letter to the Romans, 439, “In this verse [7:4], the center of the paragraph, Paul states an inference drawn from vv. 1–3.” 138 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 439, highlights some of the complexity of how Paul uses this illustration. However, Moo finally concludes by pointing out “some of the striking parallels between vv. 2–3 and v. 4: the use of ‘join to’ to express the relationship, respectively, of wife and husband (vv. 2–3) and of the Christian and Christ (v.4), and the emphasis on the new union that follows ‘death.’” 139 See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 83–84. 140 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 429. 141 Orr, Christ Absent and Present, 202. 142 We follow the view of Fee, Empowering Presence, 5, who notes the emphasis of Paul’s own pneumatology: “the Holy Spirit as person, the person of God himself; the Holy Spirit as God’s personal presence; and the Holy Spirit as God’s empowering presence.” 143 Käsemann, Romans, 219, stresses the authority of lordship on this point, but not so much the intimacy of belonging, writing, “The reality of new life is characterized by the fact 137

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

185

the Spirit mirrors the character and ways of the exalted Lord, who on behalf of believers fights sin, gives life, intercedes, and comforts. How does such a relationship of belonging and personal touch affect personhood? We will deal with this more at the close of the chapter, but here we briefly recall the anthropological assumptions that surface through the works of Käsemann and Eastman. For the former, the “axiom of Pauline anthropology” holds that “a person cannot live on his own. He is what he is because of his Lord and the power of his Lord.”144 When one reads the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in Rom 8:9 alongside the indwelling of sin in Rom 7:17, 20 where the same verb is used (ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία, 7:17, 20), that the person’s agency is now couched within a new matrix. Recalling Eastman, for Paul “the structure of human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder.”145 With this as one’s starting point, then the implications of the indwelling motif in Rom 8:9–10 are quite profound, and certainly suggest that being “in” and “indwelt by” the Spirit is indicative of a new existence. 4.3.2. The Relation of Lingering Embodiment Before leaving Rom 8:9–11, a comment needs to be made regarding another relation implicated in the passage: Adamic embodiment. Twice in these verses Paul makes reference to the lingering mortality of the believer (8:10, 11). It is clear throughout chapters 5–8 that the mortal body presents a lingering solidarity with the Adamic-age of weakness and vulnerability to sin (6:12; 8:11–13, 23). Therefore, in 8:9–11 we also see what Eastman refers to as “double participation”;146 in the midst of new life (i.e., belonging to Christ/God), the believer is entangled within the decaying world of death. Timmins summarizes this tension, writing, Although Paul views his readers as no longer owned by sin but now belonging to God in Christ, they nevertheless maintain in their mortal bodies an association, a solidarity, with the old order of sin and death. The believer in Christ still lives in the mortal body, tied in the body to the Adamic order of sin and death. Of course, this means that the believer remains in a state of permanent incongruity until the resurrection of the body.147

Keeping this “incongruity” in mind, it would appear from Rom 8:9–11 that believers are brought into new life via their relationship with God/Christ – they that Christ takes possession of it in the power of the Spirit. The community and its members are the sphere of his life and work, his sphere of lordship.” 144 Käsemann, Romans, 219. 145 Eastman, “Participation in Paul,” n.p. 146 Eastman, “Participation in Paul,” n.p. 147 Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 78. We are also reminded, as Timmins himself points out, of Käsemann’s description in “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 21, of corporeality as a mode of “belongingness” or “participation” in the world.

186

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

belong to God (8:10) and have “life and peace” with him (8:6). This new identity and possession by God grounds their new being; however, and at the same time, their embodiment forces a lingering solidarity, which results in an ongoing tension with sin and death. What is not in tension, however, is their identity and destiny: they are God’s in Christ, destined for resurrection and eternal life; and it is the Spirit who is actualizing the fruits of this eternal life, even in the eschatological “now.” Having considered the Spirit-shaped relationship of belonging to God/Christ, we now will examine a second aspect of Spirit-relationality in Romans 8: Spirit-shaped sonship. This draws our attention to 8:14–17. 4.3.3 The Spirit and Relation of Sonship: Romans 8:14–17 In verses 12–13, Paul states an inference148 from his argument in 5–11: because believers are of/in (ὄντες/ἐν) the Spirit and not flesh, “so then” (Ἂρα οὖν, v. 12), they are to live according to the Spirit and must149 by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body (12–13).150 Romans 8:14–17 further explains and clarifies 8:13.151 These four verses also function as a transition in the text, as verse 17b prepares for the cosmic and triumphant themes of verses 18–39.152 As will be explained, the Spirit functions in these verses “to create an entirely new relationship between God the Father and those whom the spirit indwells.”153 Verses 14–17, therefore, clarify a relationship that has been in mind throughout Romans 5–8: e.g., the believer is no longer God’s enemy, but having been reconciled, enjoys peace with God (5:1–11); the one in Christ is no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to God, obedient from the heart (6:12–23); those who have died to the law now belong to Christ, and therefore bear fruit for God (7:5); and now, in Rom 8:14– Harvey, Romans, 196; Schreiner, Romans, 412. In v. 13, Paul switches from the indicative (v.12) to the imperative, much like he did in 6:1–10 and 6:11–14. As was the case there, also here: this is behavior grounded on being. J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:294, succinctly summarizes, “The believer’s once-for-all death to the law and to sin does not free him from the necessity of mortifying sin in his members; it makes it necessary and possible for him to do so.” 150 The rationale for not living according to the flesh reiterates the basic themes of 8:5– 8, “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (v. 13). 151 The γάρ in Rom 8:14 is signals that what follows clarifies and explains v. 13. See Moo, Letter to the Romans, 520; Schreiner, Romans, 415. 152 Fee, Empowering Presence, 561, succinctly explains the transition, highlighting the focus on being and relationship of vv. 14–17: “If the emphasis up to v. 14a, either expressed or implied, is on the Spirit as the one who ‘fulfills’ what Torah could not, namely, the ‘doing’ of true righteousness over again ‘the flesh,’ then the emphasis in the rest of this section (vv. 14b–17) is on being and relationship.” 153 Yates, Spirit and Creation in Paul, 152. 148 149

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

187

17, Paul takes his readers into the burning core from which obedience and life burst forth: believers are God’s very own children (8:16). The main theme of vv. 14–17 is clearly this new relationship brought about by the Spirit: “sons of God” (v. 14), “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (v. 15), “by whom we cry ‘Abba, Father’” (v. 15), “we are children of God” (v. 16), and “if children then heirs” (v.17). Schreiner also notes that “the theme of being sons … and children … of God is prominent through verse 21,” and comes up again in verse 29.154 Our key questions in studying this unit (vv. 14–17) concern (1) the role of the Spirit in this new relationship. Does the Spirit create sonship, bear witness to sonship, or merely coincide in eschatological-timing with sonship? This will be our first question. (2) The second area addressed has to do with background and nature of sonship for Paul, then finally (3) we will ask what implications sonship has upon personhood, or the nature of Christian existence. The Spirit’s Role in Adoption and Sonship A question on which commentators disagree in verses 14–17 has to do with the role the Spirit plays in sonship. Does the Spirit create and effect sonship, or sustain a sonship already effected in Christ, or witness to sonship, or simply coincide to sonship as another fruit of the new covenant but in no way related causally? Paul introduces the notion of sonship in verse 14, writing, “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (14). Then in verse 15 he sets out the rationale (γάρ)155 for them having confidence in their new status, which has to do with the presence and work of the Spirit in their lives. The first step in understanding the role that the Spirit plays in adoption/sonship is to consider the flow of verse 15 and the pronoun ᾧ. The flow of verse 15 can be depicted thus: οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν·αββα ὁ πατήρ. As Moo notes, the “heart of v. 15 is an antithesis between two ‘spirits’: the ‘spirit of slavery,’ which believers have not received, and the ‘spirit of adoption,’ which we have.”156 This is not a juxtaposition between two “human spirits,” in the sense of inner attitudes. Rather, Paul is speaking rhetorically in the former sense: “the Spirit you received was not one of slavery,”157 in order Schreiner, Romans, 417. Harvey, Romans, 197. 156 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 522. 157 See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 452; Moo, Letter to the Romans, 522–23. 154 155

188

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

to emphasize the Spirit they did receive158 – “the Spirit of adoption.” “Again (πάλιν) to fear” calls to mind their pre-conversion state and the fear of God’s judgment and enslavement to sin and death.159 Fee argues the genitive υἱοθεσίας is functioning as a predicate, “indicating the effect of the Spirit’s presence.”160 Dunn states, “the genitive may be ambiguous,” indicating either that the Spirit “effects sonship” or “expresses it”;161 Moo suggests that the Spirit “confirms sonship.”162 Though with some nuance, Fee, Dunn, and Moo each suggest that the Spirit plays some type of role in effecting sonship, whether in (a) generating it; (b) expressing/confirming its already-there-presence; or (c) both. Others, however, view υἱοθεσίας as a “genitive of quality,” where “there is a connection between adoption and the Spirit in the sense of ‘a Spirit that goes with adoption.’”163 In this latter view, the Spirit and adoption are closely related in Paul’s thought because they are both integral aspects of the new covenant era; however, the Spirit plays no role in adoption. Some of the difficulty in pinning down the Spirit’s role in adoption/sonship in Rom 8:15 comes from the similar text, Gal 4:4–7, where adoption is predicated upon the work of Christ, and the Spirit is sent “because (ὄτι) you are sons”: But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons (υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάωμεν). And because you are sons (Ὃτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί), God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

What needs to be kept in mind here is the perspective of salvation-history alongside the perspective of an individual’s conversion. In the former case, adoption as sons is grounded in the work of redemption, wrought by Christ on the cross, which logically precedes and grounds the individual’s salvation. “Received” (ἐλάβετε) here refers to the reception of the Spirit at their conversion, which “constituted the beginning of their Christian life.” See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 451. 159 John A. Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit”: Experience of the Spirit and Displacement of the Law in Romans 8:1–16, SBL 86 (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 197, suggests that πνεῦμα is functioning in verse 15 in that it “describes two separate and mutually exclusive phases in salvation-history.” The fact that this has been a driving theme of Romans 5–8 (e.g., Adam-Christ, Flesh-Spirit) means it is likely that Paul has these larger paradigms in mind. 160 Fee, Empowering Presence, 566. 161 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 452. 162 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 524. 163 Brendan Byrne, “Sons of God” – “Seed of Abraham”: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background, AB 83 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 100. See also Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit, A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989), 52 158

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

189

However, from the perspective of the individual’s conversion, the Spirit and the appropriation of Christ’s work are simultaneous. Even here in Galatians, Paul has already asserted that the Galatians received the Spirit when they believed (3:2) and therefore “began by/in the Spirit (ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι)” (3:3). Bearing in mind also the seeming reciprocity between being “in Christ” and being “indwelt by the Sprit,” as well as the interchangeability Paul demonstrates between the phrases “Spirit of Christ in you” and “Christ in you” (Rom 8:9–10), it seems one should be cautious in separating too concretely the work of Christ from the work of the Spirit, especially as they pertain to the appropriation/realization in the life of the convert.164 That said, the stance taken here is that the relation between the Spirit and adoption as sons is more than an eschatological coincidence. Rather, the Spirit plays an active role in the believer’s adoption and sonship. Based on a close reading of Romans 8, this is the case for at least three reasons. First, it seems more likely that the genitive υἱοθεσίας functions either as a predicate or with the verbal sense of means or agency, rather than as a genitive of quality. And this is the case precisely because of the relative clause that immediately follows. Second, in the clause ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ, the ἐν ᾧ should be taken as referring to the antecedent, πνεῦμα, over against taking it as “an unarticulated ‘in that.’”165 The preposition ἐν is instrumental, and the dative, ᾧ, a dative of means.166 The sense is, “by means of the Spirit, we cry.” This reading of the relative clause makes it more likely that the genitive υἱοθεσίας is not of quality, but rather is functioning with the adverbial sense of agency or means. The third reason for understating Spirit as taking an active role in adoption and sonship lies in the larger context of Romans 8. In this chapter Paul consistently presents the Spirit as active: “the law of the Spirit of life has set you free” (8:2); “the Spirit of God dwells in you” (8:9); the Spirit “will give life to your mortal bodies” (8:11); “by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body” (8:13). And, following 8:15, the σύν-compounds συμμαρτυρεῖ (8:16) and συναντιλαμβάνεται (8:26) and the declaration that the Spirit intercedes for the believer (τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει) (8:26) all further attest the active role of the Spirit.167 Fee, Empowering Presence, 566, captures the interrelated work of Christ and the Spirit, writing, “Such adoption was secured for us by Christ, as Galatians makes clear; here [Rom 8:15] it has been made effective in the life of the believer through the work of the Spirit.” 165 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 452. See also Cranfield, Romans, 398. 166 Schreiner, Romans, 419; Fee, Empowering Presence, 567; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 131. 167 This is in agreement with Fee, Empowering Presence, 566, who concludes, “The Spirit, who does not lead to slavery, on the one hand, is in fact the agent of ‘adoption as Sons,’ on the other.” 164

190

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

If the Spirit is active in the believer’s adoption and sonship, what more can be said about this role? Moo understands the Spirit as “not only instrumental in making us God’s children,” but also instrumental in making us “aware that we are God’s children.”168 The change in verb tense in verses 15–16, from the aorist (ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα) to the present tense (ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν; συμμαρτυρεῖ), indicates that not only is the Spirit present and active at conversion/moment of adoption, but also, the Spirit plays an ongoing role in the present – appropriating adoption and sonship as an experience in the heart of the believer: e.g., “this same Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (8:16).169 Thus the Spirit is active to effect adoption and sonship (which was purchased by Christ), works to appropriate the experience of adoption and sonship, and sustains this reality in the heart of the believer.170 This latter point is indicated by the ongoing work of the Spirit indicated in Romans 8, where the Spirit “bears witness” to sonship and “helps with prayer in light of ignorance/weakness” so that the believer remains close to God (8:16) and lives closer to the will of God (8:26–27). In short, the work of the Spirit in Rom 8:14–17 is deeply relational, focusing on the new identity, being and relationship enjoyed by those who are “in Christ.”171 The Nature of Adoption and Sonship: Salvation-Historical Fact, Corporate Reality, or Individual Experience? Essential to the argument developing in this chapter is that the relationships fostered by the Spirit are between an individual believer and God/Christ, and also that they are experiential. However, some scholars argue that Romans is not so much interested in individual experience, but with the community.172 Thompson, for example, argues that in light of the broader context of chapters 1–4 and 9–11, chapters 5–8 should be read in corporate, cosmic, and eschatological terms. This has implications for how she understands the “cry Moo, Romans 1–8, 539. Emphasis original. Fee, Empowering Presence, 568, states, “Paul is rather speaking to the situation of the life of the believers, not to the moment of conversion. This is the ‘witness’ of those whose spirits have already been renewed by the Spirit of God.” 170 This is in agreement also with Rabens, Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 216, who in commenting on Rom 8:15–16, writes, “The ‘Spirit of adoption’ thus brings about adoption as sons (‘you received the Spirit of adoption,’ referring back to conversion-initiation) as well as affirms it (in the continuous ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ).” Emphasis added. 171 Fee, Empowering Presence, 561, summarizes, “If the emphasis up to [Rom] v. 14a, either expressed or implied, is on the Spirit as the one who ‘fulfills’ what Torah could not, namely, the ‘doing’ of true righteousness over against ‘the flesh,’ then the emphasis in the rest of this section (vv. 14–17) is on being and relationship.” 172 This was the case in chapter 2 when we reviewed Eastman’s article on Romans 8, “Oneself in Another.” See that chapter for discussion. 168 169

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

191

of sonship.” She warns, “If the affirmations about calling on God as Father refer entirely to individual experience, then the eschatological aspect of Paul’s theology is diluted. No longer is Paul’s argument a statement of the eschatological work of God in Christ. It is rather a declaration of the affective results of that work of God in Christ.”173 Thompson is correct to emphasize reading chapters 5–8 in the epistolary context of the entire letter.174 She is also correct to identify a more corporate motif in chapters 9–11. However, in keeping with the larger motif of Romans, the ethics of individuals come to the fore in chapters 12–15 (e.g., “present your bodies”; 12:1), especially in regard to the health of the local community. Also, and more to the point, especially in chapters 7–8 Paul seems to have in mind an individual’s experience of life/salvation: e.g., the “I”175 in 7:7–25, the σε in 8:2, as well as the singular σῶμα in 8:10 (esp. in light of the plural in 8:11, τὰ θνητὰ σώματα), suggest an individual aspect to chapters 7–8, which other scholars note.176 Our ensuing argument in favor of seeing the individual in Romans 8 is not meant to create a false antithesis: either Paul is speaking of the individual or the community. We will demonstrate below that the work of the Spirit in 8:1– 17, 26–27 evidences personal experience. However, Romans 8 finally builds (8:18–39) to cosmic and eschatological perspective, where the whole creation (8:19–22) awaits the revealing of the children of God (8:22–23). Paul’s ability to move seamlessly from one initiate crying, “Abba! Father!” (8:15) to all 173 M. M. Thompson, The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 126. I am indebted to Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 204–9, for alerting me to Thompson’s work and counter arguments to her conclusions. 174 As noted above, the hinge verse 5:1 implies that chapters 5–8 are grounded on the paradigm of justification by faith (chaps. 1–4). Other themes also link 5–8 with 1–4, such as the universal calamity of humankind “under sin” (3:9; 5:12–21), the depth of human depravity (1:18–32; 5:12–21), and, though more subtle, for Paul the mention of Abraham (4:1–25) has links with the motif of sonship (8:14–17, 29; see Gal 3:5–4:7). 175 Even if Paul uses the “I” in a generic sense, the rhetorical force still requires an individual listener to connect existentially with the voice and experience of the “I,” otherwise the rhetorical device does not work. 176 For the place of the individual in Romans 5–8, see Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 202; Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 205–11; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, vii–xi, who sees Rom 6:1–8:39 as the “Outworking of the Gospel in Relation to the Individual.” Dunn, Theology of Paul, 403–4, is also aware, however, that the individual and corporate should not be pitted against each other: “With Christ’s death a whole epoch has passed and a new age begun. Moreover, this new age is characterized by the steady reclaiming of individuals for an ever-closer conformity to the risen Christ. In some sense the event of Christ’s passion and resurrection has to be reenacted in believers until the renewal of the new age in complete. Not only so, but the process cannot, almost by definition, be something merely individual or individualistic. Rather, by its very nature it is a shared experience which involves creation as well. The ‘with Christ’ cannot be fully enacted except as a ‘with others’ and ‘with creation.’”

192

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

creation groaning (8:22), suggests he did not separate individual and communal focuses the way modern readers may. We will now make three observations regarding verses 15–17 that demonstrate a personal and experiential aspect of the Spirit-shaped relationship of adoption. First, the notion of adoption (υἱοθεσία) in itself conveys more than a legal fact, but personal and intimate relationship. Verses 15–17 are the larger context for understanding υἱοθεσία in 8:15. In verses 15–17 Paul continues the thought of verses 12–14 by setting forth the rationale (γάρ, v. 15)177 for believers’ status as sons. This relationship between 15–17 and verse 14 underscores that fact that in verses 14–17 Paul uses the terms υἱοὶ θεοῦ, υἱοθεσία, and τέκνα θεοῦ as near synonyms.178 The term υἱοθεσία does not appear in the LXX or literature of the Second Temple period but was widely known in the Paul’s Greco-Roman context.179 In the latter the term carried an array of meaning, which Longenecker summarizes: (a) the adopted son being taken out of his previous situation and “placed in an entirely new relationship to his adopting father, which became his new paterfamilias”; (b) all debts were canceled; (c) adopted children were “considered no less important than biological children;” and (d) “an adopted son experienced a changed status, with his old name set aside and a new name given him by his adopting father.”180 Paul would have been familiar with the Hellenistic meaning of this term. However, Scott makes a strong case for a Jewish background to Paul’s usage here,181 but as Schreiner notes, “There is likely some truth in both views.”182 The point we will now stress is that the idea of adoption, from both a Jewish and Greco-Roman vantage point, included the notion of an intimate relationship. For example, Philo, De Sobrietate 55–56, using the term εἰσποιέω, writes, For wisdom is rather God’s friend than His servant. And therefore He says plainly of Abraham, “shall I hide anything from Abraham My friend?” (Gen. xviii. 17). But he who 177 Harvey, Romans, 197; Schreiner, Romans, 417, explains in more detail, “Verses 15– 16 together justify the contention of verse 14 that believers are children of God…. Verse 17 builds on this thought, inferring that if they are sons of God, then they are also heirs.” 178 Whereas it could appear that υἱοθεσία conveyed conversion-initiation (“received the Spirit of adoption,” v.15), Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 217–18, makes a convincing case for concluding, “υἱοθεσία, which is best translated as ‘adoption as sons,’ is fully equivalent to ‘sonship’ in Paul.” Rabens points out the relationship between “receiving adoption” in Gal 4:5b and the immediate expression, ἐστε υἱου, in v. 6a (Spirit and Ethics, 218). Käsemann, Romans, 229, also affirms, “υἱοί and τέκνα θεοῦ are obviously interchangeable.” 179 Longenecker, Romans, 703; Schreiner, Romans, 418. 180 Longenecker, Romans, 703–4. 181 J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of Υἱοθεσία in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2.48 (Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 1992), 3–114. 182 Schreiner, Romans, 418.

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

193

has this portion has passed beyond the bounds of human happiness. He alone is nobly born, for he has registered God as his father and become by adoption His only son (γεγονὼς εἰσποιητὸς αὐτῷ μόνος υἱός), the possessor not of riches, but of all riches….183

Underscoring that intimacy and love were involved in the Greco-Roman idea of sonship/adoption Plutarch, who “says of the parent-child relationship that ‘the end aim of bearing and rearing a child is not utility, but affection.’”184 Also in the Hebrew Scriptures there are examples of a filial affection Yahweh expressed toward Israel when speaking of them/him as His son(s): e.g., Ex 4:22; Isa 43:1, 4, 6; Jer 31:9; and Hos 11:1. It is also the case, as this study has noted, that in strands of Jewish tradition the covenantal work of the Spirit includes the restoring of filial relationship between God and his people: e.g., Isa 44:3–5; Jub 1:20–25. Therefore, whether through echoes from a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, Paul’s hearers would have understood the concept of adoption and sonship to include an intimate, familial relationship. There are two other aspects of Rom 8:15–17 to highlight in terms of the intimate and personal relationship this text conveys: the cry (κράζομεν) of v. 15 and the cry’s content (αββα ὁ πατήρ). The Meaning of Κράζομεν The verb κράζω, “to make a vehement outcry, to communicate something in a loud voice,”185 is only used three times by Paul: Rom 8:15; 9:27; and Gal 4:6. Thompson argues that because κράζω is used in a prophetic context in Rom 9:27 where Paul refers to the oracle of Isaiah, and is only used elsewhere in the parallel Rom 8:15/Gal 4:6, it should not be taken as indicative of an experiential expression of intimate relationship.186 Thompson surmises that Paul uses the term in Rom 8:15 “because the Spirit is the ultimate source of these words, rather than because they signify the interior or emotional state of 183 Cited in Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 223. Rabens says elsewhere, “Moreover, the Jewish Scriptures and literature evidence a rich tradition that employs and develops the motif of divine sonship, and, as most scholars recognize, Paul is firmly rooted in this tradition” (p. 219). Rabens makes reference to the work of O. L. Yarbrough, “Parents and Children in the Letters of Paul,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 140. See also, Philo, Moses 1:33, “Accordingly, like an uncorrupt judge both of his real parents and of those who had adopted him (τῶν γεννησάντων καὶ τῶν εἰσποιησαμένων τοὺς), he cherished towards the one a good will and an ardent affection, and he displayed gratitude towards the others in requital of the kindness which he had received at their hands, and he would have displayed the same throughout his whole life if he had not beheld a great and novel iniquity wrought in the country by the king.” 184 Plutarch, Am. Prol. 496C; cited in Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 220. 185 “κράζω,” BDAG, 563. 186 Thompson, Promise, 128. Thompson’s view here is highlighted in Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 226.

194

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

those who are speaking of a particular setting of prayer or worship.”187 However, it would seem strange for Paul to use such a strong verb without expecting to convey experience, but only the source of the content. Further, Paul has already indicated that the Spirit is the source of the awareness of sonship, ἐν ᾧ, and therefore using the verb to make the same point would seem redundant. Rather, it is more likely that Paul is using the verb with its common meaning, “to make a loud cry,”188 which connotes not only a verbal, but also an experiential reality.189 This is further attested by what follows in 8:16, where “the same Spirit bears witness (συμμαρτυρεῖ) with our spirit (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν)190 that we are children of God.” It is possible Paul has in mind the two witnesses tradition (i.e., Deut 19:15–16), therefore further supporting the fact of sonship.191 The second use of πνεῦμα refers to the individual’s (human-) spirit, and therefore underscores that this awareness and experience of sonship occurs at the very depths of the believer’s being.192 It is noteworthy that in the parallel passage of Gal 4:6, the Spirit enters the believer’s heart and from that location, cries: ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοὺ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον·αββα ὁ πατήρ. It seems likely, therefore, that we can understand τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν in 8:15 as indicative of the believer’s heart, and therefore the depth of his or her being (see also Rom 8:26–27). Another interesting aspect in the connection between Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15 is that the verb κράζω is plural in Rom 8:15 (κράζομεν), with the believers as the subject, but singular (κρᾶζον) in Gal 4:6, with the Spirit as subject. Besides indicating the incredible closeness between the Spirit and believer (e.g., Rom 8:26–27), this also emphasizes the experiential element in Rom 8:15, for it is the believer who is crying, albeit in harmony with the Spirit.

Thompson, Promise, 128; cited in Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 226. “κράζω,” BDAG, 563. 189 For support of reading experience as part of this verb’s meaning in Rom 8:15, see Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 226; Schreiner, Romans, 419–20; Moo, Letter to the Romans, 526; Fee, Empowering Presence, 564; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 88. 190 The dative τῷ πνεύματι is a dative of association, i.e., the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. For agreement on this use of the dative, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 454. 191 Fee, Empowering Presence, 567; Jewett, Romans, 500, writes that the verb συμμαρτυρεῖ “is typically used to depict co-witnessing of some sort.” 192 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 526, writes, “Paul refers to the human spirit here because he wants to stress that the witness of ‘the Spirit himself’ about our adoption as sons affects the deepest and innermost part of our beings.” This is contra Käsemann’s view, who in Romans, 228, writes, “Paul has in view the situation of worship, not a process in the soul.” But this would require some idea of “corporate spirit” within the entire community that is other than the divine Spirit; this concept is nowhere suggested in Paul. 187 188

4.3. The Relational Word of the Spirit in Romans 8

195

The Meaning of αββα ὁ πατήρ The content of the believer’s cry is αββα ὁ πατήρ. It is generally accepted that the word αββα in the context of early Christian prayer reflected the language of Jesus’s own prayer life (e.g., [Ἰησοῦς] ἒλεγεν·αββα ὁ πατήρ, Mark 14:36; see Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). This point was well established by Jeremias in his landmark study of the term.193 In reflecting Jesus’s own way of prayer, the use of the term in early Christian prayers also signals a filial closeness believers experienced with God that was modeled after Jesus’s own relationship of sonship.194 The fact that in both Mark 14:36 and the two Pauline texts, Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6, the Aramaic term “Abba” is followed immediately by the Greek “Father,” indicates that this was a common way early Christians “communicated” with God. Furthermore, it indicates, as Longenecker writes, “an affectionate consciousness of intimate relationship with God was widespread among the early believers in Jesus, whether Aramaic- or Greekspeaking.”195 Longenecker also draws attention to the fact that ὁ πατήρ (“the father”) is articular, suggesting that the expression be understood “as a vocative of address that carries an emphatic nuance.”196 Meeks adds that this was likely a prayer that occurred during the rite of baptism: “The ecstatic response of the 193 See Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1967), 77–96. Longenecker, Romans, 702–3, provides the following helpful summary of Jeremias’s argument: “For Jeremias observed (1) that while the word ‘father’ (‫ אב‬in both Hebrew and Aramaic) was used widely among Jews for ancestors and other respected persons, the emphatic vocative form of ‘father’ ( ‫ אבא‬in Aramaic) was used by Jewish children in an affectionate manner for their own human fathers, (2) that Jesus used this form of address in his Gethsemane prayer to God his Father in Mark 14:36, and (3) that this use of ‘Abba’ by Jesus provides the key to the new relationship that exists between God and his people throughout the NT presentations of the Christian gospel. For a more recent treatment of the relation between Jesus’s use of this phrase and Paul, see John Coulson, “Jesus and the Spirit in Paul’s Theology: The Earthly Jesus,” CBQ 79.1 (2017): 77–96. Coulson argues that Paul links Jesus’s anointing with the Spirit with Jesus’s identity as God’s son, and Paul’s understanding of the Spirit’s role in the life of the believer is formed by this. 194 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 453, explains, “Although some of [Jeremias’] claims have to be qualified … it is still justified to assert that Jesus’ use of “Abba” most probably implies a sense of intimate sonship on the part of Jesus, expressed as it was in the colloquial language of close family relationship.” Two other recent scholars affirming the general findings of Jeremias’s study are Ben Witherington III and L. M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 22, who write, the term Abba “is clearly enough an intimate way of addressing God using family language, whether by a child or an adult, and as such is less formal than addressing God simply as God or Lord. Jeremias’s main point is that Jesus’ choice of this term [cf. Mk. 14:36] reveals Jesus’ awareness of his special relationship with God, and it is fair to say that this point withstands the recent critiques of his argument.” 195 Longenecker, Romans, 703. 196 Longenecker, Romans, 703; so also Käsemann, Romans, 228, who adds, “There is an acclamation in αββα ὁ πατήρ as there is in the cries of κύριος Ἰησοῦς and μαραναθά.”

196

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

baptized person … at the same time a sign of the gift of the Spirit and of the ‘sonship’ (hyiothesia) that the Spirit conveys by incorporating the person into the one Son of God.”197 To summarize our observations of 8:14–17: (1) the Spirit is involved in sonship, effecting (ἐν ᾧ) sonship, conveying sonship in the inner depths of the person (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶνà τὰς καρδίας, Gal 4:6), and sustaining (συμμαρτυρεῖ)198 the witness to the reality of sonship. (2) The idea of sonship and adoption would evoke a sense of intimate connection between child and parent. Though Paul is drawing from a rich Jewish tradition in equating this notion of sonship and the Spirit, it has been shown that the idea of intimacy was there across a broad Hellenistic context. (3) The experiential nature of sonship is solidified by the verb κράζομεν and acclamation αββα ὁ πατήρ, which undoubtedly indicate an experiential reality that was an expression of the aforementioned filial relationship. 4.3.4. Horizontal Implications of Vertical Sonship Before asking how these Spirit-shaped relationships affect personhood, it should be briefly noted that verse 17 points in the direction of our next chapter. There we turn from the vertical Spirit-shaped relationships between the believer and God and Christ to the horizontal Spirit-shaped relationships between believers. Verse 17 demonstrates how intertwined these two forms of Spirit-shaped relationship are. Building on the fact of intimate sonship (vv. 15– 16), verse 17 draws the further conclusions: “if children, then heirs.”199 Hence the reality of siblinghood follows naturally from sonship (e.g., also Rom 8:29).200 Paul does not focus on how these relationships between believers unfold here, but will turn to them with focus on Romans 12. However, nowhere is the Spirit’s ongoing role in shaping relationships between the children of God more to the fore than 1 Corinthians 12, which is the text that occupies our attention in the next chapter.

Meeks, Urban, 88. Harvey, Romans, 198, states, “Συμμαρτυρεῖ … is a progressive present.” 199 See Schreiner, Romans, 420, who also sees v. 17 as “drawing a conclusion” from the grounds of sonship. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 455–56, speaks of this phrase as a “linchpin which holds together all the different strands of Paul’s thought which overlap here. 200 Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, the People of God (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 69, aptly ties these two relational realities together: “The ongoing recognition of our ‘sonship’ is the result of ‘the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirits that we are the children of God’ [i.e., Rom 8:15–16]. To which Paul adds, ‘and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and fellow heirs with Christ.’ The repeated use of adelphoi, in Paul and the rest of the NT to refer to ‘the saints’ is also best explained on the basis of this Spirit-inspired cry to God in the language of Jesus.” Emphasis added. 197 198

4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships

197

4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships 4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships

This study turned to Romans 8 to address whether persons are defined by relationships, and how the Spirit may play a role in such. It was noted, however, that defining the nature of Christian personhood in Romans 8 is difficult. This is no doubt due in part to the paradox of life and peace (ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη, 8:6) on the one hand, and an ongoing “confrontation with σάρξ”201 and mortal embodiment (θνητὰ σώματα, 6:12; 8:11, 23) on the other. We noted that for Dunn, for example, Paul’s references to those “in the Spirit” in Romans 8 refers not to renewed anthropology, but redirected orientation. Fee, however, is adamant that Paul has in view two radically opposed states of existence. The ongoing struggle, Fee surmises, is rooted in eschatological tension, not the believer’s heart.202 Noting this apparent impasse, this study proposed relational anthropology (ontology) as a way to better explain the nature of Christian existence in Romans 8. To do so we have highlighted three types of relationality: (1) the relationship of belonging to Christ and God (8:9–10); (2) the relation of ongoing Adamic-embodiedness (8:10–11, 23); and (3) the relationships of sonship with God the Father. The Spirit is involved in all three. In relationships (1) and (3), the Spirit generates and sustains an intimate connection between the divinity and individual believer. In relation (2), though less analyzed, the Spirit’s presence within the dying (mortal) body reassures that in the end, all will be well. However, do these Spirit-shaped relationships indicate a change in the person, and at such a level that one could say the Christian was a truly new person? We will argue yes and do so by considering the three aforementioned aspects of personhood: identity, agency and heart. 4.4.1. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Identity With the motif of adoption, Paul evokes the powerful image of a person moving from being outside a family to within it. This has legal implications – one becomes an “heir” (8:17) – but also existential implications – one cries, “‘Abba, Father!’” (8:15). This intimate image offsets Paul’s earlier depiction of persons as “slaves of sin (δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας)” (6:17).203 According to 201 Schnelle, Paul, 496, holds that “Rom 8:10–11, 13 can no longer speak of being determined by σάρξ but only confronted by σάρξ.” We hold that Schnelle gets the nuance of new life correct in this statement. 202 Fee, Empowering Presence, 821. 203 Paul also speaks of believers and himself as being slaves of God (6:22) and slaves of righteousness (6:17). What he has in mind here, however, is not the same bondage and futility of slavery to sin, but rather, the notion that freedom is only found by submitting to the right Lord. Nygren, Romans, 254, also offers a helpful explanation for this “enslavement” theme: “The only question is which power he serves, the power of sin or the power of

198

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

Paul’s broader view of humankind, in light of Adam (5:11–21) “humanity exists in a state of enslavement.”204 Therefore, the sonship-relationship fostered and sustained by the Spirit effects a new identity: the slave is now a son.205 There is no middle ground in Paul’s anthropology: one is either in bondage to sin, constituted by a foreign agent who diminishes agency (7:18, 20) and negates identity (7:24),206 or, one is a child of God the Father, constituted by a new relationship and new empowerment. Taking in the larger scope of 6:1–8:17, Siikavirta aptly captures what is unfolding in the individual believer: This death [i.e., 6:2–6] … is for Paul the baptismal burial and death with Christ. This new life is, on the one hand, already given in the rising from the baptismal waters, but on the other hand, it remains a future hope yet to be realized in full in the resurrection and redeemed body (8:23f)…. This death and life pattern shatters the Christian’s former self-identification of slave to sin (6:16) and gives him the new identity of servant of God (6:22) – or even son of God (8:14).207

Can more be said, however, about how this identity is constituted in the believer through the relationship with God? Jürgen Straub indicates, “Identity is gained in transitions, that is to say, in the mental processing of transitions and transformations, not in fixed unchanging situations.”208 This “mental processing” aspect of identity suggests that the actualization of a new identity has elements of (a) cognition and (b) ongoing process. Both such elements may be identified in Rom 8:14–17. Especially in light of the parallel passage of Gal 4:6, Rom 8:15–16 suggests a cognitive aspect to the new relationship. For example, while in Gal 4:6 it is the Spirit who speaks (the Spirit of his Son … crying [κρᾶζον, sg.]), in Rom 8:15 Paul stresses the agency and awareness of the believer, “by whom we cry (κράζομεν, pl.).” Though he or she is crying by the Spirit (ἐν ᾧ), the plural righteousness. Freedom from the one means service of the other, and service of the one precludes service of the other.” 204 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 146; See also V. Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing the Self, WUNT 324 (Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck), 79, who writes, “Both [Romans] chapter 6 and 7 indicate that slavery is more than a mere obedience; it is a matter of identity. The master decides the identity of the slave…. If human beings are possessed by a master who decides their identity, only death can free them form this mater…. A new self-understanding can be given to them only through a new life, lived under a new master.” 205 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 229, writes, “Upon the reception of πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας one’s identity changes from that of a slave to that of a son.” Emphasis original. 206 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 148, writes that humanity within the realm of “Adam … experiences the negation of humanity.” 207 Samuli Siikavirta, Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6-8: Paul's Ethics Beyond “Indicative” and “Imperative,” WUNT 2.407 (Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2015), 147. 208 J. Straub, “Personale und kollektive Identität: Zur Analyse eines theoretischen Begriffs,” in Identitäten, ed. A. Assmann and H. Friese (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1998), 92; cited in Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 229.

4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships

199

tense of the verb requires the participation of the individual. This implies a level of cognitive awareness of the new relationship. When in verse 16 the Spirit bears witness with the human spirit, this co-witness is indicative of both an ongoing reality and an inner awareness (in our spirit). Thus, the new identity of sonship is realized not merely legally or abstractly, but by a new selfunderstanding (mental) and continual witness (ongoing) within the individual believer.209 However, the appropriation of new identity does not have just a cognitive side. As was stressed above, the Spirit-shaped relationship of sonship is experiential and intimate. In the likely case that τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν (“with our spirit”) in 8:16 is synonymous with εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν (“into our hearts”) in Gal 4:6, then the relationship of sonship is experienced in the believer’s heart.210 That the work of the Spirit would involve communicating God’s (filial) love in the believer’s heart is not an idea foreign to Romans 5–8. In 5:5, Paul grounds Christian hope and perseverance in this very fact: “because God’s love (ἡ ἀγάπη) has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου) who has been given to us.” Likewise, in Rom 8:26–27, as the Spirit aids the Christian in prayer, God searches the believer’s heart while the Spirit indwells and prays from that same location. Therefore, as Rabens argues, the believer’s new identity is not “merely a cognitive phenomenon.” It is also an existential phenomenon, involving a change within “the heart.”211 This takes us to our second observation about a reconstituted personhood. 4.4.2. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Heart Earlier we referred to Jewett’s reading of καρδία in Paul. He explained, the heart “depicts man as a whole viewed from his intentionality … [his] will, emotion, thoughts and affections.”212 Thus, our model of the person includes 209 Eastman, “Oneself with Another,” 119, writes regarding this verse, “The shared witness of the Spirit generates new self-recognition in relationship to God as God’s children, and to each other as siblings.” 210 Also noting the connection between Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6, Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 230–31, writes, “Against the background of Pauline anthropology, this suggests that ‘the reality of God’s adoption/acceptance reaches to the motivating and emotive center of the person.’” Rabens is here referencing James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 219–20. 211 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 229–30. 212 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 448. See also Emmanuel L. Rehfeld, Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus: Die ontische Wirksamkeit der Christusbezogenheit im Denken des Heidenapostels, WUNT 2.326 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 321, who writes the heart is “dem affektiven und intentionalen ‘Zentrum’ des Menschen”; and also Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” 18, who finds that in Paul “heart” is the “centre of human life and is the dominating term for personal existence”

200

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

the aspect heart, which indicates a persons thoughts, attitudes, emotions, affections, etc. (see chapter 3). Both the relationship of belongingness to Christ (Rom 8:9–11) and sonship with God (Rom 8:14–17) indicate an experiential element that we can infer involved the person’s heart. That these Spirit-shaped relationship witness to a reconstituting of the heart is evident from two other aspects in Romans 8. First, in Rom 8:5–8 Paul compares existence “in the flesh” with existence “in the Spirit” by referring to mindsets (φρόνημα). The noun φρόνημα (3x in vv. 6–7) and verb φρονέω (8:5) refer to “the faculty of fixing one’s mind on something, a way of thinking.”213 However, as Moo notes, “both words … come from the same Greek root, a root that connotes not a purely mental process but, more broadly, the general direction of the will, encompassing all the faculties of the soul – reason, understanding, and affections.”214 Dunn’s gloss, to “take the side of the flesh,”215 suggests a type of allegiance, which rightly ties in the eschatological viewpoint – i.e., belonging to a realm indicated by the manner by which one orients their life. Longenecker asserts that in the case of Rom 8:5, not only is the idea in mind of “taking someone’s side,” or “espousing a cause,”216 but rather, the idea is that of “being controlled by a nature.”217 Bearing in mind the broader scope of Paul’s argument – i.e., the deadness of Adam versus new life in Christ – and these definitions of φρόνημα and φρονέω, it seems likely that Paul has in mind more than a new way of thinking. Rather, when φρόνημα and φρονέω are read in the context of Rom 8:5–11 where the overarching paradigm is the Spirit bringing the presence of Christ/God to dwell in the believer, this new orientation of “reason, understanding, and affections”218 suggests a heart transformation. This is further evidenced by Paul’s conclusion that those in the flesh lack the ability to please God: “The mind of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot (οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται)” (Rom 8:7–8). Paul is not referring to a mental stubbornness; those in the flesh, by nature cannot desire, love, or orient themselves unto the ways of God. Therefore, the fact that those reconciled to God through Christ (Rom 5:10–11) are able to set the mind on the things of the Spirit (i.e., desire and think about the ways of God) indicates an ontological change occurring in the person’s heart. Thus, in following Longenecker, these “two diametrically opposed mindsets” originate from “two quite different modes of human existence.”219 “φρονέω,” BDAG, 1065–66; “φρόνημα,” BDAG, 1066. Moo, Letter to the Romans, 510. 215 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 425. 216 “φρονέω,” BDAG, 1065–66. 217 See Longenecker, Romans, 697. 218 Moo, Letter to the Romans, 510. 219 Longenecker, Romans, 696. 213 214

4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships

201

To summarize, the person who finds himself or herself able to love God, able to have a mindset (φρόνημα) set on God, and to desire to orient their life toward his will, is someone who has experienced a heart transformation (see Rom 6:17; cf. Ezek 36:36–37). This change occurs through the process of a relationship: the enemy was reconciled to God (5:10; 8:7), hostility was replaced by peace (8:7), this relationship of peace is nothing less than new life (8:8), and this has been appropriated and sustained experientially within the believer by/in the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι, 8:9).220 A sign that this relationship has truly changed the person is this new ability of the heart, this φρόνημα. Or, it is what Eastman calls “a newly minted social cognition – the practical and social outworking of the Spirit’s transforming φρόνησις.”221 4.4.3. Spirit-Shaped Relationships and Agency Jason Maston argues that for Paul “a key component of being human … is the capacity to act. Agency is fundamental to what it means to be human.”222 Maston derives this conclusion in part from an analysis of Christ’s actions in Phil 2:7–8, whereby the “likeness of humanity (ὁμοιώματι ἄνθρώπων)” “emptied” and “humbled” himself and lived an “obedient life.”223 From this image of humanity Maston also notes a “correlation between act and being,” and draws the conclusion that this correlation “is important for understanding Paul’s anthropology.”224 For Paul, who one is cannot be separated from what one does. The importance of agency as an aspect of personhood also emerged in our above definition (see chapter 3), where modern thinkers understand that a “person” is “an individual human being … acting in some capacity, [a] personal agent.”225 In her work on Pauline anthropology, Eastman begins to understand Paul’s idea of agency in light of participation, noting that Christ’s presence within the believer “affects the agency … of the acting subject.”226 She notes that the Pauline person is not construed as an autonomous actor, but

220 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 211, is another scholar who notes that φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός and φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος have a “relational aspect” in Rom 8:5–9. 221 Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 120. 222 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 145. 223 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 144. 224 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 145. For the correlation between action (behavior) and identity, see also, Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 9–39; Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 389. 225 “Person,” Oxford English Dictionary, 597; Turner, “Approaching ‘Personhood,’” 213. 226 Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 155.

202

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

“that personal agency and speech are qualified by participation in a larger relational environment and by indwelling agents.”227 In considering the person in light of Romans 8, therefore, it is necessary to now ask how and if Spirit-shaped relationships affect human agency. That human beings ought to act in a certain manner (obedience and righteousness) but are unable is evident throughout Romans (e.g., Rom 3:9, 23; 5:11–21; 6:7, 17; 7:15–25). Though humans are never bereft of responsibility for their actions in Paul’s thought,228 Eastman’s notion that agency is “qualified by participation in a larger relational environment” is likewise attested. This qualified aspect of human agency comes to the fore in Paul’s dual enslavement image: “once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart” (6:17) and “now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God” (6:22).229 Käsemann, viewing the idea of enslavement from a cosmic vantage point, paints the same picture but with different language. In Paul’s anthropology, “A person is defined by his particular lord.”230 It was noted above that sin is personified in Paul’s thought,231 and the apostle is clear about its influence/dominance over the human: δουλεύειν … τῇ ἁμαρτία (Rom 6:6); ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία (Rom 7:17, 20); ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτία (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22). Freedom from sin does not lead to autonomy, but obedience unto a new Lord (Rom 6:17, 22).232 In Romans 8 Paul gives his hearers a window into the inner workings of being under the lordship of/enslaved to God/Christ, and the key in appropriating this new reign is the Spirit. This is particularly evident by the change in indwelling powers/beings from sin to the Spirit. Paul’s only uses of the verb οἰκέω in Romans fall in two clusters between chapter 7 and 8: three uses in Rom 7:17–20 and three in 8:9–11 (2x, οἰκέω, 1x, 227 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 13, explains, “The question is not whether Paul speaks as a robust ‘self’ addressing other ‘selves’ as well as communities, but how that personal agency and speech are qualified by participation in a larger relational environment and by indwelling agents.” Emphasis added. 228 E.g., “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges” (Rom 2:1); “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom 2:6). See also Rom 1:27; 2:16; 5:12, 16, 18; 6:23. Schreiner, Romans, 372, concurs, saying, “Paul doesn’t absolve the ‘I’ of personal responsibility for sin.” 229 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 144–45, argues, “For Paul being human can be explained as being in a state of enslavement.” He grounds this anthropological conclusion in Christology; Christ became human “by taking the form of a slave (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, Phil 2:7).” He sees this anthropological aspect further supported across Romans 5–8. 230 Käsemann, Romans, 250. 231 E.g., Dunn, Theology of Paul, 96, states, “Sin entered the world (5.12); sin ruled in death. Sin, in effect takes the role of serpent/Satan…. Sin is also ‘reckoned,’ like an attribute or statistic (5.13); and sin also increases or grows (5.20), perhaps more like fruit.” So also Schreiner, Romans, 372, “As we have often seen in Rom. 5–7, sin is understood as an alien power that brings human beings into subjection.” See chapter 3 for further discussion. 232 Maston, “Enlivened Slaves,” 144–45.

4.4 Christian Personhood in Light of Spirit-Shaped Relationships

203

ἐνοικέω). In Rom 7:17–20, Paul uses the verb οἰκέω to describe not only sin’s indwelling of the human, but sin’s commandeering of the individual’s agency: e.g., οῦκέτι ἐγώ κατεγράζουμαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία (7:17, 20). Here sin is a “constraining force from within,” and οἰκέω ἐν can “speak of a kind of possession.”233 This deterioration of agency spirals downward toward disintegration of human identity: “Wretched man that I am (Ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἂνθρωπος)” (7:24).234 In contrast, in 8:9–11 the believer is indwelt by the Spirit: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” (8:9). Along with appropriating the closeness of God and Christ (8:9–10, 14– 16), in several instances the Spirit is indicated as acting within and on behalf of the believer. In 8:13, the believer lives by putting to death the deeds of the body “by the Spirit (πνεῦματι).”235 However, the more precise question of how the Spirit functions to kill the deeds of the body is debated.236 While the idiosyncrasies of this debate are outside the scope of this thesis, it is relevant to note the strongly argued thesis of Rabens. Considered in detail in chapter 2, Rabens argues that the means by which the Spirit effects ethical empowerment is by fostering relationships between the believer and God and Christ, relationships that change the believer.237 His account of Rom 8:13 supports and reflects his thesis: “It is the Spirit-shaped experience of being 233 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 390. See also Walter Schmithals, Die theologische Anthropologie des Paulus: Auslegung von Röm 7.17–8.39 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 43. 234 In commenting on Rom 7:14–25, Timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity, 149–50, writes of the “I’s” disillusionment in light of this “dual agency”: “It is a mystery to ἐγω how he can will one thing and do another. The assertion of sin’s indwelling is not the solution to the mystery but expresses it in terms of the strange interplay between a dual agency, both of ἐγω and of sin.” 235 The dative is instrumental. See Harvey, Romans, 196. In determining the meaning of “deeds of the body” in this verse, Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 212–13, notes the similar phrase in the similar context of Gal 5:18b–19, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident,” where τὰ ἒργα τῆς σαρκός (Gal 5:19) appears synonymous to τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος (Rom 8:13). Rabens, however, explains an insightful nuance, “The ‘works of the flesh,’ as concrete as they are (fornication, impurity, licentiousness, etc.), refer more broadly to the desires of the (external) ‘domain’ of the flesh, whereas the ‘deeds of the body’ refer to the desires of (the bodies of) the individual believers. As σῶμα can be dedicated to God or to evil it seems likely that σάρξ uses σῶμα as a vehicle for its attacks (pp. 212–13).” 236 This debate centers on how the Spirit relates to the believer’s ethical-empowerment; i.e., does the Spirit change the nature of the individual, or does the believer fill the individual in a substance-like manner (“infusion transformation”), and thereby act as an alien agent amidst a passive individual. For a thorough discussion of the debate, see Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 25–119. 237 E.g., Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 131, argues, in “Paul’s letters … a primary mode of the Spirit’s enabling for religious-ethical life occurs in the context of Spirit-designed intimate relationships….”

204

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

adopted by God as a loving Father that empowers the Roman Christians to put to death the works of the body.”238 Rabens supports this point by demonstrating a link between the themes of ethics in verses 13–14a and sonship in verses 14b–17. The γάρ of verse 14 suggests that this verse “provides a foundation or further explanation of verse 13.”239 Rabens likewise notes the synthetic parallelism between the two verses:240 13b Εἰ 14 ὃσοι

πνεύματι πνεύματι θεοῦ

τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε, ἂγονται,

ζήσεσθε οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν

It is also the case that the believers do not become sons based on their obedience, as if they earn the new standing. But rather, as Rom 8:15 indicates, the Spirit that is received (past tense) at conversion-initiation is the Spirit of sonship (ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας), by whom the believer cries, “Abba, Father.” “Those who are governed by the Spirit,” as Schreiner notes, “are the children of God.”241 The γάρ in verse 15 links verses 15–17 with 13–14,242 further interconnecting the topics of religious-ethical living (vv. 12–13) and being children of God (vv. 15–17). What Rabens ultimately argues, which supports an important aspect of this thesis, is that by linking together the Spirit’s ethical work (vv.12–13a) and relational work (vv.14–17), Paul is not merely commenting on two parallel activities. Rather, the Spirit effects ethical empowerment “by means of Spirit-created intimate relationship to God.”243 While Rabens’s focus lies with how Spirit-created relationships affect moral ability, this thesis has been asking a related, but somewhat deeper question: How do Spirit-created relationships reconstitute personhood? If it is the case that the Spirit effects a new ethical ability via a close relationship with God the Father, then we may ask if this Spirit-wrought relationship has reconstituted human agency. It is in fact striking that in the synthetic parallelism of verses 13b and 14, the parallel verbs change voice: θανατοῦτε is active while ἄγονται is passive. The burden lies with the Spirit in both cases,244 but the active voice in verse 13b indicates a type of dual, or bonded, agency. Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 204. Emphasis original. Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 214. See also Moo, Letter to the Romans, 519, “The connections between this paragraph [vv. 14–17] and what precedes and follows are particularly close.” Schreiner, Romans, 415, states, “The γάρ … in verse 14 signals that the verse clarifies and in different terms restates the substance of verse 13.” 240 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 214. See also Bertone, The Law of the Spirit, 192. 241 Schreiner, Romans, 416. 242 Schreiner, Romans, 417; Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 215. 243 Rabens, Spirit and Ethics, 215. Rabens supports the aspect of this thesis – intimate relationships transform and empower – from both biblical texts and modern theorist (e.g., pp. 123–45). 244 Schreiner, Romans, 416, states, “The passive form of the verb [ἄγονται] is significant; it suggests that the Spirit is the primary agent in Christian obedience.” This same interplay between the Spirit’s enabling and human agency is evident in 8:2–4, whereby those “in 238 239

4.5. Conclusion

205

Just as it was the case that indwelling sin did not entirely extinguish human agency – “Paul doesn’t absolve the ‘I’ of personal responsibility”245 – neither does the indwelling Spirit. In both cases, (a) the agency of the human is affected/shaped by the presence of another and (b) the agency of that “other” seems to at times act over and around the agency of the human. Hence the transformation from a “slave to sin” to a “servant of God/son of God” is not a journey away from bounded agency. Rather, as Eastman has noted, “The structure of human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder. That is, whether ‘in Christ’ or under the power of sin and death, human life always is constrained and constructed in relationship to external forces that also operate internally.”246 Eastman’s comments bring into perspective what has happened to the believer according to Romans 5–8, and what this means for their agency. They have been transferred out of a lethal relational matrix. They have gone from existence in Adam where they were enemies of God, in the flesh, under sin, death, and Law, to existence in Christ where they are sons of God, under grace, and in the Spirit. Their agency, therefore, has likewise been altered, through both a change in their heart/will (Rom 8:11–9, 14–16; 5:5; 6:17) and by the presence of another who works and acts on their behalf (Rom 8:13, 26–27). And, as the work of Rabens demonstrates, this change of agency is effected by Spirit-shaped relationships between the believer and Christ and God.247

4.5. Conclusion 4.5. Conclusion

It appears, therefore, that in the light of relational anthropology we can say that Romans 8 shows that the Spirit has fostered a new relational matrix, whereby Christian personhood is reconstituted and in the eschatological “now.” In the deepest sense, the believer is aware of a new identity, is impacted in the area of the heart (mindset=volition, desire), and experiences an altered sense of agency. However, what do we finally make of the ongoing struggle? Christ” are freed from sin and death by “the law of the Spirit of life,” in order that they may fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (8:4). However, they do this by walking according to the Spirit (8:4b). 245 Schreiner, Romans, 372. 246 Eastman, “Participation in Paul,” 4. 247 Another relationship that surfaced in the above analysis is between the believer and the Spirit himself. The indwelling Spirit not only fosters a relationship between the believer and God and Christ (8:9–11, 14–17), but also the Spirit itself witnesses within the believer (8:16), guides the believer (8:14), helps the believer, and prays for the believer (8:26–27). Thus, even the relational aspect of personhood in Paul reflects the apostle’s proto-Trinitarian thought. Whether and how the individual believer has a relationship with the (personal) Spirit would be a topic for another study.

206

Chapter 4: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Romans 8

As this study has argued, embodiment implies embeddedness; therefore, the lingering Adamic-body involves tension. However, and this is the key, that tension cannot ultimately undo the believer’s new identity, nor can it ultimately return the believer to a slavery of sin (enslaved-to-sin-agency). Schnelle’s reflections on 8:9–13 cohere with this chapter’s argument, though with a slight caveat: In Rom 8:9 the apostle explicitly emphasizes the change of existence that transpires in baptism from the realm of σάρξ to the realm of the πνεῦμα (Spirit). Thus Rom 8:10–11, 13 can no longer speak of being determined by σάρξ but only of being confronted by σάρξ. Σῶμα as such has not become a slave to the alien powers of flesh and sin and thus deprived of its own will, yet it finds itself in the constant danger of being taken over by them again.248

Schnelle captures the sense of a change of existence that involves a new (relational) realm. He also captures the sense of the ongoing struggle. Schnelle finally notes that the body (σῶμα) is no longer a slave to the powers of flesh and sin. This is precisely the idea we have been developing – from slave of sin to slave of God. However, to Schnelle’s comment, “in danger of being taken over by them again,” we would simply add, “seemingly or temporarily taken over,” for the bondage to sin will never again be permanent for one who has been freed from sin (Rom 6:7). The aspects of Spirit-shaped RA considered here have focused almost solely on vertical relationships: between the believer and God and Christ. In the next chapter we will see that these vertical relationships have a horizontal outworking, namely, Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence between believers.

248

Schnelle, Paul, 496. Emphasis added.

Chapter 5

The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12 In the previous chapter we studied manifestations of Spirit-shaped relationships that are primarily vertical: between the believer and God and Christ. Here, we pivot to focus on a corollary aspect of relationality, horizontal relationships created and sustained by the Spirit between believers. This aspect of Spirit-shaped relationality is present in Romans 8; however, it is not Paul’s focal point there – although it comes to the fore in Romans 12. So-called vertical- and horizontal-Spirit-shaped relationships are in fact inextricably bound together. When the Spirit actualizes a believer’s sonship (Rom 8:14– 16), the believer simultaneously becomes a brother or sister to other believers (8:29) and co-heir with Christ (8:17). That the Spirit is integral to this joining to God and to one another is evident in 1 Cor 12:13, “In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Thus, the interest of this chapter – horizontal Spiritshaped relationships – flows naturally out of our analysis of Romans 8: i.e., to be “in Christ” (Romans 5–6) and “by the Spirit God’s children” (Romans 8) is also to be joined with others in the “body of Christ” (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:12– 27), united together by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:12–13). The specific interest of this chapter lies in probing the manner by which the Spirit bonds believers together so that they truly are (a) “one body” and (b) experience a new identity as “members” (μέλη, “organ,” “limb,”1 12:12–13) of that one body. Such an interest draws attention to 1 Corinthians 12, where the Spirit works amid the gathered community (e.g., συνέρχομαι, 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 262). As was the case in Romans 8, the presence of the Spirit is The English term “member” does not adequately capture the essence of μέλη in the body metaphor. This is so because in modern usage “member/membership” does not convey the permanence nor equality-but-diversity of the organic analogy. A “hand” cannot go join another organization; and while equal with other “members,” the hand is still utterly unique from the foot. Terms such as “limb” or “organ” might better capture the force of the metaphor. We use “member” at times here for convenience but have the more organic meaning in mind. 2 “Συνέρχομαι,” BDAG, 969, “to come together w. others as a group, assembly, gather.” All seven of Paul’s uses of συνέρχομαι occur in 1 Corinthians and fall between 11:17 and 14:26. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: 1

208

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

replete in this text and its context (chapters 12–14), as occurrences of πνεῦμα and cognate terms (e.g., τῶν πνευματικῶν, χάρισματα) attest.3 In keeping with the driving question of this thesis, in this chapter we argue that the Spirit unites the body as one through relationships, and these relationships in turn shape personhood. What “bonds” the community, therefore, is not only “shared experience” or “love,” both of which are noted by others.4 Rather, the operating of the χαρίσματα, apportioned to individuals but aimed at the other, is a key means by which the Spirit effects the unity of the body. Often an understudied or underemphasized aspect of Paul’s treatment of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14, under close inspection, these workings of the Spirit will be shown to (a) unite and build up the body and (b) actualize facets of Christian personhood. This chapter argues, therefore, that Paul’s treatment of χαρίσματα, in the context of the body-member motif, witnesses to Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence between believers, which unite the body and, while doing so, (re)constitute a person’s agency, heart, and identity. Eerdmans, 1987), 569, writes, “Since chap. 8 Paul has been dealing with matters related to worship [i.e., when they come together].” Fee notes corporate gatherings as the backdrop for the food and idols debate (chaps. 8, 10), the Lord’s Supper (10:14–21; 11:17–34) and women in worship (11:2–16). 3 The term πνεῦμα occurs twelve times in 1 Corinthians 12 and nineteen times in chapters 12–14; the related adjective πνευματικός occurs three times in chapters 12–14; and χάρισμα, used in the sense of spiritual gift, occurs five times, all of which are in chapter 12. This combined with the array of specific spiritual gifts Paul mentions makes 1 Corinthians 12–14 an essential text to consider when asking how the Spirit fosters relationships between believers in community. Treatments of πνευματικός and χάρισμα will be given below. 4 As will be developed more below, various suggestions have been offered for what grounds/creates the “oneness” of the body of Christ. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 261, for example, highlights the unifying power of the “shared experience” of the Spirit, especially emphasizing Christian initiation, when he writes, “It is not difficult to demonstrate that not only is the Spirit an experiential concept in Paul … but in addition it denotes a shared experience…. For all its diversity there was a common denominator in their experience of the Spirit at conversioninitiation” (p. 260). We will agree with Dunn, however expand his idea to suggest that the shared experience at conversion-initiation was followed by the shared experience of sharing χαρίσματα, which was the ongoing manner by which the Spirit united through experience. Another suggestion is highlighted in Susan Grove Eastman’s work, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul, ed. Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2.384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 105, where she explains, “The Spirit generates and sustains a mutually participatory bond of love between believers and God, as well as between persons ‘in Christ.’” Building from her thesis, we will argue that love is not the only manner by which the Spirit bonds believers according to 1 Corinthians 12 (or Romans 12), but also Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence unite the believers.

5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12

209

In demonstrating this the present chapter unfolds in four parts: First, 1 Corinthians 12 is situated in its historical and literary context, highlighting the need for unity that motivates Paul’s writing. Second, the nature and goal of the χαρίσματα will be considered, defining χαρίσματα (12:4) in light of the chapter’s introductory phrase, περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν (12:1). This section draws attention to the nature, common source and agency, and common goal (12:4–6, 7) of the χαρίσματα; all factors behind why and how they unite believers. In the third section we ask how the particular χαρίσματα (12:8–10) achieve their stated purpose, πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (12:7). An analysis of each of the nine “gifts” will reveal that relationality is integral to how they function, and such relationality is integral to how they build up the body and serve the common good. Finally, in the fourth section, we ask how χαρίσματα-createdSpirit-shaped relationships of interdependence not only build up and unite the body, but also simultaneously reconstitute Christian persons as indispensable “limbs” and “organs” (12:12–26).

5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12 5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12

5.1.1. Historical Context The First Epistle to the Corinthians is not the first correspondence between Paul and Christians in Corinth.5 Paul founded the church (4:14–15; cf. Acts 18:1–11) – likely sometime in AD 49–516 – and lived among the Corinthians for some time (Acts 18:11). Through letters (5:9; 7:1) and reports (e.g., from “Chloe’s people,” 1:117), Paul stayed abreast of how they were doing. In 1 Corinthians Paul states that he is writing from Ephesus (16:8, 9, 19), which correlates with his third missionary journey in Acts (Acts 18:23; 19:1–20:1) and puts the timing of the letter circa AD 53–55.8

5 The authenticity of 1 Corinthians is universally recognized. See Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 2; Fee, First Epistle, 15. 6 Fee, First Epistle, 6, notes the “founding visit mentioned in Acts 18 (ca. A. D. 49–51), a visit that had a unique feature to it – the length of stay.” 7 We cannot be sure who Chloe’s people were, but it is evident the Corinthians knew them and that “Paul regards them as reliable witnesses … [whose] testimony carried weight.” See David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 44. 8 Fee, First Epistle, 15; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 1,1– 6,11), EKK (Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991), 36; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 31–32.

210

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

Occasion First Corinthians is Paul’s response to an unsettling report he received about the Corinthians (1:11) as well as their letter to him (7:1). The letter, therefore, focuses intensely “on developments in the church since its foundation” and Paul’s departure.9 Its ad hoc organization reflects Paul’s piece-by-piece response to myriad issues,10 rather than a “composite” nature.11 A glance at the letter reveals that issues at Corinth were many: e.g., (a) factionalism, infighting (1:11; 3:3) and internal divisions (σχίσμα, 1:10; 11:18; 12:2512); (b) sexual immorality (5:1–6:20); (c) issues regarding idolatry and food sacrificed to idols (8:1–13; 10:1–33); (d) questions pertaining to marriage and abstinence (7:1– 40); (e) the nature of the body and bodily-resurrection (15:1–58; 16:12–20); (f) criticism of Paul’s authority/relationship with them (2:1–5; 4:14–21; 9:1–18); and (g) matters pertaining to worship (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). Disunity in Corinth With all these issues at hand, it is wise not to press Paul’s motives for writing into too narrow a category. Mitchell’s rhetorical analysis, however, does demonstrate that “factionalism [internal conflict] runs throughout”13 the letter, a thesis contrary to recent trends arguing that disunity is only a theme in 9 John M. G. Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity,” JSNT 15.47 (1992): 56, writes, “1 Corinthians is … intensively focused on developments in the church since its foundation.” 10 Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 19, suggest that “the only the only logic of the letter’s arrangement is that Paul deals with oral reports 1–6 before addressing matters raised in the Corinthian letter to him in chapters 7–16.” 11 Due to the letter’s apparent ad hoc structure, some hypothesize a layered composition. This study follows the view of compositional unity of 1 Corinthians. For support and explanation of this view, see Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 253. Fee’s explanation for the integrity of the letter is also insightful. Regarding attempts to divide the letter, Fee, First Epistle, 16, writes, “These theories miss a basic form of argumentation in this letter, the ‘A-B-A’ pattern…. When one can make perfectly good sense of the document as it comes to us, such theories are as unnecessary as they are un-provable.” For a concise overview of the scholarly debate, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1991), 2– 6. 12 “Σχίσμα,” BDAG, 981, “2. the condition of being divided because of conflicting aims or objectives, division, dissension, schism.” Paul uses the term only three times, and all here in 1 Corinthians. 13 Mitchell, Reconciliation, 182, see section 65–183. See also Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), who follows Mitchell’s work, identifying 1 Corinthians as an ancient letter in the form of a “deliberative letter” – a speech in epistolary form – urging unity. It is “a topoi of homonoai (‘concord’) speeches” (p. 39).

5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12

211

chapters 1–4.14 We follow Mitchell’s thesis and identify internal conflict (disunity) as a major theme throughout: e.g., party-factionalism (“I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” 1:12–17; 3:1–7, 22; 4:6); believers defrauding and suing one another (6:1–8); insensitivity towards “weak” members in the context of worship (8:9–13; 11:17–34); boasting about spiritual “abilities”15 (12:14–30); and an apparent focus on the individual at the expense of the body of Christ (14:1–12). Surely it is not insignificant that Paul’s greatest treatise on love (13:1–13) appears in the middle of his treatment of gathered worship, further suggesting the need to unify this community. We assume, therefore, that a major motivation for Paul’s writing is to instill unity in the face of disunity.16 In the more immediate context of 1 Corinthians 12, causes for disunity stem from socioeconomic and spiritual matters. In chapter 11, Paul indicates that when they gathered for the Lord’s Supper, some feasted while others went hungry (11:21–23).17 Those with plenty, Paul charges, humiliate those with nothing (καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἒχοντας, 11:21–22). It is commonplace to follow Gerd Theissen’s thesis here, identifying socioeconomic division at work, when he observes, “The Corinthian congregation is marked by internal stratification. The majority of the members, who come from the lower classes, stand in contrast to a few influential members who come from the upper 14 Fee, First Epistle, 6, for example, significantly downplays the theme of disunity and internal conflict, identifying instead that “the greater problem of ‘division’ was between Paul and some in the community who were leading the church as a whole into an anti-Pauline view of things.” Fee’s reconstruction of the situation furthers his argument that “unity” is not a theme of chapters 12–14, but rather those texts argue for a needed diversity of gifts in Corinth. More will be said on this latter point below. 15 Here we follow Dale B. Martin, “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators,” JAAR 50.3 (1991): 566, who finds in the Greco-Roman and Jewish background to Paul’s language of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 ample evidence that “ecstatic speech” was a status symbol in the ancient world. Hence Martin argues that spiritual gifts were yet another cause of internal conflict. 16 Here we agree with Garland, 1 Corinthians, 43, who writes, “The news of them fighting amongst themselves is one of his chief concerns in the letter.” Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 21, write similarly, “Disunity is one of several behaviors that characterize the Corinthians as ‘worldly,’ as ‘acting like mere human beings’ (3:3),” however also note, “Paul’s goal is bigger than merely having them live harmoniously.” Ciampa and Rosner make the helpful point that Paul has more in mind than merely encouraging unity. This is indeed true. Our focus, however, is in how Paul addressed this one major issue of disunity. And Fee, First Epistle, 6, of course, is aware that internal conflict was present, observing, “The historical situation in Corinth was one of conflict between the church and its founder. This is not to deny that the church was experiencing internal strife, but it is to argue that the greater problem of ‘division’ was between Paul and some in the community who were leading the church as a whole into an anti-Pauline view of things.” Emphasis added. 17 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 195, is correct when he states, “It is plain that we have here not merely a sacramental proceeding, but a real meal.”

212

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

classes.”18 Theissen notes the city’s recent economic upturn, the lucrative trade industry, and banking as indicators that certain families in Corinth were wealthy, and some of them were part of the church.19 Thus disparity existed between “haves and have-nots” in the fragile community.20 Along with economic divisions, it is likely, as Dale Martin argues, that spiritual matters also caused disunity. Martin notes that in Greco-Roman and Jewish circles of Paul’s day, “ecstatic speech” could be seen as a “status marker” and sign of spiritual elitism.21 Such a backdrop would therefore make sense of Paul’s eventual focus on tongues and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14.22 Fascinated with spiritual matters (12:1), the Corinthians apparently overemphasized gifts of “ecstatic speech,” perhaps with certain members boasting of elevated spiritual-status because they spoke in “tongues of angels” (13:2).23

18 Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, trans. John H. Schütz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 69. Though subjected to critique, Theissen’s basic thesis that “status distinctions” existed within the Corinthian community has held sway. For recent works building from Theissen’s approach, see esp., Martin, Corinthian Body, 86; Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); David Horrell, Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 102; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 54; and Bruce Hansen, “All of You Are One”: The Social Vision of Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11, LNTS 409 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 109. For a summary of works contributing to the social-scientific aspect of 1 and 2 Corinthians, see Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 61–65. For an overview of the social-scientific approach to the NT that highlights Theissen’s influence, see N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 221–85. 19 Theissen, Social Setting, 100–101, refers to the return of the Isthmian games (ca. 7–3 BCE.) as evidence of the city’s resurgence. He also notes the phrase from Strabo, VIII, 6, 20, “Corinth is said to be ‘wealthy’ on account of its commerce,” and that fact that Plutarch, Moralia 831a, names three banking centers in Greece: Patrae, Corinth, and Athens. 20 Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 241. 21 E.g., Martin, “Tongues of Angels,” 566. 22 Regarding the significance of “tongues” in relation to the larger argument, Thiselton, First Epistle, 916, referring to Martin’s work, summarizes, “Whether or not ‘tongues’ is the specific focus of 12:3–14:40, there can be little doubt that Martin is convincing in viewing it as, for many at Corinth, a high-status indicator.” Emphasis original. For Martin’s argument, see the above-mentioned “Tongues of Angles,” 547–89, and Corinthian Body, 87–92. 23 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 244, suggests that “tongues of angels” (13:2) would be either “Paul’s and/or the Corinthians’ description of glossolalia.”

5.1. Historical and Literary Context of 1 Corinthians 12

213

5.1.2. Literary Context The ad hoc feel of the letter does not mean 1 Corinthians is without structure. Ciampa and Rosner’s suggestion, that chapters 1–6 deal with issues stemming from oral reports and chapters 7–16 respond to their letter (7:1), seems plausible. Paul’s treatment of spiritual gifts in chapters 12–14, therefore, responds to questions from the Corinthians (e.g., περὶ δέ in 12:1).24 The Unit 12–14 First Corinthians 12 falls within a section of the letter dealing with gathered worship (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). As such, 1 Corinthians 12 should be read in light of 11:2–14:40,25 although noting that περὶ δέ in 12:1 signals a new emphasis, namely, τῶν πνευματικῶν (“spiritual gifts”26). Though he introduces his topic with the noun πνευματικός, Paul switches to the related term χάρισμα (12:4).27 These closely related terms signal the theme that unites chapters 12–14. The treatment on love in chapter 13 further grounds Paul’s argument that πνευματικός and χάρισμα are meant for “building up the body,” which means they share the aim of love.28 Therefore, as is widely accepted, 1 Corinthians 12 is part of the unit, chapters 12–14, that treats the nature of spiritual matters (and spiritual persons) in the context of the community.29 Structure of 12:1–31a The prepositional clause περὶ δέ (12:1) marks the beginning of chapter 12 and the transitional sentence “and I will show you a more excellent way” of 12:31b, the close. The chapter can be further delineated as follows: in verses 1–3 Paul introduces the topic, a right understanding of τῶν πνευματικῶν, especially in

24 That chapters 7–16 are structured around Paul’s response to issues in their letter is supported by the repeated use of περὶ δέ (“now concerning”), e.g., 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12. 25 For support of this view, see Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 241. 26 We take the neuter reading of τῶν πνευματικῶν versus masculine, “spiritual people.” This is based on its use in 14:1, where it clearly indicates “gifts” not “persons,” as well as Paul’s use in Rom 1:11, where it is likewise synonymous with χάρισμα and indicates a “gift” not a “person.” For support of our reading and discussion, see below, footnote 46. 27 The terms χάρισμα and πνευματικός are defined below. 28 The reference to prophecy in 13:8 further demonstrates that Paul still has spiritual gifts in mind. 29 E.g., Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 253; R. B. Terry, A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians (Dallas: University of Texas Press, 1995), 43; Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 560; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 204; Fee, First Epistle, 571, notes an A-B-A structure: “This section begins with a more general word (chap. 12) [A], which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) [A] and a very specific response to the matter in hand (chap. 14) [B].”

214

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

light of their pagan past;30 in verses 4–11 it becomes clear that a driving motive for speaking of τῶν πνευματικῶν is the need to establish unity-in-diversity, diversity-in-unity (unity-diversity31). In these verses Paul establishes the divine grounds (vv. 4–6) for unity-diversity, which anticipates the apportioning of gifts/χαρίσματα (diversity) by the one Spirit (unity) (vv. 7–11). In verses 12– 26 Paul explains how unity-diversity is inherent to the church by first connecting the Corinthians’ conversion-initiation with the unity of the one Spirit and nature of the church (vv. 12–13); then he illustrates this fact by way of a popular political analogy of the body and its members (vv. 14–26). In verses 27–31a Paul replays these themes with another list of gifts.32

5.2. Summarizing the Context of 1 Corinthians 12 5.2. Summarizing the Context of 1 Corinthians 12

While some suggest that speaking in tongues is the main theme of chapters 12– 14, or the need to stress a diversity of gifts in light of the Corinthians’ obsession with gifts of speech,33 we hold that the need to emphasize unity in light of

30 Soeng Yu Li, Paul’s Teaching on the Pneumatika in 1 Corinthians 12–14: Prophecy as the Paradigm of ta Charismata ta Meizona for the Future-Oriented Ekklēsia, WUNT 2.455 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 193, writes, “The recurrent understanding of the background of 1 Corinthians 12–14 is that the Corinthians, who once were pagans, are confusing their new experiences of the Spirit with their former pagan ecstatic and enthusiastic experiences.” See also Siegfried S. Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology of Charismata (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 33. However, as noted above, there is a deeper concern here regarding “spiritual elitism.” E.g., Li, Paul’s Teaching, 194, goes on to write that their misuse of spiritual gifts “resulted in a spiritual elitism and those who called themselves πνευματικοί claimed that they were spiritually mature.” 31 From hereon we will use the shorthand “unity-diversity” to express this motif, which we hold has to do with grounding diversity in the unity of God, as well as establishing that the unity of God includes diversity. This fact grounds the unity-diversity within the community. 32 Our structure follows a majority of modern commentators, e.g., Garland, 1 Corinthians, viii; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 193; Fee, First Epistle, 23. 33 W. J. Bartling, “The Congregation of Christ – A Charismatic Body: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 12,” CTM 40 (1969): 67, writes, “If we had only chapter 12, we would probably never have surmised that the focus of Paul’s practical concern throughout chapters 12, 13, and 14 of First Corinthians is the tongues phenomenon.” Fee, First Epistle, 573, concludes similarly to Bartling and summarizes the historical situation: (a) the “crucial issue” at Corinth was “their decided position over against [Paul] as to what it means to be pneumatikos (spiritual)”; (b) Their understanding of being pneumatikos (spiritual) involved a “spiritualized (or overrealized) eschatology,” which manifested itself in (c) a “denial of the material/physical side of Christian existence” and (d) an obsession with speaking in tongues, which they saw as an “angelic dialect” [e.g.,13:1] that further evidenced their pneumatikos nature” (First Epistle, p. 573). We agree with several aspects of Fee’s analysis

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

215

disunity is the overarching emphasis. This is suggested by the immediate context of chapter 12, which is the motif of “coming together,” which began in 11:17. The tenor that began Paul’s treatment of their communal gatherings was disunity based on socioeconomic realities, as he states, “when you come together, I hear that there are divisions (σχίσματα) among you” (11:18, 22). This is the immediate context of chapter 12, where although Paul turns to a new topic (“now concerning spiritual gifts”), he is not on an altogether new theme, as the inclusio motif of “συνέρχομαι” suggests (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). Here, we follow Thiselton, who also notes continuity between 11:17–34 and chapters 12–14: The way in which some ranked their self-perceived “spirituality” or giftedness by the Holy Spirit so as to encourage superior status enhancement which resulted in the attitude “I have no need of you” (12:21–26) provides a close parallel to the status enjoyment of those who enjoyed the more comfortable location and better table fare than the latecomers at the Lord’s Supper (11:21–22).34

In turning to a closer examination of chapter 12, this background suggests that Paul will be dealing with matters of spirituality with an eye toward how pneumatology reinforces unity in light of disunity. Moreover, and as will become apparent below, the social situation of the Corinthians is such that in addressing “spiritual matters,” Paul is really dealing with what it means to be a “spiritual person,” a πνευματικός.35 Read in light of the larger section 1 Corinthians 12–14, and chapter 15, it becomes apparent that Paul is dealing with more than issues of ethics, but also matters of the nature of Christian existence.

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα 5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

Our next question pertains to how Paul understands the phenomena of χαρίσματα. This requires examining the nature and purpose of χαρίσματα in verses 4–11 and also understanding the term that opened the section, τῶν πνευματικῶν (12:1). Here, therefore, we initially define the terms χαρίσματα

of the Corinthians interest in their pneumatikos nature; however, we do not agree that diversity is Paul’s main emphasis. See above for our view on the historical background. 34 Thiselton, First Epistle, 900. 35 More will be said on the connection between “spiritual gifts” (behavior) and being a “spiritual person” (being) below. Here we reference Barclay’s study, “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 165, where he finds that the term πνευματικός was used by early Christians “to designate their new identity.”

216

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

and πνευματικός. Then, the nature, agency, and purpose of the χαρίσματα in light of chapter 12 are considered. 5.3.1.Defining Πνευματικός and Χάρισμα Being Πνευματικός Paul begins chapter 12 by indicating that he will now take up the topic of τῶν πνευματικῶν (12:1). In typical Pauline usage,36 the term πνευματικός functions adjectively, indicating things or persons pertaining to the Spirit.37 Depending on whether one takes the usage in 12:1 (τῶν πνευματικῶν) as neuter or masculine, it either refers to “spiritual gifts/matter/things” or “spiritual persons.”38 Most current scholars take the neuter reading, “spiritual matters,” along with most modern translations.39 This reading is likely in light of the use of the term in 14:1, where it unambiguously refers to spiritual gifts. However, in the context of 1 Corinthians, it may be the case that drawing too strong of a distinction between spiritual matters and spiritual persons is to be avoided. C.

36 Πνευματικός occurs twenty-six times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the traditional Pauline canon, with fifteen of these in 1 Corinthians. Though Paul did not coin the term, it is clearly distinctively Pauline within the New Testament. See Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 207. 37 Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 29, writes of the term’s use in Paul, that “… the word functions primarily as an adjective for the Spirit, referring to that which belongs to, or pertains to, the Spirit.” Emphasis original. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 208–9, writes similarly, “It is a quite important word for Paul, since it expresses so clearly a sense of belonging to the Spirit, embodying Spirit, manifesting Spirit, of the essence or nature of Spirit.” 38 “πνευματικός,” BDAG, 837, if “neut. … spiritual things or matters…;” if “masc. … possessing the Spirit, the one who possesses the Spirit ... (the) spirit-filled people.” 39 For modern translations, e.g., “spiritual matters,” Phillips; “gifts of the Spirit,” NIV, “spiritual gifts,” KJV, ESV, NRSV, “die Gaben … die Gottes Geist schenkt,” HOF. For modern translations, e.g., “spiritual matters,” Phillips; “gifts of the Spirit,” NIV, “spiritual gifts,” KJV, ESV, NRSV, “die Gaben … die Gottes Geist schenkt,” HOF. For scholars taking the neuter reading, e.g., Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 204; Fee, First Epistle, 576; Thiselton, First Epistle, 930; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 199; Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Cor. (Washington: University Press of America, 1982), 157–62; D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987), 22; R. F. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina 7 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 446–47. For a modern scholar taking the masculine reading “spiritual ones,” see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 561–62; Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letter to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 171–72; F. F. Bruce, I and II Corinthians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 116–17. The latter’s case rests on uses elsewhere in the letter that are unambiguously masc., e.g., 2:15; 3:1; 14:37.

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

217

K. Barrett, for example, argues that with both renderings “little difference in sense is involved – spiritual persons are those who have spiritual gifts.”40 Paul uses πνευματικός in 1 Corinthians to refer explicitly to a type of person (e.g., 1 Cor 2:13, 15; 3:1; 14:37; 15:46), and at times in reference to the Corinthians: e.g., “I could not address you as spiritual people (πνευματικοῖς), but as people of the flesh (σαρκίνοις)” (3:1; see also 14:37). This juxtaposition of “spiritual” with “fleshly” in 3:1 calls to mind the Spirit/flesh antithesis in Rom 8:5–9, which, as we argued in chapter 4, is indicative of more than behavior, but being. It is likely that πνευματικός is a favorite term of the Corinthians by which they have come to describe their new existence as those who have τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ (2:14).41 Barclay demonstrates the term functioned in early Christian communities to convey “self-understanding” and the “eschatological world-view of believers,” designating “their new identity.”42 Without denying that its use in 12:1 signals the topic “spiritual matters/gifts,” with the use of πνευματικός, Paul is touching upon the members’ self-understanding.43 Corinthians were not wrong to understand themselves as πνευματικός: they had received the Spirit at conversion/initiation (12:12–13), the Spirit indwelled them corporately (3:16) and individually (6:19), and the Spirit remained integral to Christian knowing (2:10–16), doing (12:4–30), and life-together (12:12–13; 2 Cor 13:13). Indeed, as Dunn puts it, “having and belonging to the Spirit … is thus the distinctive marker for the new identity of the Christ believers.”44

40

278.

C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968),

41 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 22–23, suggests that the question the Corinthians posed to Paul on these matters may have been along the lines of, “Is it really true that spiritual manifestations (πνευματικά, pneumatika) constitute unfailing evidence of spiritual people (πνευματικοί, pneumatikoi)?” 42 Barclay, “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity,” 163, 165. 43 E.g., Carson, Showing the Spirit, 22, notes that if the term is taken in the masculine in 12:1, “In that case Paul is dealing less with the nature of spiritual gifts than with the nature of spiritual people, although obviously the two are in some way related.” Emphasis added. See also, Fee, Empowering Presence, 30, who finds that in the context of Corinthians, the term πνευματικός “refers almost exclusively to God’s people as πνευματικοί, or to various activities and realities as belonging especially to the sphere of the Spirit.” Also Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 208–9, finds that in contexts such as 1 Corinthians, the term “expresses so clearly the sense of belonging to Spirit, embodying Spirit, manifesting Spirit, of the essence or nature of Spirit.” 44 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 425.

218

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

On the other hand, however, the Corinthians seemed to be misunderstanding and abusing spirituality, causing error and disunity.45 Some form of Hellenistic dualism46 along with human pride was distorting their view of what it meant to be indwelt by the Spirit. As πνευματικός they thought themselves angel-like, speaking the tongues of angels (13:1), no longer bound by marital norms (7:1– 16; e.g., “like angels,” Matt 22:30), and able to disregard the material body (1 Cor 6:12–20; 15:1–58). Fee’s term for describing this aspect of the Corinthians’ theology is apt, “spiritualized eschatology.”47 In both their disbelief in the future (bodily) resurrection (chap. 15), and their disregard for the present purposes of the body (6:12–20), they leveraged their so-called spiritual nature. Also, as Martin’s work attests, the Corinthians were using spiritual gifts as status markers, further demarcating strong from the weak (12:21–25). Hence, when Paul introduces τῶν πνευματικῶν in 12:1, he prepares to address not just what they do, but who they think they are. Stewards of Χάρισμα This context-specific understanding of πνευματικός prepares the way for defining the meaning of χαρίσματα in 1 Corinthians 12–14. In its general usage, χαρίσματα (pl. of χάρισμα) refers to “that which is freely and graciously given,” and therefore even when indwelling an individual, the emphasis lies on stewardship, not ownership.48 Paul can use χάρισμα to refer in a general sense to God’s grace in redemption, eternal life, or revelation (Rom 5:15, 15; 6:23; 11:29). In certain instances, the term takes on a more technical sense, referring to the varied workings of the Spirit in the context of the community (e.g., Rom 12:3–8; 1 Cor 12:4–30).49 Fee, First Epistle, 6, is correct in noting that “the Corinthian understanding of what it means to be ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikos)’” is a key issue Paul is addressing. However, Fee probably goes too far in stating that it is “the key issue between Paul and them” (p. 6). 46 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 17, writes, “Corinthian eschatology was probably reinforced by some brand of Hellenistic dualism that took a dim view of present bodily existence while vastly misunderstanding the nature of spiritual vitality.” 47 Fee, First Epistle, 12. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 16, uses the more common phrase “overrealized eschatology” in describing one of the Corinthians most entrenched problems.” Fee is helpful in capturing the emphasis on spirituality (being πνευματικός) that marked their eschatological understanding. 48 “Χάρισμα,” BDAG, 1081. 49 Paul K. Njiru, Charisms and the Holy Spirit's Activity in the Body of Christ: An Exegetical-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 12,4–11 and Romans 12,6–8 (Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002), 97, suggests three senses of χάρισμα in Paul: (1) a general sense [Rom 15:15, 16; 6:23; 11:29]; (2) a limited sense [2 Cor 1:10–11]; and (3) a special sense [1 Cor 12:4, 31; Rom 12:6]. See also Dunn, Theology of Paul, 554, who claims, “Paul can us [χάρισμα] as a summary both for what Christ has accomplished [Rom 5:15–16] and for the various gifts bestowed on Israel [Rom 11:29], as well as for particular blessings 45

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

219

In agreement with other scholars, we hold that Paul’s switch from πνευματικός to the term χαρίσματα in chapter 12 (12:4, 9, 28, 30 [2x]) does not signal a new topic – as the terms can function synonymously50 – but rather indicates Paul’s unique emphasis regarding spirituality.51 It is not that Paul opposes πνευματικῶν, but with the term χαρίσματα he is able to emphasize not only the power, but also character of Christian spirituality.52 Through its root (χάρις), χάρισμα makes Paul’s argument for him: χάρις-μα, in “its very formation … indicates that it denotes the result of the act of gracious giving.”53 Paul wants “to remind his readers that whatever might truly be considered ‘spiritual’ is better thought of as a gracious gift from God.”54 The Corinthians’ self-centered and “individualizing form of ‘spirituality [χαρίσματα]’”55 was a contradiction in terms. Paul in fact began addressing the community’s notion of Christian existence vis-à-vis spirituality earlier in the letter, where he also juxtaposes the concept of χάρις with πνευματικός: Now we have received not the spirit of the world (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου), but the Spirit who is from God (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), that we might understand the things freely given (χαρισθέντα) us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες). (1 Cor 2:12–13) to or though individual believers [Rom 1.11]. But his most common usage is in reference to charisms for the assembly [Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4, 31], both of speaking and of doing.” 50 E.g., Paul writes “ζηλοῦτε τὰ χαρίσματα” in 12:30 and then echoes “ζηλοῦτε τὰ πνευματικά” in 14:1. See Albert Vanhoye, I Carismi Nel Nuovo Testamento (Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), 40–41, who finds that the word χάρισμα in 1 Cor 12:4– 11 does not indicate any contrast with πνευματικά. See also Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 553. 51 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 23, notes that whereas πνευματικά was the Corinthians’ preferred term to speak of spiritual matters/person, Paul prefers χαρίσματα, and therefore switches to it not because he is taking up a new topic, but putting a new twist on the subject at hand. 52 The term χάρισμα occurs seventeen times in the New Testament, sixteen of which are in the traditional Pauline canon. The only other occurrence is 1 Peter 4:10, which reflects the Pauline tradition: “As each has received a gift (χάρισμα), use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.” 53 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 553. “Χάρισμα,” BDAG, 1081, “that which is freely and graciously given, favor bestowed, gift,” from the root word, “χάρις,” BDAG, 1079, “gracious deed, gift.” For a treatment of the concept χάρις/gift in Paul’s background on through post-Enlightenment thought, see Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 11–330. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 255, offers the concise explanation, “Pneumatika (12:1; 14:1) stresses the spiritual nature or source of a particular ability or gift, while charismata (12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31) stresses their nature as gift, that is, the unmerited character of these functions or activities.” 54 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 23. 55 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 23.

220

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

Here Paul places the neuter and masculine forms of πνευματικός side-by-side, “spiritual-truths to spiritual-persons” (πνευματικοῖς πνευματικά).56 His logic suggests that in order to receive spiritual truth, one must be an authentically spiritual person; act and being are linked. In 2:12 Paul uses the passive form of χαρίζομαι (verbal form of χάρις/χάρισμα) to emphasize that what the Corinthians have from God, was given “graciously/freely.” Hence, Paul’s critique and correction of the Corinthians’ notion of being πνευματικός by employing the term χάρισμα begins early in the letter. To summarize, Paul uses the term χάρισματα in 1 Corinthians 12–14 to speak of the gifts and works of the Spirit in individuals and the community; however, he also uses it to emphasize the nature of such things. They are, literally, “grace-gifts.” With this general definition in mind, we can now examine more closely the source and purpose of the χάρισματα, which are delineated in verses 4–11. 5.3.2. The Unifying Nature of Χαρίσματα: Common Source, Agency, and Purpose The Divine Source and Grounds of the Diverse yet Unified Χαρίσματα: Verses 4–11 Before enumerating the theme of unity-diversity vis-à-vis the various χαρίσματα (vv. 7–11), Paul grounds the idea of unity-diversity in the divine source of the gifts (vv. 4–6).57 This serves to emphasize the nature of the unity behind and within the diverse gifts, namely, the nature of God. In verses 4–6 Paul presents three overlapping realities, χαρίσματα, διακονίαι, and ἐνεργήματα, which are attributed to the Spirit, the Lord and God, respectively. Thus, τῶν πνευματικῶν have a divine source, which therefore unifies them in origin and purpose. Also, and equally important, the gifts issue from πνεῦμα, κύριος, and θεός, which in turn grounds the diversity of manifestations. We will note in a moment the connection between verses 4–6 and 7–11; however, first the relationship between verses 4–6 and the chapter is noted. Njiru points out that verses 4–6 not only prepare for Paul’s list of nine gifts in

In rendering (πνευματικοῖς) as “those who are spiritual” rather than “spiritual words,” we agree with the NRSV and ESV, and not with the NIV, which reads, “expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” We find that what immediately follows in 1 Cor 2:14 supports reading “spiritual persons” rather than “spiritual words” in 2:13: e.g., “but the natural person (ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God” (2:14). 57 Verses 4, 5, 6 share a parallel structure: (a) the term διαιρέσεις, (b) a term for what is apportioned [χαρισμάτων, διακονιῶν, ἐνεργημάτων], (c) the source given with an intensifying pronoun. It is commonly recognized that these three verses emphasize the divine origin of all different “gifts” and grounds the unity-diversity motif of 7–11 in the nature of God. For further explanation of vv. 4–6, see Li, Paul’s Teaching, 219–20. 56

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

221

verses 7–11 but contain a “brief outline of the larger arumgumentatio”58 running from 7–31a. He summarizes: “The mentioning of the spiritual gifts (χαρίσματα) in v. 4 anticipates the discussion of these gifts in vv. 7–11 (A). The phrase ‘the same Lord’ in v. 5 prepares for the discussion of the body of Christ in vv. 12–26 (B). Finally the workings of God (v. 6) prepares for the third subunit in which the charisms are identified as coming from God (cf. 1 Cor 12,27–31 A1).”59 This structure is important to identify because below we will stress the relationship between verses 7–11 and verses 12–26, whereby Paul employs the popular body metaphor (12:12–26) in order to illustrate that the diverse gifts work for a common and unifying goal – namely, the common good/building up of the church.60 The relationship between verses 4–6 and 7–11 can be identified by an inclusio formed by the terms διαίρεσις/διαιρέω (“apportioning/apportions”) in verses 4 and 11 and intensive use of the pronoun αὐτό with the articular noun, τὸ αὐτό πνεῦμα (“the same Spirit”), in these same verses.61 Whereas verses 4– 6 establish the trifold source and agency overarching the gifts, verses 7–11 focus specifically on the role of the Spirit as the key agent in their apportioning and working.62 The term πνεῦμα appears seven times in verses 7–11, which, in keeping with Njiru’s and Li’s view of the larger structure,63 looks back to its use verse 4. In turning to look more closely at verses 7–11, the focus will be upon two factors that unify the gifts: (a) a common apportioning and empowering agent, the Spirit (v. 11), and (b) a common purpose (πρός τὸ συμφέρον, v. 7).

Njiru, Charisms, 71, explains, “It is important to note how the three verses constitute the subpropositio, that is, a brief outline of the argumentation.” 59 Nijiru, Charisms, 71. Li, Paul’s Teaching, 220, is another scholar who identifies a structural link between verses 4–6 and the rest of the chapter: “12:4–6 contains a theological programme that anticipates the further development of Paul’s teaching in 12:7–30. This teaching respectively focuses on the role of activity of πνεῦμα (12:7–11), κύριος (12:12– 27), θεὸς (12:28–30) within the ἐκκλησία.” 60 Nijiru, Charisms, 71, explains the charisms “… have been given for a purpose, namely for the service of the community, the upbuilding of the body of Christ, the Church. Through these gifts God is at work in the Corinthian community.” 61 E.g., Njiru, Charisms, 69; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 220; Fee, First Epistle, 585, also concurs, stating, “V.11 concludes by repeating, and thereby reinforcing, all the proper themes [of vv. 4–10].” 62 Collins, First Corinthians, 499, writes, “‘The Spirit’ is the phrase that holds the unit [vv. 4–11] together by way of ring construction (vv. 4–11). The Spirit is the dominant word in the unit. Repeated eight times, it echoes throughout the pericope, linking it with Paul’s general introduction (12,1–3) which speaks of spiritual gifts and the Holy Spirit.” 63 See Nijiru, Charisms, 71; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 220, 58

222

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

A Common Agent Apportioning and Working Χάρισματα In verse 7 Paul states what Fee calls his “thesis”64 for this section: ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. After the gifts are listed in verses 8–10 – which are nine “concrete expressions of ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος”65 – verse 11 summarizes the thought of verses 7–10, essentially restating verse 7. The relationship between the gifts and the Spirit, especially the Spirit’s agency, is therefore front and center in these verses. The main verb in verse 7 is passive, δίδοται, with the implied subject being God (e.g., v. 6). As such, God is the source of the ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος, the one who is working (ὁ ἐνεργῶν) all things (v. 6). However, in verse 11 this same verb, ἐνεργέω, is used with the Spirit as subject: πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα (v. 11).66 Thus, whether or not one reads the genitive as subjective or objective in the phrase ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος,67 the Spirit is not merely a passive substance distributed, but rather is an active and personal agent, apportioning and working χαρίσματα. This shared agency between God and the Spirit is part of the proto-trinitarian logic of 1 Cor 12:4–11.68 It also coheres with Paul’s Jewish background, where God was the source of the Spirit, but also, the Spirit was God’s Spirit; such a close association makes it hard to parse between the Spirit’s agency and God’s.69 The new covenant expectations of the Spirit’s outpouring and Fee, First Epistle, 588. See also Njiru, Charisms, 71. Li, Paul’s Teaching, writes, “Given that 12:8–10 illustrates 12:7 it is logical that the listed items of 12:8–10 are concrete examples of ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος.” 66 Neil Richardson, Paul’s Language About God, JSNTS 99 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 217–18, makes this point, stating that by this shared agency around the same verb in close context, “the theocentric character of the Spirit is understood.” 67 The genitive, τοῦ πνεύματος, could be taken as subjective (what the Spirit manifests) or objective (the operation which manifests the Spirit publicly). Thiselton, First Epistle, 936, notes the ambiguity but favors the objective, which he renders “the operation which manifests the Spirit in public,” following Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC 33 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1953), 264. See also “φανέρωσις,” BDAG, 1049, which states, “The syntax of the gen. in … 1 Cor 12:7 cannot be determined w. certainty. Whether the gen. is subj. or obj.” 68 It would be anachronistic to say Paul is speaking about the Trinity in 1 Cor 12:4–6; however, many scholars speak of “proto-trinitarian” language. Eastman, “Oneself in Another,” 111, for example, in commenting on Romans 6 and 8, writes, “Paul’s protoTrinitarian language makes explicit the connections between Christ and the Spirit [in Rom 8:9–10] that he has implied earlier in the letter [Romans 5–6].” 69 E.g., In Paul’s Jewish tradition the Spirit is “given” ( ‫נתן‬/δίδωμι) or “poured out” ( ‫פךשׁ‬/ἐκχέω) by God: e.g., “δώσω πνεῦμά [ ‫ ]רוח נתן‬μου εἰς ὑμᾶς / (Ezek 37:6, 14); LXX Joel 3:1, ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου [ ‫ ]פךשׁ רוח־את‬ἐπι πᾶσαν σάρκα.” In these texts, God is the agent and the Spirit the means by which God’s purposes are accomplished. Isaiah 44:3–5 is 64 65

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

223

apportioning of gifts in texts such as Joel 2:28–29 is the likely background for Paul’s pneumatology here. Important for our study’s focus – Spirit-shaped relationships – Paul draws specific attention to the agency and role of the Spirit in verses 7–11. Hence in the summarizing verse 11, the Spirit is the active agent, working (ἐνεργεῖ, v. 11), willing (βούλεται, v. 11) and apportioning (διαιροῦν). A Common Purpose of the Χάρισματα: Interpreting πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον in Verse 7 A second aspect of verse 7 to explore is the purpose statement: πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. What exactly does Paul mean by τὸ συμφέρον? The preposition πρός with accusative τὸ συμφέρον conveys purpose.70 According to BDAG, the verb συμφέρω can carry two senses: the literal, “to bring together into a heap,” and metaphorical, “to be advantageous, help, confer a benefit, be profitable/useful.”71 The related noun σύμφορος indicates something is “beneficial, advantageous, profitable.”72 When used with the sense of “benefit,” there is nothing in the term itself to indicate who benefits. A literal translation of 12:7, therefore, might read, “with a view to profiting.”73 However, the majority of English translations understand the community to be in view, and translate, “for the common good” (NRSV, NIV, ESV, CSB, ISV). Thus, ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος are aimed, not at the individual’s, but the community’s good.74 The focus on the communal benefit is clear from context: e.g., the body metaphor in verses 12–27 and repeated references to “building up” (οἰκοδομέω, 14:4 [2x], 17; οἰκοδομή, 14:3, 5, 12, 26) in chapter 14. The phrase in 14:5, ἳνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομήν, makes explicit that the common good/building up has the church community in view. While communal-benefit is indeed a central goal of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14, there is a danger in emphasizing the communal good to the extent of eclipsing the individual’s good. Albert Vanhoye, for example, notes that at times communitarian profit actually negates individual profit: e.g., “This statement [1 Cor 9:27] shows that Paul was aware of the possibility of a break one such text that indicates the closeness between God’s acting and the Spirit’s agency. See Introduction to Part 2 for more comment on Isa 44:3–5. 70 See Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 380; see also Ciampa and Rosner, First Letters, 572, who refer to “purpose”; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 227. 71 “συμφέρω,” BDAG, 960. 72 “συμφορος,” BDAG, 960. 73 This is the gloss that Carson, Showing the Spirit, 35, makes to indicate the literal meaning. This is not the interpretation Caron emphasizes as indicative of the context; “The broader context makes it clear that the latter [common good] is in view” (p. 35). 74 Luther’s translation, “zum allgemeinen Nutzen,” and the more recent HOF, “der ganzen Gemeinde nützen,” also emphasize the community, Gemeinde.

224

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

between utility for others and personal utility (l’utilité pour les autres et l’utilité personnelle) in the apostolic ministry.”75 Njiru and Murphy-O’Conner, however, emphasize that the gifts benefit both individuals and the community, insisting, “Considering all the Spiritual gifts enumerated in vv. 8–10, it is quite reasonable to conclude that in his phrase πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον, Paul has in view the community as well as the individual Christian.”76 In emphasizing that the χαρίσματα have both a communal and individual profit, however, these scholars typically have in view a bifurcation between private and public use. For example, Njiru makes his case by referring to 1 Cor 14:4, where Paul indicates, “the one who speaks in tongues builds up himself (ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ).”77 Also Carson notes, “It is hard to see how verse 7 of this chapter [1 Corinthians 12] render illegitimate a private use of tongues if the result is a better person, a more spiritually minded Christian.”78 We agree that (a) the main thrust of the purpose clause of verse 7 has the community benefit in mind and that (b) this should not rule out an individual privately benefiting from the χαρίσματα. However, our thesis argues – what is almost entirely overlooked by commentators – that another and more significant manner exists in these texts for holding together the communal and individual benefit of the χαρίσματα. This requires not bifurcating private and public uses of the gifts, but rather, 75 Albert Vanhoye, “L’utilité des χαρίσματα selon 1 Cor 12–14,” in Diakonia – Leitourgia – Charisma: Patristic and Contemporary Exegesis of the New Testament: Festschrift Georgios Ant. Galatis (Athens: En Plo, 2006), 580. Vanhoye’s point is well taken. However, in the broader context of Paul’s apostolic ministry, suffering for the church was actually part of his own profit: e.g., Paul’s suffering for the churches was (a) the actualization and confirmation of his personal identity as an apostle (1 Cor 11:23–12:10; Col 1:24–25); and (b) his joy (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:7–8, 19). Moreover, one reason he worked hard and suffered long (1 Cor 9:27) for the sake of the churches was because he knew his joy, both present and future, was tied to their wellbeing: e.g., “make my joy complete by being of the same mind….” (Phil 2:1–2). In 1 Thess 2:7–8 he assures the Thessalonians of his affection for them (like “a nursing mother”) and states: “We were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thess 2:7–8). All this is to say, if service aimed at building up the body appears on the surface to cause suffering to the individual, this does not necessarily require that it is not still benefiting that individual. 76 Njiru, Charisms, 127; Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, 1 Corinthians (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 127; See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 578–79, who also references Murphy-O’Conner’s work, “Murphy-O’Conner makes the important point that it is dangerous to think of the ‘common good’ in such a way that it is assumed to be superior to the good of an individual. Paul understands the mutual benefit to represent ‘the success of each member.’” 77 Njiru, Charisms, 127, writes based on this verse, “It is clear that Paul attributes the gift of tongues as profitable to the person’s prayer, even though it can as well be profitable to the community if there is someone to interpret it.” 78 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 35.

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

225

noting that the individual who shares her χαρίσματα for the good of the community benefits by and in the sharing. This is not merely through the utilitarian profit of a healthy community. In light of the body-metaphor (12:12– 26), the individual-as-μέλη (member, organ) is only actualized through serving the body. As an example, there is an identifiable link between the communal benefit and the actualization (benefit, flourishing) of the individual in the interchange between members of the body: “If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body” (12:15). Here, Paul makes the point that although a seemingly inferior part (foot) feels unnecessary in light of a seemingly superior part (hand), because a healthy body requires the right functioning of all parts, the foot is actually necessary and important. The subtle logic of this illustration implies that by being itself (a foot), the foot helps the body, and at the same time only in this process of helping the body does the foot realize its utility, and hence, actualizes its identity. If this body-member metaphor illustrates Paul’s treatment of the gifts in verses 7–11, and we will demonstrate below that it does, then when someone employees a χάρισμα for the building up of the community, in and by that very act they are actualized (experience themselves) as an indispensable member. Hence, if the body-part metaphor has any bearing on Christian anthropology vis-à-vis being in the body (community), then it is in the act of serving/building up the community that the individual is fully realized. Therefore, when reading the purpose statement in 12:7 in light of the context of 12:12–26, the “common good” of a member is bound up with the “individual good” of that member. When serving the common good, the hand not only builds up the body, but also, to risk a pun, realizes and enjoys its own handiness. Konrad Weiss, in his overview of the use of συμφέρω in Hellenistic literature, notes a desire among many philosophical schools to establish “the right relation between συμφέρον, eudaemonia [happiness, flourishing], the (κοινῇ) καλὸν κἀγαθόν and ἀρετή [that] remained determinative for Gk. thought in every school and every thinker.”79 In this tradition, moreover, Weiss notes that “τὸ συμφέρον always means τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον, which includes the ἰδίᾳ συμφέρον.”80 One must be cautious when drawing parallels between Greek thought and Paul’s thought.81 However, if such a tradition was as replete as Weiss suggests (“remained determinative for Greek thought in every school and every thinker”82), it is not unlikely that the largely Gentile church in Wiess, “φέρω, ἀναφέρω, διαφέρω …,” TDNT, 9:71. Konrad Wiess, “φέρω, ἀναφέρω, διαφέρω …,” TDNT, 9:71. On this point Weiss references Plato Leg., IX, 875a–b. 81 Here we bear in mind the well-known essay by Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81.1 (1962): 1–13, which cautions against being too quick to assume causation or influence when noting apparent similarities between two texts. 82 Wiess, “φέρω, ἀναφέρω, διαφέρω …,” TDNT, 9:71. 79 80

226

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

Corinth (12:2) would have held closely together the good of the community and their own benefit. Especially with the body metaphor coming on the heels of verses 7–11, it is important, therefore, to understand this interplay between the common good and an individual’s good, when Paul is dealing with the χαρίσματα.83 To summarize our reading of πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον: the main and corrective force of the usage is toward the communal context, i.e., building up the body of Christ. However, with the body-member metaphor in mind, Paul does not lose sight of the individual benefit of a “member/πνευματικός” when functioning for the other. Conzelmann’s words make this point: the bodymetaphor has in mind “differentiation (and the demand for cooperation which is to be derived from the figure): in this way each man can show that his function is meaningful and necessary [i.e., individual benefit], that is, he can be pointed to the opportunity and norm of his work, namely, οἰκοδομή, ‘building up’ [communal benefit].”84 5.3.3. 1 Corinthians 12:7 to 12:8–10 Having situated the purpose clause of 1 Cor 12:7 in the context of chapter 12, we now ask how πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον relates specifically to each χάρισμα in verses 8–10. The purpose statement only appears in verse 7. However, a majority of commentators point out based on the tight structure of 7–11 that it is implied throughout the section.85 The body metaphor that illustrates the contents of verses 4–11 suggest this is the case, as does the connection between specific gifts (tongues/prophecy) and the building up of the church in chapter 14. In light of the tight structure of verses 7–11 and the larger context of chapter 12 and 14, we suggest the following reading for verses 7–10. Words bracketed

83 It is also the case that in the only other two uses of συμφέρω in the letter (6:12; 10:23) it is in fact the Corinthians’ own “maxim” that leads to Paul’s use of the term. When Paul mimics their own slogan in 6:12, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial,” he is preparing to argue for an ethic that (a) not only takes seriously the physical body (6:20), but also (b) the corporate body, “you are not your own” (6:20). However, this does not mean Paul loses sight of the personal aspect; “you are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (τῷ σώματι, sg.). Hence both the individual and community are held together. In recognizing a Corinthian phrase in 6:12; 10:23, we follow the majority of modern scholars, e.g., Thiselton, First Epistle, 460, who writes, “There can be no question that the initial clause of v. 12 represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or by many at Corinth…. The overwhelming majority of modern scholars adopt this view.” 84 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 214. 85 Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 571; Li, Paul’s Teaching, 228, writes, “Paul stresses in that the purpose of ἠ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος is πρός τὸ συμφέρον. This of course is also true for the hyponyms listed in 12:8–10.”

5.3. The Unifying Nature and Purpose of Diverse Χαρίσματα

227

are not in the text but are implied. The words have been slightly rearranged at points to demonstrate the flow. -7 ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος πρός τὸ συμφέρον - 8a ᾧ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 8b ἂλλῳ δὲ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα [δίδοται] λόγος γνώσεως [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 9a ἑτέρω έν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι [δίδοται] πίστις [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 9b ἂλλῳ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πνεύματι [δίδοται] χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 10a ἂλλῳ δὲ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα [δίδοται] ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 10b ἂλλῳ [... τὸ πνεῦμα] [δίδοται] προφητεία [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 10c ἂλλῳ [... τὸ πνεῦμα] [δίδοται] διακρίσεις πνευμάτων [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 10d ἑτέρω [... τὸ πνεῦμα] [δίδοται] γένη γλωσσῶν [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] - 10e ἂλλῳ [... τὸ πνεῦμα] [δίδοται] ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν [πρός τὸ συμφέρον] This depiction of verses 7–11 demonstrates that unit’s symmetry, as the syntactical structure of verse 7 is repeated in verses 8–10. Following the form of verse 7, the main verb of verse 8 is the passive δίδοται, with that verb then implied in the following eight clauses (8b–10e). The subject of each clause likewise follows from the subject of verse 7: the nine “gifts” are concrete expressions of ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος.86 Considering this structure and symmetry, it is also clear that the purpose clause of verse 7 indicates the purpose of each particular ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος. The direct object of the passive verbs, from verse 7 through 10e, is either, ἑκάστῳ, ᾧ, ἑτέρω, or ἄλλῳ, all of which indicate the particularity and individuality of the recipient. Also included or implied in each clause is the role of the Spirit. Three different conjunctions are used, διά (v. 8), ἐν (9a, b), κατά (8b, 10a), all conveying a sense of instrumentality, whereby God gives the gifts through, in, and according to the πνεῦμα. The sense is that God is the ultimate source (implied subject of δίδοται) and the Spirit the means through which the gifts are apportioned.

86

See Fee, First Epistle, 585, 591.

228

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

Verse 11 takes a different syntactical structure, however all the elements of verses 7–10 are there: the Spirit who apportions (τό ἓν καί τό αὐτὸ πνεῦμα διαιροῦν), the many manifestations (παντα ταῦτα), and the particular recipient (ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ τό). The new features in verse 11, however, stress an important point: the Spirit comes on stage as a powerful actor working, apportioning, and willing. Finally, the clause at the end of verse 11, καθὼς βούλεται, solidifying that all this happens according to the Spirit’s desire, suggests that the purpose statement in verse 7, πρός τὸ συμφέρον, is harmonious with the Spirit’s will. 5.3.4. Summary Observations The aim of this section of the chapter was twofold: to understand what role the Spirit plays in apportioning and working the χαρίσματα, and to note what the purpose of the χαρίσματα are. In verses 4–6, Paul’s proto-trinitarian language identifies the source of the gifts as the Spirit (v. 4), the Lord (v. 5) and God (v. 6). In verses 7–11 Paul zeroes in on the apportioning of the χαρίσματα and the role of the Spirit. Here, especially in verse 11, it becomes clear that the Spirit is an integral agent in the apportionment, working, and willing of the χαρίσματα. Also noted in this section was that Paul’s switch to χαρίσματα in explaining τῶν πνευματικῶν served to make a point: the gifts of the Spirit are gifts (χάρις) from God, and as such their stewardship must reflect their grace-character. This point was further developed by the proto-trinitarian structure of verses 4–6, where both the divine source of the gifts and the divine grounds for the unitydiversity motif are established. In this way, Paul prepares for his explicit purpose statement regarding the χαρίσματα (v. 7) by situating the conversation in the character and purposes of God. The aim of the χαρίσματα is the common good (πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον, v. 7). However, it is also stressed that in light of the logic of the body metaphor, the “good” of the individual is neither eclipsed nor subverted by the χαρίσματα’s goal but realized. Finally, a depiction and explanation of the structure of verses 7–11 reveals that this sense of purpose qualified the nine examples of χαρίσματα in verses 8–10, and therefore each gift is meant to build up the body, and in and by doing so, actualize the individual parts. Hence, we have noted a common nature (χάρις), source, agency, and purpose that unify the diverse χαρίσματα. We now ask more specifically how the particular χαρίσματα achieve the purpose stated in verse 7. In doing so, we will argue that the χαρίσματα require, create, and sustain relationships of interdependence between believers, which both build up the body, and in turn actualize personhood.87 87 In his treatment of the Spirit and community in Luke’s thought, François Bovon, “Der Heilige Geist, die Kirche, und die menschlichen Beziehungen nach der Apostelgeschichte 20, 36–21, 16,” in Lukas in neuer Sicht: Gesammelte Aufsӓtze, François Bovon (Neukirchen-

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

229

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence 5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

In verses 8–10 Paul lists nine concrete examples of “manifestations of the Spirit.” This list includes: λόγος σοφίας (“utterance of wisdom”), λόγος γνώσεως (“utterance of knowledge”), πίστις (“faith”), χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων (“gifts of healing”), ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων (“working of miracles”), προφητεία (“prophecy”), διακρίσεις πνευμάτων (“ability to distinguish between spirits”), γένη γλωσσῶν (“various kinds of tongues”), and ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν (“interpretation of tongues”). Our goal in this section will be to consider how each particular gift realizes the purpose statement of verse 7 and the role of relationality therein. First, however, a few preliminary matters regarding the list of gifts is necessary. This list is neither exhaustive88 nor systematized.89 Also it would be wrong, as Ralph Martin notes, “to distinguish these ‘gifts’ too sharply.”90 Our treatment above already highlighted the common character of the gifts – noted in their common source and purpose.91 The variety of terms listed in verses 4– 6 – e.g., χαρισμάτων (v. 4), διακονιῶν (v. 5), ἐνεργημάτων (v. 6) – are all captured under the umbrella, ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος (v. 7); and are “all alternative ways of describing the whole range of spiritual gifts.”92 Though we will resist trying to organize the gifts too specifically, Robert Banks’s work suggests a way of focusing analysis of the gifts that ties into our interests. In his work on Paul’s idea of community, Banks asks with some specificity how the gifts actually benefit the community. He suggests the following four ways: the gifts impact (1) the growth of understanding in the Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985), 181–204, suggest an idea somewhat similar to what is being argued here: for Bovon, the early community often did not know the specific will of God for future ministry, but the Spirit guided the community by revealing it, bit by bit, and did this primarily through dialogue. However, this was never in a tyrannical way (tyrannische Weise), but the Spirit lead in such a way that no one became superior to the other (see pp. 203–04). As such, the Spirit’s guidance and prophetic gifts (a) bound the community and (b) created equal identity and purpose for each member. 88 The presence of other lists in Paul’s letters (Rom 12:3–8; 1 Cor 12:28–30) as well as the ad hoc nature of 1 Corinthians make evident that this list is not exhaustive. 89 See Ralph P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1997), 11–12, for brief overview of how some scholars have attempted classifications of the gifts. 90 Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation, 11. 91 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 209, summarizes, “All the charismata are acts of service, all are actions wrought by God, all are manifestations of the Spirit for the common good (12.7; cf. Eph 4.12).” See also Dunn, Theology of Paul, 554. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 209–52, does however offer a loose categorization of the gifts in his study, which can best be called an organization by the different manner by which the χάρισμα manifest: by miracles, revelation, inspired utterance, and service. 92 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 209.

230

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

community, (2) the psycho-social well-being of the community, (3) the physical well-being of the community, and (4) the unconscious life of the community.93 Banks then makes the following remark: “The focal point of reference [within the church community] was neither a book nor a rite but a set of relationships, and God communicated himself to them not primarily through the written word and tradition, or mystical experience and cultic activity, but through one another.”94 Banks’s work points in the direction of how this study will focus its analysis of the nine χάρισματα: rather than an exhaustive treatment of each gift, we focus on how the gifts benefit the community. We also develop in more detail Banks’s notion that by means of the gifts God communicates himself to the Corinthians through a “set of relationships.”95 As such, we will briefly comment on three aspects of each gift: its definition, how it achieves the stated purpose (12:7) and in what way it involves relationships. 5.4.1. The Nine-fold Ἡ Φανέρωσις Τοῦ Πνεύματος in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 Utterance of Wisdom (v. 8a) Paul describes the first gift with two words, λόγος σοφίας. The nominative λόγος indicates this is a gift of speech, and in distinction from other gifts involving the tongue, it is articulate and rational.96 The genitive σοφίας is either descriptive, an “utterance characterized by wisdom,” or a genitive of content, “an utterance full of wisdom.”97 In both cases the meaning is really the same. More important is to recall Paul’s sharp critique of worldly σοφίας in 1:17– 2:5, where the “foolishness” of the cross (1:18, 23) is God’s means of destroying the wisdom of “the rulers of this age” (1:19, 2:6). Wisdom, then, is not found in eloquence or rhetorical persuasion (2:1–3), but in the proclamation of “Christ crucified” (1:23). For Paul, wisdom is perception into God’s salvation-history as it centers on the crucified messiah. As such, λόγος σοφίας likely refers to some insight given by the Spirit into God’s plan of salvation and how it relates to the Corinthians in particular.98 93 See Robert J. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 103. 94 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 111. 95 Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 111. 96 Thiselton, First Epistle, 938, translates “articulate utterance relation to wisdom” and explains the term λόγος here “indicates a rational statement, proposition, or sentence.” Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 209, adds that it indicates speaking “instructively,” and hence, articulately.” 97 Fee, First Epistle, 592. 98 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 220–21, writes that λόγος σοφίας “probably means simply some charismatic utterance giving an insight into, some fresh understanding of God’s plan of salvation or of the benefits it brings to believers…. Paul may think of the ‘word of wisdom’ as an inspired proclamation with saving power.”

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

231

If the purpose of the gifts is the benefit/building up of the body (12:7; 14:13), we may surmise that an utterance of wisdom relates to Banks’s first category of benefit, “the growth of understanding in the community.”99 By stating the “purposes of God” and “reversals”100 of the cross, these utterances serve to disentangle the Corinthians from unhealthy allegiance to the “wisdom of this age” (2:6) and strengthen their commitment to the gospel. Does this gift require or generate relationality? The term λόγος emphasizes orality,101 and to state the obvious, Paul does not have in mind an individual speaking to him or herself. Rather, Paul has in mind the “actual utterance of wisdom by which it becomes a shared experience.”102 The gift, therefore, requires a particular individual (ᾧ) speaking to a listening group. Presumably, in the case of a church that meets regularly103 and in the confines of a home,104 these individuals would come to know each other intimately. An “utterance of wisdom,” then, from a particular individual to the group – perhaps everyone, or perhaps for a particular member – would require the basic framework of a personal relationship, two or more persons. Moreover, in the likely event that the content of the utterance is highly meaningful, through the statement the speaker and hearer would be drawn closer together; such a shared experience

See Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 103. Thiselton, First Epistle, 939, summarizes the thoughts of many, writing, “Kistermaker, Dunn, Schatzmann, and Schrage broadly view the articulation of ‘wisdom’ as the intelligible communication of the purposes of God as focused in the ‘reversals’ of the cross (1:26–31), for the world and for the common advantage of all believers.” 101 “λόγος,” BDAG, 599, offers as the primary sense of the word, “a communication whereby the mind finds expression … utterance, chiefly oral.” 102 Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology of Charismata, 36. See also Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 421, who writes, “The gift is the ability to speak divine wisdom which believers receive through the Holy Spirit (cf. 2:6–7).” 103 Paul’s repeated references to “when you come together” (11:17, 18, 20, 33; 14:23, 26), as well as his reference that they “maintain the traditions” (11:2), determine that the Corinthians had “not neglected meeting together” (Heb 10:25). 104 We cannot be sure of the exact location of the early Christian meetings in Corinth. In Luke’s account, once Paul is opposed in the synagogue, he goes to “the house of a man named Titius Justus” (Acts 18:7). It has typically been assumed that homes were the most common meeting place of early Christians. However, for a thesis that challenges this view, see Edward Adams, The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (London: Bloomsbury, 2013). Adams essentially argues that the textual and archeological data suggest a broader scope of meeting places during the first two centuries. With that said, whether in a private home or elsewhere, the early gatherings were likely smaller, and therefore conducive for the types of relationships we are suggesting the sharing of gifts could foster. 99

100

232

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

of the Spirit not only “mutually builds up the individuals” (συμπαρακληθῆναι, Rom 1:12105), but would bind them closer together.106 Utterance of Knowledge (v. 8b) It is hard to distinguish what differentiates λόγος γνώσεως from λόγος σοφίας.107 Fee is likely correct that, as was the case with σοφίας, Paul’s use of γνῶσις (“knowledge”) is his “way of rescuing this gift of the Spirit from [the Corinthians’] own fascination with ‘knowledge’ and its concomitant pride.”108 As with wisdom, there is a worldly knowledge and godly knowledge (1 Cor 2:12). If we take as an example Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 8, where the term γνῶσις is used often, we can infer that worldly knowledge “puffs up” (8:1) and if anyone thinks they “know” by their own ability, “they do not yet know 105 Paul’s statement in Rom 1:11–12 bears many affinities with what we are arguing here: in order to share “some spiritual gift (χάρισμα ... πνευματικόν)” with the Romans believers, they must be near them – assuming the context for a relationship. Second, the sharing of the gift has a benefit, “strengthening.” Third, through the sharing of the gift, both the giver (Paul) and receiver (the Roman believer/s) are together built up (συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν). 106 Here we recall Robert A. Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, EMSP 18 (London: Academic Press, 1979), who notes that personal relationships involve interaction, are dynamic and deepen with intimacy. He writes “A relationship implies first some sort of intermittent interaction between two people involving interchanges over an extended period of time” (p. 14); “It is implicit in what has been said that relationships between individuals are seldom static…. Relationships between individuals are essentially dynamic in nature, and not to be thought of in terms of static dispositions or predilections” (p. 35); “The extent to which the participants in a relationship are prepared to reveal all aspects of themselves, experiential, emotional and physical [i.e., intimacy], to each other is a crucial dimension of many relationships” (p. 114). Hence, we assume some continuity in the giving of the gifts. Although the individual does not “possess” the gift, in keeping with themes of the anointing of the Spirit in the OT, it seems that the Spirit works in a particular way through a particular person with some consistency. For example, Luke writes that Philip the evangelist had daughters who “prophesied” (Acts 21:9), which assumes a level of consistency that could lead to an identifying label. Also in 2 Tim 1:6, Timothy is to “fan into flame the gift (χάρισμα) that is in him,” again assuming a continuity to how the Spirit might work through a person. 107 Thiselton, First Epistle, 941, writes, “There is no consensus whatever about any clear distinction between λόγος γνώσεως and λόγος σοφίας.” 108 Fee, First Epistle, 592. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 217, writes similarly and summarizes the situation in Corinthian vis-à-vis these loaded terms: “In the Corinthian letters in particular, they are not Paul’s own choice of expression; his use of theme has been determined in large measure by the situation which he addresses at Corinth. As is now widely recognized within NT scholarship, gnosis and Sophia are the slogans of the faction opposing Paul in Corinth. It is because his opponents claim to possess gnosis and Sophia, and deny them to others (including Paul), that Paul has to take up the concepts in the first place. This is why gnosis keeps recurring within the Corinthian letters and only rarely elsewhere, and why 1 Cor 1–3 is so dominated by discussion of Sophia.”

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

233

as they ought to know” (8:2). Moreover, for Paul right “knowledge” is grounded in loving God (8:3) and understanding reality according to God’s revelation of himself: “we know that an idol has no real existence, and there is no God but one” (1 Cor 8:4; cf., Deut 6:4). Within the context of 1 Corinthians 8 – with its treatment of eating food connected with idol worship – we can also deduce that γνῶσις involves not only a right perception, but a coinciding behavior. As Pearson summarizes, “Both for the opponents and for Paul, γνῶσις is Christian insight into the realities of Christian existence here and now and its practical consequences.”109 Thus, an “utterance of knowledge” is an insight into the reality of the world in light of who God is, given to an individual according to the Spirit (ἂλλῳ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα), for speaking to the community. Dunn suggests an utterance of wisdom may be more like “an inspired proclamation,” while an utterance “of knowledge sounds more like the charisma of a teacher.”110 There is little difference in the purpose of this gift and that of an utterance of wisdom. Keeping Dunn’s clarification in mind, however, we suggest this would involve a “longer” and perhaps more detailed sharing of information – more like teaching than a proclamation. The utterance of knowledge built up the body by bringing it further into knowledge of who God is, what the world is like vis-à-vis God, and the practical and ethical implications of this reality. The relational aspect is also like the utterance of wisdom; the individual (ἄλλῳ) must speak to the “other,” whether the whole group or a select member, and convey matters of deep importance. The one nuance from the utterance of wisdom would be that if Dunn’s distinction is correct, the utterance of knowledge would involve a longer “interaction,” which could deepen the relationships between the giver (conduit) of the gift and receiver(s).111 Faith (v. 9a) The third “manifestation of the Spirit” listed is πίστις (“faith”). In its typical Pauline usage, the term refers to a “justifying faith” (e.g., Rom 1:16–17) common to all believers (e.g., 1 Cor 1:21; 3:5; 13:3; 15:2, 11, 14, 17; 16:13). What Paul has in mind in 12:9a, however, is distinct. In mind here is a special dispensation or empowering of faith, “so as to move mountains” (13:2; cf. Matt

109 Birger A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973), 42. 110 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 221. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 209, finds that both the utterance of wisdom and knowledge “mean the gift of speaking instructively.” 111 Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 14, refers to “intermittent interaction between two people involving interchanges over an extended period of time” as indicative of a personal relationship. As such, a longer interchange could strengthen the relationship.

234

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

17:20; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6).112 The sense is that at certain times and for certain occasions the Spirit fosters an extra-ordinary “conviction that God will reveal his power or mercy in a special way.”113 Some understand the gift of faith as related causally to other gifts of miracles, such as the ensuing χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων (“gifts of healing,” 9b) and ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων (10a).114 This idea of interrelation has in mind the correlation between faith and healing in Jesus’s ministry (e.g., Mark 5:34–36; 9:22–25).115 This line of thinking – that the “special faith” in 12:9a opens pathways for other gifts to operate – seems to be supported by Rom 12:3. A parallel text to 1 Corinthians 12, there Paul encourages the Roman believers “to think [about themselves] … according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” Paul goes on to mention the body-member metaphor and lists gifts (12:4–8). Here, Paul again has in mind something other than “saving faith,” but a “measure” of faith that, apparently, relates to all the other gifts.116 In this sense, the special gift of faith relates not just to other gifts, but an other’s gift; i.e., one individual’s strong trust in God to act might open the door to (a) building the same gift of faith in others and (b) eliciting the gift of healing through another. Dunn suggests, “Faith in the recipient as it were completed the circuit so that the power could flow.”117 Thus, we conclude that the gift of faith, given to an individual by/in the Spirit (ἑτέρω έν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι), refers to an extraordinary and concentrated trust that God is powerful and will act in a specific situation. How such a gift serves the “common good” has already been alluded to and can be expressed in two ways: (a) this surge of faith encouraged the faith of others – faith begets faith; (b) also, from the broader context of Paul and the Gospels, extraordinary faith somehow opens a pathway for other gifts to flow, Here we are in agreement with the vast majority of scholars; e.g., Thiselton, First Epistle, 945, Not “saving faith,” but “something different form the faith that characterizes all believers.” See also, Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 211; Fee, First Epistle, 593; Njiru, Charisms, 144–45; Collins, First Corinthians, 454. 113 Fee, First Epistle, 593. 114 Collins, First Corinthians, 454 writes, “Charismatic faith is to be understood as a kind of miraculous faith, if not necessarily the faith that can move mountains … at least the faith that provides occasion for a faith healing.” Thiselton, First Epistle, 947, also notes a connection between πίστις in 9a and χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων in 9b and notes the other scholars who argue for the same connection: “Allo, Senft, Kistemaker, and Lang associate the special faith of v.9a with kinds of healing (v.9b)” (p. 947). 115 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 74, explains, “A striking feature about the synoptic use of πιστεύειν (believer) and its cognates is that nearly two-thirds of the references to faith occur in relation to miracles. Faith here must be understood as a trusting in God’s power, an openness and receptivity to the power of God to perform a might work.” 116 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 211, sees this connection also, noting, “In Rom 12:3 Paul thinks of such faith in connection with charismata in general.” 117 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 75. 112

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

235

whether that be gifts of healing or prophecy (e.g., “prophecy, in proportion to our faith,” Rom 12:6). This would build the community’s psychological and spiritual wellbeing by instilling a deep confidence in God and sense of his care, while also furthering its physical health, as more healings may occur. The relational implications of the gift of faith, therefore, are striking. As Thiselton writes, “In a community situation, certain specific persons often come onto the scene as ‘gifted’ with a robust confidence [faith] that becomes supportive for the entire community.”118 The gift of faith is for the other(s) but can only be shared with them through the presence of the individual conduit. The presence of a person with the χάρισμα of faith, therefore, would connect them to the rest of the community at the level of the heart; his or her presence would put others at ease and, as it were, usher in a sense of God’s presence and care. In more specific situations, it also may be the case that one person with the gift of faith would regularly partner with another with the gift of healing, as the former “closes the circuit so that the power [of healing] could flow.”119 Gifts of Healing (9b) The early Christian communities expected that God would perform physical and spiritual healings in their midst. Paul’s churches were no different,120 though Paul does not emphasize this aspect often.121 Paul puts both nouns in the plural, χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, and uses this phrase three times in the chapter (vv. 9b, 28, 29). The plural emphasizes the different kinds of healings – i.e., many different forms of sickness or ailments were healed, and presumably by different persons.122 By repeating the term χαρίσματα here (vv. 4, 9b), Paul emphasizes, perhaps in contradistinction from more pagan notions, that there were not healers in the community, but individual believers through whom the Spirit graciously worked healings. The healings served the purpose of the gifts (12:7) by (a) building up the physical wellbeing of the community and (b) by firmly establishing the Corinthians faith in the Thiselton, First Epistle, 945–46. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 75. 120 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 39, writes, “There can be little doubt that Paul understands these healings to be as miraculous as those of the Lord Jesus himself.” Likewise, Fee, First Corinthians, 594, writes, “Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the early church lived in regular expectation that God would heal people’s physical bodies.” 121 Thiselton, First Epistle, 947, explains, “With the exception of 1 Cor 12:9, 28 and 30, Paul appears not to refer to healing at all in his epistles, except implicitly in 2 Cor 12:8, where he writes that three times he prayer that God would remove his thorn in the flesh or sharp physical pain.” 122 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 39, explains, “Not everyone was getting healed by one person, and perhaps certain persons with one of these gifts of healing could by the Lord’s grace heal certain diseases or heal a variety of diseases but only at certain times.” 118 119

236

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

power of God, rather than in human wisdom (2:5). While it is perhaps an obvious observation, the experience of healing could foster a bond between healer and healed (and the healed person’s family/community). This is the case with Elijah and Elisha, who after healing/resuscitating a woman’s son find the mother endeared to them (1 Kgs 17:17–24; see also 2 Kgs 4:18–37). The two blind men who Jesus healed followed him (Matt 20:33–34), and the demoniac begged Jesus to stay with him (Mark 5:18). As the Spirit apportioned to an individual (ἄλλῳ) the grace to heal another individual, it would simultaneously foster an interpersonal connection between those two, the context of creating and fostering a relationship. Thiselton, moreover, in drawing together the previous gift of faith and the current gift of healing, paints a vivid picture of the relational web created by these spiritual gifts, writing, It is not necessarily the healer who receives the gift of special faith. This underlines the corporate rather than individual dimension of these gifts and of Paul’s understanding of the apportionment of the Holy Spirit to the church. There is a place for efficacious corporate faith within the community which may influence the effectiveness of the entire community. In other words, to cite Moffatt’s understanding of the gift of faith, “an indomitable assurance that God can overcome any difficulties and meet any emergencies” may by granted to a specific individual in such a way that his radiant confidence in God’s grace and sovereignty may pave the way for another to advance process of healing, and yet another to be restored.123

Finally, there is no sense in Paul that the gift of healing operated so that the bearer could heal him or herself; rather, it only functioned for the other. Working of Miracles (10a) The fifth χάρισμα Paul lists is ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων. The use of the plural for both nouns recalls the construction of the previous gift and likely signals diversity in terms of the gift and those who receive it. Carson clarifies, “Presumably all healings are demonstrations of miraculous powers, but not all miraculous powers are healings: they may include exorcisms, nature miracles, and other displays of divine energy.”124 Situated after gifts of healing, “workings of miracles” involve effective acts and deeds of power (δύναμις).125 We cannot be certain what these entailed specifically. It is interesting that earlier in the letter, when defending his resistance to the tools of rhetoric, Paul claims that his preaching is accompanied by a 123 Thiselton, First Epistle, 948, emphasis original; He is referencing J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, MNTC (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), 181. 124 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 40. 125 Thiselton, First Epistle, 952, refers to “actively effective deeds of power.” Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 210, laments, “What the dunameis included we are unfortunately now unable to determine.”

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

237

demonstration πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως … ἳνα ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν μὴ ᾖ ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ (2:5). The same image is recalled in 1 Thess 1:5, “our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power (ἐν δυνάμει) and in the Holy Spirit with full assurance” (see also Gal 3:3–5). Thus, a paradigm Paul witnessed often includes the combination of the preaching of the gospel, the work of the Spirit, demonstrations of power (e.g., miracles), and the result of faith (full assurance). It is surely the case, therefore, that the ongoing working of miracles by the Spirit would have not only the benefit of the miracle itself, but also the corollary benefit of the building up of strong faith. Thiselton once again points out the communal aspect of this gift, explaining, “Specific human agents (not all) may receive a particular gift from the Spirit to advance the gospel against oppressive forces, for the benefit of all.”126 In the context of the community, the working of miracles happened when persons were together and would elicit a bond through a shared experience. Prophecy (10b) Paul now turns to a gift that will, along with tongues, dominate chapter 14. This indicates, as widely noted, that tongues and prophecy were matters of dispute and/or abuse in Corinth.127 Prophecy (προφητεία) is the gift mentioned most often in the Pauline corpus.128 Paul esteems it especially in the context of the gathered assembly (ζηλοῦτε τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἳνα προφητεύητε, 14:1). This is so because prophecy is inspired speech “to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (14:3). In harmony with his Jewish tradition,129 Paul’s notion of prophecy involves a person speaking “to God’s people under the inspiration of the Spirit.”130 Moreover, Paul’s view that the new covenant had been inaugurated (Rom 7:5–6; 2 Cor 3:6) means the prophecy of Joel 2:28–29 had come about: “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy (προφετεύσουσιν)” (LXX Joel 3:1). This prophecy is the likely background for Paul’s liberal vision of

Thiselton, First Epistle, 956 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 100, correctly explains, “That Paul should restrict the focus of discussion from the χαρίσματα (charismata) in general to two of them [in chapter 14], prophecy and tongues, strongly suggests that there was some dispute or uncertainty about these two in the Corinthians church.” 128 See Njiru, Charisms, 156. 129 The notion of “prophecy” was not unique to the Jewish or Christian community. As Carson, Showing the Spirit, 91, notes, “The range of phenomena covered by this word group in the first century is enormous.” Our purposes here, however, are not to detail its use across the Hellenistic horizon, but rather briefly define it based on the context of 1 Corinthians 12– 14. 130 Fee, First Epistle, 595. 126 127

238

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

the χαρίσματα: apportioned to each member of the body and apportioned in various types.131 What prophesy entailed in terms of content likely varied. Judging from Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 14, we can determine a few things about what prophecy involved: (a) in contrast to speaking in tongues, it was articulate speech aimed at the other (the body) (14:3).132 It also (b) seems that “revelation” can stand as a near synonym to prophecy (14:29–31), and therefore prophecy is speaking to God’s people a message from God, a revelation. In 14:24–25, it is apparent that (c) prophecy lays bare the secrets of men’s hearts (14:24–25), and therefore it contains penetrating insights otherwise unavailable to humans. Finally, (d) prophecy must contain content that reveals matters about God; otherwise the awestruck visitors in 14:25 would not “worship God and declare that God is really among you.” Therefore, we define the gift of prophesy in 1 Cor 12:10b thus: a revelation regarding the truth about God and humankind, given to an individual, for the purpose of speaking to the people of God in a specific situation.133 Paul makes explicit how prophecy accomplishes the purpose of 12:7: “The one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation (ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλεησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν). The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church (ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ)” (14:3–4). In chapter 3 of the letter, mixing several metaphors (field, temple, building, 3:9– 17), Paul refers to the Corinthians as “God’s building”: θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε (3:9). In that instance Paul and Apollos were cited as fellow-workers with God (3:9), with reference to establishing the church in Corinth (3:5–15). The noun οἰκοδομή and verb οἰκοδομέω occur a total of eleven times in 1 Corinthians,

131 Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 737, explain, “That the Spirit would be manifested in each person is suggested by Joel 2.28–29 as well as Ezek. 36:26–27; 37:14, and this may be understood as the fulfillment of the desire expressed by Moses in Num. 11:29, which is alluded to and developed by the Joel 2 text.” 132 For Paul, prophecy is not irrational ecstatic speech. As Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 217, notes, “It is clear from 1 Cor 14:15, 19 that [Paul] prizes prophecy because it is a ‘speaking with the mind’ in contrast to the non-rational utterance of glossolalia.” 133 This definition underscores that prophecy is not mainly predicting the future (foretelling), but rather, as Bittlinger puts it, “forth-telling – light for the present.” See Arnold Bittlinger, Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on I Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 42. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 582, who defines prophecy in this instance, “A declaration of God’s will to the people…. It need not consist only of a disclosure of future events … but can also address the contemporary situation in ways that bring encouragement and comfort (1 Cor 14:3), that bring others under conviction (14:25), and that summon them to repentance (Rev 11:3).”

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

239

seven of which are in chapter 14,134 where the explicit context is the building up of the church and its members. Within the context of 1 Corinthians 12–14, therefore, it is clear that God works to build up the church through the apportioning of gifts by the Spirit, one of which is prophecy.135 The two other terms further qualifying how prophecy builds up are “παράκλησις” and “παραμυθία.” The former means to comfort another, or an act of “emboldening another” or “lifting another’s spirits.”136 The latter is similar, conveying the idea of “encouragement to one who is depressed or in grief, encouragement, comfort, consolation.”137 This calls to mind the category Banks refers to as “the psycho-social well-being of the community.”138 By bringing comfort and encouragement, prophecy not only builds up the community, but also fosters relationships of intimacy and mutual care. Keeping in mind that prophecy can “lay bare hearts” (14:25), the prophet would speak with penetrating insights into an individual’s life (τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας in 14:25 certainly implies individuality and depth). While this could, of course, include rebuke, in its proper function it would be imbued with love (e.g., chapter 13). Even in rebuke, the member would hear from God, through the prophet, an invitation to repent and therefore consolation and comfort.139 As such, the gift of prophecy witnesses to a relationship-constituting χάρισμα, whereby one person speaks into the issues of another’s heart – “prophecy speaks to other men and speaks to the whole man.”140 Ability to Distinguish between Spirits (10b) The next gift Paul lists is διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. The word διάκρισις is rare in the NT, appearing only here, Rom 14:1, and Heb 5:14. In Rom 14:1 Paul uses it to speak of “disputing” over opinions. The use in Heb 5:14 refers to a believer who is well trained in discernment, able to “distinguish” between good and evil (διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ). This gift, therefore, should be understood as

1 Corinthians 3:9; 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:3, 4 [2x], 5, 12, 17, 26. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 227, notes, “If the inspired utterance of the gospel plays a role of critical importance in creating the community of faith (Rom 10:17), the inspired utterance of prophecy plays the equivalent role in building it up.” 136 “παράκλησις,” BDAG, 766. 137 “παραμυθία,” BDAG, 769. 138 See Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 103. 139 Thiselton, First Epistle, 964, summarizes this theme well: “Prophecy, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, combines pastoral insight into the needs of persons, communities, and situations with the ability to address these with a God-given utterance or longer discourse (whether unprompted or prepared with judgment, decision, and rational reflection) leading to challenge or comfort, judgment, or consolation, but ultimately building up the addressees.” 140 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 233. 134 135

240

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

a spirit-enabled ability to distinguish141 whether or not a word or deed within the community is of God. Paul understood more than one source of supernatural power to be at work in the world; thus, in referring to “spirits” (πνευμάτων) he has in mind extra-human powers that can influence the community, especially by deception. In 2 Corinthians he worries that “as the serpent deceived Eve … your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3). In that same chapter he speaks of “Satan disguising himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14). The “ability to distinguish between spirits,” therefore, is not the gift of “interpreting the revelations of the Spirit,”142 where it refers to the ability to interpret the prophecies themselves. Rather, it is a broad capacity to discern whether or not a word or act is truly of God. What Paul has in mind by this gift is a general ability, given by the Spirit, for critical awareness and pastoral insight. It would be a gift for the community, by which one person’s discerning presence would reassure the community of the validity of some word, teaching, or deed. Therefore, it would serve to build up the integrity of the group – dispelling false teaching and corrupting ideas and firming up sound convictions. This is not an individualizing gift, meant for one person to use in their own discernment regarding teaching or spiritual matters. Rather, it is meant for the protection of the community – for the other.143 Helmut Thielicke, with reference to Jesus’s confrontation with the devil in Luke 4:1–13, reminds, “The word of Scripture can be misused. It can be set in the service of an alien spirit.”144 The individual (ἄλλῳ) through whom the Spirit gifts this ability will come to be trusted by those in the community as one able to clean out the “old leaven” (1 Cor 5:3–8). This would foster a relationship between such grace“διάκρισις,” BDAG, 231, “the ability to distinguish and evaluate, distinguishing, differentiation of good and evil.” 142 This was the interpretation offered by Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der διάκρισις πνευμάτων (1 Kor 12,10),” BZ 15 (1971): 93–104. It was refuted by Wayne A. Grudem, “A Response to Gerhard Dautzenberg on 1 Cor. 12:10,” BZ 22 (1978): 253–70. These two treatments of this text are noted in Carson, Showing the Spirit, 40. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 223, refers to the “evaluation of inspired utterances.” This is not as narrow as Dautzenberg’s hypothesis, as it would include more than just prophecies per se; however, based on 2 Corinthians 11, it seems that deception could come into the community through false teachers, and therefore this ability of “discernment” would encompass more than just “utterances.” 143 Thiselton, First Epistle, 969, correctly interprets the ability to discern between spirits as a “gift of critical capacity and pastoral insight which may be mediated to the community through one or another rather than all…. There is a risk of individualizing and even trivializing Paul’s more corporate and strategic concerns about discerning the ways of the Spirit.” Emphasis original. 144 Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 3:80. 141

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

241

gifted individuals and the community, as this process of discernment would likely be offered on a regular basis, meaning this person’s presence would be sought regularly. Various Kinds of Tongues and Interpretation of Tongues (10c, 10d) As the context of 1 Corinthians 12–14 attests, these two gifts form a pair.145 As Dunn notes, “Interpretation [ἑρμηνεία146 γλωσσῶν] is not an independent gift; it is precisely interpretation of tongues.”147 The interpretation of the phrase γένη γλωσσῶν is highly debated, and determining its precise meaning is outside the scope of this study.148 From the context of chapters 12–14, we can highlight a few aspects of what γένη γλωσσῶν indicates here: (a) utterances empowered (ἐνεργεί, 12:11; 14:2) by the Spirit; (b) more than one form/language (γλωσσῶν, pl.); (c) something not intelligible to the community without interpretation (12:10c, 30; 14:2, 5, 9–11); and (d) a communication between humanity and God (14:2). The present argument does not require answering whether or not the “unintelligibility” (14:9) of γένη γλωσσῶν is because it is a non-human language (“tongues of angels,” 13:1), or “ecstatic” or “archaic phrases,”149 or simply a foreign language which no one present speaks (e.g., Acts 2:5–13). However, two aspects of this χάρισμα are pertinent here. First, this type of gift was lauded by the Corinthians and, following Martin’s thesis, created a type of “spiritual status” by which the community was not united, but divided.150 And second, this is the only gift that Paul identifies as explicitly serving an individual’s private good, irrespective of the community’s benefit (1 Cor 14:4). Paul juxtaposes prophecy and tongues in 14:3–4 based on their relation to the building up of the body: “The one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding (ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομήν) and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself (ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ), but the one who prophesies builds up the church (ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ)” (14:3–4). Here it is clear that Paul’s valuation of gifts prizes the upbuilding of the church. However, it is also clear that this does not preclude 145 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 233, says of ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν, “It is not to be thought of as an independent gift; rather it provides a test of prophetic utterance and a control against its abuse.” 146 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 247, explains, “The regular and characteristic sense of ἑρμηνεία and its cognates in biblical Greek is ‘translation.’” 147 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 247. 148 For thorough treatments of the topic of “tongues” in Paul and the New Testament, see Carson, Showing the Spirit, 77–88; Thiselton, First Epistle, 970–89. 149 Thiselton, First Epistle, 978, in his list of interpretations offered for this phrase, includes “Tongues as Liturgical, Archaic, or Rhythmic Phrases.” 150 Martin, “Tongues of Angels,” 580.

242

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

a gift from benefiting an individual outside of the group. In light of this verse, how do tongues actually benefit the community? Tongues can benefit the larger community, and in this case it especially emphasizes the relationality of the χάρισμα: tongues is only profitable vis-àvis the community when it is intelligible, which is why it requires interpretation (1 Cor 12:10b, 30; 14:5, 13).151 Ιnterpreted tongues becomes another instance (like prophecy) where an utterance is shared with the community, drawing them closer to God and, simultaneously, closer together (i.e., ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ). There are two ways the gifts of tongues and interpretation suggest a relational aspect to these complementary χαρίσματα. First, once interpreted, the speaking in tongues would be another example of shared speech, which draws the tongues-speaker, interpreter, and listener(s) closer together. If we may suggest some type of connection between the Spirit praying for the believer according the God’s searching of their heart with groans unutterable (στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις) in Rom 8:26–27 and the unintelligible nature of speaking in tongues, it is possible that once interpreted, the content of tongues involved intimate matters of the heart. If so, this work of the Spirit would affect the heads and hearts of the community, drawing them into more of an intimate relationship with God and one another (and therefore, ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ). Second, it seems that the gifts of tongues and interpretation were not typically given to the same person. Paul’s words in 12:10c, d, 30 and 14:5 suggest that someone else would have the gift to interpret.152 Thus, when used for the community, tongues would often require the close relationship between the tongues-speaker and interpreter. 5.4.2. Summary Observations In his study of the “charisms,” Suurmond writes, “It is not so much a matter of having a gift, as of being a gift.”153 Our exegesis supports Suurmond’s words: for Paul, the χαρίσματα are not meant for individuals in isolation, but rather

151 Fee, First Epistle, 598, says the role of the interpreter is “to articulate for the benefit of the community what the tongues-speaker has said.” 152 Although in 14:13 the grammar indicates that it is the same person who speaks who may pray for interpretation, this is not the norm in chapters 12–14, and the need to “pray for interpretation” suggests that this would be a different gift, other than speaking in tongues. 153 Jean-Jacques Suurmond, “A Fresh Look at Spirit-Baptism and the Charisms,” ExpTim 109 (1998): 105. See also the comment of Paul Meyer, “The Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters: A Contextual Exploration,” in The Word in This World: Essays in New Testament Exegesis and Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 117–32, 30, “[Paul] ties these gifts to the daily existence of the community in and for which they are given and to love as the greatest of the three things that transcend the ephemeralities of human life.”

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

243

they require and create relationships.154 Rather than dispensing gifts abstractly, the Spirit uses individuals (ᾧ, ἄλλῳ, ἑτέρω, ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ); persons are the indispensable bearers of the χαρίσματα. An individual’s particular χάρισμα, moreover, is only fully intelligible vis-à-vis the needs of the community, and therefore as χαρίσματα-bearers they are moved toward the other, and with purpose.155 In each of the nine gifts considered above, it was determined that through the giving, a relational atmosphere was required and deepened. Though this aspect of the χαρίσματα is rarely studied in detail, it appears that the manifestation of the gifts (e.g., an utterance of wisdom, or miraculous healing) builds the community not only through the gift itself, but through the corollary relationship gift and giving create. Therefore, one of the conclusions we draw from this analysis is that the Spirit bonds the community through Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence. Various explanations for the unity of the Christian community (what “bonds” them) have been put forward, from mystical to practical. As was seen in the consideration of Eastman’s work, “love” between the members issuing from love received from God may be one factor that bonds them together. Other explanations for what unites the body of Christ range from hypotheses regarding the “nature” of the “body of Christ,”156 the As noted in our treatment of tongues, this focus on the community does not rule out the efficacy of a spiritual gift in a personal setting. However, as Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 259, notes, “Charisma and community belong together. Charismatic experience was doubtless possible outside the community’s worship (e.g., Rom 8:26f; 1 Cor 14:18f; 2 Cor 1:11…); but it is significant that in his major discussions of charismata Paul always and explicitly relates them to the Christian community (Rom 12:1–8; 1 Cor 12–14; see also Eph 4:1–16). [There is a] corporate dimension of religious experience in the Pauline writings….” 155 Graham McFarlane, “Towards a Theology of Togetherness: Life through the Spirit,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner, ed. I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 323–35, writes, “The Spirit gifts each participant in this new polity [community] with unique contributing faculties that bring to birth the possibility of equality and establish an alternative ‘factory of meaning’… where there are no outsiders but all are on in Christ” (p. 335). Emphasis added. 156 W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 53, for example, finds in Rabbinic ideas about Adam the concept that allowed Paul to create unity for the body of Christ vis-àvis one Man. He writes, “In particular, in his development of the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ, Paul is largely influenced by Rabbinic ideas about Adam…. Paul accepted the traditional Rabbinic doctrine of the unity of mankind in Adam. That doctrine implied that the very constitution of the physical body of Adam and the method of its formation was symbolic of the real oneness of mankind. In that one body of Adam east and west, north and south were brought together, male and female, as we have seen. The ‘body’ of Adam included all mankind. Was it not natural, then, that Paul when he thought of the new humanity being incorporated ‘in Christ’ should have convened of it as the ‘body’ of the Second Adam, were there was neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free.” 154

244

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

sacraments or the Spirit working through sacraments,157 ethics,158 and, closer to our argument, the shared experience of the Spirit.159 What has emerged from our analysis is that a powerful and often understudied way that the early Christians experienced and developed “oneness” was through the relational nature of χαρίσματα.160 That the Spirit has a role in creating and bonding the community is evident from Paul’s view of Christian initiation, which follows immediately after this list of spiritual gifts. Paul writes, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:12– 13). While this text offers the “doctrinal” grounds for the community’s “oneness,” Dunn and others are correct in identifying an experiential aspect here that is also decidedly corporate.161 That Christians experienced the Spirit Alfred E. J. Rawlinson, “Corpus Christi,” in Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by British and German Theologians, ed. G. K. A. Bell and Adolf Deissmann (New York: Longmans, 1930), 227, writes, “The origins of the [body of Christ] idea are, in effect, sacramental.” Rawlinson’s reference to 1 Cor 10:17 makes his inquiry plausible, although there is no reason why 1 Cor 10:17 cannot be functioning metaphorically, as so much of the preceding material was (e.g., 1 Cor 10:1–12). As pointed out by Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 2nd ed., WUNT 2.283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 5, early in his career, Ernst Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi: Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit, BHT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933), 125, conjoined the sacraments with a material understanding of the Spirit: “im Sakrament ein Kraftstrom stofflich in den Menschen dringt.” The sacrament, thereby, was as means through which the Spirit passed into each believer, thus joining them as the body of Christ. 158 For Rudolf Bultmann, Faith and Understanding (New York: Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966), 201, it was essentially love and responsibility, issuing from the freedom of justification, that led to unity: “‘To be in Christ’ is accomplished in ‘care for one another,’ in ‘suffering with one another’ and ‘rejoicing with one another’ (1 Cor. 12:25f.; cf. Rom 12:15), as mutual service (διακονεῖν).” 159 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 262, writes, “It is the (experienced) Spirit who creates community in the first place.” 160 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, does not develop the concept of “relationships” per se, but comes close to our emphasis, writing, “It is the Spirit experienced in charismata who sustains community” (p. 262). We would add that the Spirit experienced through charismata does not only sustain the community, but creates and bonds it (e.g., 1 Cor 12:13). 161 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 259, notes, “Charisma and community belong together…. [There is a] corporate dimension of religious experience in the Pauline writings….” Volker Rabens, “Power from In Between: The Relational Experience of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in Paul’s Churches,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner, ed. I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), also draws attention to this aspect of early Christian communities. Rabens notes the work of Hermann Gunkel, The Influence of The Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul 157

5.4. Χαρίσματα Require and Create Interdependence

245

around the time of conversion-initiation is indicated in several Pauline texts (e.g., Rom 8:14–17; Gal 3:3–5, “supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you”; Gal 4:6; 1 Thess 1:4–6, “the Holy Spirit with full conviction … with the joy of the Holy Spirit”). That such a shared experience could create a bond between persons otherwise unconnected is likely. However, what this chapter is arguing is that an ongoing aspect of this “shared-Spirit-experience,” which is often unnoticed, is the relationships that the ongoing work of the Spirit creates and sustains. Dunn emphasizes the more generic aspect of the “common experience of being watered with one Spirit.”162 Here, however, we have argued for something more specific: Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence that are generated by the regular and ongoing sharing of χαρίσματα. Rabens is one scholar who notes this dimension of relationality: Every Christian is entitled to the diverse spectrum of spiritual manifestations for every Christian is a pneumatic, even if there are different gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12–14; Rom 8; etc.). However, it is crucial for Paul that all dimensions of the work of the Spirit manifest themselves primarily in the community and, moreover, serve the formation and deepening of this very community. According to Paul, the empowering work of the Spirit is, therefore, deeply relational…. The Spirit is experienced as bringing about relationships, because the Spirit facilitates a vivid connection to God (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 2:9–11) and placed the individual into a loving fellowship with fellow believers (cf., e.g., Gal 4:4–7; 1 Cor 12:7–27)…. Through the Spirit-wrought experience of loving relationships Christian life is thus determined by the Spirit with regard to both empowerment and ethos.163

Rabens rightly highlights the relational work of the Spirit. However, in offering examples of how the Spirit fosters these relationships, Rabens highlights (a) “vivid connection with God” and (b) “Spirit-wrought experience of loving (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 1–8, which more than a hundred years ago placed “the experiences of the Spirit at the center of early Christina spirituality” (pp. 138–39). Gunkel’s insistence that experience was involved in early Christian pneumatology has not gone unchallenged: e.g., Klaus Berger, Identity and Experience in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 129–33; Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 15. In parsing out the nuances between doctrine and experience in the early Christian writings, Rabens references the work of Gerd Theissen, Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007). Rabens points out how Theissen explains, “Experiences are dependent on interpretation, because, alongside the sensory perceptions, a prestructuring cognitive interpretation is part of the experience” (Rabens, “Power from In Between,” 140). Rabens thus avoids “a positivistic epistemology of starting with ‘facts’ and ‘events’” (p. 141).” Rather, the texts about the Spirit of course reflect the “interpretation” of those who experienced the events, however, “the Spirit-texts which relate an experiential dimension should by and large indeed be understood to be a reflection of tangible experiences” (p. 141). 162 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 562. 163 Rabens, “Power from In Between,” 144.

246

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

relationships.”164 What our study has drawn attention to is that the Spirit also fosters relationships through the apportionment and purpose of the χαρίσματα – e.g., through Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence.165 A final question this chapter asks has to do with the effects of these Spiritshaped relationships between believers. Rabens’s work highlights how the relational work of the Spirit affects the ethics and ethos of the community;166 here we will ask how these Spirit-shaped relationships define and determine the Christian person. To do so we will set our analysis of the χαρίσματα (1 Cor 12:4–11) in the context of Paul’s illustrative body metaphor (1 Cor 12:12–26).

5.5. How Χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood 5.5. How Χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood

5.5.1. Anthropological Implications of the Body Metaphor In 1 Cor 12:4–11 Paul has described the common character, source, and purpose of the χαρίσματα. They originate from God (vv. 4–6), have the character and will of the Spirit (v. 11), and serve the good of the church family (v. 7). The apostle has also given nine examples of χαρίσματα, further emphasizing that the diversity of gifts is anchored in the unity of source and purpose. The Corinthians would likely be able to pick up on an implication of Rabens, “Power from In Between,” 144. Rabens, “Power from In Between,” 151, does note the role of the χάρισματα in fostering relationships, however only in this lone comment regarding 1 Cor 14:28–31: “The Spirit even shapes the actual structure of the individual interpersonal interactions within the community.” He also notes more broadly, “For Paul, to cooperation and togetherness in the church that develops through exercising spiritual gifts implies that every member of the community is ‘edified,’ that is, she is strengthened and empowered for religious-ethical life.” 166 Another aspect that reflects what we are arguing here – that the Spirit creates relationships that bond – is Paul’s language of “the fellowship of the Spirit” (2 Cor 13:13– 14; Phil 2:1). Dunn, Theology of Paul, 562, draws attention to this, writing, “The church of God as something which grows out of the shared experience of the Spirit…. The point is most straightforwardly expressed in the familiar concept of the koinōnia pneumatos [2 Cor. 13:13–14; Phil 2.1]. This is usually translated, misleadingly, as ‘the fellowship of the Spirit,’ where the implication is of a community created by the Spirit. But repeated studies have rightly emphasized that the basic meaning of the phrase is better given in a translation like ‘participation in the Spirit.’ This is to say, what is in view is not a physical entity (like a congregation), but the subjective experience of the Spirit as something shared. The point is, then, that what draws and keeps believers together for Paul was not simply a common membership of a congregation, but the common experience of the Spirit. It was the awareness that their experience of the Spirit was one in which others had also shared which provided the bond of mutual understanding and sympathy…. The point … clearly indicated once again in 1 Cor. 12:13: it is their common experience of being baptized in one Spirit which constitutes them one body; it is there common experience of being watered with one Spirit which renders irrelevant differences of nationality and social status).” 164 165

5.5. How Χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood

247

his argument thus far: if the gifts come from God and aim at the good of all, then it is nonsensical to boast about speaking in “tongues” or any other socalled exceptional aspect of spirituality. However, to further explain (γάρ, v. 12167) his point, in verses 12–27 Paul employs an illustrative analogy to ground the idea of unity-diversity. Broadly put, the relationship between this section (vv. 12–27) and what has proceeded (vv. 4–11) could be described as that of fact (vv. 4–11) and illustration/explanation (vv. 12–27). As such, we will not interpret Paul’s “body of Christ” image as literal or press it for metaphysical possibilities. Rather, we acknowledge with many other interpreters that this is a common metaphor in Paul’s day used with flexibility to portray the structure, hierarchy, or interdependence of a society and its constituents.168 We will draw certain inferences from the body metaphor; however, we will do so cautiously for the very fact that it is functioning metaphorically.169 If the body-metaphor illustrates the reality and implications of how the χαρίσματα function, then we may liken an individual endowed with a particular We take the γάρ in v. 12 as explanatory. See Fee, First Epistle, 602. The literature on Paul’s use of the image of the “body” to describe the church is massive. Within this literature a debate exists between those who understand it as literal versus metaphorical. For example, the fact that the analogical comparison of verse 12 (καθάπερ … οὔτως) concludes with “καί ὁ Χρισός,” rather than the expected “καί σῶμα Χριστοῦ,” suggests to some interpreters we are dealing with more than analogy here: e.g., E. L. Mascall, Christ, the Christian and the Church (London: Longmans, 1946), 112, 161; Moffatt, 1 Corinthians, 184. However, there are several reasons to read this as a metaphor. (1) It is widely acknowledged that the metaphor of the body to describe society or state and particular roles therein was replete in ancient literature, e.g., Mitchell, Reconciliation, 157; Thiselton, First Epistle, 995. (2) Moreover, the way Paul uses the metaphor demonstrates “uniformity of use … with ancient political writers … even to the details,” Mitchell, Reconciliation, 159. (3) In Hebrew thought, as Best, One Body in Christ, 99, notes, there is “close relation between symbol and reality: e.g., “Israel is a scattered sheep” (Jer 50:17). (4) Most significantly, however, is the context of 1 Corinthians 12. Paul is arguing for unity in light of diversity and vice versa. He is also trying to undermine the social constructs that prize one “status” over another. As such, the metaphorical use of the body serves his rhetorical needs perfectly, and therefore should be the first option for interpretation. For a concise defense of reading “body of Christ” as a metaphor, see E. Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: Society for the Proclamation of Christian Knowledge, 1955), 95–101; Mitchel, Reconciliation, 157–64. For different ways the metaphor was used, or different emphasis it could stress, see Andreas Lindemann, “Die Kirche Als Leib: Beobachtungen Zur ‘demokratischen’ Ekklesiologie Bei Paulus,” Zeitschrift Für Theologie und Kirche 92.2 (1995): 142–45. 169 Best, One Body in Christ, 98, explains, “If the ‘Body’ is used metaphorically we must proceed cautiously in our interpretation of its details in the remainder of the passage. If it is not used metaphorically but really and ontologically, we may proceed to attempt to find a parallel for every detail of the passage in the life of the Church.” 167 168

248

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

gift (the speaker of wisdom, the one who heals, etc.) to an individual part of the body (hand, eye, foot). We may also liken the body to the church community. Supporting such a reading is not only the relationship between 1 Cor 12:4–11 and 12–13,170 but also the synthetic parallelism between 1 Cor 12:14–27 and 28–30. A. God has arranged/composed (vv. 18, 24) the (human) body with many parts that are all integral (vv. 14–27). B. God has appointed (v. 28) in the church body many parts/roles, all of which are integral (vv. 28–30). Therefore, we can assume that how Paul depicts the relationship between parts of the body (vv. 14–26) reflects how he wants the Corinthians to understand their relationships to each other as those who are πνευματικός. We will now suggest that two aspects of the body-illustration shed light on how the teaching on χαρίσματα bears upon personhood: an individual’s perception of him or herself (self-understanding), and an individual’s perception of another in the group (view of others). First, in 1 Cor 12:15–20 Paul explains that each particular part of the body is indispensable to the whole, and he does so from the perspective of the apparently inferior part; e.g., “If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body” (v. 15). This analogy tells those members of the Corinthian church who may feel unimportant that they (a) are necessary for the church’s wellbeing and (b) belong. This would not only chasten the haughty but also uplift the insecure through a reimagined self-understanding. Second, in 1 Cor 12:16–24, Paul changes to the perspective of the apparently superior part: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (v. 21). Here, Paul is implying that these members of the church need to have the perspective that (a) each of the other members is needed/useful and (b) belong. Hence, he is reimaging an individual’s perspective of the other. Thus, the body-metaphor explains how the χαρίσματα, functioning under the guise of God and the Spirit, should affect a person’s sense of self and view of others. How might this play out in the experience of the Corinthian community? Posed another way, within the ongoing life of the Corinthian community, how might the χαρίσματα make real the doctrine and declaration surrounding their

170 As stated, the γάρ in v. 12 suggests a logical connection between the unity in vv. 4– 11 and what follows. We identify the role of vv. 12–13 as explanatory, with verses 14–26 further unpacking how the body-member image illustrates a believer’s role in the body (12:12) vis-à-vis the Spirit (12:13).

5.5. How Χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood

249

initiation171: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free172 – and all were made to drink of one Spirit (1 Cor 12:12–13). Wayne Meeks’s study of the nature of Pauline communities proves insightful for answering our question, as he treats specifically the manner by which these communities affected a person’s identity and selfunderstanding.173 We will now consider some of Meeks’s insights into how this process of “resocialization” and “identity”174 formation were actuated, and note how our analysis of the relational work of the χαρίσματα offers fresh insights into how personhood was reshaped within Pauline communities. Specifically, we will suggest that the relational aspects of the χαρίσματα create an ongoing experience of utility and belonging, which in turn actualizes and deepens a believer’s new identity as a brother or sister in the body of Christ. 5.5.2. Ongoing Experiences of Utility and Belonging In his illuminating analysis of Pauline churches vis-à-vis other “groups,”175 Meeks demonstrates the similarity and difference between the Pauline ekklēsia and voluntary associations. One such similarity involves initiation rites and communal meals,176 practices common to both groups. There is a difference, however, that Meeks identifies in the Christian group: “Christian groups were exclusive and totalistic in a way that no club nor even any pagan cultic association was.”177 In explaining this aspect of exclusivity, Meeks highlights the degree of reformation of loyalty and identity becoming a Christian entailed: “To be baptized into Jesus Christ signaled for Pauline converts an extraordinary thoroughgoing resocialization, in which the sect was intended to

171 Here we follow Dunn, Theology of Paul, 560, who resists an overly precise interpretation of this verse, and instead concludes, “However the image is related to baptism as such, it is clear that the image is initiatory – ‘baptized into one body.’” 172 This phrase is paralleled in two other places in Paul: Gal 3:28; Col 3:11. In each case the context is an initiatory rite of baptism, or what Wayne Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” History of Religions 13.3 (1974): 180, has called “the baptismal reunification formula.” Meeks offers a detailed comparison of the three aforementioned texts (pp. 180–83). 173 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 78. 174 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 78. 175 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 74, finds, “The Pauline congregations belong to the category studied extensively by modern sociologists … called ‘small groups,’ or ‘groups.’” 176 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 78, “Both the Christian groups and the associations … had a more or less important place for rituals and cultic activities, and also engaged in common meals and other ‘fraternal’ activities.” 177 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 78.

250

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

become virtually the primary group for its members, supplanting all other loyalties.”178 While the churches were totalizing once inside, they were also more open than most associations in terms of who could come in, as the declaration “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free” attests.179 Once inside, moreover, there was also a striking “heterogeneity of status that characterized the Pauline Christian groups.”180 This picture helps explain some of the tension within the Corinthian community. For members of the church in Corinth, associating across this range of “class” and “ethnicity” was not happening elsewhere; nor would those of high status be used to “heterogeneity of status” with those of more humble backgrounds. Meeks asks, therefore, as we have been asking in this chapter, by what means would unity have been created and reinforced between such diverse individuals? What rites, languages, or experiences created the “boundaries” that could foster social cohesion and instill a new sense of identity?181 Meeks’s answer highlights “aspects of language, practice and expressed sentiments and attitudes,” which collectively fostered bonds and reinforced identity.182 For example, the repeated use of emotive language such as “brother” and “sister” played “an important role in the process of resocialization by which an individual’s identity is revised and knit together with the identity of the group”183 Through the rite of baptism and image of Meeks, First Urban Christians, 78. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 79, explains that the Christian groups were more “inclusive in terms of social stratification and other social categories than were the voluntary associations.” 180 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 79. 181 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 84, explains, “In order to persist, a social organization must have boundaries, must maintain structural stability as well as flexibility, and must create a unique culture.” He borrows Leon Festinger’s definition of “Social Cohesion”: “the resultant of all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group” (p. 85). 182 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 85, notes, “The letters of the Pauline circle are rich in words and phrases that speak of the Christians as a very special group and of the relations between them in terms charged with emotion. Very often addressees of the letters are called ‘saints’ or ‘holy ones’…. The term elect and its cognates are important, too.” Meeks goes on to highlight the familial language early Christians used. On this aspect of the Pauline communities, see also David G. Horrell, “From ἁδελφοί to oἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity,” JBL 120.2 (2001): 293–311. 183 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 86. Meeks also notes the power of rites such as baptism, and the language that coincided, for the process of reshaping identity: “When Paul in Galatians 3:26–4:6 (cf. Rom. 8:15–17) uses the metaphor of adoption to describe initiation into the Christian fellowship, he is evidently drawing on common baptismal language. The ritual symbolizes ‘putting on Christ,’ who is the ‘new human’ and ‘the Son of God.’ The ecstatic response of the baptized person, ‘Abba! Father!’ is at the same time a sign of the gift of the Spirit and of the ‘sonship’ (hyiothesia) that the Spirit conveys by incorporating the person into the one Son of God” (p. 88). 178 179

5.5. How Χαρίσματα-Relationships Affect Personhood

251

adoption, Meeks goes on, “The natural kinship structure into which the person has been born and which previously defined his place and connections with the society are supplanted by a new set of relationships.”184 Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12, Meeks alludes to a unifying and identity-shaping force beyond language and rites: the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians “the Spirit is the principle par excellence of communitas”;185 it created the “spontaneous, direct interaction” between members that reformed them “apart from the roles and antinomies of ‘the world.’”186 However, beyond noting the Spirit’s role in the “ecstatic” cry in baptism,187 Meeks emphasizes the role of language and rites as the chief means of unifying the community. Our work in this chapter has surfaced another means by which groupcohesion and new identity are actualized: spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence, highlighted by the χαρίσματα. Recalling our two observations from Paul’s body illustration, that the χαρίσματα create situations for new self-understanding and new perception of others, we now offer one example highlighting how these relationships achieve the social cohesion and identity reconstitution alluded to in Meeks’s work. Considering the concept of utility, or usefulness, the χαρίσματα would cut across human systems of utility and make otherwise “unneeded” persons necessary. A poor man, for example, who may have offered no monetary or social utility to a rich man, may receive the χαρίσματα of healing for that rich man’s son. The experience of shared χαρίσματα that would ensue through an act of healing would create closeness, emotion, and intimacy. A bonding of the hearts would unfold between the rich and poor man, which would last beyond the moment of healing and be celebrated as they continued to gather for worship. The man who was useless in socioeconomic terms suddenly experiences himself as useful (“indispensable,” 1 Cor 12:22) – a new selfunderstanding. The rich man now sees him, and others, as necessary – a new perception of others.188

Meeks, First Urban Christians, 88. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 88. Meeks is using the term “communitas” as Victor Turner has. It is Turner’s, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), 96–97, preferred term (over “community”) to refer to the state of a neophyte shortly after “initiation,” marked by “a generalized social bond that has ceased to be and has simultaneously yet to be fragmented into a multiplicity of structural ties.” 186 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 90. 187 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 88, notes the “ecstatic response of the baptized person, ‘Abba! Father!’” 188 Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, 130, notes, “Our beliefs about how others see us, and their relation to how we see ourselves, are crucial to our integrity as people.” Hence, this new relationship provides a new perception by which personhood is reshaped. 184 185

252

Chapter 5: The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 12

Moreover, through the “sharing of χάρις,” doctrine becomes experience; these two members have actually experienced this new form of utility and identity. A relational network has opened whereby these two men experience the fact that they were not merely two ἔθνη, but ἀδελφοί (1 Cor 12:1–2).189 Moreover, this supports our argument to hold the individual good together with the communal good (πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον, 1 Cor 12:7), as it is in serving the other that the individual is actualized. These observations address a significant issue raised by Meeks related to 1 Corinthians 12. Regarding the bold language of the baptismal ritual, when it is proclaimed that there is neither “Jew nor Greek, etc.” (1 Cor 12:12–13; Gal 3:27–28; Col 3:11), Meeks states, “A factual claim is being made [regarding unity and new identity] about an ‘objective’ change in reality that fundamentally modifies social roles.”190 But, Meeks then cautions, “New attitudes and altered behavior would follow – but only if the group succeeds in clothing the novel declaration with ‘an aura of factuality.”191 What we have argued in this chapter is that the Spirit’s work in apportioning and working χαρίσματα in fact “clothes” the “novel declaration” of 1 Cor 12:12–13 in such an “an aura of factuality.”192 The Spirit creates a new relational network whereby Christian personhood is reconstituted and deepened, through ongoing relationships of interdependence.193 With this example of the poor man’s experience of utility in hand, we can see how these relationships of interdependence would affect identity, heart, and Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 567–68, suggest how the apportionment of the Spirit would counter socioeconomic divides, by observing, “Part of the significance of the fact that all believers receive their various gifts from the same Spirit (Lord and God) may be that they are all direct clients of the same benefactor/patron. It is not that the wealthy among them are the patrons of the poorer members of the congregation, but that each member of the church has received a gift directly from God which he or she then shares with the rest of the community, with even the poorer members of the community having gifts to share with the wealthy and well-connected so that each member is dependent upon the free sharing of the gifts of all the other members of the community. Each one has something they have received directly from God and have been empowered to share with the rest.” 190 Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne,” 182. 191 Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne,” 182. 192 Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne,” 182. 193 Throughout this thesis we have followed a view of personhood whereby one’s identity, in terms of how they experience it (not how God views it) is not entirely fixed. Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin, Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, TSAJ 119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 13, in their work on identity in the ancient world, speak of a “reconceptualization of identity and difference – as dynamic processes rather than static or self-evident categories.” Emphasis added. They note that this conceptual framework has now been applied to early Jewish and Christian texts and authors, writing, “Recent studies have tended to consider identity as a relational and situational category and focused, accordingly, on the rhetoric of difference and the process of differentiation” (p. 13). The conceptual framework they refer to fits the work of this study. 189

5.6. Conclusion

253

agency. It was through the χαρίσμα-created relationship that the men experienced the new identity as “members” or “organs” of the body of Christ. This nature of the χαρίσματα-created relationships would typically impact not just the head, but the heart. And this work of the Spirit represents a new agency operating through the individual. The individual does not control the agency of the Spirit-empowered-χάρισματα but must cooperate with it; hence Paul’s instructions about stewarding the speaking of tongues (14:13, 27–28). Above the language of “utility” was used to describe how someone with a χάρισμα is newly related to the community. Utility in its usage here is like agency, though particularized by the type of action an individual is able to perform for the sake of the community.

5.6. Conclusion 5.6. Conclusion

In this chapter we have pivoted from the vertical Spirit-shaped relationships highlighted in Romans 8, to the horizontal Spirit-shaped relationships that coincide with being God’s children (Rom 8:15–17à1 Cor 12:1–30). By a close study of 1 Corinthians 12, especially noting the means and goal of the χαρίσματα and their relational implications, a fresh vision of how the body of Christ is bound together – and continually “re-bound” – has emerged. In this new constellation of Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence, it has also been shown that personhood is reconstituted: an individual’s identity, heart, and agency are all affected, as the Spirit empowers them to serve and love the other.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Implications “Wer ich auch bin, Du kennst mich, Dein bin ich, o Gott!” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wer Bin Ich? “In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets.” -C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves Summary This thesis has been motivated by the question: How do relations define and determine personhood according to Pauline anthropology? The question was framed by first situating it within a broad conversation about the individual and corporate elements of Paul’s thought (chapter 1). There it was recognized that reconciling these aspects in Paul requires revisiting his anthropological assumptions, a point further illustrated by analysis of the thought of Bultmann and Käsemann. Our driving question was therefore further framed in light of the broad and interdisciplinary turn toward relational views of human existence – what this study labeled relational anthropology (RA). This development was attested in recent Pauline scholarship, and analysis of the work of Eastman, Rabens, and Rehfeld solidified the methodological warrant for investigating RA in Paul (chapter 2). Their work also suggested the need for further specificity and exploration. An aspectival model of personhood was developed in chapter 3, highlighting identity, agency, and heart as aspects of the Pauline person. Alongside this, it was determined that “relations” could be both personal and non-personal, static and dynamic, and therefore analysis of RA in Paul must be sufficiently broad. With these sharpened analytical tools, the study established the phenomenon of RA in Paul by analyzing five types of relations, which in turn were shown to determine or affect human identity, agency, and the heart. Thus, in chapters 1–3 the concept of RA was defined and its validity as a way of understanding Paul’s doctrine of humanity demonstrated.

6.1. Findings and Implications

255

In chapters 4 and 5 the study addressed a corollary aspect of RA that surfaced in preceding analyses, the role of the Spirit in generating and sustaining the relational aspect of Christian existence. An examination of Romans 8 highlighted two examples of Spirit-shaped relationships (chapter 4): through the indwelling motif of 8:9–11, the Spirit generated and sustained the relationship of belonging to Christ and God; and in and through adoption as sons, 8:14–17, the Spirit affected and sustained the relationship of sonship. Both these relationships were shown to involve experience between the individual believer and God and Christ, which was actualized in an ongoing way by the Spirit. Also, it was demonstrated that these new relational webs were locations where identity, agency, and heart were reconstituted. As such, Romans 8 evidences Spirit-shaped relational anthropology. The Christian is truly a new person, notwithstanding an abiding relation of Adamicembodiment, which creates an ongoing, though non-identity-determining, struggle during the overlap of aeons. We then pivoted from Spirit-shaped vertical relationships between the believer and Christ and God to their horizontal corollary, Spirit-shaped relationships between believers (chapter 5). First Corinthians 12 links all these motifs – e.g., relation to Christ, relation to other believers, and all by the one Spirit (12:12–13). By analyzing the Spirit’s role in apportioning and sustaining χαρίσματα, it was discovered that believers are united to one another through Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence. Moreover, it was determined that these relationships are another context whereby personhood is reconstituted. Through the sharing of χαρίσματα, the individual realizes a new utility (agency), which is only manifested through the relational context of building up the body. Also, in the process of sharing χαρίσματα, the believer’s new identity as a “member-of-the-body” is deepened, as he or she experiences being necessary and belonging.

6.1. Findings and Implications 6.1. Findings and Implications

This study has accomplished two broad objectives. First, it has contributed to the developing conversation regarding what Eastman calls the “participatory mode of existence”1 in Paul, by further defending the position that Paul’s anthropology is irreducibly relational.2 Second, this study has solidified the 1 Susan Grove Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 20. 2 Susan Grove Eastman, “Participation in Christ,” in The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, ed. by Matthew V. Novenson and R. Barry Matlock, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600489.001.0001/oxfor dhb-9780199600489-e-005#oxfordhb-9780199600489-e-005-div1-1. Online Publication,

256

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications

role of the Spirit in both bearing witness to RA in Paul and as key in reconstituting relational human beings in light of being “in Christ.” A close study of Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12 demonstrated that vertical and horizontal Spirit-shaped relationships are constitutive of Christian personhood. Along with these broad conclusions, this study also holds certain implications for other facets of Pauline anthropology, theology, and ecclesiology.

6.2. Relational Anthropology and Christian Existence 6.2. Relational Anthropology and Christian Existence

It has become apparent that RA might offer a paradigm for better understanding the ongoing tension of Christian existence. It was noted that Dunn and Fee come to very different conclusions as to the nature of the Christian person visà-vis Paul’s flesh-Spirit antithesis (e.g., Rom 8:5–11). Put broadly, for Dunn, what distinguishes the Christian person is a new orientation; for Fee, the Christian is nothing less than a new being.3 Consequently, Dunn explains the ongoing struggle with sin and weakness as indicative of anthropological and eschatological tension, whereas for Fee, there is no place for “inner struggle” in the believer, just the nagging presence of the old aeon. Our analysis of RA, however, suggests a way of understanding Christian existence that partly critiques both Dunn’s and Fee’s conclusions. Dunn’s view understates the significance of the new identity realized through the relationships of Spirit-shaped sonship (Rom 8:14–16). The believer’s selfunderstanding is transformed from being a slave of sin (Rom 6:7) and enemy of God (Rom 5:10; 8:7) to a child of God (Rom 8:15–16). Dunn, however, in reflecting on the believer’s ongoing struggle with weakness, speaks of the “frustration and existential agonizing of the believer thus divided between his or her own double identity.”4 However, inasmuch as identity is determined in relation to another, the Spirit’s ongoing co-witness (συμμαρτυρεῖ, Rom 8:16) with the believer’s spirit/heart (Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6) of sonship reconstitutes Christian identity. As Siikavirta puts it, the implications of Romans 6–8 are that being transferred from Adam to Christ “shatters the Christian’s former self-identification of slave to sin (6:16) and gives him the new identity of servant of God (6:22) – or even son of God (8:14).”5 April 2014, n.p., “The structure of human existence is participatory without exception and without remainder. That is, whether ‘in Christ’ or under the power of sin and death, human life always is constrained and constructed in relationship to external forces that also operate internally.” 3 See chapter 4 for our discussion of Dunn’s and Fee’s reading of Rom 8:5–11. 4 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 434. Emphasis added. 5 Samuli Siikavirta, Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6-8: Paul’s Ethics Beyond “Indicative” and “Imperative,” WUNT 2.407 (Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2015), 147.

6.2. Relational Anthropology and Christian Existence

257

To be sure, there is an “incongruity”6 to Christian existence prior to resurrection. This is so because of lingering Adamic-body within the Adamicage (Rom 6:12; 8:11, 13) – a relational facet of human existence this study has drawn attention to, and for which Fee’s claim of “no internal struggle for believers”7 does not adequately account. However, this incongruity is not indicative of an ambiguity in identity – there is no “double identity” in Romans 5–8: one is either in Adam or in Christ, a slave of sin or son of God, in the flesh or in the Spirit. Lingering embodiment in the Adamic-sphere infringes upon agency (“deeds of the body,” 8:13), which means fleshliness can still distort the heart (Rom 6:12), but not override identity (Rom 8:1; 2 Cor 5:17). This is so precisely because identity is grounded, not by the autonomous-self, but by God. Barclay’s summary of existence vis-à-vis Romans 8 aptly summarizes this point: “If Christ is in you” (the self newly centered “from outside”), “the body is defunct because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness”…. The believer is thus at the same time dead and alive, and this life is operative only from Christ and through the Spirit, which is another way of saying this “newness of life” is established, sustained, and governed not by believers themselves, but by God.8

To summarize, relational anthropology (a) explains the ongoing struggle indicative of lingering Adamic-embodiment, which Fee’s construal of Christian existence underemphasizes. At the same time, (b) relational anthropology grounds the believer’s identity in their relationship with God and Christ. This latter relational aspect is the more powerful and permanent, not only affecting identity, but also actualizing a new self “in Christ,” which Dunn’s construal underemphasizes. Therefore, even amid struggle, Christian personhood is grounded by the permanence and assurance of God’s relation toward the believer – i.e., God’s love (Rom 5:5; 8:31–39). Our study has not only developed the paradigm for understanding Christian existence this way, but also made plain the Spirit’s 6 John M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 501, in reflecting on Christian existence vis-à-vis Romans 5–8, writes, “Whereas Christ has finished with death (6:9), believers have not: they are dead to sin (6:11), but not to death. This puts their lives in a state of permanent incongruity.” 7 Gordon D. Fee, Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 820. 8 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 502–3. Emphasis added. Barclay also understands a “new existence” for Christians: e.g., “This permanent incongruity of new life in dying bodies is expressed in the congruity or fit between the new human obedience and the purpose or will of God. The contrast between the normal human condition and the new existence in Christ is dramatized in Romans 7–8 by the contrast between life ‘in the flesh’ and life ‘in the Spirit,’ the one unable to keep the Law despite the best intentions (7:7–25), the other enabled to ‘fulfill the just requirement of the Law’ (8:1–4)…. This capacity depends on a transformation of the self, or better, a new self, derived from the risen Christ.”

258

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications

role in the ongoing actualization (experience) of this relational existence. In concluding his poem, “Wer Bin Ich?,” which captures the vicissitudes of life in a prison cell, Dietrich Bonheoffer captures the essence of this relational view of Christian existence: “Wer ich auch bin, Du kennst mich, Dein bin ich, o Gott!”9 With these words Bonheoffer also provides poetic commentary on our reading of Rom 8:9–11, 14–16, i.e., human existence grounded in belonging to Christ and sonship with God.

6.3. Relational Anthropology and Individuals amid Community 6.3. Relational Anthropology and Individuals amid Community

A second implication of our study of RA has to do with approaching aspects of Paul’s theology in general. Here we only comment briefly on the implications of RA in understanding Pauline soteriology. In particular, amid the complex debates about whether or not the logic of justification prizes the individual or community, a view of human existence that is irreducibly participatory might suggest a harmonization. As an example, Paul’s language in 1 Cor 12:12 demonstrates how seamlessly Christian initiation-conversion (individual) implied participation in another, Christ and Christ’s body (community): “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Dunn has pointed out that experience of the Spirit was “a common denominator in [Christians’] experience of the Spirit at conversioninitiation…. (2 Cor 1:2; 4:6; Gal 3:2; 1 Thes 1:7).”10 In the context of 1 Corinthians 12, therefore, Paul draws together individual and communal realities under the same paradigm: the Spirit-shaped beginning of Christian life, which in turn can be summarized as being “in Christ/in the body of Christ” (e.g., 1 Cor 12:12). This is not to say that participation in the body of Christ is related to the forensic fact of justification causally – as though the individual is saved by the body of Christ (i.e., church). However, it is to say that in terms of its actualization in the life of an individual, the fact of justification before God is coterminous with transference into Christ and his body (the church). Moreover, when this is understood through the lens of RA, the communal structure of “being saved” does not negate the individual; rather, it is precisely the context whereby the individual is actualized as a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). As such, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen aus der Haft (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1959), 243. See also Siikavirta, Baptism and Cognition, 147, who in his study of Romans 6–8 concludes that the most important question for Christian identity is “Whose you are?” 10 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 260. 9

6.4. Relational Anthropology and Ecclesial Friendships

259

our study has posited a view of human existence in Paul that suggests avoiding the habit to play off individual aspects of Paul’s theology against the communal.11 With penetrating insight, Eastman notes the joining of “juridical” and “participatory” language in Romans 8, and in the context of the work of the Spirit: The deadly nexus of condemnation for sin under the law [juridical language], and slavery to sin under the law [participatory language], gives way to the dynamic presence of the lifegiving Spirit through the self-giving Christ. All this suggests that even the “forensic” or “juridical” language relies on participatory notions of human existence in relationships to the realm dominated by sin and death … along with participatory notions of God’s action in Christ.12

If the structure of human existence is irreducibly participatory, then soteriology would draw the forensic and incorporative elements under the same umbrella – perhaps the very things Paul’s multivalent “in Christ” paradigm does.

6.4. Relational Anthropology and Ecclesial Friendships 6.4. Relational Anthropology and Ecclesial Friendships

This study’s reading of 1 Corinthians 12 demonstrated that the church family (ἀδελφοί, 12:1) is necessary to Christian personhood. Through the apportionment and working of χαρίσματα, the Spirit shapes relationships of interdependence whereby “members” (μέλη) are actualized in terms of their utility and identity. Paul employs the body metaphor (12:12–26) to illustrate his teaching on spiritual gifts (12:4–11) within the overarching context of the nature of the body of Christ. As such, just as a foot is unintelligible outside of its relation to the body, so too the individual believer is not him or herself outside their place in the body. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor speaks of Christian existence in light of Paul’s body metaphor as coexistence, and drives home the point of the metaphor: Their very reality as limbs is conditioned by their being part of the body. An amputated limb may look like an arm, but in fact it is something radically different because the mode of

11 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 395–96, makes a similar point: “We must avoid the temptation to play off one aspect of Paul’s theology against another. It would be all too easy, as Käsemann, for example, demonstrates, to play off emphasis on the individual against emphasis on corporateness, or to regard the extra nos of God’s saving righteousness as a protection against mysticism and religious experience.” 12 Susan Grove Eastman, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul, ed. Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2.384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 109–10.

260

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications

existence proper to an arm demands vital participation in the life of the body…. In precisely the same perspective Paul conceived of the body of Christ as an organic unity.13

Therefore, just as the identity and purpose of the “foot” is unintelligible outside of service to the body, so too, the πνευματικός is not herself outside of sharing her χαρίσματα with the other(s). In these ongoing Spirit-shaped relationships of interdependence the body is not only united and built up (see also Eph 4:3– 16), but a new relational matrix actualizes Christian personhood. As such, our model of RA fits the logic of 1 Corinthians 12, just as the work of the Spirit in that chapter displays the logic of Christian RA. In his essay on the Body of Christ, Käsemann suggests that a participatory view of human existence is the predicate (“existential presupposition”) to Paul’s communal vision life. He speaks of Man as a non-isolable existence, i.e., in his need and real capacity for communication as friend or foe…. Thus far, this earthly existence of ours is always characterized by membership and participation. That forms the existential presupposition for the fact that we as believers can be incorporated into the kingdom of Christ, and that not only for ourselves, let alone merely as soul or in our inner lives, but with all our potential and actual relationships to our world.14

The pastoral implication of this calls for the church to recognize how essential it is to Christian personhood: “The idea of an autonomous Christian is a contradiction in terms.”15 Church communities must ask seriously what “relational webs” are shaping their members, and whether or not “members” are sufficiently enmeshed in the life of the local Body to experience a new usefulness and sense of belonging by serving the other. This presents many modern churches with a challenge. Along with expressions of individualism in modern Western culture, there is also the fact that many modern churches are larger and more institutionalized than the Pauline churches. This makes the face-to-face interrelating that was surely part of early Christian gatherings harder to come by. While this is not a study on church practice, one solution would be to think deeply about the role of “small groups” as contexts where the type of relationality this study has observed could be fostered.

13 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Eucharist and Community in First Corinthians,” Worship 50.5 (1976): 373 14 Ernst Käsemann, “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 114. 15 Murphy-O’Connor, “Eucharist and Community in First Corinthians,” 374.

6.5. Further Study

261

6.5. Further Study 6.5. Further Study

The relational nature of anthropology could be further explored in other areas of the Pauline canon. To suggest just one text, Ephesians 4 bears many similarities with the topic studied in this thesis. This is another text in which Paul brings together the work of the Spirit and the unity of believers (Eph 4:3). Paul also does so in a context similar to 1 Corinthians 12, the apportioning of gifts for the building up of the body: ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ…. εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Eph 4:7, 12). An added dimension in Ephesians is the likening of the Church to a mature adult (εἰς ἂνδρα τέλειον, 4:13).16 In terms of RA, this notion of the church “maturing” might invite reflection on the “process” aspect of personhood; i.e., asking whether or not the person is a static, fluid, or developing reality. This in turn would relate to the role of the Spirit in sanctification and the role of the community in sanctification.17 Outside of Paul the most natural place to explore the concept of RA in the NT is in the Johannine literature. Benjamin Reynolds has noted that John’s anthropology “is relational in nature. Human beings are either in relationship with God or they are not.”18 The motif of mutual abiding – ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (John 15:5) – set within the metaphor of the vine and branches, calls to mind aspects of Paul’s “in Christ” language as well as the indwelling motif of Rom 8:9–10. Inasmuch as it bears upon assumptions about personhood, the vine and branches metaphor (John 15:1–11) draws to mind Paul’s body metaphor as well. Also, the context of John 14–16 includes John’s major teaching of the Spirit. In this context the Spirit (ὁ παράκλητος) comes in direct relation to Christ’s departure (John 14:3–5; 16:7) and brings the presence of Christ close to his followers (“he [the Spirit] will take what is mine and declare it to you,” John 16:14). Exploring how the Spirit fosters a relationship between Christ’s followers and Christ and God in John would be yet another area to explore the concept of RA and the Spirit. 16 (Aaron) Sang-Won Son, “The Church as ‘One New Man,’” Southwestern Journal of Theology 52.1 (2009): 18–31, has explored this topic vis-à-vis corporate elements in Paul’s anthropology. It would be interesting to explore it via the idea of the Spirit’s apportionment of gifts. 17 James H. Howard, Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology, SBL 90 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), has explored the role of the community in shaping the Christian person. To explore this idea through the lens of RA and Spirit-shaped relationships and within the context of the upbuilding of the church would be a fruitful way to build on this thesis. 18 Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Anthropology of John and the Johannine Epistles: A Relational Anthropology,” in Anthropology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds, LNTS 409 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 121.

262

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications

6.6. Conclusion 6.6. Conclusion

Lastly, this study serves as an invitation to think of two things differently: the work of the Spirit and ecclesial friendships (relationships). Regarding the first, the role of the Spirit in everyday Christian life can be hard to grasp. In some cases, the pneumatological aspect of Christian life is either selective or neglected. Fee, for example, laments a tendency of some to focus only on one aspect of Paul’s view of the Spirit; e.g., Pentecostals emphasize 1 Corinthians 12–14 and supernatural gifts, while non-Pentecostals focus on Galatians 5 and Romans 7–8 and the ethical outworking of fruits of the Spirit.19 Adding to this is a tendency for some to privatize the work of the Spirit, implying the Spirit’s only role lies in guiding personal decision-making. However, this study’s reading of Paul suggests the role of the Spirit in Christian life can neither be neglected nor truncated. The Spirit is essential to Christian existence from conversion-initiation (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 12:13), to the ongoing awareness of sonship (Rom 8:15–16), to the interrelationships between believers (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 12:4–31a). What this study has shed light on that is rather unique, is a facet of the Spirit’s day-to-day work that involves relationships. Christians may do well to consider how the Spirit may be at work to draw them closer to God and Christ, and closer to other Christians. The means by which the Spirit does this may vary, such as drawing individuals closer to God and one another through worship, study of Scripture, spiritual gifts, or prayer. However, the goal is the same; the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s sons and daughters, that we are members of one of another. The second invitation has to do with how Christians think about relationships within their ecclesial communities, or, the place of friendship in the church. Do believers realize that ecclesial webs of relationships may be the very location where personhood is actualized and flourishes? In his book The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis reflects on a surprising fact about friendship that highlights certain implications of Paul’s body metaphor in 1 Corinthians. Lewis explains that in a group of three friends (A, B, and C), if A should depart, then B loses not only “A but A’s part in C, while C loses not only A but A’s part in B.” Lewis goes on, “In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets.”20 Such is the case with Paul’s body metaphor. Should the eye depart, not only the knee, but also the hand would be worse off; not only this, but the eye helps actualize purposes of the foot that the knee does not. The point is this: the webs of relationships within a church community – designed by God (“God 19 20

Fee, Empowering Presence, 11. C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (New York: Harcourt, 1960), 61.

6.6. Conclusion

263

arranged….”; 1 Cor 12:18, 24, 28) and fostered by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:7–13) – are the locations where the self is actualized and strengthened vis-à-vis other selves. These interrelationships of believers are precisely the locations where the self, who is not itself by itself, becomes who he or she truly is – a self-inrelation-to-others; and all this, by the one and same Spirit.

Bibliography Alexander, Desmond T., Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, ed. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Aves, John. “Persons in Relation: John Macmurray.” 120–37 in Persons, Divine and Human. Edited by Colin E. Gunton and Christoph Schwöbel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Backhaus, Knut. “Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus.” 9–31 in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; Festschrift for Hans Hübner. Edited by Udo Schnelle and Thomas Söding. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Banks, Robert J. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 73–93. –. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. –. “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity.” 157–67 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. –. “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15.47 (1992): 49–74. Barclay, John M. G., and Simon Gathercole, ed. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Library of New Testament Studies 335. NY: T&T Clark, 2006. Barré, Michael L. “Qumran and the ‘Weakness’ of Paul.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. 42, no. 2, (Apr. 1980): 216–227. Barrett, Charles K. A Commentary on The First Epistle to The Corinthians. NY: Harper & Row, 1968. Barth, Markus. Ephesians 1–3. Anchor Bible 34A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. –. Ephesians 4–6. Anchor Bible 34B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. –. “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 241–67. Bartling, Walter J. “The Congregation of Christ – A Charismatic Body: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 12.” Concordia Theological Monthly 40 (1969): 67–78. Barton, Stephen. “The Communal Dimension of Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey of the Field.” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1992): 399–427. Beale, Gregory K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, ed. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007.

266

Bibliography

Beck, James R., and Bruce Demarest. The Human Person in Theology and Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2005. Becker, Eve-Marie, Jan Dietrich, and Bo Kristian-Holm, ed. “What is Human?” Theological Encounters with Anthropology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. –. “‘What is Human?’: Theological Encounters with Anthropology: Introduction to the Volume.” 11–20 in “What is Human?”: Theological Encounters with Anthropology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. BeDuhn, Jason David. “‘Because of the Angels’: Unveiling Paul’s Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118.2 (1999): 295–320. Beinert, Wolfgang. “Der Einzelne und die Gemeinschaft: Ekklesiologische Aspekte zum Thema Nachfolge.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 30.2 (1979): 25–36. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. 1997. Berding, Kenneth. “Who Searches Hearts and What Does He Know in Romans 8:27?” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 5 (2013): 94–108. Berenson, F. M. Understanding Persons: Personal and Impersonal Relationships. NY, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1981. Berger, Klaus. Identity and Experience in the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003. Bertone, John A. “The Function of the Spirit in the Dialectic between God’s Soteriological Plan Enacted but Not Yet Culminated: Romans 8.1–27.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15 (1999): 75–97. –. “The Law of the Spirit”: Experience of the Spirit and Displacement of the Law in Romans 8:1–16. Studies in Biblical Literature 86. NY, NY: Peter Lang, 2005. Best, Ernest E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010. –. “Ephesians: Two Types of Existence.” Interpretation 47.1 (1993): 39–51. –. One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. London: Society for the Proclamation of Christian Knowledge, 1955. Betz, Hans Dieter “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἒσω ἄνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul.” New Testament Studies 46.3 (2000): 315–41. –. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007. Bittlinger, Arnold. Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on I Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Black, Clifton. “The Pauline Perspective on Death in Romans 5–8.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 413–33. Blackwell, Ben C. Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWḤ in the Book of Ezekiel.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Studies 32 (1989): 27–49.

Bibliography

267

de Boer, Martinus C. “Paul’s Mythologizing Program in Romans 5–8.” Pages 1–20 in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen aus der Haft. Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag München, 1959. Botterweck, Gerhard J., Helmer Ringgren, John T. Willis, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by John E. Steely. NY, NY: Abingdon Press, 1970. Bovon, François. “Der Heilige Geist, die Kirche, und die menschlichen Beziehungen nach der Apostelgeschichte 20, 36–21, 16.” Pages 181–204 in François Bovon. Lukas in neuer Sicht: Gesammelte Aufsӓtze. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985. Brakke, David B., Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman. Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Bloomington, ΙΝ: University Press, 2005. Brandenburger, Egon. Fleisch Und Geist: Paulus Und Die Dualistische Weisheit. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968. Bray, Gerald. “The Work of the Spirit (Romans 8:1–17).” Evangel 19 (2001): 65–69. Brooke, George J. “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts.” Pages 317–38 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XI.1. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Bruce, Frederick F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. –. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. –. “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts.” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966/68): 49–55. –. “The Spirit in the Letter to the Galatians.” Pages 36–48 in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin. Edited by P. Elbert. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Besprechung von Hans Windisch: Der Sinn der Bergpredigt.” Columns 985–93 in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, NF 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929. –. Faith and Understanding. NY, NY: Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966. –. Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958. –. “New Testament and Mythology.” Pages 1–44 in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch. NY, NY: Harper & Row, 1961. –. “Paul.” Pages 111–46 in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. NY, NY: Meridian, 1960. –. “The Historicity of Man and Faith.” Pages 92–110 in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. NY, NY: Meridian, 1960. –. Theology of the New Testament. 2 Volumes. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM Press, 1952. Burger, Hans. Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Burnett, G. W. Paul and the Salvation of the Individual. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Byrne, Brendan. “Sons of God” – “Seed of Abraham”: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background. Analecta Biblica 83. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1979.

268

Bibliography

Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in The Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading The New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015. –. “Metaphor, Reality, and Union with Christ.” Pages 61–86 in “In Christ” in Paul. Edited by Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012. Campbell, Douglas A. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. NY: T&T Clark, 2005. Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1987. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo, ed. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, ed. Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001. Chamblin, J. Knox. Paul and the Self: Apostolic Teaching for Personal Wholeness. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993. –. “Psychology.” Pages 765–775 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: 1993. Chapman, David W. and Andreas J. Köstenberger. “Jewish Intertestamental and Early Rabbinic Literature: Annotated Bibliographic Resource Updated (Part 1).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55.2 (2012): 235–72. –. “Jewish Intertestamental and Early Rabbinic Literature: Annotated Bibliographic Resource Updated (Part 2).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55.3 (2012): 457–88. Chappell, Timothy. “Knowledge of Persons.” European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 5.4 (2013): 3–28. Charlesworth, James, ed. Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents. Volume 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. –. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Chevallier, M. A. Esprit de Dieu, Paroles d’Hommes. Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1966. Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. First Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1986. Ciampa Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians.” Pages 695–752 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. –. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Clark, David K. Knowing and Loving God: Method for Theology, Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Clark, Mary T. “An Inquiry into Personhood.” The Review of Metaphysics 46.1 (1992): 3– 28. Cohen, Anthony P. Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge, 1994.

Bibliography

269

Collins, John J. “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship.” Pages 1–23 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “The Genre of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 737–55 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “Interpretations of Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 29–43 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Collins, Raymond F., and Daniel J. Harrington. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. Congdon, David W. “Kerygma and Community: A Response to R. W. L. Moberly’s Revisiting of Bultmann.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 8.1 (2014): 1–21. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975. Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: NRSV Edition. Oxford: Oxford, 2010. Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the MonismDualism Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Cosgrove, Charles H. The Cross and the Spirit, A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989. Coulson, John. “Jesus and the Spirit in Paul’s Theology: The Earthly Jesus.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79.1 (2017): 77–96. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 Volumes. International Critical Commentary. 6th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. Dahl, Murdoch E. The Resurrection of the Body: A Study in 1 Corinthians 15. Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1962. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Kleidungsmetaphern: der alte und der neue Mensch.” Pages 389–411 in Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text & Edition-Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes. Edited by David Hellholm, Vemund Blomkvist, and Tord Fornberg. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Daise, Michael A. “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 293–305 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dautzenberg, Gerhard, “Das ist nicht mannlich und weiblich: zur Interpretation von Gal 3,28.” Kairos 24 (1982): 181–206. –. “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der διάκρισις πνευμάτων (1 Kor 12,10).” Biblische Zeitschrift 15 (1971): 93–104. Davies, William D. “‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25–30.” The Harvard Theological Review 46. 3 (1953): 113–39. –. “Paul: From the Jewish Point of View.” Pages 678–730 in The Early Roman Period. Volume 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies, John Sturdy and William Horbury. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1999. –. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980.

270

Bibliography

Davis, James A. “The Interaction between Individual Ethical Conscience and Community Ethical Consciousness in 1 Corinthians.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10.2 (1988): 1– 18. Deissmann, Adolf. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. NY: Harper, 1957. –. Die Neutestamentliche Formel „In Christo Jesu.” Marburg: Elwert 1892. Delling, Gerhard. Worship in the New Testament. Translated by Percy Scott. London: Longman & Todd, 1962. Derrett, J. D. M. “New Creation: Qumran, Paul, The Church, And Jesus.” Revue De Qumran 13.49–52 (1988): 599–608. Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Shenley, Hertfordshire: Knowledge Matters Ltd., 1998. Dietrich, Jan. “Human Relationality and Sociality in Ancient Israel: Mapping the Social Anthropology of the Old Testament.” Pages 23–44 in “What Is Human?”: Theological Encounters with Anthropology. Edited by Becker, Eve-Marie, Jan Dietrich, and Bo Kristian-Holm. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Dillon, Richard J. “The Spirit as Taskmaster and Troublemaker in Romans 8.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998): 682–702. Dockery, D. S. “New Nature and Old Nature.” Pages 628–29 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993. Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Collins, 1970. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. London: SCM, 1970. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2010. –. “The Body of Christ in Paul.” Pages 146–62 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J Wilkins and Terence Paige. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1992. –. The Christology. Volume 1 of The Christ and the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. –. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. –. “‘The Law of Faith,’ the ‘Law of the Spirit’ and ‘the Law of Christ.’” Pages 62–82 in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering Jr. and Jerry L. Sumney. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. –. Pneumatology. Volume 2 of The Christ and the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. Romans. Vols. 1–2. Word Biblical Commentary 38A, B. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003. –. “Spirit Speech: Reflections on Romans 8:12–27.” Pages 82–91 in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Dunson, Ben C. “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life in Community?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34.1 (2011): 19–46. –. Individual and Community in Paul's Letter to the Romans. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.332. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Bibliography

271

–. “The Individual and Community in Twentieth- and Twenty-first-Century Pauline Scholarship.” Currents in Biblical Research 9.1 (2010): 63–97. Earnshaw, J. D. “Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1–4.” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 68–88. Eastman, Susan Grove. “Apocalypse and Incarnation: The Participatory Logic of Paul’s Gospel.” Pages 165–82 in Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology. Edited by J. Davis and D. Harnick. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012. –. “Double Participation and the Responsible Self in Romans 5–8.” Pages 93–110 in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. –. “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8.” Pages 103–25 in “In Christ” in Paul. Edited by Michael J. Tate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. “Participation in Christ.” The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson and R. Barry Matlock. Online Publication, April 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600489.001.0001/o xfordhb-9780199600489-e-005#oxfordhb-9780199600489-e-005-div1-1. –. “Paul and the Person: Perspectives from Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences.” Ex Audito 32 (2016): 26–44. –. Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. –. “The Shadow Side of Second-Person Engagement: Sin in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 5.4 (2013): 125–44. Ebeling, Gerhard. Dogmatik des Glaubens. Vol. 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Eersel, San van. “‘Beziehung’ als Leitbegriff der Religionspädagogik: Grundlegung einer dialogisch-kreativen Religionsdidaktik.” Journal of Empirical Theology 19.2 (2006): 244–45. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. London: SCM Press, 1967. Ellis, E. Earle. “Sōma in First Corinthians.” Interpretation 44.2 (April 1990): 132–44. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “The Material Spirit: Cosmology and Ethics in Paul.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 179–97. –. “Once More a Lutheran Paul?: A Review of Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith.” Scottish Journal of Theology 59 (2006): 439–60. –. “A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in Paul.” Pages 121–22 in Philosophy at the Roots of Christianity; working papers 2. Edited by T. Engberg-Pedersen and H. Tronier. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2006. Esler, Philip F. The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London: Routledge, 1994. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter, ed. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83. Sheffield: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993. Ewert, D. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Harrisburg, PA: Herald, 1983.

272

Bibliography

Fatehi, Mehrdad. The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. –. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. –. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. –. Paul, the Spirit, the People of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Ferguson, Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 599–621 In The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. Romans. Anchor Bible. Vol. 33. NY: Doubleday, 1992. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory Of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Flusser, David “The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 283–292 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Vol. 1. Edited by D. Flusser. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Fowl, Stephen E. Ephesians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Gaffin, Richard B. Jr. “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul's Pneumatology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41.4 (1998): 573–89. Garland, David E. First Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Gathercole, Simon. “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals.” Pages 219–42 in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. Gentry, Peter, and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Second Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018. Gieniusz, Andrzej. Romans 8:18–30: “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory.” International Studies in Formative Christianity Judaism 9. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999. Godet, Frédéric L., and A Cusin. Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 1886. Goppelt, Leonhard. The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ. Volume 2 of Theology of the New Testament. Translated by John E. Alsup. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Gorman, Michael J. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Paul’s Corporate, Cruciform, Missional Theosis in 2 Corinthians.” Pages 181–208 in “In Christ” in Paul. Edited by Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Grenz, Stanley J. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Bibliography

273

–. “The Social God and the Relational Self: Toward a Theology of the Imago Dei in the Postmodern Context.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 24.1 (2002): 33–57. Grogan, G. W. “The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews.” Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1998): 159–73. Grudem, Wayne. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington: University Press of America, 1982. –. “A Response to Gerhard Dautzenberg on 1 Cor. 12:10.” Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978): 253–70. Gundry, Robert H. Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Gunkel, Hermann. The Influence of the Holy Spirit. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck II. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979. Gunton, E. Colin. “Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the Imago Dei.” Pages 47–61 in Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays In Theological Anthropology. Edited by Colin E. Gunton and Christoph Schwöbel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Gupta, Nijay K. “Which ‘Body’ Is a Temple (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Paul beyond the Individual/Communal Divide.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72.3 (July 2010): 518–36. Hafemann, Scott J. “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought.” Pages 172–189 in Egangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65 Geburtstag. Edited by Jostein Adna, Scott Hafemann and Otfried Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Hahn, Roger L. “Pneumatology in Romans 8: Its Historical and Theological Context.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 21.1–2 (1986): 74–90. Hansen, Bruce. “All of You Are One”: The Social Vision of Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11. Library of New Testament Studies 409. NY, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Harding, Sarah. Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Harland, P. A. “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (Αδελφοί) in Associations of the Greek East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 491–513. Harlé, Paul André. “Le Saint-Esprit et L'Église chez saint Paul.” Verbum Caro 19.74 (1965): 13–29. Harrill, J. Albert. “Paul and the Slave Self.” Pages 51–69 in Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Edited by David B. Brakke, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005. Harris, H. A. “Should We Say Personhood Is Relational?” Scottish Journal of Theology 51.2 (1998): 224–34. Harvey, John D. Romans. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2017. Haugeland, John. “Mind Embodied and Embedded.” Pages 207–40 in Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Edited by John Haugeland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter. Gottes Geist und der Mensch: Studien zur frühchristlichen Pneumatologie. München: C. Kaiser, 1972. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. –. “Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians.” Ex Auditu 10 (1994): 31–43. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.

274

Bibliography

–. First Corinthians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1997. –. “Intertextuelle Pneumatologie: Die paulinische Rede vom Heiligen Geist.” Zeitschrift für das Neue Testament 25 (2010): 30–37. –. “What Is ‘Real Participation in Christ’?: A Dialogue with E. P. Sanders on Pauline Soteriology.” Pages 336–351 in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders. Edited by E. P. Sanders, Fabian E. Udoh, Susannah Heschel, Mark A. Chancey, and Gregory Tatum. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 16. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Hawthorne, Gerald F. “Holy Spirit.” Pages 489–99 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, ed. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Heidegger, Martin. Phänomenologie und Theologie. Frankfurt: M. Klostermann, 1970. Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2002. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974. Hinde, Robert A. Towards Understanding Relationships. European Monographs on Social Psychology 18. London: Academic Press, 1979. Hirsch, Eric D. Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967. Hobson, Peter. The Cradle of Thought: Exploring the Origins of Thinking. London: MacMillian, 2011. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Holtz, Gudrun. Die Nichtigkeit des Menschen und die Übermacht Gottes: Studien zur Gottes- und Selbsterkenntnis bei Paulus, Philo und in der Stoa. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I.377. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Hooker, Morna D. “Adam in Romans 1.” New Testament Studies 6 (1959–1960): 297–306. –. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press, 1990. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1992. –. “Holy Spirit.” Pages 260–80 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. NY, NY: Doubleday, 1992. Horrell, David G. “From ἀδελϕοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120.2 (2001): 293–311. –. Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Horsley, Richard A. “Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status Among the Corinthians.” Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): 269–88. Howard, James H. Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology. Studies in Biblical Literature 90. NY: Peter Lang, 2007.

Bibliography

275

Iricinschi, Eduard, and Holger M. Zellentin. Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Jeremias, Joachim. Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Göttingen: Vanderhhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. –. The Prayers of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1967. Jervell, Jacob, Imago Dei: Gen 1,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den pauliniidjen Briefen. Göttingen: Vandenhoechk & Ruprecht, 1960. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. Leiden: Brill, 1971. –. “The Question of the ‘Apportioned Spirit.’” Pages 193–206 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Edited by Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. –. Romans: A Commentary. Hermenia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. Johnson Hodge, C. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Judge, E. A. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of the New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale, 1960. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “By the Washing of Regeneration and Renewal in the Holy Spirit”: Towards a Pneumatological Theology of Justification.” Pages 303–22 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. –. Kirchliche Konflikte. Band 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. –. Leib und Leib Christi: Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 9. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933. –. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1969. –. On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene: Unpublished Lectures and Sermons. Edited by Rudolf Landau and Wolfgang Kraus. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “On Paul’s Anthropology.” Pages 1–31 in Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971. –. “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.” Pages 108–135 in Essays on New Testament Themes. Studies in Biblical Theology 41. London: SCM Press, 1964 –. “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ.” Pages 102–21 in Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971. –. “Was ich als deutscher Theologe in fünfzig Jahren verlernte.” Pages 233–44 in Kirchliche Konflikte. Band 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Keck, Leander. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005. Kee, H. C. “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775–828 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983. Keener, Craig S. “‘Fleshly’ Versus Spirit Perspectives in Romans 8:5–8.” Pages 211–29 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

276

Bibliography

Kistemaker, Simon J. 1 Corinthians: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Diversity and Unity in the New Testament.” Pages 144–58 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect & Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. –. “Mission.” Pages 663–68 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000. –. “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh.’” Trinity Journal 12 (1991): 79–94. –. “What Does It Mean to Be Filled with the Spirit?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 229–40. Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011. Kister, Menahem. “Body and Sin: Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts.” Pages 171–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish & Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. van Kooten, George H. Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.232. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Krammer, Ingrid, and Renate Egger-Wenzel. Der Einzelne Und Seine Gemeinschaft Bei Ben Sira. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Kreitzer, L. J. “Adam and Christ.” Pages 9–15 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993. Laato, Timo. Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. Translated by T. McElwain. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. –. “Paul’s Anthropological Considerations: Two Problems.” Pages 343–59 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vols. 1–2. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Labahn, Michael, and Outi Lehtipuu, ed. Anthropology in the New Testament and Its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscsaba/Budapest. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 54. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Lacoste, Jean-Yves. “Being.” Pages 179–94 in Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. Volume 1. Edited by Jean-Yves Lacoste. NY: Routledge, 2005. Ladd, George E. “The Holy Spirit in Galatians.” Pages 211–16 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney and Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. Landmesser, Christof. “Der Geist und die christliche Existenz: Anmerkungen zur paulinischen Pneumatologie im Anschluß an Röm 8, 1–11.” Pages 141–60 in Die Wirklichkeit des Geistes: Konzeptionen und Phänomene des Geistes in Philosophie und Theologie der Gegenwart. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006.

Bibliography

277

Lattey, Cuthbert. “Vicarious Solidarity in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 1.4 (1951): 267–74. Lee, Michelle V. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 137. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Levison, John R. “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 35–57. –. “Paul in the Stoa Poecile: A Response to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010).” Journal for Study of New Testament 33.4 (2011): 415–32. Lévy-Bruhl, L. and L. A. Clare, Primitive Mentality. Oxford: Macmillian, 1923. Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. NY, NY: Harcourt, 1960. Li, Soeng Yu. Paul’s Teaching on the Pneumatika in 1 Corinthians 12–14: Prophecy as the Paradigm of ta Charismata ta Meizona for the Future-Oriented Ekklēsia. Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.455. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Lichtenberger, Hermann. Das Ich Adams und Das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Liddell, Henry G, Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lieu, Judith M. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. World Biblical Commentary 42. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990. Lindars, Barnabas. “Paul and the Law in Romans 5–8: An Actantial Analysis.” Pages 126– 40 in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity: By Members of the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1988. Lindemann, Andreas. “Anthropologie und Kosmologie in der Theologie des Paulus: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Rudolf Bultmann und Ernst Käsemann.” Pages 149–83 in Theologie und Wirklichkeit: Diskussionen der Bultmann-Schule. Edited by M. Bauspieß and Christof Landmesser. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001. –. “Die Kirche als Leib: Beobachtungen zur »demokratischen« Ekklesiologie bei Paulus.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 92.2 (1995): 140–65. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. –. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. –. “Prolegomena to Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 7 (1997): 145–68. Macaskill, Grant. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Magness, Jodi. “Qumran.” Pages 1126–131 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. –. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Revised Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

278

Bibliography

Malina, Bruce, and Jerome Neyrey. “First-Century Personality: Dyadic, Not Individual.” Pages 67–97 in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Mander, William J. “Does God Know What It Is Like to be Me?” The Heythrop Journal 43.4 (2002): 430–43. Mansfield, Nick. Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway. NY, NY: NYUP, 2000. Marshall, I. Howard, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema, ed. The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. –. “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question.’” Pages 29–62 in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by T. EngbergPedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50.3 (1991): 547–89. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary 40. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. –. The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1997. Martin, Troy W. “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts.” Pages 105–26 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos and David E. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Editors. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Two Volumes. Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Martyn, J. Louis. “Afterword: The Human Moral Drama.” Pages 157–66 in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Edited by Beverly R. Gaventa. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. –. “Events in Galatia.” Pages 160–80 in Pauline Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994. –. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. NY, NY: Doubleday, 1997. Mascall, E. L. Christ, the Christian and the Church. London: Longmans, 1946. Maston, Jason S. “Anthropological Crisis and Solution in the Hodayot and 1 Corinthians 15.” New Testament Studies 62.4 (2016): 533–48. –. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.297. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Enlivened Slaves: Paul’s Christological Anthropology.” Pages 141–60 in Anthropology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds. Library of New Testament Studies 529. NY: T&T Clark, 2018. McCasland, Vernon S. “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69.2 (1950): 85–100. McFadyen, Alistair I. The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. McFarlane, Graham. “Towards a Theology of Togetherness: Life through the Spirit.” Pages 323–35 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays

Bibliography

279

in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Meech, John L. Paul in Israel’s Story: Self and Community at the Cross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. –. “A Hermeneutics of Social Embodiment.” The Harvard Theological Review 79.1–3 (1986): 176–86. –. “Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.” History of Religions 13.3 (February 1974): 165–208. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Merritt, H. Wayne. “Paul and the Individual: A Study in Pauline Anthropology.” The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 18.1–2 (1990): 31–60. Meyer, Paul. “The Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters: A Contextual Exploration.” Pages 117– 32 in The Word in This World: Essays in New Testament Exegesis and Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. Moffatt, J. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938. Mol, Jurrien. Collective and Individual Responsibility: A Description of Corporate Personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 53. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. Second Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018. –. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991. Morales, Rodrigo J. The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Morgan, Robert, “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxxviii in Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. –. “Review: Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology. A Selected Study of Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in Light of Paul’s Usage and Background.” The Journal of Theological Studies 53.2 (2002): 657–59. Moulton, J. H., W. F. Howard, and N. Turner. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Volume III. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. 1 Corinthians. Doubleday Bible Commentary. NY, NY: Doubleday, 1998. –. “Community, Rule of the, (1QS).” Pages 1110–12 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. NY, NY: Doubleday, 1992. –. “Eucharist and Community in First Corinthians.” Worship 50.5 (1976): 370–86. –. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. –. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983.

280

Bibliography

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, and James H. Charlesworth. Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. NY, NY: Crossroad, 1990. Nelson, William R. “Pauline Anthropology: Its Relation to Christ and His Church.” Interpretation 14.1 (1960): 14–27. Neugebauer, Fritz. In Christus (ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ): Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubenverständnis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Newman, Cary C. Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 69. Leiden; NY: Brill, 1992. Nguyen, V. Henry T. Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus, and Valerius Maximus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.243. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Nicolet-Anderson, Valérie. Constructing the Self: Thinking with Paul and Michel Foucault. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.324. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2012. Njiru, Paul K. Charisms and the Holy Spirit’s Activity in the Body of Christ: An ExegeticalTheological Study of 1 Corinthians 12,4–11 and Romans 12,6–8. Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Teologia 86. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002. Noort, Ed. “Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life: The Anthropology of Gen 2:7 in Context.” Pages 1–15 in “Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity.” Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions. Vol. 20. Edited by Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and George H. van Kooten. Leiden, Brill, 2016. Nygaard, Mathias. “Romans 8–Interchange Leading to Deification,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 39 (2017): 156–75. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1949. O’Brien, Peter T. “Church.” Pages 123–31 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. –. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Orr, Peter. Christ Absent and Present: A Study in Pauline Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.354. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Owen, D. R. G. Body and Soul: A Study on the Christian View of Man. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959. Paige, Terence. “1 Corinthians 12:2: A Pagan Pompê?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991): 57–65. –. “Holy Spirit.” Pages 404–13 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove: IL, Intervarsity Press, 1993. Painter, John “World, Cosmology.” Pages 979–82 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Pearson, Birger A. The Pneumatikos-psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973. Perlman, Daniel, and Anita L. Vangelisti. “Personal Relationships: An Introduction.” Pages 3–10 in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Bibliography

281

Perriman, Andrew. “The Corporate Christ: Re-Assessing the Jewish Background.” Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999): 239–63. Philip, Finny. The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit Upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology. WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Pitts, Andrew W. and Seth Pollinger. “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology.” Pages 135–76 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Porter, Joshua Roy. “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 361–80. Porter, S. E. “Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 43 (1990): 289–307. Powers, Daniel G. Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Pryke, J. “‘Spirit’ and ‘Flesh’ in the Qumran Documents and Some New Testament Texts.” Revue de Qumran 19 (1965): 345–46. Rabens, Volker. “Begeisternde Spiritualität: Geisterfahrungen im Leben der paulinischen Gemeinden.” Glaube und Lernen 26 (2011): 133–47. –. “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology: A Response to F W Horn.” Biblische Zeitschrift 43.2 (1999): 161–79. –. “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western’ Perspective.” Pages 187–220 in The Holy Spirit and the Church According to the New Testament: Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013. Edited by Predrag Dragutinović, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, James B. Wallace, and Chrēstos K. Karakolēs, WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.354. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. –. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul. 2nd ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.283. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “‘Indicative and Imperative’ as the Substructure of Paul’s Theology-and-Ethics in Galatians? A Discussion of Divine and Human Agency in Paul.” Pages 285–305 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul's Letter. Edited by M. W. Elliott, Scott Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014. –. “Power from In Between: The Relational Experience of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in Paul’s Churches.” Pages 138–55 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. H. Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “Reframing Paul’s Anthropology in the Light of the Dichotomies of Pauline Research.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40.4 (2018): 503–15. –. “Sein und Werden in Beziehungen: Grundzüge relationaler Theologie bei Paulus und Johannes.” Pages 91–143 in Relationale Erkenntnishorizonte in Exegese und Systematischer Theologie. Edited by Walter Bührer, Raphaela Meyer, and HörsteBührer. Marburger Theologische Studien, 129. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018. Räisänen, Heikki. “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm 3:27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm 8:2).” New Testament Studies 26.1 (1979): 101–17.

282

Bibliography

Rawlinson, Alferd E. J. “Corpus Christi.” Pages 225–44 in Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by British and German Theologians. Edited by G. K. A. Bell and Adolf Deissmann. NY, NY: Longmans, 1930. Rehfeld, Emmanuel L. Relationale Ontologie Bei Paulus: Die Ontische Wirksamkeit Der Christusbezogenheit Im Denken Des Heidenapostels.Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.326. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Reynolds, Benjamin E. “The Anthropology of John and the Johannine Epistles: A Relational Anthropology.” Pages 121–40 in Anthropology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds. Library of New Testament Studies 409. NY, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Richardson, Neil. Paul’s Language About God. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 99. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Ringgren, Helmer. “Mysticism.” Pages 945–46 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol 4. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to The Corinthians. International Critical Commentary 33. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1953. Robinson, H. Wheeler. The Christian Doctrine of Man. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1947. –. Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. –. “Hebrew Psychology in Relation to Pauline Anthropology.” Pages 265–86 in Mansfield College Essays: Presented to the Reverend Andrew Martin Fairbairn, D. D. on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, November 4, 1908. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909. Robinson, J. A. T. The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1952. –. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-Examination.” The Journal of Theological Studies 21.1 (1970): 1–16. Rosner, Brian S. “Known by God: C. S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” Evangelical Quarterly 77.4 (2005): 343–52. Rothschild, Clare K., and Trevor W. Thompson. Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 284. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2011. Rowe, C. Kavin. “New Testament Iconography? Situating Paul in the Absence of Material Evidence.” Pages 298–312 in Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images. Edited by A. Weissenrieder, F. Wendy, and P. von Gemünden. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.193. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Samra, James George. Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. Library of New Testament Studies 320. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Sand, Alexander. Der Begriff “Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Biblische Untersuchungen 2. Regensburg: Pustet, 1967. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE – 66 CE. London: SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. –. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patters of Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81.1 (1962): 1–13

Bibliography

283

Schatzmann, Siegfried S. A Pauline Theology of Charismata. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. –. The Human Condition: Anthropology in the Teachings of Jesus, Paul, and John. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996. –. Paulus: Leben und Denken. Berlin: Walter de Guyter, 2003. –. “Transformation und Partizipation als Grundgedanken paulinischer Theologie.” New Testament Studies 47.1 (2001): 58–75. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 1,1–6,11). EvangelischKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament VII/1. Zurich: Benziger/NeukirchenVluyn, 1991. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?” Pages 89–106 in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. Edited by T. R. Schreiner and B. A. Ware. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. –. Interpreting the Pauline Epistles. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. –. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001. –. Romans. 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 2018. Schulthess, P. “Relation I: History.” Pages 776–79 in Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology. Vol. 2. Edited by H. Burkhardt and B. Smith. Analytica. Munich: Philosophica, 1991. Schumacher, Michele M. “Ecclesial Existence: Person and Community in The Trinitarian Anthropology of Adrienne Von Speyr.” Modern Theology 24.3 (July 2008): 359–85. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by W. Montgomery. London: A & C Black, 1931. Schweizer, Eduard. The Church as the Body of Christ. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1976. Scott, J. M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of Υἱοθεσία in the Pauline Corpus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.48. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 1992. –. “The Exaltation of the Spirit by Some Early Christians.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1985): 359–73. Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Der Brief an die Epheser. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Patmos Verlag, 1982. Schmithals, Walter. An Introduction to the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Second Edition. London: SCM Press, 1967. –. Die theologische Anthropologie des Paulus: Auslegung von Röm 7.17–8.39. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980. –. Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letter to the Corinthians. Second Edition. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1971. Schütt, Hans-Peter. “Person.” Page 731 in Religion Past & Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion. Vol. 9. Edited by Hans D. Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Seifrid, M. A. “In Christ.” Pages 433–36 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

284

Bibliography

–. “Romans.” Pages 607–94 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. Sekki, Arthur Everett. The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 110. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Shedd, Russell Philip. Man in Community: A Study of St. Paul’s Application of Old Testament and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity. London: Epworth Press, 1958. Siikavirta, Samuli. Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6–8: Paul’s Ethics Beyond “Indicative” and “Imperative.” Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.407. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2015. Son, Sang-Won (Aaron). “The Church as ‘One New Man.’” Southwestern Journal of Theology 52.1 (2009): 18–31. –. Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001. –. “Implications of Paul’s ‘One Flesh’ Concept for His Understanding of the Nature of Man.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 11.1 (2001): 107–22. Stacey, Walter David. The Pauline View of Man: In Relation to Its Judaic and Hellenistic Background. London/NY: Macmillan, 1956. Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” Harvard Theological Review 56.3 (1963): 199–215. Stott, John R. W. Romans: God’s Good News for the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Straub, Jürgen. “Personale und kollektive Identität: Zur Analyse eines theoretischen Begriffs.” Pages 73–104 in Identitäten: Erinnerung, Geschichte, Identität 3. Frakfurt: Suhrkamp, 1998. Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Edited by F. W. Horn. Translated by M. E. Boring. Berlin/NY: Walter de Gruyter/Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Erwägungen zum Problem von Gegenwart und Zukunft in der paulinischen Eschatologie.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 64 (1967): 423–50. –. “Erwägungen zum ontologische Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus.” Evangelische Theologie 27 (1967): 18–35. –. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Translated by Scott Haffeman. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Suurmond, Jean-Jacques. “A Fresh Look at Spirit-Baptism and the Charisms.” Expository Times 109 (1998): 103–6. Swete, H. B. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1921. Tasmuth, Randar. “Pauline Anthropology: On the Inner Human Being and the Human ‘I.’” Usuteaduslik Ajakiri 67.2 (2014): 45–65. Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. –. “The Politics of Recognition.” Pages 25–73 in Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition.” Edited by Amy Gutmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. –. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Tellbe, M. Christ-Believers in Ephesus: A Textual Analysis of Early Christian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Bibliography

285

Theissen, Gerd. Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007. –. Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. Translated by John Galvin. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987. –. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Translated by John H. Schütz. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1982. Terry, R. B. A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians. Dallas, TX: University of Texas Press, 1995. Thielicke, Helmut. The Evangelical Faith. Vol. 3. Translated and Edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. –. “The Group and the Individual in Salvation: The Witness of Paul.” Pages 136–53 in After Imperialism: Christian Identity in China and the Global Evangelical Movement. Edited by Richard R. Cook and David W. Pao. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Human Being, Relationality and Time in Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Western Traditions.” Ex Auditu 13 (1997): 76–95. –. Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. –. The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2011. Thompson, Marianne M. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. Thüsing, Wilhelm. Per Christum in Deum: Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. Neue Folge 1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1965. Timmins, Will. Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the “I” in Its Literary Context. Supplement for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Turner, J. “Ontology.” Pages 497–99 in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. 9. Edited by J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1917. Turner, Max. “Approaching ‘Personhood’ in the New Testament, with Special Reference to Ephesians.” Evangelical Quarterly 77.3 (2005): 211–33. –. “Holy Spirit.” Pages 551–58 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. –. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012. –. “Human Reconciliation in the New Testament with Special Reference to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians.” European Journal of Theology 16.1 (2006): 37–47. –. Power from On High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

286

Bibliography

Vanhoozer, Kevin, “Human Being: Individual and Social.” Pages 158–88 in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine. Edited by Colin Gunton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Vanhoye, Albert. I Carismi Nel Nuovo Testamento. Analecta Biblica 191. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. –. “L’utilité des χαρίσματα selon 1 Cor 12–14.” Pages 573–82 in Diakonia – Leitourgia – Charisma: Patristic and Contemporary Exegesis of the New Testament: Festschrift Georgios Ant. Galatis. Athens: En Plo, 2006. VanLear, C. Arthur, Ascan Koerner, and Donna M. Allen. “Relationship Typologies.” Pages 91–110 in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. di Vito, Robert A. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 217–38. Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Vollenweider, Samuel. “Der Geist Gottes Als Selbst Der Glaubenden: Überlegungen Zu Einem Ontologischen Problem in Der Paulinischen Anthropologie.” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und Kirche 93.2 (1996): 163–92. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Way, D. V. The Lordship of Christ: Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Webb, C. J. God and Personality: Being the Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in the Years 1918 & 1919, First Course. London: Allen & Unwin, 1918. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘In Christ’ and ‘With Christ.’” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (1985): 83–97. Welker, Michael. “Flesh–Body–Heart–Soul–Spirit: Paul’s Anthropology as an Interdisciplinary Bridge-Theory.” Pages 45–57 in The Depth of the Human Person: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by M. Welker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014. Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in LukeActs. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Wikenhauser, Alfred. Pauline Mysticism: Christ in the Mystical Teaching of St. Paul. Translated by Joseph Cunningham. Freiburg: Herder, 1960. Williams, Sam K. “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 91–100. Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983. Witherington, Ben III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Witherington, Ben III, and L. M. Ice. The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Wold, Benjamin G. “‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ in Qumran Sapiential Literature as the Background to the Use in Pauline Epistles.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 106.2 (2015): 262–79. Wolff, H. W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974. Wright, N. T. Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991.

Bibliography

287

–. “The Glory Returns: Spirit, Temple and Eschatology in Paul and John.” Pages 73–86 in The Holy Spirit and the Church According to the New Testament: Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013. Edited by Predrag Dragutinović, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, James B. Wallace, and Chrēstos K. Karakolēs. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 354. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. –. “Mind, Spirit, Soul and Body: All for One and One for All: Reflections on Paul’s Anthropology in his Complex Contexts.” http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/mindspirit-soul-and-body. –. New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013. –. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Yarbrough, O. L. “Parents and Children in the Letters of Paul.” Pages 126–41 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. Yates, John W. The Spirit and Creation in Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Ziesler, John A. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. TPI New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1989. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. –. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. Edited by Paul McParlan. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A Theological Exploration of Personhood.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28.5 (1975): 401–47.

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament Genesis 1:26–27 1:26–31 2:7

39:8 (LXX) 85:12 (LXX) 102:14 (LXX) 139:7–8

98 98 101 139, 182

98 100 100 100 100 138, 139 193 193 193 141, 193 148 100 100

2:7–25 2:24 (LXX) 2:24 3:1–7 3:14–23 3:19 5:1–2 9:6

97, 98 110 103, 140, 166, 168, 176 97 127 127, 129, 103 103 101, 103, 104 98 98

Exodus 4:22

193

Leviticus 18:5

156, 163

Isaiah 19:13 29:13–16 29:16b 29:16b (LXX) 29:16 32:15 43:1 43:4 43:6 44:3–5 44:4 45:7 45:18

Deuteronomy 6:4 6:5 7:6–8 19:15–16

233 98 141 194

Jeremiah 31:9 31:31–33 119 31:31–34 140 31:33

2 Samuel 7:12–14

168

1 Kings 17:17–24

236

2 Kings 4:18–37

236

Psalms 8:4

94

Ezekiel 11:19 11:19-20 11:20 36:25–27 36:26–28 36:26–27 36:26 37:27 36:28

193

98

138 138, 140, 148 148 119 141, 168 98, 138, 166, 167, 176 138, 176 148, 167 140, 148, 167, 176

290 36:36–37 37:1–14 37:3–14 37:5–9 37:9–14 37:14 37:27 39:29

Index of Ancient Sources 201 140 168 168 138 141, 168 148 138, 139

Hosea 1:10 11:1

141 141, 293

Joel 2:28 2:28–29 2:28–32 3:1 (LXX)

138, 139 223, 237 137 237

New Testament Matthew 17:20 20:33-34 236 22:30

234 218

Mark 5:18 5:34–36 9:22–25 11:23 14:36

236 234 234 234 195

Luke 4:1–13 17:7

240 234

John 14:3–5 15:1–11 15:5 16:7 16:14

261 261 261 261 261

Acts 2:5–13 2:17–21 18:1–11 18:11 18:23 19:1–20:1

241 137, 139 209 209 209 209

Romans 1:1–15

153

1:7 1:12 1:16 2:5 2:7 3:9 3:23 4:1–25 5:1–11 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:5 5:9 5:10 5:11–21 5:11 5:12–15 5:12–21 5:12 5:12a 5:12b 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 6:1–11 6:2 6:3 6:4

153 232 153 164 164 202 202 154 154–156, 179, 186 178 155 155 205 165 7, 164–165, 172, 256 202 165 172 27, 35, 41, 150, 151, 155, 163, 174 162 161 161 163 161, 218 174 161 151, 155, 163–164, 174, 184 164 164 165, 169

291

Index of Ancient Sources 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:10–11 6:11 6:12–23 6:12–14 6:12 6:17 6:22 6:23 7:1–4 7:5 7:6 7:7–25 7:7 7:8 7:9–10 7:13 7:14 7:14a 7:17–20 7:17 7:20 8 8:1–27 8:1–17 8:1–4 8:1–2 8:1 8:2–17 8:2 8:3 8:5–17 8:5–11 8:5–9 8:5 8:6–8 8:6 8:7–8 8:7 8:8 8:9–13

164 63, 68, 202 169, 206 165 114, 174 155, 186 172 152, 257 166, 197, 200, 202, 205 172 174, 218 183 171, 237 167, 169, 171 7, 155, 157, 170 159, 175 160 160 159 163 175 202–203 185, 202 62 7, 38–39, 66–67, [see Ch. 4] 155 7, 157, 163, 173, 191 160, 173, 175 170 174 157 166, 169, 174–175, 189 58, 163 174 169, 170, 173, 178– 179, 200, 256 152, 168, 170, 217 171, 200 177 166 163, 200 163, 172, 179, 200 171, 200 206

8:9–11

8:26 8:29 8:31–39 8:39 9:1–4 9:27 12:3 12:6 14:1

152, 169, 173, 176, 180–185, 200–203 183, 185, 189, 197 171, 176, 181, 183, 185, 189, 200 166 152 164, 166, 169, 172, 176, 189 166, 169, 172, 186, 189, 203, 205 45, 66–67, 152, 172, 186–190, 195, 198, 200, 245 207, 256 193, 204 , 253 188, 191, 194–195, 204, 262 68, 189–190, 194, 256 155 262 173 173 155 191 152, 164, 197 190–191,194, 199, 205, 242 189 172, 196 117, 155, 173 117 155 193 234 235 239

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:20 1:29–31 1:30 2:6–7 2:6 2:10–13 2:12–13 2:12

117 110 100 117–118 134 110 139 219 232

8:9–10 8:9 8:10 8:11–13 8:11 8:13 8:14–17

8:14–16 8:15–17 8:15 8:16 8:17–23 8:17 8:18–30 8:18–39 8:18 8:19–22 8:23 8:26–27

292 2:13 2:14 2:15 3 3:1 3:5–15 3:9 3:16 3:18 5:3–8 5:3 6:11 6:12–20 6:13 6:16–17 6:17 6:19 7:5 7:14 7:34 8:1 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:6 9:27 11:2–3 11:7 12 12:1–2 12:1 12:4–30 12:4–13 12:4–11 12:4–6 12:7–13 12:7–11 12:7 12:8–10 12:9a 12:10b 12:10c 12:11 12:12–27 12:12–26 12:12–20 12:12–13

Index of Ancient Sources 134, 217 217 217 238 217 238 238 139 110 240 19 139, 148 1, 26, 105, 218 26 78,127–128, 130 129 217 110 26 19 23, 232 232 232 233 99 223 128 98 [see Ch. 5] 252 212 217 29 220, 222, 246, 248 220–221 263 220–221, 223 222–223,226, 238, 252 224, 226–229 233 238, 242 241 241 207 65, 246 132 1–2, 207, 217, 244, 249, 252

12:12 12:13 12:14–27 12:15–20 12:16–24 12:17–21 12:18 12:20 12:21–25 12:22 12:28–30 13:2 13:12 13:12b 14 14:2 14:3–4 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:9 14:13 14:24–25 14:25 15:1–58 15:22a 15:22b 15:22 15:35ff 15:38 15:39 15:42–49 15:42–47 15:44 15:45 15:47a 15:48a 15:50

258 131, 207, 262 248 248 248 131 248, 263 131 218 251 248 212 98 56 212, 223, 238 241 238, 241 238 224, 241 242 241 242 238 238 218 114 114 151, 156 108 101 106 102, 104 83 104, 133, 168 140 101 101 108, 133

2 Corinthians 1:1 1:2 1:3–4 1:4 2:11 3:3–5 3:3 3:4 3:6

99 258 99 99 110 120 119 138 138, 140, 237

293

Index of Ancient Sources 3:16 3:17–18 3:17 3:18 3:67 4:4 4:6 4:16 5:1–10 5:14 5:16–21 5:17 5:19 6:2 10:3–4 11:2–3 11:2 11:3 11:14 11:22 13:13

Galatians 1:1 1:4 1:13–14 1:16 2:15 2:19–20 2:20a 2:20b 2:20 3:2 3:3–5 3:3 3:14 3:21–24 3:22 3:26–28 3:26 3:27–28 4:3 4:4–7 4:6

4:23

120 139 86, 122 45, 56 167 20, 82, 110 135 83 102 99 101 76–77, 118–120, 122, 169, 257–258 118 99 171 127 78 129, 240 240 94 217

4:28–29 5:16–25 5:16 5:17 5:22

131 148 106 139 139

Ephesians 1:1 2:2 2:12–19 3:9 3:16 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:12 4:24 5:22–23 5:25–27 5:25 5:31–32 5:31 5:32

99 111 131–132 99 83 260–261 99 261 261 98 128 130 128 129 128 129

99 110–111, 133 94 106 94, 99, 105 84–85, 92 84 63 62, 94, 99 258 237, 245 169, 176 138 160 108, 202 45 101 252 110 188 69, 101, 132, 138– 139, 148, 193–196, 198–199, 245, 256 131

Philippians 1:19 1:21 1:23 2:7–8 2:7f 2:7 2:12–13 3:3–5 3:4 3:7–14 3:21 4:13

99 94 183 201 82 1 94 105 94 85 83, 102 94

Colossians 1:16 1:29 2:8 2:15 2:20 3:10 3:11

99 94 110 133 110 98 252

1 Thessalonians

294 1:4 1:4–6 1:5–7 1:5 2:8 2:11 2:18

Index of Ancient Sources 131 245 169, 176 237 131 131 110

4:8 5:4–5 5:23

138 135 19

Hebrews 5:14

239

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 49:3

167

1 Maccabees 4:46 9:27

138 138

2 Maccabees 5:20

179

Jubilees 1:5ff 1:20–25 1:20 1:22–25

168 167–168 167, 193 167

1:23–25 1:23ff

148 168

Testament of Judah 24 24:2–3 24:2 24:3

148 148 148 148

Testament of Levi 6:11–14 6:14 18 18:2 18:7 18:11

147–148 148 147 147 167 147

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa (Hodayot) 4, 15 5, 19–22 5, 24–25 6, 13–14 6, 18 6, 25–26 8, 14–15 8, 19–20

144 144 144, 146, 148 145 145 146 146 145

10, 9 10, 12 11, 19–22 15, 6–7 17, 32 17, 35–36 18, 4–5 20, 12 23, 9–10

146 146 145 147 147–148 147–148 144 144 146

295

Index of Ancient Sources 29, 10–14

145

1QS 9, 3–5

146

Graeco-Roman Writings Philo De Sobrietate 55–56

192

Plutarch De amore prolis 496C

193

Index of Modern Authors Backhaus, K., 177–181 Banks, R. J., 229–231, 239 Barclay, J. M. G., 92, 217, 257 Barrett, C. K., 217 Barth, M., 33, 120, Bartling, W. J., 214 Barton, S., 5 Beale, G. K., 100, 155, Bertone, J. A., 168, 169, 183, 188 Best, E., 247, Betz, H. D., 2, 82, 91, 110–111 Black, C., 112, 161 Blackwell, B. C., 37–40, 45 Bonhoeffer, D., 98, 254, Bousset, W., 112, 121, 123, Bruce, F. F., 146, 182, Bultmann, R., 2, 12, 17–30, 41, 45, Burnett, G. W., 33 Byrne, B., 188 Campbell, C. R., 111–119, 123–129 Carson, D. A., 100, 216–219, 224, 236–241 Ciampa, R. E., 210–213, 238 Conzelmann, H., 211, 230, 233 Davies, W. D., 33, 146, Dawes, G. W., 128 Deissmann, A., 78, 86, 112, 119, 121–123, Descartes, R., 49, 81, Dunn, J. D. G., 5, 10, 98, 102–106, 109, 113–118, 139, 146–149, 153, 158–159, 162–164, 170–180, 183–184, 188, 195, 208, 217–219, 232–249, 256–259 Dunson, B. C., 40–43 Eastman, S. G., 9, 21, 23–29, 34, 57–70, 84, 90, 93, 135, 155, 185, 201–205, 255, 259, Ebeling, G., 73–76, 83, Ellis, E. E., 2 Engberg-Pedersen, T., 94, 138, Fatehi, M., 86, 122, 182, Fee, G., 69, 99, 104–105, 138–139, 168– 171, 188, 190, 197, 210–218, 222, 232, 256, 262

Fitzmyer, J. A., 153–155, 158 Garland, D. E., 211, 224, 238 Gathercole, S. J., 33, 90, 92, Grenz, S., 49, 53 Grudem, W. A., 216, 240 Gundry, R. H., 2, 18 Gunkel, H., 17, 244 Harding, S., 3, 28 Harrill, A., 84, 133 Harvey, J. D., 153–154, 174, 192, 203, Hinde, R., 72, 96–99, 232–233, 251 Holtz, G., 94, 100, Horn, F. W., 71, 139, 245, Jeremias, J., 195 Jewett, R., 19, 63, 67–68, 93, 95, 103–106, 174, 194, Käsemann, E., 2, 12, 16–30, 34, 41, 44–45, 63–64, 102, 106–108, 133–134, 185, 194, 202, 244, 259–260 Kistemaker, S. J., 231, 234 Köstenberger, A. J., 46, 99, 129, Laato, T., 1, 143 Lewis, C. S., 254, 262 Li, S. Y., 214–216, 220–226 Lieu, J. M., 91–92 Lindars, B., 159, 163, Longenecker, R. N., 150–156, 162, 165, 174, 177, 179, 181, 192, 195, 200, Macaskill, G., 16, 119–120, 126, 140, Malina, B. J., 30–32, 43–44, 92 Martin, D. B., 2, 81, 84, 108, 210–212 Martyn, J. L., 34, 58, 61, 111 Maston, J., 94, 107, 150, 198, 201–202 Meeks, W. A., 31–32, 43–45, 130–132, 195, 249–252 Mitchell, M. M., 210, 247 Moltmann, J., 49 Moo, D., 115, 125–126, 154–155, 158, 184, 186–190, 194, 200, 204 Moule, C. F. D., 36–37, 80, 189, Murphy-O’Conner,J., 210, 224, 259–260 Neugebauer, F., 121–122, 126,

Index of Modern Authors Njiru, P. K., 218, 220–222, 224, 234, 237, Nygaard, M., 37, 170, Orr, P., 182–184 Pearson, B. A., 233 Philip, F., 30, 141–142 Rabens, V., 8, 10–12, 45, 48, 57, 70–75, 80–81, 84–87, 95, 135, 138–139, 190– 194, 198–199, 203–205, 244–246, Rehfeld, E. L., 10–12, 47, 74–80, 86–87, 93, 95, 113, 123, Robinson, H. W., 14–16, 43–44 Rosner, Brian S., 57, 98–99, 127, 210–211, 226, 238, 252 Sand, A., 2 Sanders, E. P., 21, 33, 58 Schatzmann, S. S., 214, 231 Schmithals, W., 17, 19, 104 Schnelle, U., 6–7, 59–60, 71, 85, 103, 106– 107, 124–125, 206 Schreiner, T. R., 33, 155–158, 165–167, 175, 180, 192, 202–204 Schweitzer, A., 112, 121–122 Seifrid, M. A., 100, 113 Siikavirta, S., 198, 256

297

Son, A. S. W. 35–37, 44, 79–81, 261 Stacey, W. D., 2 Stendahl, K., 5, 157 Straub, J., 54–56, 198 Stuhlmacher, P., 75–77, 156, 168 Suurmond, J. J., 242 Taylor, C., 50–51 Theissen, G., 211–212, 245 Thiselton, A. C., 49–50, 81, 212, 215, 222, 230–237, 240, 247 Thompson, M. M., 190–194 Timmins, W., 7, 151, 159, 172, 185, 203, Turner, M., 52, 81, 89, 92, 98, 101, 178, Turner, V., 251 Van Kooten, G. H., 2, 81–83, Vanhoozer, K., 50–53, 83–84 Vanhoye, A., 219, 223–224 Wallace, D. B., 68, 112–113, 157 Weiss, K., 225 Wright, N. T., 25, 31, 110, 128, 158 Yates, J. W., 142, 147, 150, 158, 166, 175– 176 Zizioulas, J. D., 51–54, 73–79, 89 Reynolds, B. E., 48, 261

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Actantial Analysis 159 Adam 103–104, 144 – typology 35–36, 111, 174 – ‘in Adam’ 114–119, 151, 156, 162–169, 174, 257 – Adamic humanity 243, 257 – and embodiment 185–186, 257 Adoption (see Sonship) Aeon (see Cosmos) Affectivity (see Heart) Agency 13, 44, 65–66, 84, 253 – and personhood 90–94, 201–204 – and participation 84, 205 – bonded agency 204–205 – and Paul 90–94, 133–134, 201–204 Anthropology (see also Humanity; see also Person, see also Relational Anthropology), – corporate ~ 35–37, 39 – and autonomous 18–25, 49–51, 107 – and Paul 1–6, 10–12, 17, 26–30, 48, 57, 81–82, 107–108, 150, 201 – and participation 57–59, 60–64 – and aspectival 93–95 – ~ terms 2, 18–20, 36, 38, 48, 53, 61, 85, 89 – Paul’s doctrine of humanity 12, 16–19 Apocalyptic – and Paul 25, 34, 58, 110–111, – and anthropology 39–40 Being, (see Existence, see Anthropology) Belonging, – ~ to Christ 173, 181, 183–186, 217 – ~ to believers 69, 248 Body of Christ (see ecclesiology), – and members 28, 129–131, 144–145, 208, 211, 248–250, 252, Body, (see also Corporeal, see also Embodiment, see also Soma),

– mortal ~ 68, 151–152, 176–177, 180, 185, 197 – ~ as metaphor 207, 225–226, 246–248, 259 Charismata (see Gifts of the Spirit) Christ – ‘in Christ’ 33, 35–39, 58, 62, 75–78, 101, 112–126, 135, 170, 173–174, 181 – corporate ~ 16, 35 – union with ~ 77, 111–114, 120, 124–127, 130 – Christ-relatedness 74–78, 111, 114 – and anthropology 28–30, 160, 163, 170– 182 Christology (see Christ) Christosis 8, 37–40 Church, the (see ecclesiology) Communal (see Community) Community – and the Spirit 68, 73, 143–146, 223–225, 229–230, 235–236, 239–240–246, 250– 253 – and the individual 8–9, 21–23, 28–29, 32, 40–43, 258, 261 Corporeal (see also Embodiment, see also Body) Cosmic (see Cosmology) Cosmology 21, 28, 43, 58 – and anthropology 34, 59, 106, 108–111, 133 Covenant – new ~ 15, 119, 140, – and community 120, 141, 145 – and relationship 139, 140 – in Paul 148, 166–168 – and eschatological Spirit 145–147, 176 Creator (see God) Dead Sea Scrolls – understanding of the Spirit 142–146

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Death – in Paul 114, 156–160, 162, 185, 198 – in Romans 114–117, 161, 174–175, 186– 189 – contrasted with Life 163–166 Disunity, – in Corinth 210–215 Early Judaism 73, 110, 168 Ecclesiology – and anthropology 22, 30, 58 – and building up 213, 221, 223, 225–226, 234–239 Embedded – and anthropology 62, 101–105 – as social aspect of existence 25–27 Embodiment, (see also Corporeal; see also Body) Eschatology 22, 26, 137–147, 157, 164– 169, 171–176, 191, 218 Existence 102–108 – authentic ~ 18–28, 30, 102–103 – modes of ~ 35, 83–84, 174–175, 177 – and paradox 114, 162, 169–172 – and incongruity 151–152, 163, 257–259 – Christian ~ 67, 116, 157, 256, 260 – Participatory ~ 37, 40, 54–57, 62, 64 Flesh 102–103, 106–107, 144 – ‘in the flesh’ 62, 133–134, 169–170, – in Romans 157, 161, 163, 170, 186, 200, 203 Forces (see also Cosmology; see also Powers, see also Sin), – Supra-Human ~ 84, 108, 111, 133 – ~ and anthropology 21 Gifts of the Spirit – and relations 140 – and relations of interdependence 208, 211, 229–230 – and transformation – defining ~ 216 – and personhood 215, 217, 246 – apportioning of ~ 214, 221, 228 – and Agency 222 – and community 213, 220, 221, 224, 243 – and utterance of wisdom 229–230 – and utterance of knowledge 229, 232 – Faith 229 – healing 229, 234–236 – miracles 229, 236 – prophecy 229 – discernment of spirits 229, 239

299

– tongues 211–212, 241–242 – and utility 249, 251–252 – and identity 249–253 God – as Creator 52, 97–101 – Peace with 154, 178–183 – relation to 25, 38, 45, 56–57, 95, 134– 135, 200, 204–205 – Spirit of God 139–147, 167, 182 Group, the (see community) Heart – and personhood 93–95, 134–135, 199– 201 Hellenistic 89, 138, 218, 225 Hermeneutics 18, 23, 31, 55 Humanity (see also Anthropology; see also Person; see also Existence) – Paul’s Doctrine of ~ 37, 47–48 Identity 51, 54–56, 65–66, 72, 197–199, 249–250, 256–257 – and personhood 44, 91–94, 131–132 Image – of God 82–83, 166 – of Christ 117, 247 Individual – and existentialism 17–18, 20, 25, 49, 91 – and community 14–16, 21–23, 28, 30, 224–225, 258 – individual-in-community 40–42 – and Paul 33–35, 42–43, 60–62, 68, 191 Individualism (see Individual) Interdisciplinary 48–53, 84 Intertestamental Literature 142–148, 166– 167 Jewish Background 46, 98, 138, 140, 192 Justification – and the individual 33, 63 – and participation 34 – and anthropology, 5, 33–34, – and forensic 39, 154–155, 258 Law 158–160, 161 – existence under the law 151, 156, 188 Life – according to Paul 151, 173–176, 179–181 – in Romans 39, 107, 115, 156–157, 163, – and eschatology 164–165 – and the Spirit 140, 165–166, 169–170 Marriage (see Nuptial Union)

300

Index of Subjects and Key Terms

Members 145, 211, 239, 248–250, 252, 260 – of body of Christ 2, 15, 129, 131, 225, 244 Methodology – and Pauline Anthropology 46–47, 59–64, 85 Mosaic Law (see Law) Mysticism 112–116, 121–125, 127, 174 Nuptial Union 127–129 Oneself-in-Another 66–69 Ontology – and anthropology 46, 56 – and human existence 50–53 – substance-ontology 53, 54, 75–76, 81, – relational-ontology 50, 53, 73–75, 77, 79, 172 Participation – and anthropology 9, 27, 34 – and relations 29, 37–39, 260 – in Paul 57–60, 75, 77, 112, 124–125, 202, Paul 33–34, 37–38, 74, 82, 109–110, 151, 156 – and anthropology 9–13, 18–21, 59–69, 83, 93–95, 102–105 – doctrine of humanity 37, 47–48 – and apocalyptic 32–34, 39–40, 58, 61, 110, 176 – understanding of the Spirit 122, 138–149, 158, 166 Person (see Personhood) Personhood (see also Anthropology; see also Existence) – and autonomy 49–50, 56, 69 – Dyadic persons 30–32 – and community 31–32, 40 – and relations 10, 14–16, 50–53 – and agency 9, 133–134, 201–205 – and identity 55–56, 66, 72, 132, 197–199 – and heart 134–135, 199–201 – and God 56–57, 257–258 – according to Paul 44, 57–61, 64–65 – concept of ~ 54–55, 64–66, 88–91 – Christian ~ 11, 169–172, 197, 259–260 – reconstituted 205, 252, 255 – spiritual person 219–220, 246 Pneumatology (see Spirit) Powers (see also Forces) – external ~ 20–21 – cosmic ~ 108–111, 236, 240

– impersonal ~ 76, 79 – and anthropology 202, 206 Primal Man Myth 36 Qumran (see Dead Sea Scrolls) Reconciliation 156, 164, 178–179, 200 –and anthropology 101, 118 Relation – personal ~ 96–97, 174 – impersonal ~ 74, 96–97, 124, 132 – to God 98, 115 – to Christ 76, 78–79, 135 – to self 21–23, 27–28, 58 – to another 34, 41, 60, 134, 256 – different ~ 57–70 – types of ~ 13, 74–80, 84, 96–97 – in Paul 80–87 – concept of 88–91, 95–97 – as dynamic 77, 97–99, 115, 117, 126 – as static 97–98, 126, 129, 232 – vertical ~ 13, 97, 196, 206 – horizontal ~ 13, 65–66, 97, 207–209 – hostile ~ 97, 99, 101, 201 – intimate ~ 52, 72, 79, 97–98, 122 – familial ~ 131 – to other believers 130, 207 255, 266 – of interdependence 228–230, 243–246, 252–253 – and spiritual gifts (see also Gifts of the Spirit) Relational Anthropology, (see also anthropology) 85–86, 172, 197, 257 – and the Spirit 188, 196, 217, 243–246 – model of ~ 54–56 – in interdisciplinary research 49–54 – in Paul 88–97, 135–136, 169–171 Relationship (see Relation) Sarx [see Flesh] Second Temple 94, 137, 142, 147, 166–167 Self – and autonomous 49–51, 60–61, 65, 107, 257 – selfhood 89–91, 132, 248 Sin 106–109, 133–134, 161–163, 171–172, 185, 202 – under ~ 163, 191, 198, 205–206 Social scientific interpretation 30–32, 40, 44 Solidarity 36, 84, 185, – and humanity 25–28, 35, 103–104, 162

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Soma (see also Body) [for treatment of Soma see Ch. 3 on embodied] 18–19, 102–105 – and existence 104–105, 107–108, 133 – in Paul 18–19, 102 – and the individual 40–42 Sonship – nature of ~ 190–193, 196, 199 – and the Spirit 173, 178 186–190 – and Christian existence 196, 199 – and intimacy 193–196 Soteriology – and Paul 1, 5, 26, 33, 143, 258–259 – and anthropology 37–39 Spirit – in Paul 137–149 – and Anthropology 80, 86–87, 107, 184– 185 – and Relational Anthropology 71–74, 80, 83 – and relations 142–149 – and sonship 31–32, 178, 186–191, 193– 194, 196 – and transformation 10, 38–40 – spirit–generated–relationships / spirit– shaped–relationships 69–74, 197–205, 245

301

– walking by/in Spirit 65, 83, 107 – eschatological ~ 137, 143, 147 – personal ~ 138–140 – background to 137–138 – and anthropological transformation 71, 73, 137–140 – and life 174–176 – and new identity 205–206 – and body of Christ 207–208, 221, 225– 226, 243–246 – and the New Covenant 15, 44, 140, 142, 148, 166 Spiritual gifts (see Gifts of the Spirit) Spiritual – person 215–217, 220 – nature 208, 211–213, 216–218, 220 Torah, (see Law) Transformation – and the Spirit 10, 38–40, 71, 73, 137–140 – and anthropology 70–74 – transformation and relation 71–73 – heart transformation 200-201 Volition [see Agency, see Heart]